hey obama, get control of your message

way too many people are going off the reservation in the obama campaign.

we’ve had the guy talking to the canadians about nafta. hillary, of course, did the same thing, but that’s not my concern here.

then this samantha power person called hillary a monster and had to resign
.

now we find out that she told the bbc that obama might waffle on the troop withdrawals:

He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator…. You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009…

good lord.

say what you want about hillary (and most of what i say is bad), but at least she and all of her people are rigidly disciplined, on message, and on the same page. even if what they have to say is odious, at least it is coordinated.

obama himself may have pretty good message discipline, but his people are all over the map.

his campaign is starting to look like amateur hour, coinciding with the first real pressure he’s faced as a candidate.

they need to get professional, and fast.

update: mark halperin at time magazine addresses this very subject.

i used my $40 dtv converter box coupon

kirk and i have an hdtv, but it’s an older model and doesn’t have a built-in tuner. it’s just a monitor. so without paying for cable, we’ve never been able to get a television signal. no cable, no signal, no tv. and since we dropped cable about a year ago, the only things we’ve used the tv for was netflix rentals and playing with the wii.

with the upcoming broadcast conversion from analog to digital, the government is providing $40 coupons to buy a converter box. my tv doesn’t have a tuner, so i wasn’t sure if it would work or not. what the hell, right? so i sent off for my $40 coupon, and used it to buy the converter box. total price was $60, so my net cost was $20. i bought an indoor amplified antenna as well, for $40, so total out of pocket expense was about $60, or half the price of one month of cable.

hooked it all up last night. i figured if it didn’t work, i’d take it all back. no harm, no foul.

wow.

it all works brilliantly. not only do i have television, but the converter box has widescreen capability, so the digital picture fills in the entire widescreen. it’s not true hd, but the resolution is just fine — comparable to watching a dvd, probably. and the indoor amplified antenna pulls in 21 stations. some you’ll never watch — there’s one channel that’s just a cam set up in times square, some spanish-language stuff, and what-not, but for a one-time $60 payment i can now watch the networks and other local stations. and there’s great sound coming from my stereo and a great digital picture on my hdtv.

i’m still not going to watch that much tv — i like not knowing who flunked the lie detector when asked questions about their wife, or if i’m smarter than a fifth grader, or whatever. but i can watch the news, and keep up with the election, and whatnot, and that’s a good thing.

thanks, government. you got it right this time.

Barack Hussein Obama…and other Semitically Named American Heroes

a wonderful article investigates, with elegance, erudition, and wit, the origins of barack hussein obama’s name.

from the article:

Now let us take the name “Hussein.” It is from the Semitic word, hasan, meaning “good” or “handsome.” Husayn is the diminutive, affectionate form.

Barack Obama’s middle name is in honor of his grandfather, Hussein, a secular resident of Nairobi. Americans may think of Saddam Hussein when they hear the name, but that is like thinking of Stalin when you hear the name Joseph. There have been lots of Husseins in history, from the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, a hero who touched the historian Gibbon, to King Hussein of Jordan, one of America’s most steadfast allies in the 20th century. The author of the beloved American novel, The Kite Runner, is Khaled Hosseini.

But in Obama’s case, it is just a reference to his grandfather.

this article is a must, must, must read.

msnbc.com completely bites; obama shines anyway

watched the second half of the final debate last night.

didn’t watch the first half, except in stutters, with constant “buffering…please wait” messages flashing across my screen. it’s not my internet access — cnn streamed their two debates to me without a hitch. and when i finally abandoned all hope and went to wonkette.com to read a liveblog of the debate, i found that everyone else in the comment strings was having the same problem.

and the commenters recommended cleveland.com as an alternative, which worked perfectly, and i watched the second half with no hiccups whatsoever.

and as a capper, each time i reloaded msnbc.com’s feed, the prestitial commercial streamed perfectly and then the live coverage didn’t work.

