10/14/08 – Tim Dickinson – The Scott Horton Show

All right everybody, welcome back to Anti-War Radio on Chaos 92.7 in Austin.
I'm Scott Horton.
We're streaming live worldwide on the internet at chaosradioaustin.org and at antiwar.com slash radio.
And our first guest today is Tim Dickinson from Rolling Stone Magazine.
And before we get into this, I want to make it perfectly clear, I don't know about my guest's point of view and I don't even think I'm going to ask him about this.
He can talk about it if he wants, but as far as partisan politics go, this is not about choosing sides.
I am not a Barack Obama supporter and in fact I urge you all to stay home on election day.
This is not a pro-Obama interview simply because it is in fact an anti-McCain one.
The article is called Make Believe Maverick in Rolling Stone Magazine.
Welcome to the show, Tim.
Hey, thanks for having me, Scott.
I appreciate it.
Sure thing.
Thanks for being here and I appreciate you coming on at short notice like this.
First of all, I want to start here.
When I watch these debates, and as I just said, I'm no fan of Obama either and in fact I'm no fan of anybody who's running for president for that matter.
But it seems like John McCain ought to have at least the base modicum of respect for Barack Obama for winning the nomination of the other party and being the one individual out of our entire society who's up there, you know, qualified to be on the stage debating with him about, you know, who ought to be the president of the United States.
And yet the pure content just drips off of John McCain.
He acts as though this presidency is his birthright and damn Obama for standing in his way and he can't even conceal it when he's live on TV, Tim.
I've been very curious to watch him and I think what's most telling actually is that it's as though he didn't watch the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama contest.
He's sort of falling into all the same traps that Hillary Clinton did with this sort of the inevitable coronation, you know, and just this young whippersnapper couldn't possibly hold water next to me.
You know, there's this sense of taking Obama for granted.
I think there's a real sense of entitlement that if you look at the sweep of John McCain's life has been there from the beginning and so I think that it's unfortunate or perhaps fortunate for the electorate that they can see it so transparently.
It's been very curious to watch.
Well, and, you know, I want to rewind and talk about the man's life going back and that kind of thing.
But beyond just his content during the debates, we also have a decision that was made certainly by him, at least he, you know, put his stamp of approval on it.
That what they would do is they would imply that nobody really knows anything about, well, they would imply he's a foreign terrorist basically and they would do so by pointing out his funny name, implying that nobody really knows anything about his background and somebody said that he got some money from Hezbollah or something and who really is this guy?
He pals around with terrorists and it's all this vague language that is basically meant to make the brain dead Republican voters out there believe that for all we know, this guy actually works for Osama Bin Laden, that this is a treacherous terrorist coup over America.
And so John McCain better have contempt for him.
You know, how could he dare give that guy respect if he's really that bad of a person?
And personally, I mean, I wasn't alive during the McCarthy era or anything like that, but I think back to when I was a kid and Ronald Reagan ran against Walter Mondale.
The idea that he would have implied that Mondale was, for all we know, possibly a KGB agent, traitor to America is ridiculous, absolutely beyond, I mean, you can't even imagine Ronald Reagan talking like that about his opponent back then.
This whole episode has been far beneath who John McCain would have us believe that he is.
I'm not sure that it's actually beneath McCain himself when it comes to, I think, you know, I think the overriding characteristic of the man is his ambition and I think he's drunk his own Kool-Aid that he is the one person who can lead this country.
And so I think he's now, you know, willing to try and go to any means necessary to achieve that goal.
There's several thoughts that occur to me.
One is that he's approaching this with all of the sensitivity of someone who sat out the civil rights conflict on the sidelines, you know, in Hanoi.
I mean, it really, there's an element to which he just does not understand that he's playing with fire with these kinds of, citing the possible violence.
I mean, it really is to that level when people are, you know, saying off with his head and kill him and terrorists.
I mean, it really is sort of, there's a way in which he's become the leader of a very ugly mob.
And I, you know, I think, I think John Lewis called him out on that very appropriately.
I just don't, there's something about it that I just don't think, McCain gets, and I think Palin's just too young and was too clueless as a child growing up in the great North to sort of even think in what exactly they're, the kind of emotions that they're toying with.
Well, let's go back and talk about, you know, I think there's a common perception that, well, maybe he's just really getting old now in his seventies and he's just crankier than usual, but he used to be a really nice guy.
