Bring It On! Election 2008

Honestly, I couldn’t care less if John McCain is a womanizer. If so, that puts him on par with most of his colleagues and many of his fellow citizens. Frankly, if he is, it’s not a predictor of competence and it shouldn’t automatically disqualify a candidate from consideration. Nonetheless, it may make sense to seek an understanding of the behaviors that might accompany an individual’s propensity to engage in such escapades.

I’ve known men that are virtually unable to function without the prospect of a budding relationship…whether married or not. Men of this ilk are prisoners of their prurient pursuits. They are apt to make compromising decisions that jeopardize their existing relationships as well as their own well-being. Money is often no object and they will frequently take unwise and unwarranted risks. Hence, when these individuals are in the throes of their latest interlude, their judgment is not only suspect; it may well be incorrigible.

As I read the accounts of Senator McCain’s involvement with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, I immediately recalled watching an episode of Headliners and Legends chronicling his life. The pursuit of women was a persistent theme of the biography…a pattern not only confirmed by friends of McCain; but also by McCain himself.

In one particular segment of the program, McCain basically states that he and his fellow servicemen were preoccupied with seeking female companionship. While understandable given the circumstances, the manner in which the Senator recounted the story immediately reminded me of my discomfort with his habit of winking at people on the campaign trail. Instinctually, both instances strike me as part and parcel of a persona I might be inclined to suspect is focused on the pursuit of the opposite sex…a behavior set I would equate with a tendency towards objectification.

As the biography progresses, the narrator notes that McCain’s first wife Carol waited patiently for his release from his captors only to see their marriage fall apart as a result of the Senator’s many extramarital dalliances. When asked about that period of time, McCain’s former wife, a victim of a disabling car accident, apparently told others that once her husband turned forty, he decided he wanted to be twenty five again. Hence, he divorced his first wife and soon married his much younger (and wealthy) current wife Cindy.

In the biography, McCain speaks about his affairs and while he accepts blame and acknowledges his actions were inappropriate, he also posits that he was motivated by “selfishness and immaturity”. In my way of thinking, I could entertain giving him the benefit of the doubt had he suggested that his actions may have been a reaction to his years of confinement and the denial it certainly included. To his credit, he refuses to offer that rationale, though it’s possible he did so because it wouldn’t square with his history of womanizing prior to his stint in Vietnam.

Returning to the New York Times report, I was particularly struck by the following excerpt:

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

What troubles me about this revelation is the sense, by his advisors, that the Senator was capable of sabotaging his own campaign. Presumably, the advisors had a good sense of their candidates idiosyncrasies…a fact that seems to have led them to conclude the Senator lacked the proper judgment with regard to romantic involvements. Whether this caution resulted from prior experiences wasn’t revealed…but it isn’t much of a stretch to draw that conclusion given the Senator’s self-confessed track record.

So where does that leave us? Well, as is so often the case with such stories, we’re forced to rely upon the speculations of others. Clearly, the Senator’s history has contained instances of a similar nature and he freely admits as much. Whether he does so to help him arrive at the current straight talking maverick war hero image may never be known…though he wouldn’t be the first public figure to craft a message that masks the actual man. Lastly, he can ill-afford to acknowledge an infidelity or an influence peddling impropriety at this critical juncture in his political life. Such is the nature of the political beast.

Rather than focus on this current assertion, I decided to have a little fun developing my own theory of McCain-ometrics. First, some background facts are needed. In 1965, at the age of 29, McCain married his first wife. In 1979, 14 years later, at the age of 43, McCain began courting his future second wife. In 1980 he left his first wife, who was 2 years his junior, for his new 27 year old wife…17 years younger. Nearly 20 years later, in 1999, at the age of 62, McCain is reported to have become “involved” with a 31 year old woman who was also roughly 31 years younger than he.

So here’s the formula and a riddle. John McCain spends 14 years with his first wife (Carol)…and then finds a new love interest (Cindy in 1979 - 1980)…and then, down the road, in approximately half again more years…minus one…(14 + 7 - 1 = +20 = 1999), he finds Vicki. Simultaneously, he doubles the net age difference between himself and each subsequent (love) interest…going from a baseline of a woman 2 years younger (Carol) to one 17 years younger (Cindy) for a net of 15 additional years younger…which means we must double the 15 year age gap to predict that the subsequent (love) interest would be approximately 30 years younger (Vicki 31, John 62 in 1999). Let’s also assume that John McCain doubles the years he stays married to each wife…plus one…thus 14 years with Carol x 2 + 1 = 29 years with Cindy. As such, he should be due for both a new (love) interest and wife in 2009 (14 + 7 - 1 = +20 plus half again more (minus one) = 20 + 10 - 1 = +29 years…or 2009).

OK, so if one applies this formula, how old would you approximate his new (love) interest and bride to be when he marries her and how many years would you anticipate he’d remain married (assuming he lives that long, of course) to this third wife?

