This Reuters story says it all:
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A gas tax holiday proposed by U.S. presidential hopefuls John McCain and Hillary Clinton is viewed as a bad idea by many economists and has drawn unexpected support for Clinton rival Barack Obama, who also is opposed.
'Score one for Obama,' wrote Greg Mankiw, a former chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. 'In light of the side effects associated with driving ... gasoline taxes should be higher than they are, not lower.'
Republican McCain and Democrat Clinton, who is battling Obama for their party's nomination, both want to suspend the 18.4-cents-per-gallon federal gas tax during the peak summer driving months to ease the pain of soaring gas prices. The tax is used to fund the Highway Trust Fund that builds and maintains roads and bridges.
Economists said that since refineries cannot increase their supply of gasoline in the space of a few summer months, lower prices will just boost demand and the benefits will flow to oil companies, not consumers.
'You are just going to push up the price of gas by almost the size of the tax cut,' said Eric Toder, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center in Washington.
Obama criticized the plan as pure politics and said the only way to lower the price of gas is to use less oil.
'It would last for three months and it would save you on average half a tank of gas, $25 to $30. That's what Senator Clinton and Senator McCain are proposing to deal with the gas crisis,' he said on Tuesday in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
'This isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer, it's an idea designed to get them through an election.'
...
Many economists implicitly agreed with Obama and said the McCain-Clinton gas tax plan sent the wrong signal on energy efficiency and was at odds with their pledges to combat climate change by encouraging lower U.S. carbon emissions.
'I think it is a very bad idea,' said Gilbert Metclaf, a economics professor at Tufts University currently working with the National Bureau of Economic Research.
'If we want people to invest in energy-saving cars, we need some assurance that the higher price paid for these cars is going to pay off through fuel savings,' he said. 'It is a very short-sighted, counterproductive proposal.'
Economists also saw it is a poor way of getting money to the households that need it most and warned that it might end up in the cash tills of the oil companies.
'If you want to provide households tax relief, a direct rebate ... is more effective. Not all of the tax relief from a gas tax holiday will be passed on to consumers. Some will likely be kept by refiners,' Mankiw said in an e-mail response.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was similarly underwhelmed: 'It's Econ 101: the tax cut really goes to the oil companies,' he wrote on his blog on Tuesday.
Here's the link.
Now someone will come along and accuse Obama of being an elitist for listening to economists.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Can Obama Win?
I'm very sad to report that question has entered my mind the past few days, as the Rev. Wright once again has stirred controversy with some pretty outlandish statements.
Sen. Obama should win, based on the math. But if the focus of this race becomes completely centered on Wright and the racial divide in this country, the Clinton campaign will be able to make a much stronger case that Obama is the weaker candidate in the general election. That may result in some stronger-than-anticipated wins for Clinton, and a reversal in the trend of superdelegates away from her and to Obama.
In other words, she could snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
I have come to believe that how the campaign plays out will say a lot about the character of this nation and its people. Whether we can truly overcome some of the racism and divisiveness that so deeply stains our country's history. I grew up in a community of people who were basically good and respectful of others, yet I heard and felt the racial divide constantly. It really brings out the worst in people. And part of why I have been so fascinated by this campaign of Obama's was because it seemed that maybe we could actually start to get past that.
That accomplishment is still very much in doubt. Obama has done nothing wrong, and he has for the most part handled the controversy well. But for whatever reason, people do associate him with *the rantings of* his pastor. It's not fair, it's not the way it should be. But I think it could hurt him in both IN (a lot) and NC (not as much, but still enough).
Given the mess that Wright has created by his recent performances, I think Obama's repudiation of Wright today is a good move, and it might reassure some voters. But Obama has such a high hurdle to clear with certain voters who may agree with him but are just likely to take extreme offense at something like the Wright controversy. Those voters don't need much to push them to Clinton or to stay home. And that could make a huge difference.
(note: I added the three words: *the rantings of* for clarity. I think obviously Obama has had close ties to Wright in the past. But the more extreme comments from his former pastor are clearly a world away from Obama's beliefs and approach. I just don't think you can judge a man for something someone else says. Anyhow, I wanted to make that clear.)
Sen. Obama should win, based on the math. But if the focus of this race becomes completely centered on Wright and the racial divide in this country, the Clinton campaign will be able to make a much stronger case that Obama is the weaker candidate in the general election. That may result in some stronger-than-anticipated wins for Clinton, and a reversal in the trend of superdelegates away from her and to Obama.
