Homage to Cardiff

In light of recent readings and musings, I felt this tune was most appropriate. During my exploration of all things Britpop back in 2000/2001, I got into the Manic Street Preachers. They're not quite Blur, Pulp, or the Stone Roses, but they've got a trove of ace tunes in their catalog. At a Radiohead concert I attended in 2001 (the watershed Kid A tour), amidst phalanx after phalanx of self-important fans, Thom Yorke busted out a few lines from "If You Tolerate This Then Your Children Will Be Next". No one knew what was up, but my friend Alex and I smiled at each other in a truly enlightened moment. It was a clever nod to a fellow "New-Serious" band of Britrock, and arguably their finest song. With 2008 and Neocon sabotage ever looming in my mind (HERE, and even HERE), I can't find this any less pertinent. Especially considering the song was written about sympathizers who joined the Republican cause against Fascism in the Spanish Civil War. Still have to read that George Orwell...

Cool Kids of Democracy

The following is an off-the-cuff commentary of the Democratic presidential candidates, primarily focusing on John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. This comes in light of the incident at a recent debate, where the two discussed holding "smaller, more focused debates", and after which it seems as though Hillary shifted all blame and responsibility onto Edwards. Follow that with last week's YouTube debate, in which Edwards landed a nice swipe at Hillary's stuffiness and poor fashion sense. Not surprisingly, she was not amused. (This was also written before the Peace Czar and the Quabbin Quontry Querier caught Edwards speak in Windham, NH. More on that in the next few days.)

Seriously, John Edwards is out there rocking the passion, virtue, and charisma we’d expect out of a populist candidate. He doesn’t speak from the gut, per se—it’s more like a meeting of the heart and hands, the blood and the grit of real, regular America. The gut is for anyone who’s been chewing on something far longer than they should, a digestive problem in the body politic. He’s up there, all poise and aplomb, putting Hillary’s hyper-shrewd overachiever to shame with her hollow guardedness, speaking truth to power, whilst making adoring hearts swoon in the process.

But people talk about and scrutinize what personality is most becoming a president, whose very demeanor is best suited for the job. On that note, I’ll examine the seeming characters of these two, considering for both positives and negatives. Hopefully I’ll draw some further conclusions along the way, perhaps conclude which qualities are yet lacking, and what other candidates may present those crucial assets. Bear in mind I have no PhD in social or clinical psychology, no experience on K Street or the campaign trail, but I have a pretty decent sense of people that suck and those that don’t.

I wouldn’t be good friends with a John Edwards type in my life, but an individual like that might be an acquaintance to someone in my coterie. Confident, smooth (a little too Ron Burgundy smooth?), very forthright yet clever enough to get in a few jabs to the ribs. Beautiful rhetoric, more an athlete of its form rather than a scholar, but very adept nonetheless. Probably a cool guy to hang out with, grab a beer or two and talk life. Probably a little tough to breach deeper subjects with, but a very keen listener, very perceptive, very reliable. Almost a bit of a trickster, one of those people using language to their advantage while respecting the medium. And that comes from the perspective of a performer, not as a politician. Which I hope validates the compliment. That bit comes from Hip: The History, which a sweet cultural history of “hip” culture as it has constantly evolved uniquely within America’s history. Sufficed to say, his political approach would be an art form of suave but envelope-pushing performance, a Beckham-style presidency with a generous amount of yellow cards, if you will.

Conversely, we have Madam Hillary Rodham Clinton. I knew a few girls like her in high school; the cold, scheming-to-get-ahead girls in all the top classes and vying for all the top honors and clubs. Her friends consisted primarily of all the other top-tier, wound-up girls. But maybe one of her numerous autobiographies vindicates her!! Maybe, Hillary was everyone’s friend (as she envisions), knowing kids from all across the spectrum, both racially and socially. But hanging out with someone like this would be an exercise in tortured courtesy and politeness. Not really wanting to hear what she has to say, probably fearing the bland annoyance of whatever her interests and views are. Get her started on a subject and her bombastic complicity (or is it complacency?) will come right out into gaping view. And considering she hops around with the other ego-chariot drivers, what are you really going to relate on? A blunt opinion on how to accomplish something, but with no insight or real trust into what those means might be. Shadowy? Not quite, but enough to say, “what is this person all about?”

