a (sort of) campaign report

I just voted -- which makes me a wonderful citizen, but you already knew that -- and it was interesting to note that my little polling place was experiencing unusally strong turnout. The clerks told me 250 or so voters had already passed through, which is very high for this early in a primary day. At my polling station, they hand you a ticket that identifies you as a Republican or a Democrat so the clerk handling the machines will know which electronic ballot to turn on as you enter the booth. The clerk then stacks the tickets on the table where you sign in, and it was interesting (there's that word again) to note that there were A LOT more Democratic tickets than GOP ones. Not sure what that means, considering Pee-A's system is not a winner-take-all, straight popular vote, but rather one in which a candidate must win a given congressional district, all of which are divided proportionally. However, the pledged delegates to the convention are NOT evenly distributed, which means it's more likely more delegates will come from Democratic strongholds like Pittsburgh and Philly. (Got that?) Anyway, with several hours to go until the polls close, I'm going out on a limb to predict John McCain will win today on the Republican side. Now THAT's punditry.

some jokes just tell themselves

The horrors of global warming have struck again: Seems an Earth Day celebration in Western Canada was wiped out by a blizzard, according this story in the Edmonton Sun. Where's Al Gore when we need him to fight the good fight?

hold page one: dick scaife endorses hillary clinton

Down is up, up is down: The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has endorsed Hillary Clinton in Tuesday's Pee-A Democratic primary. This is at once completely understandable and utterly unbelievable. Understandable because, with The Trib being one of the most politically conservative daily newspapers in the country, there's a cold calculation at work: On matters of policy, Clinton is clearly the lesser of two evils to right-wing wing nuts (ahem). And come November, given Obama's burgeoning status as a "rock star" candidate, The Trib no doubt figures John McCain has a better chance to beat Clinton should Clinton ultimately become the Dems' nominee. But still: Anyone who recalls Bill Clinton's presidency will remember the smear campaign against him conducted by The Trib's publisher, Richard Mellon Scaife, who financed, among other things, the notorious Arkansas Project. Anyone else recall when Hillary went on The Today Show to blast "the vast right-wing conspiracy" against her husband? Well, Dick Scaife was at the heart of all that. Sigh. Those were some days. That Scaife has now actually endorsed someone, anyone from the Clinton family has me wondering if the end of the world is nigh.

the obama-clinton debate last night

Jeepers, there's a lot of hand-wringing out there. Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News said Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos "disgraced [the] profession of journalism" because their general line of questioning wasn't quite in-line with what's on Bunch's mind. And Greg Mitchell of the Huffington Post agrees.

Well and well. A few thoughts:

1. There is too much on-the-surface stuff being discussed in this campaign, and much of it -- from Obama's pastor to Hillary's having to dodge bullets that were never fired, etc. -- has already been discussed, ad infinitum. Bunch is right: Enough is enough

2. That said, both candidates have addressed some of the issues near and dear to liberal voters -- from rising gas prices to the mortgage crisis to health care to withdrawal from Iraq -- quite often as well. Last I checked, Mr. Bunch, there's nothing wrong with questioning the candidates on matters outside the interests of comfortable, well-to-do liberal journalists whose own worldview is no less narrow than that of those monsters on right-wing talk radio. You may not realize it, Mr. Bunch, both "those people" will be voting, too.

3. Once more, this is why I recommend that people who are serious about this campaign -- and it is a serious campaign -- should do more to inform themselves than watch television or give serious consideration to what some knee-jerk A-hole like Kanye West ever has to say on the subject.

4. It can't be said enough, but here it is: MTV's long-standing campaign to "Rock the Vote" is stupid, and any statistic that shows very few registered voters show up at the polls is actually a good thing. Why? Because if you don't pay attention -- even a little, or at least enough to not be swayed by some last-minute campaign commerical -- I'd much rather you stay home on Election Day. Please.

CLARIFICATION: The other night, a friend informed me she had first registered to vote as a result of MTV's "Rock the Vote," saying it was worthwhile for her for having at least triggered an interest. In hindsight, I probably should have noted that "Rock the Vote" serves a purpose as an introduction, though I still think it short-changes young people because the responsibility of becoming an informed (and responsible) voter ultimately lies with that voter -- and in ways that go beyond sound bites or The Daily Show.

the meaning of fewer reporters on the campaign trail

Fascinating story on the front page of today's New York Times about what the economic reality of the journalism business is doing to campaign coverage -- namely, that fewer print media organizations are sending reporters on the road to cover the candidates full-time. As the story notes, the effects of this are obvious:

Traveling campaign reporters say they try to do more than just regurgitate raw information or spoon-fed news of the day, which anyone who watches speeches on YouTube can do. The best of them track the evolution and growth (or lack thereof) of candidates; spot pandering and inconsistencies or dishonesty; and get a measure of the candidate that could be useful should he or she become [sic] president.

