Friday, August 29, 2008

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!

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

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...

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

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...

Monday, August 25, 2008

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?

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

A Scandal in Beijing?

This is in response to Dan Wetzel's column "Karolyis’ sour grapes makes bad whine":

"Dan,I'm not trying to be a homer any more than you are trying to purposely stir the pot, but I must disagree with your assessment -- not of the Karoli's (sp), but of the suspected ages of the Chinese "women's" gymnasts, and of the conspiracy raised with the time delay. As a father of two young girls, even I could see the physical differences in the faces (and solely on the faces/skull structure) of the Chinese vs other teams -- why do I have a sinking suspicion that we will find out in 5-10 years that these girls were underage, via a press conference by one of the girls to promote her book in her new homeland of America? And I agree about the time delay -- please take the time to review the tape and look at the times between each contestant before they go on their beam routine; I am convinced that you will see a discrepancy large enough to warrant suspicion. After all, we're talking about the same folks who have admitted to lip-syncing and "engineered" televised fireworks during the opening ceremonies, so it would only be fair to your readers if you acknowledge the character of the source in question. Thank you for your consideration."

Dan's column does not provide a comment section that you can openly converse with other readers, and it's probably a good thing for him because anyone of sound logic and reason would immediately disagree with his unresearched viewpoint. I'm not trying to be an ugly American -- the silver medal in the Olympics is still pretty awesome -- but let's not pretend to ignore obvious discrepancies in these games. And I'll also be the first to say I'm not surprised by all the new world records in swimming -- it's not all talent, it's the major advances in swimwear and pool construction that's making the difference (just like graphite tennis rackets and golf clubs changed their respective sports). Certainly we wouldn't dare suggest our swimmers are performance-enhanced by any other way, would we?