Meet Me in the Political Middle: Commentary on the 2012 Race

When it comes to politics, I can be found all over the map depending on the issue.

On some matters, I lean toward the left, on others toward the right. I’ve voted for Democrats and for Republicans. I vote the person, not the party. I vote on character and policies, not on partisan litmus tests. I don’t believe that one of the two main political parties is entirely evil and hell bent on wrecking the nation while the other has only the noblest, best intentions for the United States in mind. No one party corners the market on the most ethical, intelligent, reasonable and pragmatic solutions to the nation’s problems. They’ve both got gigantic flaws and lunatics in their ranks.

There are some politicians who are Democrats and some who are Republicans whom I admire and have enormous respect. There are crazies on both ends of the political spectrum – on the far left and far right of both parties – who try to push their presidential (gubernatorial) candidates and legislative leaders to the outer wings during primaries, rendering the candidates, in the end, looking like unbalanced hypocrites when they turn around and seek to claim the middle, moderate ground during the general election because that’s where the undecided voters reside. (Those folks on either ends of the extremes are likely going to vote party line in the general election, while those who are more moderate could go either way.)

The tactics of our political parties make our candidates behave worse, not better. The parties pressure well intentioned officials to support bills in which they actually don’t believe, to give lip service to issues with which they don’t agree. If an elected official dares to go rogue on his or her party and defy the demands of the party leaders, the fierce partisans and political establishment mete out punishment in the form of party-funded opponents in the primary, of being stripped of one’s seat on legislative committees and of one’s district suddenly seeing public monies evaporate, all as a penalty for not towing the party line. Politicians in our system have a very difficult time remaining true to themselves because not only are they expected to do what the establishment and the party leaders want them to do, but because there are also powerful, wealthy lobbying groups who wield tremendous influence and power over the process (by not making hefty campaign contributions or by throwing support behind a rival candidate, etc.) if they’re dissatisfied.

This makes those of us who find ourselves in the political middle disillusioned with politics and the political process. Watching the primary candidates reach out to the extremists, moderates frequently feel alienated. It’s only when the general election rolls around and the candidates stop staking out positions on the far left or right and try to say, “Hey, I’m in the middle with you guys too” that people who might be a little liberal and a little conservative depending on the issue feel as though the politicians are finally speaking their language. But once that person is elected, he or she is forced to become partisan again because partisanship seems to be the only way of doing business these days.

A confession: I used to hold pretty partisan positions when I was in college. I did not take the time to listen to the other side. I saw the world as fairly black-and-white and invoked lazy caricatures of those folks who lived on the politically polar opposite plain than I did at the time. Then I gradually started to let go of the angry partisanship which marked my college years and actually began listening to the whole spectrum of ideas. Then, after an incident made me feel as though I’d been sold out by the political party to which I was registered, I angrily switched sides (my husband was stunned). In the last few years, however, I’ve started to realize that maybe I’m not a one side of the aisle type of gal after all. I am, indeed, somewhere in the middle.

Just this week, for the first time since I was 18 years old, I unenrolled from all political parties because I’ve had enough. I’m hardly alone (despite the fact that those who reside on the sanctimonious, narrow-minded edges of both political parties say that being an independent moderate means you’re wishy-washy). Earlier this month, pollsters from Rasmussen Reports found that, “The numbers of Americans who are not affiliated with either major political party has reached the highest level ever, as the number of Democrats has reached an all-time low.” In fact, the American electorate is roughly divided into thirds when it comes to party registration, according to Rasmussen:

• 33.5 percent are Republicans
• 33 percent are Democrats
• 33.5 percent are not enrolled in a political party

But even among those who are registered with a party, which I was until this week, they aren’t necessarily dogmatic about their party affiliation. Why else was the term “Reagan Democrat” invented?

This is why a group like No Labels, which calls upon us to ditch the “hyper-partisanship” which “dominates today’s political debates” and seek out moderate solutions, is so appealing to me. Yes, the organization seems very Mr. Smith Goes to Washington idealistic as it aspires to prompt elected officials to be reasonable, given that reasonableness is anathema to partisans and pols who are posturing themselves for re-election and want to look “tough.” But at least it doesn’t represent unthinking, unbending lockstep partisanship that sacrifices the common good at the altar of party unity.

So for the duration of the 2012 presidential election season, I will be periodically weighing in on events from my new post, smack dab in the unenrolled middle, where at least a third of the rest of you reside. I’ll continue to listen to both conservative and liberal radio shows and watch conservative and liberal TV talk shows. (All the better if they’re combined in one like Morning Joe, which features conservative Joe Scarborough and liberal Mika Brzezinski and doesn’t demonize all Democrats or all Republicans.) I will continue to cast a skeptical eye on all politicians’ assertions and assignments of blame for this crisis or that one. And I’ll do my best to try to look at the issues from here in the political middle. I hope you’ll join me.

Image credit: No Labels.

