Anything but the E-word: a Political Cautionary Tale

Just when you thought it was safe to support a presidential candidate based upon irrational factors such as qualifications, job experience, shared ideologies and values, the E-word reared its divisive little head. No, I’m not talking about evil or exit polls, but something far more dangerous to the electoral psyche: electability. There, I said it, but out of fear of saying it again, thus feeding its power, I will not say it again.

During the 2004 presidential election, the E-word managed to single-handedly destroy Democratic voters and their ability to think for themselves. And now, four years later, the political tables have turned as the E-word has seeped its way into GOP waters. As the second-quarter filing deadline neared last week, U.S. Sen. John McCain’s campaign manager sent out an e-mail soliciting donations from supporters, providing them with one reason to support McCain: "John McCain is the only candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton.” Campaign manager Terry Nelson helped drive home this fear at the end of the message: “Please also pass this message along to your friends and family to remind them of the stakes in this election.” I assume by stakes he meant Clinton winning the nomination.

I imagine McCain’s rivals might have other ideas about this, not to mention Clinton’s Democratic rivals. Nonetheless, McCain’s stoking of the GOP base’s “Anybody but Hillary” fire is reminiscent of the “Anybody but Bush” mental quagmire that ensnared the Democrats in 2004, which ultimately devoured their chances of winning when they nominated Mr. Electable, John Kerry, who wasn’t so electable after all.

The question is how, when and why did the E-word pop into presidential politics. The short answers are Karl Rove, 2003, and to help get George W. Bush re-elected. I cannot prove that Rove was the mastermind behind injecting the E-word into the Democrats' camp, but it has the makings of a great theory in the mystical realm of political science.

Granted, I don’t have a well-financed think tank to gather selective evidence and conduct polls guaranteed to prove my theory, but I do have a hunch. And the last time I checked, hunches were free, unless they’re espoused by political consultants, who get paid well to be wrong. Just ask Bob Shrum, the Democrats' consultant whose abysmal 0-7 track record has yet to wield a winning presidential candidate, including his latest casualty, John Kerry. Besides, Rove plays a great Wizard of D.C., regardless of what levers he does or does not pull behind the political curtain.

Just before the 2004 Iowa Caucuses, the Democrats had been stricken with fear and had already succumbed to the “Anybody but Bush” mentality. The E-word consumed all of the other issues as the Democrats faced an identity crisis. Consequently, a number of Iowans went to the caucuses and voted for Kerry, despite the fact he was not their number one choice. I lost count of the number of times I heard voter say to me, “I really want ‘your preferred candidate here’ to win, but I think John Kerry has the best chance of beating Bush.” (Rove’s sinister laugh here as he pulls the E-word lever down.)

After caucus night, I put my hypothesis to the test when I attended to the 2nd District Democratic convention in southern Iowa. Throughout the day, I asked as many Kerry delegates as I could to give me three reasons why they or I should vote for Kerry. Most of Kerry’s supporters responded like robots, as if they had been transformed into a Rovian Stepford Voter: “Must beat Bush…Must beat Bush.” Any signs of reason had been replaced by vacant stares. It was at this point I knew there was something more to the E-word.

Regardless of the E-word’s origins, the fact remains that it did become an integral part of the voter psyche, handicapping Democrats as they raced to the middle and tried to go toe-to-toe with Republicans on their own turf. Instead of focusing on why their nominee should win the presidency, the Democrats’ strategy was to focus on why the GOP nominee should not win.

And now, with less than six months remaining until the Iowa Caucuses, the E-word has manifested in the GOP who, like the Democrats in ’04, are facing an identity crisis as they search for a candidate. Without a clear Democratic nominee, the Republican Party is shoring up its base by setting its sights on defeating the presumed front-runner, Clinton. Democrats aren’t immune to this as presidential hopefuls gear up for winning the party nomination. John Edwards, an E-word casualty in ’04, has already dropped the E-word in Iowa, proclaiming he is the best candidate positioned to win swing states and the general election.

The best way to eradicate the E-word from public political discourse is for voters to stop listening to the exterior voices and to pay attention to the voices inside their own heads. Granted, this is no easy task when the media keep perpetuating the presidential horse race with a bullhorn and pundits handicap the candidates, prognosticating like college football analysts.

