While reading the Boston Globe's Sunday magazine yesterday, I found myself laughing out loud until tears leaked out of my eyes as I read Dave Barry's 2009 year-in-review column. He's able to put the year into such perfect perspective.
Best two observations:
About the swine flu:
"The big health story in April is the rapid spread of swine flu, a dangerous new virus strain developed by the makers of Purell. Public anxiety over the flu increases when Vice President Joe Biden, demonstrating his gift for emitting statements, declares on the Today show that he would not recommend traveling by commercial airplane or subway. A short while later, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs assures reporters that he is 'not aware of any 'Vice President Joe Biden.''"
About the White House State Dinner party crashers:
". . . in a Washington couple, Tareq and Michaele Salahi, penetrate heavy security and enter the White House, a feat that Joe Biden has yet to manage. As details of the incident emerge, an embarrassed Secret Service is forced to admit that not only did the couple crash a state dinner, but they also had met and shaken hands with the president, and they 'may have served briefly in the Cabinet.'"
Made me wish that Dave Barry was still writing his weekly, syndicated columns. No one has been able to fill his shoes. Not yet anyway.
Who didn't see this coming? The White House's awkward backing off from what Vice President Joe Biden said on the Today Show this morning, that he wouldn't go in any confined area like an airplane or a subway while the swine flu is spreading.
You had to feel badly for WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, having to stand there at the podium, on national TV and, with a straight face, BS his way through this quagmire, where the president tells everyone to remain calm, wash their hands and stay home if sick, while the vice president says he for one isn't gonna get trapped in some subway car potentially loaded with people carrying the swine flu.
ABC's Jake Tapper asked Gibbs about Biden's statements and Gibbs talked in nonsensical circles saying that what Biden was really saying was that if you feel sick you should take precautions. To which Tapper replied, "With all due respect . . . that's not even remotely close to what he said."
"I'm telling you what he meant to say," Gibbs said as the reporters guffawed. (Link to the question and answer here.)
Meanwhile, in another development on the swine flu front, the Associated Press reported that a White House aide and his family are being tested for the flu. "A member of the U.S. delegation that helped prepare Energy Secretary Steven Chu's trip to Mexico City has demonstrated flu-like symptoms and his family members have tested probable for swine flu."
Last night President Barack Obama told America not to panic about the swine flu pandemic. Be reasonable, he suggested, wash your hands and cover your mouth when you cough. If you become sick, he said, stay home, contact a doctor if you suspect that you or a loved one has flu-like symptoms.
Then this morning Vice President Joe Biden told viewers of the Today Show, "I wouldn't go anywhere in a confined space right now." He even seemed to be suggesting that people should avoid places where there are lots of other people. Like the NBA and NHL playoffs being played in confined arenas? Baseball games being played in parks where the concession areas are confined? Indoor concerts? Movie theaters? Malls? Public bathrooms? Schools?
My questions are: Does Biden know more than he's letting on and just being honest, on a personal level? Or is he overreacting?
It's really hard to determine who's being truthful here, the federal officials who are talking "mitigation" and preaching "reasonableness," while I know full well that they're engaging in a cost-benefit analysis where they're weighing the number of deaths with the economic impact of a public, Biden-like shut-down on an already weakened economy. There'd be a steep economic cost in terms of dollars that'd happen in the wake of this kind of a recommendation, which, I can only imagine would be issued in only the severest of flu cases, so as not to hurt the economy further. That's understandable.
But when I hear the vice president -- a guy who took Amtrak back-and-forth from Delaware to D.C. during his Senate days, someone who earned the nicknamed "Amtrak Joe" -- say he wouldn't want to be in a confined space, that gives me reason to pause and wonder what the internal, White House projections are for the impact of this flu and what costs are being weighed against what benefits.
Don't worry everybody. Joe Biden's got it covered. Federal bailout money won't be wasted, President Barack Obama told us last night, because he's put the vice president in charge of a "tough, unprecedented oversight effort." And, as the president added, "Nobody messes with Joe." So we're all set.
But seriously folks, President Obama, invoking an upbeat and optimistic tone that called upon America's can-do spirit, told a joint session of Congress last night, "We will rebuild. We will recover." He hopes that the barrels of federal dollars contained in the various stimulus packages will truly jump-start the economy. He says now's the time to "act boldly" and to fix the health care system, double the production of green fuel, halve the federal deficit within four years, raise taxes only on a tiny fraction of Americas, give soldiers better pay and better benefits, pull troops out of Iraq, move some more into Afghanistan, improve the nation's schools and, oh yeah, beat cancer.
