The chaos in India's commercial capital of Mumbai continues, and although reports say police are making progress against the terrorists, it's not over after three days of violence. Reports of casualties fluctuate as more are discovered. And the looming question on the minds of people across the globe is who bears responsibility for this carnage. The answer to that question could create an entirely new area of instability that President-Elect Obama's soon to be unveiled national security team may have to deal with as a first priority.
Maybe it should come as no surprise that US media has been speculating throughout this horror that the attacks were somehow linked to al-Qaeda. After all, it's the terrorist group we're most familiar with. Plus, it's easy for an analyst sitting in a New York studio to take the fact of the complexity of the attacks and spin that into a series of questions about al-Qaeda's involvement. It's certainly true that militant groups inside India have never pulled off the series of coordinated attacks on hotels, the main railway station, and a Jewish center before. Yet does this mean the well equipped and armed young men who did this were acting on orders of Osama bin Laden?
Right now, the correct answer is nobody knows. The Indian government has begun pointing the finger of blame at Pakistan. Media reports have some of the gunmen arriving on a ship from Karachi. If this is true, or if most Indians believe it is, a new and potentially dangerous round of tensions between these two countries could follow. There have been six decades of conflict between India and Pakistan over the disputed territory of Kashmir.
One thing is for sure. No matter where these gun men come from or what cause they espouse, they were extremely well organized and well trained. That they held Americans and Britons hostage, and attacked a Jewish community center must make intelligence agencies in Washington, London, and Tel Aviv more than a little nervous. However, if there's one lesson to be learned by media from this conflict that isn't over yet, it is this.
Don't oversimplify.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Is Keeping Gates Wrong?
He's a yes man and a panderer, who backed Bush when it suited his purpose and will do the same with Obama. He's on the same page as Obama on a number of broad policy issues, and is the best person to maintain continuity. Yes, both the previous sentences are talking about the same man, Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Make that the once and future defense secretary. Gates will stay on in his current job, confirming numbers of earlier reports that this was what Team Obama wanted.
It's not, however, what many of his supporters on the left wanted. Some feel betrayed, not just by this decision, but by the seeming "business as usual" look to the team working for the man who promised change. In Gates' case, they point to his slavish advocacy of the surge in Iraq as proof his agenda isn't the same as that of the new commander in chief. Gates, while certainly not the polarizing figure his predecessor Donald Rumsfeld was, needs to clarify his stance on things like torture, eavesdropping on innocent Americans, and the like.
When word first leaked that Gates would stay on, the conventional wisdom was that Obama wanted to maintain good relations with Gen. David Petraeus. Why Petraeus rates such consideration is a good question, but no matter. Gates doesn't need to be reconfirmed, and unless media reports are totally messed up (and they have been lately), this is Obama's choice. Quite frankly, I don't think it was his best choice.
If Obama wanted both change at the Pentagon and to show he'd pick a Republican for a powerful job in his cabinet, the choice should have been Chuck Hagel. Unlike Gates, Hagel is as vocal an opponent of the Iraq war as Obama himself is. His knowledge of issues pertaining to the military is widely respected. He also obviously isn't afraid to take a stand at odds with his own party.
Barack Obama has with this decision, as the British put it, "put a foot wrong". Keeping Robert Gates on sends the wrong signal to those millions of Americans who bought into his mantra of change and hope. One doesn't have to feel betrayed to call this a mistake. What do you think?
It's not, however, what many of his supporters on the left wanted. Some feel betrayed, not just by this decision, but by the seeming "business as usual" look to the team working for the man who promised change. In Gates' case, they point to his slavish advocacy of the surge in Iraq as proof his agenda isn't the same as that of the new commander in chief. Gates, while certainly not the polarizing figure his predecessor Donald Rumsfeld was, needs to clarify his stance on things like torture, eavesdropping on innocent Americans, and the like.
When word first leaked that Gates would stay on, the conventional wisdom was that Obama wanted to maintain good relations with Gen. David Petraeus. Why Petraeus rates such consideration is a good question, but no matter. Gates doesn't need to be reconfirmed, and unless media reports are totally messed up (and they have been lately), this is Obama's choice. Quite frankly, I don't think it was his best choice.
If Obama wanted both change at the Pentagon and to show he'd pick a Republican for a powerful job in his cabinet, the choice should have been Chuck Hagel. Unlike Gates, Hagel is as vocal an opponent of the Iraq war as Obama himself is. His knowledge of issues pertaining to the military is widely respected. He also obviously isn't afraid to take a stand at odds with his own party.
Barack Obama has with this decision, as the British put it, "put a foot wrong". Keeping Robert Gates on sends the wrong signal to those millions of Americans who bought into his mantra of change and hope. One doesn't have to feel betrayed to call this a mistake. What do you think?
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Profiling Nixed?
A federal judge here in New York City has issued a ruling that's sure to be a topic of discussion in law enforcement and civil liberties circles. The ruling said the government can't use ethnicity as justification for detaining two Arab men questioned for four hours following a cross country flight. The pair sued the government, alleging the detention was unjustified. The judge apparently agreed.
Black people have understood for years the injustice of racial profiling. The term "driving while black" has become a cruel joke, one that unfortunately is all too real. The ruling in this case, which involves a pair of Egyptian born men, centers on the government's contention that they acted strangely during the flight from San Diego to New York. Uncle Sam's undoing, however, was in asserting that the men's ethnicity was a factor in deciding to detain them, and that it was an acceptable factor.
As it turns out, one of the men held was a former New York City police officer, the other employed by GE in Egypt. At no time during their detention were they charged with any crime. Civil libertarians are hoping this means the beginning of the end of the ethnic profiling that began in the wake of 9-11.
I wouldn't count on it. Besides the possibility of an appeal, the fact is that law enforcement has shown an amazing elasticity when it comes to profiling. The fall back position will likely be a simple denial that ethnicity has anything to do with the decision to detain someone.
That leads, of course, to the preferred rationale for stopping someone, black or Arab. It's the famous "acting suspiciously". Whether in a car or on foot, it works for cops in black communities. My guess is they'll tell counterterrorism agents to drop any verbalizing of ethnic profiling, and simply say a detainee was speaking in Arabic, or changing seats, both of which raised red flags in the case of the two Egyptian men.
The fact is, most Americans don't have a problem with ethnic profiling. We've been lead to believe it keeps us all safer. I don't think so. What do you think?
Black people have understood for years the injustice of racial profiling. The term "driving while black" has become a cruel joke, one that unfortunately is all too real. The ruling in this case, which involves a pair of Egyptian born men, centers on the government's contention that they acted strangely during the flight from San Diego to New York. Uncle Sam's undoing, however, was in asserting that the men's ethnicity was a factor in deciding to detain them, and that it was an acceptable factor.
