Gray Matter
The Day After
So Tsunami Tuesday has come and gone and life, as we know it, goes on. Little has changed following yesterday’s mega-primary when nearly half of the states held contests to choose each party’s nominee for president. Certainly the Clinton-Obama battle for the Democratic prize remains deadlocked. The two candidates divided up the states, the votes and, most importantly, the delegates almost evenly. Hillary Clinton is left still fighting for the nomination the day after the largest set of primaries that the nation has ever held which she hoped would drive a dagger into any opponent still standing in her way. And Barack Obama failed to leapfrog over the Clinton machine and assert himself as the new frontrunner. We’re left with two impressive combatants slogging on with the distinct possibility that it will take the party’s convention this summer to decide their fate. Partisans fear that such a lengthy process could do harm to the Democratic Party’s unity going into the fall campaign. But both candidates have apparently decided to stop throwing mud at each other and run reasonably respectful campaigns, at least for the time being. I, for one, think this is a marvelous development for our Republic. It gives schnooks like us in supposedly late primary states the opportunity to cast our votes in a meaningful way. And both candidates are being scrutinized in a way that can only help define them as better qualified than whoever the Republicans nominate. As for the Republicans, the outcome of their Super Tuesday contests provided the only real surprise in the strong showing of Mike Huckabee. As expected, John McCain ended up with the lion’s share of the states and the delegates. But Mitt Romney, who many hardline Republicans were hoping would draw support from the party’s most conservative voters, was overtaken by Huckabee who won several southern states. Prior to Tuesday’s voting, Romney enraged Huckabee by insinuating that the former Arkansas governor had little chance to be anything other than a spoiler. Early last evening, Huckabee appeared to gleefully throw those words back at Romney when he acknowledged that the race had narrowed to two candidates but he was one of them. McCain’s eventual nomination appears pretty close to a sure thing. Huckabee’s success seems to ensure that he will coast to the convention with political capital that may result in his selection as the vice presidential nominee. Romney, on the other hand, looks more and more like the Black Knight from Monty Python who insists he is getting stronger each time he gets one of his arms or legs lopped off. Get over it, Mitt. The people are just not that into you. But the Clinton-Obama contest is what has captured the attention of our nation and the world. Let’s face it, there’s an epidemic of Bush fatigue. Not even the Republicans are dumb enough to be linking themselves to the current occupant of the White House. The historymaking Obama and Clinton campaigns are engaged in an epic battle, neck […]
Feb 7th, 2008 by Ted Bobrow
The McCain Surge
And then there were two. Two Democrats and Two Republicans, that is. With John Edwards and Rudy Giuliani dropping out of the presidential campaign, both contests now get really interesting. John McCain narrowly beat Mitt Romney in Florida’s Republican primary Tuesday but because the GOP winner gets all of the state’s delegates, McCain has now emerged as a solid favorite. Romney must be looking to next week’s Tsunami Tuesday to “Keep Hope Alive.” Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul are still actively campaigning but their chances are slim to none, particularly in winner take all states. On one level, Democrats should be salivating at having McCain as an opponent in November given the overwhelming unpopularity of the war. Not only has McCain been an outspoken supporter of the war but he was calling for a “surge” back when President George “The Decider” Bush was still endorsing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s “What, me worry?” approach. But McCain appeals to many independents and Dems would be wise not to underestimate the former Navy pilot and Vietnam POW. It is difficult to imagine a candidate winning on a platform of “full-speed ahead” in Iraq. Yet if McCain is nominated the Republicans will try to exploit the contrast between the war veteran and either Democrat on the issue of maintaining America’s strength in the world. In fact, I’ll go out on a limb and predict that the Republicans will be far better at managing the war hero advantage in 2008 than the other side did in 2004. One of the sweeter ironies of McCain’s sudden emergence as the Republican frontrunner is how disliked he is by the party’s conservative base. His positions on immigration and campaign finance have infuriated the party faithful and have driven notorious rabble-rousers including Rush Limbaugh and Tom DeLay to distraction. Romney is now focusing on attacking the conservative credentials of McCain but his own