Political Nanny : Giuliani

Toys For Political Junkies' Babies

Madeline Holler — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:08:00 GMT

Many of you have privately confessed to Political Nanny how your obsession with this election has cut into your quality parenting time. Days and nights of on-demand newsfeeding. The agony of letting pundits cry it out. You know everything about the remaining candidates, yet you've forgotten your own flesh-and-blood's birth weight and shoe size.

No need to abandon either of your babies. You can rear children and obsess about the nation's future at the same time. There are plenty of activities to bridge these two seemingly opposing interests.

Political Reading for the Whole Family:

Political Nanny already told you about the children's book Why Mommy is a Democrat, wherein loving, kind, Democratic squirrels watch in disbelief as elephants behave rudely. Now the companion, Why Daddy is a Democrat is available to promote a smug satisfaction in progressive voting. In these beautifully illustrated pages, we are told that Democrats support schools (of fish!) and make the earth feel better (it gets sick!) and give police and firefighters the support the need to do their jobs well. Why ever do liberals get accused of having simple, simple minds?

Go interactive with Pat the Politician #2. In the manner of the children's touch and feel classic, Pat the Bunny, this new twist on an old favorite let's kids get in touch -- literally -- with the candidates.

According to the catalog, kids can ... Pull Hillary's purse strings. Fluff John Edwards hair. Scratch John McCain's war rhetoric. And don't forget to wave bye-bye to George Bush. Pat the Politician #2 is perfect for every voter, Democrat or Republican. Features 20 interactive pages with 22 color illustrations.

Role-Play With Political Finger Puppets:

Are your little ones missing the finer points of all this political rhetoric? Act it out in words they understand with these presidential candidate finger puppets. There are five candidates in the set -- Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, George Bush in a dunce cap and, sadly, Fred Thompson. After you exhaust all three minutes of play with the Thompson puppet (mimicking in real time his failed campaign's light scheduling), turn Thompson into Romney with thick crop of black hair (just clip a patch from your child's Webkinz dog and stitch or glue as necessary). Only have white fur? Fine. He'll be Ted Kennedy. Just position him on your thumb so he can be near his new BFF Barack, who is inspiring the rest of the toybox atop your index finger. Alternately, insert ball bearings into Thompson dolls face and play-act an angry John McCain.

Is your child more of an issues voter? Consider the hours of fun with the gay marriage finger puppets (two men, two women and a priest). Are you raising a security toddler? Then go for the five-man axis of evil "Terrorism" set.

So you're a childless cat lady but you read a parenting blog? No judgment here, we promise. And there's something for you and your much-neglected Fluffy too. Political Pet toys. A soft, safe chew toy for the light of your life. Choose from world leaders, presidential candidates and controversial filmmakers (that's Michael Moore, right?).

Go ahead and start watching the Florida returns. Enjoy all two hours of the debates in Los Angeles on Thursday. Tune into Hardball without guilt. That baby you hear crying? She doesn't need you. She's just interviewing fingerpuppet Hillary. And the swearing? Don't worry. That's her playing with post-Florida Rudy.

Now Casting 'Election 2008: The Movie'

Madeline Holler — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:36:00 GMT

Eventually, the 2008 Election is going to make a great epic movie. Sure, we don't yet know the ending. And yeah, so far the story centers mostly on the campaign and surprise Iowa win for a bi-racial Senator, and a pretty decent tearful plot-twist, courtesy of the ambitious, conniving, first woman to do anything important in this country ... ever! There's also the tension building over a New Hampshire comeback for the aging Republican stalwart. Comic relief/hints of horror from the fundamentalist Christian with populist appeal threatening the hopes and dreams of a Morman businessman with daddy issues. There's the 9-11 Mayor, the stinking rich son of a South Carolina mill worker and a second-rate actor on a ubiquitous television franchise to squeeze in there too.

You couldn't write this stuff! But somebody will. Though it's a bit early to be drafting a script -- and hiring a script doctor to come in and punch up those debate scenes (let's be honest, Monday night was 10 minutes of rancor surrounded by 100 minutes of the usual) -- we can start thinking about other ways to get this project greenlighted. Help Political Nanny cast the lead roles:

Slate has made a solid case for Reese Witherspoon as Hillary Clinton in this very amusing video that cuts several Hillary moments with those of another Witherspoon role, Tracy Flick in the 1999 movie "Election." The anger at a lifelong ambition suddenly under threat. The singular focus on winning. The tears. (If it gets on your nerves the first time, go back to it later and watch it again. Eventually, you'll love it.)

How about the rest?

For obvious physical reasons, Mike Huckabee should be played by Kevin Spacey. We're sure Spacey's already brushing up on Scripture, guitar chords and radical weightloss techniques in anticipation of this film (think Spacey will go fat suit or real weight-gain for background scenes as a tax-hiking governor of Arkansas?). It's so the role he was born for, not that Bobby Darin disaster he got a little too into a few years ago.

