"close" only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades

It was so close. It was right in front of us -- and by "us", I mean all die-hard AND bandwagon Carolina Panther fans. We were 15 minutes away from home field advantage throughout the NFL playoffs. The spotlight would be on the Queen City. The announcers of the game had suddenly changed their pro-Giant bias to the other team, and even waxed eloquently on the current owner of the team (a former NFL star who is currently awaiting a heart donor for transplant). Charlotte was feeling special -- imagine the spotlight! the glamour! the stars that would be coming to us! Sure, in terms of the game, the formerly no-name cast of players and coaches would receive more national exposure. Even better is that the networks would have had to acknowledge us and pile on heaps of praise for all the world to see. The latter is what I was focusing in on as the clock wound down. Players can play anywhere -- unlike baseball or hockey, the playing fields in the NFL, like the NBA, are absolute and never change due to venue or arena, so there's no excuse other than fan support for home field advantage. What really matters is the map of where the road travels. And we were almost in complete control of it. I don't blame the loss too much on the miss from the usually reliable kicker -- the distance on the kick was good, but the wind pushed it out at the last 10 yards. Should the kicker has adjusted the angle for better percentage? Perhaps -- after all, he is a highly paid professional, and this is his only job requirement, so I'm sure he's being skewered right now on various sports talk shows, especially in Panther Nation. Then again, the coaches knew what elements they were fighting against, so they could have played it better in moving the ball closer to the goal line instead of taking the safe way out. But that is so typical of this coaching staff: they live (and die) on erring on the side of caution. In the end, the defense did not hold and the game was lost in overtime. Even worse than the loss was the fact that the Giants covered the betting line, so all the Vinnies in Brooklyn and Mad Dogs and Czabans in sports media could remove their thumb from their mouth and loudly proclaim (in their best Dice Clay voice): "fuggetaboutit -- I knew it all along -- right here! Oh!"...and the beat goes on.

Where you goin' with that UB-40 in your hand?

Something is not quite right here. I constantly hear that's there's a LOT of people out of work these days. More than usual. Much more than expected. And worse yet, there's more to follow in the coming months. Most companies that are planning massive layoffs are only waiting until after the holidays so as to not appear like Scrooge, but you know they would prefer to do it now and close their books on this year asap. Tonight on CNBC they were talking about a guy in California that is at the point of losing his house to foreclosure, and it's mostly due to him losing his job earlier this year. He also owns three rentals, and all three tenants have lost their jobs, too, so he's getting no relief. He's appealed to his state and local government for assistance, and what do they do? They establish a public hearing to listen to his story and the plight of other similar Sad Sacks. Needless to say, the poor guy is not expecting much to come out of it for another 8-10 months, and he's at a loss as to what's he's supposed to do while they talk amongst themselves.
You may be aware that California is not exactly raking in the revenues right now; the Governator is appealing to anyone that will listen that the state is in need of some type of bailout funds. Of course, this went over well with other states in similar straits, so they quickly chimed in with their hat in hand, too.
What concerns me is that we seem to be heading into the Perfect Storm: A very high debt service, thanks to allocated bailout funds, but less-than average revenue sources due to unexpected high unemployment. And the POTUS-e is concerned that the Fed has played all remaining trump cards prior to his coming into office, which doesn't help him with his plans to resurrect the economy, thus firmly establishing his legacy as the Savior of the Country. Are you saying that the 'publicans are purposely not going out of their way to help Obama get a running start to cure the nation's ills? What a surprise. But hey, that's the way the game is played. The Clintonites did the same if not worse to the incoming Bush administration, and so on down the line. I'd suggest to Obama that he not get so hot under the collar about the current administration's agenda for the next 30 days, and instead focus on how to fix or mend it all on January 21st.
I predict that this holiday season will see a surprise surge in spending, but it could be due to people thinking they need to go out with a bang. Then again, I see many people every day in my job that have great credit, great equity established in their homes, and great income, so I'd say that most Americans are getting it right. The challenge will be to not allow the tail to wag the dog, i.e. not let the 4% or 5% "less-than" perfect Americans sway the rest of the nation into a deeper recession. There are many ways to reduce the unemployment numbers, but it takes courage to implement them. Who's going to blink first?

What comes around, goes around

By now, most of you have heard of the scandal in Illinois regarding the arrest of the Governor on graft charges. This is the type of story that reaffirms my belief in karma (or a facsimile thereof), in that the party of the recent national elections is now the recipient of the taint that they were so quick to throw to the losing party just two months earlier. The President-Elect (should he be referred to as POTUS-e? TPE? That last one sounds too much like a popular reference to bathroom tissue, we can't have that. But I digress...) is involved because this is his home state, and the scandal involves the Governor's legislative responsibility to designate a successor to the POTUS-e's Senate seat. Governor Blagojevich ("Blago") has been caught on voice recordings with many direct statements about how he (was) planning to sell the seat to the highest bidder, which is clearly against the law. The fact that he comes off as arrogant and aloof doesn't help. But equal to all of this is that Blago is a Democrat that is tied to the POTUS-e, and suddenly the POTUS-e's image is not so golden. Immediate reaction from the media is shock and awe -- Blago wasted no opportunity to voice his opinions, and most of them were caustic -- and it's been interesting to watch the Matthews and Olbermanns and Maddows of the world bob and weave while trying to get a grip on it all. "Surely this cannot be happening to our guy? He's not like one of them! This is so...so...(gasp) Republican!" Ah, that's the beauty of it. You see, kids, there's scum on both sides of the aisle. And yes, there's good people on both sides, too, but let this be a lesson to those who were so myopic that they failed to acknowledge this until now. Nobody's perfect -- we learned that long ago, first during the Kennedy election, and soon after with Watergate. Hey, it goes farther than that: Lincoln appointed his campaign manager to the Supreme Court (so there was a Harriet Myers before Harriet Myers). American politics in general, and POTUS history in particular, is littered with this type of thing. What makes it all worthwhile is to see the squirming of the mainstream media and devoted followers who never saw this coming and never expected their guys/gals to fall prey to this corruption. It just shows to go ya: it can happen to anyone.

First

Welcome to the First Day of the Last Month of the Year. There's plenty to reflect on -- and regret about -- as the month moves forward. There will be plenty of "Best of" lists, plenty of "the year in pictures/video/audio/Hollywood/politics/TV/etc.", and plenty of good tidings and cheer (a/k/a work parties). There will be moments of rememberance, and enthusiasm for resolutions. There will be opportunities to Pay It Forward, and there will be calls for charitable giving. There will be happy family gatherings, and a chance to make amends. There will be shameless self-promotion, and (seemingly) endless ad pitches for diamonds, toys, last-minute ideas, and must-see holiday programs. It's as if the whole nation is ready to take a slow break from reality and recharge for the New Year. Just remember: Actions speak louder than Words. Are you ready?

Office of the President-Elect?

Doesn't even exist. There's no mention of it in the Constitution. One thing's for sure about the new guy: he likes his spotlight time. He got a lot of flak early in the campaign for making speeches in front of a podium with the now-famous "O" seal -- in fact, McCain make a joke about it in one of the debates. You didn't see that seal much after that, until the night of the election. Now his podium is ordained by the sign proclaiming "Office of the President-Elect". OK, whatever. If that's the worst thing to complain about, then I'm good with it. Just one thing, Mr. President-Elect: I hope your arrogance and pomposity is strong enough to protect you during those long lonely days and nights of struggling to keep things together....

An Open Memo

To: Stock Market
From: Johnny Lunchpail
Re: Bear market

OK. You made your point. We took you for granted and you got us back in spades. No one is laughing anymore. Even the talking heads on CNBC are looking dazed. How many times do I need to see Cramer throw up his hands? No one can explain it now, other than it's just pure correction against pure greed. Lots of folks are seeing their savings wiped out, and every time they try to double down via dollar cost averaging, they get wiped out even worse. Citi is under $5/share -- what is UP with that? They're yelling at each other on Fast Money and on Hardball. It's like there's nowhere to turn. Everyone is looking for the magic door out of this hell hole. Buy bonds? Can't afford to live off of that ROI. Buy more stocks? There's no value there anymore, cuz there's no bottom. Christmas is coming and everyone's freaking out because they no longer have any money to buy their honey expensive jewelry or Junior the GI Joe with the Kung Fu Grip. As Scotty would say, "we're losing power in the engines and I don't know why".
In a strange way, this is creating an artificial cleansing, like we need to be shaken so hard to get us back to reality of what's really important.

