Democrats Still Have Work to Do to Win in November

[This article also appears on Huffingtonpost.com. You can access it from my author page here.]

I have a word of advice for my fellow Democrats, and here’s a hint: It involves chickens, counting and eggs.

I recently attended the National Conference for Media Reform in Minneapolis, and it seemed like every speaker’s presentation, as well as all my conversations with fellow attendees, started with the premise that Barack Obama is a lock to win the presidency in November.

In the last week, this site has featured a great article by Arianna Huffington comparing John McCain's 2008 campaign to Bob Dole's candidacy in 1996 (no, I'm not kissing up because she's the boss; read the article, it's very persuasive) and a fascinating piece by Steve Rosenbaum arguing that McCain is so sure to lose, by August he will drop out of the race in favor of another candidate.

Don't get me wrong: I think that the Democrats have an amazing opening to win back the White House. After all, as I frequently point out, George W. Bush's approval rating is at a historic low (28 percent in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll), and 81 percent of the country thinks we are on the wrong track, according to a recent CBS/New York Times poll. And Obama is certainly a better candidate than John Kerry, already showing that he has a better rapport with people and a willingness to fire back at Republican smears as they happen, rather than letting the right-wing attack machine define him the way the "swift-boaters" nailed Kerry.

It's just that there are also a lot of challenges to overhaul, and I don't want Democrats to take things for granted and have regrets in November. Or, put another way, I don't want the party to be the next 2007 New York Mets (who blew a seven-game lead with 17 games to play), or the next Leon Lett (fumbling while prematurely celebrating a potential touchdown after a fumble recovery), or, gulp, the next Kerry.

What scares me is that on the left there seems to be the pervasive idea that it is common knowledge among Americans across the country that McCain has become a joke, a Bush clone with a campaign loaded with lobbyists who has become so addled that he comes off as desperate and out of touch when he speaks. It makes me uneasy, because it is dangerously similar to the mood on the left in 2004, when so many of us figured that the country couldn't possibly return to office someone as incompetent, deceitful and destructive as Bush. The problem was, while the left knew about Bush's lack of fitness for office in 2004, the rest of the country hadn't reached that conclusion yet. They did, and by November 2006, the voters had tossed the Republicans out of power in Congress. But it was too late for the presidency, and we have had to endure four more years of scandals, incompetence, a sagging economy, and an ongoing debacle in Iraq.

I hope, in time, the rest of the country will come around to the point of view of McCain held by those of us on the left. I think it's pretty accurate, and with more light on McCain, it will become obvious to more voters. But, like Bush in 2004, I don't think everyone is there yet.

There is still this idea in the culture (reinforced by the mainstream media) that the current McCain is not far off from the the 2000 version of the candidate, the independent reformer who did break from his party on environmental and campaign reform issues, rather than the guy he is, who voted with Bush 95 percent of the time in 2007 and 89 percent of the time since Bush took office (according to a Congressional Quarterly voting study), as well as voting 98 percent of the time with his fellow Republicans (43 of 44) in 2007. Too many Americans still think of McCain as a maverick, rather than as the senator who voted against health insurance for children, against a ban on torture, and against a farm bill that contained a repeal of the so-called Enron Loophole that has been partially responsible for the current high gas prices.

There is also the problem of the right-wing smear machine, which has been effective in scaring independent voters in presidential elections in the past few years. Fox News has already started a fear campaign, between the "baby mama" reference to Michelle Obama and the claim the Obamas engaged in a terrorist terrorist fist bump. The right is already trying to scare Americans into being fearful that Obama is in league with scary figures like Iran, Hamas and Jimmy Carter.

Much like Dana Carvey's Garth in Wayne's World, many Americans fear change. They may say they want it, but the reality of something innovative and different can drive them to something familiar and comfortable, especially if they are afraid. And especially if they are senior citizens. And that is what the GOP is going to try and capitalize on. They've started already. McCain and his surrogates are sending the signal that it's a dangerous world now, and he'll keep you safe, while the new, young guy will not.

And let's not be naive and ignore the fact that when it comes to change, asking some older folks (and younger folks, for that matter) to vote for an African-American guy named Barack Obama is a factor. Twenty percent of voters in Ohio admitted that race affected their votes in the state's primary. That's how many admitted it. But how many more either are embarrassed to say they are uncomfortable with a black president, or are not even aware that their predispositions about race affected their decision-making process? If you don't believe me, take a walk around a retirement community in Florida and listen to what some of the old folks have to say.

