The Nattering Nabob

Vigo County

2008-11-04T16:31:00.000-08:00

Vigo County, IN is a bellweather county. Only 6 counties in the US have been right in every election since 1960. Vigo is the county which is has been closest to national vote. With 91% of the precincts reporting, Obama leads 56-42.

Landslide coming

2008-11-04T16:03:00.000-08:00

This is going to be a landslide folks -- a huge one. Indiana is "too close to call", in NC, Dole source said she's done, buried in a "tsunami".

Waiting On Line

2008-11-04T12:28:00.000-08:00

I just got back from voting and there was, for the first time ever, a line. Normally I walk right in, this time there was a 45 minute wait. The weather is nice here in Southern California, but it still is amazing that the turnout is so high.
There was a black couple on line who took pictures of each other standing there. I said to the man, "Something to show your grandchildren?" He smiled and said "yes". I said to him, "I've told people that I can't imagine any African-American not voting today and keeping every evidence of having done so." He said, with a slight accent, "I flew in last night from England. I went to the embassy to vote, but they told me I had to have registered a while ago to do that. So I purchased a ticket, which was quite expensive at the last minute, and flew back here." I said, "and it's not like your vote matters that much -- you just had to bear witness." He said, "yes, I did."
As I left, I saw his wife taking his picture again,this time with him smiling and pointing to his "I VOTED" sticker. It was a special moment for him and for me too.

What To Watch For

2008-11-04T10:27:00.000-08:00

Here are things to watch for tonight:

1. How votes are being reported
With so many early votes, how they are reported is key to understanding what is happening. Will NC show us all the early votes as soon as the polls close? If that is the case, then Obama will have a huge lead. Will states report the early voters differently from absentee mail-in ballots? Will they be able to accurately estimate turnout when they say some percentage of a precinct has reported? This will lead to…
2. Network confusion
They have tried to do “exit” polls of early voters, but that doesn’t mean they’re representative, nor do they know what percentage of voters they actually are. Exit polls generally suck, but in this case they will be worse than usual. Ignore them – I know you like looking at Norah O’Donnell, even when pregnant, but turn off the sound or check another network for real information. There is nothing of any value there. What the polls will do is confuse the networks when they try calling states. When their data conflicts with actual numbers, they are stumped. Add in the complete impossibility of estimating turnout within demographics – most specifically young and black voters – we will hear all sorts of hedging. Some early voting states may be easy to call, some may have to wait until they are confident of the total vote. In a sense, this could make things more fun.
3. Delays and more delays
Poll closing times will change constantly. I expect relatively few states to close when they are supposed to, because turnout will be massive. Long lines, needless challenges by Republican scum, and ballot shortages will result in many visits to judges by lawyers. Also there will be serious problems with voting machines – as always, fixing problems cause yet more problems. The most common visual of the day/night will be a reporter standing in front of a long line of people, many of them upset. This will also present many fine opportunities for helicopter shots of long lines winding around the block.
4. Indiana
Everybody is talking about all sorts of tip-offs, here is a simple one: look at Indiana. If the networks announce it as “too close to call”, Obama will win decisively. If it’s “too early to call” we don’t know what it means, as it means their polling data is in conflict with the votes coming in, or it’s just below their threshold for a call.
5. The phrase “History is being made today/tonight”
You want a drinking game? Use that phrase and see if anyone can see the TV set by the time polls close on the west coast.
6. Republicans spinning this defeat
GOP talking points will feature such excuses/explanations as:
It’s the stock market’s fault – the collapse made it impossible to get our message out
It’s the media’s fault – they were biased and we couldn’t get our message out
Obama bought the election – he broke his word to use public financing and corrupted the system (this will be the hardest one to use with a straight face, but they will)
People didn’t vote against the Republicans, they voted against Bush, who wasn’t on the ballot
We lost our way, forgot the governing principles of Reagan, so we’ll spend the next two years fighting for smaller government and a balanced budget against the big-spending Democrats.
Osama Bin Laden is happy tonight (this will be said by some losing Senate or House candidate and picked up by media, then danced around by other Republican operatives)

Numbers and Notes -- Senate Predictions

2008-11-04T09:20:00.000-08:00

The amount of polling this cycle has been amazing, almost as amazing as the quantity of analysis of them. I was pretty successful last time around, so I figure I’ll toss my opinions out there again.
In a landslide year, there is usually one result which comes out of nowhere. Of course, with all the polling and analysis, there is nothing which will really surprise anyone. The Dems need to turn 9 seats to get to the magic number of 60. Frankly, this is purely symbolic and meaningless in reality. On some big issues, like the war, those 60 won’t hold, as Lieberman and several others won’t support the majority. On court appointments, the 60 is pretty unnecessary, as a number of Republicans – Spector, Snowe, Collins, and Hatch (who believes Presidents should be able to appoint anyone who is qualified) are unlikely to join a filibuster. Other issues will be decided on their own merits, with votes going both ways.
The Republicans are purely playing defense, as there are no Democratic seats in danger. Even Mary Landrieu in LA seems safe. The following seats figure to switch:
NH: Jeanne Shaheen has gradually pulled ahead, helped by what appears to be an Obama landslide in NH.
VA: Mark Warner’s election has never been in doubt. Even as well known as he is, I wonder how many people will vote for him thinking he’s John Warner? Just asking. As an aside, John Warner is a loss for the Senate. He was a conservative, but a man who truly cared about the Constitution and the country, rather than just his party and religious fundamentalists. Not only are the Republicans losing moderates, they’re also losing decent conservatives.
NC: This race seems to have solidified for Kay Hagan late, perhaps helped by a reaction to a Dole ad which a former Jesse Helms strategist said goes too far. That’s right, a Jesse Helms strategist was offended – I didn’t think that was possible, given the nature of the last Helms campaign, but Dole has accomplished it. I personally believe this country would be better off with an atheist or two (or fifty) in the halls of Congress, but you could see how a Presbyterian Sunday school teacher (which Hagan is) might be offended by the accusation. Dole is a sleazy bitch and has been inept at every political job she has ever held – especially as head of the GOP Senate campaign committee in 2006. This will be a very nice win.
AK: Let’s complete the list – don’t get caught with a live boy, a dead girl, or convicted of a felony before your election. This is Ted Stevens’ election to nowhere. Good riddance.
OR: Gordon Smith (another decent sort of conservative) is getting buried in the wave. He spent much of this campaign telling people how good a friend of Barack Obama he is. It hasn’t worked.
NM: Tom Udall is winning easily – nothing to see here.
CO: Mark Udall is winning easily. Biggest excitement in these two races is which Udall has the biggest margin of victory. They’re both up by double digits, Tom is a few points ahead in the recent numbers.
Alright, that leaves the Dems at 58 (including the two independents). This leaves us with four races to look at.
KY: Mitch McConnell has been locked in a tight struggle in a battle reminiscent of Tom Daschle’s defeat as minority leader. The problem is that Bruce Lunsford is in a state where he has no real help from Obama coattails. The most recent polls here have McConnell opening up a lead and it looks like he’ll survive.
MS: There are two races here, the one which seemed to be in doubt was the one for Trent Lott’s seat, which is the appointee, Roger Wicker is the temp appointee, while former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove is the Dem trying to do the impossible. The polls here are going the wrong way for the upset, with Wicker pulling well out ahead in the late polling. It would require a spectacular black vote and even then it might not be enough. Musgrove’s problem is that he’s barely running ahead of Obama, which doesn’t seem like a good omen.
GA: This one has been a real battle, very tight, and if the Democrats could pick one, this might be the one to win, because Saxby Chambliss is scum. For those who don’t remember, he won this seat by attacking Max Cleland’s patriotism. It appears to have moved a couple of points in Chambliss direction in the closing days, but there are still a few things Martin has going for him. First, Obama has closed ground late here and if there is a huge turnout edge for him, could pull off the upset. Unlike KY, there are Obama coattails here and they could take Martin in. Second, Chambliss is stuck under 50%, a dangerous place for an incumbent to be. Third, this state requires you to get 50% to get elected, so even if Martin doesn’t win, it could result in a runoff. Frankly, I’m not excited about the runoff possibility, since I think a significant number of Obama voters won’t show up a second time. But make no mistake, it would be a lively (and expensive) battle.
MN: Anyone who thinks he knows what is going to happen in this race is basing it on instinct, rather than data. The most recent Minneapolis Star-Tribune poll has Obama +11 and Franken +4. The most recent Rasmussen poll has Obama +12 and Coleman +5. Research 2000 has Obama +15 and Coleman +3. The last PPP poll has Obama +16 and Franken +5. Add in a real independent candidate in Dean Barkley, who actually had this seat for a few months following the tragic death of Paul Wellstone, and it becomes a real mess. Coleman is the kind of politician who wears well in MN – not a doctrinaire conservative, but a moderate who can go in either direction. In all honesty, my opinion of this race has always been that I’ll believe Al Franken gets elected to the Senate right after Norm Coleman officially concedes. It still is my opinion, but, for old SNL fans, this election night could truly be all about him, Al Franken.
Maybe the Dems will pick up one of these seats, but I wouldn’t bet on it. I am somewhat frustrated that we didn’t go after Susan Collins in ME. There is no excuse for our Senate candidate to be running 30 points behind our Presidential candidate. I also thought Texas might have been in play, but Cornyn seems to have gotten control of that race back from Noriega.
All in all, I’ll say we finish at 58 and hope for a GA or MN to come our way.

NUmbers and Notes: Obama-McCain Predictions

2008-11-01T14:39:00.000-07:00

I haven’t done much analysis of the numbers during the campaign because, frankly, others have done the job better than I could have, If you aren’t reading fivethirtyeight.com, you’ve missed a lot in this election season. But I figure I should toss in my two cents worth on the elections, so here goes.
Unlike two years ago and four years ago, this election lacks a lot to analyze deeply. It’s not going to be close on the Presidential level, and the Senate races are, for the most part, pretty easy to peg as well. Still, the question of how big the Obama victory will be is still interesting. The magnitude of this victory has been amplified by the economic crisis, the abysmal McCain campaign, the horrid choice of Palin, and the money differential between the campaigns, which is huge. The Obama campaign has also made the victory larger by running the best campaign in modern history, designed to take advantage of every break, creating organizations of volunteers in nearly every state, much to the consternation of the Clintonite wing of the party (as opposed to the Dean wing), which believes in focusing all your efforts on the states you need to win. That failed them in the primaries and the biggest story of this election may ultimately be the rebirth of the party in regions where Democrats had been buried recently. We have Dean and Obama to thank for that and one has to hope Howard Dean gets the respect and praise he deserves in the wake of this huge win.
Obama starts with the 252 electoral votes Kerry won – all of them are safely his. He has sizable leads in Iowa, Colorado, and New Mexico, which total 21 EV among them, which for those of you who are arithmetically challenged, makes for a total of 273 – sufficient for the balloon drop and hundreds of cars to be overturned in Detroit.
So now the question is how big will this be? Let’s travel around the map:
Highly Likely Wins:
VA (13 EV): This state seems to be tightening a bit, but even in the closest of polls (4 points), Obama is over 50%.
NC (15 EV): The polling data has it very close, but Obama is way ahead in early voting. This is one of the states where the immense black vote turnout has made things difficult for pollsters – exactly how big will it be? I think as big as possible and it’s why I put this state in this group. I also think NC is a state where the nauseating campaign run by McCain-Palin, with talk of “pro-American” voters and guilt by association has worn very poorly among independent voters.
FL (27): Of the last ten polls in FL, Obama was ahead in 9, with the tenth tied. There is no reason to believe McCain is about to win here.
OH (20): The last 12 polls here have Obama ahead, with margins from +4 to +10. It took a while, but Ohio finally came in line with PA. In fact, due to all the effort the McCain campaign spent in PA, he may actually come closer there than in OH. He ain’t winning either.
NV (5): The last poll to show McCain ahead here was in September. There have been 16 polls since that time, only one of which has the margin less than 4 points. This is also one of the states in which Republican votes may be depressed by early voting results, as the loss of VA, NC, PA, and OH will not leave the marginal McCain voters much reason to leave their homes, rather than sedating themselves.
If you’ve been counting, that leaves us at 353. I would be surprised if Obama goes under this number. On to the real toss-up states:
IN (11): This state is too close to call, but it’s starting to look like it’s drifting toward McCain. On the other hand, of the four most recent polls, two are tied, one has Obama up one, and the fourth has McCain up 3. The fly in the McCain ointment here is that Obama has a far superior ground game in this state and that could overcome a slight McCain advantage.
MO (11): Like the 2006 Senate race, this is a flat out guess. This is a tough state for the Dems to win, but MO is never wrong and since we know who is going to win, why would they land on the wrong side of this? Polls seem to be giving McCain a slight edge recently, but too small to really withstand the ground game.
ND (3): Another toss-up and the late burst of advertising by Obama tells you it’s close enough for them to win. And, like NV, GOP voters could decide to stay home after early results depress them.
NE (1): Nebraska, like Maine, awards its EV by Congressional district, as well as overall. The CD which includes Omaha is very much in play. This has never happened before, so it’s hard to believe it will now, but this is a unique election and the wave could roll over Nebraska.
The “Super-Duper Landslide” States:
GA (15): In the immortal words of Deep Throat “follow the money” – along with ND and AZ, the Obama campaign has tossed a late bucket of money into GA. It’s a long shot, but there are those two Insider Advantage polls, the first had Obama up by 1, the second had McCain up by 1. A huge black vote here could provide the upset. Add Bob Barr to the mix and disgruntled Republicans could vote for him and give it to Obama.
AZ (10): Anyone else surprised at how many EV Arizona has? This time it’s not just late Obama money we get to follow, it’s late McCain money too. Losing is one thing, being humiliated is another. I will be surprised at this happening, but like GA, it’s possible. Again, it could be over early enough to depress the vote here.
MT (3): Sort of like ND, with a little less favorable polling data. McCain has a 4 point lead here, but again, enthusiasm may wane late and the Dems will turn out the vote for Gov. Schweitzer in any case, so there is a surprise possible here.
If Obama wins all of these votes, he’s at 407. I’m going to say he wins one of IN and MO, ND, and, just for laughs, the NE EV. That leaves him at 368.
I’ve been wavering on a popular vote prediction. I keep expecting it to be in the five point range, with a little traditional tightening leaving it there. I’m starting to drift upwards a bit, thinking that the polls have been underestimating the black vote and that there will be some small loss of GOP voters in the western states. I would be more confident of the latter if there weren’t two right-wing propositions here in CA to pull the religious right loonies to the polls. I’ll call it 52-45, with Obama not only getting more votes than anyone ever, but setting a record in that stat which may not be broken for 30 or 40 years.

Look Away, Look Away, Look Away, Dixie Land

2008-10-23T18:53:00.000-07:00

The thought just crossed my mind that it's extremely likely that the first state to be declared for Barack Obama on election night will be Virginia. Virginia, cradle of the Confederacy, will begin the landslide election of the first black President. Now, to be fair, Virginia has led the way on these points before, being the first state to elect a black Governor, Douglas Wilder, who is currently the Mayor of Richmond, former capitol of the Confederate States of America. Still, it has been 44 years since a Democrat won VA, and Obama's victory there would be a wonderful way to start the evening, and one which will certainly be noticed by those who know history. Okay, it'll be noticed by Keith Olbermann -- I make no assumptions about the nitwits on the other networks.

Iceland

2008-10-10T11:17:00.000-07:00

Due to the complete collapse of its banking system, Iceland is in trouble. This morning, it assured everyone that it is not bankrupt. I think we all have the same reaction: can’t Bjork do something about this? Since the warbling gamin has been silent on this issue – and seriously, is she any less authoritative than Bush or McCain on economic issues? – we are left to see what this has done. It seems the Brits have invested a lot in Icelandic banks, which had aggressive interest rates which drew in a lot of money. Local governments in the UK have deposited some $1.36 billion in Icelandic banks. Now Iceland has taken over the banks to prop them up, but they haven’t done anything for depositors. So the British government has frozen Icelandic bank assets in the UK, so they can get some compensation for investors. Lots of local governments and charities may get next to nothing back.
So what does this mean to Americans, who, after all, all Americans care about? Well, it’s indicative of how dangerous everything is out there. Most of us have pension plans which have investments, investments which are less designed for safety than for maximum return. Most private pension funds are under funded, hoping that rising payouts from equities will make everything work. All the people with 401k plans and IRAs are a lot poorer today than they were 10 days ago. The closer you are to retirement, the scarier this is. Even conservative 401k management, based on index funds and blue chips, has failed, with losses which can only be described as catastrophic.
This is all the result of a system where investing in stocks and their prices is the driving force in the market, rather than investing in companies and their success. And even when the success of companies is important, it is only short term success, not long-term success, growth rather than stability. This is a dangerous way to run an economy, and this month has demonstrated the results. If it was just in the US, it would be bad, but it’s in much of the world, and that is a multiplier. Iceland is not alone and neither are we.

Sarah Palin Debate Flow Chart

2008-10-03T09:06:00.000-07:00

I don't normally reprint things, but this, from www.adennak.com, was too wonderful to not bring to you.

Is It Over?

2008-10-02T15:22:00.000-07:00

Today, reports surfaced that the McCain campaign has pulled out of Michigan, canceling all media buys and stopping sending out mailers, while moving most staff to WI, OH, FL, and other more hospitable states. Considering that MI was a close state in ’04 and that Obama had shown some weakness there because he hadn’t campaigned during the primary, this is a very bad sign, to put it mildly. Based on current polling data (and there’s a ton of it) McCain is in extremely bad position, somewhere in the Dole zone.
What has caused this dramatic shift? First, the economic problems have put the focus on the area where McCain is weakest. Second, Sarah Palin is beginning to scare people. Third, McCain’s campaign suspension stunt looked foolish and desperate. And fourth, and maybe biggest, the debate went really badly for him.
Now the punditocracy felt it was at worst a tie, but on an issue by issue breakdown, they seemed to think McCain did better. The MSNBC nitwits, led by nitwit-in-chief Chris Matthews, felt that Obama had spent too much time agreeing with McCain, while McCain, smartly, never agreed with Obama, even when he had the same position. Matthews, with that senescent point of reference he specializes in, pointed out that Richard Nixon did that in his debate with JFK and that didn’t work for him. Now no one remembers that except Chris, and that wasn’t the key to that debate anyway. The key to that debate was Nixon sweating and seeming uncomfortable, while JFK looked cool and calm. Those who listened on the radio – yes, people did that then – thought Nixon won. So too in this debate – it wasn’t about individual answers, it was about what the demeanor and attitude of the candidates was. Remember, both candidates will almost certainly reinforce support within their own party. The key audience is the independent voters and the moderate edges of their own parties. I like to call them the “Kumbaya Voters” – they believe everything could be solved if the politicians were less partisan and just got along.
Every time McCain smirked during an Obama answer, his disrespect offended the Kumbaya voters. Every time he said “you don’t understand” to a man who clearly did, he lost votes. And every time Obama agreed with something McCain said, before modifying it slightly, Obama was the living embodiment of the bipartisan candidate they wanted. That McCain refused to ever look at Obama (which Matthews and company seemed to endorse) was also an insult which these voters noticed. Every poll following the debate showed that independents thought Obama won and his positives have increased while McCain's negatives have increased since then. While Obama looked calm, cool, and Presidential throughout, McCain came off as hostile and condescending, and frankly, more than a little crotchety – never a good thing for an old man.
Tonight is the VP debate, eagerly awaited by all fans of politics, as well as all fans of comedy. The punditocracy will emphasize the expectations being low for Palin. Frankly, they’re too low. At this point, after her pathetic performance with Katie Couric, any mistake, fumbling, or general show of ignorance, will merely confirm the expectations. She has to be nearly perfect tonight. If I was coaching Biden, I would have shown him the Obama-McCain debate, pointing out every McCain smirk and saying “don’t do that – or even smile, when she’s speaking”. And never say “you don’t know” or “you don’t understand” – be respectful and let her hang herself. All comments about the other side should be a reference to the McCain-Palin ticket, the stupider the comment by Barbie, the more it should be tied to McCain and Palin. The debate is not about Biden, just don’t make anyone notice you instead of her.
So is this race over? There’s a month to go and that’s a lifetime in politics. At this point though, it will require something huge to change the momentum – something McCain can’t do himself, since he’s already tried so many things. Settle in and enjoy the ride.

Why-O, Why-O, Why-O?

2008-09-24T09:11:00.000-07:00

Why is Barack Obama behind in Ohio? This, to me, is the most interesting question of the election at this point. For the last week he has been trending upward nationally and strengthening his position in a number of states, yet Ohio is still in the McCain column. To be fair, Michigan has been a bit of a laggard for him as well, and Pennsylvania has tightened up, but Ohio is the one state in that region where John McCain is ahead, and that seems strange. Republican economic policies have hit OH hard. The Ohio GOP is in disrepute. Dems control the governorship, the legislature, and the US Senate seats. Yet somehow, McCain is ahead there. I freely admit that I thought Obama would have little trouble in Ohio, given the conditions I just stated, so I am thoroughly confused by this state of affairs. This has been a tight state in every Presidential election, with the Republicans in far better shape as a party than they are now, so why is McCain running better than Bush did?
The only answer I can come up with is the primary. While, for the most part, the Democrats have come home – although Obama is running behind where he should be in some states among Dems – they weren’t the only ones who saw the anti-Obama ads during the primary. Perhaps the ton of money poured into OH and PA has had a negative effect among Independents. McCain has led among them in OH, and still does. Perhaps that is the residual effect of Clinton’s poisoning the well for a month. The debates will be Obama’s chance to get these people on his side, or at least even things up among them, which should be sufficient for him to win there. He can win the election without Ohio, but it’s a lot easier if he has it.

The Fundamentals of Our Economy

2008-09-21T09:24:00.000-07:00

John McCain said, infamously, “the fundamentals of our economy are strong”, then, when people mocked the ridiculousness of that statement, tried to do a dance about how he meant how wonderful our workers were. Of course, every time McCain opens his mouth on the economy, he immediately puts his foot in it, most recently by declaring he wouldn’t bail out AIG a day before the Bush Administration decided to do just that, forcing him to back off that stance. As McCain said months ago, he is not “well-versed” on the economy. Which is a pretty amazing admission, considering that he was the Chariman of Senate Commerce Committee – you know, commerce, like buying and selling stuff. So apparently the GOP cared so little about government oversight of the economy that they made an economic ignoramus chairman of the committee responsible for that job -- and Johnny did a heck of a job.
What are the fundamentals of our economy? Why do some people you see on CNBC and FOX Business say things like McCain did?

The plusses of our economy:
GDP is high and growing, albeit slowly
Productivity is high
It’s really big, therefore we export a lot of stuff and exports are growing, thanks to a weakening dollar
Like AIG, we’re too big to fail

The minuses of our economy:
Negative balance of payments
Huge budget deficits
Mounting national debt
The lowest savings rate in the developed world
Mounting personal debt
A pension and health time bomb set to explode in the next decade or so
Rapidly rising inflation
A banking system in disarray

Most of the plusses are less than thrilling, although if all you focus on is the stock market and the profitability of American businesses you own stock in, you could be pleased by the economy. As long as people can afford to buy beer, the McCain family will be able to own six houses and 13 cars.
The minuses have been building for years. The tech bubble of the nineties masked a long-term decline that has finally come to a major disaster following eight years of corporatist government based on the theory that the government should do nothing but help the rich and that bigger is better. The negative balance of payments has been rolling for decades. We import more than we export and in the long run, that is not a sustainable thing to do. How long a run it takes is hard to say with an economy our size. If someone who has $10,000 in savings spend $1,000 more than he earns each year, he’ll be introuble pretty fast. If someone with a million in the bank spends $10,000 more per year, he won’t live long enough to worry about it. The budget deficits started in the Reagan years, took eight years off based on the tech bubble and the increase in the top tax rate and relatively high capital gains taxes during the Clinton years, and exploded under the profligate spending and ludicrous tax policies of the Bushistas.
Regarding the last two, during the Reagan years, when previously unthinkable budget deficits were mounting, the right-wing economists came up with a new theory to explain why they weren’t really so bad – they considered the deficits as a percentage of GDP. It’s an interesting concept, which sort of worked when the Clinton years, coupled with the dreaded tax increases, evened up the books. In theory, a steadily growing economy should, in good times, take in the money needed to catch up with earlier deficits. That is, unless Republicans are in charge and cut taxes in good times and keep them low. This is economic stupidity of the highest magnitude, as tax cuts should be used as a stimulus and if they are always low, then you can’t cut them when needed. Of course, that is merely logic, and Republicans are averse to that sort of thing. As for the balance of payments, this country has been reluctant to even think about what they mean, for fear of reconsidering the concept of free trade being the most wonderful thing in the world. One thing logic tells us – you spend more than you earn and you get poorer. It may be significantly poorer, it may be insignificantly poorer, your quality of life may be temporarily better by having what you bought, but eventually someone has to address the idea of whether this is sustainable. No one ever has and I doubt anyone ever will.
The savings rate and the personal debt sort of go together. The housing bubble did a nice job of masking that, as people borrowed money on their ever-increasing home values to keep their lifestyle rolling along. We see how wonderfully that worked out. It is nearly impossible to fix this problem. Let me repeat that: it is nearly impossible to fix this problem. I apologize for the “nearly”, but I am reticent to use absolutes on economic issues. Our economy has been consumer-driven for a long time. If Americans start saving the way Asians or Europeans do, not only will our economy tank, the world economy could go with it, as U.S. spending has been the fuel for their economies as well. The problem is that many individuals are running out of money and running out of credit and that is scary.
I’ll skip the pension and health time bomb, we all know it is coming. One thing: many of us have been less worried about it because the economic assumptions which led to people thinking Social Security was going broke were based on extremely conservative growth numbers. They were always much lower than actual growth numbers and many of us felt that if those numbers turned out to be true, then Social Security was the least of our problems. They seem to be coming true and, indeed, Social Security is the least of our problems.
Inflation is a disaster for most Americans. Don’t believe the official numbers, food prices and fuel prices, the things you have to have to exist, are exploding. For people on fixed incomes, for people living paycheck to paycheck, this is a nightmare. Again, it isn’t a problem for Bush or McCain, so don’t look for the Republicans to worry about it.
The collapse of the financial sector has been in the news a lot, so you can read about that other places, although I’ll talk some about it next week. It has brought about the most startling political decision in American history, with a form of economic fascism being proposed by a Republican administration.
The fundamentals of our economy are not sound. The economic minister of India has suggested the IMF take control of the U.S. economy, as it does for other countries which have demonstrated no ability to manage it. Perhaps he’s right, for we are headed for bad times in any case, and the rest of the world needs to make sure they don’t go along with us.

