Obama

God Bless the USA

Bard — Sat, 6 Sep 2008 06:59:39 -0700

Obama's Acceptance Speech: A Most Significant Event

Bob Hertzog — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 06:52:25 -0700

The Democratic Party Convention ended with a display of fireworks and a superb nomination-acceptance speech, by Barack Obama. Here are some thoughts about the final day of the convention.

It occurred on the 45^th anniversary of another significant event in America’s political and social history, Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech. King’s speech, culminating the 1963 March on Washington, began the modern phase of America’s struggle to bring civil rights to all its citizens. Barack Obama’s speech last night, accepting the nomination of a major political party for President of the United States was an equally important event in our Trojan fight to bring America to the full measure of its promise. Personally, I was moved almost to the point of tears as I watched this event unfold.

Obama’s speech was also a classic political speech. Take it from an old university speech teacher, as a political speech, this one was as good as they get. Obama made a strong argument for why he should be President of the United States. He answered every criticism his political opponents have aimed at him. He spoke of the America he would like to help bring about. He said he would fight to get weaken the influence of professional lobbyists on government policy and action. He said he would eliminate the tax incentives to companies that ship jobs overseas. He wants to eliminate the capital gains tax for small business, cut taxes for 95 percent of working Americans, and bring health coverage to every American. His most ambitious plan is to totally eliminate the importing of Middle East oil, over the next ten years.

Obama also spoke in detail about the value of hard work, study, and concern for others, instilled in him by his single mother and grandparents. He told us of how those values inform and motivate his life. And, to the delight of this speech teacher, he did it all in a most eloquent style.

Next week the Republican will put on their political happening. I have no doubt that it will be a spectacular event. They will do it well and they will make their argument for their political point of view. That is, of course, as it should be and I will look forward to see the show they put on. But, I think they will have a difficult time matching what the Democrats did this week.

Biden: Clearly the Best Choice

Bob Hertzog — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 07:59:57 -0700

You can criticize some of Barack Obama’s campaign strategies, but his pick for Vice President was one of the best moves he has made since he secured the nomination. First, let’s take a look at some of the top alternatives and why they were not chosen.

Tim Kain? Kain is still in his first term as Governor of Virginia. He’s young and a future Democratic-party star, but what would he add to the ticket? He has more or less the same characteristics as Obama. Had Kain been selected, it would reinforce the idea of change, but with both candidates as relative new comers, it might have signaled too much change for Americans. Primarily, Kain would add to Obama’s chief negative; his lack of national and international experience.

Evan Byah? Byah might have been a good choice, but he is not exactly Mr. Excitement, is he? Byah is a steady and moderate Democrat. He might have brought Indiana’s electoral votes to the Democrats. However, Byah lacks one important quality for the Vice Presidential campaign. He has not demonstrated an ability to serve as an attack dog. The role that traditionally goes to the vice-presidential nominee.

Somebody mentioned Texas Congressman Chet Edwards. All I can say about that is, “You’ve got to the kidding.” Obama’s campaign might have thrown out the name to play with the heads of some reporters, but in my opinion, Congressman Edwards was never a serious candidate for the VP slot.

A lot of people, including my wife, wanted Hillary Clinton, but it was never going to be. Selecting Hillary might have helped unify the party, but in my opinion, party unity is really not a major problem. Hillary’s supporters might be a bit miffed, but when they think about the issues of health care, women’s rights, maintaining reproductive choice, and civil rights (all issues for which they have been fighting for years), they could not possibly vote for McCain. Hillary was never a serious candidate for VP. She knew it and so should have everyone in the media who made it look like she was.

Biden is clearly the best choice, for several reasons. First, he fills in what is obviously Obama’s chief negative, his lack of experience. Besides being one of the longest serving Senators, Biden is a recognized expert on foreign policy. He is the sitting chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and to boot is a past chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Biden has met and negotiated with foreign leaders. Like McCain, Biden has a personal relationship with (and recently visited) Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. The point I want to make here is the Biden has more time in the Senate than McCain and a good deal more foreign policy experience than McCain. On those grounds alone, he could not be a better choice for Obama.

Biden also brings one other asset to the Obama campaign. He has a reputation for being a tough but gentlemanly campaigner. He will be the “attack dog Obama needs, but he will do it in a way that respects his opponents. Biden and McCain are friends and have worked together in the Senate, but Biden will not hold back when it comes to pointing out the weakness of McCain’s campaign promises.

Finally, Biden is a top notch debater. He is articulate (we might even say he’s clean) knows the important issues inside and out. If you watched the Democratic primary debates, as I did, you will see that Biden stood out in all of them, despite that the media paid him little attention.

In summary, let me say one thing to the McCain camp. “Be afraid, be very afraid!”

A Christian Perspective on Evil: Rick Warren's Question

Bob Hertzog — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:27:14 -0700

I watched the forum with Rick Warren posing question to Barack Obama and John McCain. There is not time or space, in this forum, to go over the entire program, but I would like to begin a discussion of one of the questions Warren asked, each of the candidates.

Warren asked: "Does evil exist, and if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it or do we defeat it.?" No political candidate could possibly answer this question other than to say “We defeat it.” However, the way this question was asked, was a perfectly designed to fit John McCain’s hard-line, social-conservative view. McCain was quick to indicate his leaning toward very aggressive tactics wherever evil is encountered.

Now, I most surely do not want to argue that we should refrain from using whatever means are necessary to protect ourselves from terrorists who would do us harm. Just to be sure I’m not misunderstood, I believe that when you are attacked, you fight back hard using whatever force is necessary. However, there is a more important question with respect to this issue. The question Warren should have asked was not do we try to defeat evil – of course we do -- but how do we defeat evil? For Christians that is the key question. Many Christian leaders have noted that violence is not the answer to the question of evil. Violence, they argue, simply creates more of the very think it seeks to destroy. Violence brings violence!

So, I would have liked to have heard Warren ask the following question of each of the candidates. “As a Christian, committed to the teaching of Jesus, what is your long-range plan for confronting and defeating evil?

Personally, I think Obama would have provided a more Christian answer to this question than would have McCain. But, who knows for sure? We did not get that question.

Democrat's Disunity: A Tempest in a Teapot

Bob Hertzog — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:15:36 -0700

In recent days, we have heard some reports that a substantial number of Hillary Clinton supporters, mostly women, say they will not vote for Barack Obama, in the general election. They give two reasons for this stance. 1) Some of Clinton’s female supporters are angry over what they claim was sexism in the media coverage of Obama and Clinton during the primary. They say Obama got more, and more favorable, coverage from the media. 2) Some of Clinton liberal supporters are angry over his (as they see it) move toward the center on some issues.