'The West Wing' Takes on the Politics of the Debt Ceiling Vote

The Washington Post dug up this clip from The West Wing's sixth season where White House advisor Toby Ziegler explained what the debt ceiling is and the politics of the congressional manuevering on the matter. MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell, who used to consult and write for the NBC drama, was a writer on this episode entitled, "In God We Trust."

Watching the clip reminds me of how much I miss The West Wing because it contained two of my favorite elements: It was smart and it was centered around politics. The Good Wife is the closest currently airing show that comes close to providing an insightful glimpse into the world of modern politics, Chicago style.

If only all of our civics lessons could be taught by the West Wing folks . . .

‘Miss Representation’ Documentary: I Want to See This Really Badly

Newest Miss Representation Trailer (a 2011 Sundance Film Festival Official Selection) from on Vimeo.

Not only do I want to see this film, Miss Representation – a 2011 Sundance official film festival selection – because I write and am interested in the intersection of pop culture and politics, but because I’m the mother of an impressionable 12, almost 13-year-old girl who’s soaking all of this in and trying to figure out where she fits in in the world of today’s girls.

As the mother of two boys – one age 12, almost 13, and another almost 10 – I wonder about the messages that they receive about girls’ and women’s roles in the world.

For example, after the Boston Bruins won the Stanley Cup and there was a celebratory parade in Boston – which my 9-year-old son and my husband attended – my daughter asked me whether there’ve been any parades for female athletes and if not, why not. She’s lived through Boston parades for the Red Sox (twice), the Patriots and the Celtics, all of which we watched on TV or attended.

I had no answer for her, none that would be satisfactory.

Though we’ve all, as a family, been watching the Women’s World Cup games, it’s hard for me to justify or explain to her why the women receive precious little coverage in the sports pages of the newspaper as compared to when the USA men’s team was in contention.

I really want to see this documentary.

In Light of Federally Mandated Graphic Cigarette Pack Images, Here Are a Bunch of Cool Ideas

Starting in the fall of 2012, the FDA is going to require that cigarette manufacturers cover the top half of their cigarette packages with one of nine graphic, anti-smoking images. Those images range from a depiction of the post-autopsy corpse of a former smoker, smoke-blackened lungs, smoke emerging from a tracheotomy hole in a man’s neck and a grisly mouth with a gross sore on the lower lip and mottled or outright missing teeth.

Image credit: FDA/USA Today


The stated goal of the graphicness is shock people and hopefully reduce the number of smokers, maybe prevent some kids from picking up the habit. “These labels are frank, honest and powerful depictions of the health risks of smoking,” Kathleen Sebelius, the Health and Human Services secretary told USA Today.

This got me to thinking about other things we citizens do, eat and see in everyday life that a variety of experts and governmental types of folks are constantly saying are either bad for us or are things about which we need to be very, very careful because we’re none too bright as a whole and need more guidance from the Health and Human Services secretary. If we applied the same rationale that’s being used here with these cigarette images – taxing the heck out of cigarettes and making us all look at disgusting images of what could happen to a person if he or she smokes every time we enter gas stations and convenience stores – to other products, think of how much good similarly graphic warnings could do to help our fellow Americans make “wiser” lifestyle and health choices?

Motor Vehicles

How often do we hear that one of the most dangerous places to be is behind the wheel of a car? There are 1.4 million traffic accidents every year, the Washington Post reported. Since it’s in our interest as an overall society to cut down on injuries and deaths sustained in motor vehicle accidents, perhaps the government should require that the front half of motor vehicles themselves feature one of a handful of graphic images of car crash victims, mangled vehicles and dying polar bears (because of the pollution emitted by cars)? As with the corpse on the cigarette packs, the explicit car images – maybe someone who’s lost a limb from a car crash, a cell phone on the ground amid broken glass and spattered with blood -- could encourage people to drive more carefully and think about what they’re doing when they take to the roads. Maybe it'd get them to stop texting and driving.

Cheeses, Cheesecakes & Ice Cream
We’ve been hearing repeatedly from health officials and the First Lady about how fat we are as a society. According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 34 percent of Americans over 20 are overweight and 34 percent are obese. Among children, 18 percent of 12-19-year-olds are obese and 20 percent of 6-11-year-olds are obese. The well meaning folks working with the federal government and many state governments want you to eat more broccoli, damn it, and less of the fatty stuff which’ll clog your arteries, cause heart problems and cost the United States a bundle in terms of health care costs.

So why not try to dissuade people from eating some of the fattiest stuff on the market like dairy products such as cheese, cheesecakes and ice cream? Imagine graphic images of fat – both in the human form (say, people with rolls of fat) and fat that's been sucked out from under the skin by liposuction machines and dumped into a bucket – being plastered on half of the packages of ice cream, blocks of cheese, boxes of cream cheese and cheesecakes? Maybe, as with the smoke-blackened lungs, images of overstressed and enlarged hearts could appear on packages as well. Hmm, what else? Overweight people lying on a gurney – a la the corpse in the cigarette image – killed by too much Ben & Jerry’s?

