Musings on Mayor Castro’s keynote address

While on a bike ride yesterday, I reflected on Julian Castro’s keynote address to the Democratic National Convention.  Most of my local Facebook friends had posted effusive comments, and many local politicos were similarly gushy.  The erstwhile editor of the San Antonio Express-News, Robert Rivard, blogged such fulsome praise that I felt compelled to tell him that his comments reminded me of TV personality Chris Matthews admitting in 2008 that he “felt this thrill going up my leg” during a speech by candidate Obama.  For a more balanced analysis of Mayor Castro’s keynoter, I commend you to Ryan Lizza’s blog in The New Yorker.  His conclusion – “It was a fine speech, but at least for me, a fairly forgettable one.” 

During my bike ride, I realized that I didn’t know what Castro and his ilk stood for.  Surely they must be proposing something more than Robin Hood – i.e., take from the rich and give to the poor.  So to learn what the new wave of Democrats stand for, I decided to look at the text of the Castro speech and see what it says.  I found the following:

• Our ancestors built this land of opportunity, where great family journeys can be achieved in three generations, or sometimes in even a single generation.  “The roads and bridges they built, the schools and universities they created, the rights they fought for and won — these opened the doors to a decent job, a secure retirement, the chance for your children to do better than you did.”  [This statement doesn’t make much sense, but it sounds good.  And it ostensibly responds to the “you didn’t built that” brouhaha.]
• A large middle class is the bedrock of America.  “With hard work, everybody ought to be able to get there. And with hard work, everybody ought to be able to stay there — and go beyond.”  [We can all agree on that.]
• Although we expect individuals to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, “we also recognize there are some things we can’t do alone. We have to come together and invest in opportunity today for prosperity tomorrow.  And it starts with education.”  [So far, Castro is only talking about the state and local infrastructure.  What does that have to do with President Obama and the federal government?]
• San Antonio under Mayor Castro is doing great things with respect to educational opportunity.  “In my city of San Antonio, we get that….  We know that you can’t be pro-business unless you’re pro-education.  We’re investing in our young minds today to be competitive in the global economy tomorrow.  And it’s paying off.  Last year the Milken Institute ranked San Antonio as the nation’s top performing local economy. And we’re only getting started.  Opportunity today, prosperity tomorrow.”  [Talk about taking credit for something you had nothing to do with.  It is ludicrous to suggest that Castro’s education initiatives, some of which are still in the proposal stage, have anything to do with the Milken ranking.  But it sounded good in the speech.]
• Republicans are fat cats who don’t understand that opportunity in America is no longer readily available to the disadvantaged.  “Mitt Romney, quite simply, doesn’t get it. A few months ago he visited a university in Ohio and gave the students there a little entrepreneurial advice. ‘Start a business,’ he said. But how? ‘Borrow money if you have to from your parents,’ he told them. Gee, why didn’t I think of that?”  [Although Castro previously bragged about his grandmother and mother working to lay a foundation for him and his twin brother, he ridicules Mitt Romney for suggesting to college kids that they look to their parents for help.  That doesn’t make sense.]
• Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will eviscerate America’s middle class.  “The Romney-Ryan budget doesn’t just cut public education, cut Medicare, cut transportation and cut job training.  It doesn’t just pummel the middle class — it dismantles it. It dismantles what generations before have built to ensure that everybody can enter and stay in the middle class. When it comes to getting the middle class back to work, Mitt Romney says, ‘No.’ When it comes to respecting women’s rights, Mitt Romney says, ‘No.’ When it comes to letting people marry whomever they love, Mitt Romney says, ‘No.’ When it comes to expanding access to good health care, Mitt Romney says, ‘No.’” [What does access to abortion or same-sex marriage have to do with access to the middle class?  But it sounds good to hit the talking points.  When government subsidies are required to maintain a large middle class, our nation is in deep doodoo.]
• Unless government tethers successful individuals to unsuccessful ones, the unsuccessful ones will be permanently left in the dust.  “Of all the fictions we heard last week in Tampa, the one I find most troubling is this: If we all just go our own way, our nation will be stronger for it. Because if we sever the threads that connect us, the only people who will go far are those who are already ahead. We all understand that freedom isn’t free. What Romney and Ryan don’t understand is that neither is opportunity. We have to invest in it…. Mitt Romney just doesn’t get it. But Barack Obama gets it. He understands that when we invest in people we’re investing in our shared prosperity. And when we neglect that responsibility, we risk our promise as a nation.”  [This fundamental tenet is the crux of the matter – Castro believes that government has to create opportunity.]

