That, and Donna Brazile. Donna rocks.
So I'll probably be up late tonight, watching John King working the maps; pinching, squeezing, pushing ... ugh, I just totally grossed myself out.
I propose a drinking game for tonight's primary results: every time King stumbles over the name of a county in Oregon, take a drink. And if you don't think that will give you enough chances, here's a partial list: Clackamas, Multnomah, Wallowa, Deschutes (bless you!), Yamhill, Tillamook, and ... Clatsop!
("My friends they come around, say Clatsop Clatsop Clatsop Clatsop...")
But what to do about Kentucky? If we take a drink every time they mention working class white voters, we'll all be unconscious before the Oregon polls even close. Or whatever they do up there in their elitist, vote-by-mail state. What's with you, Oregon? Why can't you have messed-up voting machines and ballot shortages like all the other states?
I suggest a drink every time the phrase "Florida and Michigan" comes up during the Kentucky returns. We'll hear that a lot, but not so much that we'll wake up thinking Larry King carried 64 percent of the suspender vote in Malheur County.
prediction:
Kentucky - Clinton 62, Obama 30, Edwards 5, Bill Monroe 3
Oregon - Obama 60, Clinton 39
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Monday, May 19, 2008
Obama's terrible problem with white voters
Sorry for the snark. One of my pet peeves has been the tendency for media to overplay the supposed "white-voter-gap" for Obama. Here in Minnesota, Obama won decisively. Some states he's done better with whites, some worse, but it is much more complicated than "Obama does/does not appeal to white voters." It has a lot to do with geography and culture, and sure, racial attitudes play a role, but Obama has shown he can appeal across a very broad spectrum of voters.
Anyhow, the pics from the Portland rally (75,000 people) are impressive no matter how you look at them.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
VEEP VEEP!
Some intriguing chatter about vice presidential picks lately. I saw a story that says Mike Huckabee is now at the top of McCain’s short list. One thing about McCain, he is not dumb. Huckabee may not be from a swing state (I think Arkansas will be in the R column in any election not featuring a Clinton on the ticket), but he can deliver the very key evangelical vote, especially in states like Florida and Ohio.
Huckabee has some truly nutty ideas and will turn some off with his very religious politics, but those voters are likely not to vote R anyhow. What he does bring is a lot of star power and likeability to the ticket. And he is not, as McCain has said about himself, “old as dirt.”
I just remember when Huck said the Wal Mart voters were the wind beneath his wings. Brilliant! That guy can connect with those voters, and bring them out, in a way that a Pawlenty or a Romney never would. Huckabee would be a great choice for VP.
And then there is the much-talked-about Obama/Clinton ticket. Some are now saying that if Sen. Clinton wants it, Obama will have to give her the job because she has so many delegates and so much support. But I can really see strong arguments both ways. Obama has been criticizing Clinton as part of the problem in Washington; it’s going to be tough to turn around and pick her as VP. And who wants Bill Clinton roaming the White House, bored, looking for trouble?? Not BO, I would bet.
But still. Hillary Clinton, like Huckabee, has proven to be a formidable campaigner who appeals to working class people (and not just whites; Latinos are also a very strong group for her). IF the two could get along, and IF their staffs didn’t start sniping at each other and IF they could ship Bill off to Tahiti or something, this matchup could really generate some excitement. But those are big ifs, don’t you think?
So what's your opinion? Any favorites for VP?
Oh, and I found this; The Hill went to every senator and asked if they’d be interested in the VP slot. Some of the replies are pretty funny: Joe Lieberman said, “I already have the T-shirt.” Larry Craig (of all people) also had a good response: “I would say, ‘No, Hillary.’”
Huckabee has some truly nutty ideas and will turn some off with his very religious politics, but those voters are likely not to vote R anyhow. What he does bring is a lot of star power and likeability to the ticket. And he is not, as McCain has said about himself, “old as dirt.”
I just remember when Huck said the Wal Mart voters were the wind beneath his wings. Brilliant! That guy can connect with those voters, and bring them out, in a way that a Pawlenty or a Romney never would. Huckabee would be a great choice for VP.
And then there is the much-talked-about Obama/Clinton ticket. Some are now saying that if Sen. Clinton wants it, Obama will have to give her the job because she has so many delegates and so much support. But I can really see strong arguments both ways. Obama has been criticizing Clinton as part of the problem in Washington; it’s going to be tough to turn around and pick her as VP. And who wants Bill Clinton roaming the White House, bored, looking for trouble?? Not BO, I would bet.
But still. Hillary Clinton, like Huckabee, has proven to be a formidable campaigner who appeals to working class people (and not just whites; Latinos are also a very strong group for her). IF the two could get along, and IF their staffs didn’t start sniping at each other and IF they could ship Bill off to Tahiti or something, this matchup could really generate some excitement. But those are big ifs, don’t you think?
So what's your opinion? Any favorites for VP?
Oh, and I found this; The Hill went to every senator and asked if they’d be interested in the VP slot. Some of the replies are pretty funny: Joe Lieberman said, “I already have the T-shirt.” Larry Craig (of all people) also had a good response: “I would say, ‘No, Hillary.’”
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Please, no more "Country Roads" references...
Ok, West Virginia is the site of a primary today. Sen. Clinton will win it by a very large margin, and I am so looking forward to the ensuing discussion of What It All Means.
Look, Clinton clearly wrote some states off, and Obama is writing this one off. So the big win will not mean much. It won't make a big dent in the delegate lead and probably not in the popular vote totals.
Some are talking about the possibility of racism hurting Obama in states like West Virginia. I suppose it's possible that in the fall election this could shave a couple of points off of Obama's totals in some states. But I just don't think it's going to have a big impact overall. Time will tell.
Prediction: Clinton 60, Obama 40.