I think America has made great progress on race, and I believe that enough Americans are ready to elect an African-American to the presidency. But it is a real issue that Obama and the Democrats will have to overcome in November.

Finally, the Democrats will have to overcome a recent history of failure in presidential elections if Obama is to win. Since 1968, only three Democrats have been elected president. Jimmy Carter won in 1976, and he had the extraordinary circumstances on his side of running just two years after the Watergate scandal destroyed trust in the federal government, especially in Republicans. And Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996, but he never received a majority of the votes. In each election, Ross Perot ran and siphoned votes away from the GOP candidate. That's it. Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry all went down to Republican opponents during that time, and, based on the circumstances, you would have to say that Dukakis, Gore and Kerry all blew great chances to win. Is the debacle of George W. Bush enough to push 2008 into the column of the Democrats? I think so. I hope so. But only time will tell.

Remember, even though Obama is doing better in early polling against McCain than Kerry did at this time against Bush, according to Real Clear Politics, Obama is up by only an average of 4.2 percent in national polls by Rasmussen, Gallup, Reuters/Zogby, ABC News/Washington Post and Cook/RT Strategies. These numbers don't scream that a win is inevitable. Rather, they look like the mark of a close race. Even more troubling, some of the polls covered by Real Clear Politics have McCain ahead in Michigan, Ohio, New Hampshire, Virginia, Florida, Missouri, New Mexico and Nevada (with McCain ahead on average in Florida, Missouri, New Hampshire and Nevada). Again, not numbers that lead to a conclusion that McCain is done.

I understand that Obama has been surging in the polls lately. I am optimistic that as time goes on, and as the voters get to know Obama and see what McCain really stands for, Obama's campaign will get even stronger. And I believe that if things go well, the Democrats have a great chance of winning in November. But that is a far cry from the sense of inevitability that I have sensed on the left.

Which is why I beseech Democrats not to take an Obama win for granted. We can't assume everyone in the country is aware of McCain's weaknesses and fidelity to the Bush agenda, or know that the Internet rumors about the Obamas are false, or understand the real positions Obama and McCain have laid out. It is our job to get out there and make sure as many people as possible are as informed as possible, and how they don't have to be afraid of voting for Obama. If word gets out, I think the conditions favor the Democrats. But that's a big "if."

We, as Democrats, cannot count our chickens before they hatch. If we do, we might have to endure four more years of a Republican president laying eggs.

Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers Still Amazing After All These Years

There was a moment 40 minutes into the Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers concert at Madison Square Garden Tuesday night that exemplified why the sold-out crowd was watching one of the premier bands in rock and roll: The large video screen captured Petty with a giant life-is-great smile on his face while wandering the stage and strumming his guitar. So what? Well, the moment occurred while opening act Steve Winwood was on the stage performing two of his classic hits (“Can’t Find My Way Home” and “Gimme Some Lovin’”) with the Heartbreakers.

That Petty, an expressive and engaging front man himself, could slip into the roll of rhythm guitarist/backup singer so easily is what makes this outfit so great. Yes, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers have had a string of hits. And yes, the band is a proud member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. But, at its core, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers is simply a great rock and roll band.

And yet, at the same time, there are few groups that have had a career like this one. Launched in 1976, four of the five original members (Petty, lead guitarist Mike Campbell, keyboardist Benmont Tench and bass player Ron Blair, in his second tour of duty, having replaced Howie Epstein after he succumbed to his drug problems) were on stage for the show. How many bands, while at the top of their popularity, would take two years off to tour as the backing band for another artist (as Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers did for Bob Dylan in 1986-87)? How many bands from that era can still sell out Madison Square Garden, without the benefit of first breaking up, taking time off, and then embarking on a reunion tour? And how many bands can boast a 32-year long history of consistently making music and hitting the road to play for large audiences, with no long hiatuses?

I saw Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers live for the first time in 1984, and I can honestly say that 24 years later, they haven’t lost a beat. While the band members can see 60 coming up in the not-too-distant future, they haven’t surrendered to Father Time. There has been no movement towards mellowing the band’s sound; just the opposite, in fact. Campbell only picked up his mandolin once all night, and the set was heavy on rockers, those familiar to casual fans (“Refugee,” “Don’t Come Around Here No More,” “American Girl”) and those not (“Honey Bee,” “You Wreck Me,” “Cabin Down Below”). The quiet moments were few and far between, although a nearly acoustic “Learning to Fly” was nothing short of mesmerizing.