I will deal with the second complaint first. Get Real! It is a fundamental of political campaigning that a candidate secure her/his base first then lean gently toward the center in order to prepare for the general election. Every candidate does it and no one should be surprised that Obama is making his move gently toward the center. In the same manner as McCain now nudges gently from his more conservative statements toward a more center perspective.

The first complaint comes under the heading of cutting off your nose to spite your face. First, Obama is not responsible for the press coverage he received. These people cannot inflict their anger on Brit Hume or Wolf Blitzer, so they have decided instead to take out their frustration on Barack Obama.

These disgruntled Hillary supporters should give this notion some more thought. If you supported Hillary, then you believe that poor people, folks without adequate health care, and women who need abortions will be brought to ruin by another four years of Republican rule. Obama is the one who will lead the nation to provide adequate health care for all its citizens. Obama will appoint judges to protect the Row v. Wade decision, and Obama will work to help the poor and homeless in this nation. These are all issues that liberals have fought for all their adult lives. So, Liberals if you feel a bit of resentment toward Obama, helping McCain get elected might feel good, but it will be a disaster for million of the less fortunate members of our society.

Here’s one last point, made by Michael Kinsley in the July 21 issue of Time Magazine. The chance to elect an outstanding African-American leader President is a goal liberals have been fighting for all their lives. How silly it would be to let some petty frustrations spoil that opportunity.

Personally, I think the disunity is more a tempest in a teapot, than a real deep-seated anger. The resentment some Hillary supporters feel does not go very deep and will soon be set aside. The Democratic convention is coming soon. There will be one full evening devoted to Senator Clinton and her followers. After which they will look carefully at the alternative and get 100 percent behind Obama. Actually, the disunity you see now is typical for Democrats. They love to fight right up to the convention. After the convention, Democrats will get behind their candidate. At least, I hope they will.

Fantasy Economics and Our Presidential Candidates

Bob Hertzog — Sun, 3 Aug 2008 08:49:59 -0700

We can discuss the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. We can talk about health care. We can grouse about the sophomoric level of political campaigns. However, the one prime issue on which this presidential campaign will turn is the economy. Here’s a brief summary of what the two candidates are claiming as their economic plans for the country. The data I have included here comes from the August 11 issue of Time Magazine.

Senator John McCain says he will balance the budget. He plans to do this by reducing government spending. So far, the only thing he has said he will cut is little things. He wants to cut out all earmarks. McCain has said that as President he would veto any bill with earmarks included. Since the vast majority (even the most fiscally conservative) of senators and representatives use earmarks, this would set up a real battle royal between the White House and the congress. One the president probably could not win.

But, for the sake of argument let’s say President McCain did actually eliminate earmarks. That would amount to a savings of about $20 billion a year. McCain is also proposing to extend the so-called Bush tax cuts and add to them a large cut in the corporate tax rate. This alone would subtract about $300 billion from the government’s revenue. McCain would also, at least for the foreseeable future, continue spending $10 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan. What this means is that there is absolutely no way McCain is going to balance the budget, with the proposals he has offered. It sounds good but it ain’t going to happen.

Senator Barack Obama, on the other hand, has no intention of balancing the budget. And he promises to raise taxes, at least on rich people but probably on all of us. He is promising a universal health-care program, and $21 billion a year on infrastructure and alternative energy. To pay for all this, Obama says he will end the Bush tax cuts for people and families making over $200, 000 yearly. He will raise the capital gains tax, which applies mostly (but not entirely) to more wealthy tax payers. In addition, Obama says he intends to close some of the corporate tax loopholes. Basically, it is an economic plan right out of Hogwarts. It just won’t work, unless Obama has been hiding a magic wand we don’t know about.

Obama recently held an economic conference with some high level economists (Paul Volker, Warren Buffet, and Robert Reich). The conclusion of the conference is that government needs to become more involved in manipulating the economy. This is probably necessary, but there is a risk. Government is seldom as efficient as the market in trying to set an economic policy. However, given the current state of affairs, government activity and a level of deficit spending will be necessary to help get us through the worst of this recession.

Clearly, neither candidate is telling us the truth. Nevertheless, because he does not promise to balance the budget (something neither candidate can or should do), Obama's economic plan seems a little more honest than the one offered by McCain.

Here's a Second Salvo in the Dirty Campaingning War.

Bob Hertzog — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:35:08 -0700

Senator McCain has raised a great flap over Barack Obama canceling his visit to the military hospital in Landstuhl Germany, during Obama’s recent European trip. In a commercial the McCain campaign said that Obama cancelled the visit because he was not permitted to bring cameras and that he cancelled his visit but still found time to play basketball. The implication, of course, is that Obama cared more about his image and a little recreation than he cared about wounded troops. Both of the statements, in the commercial, are bald faced lies. Here are the facts.

Obama had no intention of taking reporters or cameras on the visit. He was going with a couple of his campaign advisors. One of the advisors was a retired army general, who advises the campaign on military affairs. The Obama campaign learned that the visit would be treated by the army as a campaign event, instead of what it was intended to be a visit from a sitting senator to wounded troops. The Obama campaign realized that if it was treated as a campaign event, he would open himself to the criticism of using wounded troops to promote his political image. He did not want that to happen.

Furthermore, Obama did not go to the gym and did not play basketball instead of going to visit the troops. In order to tell this lie, the McCain campaign took a picture of Obama shooting a basketball in a gym in Kuwait, when he visited a base there before he went to Germany and placed it in the commercial with the voice over saying he went to the gym instead of visiting the troops. The juxtaposition of the picture and the voice over left the impression that Obama was playing basketball instead of visiting the troops.

Now I realize that politics is a dirty business and lies are thrown back and forth like rice at a wedding. I suspect that the Obama campaign will soon enough get into the gutter with McCain. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the first tow salvos (see my last post) of dirty campaigning were fired by the McCain campaign. Since McCain has made a point of saying over and over that he would never challenge his opponents patriotism and that he wants to raise the level of political campaigning, I would guess that he is getting just a bit desperate.

John McCain's Foreign Policy Expertise: Plus or Minus?

Bob Hertzog — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:17:33 -0700

Poor John McCain, he has based his strongest argument for why he should be president on his supposed foreign policy expertise. But his expertise seems more and more under attack, even from some in his own party. Now, McCain’s well-known volcanic temper seems ready to erupt, because he seems unable to get Obama to agree the he was correct about some foreign policy issues. So, with respect to McCain’s foreign policy, let’s take a look at what he seemed to have correct and what he seemed to have incorrect.

McCain was clearly right about the surge and that General Petraeus was indeed the right man to put in charge. Petraeus developed a brilliant battle plan and McCain was right to back him.

