"In a world of 1s and 0s...are you a zero, or The One?" The Matrix (1999)
The recent line of right-wing attacks on Barack Obama have been to emphasize his popularity and turn it against him by painting him as nothing more than a celebrity -- "an empty suit" was the phrase I heard one pundit use. Right-wing trolls and bloggers have commonly taken to referring to Senator Obama online as "The One." This attempt at sarcasm is a reference to the character 'Neo' from the movie, The Matrix. As they do this, I have to wonder if they realize who this makes them in their self-created Matrix scenario: Agents? Sentinels? If, in a world of ones and zeros, Barack Obama is "The One," what is John McCain?
"I have a lot of Arab business partners. I do a lot of business in the Middle East. I've got a lot of friends," Sargeant said in a telephone interview yesterday. "I ask my friends to support candidates that I think are worthy of supporting. They usually come through for me."
Steve Pearce in New Mexico and John Kennedy in Louisiana both went up with ads.
Walmart is giving more to Democrats than Republicans.
Through June, Wal-Mart's PAC had contributed to 86 House Democrats this cycle, amounting to just more than one-third of the Caucus. That's more than the 77 House Democrats Wal-Mart supported in 2006 and the 62 that received PAC money in 2004.
Since 2004, Wal-Mart has given $27,500 to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.), $22,500 to House Majority Whip James Clyburn (S.C.), $12,000 to Chief Deputy Whip Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), and $20,500 to House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (N.Y.)...
In 2004, Wal-Mart's PAC contributed $69,500 to the CBC, its members and its members' PACs. Two years later, the PAC's total CBC contributions reached $108,050. This cycle, it's already reached $100,500, with more money left to be handed out.
The Blue Dogs PAC, its members and their PACs have cashed $203,500 worth of Wal-Mart PAC checks this cycle, exceeding their 2006 total ($185,000) with four months left. Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus have received $64,500 in Wal-Mart money this cycle, matching their 2006 take.
The Cunning Realist looks at Anthrax in the media's 'greatest hits'.
And I come back to you now - at the turn of the tide.
To pile on Matt's post below, it appears McCain made a major miscalculation with his celebrity attack ad. Hilton's response is now the top story on Google News, and apparently the McCain campaign is receiving so many media requests about it, that they had to post a from response on their website. They have gotten into a spat with Paris Hilton, which there is basically no way to win. Hilton has nothing to lose, and the back and forth just highlights the frivolic idiocy of McCain's recent attacks.
It feels really weird to say it, but Paris Hilton kind of feels like Gandalf returning to Middle Earth, "at the turn of the tide." Her age-based attacks on McCain are even in line with Obama's new ad that opens with a line that could be interpreted as a shot at McCain's age. McCain is going to be on the defensive now, even though he started the attack in the first place. Obama's "proud to be ignorant" line is getting a lot of play, too.
Paris Hilton is playing a not insignificant role in the presidential election. Who'd have thunk it? Man, politics is weird.
How is it that despite adulatory media coverage, long lines of volunteers at his campaign offices, and Americans deeply unhappy about the direction of the country, Barack Obama is rapidly losing support - and control of the agenda - to John McCain?
It's because Obama has reverted to the whiny, wimpy style that nearly allowed Hillary Clinton to wipe him out in September, 2007 - until he found his backbone and actually started to stand up for himself.
When McCain launches volley after volley of attack on Obama's policies (with photos of Paris and Brittany thrown in to get the media's attention), what's Obama's response? To ride in on his My Little Pony and cry because McCain is - how low! - criticizing his policies and questioning his capacity to lead in a mildly creative way.
This self-righteous simpering might make Obama supporters feel like he's "changing the tone" of politics, but it's not doing anything to stop his slide, shape the debate, or answer the legitimate question the McCain campaign keeps asking: is Obama actually ready to lead?
So far, Obama's response is to give McCain's advisers exactly what they want: McCain attacks, Obama complains about the attacks and then capitulates on everything from illegal wiretapping to offshore oil drilling. Obama is once again caught up in the great Democratic myth that voters make up their minds by carefully calibrating which candidate's issue positions are closest to his own (a major topic of my book, Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party).
Newsflash, Obama: To most voters, campaigns are not an egghead mental Olympics between two walking policy platforms. They're primal battles that test how candidates respond under fire. And for the last several weeks, Obama has been failing that test: crying about McCain's attacks and then surrendering. To most voters, this sends a simple message: if Obama can't stand up to a babbling incompetent like John McCain, how is he ever going to stand up to the oil executives, the health care lobby, or, for that matter, Osama bin Laden?
Yesterday, while reading the McCain's campaign's deep, philosophic defense of the Britney Spears and Paris Hilton ad, this line struck me as strange:
"What we decided to do is find the top three international celebrities in the world, and I would say from our estimations Britney and Paris came in second and third," Davis said. "So from our perspective we have in this ad the three biggest celebrities in the world."
So, the McCain campaign was sitting around, trying to rank the top three celebrities in the world? That sounds like a dignified, important piece of work for a presidential campaign. But I have to wonder-how did they arrive at this determination?
Today, after looking at my email, I think I have the answer: spam. Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Barack Obama do actually appear to be the three people who show up the most often in spam emails. For example, here are the subject lines of the following spam emails in just the last twenty-four hours:
Britney and Paris Lesbian video
For: chris. Britney and Paris Lesbian video
Paris and Britney nude.
Paris Hilton Free Video.
Britney caught nude again. Watch.
Britney Spears and Paris Hilton are lovers. Video proof.
Britney and Paris having fun together. Watch.
While, in the last twenty-four hours, I didn't receive any spam email about Obama being a secret Muslim, or wanting to destroy the United States, and hating whitey, or not wearing a flag pin, it does happen on a fairly regular basis. Obama probably ranks third, behind Paris Hilton and Britney Spears on this front.
So, there you have it. If you are looking at spam email that engages in lying, slanderous attacks, then Obama probably is one of the three top "celebrities" in the world. However, all that really means is that the attacks on Obama are about as false and stupid as the emails people receive about supposed videos of Paris and Britney making out while nude.
(Also, let me say that looking through my spam folder was a frightening experience.)