It was as if the band members had made a concerted effort to rock out. Tench’s piano chords propelling the chorus of “Free Fallin’” surged forward with a ferocity that shouldn’t work for such a sweet song, but did. Ditto for the driving beats of drummer Steve Ferrone (the “new” guy, since he joined the band as recently as 1995, four years after Scott Thurston was added as an additional guitarist/keyboardist/vocalist), who seemingly defies the laws of physics by playing with the force of John Bonham while maintaining the still upper body of Charlie Watts. Ferrone’s powerful strikes pushed quieter songs like “You Don’t Know How It Feels,” “Free Fallin’” and “I Won’t Back Down” to new levels.

And Campbell is simply one of the greatest and most distinctive rock guitar players of all time. He is equally comfortable shredding, like on the solos in “Refugee,” “Don’t Come Around Here No More,” “Last Dance With Mary Jane,” “You Wreck Me,” and “American Girl,” as he is providing soulful licks to mid-tempo numbers like “Saving Grace” and the Traveling Wilburys hit “End of the Line.” Campbell is one of the few guitar players whose sound is so signature, you can pick him out easily when you hear a song he plays on (think of his work on Don Henley’s “Boys of Summer,” which he co-wrote). But, as I said, Campbell showed up Tuesday night ready to rock, and he is the true power behind the Heartbreakers.

What was fascinating about the show was how after all these years, this was essentially the same Heartbreakers that emerged in 1976 as proponents of classic American rock and roll, with the same unearthly ability to play perfectly together, as if they had some kind of mental telepathy going on between them. And the members of the Heartbreakers play with such joy, like there is nowhere they’d rather be than on stage making music. Petty certainly plays up the arms-stretched, drink-in-the-adoration-of-his-fans pose way beyond the level anyone should, but it feels okay, because, at a base level, it seems sincere.

And, of course, Petty is adored, with the crowd breaking into “Pet-ty!” chants between songs. The fans are part of a Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers live experience. They sing along with more lyrics than most of the members of the band, and for a vast majority of the night, they were on their feet, moving along to the music, just how the band seemed to like it.

Even after 32 years, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers is still a force to be reckoned with. The band’s two-hour set was completely satisfying, mixing hits, album tracks, obscurities (like “Sweet William,” which was released only on a European EP) and a cover (Van Morrison’s “Mystic Eyes”), and yet when it was over, you realized you could easily make up a second two-hour show of songs that got radio play but didn’t make Tuesday night’s set (just to name a few examples, there was no “Breakdown,” “I Need to Know,” “Listen to Her Heart,” or anything from “Hard Promises” or “Long After Dark”).

But a Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers show is not about the hits. It’s about watching one of the great straight-forward rock and roll bands of all time excel at what it does best, entertaining a capacity crowd of devotees. When Petty said, “I don’t think there is a better room for rock and roll music than this one,” I’m sure he meant it. But I couldn’t help thinking that any room is a great room for rock music when Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers is playing there.

Steve Winwood opened the show, playing a mix of music from his previous bands Traffic and Blind Faith, his 1980s solo career, and his new album “Nine Lives.” Trading off between guitar and keyboards, Winwood’s voice was just as perfect as ever, hitting the high notes as easily as he did when he was a teenager in the Spencer Davis Group 40 years ago. He even showed off his underrated guitar chops with an amazing solo at the end of the Traffic classic “Dear Mr. Fantasy.” Backed by an eclectic four-piece band (two of whom were percussionists), Winwood provided a nice survey of his diverse, interesting and productive career. He was a good fit for a Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers show.

Set List
Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
Madison Square Garden
Tuesday June 17, 2008

You Wreck Me
Last Dance With Mary Jane
I Won’t Back Down
Even the Losers
Free Fallin’
Cabin Down Below
Sweet William
End of the Line
Can’t Find My Way Home (sung by Steve Winwood)
Gimme Some Lovin’ (sung by Steve Winwood)
Saving Grace
Face in the Crowd
Honey Bee
You Don’t Know How It Feels
Learning to Fly
Don’t Come Around Here No More
Refugee
(Encore)
Runnin’ Down a Dream
Mystic Eyes
American Girl

Some in the Media Are Seeking to Demonize Obama as Being Different

[This article also appears on Huffingtonpost.com. You can access it from my author page here.]

Yesterday, a cable news anchor promised to "break down" whether Barack Obama's remarks at a South Chicago church were heartfelt or part of a "Machiavellian" attempt to change his public image. Was this report from Fox News? Nope. The anchor was Rick Sanchez of CNN. (Remind your conservative friends of Sanchez's actions the next time they call CNN liberal.)