As it turns out, one of the men held was a former New York City police officer, the other employed by GE in Egypt. At no time during their detention were they charged with any crime. Civil libertarians are hoping this means the beginning of the end of the ethnic profiling that began in the wake of 9-11.
I wouldn't count on it. Besides the possibility of an appeal, the fact is that law enforcement has shown an amazing elasticity when it comes to profiling. The fall back position will likely be a simple denial that ethnicity has anything to do with the decision to detain someone.
That leads, of course, to the preferred rationale for stopping someone, black or Arab. It's the famous "acting suspiciously". Whether in a car or on foot, it works for cops in black communities. My guess is they'll tell counterterrorism agents to drop any verbalizing of ethnic profiling, and simply say a detainee was speaking in Arabic, or changing seats, both of which raised red flags in the case of the two Egyptian men.
The fact is, most Americans don't have a problem with ethnic profiling. We've been lead to believe it keeps us all safer. I don't think so. What do you think?
Monday, November 24, 2008
Too Big to Fail?
America wakes Monday morning to the news that one of it's biggest banks, Citigroup, is to be bailed out by the federal government. It's almost as if Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke are operating a pinball machine. First, Uncle Sam was going to buy troubled assets from banks. Then they began putting money directly into these financial institutions. It seems neither strategy has helped Citigroup, whose stock has declined from $30 a share one year ago to $3.77 this past Friday.
It's said this financial behemoth is too big and too international to be allowed to die. Maybe so. Yet the government is guaranteeing about $306 billion dollars worth of toxic loans Citigroup put on its books. A legitimate question might be, how did that happen? After all, Citigroup always marketed itself as a pillar of the American banking system. As was the case with the first two bailout efforts, the taxpayers underpinning this government largesse will learn little or nothing about how all this came to be.
It's ironic in a way that Citigroup's headquarters is right here in New York. While a consensus has been reached that a bank is too big to be allowed to fail, our city's transit system has been calling for help. Those call have fallen on deaf ears. So while government can underwrite $306 billion dollars for a bank, when it comes to plugging a $1.2 billion dollar budget gap for New York's transit system, there's no money.
Well, not really. In this case, the money will be coming from the city's taxpayers in the form of a fare increase (maybe two). New Yorkers will also have to put up with more crowded trains due to decreased service, and severe cuts in bus service, in many cases to already underserved neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx.
I'm sure there are financial experts who can explain why a bank gets so much sympathy while transit users in the nation's largest city are left to fend for themselves. To me, it's inexplicable.
And unacceptable. What do you think?
Friday, November 21, 2008
I've Got a Really Bad Feeling About This
I've written blog items before warning about the perilous state of the US economy. However, Paul Krugman in the New York Times writes a piece that really scares me. He talks specifically about the period we're now in, that is, the time between the exit of Bush and the entrance of Obama. if we stand back and look at things objectively, Bush has done little more than thrown obstacles in the way of help for hard working Americans (the unemployment benefit extension notwithstanding).
Congress has thrown the ball for bailing out the auto industry right back in Detroit's court. They've got until December 2nd to come up with their own rescue plan. Hopefully they're asking themselves whether it made sense to fly to DC in private jets. Yet this is just the tip of the iceberg. Most forecasters have already predicted a bleak holiday shopping season. That means fewer retailers will hire fewer people. Jobless claims skyrocketed last month, and it looks like there's more to come.
Then, contemplate this. The $250 to $300 billion dollars already spent from the $700 billion dollar bailout package hasn't had the desired effect. Credit markets have yet to thaw, and financial stocks in particular have been hammered all this week. That means, put simply, the banks still don't trust each other, no matter how much money you throw at them. And speaking of banks, we have seen over the past few months a staggering series of events that have shaken the confidence Americans have had in our financial institutions.
I've said before that 2009 looks anything but appetizing. Now we hear forecasts of an 8% unemployment rate, a spiral of possible home foreclosures, bank failures, and the very real possibility of one or more carmakers going belly up, and laying off all their workers. Those people who thought the markets were tanking because of Barack Obama's election ought to be feeling like fools about now. He's in fact the one who the nation will look to in order to get us out of this mess, a mess not of his creation.
The only question is how severe will the pain be before we see light at the end of this tunnel?
Congress has thrown the ball for bailing out the auto industry right back in Detroit's court. They've got until December 2nd to come up with their own rescue plan. Hopefully they're asking themselves whether it made sense to fly to DC in private jets. Yet this is just the tip of the iceberg. Most forecasters have already predicted a bleak holiday shopping season. That means fewer retailers will hire fewer people. Jobless claims skyrocketed last month, and it looks like there's more to come.
Then, contemplate this. The $250 to $300 billion dollars already spent from the $700 billion dollar bailout package hasn't had the desired effect. Credit markets have yet to thaw, and financial stocks in particular have been hammered all this week. That means, put simply, the banks still don't trust each other, no matter how much money you throw at them. And speaking of banks, we have seen over the past few months a staggering series of events that have shaken the confidence Americans have had in our financial institutions.
I've said before that 2009 looks anything but appetizing. Now we hear forecasts of an 8% unemployment rate, a spiral of possible home foreclosures, bank failures, and the very real possibility of one or more carmakers going belly up, and laying off all their workers. Those people who thought the markets were tanking because of Barack Obama's election ought to be feeling like fools about now. He's in fact the one who the nation will look to in order to get us out of this mess, a mess not of his creation.
The only question is how severe will the pain be before we see light at the end of this tunnel?
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Three Private Jets? No Bet!
Maybe we shouldn't be surprised anymore that corporate America is clueless. First there was AIG, with it's lavish conferences, and now the Big Three automakers all fly from Detroit to DC by private jet. For the record, their names are Alan Mulally of Ford, Rick Wagoner of GM, and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler. They want $25 billion dollars of taxpayer money or, as Nardelli told Congress, national security could be compromised. Okay, they either need the government to fork over or their companies will go broke. So what's the logic in flying by private jet at a cost of around $20,000, when a commercial flight costs anywhere fro $228 coach to $837 first class?
Some members of the House Financial Services Committee had legitimate questions about this. Especially since the carmaker CEOs were talking about coming out of their near death experience leaner and more cost efficient. Rep. Gary Ackerman of New York said, "It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo". The automakers, of course, had a defense to all this. They say like many corporations, GM, Ford, and Chrysler require their top executives to fly private for safety reasons. If that's true, why didn't all three fly in one private jet? After all, hat in hand is hat in hand.
