The Palin Stuff Is Fun, but Obama Gets the Real Story: It's the 90 Percent, Stupid

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

It's been a fun week, as revelation after revelation about Sarah Palin's record demonstrated time and time again what a ridiculous pick she was to take the VP slot on John McCain's ticket. And even as the right basks in the nearly universal rave reviews for her convention speech last night, it's important to remember one thing about all these Palin stories: They don't matter.

(As an aside, the plaudits for Palin's speech are clearly based on her presentation, not the content, since the substance of her remarks was filled with the same lies and distortions the GOP attack machine has been deploying since February.)

Yes, it's been sublimely entertaining to read the Palin stories from Alaska: After lambasting Barack Obama's experience for two months, John McCain picked a two-year governor of the 47th most populous state in the country (with fewer people than Columbus, Ohio) to be next in line for the presidency to a 72-year-old who has battled cancer. Then the circus surrounding the revelation that her 17-year-old daughter was pregnant out of wedlock came to town (along with the inevitable facts coming to light about how Palin opposed sexual education programs in schools and cut funding for programs assisting teen mothers). And then the real fun stories starting flying in: How her husband belonged to a political party that advocated for Alaska seceding from the union and professed hate for the United States, all after the hits Obama and his wife took for allegedly lacking patriotism. How, as mayor, she fired the police chief of her town because he didn't support her campaign (and how his replacement was forced to leave after only two weeks because of his record of sexual harassment). And how she went on a mission to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper, even allegedly firing the public safety commissioner because he wouldn't carry out her personal vendetta.

Oh, and of course, the pinnacle of enjoyment for me was Republican flacks Mike Murphy and Peggy Noonan getting caught on an open microphone trashing Palin's selection, calling it "cynical" and political.

And all of it doesn't matter. Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed the theater of the whole thing (and how it confirms McCain and the GOP as being completely out of touch, with no affirmative record or platform to run on). But what has made me the happiest of all is that Obama has stayed on message on the one issue that can win him the election: Tying McCain to the failed presidency of George W. Bush.

Now is not a good time to be a Republican running for office. Top GOP officials routinely admit that it is a bad environment for their party. It seems as if the question isn't if the Democrats will pick up seats in the House and Senate, but how many they will capture. The Republicans are stuck with one of the least popular presidents on record, with Bush currently enjoying an approval rating of only 28 percent in the latest poll by his own propaganda department (Fox News).

For McCain to win in November, he has to distance himself from the Republican brand, and even more so from Bush. He needs to push his myth of being a "maverick" and trick voters into thinking that his policies differ from those put in place by the current president. This is not an easy task, considering that McCain 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), and voted 98 percent of the time with his fellow Republicans (43 of 44) in 2007.

McCain's quest to separate himself from Bush is at the heart of his pick of Palin. Sure, he hoped that some women would be swayed by the selection of a woman, and, even more likely, that some women would be influenced by the inevitable attacks on Palin's record, feeling like the media was ganging up on her. But Palin's outsider status, more than anything else, was the true allure of her selection. The goal was to set up a McCain-Palin ticket as an outside-of-Washington, reformer team to clean up the mess made by Bush.

(We'll leave the fiction of Palin's record as a reformer, including her support of earmarks, her acceptance of at least $4,500 in campaign contributions as part of the same fundraising scheme that led to the indictment of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, and her service as a director of a 527 group organized by Stevens, for another piece.)

Much to my delight, Obama seems to realize the overriding importance of tying McCain to Bush. Ever since Obama's convention speech, it seems like he can't say three words without uttering the phrase "voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time" (or some variation of it). And that's a really, really good thing.

In his convention acceptance address, Obama said: "And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need. But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time."

Yesterday, in addressing the hopeful statement from McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis that the election won't be about issues but the personalities of the candidates, Obama said: "If you've got George Bush's track record, and John McCain voting 90 percent of the time in agreement with George Bush, then you probably don't want to talk about issues either."