You see, when it comes to the “evil” New York Times, I just hate to think that Republicans would conclude that its tawdry invective can’t be substantiated through a mathematical metric. I know I feel better having put pencil to paper.

P.S. Feel free to offer your answers…or your own equations in the comments. I’ll provide the answer derived from my metric in the comments at the end of the day.

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

…Malaise

Among all Americans, 19% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 77% disapprove. When it comes to Bush’s handling of the economy, 14% approve and 79% disapprove.

Among Americans registered to vote, 18% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 78% disapprove. When it comes to the way Bush is handling the economy, 15% of registered voters approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 79% disapprove. — ARG 

This is what failure on all fronts looks like. America is a county ripe for change. We have been to abyss, watched our talent and treasure heaved down it like so much offal, and realized the taste in our mouths doesn’t just taste like shit, it is shit. This is why Obama will win. Not because he will be a even handed executive, not because he inspires people desperate for a new direction, but because he is inspiring them to participate in the work it will take to climb back out and regroup.

 He wants us to own our redemption.

A source of mine tells me that an Obama fundraiser confided to him that the Obama campaign is on track to raise a startling sum in the month of February:

More than $36 million.

Obama raised $36 million in January, and given his victories and momentum, it makes sense that he’d be on track to exceed that and have his best month ever right now. An Obama spokesperson declined to comment.

Separately, here’s another astonishing statistic: The campaign will soon report that it has enjoyed its millionth donor. — Talking Points Memo

One million Schmoes. One million people deciding, enough.  One million saying, yes WE can. It’s about electing a leader who doesn’t need to be a star, doesn’t have overweening vanity clouding his judgement, one who is content to chart our course and let us get busy. Our country, our democracy, our redemption.

Move over malaise, it smells like American spirit is back in the house. Thank God.

If you’ve been following the news in the past year, you’ve probably noticed how completely useless our new Democratic “leaders” have been. And you were probably wondering: is this something calculated; some sort of sick variation on Good Cop Bad Cop? Or are the Democrats really this timid and scared shitless of their own shadows?

Well, wonder no more. It’s a scam. (Hope you’ll read this whole article by Matt Taibbi; and preferably bookmark it. It’ll piss you off, but we need to know this.) We’ve been had. And with all due respect to that song by The Who, we probably WILL get fooled again. And again and again…

The Democrats have made a conscious decision NOT to focus on getting us out of Iraq. Instead, they’re focusing all of their time and energy on defeating Republicans in the upcoming election. I would’ve thought that getting us out of Iraq (since that was the reason we ELECTED them!) would be the best way to win the ’08 election, but what do I know?

Harry Reid actually came out and said that he can’t fit Iraq into his busy schedule. “Sorry about those 4,000 dead American soldiers. I’ll get back to you on that We have the presidential election. Our time is really squeezed.”

And Nancy Pelosi actually said — this is no joke! — that she’s putting Iraq on hold until 2009, because by then “we’ll have a new president. And I do think at that time we’ll take a fresh look at it.” Whoa! Stand back! She’s planning to “take a fresh look at it.” OOOOOOHHH!!! Talk about somebody who jumps right in there and grabs the bull by the horns.

But the most infuriating thing about this whole charade is the fact that it’s so calculated and devious. They’re pulling the same sleight-of-hand tricks over and over. They don’t want to solve any problems. Fuck no, they want to keep the Iraqi war and all the rest of Bush’s scandals front and center so they can keep campaigning against them. “Goddammit, this time we’re really gonna stand up and say NO to Iraqmire / waterboarding / the Patriot ACT / the Military Commissions Act / telecom immunity…oh darn, we lost again. But by golly we sure tried.”

An aide to one anti-war House member said: “It was all about the public show. Reid and Pelosi would say they were taking this tough stand against Bush, but if you actually looked at what they were sending to a vote, it was like Swiss cheese. Full of holes.”

He also said: “Can you imagine Tom DeLay and Denny Hastert taking no for an answer the way Reid and Pelosi did on Iraq? They’d find a way to get the votes. They’d get it done somehow.”

Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee are two Democrats who are fed up with Reid and Pelosi. Woolsey said: “If we’d been bold the minute we got control of the House — and that’s why we got the majority, because the people of this country wanted us out of Iraq — if we’d been bold, even if we lost the votes, we would have gained our voice.”

The article says: “Before the 2006 elections, Democrats told us we could expect more specifics on their war plans after Election Day…and now they are once again telling us to wait until after an election to see real action to stop the war.” Film at eleven.

Matt Taibbi ends the article with: “Just get it done. Because if you don’t, sooner or later this con is going to run dry. It may not be in ‘08, but it’ll be soon. Even Americans can’t be fooled forever.”

