Author Archives: gdewar

So we’ve finally gotten to the end of the most anti-climactic vice-presidential selection process in recent memory. Sen. John Edwards, the man with a lot of charm (and a lot of money) has been selected. Time to move forward.
Kudos are due to the folks at DraftKerryEdwards.com who started promoting the idea of a Kerry/Edwards ticket back in December 2003, and event went live with a website at the time of the Superbowl (ironically between the Carolina Panthers and the New England Patriots) for being so far-sighted.
Kudos also for getting so many people on board the campaign, and getting those stickers out, even out here in Venice Beach!
People have been asking me “who’s it gonna be?” for some time now, and I always responded with two answers: realistic – he’ll most likely pick Edwards, for the reasons the echo chamber has stated for months now; and curious – he’ll pick someone we’ve not heard much about that will surprise us all.
Pressed, I always said Edwards, despite my own early misgivings about him, solely based on the fact that even in the hyper-short primary season, he never seemed to win many states and that his campaign seemed to mostly say that he looked good, had a lot of money, and spent a lot of time raising money, and oh yeah, he’s from the South. Not exactly a lot there to read. That said, now that we’ve seen him be a good sport and campaign for Kerry for so long I am sure he’ll do fine. What do I know, right?
As for the “experience issue” – while I am sure this will be raised, I’ll simply play my “reverse the names” game on this quotable notable, not unlike the way Washington Post columnist EJ Dionne did this morning with this trip via the Campaign Wayback Machine:
When you hear Republicans disparage Sen. John Edwards’s lack of experience, remember the words of Sen. Orrin Hatch, spoken to George W. Bush at a debate on Dec. 6, 1999.
“You’ve been a great governor,” Hatch declared of his rival for the Republican presidential nomination. “My only problem with you, governor, is that you’ve only had four and going into your fifth year of governorship. . . . Frankly, I really believe that you need more experience before you become president of the United States. That’s why I’m thinking of you as a vice presidential candidate.”
Which is exactly what Edwards was chosen for yesterday.
I am sure that will drive the “My Guy Right or Wrong” crowd will try to toss this down the Memory Hole, but such is the way of things these days. Still, it’s an interesting point to remember.
My favorite non-news “buzz” surrounding the selection process, and the selection of Edwards himself, has been the revival, one more time ,of the “Hillary Clinton Presidential Conspiracy Sweepstakes,” with lots of wild-eyed talk about alleged scenarios about how this year’s process is being somehow manipulated to Get Hillary Elected President. Now we have to hear that somehow Edwards and Ms. Clinton are locked in some bitter rivalry to the death now and in the future as a result of Mr. Edwards’ selection.
Surely you remember these theories, back when General Wesley Clark was running for president. Clark, was a stalking horse for Sen. Clinton’s devious plot to take the nomination at the summer convention. Read any right-wing (and even some left-wing) blogs and columns from Fall 2003, and you see what nonsense this really was/is.  
Now, most people haven’t heard the term ‘stalking horse’ much less know what it means, and in the era of the staged convention and rules designed to keep crazy things from embarassing anyone at a major party conveniton, this was one of the most unlikely scenarios Campaign 2004 was going to face.
In fact, I’d say these kinds of punditocratic scenarios are about as likely as likely as, say, Monica Bellucci spontaneously coming over to the Waterfront Cafe to buy me a Bitburger during said Democratic Convention this summer. *
No, when it comes to Hillary, put aside the logic – the Clinton Conspiracists need to weasel their way in and have their day. If they can make a buck off it, even better. Today was no different – many stories about Edwards’ pick included commentary about how he’s somehow automatically become a rival to Sen. Clinton should Kerry lose in 2004, or win and serve two terms to 2012.
Now far be it from me to join the Hillary Bashing Society of America – I don’t know her, have never met her, but from what I read she’s no more outrageous a Senator than any one of a number of folks on the other side of the aisle. The hysterical squealing of luminaries like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly have made bashing this woman a money-making industry for 12 years now, and I fail to take them seriously as anything but people who have to hawk more stickers, tapes, and books.
Put the echo chamber assessments about the alleged now and future rivalries of Edwards and Ms. Clinton aside, for a moment. Let’s all take a nice dose of Reality Juice, and think for a moment about this.
We haven’t even finished this election, and already, we’re trying to pick who’s going to run in not one, but two elections, both of which assume different outcomes to the one we haven’t finished yet. We’re also supposed to make assumptions and pronouncements about such, not based on any facts, but based on emotion, and whatever sells our latest books or blog. Makes for exciting copy, but really will have little to do with events in the future.