But the ultimate demonstration that the campaign was staying on message came when Obama's spokesman Bill Burton gave a 76-word statement in response to Palin's speech at the convention last night, and virtually all of it was about tying the GOP ticket to Bush, including yet another reference to McCain's voting record: "The speech that Gov. Palin gave was well delivered, but it was written by George Bush’s speechwriter and sounds exactly like the same divisive, partisan attacks we’ve heard from George Bush for the last eight years. If Gov. Palin and John McCain want to define ‘change’ as voting with George Bush 90 percent of the time, that’s their choice, but we don’t think the American people are ready to take a 10 percent chance on change."

It's clear that the Obama campaign gets it: The key to winning is tying McCain (and now Palin) to Bush. And they're going to mention McCain's voting record every chance they get (even if they only use 76 words to make a point).

So it is Palin's Bush-like positions that should (and I think will) be the focus of the campaign's attacks on her, not the more enjoyable (but less effective) stories of her wacky days in Alaska. I have no doubt Obama will focus on the fact that Palin, for example:

- Opposes abortion, even in the cases of rape or where the life of the mother is at stake;

- Favors teaching creationism in schools; and

- Supports Bush's debacle in Iraq, even calling the war "a task from God."

Most of all, they will need to tie the McCain-Palin economic plan to Bush's failed economic policies of the last eight years.

Simply put, Palin's views run to the extreme right, perfectly in sync with those of the current president, and certainly to the right of the moderate undecided voters that McCain will need in the swing states. And the Obama campaign seems to realize that it is its job to make sure as many Americans understand this fact as possible.

Maybe the one Alaska story that will resonate with voters is her politically motivated dismissal of the police chief. After eight years of Bush politicizing the Justice Department, from the firing of the U.S. Attorneys to the political vetting of candidates for non-political positions, Palin's politics-before-competency approach to governing would make her a worthy successor to the incompetence of the Bush years. But I fear this issue will be too esoteric for a less-than-engaged electorate.

We've all had our fun at Palin's expense. But it's time to join Obama and laser in on one task: Demonstrating how a McCain-Palin administration would continue the failed policies of George W. Bush's presidency. If Obama can successfully frame the election in these terms, McCain is in big trouble. And the selection of Palin shows that McCain understands this idea, too.

The Five New Shows the Networks Should Be Embarrassed to Have on Their Fall Schedules

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

Last week I identified the five new programs I was most looking forward to seeing. So it only seemed right, in a yin-yang kind of way, to choose five new shows that I think represent everything that is wrong about current network television (based on their descriptions, since none of them have aired yet).

Yeah, I completely understand that they’ll all probably get good ratings, and they will be profitable (in the short term, anyway). But that doesn’t make them good, and they certainly shouldn’t make their networks proud. And, most of all, I don’t believe they’ll be good for the long-term health of television.

Oh, and yes, I know they’re nearly all reality shows. I am fine with that. Really. And just like some of my top show predictions turn out to be duds, there is always the chance one of the dogs in this compilation will end up being great. I just won’t know about it, because I won’t be watching.

So, with no further fanfare, and in reverse order of lack of quality, here are the five new shows I think the networks should be embarrassed to have on their schedules:

5. “The Mentalist” (CBS, Tuesdays at 9:00 p.m. Eastern)
One of the best things about television right now is that there is no shortage of new, innovative, fresh ideas. And not surprisingly, many of these programs are hits. There are high-quality, inventive shows like “Lost” and “Heroes,” popcorn thrillers with unique premises like “Prison Break” and “24,” comedies that take fresh and smart approaches like “How I Met Your Mother” and “30 Rock,” soaps that break new ground like “Dirty Sexy Money” and “Gossip Girl,” and, yes, even reality shows that show creativity of thought, like “Amazing Race” and “Project Runway.”

Unlike their studio film counterparts, the creators of television series have the green light to think outside the box and concoct unique and innovative programs.

Which is why there is no excuse for derivative and uninspired new shows like “The Mentalist.” This police procedural is about Patrick Jane, a con-man psychic (played by Simon Baker) who nevertheless can use his well-developed observation skills to solve crimes. The tagline could easily be: “Fake psychic. Real detective.” Except that the slogan is already being used by “Psych,” a series currently in its THIRD season on the USA Network, which also features a guy who pretends to have psychic powers.

