This week many in America watched the Oscars, a rich display of glitter and glitz, cleavage and emotion, talent and yearning.
This week Barak Obama's presidential campaign earned 1.3 million in one day at a fundraiser in Hollywood, and a very rich entertainment mogul, David Geffen, derided the Clintons. According to Geffen, Hillary is "incredibly polarizing figure," and Bill’s transgressions could be huge liability for the Hillary and the Democrats.
The Clintons responding quickly. They did not want to be perceived as soft on rhetoric—a la Kerry in 2004. And they did not want Obama to have all that Hollywood money to himself.
But it was from another story having to do with Washington that we take our cue this week and offer what is hoped will be viewed as an appropriate response to the overindulgences on display this week.
After four months of investigating, Washington Post reporters Dana Priest and Anne Hull published a series of stories. They focused on the pitiable treatment veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan sometimes received, the bureaucratic horrors they often had to endure, and the sometimes awful conditions these veterans had to tolerate. As good reporting often does, the articles sent shock waves through Washington. Investigations were ordered. Promises to reform have been made. The articles represent the splendid work reporters sometimes due and serve as a reminder of how easy it is for a government agency to falter and how difficult it almost always is to do the hard work that often needs to be done to right a spider's nest of wrongs.
Hugh Thompson, Ron Ridenhour
On a March morning in 1968 Hugh Thompson was flying US Army helicopter near a village that came to be called My Lai. He landed his helicopter between some very ugly Americans and some very scared Vietnamese. By doing this, he stopped the madness that was going on in the village. News of the Americans actions in the region was duly reported to the soldiers’ superiors. And, over time, the atrocities that had been committed were buried by the very bureaucracy that was to make sure that Americans conducted themselves professionally. Months later, Rod Ridenhour had accumulated the evidence he needed to bring some light to the darknesses that surrounded the events that occurred that horrible day in March 1968. He wrote letters. The letters prompted investigations.
For Thompson, Riddenhour, and all the other anonymous heroes in the world, I offer this short—and incomplete—list of noble efforts that were recently produced to cast a splash of light upon a few of the darknesses that overpopulate our world.
Mostly DVD’s
The Inconvenient Truth: Director Davis Guggenheim weaves the science of global warming with Al Gore's personal campaign to help the environment. Who would have thought that both Gore the Bore and a PowerPoint presentation would be combined to create a story that is interesting and popular? The movie drew a great deal of attention to the problems Global Warming creates, and it won Guggenheim a well-deserved Oscar. The movie also made many question the campaign Gore ran in 2000 (he should have shown some of the passion and all of the spine so clearly on exhibit in the movie), made more think twice about the votes they cast for President in 2000 (Katrina and Iraq may also have something to do with this). The book is even better.
Darwin’s Nightmare: The Nile perch is a delicacy savored in Europe. The fish flourishes in Tanzania’s Lake Victoria. The perch is destroying the lake—it is a shark among minnows. Industries connected with exporting fish to Europe are destroying the lives of the people who need the resources from the lake to survive. There’s more bad news: pilots who fly the perch to Europe often use one leg of their flight into Tanzania to run guns into the continent. Hubert Sauper's film is enlightening, engaging, and powerful.
The Constant Gardener: This feature film was directed by Fernando Meirelles and stars Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz. It is based on one of John Le Carre’s best novels. Tessa Quale (Weisz) is brutally murdered. Her husband shakes off his shy diplomatic ways and embarks on a quest to get to the heart of the matter. He cuts through diplomatic run-arounds, the noise surrounding drug company profiteering, and cover-ups. And he discovers a plan to use Africans as guinea pigs to test a new drug. There are enough likeable characters and engaging plot twists to engage even the most hard-line Disneyfile, and the film showcases inconvenient truths, moral outrage, and a hard-boiled realism rarely found in movies made for the mainstream.
Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers: Robert Greenwald's documentary illuminates a ghastly record of sleaze, greed, and other forms of incompetence associated with the American experience in Iraq. Greenwald shows that the American government is neither particularly compassionate in the way it treats its soldiers or the people it is supposed to be winning over, nor is it conservative in the way it dispenses taxpayers’ dollars.
Why We Fight: In his last public pronouncement as president, Eisenhower warned the country about the emerging military-industrial complex. Eugene Jarecki’s Why We Fight chronicles much of the history and captures many of the complex characteristics of the beast. Real patriots give copies of the documentary to their friends.
Who Killed the Electric Car? In 1996 electric cars were sheik. Tom Hanks drove one. They were fast. They ran without gasoline and so produced almost no pollution. Chris Paine’s Who Killed the Electric Car? explores why the cars which were gaining popularity were rounded up and tossed in what amounted to a dumpster.
Mostly Books
Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery by Eric Metaxas: The usual suspects: economic short-term interests, ignorance, racism, and convenience perpetuate the cruel and unusual institution we have come to call slavery. Metaxas intelligently chronicles Wilberforce’s early life as a slave trader and his conversion to Christianity and then to abolitionism. Then with William Pitt, Wilberforce energized a crusade to end the abominable slave trade in England. It was an interesting time—many of the good guys were religious zealots. Wilberforce’s drive to dramatize the horrors of slavery and to motivate others to do the right thing is illuminating—not only for what it tells us about all progressive movements—but also for the nuances that were unique to Wilberforce’s life and times.
Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy by George Olah, Alain Goeppert, Surya Prakash: If we tell ourselves the truth, it’s not ethanol, it’s methanol that should be used to transition us from oil. No, you will not hear a presidential candidate who wants to do well in the Iowa caucus says these words. Nor will you hear it from the windbags who are pushing corn-based ethanol. Even the short list of reasons to consider methanol is impressive. It is cheap—a dollar gallon with current technology. With modest changes, methanol may be added to gasoline. That means a whole new distribution system will not have to be built—which we would need to implement a hydrogen based economy. (Unlike methanol, hydrogen creates a host of storage problems.) The many things now made from petrochemicals—for example plastics—may be produced from methanol and its by-products. Methanol may be made from coal, natural gas, or biomass—and other sources. Carbon dioxide, one of the insidious agents of global warming may be used to concoct the stuff. Yes, that means making methanol could take carbon dioxide out of the air. And if hydrogen does prove to be a powerfully good source of energy, it probably will be delivered in the form of methanol. There is more hydrogen in a liter of methanol than in a liter of liquid hydrogen. And there is a downside to the liquid hydrogen—it is stored at – 253 degrees Centigrade.