The Most Confusing Number

2008-09-21T08:34:00.000-07:00

There is a number that keeps popping up in state polls that has me confused. A very large number of respondents, 20-25%, keep saying they could change their mind on who they’re voting for in November. They aren’t undecided, they just aren’t sure about their decision. Not having seen any breakdown of this by candidate preference, these soft voters could well be the key, more so than those who are, at this relatively late date, “undecided”.
Which way are they more likely to go? The suspicion is that they are people who are just uncertain or uncomfortable with Obama, whether because of inexperience, or race. This doesn’t mean they aren’t leaning toward him at the moment, just that they might just change their minds given a reason to do so.
On the other hand, the economic mess we are in seems to be tipping the race toward Obama, as anyone who thinks another Republican is the cure for anything would have to be a complete idiot, and those people are already solidly in the McCain camp.

Miss Congeniality

2008-08-29T17:43:00.000-07:00

Back in 1964, when Barry Goldwater picked obscure NY Congressman William Miller as his VP nominee, Democrats came up with this bit of doggerel:

I’ve got a riddle and it’s a diller
Who the hell is William Miller?

So with the choice of an obscure Alaska Governor (is there another kind?), let me contribute this:

Iraq’s a mess, the economy’s failin’
And John McCain picked Sarah Palin??

Who is Sarah Palin? She is a right-wing icon: anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-home schooling, in favor of teaching creationism, anti-stem cell research. She also has as little experience as any person who has ever run for national office. She is in favor of drilling in ANWAR and doesn’t think polar bears should be an endangered species. She doesn’t think global warming is man-made, but has created a commission to study its effects on Alaska.
She has already contributed perhaps the most surreal moment in American political history, as the Republican presumptive nominee for Vice President finished her first speech praising Hillary Clinton. If any of Hillary’s voters actually cross over to vote for her, they should be shot, since she is as far politically from Hillary as anyone could be, genitalia excepted.
What was the McCain campaign thinking? My guess is that this makes the base extremely happy and enthusiastic, as the religious right loves her. It does sort of blow a hole in their attacks on Obama’s experience. What they are likely to do is work on the concept of two maverick Republicans, ready to take on the establishment at the drop of a hat. McCain has a bunch of things where he went against the party leadership, from campaign financing to immigration, from global warming to Iraq strategy. She took power in Alaska by defeating a Republican, cleaned up the state government by firing a number of Republican appointees, and enforced ethics regulations while creating new ones. This willingness will be contrasted to Obama’s steadfast party regularity, never opposing the Democratic leadership, and will be referred to as demonstrating gutsy leadership, while Obama is just a follower. This argument could work with some independents who fear partisanship more than anything.
This morning, every Republican had the key talking point down pat – every one of them said “she is very well-qualified”, like saying it made it true. In reality, she is one of the least qualified VP candidates ever. Expect the Democrats to use the phrase “a heartbeat away from the Presidency” as often as possible. She will help in certain areas – religious, pro-gun parts of Midwest states, like western PA, eastern OH, and with her accent, she should play very well in rural MN. Being a MILF shouldn’t hurt her on the campaign trail either, although less makeup might be good – this is the one job where seeing a few more lines in her face could help.
Two weeks from now, she will be debating Joe Biden on national TV. Biden will have to be careful in how he handles her, but she has a lot of learning to do in a short time. It could be grisly. On the other hand, she has a good deal of TV experience, having been a sportscaster in Anchorage (her career goal was working for ESPN), so she should be cool under the lights.
Does this help or hurt McCain’s chances? I think it hurts, because his age and cancer history should make people a little nervous about such an inexperienced VP. I also think they don’t look good together. He makes her look too young, she makes him look older – and neither of those is a good idea. Still, it’s a more interesting choice than Tim Pawlenty, and it could serve as a good audition for the darling of the religious right and doctrinaire conservatives.
Fun Facts About Sarah Palin
1. She was a basketball player in high school. She played point guard in the state championship with a stress fracture in her leg – take that, Kerry Strug.
2. She and Cindy McCain were both in beauty pageants – so they should have no trouble smiling or waving for the next two months
3. She was runner-up in the 1964 Miss Alaska pageant – beating, I assume, two Eskimos and a moose.
4. She won Miss Congeniality is that pageant – the moose bit one of the judges, I believe.
5. Her talent in the pageant was playing the flute – one time, in band camp…

The First Decision

2008-08-23T11:00:00.000-07:00

A good deal of nonsense is written about VP choices. Pundits analyze about how a VP nominee can help win states, or voter groups, mostly ignoring how little they really do either. The last VP who can have a state victory attributed to him was Walter Mondale in 1980. And in the last 50 years, only Mondale and LBJ can be said to have determined elections by virtue of winning a state the candidate might not have.
What VP candidates can do is make those potential voters who have doubts about the Presidential nominee more comfortable. Remember, for most Americans, this is the first decision they see a potential President make, and if they are looking for a signal, this is where they get it. When the candidate is an insurgent type, running against Washington, the choice tends to lean toward someone with foreign policy credibility, as outsiders rarely have that. The history of this is that winning outsiders always pick someone everyone knows and has the missing experience the top guy lacks. So Reagan picked Bush, Clinton picked Gore, Bush picked Cheney – choices which confused people a bit, since Reagan and Bush had a nasty campaign, remember “voodoo economics”? Pundits were stunned at Clinton picking Gore, since they represented the same demographic and region. But the choices worked, as people knew them and were comforted by the expertise they brought.
This was why the choice of Joe Biden was right. There are many voters who have doubts about Obama’s experience, especially in foreign policy. Many more don’t know him and had he chosen someone they didn’t know either, it would have hurt. Biden, regardless of what you think of him personally, is a politician of substance, a heavyweight whose knowledge of the world is not questioned by anyone. To those waiting for a signal from Obama, this is the one they needed. Older people in particular know and respect Biden. I expect this, combined with the convention, to give him a big jump in the polls, moving him over 50%.
A word about Biden himself : I have serious problems with Biden, who has been a water-carrier for the banking industry in some very unpleasant ways and whose foreign policy expertise has not stopped him from being horribly wrong from time to time. But Biden, more than anything, is a real person. His personal tragedies have given him the kind of underpinning most politicians don’t have. A middle-class upbringing is a good thing, especially because his father had been wealthier before financial setbacks reduced him to a working stiff. After the death of his first wife and child, he chose to commute to work, taking the train to and from Washington every day, so he would be there for his kids. He still does it, like most Americans. Those people waving at him this morning as he left for Illinois were not just waving at a famous guy who was from their town, they were waving at a neighbor. Oh yeah, he knows how many homes he has – one

What I Think

2008-07-04T11:25:00.000-07:00

I've been away from here for a while, I have no idea if anyone is still checking in here. I've decided to put down what I think about big stuff, the key issues facing the country and the world as I see them. They'll be up here over the next few weeks, in a fairly disorganized fashion. After that I'll decide whether to continue this blog or not. Please comment on anything of interest to you, since interaction would be nice.

Leaving Early, Staying Late

2008-05-20T10:15:00.000-07:00

Last week, two of my favorite athletes retired, both surprisingly. Annika Sorenstam is one of the greatest female golfers of all time, maybe even the best. At age 37, she figured to have a number of high-quality years left in her career, with a number of career records in sight. Last year she was injured and Lorena Ochoa took over the number one ranking. This year she is back and is ranked second behind Ochoa, pretty impressive coming off an injury. Yet she has announced that this year would be her last. It seems that her time off while injured showed her that there were other things she enjoyed doing. Add that to her impending marriage with the possibility of kids out there and she doesn’t want to hang around as a part-time player. Maybe, a few years down the road, she’ll be back, as others have returned. For now she will leave, but the sport she leaves behind is in fine shape, with youngsters like Paula Creamer and Morgan Pressel emerging as possible stars, as well as an endless stream of Korean youngsters set to challenge Ochoa at the top.
The other departure is sad in a different way, as Justine Henin has decided to leave tennis while on top. In the modern era, no woman has quit while number one. She was a player of incredible talent, combining speed and power with competitive fury rarely matched. Her talent and spirit enabled her to overcome a lack of size relative to the other top players. Most of the top players are anywhere from 5’10 to 6’2, she is only 5’5 ½, not an unusual height for a woman, but for a top tennis player, quite small. Add in her beautiful one-handed backhand, a shot rarely seen anymore, and she will be sorely missed. The game has been given over to the giants, with spectacular power and court coverage. There’s nothing wrong with that, but all tennis fans will miss the variety which Justine brought. Why quit now? The fire had gone out – it was that simple. She couldn’t coast on talent until it came back, she suffered the worst defeat ever by a number one. So now she is gone – maybe the desire will return, but her body and will were being pushed to their extreme all the time, resulting in injuries to her body and now her departure. It’s hard to believe she can recapture her greatness if she does come back.
Which brings us to Hillary Clinton – she ain’t going nowhere. Her competitive fire has not gone out, not for a second. She is still talking about going all the way to the convention, still talking about the popular vote, still talking about Florida and Michigan. Tonight she will win Kentucky easily, in two weeks she will win Puerto Rico. Does any of this really matter? It’s not like the super delegates are coming to her side. With every victory of hers, more and more of them endorse Obama. Does she really think she can win? Maybe she does, as unlikely as that seems. There is a real chance that she will win the popular vote race – a race only she seems to be running, but nonetheless, a talking point. Puerto Rico is the key there, as they could cast upward of 2 million votes there, as it is the only chance they get to select the President. Give her 62% of those and she makes up nearly half a million votes on Obama. Look for the Clintons to keep talking about this and saying how she is the real choice of the people. I’ll have more on this tomorrow.

Showdown Tuesday

2008-05-06T10:02:00.001-07:00

It’s Showdown Tuesday – hey, I have as much right to make up a pointless name for the NC and IN primaries as the networks, who keep calling everything Super Tuesday.
So what is going to happen today? My prediction: Clinton wins Indiana by a bigger margin than Obama wins North Carolina – let’s say Clinton by 7 and Obama by 5 (or less). The turnout is very heavy, with a particularly large surge in Republican crossovers in NC. That surge will help Hillary, not just because of Rush Limbaugh, but because the National Right to Life organization has been robo-calling on her behalf in NC and IN.
What will all this mean? Look at the exit polls – unreliable as they are, the media will be all over them – and check the white vote for Obama. If he drops under 30% (a real possibility, if it’s close and chock full of GOP voters), there will be great hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth about his collapse in white support. This is the opening Hillary needs to try and convince super delegates that she is the one they should support. More about that tomorrow.

Calling Henry Waxman

2008-05-05T08:51:00.000-07:00

Roger Clemens issued a statement last night apologizing for mistakes in his personal life, while assuring people that he never did performance-enhancing drugs or 15 year-olds. I’m sure that’s very reassuring to his wife and kids, as well as his lawyers, who are getting ready to buy new boats based on the legal fees they are about to pile up. But there is still one key group yet to be heard from – the U.S. House of Representatives. That’s right, Congress clearly needs to investigate this, for the sake of the children. I mean, if they need to hold hearings to protect children from steroid use, surely they need to protect them from sexual exploitation by famous people. I want to see these hearings just to see the Republicans defend Clemens on this one as vigorously as they did on the steroids one.
“Mr. Clemens, you are one of the greatest pitchers of all time and I am honored to be discussing underage girls with you today. I think you are being unfairly accused by unscrupulous reporters looking for a cheap thrill. A man like you, famous, talented, and if I may say so, darn good-looking, must have his pick of women to fornicate with. I find it incomprehensible that you would choose a 15 year-old. And who among us has not seen a young woman who looked 18, but then turned out to be younger? Come on, we have to be fair here, young girls look more mature every year. You meet them, they say they’re 18 or 19, what are you going to do, ask to see their birth certificate? You have the respect and admiration of all Americans, Mr. Clemens, and I am horrified that we have chosen to drag you here today.”
Sounds like fun, doesn’t it? Come on, Congressman Waxman, this could be a wonderful summer replacement for the tedious Democratic nomination race.

Turning Things Around

2008-04-26T10:18:00.000-07:00

Amid a mass of bad sports analogies, the networks have all decided that a) Clinton is turning things around because b) Obama can’t “close the deal”, and yet c) Obama can’t really lose. So what is really happening here?
First, the bad sports analogies department: this has been likened to a tennis match where Obama gets to match point (NH, OH, PA) and just can’t put her away, revealing a fatal weakness in his candidacy. Boy, talk about missing the big picture, tennis analogy-wise. What we have is a three set match where they split the first two (IA, NH, SC, Super Tuesday) and then Obama got s service break in the third, with his run of victories in February, which gave him a clear lead. What Obama has failed to do is break her again, but she hasn’t broken back and we seem to be at 5-4 with him serving in North Carolina. A decisive win there and this is over. Well, in the sports analogy sense and the theoretical sense. It ain’t over until the votes are cast at the convention and the Clintons are not going away. They will fight until the last vote, using Michigan and Florida as their ultimate weapons to keep things going until the convention.
Does it matter? Can she win? The expert analysis seems to be in three similar camps:
1) She’s a long shot, but if she can win Indiana, keep NC close, then win big in Kentucky and West Virginia, her momentum (and his slide) could turn things around. Many people have doubts, but the super delegates just might consider her the better choice.
2) It’s over, Obama will be the nominee, the Clintons refuse to accept the reality. They can fight as long and hard as they want, Obama will win NC, wiping out most of her delegate and popular vote gains from PA and he will have wrapped up the delegate lead and popular vote heading for the convention and the super D’s will fall in line very quickly to end the bloodshed.
3) Even the Clintons know it’s over, the campaign is designed to destroy Obama, with Hillary really aiming at 2012. This is the theory James Clyburn espoused this week and there is some merit to it, although the Clintons probably still think they have a chance at victory, the destruction of Obama’s chances are the one thing they know they can do. After all, it’s one thing for Republicans to attack Obama with partisan ads, it’s quite another to pepper those ads with quotes from HRC and Bill, both attacking Obama and praising McCain.

I tend to lean toward number 3, but I also think there’s a fourth scenario which no one is talking about. The first thing is to keep this going as long as possible, the PA victory was big for that, bringing in money and some campaign credibility. A decent showing in NC combined with a win in Indiana and the stage is set. Let’s call this the “deus ex machina” route to the nomination – an external event makes her the obvious candidate to everyone. In a saner world, her astounding pledge in the PA debate to use our defense umbrella to respond to any attack by Iran on Israel, Saudi Arabia, or any other friendly nation in that region would have been a huge story. In our silly society, it passed by quietly. Obama gave a more reasoned, less militaristic response. Combine that with her vote on the Lieberman-Kyl amendment and you have the warrior Hillary, set to pounce on Iran. The external event is a simple one -- we attack Iran. This week saw a string of accusations, not just from the Bush administration, but from assorted military leaders, regarding Iran’s attempt to destabilize Iraq militarily. The groundwork is being laid. We know McCain is on board, and Hillary has given notice that she is ready to fight as well. When the bombs fly, Obama will be left in a terribly awkward position and HRC will emerge as the only one ready to take on McCain in the battle for Commander In Chief. This isn’t over by a long shot.

Groundhog Day

2008-04-21T16:38:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow is the Pennsylvania primary, in case you haven’t heard. Oh, you have heard? Nice to hear you are no longer in that coma. This has become the most over-hyped political event since, well, the Ohio and Texas primaries, which were almost two whole months ago. The seven weeks of campaigning and advertising since the last time someone voted will be almost as long as the general election campaign following the two conventions. It has also been just as dirty as that will be and cost almost as much money. So where are we in this mess?
This has been the weakest showing by the Obama campaign. Unless they pull off a huge upset, they have squandered time, money, and showed a serious lack of coherence in their strategy and tactics. Maybe it was the debate that changed things. That was a crappy performance by Obama – although nowhere near as crappy as the one by the moderators – and seemed to be fueled by a reluctance to really go after Clinton, based, I assumed, on the eventuality of his nomination and the need to not offend HRC’s people. It was like a major heavyweight fight, where one boxer was in control and just was content to box and be careful rather than go for the knockout, avoiding injury and getting the win unhurt, with a bigger fight on the horizon. But after the debate, things turned really nasty, with negative speeches and negative commercials flooding the airways. Now that was true of both sides, but Clinton has nothing to lose, she is desperate and the last thing she is worrying about is uniting the party after the nomination. It is a strange choice and I can only assume that it was driven n some way by polling data showing that Obama had closed the gap and had a real shot at winning, enough of a shot that it was worth going for the knockout.
The problem with that strategy is that it is a risk combined with a stunning disregard for the history of this campaign. The risk is that Obama has really done everything he could to win PA, leaving him with no excuses at all; the money was spent, every possible tack was tried, a loss here is a real loss. As for the money, much has been made of how much Obama has spent relative to Hillary. Frankly, as long as you have enough to get out your own message, which Hillary does, there is no evidence at all that outspending your opponent on advertising helps. In fact, there have been reports of polls showing people are more annoyed by the constant advertising. What does help in PA, the last of the machine states, is having Gov. Ed Rendell and his machine on your side, as well as the mayors of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and theirs, which Hillary does. As for the history, the pattern in this state has been the same as in all the other major states she has won. She starts with a big lead in the polls, he shows up, drives the numbers down to where it looks like he might actually win, then loses by ten points. It was that way in Ohio, in California, in New Jersey, in Massachusetts, and it will be that way in PA as well. Hillary wins by ten points (dodging a hail of sniper fire on the way to the celebration), we move on to May 6th, with Indiana too close to call, and starring North Carolina as the state that Obama wins to wrap things up.

The Worst Paragraph Ever Published

2008-04-16T08:51:00.000-07:00

Normally, I focus on political activity here, but this morning’s Los Angeles Times sports section contained a paragraph so linguistically pathetic that I had to show it to those of you unable to bask in its ineptitude.
It appeared as the fourth paragraph in the primary article, written by Mike Bresnahan, which dealt with the Los Angeles Lakers, a team which, when the season started, was considered to be in major trouble, with a star who was demanding a trade, and unlikely to make the playoffs. Last night the Lakers, culminating a great season, clinched the best record in the Western Conference, giving them home court advantage throughout the Conference playoffs, which figure to be extremely contentious. For those of you who value the English language, I suggest that at this moment you make sure you are seated comfortably, are not eating, and are not handling sharp objects. I now quote:

“It was only a step, to be sure, but it was tangible and touchable in a season that started with so little of either.”

I know, it is actually just a sentence, but it was set off as a paragraph so that the reader could appreciate it in its aesthetic solitude, undiminished by any following comments. Let’s look at it in more detail. Yes, the step of clinching the best record was both tangible and touchable. Not just tangible, mind you, but also touchable. The first definition of tangible at dictionary.com is “capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial.” So the best we can say for this is that it is ridiculously redundant. That is what jumped out at me when I first read it. Of course, that is merely the beginning of the illiteracy here, since the step of winning the conference is not remotely touchable. Now there are definitions of tangible which are figurative, referring to the reality of something rather than its corporeal nature, so we can only guess that Bresnahan decided to add touchable just to make sure it made no sense.
Speaking of making no sense, how about that last phrase? Yes, it was a season which “started with so little of either” – say what? The only words that could refer to are “tangible and touchable”. Yes, Bresnahan is telling us the NBA season started with very little tangibility (and we also couldn’t touch it.). I’ve searched for a definition of tangible under which that might make some kind of sense. The best I could come up with was “definite; not vague or elusive: no tangible grounds for suspicion.” So I guess he’s saying the Lakers season prospects were deemed to be vague and indefinite, but I have to work to get to that one and we’re still left with “so little of either”, which, one must assume, refers to our limited ability to touch the Lakers season back in November. This was no doubt a tragedy of sorts for those who enjoy fondling the schedule of sports teams.
Mr. Bresnahan is a professional writer – we know this because he gets paid for it – and his editor, also paid, is a professional editor. That two men in the profession of writing could both write and fail to correct this is mind-boggling.

Oh Just Shut Up

2008-04-11T14:22:00.000-07:00

Last night, Bill Clinton, for reasons known only to Bill Clinton, decided to attack the press and defend Hillary by saying that Hillary’s Bosnia lie was a “misstatement” that she made “once, late at night” then “immediately corrected”. Of course, she made it several times, all during the day, and didn’t immediately correct anything -- but truth and Bill Clinton are pretty much complete strangers. The best part of it all was his excusing the “misstatement” by saying she’s 60 years old and “when some of you are 60, you’ll have trouble remembering things late at night, too”. Really, he said that. The former Whoremaster-In-Chief is clearly losing it. Maybe he just hasn’t had any nookie lately. Maybe he’s having his own senior moments. Maybe he just thinks he can say anything and no one will care. But if that isn’t the stupidest thing anyone has ever said, I’d like to hear the winner. That’s it, point out that your wife is a)old, b)vulnerable to foggy thinking because she is old, and c) really shaky late at night. No wonder he thinks it would be a good race between her and John McCain – she would be the kid in that battle and they could each take CAT scans to see whose brain activity is soundest.
Apparently, when word of this got back to Hillary, the former First Enabler called her husband and told him to shut up. This morning he attacked the press some more and put his foot further in his big lying mouth. I just don’t get the appeal of these corrupt scum. They did everything they could to destroy the Democratic party in the nineties and if given a chance, will finish the job over the next four years. For the sake of the party and the country, the Clintons must be stopped. Now is the time for all good men (and women) to come to the aid of the party – I pray they do and end the madness.

How Hillary Wins

2008-03-27T11:04:00.000-07:00

In David Brooks’ column in the NY Times this week (where he used the wonderful phrase “the audacity of hopelessness” to describe HRC’s campaign) he said she has about a 5% chance of getting the nomination. I’m not sure we can measure it quite so precisely. I do believe there are a number of hoops she needs to jump through and more important, I don’t think she has any control of the situation at any point. In other words, I don’t believe she can win the nomination, she has to hope Obama loses it – a possibility, which, based on the Wright insanity, does exist.
The path is somewhat simple – first, win Pennsylvania big. By big, I mean over 15%. If she wins by less than ten, it will impress no one. If she wins by 12 or 13, it’s a solid win, but no indication of underlying trouble for Obama and it will look like the Rendell machine just did its job well. But if she wins by 17 or 18%, then Obama’s numbers among white voters will look like they did in Mississippi and that will be all the media will talk about for the next two weeks. The question, asked constantly, will be “is Obama’s campaign collapsing”? The next step would be winning North Carolina and Indiana, leaving the impression that Obama is done. Then she wins almost all the remaining primaries and although she doesn’t catch him in pledged delegates, she can go to the super delegates and say “this is why you were created – we have a candidate who won early but who is collapsing late, based on information early voters didn’t have; now for the sake of the party, you have to pick the only candidate with a chance of winning, which is me.”
It all sounds possible and logical. Unfortunately, there are a few little problems. First, the most recent polling data seems to indicate that Obama has weathered the storm of Rev. Wright – although the Clintons are going to keep seeding those clouds. Then the NBC/WSJ poll had ominous news for Hillary, as her negatives are climbing along with his and her positives are dropping sharply; nearly 18% of her own voters don’t view her favorably. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the electoral results are exactly what Hillary needs them to be. Then she gets to try and convinces the SDs that they should join up with her to overturn the delegate vote – which is where the real problem for her shows up. You see, back in 2007, the Clinton campaign was pushing the inevitability of Hillary’s nomination to super delegates, basically telling them to get on the bandwagon before it leaves town and they will remember who was with them and who wasn’t. There’s nothing very unusual about this, although it did rub a number of people the wrong way. Many joined up, others resisted. We are now left with those who resisted, which may not be the audience the Clinton campaign wishes to deal with again. The other reason super delegates exist is to have office holders and politicians help make the decision from a political point of view; that is, who would be best for the ticket (or more specifically, for me)? That is where Hillary runs into big trouble. You see, back in the 90’s, Bill was useless to the party. He raised money, but he had no coattails at all, and everything he did, every stance he took, every person he consulted (Dick Morris, most notably) was about his own future. He left the party in shambles, losing both houses of Congress, and destroying many careers. These pols don’t forget that and see Hillary – especially given her scorched-earth campaign – as the same. Then there’s the supporter problem. In the NBC/WSJ poll, 28% of Clinton supporters said they would vote for McCain over Obama, while 19% of Obama supporters returned the favor. This might look like an advantage for Hillary, but many Obama supporters aren’t going to vote for McCain, because they aren’t going to vote at all. Let’s face it, the SDs overturning the pledged delegates would arouse a fury among the hard-core Obamaites, mostly black and young – two groups notorious for not voting. The Clintonites who desert Obama, mostly older, but many blue-collar types as well, will still vote – they may vote McCain, but they will then vote for other Democrats. So if you’re a super delegate, who would you rather have, a candidate with a slightly better chance of winning the White House, or one who makes it more likely that you and your colleagues win? If you don’t know the answer to that question, you are not a politician.
All in all, things do not look good for Hillary. I think Obama’s collapse (which doesn’t seem to be happening) would have to be so complete that it would seem like an obvious decision to go with her. Where there’s life there’s hope, and the Clintons don’t go quietly, so we can look forward to months of nastiness.

