Safe bet: Clinton is ‘in’

According to the Politico today: “Exclusive: Clinton could be named next week.” And I have to admit: I’m absolutely thrilled by the idea.

Yes, I’ve “critiqued” her campaign on several occasions, but that in no way diminishes my admiration of and respect for the Senator.

She is one tough cookie — a woman to be admired.

I am so happy that she will be such a prominent part of the Obama administration and will be in charge of rebuilding our country’s relationships and reputation in the world.

I got my start in politics in high school (yes, there is a point to this nostalgic dip). It started with Model UN and eventually led to campaign and party politics.  Being in Model UN brought out a part of me I never knew exisited and back then, I thought I wanted to be the first female secretary of state.

Well, obviously, Madeline Albright beat me to it. And then along came Condi (we won’t go there right now). But now … Hillary.

I can’t imagine anyone I’d rather see in that position. And I find it extremely endearing and respectful of President-elect Obama to ask her.

It’s not official yet, but I feel very certain that this will be one item included on my list of things I am thankful for this Thanksgiving.

The First Presidential Debate: No Clear Winner

I feel certain that the average American will never see through Sen. McCain’s strategy in this debate. The disparagement and verbal eye rolling McCain did after each statement made by Sen. Obama regarding foreign policy: “Senator Obama clearly doesn’t understand”; Senator Obama is “naive”; Senator Obama’s reaction shows his “naivete”.

This was not a debate of their differences in policy.

It was Obama attempting to talk about their differences, to bring to the forefront of the debate McCain’s record, for which McCain should have to answer to the American people — especially now.

And it was McCain, with his condescending tone and scoffs, calling Obama a “poo head.”

This is, sadly, something the average American will read as truth rather than what it in fact is: the pathetic strategy of an overly ambitious old man.

What they will remember is that McCain is an “experienced war veteran” who has known x, y and z leader for “thirty years.” [Perhaps they summer together in one of his ten residential properties.]

Obama appeared to be winning during the first half of the debate as they talked about the economy, despite the fact that it felt like the two of them were debating what came first: the chicken or the egg.

In essence, Obama was saying: We’re going to fix this mess, but more importantly, we need to look at how we got here [i.e., "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." -George Santayana].

In response, McCain was saying: Nah, let’s not dwell on that stuff. Let’s just fix it and move on. It’ll be fine! [i.e., If anyone looks at my part in this, I'm screwed.].

McCain pulled a few more old school dirty tricks from his bag when he put words in Obama’s mouth and stated verifiable untruths about his record.  He even used the tried-but-true: “He’s the most liberal person in the Senate! Fear him! Run while you still can!”

After all, who wants someone in charge who is “open-minded” and believes in “individual freedoms”?

The commentary on each candidate’s body language is being reported thusly: Obama — trying to make eye-contact with McCain, “masterful, like a conductor using his hands to shape his answers,” and McCain — “hunching, stiff,” wouldn’t even look at Obama.

It was obvious Obama was well-prepared for this debate. He was articulate, precise and delivered his attacks with class.

McCain was condescending and childish. He had nothing new to say. But, in his defense: what choice did he have?

His record is one that is almost exclusively aligned with GW’s. The old Republican election strategy of put your opponent down personally rather than discuss your differences on policy, and be sure to inject some fear while you’re at it [e.g., if we don't cut taxes for business we'll lose more jobs; if we sit down with Iran, we're giving every nut job around the world license to mess with us and our allies] worked rather well.

In fact, the pundits are calling this McCain’s best debate — ever.

On the lighter side, my two favorite moments of the evening, besides Obama rattling off how many times McCain had been “wrong,” were: 1) when Obama said that McCain wouldn’t even sit down with the prime minister of Spain because he wasn’t sure if he was an ally or not; 2) when McCain told the story about how he was given a bracelet by the mother of a fallen soldier and asked not to let her son “die in vain,” and Obama countered with: “I have a bracelet, too … “

The bottom line on tonight’s debate is that there wasn’t a clear winner. And I don’t say this from the stand-point of those who will engage in intelligent commentary and discussion of the finer points.

Rather, I say this looking at what I believe the average American to have gleaned from it.

