Celebrating Obama's Birthday in Harlem

Posted by Duncan Meisel at 3:00 PM, August 5, 2008

(click image for slideshow)

This past Sunday night, photographer Deidre Schoo attended a birthday party for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama at St. Joe Nick's Pub. Despite a cake that never arrived, Obama supporters danced, sang and drank in celebration of the now 47 year old candidate. '47' was the theme: the door donation was $4.70, and attendees performed for either four minutes and seven seconds or delivered a 47-second birthday wish. The party also featured home-made birthday greetings from Barack fans. Photos over here.

Rightbloggers on McCain's Chocolate Sandwich

Posted by Roy Edroso at 12:45 PM, August 4, 2008

The current conventional wisdom seems to be that Barack Obama is a racist. At least, a Rassmussen poll shows that's how 53 percent of Americans judged Obama's prediction that Republicans would use racist tactics against him ("You know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills"). Also, a Gallup Poll has the Obama-McCain race as a dead heat.

While it's never a good idea to assume that the national conversation follows that of rightbloggers, these polls do suggest that their endless assault on Obama's "character" (portrayed by them mainly as a stew of vices and vacuity) has at least been attended to good effect by the McCain campaign and the press outlets they seek to stimulate.

The first wave of attack on Obama's remarks was semantic: At National Review, Jay Nordlinger pointed out that only one President appears on dollar bills. Other rightbloggers seized on the error ("I anticipate a lot of Photoshop fun with this quote"). Having thus dispensed with the numismatist vote, National Review shifted to content, with Peter Kirsanow saying Obama's statement was "merely the latest in a string of statements in which he suggests that certain Americans are intrinsically racist," citing "his declaration that his grandmother was a 'typical white person'" and "Obama's statement to San Francisco elites" -- the latter much covered at National Review for its "cling to guns or religion" component but now interesting to Kirsanow for the phrase "antipathy to people who aren't like them," in his view another of Obama's many slurs against white people.

Smaller rightbloggers picked up the theme. "The 'post racial candidate' has jumped deep into the racist scat," reported Wolf Howling. White racism is Obama's "go-to smear," said Ace of Spades, "a paranoid delusion, a martydom complex," per The Other McCain, and "fear mongering and race baiting," via Reflections From a Murky Pond. And, of course, there were many angry declarations that Obama is "the real racist."

Meanwhile the McCain camp contributed to the debate on Obama's character by putting him in an ad with celebutantes Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, which led critics such as the New York Times's Bob Herbert to suggest that this chocolate sandwich of campaign imagery was racially loaded. "I don't get this whole race thing," claimed The Strata-Sphere. "You know how many mixed race couples we have in the US? Tons!" BitsBlog said Herbert's column just showed that Obama was, you guessed it, the real racist, then listed a number of cases (Katrina, Jena 6 etc) in which BitsBlog considered black people to have fucked up.

Other rightbloggers patiently explained that the ad had nothing to do with race, but reflected legitimate concerns about Obama's resemblance to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Confederate Yankee said the ad's message was that Obama is a "political pop star" who is "famous primarily for being famous," and that the ad "resonates" because "Obama "sweeps in wearing a pretty smile. He tells us we're beautiful. He utters sweet nothings in our ears..." "Screaming racism is all they can do," added Wake Up America. "Obama is now being laughed at by comedians and audiences across the spectrum, just as Britney was when she was caught without underwear and when she shaved her head, just as Paris was when that video surfaced." Obama "is the bimbo, the nitwit, the increasingly obvious fraud," said Novatownhall Blog. RedState cut right to the chase: Obama "is Paris Hilton. I can understand why people don't want to hear that, but that's hardly our fault."

Failure to understand the difference between this enlightened line of inquiry and racism, Ross Douthat said at The Atlantic, makes you "sound like a paranoid idiot."

As if all this weren't damaging enough (to Obama, and to our childish faith in democracy), the Wall Street Journal asked if Obama was "Too Fit to Be President?" Though the article was an obvious space-filler, it fit nicely with the current anti-Obama talking points, including the Britney-Paris connection ("Only celebrities like Barack Obama go to the gym three times a day") and imputations of elitism ("Sen. Obama drew cringes" for mentioning arugula). Naturally some rightbloggers ate it up. "It's a sign of how poorly He's wearing that even His strengths are becoming liabilities," said the Weekly Standard. Bob McCarty noted that Obama was the only one of the subjects of the article's graph "whose weight appeared as a range instead of a specific number. My guess is that this man -- reportedly a daily exerciser whose weight shouldn't fluctuate much -- is incapable of telling the truth. Whether its a simple question about his weight or a more complex question about key national security, foreign policy and economic issues, he seems incapable of giving an answer and sticking with it. Examples of his flip-flop approach are highlighted in this video."

If you can't tell whether he's joking, then everything is going according to plan. Conservatives have lately complained that "nobody could make a joke about Barack Obama" (when they weren't complaining that people were making jokes about conservatives). Now, of course, they're tickled pink. For most of us humor is a pleasure, but for conservatives humor, like everything else in life, is a strategy. And, in a tough fight with a charismatic opponent, it may be the only one that can save them.