The Many Lies of Hillary Clinton

2008-03-25T15:16:00.000-07:00

Time and time again during this long and divisive campaign, Hillary Clinton has made many claims about her positions and activities, mostly as First Lady, as well as Senator, most of which are somewhere between exaggeration and outright lies. Herewith a sample of her current collection of baggage:

1) “I was opposed to NAFTA” – When Obama pointed out that she actually worked for its passage, Hillary went ballistic, calling it a lie. The release of her White House schedules demonstrates the depth of her involvement in getting NAFTA passed. Holding meeting with recalcitrant Democrats in Congree, badgering labor leaders, doing everything she could to get it passed. As Hillary is fond of saying, it’s easy to make speeches, actually working to get something done is what matters. Hillary worked hard to get NAFTA passed, then claimed it proudly as an accomplishment of the Clinton Administration. Maybe she wasn’t enthusiastic about it – but her fingerprints are all over it.
2) She only voted for the Iraq War resolution in order to get inspectors back into Iraq and never intended it to be a vote for an attack -- Oh, please. The record shows that she supported the war, saying that there could be no doubt that Saddam had WMD. She also voted against the Levin Amendment, which specifically would have authorized military action only if Saddam defied the UN on the return of inspectors – which he had already signed an agreement to do. Then there’s Bill Clinton, who wrote an op-ed piece in the Times of London agreeing with Tony Blair’s position and was clearly in favor of the war. She only opposed the war when it was time to run for President, knowing she had to be opposed to it to get the nomination.
3) “I was in Bosnia and had to duck sniper fire at the airport” – This was clearly designed to show her experience as a world leader, that she had been under fire – literally- when Obama hadn’t. This now turns out to be a complete lie. She also said she was sent there because it was too dangerous for the President to go. That’s right, it was too dangerous for Bill, so he sent Hillary (understandable) and Chelsea??? Yes, it was so dangerous he sent his teenaged daughter. We now have video of the ceremony on the tarmac and there were no snipers, no ducking and running, just dignitaries and little girls with flowers. When confronted with the truth, Hillary claimed to have “misremembered” and said she “misspoke” – and, my favorite part, said it showed she was human and laughingly said that humanity would surprise some people. No, Senator, it didn’t show you were human, it showed you were a Clinton, that you treat the truth as an inconvenience, just like the former Whoremaster-In-Chief does. She didn’t just tell this creative anecdote, filled as it was with vivid images of a courageous First Lady ducking incoming fire, she told it multiple times. She has no integrity and no shame either. She is morally unfit to be President, and all her time as First Enabler doesn’t make her any more qualified to take the reins of this country. It is time to drive Clintonism, with all its lies and corruption from the party and country once and for all.

Downed Cows

2008-03-12T13:32:00.000-07:00

The president of the California packing company which was subjected to the largest beef recall in history testified before Congress today. His previous story was that they didn’t knowingly put any downed cattle (those to sick to walk) in the mix. Unfortunately, there was secret tape that showed him downed cattle being forced into the slaughtering pen. At that point he admitted that they had indeed done exactly what they were accused of and denied.
This is a shocking display of honesty – albeit after the point where he might have gotten credit for it – probably brought on by the company already being in ruins and visual evidence. On the other hand, if this guy had ever run a tobacco company, he would have been a lot better at responding to it. A tobacco company exec would have tried something like this: “Congressman, cattle are a lot smarter than you think. Every once in awhile one realizes what is about to happen and fakes an injury to avoid slaughter. We have expert and experienced people on the line who can tell when cattle are faking it, which, if you were a trained observer, would probably be obvious to you.”

Oy

2008-03-11T09:46:00.000-07:00

Well, we now know who won’t be the first Jewish President. Mr. Rectitude, Elliot Spitzer, has fallen off his high horse with quite a thud. It is a classic tragedy, with the mighty brought low by human flaws. The assorted miscreants of Wall Street who Spitzer targeted so effectively over the years get the last laugh, while the rest of us can lament over what might have been. His Governorship had gotten off to a rocky start, yet he was back on the upswing in the polls when this happened.
As for the crime itself – frankly, it doesn’t matter to me who he has sex with, although I assume his wife will have a different opinion. There does seem to be an element of recklessness here which is dangerous in a political leader, although hardly uncommon, as sexual dalliances seem commonplace among Presidents of the last half century. Unfortunately, he didn’t just have sex with an intern, or some lobbyist, he broke the law, and that is a bad thing. Whether this kind of prostitution should be illegal is debatable, as it seems, considering the rates, to be the ultimate victimless crime. It is still illegal and there may well be organized crime links involved with the service itself, so Spitzer can hardly get a pass on this one.
Assuming Spitzer resigns, his political future is over – not that it wouldn’t be effectively over if he tried to tough it out. At 48, he would have to find something else to do, probably involving TV, so we can look forward to seeing him on MSNBC next year. After his resignation, NY would inaugurate Lt. Gov. David Patterson, a legally blind African-American as Governor. Blind David Patterson sounds more like a blues singer from the Delta than a Governor of NY, but it would be cool if he was referred to that way.
Meanwhile, here on the left coast, Arnold Schwarzenegger can only be glad that Heidi Fleiss wasn’t being wiretapped and that her “little black book” never became public. Maybe he would have gotten a pass on using hookers since he was an actor, not a straight-laced pol, but he can still pose as a wonderful family man, which is more than Spitzer can do this morning.

What Obama Must Do

2008-03-05T13:41:00.000-08:00

Last night’s victories by Clinton should scare the Obama camp, especially combined with dramatic shift over the last three days in Presidential tracking polls, where Clinton has regained the lead. Her attacks on him have worked, especially combined with her all out “soft” campaign on late night shows, morning shows, and her constant whining about how she’s being picked on.
It is time for Obama to take action on two fronts.

1) Attack her at the heart of her argument – she is not ready to be commander-in-chief. It’s simple really, and he has started it.
“Hillary Clinton claims that her experience makes her the one you want in the White House when a crisis comes up. But that moment will require decisions to be made, and for all her alleged experience, she has been terrible at making decisions on issues of war and peace. In 2002, she voted with John McCain and George Bush to authorize the war in Iraq – she had a decision to make and made the wrong one. In 2007, she voted for Iran an resolution backed by George Bush and John McCain, a vote Joe Biden described as ‘stupid’ – she had a decision to make and made the wrong one. Like John McCain, Hillary Clinton has experience, but like McCain, her lack of judgment makes her a dangerous choice for commander-in-chief.”

2) Clinton has been making the rounds of the morning shows talking up the possibility of a Clinton-Obama ticket. This will be a key part of her strategy, since she know that a brokered convention, which she will need to get the nomination, will need to get Obama and Obama’s supporters on board before they can give Clinton the nomination. It is imperative that Obama eliminates that possibility and makes it an either-or choice. Here is what he should say to his supporters:
“Hillary Clinton has been going around talking about the possibility of a Clinton-Obama ticket. Let me be absolutely clear about this – I will not accept the vice presidential nomination under any conditions. To do so would betray the principles of change this campaign has been built on. I have no intention of being the third wheel on Bill and Hillary Clinton ticket. We – you and I – have come too far in this journey to end up in the back of the Clinton bus”

Pointless Predictions

2008-03-04T08:19:00.000-08:00

Today is not-quite-super Tuesday and my junior pundit’s license demands that I make some kind of prediction about the results. This is something resembling a guess, educated only by polling data, which has been, to put it kindly, less than reliable. The problem with polling in primaries has always been about predicting turnout. In most cases, the likelihood of getting an accurate sample in an extremely low-turnout election is small. In this case, there is a whole new wrinkle, polls have to try and guess not only the turnout, but the very composition of the turnout, since that seems to be key to the results. Historical turnout numbers and demographic composition has been blown away in this election, leaving pollsters with numbers that are next to useless. Once in a while someone gets it right. This is probably sheer luck, rather than a superior methodology. Survey USA has had the best luck so far – in particular, getting Wisconsin sort of right. But there is no guarantee that they will be more accurate tonight than anyone else.
Having said all that, all I have to judge is polling data and I will fire a few bullets in the general direction of the moving target. I figure VT goes to Obama and RI to Hillary, ending the streak. Which brings us to the big two – OH and TX. A clue about the results can be found in where the candidates are going to be tonight – HRC is in OH, Obama in TX. This tells me that both camps expect her to win OH – if Obama thought he was about to win it, or even had a 50-50 chance, he would be there, since it is a more valuable place to be for the fall campaign. The polls seem to have turned around late for Clinton there, possibly based on health care, possibly on the Canadian NAFTA nonsense. Or maybe it’s just a parallel to the other big states, where Obama closes in the polls, then falls short in the end, as Hillary voters return to the fold. In any case, I expect a Clinton win there, maybe by a sizable margin.
A quick comment on the Canada story: is it unreasonable for Obama’s economic advisor to say to the Canadians “look, for the campaign, we have to be evenhanded about this, but there are no extra standards we will propose that you guys don’t already meet, so clearly you have nothing to worry about”? Of course, no one can say that publicly, since Mexico and folks in border states (like Texas) will get very nervous. It’s all silliness, but then, so is much of what we hear these days. Anyone who trusts Clinton more than Obama on changing trade deals is a fool – the Clinton Administration’s biggest accomplishments were trade deals and it’s hard to believe she is that far from the economic policy of the administration she is so proud of.
As for Texas, who knows? One thing is almost certain: Obama will win more delegates there. The system and the allotment of delegates by district will help him. Given the way this campaign has gone, a Clinton primary win there (as opposed to caucuses) wouldn’t surprise me. Her final numbers in most of the big states have exceeded her polling numbers and it may go that way again.
If Hillary wins OH and TX, it will be a big night for her, with much celebrating and a story line of “she wins the big states where more people get to vote, therefore she is the better candidate”. (This story will last about 48 hours, which is when Obama wins North Carolina and everyone realizes that despite Hillary’s two big wins, Obama actually widened his delegate lead this week. At that point, look for a number of notable names (Bill Richardson among them) to move to Obama.)
Edit: I misread the electoral map, NC is on May 6th, not March 6th. Mississippi and Wyoming are coming up in the next week and Obama can recover with those.

It's Not TV, It's Nonsense

2008-03-03T19:19:00.000-08:00

I will freely admit to not having seen 60 Minutes last night, just the moment in which Hillary Clinton was asked by Steve Kroft whether she thinks Barack Obama was a Muslim. When she said, basically, no, Kroft asked her again. This is a disgraceful attempt at journalism, by someone who, in a better world, would have been fired this morning, along with the producer who actually put that crap on the air. This isn’t just a stupid question, it’s a repeat of a rumor on the internet which has no credibility whatsoever. Yet Kroft, lacking in all journalistic integrity, decided to ask it, in an attempt to create news. Clinton, gave a reasonable answer, although could have been more definitive in her ultimate denial. Today, we can only assume Kroft and his CBS whore masters got their wish – free publicity, as news programs decided it was worth talking about. It seemed like a harmless enough moment to me, considering the basic inanity of the question, but MSNBC apparently made the decision that it was interesting. Chris Matthews showed the clip, then pretty much denied that there was any point in showing it. Clinton was asked about it on the campaign trail and got to go into her “Hillary as victim” routine, talking about all the “scurrilous rumors” which have dogged her through the years. Obama addressed it by talking about how much he loved Jesus, how he prays to Him nightly, when not too busy, and is absolutely not a Muslim.
Every American should be sickened by the whole episode. Sickened by a news media which is about its own promotion rather than illumination of ideas and facts. Sickened by the description of someone’s possible religion as a “scurrilous rumor.” Sickened by the need, in America, to pass some kind of religious test for office – not just saying you’re a Christian, but giving the details of your devotion, so people know you are really, really Christian, not some closet Muslim or, maybe worse, non-believer. Unfortunately, in Bush’s America, the religious fundamentalists must be placated, no matter how repulsed and frightened the founding fathers would have been by the complete denial of all they believed in.
Speaking of NBC, Hillary Clinton was on Saturday Night Live this weekend. For the second week in a row, the erratic comedy show decided to crap on Obama and genuflect before St. Hillary in their opening segment. Last week, in their return from the strike, they showed their version of CNN’s debate, where the anchors and questioners, led by Campbell Brown (played by Kristen Wiig), admitted their clear preference, even adoration, for Obama, and asked him nothing but fluff questions while basically ignoring Hillary. This is, of course, ironic, as in an earlier CNN debate, Brown ended the proceedings by asking Hillary the probative question “Diamonds or pearls?”
This time around, it was MSNBC’s turn, with Brian Williams and Tim Russert being lampooned, asking Hillary the tough questions and Obama the easy ones. That’s right, the same Tim Russert who asked the real Obama the fluff question about Louis Farrakhan and in the middle of Obama’s answer, added Obama’s pastor to the mix with statements he made about Obama and the Jewish vote following his trip to Libya with Farrakhan. So their take on him was pure slander, but they had established their pro-Clinton position the week before (a position bizarrely quoted by Hillary in a debate) and weren’t easing up. The week before, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler effectively endorsed Hillary on the show. This time around, the sketch was followed by Hillary herself, pointing out that they weren’t endorsing her formally, but that she liked what they were doing and then she had a lovely comedic moment with Poehler (as her) and altogether came across as charming and funny – something the Clintons are great at, by the way.
Now you may say, so what, it’s only SNL, no one cares what they say about politics. The problem is that’s not how they think. After the 2000 election, Tina Fey posited that their selection of the appealing Will Ferrell to play Bush and the unappealing Darrell Hammond to play Gore (in spite of their heights being reversed with the actual candidates) might have unintentionally cost Gore the election. If you remember, the SNL debate piece, mocking Gore’s Social Security lock box, was widely shown, with Gore even using it as a “what not to do” for future efforts. So here we have a pleasant, vivacious Hillary contrasted with a wooden, charmless, and dull Obama, played by the charmless Fred Armisen in blackface. You know, you can do anything you want in the name of satire and they have a right to pimp for Clinton all they want, but I think they really need to try and be a little fair to Obama, if for no other reason than much of their audience supports him. Of course, maybe there’s something else at work here involving Lorne Michaels. I thought the portrayal of Obama I saw was mighty close to racist. Having him played by a stiff and boring white guy was an intentional choice by Michaels. Maybe it’s time for Lorne to hang up his comedy holster and go back to hanging out with his rich friends.

On Wisconsin

2008-02-17T16:52:00.000-08:00

Joey LaMotta: You win, you win. And if you, lose, you still win.
Jake LaMotta: I lose, I still win?
Joey LaMotta: Yeah.

From Raging Bull, written by Paul Schrader and Mardik Martin.

Conventional wisdom – usually far more conventional than wise – has Barack Obama’s momentum rolling through Wisconsin en route to a showdown with Clinton in Texas and Ohio, both of which will be must-win states for her. Today, the Clinton campaign announced that the candidate wouldn’t even be staying in the state through Tuesday, further fueling assumptions that she has no chance of winning there.
The problem is that there is no reason why she shouldn’t be able to win there. I haven’t seen a poll that shows her more than five points behind – there is an ARG poll today with her actually ahead. Basically, the Clinton camp, aided by the media, have played the expectations game perfectly. If she wins, she wins – it will be hailed as a huge comeback, a momentum-stopper, and put immense pressure on Obama to win in either Texas or Ohio. If she loses close, that will also be called a win, as polls will undoubtedly show her winning among Democrats, with independents and Republicans giving Obama the win. If Obama wins by less than ten, it will excite nobody, since people are expecting a victory for him. Only a double-digit win by Obama will impress the punditocracy, and that will still merely be a prelude to March 4th.
The close victory by Obama, which, if the polls are to be believed (I know, given how crappy they’ve been, no real reason to believe them), is the most likely outcome, would be fueled by votes by non-Democrats. Which brings to mind the question of why the Clinton campaign hasn’t created an alternate primary universe, based on exit polls, consisting only of Democrats, reallocating the delegates and recomputing the popular vote totals. Doesn’t it seem like an obvious thing to do? Make the battle cry that Hillary is the candidate that Democrats want to represent them. I’m from the school that thinks primaries should be closed, although the point could be made that winning in the Fall will require independent voters. I think appeal to independent voters is something Democrats can, and should, take into account when voting for their candidate, but that the choice should be within the party. It’s not how the rules are, though, so what I (and the Clintons) would prefer is irrelevant. Still, you’d think it would be a selling point worth pursuing in the battle for Super Delegates.

About Last Night

2008-02-13T18:03:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama’s Potomomac Primary romp last night got a lot of people a lot of excited. There are two big questions: 1) is the excitement warranted? and 2) what the excitement itself resonate in this election? The victories were all expected, but the margins were immense, with Obama winning every demographic except white women. Ignoring the obvious place for a jungle fever reference, let’s look at this carefully. Obama found electorates well in tune with him in Maryland and Virginia upscale whites combined with large African-American voting blocs (which he is now carrying 8-1). Getting over 60% is still impressive and the delegate total is mounting. So the excitement might be a little overblown, but the results were exciting for Obama, for he now leads by over 100 elected delegates, maybe as many as 130. The Clinton campaign itself has said that it is almost impossible to catch Obama in that number and has now started talking about how Super Delegates should be included in all counts, even though they aren’t bound at all. Look for them to start adding in Michigsn and Florida delegates soon, since the numbers look bad as they are. As for the popular vote thus far, Obama leads that by about 800,000. If he finishes the primary season leading in both, it will be very hard for the SDs to reverse the results.
As for the resonance – look for SDs to be very careful before endorsing Clinton from this point. It is quite possible that the electorate is starting to accept the concept of President Obama, that victory after victory is starting to create a bandwagon effect. That is why Clinton has started to spend money in Wisconsin – a 60% victory there could just render March 4th meaningless. As big as winning all the major states but Obama’s own would be, losing this many others, along with the pledged delegate count, might render it moot. Things are not looking good for Clinton at the moment, as momentum can be a bitch to overcome this late.

***************************************************

Speaking about last night, the Senate voted on the new eavesdropping bill, passing the version the Bush Administration wanted, with immunity for the telcoms who collaborated with the fascists. Of course, it is expected that Republicans would go along with it. That only 29 Democrats would go along with the noble filibuster attempts of Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold is sad.

It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's a...Superdelegate!

2008-02-11T13:07:00.000-08:00

The big discussion in Democratic circles is what will the superdelegates to the convention do. It seems apparent that neither candidate will have the nomination locked up before the convention, or even have a substantial lead. So that throws the ultimate decision to the superdelegates, a collection of Senators, Congressmen, Governors, and party officials. This has been decried as undemocratic. Donna Brazile has threatened to quit her party position if they act badly – like anyone would give a shit. Others, including Obama himself, have suggested that SDs follow their district/state’s voting preference – which enabled Hillary to get off her best response of the campaign, saying how she would welcome Ted Kennedy and John Kerry’s votes at the convention. Of course, that would cause an amusing situation in the Clinton camp as well, with Charles Rangel, a Clinton surrogate, whose district (not to mention his wife) supported Obama.
All of this ignores why they exist in the first place. Back in 1980, people realized that in a contested race, it was possible for a lot of office-holders, big ones even, to not even be delegates to the convention, since they might have been on the losing side of a primary contest. More and more people felt that the party was becoming leaderless, with experienced politicians left out of deliberations, and with the real risk of nominating a candidate who might not be the one that local candidates would want at the top of the ticket. If there is a Senate race in North Carolina or Virginia, who is at the top of the ticket could determine the winner of that seat. Certainly the coat tails are very important when you get to House races. This system was designed to give the experienced pols a shot at fixing a mistake, especially with most delegates selected months in advance of the convention.
Rampant democracy and the 24-hour news cycle has made it seem outdated. This is the first time they will clearly have the say and they are frightened by it. In a race this close, this divisive of interest and demographic groups within the party, it’s not going to be easy. Obama running the table would solve their problem, but that doesn’t figure to happen. How can they make a decision?
After this week, after Obama’s 8 wins (and a Grammy), he will be referred to as the frontrunner. Next week in Hawaii and Wisconsin will probably reinforce that – although Hillary’s new team may well decide to try and slow his momentum in WI, risking money and time in what might be a lost cause. Still, she figures to come back in March, focusing on Texas (a likely significant win because of the large Latino vote) and Ohio, which will be the first of two showdown states, with Pennsylvania following seven weeks later. Here is the Clinton scenario: Obama piles up delegates in caucuses and smaller, mostly African-American dominated states, then she takes Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, giving her a virtual sweep of every major state except for his home state. With the delegate totals close, the SDs have no choice but to turn to the person who wins the major primaries. It might work, since Texas is naturally hers, and she has a big polling lead in Ohio, which looks a lot like all the other states where Obama starts from way behind and closes fast at the end, ultimately falling short. That means the seven-week campaign in PA could be decisive. Where the SDs really have trouble is if Obama ends up with more delegates, more total votes, and loses all the big states decisively. I think if he stays close in OH and PA, they’ll go with him, but the entrails of birds would be just as likely to give us the likely outcome of this race as any reasoned analysis.

Uncivil War

2008-01-25T15:19:00.000-08:00

The last Democatic debate was nothing if not entertaining and would have been more appropriately held at Fort Sumpter, given the divisiveness. The nastiness and hostility between Obama and Clinton was first rate political theater and the whole thing might have escalated (or devolved, if you prefer) into fisticuffs had John Edwards not been there. It is very clear that the Clinton strategy is to drag Obama into the mud with them, giving the perception that he’s just as sleazy as they are, destroying his fresh and clean image. Will it work? Probably. How damaging this is to the party is hard to say, as there’s a long way to go until the convention and if it doesn’t continue for months on end, it could fade into distant memory. Several points need to be made:
1) The whole Rezko thing is nonsense. Rezko was a hanger-on who liked to inflate his own importance and there’s no evidence Obama did anything for him politically. Compare that to the Clinton attitude toward Tyson in Arkansas, “travelgate”, and the Mark Rich pardon on the way out of the White House and which candidate is more corrupt is pretty clear.
2) Obama did say nice things about Reagan. He talked about some positive things he did and his denial of that is hollow. Obama’s problem is that he tends to actually think about things and then discuss them, without thinking about what the political ramifications would be. This is refreshing. This is also dangerous. Hillary made one slip regarding driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants and all hell broke loose. This should have been a cautionary lesson for Obama, but apparently he just likes to ruminate about things. Running against the Hillarybot 2008, which has vetted everything she’s going to say before she says it, he has to be better prepared.
3) Speaking of prepared – commenting that “I don’t know which of them I’m running against” got the expected response from HRC, regarding how wonderful Bill is and how the other candidates spouses are strong advocates for them. Obama was not prepped with the response he should have had, namely that Michelle Obama was not the ex-President, whose every word is newsworthy, and that being married to Bill Clinton is the reason HRC considers herself more experienced, while none of Obama’s qualifications come from whom he is married to.
4) Edwards was the best candidate out there, but it won’t matter much, I fear.

So what will happen tomorrow? I have a feeling a surprise is out there. Maybe not in the winner, but perhaps in the margin, or maybe with Edwards getting a larger than expected vote. ARG says Clinton is closing ground, losing white voters to Edwards, but taking older black women back from Obama. Zogby says Edwards is the one moving late. Public Policy says Obama is widening his lead. And my favorite poll comes from Clemson, which has Obama at 27, Clinton at 20, and Edwards at 17, with a whopping 36% undecided – frankly, that may be the most accurate representation of where people really are. But tomorrow, those undecideds will have to decide, and that could result in anything.

Nevada Democratic Debate

2008-01-16T09:18:00.000-08:00

After several days of nonsensical race-based acrimony, last night’s Democratic debate figured to be a love fest, with the candidates seated close to each other and trying to cut down on negativity which had permeated the campaign. I suspect that this will not be the last time this devolves into personal infighting, as Clinton and Obama are remarkably similar politically and much of this campaign is based on who they are rather than what they stand for. As for the LBJ-MLK controversy, Clinton was right, much ado has been made over nothing, as it was over Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” comment, and reflects an over-sensitivity which could completely backfire on Obama in the long run. I give Hillary credit for not backing off the premise of the statement in her subsequent discussions of it. Far too often politicians say something which is totally justifiable, then when they find out it upsets people, run away from it as fast as they can. Of course, the Clinton campaign is run in the classic modern manner, where the candidate stays a bit above the fray, while the surrogates say the most obnoxious things possible. Time and again Clinton’s surrogates say the kind of things, often about Obama and drugs, which are odious, yet somehow the campaign is doing nothing to stop them. Even after the departure of Bill Shaheen, there have been statements like Robert Johnson’s which carry disgusting implications with them. It is inconceivable to me that a responsible campaign has no stated policy regarding this, but then again, the Clintons are known for saying or doing whatever they have to in order to win, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Even yesterday, Charles Rangel was on TV saying utterly untrue things about Obama. It’s the Karl Rove technique – say enough bad things often enough and people will believe them.
As for the debate, once again Hillary proved to be the master (mistress?) of the form. Tight answers, with content and purpose, combined with complete command of the rhythm of things enabled her to dominate. The polls showed a tight, three-way race in NV, so she had to bloody John Edwards and did, with the Yucca Mountain exchange where she pointed out that he had voted for it not once, but twice, once to override a Clinton veto – a double-dip point which reinforced a Clintonian history of opposition. As for Obama, her pointing out his vote for the “Cheney Energy Bill” (a nice touch for HRC with that description), combined with his weak defense of it, was a knockdown punch. He fought back a bit by pointing out her using the “politics of fear” which was a Bush tactic, but in the end, I thought he seemed to be defending much more than anyone else throughout. Obama may have scored points against Edwards by claiming their small differences on Iraq were “distinctions without a difference”, but the fact that they were even discussing it left HRC above the fray on that issue, which has totally faded into the background in the Democratic debate. Obama also fails to attack Clinton’s readiness, which is a major problem for him. In fact, his weakest moment may have come when he defended his “the President doesn’t have to run everything, just provide a vision” statement. It was a weak defense and HRC attacked him effectively for it. He seems trapped in his own avowed political philosophy of uniting people. He only is able to counterpunch, not try and take the lead, which is why so much gets made of trivial Clinton statements, while not really going after her on big issues.
Edwards had a very good night, even if he got to talk less than the others. The format is okay, but would have been better with less formality. If you are going to have the candidates ask questions of each other, make sure you know the rules and make sure it’s fair. Edwards and Obama asked questions of each other but never got to ask one of Hillary. In fact, Russert refused to let Obama back off something that sounded like a question to Edwards. This was totally unfair. Clinton turned her question of Obama into a pro-Hillary statement which Obama had to agree with.
The real question with debates is who watched and what their reaction was. If enough NV voters watched, it could be big for HRC. But it’s possible that very few of the remarkably small percentage of Nevadans who will be caucusing watched, in which case, it matters far less. Obama is the better speaker, but fewer people see his speeches than see debates, and that is where Hillary shines. Overall, I thought Hillary won last night, Edwards was a solid second, with Obama third. Oh yeah, and it was really nice to not have Richardson and Kucinich there.