More importantly, one has to ask a hard question – just how realistic is a Hillary candidacy/presidency these days anyway? After 12+ years of relentless bashing, coupled with her own accomplishments and missteps, is it realistic to think that if Ms. Clinton were to run that she’d be a viable candidate? In an era of Faux News, 24-hour scandal mongering and professional PR hit men (and women), is it even possible such a candidacy would be viable past a few primaries?
Unfortunately, unless something major changes in this country, I’m afraid the answer is no. I am sure she’s a nice person and all, but after seeing what the media did to Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich, who didn’t have the defenses a Clinton would, it’s hard to see how this would shake out any differently, ex-First Lady or not. It’s unfortunate that’s one of the realities of our system, and it’s unfair, but it is what it is.
So when you hear more of these conspiracy theories, just remember it’s one of those things political junkies and pros love to talk about, and the “Land of What If” is a fun place to play. Unfortunately for us, it clouds the news coverage, and we end up talking about some professional mouth’s latest vacation in that magical land, instead of trying to assess what’s happening right now, in the real world.
*Message to the talented Ms. Bellucci – You can still come by and visit me here in Venice Beach if you want.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

What a difference a few weeks makes for the fledgling Nader 2004 campaign. This week the US Green Party declined to “endorse” Nader’s non-Green “independent” candidacy in favor of nominating their own candidate, party activist David Cobb. So much for coronations on the Left.
Reading about the Greens’ convention in Milwaukee, WI was like reading about a long gone era in Democratic and Republican conventions – one in which the outcome was not predetermined before the delegates got there, with real drama, and a very contentious debate before a decision on who their nominee would be, and a close vote.
In an era of Reality TV, I think both Democrats and Republicans have missed the boat on this. Can you imagine if we had a real Democratic convention, with real drama, and realtime dealmaking, televised as the ultimate reality show? Might have been fun. Ah, but I digress.
By all accounts, it is Ralph Nader who did the best job of defeating Ralph Nader, losing the chance at ballot access in many key states, including California. Nader’s stubborn decision to run as an “independent” (or nominee of what’s left of the Reform Party, depending on what day you ask spokesman Kevin Zeese what their candidate’s message is) managed to highlight already simmering tensions between the self-styled pop idol candidate and party from another generation of lefty types.
Many were already sore about Nader’s past slights, heavy handed management style, a refusal to share volutneer lists and information with grassroots party regulars, and a distinct lack of cooperation with local Green activists and leaders like San Francisco Supervisor and mayoral candidate Matt Gonzalez.
The fact that Nader refused to run as a Green, and refused to even attend a convention from whom he sought an endorsement demonstrated a real lack of politcal sense even a kid running for fourth grade president has. If you want the group to vote for you, you have to ask them first and it probably helps to actually show up as well. The Left is not big on coronations – heck you can’t even wear leather or eat a burger in one of these places, so trappings of royalty tend not to sit well.
This was on the heels of more bad news for the Nader machine. Recent reports in the Washington Post detailing more suspicious misuse of non profit facilities for Nader’s presidential camapign resulted in an ethics watchdog group filing a formal complaint against the Nader campaign, and raising more questions about Nader not unlike past charges of financial shenanigans brought against Nader by watchdog groups concerned about PIRG fundraising.
Additional reports of Nader’s second attempt to get on the Oregon ballot did not help his cause much either. Reports that conservative leaning groups were attempting to “stack” the event to benefit Nader, not out of some love for Nader’s policies, but instead in a bid to try and defeat Kerry, had none of the grassroots charm or energy Nader wishes his campaign had.
Instead it was an effort muddled by those who have no interest in Nader at all – except as a potential spoiler to defeat John Kerry in the fall. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the aging and increasingly bitter Nader and his dwindling camapign. A new ethics complaint now filed against the Nader campaign, and allies of the Bush/Cheney campaign only lead to more stains on the record for St. Ralph and company.
Thus it’s time to reassess Nader’s candidacy in the light of reality. Additional reports of sagging interest and internal disorganization within the Nader operation continue to dodge the campaign, to the point where Nader’s band of folks can no longer keep repeating the “press is out to get us” retort they’ve been using for over 10 years now – it’s time to realize that this circus ran out of calliope music a long time ago, and the only ones left paying for it are people who hope that it will somehow harm Kerry in some circuitous way.
It’s time to wonder what kind of legacy Ralph will leave on this race, in the final analysis. It is also time to wonder why news about this sorry candidacy is deemed on a level equal to that of the President or a sitting US Senator’s major party challenge of said president. Call me crazy, but this little circus’ tent is on fire, and the ringmaster’s been drinking 40s on his lunch break. Not exactly a professional three-ringer like the Democrats and Republicans are putting on.