Look, Clinton clearly wrote some states off, and Obama is writing this one off. So the big win will not mean much. It won't make a big dent in the delegate lead and probably not in the popular vote totals.
Some are talking about the possibility of racism hurting Obama in states like West Virginia. I suppose it's possible that in the fall election this could shave a couple of points off of Obama's totals in some states. But I just don't think it's going to have a big impact overall. Time will tell.
Prediction: Clinton 60, Obama 40.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
The End in Sight
Well, that was fun.
A memorable night in American politics; we went to bed not knowing the winner of the Indiana primary. But the overall outcome was clear: Sen. Obama had regained the momentum toward the nomination and Sen. Clinton is running on fumes ... to use a gasoline reference, which seems timely.
Congratulations to all who participated in these two primaries, regardless of what candidate they voted for. They have a right to feel proud of their contributions to our democratic process.
Lots of interesting things on the CNN interactive map.
Much has been made of the so-called racial divide amongst voters, but look how Obama did in nearly all-white counties like Tipton, Carroll, Vanderburgh (where Evansville is): scoring in the 40s, even the high 40s is not bad at all. It's counties like these that kept the totals close enough to give Obama an opportunity to win with results from the big urban counties like Marion and Lake. In the end, he fell just short, but it was much closer than almost anyone predicted (especially me.) And 61-39 Obama in Hamilton County?? That's a surprise.
Another thing that jumped out at me were the numbers on the Republican side. Huckabee won 10 percent of the vote. Ron Paul won 8 percent. Mitt Romney (remember him? The hair guy! No, not Edwards, the REPUBLICAN hair guy!) won 5 percent.
Are you kidding me? A guy that has been out of the race for months, who has already endorsed McCain and is fishing for a VP nod, still pulls in 5 percent? The total Republican vote opposing the anointed candidate who has the entire R establishment behind him and no one campaigning against him is * over * 20 * percent?!?
Something's not right with that picture. But please, go on and talk about how the Democrats are divided.
A memorable night in American politics; we went to bed not knowing the winner of the Indiana primary. But the overall outcome was clear: Sen. Obama had regained the momentum toward the nomination and Sen. Clinton is running on fumes ... to use a gasoline reference, which seems timely.
Congratulations to all who participated in these two primaries, regardless of what candidate they voted for. They have a right to feel proud of their contributions to our democratic process.
Lots of interesting things on the CNN interactive map.
Much has been made of the so-called racial divide amongst voters, but look how Obama did in nearly all-white counties like Tipton, Carroll, Vanderburgh (where Evansville is): scoring in the 40s, even the high 40s is not bad at all. It's counties like these that kept the totals close enough to give Obama an opportunity to win with results from the big urban counties like Marion and Lake. In the end, he fell just short, but it was much closer than almost anyone predicted (especially me.) And 61-39 Obama in Hamilton County?? That's a surprise.
Another thing that jumped out at me were the numbers on the Republican side. Huckabee won 10 percent of the vote. Ron Paul won 8 percent. Mitt Romney (remember him? The hair guy! No, not Edwards, the REPUBLICAN hair guy!) won 5 percent.
Are you kidding me? A guy that has been out of the race for months, who has already endorsed McCain and is fishing for a VP nod, still pulls in 5 percent? The total Republican vote opposing the anointed candidate who has the entire R establishment behind him and no one campaigning against him is * over * 20 * percent?!?
Something's not right with that picture. But please, go on and talk about how the Democrats are divided.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
A Primary That Matters
For both NC and IN, this is the biggest political event in recent memory, perhaps the biggest primary election ever for two states that vote so late in the season. And there are a lot of blogs and media sites covering it, so we all can share the excitement at least a little.
Here's something from the Indianapolis Star's political blog; a Top Ten Moments of the 08 Primary. My favorite entries:
"3. Obama playing a game of three-on-three basketball in Kokomo, erasing any doubts about his playing ability.
2. Clinton drinking a shot of whiskey at a pizza pub in Crown Point, erasing any doubts about her drinking ability."
If you haven't already, get out and vote!*
http://blogs.indystar.com/politics/
(*applicable to IN and NC residents only. For IN residents,
some restrictions apply.
Here's something from the Indianapolis Star's political blog; a Top Ten Moments of the 08 Primary. My favorite entries:
"3. Obama playing a game of three-on-three basketball in Kokomo, erasing any doubts about his playing ability.
2. Clinton drinking a shot of whiskey at a pizza pub in Crown Point, erasing any doubts about her drinking ability."
If you haven't already, get out and vote!*
http://blogs.indystar.com/politics/
(*applicable to IN and NC residents only. For IN residents,
some restrictions apply.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Indiana and North Carolina
The consensus is that Sen. Clinton will win Indiana and Sen. Obama will win North Carolina.
My feeling is that it's a relief to see the candidates discussing something other than Rev. Wright. Even thought the main topic for the last week has been Clinton's ill-advised gas tax holiday, at least it's legitimate policy disagreement, rather than guilt-by-association and overhyped controversy.
One of the blogs I've read says my old stomping grounds of Kokomo and Howard County will be a "bellweather" region, so whoever wins there will win the state, by that reasoning. And I see Obama visited an old farmstead near Tipton, where some ancestors of his lived--also within spitting distance of some of my relatives.
I think the Wright thing damaged Obama a little too much for him to come back from in Indiana, but this was always a state in which I would've expected him to have a tough time. If anything, I am surprised by how receptive Hoosiers have been to Obama. Some are saying it will be close in IN, but I'm expecting a respectable double digit win for Clinton that will nonetheless not be a blowout and not give her a big delegate advantage.
In North Carolina, I expect an Obama win of anywhere from 5 to 20 points. Where he ends up in that range will have a big impact on how the race proceeds. A big win would mean a significant delegate and popular vote advantage, that would make Clinton's road a lot tougher. A close win for Obama and Clinton can claim momementum, blah blah blah. She still can't win, probably, but we'll certainly be in for some furious campaigning for the last few states.