In other words, she could snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
I have come to believe that how the campaign plays out will say a lot about the character of this nation and its people. Whether we can truly overcome some of the racism and divisiveness that so deeply stains our country's history. I grew up in a community of people who were basically good and respectful of others, yet I heard and felt the racial divide constantly. It really brings out the worst in people. And part of why I have been so fascinated by this campaign of Obama's was because it seemed that maybe we could actually start to get past that.
That accomplishment is still very much in doubt. Obama has done nothing wrong, and he has for the most part handled the controversy well. But for whatever reason, people do associate him with *the rantings of* his pastor. It's not fair, it's not the way it should be. But I think it could hurt him in both IN (a lot) and NC (not as much, but still enough).
Given the mess that Wright has created by his recent performances, I think Obama's repudiation of Wright today is a good move, and it might reassure some voters. But Obama has such a high hurdle to clear with certain voters who may agree with him but are just likely to take extreme offense at something like the Wright controversy. Those voters don't need much to push them to Clinton or to stay home. And that could make a huge difference.
(note: I added the three words: *the rantings of* for clarity. I think obviously Obama has had close ties to Wright in the past. But the more extreme comments from his former pastor are clearly a world away from Obama's beliefs and approach. I just don't think you can judge a man for something someone else says. Anyhow, I wanted to make that clear.)
Monday, April 28, 2008
Excuse me, have we met?
Why does Sen. John McCain keep calling me his friend? I’ve never even met the guy.
So, McCain (two McCain posts in a row!) is trotting out a health care tour. And much like the “Message: I care” tour of impoverished areas that proceeded it, this one is going to feature a whole lot of talk and little substance.
You know, I don’t mean to be a McCain basher. But even if he insists on being friendly with me, it’s hard not to be critical when a candidate for the President of the United States takes on some of the most pressing political and moral issues of our times and basically says, “I hope something can fix this, but as President I won’t do a whole lot.”
Here’s the quote from an Associated Press story: “‘America can have a health care system that is characterized by better prevention, coordinated care, electronic health records, cutting-edge treatments -- and lower costs,’ McCain will say, according to excerpts of his speech provided by his campaign. ‘We can build a health care system that is more responsive to our needs and is delivered to more people at lower cost. The solution, my friends, isn't a one-size-fits-all big-government takeover of health care.’”
These kinds of “solutions”; electronic medical records, cutting-edge treatments, better prevention, is very thin gruel. It’s like saying you’re going to cut the deficit through eliminating waste and fraud. All of those things are good, but none of them are going to make enough difference to change the health care problems this country faces. And we’re doing all these things already, by the way. How come the problems are getting worse?
And his “big government takeover” cliché is just that. Sir, friends don’t try to scare friends with silly distortions of their opponents’ positions.
I have more than a little familiarity with health care policy. And I remember the last election, when I read several of President Bush’s speeches specifically for his ideas on health care. They were essentially identical to what McCain is proposing.
So, again, here’s your Republican candidate: “More of the Same McCain.”
So, McCain (two McCain posts in a row!) is trotting out a health care tour. And much like the “Message: I care” tour of impoverished areas that proceeded it, this one is going to feature a whole lot of talk and little substance.
You know, I don’t mean to be a McCain basher. But even if he insists on being friendly with me, it’s hard not to be critical when a candidate for the President of the United States takes on some of the most pressing political and moral issues of our times and basically says, “I hope something can fix this, but as President I won’t do a whole lot.”
Here’s the quote from an Associated Press story: “‘America can have a health care system that is characterized by better prevention, coordinated care, electronic health records, cutting-edge treatments -- and lower costs,’ McCain will say, according to excerpts of his speech provided by his campaign. ‘We can build a health care system that is more responsive to our needs and is delivered to more people at lower cost. The solution, my friends, isn't a one-size-fits-all big-government takeover of health care.’”
These kinds of “solutions”; electronic medical records, cutting-edge treatments, better prevention, is very thin gruel. It’s like saying you’re going to cut the deficit through eliminating waste and fraud. All of those things are good, but none of them are going to make enough difference to change the health care problems this country faces. And we’re doing all these things already, by the way. How come the problems are getting worse?
And his “big government takeover” cliché is just that. Sir, friends don’t try to scare friends with silly distortions of their opponents’ positions.
I have more than a little familiarity with health care policy. And I remember the last election, when I read several of President Bush’s speeches specifically for his ideas on health care. They were essentially identical to what McCain is proposing.
So, again, here’s your Republican candidate: “More of the Same McCain.”
Friday, April 25, 2008
Hey, Look Over There by the PawnAmerica store! It’s John McCain!
I feel bad that I haven’t written much about John McCain lately.
Well, not too bad. But mildly regretful.