Irrational Exuberance, The Next Generation

As I awaken from my unexpected writing slumber...
The election is over, and we have a new President-Elect in the midst of transition. There seems to be a plethora of writings out there waxing poetic about what the future holds with this breath of fresh air. It was wise to hold emotions in check so as to take it all in without being jaded from the rose-colored glasses being freely handed out. Let's start by saying that the country is well-served by this change in administration -- the past 6 years in particular have weighed very heavy on the conscious of America. There is no argument that change is needed; both sides were very aggressive in their message, and it's safe to say that either would have been more aggressive in their approach to solving problems than what we've seen to date.
What needs to be understood is the incredible complexities of every major issue -- these problems will not be going away any time soon, no matter who is in charge. The POTUS-elect is starting to see just how big these issues are, so don't be surprised if it takes time to unwind the problems that were so easy to target and ridicule just two weeks ago. It was good to see Obama make his make his election night speech in somber overtones, as if he was suddenly saddled with the weight of world (and he is, and will be for at least four more years, starting now). There are many pundits out there that should take this "hint" equally as serious. The last thing this nation needs is to be overwrought by a new stream of irrational exuberance over the change in political direction without fully comprehending the ramifications and scope of the problems at hand. Deeds, not words, are what is needed today. The question remains as to whether both sides will put aside their differences long enough to solve the problems instead of engaging in more partisan bickering. Your move.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em

Dow just opened 5 minutes ago and is already down over 600 points. We are now below 8000. This is looking more and more like a crash instead of a major correction. Panic is starting to overtake fear. It's like we're swimming in a pool of black water and we know there's a bottom to it, we just can't see it and therefore we don't know if we're in the shallow end or the deep end. The talking heads on CNBC are dazed. Business professionals know that the first rule of the markets is to keep your emotions in check and never let them see you sweat, but there's lots of people on the floor that are very testy today. Seven negative days in a row, working on number Eight! In one way, it's a good thing that it's Friday because there's no open market tomorrow. On the other hand, Friday is always used as the day to break bad news and let emotions cool a few days before starting up again on Monday. Speaking of Monday, it's a holiday, so we could see major settlements by the end of the day. Keep an eye on the markets around 3pm -- that's the magic hour lately when the markets turn south. Will GM survive today?

And then there were four...

Congrats to the Sawks for taking out the Halos last night. By the way the Angels' players are reacting, you would think there's a bunch of sour grapes being served in their clubhouse: "We lost to a team that's not better than us," growled pitcher John Lackey, who gave up two runs and seven hits in seven innings. "We are a better team than they are. The last two days, we shouldn't have given up anything." "I'm [ticked], I'm upset, this one's going to be with me for a while," Torii Hunter said. "It doesn't feel good, because we're a better team than they are. But they're moving on." I agree that the Angels underachieved. As for the Cubs, well, they just choked in the limelight. Usually the Dodgers are the chokers, but I think that they've been so far removed from the playoffs that they didn't feel the pressure of high expectations that the Cubs felt. Funny how the two teams with the best regular-season records are bounced out of the playoffs, 6 games to 1, and 4 of those 6 were on their home fields.

The Rays are a breath of fresh air, but sometimes that air is filled with pollen that we central air breathers are not used to and it makes us sick. I would not be surprised to see them crumble under the weight, but then again, they could be this year's Florida Marlins and steamroll thru the playoffs before they wake up and realize where they are. Given that they're playing the hard-charging in-your-face Sawks, I foresee a few smackdowns in thie ALCS, so grab your popcorn....The Phillies are dangerous with their plethora of big-hitting left-handers. The Dodgers do not have a deep pool of lefty arms and this could be the turning point of the NLCS. But the Dodgers are playing a lineup that's NEVER played together in the regular season, and the Cubs couldn't figure it out.

I say Dodgers in six; Sawks in six.

First Friday 10-Spot -- October 08

Let's have some fun...

1) The hockey mom held her own last night. When she was first announced by McCain as his veep choice, the teeth were gnashing and all just couldn't wait for this match-up, anticipating a Biden romp. Well, it didn't happen. I'm not saying Joe didn't carry the debate in terms of points, but it wasn't the bloodbath that most were predicting. I did have a problem with Palin blaming predatory lenders for the current mortgage mess -- uh, just a dog-gone minute there, sugar britches, it was lack of regulation and ease of guidelines that led to this demise. Get your facts straight -- oh, that's right, she had her own agenda on talking points, whether they pertained to the question directly or not. Palin is starting to lose momentum because her interviews with Couric were not strong, but the novelty still remains. Whether it can be cashed in for legit votes remains to be seen, but I'm beginning to sense a crack in the credibility ice. My favorite line is: "she showed herself to be a tough, down-home governor from an oil-rich state -- and we did so well with the last person who was like that"...DOH!

2) Well, well, Wells -- The Stagecoach is coming to town! Wells Fargo is buying the-former-employer-that-must-not-be-named, lock stock and barrel, for $7/share, all on its own. Not to be confused with the previously announced deal with Citi that was going to split up the bank AND only pay $1/share AND require FDIC assistance. Should be a fun proxy fight. And personally speaking, it's further proof that somebody up there is looking out for me; I'm so glad I'm not going to be a part of any of this, but I will enjoy competing against them. Mark it down as another bullet dodged...

3) My DODGERS are up 2 games to NONE in the best-of-5 against the little bears, winning the first two games in Chicago, and the next two (if necessary) are in L.A. I wonder how my old friend Mark Gordon is doing right now...sorry, buddy, but it's payback for when your Bulls tromped on my Lakers -- I told you we'll get you back for that...

4) I'm shocked...SHOCKED to hear that, per the Fed jobs report this morning, unemployment is up again, for the 6th straight month. And the pundits say it's only gonna get worse. There's lots of talk about a gloomy holiday season: if small business cannot get their credit lines extended or renewed, they have no way to capitalize themselves so that they can hire seasonal workers plus carry their inventory plus cover benefits expenses. Another reason why the bailout plan is sorely needed, but the silver lining to this dark cloud is that we should see more serious fiscal responsibility on all levels, and that's not a bad thing...

5) National Stay at Home Week: what is that?? You gotta be kidding me. I don't know about you, but it's more like Prep The House for the Holidays Week around here. I'm up to my elbows in carpet cleaners, dust rags and lawn equipment, not to mention Girl Scouts, PTO meetings and HOA issues or taxiing the kids to and from the mall or movies. And the only TV I'm watching is either politics or baseball playoffs or football. I'll get caught up tonight (like I do almost every Friday night) when I catch The Soup on E! and The Greatest Week Ever! on VH1, with a big glass of vino and a relaxing heater. Speaking of which:

6) Cigar of the Year: Punch Rare Corojo. Great, smooth smoke with a mellow taste, and burns evenly. Women love to share it, which is never a bad thing. One of the best cigars for its price range.

7) Wine of the Month: Alice White Red Lexia. It's not too sweet like a white zinfandel, but it's also not too dry like a merlot -- works great for all tastes, especially in social gatherings. It's not the best choice for your moment of solitude, but it works well for your special "one-on-ones" with the fair sex. They also make a white version, just called Lexia, which I prefer over the over-rated chardonnay.

8) Best non-mainstream TV show: Rescue Me. Great writing, great interaction, and the action scenes are tense yet realistically candid in conveying human humor during a crisis. Catch it if you can find it. Usually on F/X, but the writer's strike last year really f'ed up its schedule.

9) Previously-read book that I'm re-reading: Dune. I've forgotten how deep it was. Fear is the mind-killer. It can be dry and long in spots, but it projects an interesting concept in human evolution beyond the 25th century...

10) Guilty Pleasure Website of the Month: www.chickipedia.com. It had to be done.

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

How did we get here?

There's an interesting article from the 1999 New York Times, that tells us alot about the possible cause of the current housing crisis:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/25/1999-ny-times-article-revealed-true-cause-current-fannie-mae-crises

Let me preface this by saying that, as a long-time licensed mortgage professional, I remember this moment in time because it opened up more sales opportunities for us -- but we (the good guys, anyway) remained diligent in our efforts to help qualified borrowers obtain housing. We still had to run the applications thru several underwriting levels before obtaining final approval.

More importantly, this still did not guarantee that new homeowners were going to be budget conscious and not live beyond their means. Alas, this last comment, in my professional opinion (gathered by years of analyzing consumer credit profiles) contributed greatly to the sudden increase in mortgage defaults. All the more reason why it's so important to teach our children at a young age about budgeting concepts and how to balance a checkbook.

I'm curious to hear your side: when did you learn how to balance a checkbook, and who did you learn it from? And have you ever been in credit difficulty? Was there a particular reason why you got there, and what have you learned from it? Thanks for your serious contributions!

Pelosi can't shut her piehole

News came out this morning that one of the major reasons why the Bailout Bill failed was because House Republicans refused to vote in favor of it due to caustic partisan remarks made by Speaker of the House (and Democrat) Nancy Pelosi, just before the vote. Millions of married men everywhere, when hearing about this, silently laughed and shook their heads -- because we KNOW the feeling: women must always have the last word, good or bad. You picked a helluva time to mouth off, Madame Speaker.
Sure, there's good to come of this -- the bill needs to be given more time for review (after all, it's only 700 BILLION dollars we're talking about here), but it also brings to light several very interesting tidbits:
1) We still don't exactly know what makes up the $700 billion figure. We got this number from a 3-page bill suggestion from the Bush Administration via the Secretary of the Treasury. An administration (and possibly Secretary) that will be out of office in 4 short months, yet the funding is to carry over 8-10 years minimum.
2) This means that all the House members were to vote "yea" on the largest funding package ever, yet have no specific idea how it's to be allocated. It's no wonder that most of the House was skeptical at best, especially only 7 weeks from election day. Many were concerned that a "yea" vote would sink their campaigns, so naturally they took the high road.
3) Neither Obama nor McCain was able to make a difference in the voting. Obama had a meeting with the Black Caucus on Sunday -- the same group that voted "no" on the bill. I guess he didn't have enough time to discuss and persuade the caucus to vote the same "yea" way he would vote, and this certainly can't bode well for him -- one could turn this around and say the same things the Dems are saying about Palin: if Obama can't sell the Black Caucus, how can we expect him to sell Putin? Meanwhile, McCain was unable to convince enough House Republicans to vote the same "yea" way he would vote, either. In fact, most of the House Reps from McCain's home state of Arizona voted "no" on the bill. Again, where is the effective leadership?
4) No help from a weak POTUS and a weaker SotH. Reagan didn't have these issues when he wanted important legislation passed, and do you think Tip O'Neil would have let this happen the way it did? No way. Both Bush and Pelosi suffer from the lowest approval ratings in history, so they have no mandate to help them influence the fence-straddlers.
5) Nancy's piehole. What in the world was she thinking? That didn't help your reputation to the American people, Nance. Ever hear of "discretion is the better part of valor"? Next time, use some decorum and work harder to set the example. We expect better from you.