GM even had the guts to go on the offensive. "Making a big to do about this when issues vital to the jobs of millions of Americans, blah blah blah blah....." In other words, ignore our free spending, just give us the money. They may not get it, at least not now. Congress goes home today for the Thanksgiving holiday. There's a compromise in the works, but getting it done in one day is way beyond the capacity of lame ducks.
Besides, if the Big Three really had any empathy with the workers they employ, they'd stop trying to quietly scapegoat them as the source of the current car crisis. Labor agreements may need to be reworked, but job one for Detroit is to make vehicles that are more road reliable and get better gas mileage.
So we've got Congress eyeing the exit, carmakers still bleeding green, and the fate of 5 million American workers still on shaky ground. And all three CEOs flew their private jets back to an economically devastated region, no doubt pondering that to do next.
Nice.
Some members of the House Financial Services Committee had legitimate questions about this. Especially since the carmaker CEOs were talking about coming out of their near death experience leaner and more cost efficient. Rep. Gary Ackerman of New York said, "It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo". The automakers, of course, had a defense to all this. They say like many corporations, GM, Ford, and Chrysler require their top executives to fly private for safety reasons. If that's true, why didn't all three fly in one private jet? After all, hat in hand is hat in hand.
GM even had the guts to go on the offensive. "Making a big to do about this when issues vital to the jobs of millions of Americans, blah blah blah blah....." In other words, ignore our free spending, just give us the money. They may not get it, at least not now. Congress goes home today for the Thanksgiving holiday. There's a compromise in the works, but getting it done in one day is way beyond the capacity of lame ducks.
Besides, if the Big Three really had any empathy with the workers they employ, they'd stop trying to quietly scapegoat them as the source of the current car crisis. Labor agreements may need to be reworked, but job one for Detroit is to make vehicles that are more road reliable and get better gas mileage.
So we've got Congress eyeing the exit, carmakers still bleeding green, and the fate of 5 million American workers still on shaky ground. And all three CEOs flew their private jets back to an economically devastated region, no doubt pondering that to do next.
Nice.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Hillary's Hamlet
What is going on here? First Rahm Emanuel gets offered the chief of staff job in the new Obama Administration, and he hesitates before accepting it. Now, after rampant speculation that Senator Hillary Clinton was the odds on choice for secretary of state, she too is hedging her bets. The story was first reported by Politico Tuesday, and it characterizes Senator Clinton as agonizing over whether to take the job.
There are a number of reasons given for her hesitation, but the Clinton camp doesn't want anyone to think it has to do with her husband's financial dealings. Better to think it's because in the Senate she'd remain her own boss, or even that it's some type of bargaining tactic. Political skeptics, and I count myself as one, look at former President Clinton's finances as the primary reason for Hillary Clinton's agony no matter what her people say. Despite reports of progress in the vetting process, there could be a stumbling block. After all, much of the former president's finances aren't a matter of public record.
There's also the little problem of the senator's campaign debt from the '08 presidential run. She still owes $7.6 million dollars, not counting what she lent herself. As secretary of state, a federal employee, she'd be prohibited from personally soliciting money to retire it. Keep in mind the Clinton camp has reportedly been less than thrilled with efforts by the president-elect to help her in this regard. Could this be the bargaining tactic people are talking about?
No matter how you slice it, Hillary Clinton's Hamlet-like behavior has got to be a major embarrassment to the incoming president. I'm not sure how much longer he'll twist in the wind, or if he should at all. He's got several other people, most notably New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who would jump at the job. His credentials are as strong as Senator Clinton's, maybe stronger. After all the one area Clinton and Obama disagreed about most during their bruising primary battle was foreign policy.
If I were Barack Obama, I'd punt on Hillary Clinton now. Somebody on his transition team must have Bill Richardson's phone number. What do you think?
There are a number of reasons given for her hesitation, but the Clinton camp doesn't want anyone to think it has to do with her husband's financial dealings. Better to think it's because in the Senate she'd remain her own boss, or even that it's some type of bargaining tactic. Political skeptics, and I count myself as one, look at former President Clinton's finances as the primary reason for Hillary Clinton's agony no matter what her people say. Despite reports of progress in the vetting process, there could be a stumbling block. After all, much of the former president's finances aren't a matter of public record.
There's also the little problem of the senator's campaign debt from the '08 presidential run. She still owes $7.6 million dollars, not counting what she lent herself. As secretary of state, a federal employee, she'd be prohibited from personally soliciting money to retire it. Keep in mind the Clinton camp has reportedly been less than thrilled with efforts by the president-elect to help her in this regard. Could this be the bargaining tactic people are talking about?
No matter how you slice it, Hillary Clinton's Hamlet-like behavior has got to be a major embarrassment to the incoming president. I'm not sure how much longer he'll twist in the wind, or if he should at all. He's got several other people, most notably New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who would jump at the job. His credentials are as strong as Senator Clinton's, maybe stronger. After all the one area Clinton and Obama disagreed about most during their bruising primary battle was foreign policy.
If I were Barack Obama, I'd punt on Hillary Clinton now. Somebody on his transition team must have Bill Richardson's phone number. What do you think?
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Who Gets Helped?
While the parlor game about whether Hillary Clinton becomes Secretary of State continues, Congress and the Bush Administration play a dangerous game of chicken on two fronts. The emergency bailout for Detroit's Big Three automakers is one, the other is an economic stimulus package. It looks like the latter will have to wait until President-Elect Obama is in office. That's sad, since there is a bill on the table, introduced Monday by Senate Democrats. In the case of help for the auto industry, it's a test of wills between the White House and Congress about where the money will come from. Let's take the cars first, since it will most likely be acted on before the stimulus bill.
Ironically, there appears to be bipartisan support for some sort of action by year's end. GM in particular says it's burning through cash so fast it might be forced into bankruptcy before President-Elect Obama is inaugurated. The difference isn't over whether to help, it's over thew form the help takes. Democrats want the money, $25 billion in all, to be taken from funds not yet spent in Treasury's $700 billion dollar financial rescue package. The White House and some Republicans want an existing Energy Dept. loan program to be the source of funding. That money was originally supposed to be used for long term investments in producing more energy efficient vehicles.
If it sounds complicated, it is. The core question is whether this money will come with enough strings to make Detroit change the way it does business, and the types of cars it produces. That's much more likely under the Democrats' plan. However, there's no guarantee compromise will be reached in this lame duck session of Congress.
a compromise agreement is even less likely in the case of the economic stimulus package. Republicans in Congress and the White House don't like the price tag, and Democrats resent President Bush's attempt to tie help for American jobseekers to a trade pact with Colombia. It seems both sides are adopting a "leave it for Obama" stance, which means lawmakers risk a further decline in the nation's economic fortunes in the interim.
This is precisely the kind of DC gridlock that Obama was elected to end. Can he? You tell me.