Red meats, junk food and fast food could be next on the food hit list. Think of the graphic, grotesque visual possibilities that could be employed to socially engineer a society where we’re made sick to our stomach simply by looking at packages of food that are deemed “unhealthy” for us to consume!

Beer, Wine & Liquor Bottles

How could I forget the other big “sin” product category which goes hand-in-hand with cigarettes? The National Institutes for Health says that 17.6 million Americans are either full blown alcoholics or have “alcohol problems.” Not only could the government borrow some vomit-inducing images from the safe driving campaign featuring motor vehicle accidents (mentioned above), they could focus on vivid images of car crashes caused by drunk drivers, as well as hideous pictures of livers destroyed by drinking. The government could also feature unattractive, severe close-ups of red, bulbous noses next to a giant snifter of scotch. And, in keeping with the corpse theme, there could be a corpse on a gurney with a beer bottle tucked under one arm after a "not so-Happy Hour."

Sexting

Didn’t we all learn some important lessons from former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner on the dangers of texting sexually oriented (and naked) images of oneself to others on the internet and how quickly one loses control over those images?

Well some young and impressionable teens might not yet have gotten that message and may very well destroy their reputations by making unwise choices by sending images of themselves partially clothed or nude to others. The latest statistics I could find on teens sexting came from CNN which, citing a national survey of American teens, found that 15 percent of those teens with cell phones received nude or semi-nude pictures via text message and 4 percent admitted sending them.

A possible way to address this problem? Have the federal government step in and protect the teens from themselves (and from their negligent parents) by mandating that all cell phones, BlackBerries, iPhones and even iPads bear images of some of Rep. Weiner’s salacious Twitter photos next to the photo of him giving his resignation speech to remind the young and impressionable that sexting isn’t good and can have unanticipated consequences. The caption could saying something like, “Sexting isn’t sexy and it costs a lot more than you think.”

Pretzels

Our former president, George W. Bush almost met his maker in 2002 when he “fell off a sofa after passing out briefly from having choked on a pretzel while watching a National Football League playoff game on TV,” according to news reports.
Clearly, pretzels are dangerous and the government needs to do something to let us know just how dangerous they can be. If a president, protected by the Secret Service, could choke on one and be at risk, surely lowly civilians could too. Therefore I suggest the government folks consider putting photos of George W. Bush and, perhaps a photo of a gnawed pretzel on all pretzel bags while urging American consumers that we need to thoroughly chew the snacks before swallowing and that we should strictly avoid eating if we’re drowsy.

Got any more suggestions? We could be a world filled with graphic photos warning us about every danger around every corner with only the helpful, gross-out images, courtesy of the government, to guide us down the correct path.

Image credit: FDA via USA Today.

Tell Me That This Provocative Trailer Doesn't: 1) Move You & 2) Make You Want to See Documentary

This documentary, Miss Representation, about the impact of the media's depiction of women in sexual terms, was featured at the 2011 Sundance film festival and is now being featured in select screenings around the country.

While it's slated to air on the OWN network -- Oprah's station -- in the fall, the filmmakers are making the DVD available to civic groups for educational purposes. From the documentary's web site:

"As one of the most persuasive and pervasive forces in our culture, media is educating yet another generation that a woman’s primary value lay in her youth, beauty and sexuality — not in her capacity as a leader, making it difficult for women to obtain leadership positions and for the average girl to feel confident herself. Stories from teenage girls and provocative interviews with politicians, journalists, academics, and activists like Condoleezza Rice, Lisa Ling, Nancy Pelosi, Katie Couric, Rachel Maddow, Rosario Dawson, Jackson Katz, Jean Kilbourne and Gloria Steinem build momentum as Miss Representation accumulates startling facts and statistics that will leave audiences shaken and armed with a new perspective."

I'm hoping to get a screener because, as a mother of a young girl, this trailer completely to got me.

Well Done, Mr. President

It was just what we needed in the wake of the horrific Tucson shooting: An uplifting speech by the president which highlighted the bravery and heroism of the people during that terrible moment on Saturday morning.

Husbands who threw their bodies on top of their wives to try to shield them from gunfire. A congressional aide who darted through the lethal chaos to attend to wounded Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and apply pressure to her wounds. The people who wrestled the shooter to the ground and wrangled his ammo out of his hands, risking their own lives.

We, collectively, were uplifted by the life stories of those who were killed, the woman who volunteered at her church, the high school sweethearts who’d reunited, the young Congressional staffer who had big ideas of how government could help people. We learned that Giffords had opened her eyes for the very first time since being shot. And then there was the 9-year-old girl, Christina Taylor Green whose story President Obama told in such a tastefully poignant fashion that it brought me to tears.

And the president took pains to say that we shouldn’t blame political rhetoric for the actions of a disturbed man bent on violence. Instead of blaming and finger pointing, the president called upon us to lift up one another by communicating our political differences in civil terms and mold ourselves into the kind of nation that the young, idealistic Christina, born on 9/11/01, would have wanted to see in the country of which she was so proud: “She saw all of this through the eyes of a child, undimmed by the cynicism of vitriol that we adults all too often take for granted. I want us to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as she imagined it.” When he threw in the line about how he imagined that Christina was “jumping in rain puddles” in heaven, the word that came to my mind: “Beautiful.”

