Barack Obama

McCain Proposes Suspending Campaigns To Address Economy

Posted by on September 24, 2008 at 1:38 pm. NO Comments :

John McCain has announced that he is suspending his campaign in order to return to Washington to help pass legislation on the financial bailout. He is characterizing this political stunt as a way of avoiding political stunts. In fact, Barack Obama’s team reportedly called McCain’s camp this morning to discuss issuing a joint statement, to which McCain agreed. But McCain then stole the ball and ran down field with it in an attempt to score all of the points for himself. So McCain wants to get away from partisanship by reneging on his agreement with Obama and returning to Washington, DC, where there is never any partisanship?

In addition to the suspension of campaign activity (which subsequent reporting suggests may just be dropping TV ads), McCain is proposing that the debate scheduled for Friday be postponed. He argues that the economy is too important not to take this step. McCain is right that the financial problems we are facing are important, but so is electing the next president. I don’t see how participating in the debate would throw the economy into a tailspin. And if you can’t participate in congressional actions in the daytime and show up for a debate in the evening, then you aren’t fit to president – a job that requires multitasking. The presence of the candidates in DC can be useful to focus attention, but they are not critical to the sausage-making process. They should lead by articulating direction and vision. What better place to do that than a nationally televised debate?

At this point, it appears that Obama wants the debates to proceed: Obama Camp: ‘The Debate is On’ That is exactly the right response. Let’s hope it sticks.

Update: Obama made a statement on the financial crisis and presented a timeline that shows that he was indeed the one who initiated the discussion. He thought that McCain was considering the things they discussed, but instead McCain went on TV with his statement, betraying the notion of bipartisanship.

With regard to the debates, Obama confirms that he thinks it is more important than ever to present themselves to the American people. He said that they ought to be able to deal with more than one thing at a time.


Part two is here.

I think it is also significant that after McCain made his statement, he scurried hurriedly out of the room. Obama stayed and took questions from the press, as a responsible leader would do.

Update II: The McCain campaign is now proposing that the first presidential debate occur on October 2, the date presently set for the vice presidential debate. The VP debate would then occur on a later, undetermined date.

If McCain really wants to move the presidential debate to Oct 2, why doesn’t he just suggest swapping the events and have the VP debate this Friday? Surely the economic bill can be written without Palin and Biden. The preparations, the venue, the personnel, and the media are already in place. And there is precious little time to reschedule the VP affair before the election on November 4. This seems to be a wholly transparent attempt to further avoid exposing Sarah Palin to any public scrutiny. She must really be failing miserably in her practice sessions.

Update III: McCain retreats! The debate is on. So I guess the financial crisis has been resolved (not). His statement contained these contradictions:

“There was no deal or offer yesterday that had a majority of support in Congress.” And… “He is optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement…”

He also said that he is resuming all campaign activities, which, of course, he never actually stopped.

Rupert Murdoch: True To Form

Posted by on September 20, 2008 at 5:13 pm. NO Comments :

Last May News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch attended the All Things Digital Conference and made a few headlines with his commentary on the presidential election:

“[Murdoch] on Wednesday predicted a Democratic landslide in the U.S. presidential election against a gloomy economic backdrop over the next 18 months.”

That sort of talk had some folks wondering if the old fella was growing a soul. Could the uber-rightist media monarch be ever so slightly scooting over to the left? Asked directly whether he is supporting Barack Obama (like his daughter, Elisabeth) he said:

“I’m not backing anyone, but I want to meet Obama. I want to know if he’s going to walk the walk.”

Since then, Murdoch has met Obama. It should be noted, however, that on that occasion the purpose was primarily to persuade him to appear on Fox News. It was therefore imperative that he pour on the charm while appearing to be neutral. Subsequent to achieving his goal, Murdoch is now publicly displaying his expected preference for leader of the free world (other than himself), and it’s the Republican, John McCain:

Breaking down Murdoch’s reasons for supporting McCain, it seems to be primarily an anti-Obama decision as he never overtly praises McCain. Still it is perplexing given the facts. He says that Obama will:

  • “…give us a lot of inflation.” Never mind that inflation right now is at it’s highest level since 1991. At that time 17 years ago, Bush, Sr. was just wrapping up his term in office. Like father like son.
  • “…ruin our relationships with the rest of the world.” If that does not immediately invoke guffaws given the world’s perception of America under George W. Bush, then note this poll that shows that “Obama was favoured by a four-to-one margin across the 22,500 people polled in 22 countries.” 46% said that relations would improve with an Obama win, only 20% held that view for McCain. Those numbers parallel American’s attitudes as well (46% Obama/30% McCain).
  • “…find companies leaving this country.” As if they haven’t been leaving in droves throughout the Bush years. Forrester Research projects a loss of 1.2 million jobs to foreign soil for 2008, increasing to 3.4 million by 2015.

