They baited each other . . . . ok, ok, it's a bit lame but at least I tried.

There is a certain ridiculousness in using debates to learn a lot about what candidates think, because it's all about media coverage and zingers and comfort (or lack thereof) and necktie colors and all kinds of other irrelevancies. I suppose there's a chance we might learn something or see something in a candidate that persuades us to -- or not to -- vote for him or her but mostly I think people watch in order to confirm that their opinions are valid. "See, he/she just can/can't cut it because [fill in the blank]!"

I thought Obama seemed slightly nervous and a bit annoyed, and I thought McCain seemed a bit testy and determined to show how much he's done and knows. Neither made me want to vote for him or like him but maybe liking someone shouldn't be part of the mix anyway. It might seem pleasant but is it a requisite for a good president that people like him/her and want to be friends? How could anyone be friends with all the (vastly different) people in this country?

I actually thought the two strangest things last night were (1) the pink and white neckties and (2) the way they spoke to each other.

• They both wore pink and white neckties, one striped and one polka dotted. What was that about? Do you suppose they worked that out ahead of time? Was it a signal to the inhabitants of Mars or Jupiter that we come in peace - or that they can?? I mean, really.
  
• And why did Obama call McCain "John" while McCain called Obama "Senator"? I wasn't sure whether Obama intended to sound friendly or casual/disrespectul but it came off mainly as puzzling and a bit patronizing. I swear sometimes he doesn't have a clue (remember the jokes he tries to tell?!). And was McCain being respectful by calling Obama "Senator" or was he being sarcastic?!

I think I pick at Obama's statements more than McCain's because McCain seems more "usual" in his approach. It would be great if there were a way to shake things up and change something almost fundamental so our daily lives could be more livable and more pleasant. So I guess I'm hoping to find that Obama makes sense to vote for and would really have ideas that could get us somewhere good. But I keep feeling disappointed and thinking maybe he just isn't the one. When he said he wants the country to be a place people want to come to again, I said "yes!" but then he added that he meant to a place like the one his father wanted so badly to come to in the 1960s and I stopped in my tracks. The sixties were probably our social and military nadir; the Vietnam War had everyone here and around the world in utter disarray and loathing us. One wonders if he adlibbed that line because sure he didn't think about it before he said it. (And then there's the minor detail that his father deserted his family, left them in that wonderful America he'd wanted to come to and went far far away. Is this whole exercise for Obama an attempt to regain his father??) And, by the way, it's not as if immigrants aren't still flocking here by the gazillion so I guess they didn't get the memo about how bad it is. I certainly don't want a jingoistic president, but realistic would be nice.

I thought McCain seemed knowledgable and determined. Certainly more assured than Obama. Perhaps the expectations were very low because neither is known for good debating skills but Obama seemed downright nervous at times and never conveyed the calm secure tone that drew so many to him in the first place.

Most distressing was that neither was straightforward even about his own positions (some details here).

Well, one down, three to go. Next is Thursday: Palin and Biden.

Labels: 2008 election, disappointments

Here's my wish for today, thrown out there in the hope that people who care about each other will give each other at least the same leeway for having different points of view that they give people they neither know well nor particularly care about.

Labels: disappointments, family, friends, politics

Apparently I'm not the only one to observe what seems to be a sad slow demise of "the early thrilling, fairy dust feel of the Obama revolution." Maureen Dowd has noticed too, as she writes today from the Democrats' convention. I wonder if there wasn't anything new or if we the people were so eager for something new that we grabbed onto it, transference-like but also mistakenly. I'm beginning to wonder if Obama is just another empty pair of pants and rolled-up white shirtsleeves.

Labels: 2008 election, disappointments

Things are going from good to unclear to bad to worse.  If this were a negative source I would be willing to doubt it but ABC is fairly reliable about Obama and this sort of thing.  It seems that Obama is going to rise up on a platform at the 50-yard line and be standing in something resembling a Greek portico.  The cheesy symbolism is bad enough but the man of the people, by the people and for the people seems to have evaporated awfully quickly, doesn't he?

Labels: 2008 election, disappointments, people

Apparently Obama's v.p. selection is Joe Biden.  I am dismayed.  He is part of the insider crony crowd, he's loose-lipped and can fly off the handle much as John McCain is reputed to do.  He ran for president and did so poorly in the primaries that it's unlikely most people remember his candidacy.  He's unappealing and seems to me to add absolutely nothing except politics as usual to the ticket.  If McCain chooses someone even halfway inspired, this may prove to be Obama's undoing.

What happened to "change" and "excitement" and "yes we can"?!

