I lied.  But, did that get your attention?
Of course.
Isn't this what Obama should do at this point - take hold of the narrative and dominate it with game-changers like this?
The Clinton-for-Supreme-Court idea would outflank the McCain campaign's shrewd (but dangerous) Palin VP pick.
Gore hits on two fronts: fire-up the Democratic and environmentalist base, plus, tap into the regrets many Americans have about voting for Bush 8 years ago.
And, it's not like Hillary or Gore have to accept.  Just as long as Obama engages the two of 'em in real conversations and makes real offers.  The goal is to string the rumors and hints out for the next 6+ weeks.
He could also hint at Bill being the next US Ambassador to the UN.  (Not a bad way to get the whole Clinton wing of the party fired up as well.)
Time to take the initiative.  Hope Obama does something like this.  If you happen to bump into him, could you mention it for me?

I lied.  But, did that get your attention?
Of course.
Isn't this what Obama should do at this point - take hold of the narrative and dominate it with game-changers like this?
The Clinton-for-Supreme-Court idea would outflank the McCain campaign's shrewd (but dangerous) Palin VP pick.
Gore hits on two fronts: fire-up the Democratic and environmentalist base, plus, tap into the regrets many Americans have about voting for Bush 8 years ago.
And, it's not like Hillary or Gore have to accept.  Just as long as Obama engages the two of 'em in real conversations and makes real offers.  The goal is to string the rumors and hints out for the next 6+ weeks.
He could also hint at Bill being the next US Ambassador to the UN.  (Not a bad way to get the whole Clinton wing of the party fired up as well.)
Time to take the initiative.  Hope Obama does something like this.  If you happen to bump into him, could you mention it for me?

Since I have no other place to dispense my amazing wisdom - the Obama campaign won't return my calls - I thought I'd reveal my brilliant political strategy to the keen minds here at TPM.  Maybe enough people will read this and the 100th Monkey dynamic will kick in, or, perhaps an Obama strategist will stumble across my blog during a lunch break.  (I only hope the poor slob doesn't choke on his/her brie in a why-didn't-I-think-of-that moment, and take this idea to the grave.)
There is a simple solution to the concerns about Palin dominating the media talk and pulling some women & Hillary voters.  There is simple solution to killing McCain's convention bounce.  There is a simple solution to retaking the initiative and changing the narrative.  It is elegant, it is obvious, it is shrewd- it is a game-changer.
Promise Hillary Clinton the next spot on the Supreme Court, and let unnamed sources leak the news through private, confidential backchannels.
At any other time, Republicans would shriek and holler their objections.  But they can't now.  They just cheered her at the convention last week.  Die-hard Hillary supporters would have to concede that Obama is paying significant respect to Hillary.  The media would turn it's attention back to Obama in a positive way, and all talk of lipstick would be gone.
Granted, Hillary may decline.  Even in that scenario, the Obama campaign could leak that they're talking with Clinton about it.  That would be enough to change the game.  If Clinton refuses the offer, that's her choice, but this story could still be strung out for a couple weeks.
Carpe diem - seize the day!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080825/ts_afp/usvotemccainentertainmentmadonna

Why is McCain so intent on having national debates with blonde, female celebrities?  (Fill in your own punchlines.)

Here's McCain on gay adoption - or not.  He somehow can't seem to muster a straight answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ746VnWX0w

<blockquote>An old monk and a young monk were walking through a forest when they came to a river bank and saw a beautiful young woman standing at the edge of the bank.

The woman told the monks that she was afraid to cross the river because she might slip and be carried downstream. She asked if one of the monks might help her across.

Now it so happened that these 2 monks were members of a sect which practiced celibacy and they had both taken vows never to touch a member of the opposite sex. But the old monk, sensing the extreme anxiety of the young woman, lifted her onto his back and carried her to the other side of the river.

The young woman thanked him and went on her way. The 2 monks continued on their journey, but the young monk was shocked and disturbed at having seen his older companion break his vow so nonchalantly. Finally, after 3 hours of walking and thinking, he could contain himself no longer and he burst out, "Tell me, old man, what did it feel like to break your vow of so many years? What did it feel like to allow sensuality to tempt you from your spiritual path? What did it feel like to have her smooth warm thighs wrapped around your waist, her breasts brushing against your back, her arms around your neck and her soft cheek almost one with your own? Tell me, old man, what is it like to carry such a beautiful young woman?"

The older monk remained silent for several steps and then said, "It is you who should tell me what it is like to carry such a beautiful young woman. You see I put her down 3 hours ago at the river, but you are still carrying her."</blockquote>

Obama supporters, Clinton supporters: how long will you carry your resentments now that we've crossed the river?

Thought many of you would be interested in this:
http://www.demconvention.com/credentialed-blogs

Recommend this so others will see it.

TPM deserves better trolls!