Finally, I'm still wondering what exactly constitutes $700 Billion and what it specifically relates to in the accounting. Why can we not get more information on this? It is because of all this grey area in the numbers that I'm not concerned about the market suffering yesterday. And further proof can be found in today's market activity: up over 450 points, the very next day, so you know the 777 point drop was artificial -- of course it is! It's all speculation anyway!

First Debate Post-Op

The first POTUS debate was held last night in Oxford, MS, and the theme was foreign policy, yet everyone knew that, in light of recent events involving the financial crisis, the opening remarks were going to be monopolized with the candidates' viewpoints on how to solve this mess. The pre-game consensus was that this worked to Obama's advantage because McCain is seen as light on economic issues, plus he has the weight of the current administration on his back (due to they sharing the same party affiliation). McCain's saving grace was to be his advantage in foreign policy experience, so the debate was shaping up to be a toss-up. Obama's focus was to come off as presidential without seeming aloof, while McCain's focus was to come off as independent of the Bush administration yet still viable as a reformer.
The first half was dominated by the financial bailout and the mistakes that got us to this point. On this topic, I felt that both candidates were equally lukewarm. They both benefited from using sweeping generalities that sounded good but carried little substance. This shouldn't be a surprise, given that both candidates either have little knowledge of specifics or are too wary of hanging themselves with statements that may or may not have credibility in their logic. Obama had several golden opportunities where he could have piled on McCain and effectively associated him with the status quo, but he continually missed -- my impression was that Obama was overcoached on this topic and was (therefore) unable to put any type of constructive thought together that made sense. I think McCain sensed this early and pulled back, letting Obama trip all over himself, and it worked. Obama could not close his arguments, which is a serious flaw in his preparations. It will be interesting to see if his advisors will help him correct this or if they even notice it in time before the next debate. I was looking for any hook that I could grab onto, from either candidate, that demonstrated strength and determination in resolving the crisis, and I got nothing. Advantage: push.

The second half of the debate brought us back to the reality of the current foreign policy, and again I was amazed that Obama failed to jump on openings or create obstacles that would force McCain to back-pedal. McCain came off much better on this topic, but I felt his comments were slightly off-set by his demeanor. McCain rarely, if ever, looked at his opponent, giving an impression of being condescending and disrespectful. In post-debate coverage, GOP pundits were describing it as the warrior in McCain, working on a posture of stiff defense as he prepared for battle. Well, that's taking it to a ridiculous level, in my opinion. Most media experts know you must always remember that you are pitching to an audience of 6th grade level, so keep it simple, clear and repeat as necessary, but avoid being disdainful and bored. McCain, with his posturing, in my opinion, came off as stand-offish and, dare I say, elitist. Obama held up well with his knowledge of foreign matters, but again did not recognize the opportunities presented -- either he didn't see it or he was following a game plan and didn't want to stray from it. McCain seemed to have a better grasp of foreign policy, but his body language and snide comments negated any advantage gained. Obama seemed to be comfortable on this topic and came off very well, but he failed to gain ground because he refused to improvise on his remarks, thus letting McCain off the hook. Advantage: push.

Like most of America, I was hoping to see one of these guys take an early advantage, but it never materialized. I'm afraid that, because both didn't distance themselves from the other, the impression to America will be that, in light of the current events, we remain unconvinced and wary that anything can and will be resolved by either of these guys.

Beggin' the Captain's Pardon

Was that the President of the United States on television the other night, explaining how MBS's work? Holy Crap -- now that's a sight that I would have never guessed would happen (although it needs to happen more often -- let's never forget the power and benefit of too much information). As a card-carrying member of the residential mortgage financing consultant community, I thoroughly enjoyed watching the POTUS run down the schematics of investments collateralized by Mortgage Backed Securities...until he directly blamed the sub prime house financing mismanagement for this crisis. Uh, No, Mr. President, that is not correct. This mess started long before 1999 when FNMA (Fannie Mae) and FHLMC (Freddie Mac) loosened their underwriting guidelines so that borrowers with less-than perfect credit can qualify for home mortgages.
Most of us who have worked (and/or are currently working) in the financial field know that this all started over 25 years ago on Wall Street when Salomon Brothers began the collateralized investment pools. If you really want a good "primer" on this subject, I suggest you buy the book "Liar's Poker" by Michael Lewis and give it a good read. You will come away with the knowledge that the seeds of nouveau greed were planted at that time, and it changed with the tides as each endeavor was crushed. Greed just moved and assimilated from one opportunity to another. From junk bonds to MBO's. From MBO's to Internet stocks. From Internet stocks to sub-prime housing. From sub-prime housing to Credit Default Swaps. And on it goes. Another good reference book is "Den of Thieves", by James B. Stewart. Check them out and tell me your thoughts -- I think you will agree with me that it's the system that's generating this economic virus.
The other day, I was talking to a guy who asked me what I did for a living. When I told him that I was a mortgage loan officer, he immediately recoiled and, in raised voice, said "so you're the guys that are to blame for this mess!" and gave me a sideways glare. I was not amused. I couldn't decide what disgusted me more: his utter ignorance or his easily manipulated viewpoint that (most certainly) came from some pablum morning "news" show. I shot back with comments about how he shouldn't be so quick to judge without knowing both sides of the story, and it's unfortunate that most people jump to conclusions before raising their level of awareness, especially when everyone knows that bad news sells more newspapers and gathers more viewers -- it would be great if people were more likely to question the media and seek the truth, if not both sides of the story. Then began the backpedaling, but it was too late for me; I marched on with the explanation that it's not my fault that John Q. Public doesn't understand how to budget his finances and not try to live beyond their means.
Affordable house financing was a boon to Wall Street, but we now see that the good times were all artificial. Loan officers worked hard to help more people reach the American Dream of homeownership. The only problem was that we did such a good job of restructuring personal debt service that Mr. and Mrs. Public became aggressive consumers. Let's get a newer car with more extras! Let's get a newer computer with more bells and whistles! Let's get that jumbotron-like flat screen tv! Ipods! Cell phones -- We need another, more expensive phone and an equally expensive minutes plan, because it's not enough to just have a land phone! Satellite or digital cable tv to go with that fancy flat screen tv! It goes on and on. Suddenly Mr. and Mrs. Public are deep in debt, and guess which payment doesn't get made? The largest one -- the mortgage payment. And most people don't realize that the absolute worst thing to do to damage your credit (outside of filing for bankruptcy) is to default on your mortgage payment. Most underwriting can forgive and work around history of late payments on consumer credit accounts (provided there's a reasonable explanation of a one-time event, in writing from the borrower), but there's no forgiveness for late mortgage payments. It's a message that gets easily lost in the moment, until the time comes when new credit is needed, and by then it's too late.
So I say to you, Mr. President, and also to you, members of Congress, in all due respect, please raise your level of awareness. It's not the mortgage crisis that's causing this sickness in the markets -- it's the system that allowed the greed to fester and manifest itself within our free market economy. Your $700 billion relief package is nothing more than a bandage on a deep flesh wound. The problem runs deeper than that.

The Wall Street financial crisis is blowing up in our faces...or so we are being told. Are you like me and are wondering just what exactly justifies a price tag of $700 BILLION dollars? Why not $500 billion? Why not $100 billion or even $7 billion? Plus, we're being told that this must happen NOW. What is the reference point? Why not disclose what's behind all this? Or are we not being told because no one really knows? Let me know what you think. More to come...

Correction (already)

Lehman filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, not Ch. 7 as previously mentioned...

[dealbreaker.com]

All apologies...

Monday Musings...

(trying to make this a regular event every Monday...)

Politics...Sports...Current Events...Entertainment...Potpourri...it's all here. Chime in anytime.