The Edge of Disaster: Rebuilding a Resilient Naiton by Stephen Flynn: Our ports are invitations for terrorist attacks. In California dikes that a minor earthquake could crumble keep salt water separate from the fresh water reservoirs that nourish most of California. Little is being done to protect us from these and a host of other possible terrorist and natural disasters. Flynn offers a gripping inventory of the problems and a sane response.
Winning the Oil Endgame by Amory Lovins, E. Kyle Datta, Jonathan Koomey, Nathan Glasgow: How to improve energy efficiency as well as business and public policy models to transition the US to sane energy policies.
One of the silver linings within the horror of the American experience in Iraq is that all along there have been many excellent and provocative books, movies, and articles about the experience. Four titles follow.
Fiasco: the American Military Adventure in Iraq Thomas E. Ricks’ effort is the best book in print about the military side of the debacle.
The inside story about how the decision to go to war was made, sold, and implemented is articulated in these often noble efforts:
Blind Into Baghdad: America's War in Iraq by James Fallows
Greatest Story Ever Sold by Frank Rich
Hubris: the Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War by Michael Isikoff
State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III by Bob Woodward
But if you are weary of the Iraq story and want to see how miserably similar it is to America’s experience in Vietnam, pick up About Face: The Odyssey of an American Warrior by David Hackworth. One of the most highly decorated soldiers in the US Army goes to Vietnam. Over time he learns how to fight a guerilla war. But he runs into a far more complex challenge when he tries to share what he has learned with his superiors in the US Army.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
At The Doug Moe Academy Of Sartorial Splendor And Architectural Design: The Deal with North Korea
You won’t find The Doug Moe Academy for Sartorial Splendor and Architectural Design in the Yellow Pages. Many who know of the clubs hate the secrecy that surrounds the places. Many think the secrecy is just another slab of evidence that shows to go you that the world is on skids greased with ignorance and idiocy.
Doug Moe Academies for Sartorial Splendor and Architectural Design exist in every large city in the world.
They are bars for political junkies.
The founding family—it was a group of men and women—therefore, chauvinistic slantings like “founding fathers” (and the more whimsical, “start up sisters”) seem inappropriate.
The founders are—or were—political junkies, and, therefore not automatically the most creative of spirits.
There are all kinds of rumors why the places are named after Doug Moe. None of them make sense.
There are no rumors why the phrase “Architectural Design” is in the title of the establishments. No one in the founding family was interested in architecture. None of the bars are examples of compelling or brilliant architecture. None of the bars are examples of anything other than normal, functional architecture. The bit about the phrase Architectural Design is just one of those things that is.
It’s also appropriate to note that the founders weren’t complete dimwits.
Moe’s Explained
At Doug Moe’s you can buy a drink or shoot pool, find a card game or cruise. But mostly the place is a chat room for political fanatics.
Once you’re in, you’re in for life. This makes becoming a member a good deal like being elected to Congress or confirmed as a justice on the Supreme Court—parallels many members loathe.
Way back when I joined, I simply was trying to find someone who would teach me how to roll a sliver dollar over the base of my fingers.
Ah but the lofty goals of youth all too often go unachieved.
Not too long ago, I realized that wandering through the club was an excellent—and almost effortless way—of writing a column.
Each “Academy” has a left wing and a right wing. On a given visit, members go to one wing or the other. They aren’t allowed to mix.
The manager of the Academy I frequent is an ex. She lets me into both wings—probably because she pities me. Once we parted she met and later married a tall, handsome guy, who tells funny stories. And he made a pile of dough and cashed in before the Internet bubble burst.
The Mood In The Left Wing
Going to the left wing lately is a good deal like going to a frat party. The Dems have Hillary. They have Obama. They have Edwards. Obama drew five thousand his first weekend after his announcement—in Iowa! While doing the monotonous and boring things reporters do when covering political campaigns in Iowa, I once came across a grain salesman who was giving away a new seed for free! He barely got two hundred people to show up. And Obama got five thousand.
For the Dems, there’s more good news. The former Chief of Staff for Dick “The insurgency is in its last throes” Cheney is on trial for perjury. Almost no one likes Bush’s surge. The election is too far away to worry about whether or not the Democrats will blow another one.
I’d come to Moe’s to talk about why Bush had elected to escalate in Iraq. Bush calls it a surge; I call it an escalation. I didn’t understand why he’d done it.
But when I got to Moe’s, I stumbled onto a conversation I couldn’t ignore. Two men were talking. But they weren’t talking about the surge. They weren’t talking about Obama, or Hillary, or Edwards, or even GW.
They weren’t talking about the beautiful blonde woman who was a few feet from them. Her date—or perhaps it was her husband--rambled on about water issues in the West. She looked to be a few nanoseconds away from falling asleep.
The two men were talking about the deal that was in the works with North Korea.
The Deal with North Korea, Part One
“There’s an odd couple.“
“Bush and Kim Jong Il?
“Yep.”
“So let me see if I’ve got this straight. North Korea now has one or more nuclear bombs.”
“Yes.”
“And Iraq never did—at least while GW was President.”
“Yes.”
“Yet we didn’t invade the country that did have nuclear weapons—North Korea. But we did invade the country that didn’t have nuclear weapons.”
“Yep.”
“And for a long time we didn’t even negotiate with North Korea.”
“Yep.”
“And while we were not negotiating with North Korea they developed the collateral they needed to leverage their nukes for a lot of fuel.”
“Yep.”
The Deal with North Korea, Part II
“And they’ll probably get to keep their nukes.”
“Probably.”
“And there’s all this noise about how other countries that yakked irresponsibly about nukes before they got them. Then once they got the nukes, they became more restrained and mature about how they talked about them.”
“Yep.”
“And we hope that happens in North Korea.”
“Yep.”
“Isn’t that kind of silly? Isn’t it silly to think that because one person handled a firecracker well that someone else also will?”
“Of course it is.”
“When I was young—“
“Don’t bother. Same think happened to me when I was a kid.”
“You don’t say.”
“One of my friends could juggle firecrackers—while they were lit. Never got hurt—not once. Another lit just one. He just lit one. And it ripped off a couple of his fingers.”
“And there’s another thing. I thought then when you were being blackmailed, if you delivered the ransom, you got whatever it was they had on you.”
“That’s Hollywood. That’s not reality.”
“Of course. Sorry.”
A Problem Discussed
“You know what the problem with you is?”
“What?”
“You’re logical.”
