Pay No Attention

Maureen Dowd asks "May We Mock, Barack?"

You know, Maureen Dowd has pissed me off more than a few times over the last few months, but I think she really nailed it with this Op-Ed, entitled "May We Mock, Barack?"  Dowd discusses the lack of Obama-related humor out there:

“We’ve already scratched thrift, candor and brevity off the list of virtues in this presidential cycle, so why not eliminate humor, too?” wrote James Rainey in The Los Angeles Times, suggesting “an irony deficiency” in Obama and his fans.

Many of the late-night comics and their writers — nearly all white — now admit to The New York Times’s Bill Carter that because of race and because there is nothing “buffoonish” about Obama — and because many in their audiences are intoxicated by him and resistant to seeing him skewered — he has not been flayed by the sort of ridicule that diminished Dukakis, Gore and Kerry.

“There’s a weird reverse racism going on,” Jimmy Kimmel said.

Dowd concludes:  "if Obama gets elected and there is nothing funny about him, it won’t be the economy that’s depressed. It will be the rest of us."  (You can read her column in its entirety at the link above.)

I was just saying the other day that the one bad thing about getting rid of Bush is that late night TV will be less amusing.  What will happen to David Letterman's "Great Moments in Presidential Speeches", for example?  Neither Obama nor McCain could possibly fill Bush's shoes in that regard.  The McCain age jokes and Obama riding a unicorn just aren't the same thing. 

Never watched "Great Moments in Presidential Speeches"?  Here you go:

Obama says New Yorker cover is insulting to Muslims?

I told you I'd be compelled to post about the cover again! I couldn't even last the night. 

Obama said that the New Yorker cover

doesn't bother him but that it was an insult to Muslim Americans.

"You know, there are wonderful Muslim Americans all across the country who are doing wonderful things," the presidential candidate told CNN's Larry King. "And for this to be used as sort of an insult, or to raise suspicions about me, I think is unfortunate. And it's not what America's all about."

Obama blamed himself for not being forceful enough in challenging some of the rumors about him, including that he is Muslim. Obama is Christian.

I do understand why Obama doesn't like the cover, but it does kind of tickle my funny bone that he's claiming that depicting him as a Muslim is insulting to Muslim Americans.  Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get it, I get it, but still -- there's a little backhanded self-inflicted insult in there somewhere. 

(The more I think about it, the more I think your early comment was totally right, Malleable me -- Obama should have recognized the New Yorker cover as satire and used it as an opportunity to address the ridiculousness of the Muslim allegations instead of getting insulted.)

* * * * * * * * *

In a totally unrelated question, is this Onion article insulting to First Ladies?  Bill Clinton Sadly Folds First Lady Dress Back Into Box  I think this may be my favorite line:

While Clinton has vowed never to wear the outfit publicly, he admitted to removing the gown from its box once before, after Hillary won the California and New York primaries. On that occasion, Clinton reportedly stood before his bedroom mirror, held the bodice to his torso, straightened his posture before extending a gloved hand outward and, in honeyed, lilting tones, repeated the line, "Oh, this old thing? Prime Minister Fukuda, you do go on."

More Thoughts on the New Yorker Cover

I just bought a physical copy of The New Yorker.  (I'm old-fashioned and like to read things on paper.)  FYI, I had to go to four newstands before I could get a copy -- it was sold out at the first three.  For what it's worth, I think the cartoon looks goofier in paper than online, and therefore more obviously satirical.

Since my post the other day, I've been talking to a lot of people (nearly all Democrats) and reading a lot of commentary about the Obama cover.  I've had people lambasting me for not utterly condemning the cover, and I've had people lambast me for seeing anything remotely inappropriate about the cover.  I've seen posts on other blogs demanding the immediate resignation of everyone at The New Yorker responsible for the cover.  I've seen other posts gleefully proclaiming that at last The New Yorker sees that Obama is a militant Muslim.  And I've seen a few posts (they seem to be in the minority, though), applauding the cover as brilliant satire of far-right wing fear mongering.  It's amazing how diverse and how powerful the reactions to the cover are. And as I've processed those reactions, I've been asking myself why so many people, including me, have found the cover so troubling.

I cannot and do not pretend to speak for anyone else (although I encourage everyone to pipe up and comment), but I've been doing some self-examination and have come up with some answers for why I personally reacted to the cover the way I did.  And I'm almost more troubled by the results of my self-analysis than I am by the cover.  