A Clinton win in NC would be, in her words, a game-changer.
Predictions
Indiana: 56 Clinton, 44 Obama
North Carolina: 54 Obama, 46 Clinton
My feeling is that it's a relief to see the candidates discussing something other than Rev. Wright. Even thought the main topic for the last week has been Clinton's ill-advised gas tax holiday, at least it's legitimate policy disagreement, rather than guilt-by-association and overhyped controversy.
One of the blogs I've read says my old stomping grounds of Kokomo and Howard County will be a "bellweather" region, so whoever wins there will win the state, by that reasoning. And I see Obama visited an old farmstead near Tipton, where some ancestors of his lived--also within spitting distance of some of my relatives.
I think the Wright thing damaged Obama a little too much for him to come back from in Indiana, but this was always a state in which I would've expected him to have a tough time. If anything, I am surprised by how receptive Hoosiers have been to Obama. Some are saying it will be close in IN, but I'm expecting a respectable double digit win for Clinton that will nonetheless not be a blowout and not give her a big delegate advantage.
In North Carolina, I expect an Obama win of anywhere from 5 to 20 points. Where he ends up in that range will have a big impact on how the race proceeds. A big win would mean a significant delegate and popular vote advantage, that would make Clinton's road a lot tougher. A close win for Obama and Clinton can claim momementum, blah blah blah. She still can't win, probably, but we'll certainly be in for some furious campaigning for the last few states.
A Clinton win in NC would be, in her words, a game-changer.
Predictions
Indiana: 56 Clinton, 44 Obama
North Carolina: 54 Obama, 46 Clinton
Friday, May 02, 2008
Email From Indiana
Got an email recently from an Indiana voter with some questions on the two Dem candidates. This voter was trying to make a decision and asked questions about where the candidates stood on 1) alternate fuel sources, 2) mortgage crisis, and 3) the Iraq war.
With some minor modifications, I’m pasting my reply below. I am very interested in the IN primary and have been following it closely. With the tough time that Obama has had recently, I expect Clinton to be the choice for Hoosiers (that seems so weird to say!!) but there is still a chance Obama could surprise there, or that it could at least be close.
Anyhow, I would be VERY interested to hear from other Hoosiers or North Carolina residents on what the primary campaigns have been like there and any thoughts they may have on the candidates. Most of you have my email address, or you can leave comments here…
So, what follows is my reply:
I'll start by saying both candidates are, in my opinion, very well qualified and will probably bring some good people in to work on these problems. Sen. Clinton is very smart and I think she would do a great job. I just like Obama better, I think he can do a better job of bringing people together, creating consensus, improving our standing in the world, etc. He's had to endure a lot of attacks and controversies in the past month from the media and his loose-cannon ex-pastor, but he's continued to keep his cool and keep pushing forward, and I think that's a good sign.
Clinton, in my opinion, is kind of an old-school Democratic who is not as likely to be innovative and not as likely to build consensus. I could be wrong. But that's how I see it.
Specifically on the questions you raised:
The energy question is not an area I'm an expert in. However, I do know Obama went to Detroit and told the automakers point-blank that they needed to make more efficient cars with higher mileage standards. I'm sure Clinton supports that in principle too. If we look at Bill Clinton's term, we see a President who was OK on the environment, did some good things as far as designating national parks, etc., but didn't really make the environment a top issue. He also didn't do anything too memorable in the area of energy policy. (At least not that I remember.)
I think the next president is going to have to make the environment and energy (the two are closely linked of course) a top priority. That means fighting some very powerful interests. I believe Obama is better positioned to do that. He makes the claim that he doesn't take money from lobbyists, which is true, with a caveat—he has taken individual contributions from people with who work for oil companies--as opposed to the firms that lobby for oil companies. But he is in general not as beholden to special interests as Clinton and McCain would be.
In the area of financial issues/home mortgage crisis, I think both candidates have good ideas on some possible solutions and would be a lot more proactive than the current administration, or McCain. The whole issue is an example of why free markets are not a panacea. People are losing their homes and their savings; it's not enough to stand back and "let the market work." Because sometimes it doesn't. My guess is that Obama, as a former community organizer, would have a much better feel for how these problems affect working people. But that's just a guess.
On the war in Iraq. Both Dem. Senators now oppose it, both are committed to bringing troops home as quickly as possible while still doing it in an orderly fashion, both say they want to emphasize diplomacy and minimize any upheaval caused by a US withdrawal. Both may be underplaying the difficulty of doing that. That war is a horrific mess, and anything we do to end our involvement is going to come with some very big risks. The only worse thing than doing something, though, is doing nothing and letting the anti-American hatred continue to fester there and in other parts of the Middle East. That's just my opinion, of course.
So both have pledged similar strategies. But they come from different backgrounds and will likely have different approaches overall in the foreign policy area. Clinton has shown herself to be a mainstream, maybe even slightly conservative Democrat when it comes to foreign policy. In my opinion, she has made a classic Clintonian calculation that voters see Dems as "weak" on military and foreign policy matters, so she has to appear more conservative to counter that. In a way, that's smart. And I don't think it's even as calculating as it sounds—many old-school Dems are pretty conservative when it comes to foreign policy. Bill Clinton's foreign policy was not really significantly different than that of previous administrations.
Obama, I believe, is charting a slightly different course, with a big emphasis on diplomacy and multi-lateral cooperation. I think we do need to improve our image overseas, and nothing would send a stronger signal that we are going to re-connect with the world than to elect an African American with a funny name. Now, some voters are not particularly interested in the idea that America has to get along with other countries; they prefer being the superpower and throwing our weight around. I don't think that's possible anymore, and it certainly hasn't worked out well for us in the past 7 years.
