Ernie The Attorney

Just who is Barack Obama?

That's the thing Ed Rollins, a political strategist (read: "inside the beltway box thinker"), says no one has figured out yet. I have this weird suggestion: read this book called Dreams of my Father. In it Obama explains a lot about himself; he even answers Ed's concern about being a "community organizer in Chicago, whatever that means." Hmmm, sounds suspicious. I wondered what it meant too.

SPOILER ALERT

At first Obama didn't know what it meant either; he was told to go into impoverished communities and engage some pastors to help raise awareness about loss of manufacturing jobs. And at the first visit, guess what happened? The pastors didn't welcome him. He was an outsider and they didn't trust people who came in with fancy titles like 'community organizer.' So what happened next?

I'm not going to tell you. Ask Ed Rollins and see if he knows. Or, here's that crazy idea again: read Obama's book.

Building unity is hard; building it quickly is usually impossible

I recently finished reading Team of Rivals, a book about the improbable political rise of Abraham Lincoln. People forget (or in my case, never knew) that Lincoln was the 4th place contender for the Republican nomination in the election of 1860. It's also often forgotten (or never known) that when Lincoln took office he appointed each of his 3 rivals to cabinet positions. Salmon Chase, who was appointed Secretary of the Treasury, was constantly conspiring against Lincoln. When you read about Chase's brash efforts to undermine Lincoln you can't help wonder how Lincoln couldn't see what was going on.

Lincoln was undermined as well by General McClellan, one of the top Union Generals who was well-regarded until it became evident that he was incompetent. People wanted Lincoln to fire him immediately, but Lincoln put them off. McClellan was finally done in by his own machinations. And Chase rashly offered his resignation thinking Lincoln wouldn't accept it but instead would appease him by giving him greater reign. To his surprise, Lincoln accepted the resignation. Lincoln came away from both problems with his stature enhanced, and Chase and McClellan's stature's were diminished—more so because of Lincoln's patience.

Most presidential scholars agree that Lincoln was the best president that we ever had. Team of Rivals demonstrates why he was such an amazing statesman and politician. Of course, when he was president many people didn't trust him, or didn't appreciate him. Building unity out of deep division is never easy, and the conditions for him were—to say the least—highly unfavorable.

I thought about Team of Rivals when I read today about Obama's strong denunciation of his pastor. It reminded me of Lincoln (to some extent) in dealing with his disloyal rivals. Even though people wanted him to, Obama didn't quickly denounce Reverend Wright. Wright was given lots of leeway. But instead of acting prudently he sought the limelight and embarrassed himself. That made it easy for Obama to denounce him.

The 'patient approach' doesn't always work. Sometimes you have to act swiftly and decisively. People criticized Lincoln for not getting rid of Chase and McClellan more quickly. Only in hindsight is it clear to most people that there was great cleverness behind Lincoln's cautiousness. When tensions are high and people are in a state of extreme distrust, it's hard to build unity. Building it quickly is almost always impossible. Lincoln understood that better than most people in his era.

Hopefully, the same will turn out to be true of Obama in this era.

The problem with normal

Just thought I'd let everyone know: I've officially stopped caring about the presidential campaign. There's no point, really. If the candidates have clear ideas about what policies they intend to pursue they're savvy enough to know to keep them out of public view. Take a clear position and the people who disagree with that view will use it against you. So the candidates don't give detailed accounts of their positions.

Why doesn't the press drill more deeply into the candidate's views?

Well, that's pretty obvious, isn't it? First, they make more money if they get more viewers/readers. People are more drawn to muckraking and scandal-mongering than sober analysis. Second, fact-checking and analysis are labor intensive undertakings. Inciting passions is not only profitable, it's also childishly simple.

And speaking of children, that's what most voters are like. The only question they ask is "what's in it for me?" If my job was lost to out-sourcing then globalism be damned; I'm for trade restrictions. If my life is guided by religious fundamentalism then I want Supreme Court justices chosen based solely on how they might rule on abortion issues, even if that is a miniscule part of the typical docket. If I fear terrorism then I want to hear more about Barack Obama attending a madrasa. Perhaps I have a more reasonable concern about terrorism. Well, then prefer a television ad about a leader answering phone calls at 3 am.

What are the qualifications that are most needed for someone to be the President? Are the majority of people really in any position to analyze this question?

A wise man once said: "People don't ask fundamental questions, or if they do they expect someone else to answer them." That pretty much sums up the situation. It's not a new phenomenon, by the way. It's been going on for so long that everyone accepts it as normal. Well, it is right? After all, the word 'normal' derives from 'norm.'

So, if this is normal count me out. I won't be voting, and I won't be watching the mad dash. I'll try to ask myself some fundamental questions. And I won't be looking to the 'normal' crowd to answer them.

