Technorati Claim (Readers Ignore)

Technorati Profile

Nefarious Hillary calls for assassination of Barack Obama?

A new low this week: The media is actually raising the specter that Hillary Clinton might actually “be hoping” for the assassination of Barack Obama. Every paper, site, or station that even showed this clip without immediately and truthfully considering its intent should be ashamed to think themselves journalists. What ever happened to context? Are we so wrapped up in our daily lives, so unable to hear a dissenting opinion, so angry about the state of our country that we can’t stop for a second to consider that nothing means what it means unless understood in context? The hegemony of the sound bite has rendered us subject to a lifetime of game show politics and media consumption.

Let’s take the comment for what it was: Part of a historical consideration on the appropriateness of a primary candidate to stay in the race beyond a certain point. The key idea she was trying to make is that June has been a point at which past candidates have still been in the race. The reference to her husband and then to Bobby Kennedy was part of a study in the month of June, NOT, as some may believe, in sticking around in a race “cause you just never know who might get whacked…wink…wink.”

Look, I ply my trade in the cut-throat world of big New York advertising, and understand the power of words. It was dumb to reference an assassination in an environment that has been unnecessarily charged with racial tones (many spun from the Hillary camp itself), but let’s not believe that Mrs. Clinton is dumb enough to think:

1) She could convince people to support her to stay in the race because the black guy could get whacked.
2) She wouldn’t get called back to the nomination anyway were something terrible to happen to Obama after a Hillary concession.

Sure, her best bet at this point is a cataclysmic event (e.g. the revelation of an Obama love affair with Ayman al-Zawahiri), but please save your brain cells for thoughts larger than the idea that she is hoping for the death of a United States Senator.

What it sounds like to walk down the street in the East Village these days

McCain can't out-Obama Obama

John McCain lately seems to be making a concerted effort to distance himself from President Bush. In light of Bush's record low approval ratings, he’s right to do so. But he's talking like a liberal and angling the wrong way if he wants the upper hand in a tough battle with Barack Obama. McCain cannot out-Obama Obama. If he's going to go maverick, he needs to propose big, bold, inherently conservative ideas for the country. Calling for a timetable on the war and a cap and trade approach to carbon emissions are sickle and hammer politics.

McCain’s only chance this fall, going up against the charm, smarts, and eloquence of Obama, is to continue his no BS approach to foreign policy and conjure the brightest of our American ideals with stark domestic ideas. Veering left, besides being wrong-headed, will lose center/center-right voters and gain nothing in return.

Here’s what McCain needs to propose on these two specific issues:

The War on Islamic Terror
Don’t listen to the wikimedia narrative that wants us to believe there’s no hope and that the U.S. is weaker than ever. Petraeus has whipped the insurgency like Teddy Roosevelt did the Dakota Badlands. Violence has spiked downward and the Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish factions have all bought into democracy and power sharing. I’m not naïve enough to say it’s not messy, but our boys are spanking Al Qaeda and the Maliki government is taking on fellow Shia in Basra and Sadr City.

For the first time, we can look to the future and glimpse the face of victory. The surge has worked, and it was McCain who’d been advocating it the entire time. This gives Johnny Mac an incredible point of leverage. He can both distance himself from Bush AND take credit for crucial military foresight.

As for Iran, McCain must lay out a plan that threatens force first and diplomacy second. The carrot only works when the stick is big and scary. Obama’s proposition to sit down first is insane. In fact, there’s a narrative thread throughout Obama’s life that shows his willingness to befriend radical, anti-American (not to be mistaken for those who are constructively critical) individuals and this is quite unsettling.

Reagan didn’t sit down with Gorbachev until Gorby was scared. The next president must put the fear of god into our enemies before considering any public conversation. We need to lay out a foreign policy that claims loudly that Iran cannot obtain nuclear weapons. The military option shouldn’t just be “on the table,” it should be the table. If the left thinks we’re weak now, wait until we’re cow towing to a nuclear Iran.

Environment
U.S. carbon emissions grew by only 6.6 percent between 1997 and 2004, compared with 18 percent for the world and 21 percent for the nations that signed the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gasses.

I’m not suggesting that we needn’t focus on climate change, but I am suggesting that we focus on it intelligently. A huge government command-and-control operation like cap and trade is more sickle and hammer politics. McCain needs to get off this pony immediately. We’re all foolish if we think big businesses won’t make a fortune gaming this rigged-up market scenario. It’s an opaque system that will create an entire industry (both government and private) around regulating and exploiting the rules.

Instead, let’s combine smart government policy with the true power of free markets. Simply, McCain should advance a program that swaps a carbon tax for either an income, corporate, or social security/medicare tax cut (or some amalgamation of them all). If we really want to encourage non-carbon based energy via government policy, at least the implementation of a tax is both transparent and obvious.

Also, the cost of cutting CO2 is too pricey right now. More research and greater incentives for renewables are the only honest solution. An interesting idea comes from Bjorn Lomborg, former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen, and suggests we can achieve our green energy goals by:

spending dramatically more researching and developing low-carbon energy. Ideally, every nation should commit to spending 0.05 percent of its gross domestic production exploring non-carbon-emitting energy technologies — be they wind, wave, or solar power — or capturing CO2 emissions from power plants. This spending could add up to about $25 billion a year, but it would still be seven times cheaper than the Kyoto protocol, yet increase global research and development tenfold. All nations would be involved, but the richer ones would pay the larger share.

The GOP is suffering a cataclysmic loss of direction right now and is bereft of big ideas that will bring about real change. A tax swap and big incentives for renewable energy ventures are sound policy. Borrowing bad liberal notions and repackaging them as “maverick” is a recipe for a November Democratic sweep.

Big Money Will Be Spent on Advertising in Lead-Up to Pennsylvania Vote

Breaking Records
Eight weeks ago, the presidential primaries were in Iowa. Six weeks from now, the next big state, Pennsylvania, will vote. In the longest primary season ever, it’s not surprising that we’re also seeing record amounts of money being spent on advertising. The Democratic race, especially, is making local media markets very happy. Thus far, the campaign has exceeded $210 million in broadcast, not including cable.

Not to be outdone, Pennsylvania will welcome the more than $40 million that is estimated for the weeks leading up to the vote. This dynamic level of media spending is driven by two key points:

1)Hillary Clinton is leading by double digits in most polls and needs to protect her #1 spot.
2)Senator Obama raised $55 million in February alone (vs. $35 million for Senator Clinton), giving him the ammunition to chip away at her lead.

For Clinton, the Keystone state is crucial. She needs to maintain momentum, especially after her minor setback in Mississippi. With PA Governor Rendell in her corner, the campaign believes that it can carry the state and move on to the next big day (North Carolina and Indiana) with the wind at her back (sorry Guam). It’s the boxer’s strategy: you can get knocked down a few times in the early rounds, but a strong finish will sway the judges’ final tally.

For Obama, he needs to take the next big piece of real estate on the map and show that he can carry a big general-election swing state. The Obama crew knows that the more time people spend with him on the campaign trail, the more people like him. So he’ll be traveling around the state kissing babies and spending his shekels on a record-breaking ad blitz. If Senator Obama can take PA and then North Carolina, he should have the delegates and the velocity to send Clinton home.

So what type of ads will we see?
For Hillary, I hope she continues the ad hominem attacks. The more beat up the winning Democrat, the better for John McCain. But if I were her campaign adviser, I’d still urge her to hit him hard on the issues, but tactfully. She should applaud him for bringing a level of energy to the political process that is sorely needed, but vociferously challenge him on his record. I'd attack his very foundation as an aisle crosser and a political transcendent. In his short time as senator, the Illinois senator has exclusively voted the party line and has never stood up and put his neck out when it mattered. Are these the qualities we want in our next president? She needs to show Democrats that the answer is “no.”

Barack's people will urge him to stay above the fray and act presidential in his advertising. In other words, vanilla. But it’s a long time between now and Pennsylvania and Hillary will use as much of her war chest as possible to undermine him. I can only hope that he is lured into a ticky-tack mud wrestling match while John McCain is refueling and raising money. If I were advising Obama, however, I'd tell him that he needs to articulate his vision into a tangible platform that moves beyond the soaring rhetoric. The doublespeak of his message is that while he speaks the word, "hope," he paints a desperate and victimized picture of the American people. Real change doesn't come from the government, it comes from the people. He hasn't yet shown how "change" means anything more than government bureaucracy. If he cannot give substance to his message and depth to his vision he will become an easy target as people tire of his empty oratory.

Benefits of Free Trade

Report: Many U.S. Parents Outsourcing Child Care Overseas

Palestinians Are The Ones Whose Aggression Is Not Proportionate

The New York Times covers the "Israeli aggression" in Gaza last week.

I'm amazed at how this story is being framed. At it's core, the Euro-left-wing-anti-semitic argument is that Israel has no right to defend itself against the oppressed Palestinian "militants" (which is a nice word like "rebels," that says "underdog" in a way that "terrorists" does not). Well, perhaps they can defend themselves; just not too well. And most importantly, the tiny Jewish nation must "defend itself proportionally." Check out this critical quote from the Prime Minister of Turkey:

“It is not possible for us to approve of the recent inhumane practice in Gaza...civilians are being killed with a disproportionate use of force.”

You'd think this was a criticism of the Palestinians. After all, they're the ones firing rockets from sovereign Gaza into the civilian town of Sderot. They're the ones breaking a cease-fire agreement with Israel. And they're the ones intentionally launching Qassam missiles at civilian populations.

If Israel were to respond proportionally, they would intentionally target women and children during peak hours of the day. But we know this is not what the Euro-left is arguing. When they say proportional, they mean, "little-to-no" response. But this is not how the real world works. A weak response to terrorism only invites more terrorism. It emboldens the militant Arabs. For instance, one might think that pulling out of Gaza would create a certain feeling of good will. But it didn't; it created a vacuum. Into this vacuum stepped Islamic Jihad with ever larger caches of weapons who were ever more determined to take ALL of Israel.

In the East Village (land of the skinny jean), weakness might be chic, but in the Middle East it's only bad policy.