Postscript to the Democratic Convention

Full disclosure. Despite working over the past several years to cultivate a more accepting and tolerant persona (HT #1 to my friend JL), I'll fully admit that I'm writing this post while angry. Why, may you ask? Read on...

I'm currently watching the Democratic Convention, which is on it's last legs days. Just waiting for the only part that matters, the speech by the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton. She has a high bar that has only been made higher over the past two weeks, strangely enough not only by last week's GOP convention, but by the earlier events of this week's convention. I'm going to briefly aire my griefs regarding the serious miscarriage of justice in what was supposed to be a Hillary love-fest, but instead became a "please vote for me" pander-fest. It's so sad, because as yucky as a candidate as Goldman Sachs is, the DNC could have put better makeup on that candidate, but instead settled for a reactionary stew of disjointed themes and simply bad choices.

Let's start with the good. Michelle Obama. Good isn't adequate, she rocked her Monday speech. MONDAY! What, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, did you think she was going to suck? Probably the best speech that no one ever saw live, I strongly suspect this may end up being the political equivalent, if Hillary wins, of the 1980 Winter Olympic hockey game when the US beat the Russians. Everyone likes to say "I remember watching the game at..." when in fact it was broadcast at something like 2 a.m., and really, who was going to watch the 'mericans get creamed by the Russian Army? So might it be with Michelle's speech. But in a nutshell, here's why it rocked. One, she's a natural, engaging speaker. Great delivery. Two, even a dolt like me can talk at length about my kids. Hell, I can talk at length about anything, but that's for another post. So FLOTUS talking about her girls, and how electing the first woman President would impact them and girls everywhere, that works, regardless of party. If the Dems have any common sense they should already be making the commercial. Equally as importantly, it was a welcome distraction from the fiasco that was the Wikileaks e-mail release, the DNC rigging the primary contest for Hillary, and ultimately the Debbie Wasserman Schultz resignation, a day late and a dollar shy. BAD people, BAD. The Clintons aren't loyal (not like crazy Donald, or crazy W, for that matter) so why on Earth the delay? DWS should have been booked back to Miami the moment those e-mails became public fodder. So again, thank Michelle Obama for saving the entire train wreck of a convention from being even worse.

Day 2, Bill Clinton. "Who" asks the voting public under the age of 30? Oh yea, the President who was having an affair with an intern. Yea, the guy who's married to Hillary. If you heard his Tuesday speech, my apologies. Contrary to the public beatification by most of the TV commentators, I thought his speech was bad, bordering on awful. It was long, it was meandering (even the commentators agreed), and if you weren't already being paid to listen and comment, you turned onto a rerun of Game of Thrones long long before Bill got to anything worth remembering. So "no", I did not think it was a good or a helpful speech.

Day 3 is called "moving day" at the Masters golf tournament, and the convention followed that game plan, forgetting that the convention is nothing like a golf tournament. Wednesday brought out the big guns, Vice President Joe Biden and President Obama, to shill for the Hill. Biden went first, and reminded the crowd that they nominated the wrong Democrat, again. (Full disclosure #2, after Bernie, I'm a Biden guy. Better a gaffe-prone yet honest politician than the one who buys the election and has her own home server). The talking heads said that Biden offers appeal to the "blue collar, working class whites" that Hillary needs. Except that Joe ain't running for President, idiots, the darling of Wall Street is. Biden's speech was sincere, moving, and on point, and furthered my anger at the election that could have been, where any other Democrat would have crushed the Donald like an orange ant. But hey, I'm not a Democrat. They can drive they're own bus into the creek. Next was President Obama, who reminded the loyal audience why they loved him in the first place, and "if you love me, vote for Hillary to preserve my legacy". He can really give a speech, but when the content is sketchy... that was the case here. But no doubt both speakers delivered a welcome level of emotion previously displayed only by the disgruntled Bernie supporters in the crowd. But, unlike the Masters, the winner needs to close on the last day, and that's the predicament where Hillary finds herself. Where all the lights, in the aftermath of a build up of solid moving speeches by Michelle, Joe, and POTUS, are shining exclusively on her, Hillary needs to deliver the goods, or else. But as they say, no guts, no glory. We'll see how she handles it, but don't doubt for a moment that it isn't important.

