Sarah Palin: McCain's Moment of Panic

Well now many of my fellow Barack supporters who had been nervous about Biden as the VP pick may rest assured since John McCain might have destroyed his chances by picking Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Sarah Palin is a rabidly right wing, gun-toting, environment-hating Republican whose ideology is sure to alienate everyone except for the most narrow-minded Evangelicals in the mold of James Dobson and Pat Robertson. This is a woman who believes that global warming is not caused by human activity and who adheres religiously (pun intended) to the imperialist credo that "man should rule over nature." In fact, she has fought hard to prevent government protection of polar bears (who doesn't like polar bears?) and has just recently destroyed a legislative attempt at protecting salmon from contamination. She has also fought for a pipeline that would pollute Alaska and stuff the already overflowing coffers of oil companies (accidentally, her husband works for BP despite assurances that he would stop working for the oil company if she won the governorship due to a possible conflict of interest--of course he later backtracked saying the family needed money).

Sarah Palin eschews any scientific thought by publicly proclaiming her belief in "intelligent design" and fighting to get it into our classrooms where it should be taught "alongside" evolution. The fact that evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY and "intelligent design" a story from children's coloring books doesn't seem to fit into her decision-making process. Makes you see what kind of president she would make (God forbid).

Rarely, have VP candidates had a major impact on presidential elections in this country, but in this case, I really think Palin will hurt McCain. And here is why.

1) McCain will lose the West. In the most recent issue of the New Yorker, Ryan Lizza traces the reasons why the Democrats have experienced a revival of their fortunes in the West and in particular, in places like Colorado. He interviews their recently elected Democratic Governor Ritter who argues that his rise to power and the ousting of the Republicans from both Houses in the state had to do with an internal Republican party rebellion by the "government pragmatists" as well as "moral pragmatists." The first are economic Republicans who are less concerned with abortion, gay rights, and other polarizing issues and more with the way the government governs and impacts their daily life. The second are more religious Republicans who care about social issues, but still acknowledge the lack of consensus in the country and are increasingly focused on pragmatic daily things. The key to Democrats' success in the state has been their ability to cut into the two of these voting blocs. And the amazing demographic changes in the state (and the West) will certainly increase these voting blocs: the state is being transformed by the influx of more skilled, high tech as well as hospitality business employees, as well as more affluent skiers who are buying their second-homes in the suburbs. With Sarah Palin, McCain has probably lost his shot at Colorado, New Mexico, and maybe even Nevada.

2) McCain's Gender Blindness. Hillary's supporters will now run towards Obama, literally. McCain's poor and blatantly transparent attempt to appeal to women voters in this country by his VP choice shows a gender misunderstanding so appalling that you would think the man lives in the Victorian era. This man, and his Republican cohorts, seems to believe that any woman can appeal to other women in this country, regardless of her substance: her record on abortion rights alone is certain to alienate any woman who might have been tempted to vote for McCain but cares about issues of women's rights. The fact that Palin herself calls herself a "feminist for life," shows a complete lack of knowledge of what the feminist movement in this country has been all about, and also points to Palin's eschewing of any serious analytical thought. The offensiveness of this cynical appeal to women was best described by Gail Collins in NYT this morning: "The idea that women are going to race off to vote for any candidate with the same internal plumbing is both offensive and historically wrong."

3) McCain's Judgment. I think the choice shows the decision-making process (if we can call it that) of John McCain and offers us an important glimpse into the way President McCain would make decisions. This was a decision that was impulsive, reckless, blatantly cynical, and motivated by political pander rather than knowledge, calculation, and judgment. I have a feeling McCain was sitting home watching Barack's speech on Thursday night and after realizing the extent of Obama's appeal and his profound impact on people's emotions, he jumped out of his chair, fumbled through his notebook, and called Palin to offer her the job. Compare this decision to Barack's careful deliberations on his VP nominee.

4) Ideologization of Politics. Finally, McCain's choice shows that his administration would be continuation of George W. Bush in that ideology and not expertise and the thickness of one's resume would be the primary qualifications for spots in the administration. After we have endured 8 years of an administration that gave the top FEMA job to a former Arabian horse association president, filled the Justice Department with anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-environment nut jobs, can we really afford 4 more years of an administration that would prize ideology above governance? This, I think, is the most potent line of attack the Democrats can (and absolutely should) make. It is also a legitimate argument.

As Collins suggests in her column, in VP debates, Biden should use the memorable line (used by Democratic VP Lloyd Bentsen against Republican Dan Quayle in 1988) against Palin: “I know Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a friend of mine, and governor, you’re no Hillary Clinton.”