The success of this shift in campaign focus gave rightbloggers a much-needed shot of optimism. "And that week off in Hawaii that Obama is planning?" said an excited Jennifer Rubin at Commentary. "If Obama sticks to that the RNC will have a field day. (I already imagine the faux walk-on-water photos they'll be spitting out.)" By the Convention, Rubin added, "the McCain camp hopes that the public will have grown bemused, if not disgusted, by the effort to turn a political campaign into a cultural (or cult) 'happening.'" To suggest that last week's events will make our national politics less trivial takes a good deal of nerve, but nerve, as rightbloggers ceaselessly show, is the name of the game.

Pragmatic and Defiant Supporters Greet Clinton in New York

Posted by Julie Bolcer at 2:27 PM, June 4, 2008

As hordes awaited the speech from Senator Rodham Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night, the scene outside Baruch College looked and felt like a graduation. People wrapped around two blocks sounded edgy with anticipation and even slightly wistful at times, but most of all they seemed to express some version of an upbeat note. Many celebrated the chance to welcome their candidate home and rally her onward, while others acknowledged relief that her address might bring concession, and finally end a presidential primary of unprecedented length.

Although Clinton ultimately committed to neither position in her remarks, at least everyone could recognize the historic nature of the evening.

“There’s a lot of speculation that she’s going to drop out, but I don’t know,” said one of two undecided African-American women from Brooklyn standing midway in the line at Lexington and 25th Street. “I’m just here for the ride.”

“It’s a huge night,” added her friend. “It’s a huge year, with a woman and an African American running.”

Farther east on 25th Street, a group of Clinton supporters stirred the diehard and practical emotions that appeared to be the evening’s most popular options.

“I feel really hopeful,” said Denise Mortillaro of Brooklyn. “She’s not gonna bow down to those guys. She’s the girl we want in.”

But Jesse Tamari of Union City, New Jersey, admitted that he sensed surrender.

“It feels like a glorious ending for a wonderful race,” he said. “It feels like it’s close to the end.”

Closer to the entrance at Lexington and 24th Street, where diehards who sought first places in line were more likely to predominate, Terry Dattilio already sounded eager for the general election.

“Of course, I expect that she will concede, although she may not concede tonight,” said the Manhattan resident. She held a remarkably spry 17-year-old Chihuahua dressed in a patriotic cap and sweater that might even impress John McCain.

With luck, some of these people, but perhaps not that dog, would later find themselves inside a basement-level gymnasium far beyond the reach of cell phone reception. There, Clinton's preternaturally perky staffers ushered in VIP entrants, among them Congressman Anthony Weiner, City Councilmembers Eric Gioia and Melissa Mark Viverito, the Reverend Calvin Butts, and Fred Hochberg, a Clinton fundraiser and dean of Milano The New School for Management and Urban Policy.

When asked for his prediction, Queens City Councilman Gioia, a likely Public Advocate contender who campaigned for Clinton in Puerto Rico over the weekend said, “I don’t have any expectation about what she’s going to say. I’m proud of her.”

Meanwhile, away from the VIP floor, a more boisterous bleacher crowd positioned opposite an army of network news cameras began to practice cheers shortly after 8 p.m.

“C-L-I-N-T-O-N! We won’t stop until she wins!”

Eventually, they would be joined by many in the assembled hundreds, who all in all appeared to offer more diversity, particularly in age, than has been attributed to Clinton’s base. Lacking television screens to track results that would show Obama clinching the nomination, people chatted and tapped to music that captured the contradictory moods of the evening. The soundtrack included Ricky Martin’s “The Cup of Life” and The Black Crowes’ “By Your Side.”

Moments before 9:30 p.m., just as Tom Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down” was cued another time, Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe emerged at the podium. He primed the crowd with announcement of her victory in South Dakota, reiterations of the contests his candidate had won, and his declaration, contested by the Obama team, that she leads in the popular vote. He introduced her as the “next president of the United States.”

Clinton entered to “Ain’t No Mountain High Enough,” accompanied by former President Bill Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea.

During her 20-minute speech, Clinton referenced party unity and congratulated Obama on the race he had run, but she did not acknowledge him formally as the presumptive nominee. Instead, she devoted time to summarizing her campaign, emphasizing the nearly 18 million people who voted for her, and repeating health care as a policy priority. Speaking frequently in the past tense, the pitch seemed to confirm chatter that she could be angling for a cabinet position in an Obama administration, or even the vice president slot. In fact, it was reported that, earlier in the day, she had told lawmakers that the race was over and that she would consider the number two job.

“This has been a long campaign,” Clinton finally ventured at 16 minutes into her speech, “and I will be making no decisions tonight.” She concluded by saying she plans to seek the guidance of supporters and party leaders in the coming days as she makes her decision, “with the country’s best interests at heart.”

Some of those counselors might include the crush of elected officials, many of them superdelegates, that joined her onstage when she finished. The show of support included New York Governor David Paterson, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH), Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, and New York City Councilmember Bill DeBlasio.

Asked for her reaction afterwards on the floor, Congresswoman Maloney offered that peculiar blend of unwavering loyalty dashed with hints of reality that was common throughout the evening.

“She hasn’t made a decision,” Maloney said, adding, “Many of us are going to be for her even after she makes a different decision. I’m supporting her, as long as she’s supporting herself.”

Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe, however, remained resolutely defiant when questioned how he could envision a win in the midst of reports that Obama had effectively already won.

“If I worried about what the press said every night,” he countered, “we would have stopped a couple of months ago. Every time they told Hillary Clinton it was over, she continued to win.”