First, I totally agree with "malleable me" (see comments to my previous post) that "this cover is so over the top it can only be construed as satirical by anyone with at least half a brain."  I honestly do think you'd have to be a bit stupid to think that The New Yorker was trying to say that Obama was a militant Muslim. Moreover, as a general rule, I love satire, and I dislike having it labeled, just like I hate having humor labeled with a smiley face and an "LOL".  So, if that's the case, why do I want this cover labeled more explicitly?  It's certainly not for my benefit -- I knew it was satire immediately (of course, I read The New Yorker fairly regularly and I also have a good three-quarters of a brain).   

So what's the deal?  The truth is, I'm a wretched snob and I think a fair-sized bundle of the voters out there fall far short of having half a brain (and that even more wouldn't know satire if it hit them with a brick).  And while I don't like Obama, I dislike far more the idea that malleable half-brains might be convinced into voting against Obama for the wrong reasons.  (I feel the same way about the "McCain called his wife a c*nt" rumor.)  So --  my number one reason for finding the cover inappropriate:  my snobby belief that many voters are thick-headed, easily swayed and humorless. 

Oooooh dear, that's not too nice, is it?  (Although I do claim half a point for caring about justice even towards candidates I dislike.)  But my self-analysis doesn't get any better. 

My number two reason for finding the cover offensive:  guilt.  Yup.  I feel just a bit guilty about not liking Obama.  I have a few friends who have actively reproached me for not supporting him.  Indeed, someone I know argued recently that there is a moral obligation to vote for the Democrat in this election, no matter who that person is and how much I might dislike him.  Although I intellectually disclaim any moral obligation to vote for a candidate I don't like, and firmly believe that there is nothing at all immoral about voting for McCain or Nader, I find there's a little emotional lifelong-Democrat part of me that buys into that reasoning.  So: since I spend so much time criticizing Obama on issues I feel are legitimate, I feel compelled to assuage my guilt by condemning any false portrayal of Obama, even if it is obviously satirical.  

I asked myself earlier if I would have found a comparable cover on Hillary offensive, and concluded that I would, but as I think of it, I'm not totally sure. I guess I'd have to see the cover to make that call.  True, I was very pissed off by some of the misogynistic coverage by many in the media, but then again, that stuff wasn't satirical.  The more ridiculous stuff -- the Hillary nutcracker springs to mind (photo above; you can buy one at the link) -- I shrugged off and even got a mild chuckle out of occasionally. 

The New Yorker cover is about as ridiculous as the Hillary nutcracker.  True, both play into certain voters' negative and damaging perceptions about the candidates.  But that said, the voters that would actually be swayed by the Hillary nutcracker or a cartoon of Obama burning the flag in Muslim robes are voters who would never be voting for those candidates in the first place. 

So, if I think all this is true, what's the real harm of the cover?  I'm not sure.  (Ten dollars says I end up doing at least one more post on this cartoon, as I keep hashing it over in my brain.)  But nonetheless, after saying all of the above, I still feel like I'd like to see a caption on that drawing.  And an article on the rumor-mongering would not only be appropriate with the cartoon, but would certainly sell some copies, no? 

You half-brained folks out there should feel very insulted at my smug assumption of superior intellect.

The New Yorker's July 21st cover is inappropriate (but maybe not for quite the same reasons Obama objects to it).

If you haven't seen it already, this cartoon is on the cover of the July 21st issue of The New Yorker magazine.  I almost fell over when I saw it.  

I'm a big fan of satire and of freedom of the press, I think politicians should acquire a thick skin, and I'm not an Obama fan.  However, I do think this cover is inappropriate, although maybe for slightly different reasons than Obama does.  I have no problem with the cartoonist's drawing itself, but I do have a big problem with the way The New Yorker used the cartoon.

The New Yorker says that the cartoon is a satire of all of the sillier Obama rumors out there -- Michelle is a militant, Barack is a Muslim, they're both anti-American, etc., etc. The title of the cartoon, "The Politics of Fear" (which, at least in the on-line version, does not appear on The New Yorker's cover), demonstrates that the cartoonist did indeed intend the cartoon to be such a satire.  

However, the New Yorker article accompanying the cover doesn't discuss any of those rumors or the way such rumors affect elections.  If it did -- whether it was ridiculing rumors, debunking them, or providing evidence to support them -- the cover no doubt would still be controversial, but in that event I would defend The New Yorker's use of the cartoon as political satire -- actually, as pretty good, edgy political satire.

