music, media & other random musings

Obama Turning Point?

Obama is at one of those crossroad moments. One like when the economy tanked in October 2008, in the final throes of the election. When McCain floundered like a dead fish trying to prove his economic concern, and Obama stayed cool, strong and forceful - ensuring his ultimate victory. Or like when Jeremiah Wright became a distraction to his campaign, Obama responded by giving a weighty speech on race - one applauded broadly across the political spectrum. And when at the beginning of 2011, with his numbers low, he gave another speech that lifted the country's spirits after the tragic shooting in Tuscon. Again, taking the reins to steer the tides in his direction. 

Obama's taken great advantage of some opportunities. While sadly missing out on others. But if he wants four more years of this gig, now is one of those opportunities he better figure out how to game. 

He seemed to be rallying there for a while, helped in part because the weirdly ridiculous Republican primary shined a sad light on the party and its candidates. But Romney's settled into his role as "the accepted" frontrunner, and the economy has moved beyond stalling and now appears to be slipping backwards. That's what the job growth and unemployment numbers said today - and in kind, the stock market. 

So now's the time for Obama to have a big moment. But this time a speech isn't going to cut it. And neither will political show. He's got to actually deliver - and now. And if he's not delivering good news - which may be the case for months to come - he better deliver a plan. A detailed, yet very simply articulated plan on how to create jobs - jobs that effectively build and improve our country's infrastructure, energy and communication systems. And he has to do this immediately. 

Corporations are sitting on tons of cash - because they're fearful, skeptical, and, well greedy. And more tax breaks aren't going to get them to create any more jobs. The government has to do it. The good news is that the world economy is staged perfectly for him to make a big play. Europe is falling apart, pouring their money into dollars, and borrowing costs are at an insanely low point. Borrow to build. If not now, when? 

Some could argue it may be too late for Obama, that you need three months of good economic news before heading into the election, and it's more than unlikely that will happen now. Even though some of the consumer demand numbers are up from a year ago, the overall sentiment is that this economy is not recovering. With summer here, and the election literally months away, he better make this moment his - to deliver a plan, take the stage, sell it and demand immediate Congressional action. Fuck the Republicans opposition. He needs to be bold, stand tall for what we know he truly believes in, get people working, lead this country forward - and just as importantly, ensure his victory come November.

Even the mere thought of Romney in the White House makes me shiver.  

 

Republicans Want it Both Ways

    So is Obama a complete bumbling fool, inexperienced and inept? Or is he is a scary idealogue, whose ideas are so left of center he is anti-American. On the economy, if things are bad, it is all Obama's fault, he doesn't know what he's doing. If the economy improves, his policies had absolutely nothing to do with it. Whichever is the truth, it just can't be both.

Last week they started in on gas prices - as if Obama could play any real role to affect immediate prices. Which he clearly can't. I realize it's a campaign game, but it still sucks. And well, the Republicans are infuriatingly good at it. As even conservative-slanting Joe Scarbourgh said a few days ago, “You can’t have it both ways. Barack Obama can’t be Joseph Stalin and Jimmy Carter at the same time. Pick your poison. Is he an incompetent moderate, according to the right, or is he a dangerous ideologue?”

And here we go again on the hot issue now being debated - women's health. Obama's health care mandates that the insurance coverage for any/all organizations (including religious orgs) must include the cost of birth control for women. (That 98% of women in the country have used contraceptives at some point in their life, it's hard to belive the Republican legislators really thought this thing though - during an election year.) The Republicans naturally don't see this as an issue about women's health, but instead want to frame the debate on religion and first ammendment rights. The Blunt ammendment was insane. 

The real truth, however, is that this issue isn't about religion. (Obama came back with some reasonable compromises.) And yes, it is about women's health - a women's right to choose what she wants with her own body, the privacy she has with regards to decisions made between her & her doctor, and general preventive health and family planning. But pure and simple, what this is really all about is sex, and the Republicans insanely "retro" view of women - and birth control, and sex out of marriage. It's quite the oxymoron when the Republicans go out there campaigning, telling us they want to lead the country into the future, while really wanting to bring us back to the 1950's. Can't have it both ways. 

But Rush Limbaugh let the cat out of the bag, calling a spade a spade. No sugar coating with religion on top here. 