McCain was dead wrong about the Iraq war in the first place. This war has been almost surely the worst foreign policy blunder of America’s entire history. It has taken the lives of 4,000 Americans and an untold number of Iraqis and caused a loss of American credibility around the world that will take years to recover, if American ever recovers its credibility at all. We attacked a small nation that was never a threat to us, was not engaged in terrorism, and had no weapons of mass destruction. In doing so, we violated every principle that American has stood upon, for over 200 years. McCain supported that and still refuses to recognize what an awful blunder it was. Obama was correct about the war from the outset.

At the time the Iraq war began, we had things pretty much under control in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was cornered and would soon have been captured and the Taliban was all but wiped out. McCain supported moving troops out of Afghanistan to fight in Iraq. With his foreign policy expertise, McCain supported taking troops away from fighting the war we needed to fight (in order to put bin Laden out of business) and shifting them to a war we had absolutely not business at all fighting, against a nation that did not threaten us. I would prefer a little more sophisticated foreign policy expertise.

McCain supported freedom in Iraq. So, now, the Iraqis are free and as a free nation they want us to tell them when we will leave. They are free, a sovereign nation and they have asked us to get out. McCain says we should stay indefinitely until we get ready to leave. Is that the kind of foreign policy we want our nation to have? Not for me!

McCain’s foreign policy follows what was President Bush’s idea that we don’t talk to anyone we don’t like. At least that was Bush’s policy until he sent a high-level diplomat to talk to Iran. Now McCain does not seem to know just what to do. Does he support Bush, as he has in the past, or is he going to separate himself from bush and go his own bellicose, “don’t tread on me” way.

Poor John. He seems panicked. In his agitated state he struck out at Obama with the most virulent personal attack, that I have seen in a presidential campaign for a very long time. He said that he would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war, but the Obama is willing to lose a war in order to score a political victory. McCain is a man who made a point of saying he would keep the campaign clean. He seems to be losing his cool.

McCain's Verbal Gaffes: Senior Moment or Fatigue?

Bob Hertzog — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:02:40 -0700

John McCain’s campaign communicators have been complaining because they say Barack Obama is getting the lion’s share of news coverage while John McCain is getting short shrift. So, for the last few days (perhaps a little longer) there has been a debate over the imbalance in media attention. Well, McCain and his supporters have a point. A study by an organization called the “Project for Excellence in Journalism” has found that Obama was a significant or dominant factor in 83 percent of the election stories, while McCain was a dominant or significant factor in only 52 percent of stories. Right this moment, Katie Couric, Charlie Gibson, and Brian Williams are all in Europe to cover Obama’s overseas trip. That leaves McCain’s campaign coverage to second stringers and pool reporters. We can be pretty sure who will get the most air time.

There is, however, another side to this issue. Some have argued that it is McCain who is being treated best by the media. The reasoning is that every word Obama utters is scrutinized, criticized, and analyzed. Any misstatements or verbal gaffes by Obana will be immediately broadcast around the world and repeated over and over.

McCain on the other hand has made gaffe after gaffe and very little has been said about it. On Good Morning America McCain referred to the Iraq-Pakistan border. Iraq and Pakistan do not share a border. Twice in recent days McCain has referred to Czechoslovakia which has not existed as a nation for about 15 years. He has constantly mixed up Sunnis and Shiites and has identified Vladimir Putin as president of Germany.

Now, let me be clear about this point. Running for President of the U.S. is a grueling exercise and I don’t, even for a moment, think that McCain is uninformed or lacks knowledge about any of the issues on which he has made verbal gaffes. If McCain goes from morning to evening making speeches two or more states a day and answering dozens of questions from his listeners, which is what he is doing, there are likely to be a few verbal gaffes. But, here’s the point. If McCain’s campaign stops were to get the same coverage that Obama’s are getting, such gaffes are likely to become fodder for news stories and people may begin to see them as “senior moments.” People may ask: Is his age catching up with him? Is he past his prime? Is he slipping a bit? Age is an issue with McCain, perhaps unfairly but it is and issue.

By the way, can you imagine what would happen if Obama has made the same kind of gaffes that McCain has made over and over. What would people say? Oh his inexperience is showing through. He does not even know that Iraq and Pakistan don’t share a border. So, with his extensive media coverage, Obama has to make very sure hs says exactly what he wants to say.

So, I would suggest that McCain should be careful what he wishes for. He might get it and what he gets might ruin his campaign.

Jesse Jackson: Open-Mouth-Insert-Foot

Bob Hertzog — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:16:07 -0700

Barack Obama does have his minister troubles, doesn’t he? First, there was Wright, then Pfleger, and now Jackson. They all said some things the blame for which seems to have fallen on Obama. I want to offer a thought or two about the Jesse Jackson outburst, but first let me offer a thought about the issue in general.

No one is responsible for what others might have to say on any issue. Just about every political figure has experienced some supporter or relative say something controversial that was played over and over and over on television because the television programmers thought it helped to develop a conflict, which is relished beyond anything by the television copywriters. John McCain has Phil Graham, Hillary had Geraldine Ferraro and Obama has had Wright, Pfleger, and Jackson. All these people are adults and they speak their own mind, a political candidate is not responsible. As McCain said about Graham’s statement, “…. does not speak for me. I speak for me.” We should leave it at that.

Here’s a thought or two about Jesse Jackson’s open-mouth-insert-foot statement. Jackson is an old hand at public events. He sat in this event with a microphone clipped to his lapel. The event was being recorded by Fox News (hardly the most fair and objective news agency). Is it possible that Jackson really thought the mike was dead?

Once in the past, Jackson was caught making an embarrassing remark the thought was private. He referred to New York City as “Hymietwon.” This he said to a reporter, when Jackson claims he thought his reference would not be printed. Jackson must know – given the bias of Fox News -- that whatever he said would be recorded by Fox.

Perhaps Jesse is just a little jealous of Barack, a fellow Chicagoan who seems to be taking his place as the leader and spokesperson for black Americans.

This is just a guess on my part and readers can take it for what they think it is worth. It just does not seem likely to me that Jesse Jackson would by accident make a mistake like this one

Campaign Choice: McCain or Obama, It is the Lessor of Evils?

Bob Hertzog — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:52:47 -0700

*** I got back from the Grand Canyon. The grandkids had a ball, so did Bonnie and I. The view from the Skywalk was spectacular, but expensive. ***

If you are an obama supporter, you might have been disappointed – as I was – by the reversal of his stance on campaign financing. Originally, Obama made a promise that his campaign would make use of public financing. That would mean there would be some restrictions on the amount he would be permitted to spend on his campaign. However, when he saw how well his campaign was raising money he realized that his campaign would be a financially better off if he opted out of public financing along with the restrictions it brings. What Obama did was, of course, perfectly legal under our campaign finance laws. Several candidates, including President Bush in 2000 and 2004, have elected not to take public financing. Obama’s move was disappointing because he make a campaign promise then, when he thought it suited him better, made a conscious decision to break that promise.