To an objective observer the facts support precisely the opposite conclusion to which Murdoch has arrived. Nevertheless, the septuagenarian media mogul hangs unto his opinion that it is Obama, and not the Bush/McCain cabal, that threatens the nation’s future. That’s evidence of just how confined he is by his partisan worldview. He goes even further to tar Obama with the crusty old conservative slander that…

“[Obama’s] policy is really very, very naive, old fashioned, 1960’s socialist.”

Coming from an old fashioned, 1940’s fascist, I suppose we’ll need to take that with a pound or so of salt.

Anyone who might have thought that Murdoch’s remarks last May signaled a shift in his political ideology may now return to their senses. He is as much a right-wing propagandist as he ever was, and he isn’t shy about it either. This appearance on Neil Cavuto’s “Your World” is one of many that he has booked for himself. To underscore how peculiar that is, try to recall the last time that the CEOs of GE/NBC, Viacom/CBS, Disney/ABC, or Time Warner/CNN, appeared on their own news programs. They are rarely, if ever, guests, and certainly not even close to the frequency with which Murdoch pastes his face on his air.

This most recent booking appears to have been scheduled exclusively to disparage Obama just as the electoral momentum is shifting in his direction. The looming financial crisis has focused the campaign dialog back onto issues as opposed to personalities, and Murdoch wasn’t going to sit still for that. The trivialities and tabloidism that is Murdoch’s stock in trade just happens to advantage McCain, whose campaign relies on shallow griping about celebrities and lipstick. So he goes on Cavuto’s show, calls Obama a naive socialist, enumerates reasons to vote against him that are actually reasons to vote against McCain, and concludes the interview by plugging his new and struggling Fox Business Network.

That’s Rupert Murdoch in a nutshell: An arch-conservative, self-serving, greedy, monopolistic, liar. And always true to form.

Hollywood Celebrities vs. Washington Lobbyists

Posted by on September 17, 2008 at 2:07 pm. 1 Comments :

Last night I attended the Barack Obama fundraiser at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel in Beverly Hills. No, I did not pay $2,500 to see Barbra Streisand serenade the candidate and 800 of his closest Hollywood friends. But I did mingle with these elitists outside of the lobby as the overflow crowd waited to enter the ballroom. I spent much of the two hours handing out my McCain – NOPE stickers to amused guests who didn’t seem too perturbed by the long delay.

From my perspective as an outsider, it was like a big party. The enthusiasm and the turnout surprised even the hosts, who had to deal with a crowd that was 50% bigger than anyone anticipated. And at these prices, that kind of demand is startling. Everyone was excited and festive and more than gracious to this lowly artist who obviously was not in their social strata. It was gratifying to personally put my artwork into the hands of folks like Magic Johnson, Sarah Silverman, and Obama’s campaign manager, David Axelrod.

The distinction between this crowd and the one for John McCain that I encountered a few weeks ago at the Beverly Hilton Hotel (yep, McCain came to Beverly Hills too), was pronounced. McCain’s event, which reportedly earned about $3 million (1/3 of Obama’s take), was subdued and sparsely populated by dour looking people in dark suits. Although Hollywood was represented by actor-elitists Robert Duvall and Jon Voight.

News reports of the Obama/Streisand event have predictably focused on the glamor and the locale. There is a built in presumption on the part of the press that this sort of program is somehow disrespectful to those Americans who are undergoing hardships brought on by the economy or natural disaster. However, Obama’s remarks touched on these matters and he reminded his well-to-do audience that “This is not a reality show.”