Right.
But it turns out in your article, you basically paint a portrait of this man that he's just been a bully looking to pick a fight, have an excuse to bloody your nose since, you know, he was hatched.
Essentially.
I mean, it really is, it is interesting to see how constant his character has been.
I mean, the narrative of John McCain is there were two sort of fundamental transformations in his life.
One, he was sort of steeled by the experience in Vietnam and was transformed from a callow, pugnacious flyboy into a serious man of patriotism and purpose.
And then the second transformation is alleged to have been during the Keating scandal when he went from, you know, a politician who was sort of living high on, on the hog of, of his patrons and, uh, you know, sort of letting himself get away with, with more than he should to then becoming a maverick and someone who is always on the side of decency and the taxpayer and these clear moral lines about, about politics and just creating a whole new different brand of McCain style integrity.
But if you look through the course of his life, the actual evidence of these transformations is precious, hard to come by.
I mean, he, he went into Vietnam, you know, this reckless sort of spoiled man, dangerously undisciplined, uh, and he came out of Vietnam essentially the same guy.
I mean, certainly in terms of the way he was treating his, his wife and, and the, you know, sort of the flyboy antics and the sort of the frat boy humor and the, there's just any number of small incidents and it's, it's just clear that there was actually no maturation that happened there.
I mean, his, his ambition certainly was put into overdrive, I think this is a fair way to say it.
So simply because he had lost so much time and was eager to get on with trying to prove himself equal of his, of his forebears.
Well, that's got a big part to do with it, doesn't it?
His, his father and his grandfather were admirals and he's got to live up to their example kind of.
No.
And I mean, the amazing thing is how similar his story is to George W. Bush's.
I mean, you know, they're both the third generation of an American dynasty and McCain's is a martial one, whereas Bush's is a senatorial and presidential one.
But it really is the same, the same arc.
I mean, you've got a young, a young man who can't, who can't keep his stuff together and is sort of rebelling against his family heritage and the mediocrity, you know, for as long as he can get away with and real problems with booze and women and, and just loudish behavior.
And then, but with the help of his father's friends has sort of failed upward all through his life.
To his credit, he's, he's got a real canniness to him.
And I, you know, it, it, what's, what's interesting though, if you read his memoirs is how calculated the effort to seduce the press was and how, how much the McCain brand was really just that.
And in terms of it being sort of a marketed, a marketing effort, he, he really punched his ticket this way by being kind of an iconoclast in his party on a few telegenic issues, which would get him, you know, in front of the cameras on a weekly basis.
And so it's, but it really is interesting because it, you know, McCain built his credibility on being someone who doesn't ever sacrifice his, his principles for politics.
He's sort of running out of time to reinvent himself.
And so the reinvention is happening so quickly.
And so transparently right now that, that it's, it's just clear that, you know, as Colin Powell's former chief of staff told me that, you know, it's just not true that he doesn't do that.
He does it all the time.
So going back to the, the daddy complex, it's clear that his primary motivation in life has been to escape the father, the shadow cast by his, his four star father and grandfather.
And he's attempted to achieve this in politics.
And by becoming commander in chief, he could sort of finally outrank them, but I want to focus on something you said there about the media, because I've read numerous times that after the Keating five scandal, as you talk about in your article, I think the reporters were merciless and he fought back against them angrily, which just made them even worse toward him.
And then somebody told him or he figured out, Oh, what to do is answer every call, answer every question, just talk their ear off until they get bored of you and they'll finally leave you alone.
But you've kind of added a new thing there, which is something from his autobiography, I think you referred to, which I've never read, which was that even the, well, I'm going to be the hero on campaign finance, or I'm going to be the maverick on immigration or whatever it was that even those things were just simply cynical calculations.
It wasn't that he was standing on principle against his party at all.
Those were simply calculations to get him on TV more than some other senators, basically.
I might take as you with the immigration example, but let's, let's take the campaign finance example.
Yeah.
You know, and I, I, just to let your voters know, I voted for this man in 2000 when he was running for president in California because I, I'm a young, idealistic voter and my issues with the environment and campaign finance and he seemed to, I didn't agree with him on much else, but he really seemed to have that, the firm black and white moral clarity that I was looking for on, on those issues.
But the idea of campaign finance reform obviously was to take large sums of unregulated soft money out of the political process.
