Bright Hall

Tea Parties: Conservatives' New Media Launch?

Joshua Sharp — 2009-04-19T00:20:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, USC, Media

The "tax day tea parties" this week marked arguably the most visible sign of a conservative uprising since before Bush 43's presidency, with over 300,000 estimated attendees across nearly 350 cities nationwide.

But the larger impact embodied by these protests is a bit more subtle: It shows that conservatives have discovered new media in a very powerful way.

Political campaigns of all ideological viewpoints have long gathered e-mail lists of supporters and built professionally-designed websites to serve as their online presence. But only recently has the Internet evolved to serve as a global town hall, with activists uploading pictures and videos from events held around the world, and networking tool, with registered organizers pooling resources and sharing plans.

In the last election season, both Barack Obama and John McCain created social networking sites and event registration tools in addition to Facebook pages and a YouTube channel. The Obama campaign was more successful with these tools for a variety of reasons (younger base of supporters, ridiculous talent on staff), but the online media landscape is changing so rapidly that conservatives have a real chance at surpassing the most impressive techniques of the '08 cycle.

Beyond the ideological debate behind Wednesday's protests, the fact remains that hundreds of events, sometimes thousands of miles apart, were linked together by the power of social media, as organizers coordinated events online and exchanged pictures (video, stories, etc.) afterward.

More on new media after the jump...
Politico's Jonathan Martin co-moderated a panel Wednesday -- the same day as the tea parties -- with USC Unruh Institute of Politics director Dan Schnur on "Political Organizing in the Internet Age." I served as a panelist alongside some more experienced campaign experts; here are a few highlights:

- Message still paramount. Almost every panelist agreed that campaigns must use new media to reinforce an established, compelling campaign message. Creating an account on Twitter is useless if it does not engage the campaign's followers in a unique and ongoing way.

- 'Day-to-day combat.' Modern campaigns now have to hire extra staff to manage the 24-hour chatter generated by blogs and online news sites like Politico, said Jennifer Palmieri, senior VP of communications at the Center for American Progress. Leslie Miller, senior communications director at Obama for America, noted that Obama's "bitter" comment went viral on a late Friday afternoon, when campaign staff would normally be winding down from a long week. Instead, the campaign was forced into a flurry of action.

The instantaneous speed of modern messaging creates both a challenge and opportunity in the "day-to-day combat" of contemporary politics, added Adam Mendelsohn, former communications director for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Though harmful news can spread like wildfire, a campaign's response can be delivered just as rapidly through similar channels.

- Endless opportunities... to succeed, and to stumble. Palmieri suggested that new media makes each individual interview less important, but I disagreed, noting that George Allen is no longer a presidential contender after a certain "macaca" moment, and Sarah Palin's turkey pardon interview is permanently embedded in the public's memory, thanks to YouTube and other media outlets.

Toward the end of the panel discussion, Schnur pointed out that the former managing editor of USC's student newspaper, the Daily Trojan, was present and live-blogging for a new online media outlet run through the USC Annenberg journalism school. Her shift from print to online, Schnur said, was representative of a greater, global transformation.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Alaskan Republicans Ask for Begich's Resignation

Tony Romm — 2009-04-03T11:49:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, American University

Now that federal prosecutors have abandoned their ethics case against embattled Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, the state's leading Republicans have asked Stevens' successor, Democratic Sen. Mark Begich, to defend his seat in a special election.

The latest round of Alaskan political boondoggling began earlier this week when the state's GOP chair, Randy Ruedrich, publicly attributed Begich's close, 3,700-vote victory over Stevens last November to "a few thousand Alaskans [who] thought that Senator Stevens was guilty of seven felonies." Gov. Sarah Palin then echoed that assertion in a separate interview on Thursday, telling the Anchorage Daily News, "Alaskans deserve to have a fair election not tainted by some announcement that one of the candidates was convicted fairly of seven felonies, when in fact it wasn't a fair conviction."

To Ruedrich and Palin, the ideal redress would be a prompt do-over, triggered by Begich's resignation. The vacancy would then permit Stevens, who was indicted in July for failing to disclose gifts he received while in office, to attempt a new campaign without the looming threat of legal action.

Understandably, Democrats have balked at that idea. In a national context, a loss for Begich would temporarily quash the party's longstanding attempt to forge a 60-vote, filibuster-proof Senate majority. Locally, explained Alaskan Democratic Party Chair Patti Higgins, a re-vote would only belittle the intelligence of Alaskan voters writ large, who probably want to avoid a protracted, off-year political battle. Even fellow Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, admitted on Thursday that a new election was "not an option."

Still, other Stevens fans have appealed for the 40-year Senate veteran to take his fight to the governorship. A run in 2012 would pit him against the relatively-popular Palin, assuming she chooses to seek re-election. It remains unclear, however, whether Alaska's leading GOP architects and donors would support such a move.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Congress Begins Talk of Ending Cuba Embargo

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-04-03T01:41:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, News, Notre Dame

Sen. Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, is trying to urge changes to the nearly 50-year-old economic embargo against Cuba.

Lugar, in a March 30 letter to President Obama, said the embargo against Cuba, which has been in place since 1962 to protest the government set up by Fidel Castro, "undermines our broader security and political interests in the Western Hemisphere."

Lugar asked Obama to appoint a special envoy to start direct talks with Cuba's communist government and end opposition to Cuba's membership in the Organization of American States, The Washington Post reported. Lugar pointed to the April 17-19 Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago as a good place to make changes in U.S. foreign policy toward Cuba.

Lugar is also the co-sponsor of a bipartisan bill that would end restrictions on travel to Cuba except for in cases of war or direct threats to health and safety. As it stands now, Cuban Americans with relatives on the island are allowed to visit once a year. Travel to Cuba by all U.S. citizens has been prohibited in varying degrees since 1963, the Post said. The State Department lists who exactly is allowed to travel there. It's a hard list to make, which is a shame, because the forecast for the next week is in the 80s.