Numbers and Notes -- New Hampshire

2008-01-15T17:55:00.000-08:00

I have spent some time before writing about New Hampshire because I wanted to see more analysis from other sources, including actual breakdowns of polls. In the end, there are conflicting numbers, it’s hard to analyze specifics, and different people have come up with assorted reasons for the “error”. The pollsters are investigating their methodology – although apparently it was only wrong with the Dems, since it got the GOP race exactly right.
Here is my take:
1) There is no reason to believe half a dozen or more polls were all wrong in their poll results, especially in light of their accuracy in the GOP results. The polls were mostly finished by Sunday, with a few exceptions. I think they were accurately reflecting how things stood.
2) There was a sea change, mostly among women, which took place on Monday and Tuesday. Two of the three polls (the exception being the Suffolk U. poll, which was off on the GOP and had bizarre gender splits in both parties), both had Obama ahead with women by about the same amount he won them in Iowa. The exit polls show Clinton winning them by double digits. That swing accounts for almost all of the difference. Why?
Well, by Monday, newspapers and other media were talking about Obama winning easily and the race effectively being over – the NH voters are often contrarian about such things and may have not wanted it to end there. There were also reports that Clinton advisors might suggest she leave the race to avoid further embarrassment – this might have been especially telling among women, who would not want that to happen to her. And then she cried...or almost cried...in the diner. That moment, revealing a passion few had seen, was shown over and over again and had to have some effect.
3) But what about the exit poll question “when did you finally decide who to vote for?”, which yielded no significant late gain for Clinton? My theory on this is that there were large numbers of women who were always intending to vote for HRC, as the polls had shown prior to Iowa. Then Obama won Iowa, HRC finished third, Obama made a great speech and they shifted to Obama likely voters. They came back home on election day and simply ignored their three-day dalliance with Obama, just coming back to their original decision, made months earlier.

In any case, this primary turned the race around and we will head into the February 5th primaries with a battle on our hands. It may not be the battle I would like to see, but that’s for another day.

Numbers and Notes -- Iowa and Beyond

2008-01-05T11:21:00.000-08:00

The Iowa Caucus entrance polls ended up being quite accurate in predicting the result, so that makes the underlying numbers very interesting to look at. Let’s look at the results.

Obama – A huge winner by any measure. Brought in new voters, both young and non-Democratic. This win, in a lily white state, will give him serious street cred among African-American voters – yes, he can get elected President. No troubling numbers exist, as those groups which weren’t his strength – older voters and low-income voters – are traditional Democrats who he can pick up in the Fall.
Key number: Among those voters who voted for change (52%), he won 51-20, which is devastating to Edwards and Clinton.

Edwards -- A loss is bad, a big loss to Obama on change is very bad. Strategy in NH is to go after Clinton and try to make it into a race between two different visions of how to accomplish change. How he executes that in tonight’s debate could be the key to his future.
Key numbers: Losing the change vote to Obama (51-20) and the union and low-income vote to Hillary was a two-front disaster. If he can get Hillary out, he could bounce back. This is easier said than done. Has become a “movement” candidate, which makes an early exit from the campaign far less likely. He lost the “Iraq war is most important issue” vote to both Hillary and Obama, getting just 17% there. Hard to figure that one.

Clinton – Iowa was a disaster, no matter how she spins it. This is clearly a change election and she is going to have trouble selling a Clinton revival as real change. The “Ready for Change” signs her people were holding up at her staged post-caucus address looked really desperate. Has to go after Obama while Edwards goes after her, leaving Obama free to be Presidential. A difficult task for Hillary. There is great irony in the way things have broken here. This compressed schedule and three-way race seemed set up for her. No time to eliminate someone and have the anti-Hillary forces coalesce meant that her money and organization would dominate, she would roll through February 5th and be the nominee before anyone could focus. Now she desperately needs time and a head-to-head race.
Key Number: 57% of caucus-goers were women, good for Hillary. She lost women to Obama 35-30...oops. In fact, she only beat Edwards by 7 among women. Her firewall wasn’t NH, it was her dominance in the dominant segment of the party, women voters. In spite of all the focus, in spite of Emily’s List’s economic and organizational support, she lost that demographic.

The other Dems are either irrelevant or gone – sorry to see you go, Joe and Chris, the race is poorer for your leaving.

Note: The older the voter, the more likely to vote for Clinton. The younger the voter, the more likely to vote for Obama.

Huckabee – Easy win on the shoulders of the evangelicals, who comprised an amazing 60% of the vote. NH will be a tougher case, but there is a bounce happening and a solid third there will certainly be considered a victory of sorts. The party establishment hates this guy and won’t go quietly.
Key Number: Only got 14% of the votes among those not born-again. This finished fourth behind Romney 33%, McCain 18%, and Thompson 17%. He must find a way to reach those voters or he won’t win anything.

Romney – The best-laid plans often fall apart worse than you could have imagined. In spite of spending $238 for every vote he got, Mitt finished a bad second. Now he must win NH or get branded a loser, heading for southern primaries where he is weaker. His “silver medal” analogy was cute, but finishing second in the Olympics isn’t great if you entered the favorite, and he did.
Key Number: Mitt only lost the male vote to Huckabee 29-26, women voted for Huckabee 40-24. Is it because women like Huckabee so much, or dislike Mitt? Well, I had a neighbor who used to refer to slick, well-dressed guys who would hit on her in bars with only a quick roll-in-the-hay on their mind and no intention to ever call her again as “striped shirts”. In the political sense, Romney is the ultimate “striped shirt” and women spotted that. You go, girls.

Thompson/McCain – Finished with a couple of hundred votes of each other, due to Thompson actually spending a week there. This is bad for McCain, as it might keep Thompson in the race through SC and McCain had to hope to pick up his support by then. Worse for McCain was the tremendous appeal Obama had for independent voters. If Obama takes too many of them away in NH, McCain could be in trouble and he must win NH. Whoever loses in NH, McCain or Romney, is in serious trouble.
Key Number: Of the 33% of GOP voters who thought illegal immigration is the most important problem, only 4% voted for McCain – this will be a big problem if he gets head-to-head with anyone. Not key, but interesting. Thompson got 16% of men, 10% of women Women don’t trust “striped shirts” or men with trophy wives.

Ron Paul – Got 10%, raised more money than anyone, was not invited to Fox News debate. Fascists don’t want to hear from Libertarians, so the house organ of the GOP has no interest in hearing from Ron.
Key Number: Paul got 21% of the voters under 30, third behind Romney’s 22%.

Rudy Giuliani – 3%? I know he wasn’t trying, but jeez. Don’t they care about 9/11 out there? Still, if McCain wins in NH, then Huckabee and Huckabee and Thompson run 1-2 in SC, this could make Rudy’s strategy look brilliant.

Mike Bloomberg – Huckabee’s big win is just what he needed. Obama, on the other hand, could be a problem.

Late Iowa News

2008-01-03T09:04:00.000-08:00

The Iowa Independent is reporting that the Richardson campaign is directing his supporters to switch to Obama in those caucuses where he is not viable. The theory is that they wants to make sure Clinton doesn't win, which would end the race. As it would also hurt Edwards, they feel it would make Richardson the "alternative" candidate to the top two. As polls have shown Edwards being the leading second-choice candidate among Richardson caucus-goers, this would be a big blow to Edwards and a huge help to Obama. In reality, it would be useless to Richardson, but desperation can make us do dumb things.

Guessing Iowa

2008-01-02T10:11:00.000-08:00

Predicting the Iowa caucuses is somewhere between hard and impossible, with all the reliability of predictions based on animal entrails. Still, punditry demands these kinds of things, so here goes.

Democrats
1. Edwards
2. Obama
3. Clinton

A few days ago this would have been different, with Obama in third. The Des Moines Register poll changes that, not because I think it’s all that accurate, but because it has created a perception about the race which benefits Obama. Perhaps there will be, as the poll shows, a 33% increase in first-time voters, perhaps there will be a huge turnout of Independents and Republicans voting for Obama, but I wouldn’t bet on those two happening. Still, in politics, perception is reality, and the perception that he is surging late and has broad appeal could well lead to that happening or just adding a few points by other means. I still think Edwards wins the caucuses on second-choice votes, but Obama could win the entrance polls and that could really confuse things. The key is the margin – 30-29-28 is meaningless, 34-29-24 is very meaningful, with the story split between the winner and the loser. If it should be Edwards with 34 and Obama with 24, this race would be turned on its head. The other way around eliminates Edwards, and would give Obama a huge boost. A bad third by Clinton would puncture her inevitability balloon and leave this wide open. The Kucinich “endorsement” of Obama might be worth a point or two and that might prove significant. A significant Clinton win would depress far too many people to even think about.

Republicans
1. Huckabee
2. Romney
3. McCain
4. Paul

I included Paul because I think he’ll get to 10% and Thompson won’t. The question here is whether Romney’s all-out assault on Huckabee worked. If it didn’t, it is a major blow to Romney. The key number here is McCain’s vote total. If he gets to 15% or more, without really having a campaign in Iowa, it will be treated as a victory by the media and will get him a bump in NH. Big Prediction Alert....if McCain gets 15% or more and Huckabee and Clinton win, John McCain will be the next President. Even without the Clinton win, I wouldn’t bet against McCain if the other two happen.

But Can He Win?

2007-12-28T11:02:00.000-08:00

For those of you who might be offended, the subject of this does not ignore Hillary, we all know she can win. The question many primary voters have to answer is “I like this guy, but I don’t want to waste my vote – can he actually win this, or should I go to my second choice?” I am going to attempt to answer this, based on polling data and my own spectacularly fallible ability to read the political entrails.

The “Not Really” Tier

Joe Biden: In a better political world, Biden would be battling for the lead in the polls, as he is far more qualified than those at the top. He is also far more experienced than the candidate in his party running on her experience. But he has little personal popularity and his unchanging poll numbers mean he has no chance. This is an indictment of our political system.

Chris Dodd: See Joe Biden, in spades.

Bill Richardson: No, but he has a great chance of being the VP nominee. He, Biden, and Dodd, would make a much stronger top tier than the one we have, but that’s the way things go.

Dennis Kucinich: Yeah, right. Won’t win but will keep cluttering up the race until the end.

Duncan Hunter: Will stick around until the first votes are counted or until his campaign funds run out.

Ron Paul: No, but he is on a mission and his supporters are marginally insane. Look for him to get a shocking number of votes in either Iowa or New Hampshire. Also look for the media to totally ignore the votes he does get.

Fred Thompson: His campaign never caught fire. While his polling numbers have put him in range of the others, he really doesn’t seem to have any sort of momentum or personal drive to get him over the top.

The Contenders - Democrats

Hillary Clinton: Hell yeah. Still the favorite to get the nomination, and still a marginal favorite to become President. The unfortunate assassination of Benazir Bhutto may actually help her...or at least the mainstream media thinks it will, and since they are on her side anyway, they will keep repeating it until the public believes it. Make no mistake, she is who the MSM wants to be President and they will do whatever they can.

Barack Obama: Yes, he can. But if his people aren’t troubled by his national poll numbers, they are fooling themselves. Has money and a national organization, but something may be missing here and a defeat in Iowa could be disastrous, depending on how big.

John Edwards: Yes, but he has to get the nomination and that’s the hard part. A win in Iowa (which I think is at least as likely as anything) and the race turns upside down. The MSM has done everything it can to marginalize him (haircuts? he’s late to rallies?) in an attempt to get a Clinton-Obama showdown, but they can’t ignore actual results. It’s not easy, but at some point Dems may focus on the big picture – he is easily the most electable Democrat.

The Contenders – Republicans

Mitt Romney – Is he the establishment candidate? Does turmoil in Pakistan hurt him (and Huckabee)? Has to be considered a genuine contender, but his plans have gone awry. It was a simple plan : win Iowa, win New Hampshire, narrow the race to himself and Rudy, then roll. Well, what if he loses Iowa and NH? They then head to South Carolina, far less hospitable for him. Has money, has organization, but without momentum, that Mormon thing could prove fatal. Even if he gets the nomination, not a great bet in November.

Rudy Giuliani – Was the leader, may still be the leader, but with everyone under 20%, leadership means little. The sleaze is starting to pile up, and much of his strength in the race comes from his electability, which, while a bit better than Mitt’s, is just not closing the deal. Failures in Iowa and New Hampshire could put him in a difficult position.

John McCain – Rudy’s worst nightmare. The single most likely winner in November, more and more of the GOP establishment are starting to realize that. His resurgent poll numbers reflect the softening of Rudy’s support base. A good third in Iowa followed by a win in NH could make him the top candidate. If Hillary seems to be the Democrats nominee, look for many to rally around the most likely winner – which is him. Will beat any Democrat except Edwards in November.

Mike Huckabee – Included in this group because he can get the nomination. He won’t get elected President. His lack of international experience, his insane tax policy, his extreme religious views, and the many weird things he has said, will overcome his likeability and crush his candidacy should he be the nominee.

No Trouble With The Nomination

Michael Bloomberg – He wants to run, a lot. But he’s not stupid and won’t spend the money without a real chance. A race where Huckabee is the GOP nominee gives him that chance. Not sure whether he would prefer Clinton or Obama on the Dems side, but against Hillary he gets the independents and maybe a third of the GOP, who would be scared by Huckabee. We’re a ways from him making his decision, and if the GOP can’t make a decision and it goes until the convention, that might kill his chances. Absolutely won’t run against McCain or Edwards.

Numbers and Notes: The Comeback Kid?

2007-12-20T11:40:00.000-08:00

The Republican race has taken some bizarre turns in recent weeks, none more bizarre than this week’s. First was the Huckabee surge – fueled by religion and heavy doses of it, the “Christian Leader (his characterization, not mine)” surged to the lead not just in Iowa but in South Carolina, with the national lead within reach. Then, when the rocks were lifted and some unpleasant worms crawled out (pardoning rapists and condoning dog-killing by his son), suddenly Rev. Huck was not all that hot. Meanwhile Mitt “I am too a Christian” Romney started to build a little momentum nationally, while losing it in Iowa and New Hampshire. Rudy was undone by the Judith Nathan hidden security charges scandal, which combined a doubleheader of no-no’s for the GOP – infidelity and misuse of funds (either-or is the traditional GOP stance on those two). The Giuliani campaign is taking on water at an ungodly rate and could be on the verge of sinking. Fred Thompson has successfully put everyone to sleep and his numbers have drifted down.
And then there’s John McCain, who was supposed to have driven off in the old “Straight Talk Express” by now. He is closing in on Romney in New Hampshire and amazingly, while he isn’t even campaigning in Iowa, his numbers there (according to Rasmussen) have doubled since the Register endorsement. This is an incredible move up, but as with all Iowa poll numbers, it’s hard to know whether it translates into actual caucus-goers, or whether people were searching for a name that didn’t repulse them when they were asked, but don’t really have enough enthusiasm to leave their homes for. According to Rasmussen, he’s closed to within 4 points of Mitt in NH, thought to be safe for Romney. The endorsements have clearly helped him, as Republicans are confused and anyone with a firm opinion, even Joe Lieberman, may be listened to. A key to NH may be the Democrats in Iowa, as many independent voters in NH are planning on voting in the Democratic primary, but may switch if it looks like the Dems are done. Look for McCain to have his Hillary ’08 cap on while watching returns on January 3rd.
Oddly, while Romney seems extremely vulnerable at this point, his path to the nomination is the clearest of all. He’s made some peace with the religious right – “If you get down on your knees and pray, you’ll have a friend in the White House” was as clear a signal as he could give – and the business GOP would be thrilled with him. The path was simple, win Iowa (or finish a close second to Huckabee), romp in NH, eliminating Thompson and McCain, watch Rudy founder in SC against Huckabee, then turn to February 5th basically head-to-head with an underfunded and disorganized Huckabee campaign. It still could happen, but he could just as easily lose Iowa to Huckabee, then lose NH to McCain, SC to Huckabee, and then find himself going into the big states without a win and with the “can a Mormon win this?” question being the key topic of discussion.
The other question would be “if not Romney, then who?” The key again may be the Democratic nomination. If it’s Hillary, the GOP may turn to the most likely winner, who, according to polls, is no longer Rudy, it’s McCain. They would have to swallow his immigration stance, and his opposition to torture (and we can assume his strong opposition to torturing illegal aliens, also not popular among the faithful), yet he is strongly anti-abortion and pro-war and that puts him ahead of Rudy that way.
Or this could just boil down to who loves Jesus more and illegal immigrants and “Islamofascists” less – hard to say what these people are thinking.
As Elizabeth Edwards said: “Republicans scare me.”

Numbers and Notes -- Useless Polling Edition

2007-12-19T20:45:00.000-08:00

(With apologies to Meredith Wilson)

We’ve got trouble, right here in River City
With a capitol T and that rhymes with P and that stands for Polls.
We’ve got trouble, right here in River City
Reporting nonsense that’ll suck your brains like a big lack hole.

And soon your kids’ll be using words
Not good words like “tax policy” or “health care reform”
But words like “momentum” (gasp)
Or “trend lines” (gasp)
Or “margin of error” (TROUBLE)

You ever hear of FDR talking about “trend lines”?
Ever hear Ike talk about “margin of error”?
I should say not.
My friends, useless numbers are the devil’s tools.

We’re two weeks from the Iowa caucuses and over the last three days there have been three polls released in which a)each of the candidates has been first b)each has been second and c)each has been third. The media breathlessly announce the numbers like they came down on tablets from Mt. Sinai, often because they themselves sponsored the polls. And the poll they sponsored is the one treated as holy writ, debated like it really means something. In fact, they mean next to nothing. No, I’m not saying Joe Biden or Bill Richardson is going to win Iowa or come close, but the top three are not truly distinguishable by polls. Personally, I think Edwards organization (he’s organized in all 99 counties of Iowa) and experience (his people have done this before) will end up winning the day, especially in terms of delegates. Still, that’s something of a guess, and if you told me he would win the delegates and lose the popular vote to Obama, I wouldn’t dispute that.
The one thing I am hoping for is that the Hawkeyes see clearly enough to punish the Clinton campaign for the filth they have spewn. Usually, dirty tactics wait for when a candidate is in trouble, but the Clintonites see no point in waiting. Besides the silliness over Obama’s kindergarten essays – and rest assured, the Clintonites see that as probitive – they also hinted at his selling coke. That’s the way they play the game, attack first, apologize later, but leave the attack out there. I can’t prove that the John Edwards’ pregnant mistress story came from the Clinton campaign, but it has Clinton conduit Matt Drudge’s fingerprints on it and on Thanksgiving, I was wearing my Edwards button and a Clinton campaign person asked me if I would still support him when stories about his mistress hit the media in a couple of weeks. Now the Enquirer broke the story before that, so he may have gotten it from there, or it just may have been a plan they had. Of course if Edwards did have a mistress – and that would give him a Clinton connection and the kind of experience Hillary is familiar with – this would be huge. It would also have been investigated by a better source than the Enquirer by this time and confirmed by them.
We have two weeks to go, until then, the Dems will battle for every voter and the Republicans will battle for Jesus – more about them later.

Real Leadership Does Exist

2007-12-19T19:20:00.001-08:00

A while back I said nice things about Chris Dodd based on his debate performances, which I thought were excellent, especially since he was generally given less time than the frontrunners. This week he showed another reason to be impressed, as he led the prospective filibuster which derailed the pernicious FISA bill. This bill, which, with the help of my own Senator, Dianne Feinstein, got out of committee with a Republican-sponsored provision exempting the telcos from liability for their aiding the Bush regime in its spying on Americans. This craven capitulation was reinforced on the floor, when the Majority Leader, the relatively useless Harry Reid, was unable or unwilling to get it out of the bill. Now a real Leader would have counted heads and said “I have enough to sustain a filibuster, now get that crap out of there”. Unfortunately, Reid is a pretty lame Leader and was about to get it passed.
At least, he was about to get it passed until Chris Dodd got wind of it and returned from Iowa to lead a filibuster against it. Rather than risk the fight, Reid has postponed consideration of the bill. The other Senators campaigning for President supported Dodd, but had Reid forced the issue, they weren’t there to vote. Only Dodd was there, only Dodd took the lead, and for that, all Americans owe him a debt of gratitude, All it takes for tyrants to triumph (and Bush and his sycophants truly fit that description) is for good men (and women) to do nothing. Chris Dodd did something, and while he may not win in Iowa – okay, he may not get 1% in Iowa – he comes out of this with a lot more of my respect than the others get.
There is talk among the progressive wing of the party about getting Dodd to challenge Reid for the Leadership in the next Senate. I think this is a wonderful idea, as his campaign has given him both the exposure and the following to be the strong Majority Leader the party and the country needs. Whatever party the next President is from, I want the legislative branch to stand up to him (or her) when needed. Run, Chris, run.

Republicans Went to Florida and All We Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt

2007-11-30T11:31:00.000-08:00

For me, watching a Republican debate is almost an anthropological quest, observing a strange culture, similar to ours, yet with a set of values all its own. It is a culture which has child-like faith in the markets, knows its enemies (and wants to kill them), and cares more about unborn babies than small children. They like guns and Jesus, and feel they are misunderstood by minority groups. They hate taxes but, for the most part, have no problem spending money. Although they did promise to veto any bill containing “pork” – defined, I assume, as any project or program advanced by a Democrat.
Assessing these exotics isn’t easy for me, but since I figure it is important for our future to try and understand what motivates those who do not agree with us, I shall try. I do feel optimistic about my ability to grade them because I seem to have done a pretty good job of predicting the current state of affairs in my debate wrap-up of two months ago.
It was an interesting debate, reminding me more of the 20 minute fight scene at the end of John Ford’s “The Quiet Man”, than of Lincoln-Douglas. Romney attacked Rudy, Rudy attacked Romney, Thompson attacked Romney and Huckabee, McCain attacked Romney and Paul, Paul attacked pretty much everyone, and everyone ignored Tancredo and Hunter. Huckabee didn’t directly attack anyone, unless it was employees of the IRS, although his YouTube ad sort of attacked Rudy and Romney.
The YouTube ads varied between dreary and scary, with two exceptions. Rudy’s actually was funny, talking up the great job he did as Mayor, including fighting NYC’s great enemy, King Kong, and reducing snowfall. Fred Thomson used his 30 seconds to run a blatant attack ad against Romney and Huckabee, using old speeches to show how they weren’t conservative. It shocked the house and resulted in CNN allowing them to respond. This was good for Romney, as he got to assert his anti-abortion position and describe the moment of his conversion to that.
McCain was strong, forceful, authoritative, and really ripped Romney on his refusal to come out against waterboarding. He pointed out his first-hand knowledge of the world, and how, unlike the current President when he took office (and by extension, most of the others on stage), he is already prepared to deal with the tough foreign policy issues. He kept dropping the phrase “my friends” into his answers. I think his use of the phrase was less a statement of kinship than the desperate hope that those listening really were friendly toward him. Unfortunately, they aren’t – they just don’t trust him, and unlike Democrats, they aren’t nominating someone they don’t trust.
Rudy got off to a shaky start in his battle with Romney over “sanctuary cities”, but looked good the rest of the way. Oddly, I think his greatest strength is that Republicans do trust him. Even though they don’t always agree with him, they know what he’s about. Which is something they really aren’t sure of with Romney, who seems panicked over Huckabee – and rightly so. Rasmussen actually has Huckabee edging ahead of Mitt in Iowa and should he manage to upset Romney there, there is an excellent chance Mitt’s campaign falls apart.
Thompson had some moments, seems better than he was earlier in the campaign, yet his video attack on Huckabee reveals his problem – he hasn’t won the hearts of conservatives. Every position he took was very conservative and his answer to “how many guns do you own and what kind?” (seriously, this is the kind of questions Republicans consider important) was “I’m not telling you what guns I have or where I keep them”, which got a big laugh from the crowd. He hasn’t caught fire and probably is running out of time.
So what do we make of the fast-charging Huckabee? As my loyal readers might remember, I predicted this rise two months ago, when Huck was at about 7%. Now that he is poised to do something big, what do we have here? He is an odd mix – a social conservative with a man who believes government can do things to help the poor. He is a Christian in the best sense of the word, with a belief in helping those who cannot help themselves. Still, he is very pro-war, very anti-choice, very pro-gun, and wants to abolish the income tax. His charm and wit are endearing, yet he is a little scary. Folks, he is a Southern Baptist minister. Haven’t we had enough of religious fundamentalists in power? Do we really need to go this far?
I think Rudy is the favorite for the nomination, as much because there isn’t a strong enough challenger as through any strength of his own. I expect Huckabee to seriously wound Romney in Iowa, with Romney eking out a small win in NH, and Rudy winning in Florida. Someone wins an indecisive victory in SC, then Rudy rolls on February 5th, as much because there is no one opponent strong enough to go head-to-head with him as through his own popularity. Barring some scandalous revelation about him (and boy, is that a real possibility), Rudy gets the nomination by taking Huckabee as his running-mate. Now...if Hillary’s campaign nose-dives early, all bets are off.

Nevada Debate -- The Empire Strikes Back

2007-11-16T17:54:00.000-08:00

The most notable part of last night’s Democratic debate was how slanted it was toward Hillary Clinton. Wolf Blitzer started out by asking her questions that helped her, then he asked negative questions of Obama and Edwards. He had no control and randomly chose who got to answer what, always making sure she got a shot. On driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, Hillary simply said she was against it – now a real moderator might have pointed out that this is a different position than she had last time, but not Wolf. The Clinton campaign leaked to the Drudge Report (Matt Drudge apparently is thrilled to carry Hillary’s water these days) how much they loved Blitzer. Then there was the audience – packed with Clinton supporters, they cheered her lines on cue and booed anyone who said anything bad about her or even disagreed with her by name. One Clinton thug actually yelled out something while Obama was speaking, as if trying to shout him down. Blitzer’s reaction? Nothing. No admonition to the audience at any point at all. Then, to wrap up a Presidential debate, Campbell Brown, having been pretty decent throughout the evening, earned her CNN cash by asking Hillary the fluffiest question possible, designed to mock those who question her waffling: “pearls or diamonds?” It was a pathetic exhibition by the former news giant.
In the debate itself, Hillary did well, I guess, if you like whining. You see, whenever anyone had the temerity to attack her, she immediately accused them of doing the Republicans job by “slinging mud” -- then she attacked back. The Wicked Witch of the East was in peak form, using every technique from the Karl Rove text. She didn’t plant any questions, although with Blitzer there, she didn’t have to.
I’m getting tired of these debates. The one last week had some merit, in that Matthews and Russert made some effort to pin people down and not coddle Hillary. But it’s getting harder and harder to watch them without wishing it was time to vote.
My ratings after this one:
1. Edwards: Fighting hard but the mainstream media has no desire to have him in the race, since two people are all they have time to cover
2. Dodd: Didn’t get to say much, still solid, but ultimately irrelevant.
3. Biden: Still knows his stuff, but still has no traction at all. He and Dodd are the guys who would be solid Presidents and have little to no chance.
4. Obama: Weak performance, bungled the driver’s license question. Seems to be seeking a middle ground politically which may end up hurting him because he seems to be taking the unpopular route on many issues. Personal story and charisma will have to overcome his unsteadiness.
5. Richardson: Not exciting, can’t see anyone voting for him in the long run.
6. Kucinich: Right on many things, wrong on others, at least he’s honest.
7. Clinton: The stench is rising and the question is whether it fills enough noses to defeat her before it’s too late. My guess is that it won’t, which will be a disaster for the party and the country.