Now I'm an optimist who loves to see an ambitious agenda fueled by smart, innovative ideas, determination and the ability to see that people of all ideological stripes have something worthy to offer. But when I listened to President Obama last night, I kept wondering how in the world we could implement and achieve even half of what he put on the table last night. Is it even possible? To do everything he talked about? Simultaneously?
For the past few weeks, I've been voraciously consuming articles and editorials about Obama's economic proposals, including the ginormous bailout bills, and watched the now-infamous CNBC commentator Rick Santelli off-the-cuff speech where he scoffed at the notion of bailing out the ailing mortgages of people who bought more house than they could really afford. Across the board, there seems to be confusion, uncertainty and no clear path out of this thicket of daily reports about the Dow's latest drop, the jobless numbers spiking and the businesses shutting down. Just yesterday, news reports contained dire info about Target's steep decline in profits.
New York Times columnist David Brooks last week was critical of the bailout for homeowners who've defaulted or are behind on their mortgages, saying the federal plan rewards bad behavior, but asked what other choice do we really have if we're to stop the economic hemorrhaging. ". . . [T]he sad reality is that in these circumstances government has to spend money on precisely those sectors that have been swinging most wildly -- housing, finance, etc. It has to help stabilize people who have been idiots."
President Obama last night said we've arrived at a national "day of reckoning" and that it's time to pay the price for living a lifestyle beyond our means for so long. We need to grow up and settle the bill. After listening to his prescription to pull us out of what some commentators are frighteningly likening to a modern day Great Depression, I find myself agreeing with the New York Daily News'sentiment on today's front page, "Hope He's Right." Americans are giving President Obama high approval numbers because the majority of them are taking a leap of faith; we're praying that he's right.
But then articles like today's Maureen Dowd column about the gross misuse of federal stimulus money are published (a bank that got $1.5 billion in bailout money and fired 450 employees "flew hundreds of clients and employees to Los Angeles last week and treated them to four days of posh hotel rooms, salmon and filet mignon dinners, music concerts, a PGA golf tournament at the Riviera Country Club with Mercedes shuttle rides and Tiffany swag bags") and steam starts pouring out of my ears. Where's Joe Biden? He's got to get on the case, pronto! Want to restore Americans' confidence, then the Obama folks need to put an end to this kind of this abuse ASAP.
Earlier this year, they created a sharp video spoofing the presidential election and I've been a huge JibJab fan for years. But the 2008 wrap-up just didn't do it for me this time around, maybe it was the different style. Wish they'd done more with Sarah Palin and mentioned Joe the Plumber, Tina Fey, Joe the Gaffe Machine and other pop culture nuggets from 2008 besides Miley Cyrus in Vanity Fair and Daniel Radcliffe nude on stage.
The video (link here) is NOT work-safe and is inappropriate for the kiddos.
When 2008 is but a mere memory, what buzzwords will it have yielded that actually last? The New York Timesran a lengthy piece this past weekend offering a list of 38 buzzwords and phrases the authors say were made popular this year, including many politically-oriented terms, given that we just experienced a historic presidential election season.
Among the political terms:
-- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin spawned three on the list: Caribou Barbie, "hockey mom" and "lipstick on a pig." "Maverick" was also on the list, but mostly because John McCain used it liberally about himself and then applied it to Palin.
-- Barack Obama was credited with spawning a whole host of derivations of his name -- both positive and negative -- ranging from "Obamanation" to "Obamacize and "Obamafy." His playful gesture with his wife Michelle was called a potential "terrorist fist jab" by a Fox News Channel anchor, not in jest.
-- "Joe" was there for a multitude of reasons, from Joe the Plumber, to "Joe Six-Pack" and "Amtrak Joe" (as in Joe Biden who took Amtrak to and from work).
Apolitical buzzwords included:
-- "Phelpsian" as in something having to do with Olympic gold be-dazzled swimmer Michael Phelps, or his insanely calorie-ific diet of a bazillion calories.
-- "Sister Wife," first heard by many on HBO's Big Love, but mentioned on this list because of the news stories spawned by this year's raid on a Texas polygamous compound.
-- Any form of the word Twitter (tweet, Twittering), of which I'd never heard until this year, unless it had to do with a bird.
Any words or phrases you think should've been on their list but wasn't? I'd toss into the mix: "Bailout" (self-explanatory), "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuits" (Hillary Clinton's nickname for her followers) and "bleep" in honor of the embattled Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich.
There are occasions when the ref has to step in and blow the whistle because a foul has been committed. And on the heels of yesterday's post where I called for civility from both presidential campaigns, less character assassination and more issue-oriented discourse, things have only gotten worse. From the John McCain campaign.