Sen. McCain is out there, doing some smart campaigning, showing once again that he thinks differently than more traditional conservatives. This week he was doing his “Left Behind” tour, which I don’t think has any Second Coming implications—surely John McCain wouldn’t miss the Rapture!!
McCain was touring places that are often overlooked by politicians, especially politicians of a certain, shall we say, large-land-mammal-with-tusks persuasion. Poor communities, shuttered factories, hurricane-devastated areas around New Orleans, that sort of thing.
McCain was there, showing that he is a conservative with compassion. (Something about that is SO familiar. What am I thinking of? … Can’t quite put my finger on it … )
The problem is, of course, that although McCain is perfectly willing to go speak at these places and talk about how he understands their plight, he’s not going to DO anything about it. That would take, you know, government programs, and God knows those don’t work. Conservatives don’t believe in government (with a few exceptions involving wars and corporate bailouts), so they can’t very well promote government as a solution to our problems!
So hey, poor people, John McCain feels for you. Really. But once he cuts taxes again, I’m sure things will pick up. If not, you can always start up your own business selling junk on eBay (I swear to God this was actually something he suggested in one his speeches.)
But it is smart, not because he’s going to win votes in these blighted photo-op communities, but because it could convince independent voters that he is a caring conservative (DAMN! Why am I having such a case of Déjà vu??).
Fool me once …
Well, not too bad. But mildly regretful.
Sen. McCain is out there, doing some smart campaigning, showing once again that he thinks differently than more traditional conservatives. This week he was doing his “Left Behind” tour, which I don’t think has any Second Coming implications—surely John McCain wouldn’t miss the Rapture!!
McCain was touring places that are often overlooked by politicians, especially politicians of a certain, shall we say, large-land-mammal-with-tusks persuasion. Poor communities, shuttered factories, hurricane-devastated areas around New Orleans, that sort of thing.
McCain was there, showing that he is a conservative with compassion. (Something about that is SO familiar. What am I thinking of? … Can’t quite put my finger on it … )
The problem is, of course, that although McCain is perfectly willing to go speak at these places and talk about how he understands their plight, he’s not going to DO anything about it. That would take, you know, government programs, and God knows those don’t work. Conservatives don’t believe in government (with a few exceptions involving wars and corporate bailouts), so they can’t very well promote government as a solution to our problems!
So hey, poor people, John McCain feels for you. Really. But once he cuts taxes again, I’m sure things will pick up. If not, you can always start up your own business selling junk on eBay (I swear to God this was actually something he suggested in one his speeches.)
But it is smart, not because he’s going to win votes in these blighted photo-op communities, but because it could convince independent voters that he is a caring conservative (DAMN! Why am I having such a case of Déjà vu??).
Fool me once …
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Can Hillary Win?
No.
Nope.
Nahhhh.
Negatory.
Na guh do it.
Sen. Clinton just had her best night of the primary season. She got a 10 point win in a state where both candidates went all-out. But it was a state that was heavily stacked in her favor, demographics-wise. She was 20 points up a month ago.
Sen. Obama cut that in half, during a month when:
1. The Rev. Wright scandal became a huge media event.
2. Just as Obama seemed to recover from that, he made his unfortunate "bitter/cling" comments.
3. The Clinton campaign continued its "kitchen sink" strategy of pounding every negative story line it could find.
4. The debate on ABC seemed totally fixated on magnifying the Wright/Bitter/Elitist angles.
It was overall, a pretty bad month for Obama. Yet he kept moving forward. He defused the Wright controversy effectively enough, although it will certainly continue to be an issue. He handled the "bitter/cling" stuff calmly and minimized the damage there--although again, it hurt him. But I continue to be impressed with his ability to take a punch (to use the Rocky imagery that Clinton appropriated).
Obama should be able to move on to a convincing win in North Carolina, and might win in Indiana. The other contests will be a wash. If he wins in both those state, I believe it will be over. If he only wins big in NC and the rest are close, we might see this thing contested to the convention. I really doubt it will go that far, though.
At some point, the Democratic Party leadership is going to say, "enough is enough." Obama is going to end up with the majority of the popular vote, the majority of the delegates, and will be very close with the superdelegates. He will be the clear choice of African Americans (the Dems' most loyal voting bloc), young voters (the party's future), and will continue to show he can out-fundraise anyone on the planet.
In short, he cannot be denied. Clinton should enjoy this victory. It's all downhill from here.
Nope.
Nahhhh.
Negatory.
Na guh do it.
Sen. Clinton just had her best night of the primary season. She got a 10 point win in a state where both candidates went all-out. But it was a state that was heavily stacked in her favor, demographics-wise. She was 20 points up a month ago.