“This should be a celebratory evening. We’ve got 48 days to go in a campaign, a campaign that started 19 months ago, at a time when a lot of folks thought we might not get here [but] I’m not in a celebratory mood,”

~~~

“[This campaign] is about those who will never see the inside of a building like this and don’t resent the success that’s represented in this room, but just want the simple chance to be able to find a job that pays a living wage.”

Clearly Obama has the American people on his mind. Nevertheless, the media is still portraying the event as a gathering of elitists and allowing McCain to mock the affair and paint Obama as out of touch for having a party while he (McCain) was visiting workers in Ohio. What the press is leaving out is that McCain held his own fundraiser on Monday at the exclusive InterContinental Hotel in Miami. This was the same day that the stock market crashed 500 points. Tickets for his event were $50,000 a piece (twice what Obama’s campaign was charging), and it was attended by a small group of Washington and Florida insiders and lobbyists. Why is there no outrage at this demonstration of McCain’s insensitivity to regular, hard-working Americans? Is it the “liberal” media?

The hypocrisy is veritably dripping from McCain’s wrinkled brow. He criticizes Obama for having Hollywood friends while ignoring his own Tinseltown pals (see Friends of Abe). He blasts Obama for holding a gala just one day after his own ritzy and twice as costly affair in Miami. He promotes his visit with workers despite having voted against their interests (i.e. unions, minimum wage, healthcare, etc.) for 26 years.

When it comes to assessing politicians based on their associations, voters need to ask themselves who has better comprehension of their lives, their aspirations, their ordeals, their hopes. Is it…

Lobbyists, who have devoted their privileged existences to enriching themselves and their multinational corporate clients?
Or is it artists, many of whom started with nothing and achieved success through their creative ability to produce work that regular people can relate to and find inspiration in?

Lobbyists, who are successful when their selfishness and greed produce a transfer of billions of dollars of America’s wealth into the private accounts of profiteers?
Or artists, who are successful when their talent and insight produce empathy, understanding, and, at the very least, entertainment?

Lobbyists, who serve a narrow and powerful clique of clandestine country clubbers?
Or artists, who serve millions of average Americans who feel a personal affinity for them and their work?

For the record, this is not the first time McCain has taken swipes at Streisand. On October 19, 2002, McCain appeared on Saturday Night Live to do a spoof wherein he tortured a selection of Streisand numbers. It was actually pretty funny, but the message was repugnant. At the climax he says…

“Do I know how to sing? About as well as she [Streisand] knows how to govern America!”

If the last 26 years is an example of how well he governs, frankly, I’d rather listen to him sing. The obvious extension of his joke is that anyone who does any job other than serving in Congress is unqualified to have an opinion about what our government does in our name. So McCain has exempted this singer and businesswoman from participation in our democracy. Would he also exempt farmers and teachers, and welders? This is the real elitist bullshit. If we’re qualified to vote them into office, then we’re qualified to comment on the job they are doing. Even if we’re merely artists. (See my essay on Creativism And The Rise Of The Art Insurgency).

Hollywood Celebrities vs. Washington Lobbyists? It’s not even close!

Shill Baby Shill: Fox News Pumps Up Big Oil

Posted by on September 16, 2008 at 12:50 pm. NO Comments :

William La Jeunesse is rapidly becoming the most promising contender for the Excrements in Journalism award. Last week he did a report on congressional earmarking in which his primary source was a McCain front group that he identified as nonpartisan. This week his report on offshore oil drilling is just as slanted as he becomes an outright advocate of Big Oil and their agenda.

In this story, La Jeunesse excitedly related news that the Santa Barbara County Supervisors had voted 3 to 2 to allow offshore drilling 100 miles off the coast. He veritably reveled at the notion that this coastal community was considering opening their beaches up to potentially devastating environmental disaster. In an earlier report he implied that the people’s wishes were going to be disregarded because California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were opposed to offshore drilling. How he concludes that the people are more represented by three county supervisors than they are by the majority of their state and congressional representatives and their governor, he never quite explains.

The report itself soft peddles the inherent dangers associated with offshore drilling. La Jeunesse cites a study that claims that one in every 156,000 barrels of oil is ever lost to a spill. He editorializes that that is “literally a drop in the bucket.” What he fails to say is that this number calculates out to over 70 million barrels of spilt oil. That’s a lot of dead of fish and seagulls, and a lot of lost revenue for a state that is highly leveraged in tourism.

If La Jeunesse wasn’t bad enough, Fox anchor Martha McCallum chimes in at the end to congratulate him on his report:

“This is the kind of debate and people say we need to drill off of our shores and I think a lot of people think that is a good idea but then you get into this Congressional debate and things get stymied.”

The problem with her comment, aside from her taking a position on what she thinks people want, is that there was absolutely no debate presented in the report. It was thoroughly one-sided and she even progressed the argument further to blame Congress as obstructionist. But she didn’t end it there. She still felt it necessary to praise Big Oil for their track record on spills:

“There is all of this pressure about the oil companies and oh they make so much money. Oil companies have spent a tremendous amount of money researching and making this process as clean as possible and they have done a pretty good job of it when you look at the numbers of what actually gets spilled out there, it’s extremely minimal. So, something everyone needs to know to get the full picture.”

To which her co-anchor Trace Gallagher responded:

“And that was pretty much the full picture.”

There you have it. Courtesy of Fox News, you now have no need to engage in any further research. The “full picture” has been revealed and it is one of clear waters, blue skies, and endless rainbows. All thanks to America’s oil companies.

Someone might still want to check with these corporations and ask them why gas prices have not dropped commensurate with the 37% drop in the price of crude oil since July. An equivalent decrease in gas prices would have us paying about $2.65 today. Is that what you’re paying?

You may also want to inquire of John McCain why the “Drill Baby Drill” mantra is still being chanted at his rallies. With Crude prices having dropped from nearly $150.00 a barrel to about $92.00, it apparently wasn’t necessary to expand domestic production in order to get the price down. So what Barack Obama and the Democrats have been arguing for weeks was correct. Yet I haven’t seen them get any credit in the press for being right. I haven’t even seen any analysis of what has transpired in the oil markets over the last couple of months.

Unfortunately for consumers, gas prices are still near record levels. Since it is not a problem at the wholesale level, it seems that the friends of McCain and his lobbyists are now indisputably at fault for the gouging we are experiencing at the pump. Unfortunately for voters, Republicans intend to press the case for more drilling regardless of the facts as they exist today. And the Democrats in Congress aren’t much better. They are expected to go along with Republican proposals to permit offshore drilling, albeit in compromised legislation. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) explains:

“The American people are very conscious that we need an alternative energy policy and the they’re not too distant from the memory of the $4 dollar-a-gallon gas. They know we need an investment in alternative energy and we can’t keep doing what we’re doing […] I think there’s still an urgency to get this done and get it done now.”

The argument appears to be that the momentum for a knee-jerk response is too swift to resist. That would make this a good time to contact your representatives and let them know that you’re paying attention; that you know that crude oil prices have fallen 37% but that gas prices have remained inordinately high; that you know that drilling for more domestic oil, particularly offshore, will not resolve our energy problems, in fact, it will exacerbate them and preserve our dependency on fossil fuels. Tell them not to accept the Republican arguments that have been proven false, and not to vote for their agenda that is designed to help their benefactors in the oil industry.

Don’t let the chanting cultists at McCain rallies win this debate when the truth is the opposite of their zombie anthem. And don’t let lying, corrupt Republicans and Fox News dictate our nation’s energy policies.

Fox News Uses McCain Front Group To Blast Obama

Posted by on September 10, 2008 at 1:33 pm. 1 Comments :

A report was broadcast on Fox News today (and published on FoxNews.com) that purported to be an examination of the congressional earmarks of the presidential candidates. As one might expect, the report fell something short of what a reasonable person would call “fair and balanced.”

Correspondent William La Jeunesse’s report only went into detail on earmarks requested by Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The story came complete with on-screen graphics to illustrate his points. But no numbers or graphics were provided for John McCain or Sarah Palin. This deliberately one-sided hit piece would be bad enough all by itself. Unfortunately, the worst part is revealed with a little further investigation. And it gets much, much worse.

The source Fox News used for the research in the story was Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), an organization that Fox described as a “nonpartisan, nonprofit group.” In fact, the group is far from nonpartisan. It has publicly endorsed McCain for president and donated $11,000.00 to him or to PACs he controls. CGAW has also worked as a shill to attack McCain opponents in a manner that may have violated election law. It has also been connected to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