I'm almost always appalled by what comes out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth. But there are so many things wrong with his latest rants, it would be truly hard to begin to list. Needless to say, it's beyond inappropriate, frightening in its ugliness and shameful that Republicans - especially those clowns running for President - aren't denouncing it or at least distancing themselves from those beliefs. Today on Tumblr I posted an image of a book cover titled How Not To Be A Dick When You Grow Up.  Apparently Rush didn't read it.

 

Just when I thought the race was getting boring...

    America has been debating the haves and the have nots, education and taxes since our inception. And well before our independence, the Constitution or Bill of Rights, have been debating religions role in our government. Let us not forget, the white people who first came to this land - Puritans and a disgruntled sect of Separtists. These extremist nuts who came here for "freedom of religion", really meant freedom to practice their own religion, but weren't necessarily as forgiving about other religions. Not much has really changed. 

Including the role of media. Way back when, we might not have had the unforgiving and often times hilarous 24 hour news cycle. But each side had newspapers that supported their particular view of the world, and used those outlets to slander their opponents - and far nastier than some of the stuff thrown out today. Let's see.. Adams & Jefferson were both accused of sexual philanderings, Jefferson considered an athesist (not good), Jackson was positioned as a murderer, his mother a prostitue & was called out for marrying a woman who was an adulterer. And his opponent, the other Adams (John Quincy) was vilified for purchasing a chess set and a billard table for the White House. How very snobbish of him. 

But our past doesn't take away from the insanity of today's race, nor lessen the entertainment (and outrage) that our current canddiates provide. Some of this stuff is really just too good to make up. Really, who is this guy?? 

The reality is the Republicans have two loser candidates who very doubtfully can get the electoral votes needed to win a general election. Whatever highly conservative crazies are coming out to vote in the Republican primary - and there will be plenty more who come out to vote just to pull the lever against Obama on November 6th - the reality is this country is split pretty evenly down the middle. So it's all about capturing the undecided. And come the general election, the two candidates - whoever they end up being - will be looking to capture those swing voters that will give them the wins in the states they'll need to hit 270. This includes targeting Independents, Women, Hispanics and Youth voters. And the more Santorum and Romney keep talking, the more these swing groups are swinging towards Obama. Which is why at this point, I'm enjoying their ineptitude, as opposed to imaginging the worst - seeing one of these clowns elected as our next president. 

The Republican's dream that another candidate is going to save them at this point is utterly ridiculous. And has been for months, even though the media loves to fuel that anticipation fire. (What else have they got to talk about for 24 hours.) The reality is this: Candidates must have two things, a well organized, wide spread & efficient organization and money. No candidate can just pop up and "run." Even a few months ago, if a "new" candidate had wanted to enter the primaries, it would have been virtually impossible, because there's a huge amount of organization & political finegaling to even get on the states ballots. And going forward, even if it turns out in a few more months, there is no clear winner between Romney and Santorum, yes, someone theoretically could jump in - creating serious background negotiations at the convention. But as John Heilman said in his article in New York Magazine this week, "Don't hold your breath, particularly since none of the putative white knights evince the slightest interest in putting themselves in the near-suicidal position of having to assemble and fund a general-election campain on the fly with only 67 days left between the convention and November 6." Upshot - it's not going to happen. 

In my Friday Rant a few days ago, I said "Run Rick Run." Heilman had the same sentiment, ending his article with "Go Rick Go." But his interest in Santorum surging forward is less because of the joy Democrats will have watching a match up between him and Obama, and more because if Santorum wins the nomination - and loses (an inevitability) - the Republican party will literally impode and be forced to rebuild itself. I applaud Heilman's loftier goals of wanting two strong parties in this country. But I say, be careful what you wish for. Things don't always turn out as you expect they will. This election certainly hasn't. 

 

Friday's Random Rant

When my brother was blogging consistently, he incorporated a Friday rant into his repertoire. As my mind sometimes tends to work in that way, one thought running into the other, I thought I'd steal his concept and use it myself. As Pablo Picasso said, "Good artists borrow, great artists steal." And with that, my first Friday rant…

On TV: Steven Colbert's Wheat Thins Sponsortunity clip last night should make all of those in branding, marketing & advertising wince. I did. Jon Stewart seems to be tired the last few weeks. Nothing truly inspiring for me. Downton Abbey's season finale was true to the series, predictable, while still being well-crafted, smart, and thoroughly enjoyable. Time Warner Cable has decided to spend lots of money making commercials like the ones with Ricky Gervais and Mary Louise Parker. I think most New Yorkers would agree that they should invest their money instead on improving their services, including the customer kind. In the last 6 months I have gone through 3 DVRs. Each one deciding on it's own, 'it's my box and I'll record if I want to'… TW sucks.