It was a healing speech full of hope -- not anger, not partisanship, not blaming. It was full of tales that remind us that there are many more people in the world who are good and generous and brave and loving and hopeful even in the face of evil. And that’s what we needed to hear, at least that’s what I needed to hear.

Then this morning while watching Morning Joe, I heard that Colorado Senator Mark Udall is urging that during the January 25 State of the Union speech in the House chambers that the members from the Republican and Democratic parties sit amidst and next to one another as opposed to segregated on opposite sides of the room.

“Beyond custom, there is no rule or reason that on this night we should emphasize divided government, separated by party, instead of being seen united as a country,” Udall said in a press statement. “. . . Perhaps by sitting with each other for one night we will begin to rekindle that common spark that brought us here from 50 different states and widely diverging backgrounds to serve the public good.”

That, I think, is a brilliant idea would embody the notion that we are all Americans, no matter our views on tax policy, education reform and keeping troops in Afghanistan.

JibJab Bids Adieu to 2010 . . . With Puppets

Personalize funny videos and birthday eCards at JibJab!

The JibJab guys have released their new parody video, featuring President Obama and Vice President Biden, lampooning the year in news. It’s not as sharp as the videos they’ve done in past years which was unfortunate as this year has been filled with insane events.

Compared to, say, the send-off they gave to 2009, this 2010 version isn't quite as lively . . .

Personalize funny videos and birthday eCards at JibJab!

. . . maybe it was because of the puppets.

No Labels: A Moderate Movement Which Really Scares, Irritates Partisans

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

What does it mean when people on the political left and the political right absolutely freak out and take aim at you and call you names because you want to change the way of doing business in American politics? Perhaps it means that you’re onto something.

A few weeks ago, I blogged about a new non-partisan, middle-of-the-road political group No Labels which extols the high-minded ideals of putting aside hyper-partisanship and ditching the Democrat/Republican/liberal/conservative labels in favor of making commonsense decisions about issues and finding ways to work together in the arena of ideas, all while refusing to demonize those with whom you disagree. At the time, I wrote that while I love the group’s premise, I wondered if they had a snowball’s chance in hell of ever seeing anything they stand for come to fruition, questioned whether this was just a quaint Mr. Smith Goes to Washington notion or a workable blueprint for ethical, civic discourse in the future.

I routinely watch the MSNBC talk show Morning Joe each morning because of the fact that it embodies the No Labels notion: People from all points of the political spectrum INCLUDING those in the middle -- who usually get ignored because it’s not as “exciting” to interview someone who refuses to throw rhetorical darts at others -- are featured and they all engage in vigorous, intellectual debate. I like that. It compels me to think, prompts me to assess the various political positions and tease out the areas in my own head where people, should they be willing to do so, could carve out a workable policy. Joe Scarborough, one of the hosts, a former Republican congressman and has appeared at No Labels events, has famously criticized and praised both Republicans and Democrats and he doesn’t shy away from staking out his positions without making it personal. The guests on the show reflect that.

And yet the likes of left-leaning columnist Frank Rich from the New York Times have taken on Morning Joe (which he called a “clubby and chipper . . . gabfest”) and No Labels which he derided as having a patronizing raison d’etre while likening it to “a progressive high school’s Model U.N.” (Pot, here’s the kettle . . .) Then he added this: “The notion that civility and nominal bipartisanship would accomplish any of the heavy lifting required to rebuild American is childish magical thinking, and, worse, a mindless distraction from the real work before the nation.”

Childish. It’s “childish” to say that when elected officials disagree that perhaps it would be wise to seek areas of common ground and try to work from there instead of retreating to opposing corners and hurling spitballs? It’s “childish” to suggest that it’s unproductive to demonize people because of their political labels because that’s not how the hard world of politics operates?

I teach my kids to behave in the way that No Labels is advocating that those in the political arena embrace: I ask my children to build consensus, to listen to one another and to ignore the urge to pillory someone personally because he or she doesn’t agree with you on everything. (This approach works in a good marriage as well.)

Over on the left-leaning Salon, Alex Pareene dismissed No Labels' organizers as “the idle rich” who are “fantasizing that they’re smarter than everyone else.” Really? It’s smug and elitist to ask that people find ways to work together despite the fact that the leaders of the two political parties do not want bipartisan cooperation because it could hurt their chances of gaining political power? Asking for folks to stop acting like mindless, lockstep political automatons is a fantasy and smacks of sanctimony?

The right-leaning National Review likened No Labels to “a giant, self-parodying prank.” Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh also attacked No Labels by calling the notion of organizing around the “moderate center” as “fraudulent.”

I could list pundit after pundit – who makes his or her living off of stoking the embers on the conservative or liberal ends of politics – who has similarly attacked the No Labels people as wimps for not firmly planting their political flag in red territory or blue territory because, to these pundits’ way of thinking, you’ve got to be in one side OR the other or else you’re a spaghetti-spined idiot . . . never mind the fact that, according to the Gallup organization, as of their December 10 poll, 34 percent of the American electorate define themselves as Independents, as compared to 33 percent who identify themselves as Republicans and 32 percent as Democrats. Apparently the American public is comprised of fence-sitting, fraudulent “magical thinking” morons too. (The Gallup data says 48 percent of those polled “leaned Republican” while 44 percent “leaned Democrat.”)

What puzzles me is this: It’d be much easier to just accept the political institutions as they are, to just fall in line in one of two major political parties and do what the leaders tell you to do. (Failure to tow the party line could result in leaders taking away your office or funding for your staff, eliminating projects in your district, threatening to run other people against you in a primary, etc.) How hard is it to just say, “That’s my party’s agenda and I’m following it . . . This is what the party leaders want, so I’m sticking with my party,” as opposed to evaluating an issue on a case-by-case basis, having a spine, making your own evaluation and deciding what's not only is best for your constituents, but for the nation as a whole, putting your country AHEAD of your political party? To run for office without the support of the Democratic or Republican parties, to vote independently of what your political party leaders want, is clearly the more difficult road to travel.

The more these folks protest and name call, the more I think No Ideas is onto something, perhaps something big.

Image credit: No Labels.

Centrist Political Group Trying to Promote Civil Bipartisanship, But Will It Work?

Okay, so it’s got a pretty lame name, this new bipartisan group, No Labels, which is calling for D.C. politicians to stop insisting that every issue be seen strictly through a partisan lens and demands that lawmakers put aside their fierce political cynicism in order to seek consensus, all the while trying to be a tad civil to one another, as opposed to demonizing and screaming at one another.

All of these goals sound so eminently reasonable, in the way that Jon Stewart’s Rally for Sanity sounded reasonable. Who WOULDN’T want to seek out the middle ground of issues, where most Americans find themselves, as opposed to the noisy political edges which suck up all the oxygen and media coverage. (It’s a lot more fun for the media to cover nastiness and sniping from either side of the political aisle -- particularly when they hurl insults at one another, throw up roadblocks and offer poison pill amendments to bills -- than it is to cover the moderates in either party ‘cause they're not turning red and calling the people who don't think like them soulless monsters.) The way things operate nowadays, there’s nothing to be gained by staking out a moderate position on anything, not when the parties are currently doing business with a “you’re either with us or against us” mentality.

Which is why something like this “No Labels” group (seriously wish they’d come up with a better, snappier name) -- comprised of people who don’t lambaste a Republican who works with Democrats or who doesn’t tow the party line as a RINO (and the same for a Dem who works with Republicans) -- seems so promising, at least to those of us who aren’t on the political extremes and who don’t see it is as a mortal sin to agree with (or seek out agreement) with someone from another political party.

Here’s an excerpt from this organization’s “declaration:”

“We are not labels – we are people.

We care deeply about our country.

We are frustrated and concerned about the tone of politics.

We are passionate about addressing America’s challenges.

We are Democrats, Republicans and Independents.

Most importantly, we are Americans.

We believe hyper-partisanship is destroying our politics and paralyzing our ability to govern.

We may disagree on issues, but we do so with civility and mutual respect.

We believe in the vital civil center — a place where ideas are judged on their merits.

. . . And yet, we have a crisis of governance – A crisis that compels us to work together to move America forward.

We must put our labels aside, and put the issues and what’s best for the nation first.”

Hmm. What to make of this? Idealistic for sure, Frank Capra/Mr. Smith Goes to Washington idealistic. But will it, can it become a bona fide “movement” with real clout with lawmakers? Can it make a difference?

The Huffington Post reported that No Labels will have its first, splashy launch event on Dec. 13 at Columbia University where several prominent current and former pols will discuss the virtues of political civility and moderation, including Joe Scarborough, the Republican former congressman and current host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe. His co-host, Mika Brzezinski, who leans toward the Democratic side of things, will moderate the panel.

Among the other scheduled launch party participants Huffington Post named included: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, Independent (formerly Democratic) Senator Joe Lieberman, former Republican Rep. Tom Davis, Republican Rep. Chris Shays, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former Republican Gov. Christie Todd Whitman.

Think something like this has a shot of altering the dialogue in D.C., of promoting bipartisanship and actually getting stuff done or is it, to quote another Capra film, just “sentimental hogwash?”

Image credit: No Labels.

Notes on Pop Culture: Hamm on Lackluster 'SNL,' Stewart's Rally for the Sane Middle, 'Grey's' Goes Documentary-Style

Jon Hamm Does His Best with Lackluster SNL Skits

The faux Back to the Future screen tests and the YouTube victim skits were moderately amusing but other than those sketches, the Saturday Night Live writers sure let the earnest Jon Hamm down with the material they gave him. Hamm did a great Robin Williams impression and his best with the Auto-Tune crying bit, (which, incidentally made me think of the folks who put crying Don Draper images into all different scenes, like BuzzFeed’s “Things That Make Don Draper Cry” post and the web site devoted to “Sad Don Draper”) 

But overall, I was left wondering what is going on there at SNL and why so many of the sketches have been falling flat lately. They’ve certainly been proving the truth in the adage: “Comedy is hard.” There’s a reason why Modern Family is such a gem; it’s reliably funny.