“The Mentalist” could be forgiven for poaching the central premise of “Psych” if it added something fresh to the approach. And while there is no doubt that “The Mentalist” strives to be darker than “Psych,” the description of the show on the CBS Web site reads like a parody of tired television police procedurals: “Jane’s role in cracking a series of tough high-profile cases is greatly valued by his fellow agents. However, no-nonsense Senior Agent Teresa Lisbon openly resists having Jane in her unit and alternates between reluctantly acknowledging Jane's usefulness and blasting him for his theatrics, narcissism and dangerous lack of boundaries.” Change the names, and you could probably apply the quote, in some fashion, to half the police procedurals on the air. Change the law enforcement theme to medicine, and the guy is House.

“The Mentalist” just feels like a lazy, pandering attempt to attract viewers. It could work, but it also has the potential to feature an audience with a median age in the “Murder She Wrote” demographic.

4. “Stylista” (CW, Wednesdays at 9:00 p.m. Eastern)
“Life on Mars” made my top five most anticipated shows because, among other reasons, it was the cross-breed of two quality programs: “Swingtown” and “Law and Order.” “Stylista” is the anti-“Life on Mars,” finding itself on the shame list because it is a direct knockoff of one of the lowest gutter-dwelling shows of all time, “The Apprentice.” “Stylista” is like that awful Donald Trump vehicle combined with “America’s Next Top Model,” since it follows a group of women cat-fighting for a job as an editor at Elle (and Tyra Banks is a producer). Derivative and exploitive is not a good combo.

Sure, “Stylista” might get good ratings, but if you cancel a show like “Aliens in America” (a year after booting “Gilmore Girls” and “Veronica Mars”) and add a Trump knockoff the next season (as the CW did), you should expect your program to end up on this list. And I’m happy to oblige.

3. “America’s Toughest Jobs” (NBC, Mondays at 9:00 p.m. Eastern)

This looks to me like “Amazing Race” dumbed down for “Fear Factor” fans, as contestants compete by performing dangerous jobs. The idea is to watch people perform hazardous tasks like logging, oil drilling, driving on icy roads or ice fishing. In other words, to enjoy the misfortune of others. But if you’re going to go down that road, don’t the activities in “America’s Toughest Jobs” seem a bit tame? After all, we live in a reality television world in which contestants routinely are forced to eat insects and grisly animal parts. It takes a lot to shock viewers.

And if “America’s Toughest Jobs” is trying to take the high road, I’m still not impressed. The show still depends on the voyeuristic appeal of watching people in peril. Not to mention that the premise of the show is stolen from “Dirty Jobs,” which has aired for the last five years on Discovery. And on “Dirty Jobs,” instead of exploiting contestants trying to win money, it is the host that performs the unpleasant career tasks, lending the program an air of respectability.

So “America’s Toughest Jobs” manages to be exploitive, tepid and derivative, all at the same time, one-upping “Stylista.” That’s enough to land it one spot lower on my list.

2. “4Real” (CW, Sundays at 6 p.m. Eastern)
I would describe the premise of “4Real,” but I’m in awe of the text on the CW’s Web site, so I’ll let it speak for itself: “4Real is a series of half-hour television shows that take celebrity guests on adventures around the world to connect with young leaders who, under extreme circumstances, are affecting real change. These are the real heroes of our time.” The celebrities include Cameron Diaz, Mos Def, Joaquin Phoenix, Eva Mendes, Casy Affleck and Flea.

Yes, because what we want to do with our young leaders is grant them the counsel of actors and musicians (several of whom have done time in rehab). We wouldn’t want to hook them up with, say, scientists, philanthropists or elected officials. No, the bass player of the Red Hot Chili Peppers is clearly the way to go.

If “4Real” isn’t the defining moment and nadir of our celebrity-obsessed culture, I don’t know what is.

Oh, and I believe that it should be a law that any show whose title uses a numeral to indicate a word should be canceled immediately (except, of course, for any program created by or starring Prince).