“Oh.”
“I’ll bet you never buy into that crap they try to sell you on TV.”
“You mean advertisements.”
“Yea, advertisements. Do you ever buy something because you see it on a TV advertisement?”
“Almost never.”
“Well there it is.”
“There’s what?”
“That’s your problem.”
“What’s my problem?”
“There.”
“I don’t see anything there.”
“I wasn’t pointing in a literal sense. I was being figurative.”
“Of course.”
“But if you could be more like me, if you could try to believe the commercials and spend a lot of your time trying to get the things in the commercials, well you wouldn’t have time to worry about all these so-called illogical things you think about.”
“So you’re suggesting that if I thought less and acted on impulse more, that I wouldn’t be bothered by stuff.”
“Not as much.”
“Ya think so.”
“Sure of it.”
“There are other things you can do to cut out this nonsense of yours.”
“Really.”
“Start getting scared of everything. Or better yet, help others to get scared of everything. Fear shuts down logical powers better than almost anything.”
“You don’t say.”
“Works darn near every time.”
“And yet we’re still fighting in Iraq—and not getting any significant supplies of oil from there. And North Korea successfully bribes us and others and gets to keep the bait for the bribe and it gets a lot of fuel.”
“Yep.”
“Tell me how this makes sense.”
“Bad politics.”
“Should a known.”
“And in America we think it’s the leader of North Korea whose nuts.”
“Isn’t that obvious?”
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Too Serious A Matter provides intelligent, provocative, and often funny commentary about the often convoluted intersections of politics, strategy, and history. The title of the blog comes from De Gaulle’s comment, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”
Doug Moe Academies for Sartorial Splendor and Architectural Design exist in every large city in the world.
They are bars for political junkies.
The founding family—it was a group of men and women—therefore, chauvinistic slantings like “founding fathers” (and the more whimsical, “start up sisters”) seem inappropriate.
The founders are—or were—political junkies, and, therefore not automatically the most creative of spirits.
There are all kinds of rumors why the places are named after Doug Moe. None of them make sense.
There are no rumors why the phrase “Architectural Design” is in the title of the establishments. No one in the founding family was interested in architecture. None of the bars are examples of compelling or brilliant architecture. None of the bars are examples of anything other than normal, functional architecture. The bit about the phrase Architectural Design is just one of those things that is.
It’s also appropriate to note that the founders weren’t complete dimwits.
Moe’s Explained
At Doug Moe’s you can buy a drink or shoot pool, find a card game or cruise. But mostly the place is a chat room for political fanatics.
Once you’re in, you’re in for life. This makes becoming a member a good deal like being elected to Congress or confirmed as a justice on the Supreme Court—parallels many members loathe.
Way back when I joined, I simply was trying to find someone who would teach me how to roll a sliver dollar over the base of my fingers.
Ah but the lofty goals of youth all too often go unachieved.
Not too long ago, I realized that wandering through the club was an excellent—and almost effortless way—of writing a column.
Each “Academy” has a left wing and a right wing. On a given visit, members go to one wing or the other. They aren’t allowed to mix.
The manager of the Academy I frequent is an ex. She lets me into both wings—probably because she pities me. Once we parted she met and later married a tall, handsome guy, who tells funny stories. And he made a pile of dough and cashed in before the Internet bubble burst.
The Mood In The Left Wing
Going to the left wing lately is a good deal like going to a frat party. The Dems have Hillary. They have Obama. They have Edwards. Obama drew five thousand his first weekend after his announcement—in Iowa! While doing the monotonous and boring things reporters do when covering political campaigns in Iowa, I once came across a grain salesman who was giving away a new seed for free! He barely got two hundred people to show up. And Obama got five thousand.
For the Dems, there’s more good news. The former Chief of Staff for Dick “The insurgency is in its last throes” Cheney is on trial for perjury. Almost no one likes Bush’s surge. The election is too far away to worry about whether or not the Democrats will blow another one.
I’d come to Moe’s to talk about why Bush had elected to escalate in Iraq. Bush calls it a surge; I call it an escalation. I didn’t understand why he’d done it.
But when I got to Moe’s, I stumbled onto a conversation I couldn’t ignore. Two men were talking. But they weren’t talking about the surge. They weren’t talking about Obama, or Hillary, or Edwards, or even GW.
They weren’t talking about the beautiful blonde woman who was a few feet from them. Her date—or perhaps it was her husband--rambled on about water issues in the West. She looked to be a few nanoseconds away from falling asleep.
The two men were talking about the deal that was in the works with North Korea.
The Deal with North Korea, Part One
“There’s an odd couple.“
“Bush and Kim Jong Il?
“Yep.”
“So let me see if I’ve got this straight. North Korea now has one or more nuclear bombs.”
“Yes.”
“And Iraq never did—at least while GW was President.”
“Yes.”
“Yet we didn’t invade the country that did have nuclear weapons—North Korea. But we did invade the country that didn’t have nuclear weapons.”
“Yep.”
“And for a long time we didn’t even negotiate with North Korea.”
“Yep.”
“And while we were not negotiating with North Korea they developed the collateral they needed to leverage their nukes for a lot of fuel.”
“Yep.”
The Deal with North Korea, Part II
“And they’ll probably get to keep their nukes.”
“Probably.”
“And there’s all this noise about how other countries that yakked irresponsibly about nukes before they got them. Then once they got the nukes, they became more restrained and mature about how they talked about them.”
“Yep.”
“And we hope that happens in North Korea.”
“Yep.”
“Isn’t that kind of silly? Isn’t it silly to think that because one person handled a firecracker well that someone else also will?”
“Of course it is.”
“When I was young—“
“Don’t bother. Same think happened to me when I was a kid.”
“You don’t say.”
“One of my friends could juggle firecrackers—while they were lit. Never got hurt—not once. Another lit just one. He just lit one. And it ripped off a couple of his fingers.”
“And there’s another thing. I thought then when you were being blackmailed, if you delivered the ransom, you got whatever it was they had on you.”
“That’s Hollywood. That’s not reality.”
“Of course. Sorry.”
A Problem Discussed
“You know what the problem with you is?”
“What?”
“You’re logical.”
“Oh.”
“I’ll bet you never buy into that crap they try to sell you on TV.”
“You mean advertisements.”
“Yea, advertisements. Do you ever buy something because you see it on a TV advertisement?”
“Almost never.”
“Well there it is.”
“There’s what?”
“That’s your problem.”
“What’s my problem?”
“There.”