Those of you who caught SNL this weekend care to weigh in?



Stewart's Rally for Sanity & Promoting the Middle

Let’s not mince words: The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart leans toward the liberal side of things, but he’s unafraid to call both sides of the political aisle to task for being idiotic, close-minded or full of vapid talking points. (See his pointed interview with President Obama last week, in which he called the president "dude.")

But that being said, his satirical rally in Washington, D.C. over the weekend was but one more step in Stewart’s long-running campaign against the promotion of explicitly partisan, divisive, shouting verbiage on cable TV, initially commenced with his broadside against the CNN political talk show Crossfire in 2004 when he asked, “Why do we have to fight?” Stewart proceeded to skewer the show -- as well as shows like it -- in front of its gobsmacked hosts, saying, “Stop hurting America.” Some folks actually credited Stewart’s appearance that night with killing Crossfire.

Getting Political on 'Big Love' and 'Brothers & Sisters'

*Warning, spoilers ahead from the recent episodes of Big Love and Brothers & Sisters.*

"I know we used to talk about public service, it was something we dreamed of, but Bill, that was three marriages ago," Barb Henrickson to her husband Bill who’s thinking of running for State Senate despite the fact that they’re married to two other women.

Caught up on some Sunday night TV – watched the first two hours of 24, but hours three and four are still sitting on my DVR – and noticed that election fever has not only gripped my home state of Massachusetts (Have you heard that there’s a Senate race today in the Bay State?), but has popped up as a big theme in the recent episodes of Big Love and Brothers & Sisters.

Bill Runs for State Senate

Big Love’s second episode of its fourth season was a substantial improvement over the premiere, which seemed too enamored of the idea of toting the Romansicle all around the southwest in his white hat (a la Weekend at Bernie’s) and was drowning in gallows humor. This fresh installment assuaded my concerns over the direction of the show in the wake of its stellar season last year, going a little deeper and providing more meaningful storylines.

In the new episode, “Greater Good,” everyone, it seemed, has grown very tired of hiding -- their lifestyle, their beliefs, their ambitions -- and are opting (in a few cases) to openly own their own choices and to live in the light, as Bill “Church of Me” Henrickson would say.

For Bill, living in the light means, somewhat incongruously, running for State Senate in order to improve the image of polygamist families and to protect their rights against other politicians who’d like polygamists to be rounded up and imprisoned. Though Bill’s initial campaign plan was to pretend as though he and Barb were going to return to the LDS church and deny that they were living in polygamy for the entirety of his term if he's elected, Bill had a change of heart, mostly because his eldest daughter Sarah decided not elope because her mother disapproved. Sarah opted to stand tall and own her decision, marrying, at age 18, in her family’s backyard with a justice of the peace. Bill’s current campaign plan is to hoodwink Utah voters into voting for him and, once he’s elected, come out of the polygamist closet. Politically, that sounds like a disaster, but it’ll make for great TV.

Kitty to Toss Hat Into Ring

As for Brothers & Sisters, there’s always been a political component from the get-go. In the pilot episode, Kitty Walker (now McCallister) was a conservative TV political pundit who, in short order, was hired by Senator Robert McCallister to work on his presidential campaign.

That seems like a long time ago. Look at all that's happened since then: Kitty and Robert got married, Kitty penned a controversial political book, the duo underwent infertility treatments and then the adoption process, Robert had a heart attack on the day of his son’s birth, the two become estranged to the brink of divorce when Robert decided to run for governor without consulting his wife, Kitty flirted with having an affair, then Kitty was diagnosed with cancer, had an experimental treatment and is now in remission. (Gotta love soapy nighttime dramas.)

In the latest episode, “Run Baby Run,” Robert cited his heart attack and his wife’s cancer (plus his own lack of political fire in his belly) as his reason to withdraw from politics altogether after his Senate term is completed. And just as he’s exiting the tough world of politics, Kitty, who’s still sporting a head scarf because she lost her hair from chemo treatments, is considering jumping into the fray, considering a seat in the U.S. Congress. Robert thinks she should aim higher, like for his own U.S. Senate seat.

This could provide ample dramatic material, watching a cancer survivor and mother of a baby run for office alongside her ex-pol husband. As we’ve seen from recent political books (Game Change immediately comes to mind), these kinds of campaigns can be brutal, especially on families. To see a fictional female candidate who has a baby campaign for office could be illuminating, if the writers choose to go the ripped-from-the-headlines route. And with the Henrickson family likely to come under intense scrutiny on Big Love, we could see fascinating dramatizations of the impact of political races on candidates and their loved ones. Can’t wait.

Image credit: Ron Tom/ABC.

Who Says You Can't Make Fun of the Presidential Election?

