
I don't think we've come across many Obama McCain raps... especially not from seventh graders. Enjoy a remake of TI's "Whatever You Like". Click the video to get the lyrics :
Can we please put this on the playlist for the election day party?
Predictions thread! I'll go first.
Obama 338-364 EVs to McCain 174-200 EVs
52% Obama, 45% McCain, 1% Barr, 1% Nader, 1% Other
Senate: 57D, 43R (Warner, Udall, Udall, Shaheen, Hagan, and Merkley). They do not kick Lieberman out of the caucus.
House: Dems +25 from 233-202 to 258-177.
Rabbi Dennis Shulman - upset of the cycle!
So I didn't get as much time as I had hoped to blog during the conventions (mainly due to temporary insanity from an overdose of Republicans), but here are a few quick things I observed:
New Media: I expected some differences here, but the Republicans were far more hostile to new media and citizen journalism then the Democrats. In Denver, the Obama campaign encouraged attendees to text "SCHED" to OBAMA to get the schedule for the day, and a big part of their Thursday program at Invesco was collecting text message signups. Throughout the day on Thursday, they'd ask the crowd to text the reason they were there, why they support Obama, what issue matters most to them, etc. and have it displayed on the screens around the stadium, basically turning the event into a database building exercise. All week, attendees were encouraged to visit BarackObama.com and it was a common sight to see delegates and guests using cheap video cameras to record the events and the reactions of the crowd.
In St. Paul, the words "text message" were never heard. The McCain website was on their signs but never mentioned. The security policy for the event explicitly banned anyone but credentialed press from bringing in a video camera. Had I not been using the press credentials one of the people with the IOP bummed off a drunk ABC News producer on Saturday night, none of the videos I did with Campus Voices would have been possible. Even with those credentials, when I tried to bring in multiple cameras one day, I was stopped by a campaign staffer, who told me the Secret Service had decided that I only had need for one video camera. When I told her I was bringing in multiple cameras to allow young delegates to videotape their experiences, she said "delegates aren't allowed to do that." The McCain campaign was so worried about only allowing their officially sanctioned images and stories from the convention to get out that they had the United States Secret Service declare it a security risk for anyone other than credentialed media to bring in a video camera, and from there decide what tools the media needed to do their jobs. Ignoring the blatant political use of Secret Service protection, this is probably the best example I saw of just how out of touch the Republican party is.
Diversity: I figured the Republican convention would be less diverse than the DNC. But I couldn't have imagined just how much that was true. The Democrats have policies requiring diversity in delegations, but the delegates themselves were only 4,000 out of the 40,000 people in Denver for the convention, and the people I saw, delegates, guests, and others, were a diverse representation of the American people. Not so much in St. Paul. You could walk around the entire outer hall of the Xcel Center and see maybe one African American and one Hispanic American among the hundreds. And that doesn't even go into age. Our goal with Campus Voices was to interview young delegates, and I can't begin to describe how much more difficult that was in St. Paul than in Denver. The statistic I heard was that 16% of the DNC delegates were under 30, compared with 1.6% of the RNC delegates.
Excitement: At each convention, there was one crucial event that everyone said would define the tone of the week - Hillary Clinton's speech in Denver and Sarah Palin's in St. Paul. The key difference, though, was that Hillary's speech was only important to really rallying half of the DNC delegates, while every single person at the RNC (except for maybe the Alaska delegation) had some degree of hesitation about the ticket until Palin spoke. This meant that the Republicans didn't really get going until the very end of the session Wednesday night (Gustav certainly contributed to that as well), while the Democrats were able to take advantage of the full four days. (One note on the RNC - after Palin proved herself to the delegates to be a conservative standard-bearer, she was by far the star of the convention. All day Thursday, Palin would get cheers consistently louder than those for McCain. The only thing cheered louder than Palin was whenever some speaker or video mentioned Ronald Reagan.)
Goals: Interestingly, the goals each campaign had for their conventions were nearly complete opposites. The Obama campaign used the convention to try and expand the base of the party, prominently featuring Republicans for Obama on both Monday and Thursday nights and making a huge showing of support for Obama in the military. With his VP pick, Obama chose someone to address his biggest perceived weakness, hopefully reassuring independents and moderate Republicans who were thinking of voting for him that he'd be a strong commander in chief. The McCain campaign, on the other hand, used their convention entirely to rally their base and unite conservatives behind the ticket. Nearly every speech (with Joe Lieberman's as the notable exception) was about attacking liberals and the media and reiterating old Republican principles. The number of times abortion was mentioned was surprisingly high for an issue that so bitterly divides the country. And with his VP choice, McCain picked someone who initially seemed like she could appeal to Clinton voters, but later revealed herself to be, as one person told me, "Pat Buchanan in a dress." This really convinces me that McCain's strategy from here out is to try and win exactly the states Bush won in 2004, and maintain a bare majority, while Obama seeks to redraw the map and compete in Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, and even North Carolina. If the McCain camp really wanted to compete in, say, Michigan, which they describe as a highly targeted swing state, they wouldn't pick one of the most conservative running mates in recent years and spend considerable time at the convention mocking the efforts of inner city residents to organize themselves.