“I don’t see anything there.”
“I wasn’t pointing in a literal sense. I was being figurative.”
“Of course.”
“But if you could be more like me, if you could try to believe the commercials and spend a lot of your time trying to get the things in the commercials, well you wouldn’t have time to worry about all these so-called illogical things you think about.”
“So you’re suggesting that if I thought less and acted on impulse more, that I wouldn’t be bothered by stuff.”
“Not as much.”
“Ya think so.”
“Sure of it.”
“There are other things you can do to cut out this nonsense of yours.”
“Really.”
“Start getting scared of everything. Or better yet, help others to get scared of everything. Fear shuts down logical powers better than almost anything.”
“You don’t say.”
“Works darn near every time.”
“And yet we’re still fighting in Iraq—and not getting any significant supplies of oil from there. And North Korea successfully bribes us and others and gets to keep the bait for the bribe and it gets a lot of fuel.”
“Yep.”
“Tell me how this makes sense.”
“Bad politics.”
“Should a known.”
“And in America we think it’s the leader of North Korea whose nuts.”
“Isn’t that obvious?”
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Too Serious A Matter provides intelligent, provocative, and often funny commentary about the often convoluted intersections of politics, strategy, and history. The title of the blog comes from De Gaulle’s comment, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”
Monday, February 12, 2007
A Silly Rumor (see # 7), Ten reasons why the Democrats are—for the Moment—More Interesting, and—Perish the Thought— (near the end) A Hint of Substance
In the recent past, the Democratic candidates running for President have been more interesting than the Republicans. For your consideration, exhibits one – ten:
The List
1) The Democrats have three—count em—three A-list candidates. A fourth, Governor Bill Richardson is far behind in the polls, but with the pols his status is rising. The Republicans have, at best, two A-list candidates.
2) Two of the A-list candidates aim to be firsts, Clinton intends to be the first woman President and Obama the first African-American. The third A-lister, former Senator John Edwards, has an autobiography that is a heartwarming rags-to-riches story.
3) We’ve never seen anything like Obama before—never. Of course some of the elements of his campaign are derivative. Others (John Kennedy, FDR) have sought to minimize experience by speaking of dreams and a new generation of politics. Others (Howard Dean, Ross Perot) have appealed to many who for long have dropped out of politics. Many others (in election years GW Bush was very good at this) have elevated their candidacy by telling the best story. Others have used a gentle touch and a warm smile to break through the brittle prejudices that have so maligned the past. Many others have run as an outsider and sharpened the perception that one of their opponents (in this case, Hillary Clinton) is an insider. Others have invoked the Almighty in a way that is organic and even appealing to many who find such posturings self-aggrandizing and syrupy. Others have tied the various components of their campaigns together with the soft glue of idealism and the white hot passion charisma brings to any enterprise.
This provokes speculation about when Obama’s bubble will burst. This provokes speculation about what’s in the bubble—is it filled with charisma too? 0r, if he is lifted to his current level of attention by more than a bubble—and given America’s penchant for power—many are wondering why it took so long to find someone with whatever it is that Obama’s got.
4) The Democrats front runner is Clinton. She is ahead in most polls—though not in Iowa. She certainly is ahead in the race for the buckaroos sweepstakes. She has a large and talented staff. She has one of the best political minds in the country advising her—hubby Bill. She has shown herself to be a viable candidate. All that is good news for the junior senator from New York.
But she also is a candidate who has more problems than a US auto maker. She is not a powerful speaker a la Obama and Edwards. She brings new meaning to the phrase “high negatives.” As her recent comments in New Hampshire show, she refuses to say she made a mistake voting for the war in Iraq. To those who passionately hate the war, such actions shout she is obtuse. To others she simply looks silly and far too much like the President she is trying to replace. Many think she is over-calculating. Few find her warm. People support her, but there aren’t many who like her. She will not do well with the millions who look upon the presidential campaign as if it were a popularity contest. This is not to suggest that you have to be liked to be elected president—the landslide Nixon won in 68 proves that.
But the longer people look at Clinton, the more it is likely they will see a paradox. For the long term this may be yet another negative, for short term it makes her and her campaign more interesting.
5) You didn’t have to be in Springfield, Illinois shivering in ten degree weather on Saturday to know that when Obama speaks, he fills the air with a rich blend of effervescence, warmth, and high wattage electricity. Edwards always has been a dynamic and invigorating campaigner.
Though it is not one of the more accurate adages, many who follow politics closely like to think that the best campaigner will win most primaries. Kennedy, Reagan (in 80 and 84), and Bill Clinton give credence to this axiom. When Carter beat Ted Kennedy in 80, Ford beat Reagan for the nomination in 80, and Mondale beat Hart for the nomination in 84, they provided ample evidence that disproved such maxims. But since Clinton is less than stellar campaigner and because she currently sits atop the heap . . . while two world class campaigners are in the number two and three spots in the polls—well this makes for very interesting politics.
6) Most crowded fields for a nomination quickly dwindle down to two. But if the Democrats three A-list candidates each have some stamina and staying power, the math becomes very complicated. To cite a very simple example. In a two candidate race, let’s say Candidate Red effectively hammers Candidate Blue. Red wins but his/her negatives go up. Given the same scenario and a three person race, Red’s negatives go up and Candidate White gains a significant tactical edge. Having three A-list candidates complicates the strategy a great deal—and makes the race much more interesting.
7) The Democrats have two veteran candidates waiting in the wings. Because the only cure for presidential ambition is embalming fluid—and even that is suspect . . . there are reports from a blog, fromtheotherside.com, that Nixon is still planning a comeback. Rumor has it he plans to balance the ticket with an “established Republican” who is also a longtime hunting partner of Dick Cheney (translation . . . he has nine lives). Those seeking proof of the afterlife or leaks about this rumor may seek out the oracle—some of Nancy Reagans’ letters in the Reagan Library—that Nixon and/or his ghost will make an appearance at the Comeback Diner in Paradise, California—about fifty miles north of Sacramento.
Rumors aside, there is always a chance that Kerry will think and hope (and pray) that people have forgotten his foray into standup . . . and he will attempt to return. But for Democrats, there is more bad news: Gore’s efforts on The Inconvenient Truth may yield an Oscar—another first for someone who was a major party nominee for the presidency. Whether or not the documentary wins the Oscar for best documentary, given the backbone replacement surgery Gore seems to have undergone, many will encourage him to return to the fray. Like the monster in the awful movie that refuses to die, the “Will-he-enter-the-race?” story probably will not go away for months.
