The Porter Bureau

Like the rest of the US, I’m a bit flummoxed with John McCain’s pick for Vice Presidential running mate. At first brush, Palin seems like the worst kind of pandering. Not only did McCain pick her to try and appeal to disaffected Clinton supporters, but also to shore up his base which is uncomfortable with his history of “crossing party lines.” Both groups, women and the far right, were meant to be persuaded by this choice. The problem is, the notion that women will vote for a ticket that is antithetical to their most deeply held beliefs (equal pay, right to an abortion, etc.) simply because there is a woman on the ticket is, in a word, offensive. I think those skalliwags at The Daily Show got it right. (While very honest and I think accurate, this clip is a bit crass, though still PG).

So unless McCain is simply delusional and thinks that he really will draw Clinton supporters with Palin on the ticket, why would he pick Palin? I think he did so for two reasons. First, Palin is the anti-Dick Cheney. Where Bush selected Cheney to fill out his ticket’s political resume, McCain needs no such help. Palin, at least in appearances, seems to be the polar opposite of the powerful, patriarchal, insider “man behind the curtain.” More than simply not looking like Cheney, in choosing Palin, McCain says to voters, “Unlike Bush, I don’t ask anyone else to do my thinking for me. I am my own man–I don’t need to shore up my ticket’s resume.” Many have wondered through this election how McCain was going to distance himself from Bush (not an easy task given his voting record) without simply coming out and disavowing him. Well, choosing Palin is laced with subtle signals that differentiate McCain from Bush.

Secondly, choosing Palin is an interesting shell game. I don’t mean to be disrespectful to Palin, who I am trying to hold off judgment on till at least the VP debate, but there are two very distinct and contradictory messages being sent by her selection. See, the US at large has no idea who Palin is, and rightly so–she is has no national political exposure and is the governor of a remote and sparsely populated state. All that we see is the headline: “McCain chooses woman as a running mate.” Wow, I mean WOW! Could you define “maverick” in any better way? McCain chooses a woman instead of any number of “rich old white guys” to be his running mate. This is the shell the US at large looks under. However, Palin is well known to the right-wing of the Republican party. She is a star on the conservative talk show circuit, and the Republican base is very aware of her. Further, she is so conservative that she makes McCain look like a New Dealer. This is the shell that the GOP looks under.

So though Palin may be completely unprepared to be president of the United States, and she may have little chance of securing female votes, she is in an odd way the perfect political pick for John McCain. In one fell swoop she allows him to distance himself from the Bush-Cheney area and at the same time reinforced his Maverick image for independents while appeasing his conservative base. I hate to say it, but I’m impressed. I don’t know how he’d be as president, but I bet you that John McCain is one hell of a poker player.

Of course, now that he’s dealt himself his own hand, he’d better hope that she’s a Queen, not a Quayle.

a

As I wrote in my last post, a political convention serves very little long term purpose. The cheering partisans all feel elated in the moment, confident of victory and sure of their candidate’s qualifications to be president. Next week, the Republicans will leave their convention feeling just as sure of themselves as the Democrats do today. So my obvious partisanship aside, what can you really take from this convention? No, the capacity crowd at Mile High Stadium does not translate into broad, nation-wide popular appeal, nor does Obama’s, by most estimates, knock-out speech mean that McCain will be in any way… well, knocked out. That said, I think there will be a few lasting results from this convention that are worth mentioning.

First, this is a very significant moment in our nation’s history. While some may down-play Obama’s race because he was raised by a white mother and white grandparents, there can be no doubt that this was a cathartic moment for Americans. Does it heal all racial wounds and being the long multi-cultural, tossed salad era of American utopia? No, of course not. But few, if anyone, thought that it would. We live in a world of symbols, where meaning is derived from what we see around us, and to see a black man standing on that stage, and God willing in the oval office, is the most potent symbol of racial equality imaginable. Does it reflect the reality? Of course not, but it can pave the way to where the signified can actually match the signifier.

