Rice for VP? Failure Has Its Rewards, Apparently

On Friday night, as I sat in Yankee Stadium on a beautiful night for baseball, despite the insistence of the weather professionals that rain was imminent (it never came), I said to my friend, "Being a meteorologist is one of two jobs in America where you can be consistently wrong and still keep your job. The other is President of the United States."

With the abject failures of the Bush administration taken as a given by the majority of the electorate now, it amazes me that, if you believe media reports, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is a serious candidate to be John McCain's running mate. (Two sample stories can be found here and here.)

As one of the few Bush cronies to actually make it through the entire run of his disastrous presidency, I am shocked that anybody would say to themselves, "Now, who would be a good person to put in front of the American people and ask for their trust for the next four years? Hey! What about the right-hand woman to George W. Bush?"

Let's face it: Judged on competency and results, Bush and Rice would have been fired a long time ago from 99 percent of the jobs in America. It makes me wonder what it would look like if Rice had to go through a standard job interview, the way most Americans must when applying for work:

"Secretary Rice. Thanks for coming in. Did you find parking okay?"

"My driver dropped me off, so ..."

"Right. Sit down. Please."

"Thank you. Here is my resume."

"I have a copy already, thanks. My staff says this Internet thing is really handy."

"Yes, I'll have to try using it some time."

"So, Madame Secretary, it says here that you were the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs from January 2001 to January 2005."

"That's correct."

"Okay, tell me a bit about your responsibilities."

"Well, that was my formal title. Most people refer to me as the National Security Advisor. It's a very important job. I was the president's chief advisor on security issues."

"Great. Now, if I remember correctly, that was a tumultuous time."

"Yes, we were attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001."

"I remember, of course. Just so I understand, you were the National Security Advisor when we were attacked."

"Yes, Senator, but in my defense, how could anyone have known something like that would occur?"

"Well, didn't the CIA have intelligence that Osama bin Laden was planning an attack?"

"Yes, Senator, but as i explained when I testified in front of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the indication was that the attacks would be in Europe."

"Yes. But Madame Secretary, and I don't want to be rude here, but didn't CIA Director George Tenet write in his August 6, 2001 President's Daily Briefing that there was a threat from bin Laden for an attack on the U.S.?"

"Yes, Senator, but there are so many briefings ..."

"Again, I don't want to be rude, but wasn't the briefing called, "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US," and didn't it talk about hijackings?"

"Again, Senator, so many briefings. Who could have known that this one was so serious?"

"Well, Madame Secretary, didn't a CIA officer fly to President Bush's ranch to tell him about the report, because it was so serious?"

"I don't recall, Senator."

"This fellow at Slate.com seems to think that you were a bit of an embarrassment in your handling of the bin Laden briefing and in your testimony to the commission. I'm not sure what Slate.com is, but my aides tell me lots of liberals read it."

"There you go, Senator. Are you going to believe the rantings of some left-wing radicals? Fox News said I did a great job."

"Okay, let's move on. I believe the Iraq War began during the time you were President Bush's National Security Advisor."

"Yes Senator."

"And all of the intelligence about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be wrong."

"I was fooled just like the president was. And really, my job is to report the intelligence findings. I wasn't in charge of the CIA."

"And the lack of planning and mismanagement that resulted in a five-year-and-counting quagmire in Iraq?"

"Again, not my department. That was Don Rumsfeld's purview. And he lost his job for it, while I was promoted. So, there you go, I must be blameless, right?"

"But, just to be clear, and, again, I mean no disrespect, but you were the chief security advisor to the president at a time when we were attacked, and when we stumbled into one of the worst planned occupations of the last 100 years."

"Sure, but, again, none of it was my fault."

"Okay. Moving on. You were made Secretary of State in January of 2005. How have our diplomatic relationships been going since then?"

"I think very good."

"You do. Well, how does the world look at our efforts in Iraq?"

"They're coming around."

"Actually, they're not."

