Best Fair and Balanced News Ever!

FOX News 10/20 – 10/21 936 LV 3.0 49 40 Obama +9

 

Photo Diary: Obama’s Speech in Denver

By Ray LeMoine
Here’s a selection of photos I took at the Democratic National Convention. Yes, it’s a few months late, but I’m lazy. I did take some pictures of Obama, but these pictures omit the star and instead show the 80,000-man scene.

The stage is set for Obama and I’m sitting in the last row.

They had a bunch of “regular” people give speeches on the Jumbotrons. Of course, none were black. Most looked like this confused white guy, Obama’s target demo…

The Colorado sky at sunset streaked by a Homeland Security chopper.

“Take em and wave em!” said an Obama volunteer handing out flags and “CHANGE” signs.

T-minus 2 minutes to Obama…

JumbObama.

CNN glow…

Indie filmmaker.

After the speech, the Greco set goes boom.

They even has a floating camera, just like the NFL.

Tears of joy 1.

Tears of joy 2.

Walking out.

The end…

 

Pics o’ the Day

By Ray LeMoine
Obama’s trying to steal Red State Indiana today…

as the Wwar in Iraq continues, with a suicide attack on the labor minister’s convoy killing 11 in Baghdad.

 

Ad Man

By Ray LeMoine
Obama’s Closing Strategy? Focus on Narrative and Attacks

David Axelrod pic by Chip Somedivilla

David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, is running the finest political campaign of my lifetime. The campaign just raised $150 million in a month, bringing Obama’s total to $600 million, the most ever. Nothing’s been more important in 2008 than “the narrative,” or specifically, the candidates’ “personal narratives.” And no one is better at spinning a “great story” about a candidate than Axelrod, a Chicago Tribune journalist turned ad man cum strategist. Born in New York, Axelrod’s conception of politics comes down to selling the candidate in the final weeks with a barrage of advertising. As TNR reported yesterday (in an ass-kissng, exhaustive profile):

Unlike many consultants, who impose their own messages and buzzwords on candidates–so much so that their clients all begin to sound alike–Axelrod is known for crafting campaigns that are centered on, and uniquely suited to, his candidates’ biographies.

And TNR points out Axelrod’s especially good at selling black candidates, like Deval Patrick when he ran for Mass Governor:

Like most Axelrod campaigns, Patrick’s focused more on the candidate’s biography than policy: Patrick’s most effective TV ad dwelled on his life story–”raised by a single mother,” “worked his way up from poverty to Harvard Law”–while giving short shrift to, as it described them, Patrick’s “honest ideas to lift our state.”

With literally hundreds of millions on hand, Axelrod’s getting to apply his methods virtually uncontested (Obama’s outspending McCain on ads by 4-1).

But the emphasis on personal narrative is not really a good thing, since it removes issues in favor of “great stories.” As Joan Didion writes this week in the NYRB:

For at least some months it had been clear that we were living in a different America, one that had moved from feeling rich to feeling poor. Many had seen a mandate for political change. Yet in the end the old notes had been struck, the old language used. The prospect for any given figure had been evaluated, now as before, by his or her “story.” She has “a wonderful story” we had heard about Condoleezza Rice during her 2005 confirmation hearings. “We all admire her story.” “I think she’s formidable,” Senator Biden said about Governor Palin a few weeks ago. “She has a great story. She has a great family.”

Senator Biden himself was said to have “a great story,” the one that revolved around the death of his first wife and child and taking the train from Washington to Wilmington to be with his surviving children. Senator McCain, everyone agreed, had “a great story.” Now as then, the “story” worked to “humanize” the figure under discussion, which is to say to downplay his or her potential for trouble. Condoleezza Rice’s “story,” for example, had come down to her “doing an excellent job as provost of Stanford” (this had kept getting mentioned, as if everyone at Fox News had come straight off the provost beat) and being “an accomplished concert pianist.”

But in the same issue of the Review, Paul Krugman notes that in the last few weeks Obama’s shifted from rhetoric and narrative to attack:

But all of that has changed in the past few weeks. Part of what has changed is, of course, the intensification of the financial crisis—the fall of Lehman, the panic in the markets, and the Bush administration’s admission that a huge government bailout was necessary—which has focused the electorate’s mind. But some credit should also be given to Obama, who responded to his sagging poll numbers by becoming much more effective at delivering the Democratic economic message. These days, Obama doesn’t try to place blame equally on right and left, he denounces “an economic philosophy that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else,” and describes the crisis as “a final verdict on this failed philosophy.” He sounds, in other words, a lot like Bill Clinton in 1992.

