The Voice of Treason

I was watching FNC yesterday and saw a couple things that made me think that if the phone had gone off at that very moment and the person on the other end of the conversation had been conducting one of those surveys that asks if America is moving in the wrong direction I would have at that particular moment, mind you, immediately and hysterically screamed into his ear: “HELL, YES, IDIOT!”

First there was the segment in which Jon Scott was interviewing Jason Itzler, the individual who claims he introduced Eliot Spitzer’s harlot to prostitution. Throughout the interview he insisted that, before his incarceration, he ran a “classy” operation and repeatedly boasted that he has “good taste.” He was miffed when Scott mistakenly stated that his girls earned $2000 a night. “That’s $2000 an hour,” he snapped.

And then there was Steve Brown illustrating how the whole delegate thing works by using marshmallow PEEPS. He explained – slowly and carefully – that in the state of Iowa the people would conduct part two of a four-part national selection process. There were county conventions, precincts, caucus representatives. Representatives represented here by PEEPS. Obama’s PEEPS, Hillary’s PEEPS, and the jumper candidates’ PEEPS. Some PEEPS will be persuaded to shift their loyalties, said Brown. Change their vote, so to speak. A political power grab? No, a PEEPS grab.

I asked T to watch the segment because I wanted his reaction. I wondered if he would see it as the further dumbing down of America. Like, we are all just PEEPS. He watched with furrowed brow, then said:

“Damn. They make bunny-shaped PEEPS now?”

Today Itzler appeared on an even longer segment, and Steve Brown’s PEEPS story was repeated. Pimps, PEEPS… whatever.

Let me begin by saying that I am a woman of “a certain age,” probably perimenopausal, and I do not watch Oprah. I’ll repeat that: I don’t watch Oprah. It’s not that I dislike the woman, it’s just that she’s on at the same time Brit Hume’s on FOX. If I’m near a set at 4:00, I’m watching Brit. Anyway, today I sat down with a cup of tea and surfed around, then landed on FNC – the Obama rally in Iowa was about to begin. Michelle Obama, looking like she was on her way to a funeral, dressed in black from head to toe, introduced Oprah Winfrey to the expectant crowd.

Oprah took the podium and began to speak. A few moments later I came to an important realization: Oprah’s black. In fact, she was speaking black to a predominantly white audience. How odd, I thought. That is not her usual manner of speaking, yet she is suddenly using a heavy dialect and is dangerously close to lapsing into Ebonics.

Worse than how she was saying it was what she was saying. She described Obama as a politician who “has an ear for eloquence and a tongue dipped in the unvarnished truth.” Plainly someone hasn’t that ear for eloquence, and as for the tongue… well, better that, I guess, than a tongue dipped in an intern.

Say what you will about FNC, at least they weren’t having technical difficulties. I’d switched over to C-SPAN to catch what Obama had to say and I only caught every eighth word. I simply couldn’t get what he was saying because the sound quality was sh*t, but from what I could make out, Barack had brought his black voice, too. Again, an odd choice. You’re all up there talking about change – change we can believe in – and it appears nothing has. You say you’re not going to be a politician that says what he thinks people want to hear. You say you’re honest. You say you’re different.

Fine, then drop the phony dialect and just be yourself. Same goes for your friend, Oprah. Critics of George Bush cringe when they hear that drawl and they know he’s perfectly capable of speaking with barely a twang. It’s like Hillary and her Arkansas voice, back in the day. And worse, her “I don’t feel no ways tired” voice.

The human voice is a most important instrument. It is the essence of a person. To change one’s voice in order to communicate to a different audience is, frankly, a consternation. Sure, one might speak differently to an infant, a small child, or a dog, but if one is authentic, one should be able to communicate in the same voice to all people, no matter their age, their gender, their ethnicity, or their religion. In fact, one should even be able to speak – without altering one’s vocal quality – to another species. I mean, I don’t change my voice when I’m speaking to my dog. Why would I want her to think that I think she’s not as intelligent as she is?

Please. Just leave the dialects to the actors, dahlings.

As I’ve mentioned, I like to be aware of any trends in our local bumper stickers, so one in particular caught my eye:

Me: “Oh – there’s one.”

T: “One what?”

Me: “Another Richardson bumper sticker. That makes three. Whoa – this one’s different!”

T: “Okay…”

Me: “It says… Richardson… Obama… ’08!”

T: “Oh, brother.”

No kidding. If Obama wants advice, I suggest he avoids reading the back of Nuevo Mexican vehicles. Listening to Karl Rove, however, is another matter entirely. I know the Democrats recoiled when Rove offered his suggestions, and I can’t say I blame them. It is slightly suspicious, if you believe in the V.R.W.C. (uh, that would be “vast right wing conspiracy”), that everyone on the right is suddenly giving the Senator from Illinois such helpful hints. As a member of the V.R.W.C., I can say with all honesty that this is no conspiracy. Really – we Republicans are just trying to help the brutha out.

Why? Because it’s just so frustrating seeing him squander so many opportunities. Pretend for a moment the advice isn’t from Rove. In a nutshell:

“First, stop acting like a vitamin-deficient Adlai Stevenson. Striking a pose of being high-minded and too pure will not work. Americans want to see you scrapping and fighting for the job, not in a mean or ugly way but in a forceful and straightforward way.

Hillary may come over as calculating and shifty but she looks in control. You, on the other hand, often come over as weak and ineffectual. In some debates, you do not even look at her when disagreeing with her, making it look as if you are afraid of her. She offers you openings time and again but you do not take advantage of them. Sharpen your attacks and make them more precise…

Second, focus on the fact that many Democrats have real doubts about Hillary. They worry she cannot win, will be a drag on the ticket and that if she got to the White House it would be a disaster…

Third, when you create controversies do not pick issues where you are playing the weaker hand…

Fourth, when you disagree with her be clear about what you believe. You cannot afford more garbled responses like the one you gave in Las Vegas on drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens. Answer yes or no. Do not give voters evidence you are as calculating as her.

Fifth, you need to do a better job explaining what kind of change you represent. The change theme is a good one…

Sixth, find a way to gently belittle her whenever she tries to use disagreements among Democrats as an excuse to complain about being picked on… So blow the whistle on her when she tries to become a victim. Do it with humor and a smile and it will sting even more.”

The reason it seems like everyone’s echoing Rove’s advice is because they know he’s right. We’ve all known Obamas and we know the type. Ineffectual because he’s so non-confrontational. It’s true that he avoids looking at her and it does seem like he’s afraid of her (uh, he should be), but it makes him look so anemic. Be bold! Like Rove says, do it with humor and a smile and no one will think you’ve sunk to her level.

I know it’s sacrilege, if you’re a Democrat, to attack Hillary’s husband, but I would just love to see a candidate – even if it’s Obama – challenge her for once on her feminism. I mean, consider the irony of it all. How can Hillary call herself a feminist and pretend to represent women when her husband’s administration — for all intents and purposes — killed The Movement? I mean, even I used to call myself a feminist, but since the Nineties I’ve practically omitted the word from my vocabulary. I just don’t want to be associated with all those conflicted female Clinton apologists.

But seriously, Rove is dead-on with his assessment and it’s good advice for all the candidates – Democrat and Republican. In fact, it’s especially good advice for the Republicans. Key words: “Visible” and “Vocal.” When Rove says it, take note. It should apply to Bush, Cheney, and anyone else who’s trying to get a message out there. The Democrats have no trouble whatsoever being visible and vocal, so the other side is really going to need to crank up the volume. Again, be bold! I mean, if you really think you’re going to get shellacked in ‘08, what have you got to lose?

And speaking of Rove, I did manage to catch his appearance on FNS with Chris Wallace and Chris Van Hollen. A spirited little debate, no? Hey — why doesn’t someone at FNC offer Rove more visibility? Say, his own show, maybe? As for time slot… uh, what time is Matthews on over at MSNBC?

“Every time a person dies it’s like a library burning down. The associations, the memories, the stories are gone forever.”

– Ken Burns

I fell asleep last night with the TV on and woke up towards the end of the rebroadcast of Cavuto’s show. I’d missed it earlier in the day, so I hadn’t heard. For months I’d been watching the business shows on FNC and wondering where Jim Michaels had gone. Hadn’t seen him for some time, and hoped he wasn’t ill.

He was, and like many of his generation, he had entered the hospital and then succumbed to pneumonia. What was so remarkable about him was that he was so sharp, so agile for someone who was two years older than my mother – and Yankee Stadium.

“He could edit the Lord’s Prayer down to six words, and nobody would miss anything.”

In reading the affectionate obit-tribute on Forbes.com, I can’t help think that Michaels would have sliced it in half, then half again.

R.I.P.