Sen. Obama cut that in half, during a month when:
1. The Rev. Wright scandal became a huge media event.
2. Just as Obama seemed to recover from that, he made his unfortunate "bitter/cling" comments.
3. The Clinton campaign continued its "kitchen sink" strategy of pounding every negative story line it could find.
4. The debate on ABC seemed totally fixated on magnifying the Wright/Bitter/Elitist angles.
It was overall, a pretty bad month for Obama. Yet he kept moving forward. He defused the Wright controversy effectively enough, although it will certainly continue to be an issue. He handled the "bitter/cling" stuff calmly and minimized the damage there--although again, it hurt him. But I continue to be impressed with his ability to take a punch (to use the Rocky imagery that Clinton appropriated).
Obama should be able to move on to a convincing win in North Carolina, and might win in Indiana. The other contests will be a wash. If he wins in both those state, I believe it will be over. If he only wins big in NC and the rest are close, we might see this thing contested to the convention. I really doubt it will go that far, though.
At some point, the Democratic Party leadership is going to say, "enough is enough." Obama is going to end up with the majority of the popular vote, the majority of the delegates, and will be very close with the superdelegates. He will be the clear choice of African Americans (the Dems' most loyal voting bloc), young voters (the party's future), and will continue to show he can out-fundraise anyone on the planet.
In short, he cannot be denied. Clinton should enjoy this victory. It's all downhill from here.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Can The Candidates Stay Out of the Gutter?
It’s one of the biggest contradictions of politics: voters say they are turned off by negative attacks during an election, but at the same time, the negative approach seems to work. So candidates continue doing it.
Consider the final days of the Pennsylvania primary and the two Democratic candidates. Sen. Clinton has been running a negative campaign for some time, since at least the run-up to the Ohio and Texas primaries, where she began the “kitchen sink” campaign; a desperate effort to drive up doubts about Sen. Obama’s readiness to be President, and present herself as the experienced alternative.
It has worked, to some extent, with the voters Clinton has needed in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Obama, while presenting himself as a different kind of candidate who takes the higher road, has nonetheless also gone negative against Clinton, bringing into question whether he really can transcend the “typical politics” that he says leads to gridlock.
As if taking its cue from the candidates, ABC moderators at the final debate (and I suspect it will be the final one, there really is very little reason for Obama to agree to another one) spent most of their time addressing questions of flag pins and past associations and miscues. Perhaps there is a place in a debate for talking about such things, but even if you concede that (and I’m not sure we should) does it really make sense for these topics to dominate a debate at the expense of more substantive issues?
Yet the ABC debate was the one with the highest ratings of any during the campaign.
So will cynicism win out? Will Obama’s call to change the tone and approach to American politics turn out to be a noble but lost cause?
I think it will be very difficult for candidates to avoid the negative, “politics as usual” as long as the media stands to profit so much, in every sense of the word, from the status quo. Think about how much money media outlets have gained because of this protracted campaign. Both Democratic candidates are raising huge sums of money and forking it right over to pay for TV and radio ads. And money aside, the media gets to continue be stars and star-makers as long as so much heat is being generated by the campaigns. Why should the media want a change in the tenor of this race?
So expect more distractions and manufactured outrage. Until reformers like Obama can really convince the public that this stuff is not worth their time, politicians will continue to have to deal with it, and some will embrace it. The good news is that at least Obama is talking about change, and that's a first step.
As for Pennsylvania, Obama at this point is simply trying to keep the Clinton victory from being a blowout. And then he should win in North Carolina and maybe Indiana. I don’t see Clinton getting the nomination at this point. But she can continue to make things very tough for Obama. And Obama, although he has kept his head and continued to move forward with his campaign, has not been without mistakes.
What does this mean for the fall? Can Obama survive the inevitable attempts at Swiftboating by Republican operatives? There’s a very real chance that Clinton has done him a favor by letting him get pummeled on some of these issues now, when there’s plenty of time to recover. As unpleasant as it all has been, I think it’s a valid argument that it may be better to get this stuff aired out now rather than in the fall. (By this stuff I mean stuff like Rev. Wright, not the flag pin issue, which simply shouldn’t be an issue at all.)
But I think that although we’ll see plenty of negative stuff in the fall, there’s going to be a very different dynamic in a McCain vs. Obama campaign, compared with the Clinton vs. Obama tussle that we’re seeing now. The fact is, there is so little difference in policy when it comes to Clinton and Obama. Clinton has had to embrace these other petty issues because she really can’t attack him much on the more important issues. They agree on those, and where there are differences (health care) the arguments are so technical and wonkish that people just lose interest.