Instead, however, the article discusses Obama's early political career in Chicago, and as far as I can see, doesn't have anything to do with rumors that Obama is a Muslim and his wife a militant, etc., etc. and how such rumors are affecting the political scene.   Therefore, especially because the New Yorker did not include the caption, the New Yorker cover dangles without a coherent reason for being there.  If The New Yorker wanted to satirize rumors about Obama's political past in Chicago, and provide an eye-catching and controversial cover, it could have done a cover portraying him as an old-time Chicago gangster, or arm in arm with Mayor Daley, or something of that kind.  I'm sure Obama would not have been thrilled about such a cover, and of course it would have been controversial, but at least the theme of the article and the cover would have chimed together. 

Denuded of its caption, lacking an article to expand on its theme, and emblazoned boldly on the New Yorker's cover with no explanation, the cartoon is stripped of meaning.  It could be interpreted as satirizing the rumors, but it could also be interpreted as championing them (and championing them without including facts supporting such a position).    Thus, the cartoon becomes incendiary in a way it would not be if it had an appropriate caption and accompanied an article entitled "The Politics of Fear", discussing the way rumors affect politics.

To me, that's bad journalism.  But I'm betting it will sell a lot of magazines. 

I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

In my last post, I asked "why vote for Obama if he isn't the man of integrity his supporters thought he was?"  And I already know what a lot of faithful Democrats will say:  because otherwise McCain will win, and McCain is further from my position on various issues than Obama is.   If I vote for a third party candidate who espouses my values, that takes votes from Obama, and thus my vote helps McCain win.  Blah blah blah. 

I know that argument.  I made it myself to a few Nader supporters in past elections.  But I think I'm finally fed up. 

I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.  The huge problem with the two party system is that many people automatically exclude any possible third party candidate from consideration, even if they really like that candidate best, because the assumption is that one of the two major parties will inevitably win.  Therefore, if you support Nader or one of the "other" candidates, you are a "spoiler", taking votes away from the major party candidate who stinks the least.   How many of us actually vote for a candidate we truly like and support? 

Actually, the elimination process starts well before the general election.  In the primaries, how many of you even took a look at what Kucinich or Dodd had to say on the issues?  Nah, of course you didn't look, because the media and the pundits had declared it was inevitable that Clinton, Obama or Edwards would clinch the Democratic nomination.  Why even let anyone else debate them?  If you wanted the Democrats to win the general election, the key was to pick the Democrat who could win, whether you liked him or her the best or not.  And of course, the same thing happened on the Republican side.

Indeed, that was a big reason a lot of people supported Obama over Hillary -- they thought he had the likeablity factor that could carry the Democratic party to victory in November, and that too many swing voters would be biased against Hillary.  In other words -- many people supported Obama not because they thought he was the most qualified candidate, but because they thought he could defeat the Republicans.   

And that's why the Obama supporters and the Democratic National Committee began drumming their heels and screaming for Hillary to drop out of the race, long before it was a foregone conclusion that Obama would win more delegates.  That's why superdelegates who actually preferred Hillary switched to Obama.  It wasn't about who they thought was the best candidate -- it's about who they thought could defeat the Republicans. 

[As an aside, I gotta wonder -- what would have happened if every state's primaries had been held the same day, as we do with the general election?  It is quite clear from watching the polls and primary results that undecided or wavering voters are swayed towards a candidate when that candidate wins a primary victory in another state.  Why?  Because they want a Democrat that can win, and if other voters think a candidate could win, then that must be the way to vote.  What if voters didn't know the results in other states before going to the voting booth, and instead relied simply on their own guts and their own opinions on the candidates and their positions?  Why don't we do it that way, anyway?]

The two party system, at least as it currently functions, actually fosters and encourages pandering, wishy-washy candidates who stand for nothing.  It rewards candidates who cleverly dance around issues, and who, once elected or nominated, immediately back out of any promises they were so rash as to actually make.  The candidates tow a party line, and we voters are expected to follow dutifully along:  "But you must vote for the Democrat, no matter what he does.  You're pro-choice.  You can't vote McCain, and any other vote is a defacto a vote for McCain." 

Look at the outrage Senator Lieberman aroused among some Democrats for daring to support McCain.  Well, why the hell shouldn't he support McCain, if he thinks McCain is the best candidate?  Frankly, I don't know that I like Lieberman all the time, but I do like him for daring to step over party lines and publicly support the candidate he prefers.

I can't help but wonder what this country would be like if everyone -- candidates and voters -- actually acted and voted according to their real convictions. 