There's been much teeth-gnashing among media folks following a New York Times story saying that people -- comedians in particular -- are uncomfortable poking fun at Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. This navel gazing came on the heels of the ill-advised New Yorker cover which was intended to mock critics of the Obamas . . . but instead got some Obama supporters really angry.

For those people who are pondering how to go about seeing and remarking on the humor in this election need to chill out and take a page from the guys at the JibJab web site who, since 2004, have regularly been dispensing humorous, bipartisan criticism via video about our elected officials with sharp incisiveness that sometimes teeters on the edge of impropriety. Which is what makes the JibJab videos so much fun. They know how to create satire that's clearly satire.

The latest JibJab video, released to kick off the general election campaign, portrays Republican presidential candidate John McCain as a tough, gruff, old military dude, while Obama is like a naive Bambi in the woods, cavorting with wildlife amidst rainbows. For those who are tired of the ultra-serious campaign coverage and want a laugh, this is a must. (I had trouble embedding the video, so click here to watch it.)

Image credit: JibJab.

News . . . Through Kids' Eyes

As the national newscasts -- and nearly every news radio station to which I've tuned in in recent days -- have been full of stories about Rev. Jesse Jackson's "threat" to Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's nether regions, my kids couldn't help but overhear snippets (no pun intended) of conversations about it. So it was of little surprise to me, when my 6-year-old son asked me in the middle of lunch this week, "What happens when somebody threatens to hurt the privates of the president?"

"What do you mean?" I asked.

"Don't they go to jail?"

"Well, uh . . ." I stumbled, trying to think of a clear way to explain real threats versus figures of speech.

"Don't we have free speech? You said we have free speech," chimed in my 9-year-old boy.

"Well, it depends. Not always."

"So you CAN say you're going to hurt a president's privates?" the 6-year-old asked.

"Well, Barack Obama isn't the president. He wants to be the president. (*giant pause*) . . . The people protecting him have to decide if someone is really threatening him and whether they think the person would actually do something to hurt him. THEN you could get arrested, if the security people really think you're a danger."

"So there ISN'T free speech?" the black-and-white thinking 9-year-old son asked.

"There is, but you just can't threaten like you mean it."

Okay, I'll admit, at that point, I was struggling with explaining that Jesse Jackson really didn't mean that he wanted to literally castrate Obama, and that if he really was serious about it, he'd be arrested. Bet my mother didn't have to have discussions like this with me 30+ years ago . . . at least politicians knew not to say idiotic things while wearing microphones in a television studio.

Obama Kids: Dad Doesn't Like Sweets

The Obama children, along with their parents Michelle and Barack, gave an interview to, of all places, Access Hollywood. (You can see one part of the four-part interview here.)



During the July 4 interview, which also coincided with Malia's 10th birthday, the whole family sat down to discuss how the girls keep their dad down-to-earth and somewhat "cool," as "cool" as any parent can realistically be.



For example, Malia said she's had to tell her dad not to shake hands with her friends because, well, shaking hands with kids just isn't done.

Seven-year-old Sasha -- who at one point held up both her hands next to her face, opening and shutting them to mimic what she thinks when Dad talks -- asked her mom in the middle of the interview whether and when they'd be able to have ice cream. (Reminded me a bit of Rudy Giuliani's kid during his first mayoral inaugural.) Pointing at her father, Sasha announced that her dad doesn't like sweets and isn't a big fan of ice cream.



In this video excerpt, Malia said she was surprised to find her mother's fashion sense discussed in the pages of People Magazine because she joked that People is the place where you can read about "really important people" like Angelina Jolie.



As far as big reveals go, the Obamas are lucky. I shudder to think what my kids would reveal about me if they were put in front of a national TV audience and knew that I couldn't really shut them up without looking like a control freak.

Image credit: Access Hollywood via the Drudge Report.

New York Magazine's 'Summer Issue'

This New York Magazine cover just cracked me up.

It perfectly captures the mood of now: Observing the presidential race unfold in the sweltering heat and humidity of summer . . . with tongue firmly in cheek.

Happy July 4th!

First Spouses: Why the Compulsion to Attack, Critique?

Maybe it's just me, but I, a political news nut, am sick to death of stories that pit Michelle Obama against Cindy McCain, compare the women and even goad them and their husband's presidential campaigns into critiquing one another. Harshly.

Almost exactly a year ago, the New York Times ran a piece comparing the spouses of the slate of Republican and Democratic candidates, much of it focused on the physical appearance and style of the wives. In that same article -- entitled, I kid you not, "Will Her Face Determine His Fortune" and commented on former Senator Fred Thompson's wife's "bleached blond hair" and "permanent tan" -- Republican pollster Frank Luntz told the Times: "The spouse of the candidate matters in less than 1 out of 100 votes. It's not relevant. It will have no impact whatsoever."

A recent ABC News poll which directly compared Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain came to the same conclusion, saying, and I quote, "The popularity of presidential candidates' spouses does not drive vote preferences." After going on an on about who likes who better, and which woman has the higher negative ratings, the folks who conducted ABC's poll added, "Again, views of the candidates' spouses do not significantly influence vote choices."