And that’s a good thing.So the election will be a referendum on conservative economic policies after all. And while nothing in politics is certain, the odds are that this referendum will indeed produce a big victory for Obama and his party. What they’ll do with that victory is another question, but for now, at least, the prospects for a new New Deal are looking bright again.

In the TNR piece, Axelrod’s people and the story’s writer, Jason Zengerle, deny that they’re using attacks to take down McCain:

“There are certain things we’re not going to say in ads,” explains John Del Cecato, a partner in Axelrod’s firm who is a media adviser to Obama’s campaign. “I think sometimes people don’t understand our strategy: They think it’s either go for the jugular or you’re treating them with kid gloves. There is an in-between.”

Again and again, the ads that the Obama campaign has unveiled at the race’s most critical moments–on the eve of the Iowa caucus, in the aftermath of the global financial meltdown–have featured the candidate talking in an informal manner directly to the camera, much like John Street did in Philadelphia. By doing so, Obama has tried to show that he’s relatable and reasonable–not the radical figure white voters may have read about on the Internet and nothing like their worst images of black politicians.

Not so fast guys. Anyone watching TV the last few days, at least here in NY, where we see the prime time buys—NFL, MLB, MSNBC Hardball, etc—knows Obama’s biggest commercial is a direct attack on McCain, tieing him to Bush “90% of the time.” It’s a bold and brutal ad, effective too.

So, which is it? Is Obama using the final to weeks to sell himself, as TNR and Axelrod would like you to believe, or are they going on the offensive as Krugman and reality suggest? According to Tribune reporter David Mendell’s excellent biography, Obama: Promise to Power, Axelrod closes his campaigns with a mix of narrative and attack. Mendell considers both Axelrod and Obama to be at their best in the last two weeks of a campaign. It should be fun to watch it unfold on a national stage…especially in the form of a 30-minute prime time special to air on all the major networks October 29th.

 

Nu McCarthyism and the 50s Redux

By Ray LeMoine

I love the McCain campaign’s attempts to call Obama a socialist. Wait, didn’t Bush just nationalize the mortgage, banking, and insurance industries? But who cares what socialism actually means—or the fact that your party is practicing it—when you can just revisit the 50s! Joe McCarthy would be proud:

When reporters arrived at the rally, one speaker – it was unclear who it was, and he was already midway through his speech — was describing the upcoming presidential election as “a referendum on socialism,’’ echoing a charge that some Republicans have made in recent days suggesting that Mr. Obama’s tax cut plan was quasi-socialist.

Meanwhile, John Updike fears America’s returned to the 50s socially (not socialism) in his latest novel, The Widows of Eastwick, a sequel to the Cher movie The Witches of Eastwick:

And the younger people, the age we were when we were here — ssso tiresome, just from the look of them, toned-up young mothers driving their overweight boys in overweight S.U.V.’s to hockey practice 20 miles away, the young fathers castrated namby-pambies helping itty-bitty wifey with the housekeeping, spending all Saturday fussing around the lovely home. It’s the ’50s all over again, without the Russians as an excuse.

The burbs sure are boring, yes. But fear not, change is on the way. If the iBanker is dead, as NYmag reports today, then the Burb Dude is next. The last class of McMansion bros are already signed up, mortgage arms fixed. Sadly that model—big house, big car, all paid on credit—is over for the moment. Maybe someday we’ll return to our $500k house with nothing down ways. The economic crisis and subsequent nationalization spasm were GOP policy—though admittedly deregulation was Bill Clinton’s policy as well. Nonetheless, Obama is hardly a socialist. His health care plan was to the right of Hillary Clinton, so don’t buy into the GOP Red Scare. To ammend Updike’s quote, It’s the 50s all over again, but with McCain impersonating McCarthy.

But if this is the 50s, it’s good to remember that JFK and the 60s—America’s most revolutionary postwar decade–were next. Still, unlike the 50s we’re in a major economic downturn. Would the hippies have been able to flourish without riches earned by their 50s raised parents?

 

Holy Shit!