After reading several accounts of recent McCain/Palin rallies from a number of news organizations, I learned that a handful of nitwits in attendance shouted things such as, "Kill him," "treason" and "terrorist" when Barack Obama's name was invoked by McCain or Palin. One rally attendee reportedly told an African-American TV network cameraman, "Sit down boy." The McCain campaign has said that neither the senator nor Gov. Sarah Palin heard these shouts from the crowd and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they did not, in fact, hear the reprehensible utterances. But given that they've been widely reported, why haven't McCain or Palin explicitly and prominently said that there's no place in this campaign for that kind of rhetoric and vileness?
The campaign instead, has only revved up the personal attacks by releasing a statement from a man whose father was, 40 years ago, targeted by the group of domestic terrorists, a member of which is now a university professor, associates with the mayor of Chicago and held a fundraiser many years ago for Obama. "Barack Obama's friend tried to kill my family," the man said in a McCain press release as the campaign has also unveiled another online ad on the same topic.
Cindy McCain also amped up the attacks by taking to a podium and saying when Obama didn't vote for a defense funding bill -- which did not contain a timeline to withdraw troops from Iraq -- she was offended. ". . . [T]he day Senator Obama decided to cast a vote to not fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body." What she did not say was that Obama did vote for a different version of the funding bill which contained a timetable and that he wasn't against giving the troops the materials they need.
Certainly John McCain does not believe his Senate colleague is a terrorist or supports terrorists. Certainly Cindy McCain doesn't believe that Obama wants U.S. troops to not receive the funding they need to keep them safe. (Given that Obama's running mate Sen. Joe Biden -- like McCain and Palin -- also has a son serving in Iraq, this is ridiculous.)
Likewise, I don't see the Obama campaign out there saying that McCain hates Jews and Catholics simply because a reverend whose support McCain actively sought this spring espoused hate-filled rhetoric reminiscent to the ugliness that came out of the mouth of the preacher from Obama's church. I also don't think that people could reasonably suggest that McCain doesn't support the troops because he once voted against a bill whose provisions included funding efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. McCain had principled reasons to vote against it, just like Obama did for his vote.
John McCain is an American hero and should be admired for his noble service to our country. And it's a tragedy that this once principled pol and his campaign are tarnishing that image with such despicable attacks which they know, in their hearts, are disingenuous. They're becoming precariously close to becoming the embodiment of the Saturday Night Live satire that aired a few weeks ago. What a damned shame.
She survived. More than merely survived. She strung together aggressive sentences and strong sentiments joined with you-betcha folksy language, sprinkled with a few knowing winks aimed directly into the camera. Mentioned Joe Six-packs, hockey moms, soccer moms and a third grade class to which she promised would receive extra credit for watching the vice presidential debate. Doggoneit. She put those awkwardly awful Katie Couric interviews behind her. For now. She's not going to be kicked around. Especially not by Joe.
He didn't condescend. Or wildly run off at the mouth. Or ask anyone who is differently-abled and wheelchair-bound to stand up. He drew specific, distinct differences between the policy positions of the different tickets on several matters. While he seemed a bit stuffy, he did, in fact tear up when he recalled his days as a single father in the wake of the accident that killed his wife and daughter, and left his sons in the hospital.
As with last week's presidential race, I'd score the vice presidential debate essentially a tie. Biden won on substance and policy detail. Palin won with her Main Streeter and distinctly un-D.C. appeal to undecided voters. (If you've already decided to vote McCain or Obama, she wasn't aiming to convince you when she looked at the camera a la Reagan, trying to hop over the media and appeal directly to voters.)
Despite my pithy punditry here, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted after the debate found that 51 percent of the respondents said Biden won the debate to 36 percent who said Palin won, while 54 percent found Palin more likable to the 36 percent who found Biden more likable. On the matter of whether they seemed qualified to assume the presidency, 87 percent said Biden was qualified, to 42 percent for Palin.
While writing this post as I was listening to a Boston talk radio show, I heard this intriguing question: Can you imagine what last night's VP debate would've been like had Hillary been there instead of Joe?
Bailout is Greenlit
Despite the pork that's laden throughout the economic bailout package -- a bill both presidential candidates say our country needs lest we return to the Great Depression -- the House of Representatives has passed the $700 billion Wall Street life raft. Let the adventure begin.
It's on. Tonight. 9 p.m. EST. A high-wire act for the VP candidates. I hope, for Biden and Palin's sakes, they both do well. No one likes to see a wretchedly public crash and burn. It's just embarrassing for everyone. After all, this election is about the folks at the top of the tickets, isn't it? All the VP hopefuls have to do is to seem reasonable enough to possibly step in if necessary, which we all hope won't be necessary. I just hope no one asks Palin what newspapers or magazines she reads or whether Biden dodged sniper fire in Iraq. Then it could get ugly.