8) The Republican front runners McCain and Giuliani have sided with the surge and so basically have placed their bets regarding Iraq. They now must wait and see if the surge works. They probably won’t bicker over Iraq—but the Democrats already are.
9) It appears to many that the pieces are coming together for significant work to be done regarding health care and global warming. These issues favor the Democrats. Add to this the mess Bush has made of the war in Iraq, the ricochets from the conservatives drive to make a great deal of noise about immigration that has alienated Hispanics, the echoes from the failure of the Bush Administration to respond to Hurricane Katrina, and you have a recipe that all but shouts that the Democrats should win Presidential election in 2008.
10) Most presidential elections are close, and because the Democrats have a knack for losing close elections—well that is just one more reason that for now the Democrats are more interesting than the Republicans.
American Politics and Denver Weather
Of course when it comes to politics, time follows different parameters than it does for most of us. Political winds are often a good deal like what the natives say about the weather in Denver. If you don’t like it, wait fifteen minutes. There are plenty of ways the Republicans could start soaking up a greater share of the spotlight. A McCain-Giuliani tiff could jump-start things nicely. But both candidates probably are too smart to attack so early in the campaign. Such confrontations would drive up an attacker’s negative ratings. Should Giuliani remain popular in the polls, the conservative wing of the party could rant, and if not rave, at least spend a lot of money and start some rich rumors. And there are the controversies Mitch Romney’s Mormonism brings—which could be a “story with legs” if he didn’t already have so many issues with the Christian Right.
But for a few spatters and burps, the staple of the media diet for a while probably will continue to be the Democrats.
Substance?
Which finally—thank goodness—brings us to something resembling substance, “Does this amount to a hill of beans?”
For the short term . . . No. It could work very much to the Republicans advantage to lay low, walk quietly, and prepare the big sticks that they will swing later. But if the Democrats continue to appear to be more interesting most of this year and next, then they will appear to . . . or might actually set the agenda. For the short term, sensible interest usually leads to good publicity. Good publicity leads to more good publicity which provides a fast-track to the money express. Money generates more real interest . . . as well as the opportunity to generate it synthetically should the need arise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too Serious A Matter provides intelligent, provocative, and often funny commentary about the often convoluted intersections of politics, strategy, and history. The title of the blog comes from De Gaulle’s comment, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”
The List
1) The Democrats have three—count em—three A-list candidates. A fourth, Governor Bill Richardson is far behind in the polls, but with the pols his status is rising. The Republicans have, at best, two A-list candidates.
2) Two of the A-list candidates aim to be firsts, Clinton intends to be the first woman President and Obama the first African-American. The third A-lister, former Senator John Edwards, has an autobiography that is a heartwarming rags-to-riches story.
3) We’ve never seen anything like Obama before—never. Of course some of the elements of his campaign are derivative. Others (John Kennedy, FDR) have sought to minimize experience by speaking of dreams and a new generation of politics. Others (Howard Dean, Ross Perot) have appealed to many who for long have dropped out of politics. Many others (in election years GW Bush was very good at this) have elevated their candidacy by telling the best story. Others have used a gentle touch and a warm smile to break through the brittle prejudices that have so maligned the past. Many others have run as an outsider and sharpened the perception that one of their opponents (in this case, Hillary Clinton) is an insider. Others have invoked the Almighty in a way that is organic and even appealing to many who find such posturings self-aggrandizing and syrupy. Others have tied the various components of their campaigns together with the soft glue of idealism and the white hot passion charisma brings to any enterprise.
This provokes speculation about when Obama’s bubble will burst. This provokes speculation about what’s in the bubble—is it filled with charisma too? 0r, if he is lifted to his current level of attention by more than a bubble—and given America’s penchant for power—many are wondering why it took so long to find someone with whatever it is that Obama’s got.
4) The Democrats front runner is Clinton. She is ahead in most polls—though not in Iowa. She certainly is ahead in the race for the buckaroos sweepstakes. She has a large and talented staff. She has one of the best political minds in the country advising her—hubby Bill. She has shown herself to be a viable candidate. All that is good news for the junior senator from New York.
But she also is a candidate who has more problems than a US auto maker. She is not a powerful speaker a la Obama and Edwards. She brings new meaning to the phrase “high negatives.” As her recent comments in New Hampshire show, she refuses to say she made a mistake voting for the war in Iraq. To those who passionately hate the war, such actions shout she is obtuse. To others she simply looks silly and far too much like the President she is trying to replace. Many think she is over-calculating. Few find her warm. People support her, but there aren’t many who like her. She will not do well with the millions who look upon the presidential campaign as if it were a popularity contest. This is not to suggest that you have to be liked to be elected president—the landslide Nixon won in 68 proves that.
But the longer people look at Clinton, the more it is likely they will see a paradox. For the long term this may be yet another negative, for short term it makes her and her campaign more interesting.
5) You didn’t have to be in Springfield, Illinois shivering in ten degree weather on Saturday to know that when Obama speaks, he fills the air with a rich blend of effervescence, warmth, and high wattage electricity. Edwards always has been a dynamic and invigorating campaigner.
Though it is not one of the more accurate adages, many who follow politics closely like to think that the best campaigner will win most primaries. Kennedy, Reagan (in 80 and 84), and Bill Clinton give credence to this axiom. When Carter beat Ted Kennedy in 80, Ford beat Reagan for the nomination in 80, and Mondale beat Hart for the nomination in 84, they provided ample evidence that disproved such maxims. But since Clinton is less than stellar campaigner and because she currently sits atop the heap . . . while two world class campaigners are in the number two and three spots in the polls—well this makes for very interesting politics.
6) Most crowded fields for a nomination quickly dwindle down to two. But if the Democrats three A-list candidates each have some stamina and staying power, the math becomes very complicated. To cite a very simple example. In a two candidate race, let’s say Candidate Red effectively hammers Candidate Blue. Red wins but his/her negatives go up. Given the same scenario and a three person race, Red’s negatives go up and Candidate White gains a significant tactical edge. Having three A-list candidates complicates the strategy a great deal—and makes the race much more interesting.