Ironically, there appears to be bipartisan support for some sort of action by year's end. GM in particular says it's burning through cash so fast it might be forced into bankruptcy before President-Elect Obama is inaugurated. The difference isn't over whether to help, it's over thew form the help takes. Democrats want the money, $25 billion in all, to be taken from funds not yet spent in Treasury's $700 billion dollar financial rescue package. The White House and some Republicans want an existing Energy Dept. loan program to be the source of funding. That money was originally supposed to be used for long term investments in producing more energy efficient vehicles.
If it sounds complicated, it is. The core question is whether this money will come with enough strings to make Detroit change the way it does business, and the types of cars it produces. That's much more likely under the Democrats' plan. However, there's no guarantee compromise will be reached in this lame duck session of Congress.
a compromise agreement is even less likely in the case of the economic stimulus package. Republicans in Congress and the White House don't like the price tag, and Democrats resent President Bush's attempt to tie help for American jobseekers to a trade pact with Colombia. It seems both sides are adopting a "leave it for Obama" stance, which means lawmakers risk a further decline in the nation's economic fortunes in the interim.
This is precisely the kind of DC gridlock that Obama was elected to end. Can he? You tell me.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Hillary to State?
Of all the subjects covered during the Obama's interview on 60 Minutes, the most fascinating for political junkies had to be whether he'd name Senator Hillary Clinton to his cabinet, specifically Secretary of State. The president-elect was coy, neither confirming nor denying the possibility. The Clinton camp has also not said much. If you look across the arc of the presidential campaign, you'd see Senator Clinton denying several times she was interested in a cabinet post. That was then, this is now.
Certainly she's got the chops for the job. There would be no worries about on the job training. The only problem for Barack Obama is the fact that there appears to be a crowded field of hopefuls. Senator John Kerry, an early supporter, has reportedly lobbied for the job. Latino groups are lobbying for New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. Still others are being touted as dark horses for the job.
Hillary Clinton, if she really wants it, will probably be Obama's choice. What better way to end all those media reports about lingering tension from the campaign trail? Despite all that, there's ample evidence Senator Clinton and the president-elect share similar views on foreign policy matters. She'd have no problem articulating his agenda. If offered, the job would be too tempting for her to resist, despite all the talk about wanting to remain in the Senate.
Should she be appointed, there would be an interesting scramble here in New York to succeed her. The choice would be up to Gov. David Paterson, and already there's speculation he'd name Cong. Nydia Velasquez to Clinton's seat. The Latino community in New York has been unhappy about what they feel is insufficient representation in top state positions. What better way to mollify Latino elected officials than to name one of their number to the Senate? It doesn't hurt that Cong. Velasquez was a vocal Clinton supporter during the primaries.
But all that is down the road. The question now is, should President Elect Obama name Hillary Clinton Secretary of State?
You tell me.
Certainly she's got the chops for the job. There would be no worries about on the job training. The only problem for Barack Obama is the fact that there appears to be a crowded field of hopefuls. Senator John Kerry, an early supporter, has reportedly lobbied for the job. Latino groups are lobbying for New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. Still others are being touted as dark horses for the job.
Hillary Clinton, if she really wants it, will probably be Obama's choice. What better way to end all those media reports about lingering tension from the campaign trail? Despite all that, there's ample evidence Senator Clinton and the president-elect share similar views on foreign policy matters. She'd have no problem articulating his agenda. If offered, the job would be too tempting for her to resist, despite all the talk about wanting to remain in the Senate.
Should she be appointed, there would be an interesting scramble here in New York to succeed her. The choice would be up to Gov. David Paterson, and already there's speculation he'd name Cong. Nydia Velasquez to Clinton's seat. The Latino community in New York has been unhappy about what they feel is insufficient representation in top state positions. What better way to mollify Latino elected officials than to name one of their number to the Senate? It doesn't hurt that Cong. Velasquez was a vocal Clinton supporter during the primaries.
But all that is down the road. The question now is, should President Elect Obama name Hillary Clinton Secretary of State?
You tell me.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Bail Out the Auto Industry? Maybe Not
Wasn't it just 48 hours ago that we heard the lame duck session of Congress would ditch an economic stimulus package in favor of trying to provide $25 billion dollars to help the crippled auto industry? Now there's news the car bailout may not happen. It seems Republicans in the Senate have some problems with helping the so-called Big Three. Far be it from me to agree with them, but GM, Ford, and Chrysler seem to be suffering from the same corporate brain lock we see in the financial sector. They just don't get it.
How else to explain their hesitance, even as they have their hands out, to pledge to produce more fuel efficient vehicles? This resistance gives fuel (no pun intended) to lawmakers who say problems in Detroit began well before the current economic meltdown. Fact is, American carmakers have been fighting off efforts to produce vehicles with better gas mileage for decades. They say they need bailout money not to retool their factories, but to deal with rising labor and pension costs.
As a person who believes in the value of unions and workers, it's hard to sit back and say let the Big Three fend for themselves. That usually means massive layoffs and plant closings. If any of the carmakers goes bankrupt, things will be even worse. On top of that, Republicans in Congress seem willing to gut the fuel efficiency requirements in order to expedite the $25 billion dollar loans currently in the pipeline. Yet there are still fundamental questions that require answers.
Why can't the auto industry commit to making more fuel efficient vehicles? Is there something in their DNA that makes them deaf to what the American people are telling them with their pocketbooks? Do they marvel at the sight of gas guzzling SUVs sitting in car lots, unsold and unwanted? It's like a drowning man refusing a life jacket because he doesn't like the color.
Auto industry executives will be coming, hat in hand, to Capitol Hill next week. That is, if there's a lame duck session of Congress to lobby. If economic stimulus and a car bailout are both off the table, why bother?
How else to explain their hesitance, even as they have their hands out, to pledge to produce more fuel efficient vehicles? This resistance gives fuel (no pun intended) to lawmakers who say problems in Detroit began well before the current economic meltdown. Fact is, American carmakers have been fighting off efforts to produce vehicles with better gas mileage for decades. They say they need bailout money not to retool their factories, but to deal with rising labor and pension costs.
As a person who believes in the value of unions and workers, it's hard to sit back and say let the Big Three fend for themselves. That usually means massive layoffs and plant closings. If any of the carmakers goes bankrupt, things will be even worse. On top of that, Republicans in Congress seem willing to gut the fuel efficiency requirements in order to expedite the $25 billion dollar loans currently in the pipeline. Yet there are still fundamental questions that require answers.
Why can't the auto industry commit to making more fuel efficient vehicles? Is there something in their DNA that makes them deaf to what the American people are telling them with their pocketbooks? Do they marvel at the sight of gas guzzling SUVs sitting in car lots, unsold and unwanted? It's like a drowning man refusing a life jacket because he doesn't like the color.