This being the post in which I call the election for Obama

The NYT, WaPost, and Drudge all lead with some varaition of this picture of Obama in front of what looks to be 100,000 people in St Louis today. Wow. The Times also reported that Obama is outspending McCain 4 to 1 on advertising. This week, Obama’s set to eclipse Bush’s record 2004 ad expedenture, $188 million. Obama’s spending has already increased to $30 million a week. His ad buys have been as high $6.5 million a day. (That total was purchased during football games last Sunday.) Add the $100 million the campaign raised last month and it’s looking really good for him. So good I’m saying he’s going win.

 

24 Times.

By Ray LeMoine
The Final Debate: McCain, Obama Dodge Questions and Point/Wag Fingers on Economy and War

Londonderry, NH: women look on at an Obama rally today.

24. That’s how many mentions “Joe the Plumber” got last night. Joe’s a real guy, from Ohio, who would be among the 1% of Americans affected by Obama’s tax increase among those who make over $250k per year.

Yup, that’s about the least important thing ever to be discussed in a political debate during times of economic collapse and war. Disgusting: Worrying about the top one percent of Americans when unemployment is expected to hit 9 or 10% by year’s end. Even if all 100% of the top 1% lost their jobs, that’s still 8-9% of the nation (who aren’t rich) out of work. Why didn’t John McCain address them last night? He could have mentioned how wages have decreased, when adjusted for inflation, over the past 5 years. Instead, McCain feigned like he didn’t care about “washed up terrorist” Bill Ayers even though his campaign has spent millions on ads linking said “terrorist” to Obama. 

Obama, for his part, was pure class. He was a tad boring, but he outplayed McCain on every level save tax-raise fear mongering. In his answers, Obama was aloof and nuanced and charming—a cynical presidential mix for a cynical time. I’m sure the clip of Obama setting the facts straight on his relationship to ex-Weatherman Bill Ayers is being watched by a lot of people today. Unfortunately, Obama used a lot of the same language manipulation tactics (avoiding answering questions with facts and policy proposals, changing topics at random) as McCain. A few Brits I was watching with commented on how sad American politics is. It’s true: the lack of substance last was stunning.

After two dozen plus debates this election season, and almost two years of campaigning, Obama’s proving to be the greatest political talent of my lifetime. He’s caught some lucky breaks, yes, but O’s more of a natural than Bill Clinton. After all, Obama’s overcome not just his race but the Clintons themselves! 

Sitting on a double digit poll lead with three weeks to go, Obama is so close to the White House. But I’m not sure it’s over. Both convetional wisdom and polling—the two most prominent tools used to guage a political race—have been ineffective this years. Polls were off all primary season. And since this year us unprecedented, with a black nominee, “conventional” thinking is unreliable. Nonetheless, Obama has a big cash advantage over McCain. The most visible effect of which will be Obama’s 30-minute prime time special to air on all networks on October 29th. If done correctly, the ad could propel Obama to victory…

 

The Arrival of Joe Biden

By Ray LeMoine

Record audiences tuned in to last night’s VP debate, which Joe Biden so clearly won it’s sickening to hear the media giving Sarah Palin any credit. Sure, Palin’s not a moron. Despite all her flubs with Couric this week, it’s obvious that anyone who rises so fast is no dimwit. But as a politician—not a personality—Palin so lost the debate.

A democratically elected politician’s job is to take the will of the polity and create policy. Last night Sarah Palin showed so little policy understanding it was scary. In fact, she dodged one of the most important policy questions. When asked what was worse, a destabilized Pakistan or nuclear Iran, Palin answered about Iraq. Yet the media’s been calling the debate a tie, and some are even giving her high marks.

Here’s a great example of what’s wrong with American politics: On ABC.com, George Stephanopolous wrote a post-VP debate wrap-up where he judged Sarah Palin’s and Joe Biden’s “strategy,” “style,” and “accuracy.” What’s missing? Oh, how about “command of subject” or “answers of substance”? Debate is the art of “logical argument, which only examine the consistency from axiom, and factual argument,” not a strategic, style show down. On every question, save energy policy, Joe Biden had a far better command of facts. (Biden was no slouch on energy policy, rather it’s Palin’s bread and butter issue—state oil dividends literally provided every Alaskan with $3500 cash this year—and she knows her stuff.)

When “style” and “strategy” are more important than policy, is it even politics? That’s more like a talent/game show—ie America’s Most Stylish, Accurate Debater! Whatever, this country sucks.