But so how does he go about trying to pursue this agenda?
Well, after his failed presidential campaign, he sets up this thing called the Reform Institute, which he sets up as a nonprofit, which is supposed to bar it from explicit political activity.
But he uses it as sort of a shadow campaign for just sort of a hideout for his campaign manager and his chief fundraiser and his spokesperson and, and a huge variety of other sort of parks, his campaign there.
And then what do they do?
They raise unlimited sums of soft money because the nonprofits aren't regulated in the same matrix of campaign finance, even the old campaign finance system, and then uses that to promote the McCain brand.
Well, who are the people who are giving money?
They're people with business before John McCain's Senate Commerce Committee, and you can pretty clearly trace, you know, gifts of money to favorable outcomes from the Senate Finance Committee, Commerce Committee, rather.
So it's just clear that the actual commitment to campaign finance reform was cosmetic rather than heartfelt.
I mean, either that or he's just got this incredibly, it probably is a combination.
He sees himself as incorruptible.
And so he's, he's got an incredible blind spot to anything that he's doing that could be construed as, you know, create the appearance of corruption because he believes he is simply uncorruptible.
But you say he refers to this in his autobiography, too, that I decided to take this tactic.
Certainly.
I mean, you know, he, in his autobiography, he says, you know, some people have criticized me of, of, of pursuing campaign finance reform as a, as a way to sort of atone for my sins.
And there's a real, a certain degree of truth in that.
I, you know, I think it's interesting to read, you know, a few people actually read these campaign books that he puts out.
There's a clarity of thinking about himself that, you know, he seems to recognize his own flaws.
Of course, he, he cast himself as someone who triumphs over these, these character flaws.
But if you actually strip away the sort of narcissism that's involved there, there seems to be, again, very, very little evidence that, that these are anything other than the, the characteristics that govern his, govern his character, you know, that he, that he is indeed a shallow opportunist.
All right.
Well, now let's go back in time a bit and talk about Vietnam, because of course, this is why you're a terrible person for writing this article about John McCain may not be the greatest person in the world is because he is the greatest person in the world because he served five years in a POW camp so that you would have the right of free speech or something.
I don't know.
It's something like that.
He's a hero.
And so you're evil.
How dare you talk bad about him like this?
Right.
Well, I mean, I, you know, so the idea, the idea was just to vet McCain in the way that candidates are always vetted, you know, and, and he, at the revoking national convention held this up as his primary qualification for being commander in chief.
And it's very delicate to talk about, because I don't want to dishonor the man's military service.
That's not the point of this.
But the point of it is to say, was his service in this context extraordinary vis-a-vis the 600 other men who were in this context with him.
And what, what my reporting bore out was that, in fact, John McCain's experience was very average.
He wasn't, he wasn't one who was collaborating with the North Vietnamese all the time, but he also wasn't one who was able to, to not participate in, in their propaganda efforts after being, you know, tortured.
And so, you know, and there were, there were men on either extreme.
And so in this bell curve of behavior, he was very, very much in the middle.
And you know, it was also clear that because the North Vietnamese recognized that his father was an admiral, which my reporting bears out that he was the one who informed them of that.
I asked McCain, McCain paying for comment on that, and they have not, not responded.
But because they knew who his father was, that he became sort of the most valuable bargaining chip that they had in trading, eventually trading POWs for real estate, which is what they did in the Paris Accords in 73.
And so, you know, and again, the point is not to say that, oh, you know, John McCain's a coward or, you know, John McCain is a despicable individual, but his behavior in this camp was, was far from superhuman.
He was not the hero of the POW camps.
In fact, there are men who I think that label more aptly applies to think he, think he was a clown.
They think he was sort of, again, kind of an opportunist and somebody who, who when, whenever he sort of thought he had the upper hand would kind of clown around and, and, you know, just, just was not, I guess the point, the point that, that this guy John Ramizzi, who was awarded two Air Force crosses for his behavior in the camps, he tried to escape twice and was successfully escaped twice, but was recaptured and was tortured over the course of 30 some odd consecutive days, but even so refused to participate in Vietnamese propaganda efforts, North Vietnamese propaganda efforts.
Well, listen, I think that that's an important distinction.
I mean, let's be perfectly honest with our language here, as Bill Hicks used to say, our very lives depend upon truth.
So let's not miss words.
John McCain is not a war hero.
What he is, is he's a war victim.