Labels: 2008 election, disappointments

When are public figures going to ingest thoroughly that the modern media will not let anyone get away with putting oneself forward as one kind of person while actually being another? It's taken a while despite years of rumors but I feel some relief to know that John Edwards' glib, smarmy, slick surface - which gave many of us a feeling of being sold a bill of goods, as they say - turns out indeed to be false. He's not, after all, the devoted husband and unwaveringly loyal peachy keen guy he said he was. All those pontifications about helping your neighbor and the glory of the common man were the bunch of hogwash they felt like. I don't personally care if he's had a million affairs but it's pretty rotten to Elizabeth (although yes it is her problem and not ours). What it also is, however, is yet another example of a politician with two disconnected sides of a mouth and no way for us to know which side to trust, if either. And that is the important reason any of us should care.

Labels: disappointments, politics

In case any CRRs thought my rant about Curtis and Kuby was chiefly my own opinion, check this out, from last week's generally reliable (about New York City, anyway) Daily News:

The morning slot at WABC is currently occupied by Curtis Sliwa and Ron Kuby, who have been one of program director Phil Boyce's best success stories.

So the good news is that a deal may not actually be signed and sealed about Imus' taking the morning radio show at ABC. Plus, this morning Curtis was razzing Kuby about taking gossip as fact because apparently Kuby saw the same story I did yesterday and went into surprised farewell speech mode. (By the way, imagine a world in which you get information about your own career by reading news reports. Must be fun. Not.) Anyway, the implications of the tease were obvious: it's not a done deal yet. So I searched online this morning and although it is heavily rumored that Imus will take the morning slot at ABC, it's not definite, particularly since, as everyone points out, Curtis and Kuby are ABC radio's pre-eminent locally focused show and "their ratings have been higher than Imus' for several years." On the other hand, "Imus would [probably] be syndicated, which increases his worth [and] could also, in theory, draw a more elusive and potentially more valuable audience in the city itself: the higher levels of the political, corporate, publishing and media worlds." But - as I said yesterday - this assumes advertisers would come and/or return to Imus, not to mention that "his ongoing appeal also could depend to an extent on how many of his regular guests would return, since some indicated during the Rutgers furor that they would be hesitant." Hesitant??? How about sooner slit their wrists, if they have brains or hearts or measurable i.q.'s?

Since the current program director at ABC is the same guy who has won kudos for putting C&K together, maybe he doesn't want to silence that success story now, or be the one to sell out two wonderful guys and their listeners and fans in order to hire one disgusting one, just for the chance of bigger bucks. Here's hoping.

Labels: about me, disappointments, headlines, ranting, reflections

It's official: Imus will be on WABC radio in early December. I am furious and sad and very angry. ABC is tossing one of the best shows on radio and replacing it with an unpleasant nasty old man. Sometimes it's awfully hard to resist thinking the world is a mess. Kids are fined for drawing flowers on sidewalks with chalk and two energetic, smart, engaged personalities are being replaced by an argumentative, racist, disagreeable, mean-spirited and not at all funny nincompoop.

Curtis & Kuby are fantastic. Theirs is one of the liveliest and most interesting shows on radio, without being one of those shouting talk-radio things, on the one hand, or a how-many-people-can-we-insult morning drive show, on the other. And you'd never have expected it to work. Ron Kuby's background and appearance suggest he'd be doctrinaire and completely impossible to argue with - let alone engage thoughtfully in conversations about headline topics with someone with a different philosophy and outlook. And everything about Curtis Sliwa is the essence of a belligerent New Yorker, from his Guardian Angels to his sports loyalties. Yet they never rant or rave or hurl angry insults at each other. They are entertaining and informed about current topics, and they're nice to each other. There's never a whiff of mean-spiritedness between them and I often have marveled at how well they maintain gentility and grace even when intensely disagreeing. They provide a model for how to discuss important and charged topics while keeping a sense of humor and decorum, even when strongly disagreeing.

C&K have been together since 1996 and in the morning slot since 2000. Listening to them has been a joy. They share intense concern for people and society, as well as respect for each other, intelligence and wit. Their points of view are politically divergent, to say the least, but they apparently like each other enough or are professional enough so their conversations are always interesting and amusing. They each have enormous personal warmth and style which is telegraphed in each of their amazingly distinctive and mellifluous voices. Yes, somehow, despite the strength of their differences, they have always been entertaining as well as informative.

It is absolutely ludicrous that ABC thinks it makes sense - or will make them any money rather than lose them advertisers and listeners - to have that nasty vitriolic blowhard on the air for the election year, when they could have had Ron and Curtis discussing things with their customarily well-expressed and interesting opinions. There's nothing for it but to boycott ABC radio and, perhaps, ABC-tv as well.

Labels: about me, disappointments, headlines, ranting