On the political front: The more I listen to Mitt Romney, the more I think that George Bush scared me less. Does he rank right up there with one of the worst campaigners ever? His insightful thoughts on trees in Michigan, proof positive. As for Rick Santorum, I say "Run Rick Run." The more this guy talks, the more he too digs himself into a very deep hole. IF this guy actually were able to pull off the nomination - which I don't think is possible - he'll NEVER be able to win the national campaign with views like the ones he's been espousing on education, women's health, homosexualty, etc. So, I'm all for the Rick Santorum's surge. 

Pinterest is all the rage.  I haven't gotten the bug yet. 

Great article in Vanity Fair on Diner this month. If you haven't ever seen (gasp!), or not in a while, very worthy of repeated viewing. 

"For a little movie without special effects, dramatic reveals, or cutting-edge sex scenes—a movie about nothing at all, really—Barry Levinson’s 1982 comedy,Diner, caused a tectonic shift in popular culture. It paved the way for Seinfeld, Pulp Fiction, The Office, and Judd Apatow’s career, and made stars of Mickey Rourke, Kevin Bacon, Ellen Barkin, and Paul Reiser."

Also fantastic article in the NYTimes Magazine section this past Sunday. "How Companies Learn Your Secrets." Truly fascinating (and scary) how retailers are tapping into your online behavior to target you into buying more - predictive analytics. But also just incredibly interesting from perspective of how our brains work & the habits we form - and why are our bad habits are so difficult to break. 

Celebrated my 48th birthday this past Monday. No birthday party, cake or candles - just a few good scotches and dinner with my brother at the excellent John Dory's, while the better part of my day was spent in my pajamas, reading, writing, doing the crossword & listening to music - a few of my favorite activities. Couldn't have been more enjoyable. It's incredible the number of people who follow the birthdays on Facebook. Heard from tons of people I never speak to… FB friends we call them.. but still nice… As my friend Rich said, Facebook is the largest birthday card in the world. 

As for old friends, must be the season… Met up with, Liz Blumberg, my oldest BFF from "home" (as opposed to camp). It's been 30 years, although we were inseparable from elementary school through to high school. We probably wouldn't be friends if we met today, completely different lives and interests - but it's impossible to break the bonds of the past. And sometimes, that's a very good thing. Most certainly is in this case. 

Great quote from Jerry Colonna in a guest post on Fred Wilson's blog. His post was focused on management. But it is true for all of us, in finding ourselves everyday: We forge our truest identity by facing our fears, our prejudices, our passions, and the source of our aggression. 

Oscars on this Sunday. Seen almost all the nominees, except for a few. Predicting The Artist will win Best Picture of the year. 

 

Romney or Newt?

For the last four months, I've been absolutely convinced it's Romney all the way. It seemed pretty obvious that Gingrich isn't electable, and the percentage of people who don't like him - his unfavorable rating - seemed just too high to overcome. And the prevailing attitude about Romney among Republican loyalists seemed to echo this sentiment. They may not really like Romney, but he's theirs, and they'll vote for him. Resigned acceptance. Even up to just three days ago, I sat with my brother-in-law and nephew providing the absolute scenario that Romney's victory was inevitable. But based on Romney's recent performances, I've changed my mind. Newt might just have a shot.

Occupy Wall Street may not be occuping much actual space anymore, and their supporters may never have completely coalesced around specific demands. But what they were able to articulate incredibly well, and quite succinctly in their "We are the 99%" is the unfairness of income inequality in this country. And this looming issue has deep hooks in the campaign. Although Romney has tried on the campaign trail to tell people he's one of them, one of the 99%, it's a tough argument to continue to make when we all know he is actually a super rich guy, whose tax rate is the same as someone who goes to work everyday making $80k. 

It's not that making a lot of money is a bad thing. Americans are okay with wealth, they aspire to it, and in fact have always been okay with uber rich presidential candidates. Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan - all had a lot of money. But those candidates made people feel they cared about the middle class. Even after Romney released his tax returns, revealing he made close to 24 million last year, and paid a tax rate of less than 14%, he might have been alright - if he had been able to handle the issue well in the media. But he didn't. He fumbled at every juncture. He is awkward, clearly uncomfortable about the topic, doesn't come off as relaxed or warm - or human - and because of the way he "flip flopped" on whether or not he was even going to release his returns, or release years farther back than 2010, it makes everyone figure that he's got something bigger to hide. 