Who will do a better job of getting us out of Iraq? I don't know. I think Obama will do more to improve our image and bring other nations to the table to work on the problem, but can he be tough, I think is the question that skeptics will ask. Aside from the point that "being tough" may be part of our problem, I can't answer the question. We all have to take our own measure of the man.
I hope that helps. I believe either candidate is deserving of your vote.
With some minor modifications, I’m pasting my reply below. I am very interested in the IN primary and have been following it closely. With the tough time that Obama has had recently, I expect Clinton to be the choice for Hoosiers (that seems so weird to say!!) but there is still a chance Obama could surprise there, or that it could at least be close.
Anyhow, I would be VERY interested to hear from other Hoosiers or North Carolina residents on what the primary campaigns have been like there and any thoughts they may have on the candidates. Most of you have my email address, or you can leave comments here…
So, what follows is my reply:
I'll start by saying both candidates are, in my opinion, very well qualified and will probably bring some good people in to work on these problems. Sen. Clinton is very smart and I think she would do a great job. I just like Obama better, I think he can do a better job of bringing people together, creating consensus, improving our standing in the world, etc. He's had to endure a lot of attacks and controversies in the past month from the media and his loose-cannon ex-pastor, but he's continued to keep his cool and keep pushing forward, and I think that's a good sign.
Clinton, in my opinion, is kind of an old-school Democratic who is not as likely to be innovative and not as likely to build consensus. I could be wrong. But that's how I see it.
Specifically on the questions you raised:
The energy question is not an area I'm an expert in. However, I do know Obama went to Detroit and told the automakers point-blank that they needed to make more efficient cars with higher mileage standards. I'm sure Clinton supports that in principle too. If we look at Bill Clinton's term, we see a President who was OK on the environment, did some good things as far as designating national parks, etc., but didn't really make the environment a top issue. He also didn't do anything too memorable in the area of energy policy. (At least not that I remember.)
I think the next president is going to have to make the environment and energy (the two are closely linked of course) a top priority. That means fighting some very powerful interests. I believe Obama is better positioned to do that. He makes the claim that he doesn't take money from lobbyists, which is true, with a caveat—he has taken individual contributions from people with who work for oil companies--as opposed to the firms that lobby for oil companies. But he is in general not as beholden to special interests as Clinton and McCain would be.
In the area of financial issues/home mortgage crisis, I think both candidates have good ideas on some possible solutions and would be a lot more proactive than the current administration, or McCain. The whole issue is an example of why free markets are not a panacea. People are losing their homes and their savings; it's not enough to stand back and "let the market work." Because sometimes it doesn't. My guess is that Obama, as a former community organizer, would have a much better feel for how these problems affect working people. But that's just a guess.
On the war in Iraq. Both Dem. Senators now oppose it, both are committed to bringing troops home as quickly as possible while still doing it in an orderly fashion, both say they want to emphasize diplomacy and minimize any upheaval caused by a US withdrawal. Both may be underplaying the difficulty of doing that. That war is a horrific mess, and anything we do to end our involvement is going to come with some very big risks. The only worse thing than doing something, though, is doing nothing and letting the anti-American hatred continue to fester there and in other parts of the Middle East. That's just my opinion, of course.
So both have pledged similar strategies. But they come from different backgrounds and will likely have different approaches overall in the foreign policy area. Clinton has shown herself to be a mainstream, maybe even slightly conservative Democrat when it comes to foreign policy. In my opinion, she has made a classic Clintonian calculation that voters see Dems as "weak" on military and foreign policy matters, so she has to appear more conservative to counter that. In a way, that's smart. And I don't think it's even as calculating as it sounds—many old-school Dems are pretty conservative when it comes to foreign policy. Bill Clinton's foreign policy was not really significantly different than that of previous administrations.
Obama, I believe, is charting a slightly different course, with a big emphasis on diplomacy and multi-lateral cooperation. I think we do need to improve our image overseas, and nothing would send a stronger signal that we are going to re-connect with the world than to elect an African American with a funny name. Now, some voters are not particularly interested in the idea that America has to get along with other countries; they prefer being the superpower and throwing our weight around. I don't think that's possible anymore, and it certainly hasn't worked out well for us in the past 7 years.
Who will do a better job of getting us out of Iraq? I don't know. I think Obama will do more to improve our image and bring other nations to the table to work on the problem, but can he be tough, I think is the question that skeptics will ask. Aside from the point that "being tough" may be part of our problem, I can't answer the question. We all have to take our own measure of the man.
I hope that helps. I believe either candidate is deserving of your vote.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Gas Tax Holiday: Bad Idea
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.
"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.
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.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Stupid Lefty Blogs
Ahem, now that I’ve got your attention…
I’ve been observing the political blogs on the left lately as they grapple with an increasingly bitter division between Hillary supporters and Obama supporters. And I think it illustrates why such blogs can be so dangerous for your mental health.
There are plenty of people on both sides of the political divide who warn that this protracted fight between Clinton and Obama is going to be bad, bad, bad for Democrats this fall. And I’ll admit, it looks a bit ugly right now.
We’ve got Jerome Armstrong of MyDD, a blog for which I have very high regard, sounding increasingly paranoid as he drops ominous hints about restricting which readers can comment on the blog—an obvious reaction to the many Obama fans that are giving him a very rough time for his support of Hillary.
And we’ve got a number of bloggers at the DailyKos site sounding alarmingly like Republicans in their trumpeting of the latest LIES that Hillary has told.
I’m not the first to say it, but these people should attempt to be cool.
Look at where we are today. Stories last a day, sometimes less, and then whither away like sun-bleached flowers. Cable news talking heads pound each little mini-scandal into the ground relentlessly, trying to fill hours until something, anything, new comes along to generate more hot air. Each candidate has a whole army of spinmeisters to feed talking points to the media, which too often regurgitates them whole.
It’s a circus.