So, does me being angry and negative over a crap Democratic convention mean I'm voting for the xenophobic demagogue? No, but it makes me think he's got a more legitimate shot (than last week) of being our next President, if simply because the Dems put on a crap convention. It could have been so much better. Even with Hillary.

This blog isn't intended to lead you to vote one way or another, or for that matter, vote at all (HT #2, DH, but I'm not done yet). I'm using the blog as a soapbox to present an alternative take on what you see and read in the popular press and media regarding this wild election season. Not necessarily contrarian, but definitely not beholden to any political party or ideology. So if my opinionated musings lead you to vote the Donald, good for you. Likewise, if you choose Goldman Sachs, that's cool as well. But at least you'll have read an opinion that isn't just red or blue. Or even purple, for that matter. Back to you, previous non-voter DH. Not voting IS as much a choice as voting for one or another (or Green party, or Libertarian, or whatever). I don't believe that "not voting for "blank" is a vote for "blank #2". That's crap. Contrarian voting is rare at best, and there's no evidence I can cite that showed it ever making a difference. My advice is that you think about it, and do what's right for you. (started and ended the post with another HT to JL, that's symmetry for 'ya). Hillary's just coming on now, after a mediocre (sorry) intro by her daughter Chelsea. I'm getting a drink refill.

Thanks as always for reading!

Last Call at the OK Corral

Full disclosure. This GOP Convention has been a bit like one too many times through the line at Old Country Buffet. Can't resist, sometimes it's just too tempting.

Take home message. He might win.

A quick business school lesson about strategy is relevant here. A yugge part of a good strategy is deciding what you DON'T want to do, so you don't waste time/money/effort that is better spent elsewhere. Did you know, gentle reader, that the percentage of the voting electorate that is white, non-Hispanic is about 70%? (Pew Research). Let's cut to the chase. Trump simply wants a larger share of this largest share. That's it. Simple. There's no Plan B. If you look at everything Trump and the GOP says and does between now and November through this very simple prism, then you'll have 20/20 insight into their game plan. It's really that simple. Everything else is just static. Trump's path to success is getting a larger share of the white vote.


As promised, I watched much of this week's GOP convention so you wouldn't have to, and before the paint is even dry on Donald Trump's acceptance speech, I've already sorted out the wheat from the chaff of the convention, and as they have as a saying somewhere, we'll see if this dog will hunt.

Day 1 highlights. Or highlight, 'cause all everyone will remember from day 1 is Melania Trump successfully combining her Derek Zoolander persona with Michelle Obama's words for a great speech that unfortunately was already given eight years ago. Sure, there were other speakers, but c'mon, they were nothing but filler, and if you're interested, they included a guy from Duck Dynasty, a few Navy Seals (one was the guy they did the "Lone Survivor" movie about), the long-winded general who was on the VP list, and well after bedtime Joni Ernst, the freshman Senator from Iowa famous for making a TV commercial about castrating pigs. Their speeches should have been plagiarized, because they were boring. The prototypical convention fare.

Day 2 was highlighted, correctly, with a speech by Donald Trump, Jr., who honestly did a pretty good job representing the Rich Kids of Instagram. It was catnip for the red-state crowd, which was the only intended audience, as it was Day 2, with the only other audience on TV being losers like yours truly. I think Chris Christie spoke also, but it was typical Christie, fire and brimstone and he's not the VP, so merely an afterthought.