Rhett Butler was right: jettisoned values are irreparably damaged

" . . . It's hard to salvage jettisoned cargo and, if it is retrieved, it's usually irreparably damaged. And I fear that when you can afford to fish up the honor and virtue and kindness you've thrown overboard, you'll find they have suffered a sea change and not, I fear, into something rich and strange. . . "

-- Rhett Butler (to Scarlett O'Hara)

A lot of Obama supporters have expressed emotions ranging from disappointment to outrage with regard to Obama's recent stands and about-faces on many issues -- FISA, campaign finance, expanding the death penalty and faith-based initiatives, gun control, abortion, the Iraq war etc., etc., etc.  But amidst the disillusionment, more and more I've been hearing this argument:  "Well, he has to compromise in order to get elected.  Once he's elected, we'll see the old Obama, the one we supported so enthusiastically, the one who stood for change.  He has to opt out of public financing to get elected -- once he's elected, he'll support public financing.  He has to vote for the FISA bill so that he can become President, and then he'll prosecute the telecoms."  Etc., etc., etc.

I find it incredibly ironic that so many Democrats chose Obama over Hillary because they felt "Hillary will do anything to get elected.  Obama is different.  He has integrity."  But now that Obama has demonstrated that he will jettison just about all of his liberal cargo in order to get elected, some of these same Democrats, instead of getting angry that Obama let them down,  get all Scarlett O'Hara in his defense and argue eagerly: "He'll revert back to his old self when he's elected.  After all, tomorrow is another day."

Well, personally I never did think that Obama stood for the values his followers gave him credit for (if I had thought so, I would have been one of his most enthusiastic supporters).  But even if Obama did once stand for those values, I'm with Rhett Butler -- jettisoned values are difficult to salvage, and are generally irreparably damaged in the process.

For example, if Obama wins the election, the fact he opted out of public financing in order to win is going to be the death knell of public financing.  He's given the perfect precedent to future candidates who think they can raise more money from individual donors than from public financing.  As a result, the candidates who can raise the most money will win the presidency -- exactly the state of affairs that Obama decried as an abomination for at least the last two years.  And I'd love to hear how granting immunity to telecoms now will assist President Obama in prosecuting them in the future. 

Even assuming that, once elected, he could in fact salvage the values and positions he chucks recklessly aside in order to get elected -- doesn't it matter what a candidate says and does to get elected?  Let's say that right now he's just winking at his liberal base while pulling the wool over the eyes of the swing voters -- and let's say it works and he gets elected.  That's exactly the kind of politician he claimed not to be. 

If he is in fact that kind of politician -- and I don't have any doubt about it at this point -- I must respectfully ask his supporters: what on earth is the point of voting for him?

How to Pretend You Give a Shit About the Election

This video from "The Onion" may come in handy for a lot of people:
Today Now!: How To Pretend You Give A Shit About The Election

Barack and Hillary, sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g.

  A picture really is worth a thousand words.

Hillary and Barack have been having a very public lovefest lately, but I think just about everybody suspects that they really don't like each other.  She's a Democratic party animal all the way, and would support anyone who was the Democratic nominee, but in particular, if she doesn't do her best for Obama, her party would condemn her.  So there she is, singing Obama's praises. 

For his part, Obama clearly doesn't want her as VP, but just as clearly, he needs the support of the Clinton voters to win this election.  So there he is, chipping in for her campaign debt and tooting her horn. 

But check out the body language in the picture I posted above.  Hillary's left arm looks like it's shackled to her side, and her right hand is making the most half-hearted looking wave I've ever seen.  Her shoulders are hunched stiffly, and her facial expression looks positively pained.  Barack's giving an enthusiastic wave, and a big wide smile, but there's something about the way his left arm is hidden behind Hillary and the way he's leaning towards her that almost looks like he's either goosing her, is shackled to her, or has a gun to her back. 

I guess they've each got a gun to each other's back, if you think about it.  Or perhaps Howard Dean really did shackle them together.  I wouldn't put it past him.

There really IS something rotten with the election polls!

The other day I did a post wondering why the Gallup polls had Obama and McCain tied, while the Bloomberg poll the same day had Obama 15 percentage points ahead.   Were any of you wondering too?  Well, here you go. 

This article from CQ Politics explains:

In an interview with CQ Politics, [Richard Morin, a senior editor at the Pew Research Center] said the discrepancy is probably a result of the Newsweek and L.A. Times/Bloomberg polls over-representing Democrats.

"When I look at those results, I know something is going on," said Morin.

"The first place that I look when I see these discrepancies, I look for the percentage of Republicans, Democrats and Independents in the sample. We know that the best predictor of how someone is going to vote is their party ID.