With McCain, Obama is going to be able to really focus on issues and differences of political philosophy, and make his case for change. And McCain will be able to make his case for things staying more or less the same. And here’s what I think. I think the voting public will see the “Obama is a secret Muslim who hates the flag and wants to take your guns and give us socialized medicine and doesn’t drink the same kind of coffee you do” messages as the contemptible lies that they are. And they’re going to vote for what they want. Which is something different.
Prediction: Clinton – 56 percent; Obama – 44 percent.
Consider the final days of the Pennsylvania primary and the two Democratic candidates. Sen. Clinton has been running a negative campaign for some time, since at least the run-up to the Ohio and Texas primaries, where she began the “kitchen sink” campaign; a desperate effort to drive up doubts about Sen. Obama’s readiness to be President, and present herself as the experienced alternative.
It has worked, to some extent, with the voters Clinton has needed in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Obama, while presenting himself as a different kind of candidate who takes the higher road, has nonetheless also gone negative against Clinton, bringing into question whether he really can transcend the “typical politics” that he says leads to gridlock.
As if taking its cue from the candidates, ABC moderators at the final debate (and I suspect it will be the final one, there really is very little reason for Obama to agree to another one) spent most of their time addressing questions of flag pins and past associations and miscues. Perhaps there is a place in a debate for talking about such things, but even if you concede that (and I’m not sure we should) does it really make sense for these topics to dominate a debate at the expense of more substantive issues?
Yet the ABC debate was the one with the highest ratings of any during the campaign.
So will cynicism win out? Will Obama’s call to change the tone and approach to American politics turn out to be a noble but lost cause?
I think it will be very difficult for candidates to avoid the negative, “politics as usual” as long as the media stands to profit so much, in every sense of the word, from the status quo. Think about how much money media outlets have gained because of this protracted campaign. Both Democratic candidates are raising huge sums of money and forking it right over to pay for TV and radio ads. And money aside, the media gets to continue be stars and star-makers as long as so much heat is being generated by the campaigns. Why should the media want a change in the tenor of this race?
So expect more distractions and manufactured outrage. Until reformers like Obama can really convince the public that this stuff is not worth their time, politicians will continue to have to deal with it, and some will embrace it. The good news is that at least Obama is talking about change, and that's a first step.
As for Pennsylvania, Obama at this point is simply trying to keep the Clinton victory from being a blowout. And then he should win in North Carolina and maybe Indiana. I don’t see Clinton getting the nomination at this point. But she can continue to make things very tough for Obama. And Obama, although he has kept his head and continued to move forward with his campaign, has not been without mistakes.
What does this mean for the fall? Can Obama survive the inevitable attempts at Swiftboating by Republican operatives? There’s a very real chance that Clinton has done him a favor by letting him get pummeled on some of these issues now, when there’s plenty of time to recover. As unpleasant as it all has been, I think it’s a valid argument that it may be better to get this stuff aired out now rather than in the fall. (By this stuff I mean stuff like Rev. Wright, not the flag pin issue, which simply shouldn’t be an issue at all.)
But I think that although we’ll see plenty of negative stuff in the fall, there’s going to be a very different dynamic in a McCain vs. Obama campaign, compared with the Clinton vs. Obama tussle that we’re seeing now. The fact is, there is so little difference in policy when it comes to Clinton and Obama. Clinton has had to embrace these other petty issues because she really can’t attack him much on the more important issues. They agree on those, and where there are differences (health care) the arguments are so technical and wonkish that people just lose interest.
With McCain, Obama is going to be able to really focus on issues and differences of political philosophy, and make his case for change. And McCain will be able to make his case for things staying more or less the same. And here’s what I think. I think the voting public will see the “Obama is a secret Muslim who hates the flag and wants to take your guns and give us socialized medicine and doesn’t drink the same kind of coffee you do” messages as the contemptible lies that they are. And they’re going to vote for what they want. Which is something different.
Prediction: Clinton – 56 percent; Obama – 44 percent.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Anything But Constructive
Well, that was a fine mess.
Just watched a good chunk of the Philadelphia debate between Obama and Clinton. As usual, I didn't see all of it; I was sneaking peeks between cleaning up the dinner dishes and keeping an eye on the kids. I got to watch most of the last half hour or so. I actually recorded it on my DVR, but that didn't work so well as the DVR suddenly started making strange noises and I had to unplug it for a while.
That's right; Charlie Gibson broke my TV.
This was the worst of the Dem debates I've seen in this primary season. The ABC panel seemed to really want some kind of confrontation or meltdown, because I saw a long string of "gotcha" and guilt-by-distant-association questions that really seemed designed to cast the candidates in the worst possible light.