Obama Delivers Again

Wow! That was probably the best piece of American political rhetoric I have ever seen in my life! I won't spoil your memories of that brilliant acceptance speech by my amateurish and long-winded analysis, but I think the most important part of that speech is Obama's forceful response to Republicans' idiotic, but oft-repeated and effective, charge that Democrats are weak on defense. Here are some several memorable quotes:

"John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."

"You don't defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries by occupying Iraq. You don't protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can't truly stand up for Georgia when you've strained our oldest alliances. If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice - but it is not the change we need."

And my personal favorite:

"We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe. The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans -- Democrats and Republicans - have built, and we are here to restore that legacy."

Bill Clinton in all his glory

Bill Clinton just completely redeemed himself. What a superb piece of American political rhetoric. I just can't stay mad at the guy. I think both Clintons have redeemed themselves in the past two nights.

Fox News

I wonder if it is possible to have your local cable company scramble your Fox News Channel. I would pay extra for this service. I feel awful having a part of my monthly cable payment go to Fox News, the bastion of racist, homophobic, chauvinistic, and just plain moronic feelings.

Also, if I were Howard Dean I would have refused to issue accreditation to Fox News, since they are not a legitimate news network. Considering the fact that over 90% of Fox News viewers are already Republicans, I think it only would have helped maintain clean air in that convention hall. At the moment Obama was officially nominated to be the Democratic candidate for the Presidency, they were talking about "a missing toddler."

OBAMA NOMINATED, HISTORY MADE!!!!

Call me a sap, but I was moved to tears as Hillary Clinton stood with her New York delegation and officially put a stop to a roll-call vote, and moved to nominate Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee for the President of the United States. As she uttered these words, the convention hall went into what it seemed like a delirious uproar. Of course, this was carefully orchestrated, but Pelosi's gavel really opened a new chapter in this country's history. As they showed many African-American delegates breaking down on camera, trying through tears to express their joy and hope for a better America, I realized how great the Democrats can be.

I was reminded of Hubert Humphrey's attempt to get the civil rights agenda adopted as the official Democratic platform in the immediate post WWII years; Lyndon Johnson's work for the passage of the Civil Rights Act; and the significance of Bill Clinton's presidency in advancing Civil Rights.

This is one of those days when I truly feel proud to be a Democrat.

Hillary's Brilliance

Well, I give credit where credit is due, and tonight, Hillary was great. She tapped into her supporters' immense support, and then gradually channeled it into her unconditional support for Obama. I think her speech echoed the video showed by Chelsea as she introduced her mother. The video opened with shots from Hillary's childhood, went on to talk about her campaign, and then blended into images of Obama (first Obama and Hillary and then Obama by himself). Similarly, in the speech, she opened with her own campaign, and tied it into Barack's story, warning her supporters (it seemed to me very genuinely) that this "is not a time to stand on the side-lines."

I think that there will always be some of her supporters who won't support Barack, but I think tonight is certainly a turning point. It is interesting that the Fox News website is not even headlining her speech (like all other major networks, including the BBC). That in itself is evidence to how successful the Democrats have been tonight in uniting.

Bill still worries me. He was on the floor tonight, looking on admiringly to Hillary. More about that tomorrow after his big speech.

The Childishness of American politics

Watching some of the most militant supporters of Hillary throw public tantrums because "their girl" wasn't picked, I am really reminded of how childish the politics are in this country.

The fact that Obama's policies are almost identical to Hillary's and that he would push the agenda at least as (if not more) progressive than Hillary, does not faze them. Hillary lost the primary and this reflects poorly on them. This election is about their personal feelings which have been hurt beyond repair. They have to be "acknowledged," "their feelings" respected...I have one message for them: GROW THE F$%#@$# UP!!!! Seriously!

In this election so much is at stake: the possibility of another war; getting out of Iraq; US' respect in the world; the composition of the Supreme Court for years to come; the state of workers' rights (currently non-existent), and the list goes on. But these people (like most of us) have been told from early on, that they are at the center of the universe, and that the world revolves around them. Well, it doesn't.

And if Obama doesn't win, we don't deserve to have better leaders. To quote Bill Maher: "The American people get the leaders they deserve. And they don't deserve very good leaders."

In Anticipation of Obama's Thursday Speech

Considering that Obama's acceptance speech will be delivered on the 45th anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech, I thought this would be appropriate. This is probably the best speech I have ever seen.