This last dot point reveals the inconsistency in Castro’s message.  He doesn’t believe that individuals should be allowed to “just go our own way.”  Although he gives lip service to the “rugged individual” in Texas who believes in pulling himself up by his bootstraps, Castro is more concerned that successful individuals don’t leave the unsuccessful ones behind. 

If there was any doubt about whether Castro’s sentiments were Democratic orthodoxy, that doubt was removed by the next speaker, Michelle Obama:

• “Like so many American families, our families weren’t asking for much.  They didn’t begrudge anyone else’s success or care that others had much more than they did … in fact, they admired it….  Barack knows the American Dream because he’s lived it….  And he believes that when you’ve worked hard, and done well, and walked through that doorway of opportunity … you do not slam it shut behind you…you reach back, and you give other folks the same chances that helped you succeed.”

When I first read the Michelle Obama quotation circulating on Facebook, I responded that reaching back and helping others is admirable, but it is something that should be done voluntarily, not at the point of a government bayonet.

Last night, I was unable to watch the convention because of the Cowboys-Giants game, but this morning’s new reports indicate that party’s wonderkind Elizabeth Warren repeated the same message in her speech – apparently using the phrases “the system is rigged” three times and “we just want an even playing field” five times.

I wonder if Mayor Castro thinks the system that admitted him, a kid with two college-educated parents, into Stanford University with substandard qualifications was an even playing field or a rigged system.   

As Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne observed, Bill Clinton closed the evening by “crisply” distinguishing the two parties:

• He cast the philosophical differences between the parties just as crisply. Republicans, he said, believe in a “winner-take-all, you’re-on-your-own society,” while Democrats seek “a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibility — a we’re-all-in-this-together society.”

Although Clinton’s phrasing is obviously skewed in favor of the Democrats, I think both parties would accept those general tenets.  Republicans see America, ideally, as a place where individuals have opportunities and responsibilities, while Democrats see America, ideally, as a mass of people moving collectively.

Capitalism vs. socialism – take your pick. 

Text of Mayor Castro’s speech

My fellow Democrats, my fellow Texans, my fellow Americans: I stand before you tonight as a young American, a proud American, of a generation born as the Cold War receded, shaped by the tragedy of 9/11, connected by the digital revolution and determined to re-elect the man who will make the 21st century another American century — President Barack Obama.

The unlikely journey that brought me here tonight began many miles from this podium. My brother Joaquin and I grew up with my mother Rosie and my grandmother Victoria. My grandmother was an orphan. As a young girl, she had to leave her home in Mexico and move to San Antonio, where some relatives had agreed to take her in. She never made it past the fourth grade. She had to drop out and start working to help her family. My grandmother spent her whole life working as a maid, a cook and a babysitter, barely scraping by, but still working hard to give my mother, her only child, a chance in life, so that my mother could give my brother and me an even better one.

As my grandmother got older, she begged my mother to give her grandchildren. She prayed to God for just one grandbaby before she died. You can imagine her excitement when she found out her prayers would be answered — twice over. She was so excited that the day before Joaquin and I were born she entered a menudo cook-off, and she won $300! That’s how she paid our hospital bill.

By the time my brother and I came along, this incredible woman had taught herself to read and write in both Spanish and English. I can still see her in the room that Joaquin and I shared with her, reading her Agatha Christie novels late into the night. And I can still remember her, every morning as Joaquin and I walked out the door to school, making the sign of the cross behind us, saying, “Que dios los bendiga.” “May God bless you.”

My grandmother didn’t live to see us begin our lives in public service. But she probably would have thought it extraordinary that just two generations after she arrived in San Antonio, one grandson would be the mayor and the other would be on his way — the good people of San Antonio willing — to the United States Congress.