And I don't generally go for "oh the media is out to get my candidate" spin, but this was ... curious. It really didn't seem like a regular debate. Few issues such as Iraq, the economy, etc were asked, and when something relevant to most Americans did come up, it was couched in weird terms, like Gibson complaining about the unfairness of raising taxes on a couple making $200,000 a year.
A few of the reviews say that Obama had a bad night, and he certainly didn't have a good one. But with the panel and Clinton piling on about Rev. Wright and flag pins and some tenuous association with a guy who was a dangerous radical 40 years ago, it's hard to see how he could have possibly had a good night. On the whole, I think he would have rather been in Pittsburgh.
I don't think Clinton came off too well either. She seemed to be cautiously trying to walk a tighrope between attacking Obama and still being positive and upbeat, and it was just a dissonant performance.
So I think tonight's debate gives some support to the theory that dragging this process out is not good for the Dems in general. I wasn't much in the mood to vote for either one after this mudbath.
Just watched a good chunk of the Philadelphia debate between Obama and Clinton. As usual, I didn't see all of it; I was sneaking peeks between cleaning up the dinner dishes and keeping an eye on the kids. I got to watch most of the last half hour or so. I actually recorded it on my DVR, but that didn't work so well as the DVR suddenly started making strange noises and I had to unplug it for a while.
That's right; Charlie Gibson broke my TV.
This was the worst of the Dem debates I've seen in this primary season. The ABC panel seemed to really want some kind of confrontation or meltdown, because I saw a long string of "gotcha" and guilt-by-distant-association questions that really seemed designed to cast the candidates in the worst possible light.
And I don't generally go for "oh the media is out to get my candidate" spin, but this was ... curious. It really didn't seem like a regular debate. Few issues such as Iraq, the economy, etc were asked, and when something relevant to most Americans did come up, it was couched in weird terms, like Gibson complaining about the unfairness of raising taxes on a couple making $200,000 a year.
A few of the reviews say that Obama had a bad night, and he certainly didn't have a good one. But with the panel and Clinton piling on about Rev. Wright and flag pins and some tenuous association with a guy who was a dangerous radical 40 years ago, it's hard to see how he could have possibly had a good night. On the whole, I think he would have rather been in Pittsburgh.
I don't think Clinton came off too well either. She seemed to be cautiously trying to walk a tighrope between attacking Obama and still being positive and upbeat, and it was just a dissonant performance.
So I think tonight's debate gives some support to the theory that dragging this process out is not good for the Dems in general. I wasn't much in the mood to vote for either one after this mudbath.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Such an elitist
Barack Obama, addressing an audience of veterans in Pennsylvania today, faced a man who rose and asked -- with an obvious sense of indignation about the current battle over the senator's words about the working class and campaign complaints that Obama is elitist and out-of-touch -- if there isn't some racial element to this controversy.
"I don’t think there are racial overtones to the attacks going on right now,'' Obama replied. "It’s politics.''
Obama, saying that “the American people are looking for politics that are not about tearing each down but lifting the country up,'' said: "These kind of political attacks, they don’t solve the V.A . problem… What we really need to do right now is focus on solving problems.
"It is true,'' Obama added, "I am amused about this notion of eltitist,'' given that he was raised by a single mother who for a time relied on food stamps and married a woman of humble means as well. "We both had to finance our entire law school educations borrowing money, and we paid off our student loans about five years ago, six years ago…
"We lived for the first 13 years in our marriage, up until three years ago, in a one-bedroom condo without a garage,'' Obama said, "which means, if you live in Chicago, you are scraping ice from your windshield'' in the morning.
“That’s when you know we’re in political silly season.’’
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/obama_on_elitism_silly_season.html
"I don’t think there are racial overtones to the attacks going on right now,'' Obama replied. "It’s politics.''
Obama, saying that “the American people are looking for politics that are not about tearing each down but lifting the country up,'' said: "These kind of political attacks, they don’t solve the V.A . problem… What we really need to do right now is focus on solving problems.
"It is true,'' Obama added, "I am amused about this notion of eltitist,'' given that he was raised by a single mother who for a time relied on food stamps and married a woman of humble means as well. "We both had to finance our entire law school educations borrowing money, and we paid off our student loans about five years ago, six years ago…
"We lived for the first 13 years in our marriage, up until three years ago, in a one-bedroom condo without a garage,'' Obama said, "which means, if you live in Chicago, you are scraping ice from your windshield'' in the morning.
“That’s when you know we’re in political silly season.’’
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/obama_on_elitism_silly_season.html
Clinging to my blog
Well, I haven’t been, lately.