Having worked many political campaigns, and therefore talking to more than my share of “average voters,” I can say with absolute certainty that the number of people in the shallow end is a population of far greater numbers.  This is not a statement of arrogance, but rather of experience with and knowledge of what messaging works with what population in a political campaign.

The people McCain needs to reach heard him loud and clear tonight. With all their “naivete” and failure to “understand” what it was they were watching.

My Laugh for the Morning

I’m not sure if Politico columnist Ben Smith meant for this to be humorous, but it drew quite a laugh from me. From his column titled, “Palin disinvited from Iran rally”:

… The McCain campaign then pressed Senator Barack Obama to join Palin on the stage in a show of unity against Iran.

The Obama campaign in turn offered to send Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida — who had harshly attacked Palin for slender ties to Pat Buchanan– to the event.

I can just hear the folks at the Obama headquarters now: “You want me to what? Oh, hell no! You know what, tell them we’ll send a rep. to stand with her … who should we get? Biden? Nah, we want to wait and unleash him on her in the debate … wait! What about Wexler? Aw, yeah! Offer them Wexler.”

It seems, from the column, that folks want to stand with Palin like they want to stand with with one of House’s patients.  She’s like this potential plague of which no one dares come within 100 feet.

Women for Palin

Oh, don’t worry, DF fans, a post about Palin is coming. In the meantime, I had ot share this wonderful and brilliant little ad with you.  Who knew my vagina had a voice?!

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/3b13fbada7

NYT Editorial: An Endangered Act

While the editorial below is not an originally penned Dombrowski Factor rant, it is an excellent editorial and thereby noteworthy.

Where are we in the countdown now? Ah, yes, just 159 more days until we can begin healing the deep and festering wounds inflicted on this country by Mr. Bush and his administration over the past eight years. Also of note is the following statistic: There were 998 endangered species in the U.S. as of September 2000 (Red List, IUCN-World Conservation Union), and at last count (May 2007) there were 1,351 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

Every year, without fail, the U.S. ranks number one out of those nations included on the Red List — an international listing of endangered species compiled by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature-World Conservation Union.

Some may see this as the cost of progress. However, it is much, much more than that … Look for an entry soon on this topic.

---

August 13, 2008

Editorial

An Endangered Act

The Bush administration has never masked its distaste for most environmental laws or its ambitions to thwart Congress’s will. Now in its waning months, it is trying to undermine the Endangered Species Act.

This week, the interior secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, proposed a regulatory overhaul of the act that would eliminate the requirement for independent scientific reviews of any project that could harm an endangered species living on federal land.

Instead, federal agencies would decide on their own whether the projects — including construction of highways and dams — pose a threat and then move ahead if they determine there is no problem. Mr. Kempthorne called the changes “narrow.” If these changes are narrow, we hate to think of what he means by broad.

The new regulations would overturn one of the act’s most fundamental provisions. Under current rules, federal agencies are required to submit their plans to either the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service.

This in effect gives scientists at those agencies the right to say no to any project or, as is most often the case, to require modifications if the project threatens an endangered species. Mr. Kempthorne would now effectively remove these agencies, whose job is to oversee the act, from the process.

The dangers of such “self-consultation” should be obvious.

The Bureau of Reclamation likes to build dams; the Department of Transportation likes to build highways. Protecting endangered species is not their priority. Other agencies, like the Office of Surface Mining or the Bureau of Land Management, have shown themselves far too vulnerable to pressure from the very industries, like mining, they are meant to regulate.

The Endangered Species Act has, on the whole, been successful in arresting the decline of many species that might otherwise have gone extinct. In cases like the bald eagle, it has helped restore the health of a species to a point where it can be removed from the endangered list. But many property owners and commercial interests, including developers and loggers, hate the act because, in their view, it unreasonably inflates costs.

The Bush administration has tried hard to accommodate their interests. It has gone to great lengths to circumnavigate the clear language of the law by rigging the science (in many cases ignoring their own scientists), negotiating settlements favorable to industry and simply refusing to obey court orders. This time, however, the administration means to rewrite the law itself, albeit through regulatory means.

There is now a 30-day comment period, after which the department is likely to issue a final rule. In 2006, courts struck down a similar if narrower effort to give the Environmental Protection Agency authority to approve pesticides without consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service. Mr. Kempthorne’s latest assault deserves a similar fate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/opinion/13wed1.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Of what value is bipartisanship during the Bush years?