The Post said neither Lugar nor the legislation he is co-sponsoring proposes lifting all the sanctions right away or resuming diplomatic relations immediately, but Lugar said the appointment of an envoy and the start of direct talks would "serve vital U.S. security interests ... and would ultimately create the conditions for meaningful discussion of more contentious subjects."

Last year, during the U.S. presidential campaign, Fidel Castro, who has handed control of the government over to his brother Raul, gave his opinion of the Democratic candidate after Obama gave a speech to the Cuban American National Foundation in Miami in which he pledged to maintain the trade sanctions against Cuba as a means to press for democratic change. But Obama also said he wanted to ease restrictions on travel to Cuba and sending money there for relatives.

At that time Castro called Obama "the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency," the New York Times reported, while also scolding him for saying he would continue the trade embargo.

Castro may need to look toward Lugar, rather than Obama, to start the momentum to change the embargo.

Obama can end the travel limits for Cuban Americans at any time by executive order, the Post reported, but lifting all restrictions, and the trade embargo, requires legislation. Vice President Joe Biden said recently that the United States is not planning to lift its trade embargo on Cuba.

Americans still seem pretty evenly split on the issue. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted in early 2007 showed that 48 percent of respondents believed the United States should continue the embargo, while 40 percent believed the United States should end it. Twelve percent were unsure.

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus will travel to Cuba this weekend, to demonstrate to Cubans that Americans are looking to build a new relationship with them, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., told the Associated Press.

Lee, the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said she did not think improving economic relations with Cuba would bolster the government at the expense of the citizens.

"It's a country that we've had an embargo against for what, 40 years, but it hasn't worked," she told the Associated Press. "American citizens should have a right to travel to determine their own points of view."

Maybe Fidel will give Rep. Lee some Cuban cigars for her efforts.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

The Superstitious Defense of Norm Coleman

Matt Negrin — 2009-03-31T22:24:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Boston University

The Minnesota Senate race is getting closer to an end, and Norm Coleman probably won't win. A three-judge panel ruled on Tuesday that at most, 400 ballots questioned by Coleman, who is barely losing to Al Franken, can be recounted in court in about a week.

The news is great for Franken and Democrats, who are that much closer to getting 59 seats in the Senate, a very powerful number that can potentially dust off threats of Republican filibusters. But Coleman and the Republicans aren't giving up. They have raised millions of dollars to fuel the recount, delaying either senator from working on Capitol Hill.

Yet money may not be enough to win this legal battle stemming from Nov. 4, at least according to Coleman's lawyer, who suggested Tuesday that supernatural forces had something to do with the unfortunate rulings.

"We said that this court's Friday the 13th order is wrong, and now their almost April Fool's Day order is equally wrong," said attorney Ben Ginsberg, referring first to the February 13 ruling that discarded some ballot categories as grounds for recounting.

Obviously I'm no legal expert or scholar of law, but I don't think it's absurd to suggest that when the defense brings up scary bad-luck days like Friday the 13th or "almost April Fool's Day," its options may be running thin.

Ginsberg also said that if the court doesn't change its mind, "it will give us no choice but to appeal that order to the Minnesota Supreme Court." Will the Coleman campaign object to the high court's ruling if it falls on Memorial Day? Or the first night of Passover? What about Mother's Day?

The idea that somehow supernatural spirits or a national day of pranks are influencing the judges' decisions is, obviously, one that hasn't been academically explored very deeply. But don't rule out Coleman's defense just yet, because there is precedent for such a claim.

As elections neared in India a few weeks ago, for example, the main political parties agreed to suspend poll talks during Holi, a festival that celebrates practical jokes and even brings people together to toast a figure named "Mr. Stupid." And further, as the parties decided when to make a formal election announcement, Friday the 13th loomed -- but was brushed aside by a party official who told the Times of India, "We are not worried about the date. Friday the 13th is a Western concept; it will not harm us."

Although, another party leader said that on the day of Sankashti, "Lord Ganesha will turn Friday the 13th into an auspicious muhurtham [moment].''

For an older, yet American, perspective, take a look at Edward Stanwood's 1912 column called, "Election Superstitions and Fallacies," in which he notes that many myths circulate in the political world just as broken mirrors forecast a family member's death, even though causality cannot be proven. For example, before Ulysses Grant was reelected in 1872, people believed that no president with a middle name could be voted into office for a second term (John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison and James Knox Polk were all limited to single terms).

(It had also held true as a mystic notion at the time Stanwood wrote his article that no senator could ever become president.)

One more contemporary example: As some of you may know, John McCain carries around lucky coins. One of them, a penny, was given to him by the publisher of the the New Hampshire Union Leader, Joe McQuaid. When I interviewed McCain last year during the primaries, the Arizona senator assured me that he still carries around the one-cent piece, and told me to send that message to the editors at the Union Leader, for whom I was writing.

Do superstitions hold true? Maybe not. McCain did lose the election, three sitting senators have become president, commanders-in-chief with middle names have been re-elected, and even India's elections have had a share of anti-Muslim controversy.

Let's just hope the next phase of the Coleman-Franken recount doesn't wind up on Halloween.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

This Again? Some Still Claiming Media's Obama 'Swoon'

Matt Negrin — 2009-03-23T01:44:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Boston University, Media

Kevin Ferris's op-ed today titled "Media's swoon over Obama" even reached the commentary pages of Japan's largest newspaper, The Daily Yomiuri, where I first read it. I wonder how many other people took it seriously.

Ferris, an editorial page editor for the Philadelphia Inquirer, uses a new documentary about campaign coverage to rehash the old argument that during the 2008 race, "the media let us down in nearly every respect."

Fine. Let's hear what you've got to say.