7) The Democrats have two veteran candidates waiting in the wings. Because the only cure for presidential ambition is embalming fluid—and even that is suspect . . . there are reports from a blog, fromtheotherside.com, that Nixon is still planning a comeback. Rumor has it he plans to balance the ticket with an “established Republican” who is also a longtime hunting partner of Dick Cheney (translation . . . he has nine lives). Those seeking proof of the afterlife or leaks about this rumor may seek out the oracle—some of Nancy Reagans’ letters in the Reagan Library—that Nixon and/or his ghost will make an appearance at the Comeback Diner in Paradise, California—about fifty miles north of Sacramento.
Rumors aside, there is always a chance that Kerry will think and hope (and pray) that people have forgotten his foray into standup . . . and he will attempt to return. But for Democrats, there is more bad news: Gore’s efforts on The Inconvenient Truth may yield an Oscar—another first for someone who was a major party nominee for the presidency. Whether or not the documentary wins the Oscar for best documentary, given the backbone replacement surgery Gore seems to have undergone, many will encourage him to return to the fray. Like the monster in the awful movie that refuses to die, the “Will-he-enter-the-race?” story probably will not go away for months.
8) The Republican front runners McCain and Giuliani have sided with the surge and so basically have placed their bets regarding Iraq. They now must wait and see if the surge works. They probably won’t bicker over Iraq—but the Democrats already are.
9) It appears to many that the pieces are coming together for significant work to be done regarding health care and global warming. These issues favor the Democrats. Add to this the mess Bush has made of the war in Iraq, the ricochets from the conservatives drive to make a great deal of noise about immigration that has alienated Hispanics, the echoes from the failure of the Bush Administration to respond to Hurricane Katrina, and you have a recipe that all but shouts that the Democrats should win Presidential election in 2008.
10) Most presidential elections are close, and because the Democrats have a knack for losing close elections—well that is just one more reason that for now the Democrats are more interesting than the Republicans.
American Politics and Denver Weather
Of course when it comes to politics, time follows different parameters than it does for most of us. Political winds are often a good deal like what the natives say about the weather in Denver. If you don’t like it, wait fifteen minutes. There are plenty of ways the Republicans could start soaking up a greater share of the spotlight. A McCain-Giuliani tiff could jump-start things nicely. But both candidates probably are too smart to attack so early in the campaign. Such confrontations would drive up an attacker’s negative ratings. Should Giuliani remain popular in the polls, the conservative wing of the party could rant, and if not rave, at least spend a lot of money and start some rich rumors. And there are the controversies Mitch Romney’s Mormonism brings—which could be a “story with legs” if he didn’t already have so many issues with the Christian Right.
But for a few spatters and burps, the staple of the media diet for a while probably will continue to be the Democrats.
Substance?
Which finally—thank goodness—brings us to something resembling substance, “Does this amount to a hill of beans?”
For the short term . . . No. It could work very much to the Republicans advantage to lay low, walk quietly, and prepare the big sticks that they will swing later. But if the Democrats continue to appear to be more interesting most of this year and next, then they will appear to . . . or might actually set the agenda. For the short term, sensible interest usually leads to good publicity. Good publicity leads to more good publicity which provides a fast-track to the money express. Money generates more real interest . . . as well as the opportunity to generate it synthetically should the need arise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too Serious A Matter provides intelligent, provocative, and often funny commentary about the often convoluted intersections of politics, strategy, and history. The title of the blog comes from De Gaulle’s comment, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Biden’s Blooper
At a time when the war in Iraq is going miserably, General George Casey, the officer who oversaw the mess that is now the American experience in Iraq is about to be promoted to supervise the entire army. Troubles in the Middle East continue to steam and percolate. Bad news roars out of Africa. The harsh and cruel realities of global warming gain more credibility almost every week. There is an absurdist drama unfolding in Boston as a bureaucratic post 9 -11 mentality collides with reckless guerilla marketers. We are in the middle of the annual celebration of commercials and capitalism, hyperbole and hype, glisten and glitter known as the run-up to the Super Bowl. And if all that did not provide enough for people to write, talk, and argue about, many were in a mood to criticize what was obviously a well-intentioned but inelegant comment from the Senior Senator from Delaware, Joe Biden.
For Joe Biden last Wednesday was supposed to be a good day. He was beginning his formal presidential campaign. And he had one quality none of the top tier candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination have—a surplus of international experience. When Biden joined the Senate way back in 1973, Hillary Clinton was doing a year of post-graduate study at Yale. She hadn’t even met the man many would later call “Slick Willy.” Barak Obama was a seven-year-old living in Jakarta, Indonesia.
As he took the first official steps of his presidential bid, Biden was supposed to look confident and experienced. But in an interview with a reporter from The New York Observer, Biden said Senator Obama was "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
As Senator Biden later noted, if he had substituted “fresh” for clean, the comment would not have provoked the uproar it did.
The Reaction
To suggest that Biden’s comment provoked controversy is to imply that the tsunami of trappings, the plethora of parties, the overpriced commercials, and the vast quantities of glitz that make up the Super Bowl experience are all part of an exercise in restraint and modesty.
Soon it was obvious that Biden had committed a blunder.
Biden did what any political veteran should do. Via the privacy the telephone offers, he apologized to Obama. In public he apologized some more. Four hours after the original comment was posted on-line, Biden issued a statement, ''I deeply regret any offense my remark in the New York Observer might have caused anyone. That was not my intent.''
He tried to soften the comments by putting them in the context of a phrase his mother often invoked, “clean as a whistle.”
He dropped in on The Daily Show and hoped to put a comic spin on what quickly became an awful day for the Senator.
The comment allowed pundits and those courageous warriors on conservative talk radio to note that this was not the first time the Senator had put a foot in one of his orifices. Last summer, while C-Span’s cameras were on, Biden spoke to an Indian-American activist and commented, "You cannot go into a Dunkin' Donuts or a 7-Eleven unless you have a slight Indian accent." There also was that ugly moment in the Senator’s 1988 president bid when he was accused of plagiarizing speeches delivered by a British Labor Party leader—Neil Kinnock. His presidential bid ended soon after the accusation.
Biden’s gaffe is most unfortunate. He is a smart guy with a lot to offer his party and his country. His proposal to divide Iraq into three federations is one of the few on any table that might reduce Iraqi sectarian violence. His years of experience might help the Democrats balance a ticket where the presidential candidate is sorely lacking tenure.
But there are other issues circulating within the hubbub his comment provoked that cut to the heart of the way the complicated mêlée we oh so politely refer to as politics is played in the US.
Truth has an uneasy place in American political life. Americans have long responded to fear (and loathing). We lap up American chauvinism—especially when it is married with narrow-mindedness. Americans almost always find the flights of fancy politicians and the media dish out far more interesting and provocative than the often bad old fashioned truth.