Current Events
Hurricane Ike was devastating to the Gulf coast, especially the Texas shoreline. Didn't get much rain or wind here in Charlotte, NC -- instead, we got incredible price-gouging at the gas pumps. I got a call late Thursday night from a good friend, saying the word was out that, starting Friday morning, the price of gas would go up up up, and there's also talk of rationing. I didn't agree with my friend; how could there be a problem when the cost of a barrel of oil was back down to $100 and there was no mention of gas shortages anywhere on CNBC or any other business channels, even in spite of the oncoming hurricane? I didn't believe it...until I set out on the road early Friday and saw the long lines at the pumps and the price of gas being .50 to 1.00 higher than what I paid for it only 24 hours earlier. I turned on the local newsradio station to hear that some places were up over $1/gallon. By the afternoon, news was coming in that various suburbs were completely out of gas and people were scrambling. We were now up to $5/gallon in some places and, as I drove past gas stations, there were still lines (at the places that still had gas), and I noticed that people were filling up small portable gas tanks in addition to their cars. Notice was served later in the evening that the state attorney general and the governor were going to investigate price-gouging complaints, but as of this writing, there's still no progress or mention of arrests (I don't know what more proof they needed, but then again, this state's administration is weak at best, so I'm not holding my breath). All this while the national average went up only $.06 at most. It will be interesting to see how fast the local price will come back to prior levels once the hurricane is gone -- I have a strong feeling that the price will take much longer to come down than it did when it went up. And throw in the prediction that no one will be prosecuted for gouging...
Meanwhile, there is the pressure cooker that is the Financial Crisis. On Friday, the word was out that Lehman was aggressively looking for a buyer. By end of business, there was not resolution, but the Feds were now involved and planned to discuss options over the weekend. Uh-oh -- Last time this happened, we lost Bear Stearns. If the Fed works weekends, someone's gonna pay. This morning we hear that Bank of America bought Merrill Lynch, and Lehman filed for Ch 7 BK. We were witness to periodic shots of Lehman employees shuffling out of the building with their work belongings in boxes. Ken Lewis, CEO of BofA, was shown with a happy face, and this was just 6 months after saying he had enough "fun" with investment banks and was no longer interested in acquiring another. Today, he's saying the timing was right and that Merrill is the world leader of investment banks, and that BofA will become the premier world financial leader. Yeah, right. Talk about lipstick on a pig -- he also said that he didn't want Lehman when the Feds said there'd be no arrangement like JPMorgan got with Bear Stearns, but it didn't matter anyway, because this will be a great deal. Ohhhhhhkayy...why do I get the image of Luka Brazzi holding a gun to Ken's head, over a table, saying either Ken's signature or Ken's brains would be on the purchase agreement for Merrill or Lehman? I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'...

Politics
Didja catch the SNL parody of Palin and HRC? Great stuff -- Tina Fey was golden. The skit hit the morning shows with lots of fanfare, and I even read where Palin once dressed as Tina Fey for Halloween! Talk about life imitating art imitating life...
Well, I see where Obama's camp has finally got it right and is focusing on McCain instead of being distracted by the shiny metal object that is Palin. You won't win if you keep fighting a girl. Only problem I have is that O's camp is issuing press releases that Mac is using dirty tactics and is being unprofessional with lies and mistruths -- dude, get a grip. No one likes a whining crybaby. Try coming out with substance, or do you have anything to offer? Give us some hope with some credible ideas or solutions. Stop with the finger-pointing or you'll lose...to an old man and a GIRL! bwah ha ha! America is getting beat up everywhere (or the perception is that we are), and we need to know if someone has the cajones to roll up sleeves and work this out -- seriously. I'm not saying I'm for one side or the other -- I'm still undecided, but this negative campaigning crap needs to stop. Again, we have candidates that want to bitch at each other instead of offering ideas or solutions, as if they're too scared to play their hand. Maybe there's a method to the madness. Maybe the hand can't be played too soon or else it gives the opposition more time to digest and counter it. Who wins? no one. Who loses? We all do.
Meanwhile, the market closes down over 500 points!!! Where is the damn bottom?? And now I see where Paulsen says the only way to pull us out of this mess is though the housing market. Wait...what? Dude, are you not aware that no one is buying houses right now? There's no reason to buy when everyone is still unsure of their financial future! Don't be waiting for the housing market to bail you out yet AGAIN. Try earning your salary and implement some policies that make sense for the country, long-term and short-term! Popular or not! Americans are tough and will take short-term pain if they know there will be a greater good served down the road. Just like any other sickness, the first and most important step is to admit that you are sick and acknowledge your weakness...

Spin Cycle

Oh, how I love to see expert spin doctoring at works, especially in a political campaign. I want to share these tidbits with you:

1) from the very smart writers at The Daily Show: http://email.comedycentral.com/a/hBIxZceBAhkQSB7S4rVBNRz8AJN/cc10-1

Yes, the Dems have had their moments, too, but in light of todays' events, I found the aforementioned spins very amusing...

2) But by far, my most favorite clip from The Daily Show -- it blows me away: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184097&title=Bristol-Palin's-Choice

"another word for alternative...what's the word I'm looking for?"... bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Thanks and a tip of the hat to Comedy Central and The Daily Show -- you made my week!

It was 7 years ago today...

I remember it well. In Charlotte, the weather was much the same as it was in New York and Washington: sunny and clear skies. It was a little after 8:30am, and the kids were off to school, the wife was off to work, and I was on my way to my favorite bagel shop for a quick breakfast sandwich before I start my visits to various business partners. My partners don't normally get started before 10am, so I knew I had some time to take in a few newspapers and trade magazines. As I was driving into the city, I tuned my radio to the local AM News/Traffic station, to get an update on the traffic congestion. The morning team was moving along with their usual cheery, light-hearted banter. "Today is National 9-1-1 Day,", the radio dude started to say, "in recognition of phone number used for emergency purposes"... as if this ironic statement was a precursor of what was about to come. My eyes were rolling in the back of my head as I heard this -- yeah, like we need another National Recognition Day, soon every little thing will have their own "national" day, what's next? Is this the best you've got for me? Where's the traffic report so that I can switch back to the morning sports radio station?...
The radio chick interrupts her partner: "this just came across the wires -- there is a report of a small fire in one of the World Trade Center towers, and some are saying it may be the result of a small plane possibly hitting one of the towers"...Hmmm, I thought, it's possible, and we haven't heard of this happening in quite a while...the radio voices continue: "you remember the Empire State Building was hit years ago by a small plane, I wonder if this is the same thing...we don't have a lot of information to pass along to you, but as soon as it comes to us, we'll get it to you"...the normal stuff you hear from news programs -- serious but still nothing to worry about as you make your way into work...
Then it all became clear, at 9:04am: "we have just been informed that another plane has crashed into the World Trade Center, and now both towers are in flames..." Wait, what? I turned my car around and raced back home -- this didn't sound like your ordinary small plane event, and I'm sure this would be thoroughly covered by all television news sources. Plus, I knew it would impact the markets, which would impact the rates that affects my livelihood, so I had a vested interest in getting more info -- and these local deejays were clearly in over their heads on this and couldn't get out of their own way with the various reports coming in.
Once at home, I tuned the TV to Fox News -- at the time, Fox News was new and trying to establish an identity, so I had a hunch that they would work harder to get the more unique visuals that others would not get, and I was right. The Big 3 and MSNBC were broadcasting traditional views, but Fox was getting better shots. I turned on my Picture-In-Picture and put on CNBC for that side, and I was equally rewarded: the financial markets were directly hit, and who better to report from their perspective than the financial news network? So there I was, toggling between Fox and CNBC, and I was amazed that CNBC had views that no one else had. The point was made when they showed their everyday opening show shot of the WTC skyline, the skyline we took for granted every day, only this day the skyline was covered in smoke, something we had never seen before. The CNBC announcers were visibly shaken. Suddenly, on Fox, there was the report that the Pentagon had been hit, and early feeds were coming in. My cell phone rang -- it was the wife, and she was frantic. No hello, no what's up. "Are you watching this? What's going on?" She was clearly agitated and was borderline frantic (as we all were). I told her the Pentagon just got hit, and she immediately repeated it loudly, as if she wanted the others in the office to hear her. "Where are you hearing this? What channel are you watching?" she shouted back to me. "Turn to Fox News or the local Fox channel", I said. I heard her repeat the instruction to others in the room, followed shortly by gasps from her and the others. She continued, "are we under attack? I heard that we are under attack! What about the children? Should I go get them?"...Oh my. I wasn't expecting this, I was so mesmerized by what I was watching that I wasn't prepared to discuss the kids' situation, but I knew I had to snap out of it. "Call the school to see what they are doing and if they're letting the kids out", I suggested. "I'm closer to the school so call me back and I'll go get them asap." "I'm scared", she said to me. "What is going on?" Her voice was shaken, and it was in the tone that none of us want to hear. "There's nothing going on here, it looks like it's only in New York and Washington. I'm watching it and I'll let you know if I hear anything that we need to know or do locally," I tried to assure her. She sounded more calm as she hung up, and I went back to the TV.
I was glued to it, like a bad car or train wreck that you just cannot stop looking at or turning your head from. "This is crazy", I thought...and just when I thought it couldn't get any crazier, the towers fell down. The phone rang again -- the wife is calling back. "I just called the school. The kids are alright, and they haven't said yet if or when they'll let school out early. Did you see the towers fall?"....yes, I said, I did. And it was then that I knew the world would never be the same.

What's your memory of that day? Has it changed you? I'll be discussing that question in a later blog -- it's amazing to me how deeply this event has shaken people -- it certainly warrants a more in-depth examination of the psyche that is forever etched in many minds and policy-makers going forward...