Hillary As Victim

2007-11-01T16:52:00.000-07:00

Hillary Clinton’s reaction to her embarrassing performance at the Philadelphia debate was to go on the offensive and rally her base. Her campaign put out a commercial with each of the other candidates saying her name during the debate, using the slug line “The Politics of Piling On”. No substance is contained in it, no response to the arguments, no arguments at all, just a bunch of men picking on a poor woman. Today she spoke at Wellesley College, her alma mater, where she proudly proclaimed that an all-women’s college taught her to campaign in “the all-boys club of Presidential politics”. Later she said to them “we need to shatter the highest glass ceiling.”
It is clear that Clinton has decided on a clear strategy in recent weeks. If she gets the women, she gets the nomination. Now she is circling the wagons, making sure the women know it’s all about her and her gender. Once again, men are ganging up on a poor, helpless woman and together we can beat those evil men, so let’s stick together. She isn’t dumb – just as Bush and Rove know the religious right could be the core of a victorious campaign, with a passionate “Christians are under attack” argument, so does Hillary focus on women who feel men are picking on her because she’s a smart woman. The problem is obvious – it is divisive as hell. Hillary’s assumption is that men in the Democratic Party (at least those who aren’t soft-headed enough to vote for her in the first place), will fall into line after the primaries are done. Maybe she’s right, since the choice will probably be between her and some right-wing extremist. But I’m old-fashioned enough to think that a Presidential candidate should at least pretend to unite the country, old-fashioned enough to think a campaign shouldn’t focus on a candidate’s race, or religion, or gender. I understand that there are those who would never vote for a woman, as well as those whose primary reason for voting for Hillary is the fact that she is a woman. But when you make your gender the core of your campaign, you are telling men they don’t belong in Hillary’s campaign. Fine – I won’t be in your campaign...and don’t count on my vote next November either.

Democrats Debate in Philly – Would You Buy a Used Car From This Woman?

2007-10-30T20:31:00.000-07:00

This is a quick take, more depth to follow. For the first time the other candidates took on Hillary and kicked the living crap out of her. The only question is whether enough Democrats saw it to understand what a duplicitous piece of crap she really is. I called her Richard Nixon a few months ago and she was Nixon tonight, minus the flop sweat. It is time for the main stream media, which has fawned over her and anointed her as if she was anything other than the American Evita, to raise the real issues and treat her like the fraud she is.
Several of the candidates were surprising tonight and this is the order I would vote for them based on what I saw and their own histories:

1. Chris Dodd – A shame he’s not being taken seriously. Right on the war, right on the Iran vote, right on Hillary, and most importantly, right on driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants. He also has the guts to talk about decriminalizing marijuana.
2. John Edwards – Took it to HRC in a big way. Tough enough, smart enough, and for the first time, made himself look like he really belonged in the top tier.
3. Joe Biden – Still the smartest guy in the room, also the funniest. Went after HRC on her benighted Iran vote, complete grasp of every issue. Given the field, his poll numbers are sad.
4. Barack Obama – Formed a one-two punch against the wicked witch of the East and scored big. Still tends to wander a bit, strong on geopolitics, but the immigration issue is not strong for him or Edwards.
5. Bill Richardson – Strong on Iraq, doesn’t equivocate on most issues. He’s been a Governor, in case you didn’t know.
6. (tie) the Loon and the Liar – Kucinich is right on a lot of things, handled the UFO thing with humor, is in favor of impeaching the scum in the oval office. Still off the charts in too many ways.
The other L word was Hillary, who ducked and dodged and slipped and hopefully, fell. Her defense of her Iran vote was ludicrous and, as I said in my last post, either a lie or a serious ignorance of the middle east. And, as if to prove the point that everyone else made about her duplicity, she took a simple question about driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants and answered it at least two different ways. Anyone who trusts this woman is a fool.

President Hillary Clinton

2007-10-30T17:21:00.000-07:00

No, it’s not a special Halloween edition – The Three Scariest Words. Frankly, President Rudy Guiliani and President Mitt Romney are scarier, although they would be faced with Democratic majority in Congress which would be more likely to fight them than they would Hillary. The Shorenstein Center did a study on the early months of the campaign in the main stream media which noted that there was an emphasis placed almost entirely on the horse race rather than on the policies and potential Presidencies of the respective candidates. Since Hillary is the most likely winner, I figured I’d take a shot at this less frequent kind of analysis.
Now analyzing Hillary is tricky, since it involves parsing her positions in search of the truth, as well as looking at her history. Given that I believe little of what she says on the campaign trail, since most of it is what her pollster, Mark Penn, believes to be what people want to hear, this becomes exceptionally difficult. Let’s look at various issues to see what President HRC would be like.
Her name: I said President HRC but she is now running just as HC – the Rodham having disappeared for this campaign. I assume because polling data indicates that Bill Clinton is far more popular than anyone named Rodham. I assume that once elected, she’ll return to the name she used as Senator.
Iraq: In the early months of the campaign she screamed her big Iraq declaration “If George Bush doesn’t end the war in Iraq by January, 2009, I will!” She doesn’t say that anymore. She refuses to say she’ll end it by 2013. She’s the only Democrat who has not declared that U.S. troops will be out of combat operations in 2009. It’s clear she thinks she has effectively convinced the soft-headed Democrats that she’s anti-war, so she can return to the center for the general election. Her real position on Iraq is slightly to the left of Joe Lieberman. Despite her lie that she voted for the war just to give Bush the leverage to negotiate, there was not one piece of evidence that she opposed military action there, before or after it happened. Bill Clinton publicly supported it, she hasn’t split from him yet. It was not until Mark Penn told her she had to be anti-war to get the nomination that she spoke out against it. Look for the war to continue, albeit with fewer troops, which would happen no matter who the President is. The only way she gets us out is if she thinks she needs to to get reelected.
Iran: She voted for the retarded Senate resolution declaring Iran’s Republican Guard a terrorist organization. She was the only one of the Democratic candidates to do so, I assume because she figures she needs to vote that way for the general election. That the vote could be used by Bush to justify military action against Iran is irrelevant to her, since all that matters is her getting elected. Now that’s irresponsible, but the other interpretation, that she actually believes this to be a good idea is even worse. It demonstrates a frightening lack of understanding of Iran’s internal politics and bodes poorly for her ability to navigate in that part of the world. Of course, her Iraq position sort of does that already, but this is a little scarier. Will she, as a woman, feel the need to never look weak? Will this lead to military actions against Iran? If you aren’t a little frightened of that possibility, you are ignoring both her personality and her history.
Health Care: She will get nothing done on this because she has no ability to reach across the aisle for votes. The GOP will use her as a way to raise money and fire up their loyalists. What she will try to do is come up with a system to get more people health care without hurting insurance companies profits. Good luck with that one.
Trade: Given the amount of money her campaign has received from Chinese sources, many of them questionable, we can expect us to continue her husband’s policy of kowtowing to the People’s Republic. Given her close connections to big business and her husband’s support of Republican trade policies, we can count on more free trade agreements with some cosmetic side agreements which will generally be ignored.
Judicial Appointments: Pro-choice judges will be allowed to apply. The Supreme Court will get it’s first pro-choice judge in a decade, and maybe even a non-Catholic.
Torture: One could assume she would be opposed to it and would also close Guantanamo. But that could run into the “weak like a woman” thing she wants to avoid, so I’m less confident about these things than I might be. Look for more authoritative statements opposing these things, but I’m not sure they will be really meaningful.
Personal Freedoms: Here it gets tricky. The best hint we get of Hillary’s likely position on these things is the concept of “It Takes a Village”. She is a big believer in the nanny state. One of the few issues she has stepped to the forefront of is violent video games, where she shared the lead with Joe Lieberman. My expectation is that she will continue to oppose these things, along with misogynist lyrics in rap music, internet porn, and internet gambling. Both because she probably believes in those things and because it will allow her to show the religious right that she’s not the devil incarnate.
That's right, I'm not a fan. Many of you may find these positions just fine. If that's the case, to quote Hillary herself, she's your girl.

Simple Policy, Hard Decisions

2007-10-22T12:56:00.000-07:00

It all seemed so logical and simple. We, and the rest of the civilized world, would root out terrorists, would fight them, would fight those countries who gave them haven, and those countries which supported them. This makes sense – if terrorists are the problem, those who help them are part of the problem. As time has gone by, the enforcement of this doctrine has been more and more difficult. One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. King George surely had a different attitude toward the Sons of Liberty than we do now. Trying to define Hamas is nearly impossible. When the Russians tried to crush Chechnia, the Chechin rebels were either freedom fighters or terrorists, depending on whose side you were on. It left us paralyzed, between those who seemed to be fighting for independence and a nation-state under attack by rebels using tools which could be described as terroristic.
As bad as those are, the latest problems involving Turkey and the Kurds are far worse. It is very clear that Turkey is being attacked by a terrorist group, the PKK, trying to undermine their government and trying to “liberate” the Kurdish areas of Turkey. They are doing this by crossing the border from Iraq into Turkey and killing Turkish soldiers. It is clear and unequivocal terrorism. The Turks have given parliamentary approval to pursue these people into Iraq. This is where it all gets quite messy for the U. S.
The Kurds are our best friends in Iraq. The Turks are our best friends in the Islamic world – the only stable, secular democracy among Islamic countries. They are a member of NATO and have a government which wants to be part of the western world. In fact, one could say that we are obligated, as a NATO ally, to help defend Turkey against these attacks. Unfortunately, this would cause us to attack Iraq, which means attacking ourselves, which...okay, we’re getting more than a little messed up here. The government of Iraq has little control over Kurdistan. The dirty little secret is that the government of the semi-autonomous Kurdish region has little control over that region. The PKK has effective control over much of the area and stopping them from their goals will be very difficult. Most likely, their first choice would be Turkey attacking the Kurds, which, they probably feel, would unite the Kurds in opposition to the Turks. Yet what choice does Turkey have? The longer they do nothing, the longer they allow incursions by terrorists to result in the death of their soldiers, the worse they look. And if the secular government of Turkey looks weak, a religious party could well look to seize the opportunity. You can hear the speeches now: “See what allying with the West gets us? See how being friends with the U.S. Is worthless?” Thousands are in the streets now, following the killing of 12 Turkish soldiers and the injuring of 17 civilians in a wedding party with a roadside bomb. Meanwhile, the Kurds have made it clear they won’t tolerate any Turkish invasion to get PKK rebels. Iraq has reacted angrily to the threat of a Turkish invasion of the north.
For many months, experts have been warning that the north of Iraq was going to be the biggest problem there. Those warnings are coming true now. The Turks, justifiably, based on our stated policy and their alliance with us, are demanding we help them against the PKK. The Iraqi government is adamantly opposed to that and our best friends in Iraq, the Kurds, are particularly against it. What’s a superpower to do? The best we can hope for is that faced with such an immensely complex decision, Bush and Cheney’s heads explode. More likely, given their previous performance in the region, they’ll attempt to solve the problem by attacking Iran.

Don't Knock the Rock

2007-10-11T12:19:00.000-07:00

So your team is no longer playing and the league championship series are starting tonight – who should you root for? I mean, you don’t have to have a rooting interest, but face it, all sports are a lot more fun if you care. I am here today to make a suggestion. Join the longest suffering fans in the American League and root for the Cleveland Indians.
We all knew about the curse that was on the Red Sox – now gone. And every baseball fan knows the pain of the Cubs, heck, there’s a big sign across the street from Wrigley reminding you how many years it’s been since their last World Series win. But is there really a big difference between 99 years and 59 years to a baseball fan? Look, there may be a few 70 year-old Indian fans who remember 1948 fondly, but seriously, 98% of them have never tasted the ultimate victory.
Cleveland sports fans have never had the best of luck. The Cavs have been a joke, the Browns won a championship in 1964, then, decades later, left town just before they were about to win again. They gave them a new team named the Browns, but they are somewhere between bad and pathetic. There was a time the Indians were good. When the Black Sox were kicked out of baseball, the Indians were the beneficiaries, winning the AL pennant, their first, and the World Series. Yet even that team is known more for a tragedy – the in-game death of Ray Chapman, than their victory.
It was after World War II that the Indians had their first revival, with Bill Veeck owning them. They were the first AL team to sign a black ballplayer, Larry Doby, and he was a key part of the 1948 championship team, led by player-manager Lou Boudreau. The Tribe ran into a Yankee dynasty, finishing second in 1951, 1952, and 1953, Then in 1954 they had a monster season, winning 111 games behind one of the great pitching staffs of all time. Big favorites in the Series, they got swept by the New York Giants, led by Willie Mays. They finished second three times in the next five years. In that stretch a new young star emerged – Rocky Colavito. Good-looking, strong, a monster HR hitting right fielder, with one of the greatest arms ever seen, Rocky was a hero to the fans in Cleveland. They could overlook his strikeouts, even though old-timers would grouse about them. They adopted the saying from the new musical form to express their attitudes – Don’t Knock the Rock. Rocky led the league in HR and RBI in 1958, then led in HR again in 1959, finishing one off the RBI lead for a team that finished second.
Two years earlier, the Indians had hired a new general manager, Frank “Trader” Lane, one of the worst GM’s ever. He loved making trades. When he had the job in St. Louis, he actually had worked out a trade for Stan Musial, before the owner stopped him. In his first two years in Cleveland he made an incredible 59 trades involving 120 players. Late in the 1960 season, he actually traded his manager for another team’s manager. Before that though, he had done the unthinkable, on the last day of spring training in 1960, Lane traded Rocky Colavito. He didn’t like Rocky, Lane felt he should hit fewer HR and get more hits. He actually put a clause in his contract giving him a bonus if he hit less than 30 HR. He traded this 26 year-old star, the most popular player on his team, for Harvey Kuenn, his kind of player, who had led the AL in batting in 1959.
Some say the franchise was cursed because of that trade. Others say Bobby Bragan, the manager whom Lane fired in 1958 actually cursed them. Whoever or whatever was responsible, the Indians entered one of the longest stretches of futility in baseball history. For the next 34 years, the Indians would not only fail to win a pennant, they never finished within ten games of first place. Finally, in the 1990’s with a new ballpark, and an exciting core of young players, the Indians were revived, twice getting to the World Series and twice losing it. A few years later, the team had been broken up, the nightly sellouts at Jacobs Field were no more, and a new regime came in to rebuild – again.
And now they are back, having defeated the Yankees. To my friends in Red Sox Nation – I have to part ways with you on this series, you had your turn, now the Indians fans need theirs. Jacobs Field won’t be Jacobs Field much longer, the name will be sold to some bank, or telco, or meat packing company. It would be great if The Jake could have a World Champion. So for all the legends, for Speaker and Coveleski, for Rapid Robert Feller and Sudden Sam McDowell, for Al Rosen and Larry Doby, for Ray Chapman and Herb Score and most of all for the long-suffering fans of Cleveland – Go Tribe!
(And if you want a political note, along with a copy of the U.S. Constitution and a prayer card, the one thing Dennis Kucinich has with him at all times is a Topps Rocky Colavito card.)

Where Was Alan Keyes?

2007-10-10T17:04:00.000-07:00

In a spirit of bipartisanship bordering on masochism, I watched the Republican Economic debate last night. The usual suspects were there, plus the debate debut of Fred Thompson. Missing was Alan Keyes, who made what can best be described as the ultimate token appearance by showing up at the “Urban” debate hosted by Tavis Smiley, as if to say “look, we have one too”. Of course, when Republicans talk about money, they’re talking to and for white people; mostly rich white people, with a smattering of very rich white people thrown in. So there really was no point in having Keyes show up again.
As for the debate itself, apparently, all these guys believe in the free market. Rudy spent a lot of his time attacking Hillary Clinton. Romney spent his time attacking Rudy. McCain spent his time attacking Iraq. Ron Paul attacked the war in Iraq. Tom Tancredo attacked illegal immigrants and in a mild surprise, Duncan Hunter attacked China. It’s not that Hunter wouldn’t attack the other things, but China appears to be his main target. Sam Brownback attacked single-parent families, while Mike Huckabee hates the IRS. Fred Thompson attacked insomnia, with a performance which could graciously be described as tepid.
If Mitt Romney is the happy warrior in this race – when asked the greatest threat to America’s economic future, he answered, to all intents and purposes, pessimism – then Thompson is the Grinch. It was a little hard to follow at times, through his soporific style, but either things are good and getting worse, or things are not so good and getting worse. Along with being dull and uninspiring, he looks like he hasn’t slept in a few months. He actually makes John McCain look young. This guy isn’t winning anything.
If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, look for steady attacks on any program she might suggest, with words like “socialism” and “HillaryCare” being bandied about. There may have been many changes in Republican philosophy over the last half century – from isolationism to preemptive war, from fiscal responsibility to “let’s spend the grandkids money” – but one thing that has remained fixed like a constellation above is fear of any medical help from the government. Any government medical program, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, you name it, will inevitably lead to (all together now) socialized medicine. You have to give them credit for consistency, if not intellectual depth or human decency.
The question arises, less than four months from Super Duper Tuesday, what to make of these guys? I may not be the best judge of what Republican voters will decide – but the fact is, the Republican Party has not had this kind of wide open race in anyone’s memory. I think you have to go back to Wendell Willkie to find their last nominee who wasn’t either obvious or the end result of a head-to-head battle, so no one really knows anything here. Looking at this group, it’s hard to find the clear leader. Rudy clearly has a goodly amount of popularity, but just as clearly has many problems with the base. Mitt Romney has been the Washington insider pick for months but he creeps me out and I suspect I’m not alone, even on the right. His religious problems in the South may not be transitory and while he has made some progress in the polls, at least in Rasmussen where he’s in the mid-teens, he’s spent a lot of cash to do it. Add in his horrible Gallup poll numbers (9% in the latest survey) and he looks like a far less formidable candidate than the insiders claim. Thompson, while knowledgeable, is really dull and his numbers have stalled. Ron Paul isn’t getting the nomination, but he has more money than McCain (which is why McCain isn’t winning anything) and could get a surprisingly large share of early primary votes from the outvoted but still existent libertarian wing of the party. Hunter, Brownback, and Tancredo are irrelevant. Which leaves us with Huckabee – solidly conservative, very religious, totally comfortable with himself, not a Mormon, an altogether pleasant fellow. His poll numbers are low – 6% in Rasmussen, 7% in Gallup (although Gallup posits that he could be on the verge of passing Romney) – but I would not be surprised to see him emerge in January as the real conservative standard bearer. I think the nominee comes from Rudy, Romney, or Huckabee, with Huckabee on the ticket in any case.

Whose Side Are You On?

2007-10-08T11:24:00.000-07:00

In vetoing SCHIP legislation last week, George Bush, the evil one, demonstrated that he cares as little for the health and welfare of America’s children as he does for the health and welfare of our soldiers and our status in the world. He has called for a “bipartisan solution” to this standoff with Congress, ignoring the fact that this bill is itself, bipartisan in nature. To Bush, the evil one, a bipartisan solution to a problem is one where the Democrats give up and agree with him – see, Iraq funding as an example. It is more than a little sickening, that Bush, the evil one, never showed the slightest interest in vetoing the bloated spending bills coming out of the Republican Congress and which ran up huge budget deficits for six years. Suddenly, the evil one has found “religion”, now spending must be reined in. Of course, the specter of “socialized medicine” was raised by the evil one – men like him always lie and always attempt to use some form of fear-mongering to bring about their unwanted policies. It does not make their policies any less repugnant and it surely does not make them more morally fit to lead.
What should the Democrats do now? First, they should refuse to compromise any further with evil. They must stand up to Bush, whatever the cost. And, like this column does, they must start to use the word “evil” in reference to Bush. It is a powerful word, it is a meaningful word, and in his case, it is a totally accurate word. Democratic Presidential candidates must especially begin this drumbeat. They must not only reinforce that which the majority of Americans believe, but force the Republicans, especially their Presidential candidates, to make their own stand – will they support the evil one, or oppose him? I know the answer, but it is important for Americans to know it too. It is important because in the campaign next year, the Republican candidate will also talk about change, like he didn’t support every disgusting thing done by the filth in the Oval Office. We must force the issue, we must make them, as well as their cohorts in Congress, take a stand. Do you stand with the evil one, or with the health and welfare of America and its children?

Democrats Debate in NH -- Are Tides Shifting?

2007-09-27T12:49:00.000-07:00

Last night’s Democratic candidates debate was yet another visit to the same topics, although Tim Russert’s questions were the sharpest and most focused they have faced and I give him credit for pushing for actual answers to the questions. There weren’t a lot of topics covered considering the length of it, but that wasn’t a bad thing, as we didn’t bounce around as much.
The early part of the debate was focused on Iraq, and some key positional differences are starting to emerge. The top tier of candidates seem reluctant to make absolute statements about pulling troops out completely. The big three refused to promise to have troops out by the end of 2009, or even 2013, the end of their presumptive first term (and if they don’t have troops out, their only term). Edwards seemed most aggressive on troop withdrawal, promising an immediate removal of half our forces, yet still saying a residual “non-combat” force might have to be left behind to protect our embassies and bases. Obama and Clinton were much less aggressive, talking about troops left behind to fight terrorism. This is troubling to me, as I believe our troops are part of the problem, The Clinton/Obama position was even more troubling, as it still does not focus the Iraqis on solving their problems and still leaves our forces at the mercy of events not in their control. We need to set a date when we will leave. Any other solution, any promise to bring in regional powers for negotiations, or any half-assed withdrawal, will not “end the war”. No matter how much Hillary promises to end the war, without the willingness to commit to an end date, it’s all Clintonian bullshit. Obama’s stance is not quite as disappointing, but still seems far too tilted toward the “realistic” school of Iraq policy.
Perhaps the most interesting moment of the Iraq portion came from Joe Biden, who is in favor of partitioning the country and for the first time said that if there was no political solution, he would pull all our troops out. To me, that is the most realistic position and one I would endorse, although I still feel a specific date is required.
This also marked the first time Biden started to criticize Hillary. On health care, Biden made the key point that getting health care legislation passed will require bringing people together and that the Republicans will never come together with Hillary (who also has little appeal to independents as well). Edwards pointed out the failures of Hillary’s first attempt at health care legislation and talked about how it was done in secret, with more input from industry types than from those affected by it. Edwards got the one big round of applause of the night when he repeated his promise that if Congress didn’t pass universal health care legislation in his first year in office, he would strip them of their health insurance. His last shot at Hillary, which also got applause, was to say “In 1993-94 we didn’t get universal health care, we got NAFTA.” All of these things show a willingness to take on both Hillary and the not-so-fantastic legacy she wants to revive. Linking her to the inept trade policy of her husband is a great idea. Reminding people of how divisive she is extremely important in the drive to save the party from her candidacy.
The essence of Hillary’s campaign was revealed in her answer to Russet’s question of what you would do to save the future of Social Security. While the other candidates addressed the issue, with full discussions of raising the amount of income on which Social Security taxes are paid, or raising the age of retirement, or discussing the actual numbers which lead to the purported insolvency, Hillary ducked the whole thing. Her position was that we have to establish fiscal responsibility before we can do anything about Social Security. She was called on this nonsense – a variation on Reagan’s solving budget problems by attacking “waste, fraud, and abuse” – by the other candidates but still refused to address the problems. The reasons are obvious: she was told by her pollsters that in the general election the one thing you can never be in favor of is raising people’s taxes. Hillary thinks she has the nomination and is carefully positioning herself for her headlong dash to the middle (where she belongs anyway). Look for more ducking and dodging in future months.
The winners in this debate were Edwards and Biden, who drew distinctions between themselves and the other candidates and drew blood from the front-runner. Obama seemed bland and listless and is simply not getting better at this. Hillary got beat up a bit, but whether her supporters care is the real question. The campaign has yet gain focus with the general public – it can’t happen too soon for the country’s future.

Numbers and Notes -- When Do Things Really Start?