ABC's presidential debate

ABC's recent democratic debate was a festival of morons (the questioners, not the candidates). I didn't watch it because, frankly, I've had enough mindless coverage of the presidential campaign. Apparently, though, ABC seized the opportunity to set a new standard for brainlessness. If you missed the debate (and I hope you did), then enjoy Jon Stewart's skewering recap of Thursday night's lunacy.

And here's a shocker: apparently George Stephanopoulos used questions supplied to him by Sean Hannity. Another reason not to watch TV, especially ABC.

David Vitter is not an excellent driver

Got to love this video, mostly for the post-interview part where Vitter's car careens into a stop sign. Perhaps the hapless senator needs a getaway vehicle that handles better in tight situations.

Learning when to quit

I just finished reading Seth Godin's excellent book, The Dip. It's "a little book that teaches you when to quit (and when to stick)." I have been thinking about this problem for several months now.

Mainly, I have thought about it in my yoga practice.

I've found that if I don't push myself I get bored, and of course I don't progress. But if I push too hard or in a thoughtless way then I tend to hurt myself. There seems to be this very fine balance point of (1) letting go and relaxing, while (2) creating a steady intention to go a bit farther. While thinking of those things, I also have to pay attention to my body's physical resistance, which is not always the same. Sometimes I can't go as far today as I have been going for the past week. And that's when I push, thinking I'm supposed to challenge myself. That's when I get injured.

There's an ego thing involved, of course.

Godin's book is interesting because it suggests that it's often a good idea to give up, a notion that at first seems completely heretical. Yet he shows that many successful people have become successful by quitting something big. Michael Crichton, after graduating from Harvard medical school, decided he didn't want to practice medicine (even though he would easily have made a lot of money) because he didn't think he'd be happy. He didn't even try it out for a few years. Instead he went on to be wildly successful doing something that he loved doing, but which presented a less certain future when he embarked on it. Smart people know when to quit, Godin says.

Usually.

He points out that smart people have one big weakness that usually keeps them from quitting at the right time. "Pride is the enemy of the Smart Quitter." This might be Hillary Clinton's problem. We all know that she's very smart, but somehow her campaign isn't winding up the way she first envisioned it. She's having financial trouble. The likelihood of her winning the nomination is getting smaller, and the cost of winning it is getting harder even from a non-financial standpoint. And despite it all, she proclaims she "won't quit."

Godin offers an interesting thought about the aftermath of quitting: it often feels very comforting. "One reason people feel really good after they quit a dead-end project is that they discover that hurting one's pride is not fatal." Obviously everyone wants to win, but it's true that learning how to lose is important too. Hillary touts herself as 'the experience candidate' and yet maybe she hasn't had enough experience learning when to give up. She's only run for elected office once (the U.S. Senate), and she won. That's the only elected position she's ever held, and now she's seeking one of the most important positions in our country.

It's true that a lot of skills can be learned on the job. But I can't think of too many world leaders who've learned the difficult art of quitting after they've been elected. That's probably the main reason so many wars continue even after it becomes clear they're both hopeless and unpopular.

Old fashioned values - by David Vitter

On the left here (click to enlarge) is a letter of support that David Vitter wrote along with 13 other Republican senators. The letter stressed the importance of a $50 million dollar grant for 'abstinence education' for adolescents. Vitter was the first person to sign the letter. Nineteen days later he admitted that he had hired hookers while he was a senator. What a guy!

If his wife wants to accept his apology for infidelity, that's fine. But what about the constituents? How does one apologize for rank hypocrisy? Apparently, Mr. Vitter thinks that we can teach adolescents to behave better by allocating money. What kind of congressional program would we need to curtail this kind of sanctimonious political hypocrisy?

Answer: one that swiftly removes said hypocrites from office.

We all understand that people make mistakes. But when officials like Vitter or Spitzer ride around like knights gallant proclaiming their pristine virtue, only to reveal later that they have none, it's not a simple matter of forgiveness. Consequences are in order. Spitzer resigned, and Vitter should do the same. If he doesn't then I hope the voters do their job. If they don't then they deserve all of the hypocrisy that they receive.

Rev Moon - King of America, Royal Guest of Congress

Watch this video about Rev. Moon and his monumental influence, which extends to Congress. Somehow it's not surprising to me. Money talks, and when it does Congress listens regardless of who is holding it.

Political Karma

When you employ demagoguery you sometimes find yourself stung by demagoguery. Of course, for "experienced politicians" it's all part of the campaign. Blah, blah, blah

And when it's over? Come meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Career day

Today, James Carville refused to apologize for calling Bill Richardson a 'Judas' because he endorsed Obama. Richardson, is a former Clinton cabinet member. Of course, he's not the only former person with close ties to the Clintons to endorse Obama, but he's one of the highest profile ones. Not that it makes any difference.

And not that this makes any difference either, but I think that Carville is a nattering nabob— a sanctimonious one at that. But, that said, I hope his candidate wins the democratic nomination. I say that even though I much prefer Barack Obama.