With more and more newspapers cutting back on expenses and relying on wire services for on-the-road coverage, there are fewer eyes and ears to offer any kind of additional perspective. And competition, at least in the world of ideas, is good for consumers -- especially educated discerning consumers of news and information. The Times' story rightly notes that there is a lot of "pack journalism" out there -- those clusterfucks where everybody's asking the same question and getting the same answer. Sometimes, of course, clusterfucks can't be helped. But the best in the business find a way to mine for more -- talking to a candidates' advisers or other sources away from the fray, paying attention to non-verbal cues, making an extra phone call, etc. The increasing reliance on wire services, or on bloggers not getting a first-hand glimpse of the candidates on a day-to-day basis, does not, at least to my mind, bode well for us. All of us.

UPDATE: I changed the word "educated" to "discerning" above, since, upon further review, discerning readers need not necessarily be educated. The importance of editors can never be underestimated.

more on buckley & cope

Given that two of my all-time favorite public figures, William F. Buckley Jr. and Myron Cope, died on the same day Wednesday, I feel compelled to pass along some additional reactions:

* The Philadelphia Inquirer has a nice tribute of an editorial today that acknowledges exactly what it was that made Buckley so appealing: "Through it all he perfected the art of disagreeing without being disagreeable."

* Then there's George F. Will, ever eloquent, closing out his piece in The Washington Post with this: "Bill's distinctive voice permeated, and improved, his era. It will be forgotten by no one who had the delight of hearing it."

* I especially liked David Corn's blog at The Nation, a magazine about as ideologically at odds with Buckley's conservatism as any out there. Corn was particularly fond of the humorous approach Buckley brought to his longshot campaign for mayor of New York City in 1965. "I'd demand a recount," Buckley replied when asked what he'd do if he actually won. And when granted the opportunity to offer a rebuttal in a debate during that campaign, Buckley chose not to repeat what he had already said and replied simply, with his trademark arrogant wit: "I am satisfied to sit back and contemplate my own former brilliance." He will be missed.

* All of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's tremendous Cope coverage can be accessed here.

* Chico Harlan, recalling a personal encounter he had with Cope during the run-up to the Steelers' unlikely run to Super Bowl XL two years ago, concludes his P-G piece with a gem of an anecdote.

* And Gene Collier, whose wonderful obit on Cope from the P-G I had linked to earlier in the week, also wrote a column chock-full of lively stuff that also includes the following two sentences: "Entrances and arrivals were unforgettable, but this final departure stings like hell. The withering roster of people who really know how to live, how to enjoy life's every minute, is down one today." A fitting epitaph.

buckley, too?

William F. Buckley Jr. is dead at age 82. What a day: First Myron Cope, now WFB. Regardless of one's political persuasions, there's no denying Buckley was a titan in the world of journalism and commentary. He possessed refinement and a razor-sharp wit, and his prose sparkled with a patrician arrogance blended with a genuine graciousness and a true appreciation of the chase -- qualities that helped endear him personally to many of those who detested his opinions. I began reading National Review, the magazine he founded and that today mourns his passing, while in college, and I continue to do so because the writing is first-rate, and the depth of its commentary runs deep, in stark contrast to so much of the shallow shrillness that permeates talk radio and the farther reaches of the Internet. Buckley loved big words no one had heard of, and his passionate opposition to communism, scorned for so long by so many of our leading literary lights, helped lay the intellectual foundation for the eventual demise of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War, and freedom for untold millions. He was a revolutionary, in the truest sense of the word. He excised anti-Semites from his ranks, and sought to win his various wars of ideas with reason. He even acknowledged his mistakes, telling Time magazine in a Q&A a few years ago that he regretted his opposition to forced integration during the civil rights era. "Federal intervention," he said, "was necessary." He also sparked some controversy on the Right with his opposition to the Iraq war. He wrote prolifically, with a long-running newspaper column and books on topics ranging from religion to sailing to a series of spy novels, but the autobiography of his life as a Catholic is my among my favorites, as is God and Man at Yale, the forcefully argued work that challenged the intellectual landscape at his alma mater and kick-started his career in the early 1950s. His son, Christopher, has authored many books himself, including Thank You For Smoking, which was later adapted into a terrific film. Buckley's influence was truly boundless, and his legacy will be much commented upon in the coming days. As well it should be. R.I.P.

fatimah ali wrote what?