To All the Democrats Out there: Relax!

I think that everyone needs to take a moment, breathe deeply, and chill out. Obama's chances are not ruined, he is not headed towards defeat, and Hillary's supporters will not defect en masse towards McCain. (As a caveat, let me say that I have been guilty of the same pessimism as recently as my post "Worrying about November" below).

First of all, this is exactly the moment when voters (unbelievably enough) start tuning in, and this is why the polls are tight. The polls from way back in June can be tossed out the window because it was mostly hardcore Democratic/Republican activists who were paying attention. Secondly, close elections are a norm rather than an aberration in American politics. This is an extremely diverse country and winning the Presidency is difficult because one has to appeal to different social groups which often have incompatible self-interests. So, Obama is on the right track: he has done a good job of introducing himself to the American people, the Convention will be a wonderful success, and he will top it with an amazing acceptance speech in front of 75,000 people. Biden was the right choice given the political climate, Obama's perceived weaknesses, and the narrative the Obama campaign wants to tell to the American worker.

I don't know what it is (maybe our more thoughtful, academic nature) that makes us liberal Democrats so hesitant about our chances, so prone to pessimism that often degenerates into downright fatalism. The problem is that this mood--once it becomes widespread--turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy. It echoes the cable television news cycle where a day begins with a "pundit" reporting that Hillary's supporters are angry at Obama and throughout the day, the idea is almost literally pounded into people's heads so that by the end of the day, Hillary's supporters really start having problems with voting for Obama.

So, get a beer (or wine), sit back on your couch, and enjoy what it promises to be a wonderful historic Convention. And think to yourself: Obama WILL Win!

Obama's Choice: Joe Biden

As I waited for my text message to go off, around midnight last night CNN broke the news that Joe Biden would be Obama's Vice Presidential candidate. Even though I expected Biden to top the list, I was a bit surprised that Obama would go with what it seems to be a risky candidate. Why risky?

1) Biden sometimes has no self-control when it comes to public speaking. He says things that (while some of them are pretty funny), can get you in hot water. Remember him saying that Barack was the first "clean-cut" and handsome "mainstream" African-American? This happened on the first day he announced his own candidacy for President and had to spend the next week backtracking from the remarks. Obama accepted the apology. Biden's record shows him to be a strong advocate of civil rights and the comment was just a poorly constructed attempt at a joke.

2) Biden's past has one dark spot that Republicans might exploit: the accusations of plagiarism. Having lived in the world of academia for the past 7 years (and condemned to spend the rest of my life there!), the mere mention of this terrible word sends shivers down my spine (I exaggerate of course). But back in the day, Biden was accused lifting a whole speech from a British politician without acknowledging him. Now, I am sure lot of politicians do this on a daily basis, but he got caught. On the other hand, the academia notwithstanding, I think the plagiarism charge does not really resonate with the population at large. And Barack knows this very well.

3) Biden's judgment on Iraq/the use of Bosnia as an analogy. This is actually my greatest concern about Biden. First, he voted for the war in Iraq. He later retracted his vote and apologized, something I admire in a politicians. (and something that Hillary never did for her vote). However, he then proceeded to call for a massive troop withdrawal from Iraq and suggested that Iraq be split into ethnic entities just like Dayton Bosnia. Biden consistently referred to Dayton Bosnia as a success story and a model for Iraq. WRONG!!! Post-Dayton Bosnia is a crippled, paralyzed, pseudo-state where the Dayton Constitution enshrined the Apartheid-like ethnic division of the country and stripped all individuals to their bare ethnic identities.

Biden's judgment on this echoes the larger strategy in the American politics: deal with only topical countries and once they are out of the headlines, stop following the progress and move on. But still use the country in which we messed up as a success story!

Now all these caveats notwithstanding, I think Obama knows what he is doing. Despite these gaffes (and most in D.C. and the country don't see these as gaffes to begin with), Biden has amassed a serious resume when it comes to dealing with foreign leaders. The American people are too distracted and plagued by the attention-deficit-disorder to follow any of these very closely, but the narrative of Biden's foreign policy experience is sure to vow many voters and assuage some fears that Obama is inexperienced.

Secondly, Biden's matter-of-factness and his Scranton, Pen, roots bide well for Obama's chances among some of the blue collar folks in the mining region of this battleground state.
And finally, and most importantly, Biden is excellent when he is in the attack mode. He does not pull any punches, delivers them with fiery speed and brilliant articulateness. This is exactly what Obama needs. He needs to stay above the fray and be the "nice guy" candidate (the polls show that most Americans do see Obama as a relatively nice person), while Biden rips into McCain.