Hope you are all having a good early spring. We had snow last Friday here but today it’s sunny and should get up into the 60s. Excellent.
So things have been busy and I’ve not gotten around to updating the blog lately. There’s been lots of things to write about, but not enough time.
However, let’s talk about this latest controversy. Sen. Obama said people were bitter and clinging to guns and religion, and Clinton “saw an opportunity” as the AP put it and has been hammering him hard for being “elitist.” McCain has also taken this line of attack.
Calling a Democrat elitist is one of the most knee-jerk responses in the conservative playbook. It’s a little surprising to see Sen. Clinton pull out that playbook, but given her rather desperate situation, I suppose she feels this may be her last good chance to really change the dynamic.
I doubt it will work in the long run. First of all, let’s just back up and talk about elitism. It’s like the “liberal” bugaboo, it’s an attack that has gotten very tired and predictable. Conservatives call Democrats “elitist” if they: have a college degree; listen to NPR, buy coffee from Starbucks, etc. etc. etc. In other words, at least 50 percent of the population in this country is part of an elite. By stretching the definition of “elitism” so broadly, the word is in danger of losing all meaning in the political context.
Part of Obama’s problem is that he does come off as a little arrogant and over-intellectual sometimes. But the fact is he’s a pretty smart guy—God forbid we get someone like that in the White House!
This comment of his was a poor choice of words, and really if you think about it, not very reflective of his life story. He is after all, a church-goer and has spoken a lot about his beliefs and how they inform his politics. Now, maybe, that’s all a lie and he’s a complete phony. Or maybe the guy just made a poor choice of words. It’s our job as voters to decide for ourselves. Having listened to a quite a few of Obama’s speeches, interviews, and debates, I don’t think he’s a complete phony. In fact, I think, as one person put it, Obama’s big sin—in this and other controversies—is that he tells the truth.
Are voters bitter and angry? In places like Pennsylvania, I think the answer is often yes. Do they tend to “cling to”—or to use a better term, turn to—issues like gun rights and social issues when issues like economic policy seem to consist mostly of smoke and mirrors, no matter who the candidate is? I think that makes some sense, although I would hesitate to stereotype voters—which I think is another mistake Obama makes here.
So Obama probably should have thought this one through a bit more and phrased it differently. But really, his main point rings true, despite the poor way he phrased it.
Now, my question is, are voters in Pennsylvania going to buy into Clinton’s faux outrage and turn on Obama for disrespecting them? Or are they going to recognize this manufactured controversy for what it is?
I think by election day next Tuesday, most voters will have moved on. But there could be enough blowback from this (and Clinton will do everything she can to keep the controversy alive) to cause Obama to lose by more than 10 points instead of losing by less than ten percentage points. That’s an important outcome for Clinton. Obama has always been likely to lose to Clinton in Pennsylvania simply because of the demographics. If he keeps that loss under ten percentage points, Clinton really can’t claim much momentum. If it’s a larger loss, Clinton’s quixotic candidacy gets a big boost. And we’ll drag this thing out a little longer.
There’s another point I’d like to make about this “elitist” charge against Obama. You can bet we’re going to hear a lot of this from the pundits and opponents of Obama. It’s a cheap and easy thing to criticize a candidate for, and with the pundits especially, cheap and easy are their stock in trade. I mean, Obama has been criticized for choosing orange juice over coffee. So is he elitist, or just healthy? (Answer elitist and you are well-qualified for Loud Dobbs’ job.)
But I think it’s going to be very interesting to see the “elitist” attacks on Obama. Maybe they’ll be effective, but I think they will not have the impact we’ve seen in the past. Aside from the fact that Obama’s background is anything but elitist, he is just better equipped to deal with this sort of distraction.
This is no John Kerry we have here. Look at how Obama has handled the Wright controversy, look at how he is handling this current one. This guy knows how to defend himself. At times in past presidential campaigns I’ve felt both sympathy and complete frustration with Kerry or Gore before him for not being able to counter these kinds of ridiculous attacks effectively.
Obama just seems to me to be in a different league. Quick to respond, able to talk to people in simple yet thoughtful terms, not easily rattled, comfortable in his own skin … the guy just seems to roll on unruffled by the screeching circus around him. He’s far from perfect, as this incident shows. But he is extremely adept as a campaigner, and unlike a Kerry or Gore, he seems able to shake off these attacks and move on. In fact, he’s not adverse to going on the offensive at a time when he is under fire, as he did when he noted Sen. Clinton’s ridiculous “shot and a beer chaser” photo op.
Anyhow, it’s all pretty crazy, but if Obama can ride this out, he’ll be in good shape for the inevitable GOP sliming to come.