Rescue, Bailout . . . Tomato, Tomah-to
Notice that D.C. politicians are now calling the proposal to try to avert an economic catastrophe a "rescue" and not a "bailout?" Well the bailout bill that was approved by the Senate last night was loaded with unrelated tax breaks that could potentially prove to be poison pills for those fiscal conservatives in the House who are already skittish about approving a $700 billion life raft. According to the New York Post, pork was added to the bill including $6 million in tax breaks for the makers of kids' wooden arrows, $192 million for Puerto Rican and Virgin Island rum producers, $128 million break for auto racing tracks and money for wool research.
Are they seriously trying to take those wooden arrows and stick them through the heart of a bailout that the country's leading economic experts say we need? Seriously people. Have you no shame? Lawmakers had to be bribed with pork in order to do what's right?
Political Moms
My October column in Parents & Kids offers one last word on the media's handling of Sarah Palin, the working mom, as well as other political moms who are judged differently than their male counterparts.
Only fortysomething days remain until Americans head to the polls to elect a new president. And this year, moms who vote are getting a lot of attention from pollsters and the media, even though moms (like dads) don't vote in lockstep and in fact have views the encompass all ends of the political spectrum, as I wrote in yesterday's blog entry.
Given the unprecedented level of attention this election has been receiving, I've decided that a weekly, bipartisan round-up of election news, called the Suburban Mom's Political Fix is in order. I'm planning to write quirky posts at least once a week, more frequently as news events dictate.
To Debate or Not Debate. That is, apparently, the big question hovering over the presidential campaign right now. Sen. John McCain stunned everyone yesterday with his announcement that because the federal Wall Street bailout proposal was on the verge of falling apart, he was going to suspend his presidential campaign, blow off David Letterman (and piss off the late night talk show host because McCain didn't cancel his Katie Couric interview), and possibly skip Friday night's presidential debate in Mississippi until some sort of deal to prop up the U.S. economy is struck in Washington.
Yet today, word is that there's a tentative, bipartisan agreement on the table, despite what the folks back home may think about a bailout. So does this mean that Mac will show up on Friday night as planned and as Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama has already said he would? Your guess is as good as mine.
CNN Anchor Calls Campaign Treatment of Palin 'Sexist.'CNN's Campbell Brown is ticked off at the McCain campaign for keeping what she sees as too tight a grip on how and when Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin fields questions from the media. Brown said it's "sexist" to not allow Palin to face the media like all the other major candidates are doing, including Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden.
I personally think this is just a strategy devised to avoid gaffes, like the whoppers Biden's been making lately (there've been some ugly ones too). But as the only female candidate for national office left in the running, Palin's limited media availability does leave the campaign wide open to the charge that they're treating her with kid gloves. This is the big show, the big leagues. If she can't answer (or pretend not to hear) shouted questions from reporters who are hanging around the campaign trail, she's got no business being there.
Today, by the way, marked the first time that Palin actually answered a couple of inquiries from reporters. Maybe the McCain campaign took cues from Brown's "Free Sarah Palin" rant.
Why I love Entertainment Weekly.The magazine's writers and editors are smart and, for a publication focused on the entertainment industry, have a savvy way of delivering information and commentary on pop culture that doesn't patronize its readers. The cover of the new issue (see above), parodying the controversial New Yorker magazine cover with a photo of Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart, is spot-on. THAT cover is funny, the New Yorker cover, not so much, in fact, not at all.
In the past week I've blogged about Mad Men, 90210 and Grey's Anatomy.
But what topic has given me the greatest satisfaction? That honor goes to the Associated Press story I read today that said more than 83 million people tuned in to watch Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's acceptance speech last week (approximately 42.4 million) and GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin's acceptance speech this week (about 41.1 million). (No numbers for John McCain's speech yet. Joe Biden's speech pulled in an estimated 24 million.)
In an age when it wouldn't surprise me if more people voted for an American Idol contestant than a leader of the free world, the fact that tens of millions of people took the time away from watching baseball, football and entertainment programming to watch the two political conventions and, in particular, two historic speeches, warms the cockles of my Mr. Smith Goes to Washington-idealistic heart.
"The audiences for the Obama and Palin speeches were bigger than the ones this year for the Academy Awards, the finale of American Idol or the Olympics opening ceremony in Beijing," the AP reported.
And if that many people tune in to watch the four debates (three presidential, one VP) -- I, sad political addict I am, watch all the debates (or DVR them) and have the small people in my house watch until it's time for them to go bed -- I will be simply over the moon.
UPDATE: The McCain speech numbers are now in. McCain's GOP acceptance speech drew 41.6 million viewers. That means, if you throw that in with the number of people who watched Obama, Biden and Palin (all on separate nights), 149 million people tuned in to watch four political speeches. How fantastic is that?