Indeed, some of Clinton’s fiercest supporters appeal to the issue of what precisely constitutes a win in this historic primary.

“The count is unofficial until the Democratic National Committee certifies this nomination,” said a passionate Ronald Weintraub as the gymnasium was emptying around 10 p.m.

Gay activist Jon Winkelman added, “The DNC’s rules are very specific about what defines a win and what does not define a win. What defines a win is getting 50 percent plus one of the total delegates certified in Denver. Before that, you haven’t won.”

And supposing, as appears likely, that Clinton chooses not to take the contest to the convention in August?

“Obama and his supporters should remember a lot of us are keeping our options open,” said Winkelman.

That potentially worrisome signal for the party echoed 10 blocks south at the Food Emporium in Union Square, where in a checkout line at 11:30 p.m. a woman was spotted holding a flag and sign from the Clinton rally. She identified herself as a native of Puerto Rico who now resides in the Bronx.

Asked whether she would vote for Obama, she replied, “ I will not vote for him. I hate him.” Declining to explain why, she deferred to gender and said, “We need a woman president.”

The question now is, will she and millions of others accept a different outcome?

The Schnorring of America -- Obama is About to End It

Posted by Harkavy at 11:27 AM, June 4, 2008

Are we entering an era of ubuntu?

Barry Obama's apparent victory over Hillary Clinton helps loosen a painful 16-year headlock on Americans.

Practically all that's standing in his way is John McCain. At least McCain is wiser than George W. Bush. But then, who isn't? McCain, however, is a supporter of contining the disastrous Iraq War. But then, who is?

Eight years of the Clintons (horndog/closet conservative Bill and schnorrer/closet conservative Hillary), followed by eight years of momzers (Bush-Cheney). Oy friggin' gevalt!

"Enough already!," the New York Jew part of me says. "Git your goldurn hands offa my neck!," the Oklahoma born-and-raised part of me says.

There's still a lot of unfinished bidness before those icy fingers are finally pried off. The most ominous threat to Obama's chances is the closet racism of many (mostly older) members of the American electorate. The most ominous threat to real change if Obama wins? Hillary.

Word to Obama: Don't appoint Hillary to head your committee to pick a running mate.

The last time that happened, in the summer of 2000, Dick Cheney picked himself as the veep candidate, and he wound up running the government — pulling doofus George W. Bush's strings the way ventriloquist Jeff Dunham operates his woozle named Peanut.

Actually, Bush is more like Melvin, a puppet described by Dunham as "a mild-mannered, no-real-power superhero who wants to save our country from evil."

Hillary wouldn't wind up running the White House if she were a veep in an Obama administration, but she would still have a bully pulpit to schnorr America.

The Yiddish terms "schnorrer" and "momzer" you're wondering about?

A schnorrer is a sponger, living off others, the way Hillary did for years as a governor's wife and even in the White House by accumulating power only because she was Bill's wife. Then she became senator only because of her celebrity as a president's wife and her weak opponent (Rick Lazio). Hubby Bill is the prime post-presidential schnorrer, traveling the world to make speeches and raking in millions by charging as much as $500,000 a pop.

Groucho Marx, also highly paid as the all-time best schnorrer on screen, admitted it in a call-and-response crowd scene song in Animal Crackers (1930):

Strictly speaking, a momzer (or mamzer) is a bastard (literally and figuratively). The OED adds: "Also in extended uses as a term of abuse or familiarity."

Sixteen years of the Clintons and Bush-Cheney? Isn't that enough abuse and familiarity?

Loosely and commonly, a momzer is also a sponger, but more of a mean-spirited one. As the OED (borrowing from the Dictionary of American Slang) puts it: "one who borrows frequently, or who expects much attention and many favors."

Slang aside, the Clintons weren't nearly as destructive of human life as Bush-Cheney have been, but Billary did remove some of the best linchpins of the Democratic Party's New Deal. For example, Billary supported repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. (See my February 2005 item.) Thanks to that repeal, banks could acquire subprime lenders and form conglomerates that, as we see now, are tanking.

And thanks to the Telecommunications Act, also during the Clinton reign, further media consolidation was guaranteed.

Last but not least harmful, Hillary Clinton's health-care "reform" task force, early in the Clintons' reign, was a disaster.

The former First Lady of Wal-Mart (see my May 23, 2000 story during Hillary's first Senate race) and corporate litigator in Arkansas, she litigated on behalf of corporate America against Americans immediately after the Clintons moved into the White House by taking national health insurance, the single-payer type, off the table, much to the dismay of some key supporters.

And she ran the task force is the same secretive, corporate-friendly way that Dick Cheney later ran the energy task force when the Bush regime took over the White House.

Other than keeping Hillary off the Democratic ticket, Obama would be well-advised to follow the lead of Glenn "Doc" Rivers, the coach of the Boston Celtics, who are getting ready to face the Los Angeles Lakers in the NBA finals.

Rivers has apparently instilled the African philosophy of ubuntu into his Celtics in an attempt to shape unity. In its short form politically, as a Wiki entry puts it, "the concept of ubuntu is used to emphasize the need for unity or consensus in decision-making, as well as the need for a suitably humanitarian ethic to inform those decisions."

"Ubuntu" as a philosophy outside of basketball generally means "humanity toward others," as even a definition of the word now widely used in the high-tech world notes.