Why? Well, first of all I don't believe that anyone is sufficiently qualified to deal with the economic mess that is just now beginning to unfold. Whoever is president for the next four years is going to have to make some tough choices. And regardless of whether they take difficult (and unpopular) positions, or simply engage in mindless cheerleading like George W. Bush, the next president probably won't serve a second term. Not unless the economic mess somehow gets a lot better in the next few years. I wouldn't wish that political crucible on anyone, even though I think Obama is capable of handling it.

In other words, the biggest problem isn't the red phone ringing at 3 am, it's the economy (stupid). Sure, let Hillary or McCain have a whack at that problem. And then four years from now when natural (but painful) economic rebalancing has occurred, we can elect a leader that will improve our international relations as well as keep our economy from going into a tailspin. Obama will still be around; he'll be experienced and electable.

And where will James Carville be? Hard to say, but maybe he will have become the host of an inane reality TV show.

Thank you for speaking as though I can understand...

Whatever happens in the presidential election doesn't matter to me anymore. I finally experienced something amazing, something that I never thought would happen: a politician addressed an extremely difficult subject and made me feel inspired rather than disgusted. Most politicians live off of a staple diet of pre-packaged 'strategies' and 'talking points,' mostly derived from polling data rather than personal convictions. After they've ingested this pablum they spew it back out and the press reports it as news.

Race is a difficult subject for our country. When people don't want to deal with something difficult they construct simplistic notions as buffers from harsh reality. Skilled politicians know this, and on that basis they exploit our simplistic views of race. White politicians and black politicians do this. And the press does it too. Politicians do it to get elected, and the press does it to sell more newspapers.

It is no longer news that Obama is the first black with a realistic shot at becoming president. But what about his exposure to the sermons of a controversial black minister? What are we to make of that? Given that we have a hard time dealing with race and prejudice, what can Obama really say about Reverend Wright? If he disavows him it will seem like a convenient political ploy, another advisor tossed overboard to keep the political machine aloft. If he doesn't disavow him then, well, that wouldn't be good either. But those are the choices, right?

Maybe there's another option? Hmmmmm, what would that be? Read this speech and consider Obama's temerity. My god, this man has the audacity to assume that people can actually understand his true beliefs. And the further audacity to think that they might agree with him.

It doesn't matter anymore if Obama wins. I'm not counting on people or events to pick the best candidate. Maybe he's not the best candidate; I think he is but maybe I'm wrong. But I do know this: he's the only one who doesn't speak to us as though we're all fools.

A lot of us are, though. And that's why skilled politicians and newspapermen are usually so successful. And that's why I'm not getting my hopes up about Obama becoming president.

Quick political commentary

"The word politics is derived from the word 'poly' meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks' meaning 'blood-sucking parasites.'" —Larry Hardiman

And the word 'media'? Perhaps, it's short for 'mediocre.'

Tonight's debate

Tonight's democratic candidate's debate in Texas will no doubt be lively, given the growing perception (mostly fueled by the media) that Hillary Clinton's campaign is on the ropes. I have little hope that the candidates will be asked meaningful questions. Maybe these people should be the ones asking the questions.

New campaign sitcom on the way.

Have you heard about the new sitcom based on the 2008 Democratic campaign for President? Here's a teaser video. Must-see TV!

Change Washington

Let's make some significant changes in Washington, like this one proposed by Larry Lessig.

Democratic campaign strategies - is this for real?

Blogger Tony Pierce discovers something that the mainstream press has so far ignored, perhaps because it's just too controversial.

What would Nietzsche do?

I've repeatedly confessed ignorance about politics. I didn't major in political science, and have no great political instincts. I majored in philosophy for god's sake. Philosophy is great for people who like to make grandiose arguments. Plato spoke longingly of "Philosopher Kings." But today not many politicians care about philosophy. Nor do voters.

Still, can you imagine a State of the Union address given by, say, Frederich Nietzsche? Or better yet, how about a political contest between Nietzsche and Kierkegaard? How would Nietzsche explain his bold claim that 'God is dead' to average voters (many of whom believe that religious worship is of paramount importance)? The early poll results would probably favor Kierkegaard.

Obviously, things would get nasty quick. And this short video gives us a sense of how such a political contest might play out.

Obama's 'bad vote' on an oil revenues bill?

Read Sam Winston's post if you've heard about Obama supposedly not supporting a bill that might help Louisiana. Once again the Clinton campaign unfairly manipulates information to try to gain political advantage (knowing that the brain-dead local press won't catch the manipulation). So what if the problem is with a mere staffer? You want to manage the country, Ms Clinton? Fine, but start with your campaign.

Barack Obama's speech in New Orleans

I expected Obama to have a canned speech. After all, he hadn't planned to come to New Orleans until after the Super Tuesday voting. Yet, the speech he gave was obviously tailored to New Orleans. Whether or not he wins the nomination, or becomes President, we can all agree he's a very accomplished speaker. His speeches seem the product of someone who listens and observes closely. Not a common trait anywhere these days, especially not in politics.