Pointing to a spot in the anti-Obama, anti-media documentary by John Ziegler, Ferris rages over how it is the fault of "the media" that lots of facts about Sarah Palin stuck with voters, while many facts about Barack Obama did not. He notes how voters remembered Palin's expensive wardrobe, Bristol's pregnancy and Tina Fey's impersonation. But "what didn't sink in" about Obama was, according to Ferris/Ziegler, his "background in Chicago politics, his association with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers."

Never mind that referring to Obama's "background in Chicago politics" is too vague to mean much. Do these men really think that the American public didn't hear enough about Bill Ayers? I can still hear Palin's sound bites in my head from every stump speech she gave referring to Obama "palling around with terrorists."

The anti-media, anti-Obama crowd is apparently still seething over its claim that the mainstream media didn't cover Obama's relationship with Ayers. Is that so? What about this front-page New York Times article titled, "Obama and '60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths," that ran above the fold a month before the election? Don't forget the Times's story the very next day, called, "Palin, on Offensive, Attacks Obama's Ties to '60s Radical."

Maybe these critics should read the Times instead of vaguely bashing it. In the documentary, filmmaker Ziegler also says about Obama, "There was a subconscious decision to treat him differently, lowering the bar for him, because he's black."

Then he lashes out at "the media" for allegedly playing down the Jeremiah Wright fiasco when clips of the pastor surfaced in which he said, "God damn America."

"Rev. Wright is the best example," Ziegler says. "If a white candidate had that kind of a connection to a raving lunatic KKK member -- I mean, please, it's so obvious, it's ridiculous."

So obvious indeed -- almost as obvious as a simple Google search that proves you entirely wrong. Here's a partial list of stories in mainstream publications exploring the link between Obama and Wright:

Los Angeles Times: Poll shows Rev. Jeremiah Wright hurting Barack Obama (March 17, 2008)
New York Times: The Obama-Wright Factor (March 20, 2008)
Washington Post: For Obama, Wright the Latest in a Long Line of Tests (April 28, 2008)

All of this fair and thorough reporting is, according to Ziegler and Ferris, the "death of journalism." You can view parts of the documentary online here. As if to solidify his point that "the media" floated Obama into the White House, he highlights on his website the face of what he sees as truth and fairness: an interview with Sarah Palin, who talks about how important it is to have "fairness in the media."

(Some reminders of how much Palin believes in the truth: She claimed credit for denying the Bridge to Nowhere when she in fact asked for it; she baselessly claimed Obama would "experiment with socialism;" and she claimed a state ethics report cleared her of fault when it in fact found her guilty.)

What's truly newsworthy, though, is a Rasmussen poll that Ferris cites, showing that 51 percent of voters on Election Day "thought reporters tried to help Obama win." How did these reporters do this while they were busy reporting the Wright scandal and the Ayers association, and following up on every other piece of dirt the McCain campaign could bring up? If giving an easy pass to Obama was the media's job, then, to quote Ferris and Ziegler, they really "let us down."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Meg Whitman Hands Out Free USB Bracelets

Joshua Sharp — 2009-03-01T17:23:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, USC

It may not have been as evident in this weekend's CPAC conference with the typical bumper stickers and bombastic speakers, but a growing number of Republicans are moving to close the technology gap with 2010 campaigns in mind.

Consider the innovative USB bracelets handed out by Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman's campaign at the California Republican Party Convention. The 512MB flash drives contain a two-minute campaign video with space left for other files, so it can be used for daily tasks while bearing Meg Whitman's campaign message around the user's wrist.

For the former eBay CEO, the bracelets are a strong reinforcement of her theme, "A New California." But their price tag -- up to $8-$12 apiece, a quick Web search suggests -- threatens to undercut Whitman's desired image as a fiscal conservative.

UPDATE 6:31pm: Whitman campaign spokesman Mitch Zak says in an e-mail that the campaign distributed close to 1,000 USB bracelets at the state party convention, at a cost of around $7 apiece. The idea came from senior advisor Jeff Randle, according to Zak, and "the response was phenomenal."

Zak adds: "We liked them because they allowed people to show their support for the Campaign, we were able to share a video produced to engage people in the effort and it's something that people will keep and use most likely for the duration of the Campaign. It's a great value and demonstrates the power of technology and creativity Meg wants to harness to create a New California."

Meanwhile, GOP Senate hopeful Chuck DeVore has attracted national attention for fundraising via the social networking site Twitter, with donations reported via a Twitter feed. The California Assemblyman hopes to defeat the incumbent Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer in part by modeling the Obama presidential campaign's embrace of new technology and small donations of around $20. Instead of hiring a communications director in the typical sense, the DeVore campaign has brought on Justin Hart as "director of new media."

Even John McCain is twittering, counting down the top 10 "porkiest projects" in the omnibus bill. The list is dutifully recorded by Politico: here, here and here, with $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa winning the dubious top honors.

My colleague Kaitlynn Riely cautions not to fall behind, but I think the key is in using these new technologies for practical and effective purposes. Gimmicks are an easy way to generate buzz in the short-term, but the greater challenge is found in translating that momentum into greater fund-raising and electoral success.

UPDATE 11:21pm: In a comment below, Justin Hart discusses another low-cost tool used by the DeVore campaign.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Romney Wins 2009 CPAC Straw Poll... Preemptively Loses 2012?

Tony Romm — 2009-03-01T08:52:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, American University

WASHINGTON D.C. -- After conceding at the annual gathering only a year earlier, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney serendipitously eked out a symbolic victory in the Conservative Political Action Convention's (CPAC) presidential straw poll, held here on Saturday.

According to Politico, Romney, who received only 20 percent of the CPAC vote, was closely trailed by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (14 percent), Texas Rep. Ron Paul (13 percent), Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (13 percent), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (10 percent) and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (7 percent). Also on the ballot were South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. Despite the wide array of choices, however, nine percent of CPAC attendants said they were undecided.

Yet, this is hardly Romney's first CPAC straw poll win -- in fact, in 2007 and 2008, the former Massachusetts governor trounced his competition, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who the party inevitably nominated.