The Wiki entry on the philosophy of ubuntu, as opposed to the high-tech world's use of the term, leans on Stanlake J. W. T. Samkange's description of "the three maxims of Hunhuism or Ubuntuism which shape this philosophy":

Bill Clinton paid lip service to "ubuntu" in a 2006 speech in England, but lip service was all it was. He was actually being his usual schnorrer self, making one of his highly paid speeches that helped fund Hillary's futile presidential bid.

When you think of someone like Obama replacing Bush and Billary, think of Linux replacing Windows.

Ubuntu first entered the Western world lexicon as the name of the most easily accessible version of Linux, the computer operating system that provides a fresh, clean change from Windows.

As a philosophy both in the high-tech world and in society as a whole, ubuntu stands for open-source relations among people. And Obama presents the possibility of, as a major example, a major change in race relations.

That's the kind of operating system that people hope for from Obama.

This item was cross-posted from the Bush Beat blog.

Bill Maher on Obama, Clinton and McCain

Posted by Eudie Pak at 4:27 PM, June 2, 2008

If you didn’t catch Bill Maher’s political diatribes at the New Jersey Performing Arts Center last Friday night, here are a few memorable lines:

On whichever of the three candidates—Obama, Clinton, McCain—becomes president:

“Either way, it’ll be a victory for the minority—either for blacks, women, or the undead.”

On Hillary’s refusal to step down in the primary race:

“She is just that birthday candle that just won’t blow out.”

On the two presumptive presidential contenders—Obama and McCain:

“Well, at least you’ll have a clear choice—bi-racial [or] bi-centennial. Hip hop [or] hip pops.”

On Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney’s scathing exchanges during the Republican primary debates:

“It’s like a Halloween costume talking to a mannequin.”

Bob Barr: Libertarian Presidential Hopeful on Barack, Borat, and Spoiling For McCain

Posted by John DeSio at 5:45 PM, May 9, 2008

As Hillary Clinton clings to the almost mathematically impossible dream that she can be the Democratic nominee, it's becoming increasingly clear that November’s general election match-up will pit Barack Obama against John McCain.

While Democrats worry that Ralph Nader could, yet again, take votes from their nominee, Republicans might also be concerned about former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, the front-runner to be Libertarian Party’s nominee. A real right-wing stalwart, could Barr play McCain’s spoiler?

Village Voice: The Libertarian Party is supportive of legalizing same-sex marriage, legalizing currently illegal drugs and keeping abortion legal. You were a sponsor of the “Defense of Marriage Act” and you had a 100 percent rating from the Christian Coalition when you served as a congressman. How do you square those positions with your current involvement in the Libertarian Party?

Bob Barr: Of course, many of the positions that I took in the Congress and that I take now are based on the principle of federalism, which is certainly a libertarian position. It used to be a position reflective of the Republican Party but obviously is not longer a part of the Republican platform. So, for example, regarding the “Defense of Marriage Act,” the fundamental, operative provisions of the “Defense of Marriage Act” say that each state makes up its own mind. I think that’s a fundamentally sound, libertarian-oriented position on federalism. With regard to drug usage similarly, these are issues in my view that ought to be left up to the states, based on the principles of federalism.

With regard to the Christian Coalition I have no idea what my positions, how they would rank them or not. But one thing that I have done, and I’ve explained this on a number of occasions to libertarian groups and other groups, and that is that since 9/11 the threat to our liberty and our basic right to privacy has become so pronounced that it truly has caused me to go back and take a look at the degree to which in previous years I was willing to accept, perhaps, a great deal more government control in certain areas because we did have a sort of residual of freedom and liberty in other areas. That no longer is the case. We have an administration in Washington that claims the power to inquire into virtually every aspect of our lives without court order. Where you have an administration that believes it does not have to abide by the law, where you have an administration that believes that the most fundamental provisions of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights have to give way to executive branch power, clearly something has changed. And that has caused me to go back and really take a long, hard look at some areas where I was willing previously to give the government the benefit of the doubt and conclude that we can no longer afford to do that because there is so little freedom left. We have to hang out every incremental piece that we can and start rolling back the government intrusions in a number of different areas.

VV: So, if different states legalized drugs, or legalized same-sex marriage, it wouldn’t be a problem for you, just so long as it was not at a federal level?

BB: Yes. I believe that those are precisely the type of issues that ought to be up to the voters of the states. There may very well be some aspects of those laws that do bring them within certain aspects of federal jurisdiction, but fundamentally those are states rights issues.

VV: Going back to privacy issues, what is your take on the “Telecom Immunity Bill?”

BB: I see no reason to grant a category of commercial enterprises in this country immunity for violating the law. I think it is a slippery slope and a very dangerous precedent that the government would set by doing that. And it’s unnecessary. If a company receives a directive or a request from an administration that it believes may very well violate a federal law then they have an obligation to tell that to the government and to refuse to violate the law. If they choose, voluntarily, to violate the law as some bureaucrat has told them, then they need to suffer the consequences. They should not be granted retroactive immunity.

VV: Your campaign recently sent out a press release highlighting a seven percent showing in a poll your own campaign commissioned. Have you been getting complaints from some of your former Republican allies that you could hurt John McCain in November?