1. “Hole in the Wall” (Fox, Thursdays at 8:00 p.m. Eastern)
A remake of a Japanese game show, I fully admit that much of my disdain for “Hole in the Wall” comes from my post-traumatic stress from having watched an episode of “Wipeout” earlier this summer. This humiliation-fest is billed as a kind of human Tetris, as teams of competitors try to fit their bodies into cutouts in a wall that is sent hurtling towards them. Miss, and you end up in the drink.

I described “Wipeout” in my review in this space as being the real-life incarnation of the “Ow, My Balls” show depicted in Mike Judge’s movie “Idiocracy.” I can easily imagine “Hole in the Wall” following “Ow, My Balls” on that film’s fictional Violence Channel.

To me, if you have to air programs of people getting slammed by moving walls into water to get ratings, it’s not worth it. But for Fox, with the truly odious “The Moment of Truth” on its schedule, “Hole in the Wall” won’t even be the network’s most offensive show.

At Jones Beach: Five Bands, One Concert, One Decade (the 1980s)

Last Friday, on a beautiful night at the picturesque Nikon at Jones Beach Theater, Martin Fry, lead singer of ABC, in the middle of a song, looked at the crowd and said, "Isn't it great to be back in the 80s?" For five bands and an audience of fortysomethings, it really was. None of the five acts on the Regeneration Tour could have played a hockey arena-sized venue on its own (and several couldn't have done so even back in the decade of the skinny ties). And for the fans, it was a true nostalgia trip, a chance to revisit the soundtrack of their high school and/or college years for four hours on a Friday night.

The show kicked off with synth-pop curiosity Naked Eyes, who had the unenviable task of playing in daylight to a very sparse crowd (the theater eventually filled to about two-thirds capacity). Lead singer/rhythm guitarist Pete Byrne, backed only by two keyboardists and a drummer (who played an electronic kit), still can sing, opening and closing the band's 25-minute set with its two hits ("Always Something There to Remind Me" and "Promises, Promises"), both of which sounded great. But the thin backing and slight songs were no match for the cavernous stadium, making Naked Eyes seem like no more than a novelty act.

A Flock of Seagulls followed with a 25-minute set of repetitive, spacey 1980s pop. Lead singer Mike Score (the only original member on stage) sounded pretty rough around the edges. Back in the day, I kind of liked the Flock, but this show was lackluster. While the band played two of its minor hits ("Wishing" and "Space Age Love Song"), there was a just-going-through-the-motions feeling to the set, as if the whole thing was just an excuse to get to the band's big hit, "I Ran," which did get the crowd up and dancing.

The fun of "I Ran" was a good segue into the surprise of the night, the outstanding ABC. Fry, wearing one of his signature glammy suits (this one was orange), entertained the crowd, making use of his Bryan-Ferry-on-Prozac vocals, sly wit and stage presence of a 1960s soul star to lead the spot-on band through an entertaining 35-minute set. ABC turns out to be one of those bands where you know more of their songs than you think you do, so it was able to play its 1980s MTV standard "Poison Arrow" second and close with Top 20 hit "Look of Love," leaving plenty of material, including two Top 10 hits ("When Smokey Sings" and "Be Near Me"), to fill out the program.

Before the show, I would have equated ABC with Naked Eyes as an act that had no relevance outside of the 1980s. But after watching Fry and his backing musicians (Fry was one of only two original ABC members present) perform, ABC acquitted itself as a legitimate band.

As if any further proof was needed, after a short break, ABC's band (minus Fry, but plus a lead guitar player) returned to back Belinda Carlisle, lead singer of the Go-Go's. On paper, Carlisle was the "one of these things is not like the other" act of the night: She is a solo artist rather than a band, she is a woman, and she is American. But it was nice to get a break from the parade of keyboards-based acts and listen to some guitar-oriented pop rock.

Carlisle is one of the rare performers who seems to get better with age. She has developed not only her vocal abilities, but her stage presence, honing a fun, sexy, sometimes bitchy vibe that works (at least for me, my wife found her to be a bit annoying, especially when she playfully told the crowd to "shut up" so she could perform the breathy, near-whisper third verse of "Mad About You").