Obama’s Tap Dance
Biden’s most recent verbal flub allowed Senator Clinton, who has recently displayed periods where she appeared to be omnipresent, to spend a day away from the national political limelight. Biden’s comment gave Senator Obama a chance to perform a political tap dance even a veteran pol could envy. Via a prepared statement, the Illinois Senator responded, "I didn't take Senator Biden's comments personally, but obviously they were historically inaccurate. African-American presidential candidates like Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton gave a voice to many important issues through their campaigns, and no one would call them inarticulate.''
Obama wisely responded with a comment about how many African-American candidates were articulate. But it wasn’t the comment Biden made about Obama being articulate that provoked controversy.
Nor was Biden’s comment directed at Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun, or Al Sharpton. None were “mainstream” candidates.
Shirley Chisholm’s 1972 national political campaign was engaged to give black politicians an aura of legitimacy.
In 2004 Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton conducted presidential campaigns that were more exercises in vanity than serious politics—though the clouds of rhetoric that tended to gravitate around Sharpton’s campaign often were leavened with his jovial nature and discerning wit. During the 2004 presidential campaign, after Howard Dean’s scream shattered his image as a bright, promising, and credible candidate, Sharpton commented, “I wanted to say to Governor Dean, don't be hard on yourself about hooting and hollering. If I had spent the money you did and got 18 percent, I'd still be in Iowa hooting and hollering.”
Sharpton responded to Biden’s blunder by stating that he took a bath every day.
Biden’s comments were about mainstream candidates. Other than Obama, the only African American mainstream political candidate for the presidency has been Jesse Jackson.
Center of the Controversy
This brings us to the center of the controversy Biden’s comments provoked—the use of the word “clean.” The first responders to the comment used the word in the context of personal hygiene—and all the ugly racist and inelegant inferences that may be drawn from it.
It wasn’t meant to address such matters.
It is possible that Biden was referring to rumors. Many suggest that for the services Jackson provided as he campaigned for candidate Bill Clinton in 1992, the good Reverend charged a great deal of money. If the rumors are accurate, neither Jackson nor the then candidate Clinton violated either the letter of the campaign laws or the spirit of American entrepreneurialism. But the transactions certainly weren’t clean.
It is more likely that Biden was referring to the liaisons Jackson had with a woman who was not his wife. When revelations about the relationship were made public, Jackson who often was accused of never meeting a microphone he didn’t like, withdrew from the microphones and the attention he is so brilliant at garnering.
So the young upstart Obama executed a savvy dodge—he did not address Jackson’s political hygiene, he did not really address the whole truth of Biden’s comment, and won praise for being sober and conciliatory. While Biden told what many consider a verifiable truth—and got skewered for it.
Such is life in America.
An obvious lesson of all of this is that Senator Biden never should have put himself in a situation where he made a comment that though true, could provoke controversy. It is likely that before Senator Biden’s first day in the presidential race was over, he and others realized that it is not experience that really matters, it is learning the lessons it is so willing to teach that counts. Clearly the experienced Senator has a lot to learn.
And Finally
But there is a larger lesson. Every candidate fumbles. In 1992 then candidate Bill Clinton made some silly comments about not inhaling marijuana. During that campaign, Clinton made many imprudently vague comments about women he was accused of having an extra-marital affair with. These comments often did not end the controversy, they continued it. George W. Bush’s actions prior to his 40th birthday may be viewed as one long and erratic fumble. In 1963 the woman who would become his wife was seventeen and driving to a party with some friends. She committed what was obviously a severe error in judgment and did not stop for a stop sign. Her car rammed into another and killed the only person in it—one of her classmates.
Clinton trudged through the dark and grey wildernesses his unwise comments elicited and became President.
When asked about his youth, George W. Bush told a story that always sounded something like this, "I know there are all kinds of rumors, but that's the political process. Let me tell you something. When people investigate my background, they're going to find that I have been loyal to my wife for 21 years, and that I've been a dedicated dad, and that, given the responsibility of the high office of my state, I have brought honor and dignity to that office." The rumors that related to Bush’s drinking and cocaine use were recently verified by a former “friend.” But years before that happened, when Bush was seeking to be elected president, he was often asked about his checkered past. The story Bush told created coils of protective concertina wire for the candidate.
George W. Bush survived his reckless past and was twice elected President. And today Laura Bush is now one of the most admired people in America.
Certainly for those who hope to entertain the idea of spending decades in American politics, it is better to act as Obama did last week. Dancing around and dodging the truth usually is a much better tactic than telling the truth—as Biden did. Many who spend their professional lives observing and commenting on politicians of all shapes and political colorings conclude that when a politician makes a mess, those who have a long career in one of the strangest and oldest of professions either suffer through (a la Clinton) or extricate themselves relatively cleanly (a la George W. Bush).
But there probably is something else at work as well. Those rare few who play the game at a high level for a long time seem to have a special armor that not only allows them to endure in spite of their mistakes but also to prevail.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too Serious A Matter provides intelligent, provocative, and often funny commentary about the often convoluted intersections of politics, strategy, and history. The title of the blog comes from De Gaulle’s comment, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”
For Joe Biden last Wednesday was supposed to be a good day. He was beginning his formal presidential campaign. And he had one quality none of the top tier candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination have—a surplus of international experience. When Biden joined the Senate way back in 1973, Hillary Clinton was doing a year of post-graduate study at Yale. She hadn’t even met the man many would later call “Slick Willy.” Barak Obama was a seven-year-old living in Jakarta, Indonesia.
As he took the first official steps of his presidential bid, Biden was supposed to look confident and experienced. But in an interview with a reporter from The New York Observer, Biden said Senator Obama was "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
As Senator Biden later noted, if he had substituted “fresh” for clean, the comment would not have provoked the uproar it did.
The Reaction
To suggest that Biden’s comment provoked controversy is to imply that the tsunami of trappings, the plethora of parties, the overpriced commercials, and the vast quantities of glitz that make up the Super Bowl experience are all part of an exercise in restraint and modesty.
Soon it was obvious that Biden had committed a blunder.
Biden did what any political veteran should do. Via the privacy the telephone offers, he apologized to Obama. In public he apologized some more. Four hours after the original comment was posted on-line, Biden issued a statement, ''I deeply regret any offense my remark in the New York Observer might have caused anyone. That was not my intent.''