My family’s story isn’t special. What’s special is the America that makes our story possible. Ours is a nation like no other, a place where great journeys can be made in a single generation. No matter who you are or where you come from, the path is always forward.

America didn’t become the land of opportunity by accident. My grandmother’s generation and generations before always saw beyond the horizons of their own lives and their own circumstances. They believed that opportunity created today would lead to prosperity tomorrow. That’s the country they envisioned, and that’s the country they helped build. The roads and bridges they built, the schools and universities they created, the rights they fought for and won — these opened the doors to a decent job, a secure retirement, the chance for your children to do better than you did.

And that’s the middle class– the engine of our economic growth. With hard work, everybody ought to be able to get there. And with hard work, everybody ought to be able to stay there — and go beyond. The dream of raising a family in a place where hard work is rewarded is not unique to Americans. It’s a human dream, one that calls across oceans and borders. The dream is universal, but America makes it possible. And our investment in opportunity makes it a reality.

Now, in Texas, we believe in the rugged individual. Texas may be the one place where people actually still have bootstraps, and we expect folks to pull themselves up by them. But we also recognize there are some things we can’t do alone. We have to come together and invest in opportunity today for prosperity tomorrow.

 And it starts with education. Twenty years ago, Joaquin and I left home for college and then for law school. In those classrooms, we met some of the brightest folks in the world. But at the end of our days there, I couldn’t help but to think back to my classmates at Thomas Jefferson High School in San Antonio. They had the same talent, the same brains, the same dreams as the folks we sat with at Stanford and Harvard. I realized the difference wasn’t one of intelligence or drive. The difference was opportunity.

In my city of San Antonio, we get that. So we’re working to ensure that more four-year-olds have access to pre-K. We opened Cafe College, where students get help with everything from test prep to financial aid paperwork. We know that you can’t be pro-business unless you’re pro-education. We know that pre-K and student loans aren’t charity. They’re a smart investment in a workforce that can fill and create the jobs of tomorrow. We’re investing in our young minds today to be competitive in the global economy tomorrow.

And it’s paying off. Last year the Milken Institute ranked San Antonio as the nation’s top performing local economy. And we’re only getting started. Opportunity today, prosperity tomorrow.

Now, like many of you, I watched last week’s Republican convention. They told a few stories of individual success. We all celebrate individual success. But the question is, how do we multiply that success? The answer is President Barack Obama.

Mitt Romney, quite simply, doesn’t get it. A few months ago he visited a university in Ohio and gave the students there a little entrepreneurial advice. “Start a business,” he said. But how? “Borrow money if you have to from your parents,” he told them. Gee, why didn’t I think of that? Some people are lucky enough to borrow money from their parents, but that shouldn’t determine whether you can pursue your dreams. I don’t think Gov. Romney meant any harm. I think he’s a good guy. He just has no idea how good he’s had it.

 We know that in our free market economy some will prosper more than others. What we don’t accept is the idea that some folks won’t even get a chance. And the thing is, Mitt Romney and the Republican Party are perfectly comfortable with that America. In fact, that’s exactly what they’re promising us.

The Romney-Ryan budget doesn’t just cut public education, cut Medicare, cut transportation and cut job training.

It doesn’t just pummel the middle class — it dismantles it. It dismantles what generations before have built to ensure that everybody can enter and stay in the middle class. When it comes to getting the middle class back to work, Mitt Romney says, “No.” When it comes to respecting women’s rights, Mitt Romney says, “No.” When it comes to letting people marry whomever they love, Mitt Romney says, “No.” When it comes to expanding access to good health care, Mitt Romney says, “No.”

Actually, Mitt Romney said, “Yes,” and now he says, “No.” Gov. Romney has undergone an extreme makeover, and it ain’t pretty. So here’s what we’re going to say to Mitt Romney. We’re going to say, “No.”

Of all the fictions we heard last week in Tampa, the one I find most troubling is this: If we all just go our own way, our nation will be stronger for it. Because if we sever the threads that connect us, the only people who will go far are those who are already ahead. We all understand that freedom isn’t free. What Romney and Ryan don’t understand is that neither is opportunity. We have to invest in it.

Republicans tell us that if the most prosperous among us do even better, that somehow the rest of us will too. Folks, we’ve heard that before. First they called it “trickle-down.” Then “supply-side.” Now it’s “Romney-Ryan.” Or is it “Ryan-Romney”? Either way, their theory has been tested. It failed. Our economy failed. The middle class paid the price. Your family paid the price.

Mitt Romney just doesn’t get it. But Barack Obama gets it. He understands that when we invest in people we’re investing in our shared prosperity. And when we neglect that responsibility, we risk our promise as a nation. Just a few years ago, families that had never asked for anything found themselves at risk of losing everything. And the dream my grandmother held, that work would be rewarded, that the middle class would be there, if not for her, then for her children — that dream was being crushed.

But then President Obama took office — and he took action. When Detroit was in trouble, President Obama saved the auto industry and saved a million jobs. Seven presidents before him — Democrats and Republicans — tried to expand health care to all Americans. President Obama got it done. He made a historic investment to lift our nation’s public schools and expanded Pell grants so that more young people can afford college. And because he knows that we don’t have an ounce of talent to waste, the president took action to lift the shadow of deportation from a generation of young, law-abiding immigrants called dreamers.

I believe in you. Barack Obama believes in you. Now it’s time for Congress to enshrine in law their right to pursue their dreams in the only place they’ve ever called home: America.

Four years ago, America stood on the brink of a depression. Despite incredible odds and united Republican opposition, our president took action, and now we’ve seen 4.5 million new jobs. He knows better than anyone that there’s more hard work to do, but we’re making progress. And now we need to make a choice.

It’s a choice between a country where the middle class pays more so that millionaires can pay less — or a country where everybody pays their fair share, so we can reduce the deficit and create the jobs of the future. It’s a choice between a nation that slashes funding for our schools and guts Pell grants — or a nation that invests more in education. It’s a choice between a politician who rewards companies that ship American jobs overseas — or a leader who brings jobs back home.

This is the choice before us. And to me, to my generation and for all the generations to come, our choice is clear. Our choice is a man who’s always chosen us. A man who already is our president: Barack Obama.

In the end, the American dream is not a sprint, or even a marathon, but a relay. Our families don’t always cross the finish line in the span of one generation. But each generation passes on to the next the fruits of their labor. My grandmother never owned a house. She cleaned other people’s houses so she could afford to rent her own. But she saw her daughter become the first in her family to graduate from college. And my mother fought hard for civil rights so that instead of a mop, I could hold this microphone.

And while she may be proud of me tonight, I’ve got to tell you, mom, I’m even more proud of you.  Thank you, mom. Today, my beautiful wife Erica and I are the proud parents of a three-year-old little girl, Carina Victoria, named after my grandmother.

A couple of Mondays ago was her first day of pre-K. As we dropped her off, we walked out of the classroom, and I found myself whispering to her, as was once whispered to me, “Que dios te bendiga.” “May God bless you.” She’s still young, and her dreams are far off yet, but I hope she’ll reach them. As a dad, I’m going to do my part, and I know she’ll do hers. But our responsibility as a nation is to come together and do our part, as one community, one United States of America, to ensure opportunity for all of our children.

The days we live in are not easy ones, but we have seen days like this before, and America prevailed. With the wisdom of our founders and the values of our families, America prevailed. With each generation going further than the last, America prevailed. And with the opportunity we build today for a shared prosperity tomorrow, America will prevail.

It begins with re-electing Barack Obama. It begins with you. It begins now. Que dios los bendiga. May God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

“Just win, baby,” says Michelle Obama in London

Actually, “Just win, baby” was spoken many years ago by an NFL renegade, the late great Al Davis.  What Michelle Obama said to the American Olympians in London was, “Try to have fun.  Try to breathe a little bit.  But also win, right?”  Same thing.    

Although her husband is reluctant to endorse American exceptionalism, it is nice to see that Michelle has American competitiveness coursing through her blood.  The Modern Olympic Creed may say, “The most important thing … is not winning but taking part (in the Games).”  But the American Creed, as articulated by Vince Lombardi is, “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing.”

Having grown up in the 60s and 70s, I observed America lose its love of competition.  In fact, in my salutatorian address at my 1971 high-school graduation, I spoke of the need for less competition and more cooperation between individuals, institutions, and countries.  Although that sentiment may be true, I think it fails to acknowledge that competition can be a healthy thing that motivates and inspires individuals, institutions, and countries to achieve. 

Thanks for reminding us, Michelle, to celebrate healthy competition.

Saturday Night at the Movies #8 – Just Wright

Common created some controversy last week by being invited by Michelle Obama to a White House function.  According to conservative talk-show hosts, he is a disgraceful hip-hop singer who says good things about cop killers.  I didn’t know anything about that and, in fact, had never heard of the guy before this controversy, but last night I watched a movie starring Queen Latifah called Just Wright.  When scrolling through the credits, I saw that the male lead, supposedly a NJ Net basketball player, was played by Common.

By doing some internet research, I learned that Common (nee Lonnie Lynn, Jr.) is a vegan who has pledged to stop using anti-gay lyrics in his songs, a Christian who has been a life-long member of Jeremiah Wright’s church in Chicago, and an Obama supporter who has claimed, “The one
thing that shouldn’t be questioned is my support for the police officers and troops that protect us every day.”

I was surprised at how likeable Common was in the movie, Just Wright.  Sure, it was only a role, but likeability is hard to manufacture.  I think the conservative talk-show hosts need to find better things to do than micro-manage the White House invitation list.

Although I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, it scored only 45% on the Rotten Tomatoes.  Roger Ebert gave it three out of four stars, and although he conceded it was a formulaic film, he said the formula works.  What is the formula? – Beauty is only skin deep and a person is better served looking for a partner with character, personality, and integrity.

In Just Wright, the NBA basketball player must decide whether he would rather marry a party girl with a sparkling, outgoing personality who looks like Halle Berry or her best friend who works as a physical therapist and looks and sounds like Oprah Winfrey.

Coincidentally, earlier the same day I saw Shallow Hal, which follows essentially the same formula.  Although I thoroughly enjoyed Just
Wright, I consider Shallow Hal one of my all-time favorite movies.  They both give hope, albeit a short-lived false hope, to those of us who look like Oprah or Jack Black.

Obesity in America

Last week I watched my son’s district track meet, and on my way home I stopped in Wal-Mart to buy some groceries.  As I was walking up and down the aisles, I encountered an inordinate number of motorized scooters, invariably loaded with an immense person.  The contrast between the track meet and Wal-Mart was striking – what’s going on? 

Kudos to Michelle Obama for her initiative on childhood obesity and San Antonio Mayor Castro for his fitness initiatives.  America needs to take action, and I’m not talking about becoming more of a nanny nation.  As a true-blue conservative, I prefer letting market incentives do the work.  That means that big people need to pay their own way. 

Airlines have started the process by requiring a person who is too big for one seat to pay for two seats.  That should be a no-brainer.  The most powerful market force, however, would be for big people to pay for health insurance based on their size.  Although individual plans consider an applicant’s size-to-weight ratio, group plans do not.  Why should healthy employees subsidize the health insurance of employees who put themselves at risk by weighing too much? 

Some political wag once declared that if people knew how America’s existence was threatened by it decaying education system, America would surely declare war on the current system.  I wonder if a similar argument could be made about the obesity plague in America.  Americans are aware that our burgeoning debt threatens America’s future, and the experts agree that the most problematic, implacable, systemic issues are the exploding costs of Medicare and Medicaid.  Imagine how much more manageable those programs would be if we ended the obesity plague.

Michelle Obama’s senior-year thesis

While talking to a friend at this year’s Super Bowl party, he suggested that Michelle Obama’s senior-year thesis makes interesting reading.  His suggestion piqued my curiosity, so I located a copy of the 1985 document titled, “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community.    Although the thesis contained nothing sensational, it does reveal where this young lady’s head was.

Michelle was a sociology student at Princeton, and her thesis was based on a survey of Princeton alumni.  The survey was designed to measure the effect of the dominant white culture on black alumni.  Sadly for Michelle, she learned that most of the alumni were being assimilated into white culture and that as they became assimilated they became less interested in helping the lower-class black community. 

Although the 70-page thesis was written several years before Barack became even a twinkle in Michelle’s eyes, the thesis contains a paragraph that seems to describe Barack:   

• “Also, a Black individual may be unable to understand or appreciate the Black culture because that individual was not raised in that culture, yet still be able to identify as being a Black person.  For example, a Black person may have all White friends and prefer these friends and their activities to those with Blacks without the individual believing that he/she is White.  It is possible that the individual identifies with being a Black person and chooses to benefit the Black community because he/she is a Black person, but not necessarily identify with the culture.”

Michelle’s thesis implies that, as a young adult, she was concerned about being co-opted by white culture.  I wonder what she thinks about that now.  Of course, there is no right answer – America doesn’t want a First Lady whose special project is the advancement of colored people, yet African-Americans don’t want Michelle to forget where she came from.

Game Change – a book review

Voracious readers often read several books at the same time, but not me.  I have never been voracious.  Several days ago, however, I had a strong urge to read three books that were on my reading table:

• Game Change, a play-by-play account of the 2008 presidential election;
• The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand’s precursor to Atlas Shrugged; and
• Conservative Victory, Sean Hannity’s prescription for defeating the Obama agenda.

Because I couldn’t pick which book to read first, I started with all three and would occasionally switch from one to the other to the other.  That lasted only for a short time because the Hannity book simply wasn’t as interesting.  Then I went back and forth from Game Change and The Fountainhead for about 250 pages each.  At that point, although The Fountainhead remained absorbing, I couldn’t set Game Change aside.  As a political junkie, I love reading about the backroom political process more than I enjoy the substantive issues of government, and Game Change is as good as it gets in describing the process.

Game Change reminds me of a book that I read as a kid, The Making of a President, 1960 by Teddy White.  The White book described the 1960 presidential contest between Nixon and Kennedy.  Game Change, which was written by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, describes the 2008 presidential campaign.  In the Authors’ Note, Heilemann and Halperin concede that Game Change would not be the definitive book on the 2008 election because they lacked distance and perspective, but their claimed objective was to occupy that useful place between history and journalism.  Based on over 300 interviews with virtually all of the players, the authors have clearly achieved their objective.

As a conservative partisan, I have only one complaint about the book – namely, it focuses on the Democratic primaries (and caucuses) and gives short shrift to the Republican primaries.  Game Change starts with the Democratic primaries and doesn’t get to the Republican primaries until Page 271 in a 436-page book.  The Authors’ Note explains that the focus was on Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and McCain (and their spouses) because, in the authors’ opinion, those were the only candidates with a reasonable chance of winning.  Serious Republican contenders Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Rudy Giuliani were relegated to the also-ran category that included one-and-done Democrats like Dodd, Biden, and Richardson. 

Aside from the short shrift given to the Republican primaries, I think the authors played it straight.  Their portrayals of Obama, Clinton, and McCain are so balanced that I have no idea who the authors voted for.  Furthermore, I think that reading this book would change very few votes.  McCain voters would not be less likely or more likely to vote for him, and the same would apply to Obama and Clinton voters.  (The one exception would be John and Elizabeth Edwards.  No one reading this book would ever vote for John Edwards; nor would anyone buy a book written by Elizabeth Edwards.)  But the book certainly changes a reader’s depth of understanding.  After reading this book, I know so much more about the candidates (and their spouses).  

What do I know now that I didn’t know then?

• John McCain, who was a bad student at Annapolis, is a reckless person who makes decisions based on his gut, whereas Obama and Clinton, who were excellent students, continually demanded comprehensive information and then made decisions based on their evaluation of all the information. 
• McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate was an example of risky, gut-based behavior.  For several weeks, McCain was planning to pick qualified, liberal senator Joe Lieberman, but that pick was derailed shortly before the planned announcement.  With only a week to select a replacement, McCain reacted by selecting Palin, and because Palin hadn’t even been on his short-list, she received only a five-day vetting.  When the chief vetter concluded that Palin was, “high risk, high reward,” McCain responded that the vetter shouldn’t have phrased it that way because McCain always loved to gamble.
• Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have a close relationship.  Although the book does not discuss whether this couple has a loving relationship, it is clear that the Clintons are political partners who work closely together and have a strong emotional connection.
• The mainstream press has a gentlemen’s agreement to ignore the sex lives of presidential candidates and their spouses.  Apparently there was strong evidence that John and Cindy McCain had been having extramarital affairs for years, with John living in D.C. and Cindy living in Arizona.  And the press was fully aware of John Edwards’ infidelity for months before The National Inquirer broke the story.  I think Americans have a right to know this stuff, and the press is failing to fulfill its constitutional responsibility.
• Many people involved in the campaigns knew that John Edwards was, at best, an extremely weak potential president, and, at worst, a complete fraud.  Inexplicably, the mainstream media refused to play a role in bringing Edwards down (did they think this would make them more unpopular?), with the result that Edwards was free to attempt to make a post-Iowa deal with Obama for Edwards to be either Vice-President or Attorney General.    
• The book suggests that Elizabeth Edwards is a complete fraud, too, but I am reserving judgment because I saw her interviewed on Larry King a couple of months ago and she seemed to be very sympathetic.  In fact, I remember her specifically challenging things that were written in this book.  I wish I could watch that King interview again now after reading the book.
• The Camelot/Kennedy characterization for Obama is correct – i.e., he is a smart, hard-working politician like John Kennedy who waxes poetic to win the romantics and the media, but who practices politics with cold calculation and an iron fist.
• Obama is not a religious person.  Instead he turned to religion as part of his push for social justice.  Thus, Reverend Wright was not a spiritual mentor, but rather a political bedfellow.  Wright’s liberation theology was acceptable to Obama until he needed to go more mainstream.  Jettisoning Wright was no big deal for Obama, especially since Michelle never like the guy who baptized their children.   
• The media’s favorable treatment of Obama incensed both Clinton and McCain, but there was nothing they could do about it.
• Clinton and McClain like and respected each other and would have loved to run against each other.
• Raising money is perceived as crucial to running a viable campaign.  While McCain and Clinton abhorred having to solicit and struggled with it, Obama was naturally gifted and handled it as just another part of campaigning.  Part of this distinction is due to Obama mania, which made money flow almost effortlessly into Obama’s coffers, whereas Clinton and McCain had to earn their money the old-fashioned way – i.e., selling a piece of themselves to donors.
• Clinton took her full-term Senate pledge seriously; Obama did not.

The authors loved using big words, many of which I had never encountered before.  While reading the book, I often wasn’t near a dictionary and had to move on without knowing what the authors meant.  One word that I saw multiple times was “cipher.”  Various people characterized Obama or Edwards to be ciphers.  I eventually looked up the word and discovered it meant “lightweight.”  I wonder why the authors didn’t use the word “lightweight.”  I would be surprised if the person making the characterization actually used the term “cipher.” 

Early in this review, I suggested that reading Game Change was unlikely to change many votes.  Did it change mine?  No, I voted for Obama and would do so again.  My rationale was that McCain behaved erratically during the campaign, not only by picking Palin, but also by proposing a gas-tax moratorium and suspending his campaign to address the financial crisis, but then doing nothing to address it.  By way of contrast, Obama was steady and analytical.  Obama is like a calculating athlete who works hard to put himself in the best position to succeed, whereas McCain doesn’t put a lot of stock into preparation and instead excels at playing the game.  McCain has been able to succeed in life because of his common sense, good judgment, and the force of his personality. 

I think McCain could have been a very effective president at a different time, but America wanted more change than McCain could deliver.  After eight years of Bush-43, the American Left had become so cynical that no Republican could bring us together as a country.  We had to give the Left a chance to rule.  That’s how America works – the 2^nd-string quarterback is always the most popular player on the team; the savior who can change everything.  Well, Obama and the Left are having their chance, and this will be followed by Ronald Reagan’s quintessential question to America – are you better off than you were four years ago?  The jury is still out on that, but I expect a prompt return to America’s center of gravity – the center-right.