The New Republic(ans)

In the wake of the final day of the RNC and the NBA-style speech of John McCain (boring until the last 5 minutes), there seems to be an underlying shift going on within the Republican party -- namely, the need to change within itself to get back to the fundamentals that made the party more in line with mainstream conservative thought. It was astounding to see McCain apologize for the deviations of the past 8 years and vow to make things right again. It had to be done -- many conservatives are currently disappointed in what's going on lately and are wondering why the party has lost its focus; out of control spending on the federal level, lack of strong and no-nonsense leadership on foreign policy affairs (would Reagan hold hands with the Saudi prince?), the creation of more layers of government bureaucracy, not less -- did we really need a Department of Homeland Security? Isn't that like saying our decision to have a INS and a Customs Division was wrong and a waste of time and money from the beginning? Wouldn't it have been easier and more logical to reorganize the FBI and CIA, as well as the INS and Customs, without having to add yet another Cabinet department? But I digress...

Then again, the GOP knew they had to change tatics to recreate their image. The current state was not working and was dying in the polls. The only option was to attack as the true agent of change, to turn it back on the Dems. The response has been enthusiastic within the party mainstream. The Palin pick has been a major disruption to the process -- it's as if the controversy was designed to overshadow the current state of despair; as if to say "see? we are the team of change already with this pick. Bush/Cheney wouldn't have done this! This is a sign of how progressively intelligent we can be, and there's more where that came from!"
And the party is buying it. McCain, in his nomination acceptance speech, acknowledged the party mistakes of the past, and vowed to correct them, in essence distancing himself from the current administration. This move is also to counter the attacks from the Dems that McCain is more of the same, to get the message out to the undecideds that this team is different from the current team in office. McCain is being portrayed as a maverick who won't bow to the path of least resistance or unpopular agenda that has no net positive effect to the American people. Is it feasible? In terms of Washington politics, highly unlikely, but it would most certainly be welcome -- even the effort would be a refreshing change, provided it was proactive and not reactive like we've seen lately.

Palin is a risk and the party is getting chastised for not putting her out there to the wolves (i.e. press). It's similar to what you see when the accused refuses to take the witness stand. It's a strategy that will play itself out in the next few weeks via the debates and other events where someone is going to stumble. We haven't see the last of Sarah Palin in this election, but it would be nice to see where she stands vs. where she comes from.

RNC -- Day 3

Forgive me for taking some time to report on the final two days of the RNC -- after being mesmerized by Sarah Palin's speech on Wednesday night, I knew it would light a bonfire of comments and opinions from the various legitimate news sources, and I wanted to take it all in. Next thing I knew, it was time for the final night, and I also knew that I'd have plenty of time to ponder and opine during that 30-minute void ERRR McCain's acceptance speech...

DAY 3 -- First up: Meg Whitman, the eBay queen. Many are saying she will be the next governor of California, hand-picked by Ah-nuld himself, and it's common poly-sci knowledge that the Cali govnah job is always considered Presidential timber (provided said govnah is born in the U.S.), so I was interested in checking it out. Whitman's speech was very level, very standard -- I would say she had an agenda of not getting too crazy or too boring, so it was very Goldilocks, very safe. Next up was former HP CEO Carly Fiorina, and her speech was dry but she tried. I always wondered what happened to her, but she didn't look like she was suffering too much from being unemployed, so I'm glad I don't have to worry too much about her. Following Carly was Mitt Romney -- oh, yeah, now I remember why I just couldn't get my arms around this guy. Mitt's speech was delivered with gusto, as if someone told him to wake up the crowd following Whitman and Fiorina. Mitt was enthused to a fault, but he did his job...again. If McCain wins, look for Mitt to land on his feet within the administration. Mike Huckabee was next, and my perception is that he's still bitter about not being the nominee. For a former preacher, I found his speech to be non-contrite, and that kind of hypocrisy just strengthens the uneasiness many of us have with so-called religious zealots. Thankfully, next up was Rudy Guiliani, and I had to laugh -- oh, Rudy, you are the typical rabid New Yawkah. Rudy was like the yard dog you see chained to the tree in the back yard, not a piece of grass on the ground, barking up a storm as you pass by. Rudy revved up the crowd and did what Mitt could not -- he went directly at the Dems and their candidates, then he buttered up the crowd with rah-rahs for McCain and especially for Sarah Palin. Rudy left no stone unturned, and his speech set it up for the next speaker....
The SARAH-meister! The hockey mom! Kid outta nowhere! Cinderella story! But no tears in her eyes in this moment -- she was on a mission, and to paraphrase the old line, Hell hath no fury as a mother whose child is publicly ridiculed. Right off the bat, as she walked to the stage up to the time she said her first word of her speech, the crowd was in full applause, complete with 5 minute standing ovation. If you were wondering what the party response would be to all the questionable press about Sarah and her family in the prior 72 hours, you got your answer right at this moment. You knew she would have to absolutely crash and burn on the speech to screw this up, but you also knew she wasn't going to blow it -- it was well-known that she had expert GOP speechwriters and policy consultants working full-time with her since last Sunday. Her speech was borderline spiteful, yet full of substance and midwest charm, as only a PTA parent could deliver. She came out swinging against the Dems in general, and Obama in particular. The only thing she didn't say about Obama was "bless his heart", which, if you live in the South, you know that's the kiss of death. And I couldn't stop watching it. Sarah was not the most comfortable on the podium -- yeah, like any of us would be able to keep it all together on a stage like that, in front of a full house, and oh by the way, with 37 MILLION viewers on top of it. There were times that I thought I heard her voice crack -- very slight but noticeable to someone familiar with public speaking. She rallied well, and fed off the pauses she got from the applause breaks within her speech, and you could see her getting her mojo going, especially after the now-famous "lipstick" line (yeah, yeah, we know it's an old joke, originally used for female attorneys in the 70's, but effective nonetheless). Sarah came off as tough, no nonsense, and not giving quarter to the Dems, but really, what did you expect? She had to come out fast and hard, as if to convince us all that this was no fluke. Yes, it could be said that this is typical for women, that they have more barriers to overcome immediately if they are to be taken seriously. That may be true to some extent, but I can tell you that she got my attention right away, and I couldn't stop thinking about the comics' line of "rocking that dangerous sexy librarian look". And that accent -- it worked on the televised speech, but don't try it again on the radio; her voice on various newsradio shows was not comforting. The speechwriters used her to voice their spite to the Dems, and even better, she was comfortable being their spokesperson. My belief is that the goal was to get the Dems riled up
I'll save my opinions about her record and qualifications for later (I'm like you, I have questions and concerns, too). But what I did notice was that the Dems are still pissed about this pick, and the success of Sarah's speech is just adding gas to the flame. The interwebs are alive with vicious and caustic attacks on her character, her record, her attitude, and the irony that their girl, HRC, would be skewered alive by the 'publicans if the situation was reversed...more on that later....and more on Mac Daddy's speech last night...stay tuned...and thanks for the comments, keep 'em coming!

RNC, Day 2

(Due to the attention given Hurricane Gustav and the low-key agenda for Day 1 of the RNC, we skip to Day 2)

My first thoughts of this year's RNC is that I'm not expecting much from this crowd -- they are, after all, the party that has held the White House for 8 years now, so what more can be said? Of course we all know the motive is to continue to elect the POTUS from their party, but the problem I see is the reality of what is going on in this country. The Iraq conflict (and the billions upon billions of dollars spent on it, without recourse from the same oil-rich country) is not popular. The economic stagnation is not popular (though some would say it's returning to normal from previous unnatural levels). The mortgage mess is not popular (although the system is failing from its own self-serving attempts to loosen the guidelines of homeownership -- I can personally attest to this, having been a part of this industry for over 11 years, but I'll save that for another post). The widening discrepancy between the "haves" and the "have nots" is not popular (will this issue ever go away in this country that relies on free enterprise and capitalism? No.).
McCain has his work cut out for him -- his predecessor has not left him with much to work with, and it's going to be difficult to disassociate himself from the current (and very unpopular) POTUS. The question becomes: how to market yourself as equal but separate? Let's use another sports analogy to analyze this: whenever a team dominates their sport for an extended number of seasons, it becomes a dynasty, but it also becomes a victim of its own success. Other teams openly court key players of the dynasty with offers of more money, less work, more control of their own schedule. The coaching staffs are robbed with promises of head coaching jobs to current assistants of the dynasty. The public fall prey to the old saying "familiarity breeds contempt" and lose interest in watching the same team win over and over again. Thus, the dynasty breaks down -- unless the dynasty becomes proactive and plans for the inevitable changes by making decisions that are so unexpected, so bombastic that no one saw them coming. The New England Patriots were consistent winners, and in the off-season they cut popular (but aging) players who were formerly instrumental to their success -- the team had to move on to stay competitive, and this is not a popularity contest. The New York Yankees were consistent winners, and in their off-season, they did the same as the Patriots, cutting loose of key players or (even worse!) signing players from their arch-rivals, because the team had to move on to stay competitive, PLUS stay in front of the public eye by making moves that made people talk about them.
In the McCain camp, we have the same thing going on. McCain needs to provide the same ol', same ol' with something different, but not too different so as to jeopardize the home base. McCain and Bush never got along, and were friendly adversaries at best. Their only connection was that they both belong to the same political party, so they had to make the peace if they wanted their party to have a future (and with all the millions of dollars in donated campaign funds over the years, they both had heavy "debts" to pay back, one way or another, and BTW, this is not isolated to the GOP, either). To see Bush up there, promoting McCain with conviction and emphasis, was, for lack of a better word, weird. All would agree that the best thing to happen to McCain was to have Bush not be there in St. Paul. The party got what it wanted in keeping the Bush speech short and sweet. Heck, the speech was even pre-recorded, so I'm sure Bush was watching SportsCenter while his speech was being played to the crowd. But that's ok with the party. Speaking of OK: I thought Laura Bush did a great job -- this woman is a teacher, so she is comfortable with commanding an audience, and she was not heard from enough these past 8 years, in my opinion.
Fab Freddy Thompson came up next, after a short film on McCain's service record as narrated by Gary Sinise (Lt. Dan to most of us). Fred did a great job telling the story of McCain's suffering as a POW. It was moving and inspiring, but every once in a while, I couldn't help wonder about the mentality of someone who would put up with this crap for 5.5 years. I wonder if McCain has secret desires to give the order to flatten all of Vietnam within five minutes after taking the oath. Or secretly commissioning a "massaud-like" team to go in there and find his captors and pull a Marcellus Wallace on 'em. But I digress...
After a video tribute to Ronald Reagan (which I thought was sloppily produced and lacking in key rallying points), we were treated to a speech from Joe Lieberman. Or at least, I heard he spoke -- I dozed off around then and don't remember much about it. Seriously, Joe should have been replaced by Rudy Guliani in that spot. Who is planning this convention agenda?
The best part of the night was when a reporter interviewed Newt Gingrich after Joe's speech -- when Newt was asked to explain Sarah Palin's experience (or lack of it), Newt went off on a tirade that was so incredible, I had to rewind the DVR and hear it again, because I just knew that Keith Olbermann was stewing about it and just couldn't wait to unleash his attack dog Rachel Maddow on it -- and I was right. Only problem for Keith was that it was followed by commercial break, then an on-the-spot interview by Andrea Mitchell with Joe Lieberman, then a segue to Chris Matthews' panel who quickly diffused the speeches properly, as we expect political discussion to be handled. Sorry, Keith, no one wants to hear what you and Rachel have to say, mainly because you don't know what you're talking about anyway, plus that's not the way to run a political discussion group. Watch the experts like Matthews and Buchanan, and learn.
All speakers were complimentary to Sarah Palin, and with good reason. Palin is going through an incredible amount of scrutiny in the past 48 hours, and most of it is uncalled for and lacking in professionalism, but it's not surprising (I blogged about this yesterday). Palin gets to speak tonight, and I would expect it to be one of the most watched speeches of either convention. Stay tuned...