He didn't try to lead any brave escapes.
He didn't, you know, say, fine, I'm going to lose an arm.
I guess I'll lose an arm, but I'm still not going to tell you anything.
He went on North Vietnamese radio and like you said, not the whole time he was there or anything, but he was by no means a war hero.
He didn't do anything heroic for anybody.
His suffering was heroic.
I mean, I think that's the way to put it.
Well, that's what makes him a victim, Tim.
Well, that's what John McCain does very successfully.
Listen, I don't, you know, it's not my intention to come out here and say that John McCain was not a war hero.
I mean, people can make that distinction for themselves, but it seems to me that if you're judging him on the merits of what he did, there's behavior there that is inconsistent with what we were told at this, you know, giant spectacle that was the Republican National Convention, which is that, you know, that John McCain gave up his name, rank, and serial number and the starting line of the Green Bay Packers, you know, front line.
I don't remember exactly what it is, but this is the myth of McCain, you know, but in fact he gave up a considerable amount of military information and he did so to receive medical treatment.
Now, would you and I have done something different?
You know, I don't claim to be the caliber of man who would do something different, but John McCain has held himself up to that.
He's held himself up to something other than an average Joe.
Sure, and you know what?
We're not going to put ourselves in John McCain's shoes and say, oh, I would have done the same thing.
I mean, I think that's the quality of war heroism that's missing, at least to me as an observer, is that you put yourself in John McCain's shoes, you probably would have behaved just the same way.
Oh, yeah.
No, I agree with that.
And again, I mean, if the North Vietnamese were torturing me, I'd say it was all Tim Dickinson's fault.
Please leave me alone.
I'm sorry, Tim, but I'm not saying that I'm more heroic than John McCain, I'm just saying there are other men who were, and that, you know, it's the relativity thing.
You know what I mean?
I don't think that being victimized equals heroism.
I understand that's a judgment call and whatever.
But it is interesting.
I mean, this is a man, you know, who was the commander of a, peacetime commander of a successful wing of the Naval Air Force, and so, you know, why isn't that command experience his qualification for being commander-in-chief?
Or why isn't his many years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, why isn't that?
But, you know, yet they went back 40 years to this experience in these POW camps, and then proceeded to lie about it.
I mean, Fred Thompson said that he was tortured for five and a half years.
And, you know, again, it's not to diminish the fact that he was tortured, but the torture lasted, in John McCain's case, intermittently over about a year and a half or two years, and then ended in 1969.
And then for the next three years or so, he was there in these camps.
And it wasn't a picnic by any means, but the torture per se stopped.
So why are you creating this image and this myth that this, you know, it's just a very odd lily to gild?
You know, I don't understand that part of it.
And it really, it's indicative of a man who's sort of bought into his own hype, that he allows this myth of himself to be projected, and it's just, again, I struggled with this, because it's not, again, not my intention to say that this man was a coward or anything like that, but just to say that the story that we've been told about him doesn't add up in its particulars.
Now, you also spend time on how many planes he's ditched before the last one, before the one where he got shot down and was taken prisoner of war.
And I guess I don't want you to spend too much time on all the different circumstances, but if you could just tell us why you thought that was relevant, why you put that in, that when he was a young man before getting shot down, this guy had already ditched quite a few planes.
Well, I mean, you know, this is a guy who calls himself maverick, right?
And so the implication there is not only that he's a politician of independence, but that he's got this sort of top gun credo, you know, this sort of, you know, and he trades on that, right?
So, but you look at his record as a naval aviator, and frankly, he should never have been in the position to get shot down over North Vietnam.
By the time he reached that stage in his career, he should have been grounded.
You know, he'd crashed one plane during training, pilot error.
He'd severed power lines in the south of Spain by hot-dogging it and flying around like a fool, you know, could have killed himself, could have killed other people.
And then flying back from the Army-Navy game, where he may or may not have enjoyed himself, crashed another plane over Norfolk, Virginia.
So, you know, and what I was told by a pilot whose career followed much the same arc as John McCain's, who was in Annapolis with him, went on to become a naval aviator, was shot down over North Vietnam, is that a pilot who crashes one plane, nine times out of 10, they get their wings revoked.
They crash two planes or, you know, get involved in a small international incident like John McCain did, they're going to be a deck officer on a destroyer someplace in a hurry, is the quote.