BB: There have been some. I’ve heard from some Republicans to that effect. I would not enter this race for president to be a spoiler or to take votes from McCain anymore than I presume that his goal would not be to take votes from me. That may happen, on either side of the equation. It may just as well happen if I were to enter the race that I would take votes from whoever the Democrat nominee is, based on my civil liberties positions and the right to privacy. This notion that seems to prevail among the two major parties in recent election cycles, including this one, that somebody that gets in on your side of the ideological spectrum should not do so because it might draw votes from you I think is on one hand terribly arrogant. Neither of the two major parties has a right to exclusivity on the ballot. And I’m not sure its valid at all. The votes that I suspect I would garner if I got into the race would more likely than not be voters that had no intention of voting for Senator McCain anyway.

VV: Let’s say you win. What’s your plan to deal with the situation in Iraq?

BB: My plan for Iraq is to signal immediately to the Iraqi government that they are going to have to start taking responsibility for their own security, their own economy, their own political development. That I, unlike President Bush but like candidate Bush, do not believe the responsibility of the United States government and military is to nation build and it is not to occupy foreign nations. And we will begin immediately a withdrawal. I would not set a timetable, I don’t believe in telling your adversaries when you’re going to do certain things, I think that’s foolhardy and irresponsible. But I do believe that the only way to very clearly let the Iraqi government know that no longer are the American taxpayers going to foot the bill for the management of their country is to start withdrawing. There’s no need, I believe, if our posture is truly defensive, to keep 160,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. I think that can be reduced beginning immediately if I were to be president. That would also signal to the American people that a Barr presidency takes seriously the responsibility of the American taxpayer. Their dollars should be valued much more wisely than they are now. That their tax dollars, to the greatest extent possible, should remain in their pockets so that they can improve the quality of their lives and not worry about the quality of lives of people in some far away land.

VV: We have a presumptive Democratic nominee in Barack Obama. What are your thoughts on him?

BB: He is a very charismatic candidate. He has done phenomenally well and poses a very, very serious threat to the Republican nominee. As a substantive candidate I’m far less impressed with him then as a rhetorical candidate. He delivers a good speech but there really does not seem to be a great deal of substance behind the rhetoric. I’m also concerned that his voting record in both elective capacities that he served in, at the state level and the federal level, indicate a very clear predisposition to increased, not decreasing, the size of government.

VV: When you talk about decreasing the size of government, are their any particular agencies or departments that you would specifically target immediately?

BB: As president, there are certain areas where the president, himself or herself, can set the example. There certainly are limitations on that because appropriated funds, if signed into law by a president, cannot simply be ignored. But there are certain expenditure of administrative funds that the administration has control over. I think its important for a president to set that as an example from the top down in terms of going to the Congress to start affecting the return of the government to the people. I would start pretty much where Ronald Reagan did, and that is with those agencies like the Department of Justice, for which there is no constitutional or federal policy justification at all for the existence of the agency. I would look very carefully at agencies like the Department of Energy, which if there indeed are, as there are some, legitimate federal functions for a Department of Energy, such as maintaining national security energy stockpiles and facilities that can be much more efficiently and less costly maintained by the Department of Defense.

VV: Do you think you’re in the position to build on some of the momentum that Congressman Ron Paul created during his run in the Republican presidential primary, where he drew a different kind of voter to his campaign? Would a Ron Paul voter be more inclined to vote for you than McCain?

BB: I think so. What Ron Paul, during the time he was an active candidate in the Republican primary, tapped into indicates to me that in which the same way that Senator Obama has tapped into on the Democrats’ side, is a very real phenomenon. It indicates to me that there are a lot of people out there, and I think this is reflected in that preliminary poll that we did also, who are now willing to support new, nontraditional candidates, even to the extent of supporting and considering candidates from third parties. This is the result, at least in part I think, of the large number of young people that are now either by choice or age entering the political marketplace, so to speak. I think it’s the result of seven and a half years of an administration that has been filled with very inherent contradictions. Virtually everything that candidate Bush said is different from what President Bush has done. That, I think, has left a very clear impression on people. The tremendous cost of government, especially in Iraq, I think is finally hitting home to the American people as they face a situation where their standard of living is dropping the standard of living in the government is not,

VV: How would you push back against the recession?

BB: Certainly not by moving to create and implement an entirely new regulatory overlay on the economy, which seems to be the direction both parties are going into to different extents, but certainly in the same direction. We don’t need another “one size fits all” regulatory mechanism for the mortgage industry, similar to what we recently put in place on corporate entities through Sarbanes-Oxley, for example. I would not move in the direction of increasing the regulatory reach of the federal government to investment houses, for example, and mortgage brokers. The lessons that we’ve seen in recent years and in recent decades do not lend themselves to solving problems in the economy by more regulation and more federal government. To the extent that we can what we should start doing is cutting back on federal spending, reducing taxes, returning that money to the taxpayers themselves.

VV: And finally, how often do you get recognized from the Borat movie?

BB: It’s hard to say whether people recognize me from that or simply from something else. But it still does surface, not as much as it did a year, year and a half ago when it first came out. Every once in a while somebody will mention it but mostly nowadays it’s for more political reasons.

VV: Do you have a good sense of humor about it?

BB: Hell yeah! If you can’t have a good sense of humor about this business, the way I look at it, you have no business being in politics.