The purpose of using public financing for a political campaign, of course, is to reduce the need for the candidates to go to large donors, lobbyists, and bundlers in order to finance their campaigns. Obama said he wanted to change the way government and politics works. Staying with public financing was one of the changes he said he intended to make. With this reversal, Obama proves he is, like every other politician, interested in getting elected over personal integrity or keeping promises made.

This leaves us with the big question: What’s an Obama supporter to do? Vote for John McCain, who has made a few flip-flops of his own since he became the Republican presumptive nominee? Vote for Bob Barr or Ralph Nader? Here’s my thoughts?

McCain, as I mentioned, has reversed his view on a few issues. The most prominent of these reversals is his view on the so-called Bush tax cuts. He once said that he could not vote for them “… in good conscience…” because the vast majority of the tax benefit went to the very wealthy. Now, McCain says the he thinks the tax cuts were a good idea, and they should be renewed. With that reversal, McCain proves that he, like Obama, will say and do whatever it takes to get him elected. However the real reason I could not vote for McCain is his political philosophy, which to me seems cold and sometimes mean spirited. He opposed the children’s health insurance bill, which provides health care to poor children. He opposed the G.I. Bill, in the form in which it was proposed. The bill provides education assistance for soldiers returning from the fighting in Iraq. He wants to continue George Bush’s way of selecting federal judges and he wants to continue Bush’s really bad judgment on our involvement in Iraq.

So, McCain is out, as far as I’m concerned. I have a number of disagreements with Bob Barr and Ralph Nader, but even if I agreed with them on everything, a vote for one of them – as our system is currently set up – is likely to be counter productive. They have not even a miniscule chance of getting 270 electoral-college votes. In addition, you may be aware that the few votes Nader received in the 2000 election – most of which would have otherwise gone to Gore – threw Florida to Bush and gave us eight years of the worst president this nation has ever had. If you want to go back a few years, you may recall that the votes garnered by Ross Perot – most of which would otherwise have gone to George H. W. Bush – gave the election to Bill Clinton.

It all comes down to the following thoughts:

Every candidate will say what that candidate thinks is necessary in order to get elected. Regardless of what they believe or even what they intend to do once elected, the first rule for all candidates is get elected.
There is no candidate, with whom I can agree completely on every issue. I agree with Obama on some issues and disagree with him on others. I do agree with McCain on a few issues and disagree with him of a number of others. The same can be said for Nader and Barr.
It is not possible in a nation as complex as ours, where a candidate must appeal to a couple hundred million voters, to find a candidate that will say everything one likes and nothing one dislikes.
Staying home and not voting, in my view, is a cop out. We have a patriotic duty to try to elect the best candidate, of the choices our system gives us.
We are stuck with voting for the candidate, with whom we agree most or disagree least. In some cases, we are stuck with supporting the candidate, we perceive to be the least objectionable. For me, that’s Obama.

Dirty Politics: Will This Campaign be Any Different?

Bob Hertzog — Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:28:09 -0700

We now have a presidential nominee for both major parties. They both say they are going to give us a different kind of political campaign. John McCain and Barack Obama have both promised to present a respectful and civil presidential campaign. Will it really happen? Is it possible that in the months leading up to November 4^th., we will see a campaign in which the candidates discuss and debate major issue and avoid the low-road politics, to which we have all grown so accustomed? I’m hopeful but I do have my doubts.

We have grown familiar with gutter politics that certain strategies even have names. To attack an opponent’s character is to Bork an opponent. To swift boat an opponent is to misrepresent or lie about a critical fact in your opponent’s biography. This campaign has added a new technique. A campaign might Reverend Wright or Reverend Hagee an opponent by creating the impression that the opponent shares a set of beliefs with someone the candidate, at some time in the past, has associated with.

Such strategies have been around ever since politics began. Plato even discusses some of them in The Republic. Now, however, the internet has turned dirty politics into an occupation. Political research agencies are paid tens of thousands of dollars to dig up or manufacture dirt on your opponent. In order for one of these tactics to work, there must be a small kernel of truth which can then be distorted and exploited.

Both parties do it, but my observation is that Republicans are better at dirty politics than Democrats. Republicans will even do it to other republicans, as John McCain learned in 2,000. As he ran for the Republican nomination against then candidate George W. Bush, an email was sent to thousands of voters in several primary states that McCain had fathered a black child (totally untrue) and that his wife was a drug addict (also untrue).

In this campaign, emails were sent that claimed that if Giuliani became president he would put a Catholic priest, who had been accused of child molestation, in his cabinet. Calls were made to Republican primary voters, disguised as a legitimate opinion poll, which mentioned John McCain favorably and reminded listeners that Mitt Romney is a Mormon and that he spent the Vietnam war in France as a missionary (true but irrelevant). Emails and bloggers have described Barack Obama as a Muslim (completely false). He has been accused of being unwilling to salute the flag and that he is really some kind of subversive.

These kinds of dirty tricks and almost never done by the candidate or the candidate’s campaign. They are usually done by what is called 527 organizations. The 527s are organizations formed to help one candidate and hurt another but are separate from the candidate’s organization so the candidate cannot be held responsible for what they do. They are the slimy, low-life, bottom-feeders of political campaigning. Politics is a rough and tumble game, and as Harry Truman famously said, “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” But the 527 organizations have brought politics to a level of nastiness we have not seen in the past.

If 527organizations are really beyond the control of a candidate and the candidate’s campaign, we cannot hold a candidate responsible for what they have done. However, we can, and we should, hold candidates responsible for not publicly and directly dissociating themselves from the ugly things that 527s do. In the past, few candidates have done this, but this year all three of the major presidential candidates, Clinton, McCain and Obama have made an effort to distance themselves from things some of their supporters have said and done. I think that is a good sign. Perhaps, we will get a new more civil kind of politics.

It is important to note here that the reason candidates go into the gutter with their politics is because it works. We, the voters, allow them to do it. We love to see a candidate we dislike pilloried, even when what is claimed is a fabrication or a serious stretch of the truth. We hate it when a candidate we like is attacked, even when the attack is primarily true.

If you really want to put a stop to this ugly kind political communication, there is something we can do. We can make sure that candidates we support know that our support is contingent on their willingness to run a reasonably clean campaign. If we would all do just that, we could change politics in a single season.

