DISTRIBUTORCAP-ny http://distributorcapny.blogspot.com/ has a fantastic piece of satire up today with the PLAYBILL cover and details of "CONDITA: The Spy Who Loved Me".
It's sheer genius but it has provoked some serious thoughts.
Gallup and Rasmussen (who've taken the most recent polls) have McCain exploding in popular support versus both Obama and Clinton. Gallup has McCain now 2 points up on either. Rasmussen has McCain basically 7% up on either. It's clear now that, sadly, Obama's masterful speech has only hurt him and Clinton is Clinton is Clinton. One, probably Obama, will be the nominee. There's a world of time, but as everyone knows while the press probably gave Obama a bit of a free-ride through mid-February, they gave McCain the push of all time and crippled Romney's chances.
In a way, this last month has been a great political experience for Obama and it showed in the speech. Not only in the great content but in his willingness to do it at all, knowing that he was going to be doing something unusual -- speaking truth to power while speaking to all Americans without condescension.
I'm not sure what lessons the failure of that speech in the mainstream press has had on Obama. if he writes it off as "the press favors Clinton," that would be a severe mistake. If he recognizes that as the presumptive nominee facing a press darling, he will now have the head-wind the whole way and will find himself facing the same frustrations Clinton did against him, then, he can plan a winning strategy.
I hope that he doesn't retreat into his center-right shell after this, but rather stays strong. Strong is the only way to beat a Republican.
If it turns out that Clinton gets the nomination and her campaign remains convinced that it was the "commander-in-chief" trick that won it for her, how can she beat McCain/Rice on war? I always thought Clinton was smarter than that. Now, I'm not so sure.
So, what does this have to do with D-CAPny's satire? Well, the MSM was certain that Condoleeza Rice would never be a VP possibility for McCain because McCain wanted no association with the Bush adminstration because of Bush's terrible approval ratings. Once again, the MSM got it wrong. McCain went to Bush to kiss his ass the day after he cinched the nomination . We know that McCain and Rice and of course Bush are on the same page in terms of death, I mean, foreign, policy. She's proven a very loyal soldier.
And as McCain seems to continue to have problems with the Republican "base" for what reason I can't figure out, neither Rice's gender nor her skin color should be a problem for McCain. It's not like there is a big portion of the Republican base that would be with him if he chose a White man but against him if he chose a Black woman. This "one-heart-beat" argument is a little silly. The same Christians who hate McCain might hate Rice more but they'll stay home with or whitout Rice on the ticket. Rice's views are not different from McCain's in any way and she might even lend a little religious spice to the McCain candidacy.
I think she can peel quite a few older Black and female voters away from either or both Democrats. A McCain/Rice ticket plays super among that odd wavering-Repulican white Democratic Right and Independent vote Obama' s been so dominant with. Rice could more or less cinch-up that whole bloc for McCain. The Black vote could well split 75/25 in a McCain/Rice v Obama or v Clinton instead of the normal 90/10. McCain can lay some claims to having the "Right" woman or the "Right" African-American. It could even be worse...
My point is that Rice may very well be your next VP. I think it would be very useful for some agency to do a poll of registered and likely African-American voters with the choice being McCain/Rice versus Obama/Whoever and Clinton/Whoever.
I've been wrong pretty much every step of the way. I would imagine that among younger Black voters the feeling about Rice is much like the feeling about Lieberman among younger Jewish voters, but I could be way wrong. I hope this time I'm right. And don't forget that while there is relationship between Lieberman and Obama, Lieberman is a Cabinet lock choice for McCain.
It's all of a horrible piece. The answers to my fantasy polls of both young Black and young Jewish voters with regard to Rice and Lieberman, respectively, could well be "yeah, they're war mongers but they've both made history and thus will always have a seat at our table." Shudder.
I could easily see McCain 52%/Obama (or Clinton) 45%/Others 3%.
Rice=Lieberman. They tried to sell us false history with both those snakes. Full stop. And I'm going down to the felt with that opinion. Anyone may take me on if he or she likes, but "down to the felt" means "down to the felt." Every chip on the table. Which means a real debate and someone walking away very disappointed and thoroughly beaten. Get ready for a debate, pub stlye. And bring all 16 clubs, because you're going to need them and I don't fight fair.
This brings us back to D-CAPny's SATIRE. He's riffing on "EVITA," obviously. But was Eva Peron or was she not a president of Argentina who followed her older husband into office and presided over wholesale looting of the economy and Orwelian persecution of the opposition?
See Borges, Cortazar or Timerman for details. And while we're on the subject wasn't the musical "Evita" kind of like a non-parodic "Springtime For Hitler"?
Next post is the Nickel. My 500th. I'll try to make it a good one.
Kelso's Nuts love you
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Kelso, were I a betting man, I'd lay money down on McCain after this analysis. But as you know, I think this prognostication may be premature. Hear me out. Here we are in March and already the pundits are looking at the polls and stating "if the election were held right now..."
