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…
Thursday, March 27, 2008
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.”
Thursday, March 13, 2008
The Mind of a Politician
It's been said by many people on both sides of the aisle that one would have to be crazy to run for president, or any other high political office. The demands of the job, the lack of private life, the dealmaking, the divided and often hostile electorate, the glare of the media, etc etc. all suggest an incredibly stressful life with little but ego gratification as a reward.
So what kind of person runs for office? I've been thinking of this a bit in the aftermath of the Eliot Spitzer scandal. Here in Minnesota, we had a similar Attorney General who ran for the Governorship, a crusading, controversial, tightly-wound politician who had an excellent chance of winning in Nov. 2006 until his famous temper got the better of him and he said some things that turned people off.
Mike Hatch, like Spitzer, was the champion of the consumer and the underdog, and he certainly got his share of headlines taking on HMOs and other big corporate interests. But from my experiences with his office, I never felt very comfortable about the prospect of him as governor. Hatch was pleasant enough to me in the few times we spoke, but his staff was the most difficult I have ever worked with in the political sphere, with the possible exception of President Bush's re-election team (another story for another day.)
If Hatch had won, I really question how well he would have governed. It's a big change going from a chief prosecutor to a chief executive. I think Hatch would have continued in his crusader mode, which in itself is not a bad thing, but if his attack dog style had remained the same, I think we would not be seeing as much of a Democratic resurgence in this state. A lot of people would be angry with Hatch as governor, I believe, and Hatch's attitude was always pretty much "Bring it on." Not a recipe for effective government, I believe.
I don't mean to suggest Hatch would've suffered anything like Spitzer's fate. But still, there's something to be said for a calmer, more centered--and more centrist--approach. Better for the sanity of the politician, if not the voters.
So what kind of person runs for office? I've been thinking of this a bit in the aftermath of the Eliot Spitzer scandal. Here in Minnesota, we had a similar Attorney General who ran for the Governorship, a crusading, controversial, tightly-wound politician who had an excellent chance of winning in Nov. 2006 until his famous temper got the better of him and he said some things that turned people off.
Mike Hatch, like Spitzer, was the champion of the consumer and the underdog, and he certainly got his share of headlines taking on HMOs and other big corporate interests. But from my experiences with his office, I never felt very comfortable about the prospect of him as governor. Hatch was pleasant enough to me in the few times we spoke, but his staff was the most difficult I have ever worked with in the political sphere, with the possible exception of President Bush's re-election team (another story for another day.)
If Hatch had won, I really question how well he would have governed. It's a big change going from a chief prosecutor to a chief executive. I think Hatch would have continued in his crusader mode, which in itself is not a bad thing, but if his attack dog style had remained the same, I think we would not be seeing as much of a Democratic resurgence in this state. A lot of people would be angry with Hatch as governor, I believe, and Hatch's attitude was always pretty much "Bring it on." Not a recipe for effective government, I believe.
I don't mean to suggest Hatch would've suffered anything like Spitzer's fate. But still, there's something to be said for a calmer, more centered--and more centrist--approach. Better for the sanity of the politician, if not the voters.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Mississippi
Ay, another primary. What is with you people, with your primaries and your caucuses and your voting and such.
Well, we get a long break after this one, which Obama should win by, oh, let's say at least ten points.
That should give both candidates plenty of time to talk about red phones and which surrogates they should fire and who's getting harder questions from the media.
(I think I might be getting a bit burnt out here.)
Well, we get a long break after this one, which Obama should win by, oh, let's say at least ten points.
That should give both candidates plenty of time to talk about red phones and which surrogates they should fire and who's getting harder questions from the media.
(I think I might be getting a bit burnt out here.)
Eliot Mess
One of the fun things about politics is that it’s just FULL of surprises.
And that’s about the best I can do to find humor in the Eliot Spitzer disaster. This is just a devastating story; a law-and-order politician getting caught committing one of the very crimes he used to prosecute.
The real shame about Spitzer is that for much of his career, he really was a champion of the little guy, the consumer, the shareholder, the patient, any of the countless millions who get chewed up or run over by big corporations. Spitzer, better than almost anyone, reminded us that capitalism has its flaws and limits, and that government can be a force for good to rein in the excesses of corporations.
And now he’s ruined his career and damaged his cause.
I don’t think there’s any question that he should resign, and I can only hope that he quickly does the right thing.