Fred Thompson could play himself. And he could play himself playing himself on Law & Order and it could get a little Being John Malkovich only with Southern aphorisms and lots of scheduled naps.

Political Nanny feels like Mitt Romney could be played by Tom Cruise (in lifts), what with them both being Scientologists ... or Mormons ... or whatever. Same difference. If Cruise refuses the height-enhancing orthotics, his hair could land him the Edwards role, which leaves Romney open for ... suggestions? A young Charlton Heston?

Joe Biden's role would be too small for the talents of Alec Baldwin, but we'd like to see him do it anyway. The two come so easily unhinged that we feel, just like the real Biden, Baldwin will steal the few scenes he's actually in.

Only Tommy Lee Jones and a box of jawbreaker candy could do the role of John McCain any justice. Which leaves Robert Duvall to play Rudy Giuliani (mmmhmmm, good one, huh?! And we know Duvall would say yes!). But Chris Dodd? We'll have to have open casting for him unless you've got some ideas.

Barack Obama has said he'd like Denzel Washington to play him in the movies but thinks his ears make Will Smith a better fit. Fine, but Political Nanny likes any excuse to watch Denzel so he's got her vote.

Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Mike Gravel can be played by extras. After all, this film's got a budget.

And Dennis Kucinich. Dennis, Dennis, Dennis. Now, keep an open mind on this one. Political Nanny sees Mike Myers channeling a little Austin Powers channeling the comeback role of a lifetime. Think it'll work? (Julianne Moore gets to be the hot Mrs.K!)

Political Nanny also hears Ralph Nader is thinking about getting in the race. Who's going to play him? Jim Carey? John Turturro? Alan Alda? The talented and versatile Fred Thompson? Fred's got time to rehearse and he'll be available since, well, he called it quits Tuesday and will only appear in the first 20 minutes of this politico-historical epic.

That leaves squeaky Ron Paul, sweet Bill Richardson and gasbag Chris Matthews, who would no doubt want to play himself. Any suggestions? We're looking for an Oscars sweep.

Photo: Wonkette.com

Candidates' Cribs: Their Digs, Pre-White House

Madeline Holler — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:10:00 GMT

Readers, rest assured. America's housing market meltdown won't leave any of the candidates without a very, very pleasant roof over their heads. But you're kind for caring. How about we take a peek at those roofs and do a little real estate market analysis, you know, on behalf of those candidates who don't manage the upgrade to something bigger and whiter.

Mother Jones was kind enough to assemble a photo album of many of the top candidates' domiciles and CNBC ran the numbers.

John Edwards, that son of a mill worker, lives in the most expensive house of any of the candidates. His rambling $6 million compound, which he purchased in 2007, has risen in value over 4 percent. Think he went the exotic loan route? Incidentally, the average home value in his North Carolina county is $365,000. He's defintely on the other side of the tracks . And when this Chapel Hill estate won't suffice, he's got his $1.08 million beach home.

Rudy Giuliani lives in a $5.25 million nine-room co-op in Manhattan's Upper East Side, by far the best of all the candidate's cribs, in Political Nanny's opinion. The Manhattan housing market has been quite good to him -- the median price of a Manhattan apartment has risen 14 percent since moving day a few years ago. The average cost of a Manhattan apartment is $1.5 million, which, in local money, is kind of slummy, right?

Next up, John McCain's $3 million Phoenix condo (which, according to MoJo, is actually two condos combined into one). We all know the market in Arizona's cities is tanking. The average home price in Phoenix is $428,000, down 1.8 percent in the last nine months. Now, from the outside, his condo looks like a hospital. But for beauty, he can always go to his $1.1 million 6-acre ranch in Sedona.

A tie between Hillary Clinton's Westchester, N.Y., home price and the home Mitt Romney has in Belmont, Mass. There are others. These houses cost the candidates $1.7 million. Clinton has a slight edge in that her neighborhood's prices are down just 2.8 percent, while the Romney's are watching a 9 percent decrease around them. For the Clintons, the average price in the area is $1.13 million. For Mitt and family, the median home price in Belmont is $680,000. (MoJo pictures his $3 million New Hampshire house on a lake, which should not be confused with his $5.5 million main residence, a former ski resort in Park City, Utah. Yow!)

Barack Obama bought his almost-South-Side Chicago house -- a beauty -- for $1.65 million in 2005 (the height of the market, what was he thinking?!). The average value of a home in his area is $310,315. Overall, prices are up 1 percent, so, he's doing OK and won't likely need to take advantage of Hillary's mortgage bailout plans.

Missing from the market analysis: the stats on Fred Thompson's McClean, Va., home, which set the Thompsons back $3.3 million. With prices dropping in the Northeast, though, we'd hate to see him get upside down on his financing. And also Mike Huckabee's Little Rock McMansion, which he and his wife paid $525,00. Sounds like a steal, but we're guessing it's one of the more pricey homes in Arkansas. Which would explain why they registered for house-warming gifts after they bought it.