In a society that usually champions underdogs, we’re quick to dismiss second- and third-tier presidential candidates, and are willing to sacrifice idealism for pragmatism. But who knows, maybe one day the Stepford Voters will be reprogrammed to think and speak for themselves: “Must vote conscience…Must vote conscience.”

Until then, I think I’ll adopt the “Anybody but me” mindset to help me decide whom I’ll vote for on the night of the Iowa Caucuses.

Originally posted on "Iowa Independent"

Billary Tuesday: Two Clintons for the Price of One

Growing up within walking distance of a Taco Johns “restaurant” was dangerous for more than the obvious reasons. Nicknamed “Toxic Juans,” me and my high school chums made a “runs for the border” every Tuesday to celebrate Taco Tuesday. Why only Tuesday? That was the only day I could afford to eat there on my daily food allowance. (Note: ice water was free.) Taco Tuesday has become a mainstay of Midwest Americana, so much so that the two-word phrase has been trademarked by Taco Johns.

The lean, mean Democratic Leadership Corporation branding machine begins branding the Clinton name in Iowa

Good thing, for it looks like the Clintons have begun tapping into the product branding foundation built up by President Bill Clinton in the ‘90s. Hillary Just Hillary started branding Hillary at the beginning of her campaign, but it was only a matter of time before the political branding and marketing efforts merged together.

Nonetheless, the Clinton’s product placement of Bill in Iowa this week should help solidify the merger for retail political consumers. The key for Hillary Just Hillary, as in any other marketing campaign, is to make sure that Bill’s branding doesn’t consume Hillary. This would be the equivalent of the Donkey Just Donkey in Shrek overshadowing Shrek’s ubiquitous green ogre image in consumer land. Only in the Clinton’s case, the opposite holds true, for Bill is Shrek -- so Hillary Just Hillary better be careful when it comes to branding the Clinton name. Like Taco Johns, political consumers may not be so willing to digest both Clintons come Caucus Day in Iowa.

JibJab’s “Star Spangled Banner” Breaks Fallout’s Top 5 List

Monday night I stayed up to watch Jay Leno’s “Tonight Show” just to see Michael Moore and hear him talk about his new film, “Sicko.” (Note: Health Care is THE reason I entered the political arena in 2000.) Hopefully, his new film will turn people’s heads, but noT too far, because most HMO and private insurance policies don’t cover injuries due to rubbernecking and/or sticker shock. Trust me, I found out the hard way.

Before Moore’s appearance, Leno played JibJab’s video of 20th century presidents singing the “Star Spangled Banner.” The splicing, a perfect homage to Michael Moore’s splicing of stock political footage, takes words from the president’s mouths and strings them together to sing the “Star Spangled Banner” in its entirety.

JibJab’s “Star Spangled Banner”



By the end of the second commercial brake, JibJab’s version had already moved up to second on my list of all-time favorite renditions of “The Star Spangled Banner.”

What are the remaining versions, you ask? Rounding out Political Fallout’s top 5 renditions of “The Star Spangled Banner” are as follows:

No. 5: Rosanne Barr’s “Star Spangled Banner”



No. 4: Canadian Caroline Marcil’s “Star Mangled Banner”



No 3: Hillary Clinton’s “Star Spangled Banner” in Des Moines



No 2: JibJab’s Star Spangled Banner (see above)

No 1: Jimi Hendrix’s Star Spangled Banner (Woodstock)

Powered by AOL Video

Thank God for Hendrix, or is it the other way around? Either way, I had to inject some sense of dignity back into “The Star Spangled Banner.”

Note: Marvin Gaye’s version had been disqualified from the running, because whenever I hear it, all I think about sex. Having seen “Dr. Stangelove: Or I How Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb” on numerous occasions, I’ve come to realize that sex and politics don’t mix.

(Warning: Watch at your own discretion. Political Fallout cannot be held responsible for any more children born out of wedlock.)

Marvin Gaye’s “Star Spangled Banner” (NBA Finals Game)

Edwards’ Campaign Launches Pre-emptive Excuse Strikes

Why's everybody always pickin' on me?

With only five days remaining until the FEC’s QRF-Day (that’s Quarterly Report Filing Day for those of you who don't have the campaign finance lingo "down"), it appears the John Edwards campaign is concerned about its war-chest intake. The Edwards’ campaign set a $9 million goal for this quarter, but as of yesterday, they’re $2 million shy of their mark.