Luckily for Romney, he is not the only GOP candidate to have lost a general election despite an impressive CPAC poll victory. Rather, he conforms to a historic norm, one whereby the winner of the conference's symbolic poll rarely reaches the general election:

Poll year	CPAC poll winner	Winner's political future
2008 \| 2007	Mitt Romney	Ironically conceded at CPAC in 2008
2006 \| 2005	Sen. George Allen, R-Va.	Defeated by Dem. challenger Jim Webb in 2006 Virginia Senate race
2004-2001	GOP held White House
2000	George W. Bush	Won presidency
1999	Former Undersecretary of Education Gary Bauer	Dropped out after New Hampshire primary
1998	Steve Forbes	Won only two delegates in 1996, dropped out after taking 3rd in Delaware in 2000
1995	Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Tx	Received less than 1 percent of the 1996 presidential primary vote; joined 2008 McCain campaign

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Student, 20, Fighting For Right To Run For Office

Joshua Chaney — 2009-02-23T19:46:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, News, Muskingum College

Brett McClafferty, a now 20-year-old Cleveland State University student, came up one single solitary vote shy of becoming mayor - at the age of 19 - of Streetsboro, Ohio in May 2007.

Shortly after, city officials put a charter amendment on the November ballot of that year raising the legal age to run for mayor or council from 18 to 23. The amendment was approved by 59 percent of voters.

But now McClafferty is back and intends to run for city council. The law discriminates against young people, he said, and if the Portage County Board of Elections refuses to certify his candidacy he plans to file a federal lawsuit.

"I'd like to see the courts acknowledge this law is unconstitutional and arbitrary, McClafferty told the Akron Beacon Journal. "I think this is a fight for young people across the country. It's a slippery slope. If you acknowledge an age requirement is legitimate, there is no reason all municipalities can't start adopting them."

Proponents of the amendment in age requirement likely want to ensure candidates have more life experience. However, renewed access to and interest in politics, especially online, might mean that a college student has as much knowledge of government as your average 50-year-old.

A former president of the council who chaired the city's charter review commission told the Beacon Journal in 2007 that the commission's members decided on 23 because the age would give candidates five years to go to college, go to the military, or work for five years.

Ohio requires a person to be 18 to run for most state and local offices. The age of 18 affords citizens the right to vote, among many others.The minimum age required to serve as member of the house ranges from 18-25. About half require a minimum age of 21. About a third of states allow 18-year-olds to serve in the state senate, and 20 have a minimum age of 25. Five states require a minimum age of 30 to serve as state senator.

To serve as governor, most states require a minimum age of 30. Six states have no minimum age, three permit 18-year-olds and six require at least 25 years of age.

While challenges to the legal voting age have yielded success for 18-year-olds, for the most part past challenges to minimum age requirements have failed.

According to law.jrank.org, courts have found that holding office is not a fundamental right that states may not restrict. They've determined that age is a reasonable basis of discrimination to ensure that those serving in government possess the necessary maturity, experience, and competence to perform as effective representatives.

I would say there are many older people serving or that have served in public positions that don't possess some those qualities.

Avery Friedman, a Cleveland civil rights attorney, CNN legal correspondent and law professor, representing McClafferty, compared him to Rosa Parks.

"I see this as a citzen's struggle to overcome an unfair government obstacle," Friedman said. 'Whether Brett is the Rosa Parks of Streetsboro remains to be seen. Certainly, it's the same process. Rosa wanted to take a bus ride. He wants to be a candidate."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Carly Fiorina "Considering" Bid to Oust Barbara Boxer in 2010

Joshua Sharp — 2009-02-21T19:36:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Small Campus, Big Story, Breaking News, USC

SACRAMENTO, CA -- Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina indicated today that she might seek the Republican nomination in 2010 to challenge incumbent Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).

In a meeting with California College Republicans, Fiorina acknowledged that she is "considering a run for Barbara Boxer's seat" in the U.S. Senate. The room of young Republicans erupted with applause at the mention of Boxer's name. The Senate Democrat is a staunch liberal and the subject of much ire in conservative circles.
The California Republican Party Convention this weekend is playing host to a number of 2010 hopefuls. The halls are covered with competing campaign posters for California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, both of whom have started exploratory committees for a possible gubernatorial primary bid.

Poizner also spoke to the College Republicans, calling California's special-session budget deal "one of the worst pieces of public policy" in recent history and citing his own record of cutting the insurance department's budget by 10 percent.

The mood at the convention is a combination of angst and optimism. Two others who spoke at the College Republicans meeting, Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (who has declared his candidacy for Sen. Boxer's seat) and California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring, engaged in a friendly competition over who had more Facebook friends and Twitter followers.

DeVore is ahead, with over 1,500 Twitter followers and almost 3,000 Facebook friends, but the anecdote speaks to the Party's understanding that a technological revolution is necessary to secure electoral victories.

Meghan McCain will be pleased to know that all is not lost.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Meghan McCain: No Secret That Republican Party's Not Internet Savvy

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-02-21T18:28:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Culture, News, Media, Notre Dame

Meghan McCain, the 24-year-old daughter of former Republican presidential candidate John McCain, put out an interesting article this week on The Daily Beast talking about the GOP's Internet shortcomings.

Is she laying the groundwork for a Chelsea Clinton-Meghan McCain presidential showdown in 20 years?

McCain, who writes that she was an independent before she registered as a Republican for Father's Day last year, maintained a blog during the presidential contest. McCainBlogette.com, "Musings on Politics from a Pop Culture Girl," is a cute site and Meghan does a good job of showing behind-the-scenes shots from the campaign.

She made the Straight Talk Express look fun, but the site didn't get that much coverage during the campaign.

McCain writes in her Daily Beast article that when she suggested starting a blog to record her experiences following her father's campaign, some people didn't know what a blog was. She doesn't name names, so we don't know if it was, maybe, John McCain himself.