Two Uncommitted NY Superdelegates: We Need a June Decision

Posted by Julie Bolcer at 5:00 PM, April 22, 2008

Sometimes, it pays to bring up the rear. As Pennsylvania Democrats finally vote in their long-hyped presidential primary today, the results could affect the opinions of uncommitted superdelegates more than they impact the numbers of pledged delegates actually won through the primary.

Last night, on the eve of today’s potentially decisive contest, two uncommitted supderdelegates spoke at a panel in Midtown moderated by NBC News’ political director, Chuck Todd, and sponsored by the organization, Democratic Leadership for the 21st Century.

Although Ralph Dawson, a Democratic National Committee member from New York, and Andy Tobias, the DNC treasurer, did not betray their preferences, they depicted a tortured process in which undecided superdelegates have been grappling with their sense of what’s best for the party, the elusive will of the people, and the swiftly approaching reality of the general election scheduled for November 4.

Counts vary depending on the media outlet, but some recent tallies suggest that at least 300 of the 794 superdelegates remain uncommitted to either Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton or Senator Barack Obama. In contrast to pledged delegates won in caucuses and primaries, the superdelegates, who mostly are current or former Democratic party leaders and elected officials, may support any candidate for the nomination. They comprise about 20 percent of the total Democratic delegates, and their role has been intensely scrutinized because of the tight battle for the nomination.

In between speculation about that dream ticket last night, both Dawson and Tobias made one point indisputably concrete: for the good of everyone on the planet, the Democratic contest needs to wrap up in June.

“We’ve got to get this done by the end of June,” said Dawson, one of three uncommitted superdelegates from New York. “If we go past June, we could have a serious problem in putting together a convention that is helpful for the nominee.”

Dawson, a member of the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws and Credentials committees, is also the author of the resolution that stripped Florida and Michigan of their convention delegates for holding early primaries.

Tobias, a superdelegate from Florida whose DNC treasurer position precludes him from taking sides, agreed that the discussion should not continue much beyond the final primaries in Montana and South Dakota on June 3.

“It’s in everybody’s interest to decide sooner,” Tobias said. Considering the damage of a drawn-out debate, he commented, “That’s giving ourselves such a handicap, and for what? I think we’re going to be done by the middle of June, if not before.”

Tobias also suggested some not particularly surprising guidelines for how undecided superdelegates might make their decision. He offered that superdelegates would want to assess whether one candidate has a significantly better chance of beating presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, and whether one or the other would make a substantially better president.

Then again, maybe these are points that Democrats, seemingly experts at self-implosion, do need to hear repeated.

However, at least one member of the audience argued for the benefits of an extended brawl.

“Why don’t you let it go to the convention?” asked Lou Gordon, comparing the prospect of a heated Democratic matchup in Denver to a late summer contest between the Yankees and the Red Sox. “Let people have interest in what’s going on. You might actually get TV ratings,” he said.

“As a practical matter,” Dawson countered, “you want to get interest in the nominee.”

Of course, he declined to say who he thinks that should be.

Illinois Passes Presidential National Popular Vote Bill

Posted by John DeSio at 6:15 PM, April 9, 2008

Though a bill that would bind New York’s votes in the Electoral College to the winner of the presidential popular vote has not moved in Albany, Illinois is the latest state to embrace an idea that has the potential to reshape the way we choose our president.

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich signed a law earlier this week that will require Illinois to elect the president using the National Popular Vote. The move, which has won approval in New Jersey and Maryland, would prevent a repeat of the 2000 presidential election should it be approved in all 50 states.

Illinois is the 16th state to pass such a bill. In 2000 George W. Bush, despite his defeat in the popular vote to Al Gore by roughly 500,000 votes, was victorious after having won enough states through the Electoral College, including a hotly contested Florida race, to clinch the presidency.

“It is rare that we see such a sweeping reform move so swiftly,” said Common Cause President Bob Edgar, whose organization is a driving force behind the legislation. “Legislators are clearly picking up that citizens want every vote to count equally for president and that the candidate who gets the most votes should win.”

Souvenirs and Slime: Inside the Greatest Collection of Presidential Campaign Memorabilia

Posted by Duncan Meisel at 1:00 PM, April 8, 2008

A lawyer and a close friend of John McCain, Jordan Wright has been collecting the merchandising detritus of presidential campaigns for five decades. Those stickers, signs, and (most importantly) buttons that Oval Office aspirants produce to woo Americans might seem like mere ephemera, but the items often last longer than campaign promises. In his years of collecting, which started at the age of 10 in Manhattan, Wright has amassed more than a million pieces of campaign memorabilia: items from the first George W. to today’s less-heralded version. This summer Wright’s collection will be the main exhibit at the Museum of the City of New York, and will be on display from June through Election Day. A few weeks ago, the Voice had a chance to talk with Wright, who is the author of the new book Campaigning for President: Memorabilia from the Nation’s Finest Private Collection. Click here for a gallery of images from the collection.

Village Voice::This is a really interesting book, and is an exhaustive collection. How did you get started in all this — it had to do with Bobby Kennedy, yes?

Jordan Wright: Yeah, in 1968 Bobby Kennedy was running for president and I was 10 years old. I come from a very apolitical family, and in '68, the Vietnam War was raging, the civil rights movement was happening, the environmental movement was starting, and I could not get a conversation at home on these subjects. The straw that broke the camels back was that one day my dad came home with the evening Post, and said that “King’s been shot,” and I didn’t know we had a King. (But of course he was referring to Martin Luther King) So, one day coming home from school I got off at the wrong stop to stop at Bobby Kennedy’s headquarters next to Tony’s Pizzeria, and there they were talking about all things I was interested in, and as added bonus when I left, they gave me buttons. So I kept coming back. After a while, it occurred me that if Bobby Kennedy was giving out buttons, Hubert Humphrey was, Richard Nixon was, and I roamed around the city going from headquarters to headquarters picking up buttons.

