The first presidential election in which I was able to vote was 1992.  I remember the youthful euphoria I felt as we had apparently put the Reagan era to bed.

Quite possibly my favorite moment of that political season was when the Clintons opened up the White House to the public on Bill Clinton’s first day in office.  What a radical and just plain cool gesture.

Unfortunately, it was the high point of the Clinton presidency.  After a few years of “triangulation,” I quickly realized that Clinton’s progressive facade was just that.  The worst betrayal, however, was Clinton’s ultimate selfishness, continually putting his political future and his personal desires above the needs of the American community.

As I have written before, I have no illusions that Barack Obama’s presidency will be revolutionary.  But I have great faith that it will have integrity — and it will be as progressive as possible within the constraints of present political realities.

And I also get the feeling that my affection for the Obamas will only grow as their years pass before our eyes.

I know, however, that a gesture of opening the White House to the public — while quintessentially Obamaesque — is impossible in a post-9/11 world (not even considering the security concerns that come with our first black president).  And I worry, on a larger scale, that Barack Obama, for a variety of reasons (beyond simply security), will be constrained from being too personal and “soft.”  After such an inclusive campaign — and one that emphasized youth and was openly anti-war — Obama will need to appear like the dignified and tough leader for awhile.

Leave it to the Obama team, however, to find a backend way — using social networking — to bring us in for an intimate moment.

Enjoy these photos from election night.  While not of the highest quality, they are a testimony to the fresh perspective we hope to see in the upcoming years.

Yes, stories of the future matter.  The best science fiction, as I’ve said before, is an allegory for our present-day world.

So I think it’s extremely cool that the folks over at i09 have asked a variety of well-known pundits what science fiction texts are must-reads when considering the imminent choice for president.

I would rather they asked science fiction authors or science fiction scholars, to be honest, but the responses they got actually resurrected — for a fleeting moment — my faith in punditry.

Kos, for example, goes classic with Asimov, but Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit chooses one of my new favorites, Vernor Vinge.

The list is more than just a set of recommendations, though.  The real treat is to hear why each pundit considers their text “good election-season material.”  Take Amanda Marcotte’s justification of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid Tale:

It probably sounds a little trite since it gets referenced so much, but in light of the promotion of a true-believer fundamentalist to a national ticket, I have to recommend Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale. It’s not just because it’s a dystopia that shows what America would be like under a Christian theocracy, but also because the book brilliantly skewers other aspects of the right-wing culture. You have the female misogynist Serena Joy that finds out the hard way that she isn’t exempt from the category ‘woman’ just because she was a stalwart soldier for the far right. You also are reminded that the conservative men who carry on about sexual morality in public all too often have their own closet full of secrets. The book is a reminder that right wing politics isn’t so much about ‘values’, but about power and control.

From the opposite side of the political spectrum, Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online actually wins big points for choosing an episode of Joss Whedon’s Angel, but unbelievably twists it into a warning that Obama’s calls for bi-partisanship are part of an evil totalitarian plot.  Really.

If I were asked, I would have a difficult time choosing — but I might go with Octavia Butler’s Dawn — which, more than any text I know, describes the difficulty of coalition-building and the special qualities a true leader must have to bring divergent factions together.

As a bonus, in its look at relations between humans and an intriguing but incredibly alien alien race, it reminds us of what a sensitive, peace-focused foreign policy might look like.

Ironically, even as George W. Bush has frequently positioned himself in opposition to the Hollywood elite and liberal journalists, he might be considered our first pop culture president.  According to Stephen Humphries of the Christian Science Monitor, the media has shaped his image and legacy to an unprecedented degree — and not to his advantage:

The proliferation of new forms of media – coupled with a democratization of communication that allows anyone with a modem to become a filmmaker, broadcaster, or pundit – has meant that no other sitting president has had quite so many slings and arrows to suffer. Against such a backdrop, Bush may find it exceedingly difficult to control the final narrative of his presidency.