Again, I’m not the first to say it. But especially on the Democratic side, this suspended animation, this waiting until the Pennsylvania primary FINALLY gives us something concrete to talk about, is just driving everybody a little batty. Eventually this is going to be sorted out and the Dems will unite behind whichever nominee emerges.
One other little thing that’s been bugging me. Maybe no one remembers, but back around the time of the Michigan primary, Kos (founder of Daily Kos) told Democrats that since only one Dem was on the blacklisted Michigan primary ballot, they should cross over and vote for Mitt Romney in order to stop the McCain momentum. Kos reasoned that this would be “fun,” and that it was OK to do because Republicans stoop to such tricks all the time.
Now that Rush Limbaugh has thrown his considerable weight behind the idea of Republicans voting for Clinton in order to stop Obama’s march to the nomination, I wonder what Kos thinks of such an idea today? I will probably continue to wonder, because Kos has been strangely silent on the topic. I think fans of Kos should remember this as an example of where blind partisanship can lead one off a cliff. And anyway, the “they did it first” line is one of the worst (and most childish) excuses in the books. We should all be better than that.
Anyhow, as you were…
I’ve been observing the political blogs on the left lately as they grapple with an increasingly bitter division between Hillary supporters and Obama supporters. And I think it illustrates why such blogs can be so dangerous for your mental health.
There are plenty of people on both sides of the political divide who warn that this protracted fight between Clinton and Obama is going to be bad, bad, bad for Democrats this fall. And I’ll admit, it looks a bit ugly right now.
We’ve got Jerome Armstrong of MyDD, a blog for which I have very high regard, sounding increasingly paranoid as he drops ominous hints about restricting which readers can comment on the blog—an obvious reaction to the many Obama fans that are giving him a very rough time for his support of Hillary.
And we’ve got a number of bloggers at the DailyKos site sounding alarmingly like Republicans in their trumpeting of the latest LIES that Hillary has told.
I’m not the first to say it, but these people should attempt to be cool.
Look at where we are today. Stories last a day, sometimes less, and then whither away like sun-bleached flowers. Cable news talking heads pound each little mini-scandal into the ground relentlessly, trying to fill hours until something, anything, new comes along to generate more hot air. Each candidate has a whole army of spinmeisters to feed talking points to the media, which too often regurgitates them whole.
It’s a circus.
Again, I’m not the first to say it. But especially on the Democratic side, this suspended animation, this waiting until the Pennsylvania primary FINALLY gives us something concrete to talk about, is just driving everybody a little batty. Eventually this is going to be sorted out and the Dems will unite behind whichever nominee emerges.
One other little thing that’s been bugging me. Maybe no one remembers, but back around the time of the Michigan primary, Kos (founder of Daily Kos) told Democrats that since only one Dem was on the blacklisted Michigan primary ballot, they should cross over and vote for Mitt Romney in order to stop the McCain momentum. Kos reasoned that this would be “fun,” and that it was OK to do because Republicans stoop to such tricks all the time.
Now that Rush Limbaugh has thrown his considerable weight behind the idea of Republicans voting for Clinton in order to stop Obama’s march to the nomination, I wonder what Kos thinks of such an idea today? I will probably continue to wonder, because Kos has been strangely silent on the topic. I think fans of Kos should remember this as an example of where blind partisanship can lead one off a cliff. And anyway, the “they did it first” line is one of the worst (and most childish) excuses in the books. We should all be better than that.
Anyhow, as you were…
Monday, March 24, 2008
Doomed to repeat it
Five years.
Four thousand American lives.
$505 billion (and counting).
30,000 Americans wounded (military personnel only, no numbers for U.S. contractors).
Approximately 100,000 Iraqis killed.
4 million Iraqis displaced.
These figures, in my opinion, understate the cost of the Iraqi war and occupation. What it will cost to continue to treat the physical and mental wounds for returning vets is hard to estimate. And of course the financial cost is all going on the credit card. Thanks, kids.
Almost exactly three years ago on this blog, I noted that an American general, when asked about the war, said, “Yes, we’re winning. And we’ve been winning for some time.”
Three years later, I guess we’re still winning. And it still looks like a horrific waste to me.
Four thousand American lives.
$505 billion (and counting).
30,000 Americans wounded (military personnel only, no numbers for U.S. contractors).
Approximately 100,000 Iraqis killed.
4 million Iraqis displaced.
These figures, in my opinion, understate the cost of the Iraqi war and occupation. What it will cost to continue to treat the physical and mental wounds for returning vets is hard to estimate. And of course the financial cost is all going on the credit card. Thanks, kids.
Almost exactly three years ago on this blog, I noted that an American general, when asked about the war, said, “Yes, we’re winning. And we’ve been winning for some time.”
Three years later, I guess we’re still winning. And it still looks like a horrific waste to me.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Obama’s Speech
I admire all three of the remaining candidates for president of the United States. And I think all three have done at least a fair job of discussing the issues confronting the country. Sen. John McCain has at times been honest and thoughtful in his speeches. Sen. Hillary Clinton has done a good job at talking about issues that matter to average Americans.
But I have never seen a major candidate for President of the United States speak with as much honesty, insight, and courage as did Sen. Barack Obama yesterday in Philadelphia. In discussing the issue of race in this country, Obama took on an explosive issue and yet refused to pander, to equivocate, to soft-pedal the way so many other politicians would have. It is true he was forced into this speech by the comments of his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But he addressed the issue head-on, in a personal and searingly honest way, at a huge risk to his campaign.
If that doesn’t define leadership, I don’t know what does.
I could go on, but as it happens so many times in my observing the political world, many have said what I would say and done a much better job. So I’m just going to share some of the reaction I’ve found, from a variety of sources and viewpoints. Some of this I agree with, some I don’t, but all of it is part of an important discussion that we have avoided for too long.