So, you know, but John McCain was not an average pilot.
He was the son of royalty, essentially.
And so there were exceptions made for him in his career that allowed him to put himself repeatedly in over his head as a pilot.
I mean, I think it's clear that he just was not, he was just not a very serious or skilled aviator.
Just the point is that he should not have been in a position to get shot down at all.
Well, and it's sort of, you know, that whole Maverick thing, that's cool to a certain degree, but it seems like it mostly just leads to bad judgment as far as it goes.
I'm reminded of the Washington Post story right after he picked Sarah Palin, where nobody really knew whether this was going to, you know, really take off or whether it was going to be a bad thing or what yet.
But the quote was, well, you know, I just kind of went with my gut and this is how I make decisions and it'll either work out or it won't.
But apparently he didn't really sit down there and ask her what she knows about things or something.
It just seems like he would have decided otherwise, maybe.
He just sort of went with his gut, hey, she's pretty, she's a woman, she seems to be conservative and the born-again Christians will like her, so let's do it.
Yeah.
No, yeah.
John McCain is not guilty of considerate thinking.
I mean, I think that that's, you know, and again, it's the characteristics that come out about this man, you know, and even the picture that he paints of himself, he's sort of this lovable rascal, right?
Which would be fine if the man were auditioning to be your uncle or, you know, the guy that she spent Tuesdays with Maury with, you know, but he's not, he's, you know, this is someone who's trying to become commander in chief and yet he has a period of impulsiveness and indiscipline despite his military training that is truly troubling.
And I think, you know, if you're willing to compare Obama and McCain on this front, I think you can, without any other political judgment, just observe the steadiness of one man and the recklessness of the other man and find this not a very difficult decision if you're inclined to vote at all.
But...
Well, and that's a very important point.
I mean, just, you know, the hypothetical, an aide, a chief of staff, a national security advisor comes screaming into the room, oh my God, something terrible just happened.
And how just Obama's character would probably respond to something like that versus how John McCain would respond, eh, it seems at least likely that Obama would, maybe if he was the only one, would say, all right, everybody calm down a second and let's talk about this.
Whereas John McCain would say, light him up, hand me the nuclear football codes and let's do this thing.
I mean, you know, I don't, it would depend on the incident, but I think that in its broad strokes that's absolutely right.
And I think, you know, his record is, you know, the sort of thing that Stephen Colbert pilloried on his show, which is that, you know, he doesn't actually engage in deep thinking.
He trusts his gut much like the current president and moves forward.
And I think, you know, you end up with someone as unqualified and unvetted as Sarah Palin evidently was.
And you know, but there's also real arrogance there.
What Sarah Palin says most of all is that John McCain doesn't think he needs any help as a governor, that he will be his own Dick Cheney, thank you very much.
And in this deeply complex era where our fiscal challenges are as great as our national security challenges, it's sort of inconceivable to me that you would want to have a vice president whose only portfolio is to make nice with the conservative Christian, you know, maybe handle some special education.
I mean, he's essentially picked her to act in much the way a first lady might.
I mean, I don't I don't mean to diminish her.
I mean, talk about the way that he views this.
I mean, he is not looking for a governing partner.
He's looking for someone who can handle some ceremonial duties.
You know, I interviewed Charles Goyette recently, my friend from Phoenix, Arizona, and he's interviewed McCain a number of times, a radio show host there for decades.
And he said, you know, the thing that really sticks out about McCain to him and his circle of friends, he calls him a dilettante.
He really doesn't know anything about anything and doesn't care either.
And that's the same with economics.
It's the same with foreign policy.
We see him confusing his talking points up when he talks about Iraq and Afghanistan and stuff like that.
And here he is, 72 years old, telling The Wall Street Journal, yeah, I never ever really learned anything about economics.
Well, you know, he's never had a job before and set working for the government.
So there's one indication that he was vice president at his father in law's beer distributorship.
OK, well, we won't call beer distribution in America the market, really.
But, OK, point taken, though, it's really much more of a cartel system.
But anyway, well, and that's a point, too, right, that he married this daughter of a cartelist.
And that's how he got that's how he became a congressman, a senator in the first place.
Well, that and the largesse of Charlie Keating.
But yeah, that's exactly right.
I don't know what what the basis of his relationship with with Indy was originally, but it's clear that there was that she, you know, he married her in quick order, was running for Congress.