The subtext (or perhaps not-so-subtext) to this convention was unity in the Democratic party. In what has been billed as a modern day War of the Roses, the house of Clinton and the house of Obama have had to find a way to unify into a single political force. As I said before, this was always going to happen. The questions, of course, were to what extent would Bill and Hillary work to unify the party and would Hillary supporters leave the convention fully supporting Obama? With the Clintons’ speeches Tuesday and Wednesday, the roll-call stunt, and tonights rousing final spectacle, there can be little doubt that any delusion of a divided Democratic party is dispelled. Were I a GOP strategist, the one thing that would worry me about this convention is not Obama’s final willingness to hit back against McCain’s negative, Rovian politics, but that the Democrats were so successful at unifying. Those who recall the 2000 and 2004 elections know that Rove thrives on exploiting so-called “wedge issues.” We can be sure McCain will use those in this election to further divide the electorate, but if there was even a hint of division within the DNC coming out of the convention, McCain would be able to exploit those cracks and the Dems would continue their losing ways in November.

While still too early to say for sure, I think Michelle Obama has gone along way to reclaim her image. Her with Barack and their two daughters is just too powerful of an image to combat. Expect Republicans to push every button they can, so her character is not yet safe, but I think the charm offensive worked well and the Republicans will look particular disingenuous and heartless if they try the “the fist bump is actually a terrorist greeting” tripe again.

“Bush… *cough* excuse me, I mean McCain…” Who knows if the “McCain is running for dubuya’s third term” strategy will work, but you have to give the Dems credit for picking a lane and sticking to it. Virtually every major speech highlighted the similarities between McCain and Bush. In fact, I can’t even count the number of times their names were hyphenated together: Bush-Cheney-McCain foreign policy, Bush-McCain energy plan, Bush-McCain voting record, Bush-McCain hot dog stand, etc. As CNN’s John King mentioned after the second night of the convention, we have to remember that the persuadable people in this election are actually a pretty small percentile. I think the Dems will win or lose based on how well they were able to convince that persuadable population that McCain offers “four more years of a failed Bush presidency.”

I fully expect the GOP convention to instill a similar sense of furor in its partisan crowd. However, I don’t think that the Republicans have as many questions to answer about their candidate or their party unity, so I don’t think they stand to gain as much from their convention as the Dems did. I expect that Obama comes out the net winner in the convention round because he’ll have the holdout Hillary supporters back in his corner. But that advantage will do him little good if he doesn’t do well in the debates later in the month.

a

a

Party conventions are usually very pointless exercises. Regardless of which party you’re talking about, they only ever amount to a pep rally. In fact, short of a preacher actually turning his back to his congregation and speaking to the choir, I can’t think of a better example of preaching to the converted. Content matters very little since everyone who leaves the convention will all say the same things: “We’re just so energized,” or “This is one of the most important elections in history, so we really have to get out there and support <insert candidate’s name>,” or my favorite, “U-S-A, Num-ber-1!”

Well, my political leaning not withstanding, this year’s Democratic National Convention has had some truly remarkable moments and has had enough family drama to fuel a season’s worth of Wife Swap. The first night’s family drama began with the Ode to a Dying Dynasty (since Ted Kennedy assured us that he was returning to the senate, I assume that that statement isn’t insensitive). Even though we as Americans are inculcated into the myth and legacy of the Kennedys from an early age, I remain somewhat in awe of what power and tragedy that family has endured over the last half century. They are the quintessential American aristocracy, full of self sacrifice and social consciousness, but oozing power and privilege. What struck me most in Kennedy’s speech and the tribute to him, was just how different the role of a senator is from a president. The skills and talents that make one a great senator–personal communication, ability to compromise, viewing issues in their complexity not simplistically, bi-partisanship, etc. –are not those of a strong president. That’s not to say that a president can’t have those qualities, but they are a bonus, not essential. If Ted Kennedy deserves the laurels that were laid at his feet on Monday, he owes them to his failure to follow in his brothers’ footsteps and become a successful president or presidential candidate.