And that’s about the best I can do to find humor in the Eliot Spitzer disaster. This is just a devastating story; a law-and-order politician getting caught committing one of the very crimes he used to prosecute.
The real shame about Spitzer is that for much of his career, he really was a champion of the little guy, the consumer, the shareholder, the patient, any of the countless millions who get chewed up or run over by big corporations. Spitzer, better than almost anyone, reminded us that capitalism has its flaws and limits, and that government can be a force for good to rein in the excesses of corporations.
And now he’s ruined his career and damaged his cause.
I don’t think there’s any question that he should resign, and I can only hope that he quickly does the right thing.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Wyoming, What the Heck?
I just found out that Wyoming is caucusing as I write this, they started at 11 am EST, which is what, 3 am Mountain time? Who has caucuses this early in the morning???
So I'm scrambling to get some last minute predictions in... not that I have any idea who will win.
But I will note that the dynamics of the race have drastically changed in the last week or so. Clinton is very much on the offensive and Obama on the defensive. I can definitely see a scenario by which Clinton wins most of the remaining primaries and comes into the convention just slightly behind or virtually tied with Obama in the delegate count. That will be messy if it happens.
But for today, I'm going to predict that Obama continues to do well with caucuses and wins this one narrowly.
update: Blogger/Google has had server problems all morning, adding to the lateness of this post. Looks like Obama is winning at this point.
So I'm scrambling to get some last minute predictions in... not that I have any idea who will win.
But I will note that the dynamics of the race have drastically changed in the last week or so. Clinton is very much on the offensive and Obama on the defensive. I can definitely see a scenario by which Clinton wins most of the remaining primaries and comes into the convention just slightly behind or virtually tied with Obama in the delegate count. That will be messy if it happens.
But for today, I'm going to predict that Obama continues to do well with caucuses and wins this one narrowly.
update: Blogger/Google has had server problems all morning, adding to the lateness of this post. Looks like Obama is winning at this point.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Favre Retires. Hillary Wins. COINCIDENCE?
What a day Tuesday was. Brett Favre retires, Hillary Clinton comes storming back to win three of four primaries, and Bernie Salazar gets bounced from “Biggest Loser.” (Sorry, poor choice of words.)
Also, my condolences to Purdue basketball fans. The Boilermakers are having a great season, but it looks like the Wisconsin Badgers might end up with the Big Ten title. Fingers crossed.
OK, back to politics. Mike Huckabee is out of the race. The Republican candidate with the most charm and by far the best sense of humor, Huckabee could never quite broaden his appeal past conservative evangelical Christian voters. As someone who wants to believe that genuinely nice people can be president, I’m a little sad to see him go. But as someone who believes in the theory of evolution, along with other theories, like the theory of gravity, I am a little relieved. You’re a good man, Huck, but you’re a little too far out there for my taste.
McCain got a coronation of sorts today, visiting the White House and getting President Bush’s endorsement. Pssst! John! You’ve got the primaries wrapped up! You don’t need to play to the base anymore! Get as far away from GWB as you can!
That’s actually part of McCain’s challenge. Even with the nomination secured, he still has to sell himself to the Republican base and keep them enthused about his candidacy. So embracing President Bush may help him now, but I expect we’ll see much less of that as the general election gets closer. At some point, McCain is going to have to do something to distance himself from this unpopular president, and it will be interesting to see how the Republican base responds.
As for the Democrats, it remains a tight race. Obama had a pretty bad week overall leading up to Tuesday, and I again think that something positive can come of that. Let’s get a little dirt on the Teflon and see how he responds. Clinton was a little harsh, maybe a little unfair, in her attacks last week, but so what? This is politics, and it’s a tough business. I do think Obama is a different kind of candidate, but he’s still human, still a politician, and he’s going to have to have some thick skin and some sharp elbows. We’ll see. I still think it’s hard to see how Clinton gets the nomination, but you’ve got to admire her tenacity.
Obama could also learn a thing or two from McCain. In the last week, Obama had a press conference where he basically walked off after less than a dozen questions. His aloof style of press management has become something of a liability for him. At around the same time, John McCain was holding a barbecue for the press. There’s a reason why the media loves McCain. He treats them a lot better than most politicians.
(Now that I think about it, Clinton could also improve in that regard. Her campaign recently created a pressroom in a men’s bathroom. The women journalists covering the campaign must have appreciated that.)