good job there, people. if you are going to heavily promote accessibility to your debates, then make sure you have the bandwidth to do the job. failing that, at least make sure that the audio streams continuously, even if the video drops frames. last night’s feed just froze constantly. it’s always encouraging when the national network is outplanned by the local affiliate. but thanks for all of the commercials. i’ll run out and buy some preparation h, or whatever.

not that the msnbc debate was well-planned anyway. brian williams, and especially tim russert, asked inane and poorly formed questions, and repeatedly got in the way of the candidates and made the event about themselves, and not about the candidates and the issues. here’s how to run a debate: ask a well-thought out question, and shut up while people answer it. at some points, i thought the debate was between tim russert and hillary clinton, or tim russert and barack obama.

and, can we cue up the right video, please? jeebus. that was so unfair to hillary clinton, but both candidates handled it gracefully.

in general, i found clinton to be grating and overly aggressive to no apparent positive point. perhaps her (to me) off-key performance was prompted by the out-of-bounds questioning, but barack seemed to handle the same aggressive questioning with aplomb. that tells me whose cool demeanor i want sitting across the negotiating table from tinpot nutbag dictators.

i keep asking myself if i am watching these debates with a view askew, slanted toward the candidate i am supporting. but every time i approach her with an open mind, clinton just disappoints.

obama is just a cool customer. to me his vision and demeanor trumps purported “experience”.

and the oscar for best score goes to…

jonny greenwood for “there will be blood”?

um, no.

i know. let’s give the oscar to the most cloying and obvious score in recent memory.

honestly. i didn’t think much of atonement. the young girl (saorise ronan) was phenomenal, but the movie itself was badly in need of some editing. i nearly fell asleep while they wandered endlessly around france during world war ii.

but the thing that kept me awake was the score, because every time i started to nod off, there would be that goddamn tap tap tap on the typewriter sprinkled throughout the score, supposedly strategically. this to me is an idea that sounds like it arose in a committee, and should have been rejected. “hey, she’s a writer. what sound can we use symbolically in the score to show she’s a writer?”

can we get more obvious? this is oscar-worthy brilliantly divergent and original thinking?

it’s as if voters purposely picked the worst score, in protest. maybe they did.

all i know is that someday, jonny greenwood is going to be a even more critically acclaimed composer in musical genres other than rock. perhaps he’ll win that oscar someday, for another film.

my advice to him?

don’t waste your time scoring any more hollywood films. they don’t deserve you.

last night’s debate

watched the debate last night, the same way we did last time, since we have no cable tv.

like last time, i liked hillary. she’s intelligent, measured, informed, and projects enthusiasm, power, and competence.

problem for her is, so does obama. two great candidates. and what i’m reminded of is the cycle i went through after the last debate — she impressed me then as well.

and then her campaign kicked in, with all her (to plagiarize a phrase) silly politics. obama plagiarized his speeches, and his wife michelle doesn’t love america, and we’re going to steal his pledged delegates, and what not.

silly.

i liked her a lot after the last debate, and then she (or more accurately, her minions) completely turned me off. if she can’t control her message and campaign in a disciplined and effective manner, why should i believe that her governance will be any better?

ready on day one, indeed. she’s not even ready now to run an organized campaign, after two years of running for this office.

it’s too bad that the discourse of her campaign doesn’t match the level of her personal discourse.

loving me some twin peaks

no not women’s breasts, you boob. i mean twin peaks, the tv show.

kirk is a huge fan of the series, which i missed the first time around. but we’re both big david lynch fans, so i got him the dvd box set at amazon.com. the first season has been available in the u.s. for quite a while, but the second season just came out via this “definitive gold box set”. he had vhs tapes of some of the episodes, but it’s nice to have a complete set all in one place, with everything remastered and modernized and such.

i think i may have watched an episode or two when it was first on, but i think i missed a show or two and then got lost and lost interest. but it’s ideal to have this box set. we’ve been watching a couple of episodes a night, and have gotten through the first [short] season.