Humphries reminds us of the countless portrayals and parodies of Bush — from songs to comedy shows to films. But the most intriguing element of the story is how Bush himself fed this frenzy by, from the beginning, constructing a “regular guy” persona.  He seemed to know the importance of establishing an easily accessible image, but like so many parts of his presidency, he didn’t realize how easily he could lose control of that image.

If you look closely, you’ll even see a quote from yours truly on this point:

Bush well understood the importance of the popular-culture vote. During his 2000 campaign, he accentuated his image as a regular guy. “I don’t think it’s an accident that, for a number of years, we always heard about [Bush] going back to the ranch to clear brush,” says John Matviko, editor of “The President in Popular Culture,” and professor at West Liberty State College in West Virginia.

But that cowboy persona was turned against him by dozens of YouTube impersonators – most notably Will Ferrell – who lambasted Bush as a country yokel who “misunderestimated” the importance of elocution.

“[Bush’s] entire presidency was about the projection of an image, so the fact that there have been so many pop-culture representations of him is a logical extension of that,” says Bernie Heidkamp, a contributor to PopPolitics, an online magazine about the convergence of politics and pop culture.

Pop quiz time!

The antonym of “Arab” is:

a) decent
b) family man
c) citizen
d) all of the above.

If you, like John McCain, answered “d,” pat yourself on the back. You’ve just earned yourself some praise from unexpected corners — including much of the liberal blogosphere — for finally reining in the vitriol of your most rabid supporters. In this case? By agreeing with a woman in your audience that the word “Arab” is a slur. She pins the word on Obama; McCain says that’s just not nice.

Watch the video.

What’s notable here is that McCain, like everyone in his audience, knew immediately where she was going with this. He knew that to “respect” Obama in this case meant to defend him from the (supposedly heinous) charge of being Arab, and he did this not by saying “actually his father’s family is Luo, from Kenya…” but by calling Obama a decent family man, a moniker he apparently believes no Arab could claim.

Ana Marie Cox of Wonkette, who was present at the event in question, reports that the woman, Gayle Quinnell, said “Arab terrorist,” which would render McCain’s comment more defensible. But in the video there is no indication that Quinnell said “terrorist.” She just said “Arab.” Some have wondered if the word “terrorist” was inaudible. This might be true, but Quinnell keeps speaking after she says the word “Arab,” before McCain reclaims the mike.

I am guessing Cox simply misremembered the exchange: that the words “Arab” and “terrorist” are so thoroughly linked by now that to make the former an adjective of the latter has become second nature.

Before we say a final goodbye to the Republican National Convention (and the good times had by all!) let’s take a moment to spotlight news stories, columns and an open letter to the Alaskan governor that transform the “R” for Republicans into Reality.

Jesus Was a Community Organizer: Joe Klein explains, in language simple enough for Rudy Giuliani to understand, exactly what a community organizer does — and specifically what Barack Obama did. The MoJo blog has more. And the Boston Globe has a story today featuring community organizers who are none too happy about the insults.

The Mother of All Hypocrisies: Lynn Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, wrote an open letter to Sarah Palin on women’s rights that is a must read. Over at Slate, E.J. Graff explains the difference between feminism and feminine chauvinism.

In a column titled “Mirrored Ceiling,” Judith Warner asks, “Why does this woman — who to some of us seems as fake as they can come, with her delicate infant son hauled out night after night under the klieg lights and her pregnant teenage daughter shamelessly instrumentalized for political purposes — deserve, to a unique extent among political women, to rank as so ‘real’?”

Calling Out Contradictions: Kudos to Jim Kuhnhenn and Jim Drinkard of the Associated Press for putting together a handy rundown of false claims and exaggerations made at the convention. The issues covered include Obama’s tax plan, the infamous “bridge to nowhere” and Mitt Romney’s back-to-the-future moment.

Meanwhile, Ted Anthony, who covers culture and politics for the AP, notes that the Republicans want it both ways when it comes to the Palin family: “Hey, media, leave those kids alone — so we can use them as we see fit.”