Anyhow, I’m going to go find my VHS tape of Brett Favre throwing a 60-yard bomb to Sterling Sharpe in the Silverdome for a game-winning touchdown. Thanks for the memories, Brett.
Also, my condolences to Purdue basketball fans. The Boilermakers are having a great season, but it looks like the Wisconsin Badgers might end up with the Big Ten title. Fingers crossed.
OK, back to politics. Mike Huckabee is out of the race. The Republican candidate with the most charm and by far the best sense of humor, Huckabee could never quite broaden his appeal past conservative evangelical Christian voters. As someone who wants to believe that genuinely nice people can be president, I’m a little sad to see him go. But as someone who believes in the theory of evolution, along with other theories, like the theory of gravity, I am a little relieved. You’re a good man, Huck, but you’re a little too far out there for my taste.
McCain got a coronation of sorts today, visiting the White House and getting President Bush’s endorsement. Pssst! John! You’ve got the primaries wrapped up! You don’t need to play to the base anymore! Get as far away from GWB as you can!
That’s actually part of McCain’s challenge. Even with the nomination secured, he still has to sell himself to the Republican base and keep them enthused about his candidacy. So embracing President Bush may help him now, but I expect we’ll see much less of that as the general election gets closer. At some point, McCain is going to have to do something to distance himself from this unpopular president, and it will be interesting to see how the Republican base responds.
As for the Democrats, it remains a tight race. Obama had a pretty bad week overall leading up to Tuesday, and I again think that something positive can come of that. Let’s get a little dirt on the Teflon and see how he responds. Clinton was a little harsh, maybe a little unfair, in her attacks last week, but so what? This is politics, and it’s a tough business. I do think Obama is a different kind of candidate, but he’s still human, still a politician, and he’s going to have to have some thick skin and some sharp elbows. We’ll see. I still think it’s hard to see how Clinton gets the nomination, but you’ve got to admire her tenacity.
Obama could also learn a thing or two from McCain. In the last week, Obama had a press conference where he basically walked off after less than a dozen questions. His aloof style of press management has become something of a liability for him. At around the same time, John McCain was holding a barbecue for the press. There’s a reason why the media loves McCain. He treats them a lot better than most politicians.
(Now that I think about it, Clinton could also improve in that regard. Her campaign recently created a pressroom in a men’s bathroom. The women journalists covering the campaign must have appreciated that.)
Anyhow, I’m going to go find my VHS tape of Brett Favre throwing a 60-yard bomb to Sterling Sharpe in the Silverdome for a game-winning touchdown. Thanks for the memories, Brett.
Monday, March 03, 2008
The Saturday Night Live Rebound
It’s beginning to look like Tuesday could be a very good day for Hillary Clinton. After 11 consecutive defeats to Barack Obama in primaries and caucuses, a lot of people were (and are) writing Clinton off. However, Clinton staffers always saw Texas and Ohio as their “firewall” states, a place to make a stand and gain back some momentum.
It’s possible that this strategy, which seemed unlikely to succeed just one week ago, may actually work.
Polls show Obama has closed large gaps in Texas and Ohio. The problem with Obama’s success is that now he’s expected to come storming back in the polls as a matter of course. It’s almost a given that as people get to know Obama, they like him. A lot. But in Texas and especially Ohio, he may not be able to completely close the gap.
If it turns out that Clinton wins Ohio and Texas, I blame Saturday Night Live. A little over one week ago, they aired a skit that suggested that Obama receives deferential, fawning treatment from the press, and that Clinton, on the other hand, is treated unfairly. (The program followed this up with a surprise appearance by Clinton herself last Saturday.)
Now, not a lot of people watch Saturday Night Live. But it remains one of the few television programs that can get the nation’s attention, and the “Barack has it easy” theme seems to have caught on with the media, and with the public to some extent. There have been more negative stories on Obama in subsequent days, and more positive coverage of Clinton. Of course, this is all subjective, just as the Clinton camp’s perception of being picked on is subjective. But I think overall there has been a slight change in tone, even though it’s hard to prove.
I’ve also heard from Democratic voters who seem to agree that Obama has had a relatively easy ride and that the media has it in for Clinton. And women voters, understandably, seem to bristle at the way Clinton is treated by some of the mainstream media pundits. I think that in part may explain why Clinton continues to do so well among women—who are a powerful voting bloc in the Democratic party.