Such irresponsible, tabloid journalism is especially outrageous, coming during a weekend of mourning over the untimely death of the great "Meet the Press" moderator Tim Russert. Russert's responsible, balanced and researched approach, with a laser-like concentration on the issues, stands as a 180-degree counterpoint to Sanchez's pandering garbage.

Obama's lecture was about the responsibility of fathers to take responsibility for their children. What is there to break down? Is Sanchez suggesting that Obama is not in favor of loving parenting? Or that it was not normal to discuss this topic on, yes, Father's Day? It certainly couldn't be the fact that Obama was worshipping on Sunday, seeing as his 20-year association with a church is well-known, thanks to the media coverage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

So what was Sanchez suggesting? I would argue that Sanchez's remark was part of a larger trend.

Fox News, in a more obvious and crass way, has already established one of its approaches to attacking Obama: It will try to scare people by implying that Obama is "different." How else do you explain Fox News using an on-screen super that referred to Michelle Obama as Barack Obama's "baby mama," or a Fox News anchor calling a fist bump between the Obamas a "terrorist fist jab"? Besides being culturally ignorant (a "baby mama" is an unmarried mother of a man's child, while the Obamas were married for six years before having their first of two daughters, and a fist bump is such a common sports celebration, you can watch George H.W. Bush engage in one here), the references are offensive.

There are still conservatives that will tell you with a straight face that Fox News is a legitimate news outlet, but these kinds of ridiculous games that portray Obama as out of the mainstream are more reminiscent of Soviet-era Tass than anything resembling journalism.

Sanchez's promise to "break down" Obama's remarks on fatherhood, which were anything but controversial, are no better than the antics of the folks at Fox News. Sanchez said there was something questionable about Obama's motives, even though there was not a single shred of evidence to support such an assertion. Whether Sanchez's motivations were sensationalistic (to boost ratings) or partisan (to help McCain) doesn't really matter. The bottom line is that he is engaging in innuendo as to Obama's motives in a way that is irresponsible and offensive.

As Americans, we are used to presidential contests that feature exaggerations in debates about the issues. On "This Week" yesterday morning, host George Stephanopoulos had to remind Fred Thompson, speaking for the McCain campaign, that an independent source found that Obama's tax plan gave more relief to the middle class than McCain's proposal did. Stephanopoulos also challenged John Edwards, representing Obama, as to the independent finding that McCain's proposed corporate tax reductions could help boost the economy. Thompson even accused Obama of being dishonest, saying that he will raise taxes for more Americans than the select group (those who earn more than $250,000) identified in his plan, with only the vaguest of arguments to back it up (claiming that Obama will need to raise more money than he is saying he will need). This is a normal American political debate on issues. The two sides might exaggerate, but the arguments stick to policy, and the facts can certainly be verified by an engaged moderator or through a little research on the part of the voter.

But this kind of give and take is light years away from the sensationalism showed by Sanchez and Fox News. Rather, based on these early examples, it would seem that Obama will be forced to contend with a "he's different" campaign meant to scare voters away. And because of Obama's unique place in history, these tactics even surpass the "swift boating" of John Kerry for dirty politics.

Obama is the first African-American to earn the nomination of a major party for the U.S. presidency. As such, this presidential campaign will be different than any other that has come before it. And that means that Obama and his campaign have to be ready to fight back when fear mongers in the media engage in these kinds of divisive tactics. They cannot let the impression take hold that these kinds of attacks are legitimate.

But it's also up to reputable news organizations to address the acts of fear mongering as reportable news, just as Keith Olbermann did when he shined light on the Fox News "baby mama" super and the anchor's accusation that a simple fist bump was somehow terrorist in nature. Such coverage wouldn't be partisan. It would simply shine a light on a nefarious practice worthy of being shamed.

It's understandable why the Republicans would want to avoid a debate on the issues. With George W. Bush's approval rating at a historic low (28 percent in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll) and a recent CBS/New York Times poll revealing that 81 percent of respondents said that the country is on the "wrong track," it is clear that McCain will have a hard time running and winning on a GOP platform. But that doesn't make this kind of ugly fear campaign any more palatable.

Tim Russert may no longer be around to keep the playing field fair, but every journalist should aspire to meet the standards he set out. There should no place in our political culture for these kinds of attacks on Obama. They are ugly, and they should not be tolerated by any proud American, regardless of party affiliation.