Day 3 was entertaining as it was Ted Cruz's Waterloo. Political junkie or not, a train wreck is a train wreck, and in his case, intentionally stirring up hatred of himself among those who are probably his only potentially sympathetic group outside of blood relatives is just plain stupid, but I'm no fan. His completely self-absorbed death wish was jaw-dropping, and like a blue moon (the first one being Melania's cribbed speech on day one), it sucked all the oxygen away from Mike Pence's otherwise milquetoast introductory VP speech. By the way, Governor Pence is the VP nominee. You can forget about him again.

All of this brings us to day 4 and the only part of any consequence (claimed by none other than David Plouffe, Obama's 2008 campaign manager, who was in attendance in Cleveland), Donald Trump's acceptance speech. Yes, Ivanka rocked the house, but with all due respect, she had already set a high bar for herself; she cleared it in style. The Don is speaking right now as I type. I'm not really listening because it's nothing that hasn't been said a thousand times before. I'm really listening for style and tone, and I get it. Turning the populist dial to a thousand, subtly turn down the not-too-subtle misogyny and bigotry (but just a little), and there you have the campaign game plan on to November. Talk about message discipline. Make America Great Again. Repeat over and over until November. That's it. Crazy thing is, it might be enough.

Notes for the Clinton campaign. Please Hillary, don't listen to folks like your man Van Jones (talking head on CNN) who is constantly complaining about the lack of a policy specifics being presented during the GOP convention. It's funny watching his fellow commentators look at him like he either had too little sleep or too much coffee, because that's simply crazy talk from a guy who probably TIVOs C-SPAN. Hillary, do not talk policy, as much as you might want to, 'cause that's the stuff of NyQuil. Say what you want, but the GOP Convention has been nothing but must-see TV for political junkies, a NASCAR race where there's a crash EVERY SINGLE NIGHT. It's politics in the Octagon. Talking about policy is basically saying "please turn the channel and see if there's a rerun of The Walking Dead". Anything will Trump (pun intended) a discussion of policy. Don't take the bait.

Go 'Merica's advice to Clinton-world on the eve of the Democratic Convention. Less Clinton (Hillary), more Clooney (George). You own Hollywood, you own Silicon Valley, you own Wall Street. Make them work for you, 'cause they have almost as much at stake as you do. My suggestion for the Dems. Target the young voter. They mostly hate Trump. They're underrepresented in the polls. They're perhaps a little more resistant to populist rhetoric, as most haven't had firsthand experience in having their entry level jobs moved overseas. Yet. So yes, get the cool kids, the popular kids, the rich kids. The Kanyes. The Kims. The Swiftees (well, that's not gonna happen). Hell, get the Black Eyed Peas back together again. Whatever you do, don't talk about Brexit, don't talk monetary policy. Please please please. Don't take that bait.

Bears repeating, I don't have an active bet in this game. I'm a Bernie guy, so basically I put my money on a horse that lost. Now I'm just handicapping the contest ahead. And the GOP, despite the naysayers, put on a strong opening salvo. I'll be back next week with how the Clintons respond. Hold on and stay tuned.

Last notes. Haters of all persuasions, don't be discouraged. Presidents are term-limited.

The GOP Convention Viewing Guide

Full disclosure. This is your guide, gentle readers, not mine. I anticipate I'll watch and parse every minute I'm able, with toothpicks to keep my eyes open when they really (and I mean really) should be shut. That is definitely not the advice I'm giving you. I'm just letting you know that you'll be able to come to the blog in the convention aftermath, after the talking heads have moved on, to get the straight dope on where the crazy train is heading when it leaves Cleveland. "Mistake on the lake" was never a more appropriate tagline for a city. Sorry, Cleveland, but at least you have the Cavs.

My advice to watching the GOP Convention. Don't. Really. That's why cable TV was created.



Sorry, that doesn't mean no blog this week, but really, the Convention is what, 28 days long? There's nothing, and I mean NOTHING, of even passing interest that won't be all over regular TV, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram within seconds of it happening. Hell, I have no doubt (like no doubt) that come time for the presumptive nominee of the GOP, Donald J. Trump, to give his acceptance speech, a Pokemon will suddenly appear out of the orange forest he calls his hair, and millennials all over the nation will jump out of their confederate flag Snuggies and raise their smartphones in victory. Or something like that. Like sports psychologists say, don't watch the Convention, let the Convention come to you.

Donald's dilemma.




The vast overwhelming majority of Americans, voters or otherwise, can name only one of the items pictured above. The other is watching the other one dry. What might your blogger have against the plesant conservative Governor from the great state of Indiana? Nothing, which is exactly why he's simply a ridiculous choice for a VP to the nothing-if-not-volatile el Presidente Trump. Yea yea yea, he's a conservative, yes, he's an evangelical, yea he's white, yea, he's from Indiana a swing state. I think absolutely none of that matters in this black swan of an election season. The "safe" candidate is probably the worst choice that Trump could possibly make, and I'll give you reasons why that's the case as well as the "what the hell are they thinking" that got them to the doorstep of Governor Pence as VP candidate.

Let's use a very unfortunate yet timely analogy. What are the odds that ISIS thinks that, by buying a few aircraft carriers and an M1 Abrams tank or two, that they will suddenly be competitive with the Allied coalition? ISIS may be religious zealots, but they are not stupid religious zealots. The Donald has not gotten to the doorstep of the Convention by being anything close to conventional, why on Earth does he start now? Well, here's my attempt at election psychology 101, and it starts with fear. Fear? Yup, it all begins with fear. On the cusp of something that no sane human would have thought possible 12 months ago, the Don is close to the starting gate of the ultimate horse race, the race for the Presidency of the United States. Now THIS close to the that previously unimaginable goal, there's a heightened level of anxiety amongst the Trump camp that the stakes are too high to be playing insurgent any longer. This anxiety is, IMO, most likely manifest amongst the Trump male children, followed by Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager, then Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, followed by Ivanka, who quite honestly doesn't really need this shit. The Trump juniors likely (and rightfully) see this as their entree into an echelon of society that money can't buy. For Manafort, this is redemption for his political rivals that see him as nothing but a B-list politico. For Kushner, I unfortunately suspect this is really an attempt to even the score with Chris Christie, who as US Attorney successfully prosecuted Kushner's father, a big hitter real estate developer in New York. Lastly, why might Ivanka not be on the Pence train? One, I do believe she's the brains in the outfit (and thus agrees with me) that Pence is a mainstream anchor to the Trump rocket. Two, she's very much Daddy's girl, and as such likely things like her father more than any of the inner circle. And her father wants Christie.

Yes, I still believe that Petraeus is a much better choice than even Christie, but we can't always get what we want, and maybe that's the case with Trump as well. Petraeus may simply have said, "NFW", or...maybe he's a surprise visitor to Cleveland. There's always hope. But Christie is a solid choice, for no more than the simple reason that Trump likes him, and this would easily be the most Penn and Teller-like campaign EVER, and who could resist that? But quasi-seriously, Christie is likable (sorry Dems, he really is likable, you can continue to hate his policies), articulate on the stump, and LOVES a fight. He's simply a great VP candidate. Petraeus just brings a lot more gravitas to the table, and would do a lot to reassure the 3 remaining countries in the EU that we've still got their backs.

Wow, a long blog post for a Convention I'm warning you not to watch, but if you're still wanting to set the Tivo, here's some hints. Paul Ryan will give an impassioned, yet boring, speech trying to show Americans that the GOP really does care. Will not sway a single vote. Scott Walker will pander to the crowd, and will only mention taking on the unions about a million times. Melania Trump will do her very best Derek Zoolander impersonation and will be unintentionally hilarious. Ivanka will seal the deal to replace Kelly Ripa on "Ivanka and Derek (Jeter)". Newt Gingrich will be time to take a potty break. And the Don? Watch that, it should actually be something. And it will very possibly make the Clinton camp nervous. Can't wait.

Next time, either a "VP told ya so" or a "Live from the Democratic Convention" edition of the blog. Whatever seems more apropos. Thanks for reading!

Independence Day and VP - food and wine pairings edition

Full disclosure. A short blog this week on account of the holiday. Quick recap. Yes, "Brexit" happened, and after a day or two of freaking out, it's like nothing ever happened. Stock market back up again as the world shrugs it collective shoulders and lumbers on.

In the relative media lull before the GOP and Democratic nominating conventions, idle chatter has focused on the VP picks for each party, who appear to be saving the announcement for the convention as to give people a reason to watch. Everyone on both sides seems to have gotten the memo to "lay low", except for Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General, ie the TOP LAWYER OF THE GOVERNMENT, who somehow didn't think it inappropriate to meet with the husband of the presumptive Democratic nominee for President of the United States, who is currently under investigation by the FBI for possible misuse of security clearance with regards to her personal e-mail server, etc...

Okay, conspiracy theorists, here's some gasoline. Ms. Lynch is neither a liar nor an idiot. The perception of impropriety, made unambiguously obvious, was an intentional, and successful, effort to allow the Obama administration to take a clear step back from the FBI investigation, as to give it a big push towards the appearance of impartiality. Today it's reported that the Justice Department, of which Ms. Lynch is the boss, will follow whatever recommendations come from the FBI with regards to Hillary's home brew e-mail server. It may or may not appease those that suspect the system is "rigged" (Bernie, the Don). But please don't think it's an "accident". Geez.




Back to the more entertaining topic of the Veepstakes. Beating the told-you-so dead horse, Tim Kaine remains in the poll position on the Democratic side, even if the MSNBC crowd pines for Elizabeth Warren, and her feisty 1/32 Native American attacks on the Donald. Why not Liz, if she's so damn effective? Think of it this way. When you sit yourself down for lunch in your corporate cafeteria, after choosing either the salad bar or the "entree of the day" which is either frozen pizza or Friday "square fish", do you, gentle reader, think to yourself, "I can see pairing this with the 2011 Caymus Cab I have cellared at home"? Yea, me neither (possessing neither a cellar, nor a Caymus of any vintage). Ms. Warren is an incendiary device, a liberal Roman Candle who, when lit, burns a white hot progressive flame shouting, "Big Government Rules! Crush the Big Banks!" Meanwhile, standing next to her in her shadow, is Hillary on her Blackberry, getting Snapchat messages from Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, saying "WTF?". Liberal foodies, this pairing does not work. Sen. Kaine, while admittedly boring, is 2-buck Chuck, or in this case, 2-buck Tim. Inoffensive and just acceptable enough. Which makes him the perfect Hillary VP.

In contrast, what do you pair with Marmite? Toxic sludge? NO! You get either bread (or biscuits, as they say in Brexit-land), or you say "screw it, gimme a shot and a beer". While I'm still waiting for Gen. Petreaeus to step up and make the general election a real contest, those discussions are still hush-hush, or nonexistent. So into the news void steps up the "shot and a beer" candidates, Chris Christie and Newt Gingrich. Of these two I have to give the nod to the Jersey boy, for several reasons. One, he's a brawler in a way that the Donald only pretends to be (ie Trump more likely to pay someone else to do his fighting). Two, he has an "everyman" appeal that's a different flavor than the Donald's (Christie is usually not a demagogue). And three, he's more than volatile enough to pair well with the Don's outrageousness. Gingrich? I'm not a fan, so I'm going to have to guess on this one. Perhaps appealing to the folks that think Sean Hannity is the Solomon of judging "great Americans", I think the Newt's utter absorption with himself makes him an odd pairing with a candidate who's even more absorbed with himself. Like the idea pairing Marmite with a generic version of Vegemite (if there is such a thing). I just don't see it working. On this side, I still see Petraeus for the win, Christie the likely one for place, and Gingrich for essentially no one's show except the demise of the GOP.

Well, it may be uninteresting, but it ain't boring. Thanks for reading, and have yourselves a great Holiday. Go 'Merica!