Auto industry executives will be coming, hat in hand, to Capitol Hill next week. That is, if there's a lame duck session of Congress to lobby. If economic stimulus and a car bailout are both off the table, why bother?
Thursday, November 13, 2008
AIG-K-E-Y-M-O-U-S-E!!!
Let's pray that American corporate culture isn't embodied by the mammoth insurance firm AIG. This company, the recipient of first $85 and then $40 billion dollars from US taxpayers, seems clueless about the crippling effects of the economic downturn on everyday, hard working citizens. How else to explain AIG's secret gathering for financial planners held at a posh resort near Phoenix last week?
Now, in case you forgot or think we're repeating ourselves, this isn't the well publicized week long party AIG executives treated themselves to in southern California last month. It seems the company's one concession to the flack they got for that one was to tell the hotel in Phoenix to keep this one on the down low. A hotel worker told a reporter they weren't even allowed to use the word AIG. He may have meant acronym, but you get the point.
When asked about the secrecy, AIG CEO Edward Liddy came up with the preposterous notion that this was an example of cost cutting. How much is hotel signage going for these days? Then, the company went into full damage control mode. What else are you supposed to do when you're begging for all this money from Uncle Sam? AIG says reports about the Phoenix conference are "misleading". And imposing a code of secrecy about it wasn't? A statement from Liddy went on to say the cost to his company was minimal, paid for by in part by the financial planners who attended, and that these seminars were crucial to helping to repay the taxpayer.
So, they couldn't have held the conference in their own offices, either here in New York, or in someplace a little cheaper than the Pointe Hilton Squaw Peak Resort? No matter how Edward Liddy slices it, AIG is now the poster child for corporate culture run amok. Does he realize there are Americans who can't even plan to spend a paltry amount of money on gifts for loved ones over this holiday season? Would he like to tell them how important it is to fly first class, get driven around in limousines, and eat in fancy restaurants?
Think these are the only executives who haven't gotten the message the country is in trouble? You tell me.
Now, in case you forgot or think we're repeating ourselves, this isn't the well publicized week long party AIG executives treated themselves to in southern California last month. It seems the company's one concession to the flack they got for that one was to tell the hotel in Phoenix to keep this one on the down low. A hotel worker told a reporter they weren't even allowed to use the word AIG. He may have meant acronym, but you get the point.
When asked about the secrecy, AIG CEO Edward Liddy came up with the preposterous notion that this was an example of cost cutting. How much is hotel signage going for these days? Then, the company went into full damage control mode. What else are you supposed to do when you're begging for all this money from Uncle Sam? AIG says reports about the Phoenix conference are "misleading". And imposing a code of secrecy about it wasn't? A statement from Liddy went on to say the cost to his company was minimal, paid for by in part by the financial planners who attended, and that these seminars were crucial to helping to repay the taxpayer.
So, they couldn't have held the conference in their own offices, either here in New York, or in someplace a little cheaper than the Pointe Hilton Squaw Peak Resort? No matter how Edward Liddy slices it, AIG is now the poster child for corporate culture run amok. Does he realize there are Americans who can't even plan to spend a paltry amount of money on gifts for loved ones over this holiday season? Would he like to tell them how important it is to fly first class, get driven around in limousines, and eat in fancy restaurants?
Think these are the only executives who haven't gotten the message the country is in trouble? You tell me.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Windfall for Lobbyists/Shaft for Us?
Now we know why there seems to be so little information available on just how the $700 billion dollar bailout of the financial industry will be doled out. The DC lobbyists, those folks everybody loves to hate, are swarming over the initial outlay like sharks after blood. That's right. The banks, savings and loans, and insurance companies that look to benefit from the bailout package have procured the services of what the New York Times calls "an army of hired guns" to make sure they get their fair share.
We also know this. All but $60 billion of the original $350 billion freed up by Congress has already been spoken for. The Treasury Department, the target of the lobbying zeal, has already had to pump an additional $40 billion dollars into AIG. Now they're hearing from, among others, boat manufacturers, Latino plumbing and home heating specialists, and even car dealers. Everyone, it seems, has their hand out.
Everyone, that is, except hard working Americans. Sure, President-Elect Obama has promised tax relief for the middle class. And Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are promising new, better deals for struggling mortgage holders. Yet it seems for many people, the government gives with one hand, and takes away with the other. Here in New York, the people that run the transit system are talking about closing a yawning, $1.2 billion dollar gap by raising the subway and bus fare by as much as a dollar a ride. That would be coupled with service cuts, by the way. City and state governments across the country are making hard decisions about education, health care, police and fire protection. The list goes on and on.
Sure, the financial system needs help. So does the automobile industry. But when all is said and done, how much will the shills, the lobbyists make? Isn't the feeding frenzy that has followed the bailout just business as usual? Will anything ever change?
You tell me, because to me it sounds like more of the same.
We also know this. All but $60 billion of the original $350 billion freed up by Congress has already been spoken for. The Treasury Department, the target of the lobbying zeal, has already had to pump an additional $40 billion dollars into AIG. Now they're hearing from, among others, boat manufacturers, Latino plumbing and home heating specialists, and even car dealers. Everyone, it seems, has their hand out.
Everyone, that is, except hard working Americans. Sure, President-Elect Obama has promised tax relief for the middle class. And Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are promising new, better deals for struggling mortgage holders. Yet it seems for many people, the government gives with one hand, and takes away with the other. Here in New York, the people that run the transit system are talking about closing a yawning, $1.2 billion dollar gap by raising the subway and bus fare by as much as a dollar a ride. That would be coupled with service cuts, by the way. City and state governments across the country are making hard decisions about education, health care, police and fire protection. The list goes on and on.
Sure, the financial system needs help. So does the automobile industry. But when all is said and done, how much will the shills, the lobbyists make? Isn't the feeding frenzy that has followed the bailout just business as usual? Will anything ever change?
You tell me, because to me it sounds like more of the same.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Should Joe Go?
So it seems one of the thorniest problems the incoming Obama Administration must face isn't whether to bail out the auto industry, or even how to distribute the $700 billion dollars that's going to the financial sector. It's what to do about Joe Lieberman, the so-called independent senator from Connecticut. Lieberman, aas we all know, backed John McCain in the presidential race. Not only that, he spoke at the Republican National Convention! Remember, this is the guy who was Al Gore's running mate just eight years ago.
Here's the crux of the problem. Since winning re-election as an independent in '06, Lieberman has caucused with the Democrats. That means he's risen to become chair of the Homeland Security Committee. There are those who want to see him stripped of that post for his extraordinary lack of loyalty. In fact, some progressive Democrats want him run out of the caucus. They aren't worried about needing Lieberman's vote to move legislation to the floor.