To help soften the blow on QRF-Day, the Edwards campaign has been sending out messages that blame the Washington establishment and their media pawns (including the New York Times) for John’s fund-raising woes.

Strike 1: "Obscene Money Game or Policies that Matter?" (e-mail message received on Jun. 23 from Joe Trippi, the Edwards' Campaign)

But while thousands of people are building up this campaign, the Washington establishment is trying to write us out of the race. And their reason? They say it's MONEY - they don't think we are raising an obscene enough amount. But the truth is, they don't want people to hear what John Edwards is saying, because it will mean the end of big money's stranglehold over our government.

Strike 2: "Haircuts and Hatchet Jobs" (e-mail message received on Jun. 25 from Jonathan Prince, John Edwards' Deputy Campaign Manager)

The whole Washington establishment wants our campaign to go away, because they know that John Edwards means the end to business as usual. The Washington lobbyists and PACs don't want us to win because John is the only candidate who has never taken money from them. The political mercenaries and the chattering class don't want us to win because they can't imagine a president who doesn't play by their rules. And you can bet that the big corporate interests—from the insurance companies to the drug companies to the oil companies—don't want us to win because John has been taking on special interests his entire life. So they attack him—personally.

It's classic—they don't want the American people to hear the message, so they attack the messenger. They call him a hypocrite because he came from nothing, built a fortune while standing up for regular people during some of their toughest times, and—heaven forbid!—he has the nerve to remember where he came from and still care passionately about guaranteeing every family the opportunities he had to get ahead.

Strike 3: "The Right Wing's Worse Nightmare" (e-mail message received on Jun. 26 from Joe Trippi, the Edwards' Campaign)

Yesterday, Jonathan told you that the folks who benefit from the status quo are attacking John personally because they don't want the country to hear his message. And you know what happened when we called them out? The attacks started pouring in. That same day, the Ann Coulter-wannabe Michelle Malkin blasted John on her blog. Fox News has been bashing him around the clock. And Coulter herself said, "if I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

Meanwhile, these pre-emptive excuse strikes have been unleashed with simultaneous pleas for more money embedded in them.

“We have 7 days to reach $9 million and every dollar counts. Please give what you can.”

“Please do what you can today to help take the next bold step for real change.”

“It's up to all of us to do our part. I (Edwards’ Campaign Manager Jonathan Prince) just gave $100—can you please give whatever you can afford today?”

In response to the Edwards’ Campaign “please give us” letters, it looks like I have no other option but to exacerbate the perpetual “War on Excuses” with another installment of “Please Excuse the Excuses: A Series of Excuse Letters”

Dear Friends/Contributors,

Please excuse John for not quite living up to the money expectations of the other candidates this quarter. He’s been under a lot of pressure at home, and to be quite frank with you, the Washington establishment has not made life easy for John. Our John has always shied away from these folks, and now they’ve taken it upon themselves to pick on him because he won’t play their D.C. games. This is really hard for us to believe. John has always received high marks for playing well with others, and we can’t understand why they would single John out for attacks. This political bullying needs to stop, for it’s taking a serious toll on John’s ability to raise more money.

As you well know, John grew up the son of a mill worker and has always had the ability to surpass financial expectations, but the Washington establishment and the media are dampening John’s spirits. Just last night, when John and Elizabeth were on “The Tonight Show” with Jay Leno, you could see that John wasn’t his usual self. While talking to Leno, his million-dollar smile felt more like a $100,000-smile at best. Not to mention, he’s had to resort to humor as a coping mechanism to help mask the pain inflected upon him by the Washington establishment-controlled media. We’re not sure how many more haircut jokes John can tell before he simply cracks.

It’s in this spirit that we’re writing to you. We hope you can help save John from cracking under pressure from these attacks. $2 million dollars should suffice to help seal the cracks, for now anyway. Please send us anything and everything you can spare to help us fight these big bullies. Don’t worry, if you have to pawn some things now, it will be well worth it when John takes the White House back and sticks up for people like you. So we’re asking you, for John’s sake, to send us whatever you can. Pretty, pretty, please with sugar on top…

Sincerely,
Concerned Parents
Joe Trippi and
Jonathan Prince

Originally posted on "Iowa Independent"

GOP Hoefuls Hit on Hot-Button Issues?

The "Cedar Rapids Gazette" (online edition) gets the catchy-title award for today’s headline, “GOP hoefuls hit on hot-button issues.” (see below) The question now is whether or not the title was a copy-edit slip or a Freudian slip?


The problem with Freudian slips is that, like an unanticipated rush of blood below the equator of an adolescent school boy, once they pop up, they’re hard to conceal -- let alone ignore.

It’s with this unbridled notion, coupled with my trained Shakespearean eye for double-entendres, that I proceeded to take a trip down Sophomoric Lane and read the article. For whatever reason (after all, double-entendre’s are in the eye of the beholder), the following phrases managed to probe my Freudian senses, dear Reader:

“Pork wasn’t on the menu…but was a topic for two presidential hopefuls…”

“…John Cox touted, with tongue in cheek, that he comes through when the chips are down.”

“When presidential hopeful Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., arrived at the fundraiser Sunday, he donned a pair of plastic gloves and was asked to serve fruit salad to the crowd.”

`”’If you were a committee chairman ... they'd have let you hand out the pork,'’ joked one attendee.”

``We've passed far too many bills increasing the size of government,'' he (Tancredo) said.

``Leave No Illegal Alien Behind bill.'

“If elected, he said, one of his first objectives would be to tell `(House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi and (Majority Leader) Harry Reid, `Stop playing general and let our military do their job in Iraq.'''

Now, I’ve been to some rousing sausage-festivals in the past, but I’ve never had the chance to attend a GOP Hoeful Pork Fest – but there’s always the hoe another one will swing through Iowa. In the meantime, I’m left with images of Tom Tancredo and Nancy Pelosi role playing General/Dubious Whipping Boy as they roll around in the fruit salad. Why Tancredo is wearing plastic gloves is beyond me, nor will I allow my imagination to go there to find out. I have to draw the line in the sand of decency somewhere, eh Freud?

President Bush Names Prodigal Son, Jim Nussle, White House Budget Director

Jimmy the Hustler is BACK…in D.C.!!!

Bush and Nussle share a dubious laugh about their latest duping of the American people

After padding his resume with a failed Iowa gubernatorial bid and running Rudy Giuliani’s presidential bid into the ground as his top consultant, President Bush’s prodigal son is returning home to his adoptive father.

Throw in Nussle’s failures as House Budget Committee Chair -- while serving underneath his adoptive father’s watchful eye -- into the mix and what do you get?

Answer: A job as the White House Budget Director, that’s what.

Now that’s some serious hustling.

Political Fallout contacted Jimmy the Hustler (“Nussle & Flow”), who released the following statement:

We tried to work our hustle in Iowa, but these folks ain’t buying. Apparently, they weren't too hip about the prospects of my better half driving ‘em into bankruptcy. They’re not buying my boy Rudy’s New York hustle either, so it was only a matter of time before Jimbo was bound to take his A-game back to D.C. If we play our cards right, we have less than two years to help bankrupt the country and return to a Darwinian socio-economic paradigm -- where only the strongest will survive and political pimps, like yours truly, will rule the roost. It ain’t going to be easy to hustle the American people, especially with the Bossman’s approval ratings dipping below sea level, but that’s where I, Jimmy the Hustler, come into play.

Is America Ready for Another Bald President?

Americans and the media have always been obsessed with the “haves” and the “have nots,” and this goes without saying when it comes to John Edwards’ hair and his $400 haircut. A recent FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll asked telephone interviewees: Do you happen to know which presidential candidate has been in the news recently for paying $400 for a haircut?”

The only answers proffered by the interviewer were the top three Democratic candidates, followed by two of my favorite responses to all poll questions: “Other” and “Don’t Know;” although my favorite and standard response is “Don’t Care.” The results showed that roughly 46 percent of the respondents did not know about Edwards’ $400 haircut, which, as Greg Sargent pointed out on TPM Café, is 4 percent less than the number who knew that Saddam did not have WMD when we invaded Iraq. But as FOX News very well knows, we cannot begin muddling viewers' lives with facts. In the television news business, Weapons of Mass Deception are vital in winning the ratings war. Facts are major downers and a literal turn off to the television masses.

Speaking of the “haves and have nots,” the mainstream media’s negligence goes beyond their cursory coverage of the news. John Edwards’ haircut is merely a manifestation of a deeper issue that has long divided Americans along hairlines. Yes, folks, the “Two Americas” I’m talking about are those Americans who have hair and those who don’t have hair. There, I’ve said it. It was just a matter of time before I slicked back the comb-over and revealed the truth. The reason the majority of Americans are obsessed with hair is because we still live in a baldist society. Baldism is the real issue here, not the fact that Edwards paid an unseemly amount of money for a haircut.

Unfortunately, the “Bald is Beautiful” campaign does not extend itself to presidential politics. Pundits have been asking voters: Are Americans ready for a woman president? An African-American president? An Hispanic president? A Mormon president? But when will pundits and pollsters begin asking the real question: Are Americans ready for another bald president?

We haven’t had a bald president in 35 years, not since President Gerald Ford (see photo). But before you Baldists start touting Ford’s candidacy as a means of supplementing your own baldist guilt (“But, but…I’m not a baldist. Some of my good friends are bald.”), keep in mind that Ford was never elected to be president, or vice president for that matter. Ford, a distinctly bald man, had to win the presidency by entering the back doors of the White House. Ford was nominated to take former Vice President Spiro Agnew’s when he resigned, and then Ford fell into the presidency when President Nixon resigned in the wake of the Watergate scandal.

We have to go back 50 years to President Dwight Eisenhower’s re-election to note the last time the American people elected a bald president. Granted, Eisenhower (in case you've never heard of Eisenhower and or don't know what he looks like, see photo above) had to overcome the pervading baldism of the 1950's, but thanks to the positive “I Like Ike” media blitz, Americans were able overcome their inherent baldist bias. Furthermore, Eisenhower, a general and decorated war hero, was elected six years after World War II. People were still accustomed to bald men returning from the war and were able to put their baldist differences aside and take a leap of faith at the polls.

Fifty years later, however, baldism has reared its head in presidential politics and is destined to play an integral role, whether it's conscious or subconscious, in the 2008 election. We cannot deny this anymore. Looking at this year’s crop of well-groomed candidates, the Democratic " field has no bald candidates, while the Republicans have two bald candidates, Sen. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, both considered top-tiered candidates. Clearly, history is stacked up against these guys and, as is the case with most bald presidential hopefuls, they have insurmountable odds to overcome in the next year.

Knowing two of their top three candidates are bald, the GOP has been internally struggling to find a viable candidate. They’re still looking for their white knight, and it appears former Sen. Fred Thompson may come to save the day. He’s already generating a buzz among GOP circles, but before they get their hopes up too high, they may want to proceed with caution.

News flash: Fred Thompson is bald! There, I said what had to be said.

Former Sen. Fred Thompson strikes former President Ford-like pose

When my hairline began receding in high school, I knew then that my presidential aspirations had begun to recede as well. I’ve vowed to never buy into the illusion that I can overcome the obstacles of balding by gradually concealing my follicle shortcomings with a hairpiece, veiling it with a comb-over, or replenishing my hair loss by transplanting hair from other, unmentionable parts of my body. I knew if I wanted to become president, I would have to change the baldists and put an end to baldism once and for all. My job is to change the closeted behaviors of all the baldists out there, who claim they are not, but behind the curtain know very well they could never vote for a bald president.

It’s time to pull back the political comb-overs, throw out the hair pieces and blur the hairline between the Two “Hair” Americas. We, Americans, need to start focusing on the meat of the issues, rather than obsessing on our wait staff’s hair, or better yet, lack of hair.

So I ask again: Is America ready for another bald president? Possible choices: (A) Not Sure, (B) Don’t Know, or (C) Don’t Care.

If you answered "C," you are correct in the sense that you paid attention to the front end of the column and have followed my advice. I will give you partial credit if you guessed "C" – since that’s what most Americans have been trained to do when they have absolutely no idea as to the answer.

Don’t worry, if you answered or guessed "A" or "B," there is still hope, although, this is contingent upon divine timing and whether or not you’re home when FOX News calls and asks you some questions thinly veiled by a newsworthy comb-over.

Cross-Posted at "Iowa Independent"