So to all of my friends and Barack supporters, don't be alarmed: Biden is a great pick! Probably won't help Obama take the White House on his own, but will certainly help.

Comcast's Idiocy

It was only a post ago that I ranted about the way airlines in this country treat their customers. Well, I had just been through another horror encounter with a greedy, corporate monopoly that has become a victim of its own corporate success. I am talking about Comcast, the omnipotent cable/internet/phone provider in my great state of Illinois. In the last few years, Comcast has gotten a reputation on Wall Street as a tough competitor which had bought up many smaller companies all with the purpose of delivering great service to its customers. Yeah, right!

If you want a high-speed internet connection and cable TV in my area, you HAVE TO deal with Comcast. You have no choice. I first installed my internet/Cable service in June, but I recently moved, and that's where all hell broke loose. I called Comcast to ask for a service transfer the first day of August and they scheduled the transfer for August 16, which was more than two weeks away. Considering the fact that they are THE ONLY provider that offers internet/cable packages and that August is the move-in month in Champaign, I understood that they were busy.

In the meantime, a representative from Comcast called me on August 7 to let me know that my service had been moved up to that Saturday, August 9. I was out of town but they assured me that I didn't have to be home for the service to be started. My girlfriend was at home and had hooked everything up waiting for the service to start. Nothing: no Internet, no Cable. I called the company a few days later only to be told that they had never called me to move up my date! So, I either had imagined the whole conversation from the few days before, or they had missed their own appointment and were now lying to me. They assured me that the service would come on August 16.

This morning, as soon as I got up, I called them, asking for my service. A cheerful representative said that the service had been switched on. After connecting my box and my modem, I realized that there was not a trace of either Internet or Cable in my apartment. I called them again, only to be assured that I must have done something wrong, since their records showed the service had been switched on and the technicians "had already been in the area." After the tech department walked me through the installation, we both realized that indeed, there was no service. So they said a technician would be coming by. I waited for most of the morning and the afternoon, and they never showed up, or even bothered to call me.

So, once again, I reached for the phone and after getting through a maze that is their customer line, I got a hold of a human being. They said that my service had not been switched on since I had canceled it! What!!!! This is when I completely lost my cool to the amazement of my friends in whose presence I was making the phone call. I had been delayed, put on hold, lied to. In short, I had been treated like any other American consumer. (In fact, there is an entire Internet movement to bring the Comcast down. They congregate on a blog with a telling name: http://comcastmustdie.blogspot.com/).

After apologizing to the service representative for my tone (and assuring her that I knew it was not her fault), I proceeded to ask what I should do to get my internet and cable working. She said I should walk to the college bookstore and meet with their representative tomorrow morning and my service would be switched on 24 hours following the meeting. Unbelievable!

So, I am still Internetless and Cable-less. This really has very little to do with my spoiled ways of needing my Internet and Cable fix, but more to do with the way the whole system treats consumers in this country. It is amazing to me that in a country that boasts on a daily basis of being a consumer paradise, and a country whose economy is run by the ever-rational "market forces," which always favor the consumer, this kind of thing not only happens, but increasingly seems to be the norm.

Comcast is another example of a de-regulated monopoly completely out of control. It is another evidence that we need heavy government regulation of businesses, a strong anti-monopoly watch, and a strong federal-level consumer protection agency that Nader has been advocating.

This experience has made me look nostalgically on my experience of getting Internet in East Mostar. But I will leave that for another post.

Russia's Bullying

Russia's actions in the last week have shown once again that despite changing its ideological cloak in the 1990ies, Russia still remains a regional bully. Incapable of projecting its power outside of its traditional "sphere of influence," Putin's Russia is a country frantically trying to prove to the rest of the world that it still matters. If in the process of proving this, it murders thousands of civilians, destroys the infrastructure of an entire country, and demolishes its territorial sovereignty, so much the better (in the eyes of the over the top, macho, judo expert Putin).

Things seem to be getting worse with Poland reaching the deal with the US on the missile defense shield. I have always been opposed to this stupid program which seems to only further alienate Russia and the rest of the world from the US, but Russia's actions in Georgia and its response to the Polish-US agreement have made me rethink my initial opposition. If Russia was so bold as to invade Georgia (going well beyond the separatist province of South Ossetia), who is to guarantee Poland that it would not be next.