In Our Political Rhetoric, Does Logic Matter?

Bob Hertzog — Fri, 30 May 2008 08:05:55 -0700

I wonder if it really matters to people whether or not our political leaders communicate in logically valid ways. Candidates across the political spectrum regularly present us with logically fallacious and specious arguments. We will debate the issue but seldom do we comment on the validity of the arguments. I have spent a good part of my life trying to teach university students to argue logically and to recognize specious and fallacious arguments when they occur. As I observe our political scene I wonder if my efforts were all in vain.

A few days ago, I wrote in this blog space a discussion of President Bush’s speech before the Israeli Knesset in which he committed the serious logical fallacy, that logicians call “straw man.” There were a number of comments on that blog post, but none of them discussed the President’s blatant use of logical fallacy.

A straw-man fallacy occurs when your opponent has presented an argument that is difficult to refute. In stead of trying to do so directly, you invent a related argument that your opponent did not make, attribute that argument to your opponent, then make a scathing refutation of the argument you invented.

An example of a straw-man argument occurred when Barack Obama argued that John McCain’s vote against a veteran’s benefits bill demonstrated a lack of concern for veterans. Logically, one can make an argument about the reasons McCain gave for his “no” vote, but Obama did not make that argument. Instead, he invented a reason for McCain’s vote, then made an argument against that reason.

Another example of a straw-man argument happens when McCain says that Obama’s plan for withdrawing troops from Iraq is a defeat in Iraq. It is easy to refute an plan for defeat, but a calculated withdrawal (which Obama wants) is more difficult to argue against. So McCain simply says Obama is promoting a defeat than goes on to make an argument against defeat.

Perhaps the most common logical fallacy of all is the attack on the person. Whenever it is difficult to refute an argument made by an opponent, the easiest thing to do is attack, not your opponent’s argument, but your opponent’s character or motivation. The logicians name for this very common tactic is argumentum ad hominem (argument against the man).

The most recent form of this extremely common rhetorical strategy is happening right now. Former Bush administration press secretary Scott McClellan has written a memoir of his days in the White House saying that Bush and others used propaganda to sell an unnecessary war in Iraq. Now this argument has been debated for several years, but McClellan’s accusations, as a member of President Bush’s inner circle, carries a good deal more weight.

Instead of trying to refute McClellan’s claims directly, one-by-one, administration officials have been pouring criticism on McClellan’s character, his motivation, and honesty. I have heard them say things like: “The whole book is a pack of lies,” “I don’t know what happened, but this is not the Scott we all knew,” (perhaps his body has been taken over by aliens) “He’s just trying to sell his book.” These statements about McClellan may or may not be true, but none say anything about the veracity of McClellan’s claims.

The point of this post is not to argue the merits of the issues mentioned here. Instead, my point here is to demonstrate that we often miss out on an informative discussion of the issues because we (the observers of political arguments) fail to recognize or are willing to overlook logically invalid argument from political candidates and our leaders.

My question is: Are we willing to criticize those with whom we agree when they present us with a specious argument? Or, will we accept fallacious argument from those with whom we agree, while rejecting reasonable arguments from opponents? In other words, does logic matter?

Will the Real Appeaser Please Stand Up?

Bob Hertzog — Fri, 23 May 2008 07:21:16 -0700

The argument of the day, between Barack Obama and John McCain is over who is best prepared to handle America’s international interactions with enemies. Obama says he will “talk with” some foreign government officials who’s international objectives might be in serious opposition to those of the U.S. McCain says that Obama’s willingness to talk is appeasement, not much different from the appeasement of Adolf Hitler by Europe just prior to the outbreak of WWII. There are two points I would make about this argument.

First, there is a difference between “appeasement” and “talking with.” Appeasement means creating calm or peace by giving in to the other side. Talking with means having a conversation with someone. It in no way implies giving in. Thus, McCain’s criticism of Obama is based on McCain’s rather slippery definition of what Obama actually proposed. Obama did not say appeasement, did not mean appeasement, and does not intend appeasement. McCain is criticizing a ghost of his own making.

Second, McCain wants to continue the Bush-administration policy of isolating our international opponents and refusing to directly engage with those we consider our enemies. How well has this policy worked? Let’s look at a couple of examples.

Iran’s president has called Israel a “stinking corpse.” That nation has done everything it could to thwart our efforts in Iraq and it continues inexorably toward the development of its own nuclear weapon. The Bush administration, supported by McCain, has refused to talk with Iran, except on the most superficial level. Bush refers to Iran as evil, uses America’s diplomatic power to impose sanctions, and threatens military action. The result has been that Iran has more influence in Middle-Eastern affairs, continues to provide arms to Iraqi insurgents, still officially opposes Israel, and has not slowed its effort to acquire atomic weapons. To put it in other words, the Bush-McCain policy is a dog that just won't hunt.”

The United States has refused to talk to the Palestinian organization Hamas, because they engage in terrorism. Anyone who follows the events in the Middle East knows how that plan has worked out.

We have refused to engage directly with the Lebanese group, Hizbullah. Last year we enthusiastically supported Israel’s decision to attack Hizbullah strongholds in Southern Lebanon. Because of that attack Hizbullah rules Southern Lebanon, is now stronger than before the attack and has more credibility with the Lebanese people than ever.

I could give you more examples than this page would hold, but I hope these illustrations make my point clear. The Bush-McCain policy of isolation and direct challenge has not worked. In fact, it has produced almost nothing but failures all over the world. I’m not suggesting that talking with our enemies will solve all our international problems, but I am suggesting it cannot hurt. Talking with our enemies may not help us, but it cannot possibly do any more harm that the policy Bush has employed and McCain supports.

President Bush and Senator McCain say they refuse to appease our enemies. However, their action seems to be accomplishing everything for our enemies that an appeasement policy could possibly bring.

A Lesson in Logic for President Bush

Bob Hertzog — Thu, 15 May 2008 07:06:42 -0700

Well there he goes again. President Bush using logic that would get him a D- in any college public speaking class. This morning (May 15th.) President Bush told the Israeli Knesset (without actually mentioning Obama’s name) that Barack Obama is willing to appease terrorist in the same manner that European leaders appeased Hitler prior to WWII.

This comment, made in a speech in Israel, is direct attack on Barack Obama’s now famous statement that as president he would be willing to sit down with the leaders of Syria, Iran and North Korea to “talk with" them about our differences. In his statement, the President commits what logicians call a “straw man” fallacy. He attributes to Obama a weak position that Obama does not advocate than he attempts to refute the argument that Bush claims Obama holds.