Lieberman, for his part, is playing cagey. He's publicly toyed with the idea of caucusing with the GOP, saying in effect if he's stripped of his committee chair that's just what he'll do. Interestingly, there's a cadre of prominent Democrats who want to keep Lieberman in the fold. They include former president Clinton, and, get this, president-elect Obama. Neither has much to say about the turncoat's staying on as Homeland Security Committee chair.
To allow Joe Lieberman to dictate the terms of remaining with Democrats in the Senate is an affront. Had he remained neutral in the presidential race he might have had a case. He didn't. He became John McCain's moderate shill, perhaps on promise of a juicy cabinet post had McCain won. Lieberman has been holding a grudge against a number of Democrats since they abandoned him when he lost his state's primary two years ago. So why on earth should he be rewarded for treachery?
One would think it's the Democrats who have the upper hand here. It would seem simple enough to say to Joe Lieberman you can stay with our caucus, but you have to give up your committee chair. If not, see ya!
What do you think? Should the Democrats play hardball with Joe Lieberman?
Here's the crux of the problem. Since winning re-election as an independent in '06, Lieberman has caucused with the Democrats. That means he's risen to become chair of the Homeland Security Committee. There are those who want to see him stripped of that post for his extraordinary lack of loyalty. In fact, some progressive Democrats want him run out of the caucus. They aren't worried about needing Lieberman's vote to move legislation to the floor.
Lieberman, for his part, is playing cagey. He's publicly toyed with the idea of caucusing with the GOP, saying in effect if he's stripped of his committee chair that's just what he'll do. Interestingly, there's a cadre of prominent Democrats who want to keep Lieberman in the fold. They include former president Clinton, and, get this, president-elect Obama. Neither has much to say about the turncoat's staying on as Homeland Security Committee chair.
To allow Joe Lieberman to dictate the terms of remaining with Democrats in the Senate is an affront. Had he remained neutral in the presidential race he might have had a case. He didn't. He became John McCain's moderate shill, perhaps on promise of a juicy cabinet post had McCain won. Lieberman has been holding a grudge against a number of Democrats since they abandoned him when he lost his state's primary two years ago. So why on earth should he be rewarded for treachery?
One would think it's the Democrats who have the upper hand here. It would seem simple enough to say to Joe Lieberman you can stay with our caucus, but you have to give up your committee chair. If not, see ya!
What do you think? Should the Democrats play hardball with Joe Lieberman?
Monday, November 10, 2008
Pomp, Circumstance, and Tension?
The Obama family will be meeting the Bush family at the White House today. There will be a tour of the president-elect's new home, and one figures all will be cordial, with plenty of smiles to go around. Yet published reports and statements by the Obama transition team indicate there's another agenda afoot. His advisers are compiling a list of Bush Administration policies that could be reversed by the new president.
This is nothing new. In his first full day in office, President Bush reinstated a global gag rule banning taxpayer dollars from going to family planning groups that performed or gave counsel on abortion. That rule had been overturned by President Bill Clinton. The Bush people had been dropping hints the past few weeks that he might use his executive powers to enact certain policies the president to be might find hard to reverse. The Obama team seems to be saying go ahead and try it.
Stem cell research limits, as well as proposals to drill for oil and gas in sensitive areas of Utah are two actions that could be reversed quickly. Transition co-chair John Podesta was blunt on Fox News Sunday, saying Bush is making moves that are "probably not in the best interest of the country". Some reports say Obama is looking at as many as 200 Bush policy positions, with an eye toward change. Those changes won't be announced, however, until Obama confers with his new cabinet, meaning not for awhile yet.
The other area of concern is the auto industry. New chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is lobbying the current president to help Detroit, and fast. Bad news at the end of last week from both Ford and GM bolsters his case. At the same time, Emanuel is linking any financial help from the government to forcing the industry to build more fuel efficient vehicles. This is something that's quite doable, and smart policy as well.
Obama and his team are moving fast. In fact, today's White House visit will last only 90 minutes. They're leaving immediately afterward, heading back to Chicago, and the business at hand.
Can Obama get Bush and the lame duck Congress to bend on some of these issues? You tell me.
This is nothing new. In his first full day in office, President Bush reinstated a global gag rule banning taxpayer dollars from going to family planning groups that performed or gave counsel on abortion. That rule had been overturned by President Bill Clinton. The Bush people had been dropping hints the past few weeks that he might use his executive powers to enact certain policies the president to be might find hard to reverse. The Obama team seems to be saying go ahead and try it.
Stem cell research limits, as well as proposals to drill for oil and gas in sensitive areas of Utah are two actions that could be reversed quickly. Transition co-chair John Podesta was blunt on Fox News Sunday, saying Bush is making moves that are "probably not in the best interest of the country". Some reports say Obama is looking at as many as 200 Bush policy positions, with an eye toward change. Those changes won't be announced, however, until Obama confers with his new cabinet, meaning not for awhile yet.
The other area of concern is the auto industry. New chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is lobbying the current president to help Detroit, and fast. Bad news at the end of last week from both Ford and GM bolsters his case. At the same time, Emanuel is linking any financial help from the government to forcing the industry to build more fuel efficient vehicles. This is something that's quite doable, and smart policy as well.
Obama and his team are moving fast. In fact, today's White House visit will last only 90 minutes. They're leaving immediately afterward, heading back to Chicago, and the business at hand.
Can Obama get Bush and the lame duck Congress to bend on some of these issues? You tell me.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Echoes of Excellence
If there's one thing I've heard consistently from black Americans since the election of Barack Obama, it's that he'll stand as a role model to young black men. No longer will they have to feel their only pathway to excellence is through hip-hop or athletics . But the question must be asked, haven't there been other black men who have achieved excellence in their chosen fields prior to the meteoric rise of our President-Elect ?
The answer is an emphatic yes! I say this with some passion because I have had the privilege to associate with and be mentored by many black men who have overcome the obstacles we all face and risen to the top of their game. This comes to me with remarkable clarity because last night I talked to three of them. I began my radio show talking to the iconic choreographer Garth Fagan. Here is a man who, through brilliance and perseverance has carved a legacy in his field that would be the envy of any choreographer, black or white. He's won a Tony award for his work on "The Lion King", but it's his company, Garth Fagan Dance, that truly amazes. Yet you ask black folks on the street who Garth Fagan is, all too often you get a blank stare.
Later in the evening, I spoke to Professor Ron Walters. He is without doubt one of black America's finest academic minds. He managed the Rev. Jesse Jackson's campaign for president in 1988. Countless young people have had their skills challenged and honed under his tutelage at the University of Maryland. In a just world, Ron Walters would have his own television show, not Bill O'Reilly. Yet like Garth Fagan, Ron Walters labors in relative obscurity in terms of recognition in our own community.