i love the pace. it’s so slow and drawn out, which adds to the overall spooky effect. when i was younger and less patient, i probably would have merely thought that this pace was boring — but it’s anything but. and the characters are so interesting. my favorite is audrey, played by sherilynn fenn. what a terrific actress she is.

i never thought i’d care who killed laura palmer, but now i can’t wait to get home each evening to watch the show. if you’ve never seen it, put it in your netflix queue. if you have, time to rediscover it with the benefits of age and experience.

of course, maybe you shouldn’t listen to me. i loved inland empire too, and it made perfect sense to me.

quick question

if the republicans have any real nasty, smoking gun-type dirt on barack obama, why would they save it for a general election? why wouldn’t they get it out there now in hopes of knocking out obama in favor of hillary?

hillary, about whom they have warehouses of dirt to unload. and you know they’d rather run mccain against hillary, who they can (and would) beat, rather than run mccain against obama.

i don’t think there’s a lot of real dirt out there to be had. i think that obama smartly has gotten out ahead of any real nasty revelations. the drugs, the rezko thing, and all.

at least i hope so.

obama: looking back, looking forward

from kos, a great snapshot of where obama stands, how he got there, where the race is probably going, and why we should take a deep breath and appreciate the race lasting a bit longer.

from the article:

Now I know people will be calling for her to quit the race, but I hope she rides it out through Ohio and Texas. I think Ohio needs a good dose of infrastructure building, and this primary will help make that happen. Same with Texas, where a solid ground operation can pave the way for some serious people-powered action in the Senate race with our man Rick Noriega.

It would be great if this thing went to Pennsylvania for the same reason, but I doubt it’ll get that far. I’ll call it right now — baring a major gaffe or disaster, Obama will win both Texas and Ohio and that will be that.

from his lips to god’s ears.

please…make…her…stop

is this hillary’s attempt at mobilizing young voters via viral video?

if so, it’s hard to imagine a more tone-deaf attempt.

if not, the campaign should have had the foresight to not let a camera anywhere near this spectacle. or, indeed, not produce the spectacle in the first place.

i can live with that

so mitt romney is out, which means that john mccain is the republican nominee.

I’ll probably still vote for whoever the democratic nominee is, although if hillary is the nominee i will give mccain a good hard look. if obama is the nominee then there’s no question — he’s my man.

(and to all that vice-presidential talk floated by the clintons to lessen obama’s perceived stature: don’t do it. i don’t want him tainted by them in any way, and anyway, he’d be #3 behind bill)

as someone said to me last night, it’s nice to know all your choices are decent candidates and you are choosing the best from among them, when usually you are holding your nose and picking the best of a bad lot.

there are few issues with which i am in complete agreement with john mccain, but most are moderate enough that i would not drive off a cliff if he were elected. we need a different direction in this country, and he would be different enough for me. he’s certainly a different republican than most we’ve been seeing, and his fical conservatism is right up my alley. god knows that just the fact that he drives right-wingers crazy is enough for me.

for me to actively vote for him, hillary would have to be the nominee, and i’d have to consider whether that fiscal conservatism was enough of a mitigating factor to outweigh his negatives. versus whether hillary’s positives on the issues are enough of a mitigating factor to outweigh what would be four/eight more years of slash-and-burn politics.

still, today, with these particular three little indians remaining standing, i’m pretty optimistic about the future of my country. each of the three has at least something i can like.

not bad after the last eight years of nonsense, i’d say.

mike gravel, i hardly knew ye

voted for barack obama this morning, as i thought i would.

but then, of course, with perfect timing, i later ran across this jezebel.com interview with mike gravel.

i vaguely remember a few digg stories about how well gravel did in early debates. and, like some of the story’s commenters, i once did an online candidate chooser, and his name came up on top along with dennis kucinich. and, much like them, i paid attention to kucinich, ignored gravel, and figured out how closely i agreed with the candidates i was leaning towards. name recognition value, and all.

but damn, is it a shame. gravel makes a lot of sense.

from the article:

What I want us to do is to take our place as an equal in the world and commit to the United Nations and work for world governance and world peace. We now have globalization of the economy; of science; of the ability to destroy the planet; and of the environment. You can’t just turn back time. [Ron Paul is] steeped in that redneck philosophy that we can’t give up sovereignty. I’m suggesting that we move some of that sovereignty away from the nation-state structure and into a world governance structure. We will never have peace on earth until we have global governance. The United Nations is a good charter but it’s not functioning on its charter, it’s become paralyzed and non-functional as states seek to use it to protect sovereignty at all costs. That’s not how to get to world peace.

now how many candidates are calling for world government?

or this:

If you vote for power over substance, then you won’t ever get either. You’ve got to vote for substance regardless of who you think will win, because you’ll see that substance will win out in the end.

damn right, and the reason i voted for rev. al in the last presidential primary.

so, why didn’t i vote for mike gravel? damn good question. as it turns out, he wasn’t on the ballot in new york. too expensive and complicated, i suppose. and even if he was on the ballot, i’m not sure i would have voted for him. his main issue is to start having ballot initiatives on the federal level, and my initial reaction to that, without researching, is disaster. i lived in florida for too long, where every goofball organization that wants to ban gay marriage or whatever can just bypass the legislature.

i’m glad i voted for obama, especially since it’s so close with hillary. i’d say that i voted for a viable candidate (obama) rather than potentially voting for a non-viable candidate (gravel, for instance), but that’s a dangerous path.

i don’t regret my vote.

much.

listening to hillary

kirk and i don’t have cable tv, and our tv doesn’t have a tuner, so no television for us. but we have wanted to see one of the debates, so we tuned in to last night’s debate between hillary clinton and barack obama. tuned in via cnn.com, which provides a live feed.

a very tiny live feed, in a window that can’t be made full screen on the computer. a computer which is maybe 10 feet away from the couch. so, rather than crowding around the computer to watch micro-hillary and mini-obama, we just turned up the sound and listened.

and, i have to admit, hillary didn’t bug me as much when i wasn’t looking at her. kirk said the same thing. i’m sure it’s my prejudgment of her that i need to get past. but she sounded strong, effective, wise, informed, and remarkably relaxed. and she had the best line of the night:

“It did take a Clinton to clean after the first Bush and I think it might take another one to clean up after the second Bush.”

a bit too pat and rehearsed and poll-tested, but still, there’s a point there.

i’m still supporting obama. hillary still exhausts me. and, i never thought i’d say this, but after bill clinton’s recent antics i’d prefer to keep him away from the oval office in any capacity.

but.

i think i could live with her being president.

i think i could live with john mccain as well, though that bears further investigation.

obama would be a dream.

morning in america, indeed.

update: on the other hand, ann coulter said yesterday that if mccain is nominated, she will actively support hillary. maybe i need to rethink all this.

confirmed: i’m supporting barack obama

i’ve been thinking about supporting obama. i liked his book, and following his campaign i’ve liked what i’ve seen.

two things have pushed me over the edge toward full-fledged support.

the first was caroline kennedy’s endorsement yesterday.

I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.

she doesn’t mince words. it doesn’t get much more direct, or moving, than that.

the second thing was in today’s paper, a story on gay democrats and the primaries:

In an address last week honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. at a black church in Atlanta, Senator Obama made waves by lecturing the audience about homophobia. “We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them,” he said during the speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church, where Dr. King served as co-pastor with his father.

Joe Solmonese, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay lobbying group, said he thought Mr. Obama’s speech was the first time a presidential candidate had brought up gay issues in front of a nongay audience without being prompted to do so. “This is dramatically refreshing,” he said. “It’s a great day when we can look at a field of candidates and determine that we are comfortable with all of them on gay rights and move on to other issues.”

i’m not a single issue voter. but gay issues are important to me, and obama’s choice of raising of this issue in this arena shows real leadership. it shows he puts his truth ahead of his politics. it’s a telling anecdote, and that’s enough for me.