Ok, so I understand that the "elitist" line of attack utterly collapsed and that McCain needs something else to work with. I know that the McCain feels that Barack's experience seems like an appropriate thing to go after (even though it didn't work for Hillary in the primaries).
That being said, if you're going to spend the money for national ads, you might as well make sure that they are going to be serious. While my comments come with a liberal bias, I can say that this ad was an utter failure. My more conservative mother and I were cracking up at the horrible voice-over. My parents are certainly the type that these Israel ads appeal to (i.e. older Jews), and you don't want even those voters laughing at your apocalyptic ads.
If I were a Republican strategist, I'd be hoping that they didn't put too much money into this one. It reminds me too much of Rudy's failed noun/verb/9-11 strategy. Time to get back to the drawing board.
I believe it was Yogi Berra that once said, "When you're part of a team you stand up for your teammates. Your loyalty is to them." I'm not sure Senator Lieberman really knows what loyalty is anymore. He seems to be promiscuously perusing the streets of Washington looking for someone or some group that will embrace him. I think he's found someone:
c
The announcement today that Senator Lieberman will speak at the Republican National Convention only eight years after he received the Democratic VP nomination is a bit troubling and perhaps telling of his character and motivations. Depending on the number of Senate seats that we pick up in November there has to be serious talk about moving this individual's office to the capitol dumpster and then going to bat against him in 2012.
Obama and McCain recently revealed to Blender magazine their favorite songs:
So What IS on their ipods/Victrolas?
Not a lot of surprises there - McCain's list has a few songs that absolutely dare you to dislike them (who hates As Time Goes By), and Obama's is slightly more interesting, with the upsettingly risque "I'm On Fire", for one.
Now, I was inspired to compile a list of Five Chutzpah Songs. As in, a presidential candidate would have to have cojones visible from Alpha Centauri to pick them, but they do have major stature as songs, so they'd be legit picks for people's top ten.
Presenting: My fantasy Presidential Song Pick List!
Goodnight Saigon - Billy Joel
Of course, it would be even ballsier to tout this song in a campaign against McCain...
Billy Joel Runner-up: Captain Jack
American Idiot - Green Day
I think this one speaks for itself - talk about opening yourself up to "elitist" attacks.
Cocaine - Eric Clapton
Despite that it might have been appropriate for George Bush, probably not the best song to choose.
Born in the USA - Bruce Springsteen
And you can't hide behind the "I only listen to the chorus" idea since Reagan already used that excuse.
Bruce Springsteen runner-up: Murder Incorporated
Down and Out in Paradise - John Mellencamp
Wonderful song that reads like a description of campaign speech examples (Jimmy here had this horrible stuff happen to him... vote for me), showing that America is hardly a pure paradise. I actually would have liked to see this song on one of their lists, since it's so powerful a message, and really relevant to the presidential cause.
There are other songs that would take major chutzpah, but none that I can think of are nearly legit enough, unfortunately...
~M.
HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!1!1!!!!!!1!!!
There has never been a better metaphor. Ever.
LOLZ! ROFLMAO!
Now, given both my limited knowledge of war strategy & the military in general and my lack of caffiene this morning as there was no coffee left in the pot in the office kitchen, I can easily be misinterpreting this article.
But CNN is reporting that Bush is calling for a shortening of tours of duty in Iraq "from 15 months to 12 months as U.S. troop deaths have declined to their lowest level since the war began in 2003."
Are you telling me that the main reason that we are sending people over there for shorter periods of time is because fewer of them are dying?
So, before, there was a much higher chance of them dying, so the plan was to keep them over there, just to increase the odds?
Although I am hugely relieved to hear the news of the shortening, I fail to see the logic of their reasoning behind it.
I guess at the same time, the fact that fewer people are dying is a sign of more stability (and it is noted that of the 9 who died this month, 5 were due to non-combat related causes). The article continues on to say
Bush said the United States is "making progress" in its discussions with Iraq "on a strategic framework agreement," which would "serve as the foundation for America's presence in Iraq" once a U.N. mandate authorizing multinational forces expires at the end of the year.
As anyone who has ever had to meet with a TF about a paper they haven't yet started knows, "making progress" may be the single most vague statement one can make when talking about getting anything done. For instance, right now, I would consider getting a cup of coffee "making progress" (if only I could...).
But putting aside potential coffee progress, if real advances are being made in these negotiations, how would that affect November? If any legitimate advances are being made, the fear of McCain's thousand year war might be unnecessary, or at the very least Bush might be able to resurrect his "legacy" in its final hour and go out on a strong note, and...you know where I'm going.
I can't think about this.
I really need to go find some coffee immediately.
So, enough bickering, and let's realize what is really important - hating on the Republicans!