"They will. And besides, running the war is not my department. Again, Don Rumsfeld ..."

"Yes, I know, he was fired after the Democrats took back Congress in November 2006 based primarily about anger over the war."

"There are many interpretations for any election result ..."

"Maybe. But not this time. And Katrina?"

"Again, not my ..."

"Department. I get it."

"The shoddy treatment of veterans, condoning torture, the disappearance of billions of dollars unaccounted for in Iraq, the contractors like Blackwater lawlessly running wild while taking in huge profits, the loss of focus on Afghanistan, skyrocketing oil prices, ignoring global warming, deteriorating relationships with Russia and Europe, failures to address the changes in the world brought about by the rise of the Chinese, skyrocketing food prices, the subprime mortgage scandal, numerous government failures in areas ranging from mining to product safety, illegal wiretapping, the demise of habeas corpus, and a crashing economy. All while you were a top officer of the Bush administration."

"And all outside of my department."

"Do you have any accomplishment you can point to during your last three-plus years as Secretary of State?"

"Well ... hmmm ... I met with the Israelis and Palestinians a bunch of times to get them to agree to a peace deal."

"Did they?"

"Not yet."

"Okay. Anything else?"

"Absolutely. Wow, I'm drawing a blank. No idea why. Can I send you a follow-up memo later?"

"Sure. So let me sum this all up, Madame Secretary. On your watch, the U.S. was hit with the worst terrorist attack in its history, even though you had a memo specifically warning of such an attack a month before. Then, the U.S. invaded Iraq based on bad intelligence, and proceeded to botch the occupation through a potent mixture of incompetence, arrogance and poor planning. You were the president's chief advisor on security matters during this time, and during this time, nearly nothing was accomplished, while great damage was done to the nation. Colin Powell fled the administration after Bush's first term because he was so aghast at how things were handled, and yet you were promoted into his position, where you serve to this day. And you can't point to a single accomplishment during your term as Secretary of State. Lots of bad things happened on your watch, but none of it was your fault. Do I have that about right?"

"I wouldn't quite phrase it like that, but ..."

"Thank you for coming in Madame Secretary. We'll be in touch."

"Did I get the job?"

"How can I put this politely? I'd ask my driver to be my running mate before you."

Alas, that interview will never happen. It gives way too much credit to McCain, who was lockstep with Bush nearly every step of the way of his failed administration.

It would seem that Rice would make the McCain ticket even more vulnerable to "four more years of Bush" attacks, which is McCain's main weakness in November. Personally, I will be shocked if she is the choice, mainly because of how unpopular Bush is with the American people. But if Bush's win in 2004 proves anything, it's that the U.S. electorate is capable of electing just about anyone. I only wish someone would put Rice through the interview the American people deserve.

And if all else fails, Rice can become a weather forecaster. She's already proven she can be consistently wrong. Does Stanford have a meteorology program?

Lewis Black Is Funnier Than His New Show; “Human Giant” Is Funnier Than Most

[NOTE: The following article will also appear as my regular television column for WILDsound.]

What is it with funny performers choosing to star in mediocre programs? Add Lewis Black to this ever-growing list with the appearance of his new Comedy Central show “Lewis Black’s Root of All Evil” (Wednesdays at 10:30 p.m. Eastern, after “South Park”).

In the past month alone, I have twice lamented in this space the cases of funny people being stuck in series and roles not up to their talents. I wondered why Rashida Jones would follow-up her career-making stint on “The Office” with a second banana (at best) part on the silly “Unhitched.” I also complained that Judy Greer, who has made a career stealing scenes in supporting roles, settled for a one-dimensional character surrounded by an inferior cast when she finally got a lead, starring in the sitcom “Miss Guided.” (As an aside, “Miss Guided” has grown on me, while I’m finding “Unhitched” more an more unwatchable, with its repetitive date-gone-wrong plots and insanely predictable punchless punch lines.)