I'm not going to just sit on my hands and take this sitting down, on my hands!  Enough is enough!  It's time we DEMAND a finer breed of trolls.  Those of us who toil regularly to post blogs and comments expect better bitter fruits for our finger-blistering labor.  

Is it too much to ask that we have trolls who can spell and use a little humor while hurling insults?  Can't our trolls at least have the decency to come up with an avatar that is easily identifiable, with photos large enough for us to actually see who's in it?  I'm not asking that they make a cogent point when they post, but at a minimum they should make a contribution to the TPM culture in their own twisted way, not just take up comment space.

So, I say we host a troll competition.  We can advertise on other blog sites, as well as Craigslist.  Fist, we must determine what kind of hoops our trolls must be able to jump through to pass muster.  I have a few ideas, and then I'll open the floor to suggestions.

•  The Don Rickles Funny Insult Competition.  We'll need a panelist of judges who score contestants on the both the quickness of response and originality of humor.  Bonus points may be awarded for pop culture, literary, or political sound-bite references.  Penalties for crudity, profanity, or references to someone's dead child.  But, it is also not enough to dish it out, they must take it too.  We'll pit trolls against one another, and the one's who come out on top earn even more points.

•  The Avatar Awards.  Like the Emmys, we would award points to the best avatar in different categories: Most recognizable (nothing like being able to identify your favorite troll quickly); most politically humorous, most original, etc.

•  The Bad Neighbor We Love to Hate Competition.  Again, points may be awarded for various qualities, but essentially, we're looking for trolls who can add value to the TPM community.  Like the crabby old man who lives up the street that yells at all the kids, or the homeless dude who passes through one in a while talking to his imaginary friend, or the busybody next door who's never happy, always complaining, and sticking her nose into other people's business.  Every community has people like this.  TPM just isn't complete without it.   So, in this case, the judges will be looking for someone who can add that special negative quality that inspires camaraderie among the more normal members of the TPM society.

•  The Signature Event.  All great trolls have a signature style.  Some follow a particular format each time they post, and some literally close with a signature tag-line after each post.  Some trolls repeat the same phrases , while others impersonate a candidate or someone else and speak as though they are that person (usually also represented by their avatar).  Recognizability and ability to stay in-character would be among the qualities judged here.

•  Finally, The Troll-Around-The-Clock-A-Thon. That's right, we have all aspiring trolls make posts at least once every 10 minutes, starting at the same time, and going until the last one makes his/her final post before passing out.  We'll provide any and all legal chemical stimulants the competitor requests.  The longer a troll lasts, the more points they earn.  Points would be deducted for poor punctuation, misspellings, bad grammar, all caps, or identical posts, etc.

I'm open to other suggestions, so please chime in with your ideas.

We've put up with sub-par trolling long enough. It is time to raise the bar and make our trolls prove their TPM-worthiness.

"This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format: "Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
"A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers. "Q. Where will the government get this money?
"A. From taxpayers. "Q. So the government is giving me back my own money? 
"A. Only a smidgen. "Q. What is the purpose of this payment? 
"A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy. "Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ? 
"A. Shut up."

A while back, TPM posted a detailed description of the process by which the rules committee for the convention would be selected, and the likelihood that Obama would come in with a majority of members, and thus have a good shot at controlling the outcome over whether and how MI and FL delegates would or wouldn't be seated.  (Clinton and Obama would seat members essentially based on the proportion of delegates they came in with, plus a few thrown in by Dean)
Here's the thing, I've heard recently that the rules of the convention carry over from the previous convention until new rules are adopted.  So, the catch is this, the new rules would be decided by delegates earned in ALL states, including FL and MI, because the old rules which allow MI and FL to be included still apply.  That would give Clinton quite a bit more seats on the rules committee, yes?
But this scenario is only possible if my assumption is correct, that MI and Fl are counted before the rules committee is assembled.  Can anyone answer this question?

(Disclaimer:  This is my first blog, please be gentle.)

Firestorms of opinion have been generated about how the Clinton and Obama campaigns should respond to the inflammatory words of Ferraro and Wright.  I can't help but find myself in agreement with almost everyone.  Like reading a voter pamphlet where arguments on both sides seem compelling, it is hard to come up with any clear sense of what's right and wrong.  All sides have a case to make, and any case can be refuted by the logic of another perspective.

Unfortunately, I’m not an expert on racial relations or the history of civil rights, but I sense that maybe a broader context is needed to understand and accurately digest what we're witnessing throughout this campaign.  What I lack in expertise, I make up for in passion on the subject, so, I’ll give it my best shot, understanding full well that I’m not the best man for the job.

The one thing that’s clear to me is - like violence - racism begets racism, and everyone is the victim, including racists themselves.  The other thing that’s clear, is there is a generational process at play here.

"There but for the grace of God go I."