When Romney tells a roomful of unemployed people he's unemployed like them, or makes a 10k bet with Perry in a debate, or says 360k, his earnings from appearances, isn't a lot of money, it's the same as when Bush Sr. went to the grocery store and was dumbounded by how a scanner worked. It shows he's out of touch - and absolutely not part of the 99%. 

Romney's inability to handle this issue leaves him vulnerable on two fronts.The first is electability. Obama's big theme in the campaign will be about fairness. Making sure everyone gets a fair shot, everyone pays their fair share and plays by the same rules. It's beyond fairness in tax code - it will translate into fairness about entitlements, investment, education, etc. And there sits Romney who embodies the picture of unfairness. He is the poster child illustrating that the burden isn't being shared equally, that the system is inherently unfair. With Romney, Obama couldn't have a better opponent to help paint the picture so vividly. It's one thing to make a shitload of money off of your money - and not work - it's the American dream. It's another thing to make that money and say it's fair just because it happens to be legal. Beyond his tax returns, he'll have an even harder time handling this issue when it is pounded in the media that when a bi-partisan Congress tried to change the laws and repeal carried interest only 15%, Romney and Bain fought it big with lots of money and lots of lobbyists. Electability is one of the most important things to Republicans. If this issue becomes too big, one that leaves Romney too vulnerable, one that Obama can slam dunk, Republicans will start thinking maybe Gingrich is more electable. And they wouldn't necessarily be wrong.  

The second, is that Romney clearly can't handle the stress. When he was running a laid back campaign, watching the "non-Romney" candidates rise and fall, he inched along just fine. But when pushed, when he has to play offense, he fumbles the ball every time. No one wants to vote for a guy who can't close the deal. And that is now Romney. He comes off as phoney, inauthentic and on this issue, nervous and untrusting. Those qualities are not qualities that get you elected in a national election. And with these flaws, it will be too easy for Obama to position Romney just where he wants him. 

National elections are long, some say too long. But they do separate the boys from the men. The candidates live through extreme pressure on the campaign trail. Watching them live daily through that, handling the inbound and the outbound messaging, managing themselves and their staff, handling - and manipulating the media, proving their ability to build and lead an organized, well run campaign. Huge pressures. And if you crack on the campaign trail, it's a pretty sure sign you'll crack in the White House - if you actually make it there. Great line from Ryan Gossling in the Ides of March. "This is the big leagues. It's mean. When you make a mistake, you lose the right to play."

I'm not saying that Newt still doesn't have the ability and the time to make some monumental gaffe that would deliver the nomination to Romney. But while even a few days ago I was absolutely certain Romeny was the inevitable choice, I'm now thinking Gingrinch just might be able to pull it off. Another day, another 24 hour news cycle, I may change my mind again. But today, I'm at 60/40, giving Romney a slight edge. Time will tell.

Occupy-apalooza

From NYTimes Op-Ed, Charles M. Blow, October 22, 2011

Incredibly Disturbing. Republicans.

Lying in bed, watching my TV boyfriend, Jon Stewart, and saw one of the more disturbing things I've seen in a while. 

When I read or hear Republicans talk sometimes - especially today's right wingers, aka the tea partiers - I can't help but wonder, who are these people? What makes them think like that?  Is it true ignorance, pure ideology or heartlessness that makes them so cavalier about those less well-off than they are? Depending on the context, sometimes I get it. I may not agree, but understand their line of thinking, their reasoning.

Tonight, however, not at all. The topic - the Republic "class warfare" uproar over the audacity of Warren Buffet to suggest gazillionaires pay a little more in taxes. Seeing a montage of clips one after the other does certainly increase the power of these inane sound bites. But it doesn't lessen the fact that they were said at all. Watch - two parts. These people... incredibly distributing.

The Daily Show - World of Class Warfare - Warren Buffett vs. Wealthy Conservatives
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show - World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

No You Can't

Gotta love the mash-ups. John Boehner is such an asshole. This is so deserving. 

Obama Goes Right

Boston Dream Guy

A few pieces of sensible editorial (and clear-minded thinking) amidst the crazed madness surrounding Brown's win in Massachusetts. Naturally, from Comedy Central... 

I'm fighting with Hulu this morning - but the Daily Show portion ends after the John Oliver segment, at about 7:35.