To paraphrase, I can’t define momentum, but I know it when I see it. From Brilliant at Breakfast:

 … it’s clear that there is a coalescing happening around Barack Obama, who according to CNN exit polls yesterday in Virginia won:

• 90% of black voters
  
• 75% of those under age 30
  
• 67% of those under age 45
  
• 52% of those over age 60 (so much for the oldsters keeping the nomination away from him, eh?)
  
• 50% of white voters
  
• 59% of women
  
• 61% of union households
  
• 65% of those making less than $50,000/year

Latinos aren’t on the list because CNN didn’t poll them, but damn — looks like every other demographic showed up in a big way. The media and the entrenched old guard Dems are getting handed their reality, and it does not reflect their talking points. What’s really funny, is that if they don’t deal, we’ll just leave them behind. We are bigger, mouthier and more motivated. God, what a buzz.

This is a snapshot of Americans taking America back. This is what appeal across social, economic and race boundaries looks like. Unity is more than a word, it’s a mindset. It order to have it, you have to want it. In order to want it, you get yourself up and make it happen.

We are volunteers for America.

The man who held that position was of course John Edwards. His message was clear: there are two America’s. With prices rising for almost everything and wages stagnating for years now, the time was ripe for a populist candidate within the Democratic Party and Edwards proudly filled that role.

Barack Obama would logically have a hard time filling that role. If he did attempt to put out a populist message, the MSM would most likely label him “the black candidate”. The Clinton’s already did that in South Carolina..thankfully it back-fired on them. I have been waiting to see if Obama would grab the populist mantel in spite of the pitfalls that stood in his way. As Manning Marable, a Columbia University history professor stated:

“That’s because once Obama parroted Edwards’ attacks on greed and inequality, he would “be stigmatized as a candidate mobilizing race,” David Sirota adds: That is, the media would immediately portray him as another Jesse Jackson — a figure whose progressivism has been (unfairly) depicted as racial politics anathema to white swing voters.

Sirota’s piece addresses the pitfalls that a populist message would create for Obama with the press and with the Clinton campaign:

Remember, this is always how power-challenging African-Americans are marginalized. The establishment cites a black leader’s race- and class-unifying populism as supposed proof of his or her radical, race-centric views. An extreme example of this came from the FBI, which labeled Martin Luther King Jr. “the most dangerous man in America” for talking about poverty. More typical is the attitude exemplified by Joe Klein’s 2006 Time magazine column. He called progressive Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., “an African American of a certain age and ideology, easily stereotyped” and “one of the ancient band of left-liberals who grew up in the angry hothouse of inner-city, racial-preference politics.”

Well, I am here to say that Tuesday night in Madison, WI Obama finally hit a populist note. From his speech:

It’s a game where lobbyists write check after check and Exxon turns record profits, while you pay the price at the pump, and our planet is put at risk. That’s what happens when lobbyists set the agenda, and that’s why they won’t drown out your voices anymore when I am President of the United States of America

It’s a game where trade deals like NAFTA ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart. That’s what happens when the American worker doesn’t have a voice at the negotiating table, when leaders change their positions on trade with the politics of the moment, and that’s why we need a President who will listen to Main Street – not just Wall Street; a President who will stand with workers not just when it’s easy, but when it’s hard.

Obama is now officially the front-runner. He needs to go after Hillary’s base of support; The blue-collar workers, the folks making under 50k a year, retirees, older women, immigrants and even white collar workers. Obama is also now taking aim at John “weathervane’ McCain as well he should:

John McCain is an American hero. We honor his service to our nation. But his priorities don’t address the real problems of the American people, because they are bound to the failed policies of the past.

George Bush won’t be on the ballot this November, but his war and his tax cuts for the wealthy will.

When I am the nominee, I will offer a clear choice. John McCain won’t be able to say that I ever supported this war in Iraq, because I opposed it from the beginning. Senator McCain said the other day that we might be mired for a hundred years in Iraq, which is reason enough to not give him four years in the White House.

He needs to remind people of NAFTA and its consequences, like he did tonight in Madison. He sounded confident and today he is supposed to deliver a major policy address. I will watch and listen to him and what he says and doesn’t say.

Because this time around..I want to vote for someone, not just for the lesser of two mediocre evils. If I don’t hear what I need to hear from Obama, it will just be another Presidential Election where one of my felines gets my vote, as was the case with John Kerry. For me, this Presidential election isn’t about race or gender..its about who is delivering the populist message that we can no longer tolerate ‘two America’s’ which is represented by the growing economic inequality in our nation. Obama got my attention when he returned campaign contributions from lobbyists. I hope he gets my vote by addressing the problems that affect hard-working Americans on a daily basis and ending the war in Iraq as soon as humanly possible.

I don’t want just rhetoric..I want substance. He will need to not only address the issues, he will need to tell me how he plans to fix them and pay for them. He has the style and he is a mesmerizing speaker..but for my vote he will need much more than that.