Her 35-minute set mixed three Go-Go's songs in with her solo hits. I prefer the Go-Go's to Carlisle as a solo artist, but I noticed something interesting about the Go-Go's songs during the show: They work much better when performed by the actual Go-Go's. ABC's band provided a kind of polished bombast to "Vacation," "Our Lips Are Sealed" and "We Got the Beat" that took the charm out of these slight-but-fun anthems. Even with that complaint, though, Carlisle's set was my favorite one of the night.

But she was not the headliner. That honor fell to the Human League. And once the band's set began, you kind of realized why. To many Americans, the Human League is the one-hit wonder with the massive 1981 hit "Don't You Want Me," but in its native U.K., the band is far more successful. As an early synth-based outfit, its influence is apparent in the techno and industrial acts that followed. And unlike Naked Eyes, Flock of Seagulls and ABC, the Human League has continued steadily on the scene after its 1980s highlight to the current day.

The great thing about a multiple-act bill is you will sometimes get to see a type of show that you never would think to attend on its own. In this case, I have never seen anything like the Human League. Lead singer Philip Oakey and back-up vocalists Susan Ann Sulley and Joanne Catherall (all in the band since 1980) sang in front of four evenly spaced all-white platforms, each containing a backing musician dressed in black (from left to right, a drummer, guitar/keyboardist, keyboardist, and Apple laptop operator). The Human League was the only act to make use of video, deploying on-the-nose images (like the faces of British and American politicians morphing into each other, a not-so-subtle indictment that all politicians are alike) on a series of hanging rectangular screens at the back of the stage.

The 45-minute set felt different than the average rock show, and not just because the songs were dominated by keyboards and electronic beats rather than power chords. Oakey, dressed originally in a black trench coat (looking like a middle-aged Neo from "The Matrix") and later in a suit, led the band through a highly-choreographed, almost formal show. He told us no less than three times that "We are the Human League" and "This is the Regeneration Tour." It was an interesting and odd combination, half Motown revue and half scene from "1984" (the book, but the year also kind of applies, too).

Like ABC, the Human League have more songs that you know than you think, including "Human" (a number-one hit in the U.S.), "Fascination," "The Lebanon" and "Mirror Man." By the time the band got to its faithful but energized take on "Don't You Want Me," the portion of the crowd that was skeptical at the beginning of the set (some of the less open-minded folks fled in a panic at the onslaught of electronics and lights that accompanied the band's first number) had been won over, singing and dancing along. Sulley even let the crowd sing one of the lines from her verse of "Don't You Want Me" ("I still love you").

Don't get me wrong: I am not selling all my Tom Petty CDs and trading them in for techno recordings. But I was happy to get an opportunity to see what a show like that entailed, and it was genuinely fun watching the Human League do its thing.

Come to think of it, the idea of sampling a half-hour (give or take) of five acts, most of whom didn't need much more, was one of the best things about the Regeneration Tour. You never really got bored. The bands stayed around just long enough to play their few hits, and then they cleared the stage, making room for the next act. Well, that and the nostalgia factor. On a pleasantly cool and clear Friday night at the beach, it was, in fact, great to be back in the 1980s.

Set Lists
Friday August 22, 2008
Nikon at Jones Beach Theater

Naked Eyes
Always Something There to Remind Me
?
Fortune and Fame
Losing You
Get on It
Promises Promises

A Flock of Seagulls
Modern Love Is Automatic
Telecommunication
The More You Live, the More You Love
Space Age Love Song
Wishing
I Ran

ABC
For the Very First Time
Poison Arrow
How to Be a Millionaire
Tears Are Not Enough
Ride
Be Near Me
When Smokey Sings
Look of Love

Belinda Carlisle
Live Your Life Be Free
I Get Weak
Vacation
Circle in the Sand
Leave a Light On
Mad About You
Our Lips Are Sealed
We Got the Beat
Heaven Is a Place on Earth

Human League
Mirror Man
Tell Me When
Love Action
The Sound of the Crowd
Seconds
The Lebanon
Human
Fascination
Don't You Want Me
Together in Electric Dreams