The current fight between Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama is: who has a stronger record of working with members of the opposing political party in Congress — working across the aisle. The claim is that McCain has a better record of working with the Democrats than Obama has with Republicans.

My initial reaction to this: duh! McCain has been in the Senate for a bazillion years! And Obama is a newbie. How can you even begin to compare their bipartisan records?

They also say that McCain is a “maverick” for “only” voting with members of his own party 83 percent of the time.

First of all, let’s look at the definition of ‘maverick’: “… an unbranded calf, cow, or steer, esp. an unbranded calf that is separated from its mother.” Um …

Oops. Wrong definition. At least I think it is … Here we go: “… a lone dissenter, as an intellectual, an artist, or a politician, who takes an independent stand apart from his or her associates.” Hmm … still doesn’t sound like the right one, but we’ll go with it for the sake of argument.

So, McCain has a ‘B’ average when it comes to voting with his own party. And that makes him a maverick? By that definition couldn’t we all be known as mavericks just from the decisions we make every day?

“Honey, we’ve watched an action movie every week for the past month. Can’t we rent a comedy tonight?”

“Oh, you’re such a maverick!”

Yeah.

But the main point question is: When did these “piles” of opposition votes take place in McCain’s career? Because if the majority took place during the GW administration, it would seem to me that that simply indicates McCain does, indeed, have a soul.

Mark Morford sums up the Bush years pretty well in his column today. Below is just an excerpt, but I think it helps illustrate my point:

There are destroyed nations, mauled infrastructures, horribly compromised federal agencies from FEMA to the EPA, the CIA to the FCC. There is a rogue outsourced military, citizens who can no longer sue gun manufacturers, six straight years of increased poverty, untold numbers of homophobic, misogynistic judicial appointees, devastating environmental policies the consequences of which could take generations to comprehend, much less repair.

McCain voted against his own party (every once in a while) over legislation that has led to the current mess that is our country? Wow. Give the man a prize!

Why wouldn’t Obama vote with the Democrats? Over the course of Obama’s term in the Senate, the Republicans were introducing legislation aimed at boosting their blood for treasure efforts in Iraq, chipping away at women’s rights, cutting funding for Medicaid and Medicare while increasing those tax breaks so the rich could get richer, and so on. Meanwhile, Democrats were trying to gain support to increase funding for children’s health care coverage, protect our civil liberties, increase fuel-efficiency and find a fair and compassionate solution to our nation’s immigration issues.

In an article published in The Hill, Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said of Obama’s record: “’Given how brief his time in the U.S. Senate is, it’s really surprising how many bad votes he’s managed to accumulate.’”

I see. So which votes were “bad,” Mr. Conant? Was it his ‘yea’ vote to provide an additional $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education and contraceptives? Or maybe his ‘yea’ vote reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program? Oh, no, wait! It must be Obama’s ‘yea’ vote on the GI Bill providing educational funding and extended unemployment compensation for members of the Armed Forces!

Yes, Sen. Obama did vote with his party 97 percent of the time during his tenure in the Senate (2005-2008). And thank God for that. It may not make the junior senator from Illinois a maverick, but it sure as hell makes him a man worthy of our vote for president in 2008.

Just a fun thing to share

The 10 Most Awesomely Bad Moments of the Bush Presidency

By Brad Reed, AlterNet
Posted on July 1, 2008, Printed on July 1, 2008

In a lot of ways, choosing the Bush administration’s 10 greatest moments — disastrous failures, all — is about as pointless as picking out your 10 least favorite hemorrhoids: There are entirely too many of them, and taken together they all add up to a throbbing mass of pain. But unfortunately, history demands that we at least make the effort so that future generations will understand why we perform voodoo rituals cursing Bush’s memory before we go to bed every night.

… http://www.alternet.org/election08/89686/

The number one mistake made when rebranding: failure to inform the subject

Not so long ago, the terms “branding” and “rebranding” were heard only in the PR and marketing worlds. We now hear talk of Barack Obama’s ‘brand,’ the ‘rebranding’ of Michelle Obama after her fateful fist bump, and the ongoing attempt of the Republican Party to ‘rebrand’ itself in time for the 2008 elections.