And so she certainly punched his ticket in that in that way.
I mean, he had three sources of finance.
He had her family wealth, which was sort of bottomless for him.
His father's friend, John Tower, a senator from Texas, had sort of been his political mentor and raised a lot of money for him.
And then he met Charlie Keating and became fast friends.
And Keating proceeded to buy McCain off with one hundred thousand dollars he raised for his first campaign.
So, you know, again, you sort of look at this and you're trying to figure out what it is that you're supposed to be admiring of this man.
And I I'm hard pressed to go through his biography and find find those those elements where he becomes an admirable figure.
Yeah, well, I'm looking to I'm trying to help and you're trying to help me here and I'm not doing any better.
I'm really looking forward to you call it the honor gap in the article.
And I think that's really the best term for the the distance.
I think that means between what he claims in terms of his honor and what he really has.
You know, I interviewed Cindy Shandberg the other day and this is a controversial topic.
I don't know if you know all about it or anything, but Cindy Shandberg says that McCain helped cover up the POWs left behind, that there were truth bills that came through Congress that he always worked to frustrate and then replaced with the McCain bills that were, you know, pale limitations of the real truth bills.
And that, you know, here's a guy who betrayed his own fellow POWs.
Yeah, no, there's certainly a story there.
I have not been able to dig into that deeply enough to sort of judge whether that is it just it's so fraught with emotion.
It's very difficult for me to gauge whether that's, you know, how much there there is there.
But this I will say, you know, John McCain has spent much of his career in the Senate trying to sort of heal the wounds of Vietnam.
Right.
You know, he reestablished normal relations with Vietnam, with John Kerry.
You know, this POW issue, he sort of helped put to bed whether that was done well or done poorly.
I'm not a person to say, but certainly in terms of sort of this national reconciliation, he has long been a leader of that.
And then you contrast that with what he's doing with this William Ayers story.
Right.
And here's a guy, you know, who was clearly an unhinged radical in the 60s, turned himself in in the 80s and has remade himself as a key fixture in education in Chicago.
You know, and so for John McCain to then go ripping open these wounds again and saying, you know, look, this guy's, you know, crazy terrorist bomber and Obama's professional association with him in the field of education is akin to him associating with Osama bin Laden.
I mean, the leaps of logic are myriad.
But the point is that here's, you know, for someone who spent so much of his professional post-Vietnam career trying to put to bed that war, for him to then sort of, you know, wave these bloody flags and and try and revive the sort of culture war aspects of Vietnam and apply them to an election where nearly half the electorate has no idea, you know, who William Ayers was or has any direct recollection of what he did.
It's just telling, I think.
I think that there's a crass cynicism that's going on there that tells us a lot about John McCain's character.
Absolutely.
Well, I'm looking forward to the next two or three weeks of him all of a sudden being a really nice guy and and not picking these fights anymore.
We'll see if people can forget in three weeks what they just saw.
I, you know, I don't think so.
I think the mask has slipped.
I mean, the only thing that John McCain had was this brand where he was a straight talker, someone who had bright lines of moral clarity that you did not cross.
And he has been bouncing back and forth across those lines like some sort of cartoon character.
I mean, and so I think he's he's lost that credibility that made him that made him appear special, you know, and now now he just appears like a Bush clone and Bush, I think, has a 23 percent approval rating.
So, yeah, well, the poll numbers I saw on TV this morning say Obama's was 17 points ahead or something in Wisconsin.
And it's not like that all around the country, but they're starting to use the L word in some of the reports.
And I think you would argue well that McCain's done this to himself more than anybody else.
Yeah, but I think I think there's a danger.
And, you know, I think I mean, if you're if you're an Obama supporter, the key here is that he's relying on a lot of people who are not reliable voters.
And so if they start to feel like this thing is going to be a landslide, that actually could be harmful.
I think, you know, there's a sense in which the lessons of New Hampshire, the one election when these two men went head to head are instructive.
I mean, Obama was expected to win the route there and did not, in part because voters sort of felt free to not not turn out and forth.
So I think I think if people are interested in Obama landslide, that they they need not to take it for granted.
All right, folks, that's Tim Dickinson.
Hey, I really appreciate you coming on the show.
So I had fun.
Thanks.
All right.
That's Tim Dickinson from Rolling Stone magazine.
This is anti-war radio.
We'll be right back.
Here's some EPMD for you.