Every now and then, you come across something so mystifying stupid, something so jarringly short-sighted and foolish, you have to read it two or three times just to make sure you saw what you just saw. Take Fatimah Ali's column in today's Philadelphia Daily News. At the conclusion of a breathless, finger-wagging piece on our foul-mouthed cultural decline, a take that would be castigated as prudish were it authored by some Bible-banging moralist like Pat Roberston or Gary Bauer, Ali writes:

Have you noticed the increase in one-sided conservative talk-radio hosts? This is dangerous for our precious democracy. We must never forget that one of Hitler's first moves was to take over the radio airwaves in Germany before launching his Nazi empire.

Come again? The thrust of Ali's column takes aim at the deregulation of the airwaves, which she says has resulted in a marked increase in cultural filth. Very well. But rub your eyes and read that last paragraph again, then ask yourself how she can somehow segue into equating talk radio with Hitler's eventual rise. It's mind-numbingly idiotic. Deregulation, as I understand it, refers to allowing market forces to better determine what might be broadcast, with less interference from government. Right-wing talk radio -- whatever one's opinion of it may be -- is a product of market forces, not some government edict vis a vis Hitler. There is nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to prevent a liberal from setting up shop behind a microphone a spouting off about anything and everything. The reason this hasn't exactly caught on, of course, is because not enough people care to listen and not enough advertisers care to sponsor it. Besides, in an age in which information of all kinds, from one end of the political spectrum to the other, is so readily available via the Internet, is there really a reason to fear some looming leviathan of American Nazism? Only, it seems, on whatever planet from which Fatimah Ali has filed her column.

belichick admits it ... sort of

The Boston Globe has a fascinating story today about Spygate, with Bill Belicheat finally acknowledging his end of the bargain. The story outlines the specific rule Belicheat was caught violating, along with his response. And after stating he he never taped another team's walk-through, Belicheat had this to say about being caught red-handed filming the Jets's coaches' signals back on Sept. 9:

My interpretation was that you can't utilize anything to assist you during that game. What our camera guys do is clearly not allowed to be used during the game and has never been used during that game that it was shot. ... I respect the integrity of the game and always have and always will. I regret that any of this, or to whatever extent it has in any way brought that into question or discussion or debate. The decision was made by the commissioner, the practice was immediately stopped, and we're not doing it. ... Just going back over the whole taping incident, if I contacted the league and asked them about the practice, I'm sure they would have told me - as they have done - that it is not permissible. Then I could have avoided all of this. I take responsibility for it. Even though I felt there was a gray area in the rule and I misinterpreted the rule, that was my mistake and we've been penalized for it. I apologize to everybody that is involved - the league, the other teams, the fans, our team, for the amount of conversation and dialogue that it's caused. I misinterpreted the rule. The commissioner made his ruling and we've been penalized for it and tried to move on.

Interesting. The story does not address how many times the Patriots taped other teams' signals, nor does it address whether such information was then used in a later meeting between the teams, which gets back to what Sen. Arlen Specter was getting at last week.

spygate and ... the steelers?

U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, ever eager to do the people's business in the great commonwealth of Pennsylvania, now claims Bill Belicheat and the New England Patriots filmed the Steelers during the teams' two meetings in 2004, at least according to this Fanhouse blog on AOL.

Thanks to Diaz, a loyal Eagles fan (of all things) but a concerned Pennsylvania citizen, for the heads-up.

UPDATE FOR THOSE WHO DON'T GET IT: I'm being sarcastic. I really don't think Congress ought to be this involved in regulating professional football. Heck, even Dan Rooney agrees.

more clemens

As expected, many sports columnists around the country have weighed in on the Clemens hearings, and their perspective is enlightening. Here's a roundup of a few more that caught my attention. No need to thank me.

* Rick Telander of the Chicago Sun-Times couldn't help but notice that Jeff Novitsky, the IRS special agent responsible for investigating BALCO and bringing down Barry Bonds and Marion Jones, was in the house. Telander concludes Clemens had better watch out.

* Rich Hofmann of the Philadelphia Daily News wonders what was gained by the whole thing.

* Mike Lupica of the New York Daily News sounds confident that Clemens exposed himself as a perjurer.