Finally we turn to “The Daily Show” for a delightful exchange between Jon Stewart and Newt Gingrich on the politics of language:

In an article published in PopPolitics magazine, Anthony A. Cupaiuolo, an expert on public administration and municipal management, raises questions about the mayor’s role in Wasilla, Alaska and what Gov. Sarah Palin’s two-term record as mayor says about her managerial skills.

Small town adherents love to talk up the positives of the small town experience, how everyone knows each other and is likely to help out in a crisis. True, but the flip side is that local leaders, who are generally not trained in public administration, are more likely to cross the line between official responsibilities and personal agendas.

Case in point: As mayor of Wasilla (pop. 7,025), Palin set out to fire a librarian who didn’t share her interest in book-banning (resulting in a community outcry); requested the resignation of city employees who had shown support for her opponent; and successfully terminated the well-liked police chief.

That Palin allegedly demonstrated the same lack of professional judgment as governor when she removed the state public safety director for refusing to fire a state trooper who was involved in a messy marital situation with Palin’s sister should come as no surprise, but let’s stay in Wasilla.

In my experience, the city’s form of government is atypical for such a small community. Wasilla has what’s considered a “strong mayor” system, where the mayor has executive responsibilities. This system is usually associated with larger communities (250,000 or more), where there is a significant number of interest groups in competition with one another. It is therefore important for the mayor to have the executive power and political leverage to garner sufficient support for his/her goals and policies. In cities of this size, the mayor is also likely to have a deputy trained in public administration.

Continue reading “Sarah Palin and the Experience Argument to Nowhere.”

Update (via DailyKos): Okay, Heart actually doesn’t appear to have legal standing, since “Barracuda” has been “licensed for public performance under a blanket fee paid by the venue to ASCAP, the firm that collects royalties on behalf of composers and copyright owners.”  But Roger Fisher, a former guitarist of the band, says he will donate his royalties to Obama: “With my contribution to Obama’s campaign, the Republicans are now supporting Obama.”

You gotta have Heart, I guess.

Yes, Heart — one of my youthful guilty musical pleasures — has sent a cease-and-desist order to the McCain-Palin campaign via their record label.  They objected to their use of “Barracuda” after the Republican convention speech of VP nominee Sarah “Barracuda” Palin (the nickname she supposedly gained on the basketball court).

Four years ago I saw John Fogerty on the “Vote for Change” tour supporting the Kerry-Edwards ticket with Bruce Springsteen, R.E.M. and others.  His extra-bitter performance of “Fortunate Son” made it clear what he thought of George W. Bush.

So why isn’t he publicly objecting to the use of “Centerfield (Put Me In Coach)” — which bridged the speeches of Joe Gibbs, former coach of the Washington Redskins, and Senator Lindsey Graham at the convention?

Now, I don’t know if a cease-and-desist order would have any legal basis, but as Dave Burdick at the Huffington Post reports, many other artists and their labels have made their objections known.

Come on, John, the list even includes Van Halen.

My two favorite takes so far on John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin for his running mate:

Stephen Colbert accuses nay-sayers of missing the significance of the moment: “A lot of people are saying that Sarah Palin is being used as a cheap political ploy. That is such petty cynicism. This is historic. For the first time in America, a woman has reached the highest levels of being used as a cheap political ploy.”

See his entire analysis here:

And Maureen Dowd is just happy that while reporting from the campaign trail, she can still indulge one of her “guilty pleasures”: watching “a vacuously spunky and generically sassy chick flick” — even if she already knows how this one is going to end.

In a more semi-serious analysis, Gail Collins yesterday summarized the big insult:

Over the last week, we have heard over and over and over that Tuesday was the anniversary of the day women got the right to vote. (They got it when a state representative in Tennessee, where the House was split on the ratification issue, changed his vote because his mother wrote him a letter telling him to shape up. That’s a story that I would love to get into, but, unfortunately, right now we have Sarah Palin to deal with.)