Last October, five of the wives of presidential candidates met in California to discuss what their lives were like on the campaign trail. The Associated Press reported of the group of Democrats and Republicans:

"Political differences scarcely were mentioned during the hourlong discussion as they described how they keep up a grueling schedule of campaign appearances while trying to preserve time with their children and protect their husbands from overzealous handlers.

They held hands and exchanged hugs as the panel concluded.

All said they had little input on policy matters. And they largely rejected the notion made famous by Bill Clinton in the 1992 campaign when he described his partnership with his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as 'Buy one, get one free.'"

Today, that seems like the good old days. Now Michelle Obama is called a "baby mama" by a TV network, her playful fist-bumps with her husband dissected for evidence of a terrorist connection. Cindy McCain is pilloried for whether she actually has favorite recipes or just plagiarizes them from the internet. As if any of this matters, in the end, on for whom you'll cast your vote for president.

My Mommy Track'd column this week satirizes the media phenomenon that is the obsession with categorizing any teensy difference between Obama and McCain as a cat fight between potential first ladies. It's madness, I tell you, madness.

Image credit: Reuters via the Daylife web site.

What Do You Get for a 232-Year Anniversary?

I know that the first anniversary is paper. The 25th anniversary is silver. The 50th gold. But what about the 232nd? Friday will mark the 232nd anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence . . . provided I did my grade school math correctly. Given the recent attention paid to the critically acclaimed HBO miniseries John Adams (great series, though not for young kids, pretty brutal tar and feathering scene, among others) people's interest in all things Revolutionary have been rekindled. (Programming note: HBO is running a marathon of the Adams series all day on July 4.)

I live in Massachusetts, therefore my view of the Revolutionary War may be skewed because, as one might expect, the Colonial era gets lots of play here. We have, count 'em, not one, but two tricornered hats in our house, including one that my husband bought our boys when they got up in the wee hours of the morning this spring to go to Lexington to see the reenactment of the battle on the Lexington green, preceded by Paul Revere's famous ride, on Patriots Day, a day off for public employees in Massachusetts. (My daughter and I slept late and watched the early Boston Red Sox game on TV.)

But what gets lost during the modern American celebration of July 4 -- particularly this year because it falls on a Friday, which means it'll be a three-day weekend filled with barbecue bonanzas across the fruited plain -- is the actual document whose approval we're commemorating. Now I'm the first to admit that I'm a tad bit of a history/politics geek who really admires documents like the Declaration of Independence and am fond of reading it aloud to my three kids when it's published in the Boston Globe each year . . . even if the kids do lose interest by the second paragraph.

However this year is an election year, some consider it an historic election year. We have the summer Olympics coming up soon. And, lest we forget, we have active duty troops fighting and dying on behalf of our nation in multiple fronts overseas. So why not -- just for a moment before your barbecue, ballgame, fireworks or celebratory beverage(s) of your choice -- recall the reason for the day:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

There endeth the history lesson. Go forth (no pun intended) and glory in your American freedoms and be thankful we don't live in a country where armed militias come to your house and force you at gunpoint to go and vote for someone who you do not support under penalty of injury or death, as happened in another corner of the globe just a few days ago. Voting in America, circa 2008, is a walk in the park by comparison.

Image credit: History Channel.

Obama to Dads: Man-Up to Your Responsibilities

During a Father's Day speech in Chicago, Barack Obama -- whose own dad left his family when he was 2 years old -- admonished fathers to be there for their own children and to actively raise them.

Boiling the speech down to its very essence: Dads matter.

An excerpt:

"We need families to raise our children. We need fathers to recognize that responsibility doesn't just end at conception. That doesn't make you a father. What makes you a man is not the ability to have a child. Any fool can have a child. That doesn't make you a father. It's the courage to raise a child, that makes you a father."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Commentary on Clinton

So the first serious woman candidate for president officially threw her support behind the young, brash senator who came from nowhere to best her in the extraordinarily long Democratic primary.

According to a recent CBS News poll, 69 percent of the respondents said that they think they'll see a woman elected commander in chief in their lifetime. The same percentage also said Clinton's campaign made it easier for a woman to run for president in the future.

I wrote about my thoughts and my wishes for my daughter in terms of a woman president over on Mommy Track'd. What did YOU think when -- despite your position on the Clinton campaign, her, him, her policies and campaign tactics -- a potential Madam President bows out of the presidential race?

Image credit: Associated Press/Ron Edmonds.

'Vote for Daddy'

Illinois Senator and Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama called out the big guns while campaigning this weekend: His two daughters, Malia and Sasha, ages 9 and 6.

I read a wire service story which said that Barack, Michelle, Malia and Sasha visited Fort Wayne, Indiana to make speeches, canvas for votes and to let the girls roller skate. And apparently Obama's first grader has been bitten by the campaign bug when she decided to urge those in Hoosierville to, "Vote for Daddy."

Too cute.

Image credit: AFP.