And now Black, who is sharply funny in his stand-up specials and memorable “Back in Black” segments on “The Daily Show,” has made a questionable choice with “Root of All Evil.” Each episode pits two comics against each other in a mock trial to determine which of two nominees is the titular root of all evil, with Black serving as the judge. The topics range from the controversial (Oprah v. the Catholic church, in the series debut) to the mundane (last week’s showdown between weed and beer). The advocates come from a pool of veteran comedians that includes Andrew Daly, Greg Giraldo, Andy Kindler, Patton Oswalt and Paul F. Tompkins. The comics present opening arguments/monologues, followed by a pre-recorded segment (usually interviews or man-on-the-street pieces), an “Inquisition” from Black, and each side’s “Ripple of Evil” (that is, why this bad thing will lead to the end of the world). After closing arguments/monologues, Black renders his decision.

Oddly, the format puts the spotlight on the comics, relegating Black to acting as a traffic cop for the comedians around him (think Colin Quinn on the old Comedy Central comedy “Tough Crowd With Colin Quinn”). And hosting does not work to Black’s strengths as a comedian. The guy has made a career based on his stage persona as the rumpled, cranky (angry, really) contrarian who gets agitated and animated about things that piss him off, especially in politics. In “Root of All Evil,” Black gets to be cranky, but too often he is forced to squeeze rushed, well-rehearsed, television-friendly zingers into the super-structured action, rather than letting his angry persona have room to breathe.

I couldn’t help thinking that Black would be funnier than any of his guests at taking one of the positions. If Comedy Central wanted to give its long-time collaborator his own show, maybe the format should have been to have a different comedian debate Black each week, rather than pushing him to the sidelines as the judge. That show, I think, would have made better use of Black’s comic gifts.

Having said all of that, once you get past what “Root of All Evil” could have been, the show does have its charms. Black manages to throw in some good jokes throughout the proceedings. During the beer v. weed debate, he noted: “Weed should be harmless enough, because as pot-heads argue, mother nature put it here. But, mother nature gave us other things that aren't a good idea to smoke, such as oregano, magnesium and puffer fish.” I like the good-natured insults that the advocates throw at each other, like when Kindler referred to Giraldo as the “poor man’s George Lopez” during the debate of Donald Trump vs. Viagra. Some of the segments provide laughs, like when Tompkins interviewed Aimee Mann to prove that songwriters can be creative without getting high. And each episode does find the comics hitting pay dirt on the occasional observation, like when Giraldo, who comes up with many of the best lines on the show, observed: “The Virgin Mary. God impregnated Mary. We have a whole religion based on one woman who really stuck to her story.”

But too often, the monologues descend into lowest-common-denominator clichés. During the beer v. weed debate, Tompkins sadly went the well-traveled route of pointing out that the Grateful Dead’s music was bad and only sounded good to people who were stoned, and Daly offered the dead-on-arrival line: “Hops are what you find in a basketball player’s shoes.”

“Lewis Black’s Root of All Evil” takes a very funny comic and a premise filled with potential, but manages to squander it. I wouldn’t say the show is the root of all evil. It’s funny enough. But you would be better off waiting for Black’s next comedy special.

Or tuning into the MTV sketch comedy program “Human Giant” (Tuesdays at 11 p.m. Eastern), which is currently in its second season. The under-the-radar cast members -- Aziz Ansari, Rob Huebel and Paul Scheer -- perform funny, irreverent sketches. While they push the boundaries of basic cable propriety (the air time is 11 p.m. for good reason), the performers never rely on the raunch at the expense of wit.

More often than not, the sketches strike at the heart of cultural phenomena. I liked Huebel’s character that was so desperate for fame, he made a viral video in which he cuts off his own penis. The whole thing cleverly ends up with Huebel’s character on a talk show, where he shares the bill with Ansari’s funny-face-maker, who secured far more views of his video, and did so without doing harm to his body. I also really liked the parody of the true-crime shows that can be found all over the air, with the actor in a re-enactment of an office shooting spree similarly going postal and shooting people on the set, leading, of course, to the inevitable re-enactment of the re-enactment. The original killer (played by guest Brian Posehn) notes that the “re-enactment had become an enactment.” Posehn isn’t the only veteran to guest on “Human Giant.” This year’s episodes have featured Bill Hader and Andy Samberg of “Saturday Night Live” and Will Arnett.