After that big moment of enfranchisement, women went through a long period in the desert where they had the vote but not much else. Then came the great revolutions of the 1970s, when all the assumptions about the natural divisions between the sexes were challenged. During that era, women could be excited and moved by symbolic candidacies that promised a better, more inclusive future, like Shirley Chisholm’s presidential race and Geraldine Ferraro’s presence on the Democratic national ticket.

This year, Hillary Clinton took things to a whole new level. She didn’t run for president as a symbol but as the best-prepared candidate in the Democratic pack. Whether you liked her or not, she convinced the nation that women could be qualified to both run the country and be commander in chief. That was an enormous breakthrough, and Palin’s nomination feels, in comparison, like a step back.

If she’s only on the ticket to try to get disaffected Clinton supporters to cross over, it’s a bad choice. Joe Biden may already be practicing his drop-dead line for the vice-presidential debate: “I know Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a friend of mine, and governor, you’re no Hillary Clinton.”

Of all the things about Sarah Palin, John McCain’s running mate, that bother me, her identification as a “feminist” is not one of them.

Yes, I realize she is not a feminist in any authentically enlightened sense of the term and her feminism doesn’t make conservatives flinch even a little bit.

But I’m so tired of “feminism” being a dirty word, that I don’t mind a little misappropriation.  It’s just too much fun to see Pat Buchanan defending McCain’s choice on MSNBC Friday night by gleefully shouting, “But she’s a feminist!”

On a serious note, however, I agree with Tanya Melich, writing for Women’s Media Center, that the choice of Palin is actually a continuation of the Republican backlash against women.

Melich admits that, at Friday’s announcement, “Palin was energetic, warm and reminded me of all those earnest young women we feminists have been recruiting into the women’s political movement since the early l970s.”

But she sees McCain’s choice of her as simply a political “disguise”:

McCain hopes that by picking a woman he can show he’s open to doing things differently, but his selection is window dressing and insulting to anyone who knows that he opposes equal pay for equal work legislation and opposes a woman’s right to choose.  And this is just part of the list of issues of concern to women that he doesn’t champion.

(more…)

Joe Miller of Factcheck.org dissects John McCain’s desperate, disingenous attempt to combat his multiple mansion problem, which we discussed a few days back.

It’s nice to see a major media outlet willing to call out John McCain for the lies and slimy innuendo that his campaign has become.

But the greatest insight coming out of the whole “how many houses does he own?” episode has to be from BAGnewsnotes, who puts it in the context of McCain’s POW experience.

Read the whole post, but here’s the conclusion:

This shot of McCain in 2000 showing the prison to his son, Jack, evokes just how much the Hanoi Hilton — where McCain dwells so often in his speeches and his anecdotes — actually does seems to resonate as a “primary residence” — those cell walls representing the last, longest home that McCain could call his own.

You might say it’s a bit of a psychological stretch, but there’s no denying that McCain often appears lost in a place only he knows.

As we wait for Barack Obama to announce his vice-presidential running mate, everyone is having a bit too much fun with the fact that anyone can sign up to be “the first to know” — through a text message (text “VP” to 62262) or e-mail sent directly from the Obama campaign.

Our friend Deanna Zandt over at GRITtv introduced me today to the concept of “rickrolling” (as in Rick Astley — you gotta follow that link) and the variety of fake Twitter and text messages that purport have The Answer.

And Mary Schmich of the Chicago Tribune confesses that the whole process is making her feel like she is back in high school:

I think it would be totally awesome if John texted me his vp choice too. But John has made minus-zero effort to court me the newfangled way.

Is it my fault John doesn’t text? He’ll probably name his vp at something totally 20th Century, like a news conference. Don’t blame me if he’s not a good communicator.

Barack, see, he understands my needs. He makes me feel special. He let me know he wanted my cell number. Wanted it bad. I was, like, totally flattered.