2007-09-13T10:49:00.000-07:00

We’re less than five months from SuperDuper Tuesday, when, to all intents and purposes, the Democratic nominee will be decided. The big question is who it will be. The key question which may determine the answer to the big question is: when will people start to focus on the race? Most polls show that most of the voters are not paying much attention to the race and therefore are not ready to decide on who they’ll vote for. The problem is finding the moment when they will engage. Historically, voters have waited until Iowa and New Hampshire do their thing, vetting the candidates in a personal way, narrowing the field to a manageable size. Then with their own primaries weeks or even months away, they can get down to business. Even leaving out the MI and FL silliness, there won’t be much time between NH and the big ones. Add to that the nature of voting in CA, where nearly 30% of the votes will likely be cast before the NH primary and confusion must be rampant within the campaigns. Where and when to spend advertising dollars is key. Do you start your spending in December, hoping to get the momentum rolling early? Or do you wait until after the holidays, when people’s minds are ready and compete among what will surely be an avalanche of ads from both parties. Here in CA, there will be several key initiatives on that February 5th ballot, adding even more political advertising to the clutter. Will anyone be able to get traction amid the noise?
On the Democratic side, the numbers indicate that Hillary has a substantial lead, with her numbers generally in the forties, while Obama has settled in the mid-twenties, and Edwards in the low teens. The only thing that has changed over the last couple of months is that Hillary has added somewhere near ten percent. That addition is a dangerous omen for the others, since it would seem to indicate that people have made a choice. It’s the reason for the escalation in attacks on Clinton from both Edwards and Obama. They understand that there is a danger in letting it look like Hillary is going to win. People start jumping on the bandwagon, start to feel that they need to sign up.
I think there is one person with the ability to start the campaign on his own – Al Gore. Gore has said that he intends to endorse a candidate before the primaries. His endorsement would be the lead story on every news report, his reasons would focus the campaign light on something, either positive or negative, and begin the national conversation. There is one thing we can be confident of, he’s not going to endorse Hillary. After that, it’s anyone’s guess. Edwards might be more in tune with his current thinking, but would his endorsement of the white Southern guy look like a circling of the wagons? Other than electability, it is hard to find the easily stated reason for an Edwards endorsement, without getting into a policy-wonkish discussion (not that Al has ever been averse to those). On the other hand, an endorsement of Obama as “the future” rather than the Clinton-Edwards revivals would be very effective coming from Gore. Speak up, Al, you’re holding the green flag on this race.

Monday Mishegas

2007-08-27T11:54:00.000-07:00

Alberto Gonzalez is resigning as Attorney General. Yes, another fine man done in by political bickering. Considering his clear mental handicap, you’d think he would be protected by the Americans With Disabilities Act. If only the Bush administration knew it existed, they might have used it to protect him. Fortunately, Fredo won’t remember any of this unpleasantness – or anything else, apparently.

Burglars broke into Sen. Chris Dodd’s Hartford office over the weekend, taking some undisclosed items. I hope this Watergate-ish episode doesn’t derail the Dodd campaign juggernaut.

Fred Thompson plans on announcing his campaign just after Labor Day, using a video to do the job. The video will start with the Law and Order theme music and Thompson will cite his depth of experience as his strong point, having played not just a tough on crime DA, but a CIA Director (“No Way Out”), a White House Chief of Staff (“In The Line of Fire”), and three Presidents, one fictional (“Last Best Chance”), and two real (“Rachel and Andrew Jackson: A Love Story” and “Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee”). His extensive military service includes a Captain (“Flight of the Intruder”), a Lt. Col. (China Beach), a Major General (“Fat Man and Little Boy”), and a Rear Admiral (“Hunt For Red October”) – talk about working your way up through the ranks. He can also point about how favorably this compares with Ronald Reagan, who was a football player and baby sat a monkey.

Likely primary voters and caucus goers in early states were asked how familiar they were with the healthcare plans of various candidates and almost candidates, including Fred Thompson. In Nevada 29% said they were familiar with Thompson's healthcare plan. In New Hampshire it was 15%, in Iowa 18%, in Florida it was 22% and in South Carolina 24% had some idea about his plan. It’s great to see so many people paying such intense attention to the campaign this early. It would be more impressive if Thompson actually had a health care plan – he doesn’t. Still, he played a doctor once (“Class Action”), so he knows the issues intimately.

Numbers and Notes - Perception is Reality

2007-08-23T11:33:00.000-07:00

In electoral politics, perception is reality. It did not matter whether George Bush was a “Compassionate Conservative” or not (Heartless Fascist would be a more accurate description), the belief that he was one helped him in the election. It doesn’t matter whether Hillary is a Left-wing Witch or not (Moderate Witch is probably more accurate, but perhaps she’s really a sweetheart), the public perception of that drives her high unfavorability ratings. The nature of a race, especially a primary race, where the candidates do not have bold policy differences, can easily be determined by the public’s perception of the race itself. No perception is more important under those circumstances than the inevitability of victory.
While those who analyze polling data professionally constantly point out that relatively few voters are paying attention to the campaign and that history tells us that once things intensify with actual votes being imminent there is a large change in voters’ allegiances, even fewer people are hearing those admonitions than are paying attention to the campaign. The news media, in particular, tend to treat polling numbers like they were handed down from Mt. Sinai, rather than just acquired by minimum-wage callers or zero-wage computers. A two-point shift is a trend, a four point drop a collapse, and a marginally significant lead is considered insurmountable. The media also enjoys the horse race far more than it does the underlying issues. And they are very bad at covering a whole field of horses, so they narrow it down as much as possible. In the Democratic primary race, that last part has become Clinton vs. Obama. Yes, they mention Edwards, but he’s clearly the third guy, and because of his lack of movement in the numbers, he’s actually less interesting to them than Richardson.
The Gallup Poll, along with being the most famous, is also the most widely quoted. In that poll, Hillary’s lead over Obama is over 20 points. More important, she is at 48%, which, for those of you who are numerically challenged, is very close to a majority. Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll has Hillary’s lead about half of that. Even worse for those men in the race, Hillary’s state-by-state numbers, especially in the big February 5th primaries, are even better. Combining these elements, there is a growing sense of inevitability to Hillary’s nomination.
We can point out forever that no votes have been cast (true), that little advertising money has been spent (also true), and that prior year frontrunners in the Democratic Party have a spotty history of success (true again). The fact still remains that while we are still five months from any votes being cast, we are only six months from the race being over. That last fact changes everything. The February 5th frontloading has changed the entire process. When exactly is the public going to focus on the race, between Thanksgiving and Christmas? There is little reason to believe people focus on anything but family and shopping in that timeframe. In fact, family gatherings could be interesting conversation areas, with those who have opinions formed convincing those who don’t, and could be more important than subsequent commercials.
The aura of inevitability helps raise money and just as important, dries up money for others. Nobody wants to endorse a loser, if the bandwagon is about to leave, you’d better be on it. Notice how organized labor didn’t endorse anyone. Hillary Clinton may be anathema to the AFL-CIO, but they don’t dare oppose her.
A month ago, Obama staffers told The Politico that the polls didn’t bother them, that they were planning on winning Iowa and New Hampshire and turning things around then, so they would be patient. The first time Hillary went over 40% in the Gallup Poll, that all changed. Obama got more aggressive toward Clinton, publicly fighting with her and drawing very public distinctions. Unfortunately for him, the numbers didn’t move. Make no mistake, they know they can’t wait until January to break down her numbers. There are already signs that more Democrats are feeling positively toward Hillary. I interpret those as the feeling that she is likely to be the nominee, so people guess they should start looking at her positives. As for me, I may be pregnant, but I refuse to pretend I’m in love. I believe Hillary will be a disaster for the party and a disaster for the country. The aura of inevitability surrounding her means she must be attacked directly. The lesser candidates can play a part here, but Kucinich, who could easily play a big part in this, is intoxicated with himself. Biden and Dodd are big on Senatorial courtesy and Biden probably has a cabinet position in mind. I believe something big has to happen before January or Hillary will win. Patience may be a virtue, but in this case, it could be fatal.

Karl Loves Hillary

2007-08-21T16:14:00.000-07:00

Well, “loves” may be a strong word, but Karl Rove certainly seems obsessed with her. He talks about her constantly, writes about her, tells anyone who’ll listen what he thinks of her. Hell, maybe he even drives by her house at night, for all we know. What is all this about? Is his series of attacks on her a genuine antipathy that he can’t resist revealing? Or is there more here than meets the eye?
The LA Times got into it this week, referring back to the 2004 campaign, when Rove focused his early attacks on Kerry, to the complete exclusion of all others. This had the advantage of establishing early themes, but more important, from his perspective, was anointing Kerry as “the one”, the opponent-to-be. According to Matthew Dowd, who was part of the campaign, Kerry was the one he wanted to run against, since he felt he was most beatable, rather than the Southerner without a record to attack, John Edwards. So he never commented on Edwards, always commenting on Kerry. Did this lead the Democrats in the direction he wanted? Frankly, I think we were headed there with or without him. Still, it was his theory and plan. Now it’s Hillary he talks about on every interview show and Hillary he attacks. The Times, and Dowd, assumes this to be because she is the one he wants the Republicans to run against, thinking she will be their most beatable candidate.
While I think that is part of it, I think there is a lot more to it than that. Rove probably realizes that the Republicans may have serious trouble holding on to the White House. His hope is probably to keep everything he has built from being destroyed. Clinton is the Democrat with the best chance of keeping the GOP a force. First, Hillary will have no coattails at all. Many Congressional candidates are very unhappy about the possibility of her being the nominee, since she is incredibly unpopular in their districts and will be impossible to run with. This is a big problem for candidates, as running away from your party’s Presidential candidate is never a good thing, especially since they agree with her on most issues. Her unpopularity is mostly personal, not issue-oriented, especially in the moderate districts and conservative states where, ironically, she could do the most damage. This may have the effect of limiting the carnage in the Congressional races.
Equally important is Hillary’s polarizing nature. Nothing will hold the Republican Party together better than a Clinton Presidency. They will have no trouble uniting against her; the grass roots, spurred on by the talk show loons, loathe her and will be energized as never before. They will have no trouble raising money to fight her, which is also a key part of keeping the party from being demoralized. Rove is not a fool – he wants Hillary to be the Democratic nominee and I fear he may get her, much to the detriment of the Democratic Party and America.

Democrats Debate -- Labor Pains

2007-08-08T12:29:00.000-07:00

So that more of the faithful could attend, last night’s Democratic debate was held in the intimate setting of Soldier Field in Chicago. This resulted in a goodly amount of yelling by candidates, as well as yelling by the crowd, many of whom were far enough away to be anonymous. This debate was the Democratic Leadership Council’s worst nightmare, with serious left-wing red meat being tossed to an audience ready to consume it. Still, the DLC’s horse in the race, Hillary Clinton, did what she had to and avoided too much damage, in spite of several episodes of booing from the crowd.
This debate did have the unveiling of the key theme of the anti-Hillary forces (although the bloggers convention over the weekend really started this ball rolling) – she’s the ultimate insider, it’s Washington insiders who write all these lousy trade deals, she takes money from the lobbyists, she isn’t going to change anything. Both Obama and Edwards hammered at this, while the others notably didn’t.
Here are the candidates and my grades for them, in the order of their polling strength (sort of):

Hillary Clinton: B+ -- Not her crowd, nor her environment, as she doesn’t sound or look good when raising her voice. Given that, she managed to come out okay, especially given her general pro-business outlook. Quote of the night: “NAFTA hurt American workers.” Mostly she blames the lack of enforcement of labor regulations by the Bush Administration, yet she did talk about revisiting it. Since NAFTA was a key part of the abysmal Clinton trade policy, it would seem to be a good jumping off point to start attacking them on it. Attacking Bill is dicey, but forcing Hillary to choose sides could be a solid tactic. Of course, Hillary and Bill will probably just lie about what their positions were, are, or will be (as she does on Iraq), so it probably wouldn’t work.

Barack Obama: A- – Home field advantage helps a bit, but he found themes which could be useful. Both he and Edwards attacked “Washington insiders” and the legislation they write. Hillary, of course, has defended lobbyists – what else can she do, her brother is one. This could be a useful, albeit demagogic, fight. It’s not like the AFL-CIO doesn’t have lobbyists. Still, “lobbyist” is a code word for big business influence and Hillary is certainly vulnerable to that charge.
His best moments were in defending his Pakistan positions. Not for what he said, or the position itself, but for the effectiveness in fighting back against Dodd, Clinton, et al. Looking tough and strong is never bad. The issues may be more complex than he makes them, but the American people prefer action to Senatorial hemming and hawing and this is all good for Barack.

Dennis Kucinich: A+ -- I know he’s not next in the pecking order, but a digression here is needed. This was a perfect place for him, as every position he has is exactly that of organized labor. More important, unlike those who might actually be the nominee, he is free to say what he thinks and to answer in absolute terms. Others may want to amend NAFTA, he wants to get out of it. WTO problems? Withdraw from it. China trade imbalances killing us while they do whatever the hell they want around the world? End their permanent MFN status. He’s listed here because he is killing John Edwards. He already makes differentiating positions on Iraq between Edwards, Obama, and Cinton impossible. He makes trade and labor differences trivial as well. It doesn’t make a difference that Edwards would be a lot tougher on trade issues than Hillary when Kucinich is the real tough guy. While some of the others were desperate up there, he was having a ball. Unfortunately for him, his performance is still irrelevant to his chances, but not to the race itself.

John Edwards: B+ -- He was strong, he was tough, he was pro labor, he attacked Hillary with “I’m not going to be on the cover of Fortune magazine” and saying that the way to change things was not to “exchange one group of insiders for another group of insiders”. He also talked about how many picket lines he has walked and said the key is “who will stand with you when it really matters.” All good stuff, but labor still isn’t endorsing him and that could be fatal.

Bill Richardson: C+ -- What’s the point? He had a good line early about lobbyists money, saying he had gotten money from unions in the past and that “I’ll continue taking your financial support” Wants future trade agreements to include labor agreements which lower wage differences – that’ll be a nice trick.

Joe Biden: A- -- The smartest guy in the stadium. Tough, knowledgable, been everywhere, done everything, wrote legislation about that 20 years ago. Pointed out that the debate over taking action in Pakistan based on reliable intelligence was moot, since the law already says to do that. Favorite phrase : “Let’s be honest about this”
On the other hand, made a clear strategic choice to attack John Edwards on the depth of his labor support. Even in the face of poor audience reaction, he wouldn’t let it go, asking how many picket lines Edwards walked in 1998 and 1999, when he wasn’t running for President. Does he think he has to destroy Edwards to get any sort of traction? He has yet to say anything bad about Hillary, so you have to wonder whether he has ulterior motives beyond this campaign.

The You Tube Debate

2007-07-27T12:52:00.000-07:00

This week featured the latest in an endless series of debates by an endless collection of Democratic candidates, although this was the first “official” one, as it was sanctioned by the party – like anyone cared. This was also special because the questions were asked by the public. Or at least that part of the public with the time, the wherewithal, and the interest in making a video for You Tube to pass CNN’s screening process and appear on a giant screen at the debate. CNN, in an orgasm of self-congratulations, proclaimed it revolutionary and historic. It was neither, although the videos were often amusing, sometimes poignant, and in one instance, just a little scary – the guy with the gun who referred to it as “my baby”, should be checked into immediately. They also made it easier to ask pointed questions which the candidates couldn’t duck completely, although Hillary did effectively dodge the “can’t we do better than Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton for 28 years?” question, even getting off a good joke of her own in response. I liked it, since the questioners seemed less self-conscious than the usually bunch of reporter types and more coherent than the nitwits who ask questions from the audience in town meeting style formats. It seemed to elicit good answers and a genuine spirit of liveliness that helped things move along. The only problem is that the most recent events couldn’t be dealt with, like the Gonzalez testimony and the Senate sleepover nonsense. Nothing is perfect, except John Edwards’ hair.
Speaking of Edwards hair, they also showed a series of You Tube ads put together by the campaigns. Some, like Chris Dodd’s, were wonderful, both funny and informative. Edwards used the musical background of Hair to show a series of quick issues and his positions, a wonderful contrast of the substance of his campaign with the news media’s ridiculous fascination with nonsense. Dennis Kucinich had the worst ad, in which he told people they could end the war by sending a text message to Congress – seriously. What planet does he live on?
All in all, most of the candidates have gotten better at the process, somewhat ameliorating Hillary’s big debate advantage. Edwards, in particular, seemed a much more commanding presence on stage, which is something he needed badly. Still, the crowd of candidates makes real dialogue next to impossible. Every time Joe Biden proclaims that he is the only candidate who really understands Iraq and that he is the only candidate with an actual plan to get us out of there, I just want to scream. Why can’t Edwards just follow that up by saying that having a plan (three states) with virtually no support within Iraq is fairly useless and then ask Biden what he would do if this plan he wishes to impose from outside is rejected by the Iraqis? Just once I’d like to see Mr. Expert-on-everything have to answer a tough question. I know the media has no interest in cutting him off, since they see no point in it, irrelevant as he is, but it would be illuminative. Without the threat of our leaving at a specific point, nothing will get done there. Kudos to Chris Dodd for coming around to the “we have to set a date certain” position. Of course, Edwards wants us to get out in six months, Kucinich in six days, and Gravel wants us to get out in 1966 – but I’m tired of the “realistic” positions on this issue and we need to see this brought out.
The big realism moment actually seems to have had a life beyond the debate itself. That was when the candidates were asked if they would meet personally with the leaders of N. Korea, Iran, etc., unlike Bush. Obama said he would, but Hillary said she would be willing to, but only after the groundwork had been laid and we knew what would be discussed, that doing otherwise would be giving them a public relations boon and gaining us nothing. I think she was right, but apparently much of the public disagreed. Obama has seized on the focus group reaction to attack the Clinton position, actually comparing her to Bush and Cheney on this. While I’m all in favor of confronting Hillary, this seems like a weird issue to choose. It may signal a change in the nature of the campaign and bears watching on that level.
Other highlights and lowlights: when Obama was asked whether he was black enough, he actually was quick enough to give the same answer I would have (which always impresses me, of course), to the effect that he still would have trouble catching a cab in Manhattan. He also was very good when someone asked if the candidates would be willing to work for minimum wage if elected. Obama said “we can work for minimum wage, we have money – not Mitt Romney money, but enough.” Obama also had the best bumper sticker line – “The world is not the world as it has to be.”
The candidates were asked to tell one thing they liked and one thing they disliked about the candidate to their left. None would say something they didn’t like (except for Edwards having a problem with Hillary’s jacket), but Joe Biden really liked Dennis Kucinich’s wife. When Kucinich pointed out he had no one to his left, Anderson Cooper commented that “we couldn’t find anyone to your left.”
The lowpoints involved Kucinich’s call for reparations for slavery – seriously, he said that. There was a question asked about whether there was a Republican they could run with as their VP. Joe Biden jumped right in and said Chuck Hagel. Edwards sort of said Hagel was okay, then went on to talk about other stuff. Not one person pointed out the ridiculous nature of Biden’s answer. Hagel, is anti-abortion, anti gay right, in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy – in fact, except for Iraq, he is a perfect conservative. The correct answer is that if you can show me a Republican who is pro-choice. pro gay rights, pro stem cell research, against the war in Iraq, in favor of a fair tax system, and pro worker’s rights, I might consider him or her – but that’s what makes them Republicans and us Democrats and the people need to remember that on election day.

The Danger of Uncontrollable Commentary and Those Who Promote It

2007-07-16T13:08:00.000-07:00

That might sound like a strange heading for a blogger to use, yet today I was faced with an interesting example of the danger the internet can cause to not just our privacy, but to our reputations as well.
I received an email today from a friend “inviting” me to join WikiYou, a site with biographies of “everyone on earth” (everyone on earth with a zip code, as it turns out) written by anyone and everyone, Wikipedia style. This immediately frightened me. There have been numerous stories in the news recently about people being turned down for jobs by companies checking out their MySpace pages and finding things, pictures, or even opinions they didn’t like. HR departments now have people who will search out everything about you, beyond a simple credit check, just to see what kind of person you are. WikiYou crosses the line into what kind of person others think you are. I decided to see if there was anything about me up there, so I clicked on the link in the email. I went to the site, which asked for my name and zip code, at which point I found myself registered for the site under my private email address, which, according to the privacy policy, they could pretty much do whatever they wanted to. I was never asked if that was the address I wanted to make available, because they don’t care. In essence, this is one of the world’s great phishing scams, run by a man named Jay Gould, founder and CEO of this scam. I tried sending them an email, protesting the policy, but got no response, apparently because the address they give to contact them bounces back.
The scam is really neat, since if you are interested in whether or not you are up there – and more important, whether you are being slandered or defamed – you have to join the site, since no access is available to “non-members”, which, you guessed it, gives them a live address to sell to whomever they want to.
You may have noticed that I had the word invited in quotes. My friend didn’t invite me or anyone else, merely used his gmail contact list, as the site suggested he do, to search for possible other people on the site. They then took the addresses, and, without his permission, emailed everyone in it with an invitation from him. I consider that to be a form of identity theft.
We are living in a world where authoritative sources are being overwhelmed by non-authoritative ones, where truth is battling with truthiness. There is a big difference in a “fact” reported by Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh (which is true about 30% of the time) and one reported by Brian Williams (true 90% with a correction offered for the other 10). Yet people don’t treat those as different. “I heard it on the radio” or “I saw it on TV” is rapidly morphing into “I saw it on the web” and the nature of sources on the web is dicey at best. Intelligent people know that while Wikipedia is a good source, it is a seriously flawed source and could contain inaccuracies, since anyone can put something up. When sites have biographies of millions of people, with commentaries absent any verification procedures whatsoever, the information – and misinformation -- about our lives is out there for anyone to see and judge us by.
Earlier, I referred to HR departments vetting prospective employees by checking My Space. It didn’t stop at employment – even if you pass the initial vetting, the checking on your personal pages could well continue, just to make sure you don’t say anything unwelcome by your employers. Surely this will go further, into running complete searches of everything written about you anywhere. I mean, if someone wrote on WikiYou that person A was seen hanging around school playgrounds in 2003, or Person B cheated on his final exams his senior year in college, would those things not flash a red light for an HR department with numerous choices? Yes, you can join the site and edit things out, but no person should have to police the rumors and slanders associated with them on a daily basis. People should have a right to protect their own names more directly, by forbidding a site from having that kind of “biographical” data about them.
In any case, the sheer proliferation of these things around the web makes for a future of dubious “facts’ and inaccurate information – get used to it.

Domestic Enemy Number One

2007-07-09T14:37:00.000-07:00

At the beginning of each Congressional term, the entire House and the newly elected (and re-elected) members of the Senate take the following oath of office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
With the revelation that the Vice President’s office has been ignoring the order to save documents for the archives (and their ludicrous attempts to explain why they didn’t have to), followed by the President changing the order so it didn’t apply to the VP, years after the fact, followed by the President trampling on the rule of law to make sure Scooter Libby was rewarded for covering for Cheney with his silence, it is clear that George W. Bush is the greatest domestic enemy this country has seen in at least half a century. In particular, his wanton attacks on the Constitution must have the Founding Fathers whirling in their graves, as he is everything they feared in a leader, everything they wrote the Constitution to protect against.
Yet the Democrats in Congress refuse to take action. They huff and puff, issue subpoenas which are summarily ignored by the Bush regime, and huff and puff some more, followed by some serious tut-tutting. Yet nothing ever happens. Just as with the Iraq funding bill, they are afraid of their own shadows, moral cowards unable to rise to the most egregious offenses. If the lies, corruption, and malfeasance have not been enough, if the trampling of the Constitution has not been enough, surely the treatment of the legislative branch, the first branch named in the Constitution, as an irrelevant nuisance by the Bushistas should be sufficient cause for them to rise to the ultimate challenge. Today brings news that Bush has refused to let two aides testify before Congress on the firing of federal prosecutors, daring the legislature to do something. It is time for them to do something. It is time for the House to offer up a bill of impeachment.
Last week a poll was actually taken (American Research Group) on whether Bush and Cheney should be impeached. Without hearing the case presented, without a single argument being given why, 54% of the public was in favor of Cheney’s impeachment, only 40% against. Bush still has a plurality against, but by the slimmest of margins, 46-45 – surely a few minutes of discussion could turn that around. The people are sick of these monsters, yet Congress does nothing. Does the majority party not have the votes to pass impeachment in the House? Then let us see the quislings who would preserve and defend the enemies of our freedom, so we can remove them in 2008. There is a moral need for this -- the people want it, the framers would demand it; is there no leadership to do the people’s bidding? If Nancy Pelosi is fit for her job than she must take the reins now. The approval rating of Congress has fallen to as low as 14% because Democrats and Independents alike see it as pathetically weak. Put each of the monsters in turn in the dock, show that the Constitution still lives. Removal would be wonderful, but a moment of integrity and accountability would at least furnish an historical precedent worthy of our republic. To do nothing dishonors all who have fought for our freedom and rights the last two centuries. Madame Speaker, the people are waiting.

PBS Democratic Debate -- I Agree With What He Said

2007-06-29T12:15:00.000-07:00

It was billed as the All-American Presidential Forum, perhaps in attempt to lure sports fans, but really it was the Urban Affairs debate, held at Howard University in front of mostly African-Americans, hosted by Tavis Smiley, with all the questioners being non-white. In other words, home turf for Dems, discussing issues which will not decide the election. The questions were interesting, thoughtful, and for the most part, ignored, as most of the candidates translated the specific question into “this is about education/crime/health care” and gave their prepared answer.
Obama and Edwards are very lucky that very few people are watching these debates. They have no chance at drawing distinctions between themselves and Hillary, as Kucinich and Gravel attack everyone equally, and Clinton and Biden sound so well prepared and authoritative on every issue, that Obama and Edwards seem out of their depth. All of them are getting better at this (except for Richardson) and the time that is wasted on Gravel’s senescent ramblings gets more and more annoying. Although there was a point last night hen I thought Dodd was actually going to smack him down, which would have been wonderful.
This was on really solid turf for Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, yet the format didn’t give them a chance to really discuss anything. Obama was able to talk to the audience in a different way than the others, and frankly, may be the single best thing about his candidacy. When discussing the shocking HIV/AIDS statistics in the African-American community, he alone was able to talk about the need for the community to take more responsibility.
Hillary may be the best “short-form” debater ever (to coin a term). Give her a minute, she will make her points in a minute, coherently and effectively, give her 30 seconds, she’ll do it in 30 seconds. Unlike virtually every other candidate, she answered the actual questions that were asked, rather than just shifting to her prepared boilerplate. She is a very impressive woman and this was really solid turf for her.
No candidate is hurt more by the two left-wing idealogues than Edwards. In earlier debates, he wanted to draw distinctions between himself and the others on the war and Kucinich and Gravel lumped them all together again. He wants to talk about his superior health care proposals and Kucinich attacks him with the others because he doesn’t immediately knock the insurance companies out of the system. Life is easier when all you do is spout ideology, unfettered by the actual need to either win or accomplish anything. Kucninch and Gravel have the Naderite position in this game – and they get 25% of the time to hurt Edwards, effectively help Hillary, and, like Nader in the past (and maybe future) help the Republicans stay in power.
Just a word on Blabbermouth Bill Richardson – shut up. Okay, that’s two words, but man, is he annoying. And unless he’s spent an awful lot of time in the sun the last month, he was wearing makeup dark enough to be used in a road company of Othello. It looked like he was trying to emphasize his non-white half in this gathering. He reiterated his willingness to boycott the Olympics, saying, pompously, “I happen to think preventing genocide is more important than sports.” Next time he says something like that, someone should ask him if it’s more important than China having most favored nation trade status. Then when he hems and haws over that, they can tell him to just shut up.
Mostly, everyone in the debate agreed with everyone else. The next version of this will be with Republicans, and that could actually be interesting.