I especially liked a sketch in which Ansari played a guy in a car wreck who is haunted by the ghost of a gay porn star killed in the accident. The ghost turns Ansari’s daily activities into instances of homosexual sex, leading to an unanticipated “Sixth Sense” twist ending (complete with an M. Night Shyamalan credit). The sketch was a reflection of the show: dirty but smart. It also showcased how “Human Giant” films its sketches like short films, not relying on live-audience performances on more theatrical sets (like “Mad TV” and “Saturday Night Live”).

If you want to let your TiVo keep running after “South Park,” there are worse comedies on the air than “Lewis Black’s Root of All Evil.” But you can find even more laughs over on MTV with the out-there antics of the cast of “Human Giant.” Let’s wish Ansari, Huebel and Scheer good luck on choosing their next projects. After the past month of talented performers debuting in inferior shows, history says they’re going to need it.

Clinton Has a Right to Go On, but Why Should She?

Three hypothetical scenarios:

- A woman tells a local news reporter that she believes that blacks and Jews are inferior human beings.

- A 450-pound man walks down a New York City sidewalk wearing only a midriff-baring sleeveless undershirt and a banana hammock.

- A New York Yankees executive asks a reunited Backstreet Boys to sing the national anthem at Yankee Stadium.

What do these three people have in common? All of them have a right to do what they're doing, but in each case, they should choose not to. And if they opt to go through with the actions in question, anybody of conscious will rebuke them for what they have done.

And that is exactly the situation facing Hillary Clinton.

Clearly, Clinton has the right to continue on in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. But, like the racist, the fat streaker or the Backstreet Boys fan, that doesn't mean she should exercise her right.

In fact, Clinton, with the dutiful assistance of the same media that she says is unfairly harsh on her, has completely refocused the issue of her campaign away from the practical eventualities of her staying in the race to an ideological question of what she is entitled to do.

If you listen to Clinton speak, you would think that she and Obama were tied, and that the race could go either way, but the forces that be are trying to get her to drop out anyway. Consider these recent quotes of hers:

"I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens in the next 10 contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan. And if we don't resolve it, we'll resolve it at the convention - that's what credentials committees are for." (From cbsnews.com.)

"My take on it is a lot of Senator Obama's supporters want to end this race because they don't want people to keep voting." (From Yahoo!/AP.)

The problem is, she's wrong.

According to CNN's tally, Obama currently has 1,414 pledged delegates, while Clinton has only 1,243. Of course, if this was a sporting event, you would be fully correct in looking at the numbers and saying, "Wow, that's a close race!" Except this is not a basketball game. With only 10 states left, and with the Democrats awarding delegates on a proportional basis (rather than bestowing a state's entire delegate count on the winner like the Republicans do), it is virtually impossible for Clinton to significantly cut into Obama's lead. And yes, even if Clinton takes her case to the credentials committee at the convention and gets the delegates seated from Florida's beauty contest and Michigan's USSR-style one-candidate primary (both held earlier than Democratic National Committee rules allowed), Clinton still cannot catch Obama.

In other words, the only way for Clinton to secure the nomination is to keep the delegate count as close as possible after the 10 remaining contests are completed, and then persuade roughly two-thirds of the superdelegates to go against the will of the voters and give her the victory. Let's look at the repercussions of such a turn of events:

- It would mean that the party elite would have taken away the opportunity for Obama to become the first African American major party nominee, even after he won more pledged delegates, more states, and probably more popular votes than Clinton. How do you think that will go over, not just with the African American community, but with Obama's supporters as a whole? What kind of message does that send to the American people, who are already wary of insider politics?