The Very Idea of Sarah Palin

WELL, Well, well. McCain pulls the string on a pitch while the Dems were sitting on dead red on a 3-2 count with runners in scoring position. For you non-baseball folks out there, what I'm saying is that the GOP went with a pick that no one saw coming, and as a result has the opponents scrambling to counter. Just as it's commonly considered a bold move to throw a change-up in the above baseball example, it was equally bold for McCain to pick someone that was way off the radar of conventional thought, especially given her political experience. But the most caustic issue seems to be her gender. Over the weekend, I've scoured the op-ed pages, and all agree of the opinion that the move was made solely to appeal to the HRC hold-outs. I cannot imagine that McCain would make this pick just to pick up a few thousand votes -- we all know that most of the HRC supporters' ideologies do not agree with Palin's, therefore it wouldn't make sense to, in essence, throw this pick away. What I did find, however, was that women were very polarized by this pick, and the female liberal base was so upset about it that they could not see beyond the blood boiling in their eye sockets.
As a long-time admirer of the female persuasion, I felt as if I've seen this reaction before. You can generalize it and criticize it and debate it all you want, but the fact remains: women do not like not having the last word. When Obama made his triumphant nomination acceptance speech, the euphoria attached to it was embraced by all Obama supporters like a warm quilt on a snowy evening. And just as sobering and unsettling, that same quilt was yanked away within 12 hours, courtesy of the Palin pick (to be honest with you, I was fully prepared to see McCain announce his pick DURING the Obama speech, as a political ploy to split up the media attention. The very idea that this did not happen tells me the two candidates want to share a "gentleman's agreement" to keep things as civil as possible, outside of the negative ads. I believe this "agreement" carried over to Obama's reaction later about Palin's private family matters, but more on that later). The vitriol that spewed from the various female blogs (see the commentary on jezebel.com, for example) was so one-sided, so eye-opening in terms of getting a feel for what the reaction was on the pick. Women feel both threatened and angered by the pick, for all of the reasons you've (no doubt) heard by now. This speaks to me of fear -- fear that their feel-good story has been shattered, and maybe this Obama election victory may not be such a sure thing after all. Suddenly the Bush-dread has come back and it's deja vu all over again. Suddenly the feeling of doubt has re-appeared in the minds of the formerly euphoric Dems, and it's only human nature that when fear appears, one of the first immediate reactions is to get defensive.
This pick was not made to capture the disgruntled HRC supporter vote -- if that happened, it would be considered an added benefit. This pick was made to soothe the staunch conservative base, and, as evidenced by the incredible fundraising bounce in the past 72 hours, it is a home run with them. Palin is the ideal pick: attractive, tough, pro-life, pro-NRA, a devoted wife and mother, and not afraid to fight for the cause. And please stop with all the conjecture that she's only a heartbeat away -- have we not learned anything from Watergate? It's the people you surround yourself with that will make or break you. Don't we always tell our children the same thing? McCain-Palin or Obama-Biden will hold the posts, but the real policy will be shaped by the administration, and the real decisions will be made by the three branches of government. For instance, Palin is pro-life, but if elected, she and the GOP will still have a very difficult time rescinding Roe v. Wade. And with congressional elections held every two years, the balance of power is never a sure thing.
Personally, I think Palin is in for a very rough ride. She's a mother of five children, and most parents with children know how tough it is to juggle work and family schedules, with every child adding an expotential number of obstacles with it. The Dems will not be kind to her, just as the GOP will not be kind to Obama (by the way, please remember that the campaign is just getting started, the dirt has yet to fly). She has, to bring back the baseball analogy, gone from Single-A ball to the major leagues overnight, and is expected to perform at the top level from this day forward. Any player that has gone through a similar flight will tell you the pressure is enormous at the top, especially when compared to where they came from. I'm sure the McCain camp talked through all of this before making the pick, but you still never know how someone will do when put under the microscope (see Eagleton in recent history, for example). I just cannot imagine how she will hold up under this scrutiny. In one respect, it's only 65 days, so I guess she can look at it that way, saying to herself that she'll exchange 65 days for a personal and professional life that will never be the same after the election, for her and her family, win or lose. Think of the doors that will open for her and her family if she loses. Regardless of outcome, she's now a part of history, plus she's a role model for all young women, as a symbol of strength in moving closer to shattering that glass ceiling. My only comment to that is, "be careful what you wish for".

DNC -- Epilogue

Day 3 was exactly what we thought it was: the former President rallying the troops, as only he can, with that (in)famous wagging index finger, spelling it out for party faithful, letting us know the "truth": his personal contribution as POTUS, how he was regarded as too young and inexperienced, how he worked it out so that the country prospered while he was in office -- and "consequences": what would happen if Mac was elected to (allegedly) continue the Bush doctrine, the expansion of the current economic malaise, the bottomless pit of despair that is our foreign policy. It all played very well. The pundits were questioning HRC's speech the night before as being too soft on O and on Mac, as if she was still trying to hold a torch for her 2012 hopes; if the Dems were serious on wanting to win, they needed to get more aggressive, so what was HRC thinking with that weak speech? Well, the dogs were let out on Wednesday night, first with Bill, then with Biden. The main point of Bill's speech was to rally 'round the HRC troops to come over to the side of the O, and he sounded effective to me. If the Dems are (again) serious about winning this thing, they need to come together and put their loyalties for their candidate aside. You could say that O knows this; in a way, he wants to see them be "forced" to come to him. It was a smart play. O won the primaries. HRC bowed out. Now the delegates had to give it up. It wasn't advisable for HRC to tell them the way Bill did. She was the good cop, he was the bad cop, but he did it so well. I can only imagine what political wagering was discussed between camps, post-O election. But first things first -- as Bill said, you have to elect O first. So there it is: you got the thanks, you got the explanation of what's at stake, and you got the permission -- no, make that order -- to move over to O's side.
Biden's speech was moving and equally effective, in terms of describing what's at stake and what it means to him personally, with the addition of many jabs at his "good friend" Mac. I like Joe. I like that he chooses to employ logic and reason (as opposed to what we currently see in Washington) to his opinions on foreign policy and domestic agendas. Joe's "problem" is that he gets too emotional, too wrapped up in his opinions at times, and he comes off as wayward (sort of like this blog) and word-heavy. He needs to write his speeches and then take it to a professional writer skilled in cutting to the quick, and the end result would be very effective. Regardless, this ticket seems strong and determined.
DAY 4 -- the O in the Temple. As for the backdrop, I was not sure what to think about how the stage looked so "Roman" or "temple-esque", as were the rest of the pundits, but it was quickly diffused when compared to other convention nomination acceptance speeches (JFK's speech, after all, was in the L.A. Coliseum). And hey, he had it in a 75,000-seat stadium, so he opened it up not only to the convention delegates, but to other voters and those "on the fence", and there was great weather too boot, so I say it was a good move. As for the speech, all I can say is, "very smart". The speech was effective in that O went directly to the 'publican strengths and trumped them all. The strategy was to show O as strong and not fluff, direct and not hesitant, focused and not intimidated by it all, and most importantly, attacking on the same points and not whining about the differences in parties and what we want vs. what they want. It was a defensive offensive, and we all in the sports world know that the best offense is a good defense, and defense wins championships. I like to see strategy and smart thinking be put to good use for once. And the speech wasn't over inundated with poetic rhetoric, which is a good thing -- the facts needed to be re-stated. He needed to come in here and draw the line in the sand, and he did just that. The 'publicans have a lot of work to do.
Music: Bill's speech was preceded by "Don't Stop" by Fleetwood Mac -- the same song that we all remember so well on the night of the election in 1992, where he and HRC danced for joy upon the news they won. Again, nice song in terms of memories of younger, more innocent days, and equally important, memories of when the economy was perceived to be in better shape. Pre-O speech music was, in essence, an outdoor concert, with Stevie Wonder and Sheryl Crow performing live to the crowd. Post-O speech music was Brooks & Dunn, which is a favorite used by the Bush campaign (country music for the Dems? Wait...what?). All in all, the Dems did many things the 'publicans do for their conventions: lots of American flags waving, lots of talk about getting tough with the terrorists, lots of grandeur (and there were no balloons, but when was the last time you saw actual fireworks fly overhead after a convention speech?), and lots of accolades by all networks.
Next week: the GOP convention, but first, today is the big day for the Veep pick. And let's not forget that a major hurricane is on its way to New Orleans, which is NOT what the GOP needs right now -- we don't need more reminders of Katrina (even though the local Dem mayor and governor completely dropped the ball and were over their heads, it was easy to point fingers at the feds, which is a complete joke but can't be mentioned, but don't get me started)....
Let's get ready to rumble!