Campaign Themes -- Branding the Candidates

2007-06-27T11:39:00.000-07:00

We might like to think of the electoral process as a high-minded exercise in political discourse, where like-minded people gather around the best candidates with the most to offer the country in expertise, leadership, experience, and ideas. This is, of course, a fantasy. Political campaigns are high-level advertising campaigns, with the same branding of candidates as exists for cars and soft drinks. Yes, the speeches and debates give us more depth than a 30-second ad, but most people will vote based on second-hand information and something – a look, an ad, a moment – that catches their interest and gives the candidate an edge. Those who run campaigns well know this – whether Reagan’s Morning in America, Clinton’s Third Way, or Bush’s Compassionate Conservatism, the ability to come up with a theme which resonates with the public can overcome all sorts of negatives about a candidate. Similarly, the lack of the theme can allow you to be defines by your opponents, or simply not give the public a positive image of your candidacy to gather around.
After the last Democratic debate, I discussed the themes as I saw them at the time. To recap the top ones: Hillary’s theme is Ready From Day One. Notice how often she harkens back to the concept, when talking about foreign policy or rejecting hypotheticals, she recalls the nature of decision-making in the White House, which she was there for. When asked about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, she made sure to talk about the process of coming up with that policy at the time. When asked about health care, she reminds everyone she has had to deal with that policy and, more importantly, the battle to get it through Congress (‘I’ve done that and have the scars to show for it”); she doesn’t have a health care policy to speak of, but she just falls back on her experience. Obama is New Leadership From a New Generation – everything about him screams how he is unlike anyone else. To borrow from an old New York mayoralty campaign, he is fresh while everyone else is tired...and you are tired of these other people too, of the Clintons, of Edwards, of Biden. Look for him to refine this as he goes on, using the words “new” and “fresh” and “different” as often as possible in speeches and answers to question.
John Edwards, on the other hand, has not found a theme which might resonate. He has spent a lot of time talking about the war, attempting to be the major anti-war candidate. But the debates, with Kucinich and Gravel attacking all of them equally, destroyed the distinctions between him and the other two top tier candidates. He has talked about poverty. He has had programmatic answers, including a fine health care plan. Yet if you ask someone why they support him, there is no unifying theme which could be put on a banner to lead the parade. In his first commercial, he has three memorable points. 1) America’s strength is in its people 2) we must be one America 3) we need to give Americans something to be patriotic about besides war. Pardon me while I yawn. The first sounds more Republican than Democratic – if the strength is its people, why do we need government? It’s not a bad first line if he’s going to follow with “it’s weakness is its government and I will fix that”, but he doesn’t. It’s just feel-good nonsense. The One American theme, as opposed to his Two Americas speeches from 2004, a concept which he apparently is reviving, is meaningless to most voters. It can be fleshed out into something else, a common good philosophy perhaps, but doesn’t grab people. The third one is a lovely turn of phrase, but it ignores how most Americans, especially those likely to vote for a Democrat, think. It is the war that makes them less patriotic, that’s the only thing that they aren’t proud of.
I have thought about a possible theme for Edwards’ campaign, and here is what I have come up with:

John Edwards: Reviving the American Dream

Isn’t that what he is about? For most of the 20th century, the American dream was a simple one – get a good job with good benefits, buy a home, raise your kids, give them the education and help needed to have a better life than you have. Your job provides health insurance and retirement benefits and along with Social Security, your future is secure. Most Americans don’t dream of being rich, they aren’t entrepreneurial, they just have basic desires. That dream is dying. They fear losing their job and with it their health care benefits. Even if they don’t lose the job, the pay increases are not keeping up with the costs of gas, housing, food, and health insurance. The job may provide insurance, but the cost to the workers keeps increasing as wages stagnate. American optimism is fading. We know this because more and more polls have shown that Americans no longer believe that their children will be better off than they are. We know this because the first sign of fear is the resentment of the “other”. In this case, it’s the threat seen from the developing world stealing our jobs. Even more so, it is the perceived threat of immigrants. The anger over immigration is fueled by fear, not just of losing jobs or lower wages, but of the culture changing around them. There are many historical examples of this happening, and many of those were particularly nasty. Everything Edwards talks about can be linked back to this. Health care, ending the war, trade, job security – all of it. He has talked about “two Americas”, but there are three (at least), not just rich and poor (and he has talked about the poor far more than is good for his candidacy, sad to say), but those in the middle. The middle used to aspire to more, now they fear going in the other direction. Back in the 90’s, Bill Clinton said that most Americans would no longer have just one career, but two or three careers. Of course, that’s elitist crap, since most Americans don’t have “careers” they have jobs. And while it’s one thing to go from being a lawyer to a politician, to a college professor, as Clinton did, losing your job, and the wages and benefits that go with it is a harrowing experience. Looking for a new job involves starting over, usually at a significantly lower pay rate. If you lose your job after age 50, you can kiss your lifestyle goodbye. Edwards needs to tell people that he understands their problems, understands their fears, and will do everything he can to deal with them.
Will he find this theme? I don’t know, but America needs to hear it, so I hope he does.

Clinton-Obama '08?

2007-06-15T11:52:00.000-07:00

The idea of Barack Obama as Hillary Clinton’s running mate keeps popping up. My friend Dan Coen wrote about it at vicepresidents.com and thought, based on how nice Barack is being toward Hillary in debates, the possibility may be higher than previously thought. While discussing VP choices certainly seems premature, so is everything about this campaign, so I thought I’d jump in with my opinion. I would be shocked if Obama ran with her. There are several key elements which will go into Hillary’s choice (should she have to make one):

1) Controlability – The Clinton campaign is tightly controlled (and no one has ever not used the word “controlling” about her) and whoever the VP candidate is, he must be on message and careful. Obama tends to drift a bit, expanding on remarks when asked, and that is the last thing they will want. This also would kill Bill Richardson’s chances, as he is notable for running off at the mouth.
2) Stature – The VP candidate can’t be too big. Not size-wise, but stature wise. Hillary has enough trouble getting focus with Bill in camera range, she can’t have a VP who people think should be the President. Obama could well run into trouble with this one, being a more compelling speaker and a warmer presence.
3) Demographic usefulness – Historically, geography was a key component of VP selection. But in a more mobile and homogenized culture, with a candidate who was born and raised in Illinois, first lady of Arkansas, and represents New York, geography is meaningless. What isn’t meaningless is help where the Presidential candidate is weakest, or at least not emphasizing the weakness by doubling it. Hillary’s weakness is white males, and Obama does not help there. Certainly she doesn’t need his help for the black vote, as polls show her as more popular then him there.
Given these elements, Obama is a pretty useless candidate for her, unless it’s part of a deal to get the nomination. The obvious choice is Tom Vilsack, former Governor of Iowa, who left the Presidential race and endorsed her. He’s just experienced enough to be viable as a potential backup President and yet has no stature which would draw away from her. I would consider him the big favorite. The longer shot would be Wesley Clark – he’s been around the campaign track, has the military credibility which can only help a female Presidential candidate, enhances her anti-war cred, and is charismatically challenged, to say the least.

A Different World

2007-06-06T12:00:00.000-07:00

Watching the Republican debate just two days after the Democrats could only leave one with the feeling that while they were in the same place, they were not even inhabiting the same world. In spite of the rantings of fringe loonies like Ralph Nader (will the media please stop paying attention to this asshole), the two parties have rarely been further apart in my lifetime. Their views on almost every issue, big and small, is radically different. During the campaign, many of these differences will be muted, but when talking to their own, you see where the candidates are coming from and I found last night’s crew downright scary. I will try and assess how they did, but as I am not their target audience, my grades may not be reliable, and my campaign themes will obviously be filtered through my own viewpoint.

Rudy Giuliani: A- -- (Fighting Terror and Taxes) – That nosed out my other possible theme for Rudy, “Vote For Me or Die”. This was the scariest thing I’ve seen in weeks. I think I’d rather see Hostel II than watch him for an hour. Invading Iraq was right because it was part of the war on terror and we have to stay until they have an “orderly society”. The market will fix health care, just give everyone a 15K tax deduction and let them buy their own (ignoring the uselessness of that kind of tax deduction for most Americans who need health insurance). Oh yeah, and Free Libby. High point was lightning striking as he talked about abortion.

John McCain – B- -- (Tough Enough To Make the Tough Calls) – Restored his street cred by defending the Immigration Reform Bill against the onslaught from the others. Unfortunately, that’s not the right side among Republicans. Opposes a three state solution in Iraq, where he clearly plans on adding as many soldiers as is needed. Joined the general theme, not endorsed by Rudy, that the war was terribly mismanaged. I’ll be shocked if this helped him at all among the faithful.

Mitt Romney – B – (The Future is Bright) – I picked that as the theme because he kept coming back to it, whatever the subject, as if attempting to channel Ronald Reagan. First question was whether the war in Iraq was a good idea, he began by saying “that question is a null set” – way to reach out to the average guy, Mitt. In the answer to one question said “it’s going from a small bore to a large bore” – I assume he’s talking about guns, but he’s a pretty large bore himself. Almost as scary as Rudy. Not as certain he would free Libby. Believes Jesus is his savior, in case you were worried.

Duncan Hunter – B -- (Don’t Tread On Me) – Believes the Iraqis are almost ready to take over the war. Would use nukes against Iraq – to be fair, they all (except Paul, of course) wouldn’t rule it out, but he seemed to have no qualms at all. Only one to talk about jobs, linked with an attack on China’s economic policies. This guy is tough, I think he personally wants to help build the wall on the border. Right near the end he threw his big punch. connecting Rudy (on gun control), Romney (on health care), and McCain (on immigration) with Ted Kennedy – beautiful.

Ron Paul – C- -- (I’m The One Who Read The Constitution) – Look, he ain’t a Republican, he’s a Libertarian, and the Young Libertarian Club members who applauded his answers are irrelevant to the party. Did a dance on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and his answer on immigration seemed incoherent. My favorite answer: when asked about the greatest moral issue today, he said the theory of preventive war. Will definitely not be Rudy’s running-mate.

Tom Tancredo – C+ -- (Damn Furreners) – Immigrants have to forswear all foreign allegiances. Of course, he doesn’t really want to let any in, so that won’t be that big a problem. Seems to feel Iraq is Iraq’s problem, but I’m not sure exactly how that impacts his policy. Sometimes he seems sensible, mostly, he seems unhappy.

Tommy Thompson – D – (I’m The Thompson Who’s Running) – When asked about health care he seemed genuinely excited, having been Secretary of HHS; then gave an answer which was basically that people should stay healthy and that would lower health costs. He would send George W. Bush on a lecture tour of colleges to talk to young people about honesty, integrity, and the value of public service. Really. I swear he said that. With a straight face. I wasn’t on drugs, he really said that.

Mike Huckabee – C+ -- (I’m The Other Guy From Hope) – He believes in God. Said: “we have a tax system which literally steps on peoples heads” – so he doesn’t believe in good English.

Sam Brownback – B- - (I’m Not As Crazy As You Think) – Has a bill to divide Iraq into three sort of states (co-sponsored with Biden?), which McCain derided. His solution to the health care problem is to cure cancer in ten years – seriously. Believes party can’t nominate someone who isn’t pro-life. Oh yes, and Free Libby.

Jim Gilman – C – (I’m The One You Won’t Remember in Six Months) – Thought the Iraq War was a good idea because Saddam was unstable and we had to go into Iraq to stop Iran. Seriously, he said that.

I’m not sure which of these guys is looniest. I’m not sure he can organize effectively, not sure he can handle the pressure, not sure he even has the necessary focus to run a campaign, but if Fred Thompson can’t wipe the floor with these clowns, he just ain’t trying.

Scoring the NH Debate

2007-06-04T13:27:00.000-07:00

Most of the punditocracy tends to focus on analyzing debates using the “big score/big gaffe” method – did someone have a great moment or say something that he’ll have to explain for the next week. Then they add in points for style and composure and declare a winner. In reality, style is damn near everything. In the famous Nixon-Kennedy debate in 1960, those who listened on radio thought Nixon won, those who watched on TV thought Kennedy did. JFK’s look, especially when contrasted to the sallow and sweaty Nixon, won the day, combined with an authoritativeness which made him seem Presidential. So for this debate, my grades are based on “is this a President?”, with a nod to issues as well.
Candidates listed in general order of polling, with my perceived theme for their campaigns in parentheses.

Hillary Clinton – A – (Ready From Day One) – Looked strong and Presidential, in command of the stage. Shot down Wolf whenever he tried to ask a “theoretical” question, lecturing him on what goes into being a President (she knows, she was there.) No one is hurt by attacking the media to its face. Was able to reinforce her “we’re all basically the same on the war” theme, emphasizing the differences with the Republicans. She was helped on that by the peanut gallery. Wants to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax – this is her “I’m not a doctrinaire liberal” issue. Led the charge in the curious battle for the gay and lesbian vote – if they’re all going after that, why not just ignore the religious right altogether?

Barack Obama – A - (New Leadership From a New Generation) – In command, countered Edwards’ attacks effectively, although his health care excuse was sort of lame, he sounded good giving it. Also told off Wolf, which can’t hurt. He sounded like a President, and nothing is more important in establishing himself as a credible alternative to Hillary. By the way, all the candidates referred to each other by their last names except for Hillary, who was never called Senator Clinton. Was this a bit of condescension, or just an attempt to not use the sainted (to their audience) name Clinton?

John Edwards – B- -- (?) – He’s a trial lawyer, he’s run this course before, you’d think he’d be better at this. He looked like no one prepped him – attacked Hillary and Obama to their face on not leading the fight against funding, just showing up late to vote. He talked a lot about leadership and honesty, but you need to talk to the audience, the TV audience, to get those elements across. Just accusing someone doesn’t work, you need to emphasize that “I” am not afraid to lead, that “I” have the honesty to admit mistakes when I make them. Who is running this campaign anyway? He was strong on the issues, honestly talking about health care, but if Hillary was helped by the fringe guys, he was hurt. And who the hell told him that endorsing the possibility of an Olympic boycott was not the stupidest idea ever?

Bill Richardson – C – (Been Everywhere, Done Everything) – Okay, he sounded better than last time. But every time he talked about being a Governor and all the things he’s done for New Mexico, I wanted to scream. It’s not that he shouldn’t be talking about it, it just starts to grate on you. Then he launched into his “pro-business Democrat” spiel, which included a Balanced Budget Amendment, Line Item Veto, and eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax. On Darfur, he wants to send in NATO troops and force the Chinese into helping, boycotting the Beijing Olympics if necessary. Please go away, far far away.

Joe Biden – A —(The Smartest Guy In The Room) – Opened with a strong defense of his Yes vote on Iraq funding. Strong, decisive, sounds like he knows whereof he speaks, sounds like a President. A debate format, with a clock which limits his bloviation, is perfect for him. Also tried the “we all want to end the war” tack, which may hold water with a lot of people. Now if I only believed for a second that he would end it, he would have a better shot.

Chris Dodd – B – (The Smartest Guy In The Room Who Is Clearly Against the War) – Seemed comfortable, knew what he was talking about, emphasized his experience. Also brought up the erosion of our constitutional liberties and said the first thing he would do is restore our rights – well said. Not as intimidating as Biden, but while I think Dodd might be more pleasant to discuss the issues with, Biden’s strength served him better in this format.

Dennis Kucinich – D - (My World Would Be a Better One) – Is in favor of ending the war today, single payer health care, and world peace – and who wouldn’t want those things (health insurers excepted)? He also is in favor of pulling out of the WTO and NAFTA, going for bilateral trade agreements instead. Incredibly, if you eliminate his “kumbaya” moments regarding the world, most Democrats would probably support him on those issues. His doctrinaire position on the war, reminding everyone that compared to him the others have all voted wrong or failed to be aggressive enough concerning the war and ending it, helps Hillary immensely, as does his health care position, which lumped everyone else into a “preserving the insurance companies profits” model. Both of those truly ignore the differences between the other candidates, demeans the specificity of both Edwards and Obama, and gives Hillary the free pass she needs on the issues.

Mike Gravel – F – (Who Am I, What Am I Doing Here?) – There must be a way to have a debate without this senile old fart. You can be sure Hillary would like to keep him around as long as possible, since he uses up time and also attacks everyone equally on the war and everything else, whitewashing the differences between them on key issues and programs.

Of course, many on TV liked Edwards performance more than I did, mostly because they like anyone who starts trouble. You’ll notice that I have no theme for Edwards. I consider that a big problem for him and he has to get one. If you go to his web site, you’ll see some things like “Tomorrow Begins Today” and “Honesty”, but nothing which gives people something to rally around. I’ll talk more about this later.

Kakistocracy

2007-05-31T21:44:00.000-07:00

I often watch the spelling bee finals just to see if I know any of the words. Usually the answer is no, but one year they used several yiddish words, which I indeed knew, so anything is possible.
This year, in an effort to humanize the finalists, ABC had little interviews with them. The lone girl in the final seven, Isabel Jacobson, age 14, of Madison, Wisconsin, was asked her three favorite words. I have forgotten two of them, but one is now one of my favorites – kakistocracy.
Kakistocracy – Rule by the least able or least principled of citizens. A form of government where the people least qualified to control the government are the people who control it. From the Greek kakos, bad.
When your children ask you what kind of government the United States has, don’t say democracy or republic, say kakistocracy – it’s the most accurate description possible this century.
Future historians can refer to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, and Gonzales as the Flying Kakistocrats.

Making a Choice

2007-05-25T09:19:00.000-07:00

Polls of Democrats show that people are generally satisfied with the field of Democrats running for President. I admit that I am not among them, as I see serious weaknesses in all of them, either in experience, leadership, or judgment. In some cases, the problem is more difficult, with electability being the key problem, which seems unfair, since these are experienced men and woman who have won multiple elections and perhaps it would be better to not jump the gun on the impossibility of victory for some of them. Unfortunately, this is not the case, since there is less time for these campaigns to catch fire than in the past. Let’s take a look at the second (and maybe third) tier candidates.

Joe Biden: Totally qualified. Has shown no ability at all to get support outside of Delaware. In Gallup polling he is locked in a battle with Al Sharpton and Wesley Clark. As for his judgment, I don’t trust him at all – he was a strong supporter of the war, has a “solution” which while it sounds reasonable, has no support either within Iraq or in any neighboring country. His vote on the bankruptcy changes two years ago was morally reprehensible and to me, renders him unfit to be President.

Chris Dodd: Totally qualified. Seems more anti-war than most at the moment. Has even less support than Biden, although he seems to have raised a decent amount of money – it’s good to chair the Banking committee. This seems utterly quixotic.

Dennis Kucinich: Frankly, I think he’s right about most things. Unfortunately, there is little realism in either his hard-line positions or his campaign. I wouldn’t mind looking at his wife for the next four years, but unfortunately, he comes with her.

Bill Richardson: Totally qualified – has the best resume since George H. W. Bush. Stunningly dull, seems to have no base or electability. While he seems like a good VP candidate, his dullness may even hurt that.

Mike Gravel: If we change the name of the party to the Slightly Loony Party, he’s our man.

On to the real race – and in one case the unreal one.

Al Gore: Gallup has been including him in their polls and his numbers, so he has to be looked at. Easily the most qualified, in a better world we’d be in the seventh year of the Gore administration. Right on the war and on the environment, he seems very comfortable with himself and I would love to see him in the race. I don’t think he’s going to run. He doesn’t want to discuss ethanol in Iowa and whatever other crap will get votes in various states. His disinterest in joining the fray reveals the biggest weakness of our system, wherein the best-qualified are forced to compete for votes on a demeaning level and forced to beg for money for hours a day. This is not a good way to pick a President.

Hillary Clinton: Sort of qualified – has been in the halls of power, has seen how the executive branch works up close, has met world leaders, has worked effectively in the Senate. Of the top tier candidates who are running, is easily the most qualified. Her stance on issues has been troubling. Her Iraq stance was awful, has tried to join the opposition, yet it seems, like everything else she does, thoroughly calculated. Says she will end the war when she takes over, yet hasn’t given the slightest indication of how, which seems thoroughly Nixonian to me. I hate comparing someone whose positions on many issues parallel mine with Richard Nixon, yet I feel comfortable with it. A Clinton administration would take on an unpopular war which she had supported, then promised to end. Like Nixon, she would enter office with remarkably little good will and trust. It’s not just that you’re either with her or against her – many who would be with her don’t much like or trust her. Like Nixon, she seems driven by a lust for power more than a vision. Because of the front-loaded primary structure, featuring many states where she has a big advantage, combined with her being strong among the most-likely primary voters (women and the elderly), she has to be considered a serious favorite to get the nomination. I would vote for her in November, of course, but I would be holding my nose while I did it.

Barack Obama: Here’s a man with a vision. He has no real qualifications, only two years in the Senate with no leadership demonstrated on any issue. In many ways, he’s the anti-Hillary – he’s warm, visionary, with a charisma which makes you think he could be the one to both lead the country and maybe even unite it. In his writings, the man emerges as thoughtful and knowledgeable. Yet he still speaks in generalities, seems careful on everything, and doesn’t seem to want to lead on issues of substance. I’m not sure what we get with him – his best chance is for it to narrow down to him and Hillary in time for him to get the anti-Hillary vote. Head-to-head matchups with her seem to favor her at the moment, yet that could easily change if he can make that the race.

John Edwards: Like Obama, it’s hard to see his qualifications. Six relatively undistinguished years in the Senate doesn’t exactly prepare you to run the country. What must Biden and Dodd think when they see these two “back-benchers” walloping them in the polls? In no other country in the world would this sort of thing happen. He was a lousy VP candidate in 2004, with a deer-in-the-headlights performance in the debate with Cheney being the most egregious example. He seems to have learned from that experience, seems tougher and maybe better prepared for the battle. He is driven to be President, yet it seems to come from a different place than Clinton’s drive. He has things he wants to do, people he wants to help. Talking about the poor and forgotten of society is not the best way to get votes, yet he does that. This is a good man, with the ability to admit mistakes (Iraq) and the vision to see the problems that face us, not in electoral terms, but in people terms. You may not agree with his position on trade, but he at least understands, as more and more economists now do, that free trade is not a panacea and that more and more Americans are being hurt by it. The first step towards tackling a problem is seeing that it exists. Unlike Clinton, he has talked about ending the war and how it should be done – he’s been derided as naive by Biden, but he’s at least shown the leadership to have a plan. Speaking of which, go to his website, johnedwards.com, and read his health care proposal — if the Democrats were smart, we would adopt it as the official party position.
Of the three front-runners, Edwards would be my choice. He has thought about the problems and has taken the risk of making actual stands on them. I have no illusions here – his lack of experience will not help him get things done. Even more important, his poll numbers are troubling. We are still a long way from the voting, yet when I step into the voting booth on Feb. 5th of next year, I expect I will have a tough choice. Do I vote for the person I want to be President, or the person best able, based on polling data, to beat Hillary Clinton? For now, I will take the high road and hope for the best.

Cowards and Frauds

2007-05-23T17:28:00.000-07:00

The Democrats, led by the unctuous Harry Reid, have caved on Iraq funding. They had a chance to take a real stand, to fight the President and demand a timeline, or at least include benchmarks with teeth in them, but instead sold out for a minimum wage increase and few other funding issues. They will give some of them, including the Presidential candidates, who have been silent regarding the so-called compromise, and the Speaker of the House herself, who has said she won’t vote for the funding portion, a fig leaf in the form of a separate vote on war funding. In the end though, the funding will pass because the sections will be combined. That is the essence of the fraud, allowing Clinton, Obama, et al to say they voted against the funding section, then later voting for the whole bill to support the minimum wage increase and Katrina money.
Russ Feingold, the man who should be President, has spoken out against the fraud and cowardice, but there are too few with the courage to truly engage in the fight. Why not call Bush’s bluff, why not make him veto the bill again, with the promise that there will never be any other kind of bill coming? Why not make him the one who cut off spending through his own bloodthirsty demand for an open-ended commitment to the savagery? Why not – because they are cowards and frauds and an embarrassment to the majority of Americans who want this war to end. They have forfeited the issue in 2008 because they have shown they are cowards and will never accomplish anything in the face of a President who believes in the pointless death of our brave soldiers to preserve his own ego. They have allowed the lying scum in the Oval Office to laugh at them and the rest of us who truly care about the lives and welfare of the soldiers in the field. Democrats have had enough of this crap. Americans have had enough of this crap. Reid should resign as majority leader and make way for someone with the guts to lead and the guts to really take on an unpopular and murderous President. Surely there must be one man or woman of true courage and integrity in the leadership. Who will save us from the merchants of death?

Heaven Can't Wait

2007-05-15T13:02:00.000-07:00

Jerry Falwell died today at age 73, reactions will be varied around the world. His funeral should feature a stampede of Republican Presidential candidates, as well as the President, himself. Of course, there will be reactions outside the world as well.