The second episode of All in my Party was equally intriguing. Michelle Obama spoke in what I believe will be hailed as a singular moment in American history. While Obama may be considered safe to most Americans–as one NPR pundit put it, he is the Cliff Huxtable of American politics–Michelle Obama is not. Though brought about by misguided bigotry and selective quoting, the opposition has been able to pain Mrs. Obama just as The New Yorker portrayed her (i.e. the misguided bigotry):

So, in many ways her speech was more important than Barack’s. While Barack can wow the American electorate with his eloquence and policies, Michelle Obama can only ever sell herself. And, for better or worse, I believe she can only do that by showing herself to be motherly and nonthreatening. In her speech on Monday she certainly showed herself to be motherly: her daughters on the stage with her and the content of her speech continually reinforced her image and role as mother. If she is now nonthreatening to the American electorate is yet to be seen, but I dare any right-wing bigot to try and paint her with the “anti-American” brush they’ve used thus far with her. They’ll do it, but I don’t think it will work after America has seen her on the stage, her two daughters delightfully going off script (in what was otherwise a very contrived moment) as they said goodnight to their dad.

The third episode of All in my Party was, of course, Hillary Clinton’s speech last night. I must say, with very grudging respect, that Hillary is a powerful, powerful orator. I think that she is a candle that has been forced to stand too near the fire her whole public life, first with Bill and now Barack. Ignoring completely the content of her speech, I think she did more for her legacy tonight than anything up to this point in her career. That was an impassioned speech that had rhetorical merit, stinging one-liners, and enough pro-Obama moments to at least let us believe that she is ok with the outcome of the Democratic Primary. The truth is, and everyone knows this, that the so-called Hillary holdouts want to vote for Obama. No ardent Hillary supporter is going to vote for a guy who’s pro-life, even if his commitment to that issue is a recent one brought about by political necessity. They are like the person in a fight who knows the fight is over, who is reconciled to the outcome, and really would just like to get back to normal. But their pride, or sense of how things are supposed to work, won’t let themselves let it go until either sufficient time passes or an act of contrition by their opponent allows them the chance to “forgive” the other’s wrong doing, even if the “wrong doing” is an imagined slight. This forgiveness has nothing to do with who was in the right and who was wrong, they just have to be given the opportunity to absolve the other party in such a way that they feel re-empowered. (So we’re clear, I’m not being sexist, I’m describing how I feel after a fight.) Now that Hillary and her supporters have had their moment of catharsis, look for the overblown divisions between the Obama people and Clinton people to evaporate.

So there you have it, the first two days of the Democratic National Convention. And I must say, that after watching those speeches, I’m just so energized because, after all, this is one of the most important elections in our nation’s history.

The marvel of the interweb has brought Olympic caliber fencing into the homes of millions of Americans!! But, of course, they’re completely oblivious to this fact. Sadly, the most exciting sport that isn’t handball doesn’t get the press coverage of swimming, or even beach volleyball. The reason for this dearth of coverage is clear, American’s just don’t win that many fencing bouts. The Russians, the French, and even the more palatable Italians and Poles dominate this sport.

Well we here at the Porter Bureau want to do our part to help the world (read: America) better understand this exciting sport–a sport, I might add, that actually predates synchronized diving as an Olympic event. So, to further your enjoyment of fencing, here are some tips to help you understand what is going on and why that Chinese judge is speaking in French instead of the true lingua franca: English.

1. There are three weapons, or categories, in Olympic fencing: saber, epee, and foil. In foil, you must hit with the tip of the blade and the target area is the torso. In saber, the target area is also the torso, but you can score a point by hitting with any part of the blade. And in epee, you must hit your opponent with the tip of your blade, but the target area is the entire body. It is important to remember that in none of these events can you score a point by removing your mask and beating your opponent with it–another reason why this sport may not be of interest to Americans.

2. If you can, watch saber. Saber fencers eschew the namby-pamby finessed blade work of foil and simply whack each other over the head with their weapons.

3. After most hits in foil and saber, both fencers will, usually, perform the Tiger Woods fist flex and yell “A’la!!” No fencer, ever, since the beginning of non-lethal sword fighting, has conceded a point. Now, my more literate readers will point out that Laertes famously says in his bout with Hamlet, “a touch, a touch. I do confess.” However, aside from being a fictional event, Laertes’s fained magnanimity was a clue to Hamlet that all was not as it seemed. Why else would he switch blades with Laertes if he didn’t suspect him of foul-play? There is nothing so out-of-joint as a fencer who doesn’t at least pretend to have scored the point.

4. This point is related to number 3. In foil and saber, more often than not both fencers will land an attack on his or her opponent at the same time. In order to determine who is to be awarded the point, judges follow a complicated set of rules to determine “right-of-way.” Instead of going through these tedious rules, I have developed my own scoring system. After every touch in which both lights go off (with electronic equipment, a touch is indicated by a light going off–well, turning on, but you get the point), the fencer who rips off his/her mask the fastest in the thrill of victory gets the point. Style points can also be awarded for fencers who deliver particularly spectacular victory emotations and yet did not in fact score the point–a common occurrence that can also be used in a fencing drinking game.

5. Finally, one last piece of advice for your Olympic fencing viewing pleasure: As in all things, never cheer for the French.

This week John McCain took a page from Bush’s election strategy and started hitting below the bet. Those who were paying attention in 2000 (or subsequently read about it) may recall that McCain was the victim of a brutal character assassination campaign in South Carolina. Back then, mailings full of the most outrageous lies about McCain were mailed to potential voters in the GOP primary. Bush said it wasn’t his campaign doing the attacks, but sat back and reaped the benefits (can’t interfere with 1st amendment and all that). Given this history, you would assume that McCain would do his utmost to run a high-minded campaign in which, as he promised, the candidates debate the issues.

Apparently we would be wrong to assume such. For several weeks now, McCain has been leveling a string of petty ads aimed only at Obama the person. Though sometimes cloaked in off-hand policy issues, these ads serve only to attack Obama’s character and ignore policy in any real way. The worst example, though only one of many, is the “Britney Spears/Paris Hilton” comparison ad. I know politics is a dirty game, but by linking an elected senator to the most vacuous and self-absorbed members of our society, McCain makes the “Swift Boaters for Truth” look like the model of respectful and honest campaigning.

So just when I thought the man I admired in 2000 couldn’t sink any lower, his campaign manager, Rick Davis, came out with this statement: “Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. It’s divisive, negative, shameful and wrong.” Hu, what? Davis was responding to a comment that Obama made saying that the McCain campaign would try to make voters afraid of him, which as we can see from the video above, is 100% accurate. By distracting voters from Obama’s policy differences with McCain, McCain hopes to make this a race about personality, not policy. You know, thinking about it, how desperate must McCain be to choose personality as the field of combat if Obama truly is “the biggest celebrity in the world”? That plan doesn’t say much about whatever else McCain might bring to the table as president.

The press, of course, smelled blood in the water as soon as the word “race” was used, and the results have not been good for McCain. Among the various news outlets, I thought this article from Newsweek was pretty insightful, as well as amusing. Because the statement that the McCain campaign points to as evidence of Obama playing the race card is so benign, this article suggests that we have a new political first: a campaign playing the “playing the race card” card.

Those who watched McCain hammer Romney in the primaries should not be surprised by McCain’s latest tactic. One pundit described this round of attacks as a temper tantrum, not campaigning. It’ll be interesting to see if this kind of politics continues to work as it did for Bush. Nobody, but nobody, does character assassination better than the Bush/Rove republican machine. It’ll be interesting to see if 2000′s victim can be 2008′s beneficiary.