DNC -- Day 2

Not much to report here -- locally, we were under constant steady rain and we lost power shortly before 9pm, until after 2am ('publican conspiracy, perhaps?). Here's what I interpret from the morning shows...
1) HRC gave a good speech, but didn't wax poetic about O the man and why he is particularly qualified to be the next POTUS. Most say this was a ploy for her to remain at arm's length, in the event the O loses the election, which would make it easier for her to jump in again in 2012. Very telling segment on Morning Joe re the interview of the HRC supporter that, when directly asked, still cannot commit to the O. As I said yesterday, this could be the decisive point in the election. A good thing to come out of this is that the HRC supporters are at a cross-roads right now, which gives anyone running a great opportunity to spin their candidacy and viewpoints -- working with a blank slate is always easier than one you have to prime over before painting.
2) Then again, you could say I'm nitpicking. She said she was a proud supporter of the O. She said no way to McCain. She said the lines about, if McCain is elected, we'll see more of the same. She said her supporters should vote for the O. What more do we need? She did what was asked of her. She towed the party line. She voiced her support for the soon-to-be nominee.
3) All are wondering about tonight's speakers: Bill Clinton and Joe Biden. We speculate that Joe will try to reach out to the HRC supporters directly -- their demographics are more similar to his supporters, and I'm sure that had a lot to do with his selection as Veep. We dont' know what the former POTUS will say, and how he will say it. We know he's a gifted orator, but we also know the Kennedy's have resurfaced as power brokers within the party and they are backing the O, which is a major slap to the Clinton's. Bill has a great opportunity to re-establish his identity as the once former Big Dog of the party. Word is the HRC speech was proof-read by the O's staff, but they do not have the speech from Bill. Oh, this is going to be good...
4) How important is foreign policy in this election? The 'publicans are sending over Cindy McCain to Georgia to "oversee" the restructuring post-conflict with Russia. Since when is Cindy a key advisor in matters of foreign policy? Or are the 'publicans looking for any excuse to get more exposure on the evening news? Stay tuned...

DNC Day One

Missed the first couple of hours due to being "unavoidably detained". I heard that I missed the Ann Curry/Nancy Pelosi interview -- just how bad of a train wreck was it? Must have been uneventful if the morning shows aren't talking about it.
Caroline Kennedy looked great -- and very shy. I hear she's not a fan of the public spotlight, but remains a pillar of inner strength for her family. I'm sure the party would love to see her get more involved in the movement, but she seems content with her current role and I can't see her selling out for her own self interests. I also expect the O will appoint her an important role in his administration if he becomes POTUS -- probably not cabinet level, but I can see an ambassadorship in her future. I've always felt Caroline to be a kindred spirit -- she was born only a few months after me, and we both share a sense of family tragedy (granted, her tragedy was MUCH worse) at a young and influential age. She's somewhat attractive, but much more importantly, she's seen the world from a wide emotional spectrum, thanks to her famous (or infamous) parents. She did a good job in introducing her uncle last night.
Ted looked well. It was like watching living history. Like him or not, you have to acknowledge that this man has seen many changes in America in his lifetime, and most of us were wondering if this was the last time we will see him in this setting. He must have felt the same -- he was taking it all in at the end of his speech, looking around and around, as if even he knew this could be the last time. As for the speech, well, it wasn't the 1980 convention speech that still ranks up there as one of the best all-time. He's an older, very sick man, and you can see it was taking all that he had to make it through, but he also gave it all he got. His talking points weren't very strong, but given his condition, it was probably a good thing for him to not let his emotions override his physical limitations. One thing about the video tribute that I found weird was that it opened with a scene of water slowly lapping up to a coastline, and the first thing that came to my mind was "Chappaquiddick" -- I would say the video editors either screwed up (unintentionally) or were hoping that viewers would or could not remember or associate that event with this scene. After all, it was almost 40 years ago...Anyway, it was great to see Ted, even if it's one last time. Future DNC's will never be the same, but then again, that's the circle of life. One could say Ted will be replaced by Bill Clinton for future DNC's. It's never a bad thing to have a good and talented orator to make a speech at your convention...
Michelle Obama's speech was also, in my opinion, very lightweight. Is it me or did Teresa Kerry give a better speech four years ago? Maybe the intent all along was to have her come off a bit more human, more motherly, more loving and nurturing (which I'm sure she is all of the above, but the public is divided on that perception) to show her softer side, complete with her daughters ad-libbing at the end, talking to their daddy on the big TV like he's an astronaut in quarantine. The better half thought she gave a good speech, and I think it appealed to her because of the reasons I mentioned -- she drank the kool-aid given. And this is probably a good thing. The Dems have long been criticized for being too soft, too liberal, and here comes the O with his quasi-militant wife, going against the grain, and the 'publicans are lathering at the gums, ready to counter next week and beyond (see New Yorker Magazine cover for example), so Michelle's soft delivery had to be given to counter the counterstrike. I'm sure this campaign will see more of her tough side, but for now, the plan is to set the foundation for change, for the good, and it starts with a working Mom who's just like us, who feels our pain at the pump and in the grocery stores, who struggles daily to set a good example for her children, 'cause that's the first thing she thinks of in the morning, and the last thing she thinks of before she falls asleep, and isn't that what it's all about? Say it with me now: awww...
The O on the big screen. Didn't like it. He looked confused, tired and (again) not in control. Would have been easier to understand if viewers knew where he was and what he was doing prior to his coming on-screen. Or if they did announce this (and I wasn't aware of it), would it have hurt to "remind" us of the announcement details?
The Stage: I see those lit-up door frames and all I can think of is the scene in "Beetlejuice" -- if you remember the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about. You don't have to get so grandiose with these things -- keep it simple so as to not take the attention away from the speakers and (more importantly) their message.
The DNC pundits are trying very hard this morning to spin it and promote that message of theirs, but the speeches last night were nowhere near heavy-lifting. And judging from their comments, the grand design includes a soft opening. Should be interesting to see HRC (tonight) and Bill (tomorrow night) deliver their messages. Word is the Dems threw HRC a bone by letting her be the one to put the O over the top by acclamation -- this will be pivotal, because we all know the party is starting to divide between the camps and the O cannot win without the HRC supporters. Stay tuned...

P.S. the McCain spot on The Tonight Show: very awkward moment when he plays the POW card on a comedy show routine. This is another one of those moments I love to catch: when the candidate stumbles or blows the counter prep given to him by his staff on issues he screwed up earlier. McCain's rebuttal was not funny, not appropriate, and still didn't help to explain what he meant last week...

PARTY TIME!

It's no secret I'm a political wonk, so my fun re-starts this week with the Democratic Convention. I enjoyed the 2-yr primary run, but it gets longer and longer each POTUS election cycle. Hopefully, the end result will show that people like HRC and John Edwards gained NOTHING by starting so early. The party's get so uptight on when it's acceptable for states to schedule their primaries -- maybe they should be equally uptight on when it's acceptable to officially begin these campaigns, complete with strict guidelines and penalties that cannot be easily challenged in court. Let's see, what else...