"Both the L.A. Times/Bloomberg and the Newsweek polls have (too) large percentage of Democrats and a (too) small percentage of Republicans."

While there are indeed more people who identify themselves as Democrats than Republicans in the country, Morin says the other polls, including Gallup, are more in line with the actual disparity than the Bloomberg or Newsweek polls.

"Interestingly enough," Morin said, "if you do the math and apply the proper percentages to the L.A. Times/Bloomberg and the Newsweek findings, you find that their results change dramatically."

In fact, Morin says, if the two polls that show Obama winning by a large margin were to modify their findings using the same percentage of Democrats and Republicans as other polls, Obama's lead would come down to somewhere between a toss-up and a small, single digit lead for Obama.

Morin cautioned that neither organization oversampled Democrats intentionally. It's a tricky business, getting exactly the right mix that mirrors the entire population.

"Embedded in the operations of polling are subtle differences that result in skews -- and they can be either Republican skews or Democratic skews."

So anyway, I was right -- the Gallup neck-and-neck poll is most likely closer to capturing the truth.

Something's rotten with the election polls

Has anyone else noticed that the various election polls seem to be --- please forgive the pun, but I really must -- poles apart?  Here's a particularly huge discrepancy from two polls that came out yesterday.  Bloomberg reports that Obama

"has opened a 15-point lead in the presidential race, and most of the political trends -- voter enthusiasm, views of President George W. Bush, the Republicans, the economy and the direction of the country -- point to even greater trouble for rival John McCain. Illinois Senator Obama, winning support from once skeptical women and Democrats, beats McCain 48 percent to 33 percent in a four-way race . . ."

But Gallup's most recent poll (dated June 24) has the candidates running neck and neck, with 46% favoring Obama, and 43% favoring McCain.  [Update:  on June 25, Gallup has the two candidates tied, with 45% favoring each.]

Gallup has pretty consistently reported the candidates to be running neck and neck, and I'm guessing that's about correct.  We all know how close the last two elections were.  I know Obama has a lot of fans, and that those fans are very enthusiastic.  However, I find it rather hard to believe that Obama is leading McCain by 15 percentage points at this point, given the undeniable fact that many Hillary supporters (myself included) don't like Obama and would consider voting for McCain or some other candidate. 

I know this is anecdotal evidence, but at this point, many of my primarily liberal, Democratic and highly-educated circle of friends are actively considering voting for someone other than Obama, and I've never seen that happen before.  Last time around, one or two Democratic friends went Nader, but the rest were solidly pro-Kerry.  Almost none of the former Hillary supporters I know are happy about Obama.  Some plan to vote for him anyway, but a good number of them are actively considering McCain.  Many friends are enthusiastic Obama supporters, but I also know a couple of former Obama supporters who now feel disenchanted and plan to either vote for McCain or write someone in.  On the not-so-anecdotal side, dozens of new and apparently popular websites and movements have sprung up with titles like "Hillary Supporters for McCain"  and "Democrats4McCain".  I think it's safe to say there's a good chunk of Democrats out there who do not support Obama -- more than has typically been the case with the Democratic nominee in recent elections.

However, I have yet to talk to a Republican who isn't voting McCain.  Granted, I know my Republican friends are on the moderate side, and I know the far right doesn't love McCain.  However, are far right Republicans really going to vote for Obama, who has the most liberal record in the Senate?  I'd be really surprised.   

Therefore, I find it really hard to believe that the Bloomberg poll is accurate.  One thing is certain, however -- one of those polls is dead wrong.  The question is -- how did one of the polls wind up so skewed?

Moreover, while those two polls are a particularly dramatic example, they aren't an isolated instance.  I've been paying some attention to this over the last month.  As I noted, Gallup and some other pollsters have consistently reported the candidates to be in a virtual tie.  But Bloomberg news (whose reporting is almost preposterously pro-Obama, I've noticed) and some other news sources consistently claim that voters favor Obama in a landslide. 

Why such discrepancies?  Are they just interviewing wildly different groups of people? Do the pollsters just have no idea what they're doing?  Or is something rotten in media land?  Are certain news outlets are trying to manipulate the election by issuing skewed poll results to make people think the result is a foregone conclusion?  Or is it the other way around -- an attempt to manipulate the election to make it seem deceptively close?  Or is it time for me to lock myself up all alone in a log cabin somewhere and keep dozens of detailed notebooks in tiny tiny handwriting?

I'd be very interested to know what you folks think, if you'd care to volunteer.  And if any of you know anything about poll methodology that could explain what's happening here, I'd be especially interested in hearing about it.