Tom Hayes: Consequences of "gotcha politics" aimed at Senator Reid

Melissa Harris-Lacewell offers an excellent perspective in her piece "What Reid's Race Gaffe Tells Us About Inequality" today at The Nation. Nobody's surprised that the opposition party would leap on such a gaffe, but if they really want to accomplish change they'd be focused on more than one politician. The focus has clearly been a virtual frenzy - a "tar-and-feather the heathen" first, ask questions later approach - the sort of "gotcha" that McCain and other prominent GOP members famously claim to oppose.

Is Senator Reid above criticism? Absolutely not. His choice of language reveals something of his social context and the resultant view of the world. Clearly conversations about race in his circle are lacking, and his experience is insulated from the way most Americans live.

But creating what political theorist Nancy Fraser calls, "a difference-friendly world, where assimilation to majority or dominant cultural norms is no longer the price for equal respect," isn't what the elite right-wing strategists or the supporting talk-show punditocracy is calling for, (or presumably hoping to achieve.) Their goals appear much less lofty: attack the party of the President to weaken his political influence, one member of Congress at a time.

Naturally some of GOP politicos and voters are applauding the response to the gaffe. But rather than the tactics Americans who want to reclaim moral high-ground while rebuilding the leadership role for their country on the world stage need to succeed, these reveal a willingness to return to the arrogant do-anything, say-anything tactics of fear for short-term political advantage that most Americans voted to curtail in 2008.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

If you had survived The Great Depression, which campaign would you volunteer for?

You tell me.

I'm with Charles.

more about "If you had survived The Great Depression...", posted with vodpod

When they own the information they can bend it how they want

"Me and all my friends," says John Mayer, "We’re all misunderstood.They say we stand for nothing and there’s no way we ever could." That sort of cynicism needs debunking, as Mayer knows. There's nothing false about hope, and what the future brings us depends largely on what we dare to believe - and do - in the present.

Barack Obama inspires that hope.

Here's a new video tribute, set to Mayer's music.

read more | digg story

Is John McCain too experienced to win in 2008?

In politics, old hands use mud-slinging & smear-mongering knowing an apology later doesn't erase the first impression about taxes, or whatever... Is Senator McCain's low-information, "talking points, not details" campaign style evidence that he's been in DC too long - fighting the prior war?

By avoiding details there's only so much anybody can say about his plans with regard to taxes. He's avoiding talking about Social Security, for instance, because politicizing it with details is bad for campaigning. McCain's answers are from the classic Rove textbook that got George Bush elected - when asked a question, repeat the closest talking point you have. That way there are only a handful of things to quote you on, but nobody can say you didn't reply even if the reply seems as though you may have missed the question.

Senator McCain's not too old to serve; he proved he's not to old to amuse bikers in Sturgis by suggesting his wife enter a topless pageant, either. But is he too experienced to win a campaign in the era when pundits no longer dominate access to information?

Is "experience" actually McCain's achilles heel?

Obama's been so up front with his answers that it's shocked people. Pundits assert he's too nuanced, and there's no question that his opposition can grab sound-bites out of context and run with them. But this is the era of Snopes, and Google, whether McCain knows it or not. Facts may be hard to come by, but they're out there - and so if voters want the information, it's there to be found.

It's an election cycle full of irony - Many of the charges the McCain camp has leveled at Obama turn out to be indicative of areas they fear they'll be attacked. Have Snopes & Google given the U.S. voters facts to debunk spin?

So the 3 questions are:

• Is this the year that voters fight back against old-school political tactics?
• Is John McCain's campaign style evidence that he's been in DC too long?
• Is the infornation superhighway sufficiently integrated into the lives of U.S. voters that we finally face an election where facts matter more than spin and perception?

read more | digg story

Show Obama you approve of his change to DNC fund-raising

Obama has persuaded the DNC not to accept money from PACs or registered lobbyists. Show the politicians you approve - go to the DNC's "no more lobbyists" fund-raising page now and give them a little bump.

Tell them you're one of those "FOB's" Even $5 today sends a huge signal to the party, and to DC in general.

Say what? "What's an FOB? Friend of Barack, of course.

read more | digg story

Asking Sen. Clinton to reject ALL "isms" not just sexism

Let's flip Clinton's argument around:

What if one candidate whined to the press that racism was keeping them down in the vote totals, but hinted that his opponent was unelectable because in the fall people were NOT going to vote for her because of her gender? Imagine if the surrogates blamed all Obama's problems on racism. Would there be a backlash? But somehow it's OK for Senator Clinton to point out that in her opinion it's racism that's going to keep Obama from being electable? Talk about a double-standard!

What should Senator Clinton do?

David Gergen hit the nail on the head on CNN. He suggested in light of Hillary Clinton's discussions of sexism in the election she should say, “You know, if you want to vote against him because he’s black, then I don’t want your vote.” Constitutionally it's obvious. For a candidate in the USA in 2008 it just makes sense. In fact, for a Democratic candidate, it's rather surprising that she's playing the "that's just how it is" card when it comes to racism, as though we cannot make progress in the pursuit of equal rights by expressing our dissatisfaction on election day.

I'm not sure what Senator Clinton's angle is, or what she's setting up. She's more savvy than I am about politics and campaigns, and she's got some of the best advisors that money can buy - but I'd sure like to see her denounce and reject racism rather than shrug her shoulders and tell the press and the superdelegates that too many people won't vote for something different.

We've had two centuries when the White House was controlled by men of pallor. Either Democratic candidate will change that. If Obama told us the country wasn't ready for a woman...?

read more | digg story