She writes that she found the Republican Party's lack of technological know-how frustrating.
"Unless the Republican party joins the twenty-first century and learns how to use the Internet, its members will keep getting older and the youth of America will just keep logging on to the other side," she wrote.

She pointed to Facebook numbers as an example. Her father has 500,000 supporters on the social networking site, but President Obama has 5.5 million.

Some Republican strategists told Meghan that the party was making forays into the Internet, pointing out online fundraising accomplishments, YouTube responses to Obama by the RNC and the site "Rebuild The Party."

But more work has to be done, Meghan concluded. (Seriously. Check out "Rebuild the Party." They didn't exactly choose the sexiest Republicans to represent the party in their YouTube video.)

Meghan McCain is now working as a blogger for The Daily Beast. Sen. John McCain's November loss hasn't pushed him far out of the political spotlight. I think we can expect the same from Meghan.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Plouffe: Off The Record, Under Scrutiny

Kaitlynn Riely — 2009-02-12T17:56:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Local, Media, Notre Dame

David Plouffe, the chief campaign manager for Barack Obama's presidential campaign, filled my e-mail inbox for months with news about his candidate. Now that the campaign is over, he still wants to keep our relationship confined to e-mailing.

Plouffe made a speech Thursday at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., but requested that it be off the record.

He was speaking as part of the Transitions 2009 event, sponsored by Georgetown University's School of Continuing Studies. Other than Plouffe's speech, the rest of the event is on the record.

Politico was originally a sponsor of the conference, but backed out because they didn't want to be involved in "an off the record talk with a newsworthy person."

A letter sent by Donna Leinwand, the National Press Club president, to the Washington Speakers Bureau, which reprsents Plouffe, was posted on the Club's Web site. Leinwand said she was troubled by Plouffe's request that the speech be off the record, saying it reduces the "free flow of information" and "would run contrary to the spirit of President Obama's recent executive order and statements in support of a more open government."

Whether you voted for Obama or not, you cannot deny that he ran a brilliant campaign, which Plouffe orchestrated. It's a campaign many want to learn more about, that's probably what Plouffe talked about at the Press Club. By requesting the speech go off the record, he made it a bigger story than it would have been.

Maybe Plouffe was planning all along on e-mailing us the transcripts of his remarks so he could bypass the media. If so, I'm still waiting for that e-mail to arrive.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

How to Avoid Testifying in Alaska

Matt Negrin — 2009-02-08T03:12:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Boston University

You remember Troopergate, the investigation into Sarah Palin's alleged misconduct over firing a state trooper for personal reasons. You may also remember that when Alaska's state senate asked Palin's husband to testify in the case because he may have been involved, he refused, as the investigation ensnared the family amid the election.

But it turns out that apparently, in Alaska, there are no penalties for ignoring subpoenas.

On Friday, the Senate (with 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans) found Palin's husband and nine other state employees in contempt of the law for ignoring the subpoenas. Yet they issued no penalties, even though they are allowed to give the offenders up to six months of jail time, plus fines.

This all may seem a little complicated. Here's an analogy: Let's say you're the head of a big company, and you want to embezzle lots of money. But since you don't want to get caught, you tell your subordinate to do it. When he refuses to steal the cash, because he wants to obey the law, you fire him. Now, when the fired employee sues you for firing him unreasonably, you refuse to show up to court.

Normally, you'd be held in contempt of court for refusing to comply with a subpoena, which is a legal order that you testify on the record. You'd be punished for not obeying the court's orders.

But in Alaska -- as we've seen before -- the law doesn't really run in a straight line.

Basically what the Senate said Friday is this: While it's really not cool that Todd Palin and the governor's staff didn't show up to testify about whether Sarah Palin illegally fired a trooper, we're going to let them go. The vote was 16-1. The only senator who voted against the "resolution" was a Republican, Con Bunde -- but he voted against it because he was upset that they brought no charges against the Palins.

"We rehash an old issue and then decide to do nothing about it," Bunde said. "I hope that's not our best."

Todd Palin's attorney, apparently unpleased with the decision, fired back that his client did indeed comply -- by issuing a written statement. Technically, that's not really complying, because he never showed up to talk about whether he may or may not have meddled in his wife's affairs as governor. But that's all in the past.

This is America. This is the land where everyone gets a chance to defend themselves, even when one state investigation finds that you broke your trust to voters by violating an ethics act, and another says you did just fine. If you've got nothing to hide, why not face the public and make your case?

The Alaska Senate had a chance to take a stand on justice. It had the opportunity to punish those in power -- those who work in the chief executive's office -- to prove that they are not above the law.

Instead, the Senate looked the other way.

(And in case, by some off-chance, the governor is reading this post, she should know that this author is undeterred by her comments to Esquire that "bored, anonymous, pathetic bloggers who lie annoy me."

By the way, governor, we're still waiting to see your proof on the whole Barack Obama-Bill Ayers connection.)

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

GOP's First Black Chairman Annoying GOP's Racists

Matt Negrin — 2009-02-01T21:20:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Culture, Breaking News, Boston University

It ain't the best time to be a white supremacist.

As if the inauguration of the country's first black president isn't enough to make you yearn for the days of Jim Crow and racially divided water fountains, the Republican Party sure isn't helping by electing the first black chairman of its national committee.

Michael Steele, black and a former Maryland lieutenant governor, took the helm of the RNC last week. Certainly his victory was propelled by Barack Obama's election, although the GOP's rife racist bloc is sick of all this change and equality.

David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard and Republican congressman from Louisiana, called Steele -- or "Obama Junior" -- a "radical Black racist" who will spur the majority of Republicans to leave the party and start their own (presumably racist) political group.

Duke claims to have told a Washington Post reporter, "I am glad these traitorous leaders of the Republican Party appointed this Black racist, affirmative action advocate to the head of the Republican party because this will lead to a huge revolt among the Republican base," as posted on his website.