Hope you are all having a good early spring. We had snow last Friday here but today it’s sunny and should get up into the 60s. Excellent.
So things have been busy and I’ve not gotten around to updating the blog lately. There’s been lots of things to write about, but not enough time.
However, let’s talk about this latest controversy. Sen. Obama said people were bitter and clinging to guns and religion, and Clinton “saw an opportunity” as the AP put it and has been hammering him hard for being “elitist.” McCain has also taken this line of attack.
Calling a Democrat elitist is one of the most knee-jerk responses in the conservative playbook. It’s a little surprising to see Sen. Clinton pull out that playbook, but given her rather desperate situation, I suppose she feels this may be her last good chance to really change the dynamic.
I doubt it will work in the long run. First of all, let’s just back up and talk about elitism. It’s like the “liberal” bugaboo, it’s an attack that has gotten very tired and predictable. Conservatives call Democrats “elitist” if they: have a college degree; listen to NPR, buy coffee from Starbucks, etc. etc. etc. In other words, at least 50 percent of the population in this country is part of an elite. By stretching the definition of “elitism” so broadly, the word is in danger of losing all meaning in the political context.
Part of Obama’s problem is that he does come off as a little arrogant and over-intellectual sometimes. But the fact is he’s a pretty smart guy—God forbid we get someone like that in the White House!
This comment of his was a poor choice of words, and really if you think about it, not very reflective of his life story. He is after all, a church-goer and has spoken a lot about his beliefs and how they inform his politics. Now, maybe, that’s all a lie and he’s a complete phony. Or maybe the guy just made a poor choice of words. It’s our job as voters to decide for ourselves. Having listened to a quite a few of Obama’s speeches, interviews, and debates, I don’t think he’s a complete phony. In fact, I think, as one person put it, Obama’s big sin—in this and other controversies—is that he tells the truth.
Are voters bitter and angry? In places like Pennsylvania, I think the answer is often yes. Do they tend to “cling to”—or to use a better term, turn to—issues like gun rights and social issues when issues like economic policy seem to consist mostly of smoke and mirrors, no matter who the candidate is? I think that makes some sense, although I would hesitate to stereotype voters—which I think is another mistake Obama makes here.
So Obama probably should have thought this one through a bit more and phrased it differently. But really, his main point rings true, despite the poor way he phrased it.
Now, my question is, are voters in Pennsylvania going to buy into Clinton’s faux outrage and turn on Obama for disrespecting them? Or are they going to recognize this manufactured controversy for what it is?
I think by election day next Tuesday, most voters will have moved on. But there could be enough blowback from this (and Clinton will do everything she can to keep the controversy alive) to cause Obama to lose by more than 10 points instead of losing by less than ten percentage points. That’s an important outcome for Clinton. Obama has always been likely to lose to Clinton in Pennsylvania simply because of the demographics. If he keeps that loss under ten percentage points, Clinton really can’t claim much momentum. If it’s a larger loss, Clinton’s quixotic candidacy gets a big boost. And we’ll drag this thing out a little longer.
There’s another point I’d like to make about this “elitist” charge against Obama. You can bet we’re going to hear a lot of this from the pundits and opponents of Obama. It’s a cheap and easy thing to criticize a candidate for, and with the pundits especially, cheap and easy are their stock in trade. I mean, Obama has been criticized for choosing orange juice over coffee. So is he elitist, or just healthy? (Answer elitist and you are well-qualified for Loud Dobbs’ job.)
But I think it’s going to be very interesting to see the “elitist” attacks on Obama. Maybe they’ll be effective, but I think they will not have the impact we’ve seen in the past. Aside from the fact that Obama’s background is anything but elitist, he is just better equipped to deal with this sort of distraction.
This is no John Kerry we have here. Look at how Obama has handled the Wright controversy, look at how he is handling this current one. This guy knows how to defend himself. At times in past presidential campaigns I’ve felt both sympathy and complete frustration with Kerry or Gore before him for not being able to counter these kinds of ridiculous attacks effectively.
Obama just seems to me to be in a different league. Quick to respond, able to talk to people in simple yet thoughtful terms, not easily rattled, comfortable in his own skin … the guy just seems to roll on unruffled by the screeching circus around him. He’s far from perfect, as this incident shows. But he is extremely adept as a campaigner, and unlike a Kerry or Gore, he seems able to shake off these attacks and move on. In fact, he’s not adverse to going on the offensive at a time when he is under fire, as he did when he noted Sen. Clinton’s ridiculous “shot and a beer chaser” photo op.
Anyhow, it’s all pretty crazy, but if Obama can ride this out, he’ll be in good shape for the inevitable GOP sliming to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)