VV: What I enjoy most about the book is seeing the transformations — how we’ve gone from woodcut broadsheets to this very party-line patriotic red-white-blue motif on everything. What do you think has changed the most about campaigning and campaign materials?

JW: The first thing to note is that things haven’t changed — the button, which is the standard bearer of all political material, was around with George Washington. There was a vendor that created a brass button, that said ‘Long Live the President’ as we would say: ‘Long live the Queen’ — it had the 13 states around the edge and Washington’s face in the center. Washington saw them and bought 11, and had the buttons from his coat replaced with them to wear for his swearing in. Buttons today look different but it’s the same concept. There’s been one change which is a mystery to me. In 1820s, with Andrew Jackson, they had backwards buttons, with the candidate’s name printed on the back. They had to be turned around (which is hard), to see that they supported Andrew Jackson, or whoever. It was strange — you had to get close to someone and ask “Can I touch your jacket?” to see their support.

Another thing is campaigns — people are so convinced campaigning has become so negative — there’s the comment from Ferrarro which is racist, stuff about the Clinton’s marriage, Giuliani and his son… but in first part of book, there is a picture of a one-foot China doll of McKinley with his suit that is made up of the American flag draped around him. And this China doll, when you turn upside down, you see this African American baby. [Note: McKinley was rumored to have fathered a child out of wedlock, and this was supposed to be a helpful reminder from his opponents of the rumors]

VV: That’s pretty much what happened to McCain in 2000 in South Carolina…

JW: Exactly, but we didn’t have anything concrete from that — here you have 3-D evidence. In all fairness the Republicans were not innocent. William Jennings Bryan, McKinley’s opponent — he’s famous now for the “Cross of Gold” speech – but then he was famous for giving speeches went on too long, and you had coffins that say ‘this child — ’ or ‘This man was talked to death’ given out by the Republicans.

VV: I have another question about the history of campaigning. Who had the best or most iconic stuff — is there anything that sticks out in your mind? For me, it looked like Teddy Roosevelt had the most interesting items, with his glasses, the teeth, the bear…

JW: I think you’re right to pick out Teddy Roosevelt, he was an important figure for long time, and had a lot to play off of — his teeth that were a whistle; he also handed out paper sheets you could cut out and wear as a mask. Can you imagine a Hillary mask that she would give out at the convention?

Another thing sticks out for me — in 1972, my family was split for first time down middle between Nixon and McGovern. One night, we had a large family dinner, and my father went around the table and asked everyone who they would vote for if there were an adult, or if they were a kid, who they were supporting. I had an uncle Nat, who kept avoiding father, finding something else to do — and my father, to this day, it is unwise to avoid him, it’s just better to get it out quick soon, because avoiding him only makes him more prosecutorial. My dad finally says, “just say it already, no one here is going to judge you, we’re split down the middle,” and my Uncle Nat got up and said in strongest voice possible: “I plan to vote for Gus Hall and Angela Davis of the Communist Party. I’ve voted communist my entire life” Earlier in the book, you can see a button for Eugene Debs that has his prisoner number on it [note: Debs was the first and only candidate to ever run from a jail cell — he was imprisoned for organizing an now-legal railroad server’s union]. Uncle Nat gave me the button with the prisoner number on it, which perhaps explains why my uncle Nat had such a hard career — he apparently wore this button and others like it regularly, which you can imagine was quite unpopular at the time.

VV: I think your story that begins with Bobby Kennedy is really interesting, particularly this year with the comparisons Obama has been getting to Bobby, JFK, MLK… do you see any really good items or interesting stuff in this year’s election?

JW: Harper Collins has me on book tour – I’ve gotten to go to all the primary states and others too. Let me tell you about my three favorite items.

No. 1 In New Hampshire, I got to go to the Rudy Giuliani boutique. Now, ‘boutique’ is a strange word – ladies run out and go to boutique, its not what you typically see at a campaign headquarters. So I go to the ‘boutique,’ and I bought a onesie. Do you know what a onesie is? It’s for newborns — a cotton one piece says “Rudy ‘08” on it. That’s pretty strange. How early do we want our child in psychoanalysis?

No. 2 – I’m in Des Moines, and it turns out Hillary Clinton also has boutique there. Now, the thing that catches my eye is piggy bank – I think “Isn’t that great? When I was kid, I had a piggy bank, and it taught be to save money.” But it says Hillary '08 on the side. Now, one thing everyone can agree about Clintons is that they are a money machine. And I think: “Is this another way of raising contributions?”

No. 3 –So, I’m on everyone’s list, people send me stuff all the time. When Bill Richardson dropped out of the race, he had already opened a political headquarters in Vegas, and I got sent a box with all sorts of stuff in it. The box had typical items — bumper stickers, buttons, signs — but my absolute favorite was a "Bill Richardson in ‘08" thong. How important is the stripper vote really?