He continues: "As a former Republican official, I can tell you that millions of rank-and-file Republicans are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore! We will either take the Republican Party back over the next four years or we will say, 'To Hell With the Republican Party!' And we will take 90 percent of Republicans with us into a New Party that will take its current place!"

I'm going to go ahead and call this bluff straight up. Ninety percent of Republicans are going to leave the party and join your hate-filled mayonnaise fete, huh, Duke? How'd that work out for you when you served in the U.S. House 20 years ago?

Maybe I shouldn't be so pessimistic. In Duke's many losing political campaigns, he garnered heavy populations of white voters. In 1991, when he ran for governor of Louisiana, he took 671,000 votes in a runoff with the former governor of the state. He lost, but claimed, "I won my constituency. I won 55 percent of the white vote."

And of course there's no denying some Americans' rampant racism today. Politico's Ben Smith called the Republicans' "real committed racists" a "small, but real and voting, minority."

You can see it in people like Jeremiah Wright, or the skinheads who plotted to kill Obama during the campaign, or even in some readers of this very blog, including one who commented about Obama, "He should be nervous with every sniper in the country after his black ass."

Grand wizard or not, some people just can't change.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama's New Pawn in Political Maneuvering

Matt Negrin — 2009-01-30T21:25:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Boston University

The Democrats came so close in November to dominating Washington, but, to quote Agent 86 Maxwell Smart, "missed it by that much." Assuming that Al Franken did in fact beat Norm Coleman in Minnesota, the Dems have 59 Senate seats -- just one short of the filibuster-proof, super-powerful 60.

But there are ways to get what you want.

Consider the case of Judd Gregg, a three-term Republican senator from New Hampshire who is up for reelection in 2010 in an increasingly Democratic state. (In November, voters ousted Republican Senator John Sununu in favor of former governor Jeanne Shaheen.)

Barack Obama is reportedly considering Gregg to be his Commerce secretary, an open slot since Bill Richardson pulled out of consideration amid an ethics investigation in New Mexico. Normally, as we've seen recently in Illinois and New York, governors replace senators by choosing a replacement of the same party -- because a state's governor and senators usually have the same party affiliation, as chosen by voters.

But New Hampshire is different. Gregg is a Republican, but the governor, John Lynch, is a Democrat. Granite State voters are often referred to as independent-minded; when I covered Gregg and Sununu for the Union Leader, the two senators and political analysts repeatedly stressed that independence is more important in New Hampshire than in any other state.

So if Obama picks Gregg, that leaves a space open in the Senate for Lynch to potentially fill with a Democrat of his choice, giving the majority party 60 solid seats, enough to pass sweeping legislation without worrying that Republicans will use the power of filibuster, a somewhat dated technique that allows a party with 41 senators present to block any legislation by simply talking on end for hours until the other party gives up. (The record goes to the late Strom Thurmond, who rambled for more than 24 hours while opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1957.)

So is Obama truly interesting in Gregg's input and experience, or does he want to soften the legislative branch to make his agenda easier to push through? New Hampshire isn't the only state with Republican senators and Democratic governors (Kentucky, Kansas and Iowa, to name a few).

The deal looks good for Gregg, a sharp senator with a wealth of knowledge about finances -- he headed the budget committee for two years while Republicans were in power. But New Hampshire's Republican base is growing slimmer and even faces a slight leadership crisis following the state party chairman's recent resignation. Moving to the White House would make things easier, and he wouldn't have to worry about losing reelection.

So far, Gregg has been mum on the possible appointment, though he did confirm rumors that he is being considered. Republicans are fighting to keep Gregg in the Senate, retaining 41 seats. Republican Senator Jon Kyl told Politico that Obama's move is "sneaky."

"I like the idea of 41 Republican senators a lot better than 40," Republican Senator Lamar Alexander told the Washington publication. "And I like the idea of Judd Gregg being in the United States Senate rather than him not being."

Some senators are also urging Gov. Lynch, should Gregg be selected for the administration, to appoint another Republican senator from New Hampshire to keep things even. Politically, that could be shaky ground for Lynch, whose supporters may expect him to stick with his party.

Right now, the pressure's on Obama. But in a matter of days, it could be on the governor of New Hampshire.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Palin's Legacy: Selling Her Shoes for $2025

Matt Negrin — 2009-01-29T23:22:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Culture, Boston University

Now, now, settle down, everybody. Before you jump to conclusions, read this disclaimer from Sarah Palin's niece, who put up the Alaska governor's shoes for sale on eBay:

"These shoes were bought in a small store in Juneau, AK. They were NOT paid for by the RNC. They were purchased by Sarah!!!"

But, nonetheless, the Folksy Governor of the West's ruby-red high heels that she wore at the Republican convention last year did indeed sell for more than $2,000 on eBay. The shoes are "Naughty Monkey Double-Dare pumps." Sure, because when I think Sarah Palin, I think naughty monkey.

The niece obtained the footwear after asking her aunt for them because she liked them. Turns out they "don't fit to (sic) well," but if you look them up "on a serach (sic) engine," you can read all about their storied history.

The Christian Science Monitor speculates that the new cash could go toward Palin's potential 2012 presidential campaign. Speaking of which, why hasn't she started campaigning yet? Four years away is just around the corner.

Or maybe she has. A few days ago, Palin launched SarahPAC -- a Republican political-action committee -- which states that she is "dedicated to building America's future, supporting fresh ideas and candidates who share our vision for reform and innovation," presumably by linking Democrats to washed-up domestic terrorists.

Interestingly, the new website makes scant reference to her role on the GOP ticket with John McCain. Although it does mention that she believes Republicans are on the verge of a "historic renaissance," and that everyone has a part to play "as a new president takes office and begins to lead our country."

Maybe she threw that on there to spark some dinner conversation with eight-day-old-president Barack Obama. Palin is apparently planning on attending a Washington dinner this weekend with the hopes of catching the attention of Obama, the man she attacked so much while on the campaign trail.