These polls are bullshit. Americans are as fickle as my 11-year old son when it comes to eating his vegetables. You really can't say "eat them or else" now can you.
My point? I can't wait until Obama (and yes, I now think Obama will be the Dem nominee) gets to debate McCain. Honestly, once McCain's pro-Bush stance gets under the hot lights of a television studio, his reconstructed face is going to melt faster than Nixon did in 1960.
Mi brother, I agree with you completely. +175 is a very, very inviting price on the un-named Republican versus the un-named Democrat given today's polls. I think I saw higher -- like you can take 9/4 -- if you specify McCain.
I agree that McCain has some serious vulnerabilities versus Obama in a TV debate. To date, neither have been much on public policy but Obama has to be 30 IQ points smarter than McCain and that's a conservative estimate. I don't see why a look at their academic records isn't useful. McCain near the bottom of his class at Annapolis (which to be fair is an excellent school) but Obama was Editor of the Harvard Law Review, yes? So, let's say that even with the strings McCain's father pulled to get him into Annapolis, McCain's got an average IQ, maybe a little higher. 105 sound about right?
Obama's undergraduate grades were excellent and I believe he got the Law Review spot on grades. You can't really give Obama an IQ less than 140, can you?
And then there's the physical appearance factor (the Kennedy/Nixon thing). Obama's a young guy and McCain looks like an iguana.
They say that people who heard the debate on radio thought Nixon had won it. Nixon had a genius IQ. Kennedy, I strongly doubt, was as smart as Obama is. But but but but but...Obama has looked terrible in every debate and has yet to find his feet on WHERE HE STANDS. He's going to have to hit the books pretty hard this summer. McCain doesn't need to because he's so steadfast and can always wriggle out with a joke.
So, Obama cannot retreat to the middle. He has to show a better mastery of the details than McCain has or he has to bait McCain into losing his temper. He cannot be "bridging any partisan divides." Not that such a thing isn't a noble idea and he sure made the case for it in his race speech, but once he cedes any ground on the issues to McCain he's a goner.
Me? I'm going to wait until September to bet and as for voting, I'm leaning to Cynthia McKinney or just not bothering.
I've noticed something very interesting (to me, anyway) in the ways that the money has flowed through the markets and how the prices have fluctuated with various events, the old "Brownian motion" story you must remember from HS Physics.
I can't give away more than that right now. But I think I'll really smoke the 2010 mid-terms.
.Obama has looked terrible in every debate and has yet to find his feet on WHERE HE STANDS. He's going to have to hit the books pretty hard this summer. McCain doesn't need to because he's so steadfast and can always wriggle out with a joke.
first thanks for the link, the compliment and the attempt to get me to watch (or even like) sports -- i can actually handle the mets or the giants --- even been to many games. but watching baseball on tv is just so boring. i actually like playing baseball (when i was a lad and didnt have arthritis in the shoulder) and was a pretty good lefty pitcher in little league. i also played HS tennis (like all suburban jews) and was on the swim team. so i am not that much of a wimp -- i just cant watch sports.
now..
.Obama has looked terrible in every debate and has yet to find his feet on WHERE HE STANDS. He's going to have to hit the books pretty hard this summer. McCain doesn't need to because he's so steadfast and can always wriggle out with a joke.
mccain is a goner in the debates -- obama doesnt even have to out-issue him. mccain cant speak well, has little grasp of issues other than iraq (and those are not popular grasps) and has a temper that is often uncontrollable. not good. mccain will (no matter his debate performance) if hillary succeeds in dividing the party so deeply, if there is another turrist attack on home soil or if obama finds another preacher they can run sound byte after sound byte (like you, i dont see what he said that was so offensively bad, it is HOW he said it). obama just has to keep looking good, remaining unflappable (which he has), make good speeches and keep saying clinton;s line -- it is the economy stupid
oh and not hang with sharpton or jackson
D-CAPny: Who said anything about wimp? A little more self-esteem, please. If you root for the Mets and Jints that's enough.
Yeah, I agree about potential Obama-McCain debates. McCain was always out-classed too. Did you see him against Huckabee, Romney and Paul? It was like three bright guys and one retard. Boy, an Obama-McCain debate will be one pedestrian affair to be sure.
I don't think either Clinton or Obama are dividing the party. This is a contest to see who's going to represent the Democratic Party for President. It isn't a tea-dance. Why should he be allowed to fight and not her? I think he'll probably be the nominee but it has to go to Denver and one vote at least so he hasn't won it yet. We'll see what happens. No matter what, both have to be able to bring some fight into the race against McCain. But, I'm not a member of any poltical party so it's not my fight. It's yours. Clinton does you no favor by running away. McCain's not going to run away.
I don't see what's so terrible about Sharpton or Jackson, either. Obama can really put himself in a fool/knave choice if he's not careful.
hooray, your writings on theater and writing much missed!
Post a Comment