But Joe Biden, wow, what a night. The guy’s been waiting three decades for his chance to be in the national spotlight. And it showed. He came out like a man who’d just drank eight Red Bulls and taken four Ritalins. His rapid-fire responses backed by fact-filled policy examples and recommendations were not only impressive they were often dead-on. I always questioned Obama’s choice of Biden over Hillary. But seeing Joe in Full Biden last night changed my opinion. His cordial, expert performance was a walk-off.

John McCain will not see a poll bump from the VP debate. Unless America really is dumb enough to put “style” over substance.

 

Will it Happen?

By Ray LeMoine
Ye Ole Miss, Oxford, MS.

Networks predict audiences of 100 million for tomorrow’s debate–if McCain doesn’t cancel.

 

The Corporate Subversive

By Ray LeMoine
CORRECTION: The last sentence should read, “This is bad advertising not public, political art.”

The Denver “public art” show (sponsored by MoveOn.org) I wasn’t allowed to film for public television

Many folks have used Obama and the 2008 election to help their own careers. Rage Against the Machine may be the best example. Here’s a band signed to Sony Records, part of one of the biggest corporations in the world, showing up at the RNC to play a $60 a ticket show at the Target Center and getting dubbed  anarchists by the New York Times.

But worse than RATM, who’ve been pulling this pseudo-rebellion for a decade, is Shepard Fairey, the corporate designer cum self-proclaimed “Michael Jordan of street art.” In a long feature in Radar, we see a man in love with himself but without a clue as to how contradictory he is. And Radar doesn’t even seem to notice. Here’s some hyperbolic copy:

Had you approached Frank Shepard Fairey 20 years ago, when he was still a fledgling art student at RISD, and told him he’d become the most important American political artist in at least a half-century—well, he probably would have laughed right in your face.

Really, a guy who makes posters and sells clothes? And what truly political artists would be so commercial and corporate?

Fairey’s seven-year-old clothing company, Obey, is distributed through hundreds of stores like Nordstrom and Urban Outfitters. He directs an Echo Park–based design firm, Subliminal Projects, which creates everything from cover art for Led Zeppelin, Billy Idol, and the Smashing Pumpkins to Dewar’s and Pepsi ads. Limited editions of his left-leaning propaganda street posters—with imagery like an American eagle perched atop a gas pump surrounded by the edict “Operation Oil Freedom,” or two loving parents cuddling a bomb flanked by “More Military, Less Skool,” both of which he pasted above the corner of Wilshire and Rampart Boulevards earlier this afternoon—sell out to so-called “eBay vultures” so fast he’s had to strictly regulate online sales. And in February, Boston’s Institute of Contemporary Art will host a 20-year retrospective of his gallery work, which now fetches upwards of $100,000 a piece.

This sounds less like art than branding and self-promoting. As for his appropriated Obama image, Fairey says:

“I think it was an Associated Press photo, but I’m not sure,” Fairey says. “My whole thing has always been don’t ask permission, just do it. I’ve got a look I want to achieve, the way the lighting falls on the face, and it feels like he’s a leader.”

Reading the above, one would be shocked to learn the story of a recent day in Denver, when I visited the Hope Gallery, a DNC installation sponsored by MoveOn.org. I showed up at this very public show, sponsored by a public PAC, on assignment from public television.

“No filming,” I was told by an angry, ugly Jewish midget. “The rights to these are images are held by Shepard’s sister and her only!”

“But this is public art displayed in a public space—supposedly part of a larger public event—and I’m with public television,” I said.

“No! Get out now!”

At this point I lost it, but that’s not important. Here’s Radar on the DNC event:

“…the big news of getting a mural space in Denver during the DNC, where he will also host the Manifest Hope Gallery with MoveOn.org, featuring the Obama-inspired work of 60 other renowned street and pop artists, like Mel Kadel, Date Farmers, and Evan Hecox. “They recognize the power that this type of event—art, culture—has on a younger voter,” says Fairey, who was arrested on the first day of the DNC while bombing an alleyway with a documentary film crew in tow.

Huh? Your own doco crew, Shep? So you want to create public work but control public access to it? Sounds fascist. You take an AP photo, steal it without buying the rights, then make a lot of money off it, increasing your brand’s value, but deny the public access to your work?

It’s important to understand Fairey’s duplicity. By appropriating images and then putting them up as public art, Fairey is committing an illegal, subversive political act. But by selling the images and attempting to control who uses them, Fairey subverts his action. What’s democratic about public art that the public can’t even share? This is advertising not art.