"How often will I get an opportunity to have dinner with the president?" she told reporters outside her mansion. "I will take up that offer to do so."

Palin also elaborated on the purpose of her PAC. While denying that it in any way will contribute to a 2012 presidential bid -- "No. Not at all. Not at all. No," were her exact words -- she said that the donations made to the fund will pay for her travel to fancy dinners.

"It's helpful to have a PAC so when I'm invited to things, even, like, to speak at the Lincoln Day dinner in Fairbanks, to have the PAC pay for that instead of have the state pay for that, because that could be considered quasi-political," she said.

I don't know how many voters will be enticed by that pitch, though it's certainly an impressive use of the phrase "quasi-political."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Palin Seeks $11M Book Deal, but Can She Read?

Matt Negrin — 2009-01-25T01:59:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Boston University, Media

One can only imagine what Republican rising star Sarah Palin could possibly write about in her memoirs. The true story behind Todd's goatee? Which makeup is the most mavericky? Untold stories from the six colleges she attended as an undergrad?

Whatever's going to be in the book, the former VP candidate is asking for an $11 million book deal, and has hired a famous Washington lawyer to get it for her, the Los Angeles Times revealed. (That's more than Laura Bush's less-than $2 million, Bill Clinton's $10 million memoir and Hillary Clinton's $8 million deal.)

The figure is obviously a bit staggering, given Palin's inability to construct simple sentences in subject-verb format. That's probably what prompted left-leaning MSNBC host Chris Matthews to blatantly state, "If she can read, if she can write, she's gonna make some money."

"The big question is," Matthews determined, "Who's gonna actually write the Palin book? The only politician I know who can write is Barack Obama."

To answer Matthews's question: Yes, Sarah Palin knows how to read. In fact, I believe she's very well-versed in biblical studies, having plenty of knowledge to declare that dinosaurs and humans in fact co-existed.

Although when Katie Couric asked the Alaska governor which newspapers she reads to know what's going on outside of her bubble, Palin was too stunned and couldn't think of any. (She figured it out a few days later and declared that she can read a few upper-level publications, among them The Economist.)

No doubt people will ask why this is all newsworthy more than two months after she failed to help John McCain win the election. The simple answer is because Palin appears to be trying to stay in the spotlight as much as she can, as her fans urge her to consider a 2012 presidential candidacy.

Yet top endorsements for her are hard to come by, especially following a GOP ticket that many people say she hurt more than helped. Even her knight in maverick armor, McCain, wouldn't endorse her over other Republican governors.

Aside from telling her life story to stay in the news, Palin has lashed out at the media again, this time for reporting about her children. Though politicos have pointed out that publicity is a two-way street: You can't thrust your kids in front of cameras to bolster your "family values" without expecting journalists to report on who your family really is.

Finally, remember Palin's $180,000 wardrobe that she said would be donated to charity after the election? Turns out all the clothes have been stuffed in trash bags at the RNC's Washington headquarters.

Though if Palin doesn't clean up her mess, her clothes won't be the only things in the garbage.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Cindy McCain Apparently Doesn't Understand Journalism

Matt Negrin — 2009-01-22T08:53:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Featured Stories, Boston University, Media

With all the big news about Barack Obama's inaugurama, it's likely that a bit of recent comments from John McCain's wife passed under the radar of average newsies.

Cindy McCain, giving her first post-election interview to her daughter (which is bizarre in its own right), goes on the attack against The New York Times for giving her a "hard day" when it published a profile titled, "Behind McCain, Outsider in Capital Wanting Back In."

Cindy McCain tells her daughter, "Another hard day was the day The New York Times published their profile on me. I had never spoken with the reporter who wrote the article. She contacted the kids that went to high school with my youngest daughter over the Internet, and as a parent, that was scary."

Yikes. That's a pretty harsh claim, implying that the Times reporter wrote an article about you without even contacting you to get your side of the story. But poor Mrs. McCain, like her husband, has underestimated the power of Google, which allows me to search for that story, which includes the following line about her:

"She has done relatively few solo events, grants interviews reluctantly - she declined to speak for this article - and in introducing her husband at events, she offers few of the heartwarming anecdotes that are the stock in trade of the political spouse."

Gulp.

Tough break for the McCains. It's pretty difficult to accuse a newspaper of having a "specific agenda," as Mrs. McCain does, without mentioning that the Times tried to get her opinion for the story to give her a fair chance to respond, you know, like responsible news organizations do.

Also questionable about Mrs. McCain's complaints is the fact that her interviewer -- her daughter, Meghan -- is lobbing her more softballs than a softball-lobbing machine. I won't even address the lack of objectivity or the incredibly obvious conflict of interest -- Meghan came out of her subject's womb, for god's sake. I'll just let the questions speak for themselves. Meghan, what's your first question for your mom?

"What is the best part about not being first lady?"

Talk about gotcha journalism. How is Cindy going to wiggle out of that hot-seater? Oh, I'm sorry -- Meghan, you had a follow-up?

"I mean, you must be relieved in some sense not to have all the people around anymore."

Not even a question!

"What was the worst hotel you ever stayed in?"

Personally, I'm glad she asked that one. When I travel through Middle America, I need to make sure my true trip adviser is the lavish wife of a senator.

OK, let's wrap up this interview session, Meghan. Did you want to maybe reflect on your role as a blogger?

Meghan: "Did I ever embarrass you?"

Cindy: "No, you did not. I was, and am, still very proud of you."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

A Little Nervous, Big O?

Matt Negrin — 2009-01-20T22:11:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Featured Stories, Boston University

Isn't it refreshing to know that the first sentence uttered by our new president had a remarkably similar rhythm and awkwardness as the many phrases said by our previous one? Let's relive that historic moment one more time.

It all began when Chief Justice John Roberts asked Barack Obama, "Are you ready to take the oath, senator?" To which Obama lied, "I am."