moderate past makes this a difficult sell. So it appears that for the first time in anyone’s memory the Republicans will likely nominate someone not favored by the party’s elite. A strange year, indeed. Another factor that makes McCain an odd choice is the sense that the nation is clamoring for change. While it’s hard to imagine anyone perceiving a 71-year-old white male Washington insider who supports the Bush policy in Iraq as an agent of change, McCain may benefit from his reputation as a renegade. His image as a “straight talker,” supported by his congenial relationship with the national press, also enhances his popularity with moderates and independents. Conventional wisdom suggests that the electorate is depending less on the mainstream media for information in our internet age but the truth is many of the most popular news web sites are often recycling stories from the dreaded MSM. So far, McCain has also managed to control his legendary temper. I guess it shouldn’t surprise anyone that someone who survived five years in a Viet Cong prison could avoid responding to the much milder indignities of […]
Jan 31st, 2008 by Ted Bobrow
A Hungry Nation
The presidential campaign of Barack Obama received a stunning boost this week after scoring a huge victory in South Carolina’s primary Saturday followed by endorsements from Caroline Kennedy, Sen. Edward Kennedy, and other members of one of the royal families of the Democratic Party. Much has been made about the negative tone that has recently permeated the contest between Obama and Hilary Clinton with most of the blame falling on the Clinton camp. To his credit, Obama has tapped into a positive vein that seems to be surging throughout the country at just the right time for his campaign. His “Audacity of Hope” rhetoric and determination to run an inclusive campaign contrasts sharply with the image projected by Sen. Clinton, her former president husband and her many experienced surrogates. Her campaign is heavily invested in promoting her not only as more experienced at governing but also more skilled at defending herself from the negative attacks that the Republicans will direct at whichever candidate the Democrats nominate. At this point in the campaign, the Clinton machine appears seriously out of touch with the mood of the nation. While the candidate and her supporters deny introducing the issue of race, you have to scratch your head and wonder “What was he thinking?” when you hear Bill Clinton dismiss Obama’s success in South Carolina by comparing it to Jesse Jackson’s victory in 1988. Coupled with former Atlanta mayor and United Nations ambassador Andrew Young’s absurd remark that Bill Clinton is more “black” than Obama because he bedded more black women and former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey’s repeated references to “Barack Hussein Obama” calls into question the whole notion that the Clintons offer the benefits of a well-oiled election machine. Clearly, it’s too early to call this race over. Only a fraction of the delegates necessary for nomination have been chosen. Tsunami Tuesday is next week when more than 20 states hold primaries and about 40 percent of the number of delegates needed to win will be divided up. But unlike the Republicans, the Democrats divide states up proportionately so that it is very likely that neither Obama nor Clinton will be in a position to declare the race over anytime soon. With all due respect to John Edwards, his inablity to win any of the early contests has made it difficult to imagine a scenario where he can catch either of the frontrunners. When asked, voters generally complain that there is too little attention paid to substantive issues and too much on the horse race. At this point, that seems a bit beside the point, at least as far as the Democratic contest goes. For one thing, there are very few significant differences between the two. Policy wonks will note that Clinton’s health care proposal pledges to provide universal access, while Obama’s falls short of that standard, popular as it is among the party faithful. But on Iraq, the economy, and so many issues their differences are minimal. The key variable which may […]
Jan 29th, 2008 by Ted Bobrow
True West
Sam Shepard’s True West is a cleverly dark comedy that would be all too easy to overdo in all the wrong places. A less than shrewd production could miss the finesse of the original script, but the Spiral Theatre, in a tiny space on National Avenue, brings the right immediacy and intimacy to capture Shepard’s somewhat sinister humor with strikingly vivid form. In a testament to its growing prominence in local theatre, Spiral Theatre nearly sold out its 30+ capacity studio theatre on one of the coldest nights of the year. Spiral’s show is impressive, and while not all of the finer points of Shepard’s script are perfectly intact, the company manages to deliver an exceedingly enjoyable trip to the theatre. Len Macki stars as Austin, a struggling screenwriter who is looking after his