In 1941, Wright had the misfortune of being born an African American, a child and growing up at a time in our society when racism was ran rampant.  He is very much a product of the 60’s; he lived what many of us from younger generations have only seen in grainy black and white news footage.  For those of us who never felt the pain, the bitter anger of being looked down upon, rejected, dismissed and hated, it is hard to even begin to relate to.  How many of us have lived under the threat of being lynched or worse?  How many of us have been attacked by dogs, hosed down or beaten simply because we wanted to be treated as equals?  It is a stretch for most of us to fully understand the mindset of one who has experienced such things.

It also takes a truly extraordinary individual to have experienced such things, and yet be able to set aside the negative emotions and love thy enemy.  MLK did this, and led a nation-changing movement while teaching others to do the same.  For that he is justly recognized as a major figure in American history.  But for many African Americans who've suffered the indignities of racism, letting go of the resentment is hard to do.  Clearly, Wright is among the latter category.  And in his resentment, he carries with him the seeds of reverse racism.  He can no better understand the perspective of a white person than a white person can understand his.  Wright may believe in his own mind that he is opposed to racism, but if so, he has become his own worst enemy.  (His anger certainly builds no bridges of trust!)  If he isn’t a reverse racist, then at a minimum his life experiences have robbed him of the ability to see white America and Europe as anything other than the enemy.  From that perspective, there is no way forward without the other side being the loser.  God Damn America?  Yeah, from his perspective, I get it.  I don't agree, but I understand how he could arrive at that sentiment.

Ferraro is from the same generation.  She fought her own fights as a woman in an era where women were also struggling for equality and fairness.  She believes that she's one of the good people out there fighting against discrimination.  I take her words at face-value - the anger we saw was real - that she really was offended that anyone would suggest she’s racist.  And yet, her own words reveal something, which, if it isn’t racism, was callously disrespectful to not only Barack Obama, but to any African American who has ever been discounted and overlooked because of their race or skin color.  At best, she’s grossly unaware of how her statements were insensitive and hurtful to African Americans and only reinforced racist thinking.  How could this come from woman who must personally understand being on the receiving end of discrimination?  How could she not see it?  Quite simply: her life experience as a white woman leaves her as blind to Reverend Wright’s mindset as his does to hers.

So what?

If I were either candidate, I would strive to point out that we’re seeing the echos of racism reverberating throughout our society, and that this is an opportunity to take another step forward in deepening our understanding of each other and write the closing chapters on racism in America.  Wright and Ferraro aren’t racists.  The the worlds they grew up in left an indelible mark on their characters, both positive and negative.  Both Ferraro and Wright have each, in their own ways, been champions in the fight against discrimination.   But lack of proximity or  familiarity to one another’s worlds leaves both ignorant of their own prejudices and to the harm some of their statements cause.  The words of Wright and Ferraro illustrate the gap between a wealthy white-person’s experience of the world, and the experience of many African Americans.  They can only see the world from limited perspectives... viewpoints inherited from - or at least immensely influenced by - the world in which they ‘cut their teeth’ 40-50 years ago.

But things have changed; it’s a different world today than it was in the 50’s and 60’s.  I’m not suggesting we’ve ‘arrived’ at full equality or that racism no longer exists, but, certainly, things have improved.  More to the point, matters of race are not as significant a factor for younger generations of voters (and this is as it should be if we’re looking for a sign that our society is on the right track to color-blindness).  The age of the 60’s civil rights activism is being replaced with a more pragmatic and conciliatory approach of younger generations.  We even see a divide in thinking between younger vs. older feminists.  Where the former look at things in more absolute and extreme ways, the next generation sees women’s issues in much broader contexts (e.g., they identify war as a women’s issue because of it’s impact on women and families).  While the older generation of feminists typically promote female candidates, the younger generation looks to promote candidates who best represent the interests of women, regardless of their gender.   The m.o. of the 60’s was riot, protest, fight, make demands - to rail against the establishment.  Todays generation seeks a more civic-minded, win-win approach - to win the fight from within.

While we should always respect those who came before us - recognizing the battles they fought and the benefits conferred upon future generations - should we be distracted by old fights of the past?  Shall we allow the comments of former leaders and candidates, who’s opinions and beliefs belong in another era, overshadow the comments of today’s candidates?  Do we descend into the fracas, or use this as an opportunity to gain a deeper understanding and move forward?

Yes, Obama needs to respond in a powerful way to reverend Wright’s fiery sermon.  But the response need not be to throw Wright under the bus.  In fact, the more powerful response is to elevate the dialogue by using Wright and Ferraro as the examples of what we, as a people, as a nation, are striving to leave behind.  And the challenge for Clinton, who is also from the older generation, will be to ‘find her voice’ in the present and future, instead of the past.

I’m sure many readers will find flaws in my essay, and I welcome constructive criticism.  As I said, I’m no expert on the subject, and I have limited time to put my thoughts into writing.  To be honest, I’m not 100% confident about everything I wrote - this is just me working out my own thoughts in public.  But, even if some of my assumptions are a stretch or some of my details are off, I think the key points remain valid.