This country is a better place because of the words Barack Obama spoke yesterday.
The speech.
The Reaction:
David Brody, a blogger with the Christian Broadcast Network, which is affiliated with Pat Robertson’s 700 Club (a show that is no stranger to controversy), posted some very good comments on the speech. Also on the same page, see the comments of Robin Mazyck, Brody’s producer, for more insight on Rev. Wright.
Some quotes: “One of the big concerns people had was that Obama was making it sound like he had no idea that his pastor was controversial—like Obama was living in some sort of bubble. But in this speech, Obama was clear that he knew about "stuff" that his pastor was saying. It was a raw moment. We'll see if it comes back to bite him. I think him coming clean about it has more upside than to deny the obvious.
The speech was so sweeping as he talked so much about what divides this country. He was able to shine a light on the racism that existed and still exists in America, but he was able to do it in a way that didn't seem condemning. By confronting the anxieties in both the white and black communities, he was able to get in the weeds a little bit and tell it like it is. Anytime a politician is being "candid" with their audience, it's a good day. Obama had a good day.
…
Did he go far enough in distancing himself from Pastor Wright in this speech? There will be those who say he had to be stronger in his language. I'm not so sure. Look, the guy defended his pastor who has done a lot for the community but he also chastised him numerous times too. What do we want to do here? Have Obama bring out a dart board complete with a picture of Wright and have Obama start throwing darts at the bulls eye?”
Here’s Mike Huckabee’s take on it:
“HUCKABEE: [Obama] made the point, and I think it's a valid one, that you can't hold the candidate responsible for everything that people around him may say or do. You just can't. Whether it's me, whether it's Obama...anybody else. But he did distance himself from the very vitriolic statements.
Now, the second story. It's interesting to me that there are some people on the left who are having to be very uncomfortable with what Louis Wright said, when they all were all over a Jerry Falwell, or anyone on the right who said things that they found very awkward and uncomfortable years ago. Many times those were statements lifted out of the context of a larger sermon. Sermons, after all, are rarely written word for word by pastors like Reverend Wright, who are delivering them extemporaneously, and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said, that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you'd say "Well, I didn't mean to say it quite like that."
JOE SCARBOROUGH: But, but, you never came close to saying five days after September 11th, that America deserved what it got. Or that the American government invented AIDs...
HUCKABEE: Not defending his statements.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Oh, I know you're not. I know you're not. I'm just wondering though, for a lot of people...Would you not guess that there are a lot of Independent voters in Arkansas that vote for Democrats sometimes, and vote for Republicans sometimes, that are sitting here wondering how Barack Obama's spiritual mentor would call the United States the USKKK?
HUCKABEE: I mean, those were outrageous statements, and nobody can defend the content of them.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: But what's the impact on voters in Arkansas? Swing voters.
HUCKABEE: I don't think we know. If this were October, I think it would have a dramatic impact. But it's not October. It's March. And I don't believe that by the time we get to October, this is gonna be the defining issue of the campaign, and the reason that people vote.
And one other thing I think we've gotta remember. As easy as it is for those of us who are white, to look back and say "That's a terrible statement!"...I grew up in a very segregated south. And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told "you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus..." And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.
MIKA: I agree with that. I really do.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: It's the Atticus Finch line about walking a mile in somebody else's shoes. I remember when Ronald Reagan got shot in 1981. There were some black students in my school that started applauding and said they hoped that he died. And you just sat there and of course you were angry at first, and then you walked out and started scratching your head going "boy, there is some deep resentment there."
TIME magazine’s James Carney:
“Obama did what politicians so rarely do — acknowledge complexity, insist that the issue currently roiling the presidential campaign — the story of Jeremiah Wright's words — is not a story that is clear-cut between right and wrong, or between black and white for that matter. Having waged a campaign, with great success, on the notion that race as a political and electoral issue could be transcended, with a strategy that assiduously downplayed race, Obama declared today that the only way to transcend race is to focus on it rather than downplay it — to acknowledge its sometimes oppressive presence in American life, in the form of both black anger and white alienation.
…
Obama's speech was profound, one of the most remarkable by a major public figure in decades. One question — perhaps the question —is whether its sheer audacity makes for good political strategy. By confronting the Wright controversy head-on, Obama ensured that it would drive the narrative about his campaign, and his race against Hillary Clinton, for days and perhaps weeks to come. He and his advisers no doubt calculated that nothing they could do would change that fact. But if one of the appeals of Obama's candidacy has been the promise of a post-racial politics, how will voters respond to a speech acknowledging that the future is not now, that race still divides us?
Obama is taking a substantial risk. He is counting on voters to hear and accept nuance in an arena that almost always seems to reward simplicity over complexity. He is asking something from Americans rather than just promising things to them — another formulation long out of vogue. ‘For we have a choice in this country,’ he said. ‘We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle — as we did in the O.J. trial — or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina, or as fodder for the nightly news ... We can do that,’ he goes on to say. ‘But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction ... And nothing will change.’”
This I found in the comments section of the The Fix, a campaign blog at the Washington Post.
“…We know from yesterday that when Barack Obama's chips are down, he confronts problems head on, with dignity, self-respect, and respect for others. We know from every one of his concession speeches, in which he first thanks Senator Clinton, that Senator Obama has respect for his opponents and this process, and therefore us.
Ignore the mountain everyone is making out of his molehill. They're picking on this silly issue because they have nothing else to glom onto. They couldn't get Rezko to stick. They couldn't get the "arrogance" claim to stick. They couldn't get the "it's just words" claim to stick.