mother’s place while she is away in Alaska. He’s managed to secure a meeting at her place with an important Hollywood producer (Josh Wetzel) to pitch an idea for a love story. The only problem: his brash older brother (Terry Gavin) is staying with him and threatens to blow Austin’s one chance at getting the producer’s green light. Things begin to unravel when Austin’s brother convinces the producer that it would be a good idea for Austin to write a Western instead. (Okay: Shepard’s plot is a lot better than it sounds in a few sentences. And if it’s not staged correctly, it’s every bit as cheesy as it sounds.) Len Macki, comfortably at the center of the production, holds much of the production together. (He’s not prominent locally, but he’s been active elsewhere, most notably Madison.) He dynamically renders Austin’s emotional development over the course of the play, moving from one intricately realized moment to the next. When Austin loses composure and takes to drinking, his emotional collapse is palpable. When he’s clearly dropping pieces of toast into toasters that aren’t plugged in, it makes sense even, though the illusion isn’t complete. Everything that happens around Austin makes sense, even when the production doesn’t make anything clear, and for that, Macki is truly remarkable. Gavin and Wetzel competently hold up their ends of the play. Gavin plays the seedy older brother with a subtle hint of a greater depth. Wetzel plays a Hollywood producer with a nice-guy charisma you wouldn’t expect from a man in his position. This contrast makes for an interesting performance; Wetzel seems almost guileless in a job one would expect to be played like a politician. Rounding out the cast is Sandra Stark in the role of the mother – again (during the holidays she appeared in Boulevard Theatre‘s production of Indian Blood). Seeing Stark play mother twice in three months would be strange if she weren’t so good at it. She speaks the lines. She doesn’t really need to do much more than that. She’s a natural for this kind of role, and here she’s a clever bookend to the production. Spiral Theatre’s production of True West runs through February […]
Jan 24th, 2008 by Russ Bickerstaff
Clearing the Air
A proposed ban on smoking in all workplaces in Wisconsin is stalled in the state legislature and that’s too bad. There’s no doubt that secondhand smoke is dangerous so it seems to me a no-brainer that no employee should be subjected to toxic air on the job. More than twenty states including New York, California, Illinois and Minnesota have passed smoke-free workplace measures and, as Gov. Doyle has pointed out, Wisconsin is in danger of becoming the ashtray of the Midwest. Even tobacco-addled countries like Ireland, Italy and France have enacted smoking bans, for heaven’s sake. Gov. Doyle reiterated his support for a ban on smoking in the workplace during last night’s State of the State address but it is unlikely to get very far this year. The Senate Public Health Committee passed a version of the ban earlier this month but Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker appears unwilling to bring the measure to a vote. He has called for supporters and opponents to work out a compromise which basically amounts to sweeping the bill under the rug. It’s a disappointing position for Decker to take since his rise to his leadership role was largely tied to his support for the Healthy Wisconsin proposal. Apparently, he wants Wisconsin residents to have access to health care as well as making sure they get exposed to air that can cause lung cancer, emphysema and other diseases so they need the coverage. I’d call that the “Full Employment for Healthcare Workers” platform. Most people recognize that the key stumbling block on this issue boils down to whether an exception should be allowed for bars and taverns. Opponents argue that the owners of places where people go to drink should be able to decide whether to permit smoking or not. Their customers, it is said, choose to spend their money there and are free to go elsewhere if they don’t like it. On the other hand, of course, bars and taverns are also workplaces and their employees are as entitled to clean air as everyone else. The bill passed by the Senate committee would give bars and taverns an extra year to comply with the ban but opponents apparently aren’t satisfied with that. The idea that waiters, waitresses and bartenders know that exposure to secondhand smoke comes with the job and could work elsewhere if they wanted to is bogus. I had a boss once who held meetings in his office where he smoked. They rest of us hated inhaling the smoke and we knew it wasn’t good for us. But it’s not that easy to find work or to tell a job supervisor you’d like them to be more sensitive to your needs. Newsrooms used to be as smoke-filled as any bar and that just doesn’t make it right. Interestingly, there appears to be widespread agreement on this issue. A variety of polls shows that more than two-thirds of people favor a ban on smoking in workplaces, including bars and taverns, and even […]