And after I texted him my info—btw, his number’s 62262—he texted a reply:

“Welcome to Obama Mobile. You will now be one of the 1st notified when the VP candidate is selected. Text HELP for help. Std charges apply. Please forward.”

Charges? I was not thrilled to see this relationship was going to cost me $$ but whatever. Life is not a freebie Valentine. At least he wrote back.

So who is it going to be? John Lumea over at Huffington Post argues for some unconventional VP wisdom.

The most pressing question in this presidential campaign has become: Why isn’t the Obama campaign (or their surrogates and sympathizers) spreading insidious rumors about John McCain to counterbalance all the junk out there about Obama?

Now, I subscribe to plenty of liberal/lefty e-mail lists — so I feel fairly in touch with the viral pulse out there.  And I know plenty of Obama sympathizers will say that they’re working very hard at getting out the unknown stuff about John McCain.

But my response to them would be that you’re still hampered by this ridiculous need to stay in the realm of truth.

For example, Brave New Films has done a great job of exposing “The Real John McCain.”  In their latest salvo, they reveal that McCain, in fact, is the true elitist.  He and his wife own, among other things, ten mansions:

Others are exposing McCain’s elitism as well.  Isabel Wilkinson over at Huffington Post has noted that McCain has been wearing $520 Ferragamo loafers while campaigning this summer, which, in turn, has produced more fodder for BagnewsNotes, who continues to show how contrasting visual images of an angry and out-of-touch McCain and a genial and engaged Obama tell the true story of each man.

Unfortunately, though McCain’s elitist hypocrisy might scandalize many of us, it doesn’t come across as a threat to the American way of life.  That’s because old, rich white men have always held power in this country.  Strangely, it’s not news — both to the man in the street and the Man in the media.

(more…)

Plenty is being said about the new New Yorker cover that features Barack Obama in Muslim dress amidst plenty of anti-American symbolism.

The New Yorker is defending it as satire — a mockery of the right-wing distortions of Obama’s background and political leanings.

Obama’s camp is calling it “tasteless and offensive.”

Unfortunately neither side is putting the cultural power of this cover in its full context.

And satire is all about context.

David Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker, actually said in his defense: “The idea that we would publish a cover saying these things literally, I think, is just not in the vocabulary of what we do and who we are.”

This statement sums up for me why, in fact, the cover is somewhat indefensible. Sure, for subscribers of the New Yorker — they get it. They don’t think the New Yorker is trying to undermine the Obama campaign. They’ve read the “Talk of the Town.”

But in the postmodern age, any responsible publisher in any medium needs to know that their images and words, especially the provocative ones, will disseminate to diverse audiences. That doesn’t mean they should avoid satire — but they should make sure their satire works on a broader levels.

Some have suggested they might have shown the images on the cover coming out of bubble above John McCain’s head or being painted by Rush Limbaugh.

Okay, that might work. But this is an extraordinary case. The rumors of Obama’s religious and national leanings are so insidious, so consciously constructed, that to throw the cover into that cesspool without a more direct refutation of that subtle, viral campaign can’t help but perpetuate the mess.

It all reminds me of John Kerry’s inability to see the power of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. With apologies to Marshall McLuhan — in the present political environment, the image or the soundbite is the message. Trusting in the ability of your audience to just “know” the truth isn’t enough anymore.

Seriously, BagNewsNotes has been doing such a good job analyzing images of Obama and images of Obama and McCain — we could use his wisdom here.

The following is a personal reflection on the meaning of George Carlin by David Masciotra, published in the “impressions” section of PopPolitics magazine:

How does one make a 14-year-old who hates high school excited about language, learning and politics? One way guaranteed to be effective is to make the entire process painfully funny.

At one point I was that kid, awkwardly stumbling through adolescence, bored by conventional classroom tactics, attempting to determine what interested me as a student and what spoke to me as a human being. Somewhere in the midst of that exploration of self-discovery, I was introduced to counter-cultural comedian George Carlin.

Continue reading “Remembering George Carlin.”