I think this is a remote possibility as Poland is a member of NATO and the EU, but given the deeply rooted anti-Russian animosity within Poland (and most Eastern Europe), Polish leaders were under an immense political pressure to conclude this agreement.

The events in Georgia can also be seen as a delayed reaction of Russia to the independence of Kosovo as they seem to be using South Ossetia to prove their point that Kosovo set the precedent in international relations. At the same time, the US is completely powerless (militarily, but more importantly, politically) to do anything about the situation but complain. Thus, I see the dire situation as another evidence of the diminished US' credibility after 8 years of the Bush administration. Thanks, W.

Worrying about November

I have been catching up on my political news, since I don't yet have cable or internet at home due to my recent move, and have become really worried about Obama's prospects in November. Most polls show him leading McCain by the average between 3-5 points which, historically speaking (most pundits agree), means absolutely nothing. In most elections that have ended in a landslide in the past, the polls at this time of the campaign would show Obama leading McCain by at least 10 point margin. On the contrary, the polls seem to be tightening in the most important states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and of course, Florida (I think the latter is already lost!).

What is even more worrying than these polls is the fact that race attitudes cannot be explicitly captured by these polls as most people refuse to admit they are racist. However, pollsters report that many low-income and surprisingly college-educated (Bachelors Degree level) whites mistrust Obama for one reason or another. I am not hesitant in saying that most of these white voters are blinded by their prejudiced attitudes towards race that makes them see Obama as the Other who cannot be trusted. This is blatantly evident in their pronouncements of Obama as a Muslim (despite repeatedly being confronted with the evidence to the contrary), as a flaming liberal, etc. They refuse to accept such evidence because then they would have to confront the real reason why they are not supporting him: because they are racist. I am tired of many left-leaning pundits walking on eggshells in analyzing these people's attitudes. They need to be called what they are, and if that shames them, then maybe they do have to be shamed, publicly.

In a year when a whopping majority of voters want change, hate the Republicans, mistrust McCain and agree on almost every issue that Obama espouses, a failure of Obama to pull a landslide (or even a victory) would be a devastating blow to this country. It would cement racial attitudes and show that many whites have not boarded the post-Civil Rights bandwagon, and embitter the world against the US.

But that is something we are already used to, after 8 years of Bush.

I still think Obama will pull a narrow win, but I thought it would be healthy if we stepped back and realistically looked at the reason why he seems to be failing to landslide McCain into oblivion.

Another travel rant

I just arrived in D.C. after being delayed for almost 5 hours at O'Hare--again!!! Initially, it was the weather and United did not even bother to put more than one customer service representative to rebook all the pissed off passengers. As a result, the standby list soon became an unmanagable mess as the over-worked, over-stressed out customer service representatives called names in a rapid succession, before people could even show up, skipping names. As the flights kept being delayed, something else caught my eye: the reasons for the delay kept changing. It was weather, and once the weather cleared, it soon became "servicing an airplane," or "mechanical error," etc.

Which made me think that there might be something else going on here. I am not saying the airlines are deliberately delaying flights, but it seems pretty certain to me that these delays are of great financial benefit for their profit margins. Think about it: the delayed flights allow passengers to accumulate to one flight instead of being scattered across flights and having half-empty planes fly around, wasting fuel, the cost of which had thrown some airlines to the edge of bankruptcy. In the past few years (especially the last month) airline executives have complained that their margin of profit is suffering from the inability to pack planes to the capacity. "Weather problems" seem like a godsend to me.

What is infuriating about the whole mess is the way the average American consumer reacts. Instead of demanding his/her rights be respected, the average American traveler shrugs his/her shoulders and accepts it as inevitable. In a conversation with one such passenger I suggested that in case of delays, airlines should be mandated to give us food coupons so that we don't spend money on overpriced airport food. He said that would be unreasonable since airlines are really hurting today. So this passenger did not think of her own interests before putting the interests of a major, multi-billion dollar corporation ahead of their own. This is another sign that the average Joe has internalized the "spirit of capitalism" to such an extent that he not only fails to protest getting screwed, he asks for more!

While seeing my name jump from one standby list to another today, I thought of the much stricter consumer-protection laws in the European Union. There airlines are required to accommodate the consumer in case of delays, including weather problems. And yet, most of these airlines stay competitive and offer amazing deals (you can always find dirt cheap flights between European cities where you only pay the taxes and fees) to their consumers. Of course many go out of business, but that's the nature of the trade.

And meanwhile, our government takes our taxes to subsidize the losses of our airlines and sits idly by, even supporting, their daily indulgence in screwing the passenger every which way! Unbelievable!