* Gary Shelton of the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times seems convinced the hearings won't amount to much, though he did reach this insightful conclusion: "[a]fter looking at Congress in action, yes, it is a miracle that this country isn't in worse shape than it is. ... What I believe is that this was the brainless accusing the shameless in front of the clueless." Zing!

clemens, the day after

Sielski, after having fun with the A Few Good Men column, really gets to the heart of the matter with his piece in the Bucks County Courier Times today. A great read, and spot-on in terms of placing the blame ... on us. All of us. Because the bottom line is, what now? Pitchers and catchers report today, and if you're a baseball fan, you're excited. Nothing's really going to change, is it?

the clemens saga

So here we are, on the day before pitchers and catchers report for spring training, and Roger Clemens is testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which ESPN is carrying live. The spectacle is at once sad and unbelievable, just as Wallace Matthews said it would be in yesterday's Newsday. Clemens seems almost Clintonian in his denials, as though he actually believes his own lies. I can't help but be reminded of Mike Sielski's Jan. 15 column in the Bucks County Courier Times, which hilariously compares Clemens' pending testimony to Col. Nathan Jessep's in the film A Few Good Men. The great irony here, as a lawyer friend of mine just pointed out, is that absent a criminal conviction, there will always be some doubt (at least according to the reasonable standards of a court of law) about which side is really telling the truth. Astoundingly, McNamee appeared to be truthful with what he said about Clemens, given that his testimony was corraborated by Andy Pettitte, Chuck Knoblauch, and, apparently, Clemens' own wife. But somehow McNamee also seemed to be lying about himself. Very strange. Whether it's enough for the Department of Justice to seek a perjury conviction is now the open question, but without any hard evidence, it's tough to tell. In the meantime, Clemens seems likely to end up like Mark McGwire, whose evasions before Congress two years ago forever tainted his legacy despite no hard evidence to actually prove he was on the juice. Bud Selig must be proud.

specter, spygate & the super bowl

Let's start with this: For all the talk of his independence of mind, U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) can be a blowhard and an opportunist. And for his latest stunt, he's demanding to know why NFL commissioner Roger Goodell destroyed evidence of the New England Patriots' alleged spying on other teams, a matter that first surfaced back in September and quickly went away after the league office handed down its punishment. Not one to shy away from hyperbole, Specter even suggested the NFL's action was on par with the CIA having destroyed interrogation tapes. You know, because lives are at stake and stuff. Predictably, Dan Shaughnessy of The Boston Globe is outraged, going so far as to call Specter a "grandstanding yahoo Eagles fan with a lot of power," which, come to think of it, actually rolls right off the tongue with relative ease. Cynics (who? me?) will find it easy to point out that Specter waited until Nov. 15 to write a letter to the league office expressing his concern. Of course, cynics (me again) will also note the irony of Specter's having leaked this story to The New York Times just two days before the Patriots play the New York Giants in tomorrow's Super Bowl. All well and good. But then comes word that one Matt Walsh, a former Patriots intern and employee, may have information linking Bill Belichick to spying all the way back to when Coach Hoodie was in Cleveland. To say nothing of this Boston Herald report, which cites a source who says the Patriots taped the St. Louis Rams during a walk-through prior to Super Bowl XXXVI six years ago. Look, the Patriots are on the brink of something incredible, an undefeated season culminating with their fourth Super Bowl title in seven years. Personally, I think the NFL destroyed the tapes and levied the Patriots a fine and the forfeiture of a draft pick simply to make this thing go away. The hope, perhaps, was that everyone would focus on the punishment and forget about the possibility -- note I said possibility -- that this thing runs any deeper. If it did, it calls into question all of the Patriots' past achievements under Belichick. Shaughnessy, like most Patriots fans, takes umbrage in the notion that other teams were no doubt cheating, but that only the Patriots got caught. But not so fast. There's a distinct difference between stealing signals, which is and always has been gamesmanship, and positioning a video camera on the opposition's sideline in an attempt to steal signals. The league's rules are very clear on this. Considering the monumental achievement the Patriots are about to achieve by winning tomorrow, it's a shame. But the integrity of the game is the integrity of the game, and if there's more to this, we deserve to know. I do wonder whether this matter ought to be of any concern to Congress, but they do possess the subpoena power to compel witnesses like Walsh to testify. So expect more grandstanding from Washington, and more bellyaching from Boston. And in the meantime, let's all try to get on with our lives, OK?

campaign '08: the final four ... already?

While I'm tryingtryingtrying to avoid politics on this thing, I can't help but lament that we're pretty much down to Clinton and Obama among the Democrats, and McCain and Romney with the GOP, if only because most of us haven't yet had a say in the matter. I mean, Rudy's pretty much out on the Republican side because he chose to ignore Iowa and New Hampshire -- two states really representive of the electorate at-large, eh? -- while Edwards was basically dumped by the Dems because he lacks the star power (and identity politics) of Hillary and Obama. But how many states have already staged primaries and caucuses? Has it even been 10? How cool must the old days have been, when delegates were chosen in a timely manner and the parties' nominating conventions actually possessed the drama of who might get picked instead of the drab infomericals they've long since become. And to think, only nine more months 'til Election Day. Wake me when it gets here.