It seems, however, that in the Republican Party’s scrambling, someone forgot to inform Sen. McCain.

Back in May of this year, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article in which Gov. Schwarzenegger called for a “rebranding of the GOP.” The article reported that some of the same advisers that helped ‘The Schwarz’ in his re-election campaign were now advising McCain.

Huh.

Well, judging from recent media coverage it appears that this is either faulty information, or McCain is as good at listening to campaign advisers as Bill Clinton.

The “new and improved Republican Party” got off to an auspicious start when it was discovered that their original slogan, “the change you deserve” was already taken … by the anti-depressant Effexor XR.

That is such a “gimme,” I am not going to insult your intelligence by going there.

So the Republican Party wants Americans to believe they are the party of “change.” They see Obama’s success with “change we can believe in,” and they want a piece of the action. They know they can’t win with the old. (Note: This was not a stab at McCain.)

President Bush is a hindrance. He cannot show his face within a 100-mile radius of any Republican candidate’s district, for he has now successfully earned himself the lowest approval rating of any president in “modern American history.” … I wonder what the keepsake for that award looks like.

Last week, Politico columnist Glenn Hurowitz penned a column titled, “Why is McCain joining the Bush party?” Says Hurowitz:

The weird thing about this newly obedient McCain, however, is that he’s drawing close to the Bush establishment at the very moment when it and its policies are widely blamed for America’s deepening malaise. At a time when the rest of the country is experiencing a Bush hangover, McCain is just popping the champagne. He’s gone from being a maverick who defies the establishment to a kind of gonzo maverick who defies the people — and that’s a very dangerous thing for a presidential candidate.

It seems McCain is not a maverick, he’s simply contrary. He enjoys rebelling against “authority,” no matter whether it’s in his best interest.

The Straight Talk Express is attempting to talk America straight into another four years of Bush by supporting, so far, the administration’s policies on the economy, energy and the war in Iraq.

McCain is camapigning in favor of making Bush’s tax breaks for the wealthy permanent.

Oil barons McCain once shunned are now giving him a round of applause for backing their two favorite “fuel efficiency” policies: a gas tax holiday and an offshore drilling free-for-all.

And don’t count on McCain to support legislation favoring clean energy technologies. During a vote to “move taxpayer money from oil subsidies to the clean energy technologies that could drastically bring down fuel costs” McCain actually refused to get off the plane at Dulles. And the legislation failed … by one vote.

Are you picturing a temper tantrum on Air Force One, too?

Who wasn’t shocked when McCain, the former POW, voted with the Bush administration in February to allow waterboarding as an interrogation tactic?

In May of this year McCain was predicting that by the year 2013, we would have “won” the war in Iraq and the majority of our troops would be home. However, in a June 11, 2008, interview, Matt Lauer asked McCain whether he had an estimate of when our troops would start returning home. Sen. McCain answered: “No, but that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq.”

Later that day, McCain supporters answered the obvious outcry with: “[McCain] was referring to an estimate of when troops could come home and that his main goal is eliminating U.S. deaths in the war that has lasted more than five years.”

Is it just me, or is there a serious failure in logic in that statement? If his main goal is eliminating U.S. deaths, how exactly would leaving our troops in Iraq equate with fewer casualties?

It seems like McCain is trying to play both sides of the fence. And doing a terrible job of it.

Were I advising Republican leadership on their rebranding, I would first advise them to create a little distance with McCain. As he’s playing things now, the Senator is not going to help their cause.

They need to suck it up and put their moderate Republicans out front. They need to work with Democrats in Congress to get some real legislation passed so they can point to it as both proof of their commitment to constituents and as their ability to work in bipartisan fashion.

The American people are facing a laundry list of issues. Issues that affect every single citizen across the board. So yes, we are looking for change. Not the kind of change that’s convenient in the moment, but the kind of change that will put people to work; create a more fair and equal distribution of wealth; advance clean energy technologies; get our troops out of Iraq, and provide every man, woman and child in America with quality health care.

The only “brand” of consequence in this year’s election is change. And that brand must be, to borrow the phrase, “change we can believe in.”