What it comes down to, the day before the Ohio/Rhode Island/Texas/Vermont primaries, is that Clinton seems to be rising just slightly in the polls, and Obama sinking just slightly or holding steady. Clinton and Obama are in a dead heat in Texas, and Clinton is slightly ahead in Ohio. Clinton will almost certainly win Rhode Island, Obama will almost certainly win Vermont.
Now there are some who argue that the focus should be on the actual math here: if Clinton doesn’t win 65 percent or more, the two candidates will essentially split the delegates, so Obama stays ahead in the delegate count. And there are scenarios in Texas’ complicated system that would see Obama win more delegates even if he loses the popular vote.
But let’s not kid ourselves. Clinton wins in both the big firewall states gives her a huge bounce, even if she wins by a tiny margin. It would put the race back to even, and we’ll go on to the next round with neither candidate being a clear frontrunner. Even one win between Texas and Ohio gives Clinton an excuse to carry on and hope to somehow pull it out in the end.
If she loses both Texas and Ohio, it’s a different story. And Obama, with a history of performing better than the polls suggest, could pull it off. But this long, historic campaign is likely to continue to be very close and very hard-fought.
Predictions
Obama wins Vermont and Texas.
Clinton wins Ohio and Rhode Island.
McCain who? Oh, ok, he’ll win everything. I haven’t even heard Mike Huckabee’s name lately. Time to go fishin’, Mr. H. (Or squirrel-huntin’, whatever.)
It’s possible that this strategy, which seemed unlikely to succeed just one week ago, may actually work.
Polls show Obama has closed large gaps in Texas and Ohio. The problem with Obama’s success is that now he’s expected to come storming back in the polls as a matter of course. It’s almost a given that as people get to know Obama, they like him. A lot. But in Texas and especially Ohio, he may not be able to completely close the gap.
If it turns out that Clinton wins Ohio and Texas, I blame Saturday Night Live. A little over one week ago, they aired a skit that suggested that Obama receives deferential, fawning treatment from the press, and that Clinton, on the other hand, is treated unfairly. (The program followed this up with a surprise appearance by Clinton herself last Saturday.)
Now, not a lot of people watch Saturday Night Live. But it remains one of the few television programs that can get the nation’s attention, and the “Barack has it easy” theme seems to have caught on with the media, and with the public to some extent. There have been more negative stories on Obama in subsequent days, and more positive coverage of Clinton. Of course, this is all subjective, just as the Clinton camp’s perception of being picked on is subjective. But I think overall there has been a slight change in tone, even though it’s hard to prove.
I’ve also heard from Democratic voters who seem to agree that Obama has had a relatively easy ride and that the media has it in for Clinton. And women voters, understandably, seem to bristle at the way Clinton is treated by some of the mainstream media pundits. I think that in part may explain why Clinton continues to do so well among women—who are a powerful voting bloc in the Democratic party.
What it comes down to, the day before the Ohio/Rhode Island/Texas/Vermont primaries, is that Clinton seems to be rising just slightly in the polls, and Obama sinking just slightly or holding steady. Clinton and Obama are in a dead heat in Texas, and Clinton is slightly ahead in Ohio. Clinton will almost certainly win Rhode Island, Obama will almost certainly win Vermont.
Now there are some who argue that the focus should be on the actual math here: if Clinton doesn’t win 65 percent or more, the two candidates will essentially split the delegates, so Obama stays ahead in the delegate count. And there are scenarios in Texas’ complicated system that would see Obama win more delegates even if he loses the popular vote.
But let’s not kid ourselves. Clinton wins in both the big firewall states gives her a huge bounce, even if she wins by a tiny margin. It would put the race back to even, and we’ll go on to the next round with neither candidate being a clear frontrunner. Even one win between Texas and Ohio gives Clinton an excuse to carry on and hope to somehow pull it out in the end.
If she loses both Texas and Ohio, it’s a different story. And Obama, with a history of performing better than the polls suggest, could pull it off. But this long, historic campaign is likely to continue to be very close and very hard-fought.
Predictions
Obama wins Vermont and Texas.
Clinton wins Ohio and Rhode Island.
McCain who? Oh, ok, he’ll win everything. I haven’t even heard Mike Huckabee’s name lately. Time to go fishin’, Mr. H. (Or squirrel-huntin’, whatever.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)