Many polls show that if an election were held today in many “swing” states, Nader’s 3% could tip states to Bush, or at least make Kerry sweat a lot more than if the question was to choose either Bush or Kerry , hence the attention/concern/encouragement of Nader by folks on all sides. However, polling is not a predictor of future results – they are only a snapshot in time which assumes Nader’s on the ballot – note the word “assume.”
Thus, while Nader’s numbers now indicate a threat, that assumes of course, that he’ll be on the ballot. However, given his lack of organization, his lack of a Green Party nomination (with its access to the ballot in over 22 states) and a campaign message that gets more and more muddled each day starts to make the hopes of Bush supporters wishing for another “Nader factor” to help the President win re-election dimmer and dimmer.
Unlike the Gore camapign, which foolishly pissed away its advantages one by one, and ignored Nader until it was too late, the Democratic side has a unity of purpose not seen in ages, and will do whatever it takes to ensure that this election, win or lose, will not be held hostage by Nader.
It’s rare one gets to see a candidte implosion in such slow motion. Usually when we see a candidate go down in flames the media is too busy fanning them for us to get to see just how bad the crash can be. At the rate Ralph Nader is going, the tent’s collapsing, the lions have escaped, the carnies are being jailed, and yet the ringmaster is still insisting the show will go on. Don’t bet on it.
UPDATE: Salon.com published a new feature detailing more of the many things Ralph Nader would rather you not read about, lest it make you think he’s anything less than a saint.
UPDATE 2: Faced with the cold hard fact that he did not get enough signatures to qualify for the Arizona ballot Nader abandoned his bid for ballot status in that state. Predictably, Keven Zeese assumed his role of Chief Crybaby for the camapign, and whined about the “unfairness” of it all.
Now, this afternoon we’re hearing more whining and crying from Kevin Zeese, probably the whiniest spokesman for a candidate in recent memory, accusing people of dirty tricks. Guess when your boss is dishing out the attacks it’s ok, but when someone calls you and your boss on your sullied reputations, life’s not so good, eh, Mr. Zeese. So much for “fairness” from the Nader crew.
Memo to Kevin Zeese: When the rules say you need a certain number of signatures that are legitimate to qualify for the ballot, that’s the number you need.
This is a “1” or a “0” type situation – whining and “debating” have no place. You guys failed in your mission, and now you’re not on the ballot. Stop blaming others for your own inability to organize an effective campaign.
Your own incompetence, and the sheer lack of political skill or strategy by Boss Nader, are not the fault of the Democrats, Republicans or The Man. It’s yours. Time to own your failures and move on, kids. The whining and crying is getting a bit old.
Hey! Take a page from the great Maddox, and get some Johnson’s and Johnson’s “No More Tears” baby shampoo. Charge it to the campaign – it’s a legitimate expense for you!
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

According to a good friend at the Screen Actor’s Guild, it seems our truth-challenged bloggers and talk show hosts out there have been peddling a lie to their listeners, and it’s creating all sorts of headaches for the Guild.
The lie? That the “liberal” Screen Actor’s Guild doesn’t have a portrait of Reagan in its offices, despite the fact that he was a president of the union for many years.
This isn’t a debatable point at all – it’s one of those “1 or 0” situations, and in this case it’s a “1” and the people lying about it are a “0.” It’s a lie. Smirky Republicans can make up all the stories they want, but it’s still a lie.
One that’s caused the Guild quite a bit of hassle as Self-Appointed Guardians of Liberty (aka cranks) call up the Guild and proceed to bitch mightily about the injustice of it all – unaware that they’ve been hoodwinked by self serving liars who needed to ride Reagan’s death for a boost in the ratings. The guild had to waste a lot of time answering questions and putting out press releases to correct what was a lie. Odd how journalists and others jumped on this without checking facts, such a shock, really.
I can personally attest to the total falseness of said lie – I have attended events at SAG’s main offices, including one at the James Cagney Conference Room. When you enter the room there are portraits, all identically sized, of every former president of the union – including such notable “liberals” as Ronald Reagan and George Murphy*.
What a tremendous waste of everyone’s time, all caused by a nice big lie told by people who claim to be our Moral Guardians. Thanks kids. It’s good to know that some people feel a need to memorialize the former president with a nice big lie that causes good people a big headache.
*It’s interesting to note that most actors who run for office are Republicans: George Murphy, Ronald Reagan, Shirley Temple Black (although she was defeated in her one bid for Congress she served as Ambassador several times), Fred Thompson, Fred Grandy, and of course Arnold Schwarzenegger. Doesn’t fit the Crank Squad’s view of the world, but I guess with blinders on you can see more or less what you want.
UPDATE: A brief mention of my site on this topic appeared at LA Observed! Thanks Mr. Roderick!
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com