Initial Reaction: Hillary to Concede Friday

At first I just felt nothing. I thought I was completely unemotional about the end of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. But hearing the news of her concession, knowing that it is real this time (and not just the usual rumors) … then going to Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign Web site to watch his speech in Minnesota claiming the nomination … I just couldn’t do it.

It has nothing to do with Sen. Obama. And it has nothing to do with the decision-makers of Hillary’s campaign. It is, however, about the fact that the first woman who had a real shot at the presidency lost the nomination.

I want to express my heartfelt sympathy to all the staffers and volunteers who worked so hard on the campaign. Though I may have been sharply critical of her senior advisers, my criticism never extended beyond that level.

Hold your heads up and be proud of the work you did and all that you accomplished. We may not have a woman nominee this time, but thanks to you, and thanks to Hillary, we are a little bit closer.

RFK Misstatement: Campaign Strategists Fail Again

It’s difficult not to feel a little nausea at Sen. Clinton’s latest comment about why she remains in the race: “‘We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California,’ she told a South Dakota newspaper’s editorial board.”

The Clinton campaign initially reacted in defense mode, which they have become quite adept at, and have yet to learn is not a successful strategy:

She was simply referencing her husband in 1992 and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 as historic examples of the nominating process going well into the summer. Any reading into beyond that would be inaccurate and outrageous.

Their second attempt at squelching the outcry was better. Seeking out the press, Sen. Clinton apologized for any offense her comment may have caused.

And the third act, a statement made in her defense by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., was probably the smartest move they made on her behalf:

It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order to support her decision to stay in the race through June. I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband’s 1992 race, both of which were hard fought through June. I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense.

But, because of how Sen. Obama’s campaign reacted, the winner in this gaffe was not Sen. Obama by default — but rather by design.

His campaign played it brilliantly. They kept Obama from coming out of this looking like a victim — as he so often has after an attack.

First, a spokesman of the Obama campaign condemned the comment saying it was “unfortunate” and had “no place in this campaign.” But the second act was the clincher.

Obama empathized with Clinton. This move served to bolster his status among his numerous (and highly devoted) fans, and lent further evidence of his upstanding character and determination to run a clean race.

During an interview with Radio ISLA in Puerto Rico, Sen. Obama finally commented:

I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Senator Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make, and I think that is what happened here. Senator Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it, and I will take her at her word on that.

From a purely public relations perspective, that was precisely the way to handle it.

Now, what should Clinton’s campaign done instead? Well, first of all, they should know by now that this sputtering defensive tone does not work. It is not a successful strategy. De-escalation is always the best course of action, and their initial statement only served to escalate the situation — i.e., wrong direction, folks.

Sen. Clinton should have gotten in front the cameras immediately and openly expressed the same horror we all felt when we heard the comment. She should have apologized to Sen. Obama, admitted that she clearly misspoke, explained what she had been trying to say, called Sen. Obama her friend and denounced anyone who would seek to harm him.

Defensiveness has not served Sen. Clinton well in this campaign. It seems her advisers make the same mistake over and over and over again, forgetting one of the basic tenets of public relations: think like your audience.

You don’t offer strategy based on what your client wants to hear. Of course they want to be defensive. Of course they want to call it an “outrage” that anyone would assume such a horrible intent behind their words. But that won’t get you the public support you seek.

Thinking like your audience will.

What would your audience want to hear? If Mrs. Clinton had heard that come out of anyone else’s mouth, what would she think? What would she have felt? What could that person have said to belay the thought that he or she was so ambitious as to wish their opponent ill will in the final months of a campaign?

With the exception of those who have taken a decided stance of ill will against Mrs. Clinton from day one, I believe the rest of us logically understand that she in no way meant that she wished bodily harm to Sen. Obama. However, this is not a logical audience.

The public — all of us — react to things we hear in the media with emotion. Stories are told in such a way as to cause this reaction. And the charged atmosphere of a presidential election makes it that much more difficult to tether one’s emotional response.

No matter whose fault it is, and I’m sure the fingers will be pointed in variant directions for years to come, the Clinton campaign has been a mess. There’s no need to beat this dead horse (again). Suffice it to say, this latest handling of what should have been an obvious misstatement and easily squashed, was further evidence of a campaign gone wrong.