- It would also mean that Clinton will have dragged the race not only through the end of the primaries into June, but through to the convention in August (assuming there isn't a mass movement of superdelegates to Clinton before July 1, which seems highly unlikely). All while John McCain builds an infrastructure and raises money in the warm glow of his unopposed GOP coronation. That would leave the Democratic winner with less than three months to heal the wounds of the party's intramural slugfest and put together a campaign operation aimed at McCain. By then, McCain will have had a massive head start in framing the issues and painting the Democratic contender however he sees fit.

- And what would be left of Clinton on September 1, assuming she pulls off this Houdini act and takes the nomination? Her attacks of the last few weeks (the only way to catch Obama was to tear him down) have worked in one way, in that her poll numbers against Obama showed some improvement, at least until her story about snipers in Bosnia was embarrassingly contradicted by CBS News footage. But at what cost? Polls show Clinton currently has her lowest favorability ratings in years. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that 29 percent of respondents had a "very negative" opinion of her, compared with 15 percent for Obama and 12 percent for McCain. The same poll also found that 48 percent had somewhat or very negative opinions of Clinton, while 37 percent found her very or somewhat positive, a change from two weeks earlier when her negative was 43 and her positive was 45. If you think her likability took a hit due to her Bosnia fabrications, imagine what would happen if she engineers a party-elite-driven campaign to take the nomination away from Obama? (Obama's numbers in the poll, by comparison, are 49 percent positive and 32 percent negative.)

The bottom line is that while the Clinton campaign and the media would like you to believe this is a close race, the fact is that it is all but over. At this point the question isn't whether Clinton has a right to stay in the race, but what she has to gain by doing so. A March 21, 2008 article on Politico.com suggests that the media is buying into the Clinton argument that the race is close because, among other reasons, it's good for ratings. So the media's motivation can be easily ascertained. But what does Clinton have to gain?

One amazing element of this story that doesn't get enough play is that Clinton acts (and is portrayed) like an underdog, which is preposterous, when you consider how this race shaped up a year ago. She was the establishment candidate. Her husband was a popular, two-term president. She had the elite Democratic advisers on her side, and an early jump on fundraising. Her earliest strategy was "inevitability," so much so that the season premiere of "Saturday Night Live" last September began with a message from the "All-but-Certain-to-Be-Next-President" Hillary Clinton (played, as always, by Amy Poehler).

And yet, not only did Clinton slip behind Obama in votes and fundraising, but despite all of her entrenched advantages, her campaign did not display the one quality you want from a president (especially after seven-and-a-half years of George W. Bush): competency. The campaign failed to adjust to Obama's rise. She has been dogged by stories about the lavish spending on the infrastructure of her campaign, while at the same time battling claims that they are not paying their bills on time (today it came up on CNN that, of all things, the campaign had failed to pay staffers' health insurance premiums).

Most of all, the Clinton campaign failed to build a field operation anywhere near as effective as Obama's, leading to Obama winning nearly every caucus. Which resulted in the Alice-in-Wonderland effect of the former first lady saying that caucuses were undemocratic, since it rewarded the ability to get out the vote rather than the will of the large electorate. But isn't it establishment candidates who usually have the organizations in place to get out the vote for caucuses? By admitting to Obama's preeminence in this area, isn't she essentially admitting to failure?

If Clinton was the underdog from the beginning, an outsider like Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee, it would be hard to argue with her for staying in the race this late even though victory is all but impossible. But even putting the issues aside of the damage Clinton is doing to the Democrats by staying in the race and the unlikelihood of her prevailing, for the establishment candidate to be losing to the upstart by any amount at this stage should be viewed as a loss.

No, it's time for Clinton to go, and to let Obama begin his campaign against John McCain. Does she have a right to stay in the race? Sure, but who cares? She has nothing to gain and everything to lose. And she just may bring down the Democratic hopes in November with her.