On the board of CAGW is long-time McCain associate, Orson Swindle. They met as cell mates in a North Vietnamese prisoner of war camp where Swindle says that he and McCain “slept side-by-side for almost two years.” Swindle is now the McCain campaign’s veterans liaison and was appointed to his campaign Truth Squad a couple of months ago. He spoke last week at the Republican National Convention. He is also a senior policy advisor at the big DC lobbying firm of Hunton & Williams whose clients include American Express, Eli Lilly, GE, Microsoft, and Wal-Mart.. These duties violate McCain’s own policy of not allowing people working for “independent entities” to serve on his campaign staff.

Taking these facts into account, it should come as no surprise that CAGW awarded McCain a 100% rating, while giving Obama 10% and Biden 0%. The group claimed that Sarah Palin was not included because the ratings evaluate only members of Congress. But they did rate Alaska’s performance in their 2008 Congressional Pig Book (Uh oh, they’re calling Palin a pig) where they said that “Alaska led the nation with $556 per capita ($380 million).” In the 2007 edition they reported that Alaska and Hawaii “have been the top two states in pork per capita every year but one since 2000.” None of that was included in Fox’s report on television or online.

I’m not sure why it still shocks me to hear that Fox News broadcasts fiercely biased reports that abandon every tenet of journalistic ethics. But citing an organization that is known to be supporting McCain, identifying it as nonpartisan, and using it to pummel Obama, is such a blatantly dishonest and disreputable act that in a just world their press credentials would be immediately revoked. It is just infuriating to know that Fox will get away with this time after time without paying a price for their unscrupulous and unprofessional conduct.

The only demonstrated way to effectively punish Fox is to deny them access to Democratic lawmakers, candidates, and officials. When we are united in embargoing the network they have been noticeably distraught. They may puff up their chest and threaten us, as Bill O’Reilly did when he said that “If you dodge us, it is at your peril.” Or they may invoke juvenile tactics like Chris Wallace’s Obama Watch to bully us into compliance. But that behavior just affirms the effectiveness of staying away. They were obviously troubled and desperate, and they can’t maintain a pretense of balance if Democrats refuse to certify their bias by appearing on their tainted air.

Starve The Beast!

The Sarah Palin Watch Widget

Posted by on September 6, 2008 at 2:38 am. 17 Comments :

Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin burst on the scene from nowhere – Nowhere, Alaska, that is. You know, the place where they wanted to build that bridge to. And despite the fact that nobody in at least 49 states knew the slightest bit about her, she rocketed to stardom as the leading light of American conservatism.

Consequently, some Americans wanted to know more about the person who may become a 72 year old heartbeat from the presidency of the United States. They will be disappointed. The McCain campaign has sequestered Palin and will not permit reporters to interview her. They will allow no questions on the vetting process, or the abuse of power investigation that is currently underway. They refuse to clarify her positions on foreign policy or Congressional earmarking. There will be no direct examination of her record as governor or her fitness for national office. In short, the American people should shut up and be happy with whatever happy talk the campaign wishes to engage in via staged rallies and campaign ads. That is almost exactly what McCain spokesperson Nicolle Wallace told Jay Carney of Time Magazine.

I created the Palin Watch widget to record the elapsed time from her entry into the race, until she agrees to answer questions in a fair, independent, national media forum. There is simply no other way to assess her ability to perform the job she seeks. A candid give and take with probing journalists reveals more of a candidates knowledge and insight than a speech that was probably prepared by aides. The job she wants is far too important to give to an unknown quantity who arrogantly declines to open herself up to the people she would serve.

The Palin Watch was inspired in part by the Obama Watch, a device that Chris Wallace used to goad Barack Obama into appearing on his Fox News Sunday program. The difference is that I am not pimping my own show, or any show, so long as Palin makes herself available to press scrutiny.

Americans must rise up and demand that McCain free Sarah Palin. The time is now to come clean so that voters have sufficient information to make an informed judgment. Democracy is in a sorry state if political strategists can hawk candidates like soda pop without ever disclosing the ingredients.

McCain And Palin: Stars In Their Eyes

Posted by on September 4, 2008 at 4:03 pm. 5 Comments :

For months now, John McCain has been belittling Barack Obama as inexperienced and unprepared to be president. Much of the criticism has targeted his speech making prowess and charisma, which McCain characterizes as the hollow trappings of celebrity. There was even an ad that attacked Obama as the “biggest celebrity in the world,” and juxtaposed his image with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. McCain himself said that:

“The bottom line is that Sen. Obama’s words, for all their eloquence and passion, don’t mean all that much.”

But now, the day after Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, the “pit bull in lipstick,” debuted at the Republican National Convention, the campaign, the Party, and the media have all adopted a new view of celebrity. While it was a pejorative when directed Obama, for Palin it elicits the sort of applause and acclaim that is ordinarily reserved for … well, celebrities. Consider this sampling of the press:

Chris Wallace – Fox News: “I don’t think it’s overstating it to say being right here on the floor that a star was born tonight. A new star in the political galaxy.”
Michael Barone – U.S. News & World Report: “Sarah Palin’s speech to the Republican National Convention last night was a home run. A star was born.”
Margaret Carlson – Bloomberg: “On Wednesday night, a political star was born.”
William Kristol – New York Times: “A star is born.”
Karen Breslau – Newsweek: “A populist star is born.”
Art Moore – WorldNetDaily: “A star is born. The country ‘fell in love with Sarah Palin tonight.'”
Rich Lowry – National Review: “After that, you feel like asking not: How did she rise so fast? but Where has she been so long?”

And that’s not all. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper, MSNBC’s Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough, and Fox News’ Brit Hume and Dick Morris, all used some variation of the “Star is Born” theme to describe Palin’s debut. And all it took was one speech for the GOP establishment, and the media at large, to succumb to the charms of a heretofore unknown political neophyte who, two years ago, was the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, population 6,000. One speech to transform the perception of this newcomer into someone qualified to be a 72 year old heartbeat from the presidency. Just one extensively rehearsed, meticulously stage-crafted speech.

So now Republicans, who demeaned Obama for attracting positive attention and adoring fans, is boasting that they have their own idol at whom to stare glassy-eyed. Now the media is abuzz with glowing notices for Palin’s opening night. And yet the McCain/Palin camp is still bashing the press as biased, despite the unfiltered adulation that is being blasted at them from all sides. The press is being castigated for doing what any professional journalist would acknowledge is their job. Politico’s Roger Simon is one of the very few who see the irony in this. He penned a must-read column that sarcastically explains “Why the media should apologize.”

“We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? […] Bad questions. Bad media. Bad.”

In her address last night, Palin spoke of “dramatic speeches before devoted followers” and wondered what happens “when the cloud of rhetoric has passed… when the roar of the crowd fades away.” But no one in the press observed that she might as well have been talking about herself, even more than Obama. After all, Obama has been on the campaign trail for 19 months developing the devotion of his supporters, but Palin has achieved the task after a grand total of four days and one speech. Four days during which she has been sequestered from the public by the campaign which has not offered her up for a single press conference. Despite the many controversies swirling around her appointment, she has so far only sat for an interview with the hard-hitting People Magazine. There is talk that she will appear on a Sunday morning news program this weekend. Guess which one. Fox News Sunday!

The result of all of this is that the two arguments McCain has used most aggressively against Obama – his experience and his celebrity – have both been rendered inert. Palin has less experience and, contrary to Obama’s multitude of stirring public addresses, Palin still has – and, I repeat – just one speech. The fanatical fawning of faithful Republicans is bad enough, but not unexpected. From the media, however, it is just plain creepy. Is anyone paying attention?

Barack Obama To Do It Live With Bill O’Reilly

Posted by on September 2, 2008 at 10:29 pm. 1 Comments :

Earlier today Michael Wolff of Vanity Fair published his account of a meeting between Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, and Barack Obama, wherein a peace accord was allegedly struck. Then, on tonight’s O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly announced that he will be interviewing Obama on his program this Thursday. That was fast.

As the author of Starve The Beast (and this follow up to it), an extended examination of why it is not only pointless, but harmful for Democrats to appear on Fox News, my first reaction was that Obama had capitulated once again to a network that is actively working for his defeat. Under ordinary circumstances, I couldn’t find a reasonable justification for Obama to subject himself to deliberate slander, or for permitting Fox News to leech respect from him that Fox has not earned nor deserves.

But these are not ordinary circumstances. At the close of the Democrats convention, Obama gave an acceptance speech that electrified 75,000+ people in attendance, as well as 38 million more on television. That is more viewers than watched the finale of American Idol. All of the media buzz was focused on that speech, the convention, and the inspirational glow emanating from Obama. The next day, however, McCain showed up, like the skunk at the party, to introduce his vice presidential candidate. That announcement, as intended, took a lot of the wind from the sails of Obama’s post-conventioneering, first because it was an unexpected choice, and later because the choice was so monumentally stupid it kept making more news every time a new blot leaked out.

Well, turnabout is fair play. The night that Obama has agreed to appear on the Factor is the same night that John McCain will be delivering his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. The potential for sparks to fly will surely boost viewership for the program, whether the sparks materialize or not. Obama will have the opportunity to present himself, not just to O’Reilly’s audience, who couldn’t care less, but to the broader audience that will learn of the appearance after the fact. The interview itself will be a front page story. If Obama manages it well, he can turn it into news event that could eclipse McCain’s star turn in St. Paul. Plus O’Reilly plans to serialize the interview over several nights, so the story is automatically extended over multiple news cycles. The Obama team has managed to come up with a stunt that may diminish any bounce that McCain might get from his convention, as McCain did to Obama with the VP affair.

The scope of this broadcast needs to be considered in the context of the television marketplace. The Factor is the most viewed program on the highest rated cable news network. Those ratings historically jump during Republican events like Bush’s State of the Union or Republican conventions. On the final night of the Republican Convention in 2004, Fox beat all broadcast and cable networks in total viewers.

But the beauty of this is not that a lot of Fox viewers will be watching. Fox’s audience is demonstrably unfriendly to Obama and Democrats. A Rasmussen poll found that nine out of ten Fox viewers say that they will vote for McCain. No, the real benefit is that the meeting of these minds (or one mind and one moldy loofah) will be the story itself. And that story will resonate for days. Obama’s courageous venture into the arena of a well known, antagonistic bully, will make for some riveting TV. And for this to occur as McCain has just announced that he is boycotting Larry King (that’s right, Scary Larry) makes it even easier to highlight the differences between these candidates.

Obama needs to go into this interview expecting O’Reilly to have a knife under his coat. He must remain calm, but be prepared to stand up for himself in an adult manner (that alone will throw O’Reilly off). O’Reilly will want this to devolve into a brawl. His questions will contain some substance because his ego will drive him to seek credibility, but he will also touch on minutiae like Rev. Wright, 60’s radicals, and Hillary voters. Obama is smart enough to avoid the traps, but he must stay aware and not let O’Reilly take control. He must be there to promote his agenda, not O’Reilly’s. And he must remember that this interview will be broadcast on McCain’s big night and take full advantage of the opportunity that represents.

If there were ever a time to use a hackneyed TV biz cliche, it’s now: Stay tuned!

Update: For anyone wondering why O’Reilly would book Obama on the same night as McCain’s acceptance speech, the Associated Press sheds some light and confirms that, in this negotiation, Obama dominated the Factor:

“Host Bill O’Reilly acknowledged he’s getting heat from his fans for the timing […] ‘I would have rather had him on next week,’ O’Reilly said. ‘I might not get another shot at this so I better take it.’“

Obama “Lit Into” Ailes At Secret Meeting With Murdoch

Posted by on September 2, 2008 at 3:27 pm. 1 Comments :

Michael Wolff, contributing editor at Vanity Fair, is preparing to release an authorized biography of News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch. The book, appropriately titled “The Man Who Owns The News,” will be out some time between December and February, depending on what source you believe, and the author was given significant access to his subject. In advance of publication Wolff has written an article describing his encounters with the Media Mephistopheles that includes an account of a secret meeting with a reluctant Barack Obama.

“Obama…was snubbing Murdoch. Every time he reached out (Murdoch executives tried to get the Kennedys to help smooth the way to an introduction), nothing. The Fox stain was on Murdoch.”

“It wasn’t until early in the summer that Obama relented and a secret courtesy meeting was arranged. The meeting began with Murdoch sitting down, knee to knee with Obama, at the Waldorf-Astoria.”

This version of events is somewhat curious in that Obama had begun appearing on Fox News as early as January of 2008, six months prior to this meeting. I was highly critical at the time of Obama’s guest shot on “Fox & Friends,” probably the second worst booking he could have made after “The O’Reilly Factor” (on which he has still, so far, declined to appear [Update below]). After an inconsequential chat with Murdoch, Roger Ailes took his place before Obama, and that’s when the fireworks began:

“Obama lit into Ailes. He said that he didn’t want to waste his time talking to Ailes if Fox was just going to continue to abuse him and his wife, that Fox had relentlessly portrayed him as suspicious, foreign, fearsome – just short of a terrorist.”

Ailes, unruffled, said it might not have been this way if Obama had more willingly come on the air instead of so often giving Fox the back of his hand.

A tentative truce, which may or may not have vast historical significance, was at that moment agreed upon.

From the exchange as related here, Obama forthrightly expressed the precise reasons that he was disinclined to show Fox News any respect. But as I noted above, he was not uniformly able to maintain his will power to say “no” to Fox.

However, it is Ailes’ response that is striking in its arrogance. By suggesting that Obama’s standoffish position with regard to Fox resulted in the rancidly slanderous coverage, Ailes is in effect blaming Obama for the dirty work for which Ailes himself is responsible. He is also admitting that the coverage was as predominately negative as Obama contended. That, of course, validates Obama’s decision to stay away from the network in the first place. And perhaps worse than any of that, Ailes is implying that he orchestrated the bad press as revenge for Obama not accepting Fox’s invitations to be abused on their air. Ailes has thus confessed that he believes that it is appropriate for a journalist to bash public figures who don’t obey a demand to appear. This is a position that Bill O’Reilly himself articulated when he threatened Democrats that, “If you dodge us, it is at your peril.” Fox is to journalism what Capone was to the beverage industry.

Elsewhere in the article, Wolff offers some insight into what he believes is an evolving Murdoch who may not be as enamored with either Ailes or O’Reilly as he once was.

“Fox has been his alter ego. For a long time he was in love with the Fox chief, Roger Ailes, because he was even more Murdoch than Murdoch. And yet now the embarrassment can’t be missed-he mumbles even more than usual when called on to justify it; he barely pretends to hide the way he feels about Bill O’Reilly.”

This allegedly stormy forecast for these media titans echoes a report last June in Gawker that queried whether Murdoch was about to fire Ailes. I struck down that theory at the time, and I stand by my position. But perhaps things are not so rosy as I thought. Perhaps Murdoch is evolving in ways I cannot imagine. When Wolff asked Murdoch for advice on who to vote for in November, he elicited this response from Murdoch:

“He paused, considered, nodded his head slowly: ‘Obama – he’ll sell more papers.'”

I guess Murdoch is getting both softer and greedier with age.

Update: Just a few hours after this posting, O’Reilly announced that Obama will appear on his show this coming Thursday. Here is my analysis of this development.

America’s Barack

Posted by on August 29, 2008 at 3:57 pm. NO Comments :

America Is Back!

History was made on August 28, 2008, when Barack Obama accepted the nomination of the Democratic Party to run for President of the United States. On the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, the manifestation of that dream has come to pass. The fulfillment of this dream is a declaration that we can come back from the dark days of division that characterized the past eight years, and much of the past two hundred. And it is evidence that the people, when inspired, will rise up to take back their country. Barack Obama is merely the reflection of our own hopes and dreams. We are America, and…

America’s Barack

Get Your America’s Barack Stickers and T-Shirts today.

An excerpt from Obama’s acceptance speech:

“For eighteen long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said enough to the politics of the past. You understand that in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result. You have shown what history teaches us – that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn’t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it – because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.”

With that declaration I was transformed from a contrarian bent primarily on defeating John McCain, to an affirmative supporter of Obama. My journey meandered through an attempt to draft Russ Feingold, to an advocate of John Edwards new found populism, to settling for an Obama candidacy that seemed at the time to be too conciliatory.

I dedicated myself to expressing my opposition to McCain via my art and words. (see McCain – NOPE). I have developed quite a collection of anti-McCain/Republican pieces. But, until now, I have not created a single piece that was “pro” anything.

That’s changed. I now have a candidate that I can forthrightly support. Someone who represents ideals that have driven my activism for years. My new work reflects that optimism. It’s a strange feeling for me. I know that a speech that articulates the views I cherish does not necessarily evolve into the actions and accomplishments I seek. But it is critical that the words be spoken. The goals cannot begin to be realized without the vocal intention to pursue them. And Obama is saying the right things.

Another speech by Martin Luther King included a phrase that shaped my life as an artist:

“We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative means of protest possible.”

I’m not sure that King meant the arts when he said “creative,” but that’s the way I chose to read it. And it’s one of the first recollections I have of perceiving art as an act of conscience and rebellion. Prior to that I drew a lot of superheroes and hot rods (I was twelve, at the time). I had become radicalized, and I knew that at least part of my work had to be devoted to making a better world.

If Obama continues to speak the sort of truths, and to address the sort of aspirations, that call people to unite for the high ideals illuminated in his acceptance speech, he will radicalize a new generation that will compel him, and his successors, to follow through on the dreams that he, and King, and millions of other compassionate citizens of the world have yearned for.

We ARE back. The people are back. Compassion is back. Justice is back.

America’s BAraCK