Now, for any of the candidates trying to establish some Green credentials, Political Nanny's advice is: install solar panels and change those incandescent bulbs, quick! Most of these rather enormous homes likely have an oversized and embarassing carbon footprint. We're just saying ...

Finally, the ones missing from the collection are two that Political Nanny would have really liked to see and also a pair that could give some perspective: the homes of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Send over the links if you think you have tracked either or both of them down. Is Political Nanny alone in imagining Kucinich's digs might bear some resemblance to Austin Power's pad? No, only her?

Primary's Baby: N.H. Girl Stalks the Candidates

Madeline Holler — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:47:00 GMT

You can tell a lot about a presidential candidate by the way s/he holds a baby. OK, not really. But we're going to deeply analyze it anyway. Why? Because it's fun, because it's naughty, because Political Nanny wishes SHE would have thought of doing what this forward-thinking and shameless contributor to Slate has done.

Darren Garnick, a New Hampshire resident, hauled his five-week-old daughter Dahlia to campaign events around his home state, handing her over to candidates and capturing the moment in a stillshot. The results? Fabulous! The slide show is at once a marvelous demonstration of parenting at its least protective and political coverage at its weakest. In other words, refreshing!

First up is Barack Obama, who winds up holding Dahlia on two different occasions -- the first time in a sweet (and completely competent) traditional infant cradle hold, the second time while Dahlia wears a "Black Power" bib at a rally. Let's look at the cradle hold: Obama is clearly a man who put in the hours with his own kids. He's got two, but they're young and there's not a lot of distance between daily baby-holding and this picture. (We need to keep that in mind when we look at the pics of some campaign trail parents whose own days of second-nature infant handling (the floppy necks!) are decades behind them.) At the rally, Garnick reports that Obama kissed Dahlia's forehead (melt) and then held her up for cheers.

Next up, Rudy Giuliani is stuck with the screeching girl in a fleece pumpkin costume. He looks like he's going to drop her, but he hangs on tight. He was at a disadvantage -- how do you securely snuggle with a squirmy winter vegetable? Let's not judge Rudy too harshly.

Then there's John McCain, who launches the beginning of a curious trend in the baby holds: he's circled his thumb and four fingers around one of Dahlia's legs. Political Nanny doesn't recall doing this with her babes. Perhaps it's an older generation male thing? Because Edwards, Kucinich and (look closely) Romney are doing it too. Political Nanny is not saying it's harmful, just curious. Did they learn this in a Kissing the Baby workshop at Let's Play President summer camp?

What you really want to know, though, is something about Hillary Clinton's baby snuggling chops. Well, hold your "cold-heart" comments, she does just fine with Dahlia, who gazes right into the mother-of-one's eyes. Sure, there's a bit of stiffness in the hold, but Hillary's kid is pushing 30. Maybe it's been awhile. Please note, however, that Hillary is doing that protective palm-around-the-shoulders upper hand thing, which Political Nanny always appreciates when strangers hold her little ones.

In addition to the leg-grip, Mitt Romney does the fingers-around-the-neck upright baby display so competently, he'd make any OB/Gyn proud (except maybe Ron Paul). Garnick notes that the picture, which includes Romney's wife, looks like the New Hampshire father is giving up Dahlia for adoption to a rich white couple. Agreed!

Finally, we see Huckabee and Chuck Norris in a horizontal split-screen shot. Huckabee's doing the hands-under-armpits-with-dangling legs hold (baby facing outward), while Chuck Norris has turned his arm into a seat, allowing Dahlia to rest against his chest. He lays a hand -- it's a registered weapon! -- protectively against her chest. Well done, Chuck, well done!

Garnick didn't get Dahlia into the arms of Fred Thompson (who didn't do much in New Hampshire) or Duncan Hunter (what a relief!) or Ron Paul (coulda shown Mitt a thing or two). And he admits Mike Gravel freaks him out, so he didn't stand a chance. But Political Nanny is grateful for the slideshow and its insight. How will the candidates handle Iraq? Who cares! How are they going to cuddle the nation?

Photo: Slate.com

Break Out the Diapers: Candidates Demand a Change!

Madeline Holler — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:35:00 GMT

Candidates from both parties are beginning to sound like a room full of neglected toddlers wearing sagging, saturated diapers. "Change, change, change," they all yelled, screamed, demanded, whimpered during a weekend of debates in New Hampshire. "I'm here for change!"

Well, hold on a second, Mitt and Hillary and John McCain. Just last week you were bragging about your experience and training and ability to, if elected, go on the potty starting from Day 1!

But Political Nanny understands. You're all wetting your pants after the Iowa Caucus when the new kids Barack and Mike got most of the attention and a whole lot of love -- love and support you had hoped (expected?) would mostly be yours. Since everyone is reading these not-totally-surprising-but-still-very-notable wins as Americans wanting change, well, that's what you'll all give them: change!

In Saturday's Facebook/ABC News back-to-back Republican and Democratic debates and again on Fox for Republicans on Sunday, the talk was about change. Change in immigration. Change in healthcare. Change in Iraq. Change in foreign relations. Change in the status quo. Change in monetary systems. Change in leadership style. Change in change.

The Republicans:

On Saturday, Fred Thompson sounded like he was BSing, a lot, let Political Nanny just get that out there. He seemed caught off-guard. John McCain was ready with a zinger for Romney at nearly every turn. Giuliani got in a couple as well. It was kind of a Mitt Romney pile on. Interestingly, Mike Huckabee sat back a bit. Answered his questions. Stayed out of the fray. Safe.

Side note: perhaps Political Nanny is starting to identify with her captors, and some kind of mainstream media Stockholm Syndrome is clouding her judgment, but Saturday's debates were the best so far for both parties. There was no schtick to upstage the candidates (like videos or planned questions from the audience), and Charlie Gibson allowed the candidates to talk and ignore the clock a bunch.

Even better, Gibson followed up on a couple of points Political Nanny has been curious about: He pressed Republican candidates, who say tax credits are the way to get more Americans insured, by crunching the numbers -- basically laying out how $15,000 in annual premiums (which is essentially what employers are paying for a family) can't possibly be written off the taxes of families with incomes of $60,000. They would only be able to write off something like $3,000. (This is the same problem I see with health savings accounts (Guiliani's healthcare strategy). How do you build up enough to cover ongoing health checkups -- particularly for families who have young kids (well baby checkups must add up to a fortune) and need those expensive immunizations and still have something left over for a catastrophe or, say, minor surgery?)

So Charlie crunched the numbers for them, which no one responded directly to, but that's about when John McCain jumped in and said the trick is to control inflation, so that healthcare won't cost $15,000. Riiiiiight. Huckabee said we have a "disease care system," and not a health care system and wanted to shift to prevention and, of course, control costs (yet have it remain a free-market enterprise. Hmmm.). Romney wants the states to handle it how their governors see fit. But he wants to give support (and money?) at the federal level.

The Democrats:

There was some fun sparring to watch, especially as Barack Obama and John Edwards hooked harms and took on Hillary Clinton, later pointed about by moderator Gibson and getting a laugh from Clinton, "you noticed?" Overall, Clinton wanted voters to believe that she doesn't have to convince them that she's a candidate for change (see? "change!"), since she's been about change her whole life. Then she cited a few things that she's changed, particularly getting healthcare for children in Arkansas. And said, as the first woman president, she would quite distinctly embody change.

Edwards wanted us to know that he has lived through the struggles facing American families and that his desire for change is personal. And possible: he claims he has never taken money from lobbyists or PACs and that he wouldn't allow lobbyists in the White House and, therefore, would be beholden to no one but Americans.

Obama defended his ability to inspire as an important catalyst for change, that inspiring Americans builds momentum and support for change.

Bill Richardson said, "I love change," after also defending experience, a notion that has taken a beating as of late. "What's wrong with experience? We want to change this country, but we have to know how to do it." (Political Nanny detected a defense on behalf of Hillary. So kind.)

Speaking of Richardson, Political Nanny would like to hug him. He provided just the right kind of levity the debate needed to ease the tension and pull the rhetoric back a little to remind everyone they were talking about real issues, actual events, and American lives.

Next up ... the New Hampshire Primaries tomorrow (Tuesday, Jan. 8).

Iowans Play Favorites. Political Nanny Still Doesn't

Madeline Holler — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 05:34:00 GMT

Well, that was that. The candidates stepped out and tested the cold, cold waters of voter approval last night in Iowa. Political Nanny stood at the side, waiting with towels and hot drinks and, for some, a soft hankie to cry in.

Her boys Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama swam confidently to shore, winning their parties' races by about 9 percentage points each. Obama won most of the female vote and most of the younger voters' support too.

Her tough fighters Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, and recently challenged Mitt Romney, flapped their arms and gasped and fought their way to finish in respectable positions and not terribly far behind the winners. Each of them vowed to continue fighting. Each of them is ready to regroup and start again. In five days. Whew!

But quite a few of Political Nanny's babes sank to the bottom. Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Ron Paul made it to the double digits. Joe Biden, Rudy Giuliani and Bill Richardson, and especially Duncan Hunter and Chris Dodd, wellllll, they did their best. But it wasn't great. In fact, Political Nanny will spend the day packing up Chris's bag, gathering his toys, taking down his pretty pictures, and telling him good-bye. He has decided he won't be needing Political Nanny's care any longer. His little friend Joe Biden -- God, remember how hard it was to tell them apart? -- is leaving Political Nanny too.

Down to 13 monkeys jumping on the bed. Time to pack for New Hampshire.

Photo: MSNBC.com

Election Milestone: Candidates Take First Steps In Iowa (Quick, Get the Camera!)

Madeline Holler — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:38:00 GMT

Political Nanny is sitting on pins and needles, at once excited, deliriously proud of and terrified for her candidates. Today, the 15 reach such an important milestone: the Iowa caucuses. They look so grown up! It seems like just yesterday ...! It's all happening so fast (well, not really.)

As the unruly group of them toddles around on stages, grabbing at microphones, saying "cheese" for the camera, and slobbering all over Iowans one last time in hopes of charming each and every one of these Midwesterners to go out tonight and be counted at the caucus (and chances are, they won't), Political Nanny is watching and trying to remember Iowa is not the final word. It's the first, only the first. We caregivers -- those of us experienced with cadidate-children -- know that the early walker in Iowa will not acurrately predict who gets to sit in the White House highchair. (Remember little guy Dick Gephardt?) See, there's time to catch up.

In the meantime, Political Nanny will be watching her babes today as they smile and shake hands and talk pretty and learn their numbers (polls and precinct percentages are the new flashcards!). She'll be watching tonight as the reports come in. Tomorrow, she'll usher the remaining ones over to New Hampshire for primaries there next week.

Those little buggers never could sit still.

Candidates, Political Nanny Loves You. Now Change!

Madeline Holler — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 00:00:00 GMT

Over the past three months, Political Nanny has grown to love her lot of disagreeable, argumentative, name-calling, cackling, power-praying little presidential candidates. They're approaching the first of many back-to-back primary election milestones -- only three days until Iowa! -- but have already blossomed into tough and sturdy and, how shall we put this, flexible campaigners.

But could they be better? Oh, couldn't we all. In the spirit of starting anew, Political Nanny has made some resolutions for the campaigning men and woman of 2008.

Over at the Democrats' favorite playground ...

Barack Obama: resolve to inspire (again … and, alone!). What happened to the guy who swept us all off of our feet nearly four years ago? This sparkling source of hope has gotten dull from so much positioning and polling and over-wrought handling. Get back to the basics -- make change feel possible! Make it feel inevitable! If the old caucusing biddies in Iowa (or New Hampshire or South Carolina) weren’t going to vote for you months ago, they’re not going to vote for you now. Indeed, one person can change the world. We just don't want Oprah to think it's her!

Hillary Clinton: tear down that wall! This distance you keep from the voting public reminds us of a certain guy president and no, we’re especially not talking about your husband! So let us in. Let us ask questions – any question! Not pre-approved ones! Trust us! We’ll do the right thing! Trust yourself! You've got the answers!

Joe Biden: Keep on keeping on. You know everything, you really do. You probably even know you don’t have a chance to win. But the candidates need you – America needs you. In government and in this campaign. You turn meta-answers into concrete plans, Joe. You say what we need to hear, not what we want to hear.

Chris Dodd: Be (even more) like Joe. With two of you, oh, how the front-runners won’t get away with pandering to the polls!

John Edwards: John, sweetheart, listen. You have got to expand your message to the middle and upper middle class (who look more like the lower- and middle-class you're talking about, everyday). Here's the deal: the mortgage industry is handing you talking points for these people who, to be honest, you might sorta be alienanting with your anti-corporate talk (you see, that’s where they work!). But with housing, ohhhhh, housing. Just bring up housing, foreclosures, bubbles, all of it -- and they’re listening. They're listening to you.

Bill Richardson: Keep your feet on the ground and keep reaching for the vice presidential stars.

Dennis Kucinich: Don’t go changing to try to please Political Nanny. She loves you just the way you are.

Mike Gravel: Come here and give Political Nanny a hug, you silly guy.

Now back at Camp GOP ...

Rudy Giuliani: Rudy, Rudy, Rudy. So much to love. So much to loathe. Political Nanny would like you to be your own guy. She knows that Republicans often get bullied by big scary Christians who claim to be friends. But would real friends ask you to be someone you’re not?

John McCain: Resolve to stay tough. And be strong. You keep hope alive for conservatives who don't necessarily think the church and state are one and the same. Oh, and next time a supporter mentions The Bitch, show some sac, dear John, and don't be so quick to laugh.

Mike Huckabee: Michael! That's enough! You, my boy, are a man of faith. But you must also resolve to be a man of respect. If all you have to offer Americans are platitudes and religious references, please reconsider your leadership goals and run for president of the Southern Baptists. Because Political Nanny likes her America inclusive, cohesive and as plural as it can get.

Fred Thompson: Sit down, honey, let’s talk. Political Nanny thinks you don’t actually want to run for president. And you know what? That’s perfectly fine. No shame in “spending time with the family.” So, whenever you’re ready to call it quits, know that millions of others are ready for it too.

Duncan Hunter: Still more are ready to see you go, Duncan. So, Political Nanny would like to see even less of you in the new year, young man. You can use the extra down time for painting murals on your very special wall.

Mitt Romney: Political Nanny thinks you’re a good boy, Mitt, she really does. But you want your buddies to like you so much that you’ve changed your mind, mainly by closing it. You say such damaging things to millions of families in the U.S. and completely dismiss millions of others. Political Nanny wants to see you be the truest, most honest version of yourself in 2008.

Ron Paul: You're doing something right, Ron Paul. Look at all those people giving you money! But that doesn't make you perfect, not by any means. In the new year, Political Nanny would like you to work on (1) living in reality, (2) increasing your dosage of paranoia-tempering thorazine and (3) smiling.

And last but not least, a New Year's resolution for her GOP debate interloper and possible candidate (please, please, please) Alan Keyes: Just. Do. It.

Happy New Year, kids! And Happy New Year, voters! Let's resolve to get together everyday for a little election downtime with Political Nanny!

Settle Down and Use Your Indoor Voice

Madeline Holler — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:02:00 GMT

Tantrums get attention. So do screaming, sobbing and hand gestures that proclaim, "he did it first!" Those sorts of actions don't give caregivers and innocent bystanders the warm-fuzzies. Instead, they make everyone in the room shake their heads, utter lame excuses and leave.

So it goes with politicians who move into the realm of speech-stump meltdowns. We all watch while candidates go after each other -- both overtly and in coded messages. But it's hardly endearing. Voters say they don't like it when candidates turn negative, such as when debate topics devolve into name-calling and verbal rock-throwing. So the candidate who appears to rise above this childish behavior -- speaking with an indoor voice in campaign ads, using their words during debates -- may be doing themselves a favor in the long run in terms of getting voters' respect and support.

Who seems to be turning the other cheek, pasting on a happy smile and delivering a positive, plan-studded message the most? Which of Political Nanny's charges appears to be explaining positions more than tearing down opponents? According to this New York Times/CBS News poll it is the once-inevitable-and-now-fighting-like-the-rest candidate, Hillary Clinton. Of the registered Democratic primary voters polled, seven out of 10 think Clinton is running a positive campaign. Four out of ten think the opposite.

(Sidenote: Political Nanny thinks this is great. Because she has been standing by for years with her shovel, ready to bury that all too prevalent sentiment that strong, argumentative women are being shrill and/or bitchy.)

Back to the poll:

Six in 10 Democrats said Barack Obama used his words to explain, not attack. But a quarter thought he has been going the 2-year-old route and throwing political fits to get his way.

And bad news for John Edwards, if perceived attacks don’t turn into votes. Because 45 percent said he spent more time explaining his positions (that’s fewer than half!) and 29 percent said he has spent more time speaking negatively. Political Nanny finds this surprising, since she feels like she has a better understanding of John Edwards' positions and his plans for the country under his leadership. Though he has seemed a little negative lately.

For Republicans, 53 percent said Mike Huckabee has been explaining more and 9 percent said he has been attacking more. Apparently the rest of those polled had no opinion. Wha …? Republicans, it's OK to talk about your feelings! You're talking to a pollster, you're safe.

As for Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, more than half of the Republicans polled said both spent more time explaining than attacking (and yes, this poll was after the YouTube/CNN "sanctuary mansion/sanctuary city" debate). Four in 10 said John McCain and Fred Thompson did more explaining. Again, many expressed no opinion.

More results from this poll of 1,133 registered primary voters will be posted later tonight and tomorrow morning here.

Mitt Uses His Words (Prays for a Miracle?)

Madeline Holler — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:48:00 GMT

One-time GOP frontrunner and member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Mitt Romney talked to a group of Texans this morning about his faith and where religion fits into politics and governance. It was a much anticipated speech and one he had to give to save his campaign, since many in his party's conservative base are pretty freaked out that he's a Mormon.

First, a kind of pledge:

"If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."

On paper, that looks pretty good. So while Political Nanny prefers her candidates to focus less on the word of God during work hours and more on the needs of Americans, she would like the rest of the GOP candidates to come forward, like Mitt, and make similar promises.

We especially want to hear from Rudy Giuliani, who received Pat Robertson’s endorsement (who knows what strings are attached there), and Mike Huckabee, who brushes off these questions by saying religion influences those areas where the state – not national – government is in charge. He is ignoring the fact that federal funding has been used to influence – negatively -- comprehensive sex education. And that No Child Left Behind, an educational mandate from the president and Congress, was used to influence education in the states. It seems plausible that some kind of All Evolution Left Behind mandate would make its debut under an Intelligent Design advocate like Huckabee. We'd like to know that this wouldn't be the case, you know, if one of them were to be elected.

In his speech, Romney went on to reassure all the Christian conservatives listening carefully for his allegience to God Almighty. They heard what they came for:

“No movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.”

And: “In recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America—the religion of secularism. They are wrong.”

Oh. God help the non-believers!

Salon has a full transcript of the speech.

Political Nanny Can't Help But Play Favorites

Madeline Holler — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:09:00 GMT

Political Nanny truly adores most of her charges, those rascally politicians begging for everybody’s attention and keys to the White House. Like any caregiver, each has earned her affections in different ways.

She is moved by the unselfconscious determination of Hillary; loves the charm and ease of Mike H., Joe, Chris and Barack; delights in the unpolished edges of Rudy and Dennis; winces at the grit and anger of John M.; and appreciates the attempt to be earnest by Mitt, Ron, Bill and Fred. Her Mike G. gets a little lost in the shuffle. Duncan and Tom get on her nerves (she quietly blames their parents).

But little John E. has to be Political Nanny’s favorite, always saying the right thing, always trying his best. He, too, is charming and determined. And kind. So kind. He seems to know what’s important, what the country needs now (or at least what Political Nanny needs now), how to help, what has to change. Perhaps he’s too earnest, too helpful, too smart. Or perhaps Political Nanny is just that gullible -- or old-fashioned, praising the actions and words of yet another white rich guy who wants to be head of the class. Maybe kind and topical just doesn't cut it -- maybe that shouldn't cut it!

It doesn't matter, actually, since John E. hasn’t managed to get most of anybody’s attention, even Political Nanny’s, and it doesn’t look likely that he’ll get enough of anybody’s support, even hers. Political Nanny wishes there was a little more of John E. in each of her other charges. Which would make picking a president just that much easier. If that were the case, she’d like the rest even more.

Here’s the latest endearment to come out of her little John E.’s mouth (she could do without the background music) that speaks to Political Nanny in just the right way. He doesn't just make a promise of healthcare for all, he makes an honest (if quick) assertion of who and what is in the way of accomplishing exactly that. Who else is pointing fingers (at the problem, not each other)?

Immigrant-Hater (and Employer!) Tancredo Should Grow Up

Madeline Holler — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:44:00 GMT

Today’s lesson brought to you by anti-immigrant GOP candidate Tom Tancredo: If you’re going to run a campaign on hating undocumented workers, don’t hire them to build your big-boy playroom!

Over the weekend, Political Nanny read about an embarrassing little incident in 2001, when Tom Tancredo hired undocumented workers to construct a 1,053-square-foot basement rec-room in his Littleton, Colo., home.

Not unlike the “sanctuary mansion” rejoinder, which set off Mitt Romney’s and Rudy Giuliani’s tense round of verbal slapping at last week's CNN/YouTube debates, Tancredo says he shouldn’t have to ask for the legal status of every single person who comes in his house to hang drywall or cater parties or fix the roof or mow the lawn.

Political Nanny says: precisely!

None of us wants to do that. Oh, we have our suspicions. Like who put in the neighbor's lawn last spring? Who made those pancakes at the Sunday brunch. But even the most ardent closed-border types don't truly want to suffer the consequences of slaughterhouses employing legal workers only. Who else is going to expertly kill, cut and wrap that Family Pak of top sirloin to be sold for a mere $12? And even if we all did check, what the hell would we be looking for anyway? An I.D. card? A notarized paper? A special medallion? We don’t know. And we don’t want to know. Honestly, we don’t think Tancredo wants to know either.

Because once we know, we would have to do something about it. And that would be expensive. Not just legally or logistically. But we’d actually have to pay real money for things like nannies, new kitchens, restaurant dinners and clean pools.

Americans and their vast, undocumented, largely unrecognized, support staff are deeply entwined, as Tancredo himself found out. Checking the legal status of everyone in the chain of daily commerce is as futile and trying to live with a zero carbon footprint. Seeking products and services untarnished by the hands and sweat of “criminal aliens” (Tancredo’s term of endearment) is as arduous of a task as finding a loaf of sliced whole-grain bread that does not contain high-fructose corn syrup. Tancredo didn’t take the time to verify the status of his drywall finishers, or the guys pouring concrete. And who can blame him?

After reading a feel-good piece in his hometown paper in 2002, Trancredo did bother checking on -- and reporting -- the illegal status of a 14-year-old high school honor student, whose undocumented immigrant family went into hiding out of fear of being deported. Which, sure, legally might have been an option. But think about it? Not just morally, think in an economic sense. Already, his state had dumped thousands of dollars of resources into this student – the same amount as it had for “one of its own” – and to what end? To the end that this kid was succeeding, being a smarty-pants, learning! Achieving! Working hard so that he wouldn’t, one day, grow up to hang drywall in Tancredo’s sprawling McMansion. But this kid and his family were of no direct benefit to Tancredo.

So, while the candidates – GOP and Democratic – try to appear strong on immigration, or distance themselves from past tolerance and acceptance of undocumented workers (ahem, Giuliani!), the rest of us know that it’s not as easy as a fence, or stronger enforcement or harsher punishment. In the end, even those who say they want the workers out – have they actually thought about life without the invariably cheap labor of undocumented workers? Tancredo may have tried to send that student and his criminally alien family back to the homeland, but tell us, Little Tommy. Did you tear down your $60,000 tarnished pleasure den and send it back too?

Which Candidate Gets a Taste of Your Pumpkin Pie?

Madeline Holler — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:08:00 GMT

Political Nanny does not want to have a beer with her president, nor does she necessarily want any of the 2008 Election candidates at her home for Thanksgiving.

Oh, they’d all certainly be welcome. But, truthfully, their presence at her Thanksgiving feast would kind of diminish her respect for them – don’t our leaders have better things to do than sample the most heavenly marshmallow crusted, toasted pecan sprinkled, butter-and-brown-sugar-soaked perfectly caramelized yet just the other side of al dente sweet potatoes being passed around Political Nanny’s dinner table?

So we have to wonder about these “likability” polls. Are they meaningful? Or simply necessary for keeping pollsters employed (and, like Edwards, we are all for employment). Anyway, here’s what your favorite random 1,636 Americans said about hosting candidates this year for Thanksgiving:

No huge winners, but 27 percent wanted Hillary Clinton, 24 percent wanted Barack Obama and 22 percent would fight with Giuliani for head of the table (was that with or without his wife?).

Reshuffling the results along party lines, Democrats mostly wanted Clinton (42 percent -- were they hoping she'd bring her husband?). Barack Obama still only mustered invites from 24 percent, which feels surprising. We get the feeling Obama -- or Edwards! -- not only seem incredibly personable and perfect for smoothing over family squabbles, but also most likely to roll up their sleeves and scrub the greasy, crusty, burned up bits off of the roasting pan. Kucinich would be sort of a drag ONLY because of the whole succulent turkey thing. But we'd make room for him at the kiddie table nonetheless.

Among Republicans, Giuliani was still the winner, followed closely by Fred Thompson at 21 percent. Did the pollsters not mention Huckabee in the survey? Because, what the hell, we'd have him (and Chuck Norris) at our house in a minute! Fun for the whole family!

Let's forget about the candidates now and focus on what's important: you’re all inviting Political Nanny, at least for leftovers, right? Happy Thanksgiving!

Madame/Mr. President, Can You Babysit This Saturday?

Madeline Holler — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:35:00 GMT

Parents magazine surveyed 1,000 parents on issues facing families today. We’ll get to that later. What interests us now is their poll asking which candidate they would most trust to babysit.

First, let me weigh in because my candidate-sitter didn’t even make the list!

Mike Huckabee. Who? I know (getting attention from the media is a biiiig problem for his campaign -- and he's polling second in Iowa, go figure). He’s the former GOP Arkansas governor, also a Baptist minister or something, who lost 100 pounds to set a good example for the people of his state (Arkansas being one of the high-fat states in the country). And he’s funny! So funny! I caught him on a radio show a while ago and actually laughed (some of his political convictions make me want to cry).

But I bet he's comfortable with kids, firm but fair. And after filling them up with a high-fiber, low-fat snack, he sends them off to sleep with a feel-good, moral bedtime story. Maybe even a lullaby (that's him in the picture playing the guitar!). Mike, you're this nanny's manny. Call me!

As for the Parents survey participants, a quarter of them said they’d trust Hillary Clinton to babysit the most (there’s that damn gender card, again). Another quarter of them said they’d trust Clinton the least. It’s not that I wouldn’t trust her, but she’s too busy. I’d have to book her months in advance. Huckabee, though, he’d allllllways be free.

The rest of the results:

Most trusted
None: 19%
Barack Obama: 13% (Yeah, but he's a secret smoker)
Don't know: 12%
Rudy Giuliani: 9% (Seriously? He’d be interrupted with calls from Judith the whole time.)
Fred Thompson: 6% (Would fall asleep too early.)
John Edwards: 5% (Would call on Elizabeth to do the dirty work.)
Mitt Romney: 5% (Kids' hair would wind up suspiciously fluffy.)
John McCain: 4%
Refused: 2%

And least trusted (after Clinton)
Don't know: 19%
None: 13%
Rudy Giuliani: 13%
John McCain: 7% (On the other hand, no waterboarding for backyard transgressions)
Barack Obama: 6%
Fred Thompson: 6%
John Edwards: 5%
Mitt Romney: 4%
Refused: 2%

Independent Considers Joining the Race (and We’re Not Talking About Nader)

Madeline Holler — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:27:00 GMT

Make room in the sandbox, kids, because there’s another rich white guy who's thinking about joining the race.

Though New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg brushes off talk of a run for the White House, his aides have been looking at what it might take for him to launch a bid as an independent. Which means he's thinking about it. Billionaire Bloomberg could do it too, since he's loaded and could easily finance his own campaign in this “billion dollar” presidential election.

There’s speculation that if he were to run, he’d wait until after the March primaries in Texas to make the decision/announcement. He’d have to get on the ballot in all 50 states, but Ross Perot did it in four months, so why couldn’t he?

Some speculate that he'd be an appealing centrist candidate for those in the South, particularly if the general election were between the other New Yorkers, Clinton and Giuliani.

What do you think? The more the merrier? Can we survive yet another election with an Independent candidate skimming votes from one side or the other? What's Bloomberg's take on family issues? New Yorkers, we're asking you!