My final example of an excellent black man is most personal to me, since he mentored me for the entire time I've worked in radio. Hal Jackson is 90 plus years of age, has worked in radio for nearly 70 years, and is still on the air every Sunday on WBLS here in New York. Last night, after my show, I went to the Apollo Theater in Harlem to witness a celebration of his life and his work. This is a man who once told me in a fiery voice, "Mark, don't ever, EVER compromise your integrity in this business. All you've got is your good name, and don't ever let me hear about you staining it!" That was back in the mid 1970s, and his admonition has stayed with me through the years. He is, along with the others mentioned, an icon of excellence who was once told no "N word" would ever work at the radio station where he sought a job. That was in 1939. He's been confounding skeptics ever since.
All this is to say if Barack Obama's rise to the highest office in the land should teach us anything, maybe it's that we ought to recognize black excellence when it's been staring us in the face all along.
The answer is an emphatic yes! I say this with some passion because I have had the privilege to associate with and be mentored by many black men who have overcome the obstacles we all face and risen to the top of their game. This comes to me with remarkable clarity because last night I talked to three of them. I began my radio show talking to the iconic choreographer Garth Fagan. Here is a man who, through brilliance and perseverance has carved a legacy in his field that would be the envy of any choreographer, black or white. He's won a Tony award for his work on "The Lion King", but it's his company, Garth Fagan Dance, that truly amazes. Yet you ask black folks on the street who Garth Fagan is, all too often you get a blank stare.
Later in the evening, I spoke to Professor Ron Walters. He is without doubt one of black America's finest academic minds. He managed the Rev. Jesse Jackson's campaign for president in 1988. Countless young people have had their skills challenged and honed under his tutelage at the University of Maryland. In a just world, Ron Walters would have his own television show, not Bill O'Reilly. Yet like Garth Fagan, Ron Walters labors in relative obscurity in terms of recognition in our own community.
My final example of an excellent black man is most personal to me, since he mentored me for the entire time I've worked in radio. Hal Jackson is 90 plus years of age, has worked in radio for nearly 70 years, and is still on the air every Sunday on WBLS here in New York. Last night, after my show, I went to the Apollo Theater in Harlem to witness a celebration of his life and his work. This is a man who once told me in a fiery voice, "Mark, don't ever, EVER compromise your integrity in this business. All you've got is your good name, and don't ever let me hear about you staining it!" That was back in the mid 1970s, and his admonition has stayed with me through the years. He is, along with the others mentioned, an icon of excellence who was once told no "N word" would ever work at the radio station where he sought a job. That was in 1939. He's been confounding skeptics ever since.
All this is to say if Barack Obama's rise to the highest office in the land should teach us anything, maybe it's that we ought to recognize black excellence when it's been staring us in the face all along.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Currying Favor While the Economy Lurks
It's hard to believe there's almost two and a half months to go before Barack Obama is inaugurated. Already, people and interests are maneuvering, schmoozing, and fighting to curry favor with the new president. There are some hard facts as to appointments. We do know he's offered Rahm Emanuel the job of chief of staff. He's also got the outlines of a transition team in place. He knows he's got to hit the ground running, and the economy will be his first priority.
If there's a subtext to the way out of the current economic mess, it would have to be what to do with that $700 billion dollars that's supposed to buoy the financial markets. Remember that at first, the money was supposed to be used to buy up bad assets of financial institutions. That mission has obviously changed. At least some of that money will be used to capitalize the banks. Our president-elect will have to figure out how it will be disbursed, and to whom. Will he change the initial terms and outlays the banks were told about a few weeks ago?
And what about the possibility of another economic stimulus package? Democrats in Congress, lead by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have this as a priority. It's not known yet if Barack Obama shares the immediacy of that agenda. He might, since all signs point to a grim 2009 on the economic front. There will be layoffs, and they could reach huge numbers all across the country. People thrown out of work will have problems paying their bills, meaning the mortgage crisis will continue, and consumer spending will continue its decline.
All of this speaks to the hard work ahead for the incoming president. George W. Bush hasn't left him much to work with. If there's a silver lining to all these clouds, it's contained in what a friend told me at the gym earlier today. "Barack is a smart man. He's going to surround himself with smart people. They'll figure a way to deal with this".
Is my friend right? You tell me.
If there's a subtext to the way out of the current economic mess, it would have to be what to do with that $700 billion dollars that's supposed to buoy the financial markets. Remember that at first, the money was supposed to be used to buy up bad assets of financial institutions. That mission has obviously changed. At least some of that money will be used to capitalize the banks. Our president-elect will have to figure out how it will be disbursed, and to whom. Will he change the initial terms and outlays the banks were told about a few weeks ago?
And what about the possibility of another economic stimulus package? Democrats in Congress, lead by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have this as a priority. It's not known yet if Barack Obama shares the immediacy of that agenda. He might, since all signs point to a grim 2009 on the economic front. There will be layoffs, and they could reach huge numbers all across the country. People thrown out of work will have problems paying their bills, meaning the mortgage crisis will continue, and consumer spending will continue its decline.
All of this speaks to the hard work ahead for the incoming president. George W. Bush hasn't left him much to work with. If there's a silver lining to all these clouds, it's contained in what a friend told me at the gym earlier today. "Barack is a smart man. He's going to surround himself with smart people. They'll figure a way to deal with this".
Is my friend right? You tell me.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
An American President
There will be much analysis of Barack Obama's historic victory last night. How he pulled off wins in states that usually vote Republican. How his campaign ignored the skeptics, stuck to its course, and has now been vindicated. It's all true, and it's all good. Yet this campaign has been about a story, uniquely American story that ought to be told to generations who are now too young to vote.
It starts with two crowded fields in the race for the presidency. There was much conventional wisdom 20 odd months ago, and it focused on who would capture the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations. Barack Obama and John McCain were two candidates that few thought would be facing each other November 4th. For Obama, conventional wisdom was he'd make a respectable showing, one that would position him to run again further down the road.
Barack Obama didn't see it that way, and he promoted a vision of hope and change that connected not just with young people, but with Americans who believed change was necessary for the sake of the republic. He spoke to the best instincts of millions of us, hard working people who were smarter than the pundits believed. His campaign sent people from one part of the country to neighboring states, to talk to folks and deliver his message.
It worked. It all worked. And in the end, he gave a speech that made Colin Powell weep. It won't be easy to implement his agenda, even with the gains his party made in Congress. The American economy is ailing, and it will take the best minds of the country to make it better. And yet, there is belief that if anyone can bring those minds together, it's the guy who won last night, a guy whose inspiration was, among other things, a 106 year old woman in Atlanta.
A page turned in America last night. What lies ahead will make for some interesting reading.
It starts with two crowded fields in the race for the presidency. There was much conventional wisdom 20 odd months ago, and it focused on who would capture the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations. Barack Obama and John McCain were two candidates that few thought would be facing each other November 4th. For Obama, conventional wisdom was he'd make a respectable showing, one that would position him to run again further down the road.
Barack Obama didn't see it that way, and he promoted a vision of hope and change that connected not just with young people, but with Americans who believed change was necessary for the sake of the republic. He spoke to the best instincts of millions of us, hard working people who were smarter than the pundits believed. His campaign sent people from one part of the country to neighboring states, to talk to folks and deliver his message.
It worked. It all worked. And in the end, he gave a speech that made Colin Powell weep. It won't be easy to implement his agenda, even with the gains his party made in Congress. The American economy is ailing, and it will take the best minds of the country to make it better. And yet, there is belief that if anyone can bring those minds together, it's the guy who won last night, a guy whose inspiration was, among other things, a 106 year old woman in Atlanta.
A page turned in America last night. What lies ahead will make for some interesting reading.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Are You Taking it Personal?
So, it's Election Day across America. I woke up this morning with a knot in my stomach. It's a familiar thing, one that comes when I think something should happen, will happen, but may not. I woke up with that same knot back in 1989, when David Dinkins became New York City's first black mayor. I felt it again four years later, when he lost by a razor thin margin to Rudy Giuliani. Forget 2000. That feeling stayed around for more than a month.
So here we are, on the precipice of history. That sick feeling in my gut was exacerbated when I arrived early this morning at what I thought was my polling site with my daughter. She's 11, and has been voting with me since she could walk. We got to the site, and there was no one there! It was then I realized I simply mistook the municipal building for City Hall. At my actual polling site, the line stretched a block, and this was at 7:00AM.
When I saw the line, and the rainbow of people waiting to vote, that feeling in my gut vanished. I said hello to several folks I knew, and waited. Someone mentioned the line was even longer earlier in the morning when the polls first opened. Anecdotal evidence from the cable networks echo what I saw in my local community. It all looks good, but my political instincts tell me this thing won't be over until we hear a concession speech.
It has truly been one extraordinary election cycle. What started for Democrats as a coronation ended up being something very different. For the Republicans, a candidate who had been written off came back and won his party's nomination. Today we'll find out if Barack Obama's meticulous campaign will win out, or whether John McCain will make one final comeback. Either way, I already know I'll be taking this one personally. It's not easy to admit, since during my younger days I thought politics was the final province of uncool fossils.
Things have changed for me. Have they changed for you? Are you taking this personal?
So here we are, on the precipice of history. That sick feeling in my gut was exacerbated when I arrived early this morning at what I thought was my polling site with my daughter. She's 11, and has been voting with me since she could walk. We got to the site, and there was no one there! It was then I realized I simply mistook the municipal building for City Hall. At my actual polling site, the line stretched a block, and this was at 7:00AM.
When I saw the line, and the rainbow of people waiting to vote, that feeling in my gut vanished. I said hello to several folks I knew, and waited. Someone mentioned the line was even longer earlier in the morning when the polls first opened. Anecdotal evidence from the cable networks echo what I saw in my local community. It all looks good, but my political instincts tell me this thing won't be over until we hear a concession speech.
It has truly been one extraordinary election cycle. What started for Democrats as a coronation ended up being something very different. For the Republicans, a candidate who had been written off came back and won his party's nomination. Today we'll find out if Barack Obama's meticulous campaign will win out, or whether John McCain will make one final comeback. Either way, I already know I'll be taking this one personally. It's not easy to admit, since during my younger days I thought politics was the final province of uncool fossils.
Things have changed for me. Have they changed for you? Are you taking this personal?
Monday, November 3, 2008
Done Deal?
First, many thanks to all of you who have posted, e-mailed, texted, and phoned your condolences on the loss of my brother Clayton. He wanted so much to live to see Tuesday's election. His spirit will be watching over all that happens.
The eve of this 2008 presidential election feels more and more like the night before Christmas. Never in my lifetime have I seen such interest and excitement about any election. And on election eve, we see a more relaxed John McCain, and a serene Barack Obama. Both will be hop-scotching across the country trying to wring out every last bit of support. The media, meanwhile, is licking its collective chops.
For this has been an election cycle to remember for those who have been covering it as well. Punditry has reached a new high (or low), as more and more people made good money handicapping the race. And don't let those right wing talk hosts fool you. They may rail against Obama and mean what they say, but they also know where their bread is buttered. Suffice to say its no accident that a couple of prominent conservative talkers signed four year deals recently. That takes them right into the next prsidential cycle.
For Barack Obama, the only remaining question is whether the nation has in fact changed enough to embrace him as its leader. He has run a campaign for the ages. Disciplined, focused, and virtually leakproof, the Obama campaign has provided a blueprint for campaigns of the future, no matter who wins Tuesday. And, while you can fault the McCain operation for a lot, it must be said that John McCain himself refused to use Rev. Jeremiah Wright against Obama, and he stuck to his word, even if those around him did not.
Now, all that's left is for the polls to open Tuesday morning, and for the American people to speak. An electorate that's been studied, analyzed, poked, prodded, and polled to death will finally register the only poll that matters.
Are you ready?
The eve of this 2008 presidential election feels more and more like the night before Christmas. Never in my lifetime have I seen such interest and excitement about any election. And on election eve, we see a more relaxed John McCain, and a serene Barack Obama. Both will be hop-scotching across the country trying to wring out every last bit of support. The media, meanwhile, is licking its collective chops.
For this has been an election cycle to remember for those who have been covering it as well. Punditry has reached a new high (or low), as more and more people made good money handicapping the race. And don't let those right wing talk hosts fool you. They may rail against Obama and mean what they say, but they also know where their bread is buttered. Suffice to say its no accident that a couple of prominent conservative talkers signed four year deals recently. That takes them right into the next prsidential cycle.
For Barack Obama, the only remaining question is whether the nation has in fact changed enough to embrace him as its leader. He has run a campaign for the ages. Disciplined, focused, and virtually leakproof, the Obama campaign has provided a blueprint for campaigns of the future, no matter who wins Tuesday. And, while you can fault the McCain operation for a lot, it must be said that John McCain himself refused to use Rev. Jeremiah Wright against Obama, and he stuck to his word, even if those around him did not.
Now, all that's left is for the polls to open Tuesday morning, and for the American people to speak. An electorate that's been studied, analyzed, poked, prodded, and polled to death will finally register the only poll that matters.
Are you ready?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