He tried to soften the comments by putting them in the context of a phrase his mother often invoked, “clean as a whistle.”
He dropped in on The Daily Show and hoped to put a comic spin on what quickly became an awful day for the Senator.
The comment allowed pundits and those courageous warriors on conservative talk radio to note that this was not the first time the Senator had put a foot in one of his orifices. Last summer, while C-Span’s cameras were on, Biden spoke to an Indian-American activist and commented, "You cannot go into a Dunkin' Donuts or a 7-Eleven unless you have a slight Indian accent." There also was that ugly moment in the Senator’s 1988 president bid when he was accused of plagiarizing speeches delivered by a British Labor Party leader—Neil Kinnock. His presidential bid ended soon after the accusation.
Biden’s gaffe is most unfortunate. He is a smart guy with a lot to offer his party and his country. His proposal to divide Iraq into three federations is one of the few on any table that might reduce Iraqi sectarian violence. His years of experience might help the Democrats balance a ticket where the presidential candidate is sorely lacking tenure.
But there are other issues circulating within the hubbub his comment provoked that cut to the heart of the way the complicated mêlée we oh so politely refer to as politics is played in the US.
Truth has an uneasy place in American political life. Americans have long responded to fear (and loathing). We lap up American chauvinism—especially when it is married with narrow-mindedness. Americans almost always find the flights of fancy politicians and the media dish out far more interesting and provocative than the often bad old fashioned truth.
Obama’s Tap Dance
Biden’s most recent verbal flub allowed Senator Clinton, who has recently displayed periods where she appeared to be omnipresent, to spend a day away from the national political limelight. Biden’s comment gave Senator Obama a chance to perform a political tap dance even a veteran pol could envy. Via a prepared statement, the Illinois Senator responded, "I didn't take Senator Biden's comments personally, but obviously they were historically inaccurate. African-American presidential candidates like Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton gave a voice to many important issues through their campaigns, and no one would call them inarticulate.''
Obama wisely responded with a comment about how many African-American candidates were articulate. But it wasn’t the comment Biden made about Obama being articulate that provoked controversy.
Nor was Biden’s comment directed at Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun, or Al Sharpton. None were “mainstream” candidates.
Shirley Chisholm’s 1972 national political campaign was engaged to give black politicians an aura of legitimacy.
In 2004 Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton conducted presidential campaigns that were more exercises in vanity than serious politics—though the clouds of rhetoric that tended to gravitate around Sharpton’s campaign often were leavened with his jovial nature and discerning wit. During the 2004 presidential campaign, after Howard Dean’s scream shattered his image as a bright, promising, and credible candidate, Sharpton commented, “I wanted to say to Governor Dean, don't be hard on yourself about hooting and hollering. If I had spent the money you did and got 18 percent, I'd still be in Iowa hooting and hollering.”
Sharpton responded to Biden’s blunder by stating that he took a bath every day.
Biden’s comments were about mainstream candidates. Other than Obama, the only African American mainstream political candidate for the presidency has been Jesse Jackson.
Center of the Controversy
This brings us to the center of the controversy Biden’s comments provoked—the use of the word “clean.” The first responders to the comment used the word in the context of personal hygiene—and all the ugly racist and inelegant inferences that may be drawn from it.
It wasn’t meant to address such matters.
It is possible that Biden was referring to rumors. Many suggest that for the services Jackson provided as he campaigned for candidate Bill Clinton in 1992, the good Reverend charged a great deal of money. If the rumors are accurate, neither Jackson nor the then candidate Clinton violated either the letter of the campaign laws or the spirit of American entrepreneurialism. But the transactions certainly weren’t clean.
It is more likely that Biden was referring to the liaisons Jackson had with a woman who was not his wife. When revelations about the relationship were made public, Jackson who often was accused of never meeting a microphone he didn’t like, withdrew from the microphones and the attention he is so brilliant at garnering.
So the young upstart Obama executed a savvy dodge—he did not address Jackson’s political hygiene, he did not really address the whole truth of Biden’s comment, and won praise for being sober and conciliatory. While Biden told what many consider a verifiable truth—and got skewered for it.
Such is life in America.
An obvious lesson of all of this is that Senator Biden never should have put himself in a situation where he made a comment that though true, could provoke controversy. It is likely that before Senator Biden’s first day in the presidential race was over, he and others realized that it is not experience that really matters, it is learning the lessons it is so willing to teach that counts. Clearly the experienced Senator has a lot to learn.
And Finally
But there is a larger lesson. Every candidate fumbles. In 1992 then candidate Bill Clinton made some silly comments about not inhaling marijuana. During that campaign, Clinton made many imprudently vague comments about women he was accused of having an extra-marital affair with. These comments often did not end the controversy, they continued it. George W. Bush’s actions prior to his 40th birthday may be viewed as one long and erratic fumble. In 1963 the woman who would become his wife was seventeen and driving to a party with some friends. She committed what was obviously a severe error in judgment and did not stop for a stop sign. Her car rammed into another and killed the only person in it—one of her classmates.
Clinton trudged through the dark and grey wildernesses his unwise comments elicited and became President.
When asked about his youth, George W. Bush told a story that always sounded something like this, "I know there are all kinds of rumors, but that's the political process. Let me tell you something. When people investigate my background, they're going to find that I have been loyal to my wife for 21 years, and that I've been a dedicated dad, and that, given the responsibility of the high office of my state, I have brought honor and dignity to that office." The rumors that related to Bush’s drinking and cocaine use were recently verified by a former “friend.” But years before that happened, when Bush was seeking to be elected president, he was often asked about his checkered past. The story Bush told created coils of protective concertina wire for the candidate.
George W. Bush survived his reckless past and was twice elected President. And today Laura Bush is now one of the most admired people in America.
Certainly for those who hope to entertain the idea of spending decades in American politics, it is better to act as Obama did last week. Dancing around and dodging the truth usually is a much better tactic than telling the truth—as Biden did. Many who spend their professional lives observing and commenting on politicians of all shapes and political colorings conclude that when a politician makes a mess, those who have a long career in one of the strangest and oldest of professions either suffer through (a la Clinton) or extricate themselves relatively cleanly (a la George W. Bush).
But there probably is something else at work as well. Those rare few who play the game at a high level for a long time seem to have a special armor that not only allows them to endure in spite of their mistakes but also to prevail.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too Serious A Matter provides intelligent, provocative, and often funny commentary about the often convoluted intersections of politics, strategy, and history. The title of the blog comes from De Gaulle’s comment, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)