Obama said “talking with.” President Bush slipped the meaning of “talking with” to his own phrase “appeasement.” “Appeasement” is a concept much easier to oppose than is the concept which comes from the phrase “talking with.” However, the two terms are not similar. “Appeasement” means giving in and allowing others to have their way, no matter what. “Talking with,” as Obama has said he meant it, means hard diplomatic negotiations, following a thorough preparation, in order to realize out goals and objectives. If the president takes Obama’s meaning as it was intended, it would make his refutation very difficult, so he simply attributed to Obama a meaning that Obama did not intend, but one much easier to refute. It is an old propaganda technique and people have been falling for it for thousands of years.

Diplomatic negotiations is the way to make us safer. We must talk with governments that oppose us, but we do not have to give in to their every demand. This is the way American has done it in the past and it is the best way to achieve our international goals. Since Bush took office, we tended to shoot first and discuss later. That policy has not made us safer. Indeed, it has made us less safe in this world.

Campaign Lies...Is There Anyone Left to Tell Us the Truth?

Bob Hertzog — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:03:44 -0700

At the outset of this post, I’d like to say that I have been and continue to be a supporter of Barack Obama for president of the United States. He is, in my view, the best of the three viable candidates running and I fervently hope it is who takes to oath of office in January of 2009.

Having made my view clear, let me make a few comments about political campaigns based on a piece of literature I received today from the Obama campaign. The campaign brochure states the following:

“AS PRESIDETN, BARACK OBAMA WILL:

End the war in Iraq.
Provide every American with health coverage.
Reform Student loan problems and create a $4,000 refundable tax credit for college.
Make long-term investment in training, and workforce development.
End our dependence on Middle East oil.
Save our planet from the crisis of climate change.
Take on special interests and lobbyists.”

This is what Obama promises to do. Let’s take a look at what he actually could do if he were elected president. Obama, as president and commander in chief, could end the war in Iraq. We can give him that one.

He cannot provide every American with health care. Only congress can pass that legislation. If a future congress was inclined to act, he could then sign the legislation congress passed. For this primise, he is helpless without congress.

Reform the student loan program? Again, not unless congress acts first, although through the department of education, the president has some power to influence the student loan program. We can give him a partial on this one. The tax credit, however, must be enacted by congress.

Workforce development? This he may be able to do through the labor department. We can give him this one as well.

End our dependence on Middle East oil? This is a joke. I cannot believe his campaign expects us to believe this one. We can go a long way toward becoming oil independent but it is going to take more than the eight years Obama could expect to be in office. With billions of dollars invested and a go-to-the-moon like effort, we could become oil independent in perhaps 20 years.

Save our planet from climate change? Another joke. As president, Obama might encourage Americans to do our part, but this is a world issue. What can the American president do about polluters, like China, Russia, and others? What can the American president do about South-American countries that wish to cut down their forests?

Take on lobbyists? He can do it with respect to the White House, but he cannot keep lobbyists out of congress. We can give him another partial for this one.

What can we conclude from this? Is Obama simply ignorant of what a president in our democracy can do or is he simply a liar? Well, I hope neither. I’m certain Barack Obama is fully aware of just what the powers of the president are. Obviously, his campaign promises mean is that he intends to try to accomplish these things.

Obama’s campaign communicators believe that [and I think they are correct in this belief] we will not vote for a candidate that actually told the truth and said “I will try …” rather than “I will do…”

I don’t like it, but I believe all of this makes two statements about the state of our political campaigning and, more important, about the shallowness of American voters.

First, if one candidate spoke the truth as she or he understood it to be and another spoke lies that made us feel good and seemed to support ideas we like, we would elect the liar and leave the truth teller out.

Second, if ever there were any truth tellers in American politics, we have pretty much weeded them all out. So if we really did want political campaigners to tell us the unvarnished truth, I don’t think we could find anyone who actually knows how to do it. The truth tellers are all in some other line of work. We, as a voting nation, have created exactly the government we deserve.

I have not received campaign literature from Hillary Clinton or John McCain, but I suspect when I do, I will find that literature equally as devoid of truth as I found Obama’s material.

What Barak Really Meant: More Gotcha Politics

Bob Hertzog — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:06:07 -0700

A standard ploy in politics today is to search your opponents words, excerpt just the ones that make the speaker look stupid, indecisive, prejudiced or just silly, then repeat those words over and over until they seem to be exactly what the person intended to say. This strategy is so common that it has been given a name. Writers Thomas Cathcart and Daniel klein, in their book Aristotle and an Aardvark to to Washington, call this political strategy "contestomy." In the 2004 presidential campaign, John Kerry was the victim of this sort of gotcha politics, when he was quoted over and over saying “I voted for funding for the war, before I voted against it.” Kerry was expressing some frustration over the way in which the bill was worded, saying he was for it with certain wording but against it when it was rewritten. The manner in which he was quoted made Kerry look indecisive and confused. However, when what he as said was quoted completely, it was easy to see exactly what Kerry meant.

Several days ago, John McCain said that American troops might be in Iraq for the next 100 years. McCain, responding to a question he was asked, meant his remark in the context of American’s international interest around the world, since WWII. He was not thinking of America continuing the war for the next 100 years, as the excerpt so often quoted makes it seem.

The latest victim of contextomy is Barak Obama. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain have criticized a remark Obama made about small-town Pennsylvanians, during a campaign stop in Pennsylvania. The portion of his comments quoted and then characterized by Obama opponents go something like this: “It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

The excerpt here makes it seem as if Obama is making a condescending and stereotypical remark about rural Pennsylvanians. Below is the entire quote as Obama spoke it. If you read his entire message, you can easily see that Obama is remarking on the failure of previous governments (both Democratic and Republican) to respond to the needs of these people and arguing that an Obama administration would be different.

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you’ll find is, is that people of every background — there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you’ll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I’d be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you’re doing what you’re doing.”

News media, both national and local, for their own reasons, have joined hands with Obama’s opponents to mischaracterize his comment in a most negative manner. The media does not necessarily want to help Obama’s opponents, they just want to abet a little more controversy. They even more than our politicians should know better.

"It's the Economy ...." That's Issue One.

Bob Hertzog — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:53:34 -0700

Recently, John McCain made a major speech on the nations economic problems. He spoke particularly to our housing and credit distress. McCain said he thinks it would be irresponsible for the government to help individual home owners who are losing their homes. He said it would be irresponsible for the government to crack down hard on money lenders who use high-pressure sales tactics to sell mortgage loans to people who will have great, long-term difficulty making payments.

In other economic areas, McCain opposes using federal money for retraining help to people who have lost their jobs. He wants to make Bush’s tax cuts that went almost entirely to rich tax payers permanent. He wants to maintain NAFTA and other free trade agreements which tend to be good for business, but have created unemployment at home.

Both Clinton and Obama have proposed some help for financially-strapped homeowners. Obama proposes a $10 billion fund to help people refinance homes in foreclosure. He says we can get the money from stiffer fines on fraudulent lenders. Clinton would temporally halt subprime foreclosures and freeze subprime interest rates.

Both Obama and Clinton want to renegotiate and modify NAFTA. Obama seems a little confused about exactly what he wants to do with NAFTA. On the campaign, he says it should be set aside, but one of his campaign officials seems to have told the Canadian government that he really does not mean to do away with NAFTA.

So basically, McCain says that if the economy has gotten you into a serious jam and you have lost your job or you home, “… its unfortunate, but keep struggling and maybe you can get yourself out of it. But if not tough break.”

Both Clinton and Obama want to help. They have some differences, but at least they have demonstrated a bit of compassion.

Race and Politics: Obama's Speech

Bob Hertzog — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:47:21 -0700

Yesterday (3/17) Barak Obama made what is perhaps the most important speech of his political career. As the first really viable black presidential candidate, he and his campaign advisors felt the need to make a statement on race in America. The statement he made is, in my opinion, it is the best statement on race relations in America since Martin Luther King’s “Letter from the Birmingham Jail.” There was no pandering to blacks or white. It was a straightforward statement that seemed to come from the speaker's heart and had a ring of truth we often do not see in today's politics.

Specifically, Obama was responding to some very outrageous, divisive, and disturbing comments made by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the pastor of Obama’s church. While strongly condemning Wright’s words, Obama made an effort to help us understand them, in the context of American history. First, he pointed out that while we may not hear this sort of language in mixed white and black conversation, it is heard in black churches all over American every Sunday morning. He observed that the anger Rev. Wright expressed (but perhaps not his words) might be understandable in the light of slavery, a civil war, Jim Crow laws, segregation, forced integration, and prejudice which still exists among some in America. If you don’t understand why some African Americans are angry today – particularly those of Rev. Wright’s age, who experienced Jim Crow – you’re simply blind to our history.

The main point of Obama’s speech was not to excuse Rev. Wright’s words (indeed, he repudiated them in absolute terms) or to defend the anger of black Americans. His main point was that it is time to move past the attitudes of the last generation. Obama says he belongs to the next generation. The 20^th century was a century of racial strife and unrest. Now we are in the 21^st century. It is time to move past 20^th –century differences and begin to work together to find real solutions the America’s on-going problems. Problems such as poverty, joblessness, inadequate health care, and others which impact all Americans white and black.

As the campaign goes on, I suppose Obama will be asked again and again to explain his relationship with Rev. Wright. In my opinion, he answered that question as well as it can be answered. It is time to get past it. We may not want Barak Obama to be our next president. That is a personal choice we may all have to make some day. If that day comes, lets make the choice on our view of Obama’s ability to lead this nation in the 21^st. century and let’s not base our choice on the divisive, racial politics of the last century.

Marketing Candidates: Playing the Race/Gender/Maverick Card

Bob Hertzog — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:16:09 -0700

Throughout this presidential campaign, people have offered criticism of the major candidates based on stereotypes. Barak Obama has been accused of “playing the race card" (pardon the overworked cliché). Hillary Clinton was called the iron maiden and seen as too cold and calculating. John McCain’s campaign almost miscarried because he was seen as George Bush’s third term.

It’s all true. Obama did base some of his campaign on race, and Clinton did try to appeal to women by showing her feminine side (hold the hate mail, I’m making a point about marketing). McCain tried to separate himself from Bush and recover his old image. The key is marketing. In all cases, these candidates engaged in smart marketing strategy and they did it in a way that their opponents could never have done.

In South Carolina and Mississippi, Obama appealed directly to African Americans. He spoke directly to the issues blacks think are important and employed accent and jargon with which they might identify. Was it effective? Look at the results? It was effective primarily because Obama is black. If any of his white opponents had tried the same strategy, the result would have been a campaign melt down.

In order to appeal to women, Clinton needed to soften her image. We were allowed to witness an interview in which Hillary appeared with a slight sniffle in her voice and a little tear in her eye. The result was an almost immediate campaign turn around. Can you imagine what might have occurred if either Obama or McCain had appeared in an interview with a sniffle and a tear. If that had happened to either of them, I assure you that individual would not be a viable presidential candidate today. Sincerely or not, Clinton engaged in a smart marketing strategy that neither of her opponents could match.

Last fall McCain’s campaign was approaching moribund status, he pulled it out of the nose dive, by appealing to his long-established maverick image. He spoke about how he had taken on Rumsfeld, by criticizing his management of the Iraq war. Then he pointed out how he fought “K” street lobbyists and got some war profiteers jailed. Again, his opponents could not have matched this strategy and it saved his campaign.

We may decry the fact that campaigns are run with marketing principles not unlike the way commercial products are sold, but the fact is they are. We cannot blame candidates from engaging in the game using the rules that exist. If they did not do so they would soon be ex-candidates. If we want the system to change, we must change it. Candidates will not do so. Indeed, they could not do so, even if they wanted.

Democrats Alive and Well, Despite Infighting.

Bob Hertzog — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:51:43 -0700

In Saturday’s (3/15) Richmond Palladium-Item, there is an opinion column by DeWane Wickham arguing that this year’s presidential race is already over. Wickham argues that the Democratic party is so split by infighting that whoever gets the Democratic nomination (Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama) will lose the general election in the fall. His argument is foolish in the extreme. Here’s why.

First, the Democratic party is known for it infighting. They do fight among themselves, but once the fighting is over, Democrats tend to pull together to try to win a general election. This particular season, the nomination campaign has been hard fought, but when a nominee is finally selected, Democrats will get together behind their candidate. The process looks like a mess, but it is what Democrats do. Observing Democrats reminds one of the oft quoted observation by humorist, Will Rogers. “I don’t belong to any organized party. I’m a Democrat.”

The reason for this is the Democratic commitment to diversity. Diversity produces diverse views. These have to be worked through. Republicans do not have this problem. Republicans only pretend a commitment to diversity. In general (with some notable exceptions) Republicans follow Ronald Reagan’s eleventh commandment: “Thou shalt not criticize fellow Republicans.” It a walk in step and play nice party.

The second reason Democrats will pull together is George Bush and John McCain. Democrats detest the foreign and economic policies of George W. Bush, with a white-hot passion. John McCain wants give us more and more of what George Bush brought to us. When they think about that in the fall, Democrats and – I believe – independents will mobilize behind their nominee.

Right now our foreign policy is in a mess it may take 20 years to repair. Our economy is collapsing right around us. If Mr. Wickham thinks the country wants to continue along these same lines, he is – I belive – very sadly mistaken. Actually, I don’t think Wickham really believes what he wrote. He is an experienced political observer. What he wrote makes him look like he just dropped in from Mars. I think his opinion was simply an attempt to be provocative and to stir people up. If that was his purpose, he succeeded with me.

If my opinion is true, and it almost has to be, is it ethical journalism to write an opinion in which you do not believe in order to provoke people into a reaction? I think it is not.

Recession? Maybe, What Do the Candidates Say?

Bob Hertzog — Sat, 8 Mar 2008 04:54:00 -0800

Economists can’t seem to decide whether or not the U.S. economy is technically in a recession. However, in January the U.S. lost 17,000 jobs, the stock market continues to drop, and mortgage foreclosures are at an all-time high. If we are not in a recession now, we are surely not far from being there. This means that the economy, not Iraq and national security, will be the main issue on which this presidential election will swing. So, what do the candidates on the campaign trail have to say about our economic woes?

First, President Bush, who of course is not on the campaign trail, is saying he knows the economy is slowing but tax rebates are coming and they will stem the slow down. So, basically, the President thinks things are under control and wants more of the same.

Hillary Clinton says “…We need a president who’s ready to be a steward of our economy starting on Day One.” She argues that it will take more than tax rebates to avoid a recession. Clinton renewed her call for an extension on unemployment insurance, a government investment to create jobs, and a 90-day moratorium on mortgage foreclosures, along with a five year freeze on subprime mortgage interest rates.

Barak Obama is saying we cannot afford failed policies brought to us by George Bush. In a swipe at his campaign opponent, Hillary Clinton, Obama said, we “… cannot afford another politician who promises solutions but won’t change the divisive, lobbyist-driven politics in Washington.

As usual, Clinton offers a few specifics, while Obama promises change but shies away from any specific plans.

John McCain, who now has the Republican nomination wrapped up, says he feels our pain (well he did not say exactly those words). He does note that people are hurting and calls for repealing the alternative minimum tax and making the Bush tax cuts permanent. The Bush tax cuts are the ones that give major tax breaks to rich folks and the ones that McCain once said he “…could not in good conscious vote for.”

If the presidential campaign debate turns from national security (the issue McCain thinks is his strong point), to the economy, it will be a major plus for the democratic nominee, whoever it turns out to be. McCain promises four more years of Bushonomics, the policies that got us into the mess we are in now. Democrats, at least, say they want to change what we are doing now.

Experience Is The Best Teacher ... Not

Bob Hertzog — Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:54:43 -0800

Hillary Clinton, in making her case that she would make a better president than Barak Obama, argues constantly that she has the experience necessary to make the correct presidential decisions. She says, at 3:00 in the morning when the red phone rings, we should want her answering rather than Obama, because she has the experience.

So, how important is experience in producing excellent performance. Experts say it is not very important. Scientists have been studying the experience issue for most of the 20^th century, but there have been several studies since the 1970s. The general finding of these studies has been that years of experience is not a very good predictor of excellent performance. One of these researchers, Anders Ericsson, says the experienced performers tend to be a bit better at the routine tasks of their profession, but when something unexpected happens, experienced people perform only a little better than novices.

I’m not sure what all this means when it comes to presidential performance, since that activity was not studied in Ericsson’s research. It does, however, give us pause over what Hillary Clinton says is her strongest argument.

The Democrats Debate

Bob Hertzog — Fri, 1 Feb 2008 08:42:36 -0800

I watched the Democratic debate between Clinton and Obama. I though it interesting that the candidates put aside some of the acrimony of their previous meeting and basically treated each other with sweetness and love. I wonder how long it will last.

Their attitude was different than when Romney and McCain went at it a couple of day earlier. They were like two pit bulls locked in a room together. I thought in that respect McCain sort of wiped the floor with Romney, but I’m not sure that their animosity played very well with viewers.

Obama and Clinton had a real debate, the kind of debate informs the audience. As an old argumentation and debate teacher, it was a pleasure to watch. They discussed issues, presented their arguments, emphasized their different views, and also focused clearly on the ways in which they agree. They discussed their views on health care, taxes, immigration, and Iraq. Both showed a good command of the facts and made clear, reasonable arguments. If I had to pick a winner, it would be close, but I’d give the nod to Hillary Clinton. She seemed to have a slightly better command of facts and her manner came across as knowledgeable and confident.

True Lies In Politics

Bob Hertzog — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:22:35 -0800

John Adams famously said: “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” It may be so, but it seems to me that facts are not always so absolute as Mr. Adams would have us believe. There are times when a statement of fact may be both true and false at the same time. Let me give you a couple of examples.

A couple of days ago, the former governor and senator from Nebraska, Bob Kerrey, said: “I've watched the blogs try to say that you can't trust him [Barak Obama] because he spent a little bit of time in a secular madrassa. I feel quite the opposite.” Kerry, a Hillary Clinton supporter, said this in the CNN Situation Room. Is it true? Did Obama attend a madrassa? Yes, and well, not exactly.

When he was 6 through 10 years old, Obama lived in Indonesia, with his mother and stepfather. He attended a public school in Jakarta. Students wore western clothes and studied a basic Indonesian public-school curriculum. Some of the students were Islamic (Indonesia is 90% Islamic), others students were Christian and Buddhists. In Arabic madrassa literally means “place where learning happens” or school.

So it is true Obama attended a madrassa. But, this statement is also not true because of the connotation the term madrassa produces in many Americans. When some one uses the term madrassa, many of us see images of bearded zealots disgorging virulent anti-American propaganda. That is not what happened where Obama just went to school.

Kerrey made his statement and then went on to praise Obama, but the damage is done. The message planted the seed.

A similar argument can be made about Mike Huckabee’s statement in an article he authored for the New York Times Magazine. He wrote, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers.” Mormons do believe that God is the father of- and creator of all beings, thus we are all spirit sons and daughters of god, including the devil.

So Huckabee’s statement is true. But, the statement is also not true. Mormons believe that Jesus is the only begotten in the flesh son God. They worship Jesus as the son of God and the savior of mankind. Satan, to Mormons, is the exact opposite of Jesus and opposite of what Jesus stands for." So, Huckabee’s statement is also false. It connotes that Mormons are just a small step removed from devil worshiping cult. Huckabee, a ordained minister knew before he wrote the statement that he was planting a false seed. But he did it anyway.

To me a statement which is factually true but deliberately presents a false connotation is a lie the same as a statement that deliberately distorts facts. It is unfortunate that not one candidate (Republican or Democrat) is willing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.