So now they're feigning righteous indignation over this Pastor. The right-wing Evangelicals have several crazy uncles in the basement, each of whom preach as much vitriolic hate towards gays, people of color, immigrants illegal or otherwise, and so on. But every individual evangelical I've met, and most every evangelical politician I've met or watched on television seem to be of exceptional character. Am I supposed to believe that Senator Lindsay Graham is full of hatred and bigotry? How about Senator John McCain? How about Governor Haley Barbour? These are all men who have met on numerous occasions with the crazy uncles of the right wing, who have attended churches where pastors foment hatred towards gays, and yet whom I respect a great deal nonetheless.
Grow up, and start focusing on the real issues in this country: 3990 American soldiers dead in a war that should never have been fought, close to 20% of Americans without healthcare, rampant corporate malfeasance and declining shareholder accountability, a thorough lack of transparency into the machinations of our government.”
Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan had this to say:
“… I cannot give a more considered response right now as I have to get on the road. But I do want to say that this searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime. It is a speech we have all been waiting for for a generation. Its ability to embrace both the legitimate fears and resentments of whites and the understandable anger and dashed hopes of many blacks was, in my view, unique in recent American history.
And it was a reflection of faith - deep, hopeful, transcending faith in the promises of the Gospels. And it was about America - its unique promise, its historic purpose, and our duty to take up the burden to perfect this union - today, in our time, in our way.
I have never felt more convinced that this man's candidacy - not this man, his candidacy - and what he can bring us to achieve - is an historic opportunity. This was a testing; and he did not merely pass it by uttering safe bromides. He addressed the intimate, painful love he has for an imperfect and sometimes embittered man. And how that love enables him to see that man's faults and pain as well as his promise. This is what my faith is about. It is what the Gospels are about. This is a candidate who does not merely speak as a Christian. He acts like a Christian.
Bill Clinton once said that everything bad in America can be rectified by what is good in America. He was right - and Obama takes that to a new level. And does it with the deepest darkest wound in this country's history.”
Jay Cost of the conservative blog Real Clear Politics:
“As an argument as well as a campaign position, I find it to be subtle yet powerful, which is not to say that I am in full agreement with it. I think Obama offers a generally liberal interpretation of the Constitution and the Founding. I also think his prescriptions for the common good are plainly liberal. Accordingly, I think this unification will be harder to achieve than he is inclined to recognize. While most of us see the same "more perfect union" when we close our eyes, we are deeply divided over how to make the vision a reality. Obama's biography, personality, and Hamiltonian enthusiasm for unity will not alter what remains a simple Madisonian fact: power is divided and changes are hard to make. Still, I think these are reasonable, defensible opinions. Usually, we do not see this kind of sophistication in contemporary campaign rhetoric.”
But I have never seen a major candidate for President of the United States speak with as much honesty, insight, and courage as did Sen. Barack Obama yesterday in Philadelphia. In discussing the issue of race in this country, Obama took on an explosive issue and yet refused to pander, to equivocate, to soft-pedal the way so many other politicians would have. It is true he was forced into this speech by the comments of his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But he addressed the issue head-on, in a personal and searingly honest way, at a huge risk to his campaign.
If that doesn’t define leadership, I don’t know what does.
I could go on, but as it happens so many times in my observing the political world, many have said what I would say and done a much better job. So I’m just going to share some of the reaction I’ve found, from a variety of sources and viewpoints. Some of this I agree with, some I don’t, but all of it is part of an important discussion that we have avoided for too long.
This country is a better place because of the words Barack Obama spoke yesterday.
The speech.
The Reaction:
David Brody, a blogger with the Christian Broadcast Network, which is affiliated with Pat Robertson’s 700 Club (a show that is no stranger to controversy), posted some very good comments on the speech. Also on the same page, see the comments of Robin Mazyck, Brody’s producer, for more insight on Rev. Wright.
Some quotes: “One of the big concerns people had was that Obama was making it sound like he had no idea that his pastor was controversial—like Obama was living in some sort of bubble. But in this speech, Obama was clear that he knew about "stuff" that his pastor was saying. It was a raw moment. We'll see if it comes back to bite him. I think him coming clean about it has more upside than to deny the obvious.
The speech was so sweeping as he talked so much about what divides this country. He was able to shine a light on the racism that existed and still exists in America, but he was able to do it in a way that didn't seem condemning. By confronting the anxieties in both the white and black communities, he was able to get in the weeds a little bit and tell it like it is. Anytime a politician is being "candid" with their audience, it's a good day. Obama had a good day.
…
Did he go far enough in distancing himself from Pastor Wright in this speech? There will be those who say he had to be stronger in his language. I'm not so sure. Look, the guy defended his pastor who has done a lot for the community but he also chastised him numerous times too. What do we want to do here? Have Obama bring out a dart board complete with a picture of Wright and have Obama start throwing darts at the bulls eye?”
Here’s Mike Huckabee’s take on it:
“HUCKABEE: [Obama] made the point, and I think it's a valid one, that you can't hold the candidate responsible for everything that people around him may say or do. You just can't. Whether it's me, whether it's Obama...anybody else. But he did distance himself from the very vitriolic statements.
Now, the second story. It's interesting to me that there are some people on the left who are having to be very uncomfortable with what Louis Wright said, when they all were all over a Jerry Falwell, or anyone on the right who said things that they found very awkward and uncomfortable years ago. Many times those were statements lifted out of the context of a larger sermon. Sermons, after all, are rarely written word for word by pastors like Reverend Wright, who are delivering them extemporaneously, and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said, that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you'd say "Well, I didn't mean to say it quite like that."
JOE SCARBOROUGH: But, but, you never came close to saying five days after September 11th, that America deserved what it got. Or that the American government invented AIDs...
HUCKABEE: Not defending his statements.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Oh, I know you're not. I know you're not. I'm just wondering though, for a lot of people...Would you not guess that there are a lot of Independent voters in Arkansas that vote for Democrats sometimes, and vote for Republicans sometimes, that are sitting here wondering how Barack Obama's spiritual mentor would call the United States the USKKK?