Jan 24th, 2008 by Ted Bobrow
An Epic Loss
As we all know, it’s only a game. Yeah, sure, and Bill Gates is just a software salesman. With the nation in the throes of a presidential election clearly we should have more important things on our minds. During the week when we are supposed to pay attention to civil rights, social justice and other great issues associated with the life of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., it seems almost abhorrent to waste our breath and energy on a football game. But there you have it. Nothing unifies Milwaukee and the state of Wisconsin more than our devotion to the Green Bay Packers. Our state may be divided between Democrats and Republicans, haves and have-nots, urban and rural, etc., but our identification with the Green and Gold is just about universal. So what transpired at Lambeau Field on Sunday has got to be Topic A this week, at least until we all process what happened, as best as possible, so we can move on to other things. First of all, I have something to put on the record. I grew up in New York but I was rooting for the Packers to advance to the Super Bowl and beat the Patriots. As a native of Queens, I have always considered myself a fan of the Mets, Jets and Knicks. All three teams won their respective championships within a year and a half of my tenth birthday. That kind of celestial alignment has a way of imprinting a lifelong connection between a boy and his teams. When I moved to Wisconsin eight years ago, I had been told that the state’s association with the Packers was unlike anything I had ever experienced. I was a bit skeptical since New York fans are pretty intense themselves. Also, I had lived in the Washington, DC area for 15 years and that community’s association with the Redskins is also remarkably monolithic. But there are many more transplants in the New York and DC areas so the percentage of devoted fans is much higher here so I can confirm that the devotion of Packer fans exceeds any team loyalty I have witnessed. I’ve grown to cheer for the Packers and their remarkable run this year was great fun if ultimately heartbreaking. The epic loss on Sunday was doubling disappointing because they were Favred to win, (excuse me), favored to win and they were playing in the welcoming surroundings of a home field. But following a closely fought contest that went into overtime, it will be the Giants who advance to the Super Bowl. Surely, there is no need to recount the details but it was an interception thrown by the great number 4 himself that gave the Giants kicker the opportunity to redeem himself for two earlier misses and score the winning field goal. Ouch. So now Packer nation must lick its wounds and breathlessly anticipate next season. The team is young and its future is bright. The big unknown, of course, is whether […]
Jan 22nd, 2008 by Ted Bobrow
Good for what ails ya’!
Are all politics local? If you are tired of the spinning and empty promises of our national leaders, have I got a cure for you. Anyone turned off by the state of politics today ought to attend a local candidate forum. Wednesday night’s forum for the race to fill Michael D’Amato’s seat on the Common Council was surprisingly entertaining. About 300 people packed into the Miramar Theater to listen to the eight aspirants for the Third District Alderman seat state their case. The evening provided more than the requisite drama, humor, and pathos befitting two hours at a theater and the audience left reasonably assured that at least some of the candidates offered the potential of representing the district competently. The February 19th primary will whittle the field down to two survivors who will run against each other on April 1st. It was obvious that two of the candidates do not deserve consideration for advancement. One, Dan Fouliard, got the evening off to an unusual start by squandering the two minutes he was given to introduce himself to explain the leadership process he defined as “asking, advocating and achieving.” His insistence on including that alliterative phrase in all of his responses left many in the crowd scratching their heads, suppressing giggles and then just plain feeling embarrassed for the guy. Another candidate, David Schroeder, also distinguished himself as another future also ran. Mr. Schroeder told the audience that he was motivated to run for the office when he discovered that contesting a parking ticket required him to personally appear at a downtown court. Clearly our local government needs someone like him to clean up its mess. To his credit, Schroeder did not waste much time giving detailed responses to many of the questions. In most cases, he simply tapped on the table and admitted that he hadn’t given much thought to the issue. Schroeder further endeared himself to the audience by declaring that rather than raising money for his campaign he was asking residents to contribute to other politicians they admire such as Sen. Russ Feingold. That suggestion generated his best reaction of the evening. While Fouliard and Schroeder earned the label of the evening’s “Not Ready for Primetime Players,” they did provide some not altogether unwelcome comic relief. The other panelists, however, made somewhat more compelling arguments for their candidacies. Sam McGovern-Rowen, a D’Amato aide, suggested that he had the most valuable experience since he has built relationships with the other aldermen and has answered the phone from residents and intimately knows their concerns. But he failed to communicate a vision and struggled awkwardly to avoid alienating voters who feel the current alderman has not been responsive enough to his constituents. He has his work cut out for him. As the only woman on the dais, Sura Faraj appeared to have a natural advantage. The current Common Council is an all-male institution and many feel that just ain’t right. She also latched on to the zeitgeist of the 2008 […]
Jan 18th, 2008 by Ted Bobrow
Candidate Forum Tonight
Whose Side are You On? With all the hoopla surrounding the presidential sweepstakes, it’s easy to overlook the state and local races taking place this year. Adding to the confusion is Wisconsin’s odd tradition of holding so-called non-partisan elections in the Spring. Sometime back in our state’s history, our ancestors decided that certain offices, like Mayor and County Executive, shouldn’t be tainted by the unseemliness of political party competition. As a result, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, a proud Democrat, and County Executive Scott Walker, an equally outspoken Republican, will be on the non-partisan ballot April 1. Just as our founders intended, eh? But wait, there’s more. If more than two candidates run for any of these non-partisan offices then a primary is held to whittle the field down. Which brings us to February 19, the date of Wisconsin’s primary. Most political prognosticators are predicting that our primary will be too late to have any meaning in this year’s heavily frontloaded race for the Democratic and Republican nomination. The oddsmakers are convinced that that the choice of both parties will be determined by February 5th, when more than 20 states, including delegate rich New York and California, will have their say. It’s looking more likely that at least two candidates from both parties will still be competitive when our primary comes along so brace yourselves for the quadrennial onslaught of the presidential wannabes and their national media entourages parading across the state sometime in the not too distant future. But don’t forget some of those pesky local races will also be on the Feb. 19th primary ballot so it’s time to roll up your sleeves and figure out who you support. For example, if you live in Milwaukee’s East Side or Riverwest neighborhood, currently represented on the Common Council by Michael D’Amato, who has chosen not to run for reelection, there’s a wide open race to replace him. And nothing stirs the juices of a political junkie more than the competitive ramifications of an open seat. A candidate forum will be held 7 pm tonight, Jan. 16th at the Miramar Theater (Oakland and Locust) and another is scheduled for Tuesday, Jan. 29th at Gordon Park Pavilion (Humboldt and Locust). The crowded field includes Sam McGovern-Rowen, a legislative aide to D’Amato who happens to be the grandson of George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic candidate for president. D’Amato could probably have cruised to reelection so McGovern-Rowen may be the presumptive favorite. But D’Amato has also drawn criticism for being too supportive of development so the activist district is unlikely to give McGovern-Rowen a bye. Sura Faraj, a co-founder of the Riverwest Food co-op and 2007 chair of the Riverwest Neighborhood Association; Nik Kovac, a journalist and member of the RNA and Matt Nelson, a member of the Milwaukee Transit Riders Union and the Milwaukee Police Accountability Coalition are among the other candidates for the third district alderman seat. So if you live in the Third District come to the one of the candidate […]
Jan 16th, 2008 by Ted Bobrow
Hillary’s Moment
Hillary’s Moment… It goes without saying that this year’s presidential election is important. The American electorate will be making a choice that will have enormous implications for our nation and the world. But every so often during an election, a simple event sends a message about its times and becomes part of history for the ages. Of course, I’m talking about “Hillary’s moment” the day before the New Hampshire primary, when Sen. Clinton actually appeared to display an unscripted emotion. History will record that it was in response to an apparently sympathetic questioner, who asked how she managed to keep going (and who did her hair). She didn’t cry, of course, though her eyes definitely appeared to moisten. And she didn’t sob, but there certainly was a catch in her voice and, yes, an undeniable display of emotion. It became the major story of the day and most of the media coverage used the incident to support the conclusion that her campaign was imploding, that it was a repeat of Ed Muskie’s fatal tearing up in 1972. This was the logical conclusion, you see, given her loss to Barack Obama in Iowa and all of the polls were predicting another win for Obama in New Hampshire. Then the people of New Hampshire had their say. The media prognosticators and pundits ended up with egg on their collective faces when Clinton was declared the winner with 38 percent to Obama’s 35. Suddenly, Clinton was the victor in a stunning upset and this race was anything but over. It turns out the incident in the diner wasn’t a death knell but a declaration of sincerity that connected with female voters from Manchester to Nashua. It was like when Sally Field won the Oscar but Hillary was saying “I care about you; I really, really care about you!” Coupled with the moment in Saturday’s debate when Clinton responded to a question about how she felt about apparently not being well-liked by saying it hurt her feelings, her display of emotion was now seen as brilliant strategy. Hillary seized on the opportunity to reinvent herself by declaring in her victory speech that she “listened to (the voters of New Hampshire) and found my voice.” Well time will tell. But for now, I think we have witnessed a moment for the ages. And the message of this moment is … “We have totally lost our minds and gone stark raving mad!” Of course, there was plenty of evidence of our insanity in 2007. There was the focus on Hillary Clinton’s laugh, John Edwards’ hair, Mitt Romney’s religion, Rudy Giuliani’s wives and other matters of transcendent importance. So hold on to your hats. There will probably be lots more examples of zaniness and hilarity in the months ahead. I guess with the writers’ strike we ought to appreciate moments of mirth where we can get them. I, for one, prefer laughing to crying.
Jan 10th, 2008 by Ted Bobrow
See kids? Isn’t this fun?
We are still a year away from next year’s presidential election but it’s already painfully obvious why so many people are so turned off by politics. The spectacle of the nominating process consists of each party’s candidates gouging eyes and pulling hair in a struggle to separate themselves from the pack. Despite such critical issues as an unnecessary war, a growing number of Americans without health insurance, a nonexistent energy policy, and a crumpling infrastructure, the circus we call an election appears to have all the dignity of a Beavis and Butthead Meet the Three Stooges feature film. This year, for once, the Republicans are acting even more childish than the Democrats. Rudy and Mitt, the laughably-named GOP frontrunner, are so busy pointing out each other’s spending outrages and liberal social policies that even Newt Gingrich has referred to the Republican candidates as a bunch of pygmies. You can almost hear the GOP base agonizing over the absurd notion that its standard bearer will come from such a bastion of conservatism as New York or Massachusetts. The leading Democrats struggled early to avoid speaking ill of one another, but that didn’t last long. Recently, Hillary Clinton’s opponents have started lobbing rhetorical grenades at her in a concerted effort to penetrate her veneer of inevitability. They cite her acceptance of campaign contributions from lobbyists, her refusal to apologize for her vote authorizing the use of force to oust Saddam Hussein and her failed attempt to reform health care early in her husband’s first administration as evidence that she is an unlikely agent of change. I guess it’s no surprise that by voting time, so many of us have tuned the whole distasteful enterprise out or simply hold our noses as we choose the least objectionable option. Yet I do not blog before you today to criticize politics. Truth is, I am hopelessly addicted to this stuff. After all, political campaigns offer many of the same attractions that draw people to such popular televised competitions as American Idol and Dancing with the Stars. Surely if we are held on the edge of our couches wondering who Donald Trump is going to fire, we ought to care at least a little about which candidate has a better plan for reforming health care or ending the quagmire in Iraq. Would it help if they added a witty panel of celebrity observers to critique responses at the debates, or required the candidates to eat a bug before answering a question? At the very least, couldn’t they do something imaginative with a giant tic-tac-toe board or carousel that spins them around? Apathy here in Wisconsin may partly be due to the widespread belief that the candidates will be chosen by the time our primary rolls around on February 19. Nearly every other state has elbowed its way in front of us in the fight to be relevant. With big states like New York, Florida and California set to cast their ballots ahead of us, conventional wisdom […]
Nov 7th, 2007 by Ted Bobrow