Roberts: I, Barack Hussein Obama --

Obama: I, Bar --

Roberts: -- do solemnly swear

Obama: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear

Roberts: That I will executive the office of president to the United States faithfully

Obama: That I will execute ... (... line!)

(Presidentially awkward pause)

Roberts: The off -- faithfully the pres -- office of president of the United States

Obama: The office of president of the United States faithfully

Roberts: And will to the best of my ability

Obama: And will to -- best of my ability

Roberts: Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States

Obama: Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States (nailed that one!)

Roberts: So help you god?

Obama: So help me god.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Why so nervous, Obama? It's only one of the biggest events in history, with about the entire world watching you as you prepare to take the reins of the most powerful position ever created. Sure, you'll have to deal with a financial crisis or two, and the planet may melt before you leave office, but come on, loosen up! You sure were relaxed when you drained that three-pointer in Kuwait.

I guess this is what John McCain meant when he said Obama didn't have enough experience to be commander-in-chief. McCain has been sworn into the Senate four times as much as Obama has. He could have recited the oath while sleeping during one of his many daily naps.

Maybe Obama was so nervous that he tried one of those old stage-fright tricks, like picturing everyone naked. Everyone, all 2 million people chanting his name, and then Dick Cheney in a wheelchair, and then Justice Roberts -- no wonder he got a little befuddled.

Obama, you get maybe one more shot at this in four years, if you get reelected. Let's hope that when you said you would "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" that you also meant you would practice reading it every night.

UPDATE: Obama has been re-inaugurated, just to be sure that everything's squared away in the eyes of the constitutional gods.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Students Pack Classrooms and Coffee Shops

Joshua Sharp — 2009-01-20T11:10:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Small Campus, Big Story, Breaking News, USC

Joshua Sharp is reporting live from the University of Southern California as students gather to watch today's inauguration ceremonies. Check back throughout the day for more updates and student reactions.

8:10am PST / 11:10am EST
The student coffeehouse Ground Zero is serving as the main watch party for USC students willing to wake up at this unseemly hour, and the room is already packed to capacity. USC professors Dan Schnur and Roberto Suro are opening a discussion at 8:30am, with a huge projection screen displaying a C-SPAN feed of the inaugural festivities. There is a palpable feeling of nervous excitement in the air.

Other watch parties are being held around campus, in apartments and in my COMM-375 Nonverbal Communication class. Next update coming from there...

9:06am PST / 12:06pm EST
Our 9:30am class has opened early to host a live watch party. A few chuckles after Obama stumbled through the oath of office, but his speech delivery is almost flawless so far... lots of proud smiles around the room.

9:45am PST / 12:45pm EST
Laughter in the classroom as CNN displays the temperature in Washington, D.C.: 28 degrees Fahrenheit, feels like 17 degrees.

Los Angeles today is overcast with a high of 75 degrees. It's a bit chilly inside for us, too, though: Someone left on the air conditioner...

9:52am PST / 12:52pm EST
It's odd to see President Obama and former President George W. Bush walking side-by-side as they exit the inauguration ceremonies. As I remarked in an earlier post, Dubya was the first president that my generation of college students have really ever known. Times, they are a'changing...

My initial reaction to Obama's succinct, powerful inaugural address? Three parts of the speech really stood out to me:

"Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things ... "

An early challenge to his critics:

"... [T]here are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done ..."

And, a passage that could easily be voiced by Bush 43:

"We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."

Share your comments below, and stay tuned for instant student reaction over the course of the day.

11:56am PST / 2:56pm EST
Either "The Speech" was overhyped or Trojans are just hard to impress, because my conversations with students and staff around campus indicate a lukewarm, almost indifferent reaction to Obama's inaugural address today.

"It was good," shrugged Tyler Deutsch, a senior majoring in communication who watched Obama's speech over the Internet while at work.

Other students and staff members said the speech wasn't exceptional, but that they felt at least "satisfied" and more interested in seeing how the Obama Administration's policies actually develop. One student said she still hadn't watched the speech, but would after classes today.

Everyone expressed awe at the historic nature of Obama's presidency, but the tepid responses to his speech surprised me. We knew the immense hype surrounding Obama's inauguration would make it difficult for Obama to match expectations, but my impression was that he delivered a sharp, forceful address and met all of his objectives. Post your thoughts in the Comments section below...

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

How Much Will the Inauguration Cost?

Joshua Chaney — 2009-01-19T13:43:00+00:00

Filed under: US Elections, Politics, Featured Stories, News, Muskingum College

Over the past four years, things seem to have gradually gotten worse.

The economy is in the dumps, we're still at war and unemployment has skyrocketed.

Retail sales numbers are down, and there seems to be only two things that Americans are spending more on - video games and the inauguration.

Obama's inauguration, which includes 10 star-studded balls with megastar concerts, is expected to cost around $150 million.

That is actually relatively small compared to the amount of money Congress and the president have already and plan to pump in the economy. Maybe it's okay because it truly will be a historic moment of change for America.

We've elected our first African-American president.

But do we really need Beyonce, Sheryl Crow and Queen Latifah to help out?

In 2005, Democratic Reps. Anthony Weiner and Jim McDermott called for Bush to tone down the festivities in light of what past presidents have done in tough times.

"President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake," the two wrote Bush in a letter. "During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified."

No such requests have been made this time around, suggesting a double standard.

Obama's committee spokeswoman Linda Douglass said she thinks Americans will not see Obama's big party as excessive.

"It is not a celebration of an election," she told the Associated Press. "It is a celebration of our common values."

Perhaps it is.

And maybe in some way it will serve as a morale booster for consumers and actually help our economy.

Still, Obama stands to have spent more money on his first day in office than any other president before him, and with businesses failing, jobs evaporating and people losing their homes to foreclosure at record numbers, his big party stands to look a bit "undignified."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments