Mike Huckabee vs. America (and Natalie Portman). Who Will Win?

This is what possible Republican candidates have been reduced to: either they pander to the least-educated, racist, conspiracy-nuts, or they simply don’t stand a chance. Mike Huckabee has recently received some flack from the left (and any sane individuals remaining on the right) for not only misrepresenting President Obama as having been raised in Kenya (Obama didn’t actually visit Kenya until he was in his 20′s), but suggesting that Obama’s time spent NOT living in the United States (he did live in Indonesia from ages 6-10) had made him un-American.

“And one thing that I do know is, his having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, is very different than the average American,” claims Huckabee.

Well, it seems when called out on this, Huckabee’s spokesperson informed us that Huckabee meant to say Indonesia and not Kenya at all! A simple slip of the tongue. Great. So now that we know Obama grew up in Hawaii and lived for a short time in Indonesia and NOT Kenya, we can ask the real question: Why would Obama have issues with the Brits since they never colonized Indonesia (it was, in fact, the Dutch that took that honor)? And wouldn’t it be Americans who might take issue with the Brits since our very country was founded on a war we started to break from British rule? Isn’t that the foundation of this country?

So while Huckabee has since admitted publicly that, yes, Obama is “technically” an American, he still reserves a right to judge Obama’s “spiritual” patriotism:

“…I do think [Pres. Obama] has a different worldview and I think it’s, in part, molded out of a very different experience. Most of us grew up going to Boy Scout meetings and, you know, our communities were filled with Rotary Clubs, not madrassas.”

I don’t know what fantasy world Huckabee lives in, but I think he just insulted far more Americans than just President Obama. How many American men would you imagine have also not attended Boy Scouts? And how many American women have not attended Girl Scouts? And how popular are those rotary clubs in your community these days? Mike Huckabee is clearly far less in touch with what it means to be an American in 2011 than just about anyone else out there spouting off in public. And for the record, both the Boy Scouts and Rotary are international organizations, not exclusively American. And yes, they have Boy Scouts in Indonesia. And yes, Barack Obama was a Boy Scout there. But perhaps Huckabee feels that only the American arm of the Boy Scouts is truly honorable, and that any attempt to teach such values in a place like Jakarta, where Obama was a member, would be fruitless, even anti-American.

Values like those taught to Huckabee’s son David who, according to Newsweek, “was involved in the hanging of a stray dog at a Boy Scout camp in 1998. The incident led to the dismissal of David Huckabee, then 17, from his job as a counselor at Camp Pioneer in Hatfield, Ark.”

It has even been suggested (but not proven) that David Huckabee hanged the dog, slit it’s throat and stoned it to death.

But I suppose being a cruel and inhumane Boy Scout in America is more American than not being a Boy Scout at all. Perhaps David Huckabee is next in line for the coveted Dick Cheney Award For Humanitarian Concerns, which automatically comes with a job offer training recruits at Abu Ghraib.

But wait, there’s more! To add insult to injury, Huckabee has also managed to alienate all single mothers by lambasting Oscar winning actress Natalie Portman for being pregnant out of wedlock and “flaunting” it publicly at the Oscars.

“…one of the things that’s troubling is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet who boasts of, ‘Hey look, you know, we’re having children, we’re not married, but we’re having these children, and they’re doing just fine.’”

Maybe Huckabee’s son David might want to consider hanging Ms. Portman from a tree, slitting her throat and stoning her to death.

Or, the Huckabees and others like them can just back off and start the long painful process of coming to terms with the reality that Americans come in all different shapes and sizes, hold many different beliefs, and are never, ever, going to all be like one another no matter how severely you judge them. And the America I personally feel more connected to is one inhabited by the likes of Ms. Portman. But I accept that there are men like Mike and David Huckabee out there. And they also represent what it means to be American. But they have no exclusive claim on the definition.

In the meantime, it seems a vote for Mike Huckabee might just be a vote for open intolerance and moral judgement, albeit of the American variety. Weren’t in the Boy Scouts of America? Not American. Pregnant out of wedlock? Irresponsible and immoral. Bad American. Yes, it seems the margins for being a decent American (or American at all) are very narrow in Huckabee’s book. So get ready because, liberal or conservative, you’re probably not going to make the cut.

“How Dare You Edit Your Own Film,” And Other Creative Alienations

Why is it that so many people have such rigid definitions of what constitutes art or the artistic process? To me, it seems to defy the very definition. My experience working as a filmmaker in Hollywood has brought me face to face with folks who are striving to say something, and others who place little value on artistic self-expression. But what’s most difficult to navigate for me, is the artist who appears to have given in to the notion that there is a right way and a wrong way to make a film.

I recently had a conversation with two friends about film editing. They are both extremely intelligent, extremely creative people. One of them has directed a feature that got taken away from him in post, the other is about to embark on his directorial debut. Both suggested that it was not in the best interest of the film or the story for the director to edit his/her own movie.

“You have no perspective,” was the reasoning.

Now don’t misunderstand me. I do not believe every director should edit his/her own movie. Quite the contrary. Editing is an art form all its own. It is also a skill that is developed. And there are some extraordinary director/editor relationships that are downright biblical (Scorcese/Schoonmaker, Coppola/Murch, Tarantino/Menke).  These artists have found a creative connection that inspires; they each feel that they are better together than separate. It has become an integral part of their creative process. And, of course, this extends to writer/director relationships (Powell/Pressburger, Ivory/Jhabvala, Lee/Schamus), director/cinematographer relationships (Bergman/Nykvist, Mann/Alton, Bertolucci/Storaro), and director/actor relationships (Scorsese/DeNiro, Allen/Keaton, von Sternberg/Dietrich). I doubt there are many people out there who would rather these relationships didn’t exist. But just because these teamings are successful, does that mean writers should not direct? Directors should not shoot? Actors should not direct? Or in the case of this discussion, directors should not edit?

There are no rules to the creative process. Every artist must approach their art in the way they believe leads to the end goal. And to do so, one needs to have an end goal in mind. That goal can be something concrete, or it can be something amorphous, more a feeling, a tone, something instinctual. I love the collaborative creative process. And I love the solitary creative process. As a writer, I remain solitary. Until I feel that I can go no further without the creative input of those I trust and admire. Some folks prefer having a writing partner. I’ve done both and, currently, I prefer the former. I have found it to be more creatively freeing and inspiring. For me.

There is not a one-size-fits-all roadmap to making art. To storytelling. To self-expression. To filmmaking.

Woody Allen claims that one should never try and write a script without knowing exactly where it’s going; that if one attempts to write that script otherwise, they will hit a wall around page 60 and have no idea where to go from there. I am a life-long admirer of Allen’s work. I think he is a brilliant, insightful writer/director. However, his take on writing is true for him. And, I am certain, for many, many others. It is not, however, the approach I have found works best for me in achieving what I want from a script. I prefer to work stream-of-consciousness. I have learned to trust my subconscious to create things in the moment that reveal themselves to me later. It is that very same experience I want to take with me onto the set AND into the editing room. As the writer/director/editor of a film, I am fully engaged in the writing process which, for me, not only continues through editing, but finally arrives at editing. It does not cease simply because I have moved beyond the script. I am telling a story. Hopefully, with a unique voice. The writing of that story, in film terms, is not complete until the picture is locked. So until that happens, my subconscious is allowed to run free.

After writing and directing my first feature, I lost that film in post-production to the powers-that-be and the film was re-edited from scratch without my participation. The result was a story and film that showed virtually nothing of who I was as an artist, filmmaker, director, writer or human being. During our editing conversation the other night, my friend suggested that there are only so many ways an editor can change what you’ve shot.

There are very few things in this world I disagree with more.

There are infinite possibilities for how a film can be put together based on the footage shot. Tone, style, pacing, meaning, even the very story itself, can all be different from what was initially intended. All via the editing process. Performances can be dramatically altered. Even main characters can be turned into secondary characters. Unless, of course, one is editing an Alfred Hitchcock film. Hitch, to maintain creative control, would edit his films, essentially, in-camera so that there was only one way to put the images together. He found a way to be the editor on his own films without entering the editing room.

Barring that approach, anything is possible in the editing room. There are thousands of ways to edit together a single scene. Millions to edit together an entire film. One has to truly understand this in order to comprehend the enormous power and potential of film editing. It has been my experience that most people do not.

When I sat down to create my own cut of the film that the studio took away (something I was told I could not do, but did anyway), I learned something I never knew before: I loved editing more than any other phase in the filmmaking process. I experienced a level of intimacy with the story, performances and footage that turned this part of the journey into one of the single most satisfying creative undertakings of my entire life. I was connected to the film in a way that transcended where I had been. And believe me, after 8 years of fighting to get the film made and living through the all-encompassing experience of directing it, I was already pretty damned immersed in the world of my story. But this was far more intense and personal than the seven weeks I spent working with an editor before the film was taken away and re-cut by the studio.

It was thru editing that I was able to complete the story, in my own voice, and impart an experience on to others that matched, not only what I had envisioned, but what I had felt. By that, I don’t mean to suggest that I put the film together exactly as I had storyboarded it. Or even exactly as I had shot it. There is no point in the creative process when I want to close myself off to inspiration. Editing was more creative and instinctual a process for me than the actual writing itself. It was a crucial extension of the storytelling journey and the final piece of the puzzle I was looking for. And I am certainly not the first filmmaker to feel this way.

“I love editing. I think I like it more than any other phase of film making. If I wanted to be frivolous, I might say that everything that precedes editing is merely a way of producing film to edit.” –Stanley Kubrick

When asked which area of filmmaking he most looked forward to, filmmaker John Sayles replied:

“It’s editing, actually. So often when I write a movie I have no idea if I’m going to get to make it — or make it in the next decade. It’s taken us so long to get some of our movies made, and I’ve had to do other lower-budget things first, that you can feel like a real sap when you sit down and write. I like a lot about directing, but it’s really stressful because there is always disaster looming with each new shot. The sun may go away, or you might have an actor who starts a new film tomorrow and you still have five scenes to shoot with him. So many things are totally out of your control. It’s a bit like trying to write something very serious with a taxi meter next to you. You just see the money ticking off every second you’re thinking. When you get to the editing, you’re still making the film, you’re still working with the actors, their performances, the rhythm of the film. You’re still rewriting, but there’s not that pressure. It doesn’t matter if the sun is shining or not. I know, at that point, I’m gonna make the movie. I know it’s not going to fall apart and the money isn’t going to disappear from the bank if we get it that far. It’s one of the reasons I continue to edit. It’s more fun.”

From what I was able to gather, my friends felt as if, in denying the editing of the film to be done through fresh eyes, I was not taking advantage of all of the opportunities offered in the filmmaking process, hence not putting the film first, but my ego instead. I suppose the same could be said of a writer who does not allow another director to take over and interpret the script through fresh eyes. Or a director who does not allow someone else to shoot and light the film. Or a director who does not allow someone else to star in the film.

I will repeat: there are no rules in art.

There is no question that a healthy, creative relationship with an editor can and will yield amazing results and unpredictable discoveries. But it is not the only valid approach to making a film. The filmmaker’s storytelling palette, if it extends to editing, may bring something of equal or greater value. It works both ways. To suggest that the filmmaking process is dependent on hiring someone else to edit is to limit the creative process of the individual. It is just as valid to edit the film oneself as it is to have an editor. But one must want to go on a solitary editing journey. And have the skills to do so. And they must have a strong vision and be open to discovery. And trust their instincts. And their subconscious. All approaches will yield something different. All are equally creative. But to limit that process to one way and not another is, well, in my opinion, a misguided lesson to impart to future filmmakers. Were everyone to believe that a director should never edit his/her films, then the filmmaking world would be missing some of the great works by the Coen Brothers, John Sayles, Robert Rodriguez, Steven Soderbergh… All filmmakers who edit their own films. Some, like Soderbergh and Rodriguez, even shoot their own films. Are they not artists who serve their stories?

Yes, film is almost always a collaborative effort. But what portions are collaborative are up to the artist, assuming one has control. Does the writer have to have a writing partner, or is it equally valid to write the script oneself? By dictating an artist’s palette, we risk destroying the very creative process itself.

From Sean Smith’s dismal, misguided Newsweek article “Career Intervention.”

“When someone is given total artistic freedom,” says one blockbuster producer, “the result is usually bad.”

Yes, there are producers who feel directors should never have creative control. Does that make it so? This is undoubtedly true for that particular producer’s approach to making a film, but if it were to be accepted as the way to make a film…

In an excerpt from that same article, one indie exec comments on the negative repercussions of filmmakers (like Stanley Kubrick) who choose to live and work outside of Hollywood:

“The smaller you make your world, the less of an artist you can really be.”

As if there were only one true way to be an artist. As if Hollywood were the center of the universe. In a town where people are told how things are done and what can and can’t be done, there are many who fall into the trap of believing what they’re told without actually finding out for themselves. “No one gets final cut.” If you’re a filmmaker in Hollywood, you’re going to hear that line uttered more than any other. It is not true. But I’ve heard it repeated by filmmakers themselves, regurgitating what they have been lead to believe. Yet, there are directors who get final cut. Yes, even some first-time directors. So what happens when the facts outweigh the statement, but the statement is perpetuated? What is the psychology behind this? If having final cut is not important to someone, then it is a non-issue. However, if maintaining creative control is important to you, then it can be done. It is every day.

If, as a filmmaker, you look forward to working with an editor, if that excites you, inspires you, then that is what you should do. But to dictate that approach to all other filmmakers is creatively restrictive. Every filmmaker has a different reason for making their film. Every filmmaker envisions a different outcome, enjoys a different process. We all find what works best for us as individual artists. As individual creators. As individual storytellers. Even in a town where the word “individual” is dirty and creative alienation is the soup of the day.

For more thoughts on film editing, check out my post: “The Art Of Film Editing & The Plague Of Ego.”

Ted Kennedy’s Plea In Newsweek For Universal Health Care

Here is the first of four pages of Edward M. Kennedy’s story as originally published today in the pages of NEWSWEEK. It is worth the read.

To read the article in its entirety, please go HERE.

A Lifelong Passion

A look at Ted Kennedy’s legislative—and personal—health-care battles

By Edward M. Kennedy | NEWSWEEK

Published Jul 18, 2009

From the magazine issue dated Jul 27, 2009

In 1964, I was flying with several companions to the Massachusetts Democratic Convention when our small plane crashed and burned short of the runway. My friend and colleague in the Senate, Birch Bayh, risked his life to pull me from the wreckage. Our pilot, Edwin Zimny, and my administrative assistant, Ed Moss, didn’t survive. With crushed vertebrae, broken ribs, and a collapsed lung, I spent months in New England Baptist Hospital in Boston. To prevent paralysis, I was strapped into a special bed that immobilizes a patient between two canvas slings. Nurses would regularly turn me over so my lungs didn’t fill with fluid. I knew the care was expensive, but I didn’t have to worry about that. I needed the care and I got it.

Now I face another medical challenge. Last year, I was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. Surgeons at Duke University Medical Center removed part of the tumor, and I had proton-beam radiation at Massachusetts General Hospital. I’ve undergone many rounds of chemotherapy and continue to receive treatment. Again, I have enjoyed the best medical care money (and a good insurance policy) can buy.

But quality care shouldn’t depend on your financial resources, or the type of job you have, or the medical condition you face. Every American should be able to get the same treatment that U.S. senators are entitled to.

This is the cause of my life. It is a key reason that I defied my illness last summer to speak at the Democratic convention in Denver—to support Barack Obama, but also to make sure, as I said, “that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American…will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not just a privilege.” For four decades I have carried this cause—from the floor of the United States Senate to every part of this country. It has never been merely a question of policy; it goes to the heart of my belief in a just society. Now the issue has more meaning for me—and more urgency—than ever before. But it’s always been deeply personal, because the importance of health care has been a recurrent lesson throughout most of my 77 years.

Nothing I’m enduring now can compare to hearing that my children were seriously ill. In 1973, when I was first fighting in the Senate for universal coverage, we learned that my 12-year-old son Teddy had bone cancer. He had to have his right leg amputated above the knee. Even then, the pathology report showed that some of the cancer cells were very aggressive. There were only a few long-shot options to stop it from spreading further. I decided his best chance for survival was a clinical trial involving massive doses of chemotherapy. Every three weeks, at Children’s Hospital Boston, he had to lie still for six hours while the fluid dripped into his arm. I remember watching and praying for him, all the while knowing how sick he would be for days afterward.

During those many hours at the hospital, I came to know other parents whose children had been stricken with the same deadly disease. We all hoped that our child’s life would be saved by this experimental treatment. Because we were part of a clinical trial, none of us paid for it. Then the trial was declared a success and terminated before some patients had completed their treatments. That meant families had to have insurance to cover the rest or pay for them out of pocket. Our family had the necessary resources as well as excellent insurance coverage. But other heartbroken parents pleaded with the doctors: What chance does my child have if I can only afford half of the prescribed treatments? Or two thirds? I’ve sold everything. I’ve mortgaged as much as possible. No parent should suffer that torment. Not in this country. Not in the richest country in the world.

That experience with Teddy made it clear to me, as never before, that health care must be affordable and available for every mother or father who hears a sick child cry in the night and worries about the deductibles and copays if they go to the doctor. But that was just one medical crisis. My family, like every other, has faced many—at every stage of life. I think of my parents and the medical care they needed after their strokes. I think of my son Patrick, who suffered serious asthma as a child and sometimes had to be rushed to the hospital for treatment. (For this reason, we had no dogs in the house when Patrick was young.) I think of my daughter, Kara, diagnosed with lung cancer in 2002. Few doctors were willing to try an operation. One did—and after that surgery and arduous rounds of chemotherapy and radiation, she’s alive and healthy today. My family has had the care it needed. Other families have not, simply because they could not afford it.

I have seen letters and e-mails from many of these less fortunate Americans. In their pleas, there’s always dignity, but too often desperation. “Our school is closing in June of 2010, which means that I will be losing my job and my health insurance,” writes Mary Dunn, a 58-year-old schoolteacher in Eden, S.D. “I am a Type I diabetic, and I had heart bypass surgery in 2005. My husband is also a teacher [here], so we will both be losing insurance. I am exploring options and have been told that I cannot stay on our group policy or transfer to another policy after our jobs cease because of my medical condition. What am I to do after 39 years of teaching to acquire adequate health coverage?” Dunn also serves as mayor of Eden, for which she is paid $45 a month with no health benefits.

To continue reading this article, please go HERE.

Conservative Thoughts: Uncovering The Soul Of America

It’s so easy to forget that not all people who ascribe to any particular political party, ideal or belief all think alike. During these past 8 years of Bush/Cheney, it’s been hard to keep that in mind as so much of what I personally value about this country was threatened. Some would say Bush’s intentions were good, but his decisions were bad. Others would say he had a personal agenda and simply lied to get what he wanted. I have no way of knowing where the truth lies, but I do know that I felt increasingly like I had found myself in a country I no longer recognized. Sure, most of the people around me shared my beliefs and fears, but I live in Los Angeles, a liberal city, and work in the entertainment industry–as an artist, not a businessman. So my experience of what people think and what they believe based on my personal experience does not very likely reflect the majority of this country.

When President Bush got reelected in 2004, my heart sank and a tangible layer of hope and optimism was stripped away; I no longer had faith that Americans as a whole could recognize what was happening to them; that our ability as a nation to be self-aware, to learn from past mistakes, had eroded. Or never existed at all. 

But this election has given me a renewed sense of hope. And not just because I believe Barack Obama might move this nation toward a vision of America I personally share. I’ve seen too many politicians come and go, too many promises forgotten or pushed aside. I know that, even though Obama is unquestionably the most exciting candidate to come along in my politically aware lifetime, he could prove to be “just another politician.”

No, what’s renewed my hope and optimism is the McCain/Palin campaign. That’s right. McCain/Palin. To my mind, Sarah Palin was a supremely irresponsible choice for running mate on the part of John McCain. Though I understood the initial attraction so far as changing the political game by tossing in the unexpected and stealing some of your opponent’s thunder, I felt it would be a disaster for the country if she were to get elected. Initially, upon watching the Republican base embrace this woman, a familiar dread began to stir inside me. 

As I continued to watch John McCain toss aside many of his own beliefs throughout this campaign, as I watched his desire to be president take him down paths I thought quite disturbing, I feared I would once again be in the minority and that I would end up in that Twilight Zone where no one seems to see what’s going on. But as John McCain’s campaign became uglier, nastier… as he himself showed us a man straining and failing not to come across arrogant, condescending and angry… As Sarah Palin proved over and over again that she was nowhere near ready to represent the best America had to offer, people started speaking up. And not just people like me, not just liberal Democrats who knew without question which way they were voting early in this campaign, but conservatives, Republicans, military personnel, political advisors, on and on… They too saw what was happening and began speaking out, voicing their concerns, sharing their thoughts. And so they started coming out against the candidate who represented the party that most closely epitomized their ideals and vision of America. Not because they had lost faith in the party, but because they realized that the man and woman heading the call of that party no longer represented them; they had gone to a place that was so clearly damaging, so obviously rooted in something other than the best interests of this nation, that to deny that would be to allow this country to slip deeper down the dark chasm it has been sliding down for eight long years. Only this time, the world was in an even more dangerous, even more vulnerable place. And so was America. 

On October 20th, conservative diplomat, political writer, and policy analyst, Ken Adelman, came out for Barack Obama. Or, more precisely, against John McCain. Adelman was once an advisor to President Reagan and the Assistant to United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He was initially a big supporter of the Iraq War. In the most recent edition of THE NEW YORKER, Adelman discusses his reasons for not supporting John McCain:

Ken Adelman

“When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I’ve concluded that that’s no way a president can act under pressure. Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate. That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain’s main two, and best two, themes for his campaign—Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick.”

In his article today in the Huffington Post, Adelman stated:

“I’ve considered myself less of a partisan than an ideologue. I cared about conservative principles, and still do, instead of caring about the GOP.

“Granted, McCain’s views are closer to mine than Obama’s. But I’ve learned over this Bush era to value competence along with ideology. Otherwise, our ideology gets discredited, as it has so disastrously over the past eight years.

“McCain’s temperament — leading him to bizarre behavior during the week the economic crisis broke — and his judgment — leading him to Wasilla — depressed me into thinking that “our guy” would be a(nother) lousy conservative president. Been there, done that.

“I’d rather a competent moderate president. Even at a risk, since Obama lacks lots of executive experience displaying competence (though his presidential campaign has been spot-on). And since his Senate voting record is not moderate, but depressingly liberal. Looming in the background, Pelosi and Reid really scare me.

“Nonetheless, I concluded that McCain would not — could not — be a good president. Obama just might be.

“That’s become good enough for me — however much of a triumph (as Dr. Johnson said about second marriages) of hope over experience.”

In yesterday’s online edition of NEWSWEEK, ex-Bush official Nicholas Burns also came out against McCain and Palin. It should be noted that Mr. Burns, now retired, was the United States Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs within the Department of State, the highest-ranking American career diplomat. He was appointed to the U.S. Senate by President George W. Bush in 2005. Here is what he had to say:

Nicholas Burns

“Are McCain and Palin correct that America should stonewall its foes? I lived this issue for 27 years as a career diplomat, serving both Republican and Democratic administrations. Maybe that’s why I’ve been struggling to find the real wisdom and logic in this Republican assault against Obama. I’ll bet that a poll of senior diplomats who have served presidents from Carter to Bush would reveal an overwhelming majority who agree with the following position: of course we should talk to difficult adversaries—when it is in our interest and at a time of our choosing.

“The more challenging and pertinent question, especially for the McCain-Palin ticket, is the reverse: Is it really smart to declare we will never talk to such leaders? Is it really in our long-term national interest to shut ourselves off from one of the most important and powerful states in the Middle East—Iran—or one of our major suppliers of oil, Venezuela?…

“The real truth Americans need to embrace is that nearly all of the most urgent global challenges—the quaking financial markets, climate change, terrorism—cannot be resolved by America’s acting alone in the world. Rather than retreat into isolationism, as we have often done in our history, or go it alone as the unilateralists advocated disastrously in the past decade, we need to commit ourselves to a national strategy of smart engagement with the rest of the world. Simply put, we need all the friends we can get. And we need to think more creatively about how to blunt the power of opponents through smart diplomacy, not just the force of arms.

“Talking to our adversaries is no one’s idea of fun, and it is not a sure prescription for success in every crisis. But it is crude, simplistic and wrong to charge that negotiations reflect weakness or appeasement. More often than not, they are evidence of a strong and self-confident country. One of America’s greatest but often neglected strengths is, in fact, our diplomatic power. Condoleezza Rice’s visit to Libya in September—the first by a U.S. secretary of state in five decades—was the culmination of years of careful, deliberate diplomacy to maneuver the Libyan leadership to give up its weapons of mass destruction and renounce terrorism. She would not have achieved that victory had she refused to talk to the Libyans…

“Rather than default to the idea of using U.S. military force against Iran, wouldn’t it make more sense for the next American president to offer to negotiate with the Iranian leadership?…

“The next U.S. president will have little chance of securing peace in the Middle East if he doesn’t determine Iran’s bottom line on the nuclear issue through talks. Similarly, there will be no peace treaty between Syria and Israel if we don’t support the talks underway between those countries…

“The next president needs to act more creatively and boldly to defend our interests by revalidating diplomacy as a key weapon in our national arsenal and rebuilding our understaffed and underfunded diplomatic corps. Of course he will need to reserve the right to use force against the most vicious and implacable of our foes. More often than not, however, he will find that dialogue and discussion, talking and listening, are the smarter ways to defend our country, end crises and sometimes even sow the seeds of an ultimate peace.”

We are still a young country. We are still trying to understand and define the soul of America. Who are we? As a nation? As a people? Are we destined for greatness, or are we to be yet another example of greatness gone awry, misled? Are these just growing pains, or is it a death rattle?

The process of that discovery is fraught with hardship and loss, with changes and growth both exciting and terrifying. It is a painful path, an uncertain path, a demanding path. But a path that if taken with eyes and hearts wide open, with a desire for self-awareness, self-criticism and self-respect, then America may just find its soul and learn to nurture it. And I believe the whole world would be a better place for it.

Someone once told me the closer you get to achieving your life’s goals, to becoming the things that you are most compelled to be, the more monsters and demons will rise up to stop you. And many of those monsters and demons will be of your own making. I have found this to be true. Both in my personal growth and in watching the growth of this country, both historically and presently. I hope we can face those monsters together and find ourselves, one day, on the other side.

McCain Comes Out Swinging, Never Connects: Final Debate

Everyone knew this was an important night for John McCain to make his stand. It’s certainly not his last chance (as the saying goes, “It’s not over till it’s over”), but this was a biggie. And McCain came out swinging. It was apparent from the get-go that McCain’s tactic here was to try and steamroll right over Barack Obama and bring home those talking points: “Barack Obama wants to spend more! Barack Obama wants to raise taxes!” His approach was filled with very little substance, but he tried to come across confident and full of righteous indignation. But two things happened. First, McCain lost steam nearly halfway through and never recovered again. Second, he didn’t come across confident or righteous, but desperate and condescending. This appears to be something McCain can’t shed. However hard he tries to appeal to the American public as one of them, as that down-to-earth “straight-talker” he believes himself to be, the more insincere and angry he appears. John McCain gave it his best shot. But Barack Obama kept his poise, spoke about the issues, took the high-road yet again and, as would appear from the early polls, won the third and final debate for 2008. 

John McCain’s introduction of “Joe the Plumber” into the American vernacular was an interesting one and one that won’t be quickly forgotten. And one can be reasonably assured that this Joe is gonna support McCain. I’m sure McCain’s people spoke with Joe beforehand. I mean, what would it look like if Joe came out in favor of Obama the next morning? Not likely to happen. But we may be referring to Joe in many future elections, but maybe not in the way McCain would like us to. 

I also can’t deny absolutely loving the moment when John McCain once again tried to claim that Obama was a disaster for small businesses and that “Joe The Plumber” would have to pay a fine. McCain has raised this issue at the other debates and, even though Obama has already answered numerous times, it seems tonight was the first time it actually sank in for Mr. McCain, as is suggested by his deer-in-the-headlights reaction to Obama’s answer, “Zero.” 

I was also mildly offended tonight by McCain’s insistence that Obama has been running a dirty campaign and McCain’s supposed “horror” that Obama did not repudiate comments made by Rep. John Lewis who “made allegations that Sen Palin and I were somehow associated with one of the worst chapters in American history.” 

Oddly, Sen. Obama HAD replied publicly. As had Lewis. But worse than that, it’s genuinely incredible to watch a man like John McCain, who has come under enormous public attack for running one of the most hate-filled campaigns in American history, actually try to turn the tables and make it look like Mr. Obama’s actions have been reprehensible and thoroughly unacceptable. McCain actually tried to suggest that he had repudiated every inappropriate remark made by a “fringe” McCain supporter at his rallies. However, it is clear to everyone–Democrats and Republicans alike–that McCain repudiated no one until he and Palin were publically slammed by the press for encouraging dangerous and violent comments at their rallies. It was a true absurdest moment. 

No one bought it. 

Obama quickly reminded McCain that he and Palin allowed supporters to call out “Terrorist” and “Kill him!” when referring to Obama. He also mentioned that Palin herself had said numerous times that Obama “palled around with terrorists.” McCain responded by suggesting that if Obama had accepted his invitation to do more Town Hall meetings, the campaign never would have gone down such an ugly path. Obama, as usual, responded by taking the high-road:

“I think the American people are less interested in our hurt feelings than they are in the issues. The notion that because we are not doing the meetings justifies some of the ads going on… I don’t mind being attacked for the next three weeks, what the American people can’t afford is four more years of failed economic policies.”

And after all this, instead of deciding to talk about these policies, McCain decided to launch into Obama’s connection to Bill Ayers. Obama quickly shot this down and McCain himself admitted that he really didn’t “care about an old, washed-up terrorist.”

Here’s a clip from the debate of McCain not only bringing up the Ayers connection, but accusing both Obama and ACORN of voter fraud:

Here is the immediate reponse of Maude Hurd, of ACORN:

“We appreciate that Senator McCain’s effort to stir up the Republican base by attacking a community group that is trying to increase public participation in our democratic processes. However, these attacks reflect an increasingly panicky candidate; unfortunately the Senator McCain we saw tonight is very different than the Senator McCain who stood shoulder to shoulder with ACORN at a February 20, 2006 immigration reform event.

“It is clear for us to see that John McCain was for ACORN before he was against ACORN; he was for reform before he was against reform; and he was a maverick before he became erratic. What is really going here is that Senator McCain and his allies are part of a coordinated effort to engage in what appears to be an unprecedented effort to suppress voter turnout.”

I would also like to add that I thought Moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS did an excellent job, far better than his predecessors. The questions were stronger, the format better for allowing the two candidates to interact. 

Now let’s take a look at what others are saying. 

CBS News: Fifty-three percent of the uncommitted voters surveyed identified Democratic nominee Barack Obama as the winner of tonight’s debate. Twenty-two percent said Republican rival John McCain won. Twenty-five percent saw the debate as a draw. 

CNN: 58 percent for Obama to McCain’s 31 percent.

Perhaps more importantly, McCain’s favorable rating dropped 51 to 49 while his unfavorable rating increased from 45 percent to 49 percent. Obama ended up with 66 percent favorable rating. 

Asked who “expressed his views more clearly” 66 percent said Obama, 25 percent said McCain. ”Who spent their time attacking his opponent:” 80 percent said McCain, seven percent said Obama. “Who seemed to be the stronger leader:” 56 percent for Obama, 39 percent for McCain. And who was “more likeable:” 70 percent for Obama to McCain’s 22 percent.

Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg’s poll:

Before the debate:

McCain: 54 favorable / 34 unfavorable

Obama: 42 favorable / 42 unfavorable

After the debate:

McCain: 50 favorable / 48 unfavorable

Obama: 72 favorable / 22 unfavorable

And as always, we take a look at republican Frank Luntz focus group on Fox News: Barack Obama won the debate. Luntz termed it a “clear majority,” but not one person raised their hand when asked if they thought McCain won.

What are individuals saying?

New York Times Editorial:

Wednesday night’s debate was another chance for Mr. McCain to prove that he is ready to lead this country out of its deep economic crisis. But he had one answer to almost every economic question: cut taxes and government spending. Unfortunately, what Mr. McCain means is to cut taxes for the richest Americans and, inevitably, to reduce the kinds of government services that working Americans need more than ever…

…It’s a shame that Mr. McCain hasn’t come up with policies that would actually help workers. Instead, he’s served up the same-old trickle-down theories and a government-is-wrong, markets-are-right fervor that helped create this economic disaster…

Mr. Obama has better ideas to respond to the financial crisis and to put the economy back on the right track. He supports a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures and more money for states and localities, both of which would quickly bring relief beyond Wall Street.

Mr. Obama wants to raise the minimum wage and tie it to inflation. Mr. McCain wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent — a big break for the top 1 percent of society. Mr. Obama would cut taxes for low- and moderate-income families and raise them for richer Americans.

Newsweek’s Andrew Romano:

Over the course of 90 minutes–and I apologize if my count is not complete; my fingers can only type so fast–McCain accused Obama of being a) a craven wealth-spreader (at least eight times), b) an abject tax-raiser, especially on folks unfortunate enough to make $42,000 a year, c) a lily-livered coward who’s never once stood up to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, d) a town-hall avoider, e) a public-financing flip-flopper, f) the most avid negative advertiser in American history, g) a befriender of “washed-up terrorist(s),” h) an enabler of “one of the greatest frauds in voter history” (which just so happens to be “destroying the fabric of American democracy”),  i) an “eloquent” dissembler, j) a support of infanticide and, finally, k) a guy who wants to do all kinds of unspeakable things to someone named Joe the Plumber, up to and including raising his taxes, redistributing his money and fining him for choosing the wrong kind of health care. (No word yet on whether Obama plans to spit in Joe’s beer when he’s looking in the other direction.) After all that, McCain’s claim that his “campaign is about getting this economy back on track, about creating jobs, about a brighter future for America” seemed like a punchline.

Alan Schroeder, Professor of Journalism, Northeastern University:

The format worked, the moderator asked his questions then got out of the way, and both debaters delivered solid performances. Although McCain came loaded for bear, as the debate progressed, he ran short of ammo and his tone went from aggressive to tetchy. Obama had the luxury of taking the high road, which afforded him a natural advantage, and he deflected many of his opponent’s sharpest barbs with a look of unconcerned amusement. However much McCain gnawed at his heels, Obama blithely shook him off, reinforcing an already established aura of unflappability.

Yves Smith, Writer of Naked Capitalism blog and management consultant:

McCain did better than in the earlier debates, less reliance on now- tired soundbites, more specific on his record, his programs, and a particularly good moment with his “I am not President Bush” retort. 

But he needed to hit this out of the park, and fell considerably short. There were plenty of negatives:. McCain came off as overeager, at points cranky and petty, and his attempt to rhapsodize on Palin was revealingly shallow. Obama still is less than credible on spending (but McCain did not do well here either), but Obama nevertheless sounded thoughtful, mature, and in command, and that is more than enough to keep him on track.

Roger Simon, Politico:

John McCain needed a miracle in his final debate with Barack Obama on Wednesday night, a miracle that would wipe away McCain’s deficit in the polls and re-energize his flagging campaign. 

He did not get one. The clouds did not part. Heavenly choirs were not heard. Instead, the American public heard angry attacks from McCain.

Sometimes McCain attacked directly, and sometimes he attacked sarcastically, but he never stopped attacking. And he never rattled Obama. Obama answered every attack and kept his cool.

Marty Kaplan, The Huffington Post:

Ninety minutes of John McCain making faces was more than enough for a lifetime. It’s hard to imagine anyone willingly inviting that antic lemon-sucking grinfest into their homes for the next four years.

And as is typical of people who want their candidate to do better, but have nothing to hold on to so they repeat the same tired, old phrases with nothing to back them up, Roy Blunt, Rep. (R-Mo.) pathetically commented:

Senator McCain proved again tonight that he’ll never shy away from a fight – and that he’s the candidate ready to fight for the American people. The stakes are too high for our country to have untested leadership in the White House. The country needs a leader who will change Washington; the country needs John McCain.

So what are some other Conservative voices saying?

National Review senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru:

“A minute they spend on who’s being meaner or more dishonest in this campaign is a minute that helps Obama–not because he wins the issue, still less because he deserves to win it, but because it is not what is driving people’s votes–and they’ve spent way more than a minute on this stuff.”

Conservative Christian columnist, Rod Dreher: 

OK, that’s over. And so is the McCain campaign. He was more aggressive than he’s been so far, and he came close to landing some blows on Obama. But he never really connected, and for the most part this debate was as platitudinous as they all have been. McCain came off as sour, agitated and petulant. Obama — man, nothing rattles that guy. McCain was two tics away from a vein-popping “You can’t handle the truth!” Jack Nicholson moment, I felt. At one point, I thought: Which one of these men would I want in the White House when the 3 a.m. phone call comes in?

Jennifer Rubin at Pajamas Media:

At times McCain seemed to connect with a jab or a punch here or there, but his argument at times wavered and his delivery was far from crisp. As for Obama, he was at his calmest and smoothest. If McCain needed to knock Obama off his perch of serenity it didn’t happen.

Conservative Powerline Blog’s Paul Mirengoff:

Ultimately, it seems unlikely that McCain cut into Obama’s lead through this performance. And Obama may have taken another small step towards making Americans comfortable with the prospect of his presidency.

Last but not least, and simply because he is consistently both intelligent and funny, here’s John Stewart commenting on John McCain’s Brand New Stump Speech Tuesday night. Just another example of McCain’s “Change.”

McCain Adopts Reagan Approach. Fails: Town Hall Debate

It seemed to me tonight that John McCain decided the best way to reach Americans was to stroke their egos; tell them things will be okay because Americans can do ANYTHING and remind them how great they are. Ronald Reagan made an art of telling Americans exactly what they wanted to hear, even when it was an outright lie. But it was comforting. People wanted to believe it. But McCain’s no Ronald Reagan, despite his admiration for the man. He may subscribe to many of Reagan’s policies, but he has none of the charisma and charm that got Reagan so far and started us down the misguided path that lead us to where we are today.

McCain appeared, at times, doddering and old. He had some strong-ish moments, but they were undermined by moments of confusion and a clear disdain and disregard for his opponent that is simply unattractive. He also felt a need to repeat accusations that Obama put to rest in the last debate. Like claiming Obama does not support nuclear power. McCain also seems to think that Obama not supporting the Troop Surge is some kind of trump card. Most Americans didn’t support the Surge! He’s telling them they were wrong, too! It’s an odd tactic given that the reason for the Surge was to clean up a mess created by George Bush and overwhelmingly supported by McCain. It really works against him to keep bringing it up. But this is one of the problems here. McCain has very little to go on. He talks about his record, but his record suggest he supported most of the causes of the current financial crisis and military crisis. And his suggested strategies for “change” is to continue those very same policies! I also find it odd that McCain thought the notion of NOT raising taxes, particularly for the 0.1 percent wealthiest Americans, was a good idea given the current economic crisis and the fact that we’re currently engaged in two very expensive wars. It doesn’t take a politician to know that someone has to pay for what’s happened here. Obama was right in talking about raising the taxes of those LEAST affected by this economic crisis, like Sen. McCain and himself, as Mr. Obama fearlessly noted. 

Now we know I’m biased here, but Obama not only appeared more presidential to me, but his answers and solutions made so much sense and were about all the things that actually make America great; a way of thinking, a true desire to be a leader in the world and not an aggressor. For anyone actually listening–and I hope there were many–Obama outlined a path that could, if followed, return America to the country that people like Reagan and McCain talk about in imagery as they stroke our egos and appeal to our desires, but work against with every policy and every action. 

But there are enough people out there who are still suffering from a form of Victim Mentality, something I talked about in an earlier post after the first debate. To invest yourself so deeply in someone or something, to put your trust in someone or something–a person, a government– to even invest your money into it, and then have all the facts point to a reality that you were mislead, lied to, deceived, betrayed in every way… For many people, this is too horrible a thought, too painful a notion to actually embrace. So, against better judgement, they fight even more ferociously in support of that which has hurt them. There is a need to believe it was not in vein, that what was promised IS real and that if they just stick to the path, see it through… I believe this victim mentality is largely to blame for George W. Bush’s reelection. In the face of all the proof, all the death, all the lies, enough people weren’t ready to admit to themselves that they had been taken advantage of, that someone had used and abused their deepest desires, wishes and fears and used those against them. Hopefully, four years later, more people have come to understand the truth, have learned to accept it, no matter how painful, and are ready to take action to right the wrongs that have been made and start the healing process. It will not be easy, and it places a great burden on Barack Obama to do right by the people that elect him, people who are now skittish and afraid to trust. But there is no chance of moving forward without trust. For those who trust McCain and continue to trust Bush, the healing will take a very long time. Perhaps, it will never happen. 

As for the debate itself, the Town Hall format was always considered John McCain’s strength. He asked Obama several times to join him in earlier Town Hall format debates. Obama refused each time. And so John McCain’s opening remarks contained a cheap shot at Sen. Obama about this. It was a big mistake that set the tone for the rest of McCain’s evening. However, Barack Obama seemed clearly comfortable in this setting, more so than McCain who came across inauthentic, saying “my friends” far too often while trying to appear casual when, in fact, he appeared a little uncomfortable and “forced”. Not to mention condescending. 

I will give Sen. McCain one credit, though. He never mentioned Ayers, Wright or Rezko.

If I had one criticism of the debate itself, it would be Tom Brokaw’s somewhat unprofessional behavior. He seemed to take the candidates talking over their time limits personally, instead of finding a way to adapt to the needs of the debate. His clear frustration and anger at both candidates created a tension that did not need to be there. He became condescending and clearly annoyed. I was also less-than-thrilled with his pick of questions. There are better moderators out there somewhere. Why can’t we use them? 

Now let’s move on and see what the early polls are saying.

CNN focus group: Obama wins 54 percent to McCain’s 30.

NBC’s focus group of undecided Pennsylvania voters: Obama 60 percent, McCain 40 percent. 

Frank Luntz’s focus group, over at Fox: undecided voters leaned towards Obama because of his position on health care.

CBS’s focus group of independents: Obama with 39 percent to McCain’s 27 percent, with 35 percent of the respondents saying it was a tie.

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a Democratic polling firm: undecideds leaning to Obama by a margin of 42 percent to McCain’s 24 percent.

SurveyUSA interviewed 741 debate watchers in the state of Washington: 54 percent thought Obama was the “clear winner” with McCain at 29 percent.

Even Bill Bennett, an American neoconservative pundit, politician, and political theorist who served as United States Secretary of Education from 1985 to 1988, was disappointed by McCain’s performance tonight:

It is widely considered that tonight’s debate needed to be a game-changer for McCain. It seems clear that it was not. So even for those that considered tonight’s debate a tie, it wasn’t enough to alter the direction of this election. 

So what are others saying?

Katherine Q. Seelye of The New York Times: 

Here, Mr. Obama has a star turn — on foreign policy, Mr. McCain’s supposed turf. Mr. Obama is more forceful than usual, and makes the hunt for Osama bin Laden his singular focus.

The Atlantic‘s Andrew Sullivan:

This was, I think, a mauling: a devastating and possibly electorally fatal debate for McCain. Even on Russia, he sounded a little out of it. I’ve watched a lot of debates and participated in many. I love debate and was trained as a boy in the British system to be a debater. I debated dozens of times at Oxofrd. All I can say is that, simply on terms of substance, clarity, empathy, style and authority, this has not just been an Obama victory. It has been a wipe-out.It has been about as big a wipe-out as I can remember in a presidential debate. It reminds me of the 1992 Clinton-Perot-Bush debate. I don’t really see how the McCain campaign survives this.

National Review‘s Andy McCarthy:

We have a disaster here — which is what you should expect when you delegate a non-conservative to make the conservative (nay, the American) case. We can parse it eight ways to Sunday, but I think the commentary is missing the big picture…

…With due respect, I think tonight was a disaster for our side. I’m dumbfounded that no one else seems to think so. Obama did everything he needed to do, McCain did nothing he needed to do. What am I missing?

The Atlantic‘s Ross Douthat:

I’d call tonight’s debate a draw, which if the dynamic from the first debate holds probably means it was a big win for Obama… Obama was unruffled and consistent – change vs. more of the same, change vs. more of the same, rinse and repeat – and for whatever it’s worth the physical and generational contrast between the two men was very striking in this setting, and especially in the early going McCain seemed to me be showing his age as he delivered his answers. He improved as the night went on, but the vigor gap was palpable.

Taegan Goddard‘s Political Wire: 

Tonight’s debate wasn’t even close. Sen. Barack Obama ran away with it — particularly when speaking about the economy and health care… Obama was more substantive, showed more compassion and was more presidential.

In contrast, Sen. John McCain was extremely erratic. Sometimes he was too aggressive (referring to Obama as “that one.”) Other times, he just couldn’t answer the question (on how he would ask Americans to sacrifice.).

The Huffington Post’s Robert Shrum: 

The big story tonight: Americans are becoming increasingly comfortable with the idea of President Obama. The “other,” as the Republicans labored to paint him, now comes across as reassuring, a strong and steady hand in a crisis, possessed of that grace under pressure that Americans prize in a president. Obama had it again tonight.

Slate.com’s John Dickerson:

The Winner: “That One.” After their second debate was over, both Barack Obama and John McCain shook hands with the Nashville audience of 80 uncommitted voters. Both were well-received. But Obama stayed longer, and with McCain out of the room, the affection from the swing voters increased. He was mobbed, patted, beamed at, embraced. One woman wiggled next to him. At one point, about 15 voters posed for a group picture like it was the last day of camp…These uncommitted voters wanted to be next to Barack Obama, and the adulation from the audience helps explain why he won the debate. 

Salon.com’s Joan Walsh:

Barack Obama dominated this debate from the very first question John McCain fielded directly, when he condescended to the African-American questioner, a young man named Oliver, who asked how the $700 billion rescue plan passed last week would help the average American. McCain first implied that Oliver and other regular voters wouldn’t know that much about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, then went into the misleading Fannie/Freddie claims…

…Obama came up and broke down exactly how the rescue plan will theoretically (ignore the stock market) help the economy and American voters. Much of the rest of the night went like that. After rather inexplicably telling the audience that “energy independence” was the most important step the country can take to quickly solve the current economic crisis (when most experts agree energy independence will take decades), McCain a few moments later told moderator Tom Brokaw he couldn’t pick a priority among energy, healthcare reform and fixing entitlement programs. It was like he wasn’t tracking his own answers.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: 

“It’s apparent to say that Sen. McCain has some disdain, I think it’s fair to say, for Sen. Obama. That was very apparent throughout the course of this debate.”

Slate.com’s Fred Kaplan:

Finally, McCain’s baffling statement: “I’ll get Osama Bin Laden, my friends. I know how to get him. I know how to do it.” This is reminiscent of Richard Nixon’s secret plan to win the war in Vietnam—except that McCain belongs to the same party as the current president. If McCain knows how to do this, shouldn’t he have told George W. Bush?

Here are the results of Newsweek‘s Live Blogging poll:

So I’ll leave you now with a great Obama moment from tonight’s debate. It was one of many: