The pseudo-transcript below is not intended to be an exact transcription of what each panelist said. Your correspondent has little experience as a scribe, and he did his best: some parts are paraphrased in the spirit of what was said, others are exact quotes, and still others are transcriptions of what I think I heard minutes after it was said:

Panelists from left:

(a) David Rancourt (b) Sophie Brill (c) Elizabeth Wurtzel (d) William Mulrow (e) John McGovern

Moderators:

(j) Jason Jung (s) Elizabeth Schieffeliin

10:58

S and J introduce themselves. The format will be conversational, rather than debate.

11:00

J introduces John McGovern
"He has also held leadership roles in a number of federal campaigns, including serving as Campaign Manager for U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk’s first campaign in Illinois’ 10th District in 2000. Today, he continues to be involved with policy and politics at the state and federal levels and remains an advisor to Andy McKenna, Chairman of the Illinois Republican Party. In that role, Mr. McGovern was asked this year to organize and direct all planning, programming and fundraising for the Illinois Delegation to the 2008 Republican National Convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul."

E introduces William Mulrow

"career spans over 25 years in the private, public and political sectors. He is currently a director of Citigroup Global Capital Markets in the firm’s Municipal Securities Division as well as serving as a managing director of Paladin Capital Group, a venture capital firm based in Washington, DC. Mr. Mulrow also serves on the board of directors of the Hudson Valley Bank, Application Security Inc. and Millbrook Capital. He is also Chairman of the Board of Sterling Suffolk Racecourse."

J introduces Elizabeth Wurtzel

"author of Prozac Nation; Bitch: In Praise of Difficult Women; and More, Now, Again."

E introduces Sophie Brill

"She graduated magna cum laude from Yale in 2007, with a degree in Ethics, Politics and Economics and a concentration in Constitutional rights... She spent a summer working in investment banking for Lehman Brothers but opted to apply to law school rather than make the job fulltime. She aims to study and pursue a career in international human rights law, and published an article in the Yale Politic as an undergraduate about the Supreme Court’s handling of the Guantanamo Bay cases."


J introduces David Rancourt

"He holds a BS in economics from Florida State University and a master's degree in Political Science from the University of Florida with a certificate in Political Campaigning. Mr. Rancourt served as a campaign manager to Congressman Mike Bilirakis and Secretary of State Jim Smith. He also worked for Direct Mail Systems in commercial marketing and political fundraising. Mr. Rancourt’s government experience includes service as Director of the Florida Division of Elections and Deputy Secretary of State. He served as Appointments Director for Governor-Elect Jeb Bush's transition effort and continued to serve Governor Bush as his first Deputy Chief of Staff through 1999."

11:04

Transcript:

d: I'm an Obama supporter and I thought he did pretty well....This one kinda locked in what both thought. [Notes that instant analysis says that Obama won]

e: I thought there were two debates: [Obama did well in the economic one. Was able to connect personally with the common people] I thought he did a much better job

I thought McCain did better in the second half, the foreign policy half. That's a topic he's comfortable engaging Obama. I thought Obama didn't take the opportunity to push back and establish credibililty.

I think it depends on who you support, you can take away good things from both sides

c: I'm actually an Obama supporter, but I thought McCain won. [Reedy joke about recently moved and has no furniture in house.] I think I'm so focused on the Middle-East, and McCain did this kind of thing that was meant to scare Florida - like he tried to say what could harm Israel. McCain did this try to be scary thing. I thought it was very effective. I think he's good at that; I think Obama was really calm, but really defensive.

b: [Notes that the Democratic Party was more measured, less peace-nicky approach to Iraq] Obama was saying that we need to go after al-Qaeda more than we've been doing. Iraq is distracting us from our enemies

a: [Notes that most people didn't watch the whole debate, notes their different strengths] Obama is probably the most powerful orator, figure in the history of modern television. I think he's better than JFK at the personal touch, I think he's better than REagan at the personal touch. He is very, very gifted...next to Barack Obama, you gotta feel bad for the guy [McCain]. I am by far the most libertarian person on this panel.

--

My thoughts:

b- Implicitly recognizes a new balance-of-power: that nations are no longer the main actors in this new age. The new actors are ones in an economic sense - any rational calculator can affect change on the international level.

--

11:13

Transcript:

d: For better or for worse, the election is all about Barack Obama. Can we trust him, can we trust what he thinks...For him to go into a debate with John McCain (very respected senior leader in the Congress) and come out even in a debate about FP, McCain's strength...In many ways this election is about, 'are you going to get comfortable with Barack Obama' - he has boiled his entire campaign down to one word. That's pretty effective.

e: I'd also say that's a danger for Barack Obama. In a time of uncertainty, people don't want uncertainty. [relates anecdote of Clinton advising Obama not to make this campaign be about him] The reason I think it's a danger for Barack is - to use the Reagan analogy - Reagan was out in the conservative circle, he was not unknown. Barack doesn't have that familiarity. People just don't know a lot about him. He's got to not only prove that he's competent, he has to instill a certain amount of confidant.

--

My thoughts:


d - Effective, yes. Possible at a realistic, pragmatic level? If this is considered effective, doesn't that say something about the American electorate? Rational ignorance is one thing, but the degree of simplification here is excessive and dangerous. Change can mean many things to different people: when people vote to for representatives, they should know exactly what they're getting. "Change" is not a viable policy statement, and a representative democracy ought to feel threatened by this.

e - But that logic works both ways. People can be certain with Obama that things will be different. This shows more about his bias than about Obama's campaign.

11:16

Transcript:

j: plays a CNN clip with a report about America's image going down. Only 22% respondants had a favorable response to America. 70% of NATO members, less than 33% of germans held Americans in high esteem.

a: Guantanamo truly, truly offends me...Reagan changed the debate from something about morality - the Nixon years had the debate revolve around the pragmatism of the SALT treaties - Reagan changed it to be about America's moral duty. Nobody in America fights tyranny simply for the sake of freedom. We are a special country. Very few countries have gone to war over freedom. Unfortunately, our actions cause mistrust in the ME where our oil is.

b: Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are certainly things that have tarnished us. [Notes that the new European generation does not remember America's role in saving them]

c: The Bush Administration spent completely the American prestige they inherited. One thing that is scaring me, what is scary is, the economy as a going concern...as it affects how this country stands in this world. This is the measure of something going terribly, terribly wrong. I'm very very scared to watch the decline of this nation...in the history of empires, none has ever wielded its dominance so judiciously and gently as this country has.

e: Look at that map of countries put up with large percentages of people who don't like the United States. Those are also the countries that receive the most aid

c: It's only 1% of our budget

e: But it's much larger for them than for us. George Bush may be very unpopular on the world stage, but there's been a complete change in politics: if you look at GER, ITA and FRA - they have all in the last year or so, elected conservative presidents. That is the direct result of policies.

d: Bush would be a humble but strong FP player. Syria, Pakistan, Iran, N Korea, etc., are seeking nuclear weapons (as opposed to the only 6 that have it). Bush's father was a conciliatory figure, this Bush has gone it alone. HW Bush made sure that he was in contact with all the nations of the world so we would not have to do it unilaterally. Maybe we didn't act as humbly as we were supposed to.

e: HW Bush was not reelected because that debate was not about FP. The question is, why is this election is close?

--

My thoughts:

a- Falls into the trap of listening to rhetoric, rather than the actions behind it. Emotional rhetoric that America's foreign policy is inspired purely by morality and duty - freedom. Kuwait was for freedom - not about preventing Iraqi hegemony over oil? Wasn't WWII about preventing German hegemony that would threaten the national interest of America? America did not move throughout the late 19th century during wars tweaking the balance-of-power because it did not affect them. They were policies of the status quo, not policies of imperialism.

c: It is the mark of America's powerful standing that it is the Fed and Office of the Secretary that is being depended upon. China's call for a new order is a futile one - one cannot simply make it happen. Iran has called for oil to be traded in Euros and China has diversified some of its assets. That the sanctity of the financial world yet depends on the actions of America's central bank is indicative of the power of American finance, and America's fiscal and monetary policy's global effect. Far from being marginalized, America is more important than ever.

d: An interesting look at marginal cost comes up. The marginal cost decreases, rather than increases, for every nuke you get. Until maybe past the 1000 mark, more nuclear weapons decreases your marginal cost

11:28

Transcript:

b - it's funny because this really is all about Obama. Why can't Obama close the deal, haha. I think it makes sense that we think he should further ahead in the poll.

a - What Obama is talking about is better than the garbage coming from the other side. I think racism plays into this...but the gender part has been too.

d - Racism is really uncomfortable topic. [Talks about a poll that said that people polled by Reuters said that 40% of people think that race would be an issue].

--

My thoughts:

b,a,d - Now we are talking about campaign possibilities, and how race plays into it. Your correspondent will rest his fingers - he cares more about policy than he does about campaign analysis. Race and gender interest me much less than talk about policy. That has been rather scarce so far. Indeed, this is possibly indicative of the lack of clear policy vision we have from Obama. If this election really is about Obama, shouldn't we have a clear picture of what Obama wants? It is out there, but surely they could have elaborated more on that?

11:33

Transcript:

s: [Notes that Newsweek says that Palin's gender is an assett] to what extent can you elaborate that gender will play in the election

|
|
|

11:36

Discussion between c and e about Palin's role in grabbing the female vote. A discussion about sexism.

e- Palin's treatment is more about elitism than about sexism. There is a sense that this women isn't about all the people we grew up with or people we socialize with. She comes from a different background, she has different experiences: but that shouldn't make her less of a qualified candidate.

d - I have a slightly different view of that [said ironically]

|
|
we are back to talking about domestic politics
|
|

a - We are not representative of Middle America.

--

My thoughts:

e - She is different. Isn't a democracy supposed to put leaders who represent them in office? Yes, she is different, and that is absolutely a valid reason for rejecting her. If she is different, she is unlikely to be able to relate to the very people we socialize, our cares and concerns. If that's true, then why should she represent us. Middle America cannot be faulted for feeling uncomfortable voting for someone different from them. Admittedly, this brings racism and sexism into play - both are legitimate factors - but we cannot fault America for voting for someone different from them.

d - this is turning out to be a sharp conversation between d & e.

a- A tinge of elitism crept in here: we are above the petty concerns of 'who represents us'. Middle America - here's the tinge of elitism - cares about that. We, the implication is, know what is best for the country as a whole regardless of whether or not the leader's experiences represent us. A has elevated himself to the role of the philosopher-king of the Republic, capable of distancing himself from the public to see the truth.

11:44

Transcript:

S: Which candidate is going to benefit from the current economic turmoil. Shows a clip.

e: [Talks about his experiences in the House] The number of calls Congressmen were getting from constituents were overwhelming. Most of them were against it. We have policy reality disconnected from political reality. [Points out that most of the legislators up for election and who's fates are uncertain were the ones who voted against the bail-out] Frankly, many of the people on the floor don't understand the intricacies of the bill that Bloomberg does. They're trying to get a message out to their constituents to affect their reelection.

c: Is it that the majority of America is against the bail-out or that opponents are the loudest?

b- [Talk about FDR's ability to communicate]

a- They failed miserably. The cesspool that is Washington...it is a cesspool. [describes the dishonesty that is inherent in politics]...[hints at cutting connections with the rest of the world] We're giving aid to countries like China who don't have our interests in mind.

[interjection: this blogger was busy responding to a, and missed the segment here. More talk, in summary, that there are costs attached to everything, referring to the bail-out]

e- [Notes that the middle-class is heavily invested in the stock-market.] Many people don't realize that they are part of the investor class. All the pension-funds...[notes that the the entire middle-class is invested in AIG, Lehman Brothers, etc.]

--

My thoughts:

e: So here we have an understanding about the Public Choice theory. In full knowledge that rational actors in the public sector act inefficiently, how can they trust the 'Change' message?

a- Once again displays a very simplistic - even primitive - understanding of foreign policy. China is against us because they are not with us. Foreign policy depends on moderation; it rests with a recognition that our interests do not always coincide with other's but we must look to find where they do. It ought not be a, "we can do it ourselves" approach. Unilateralism gets nothing done.

11:54

Transcript:

e- There is nothing to prepare anyone of the pressures of the presidency. Is the legacy going to be solving the financial crisis? Is it going to be an FP crisis, is it going to be energy? Whoever follows will be defined, in a certain sense, of the problems in front of us. But there's a whole host of problems in front of us. [Criticizes McCain for suspending his campaign to go back to Washington, showing that he can't juggle all the different hings] Who has the intangible quality, the judgement not only to handle crises, but to handle things when they are good.

d- The dirty secret of the next eight years is that Bush will still be president. [Lists all the things Bush has done that he disapproves of] the next president is going to have to deal with those issues. Clinton had a very, very aggressive program - he spent a lot of his time digging out of the hole in front of him.

c- My recollection in college is that Reagan was despised. Mark my words we will come to see Bush as a good president some day...On Wall St they're saying Dubai, Mumbai Shanghai, or good-bye: the next president will have to face a world where we have to refind our place. We need to reassess what our priorities are abroad, and how we assert that.

b- [Reiterates c] The scariest thing is someone who takes one economics course and tries to tell you what is going on, like, with the demand curve or whatever.

a- [Compares Bush to LBJ] President runs the risk of being remembered more as Hoover than LBJ. In some ways thats better and in some ways a helluva lot worse. The next leader has the opportunity to, much like Reagan, to restore America's image in the world. This is the greatest nation on the face of the earth. I want someone who can tell me how we can fix it [problems].

d - It's conceivable, also, that Bush could be thought of as Truman was...[notes that being President is not easy]

--

My thoughts:

d - Clinton did little. The economy grew as a result of the turn of the business cycle - his policies reflected Bush senior's tax cuts benefitting businesses much more than it did Clinton's actions.

c- Yes, she is referencing the same way we think Hoover is a good president. Eulogies, indeed.

c- Finally: a recognition that policy is as important and relevant to this conversation as tactics and strategies in campaigning is.

An eerie reflection of Greider's message on a personal level. Greider notes that Americans have lost their sense of place and anchor in the world; the super-ego has been shaken and disconnected from the psychology of the American. Has that happened at a national level?

a - Yes, but the premise upon which that old image was built upon no longer exists. The image of America as the knight in shining armor came about because there was the threat of communism and its associated idea of totalitarianism. The world no longer faces threats of that scale from nation-states. What unified democracies around the world no longer exists; an idealist (I am, regrettably, not yet there) would hope that it is the common danger of global warming that brings humanity together.

This also begs a question that I'd like to ask a. He believes that America's foreign policy is inspired by giving freedom to other nations. I shall assume he means democracy, because people who generally believe that America's foreign policy is moralistic in nature support spreading democracy. Is spreading democracy sound foreign policy? America pressed for democracy in Palestine and HAMAS was elected legitimately. Democracy forces statesmen to evaluate the domestic politics of other nations, adding extra work. Democracies no longer categorically support America because there is no common enemy.

12:06

James Zilenziger: I personally don't care much for the 'change' slogan. It's easy for us as 18 year olds to grab on to that...but, when you look at his comments in context, there is a lot of change in his context. We spoke alot about the economic issue, a lot of it is about our deficit [lists how Obama will increase the deficit]...how do I look beyond his fluff?

a- I suggest that if you're running for office, you say as little as possible. His strength is who he is. [Praises tax cuts]

c- I think maybe you don't. I think you're very convinced about McCain, I think that's your position.

b- [notes that McCain is moderate and pragmatic] There's a column written by David Brooks that this whole I can't say three words was cute, but we've had enough. I think Obama represents the leader that has no overarching ideology or advisors that disagree with each other.

12:14

Olmert: could you shed some light on the Israeli-Palestinian war?

c- I think America is categorically for Israel.

--

My thoughts:

There's little policy substance here.

--

And that was from the political forum on Tuesday, September 29th. I will try to continue this for future speakers.