When it comes to sincerity, regarding the two aforementioned, we’re still lacking. Barack Obama presents some of that hopeful audacity (I paraphrase!), but I’m not sure if the stones are fully there to say and DO what he truly feels is right. His rise to a national figure is well merited and very valuable, but I’m not if him in a position as large as president is a wise choice yet. I contrast him to John Edwards in that both are charming, but Obama is far more precise, tactical in his speaking, while Edwards a bit more candid. I haven’t seen Obama at events, where his oratory flows better and is more uplifting, but if I can see him just loosen up a bit, I’d have restored faith that he’s an open and curious person. Politically bi-curious, Butters style?

Dennis Kucinich, certainly a fellow Bleeding Heart, exudes compassion and a genuine understanding of the “interconnectedness” of everything. If he wins, I’d love him to open a Department of Veganism along with his Department of Peace, so people could understand what a sustainable, plant-based lifestyle means on a broader scale of implications. Healthcare, the pharmaceutical industry, subsidized cattle grazing, and global warming are ALL intertwined. He knows it, I know it, and in one stream of consciousness speech to a jazz beat could explain it to any curious parties. The fact that other candidates don’t acknowledge, pay attention, or even recognize issues in these vital ways is seriously lacking in their world outlook.

Mike Gravel should be getting a lot more credit than just the curmudgeonly uncle up there on the podium. This man led a ONE MAN filibuster of the Senate for FOUR months in 1971 over Vietnam. He brought the Pentagon Papers into the Senate and tearfully read them into the Senate record. His words cut through complacent artifice like getting pelted in the face with an Alaskan snowball. Bottom line, he calls people out.

In contrast, Joe Biden has the grit to come down hard on people, but not often those within his own party. He has plenty of rhetoric and fire at Bush and the GOP and issues such as the war and international relations, but he is certainly not leading the Democratic opposition to the war. He could very well be a colonel in the Senate’s battle, but he is no general, fully leading the charge (I’m remiss to give Harry Reid that credit, as well).

Chris Dodd has a warmth and wisdom about his character, the Wise White Owl of Connecticut, as I like to call him (check out that wavy mane of white hair!). But he’ll put out some good ideas, and perhaps even push candidates with regard to environmental reform, but I wouldn’t see this man fit for anything higher than VP.

The lone candidate remaining, out on patrol in New Mexico as the “Border Governor”, is Bill Richardson. I’ve been very impressed by his platforms, particularly his energy policies, but again the man does not project presidential. Not that it should matter, but I really need to see the guy speak in public in a convincing, charming matter to change my overall opinion. My friend, the Quabbin Quontry Querrier, has had two such opportunities in New Hampshire. Apparently having scoffed at how pathetic our energy policies and fuel standards are, as well as his soundbite about boycotting the Beijing Olympics if China does not use its leverage to abate the Darfur Crisis, shows some real gusto and willingness to push the envelope to solve problems. Two of the most important arguably: energy independence (and inherently global warming and foreign wars for oil) and international diplomacy (as a more benign “world peacekeeper”).

Do I dare mention the “X-Factor”? Or the “G-Unit” I suppose, in the form of Big Al Gore? The guy has been out there taking care of business, constantly coordinating movements and efforts to raise awareness on global warming/climate change. He talks straight smack about Bush’s policy choices, and dissected their vile, still-squirming body in The Assault on Reason (I can’t call it a “cadaver” just yet). He seems to talk like he knows what the big corporations are doing, and what evil, unstoppable forces they truly are. From one egghead to another, I’d like to see him come on the scene as the Egon Spangler of restoring Washington, catching every last ghost and evil spirit that’s plagued our nation for the past 7 years. Tougher question; who’s his Peter Venkman? Obama or Edwards? Ray Stantz… Chris Dodd? Winston Zedimore? Gravel, Richardson? Zuul? Hillary Rodham Clinton.