Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
Thanks to all for playing, and feel free to add more, as it's quite likely some of these winners will be found to have used humor-enhancing substances. Ahem.
Today's Friday Talking Points column is a bit more free-form than normal. Very quickly, we will award this week's prizes, and then get on to the heart of the matter -- trying to convince Barack Obama that it's time to get up off the mat, dust yourself off, and throw a few punches. Because although Obama has a commanding lead on the state-wide level, that lead could evaporate quickly under a barrage of slime and mud from the McCain camp. Democrats across the country are holding their collective breath, waiting to see whether Obama will wind up being another Kerry, or wind up being another Bill Clinton. Kerry famously "was above" responding to August attacks. Clinton had a War Room which responded forcefully to attacks (even the true ones -- remember the phrase "bimbo eruption" from the 1992 campaign?) immediately, and within the same news cycle. Kerry, of course, lost. Clinton won.
I have to say, I am slowly seeing signs of the media turning on John McCain. Now, so far, it's a fairly subtle thing -- they haven't started asking him any really tough questions on his policy, his history, or his record, for instance. But they have noticed the change in tone since the Karl Rove people have taken over McCain's campaign strategy. And it's turning them off. They are like Rip Van Winkle waking up from a years-long nap, blinking sleepily and confusedly while wondering "Who is this new John McCain? Where's the straight talker I went to sleep dreaming about?"
Be careful what you wish for, John.
For only the fourth (or fifth, depending on how you count) time in his presidency, George W. Bush had a veto overridden by both houses of Congress this week. This is big news, since it doesn't happen very often.
While plenty has happened in the past two weeks which bears close and careful analysis, I'd like to begin by focusing on one event. Barack Obama announced a masterstroke of political tactics last week, and I don't think everyone has appreciated fully what it is going to mean. I say this not as an "Obamamaniac," or as some starry-eyed follower who has been caught up in his "personality cult," but rather as a political observer (with an admitted left-wing bias) applauding a Democratic candidate on a monumentally brilliant decision.
This column was born out of my frustration with the seeming inability of many Democrats to perform well in the Sunday morning interview shows on television. It's often been said that Democrats have an inherent "herding cats" problem, so I set out to do my tiny part to help.
Anyone who thinks that the treatment Barack Obama has gotten from the media during this campaign is remotely the same as the treatment John McCain has received just has not been paying much attention. Because this pro-McCain prejudice has been both pervasive and unremarked-upon throughout almost the entire news media during the entire campaign season. McCain has even joked that the media is "his base" of support. It was a funny line, but there is an enormous truth at its core: the media has been hard on Obama but unbelievably light on John McCain. And this has to stop. Now. Because the election might just hinge on the media's portrayal of the two, so now is the time to point out the uneven nature of the press coverage to date on the two candidates. In time for the mainstream media to correct itself before the general election season really heats up.
While this week's awards and talking points section largely focuses on what Congress has been up to rather than the presidential campaign, I did want to say it's very heartening to see Barack Obama set up a website to counter the smears that are being circulated about him. These slime-jobs are only going to get worse as the summer progresses, so it's a good thing to see Obama moving to cut them off at their knees. Sure, the people who get these forwarded email attacks probably won't see his site, but the media will have a one-stop shop to refute such attacks, instead of just blindly repeating them on the air (as some of them have been doing).
USA Today (of all places) has a great page on their site where you can play "call the election." It comes complete with electoral maps back to 1960, for reference (warning: Democrats shouldn't click on 1984 or 1972 unless they're sitting down, preferably with a strong drink handy). It starts you off with what they consider "safe" states already marked (their definition: safe states voted the same way in the last four presidential elections), but you can click "all undecided" to start with a clean slate, if you prefer. The good news: their "safe state" starting point starts at 248 Democratic, 135 Republican.