HUCKABEE: I mean, those were outrageous statements, and nobody can defend the content of them.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: But what's the impact on voters in Arkansas? Swing voters.
HUCKABEE: I don't think we know. If this were October, I think it would have a dramatic impact. But it's not October. It's March. And I don't believe that by the time we get to October, this is gonna be the defining issue of the campaign, and the reason that people vote.
And one other thing I think we've gotta remember. As easy as it is for those of us who are white, to look back and say "That's a terrible statement!"...I grew up in a very segregated south. And I think that you have to cut some slack -- and I'm gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who's gonna say something like this, but I'm just tellin' you -- we've gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told "you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can't sit out there with everyone else. There's a separate waiting room in the doctor's office. Here's where you sit on the bus..." And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.
MIKA: I agree with that. I really do.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: It's the Atticus Finch line about walking a mile in somebody else's shoes. I remember when Ronald Reagan got shot in 1981. There were some black students in my school that started applauding and said they hoped that he died. And you just sat there and of course you were angry at first, and then you walked out and started scratching your head going "boy, there is some deep resentment there."
TIME magazine’s James Carney:
“Obama did what politicians so rarely do — acknowledge complexity, insist that the issue currently roiling the presidential campaign — the story of Jeremiah Wright's words — is not a story that is clear-cut between right and wrong, or between black and white for that matter. Having waged a campaign, with great success, on the notion that race as a political and electoral issue could be transcended, with a strategy that assiduously downplayed race, Obama declared today that the only way to transcend race is to focus on it rather than downplay it — to acknowledge its sometimes oppressive presence in American life, in the form of both black anger and white alienation.
…
Obama's speech was profound, one of the most remarkable by a major public figure in decades. One question — perhaps the question —is whether its sheer audacity makes for good political strategy. By confronting the Wright controversy head-on, Obama ensured that it would drive the narrative about his campaign, and his race against Hillary Clinton, for days and perhaps weeks to come. He and his advisers no doubt calculated that nothing they could do would change that fact. But if one of the appeals of Obama's candidacy has been the promise of a post-racial politics, how will voters respond to a speech acknowledging that the future is not now, that race still divides us?
Obama is taking a substantial risk. He is counting on voters to hear and accept nuance in an arena that almost always seems to reward simplicity over complexity. He is asking something from Americans rather than just promising things to them — another formulation long out of vogue. ‘For we have a choice in this country,’ he said. ‘We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle — as we did in the O.J. trial — or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina, or as fodder for the nightly news ... We can do that,’ he goes on to say. ‘But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction ... And nothing will change.’”
This I found in the comments section of the The Fix, a campaign blog at the Washington Post.
“…We know from yesterday that when Barack Obama's chips are down, he confronts problems head on, with dignity, self-respect, and respect for others. We know from every one of his concession speeches, in which he first thanks Senator Clinton, that Senator Obama has respect for his opponents and this process, and therefore us.
Ignore the mountain everyone is making out of his molehill. They're picking on this silly issue because they have nothing else to glom onto. They couldn't get Rezko to stick. They couldn't get the "arrogance" claim to stick. They couldn't get the "it's just words" claim to stick.
So now they're feigning righteous indignation over this Pastor. The right-wing Evangelicals have several crazy uncles in the basement, each of whom preach as much vitriolic hate towards gays, people of color, immigrants illegal or otherwise, and so on. But every individual evangelical I've met, and most every evangelical politician I've met or watched on television seem to be of exceptional character. Am I supposed to believe that Senator Lindsay Graham is full of hatred and bigotry? How about Senator John McCain? How about Governor Haley Barbour? These are all men who have met on numerous occasions with the crazy uncles of the right wing, who have attended churches where pastors foment hatred towards gays, and yet whom I respect a great deal nonetheless.
Grow up, and start focusing on the real issues in this country: 3990 American soldiers dead in a war that should never have been fought, close to 20% of Americans without healthcare, rampant corporate malfeasance and declining shareholder accountability, a thorough lack of transparency into the machinations of our government.”
Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan had this to say:
“… I cannot give a more considered response right now as I have to get on the road. But I do want to say that this searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime. It is a speech we have all been waiting for for a generation. Its ability to embrace both the legitimate fears and resentments of whites and the understandable anger and dashed hopes of many blacks was, in my view, unique in recent American history.
And it was a reflection of faith - deep, hopeful, transcending faith in the promises of the Gospels. And it was about America - its unique promise, its historic purpose, and our duty to take up the burden to perfect this union - today, in our time, in our way.
I have never felt more convinced that this man's candidacy - not this man, his candidacy - and what he can bring us to achieve - is an historic opportunity. This was a testing; and he did not merely pass it by uttering safe bromides. He addressed the intimate, painful love he has for an imperfect and sometimes embittered man. And how that love enables him to see that man's faults and pain as well as his promise. This is what my faith is about. It is what the Gospels are about. This is a candidate who does not merely speak as a Christian. He acts like a Christian.
Bill Clinton once said that everything bad in America can be rectified by what is good in America. He was right - and Obama takes that to a new level. And does it with the deepest darkest wound in this country's history.”
Jay Cost of the conservative blog Real Clear Politics:
“As an argument as well as a campaign position, I find it to be subtle yet powerful, which is not to say that I am in full agreement with it. I think Obama offers a generally liberal interpretation of the Constitution and the Founding. I also think his prescriptions for the common good are plainly liberal. Accordingly, I think this unification will be harder to achieve than he is inclined to recognize. While most of us see the same "more perfect union" when we close our eyes, we are deeply divided over how to make the vision a reality. Obama's biography, personality, and Hamiltonian enthusiasm for unity will not alter what remains a simple Madisonian fact: power is divided and changes are hard to make. Still, I think these are reasonable, defensible opinions. Usually, we do not see this kind of sophistication in contemporary campaign rhetoric.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)