I want to talk you about another myth that’s right now all over papers and TV — people talk as if money only now started play role in politics. In 1896, McKinley refused leave his front porch to campaign — if wanted to hear the President speak had to go to front porch of his house. Imagine that today — would anyone show up in Chappaqua? He had a good friend (and everyone should have a friend like this), named Mark Hanna, who was big in Ohio industry. He went around country raising money, eventually raising 3 million dollars. In 1896, this was a phenomenal sum. The deal was, if you gave money to Hannah and this fund, you never had to ask for an appointment to see the president. You could just go to the White House and say “Hey, I’m Duncan, I gave money to the fund, and I’m here to see the President.” In the book there’s an item — it shows a bicycle with McKinley and [running mate] Hobart on the wheels, but driving the bike is the money man himself — and I think that says it all.

VV: Now, I don’t know if this is just me, but I never really see anyone just around town wearing presidential memorabilia. Who actually uses this stuff?

JW: For most of our history, we were a pre-literate society. Candidates had to come up with things that caught peoples’ eyes that were creative and made people want to vote. In 1892 Cleveland was running against Harrison — and he gave out mini mugs, about a quarter inch high. Cleveland gave whiskey parties, people got drunk, and after you’d put this whiskey mug in your pocket and people would say “I’ll vote for Cleveland, he got me drunk.” This is hardly issue-focused, but it did the job.

Now, Jimmy Carter, when he got in financial trouble, cut expenses by cutting buttons from his campaign materials, and the number of volunteers dropped off precipitously. A lot of buttons are made as mementos. People will say “Obama’s campaign is historic, I want a memento.” Same with Clinton. “I think McCain’s a war hero, I want something with his picture on it.”
There’s an interesting picture on the front of the book. The 1890’s had a button with billowing smoke from a factory — this was supposed to indicate prosperity. Can you imagine any candidate doing this today? We have completely changed our minds about what is acceptable.

VV: Tell me more about the museum you are establishing.

JW: On June 24th, there’s going to be an exhibition of 700 items at City Museum of New York. It should be very exciting — it’s a lot of stuff in the book, but it will also highlight the special role New York has played in presidential politics. Here’s one story that comes to mind. I was writing about Al Smith last night because of all the firsts this campaign, and he was the first Catholic to run for president. In response Hoover put out “Real Christian for President” type buttons — as if Catholics are not Christians. There was a rumor that when Smith was Governor [of New York], he used to go to the Holland Tunnel, supposedly going straight to the Vatican, and get his instruction from the Pope. Anyone in New York knows the Holland Tunnel does not go anywhere as interesting as Rome — so clearly only people not in New York would believe this.

I’ve given my collection to the Museum of Democracy. I’ve given over 1.25 million items, and the mayor is helping to find a spot, and we’ve got a few in mind. I want children and adults to see the long history of democracy, to see what it took to get people voting. With this election, it’s neat to see lot of people involved, but up to this year the trend was the opposite, with fewer and fewer involved in voting. I think if people could see the materials, even the negative campaigning, and the creativity that went into getting people involved in democracy, it would be fantastic. Until then, I’m doing other exhibitions around the country — we still haven’t found the perfect spot for a permanent museum.

All this occurred in about 2 years and 2 months. I’ve been collecting for a really long time, but I’ve never thought anyone found it interesting because the only people that saw it were my friends. I happen know John McCain quite well, and one day while having breakfast with him, he just asked “What’s going on with collection?” He insisted: “You have to do museum, and have to do a book.” This all came around real quickly, and it’s really a dream come true. It really is a surprise to me, this was kinda a big secret I had for the longest time, and now they’ve sent me around to all these interesting places. I’m amazed all these people are coming out to see the traveling museum and that people like the book. I was just dead wrong — people find this interesting.

Bloomberg Bows Out Without Apologies

Posted by Tom Robbins at 11:43 AM, February 28, 2008

As mayor and billionaire, Mike Bloomberg never has to apologize for anything. So it's no surprise that his sudden announcement in today's Times that he's really not running for President lacked contrition of any sort.

But he owes us one.

For two years he carried on this ceaseless peekaboo with reporters and the public about his presidential ambitions. "No, I'm not," he said over and over. "Yes he is," whispered his deputies.

Only yesterday, even as his no-go op-ed piece was being distributed around City Hall, there came another of those endless emails, "Your MikeBloomberg.com Alert" as they're dubbed, this one about a new report on illegal guns.

Guns are bad for the city's health, a point Bloomberg has eloquently made (even as he's funded pro-gun Republicans in Albany), so there was no reason why this missive couldn't have been distributed as one more mayoral message from his City Hall office.

But that might have meant it couldn't go to that long list of Bloomy fans around the country, whose support he has been courting since 2005. And since he's been more interested in how these things play in Cedar Rapids than in the South Bronx, he's needed that national platform.

New Yorkers re-elected Bloomberg because he was a competent, no-frills leader they'd come to trust. Instead they got a grandstander who spent more time looking at the polls than the management reports.

We mocked Bloomberg's presidential flirtation earlier this year (President Bloomberg? Voice January 1, 2008). But today we yield to the dean of City Hall reporters, the Post's David Seifman, whose "Shameful shadow campaign deceived the voters," says it all. "Who did he think he was kidding?" writes Seifman.

Penn Jillette on Libertarians, Hillary, Obama, McCain and Bloomberg

Posted by John DeSio at 12:41 PM, February 22, 2008