The Selection of Joe Biden (not to be confused with the movie "The Seduction of Joe Tynan"):
I seem to recall a certain electronic correspondence shared between friends about 6-8 months ago, where I suggested that Biden be seriously taken as strong presidential timber. Having watched Joe on various political shows the past 12 months in particular, I could see he had a grasp of what is (mostly) needed to stop the madness and to move forward with making sense of it all. Joe has a son going to Iraq very soon, and therefore he has a (stronger) vested interest in the conflict over there. I've always believed that statesmen should not be allowed to make policy on issues they don't have a direct interest in -- sort of like the argument that if you don't' have children, you shouldn't be on the school board or make nasty comments about interactions between parents and their children in public. I'm not saying to ignore public child abuse -- we still, as a civilized society, have an obligation to uphold ourselves to a higher and rational standard. But I also remember being single and carefree, and being annoyed at the local mall by all the strollers pushed by parents who were walking at a snail's pace -- "how rude of them!" I thought, until the day I had kids that I was strolling in a mall, and it all came back to front. And so it is very similar with Joe -- he's past the mindset of working to make the world a better place for he to personally enjoy, and is now thinking and working to leave the world a better place for his children and his children's children. Joe makes sense of his complaints about the current administration's faults, yet he also knows that no administration can get it all correct, all the time, but at least cut your losses and move on, it's ok to admit mistakes, no one's perfect.
It seems that Obama shares the same sentiment in that this Biden dude got mad skills when it comes to foreign policy and Beltway protocol. Oh, stop it already with the soundbites that "Biden isn't an outsider"; as a moderate conservative, I don't care if you're in or out, I just want you to work harder to get it right, but don't take forever and a day doing it.
The Introduction Speech: OK, so there's the O, taking the stage in shirtsleeves (gotta be sure to convey he's a working man's man), and I get the sense that he's struggling here because he's always been the one to be introduced, he's always been the one to be propped up, not the other way around...suddenly the O seems lost, as if he forgot for a second who is actually running for POTUS. It's natural (to me) that the O slips a few times on the speech, he's in unfamiliar territory. He can't get out of there fast enough, you can see he's not diggin' this at all.
And then there's the Boss' song "The Rising" blaring between speeches, and we see Joe, also in shirtsleeves, jogging on stage -- is this to show the youth and vigor of these guys compared to the old man of the GOP? Of course it is!
The Joe Speech: Oy Vey, here we go. I'm sure they told him backstage, Hey, Joe, it's hot and humid out here, save it for later, don't go off on a tangent if you can help it. Joe has a few good zingers for McCain, and it's clear to see the O will use Joe as a foil since both Joe and McCain are long-time Senate members and adversaries. I like the move -- it makes for good theater, which we'll all see in the next three months.
Post-speech photo ops: U(we sold out long before this)2's "Beautiful Day" blares on the speakers to close it out...Joe getting a little too comfy and cuddly with Mrs O, while the O is polite to the white woman (kinda hard to kiss/hug with one eye on Mrs Drop Dead Gorgeous and the other eye on the old dude fondling my wife right next to me)...Then it's on to the handshakes -- this is where the Secret Service earn their money: Holy cow, these guys/gals are all business, they look like they just came out of a Men In Black convention, complete with shades. None of them look like they are enjoying this. You know what's on their minds, and so do the cameras, by the way. Let's not fool ourselves: We don't want another Bobby. But if anything goes down, we'll see it live and in various camera positions....OK, that went without a hitch, it's on to the Mile High City...
Speaking of Denver, my holiday season starts today: first day of school for the kiddies, and the wall-to-wall convention coverage begins, starting with Morning Joe on MSNBC, with a few peeks at Fox News, just enough to keep it "fair and balanced". The conventions have their moments between all the mindless party rhetoric: I love to see the many characters and personalities emerge on the floor, and that's just the TV people (watch for the jostling of face time at key events), and it's interesting to see who will deliver the keynote address and how they do it, 'cause you know it's either make or break for that pol, but my absolute favorite part of the convention is the night when the states announce their nominations -- there's always some drunk old man or woman who screws up their one shining moment..."Madam Chairman (hic), the great state of Ohio, home of (hic burp) the blah blah blah, pride of the Midwest, blah of the blah blah blah, would like to recognize (hic) one of our crown jewels (read: largest fundraiser)...(this is the part where former anti-war hippie sympathizer-turned-CFO of Dunder Miflin steps up, sweating like a hooker in church)..."the great state of Ohio (like we forgot already) nominates all 27 delegates to...our hope for change, peace, blah blah blah, the next president of the United States, (and by this time you are loading your revolver with one hand while searching your phone list for Angela Lansbury's number with the other hand)....
And we get to see this 52 times? Well, maybe not that long -- the networks know that no one's gonna bitch if they pull away from American Samoa's or Puerto Rico's turn so that we can see another bombardment of their fall TV crap they're shamelessly self-promoting (who knew Christian Slater was still alive?) or who's swinging the biggest dick of "the best political coverage team...EVER"...this is the part where I wish I had an Olbermann mute button, or hopefully his sushi will be (how do you Americans say) "tainted" tonight...please PLEASE don't make me switch over to CNN with Wolf (I peaked in 1992, but don't tell anybody) Blitzer and their ridiculous classroom setting -- I feel like I'm watching the college version of "Are you smarter than a fifth-grader". Yes, there's always FOX News, but I've put away my Hilter Youth Group uniform long ago (FOX does have better looking female talking heads, I'll give them that. They know which side their bread is buttered, plus they have to off-set those O'Reilly/Hannity ogres).

There's my prelim synopsis. I hope to post every day of the convention, to try and be more relevant to current events. Send me your comments, tell me who ya got, who bugs you, who you want to have a beer with, who's baby you want to have, you know the drill....

So Long, Beijing

(to all non-sports fans: don't worry, this won't be about the nerdy stats of any particular sports contests themselves, I'll keep it relevant)...And so, another Summer Olympics has ended. There's a few things I've taken away from these games:

1) Wow, can China put on a display or what? Granted, they "manipulated" the viewing of the opening ceremonies, and (no surprise here) would have never fessed up to it if they didn't get caught (keep that in mind, it happens again), but it was a sight to behold, and I know that two-dimensional TV didn't do it justice. I was amazed by the level of choreography and the incredible show of colors and themes. They did a great job -- it's nice to see hard work be rewarded by way of the outcome of the plan. No slackers here.
2) Broken ERRR Shattered World Records. Again, wow. It's clear to see how technology can help advance sports, and those new swimsuits were no exception. You could see the difference between those who used them vs. those who didn't. Phelps had all the physical attributes to be a champion, but he needed that suit to Shatter those records (and it may have had an indirect benefit to him on the race he won by a fingernail). As for the Jamaican runner Usain Bolt, who crushed the individual competition: I don't know if he had any techno help, but he was impressive in his wins. There were other winners that were equally strong, but Phelps and Bolt were the two that stuck out in my mind.
3) Winners...and Losers. Cheers to the USA basketball teams...but weren't they expected to win? Cheers to the Relay teams...for the long races they won. Both men's and women's teams dropped their batons during (simple yet required mandatory) exchanges in the short relay race that both were heavily expected to win. See? It happens in all walks of life: the devil is in the details. They were so worried about losing tenths' of seconds and jeopardizing a world record, that they failed to complete a small but vital part of the race and thus were disqualified. My impression was that the Americans were so overconfident and had such a smug attitude that they never thought this would happen to them -- and yet here we are, all full of talent, all full of ability, yet we STILL cannot close the deal on this particular race. Lesson to learn here, kids. Then again, children's books are full of old fables (Tortoise and the Hare; Ant and the Grasshopper) that have (for years) told us to never count our chickens before they're hatched. But hey, if you think "you're all that and a bag of chips", this is all BS to you, cuz you the bad mamma jamma, you 're above all that...whoops.
4) Cheat, cheat...never beat. The Chinese raided their local Gymborees to field their women's team, fudged on their passports, and won the gold in events they could not have done otherwise. Now, I'm not trying to be jingoistic here, I'm just asking that we all play fair and by the same rules. We'll play 14-yr olds, too, if it was allowed. One of the famous sayings in sports is, "if you're not cheating, you're not trying", and although there's some merit to that, it needs to be fully explained and not poorly used as a crutch or a surface-level cloak to cover up the sin.
5) Chinese Democracy. OK, so here's this oppressive super-power, very government-oriented, very uptight, yet we see scantily-clad girls dancing provocatively at the opening ceremonies and other events (including a very attractive cheerleading squad at the beach volleyball events...why? I don't know) and it cracked me up to see the Chinese women's beach volleyball team in bikini uniforms. Hey, I'm not complaining here, I just find it odd for China to embrace the Western Way (I heard the nightclubs were hoppin', too). The explanation is easy to see: the Chinese have no problem taking advantage of the Western immoral lifestyle to fit their (I'm sure) very short term needs. Just do me a favor, China, and don't be coming down with post-par tum depression and acting like a hard ass after the games by knocking the very thing you used to your benefit. Nobody likes a hypocrite -- just ask Quadafi or Sadaam Hussein or the Soviet Union (good luck on those last two). BTW, this mind-set reminds me of my good ol' Southern boys and girls around here -- they love the Baby Jesus and are quick to spout Scripture and condemn Satan, but they also like them some Hooter Girls and have no problem with "gentlemen's clubs" openly promote themselves on Chamber of Commerce materials. See? We have more in common that you thought!
6) Post-First Date impressions. For most of the world, this was like a first date with China, so it will be interesting to see how they are graded...and more importantly, if there's going to be a second date. Hey, we all have our quirks, and nobody's perfect, but if you can live with most of the good points and enjoy life and what it gives to you, then you should have no problem dealing with some of the weird stuff we all carry with us. So, what do you say? Do you want to play?