The Scene: Heaven, May 15th, 2007

St. Peter: Lord, Reverend Jerry Falwell passed away today.
God: You think I don’t know that already?
St. Peter: Truly, You are all-knowing and omnipotent. I was merely commenting. Perhaps we need to prepare?
God: Prepare? Is the Pompous Windbag section full?
St. Peter: He did seem a trifle vain.
God: A trifle, like Paris Hilton is a trifle slutty, or Britney Spears is a trifle screwed up.
St. Peter: Who are those people, my Lord? Are they here yet?
God: Not for many years. You need to pay more attention to the goings on down there, my son, those mortals are quite a show. I would suggest watching Extra, or Inside Edition.
St. Peter: I shall Tivo them, Lord.
God: You can’t understand the new people without understanding their world.
St. Peter: You are truly a wondrous God.
God: Yeah, yeah – so what about Falwell?
St. Peter: Will You be conducting the entrance interview Yourself, Lord?
God: Why would I do that?
St. Peter: He was a great religious leader.
God: Oh, please. Pope John Paul, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, those were great religious leaders. This guy is a hate-filled pompous windbag. You can handle him.
Jesus: If I may speak for the deceased...
God: Defending the indefensible again, my son?
Jesus: It is my lot, Lord.
God: I can understand defending tax-collectors and prostitutes, they serve a useful purpose. What purpose did this man serve?
Jesus: He preached our word.
God: He subverted our word.
Jesus: His heart was pure – he believed in Us.
God: Was it pure? I can see in there, remember?
St. Peter: You are the King, you are the All-Knowing and Merciful Judge.
God: Thank you for reminding Me, Peter. Although the “merciful” part wasn’t needed.
Jesus: Sometimes he feels the need to remind You, Father.
God: How come I don’t get to hang out with the funny Hebrews? Where’s George Burns?
Jesus: We must focus on the Reverend Falwell. He is made in Your image.
God: Are not the gays, the Jews, and the Muslims made in my image? Yet Falwell had no trouble hating them.
Jesus: He did not hate them.
God: He had a strange way of showing his love.
Jesus: Yet he felt he was doing Our will and following my teachings.
God: That’s always the excuse, isn’t it? And where did you teach that war was a good thing? Did you not take in society’s outcasts, rather than reject them? And where did you preach cutting taxes as the path to salvation?
Jesus: Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.
God: It’s been two thousand years, I would think you could move on from that.
Jesus: It’s my human side, Father.
God: I hope you gave your mother something for Mother’s Day.
Jesus: I gave her the blessing of peace.
God: And I’m sure she said it was just what she wanted. So all these people who subvert your teachings, who twist the words of Moses and Mohammad to their needs, they get a pass. Suicide bombers and assassins get greeted like decent human beings. Although I must admit that I love the look on their faces when they find out they’re not getting to have sex with 72 virgins.
St. Peter: Truly, the Lord appreciates irony.
God: The Lord invented irony.
St. Peter: Perhaps we need a new revelation, to bring mankind together.
God: Angels always want a revelation. That way they get to be Me for a few minutes while some poor human is in awe of them. Humans are too sophisticated now, and revelations only confuse things anyway. The last angel that tried that was Moroni, who told a story to that Joseph Smith guy. That ended up with them thinking blacks were inferior, polygamy was divine, and drinking coffee was a sin. Oh, and lots of people getting killed – as always.
Jesus: Shall We forgive Reverend Falwell, and welcome him, Father?
God: You know I’m going to.
St. Peter: Truly the Lord is a forgiving and generous God
God: You can say that again – and doubtless will. Okay, let Falwell in – we can room him with Ayatollah Khomeini for a couple of centuries, that could be good for some fun.

And Jesus laughed.

Fade Out.

Wasted Sympathy

2007-05-04T11:17:00.000-07:00

Last weekend, St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Josh Hancock died in a car accident at age 29. There is something about an athlete dying in his youth which is particularly sad, there is a sense of a race unfinished, of a future denied, with a truncated historical record left behind to remind us of the vagaries of life. His Cardinals teammates were understandably shaken – if the young feel invulnerable, surely young athletes, at the top of their profession, with riches and success beyond most of our dreams, feel particularly so. The Cards are the defending World Champions, and they can look forward not just to competing together in the near future, but to come back and relive their mutual glory 20 or 30 years down the road. Suddenly, one of them was gone, and it was hard for them to take.
Today the police report on the accident which took his life came out, here are the “highlights”:

1. His blood alcohol level was nearly twice the legal limit
2. There was 8.5 grams of marijuana and a pipe used to smoke it in the car – the toxicology report isn’t out yet, but I know which way I’m betting on this one
3. He was going 68 MPH in a 55 MPH zone – there was no evidence he tried to stop, just swerved a bit.
4. He wasn’t wearing a seatbelt.
5. He was on the phone at the time of the accident with a female acquaintance – let me quote the AP article on this one:
“Hancock was speaking with a female acquaintance about baseball and baseball tickets and that the conversation ended abruptly, apparently when the accident occurred. A police report said Hancock told the female acquaintance he was on his way to another bar, and that he planned to meet her there.”

That’s right, 12:30 AM, already loaded, and he was heading for another bar.
Considering that three days earlier he had been in an accident with a tractor-trailer at 5:30 in the morning, he was probably a long way from ending his evening’s fun.
So all in all, we can stop feeling sad for this asshole, and be glad that he only killed himself and not anyone else.

The Republicans Debate

2007-05-03T19:46:00.000-07:00

It’s a little hard for me to judge a GOP Presidential debate, since I don’t fit in the spectrum of the candidates, who run from conservative, to very conservative, all the way to extremely conservative. So their answers are clearly not aimed at me, but the Republican faithful who tend to use prayer to make their choices, rather than reason. Still, there were some interesting things to be gleaned about these fine, upstanding, white, Christian males.
Rather than look at them individually, let’s look at the issues and how they dealt with them.
The War in Iraq – Only Ron Paul, unrepentant Libertarian that he is, was opposed to it. Paul became the first Republican in about 50 years to refer to Robert Taft as the lodestar for international affairs.
Tommy Thompson gave the single most interesting answer on Iraq of anyone I’ve heard yet, full of stunning specificity. First, treat the 18 provinces of Iraq like they are states, have them each elect a government with local responsibility; that way, Shiites would run Shiite provinces, Sunnis Sunni provinces, and the Kurds up north. Then the oil revenue has to be divided – 1/3 to the central government, 1/3 among the provinces, 1/3 to the people. I assume that second proposal gave Bush and Cheney the vapors. The oil revenue division would give each Iraqi a stake in their society. Look for him to have trouble raising money from the oil industry.
Everyone agreed that it hasn’t been run well. Rudy gained points (at least with me) by being able to define the difference between Shiites and Sunnis.

Abortion – Rudy is opposed personally, but believes states should make their own decisions. He’s also in favor of the Hyde Amendment, which forbids federal money for abortions – he mentioned that twice. Ron Paul, of course, thinks it’s none of the federal government’s business. Jim Gilmore seems okay with it in the first trimester. Everyone else thinks it’s murder.

Evolution – Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo don’t believe in it. Therefore, I will proceed to ignore them in the rest of these comments, because they are too ignorant to even think about.

Tax Policy – The Alternative Minimum Tax appears to be a big deal to these guys. Most of them are against it, Giuliani just wants it adjusted, which is the better answer to the problem that exists with it. Romney is in favor of zero (yes, zero) taxes on capital gains.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research – Only Rudy and McCain are in favor. The rest either ignored the question or are opposed. Romney spent most of his answer being opposed to cloning. In fact, he referred to that on more the one occasion. God, I hate him.

So who won? I thought McCain came off best, looking tough, with a firm knowledge of who he is and what he believes. Rudy seemed solid, yet seemed a little unprepared for the tough questions he had to know were coming.. Romney kept using the word “family” as often as possible, when he wasn’t talking about cloning or what a great Governor he was. Romney is actually scary. Thompson is smart, yet stunningly dull; he is a born cabinet member. Duncan Hunter gave an intelligent answer on global warming and also is in favor of enforcing trade laws – so obviously he won’t win. The rest of these guys are loony or loony lite, take your choice. Fred Thompson, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

The Democrats Debate

2007-04-26T19:45:00.000-07:00

Of course, having eight people on stage with only two hours to debate, much of which is taken up by the questions themselves, is not the best way to get any real impressions of the candidates. On the other hand, some things came out and are worthy of being pointed out. Let’s look at the candidates:

Mike Gravel: the crazy old uncle of the field – at times fun, but a waste of time. He managed to make Dennis Kucinich seem moderate. He’s something of a loon.

Dennis Kucinich: right more often than he was wrong, his function in this race is to put pressure on the others, has health care right and, like Gravel, lumps everyone else together on Iraq, which helps Hillary. His general foreign policy approach is hopelessly naive.

Chris Dodd – showed some guts on the drug testing question. Gave a wonderful answer on gay marriage, then chickened out by saying he was against it, although in favor of civil unions.

Bill Richardson – It isn’t good in a Democratic primary to be referred to as the NRA’s favorite candidate. His favorite Supreme Court Justice – Whizzer White...Whizzer White??? A man who was opposed to Roe v. Wade? Horrible speaker, bad impression – may have seriously damaged his VP chances. He has no Presidential chance at all.

Joe Biden – Had the best, and shortest, answer of the night. Sounded intelligent, well-informed, and clearly someone who could be helped by the night. Let’s see if the polls move.

John Edwards – Came across as smart and articulate, gave a good answer on his Iraq vote, yet didn’t seem sharp enough. Bungled the “hedge funds making America better” question, looking like a defender of them and the very rich who deal in them. He sounded like someone who asks the right questions, which, frankly, is what I like best about him. Not sure whether his pointing people to his web site worked, but reminding people that depth and solutions are necessary was good. Great answer on moral leader question at the end, which may have been the thing that saved the night for him.

Barack Obama – I’m going to disagree with a number of pundits – I think he did very well. Seemed authoritative, correcting a bad quotation from Brian Williams made him look tough, generally good on his feet. I thought his answer about Asia was good. His bringing up the Terri Schaivo vote as a regret was a bold move and one I greatly respected. One failing was his answer to Williams’ “Al Qaeda strikes” question. Later he took on Kucinich and looked really tough.

Hillary Clinton – Judged by most as the winner and I won’t debate that, although I hated the giant pearls. She had a good answer on keeping US safe, less good on health care, not good on Iraq. Won the night with the best answer on “if we were attacked”, by immediately responding with strike back. Seemed very comfortable with herself, as did Obama.

Best Answer: Clinton on “Al Qaeda attacks”

Most Memorable Answer: Joe Biden’s one word response to “are you too verbose?”

Most Thoughtful Answer: Edwards’ moral leader answer. May have been more helpful than anything he had said in the previous 80 minutes.

Worst Answer: Several by Richardson, who seemed way out of his depth.

Most Surprising Moment: Seeing Dennis Kucinich’s wife, Elizabeth. He got a tall, hot, redhead with a British accent. Not sure how he did it, but damn, he got the respect of a lot of men across America. If he can get that babe, maybe he can end the war and solve the health care problem.

Earth Day

2007-04-22T11:30:00.000-07:00

Today is Earth Day. It seems to be one of the few holidays which doesn’t inspire department store sales, which is probably the reason it sort of slips by us. I mean, how many of us would care about Presidents Day without furniture sales? Hell, without the advertising, we would just be upset about the lack of mail deliveries.
I don’t think this is controversial, but I feel the need to say it – I like the Earth. All things considered, it’s been a pretty damn good planet. Sure, there’s no need for hurricanes and earthquakes and the like, but let’s face it, it’s the best planet around, between the atmosphere, water, and gravity, it’s been pretty damn hospitable. And we really don’t do much for it, do we? We dump garbage in the ocean, overwork the land, and God only knows the damage we’ve done to the atmosphere. We call it Mother Earth, yet we never call and never give it anything it wants, like a sound ozone layer. And except for the seven people who compost their garbage, we never take it to lunch.
We do seem to take it for granted. We insist on using our limited water supply on huge golf courses and lawns in areas of the country which rarely get enough rain to sustain them. For a while we seemed to stop tossing industrial waste into our rivers and streams, but not this century, since it allegedly would hurt our economy to tell businesses to do or not do, well, anything. Assuming global warming is happening and the effects of it will be significant, it seems to be time to get to work on water. Out here in the West, the problem could be severe. Population increases alone will put more pressure on the Colorado River than it can bear. Even if global warming is not as severe as expected, the decrease of the snow pack in the Sierras is inevitable, the only question is how bad it will be. This doesn’t just have an effect on the West – the price of food will not be limited to where it’s grown. To his credit, Arnold Schwarzenegger is talking about the situation and trying to find solutions, including dams. This is going to be a national crisis and requires a national solution, since it won’t be limited to one part of the nation. We need to work on desalinization and any other solutions which come to mind.
Speaking of minds, we need to give all the assorted Earth-related problems the mind power they deserve. We need to be prepared, we need to put think tanks to thinking and researchers to researching. This is more important than the space program, it’s more important than missile defense, it’s more important than anything. We can’t just plant trees and recycle anymore. We need fundamental change here. We need to change our cars, so they produce fewer hydrocarbons and, not coincidentally, use fewer fossil fuels. Ethanol is the solution the oil companies and agribusiness love, but it’s a sham, ridiculously expensive and affecting a minimal change on pollutants, when its manufacture is taken into account. We need to increase mileage standards on cars now – not a few miles per gallon, but 20 miles per gallon. We have to count every transportation vehicle sold, no exceptions for light trucks or SUVs when computing mileage standards. We need to make this country the engine of clean fuel and high mileage for the world, It’s good for the planet, good for our security (less oil) and even good for our economy. A couple of billion dollars a year dedicated to this could produce trillions in long term savings – it’s insane to just assume someone will figure this out. Bush talked about hydrogen cars in a State of the Union address, yet there has been no government involvement in this, just words.
We need to deal with power generation. Our fossil-fueled based system is not sustainable and while coal is fairly plentiful, the environmental cost there is huge. Renewables such as wind and water have a place, but can’t replace what we use. It’s time to think seriously about nuclear power. We need to put the best scientists in the world in a well-financed, intensive research project to deal with nuclear plant safety and even more important, nuclear waste disposal. When the Sierra Club starts talking about nuclear power as an option, you know that its time has arrived, but at this moment, the technology has not caught up with the need.
All these things require political will and all of us must join together. The environment can’t just be a liberal or Democratic issue, we all are part of this planet, we all have to make our leaders understand that this is as important as any issue they care about now. Hell, it’s more important – if Mother Earth dies, the only funeral will be ours.

He Was A Loner

2007-04-17T10:43:00.000-07:00

Yes, the Va. Tech gunman was described as a “loner”. This is hardly surprising, since most mass murderers seem to be described that way. The bigger question is how this non-citizen, who had a history of mental problems, who was taking medication for depression, managed to get the kind of weaponry he had. Even if one believes in the absoluteness of Second Amendment rights, they surely cannot extend to non-citizens, and surely shouldn’t extend to those who have mental problems.
I have a friend who graduated from VT a few years ago and when I first heard the news, I wondered how he must have felt. For the rest of us, the names Ambler Johnston Hall and Norris Hall have no real meaning other than the sites of this tragedy. He spent four years of his life there, it’s a very real place to him. Those are buildings and areas he passed through or around on a regular basis, it was home.
Virginia Tech is one of the top universities in the country and now it is faced with rebuilding in a way no university has had to. This obviously has a horrible effect on those directly involved and their families. For the over 20,000 students at VT, it is a nightmare which will be hard to awake from. How do they go to classes in Norris Hall, knowing the carnage that took place there? How safe do any of them feel in their dorms or classrooms, no matter how unlikely a repeat may be? How do their parents react to this – besides the immediate relief that their child is alive, followed, one would expect, by a certain guilt at that very relief, knowing that there are at least 33 other sets of parents who don’t have that feeling? What of the entering class, do they reconsider where they were going? The excitement of getting into a top school surely must now be tempered with the doubts about what that campus will be like when they get there.
Now we will see the overreaction by those whose function in life is to overreact. Pundits will babble about a) the need for greater gun control b) the need for greater campus security c) the violence of video games d) all of the above. Politicians will try to write laws to fix the problem, with no real ability to do so; yet is the nature of our democracy to believe that every problem has a solution, so they will try something, no matter how irrelevant. For if history shows us one thing, it is that if you really want to do violence, if you really want to kill, nothing can stop you. The assassination attempts on multiple Presidents has clearly demonstrated that. Suicide bombings in Israel clearly demonstrate that. You can’t make people go through metal detectors everywhere, every day, and still have a society which feels free and open.
Of course, background checks before getting handguns would be nice. And if the Republicans can stop sucking at the teat of the NRA long enough to restrict the kind of ammunition available, at least some deaths might be prevented. The 19-round cartridges he apparently used were illegal until the last Congress, the previous law had restricted them to ten rounds, but the GOP let that lapse. You may have the right to carry a gun, but no one other than a mass murderer needs that many rounds without reloading.
The news coverage of this event and the aftermath was, of course, wall-to-wall. It merited it, but that kind of coverage reveals a major flaw in the way stories are covered. What you have is an anchor, whichever one is supposed to be on-air at that hour, handling all the presentation, all the questions, all the reactions. This is a terrible way to get information and to organize information. In a more reasonable world, only 45 minutes of the hour would be devoted to this story, with the rest of the time devoted to everything else in the world. However, if you did that, people would change the channel looking for more news about the big story, so that is out of the question, since ratings are everything. The way it’s set up now is awful – you get a series of terrible questions, mostly due to bad assumptions, but often due to the inability to digest and analyze what information is already at hand. The best solution would be to immediately bring in a second anchor, allowing them to take turns analyzing the information themselves as well as batting ideas around with staff. They would be up to speed faster and the expert interviews would be far more revealing and far less infuriating. Hopefully, we’ll never have deal with it again. Realistically, we will.

Notes and Numbers -- New Polls and Gore's Decision

2007-04-12T18:24:00.000-07:00

Evans and Novak say Fred Thompson is going to run. Make no mistake, this will turn the race on its head. The first couple of weeks after his entry could well be disastrous for any number of opponents, with his solid conservative credentials possibly dealing fatal blows to Gingrich, Huckabee, and all the little guys. Romney has enough money to weather the storm, but could have a lot of trouble getting enough air. It may also put McCain’s campaign into complete confusion – do they tack back to the middle and try and outlast Giuliani and then go head-to-head with Thompson? Or do they try and hang tough on the right, hammering experience as the theme? I suspect it wouldn’t matter, that Rudy would have him outflanked in the middle while Thompson will get the conservatives.

***********************************************************
Time magazine has the Democrats tightening, with Hillary leading Obama 33-26 with Edwards right behind at 25. The LA Times/Bloomberg poll has Hillary up 33-23 with Edwards and Gore at 14 and 13. There are now a lot of numbers out there, with Hillary still probably up by double digits and everyone looking for an opening to really catch up.

***********************************************************
If Thompson decides to enter, is that a sign for Gore that it’s time for him? What is the right time for Gore to jump in, assuming he ever does?
Many pundits have proclaimed that Gore is the one person who could enter late, as late as the Fall, and still be a real factor. Frankly, I think that’s nonsense. As I’ve said before, people, workers, and money, will have made their choices and he will be trying to change their minds, a far harder thing to do. The latest Gallup Poll isn’t all that encouraging – by 57% to 38%, Americans say they don’t want Gore to run. Now the more important number is Democrats, where 54% do want him in the race while 41% don’t. Independents oppose a Gore candidacy 57-37. The problem with those numbers is we have nothing to contrast them with – no one else is in this situation and very few ever have been. I would posit that if a person is truly enamored of another candidate, he would not want Al Gore to enter, therefore the 54-41 edge is a significant and positive one.
He will still have to answer the big questions: why are you running and why now, rather than six months ago? The second could get tricky. If he enters after Edwards campaign dies, then it looks like he’s upholding the white guy banner – not a good position to be in. If he waits until it looks like Hillary is in charge, then he becomes the anti-Hillary, but taking on Bill and Hillary isn’t an easy position for the man who was Clinton’s VP. He could run against her as the anti-war candidate, but by that point, she will have overcome that against two others. Head-to-head with Obama could really be tricky, for obvious reasons. No, he has to get in soon, I’d say by June 1st. And the reason will have to be that he is just a bigger international personality – that he has the respect of the world in a way that the others do not, which, combined with his experience, makes him the best person for these troubled times. If he combines it with a bold campaign, unafraid to tell people things they might not want to hear, he could finally realize his dream.

Numbers and Notes – Money Isn’t Everything Edition

2007-04-11T15:27:00.000-07:00

So lots of people raised lots of money, but what does it really mean?
1) Democrats are much more excited than Republicans. Dems raised $80 mil, Repubs raised $50 mil – this is unprecedented and says something about who cares more about their candidates and maybe about the ’08 race.
2) John McCain is a crappy fund raiser. Whether a personal distaste for the activity is the key, or a conservative distaste for McCain is the key, his numbers looked bad, and he just can’t afford that.
3) Where are all the Hillary supporters? Clinton supposedly has a 250,000 name list to draw from, yet collected money from only 50, 000. Obama collected money from 100,000 donors, so while they raised about the same amount of money, Obama has more people to return to who already have a vested interest in his success. Edwards raised half the money of the two of them, but should stick around with his $12-13 mil.
4) Mitt Romney can raise money – especially from Mormons. Now he needs to spend it to get people to vote for him, which they seem disinclined to do.
5) Except for the big six, the others don’t have money or poll support. Things can change, but how to make that happen? Remember, we are only ten months from this race being virtually over. The clock is ticking on all their campaigns.

*******************************

The latest Gallup polls reflect very little movement. On the Democratic side, Clinton is still on top, with 38% to Obama’s 19, with Edwards at 15 and Gore at 14. Going back to January, Hillary’s leads have been: 11, 19, 14, 13, 19 – so we’re now back where we were two months ago. In fact, the numbers on individual candidates have been remarkably consistent – Obama has polled 18, 21, 22, 22, 19, Edwards 13, 13, 9, 14, 15, and Gore got a bump with the Oscars, but has lost 3 points since then, which, like all the other differences, is margin of error stuff.
Clearly things have settled in for the long haul – or has it? Rasmussen has very different numbers, with Hillary’s leads over the same timeframe looking like this: 7, 16, 8, 12, 5. Now there is less consistency there, but since 2/12 Rasmussen has not had Obama below 23%, with him currently at 29.. Edwards’ numbers seem to be in sync with Gallup. Even more interesting, when Gallup removes Gore from polling (as Rasmussen has), Clinton’s lead gets bigger, at 43-19 – very curious indeed. The latest Cook/RT Strategies poll has similar numbers to Gallup, so maybe Rasmussen is off here.
There’s even good news for Edwrads, as Rasmussen has him beating Giuliani by 6 head-to-head, while Clinton and Obama run even.
One more thing has to be noted – Al Gore has started a diet.

******************************

Over on the GOP side, there’s disagreement between Gallup and Rasmussen regarding Rudy. Gallup, after showing him slipping two weeks ago, gives him a 38-16 lead over McCain in this poll. Giuliani’s Gallup leads have been: 4, 16, 24, 9, 22. Rasmussen tracks over the same points somewhat differently: 8, 14, 15, 20, 11. The addition of Fred Thompson in the Rasmussen poll has clearly caused the latest drop, as Thompson drew 14% of the vote while Rudy lost 7-10 points. That would seem to indicate the expected softness of Rudy’s support, as well as the huge opening we all think exists for a new conservative candidate on the GOP side. Gallup has Thompson at 10%, which is still more than Mitt Romney, who shows up with a puny 6%. Rasmussen has Mitt at 12, but it’s the first time he’s been over 10 and looks like a blip to me.
Make no mistake, If Thompson gets into this race, he will be a serious threat. He has clear conservative credentials. His experience in the Senate gives him some level of heft. He’s experienced – having played a President in the movies...which to most people is just as good as being President (which, with Law and Order, also will negate Giuliani’s edge as a crime fighter). He also looks and sounds like a President, which also won’t hurt. I know, this whole paragraph has been a sad commentary on the American electorate, but do any of you doubt its accuracy?

The Vagaries of Wonderfulness

2007-04-05T10:13:00.000-07:00

Last night on the Pacific Coast Highway, long-time Hollywood director Bob Clark and his 22 year old son were killed by a drunk driver. This is not the kind of news that I would normally comment on, but his career caused me to think about fame and success, and how random it can be.
He had a feature film directing career of over two dozen films spanning 40 years. There were a few high points – a big commercial success in Porky’s (and Porky’s II); a genre success in the original Black Christmas, a couple of decent movies in Tribute (with Jack Lemmon) and Murder by Decree (Christopher Plummer and James Mason). Mostly though, his career featured some awful stuff – Rhinestone, Turk 182, and Baby Geniuses (and it’s sequel – Superbabies). Even if you liked those movies, you probably couldn’t name the director; when I heard his name, I didn’t connect it to anything, which is a shame.
It’s a shame because in the midst of that relatively anonymous (if economically successful) career, lies one very special movie. Bob Clark directed A Christmas Story, which, to avoid argument with Capra fans, I will refer to as the second-best Christmas film ever. Perfectly cast and written (by Jean Shepherd, Leigh Brown and Clark, from Shepherd’s book); it was so perfectly shot that some of its shots have been re-used in commercials as recently as last year, in order to evoke the same feeling they did in the movie. It was Clark’s eleventh feature, in 1983, the same year he directed Porky’s II. He would follow it the next two years with Rhinestone and Turk 182, two horrible, if major, motion pictures starring Sylvester Stallone and Timothy Hutton, respectively.
In the midst of that series of godawful dreck, who knows why it all came together on that movie? Maybe it was just a story Clark had a special affection for, maybe it was just movie magic. Whatever it was, next year at the Oscars, when Bob Clark’s picture flashes on the screen in the necrology, remember the one shining moment he had and the joy the movie gave you.
(There is a good Wikipedia entry on A Christmas Story that you might want to check out.)

Fire Me?? Fire You!

2007-03-21T16:43:00.000-07:00

Now I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that firing a U. S. Attorney to prevent the indictment of political cronies is at the very least impeding justice, if not downright destroying it. I’m not sure exactly what statute this violates, but if the executive branch can wantonly screw with the judicial system like this, then we’re all in trouble and if the law doesn’t exist that covers this malfeasance, someone should start writing it tomorrow.
We understand that the Bush regime has no respect for the Constitution and even less for the rights it protects, but for God’s sake, when is enough enough? The enemies of freedom aren’t just in Pakistan and Iraq, they are on Pennsylvania Avenue and have to be stopped. I don’t think this scandal will actually reach Bush – I am confident he just signed off on the firings ordered by Rove, Meier, and Gonzalez, and has the deniability set up already – “they told me these people weren’t doing a good job and I believed them.” But they’d better do something to someone in the executive branch, because while they have the right to replace U. S. Attorneys, that right needs to stop when it interferes with justice itself. And contrary to what Fox News, continuing to show less balance than Al-Jazeera, says, this is not the same as replacing all the prosecutors when you get elected. Bush had that option and exercised it, but this is a whole different thing, because they were doing their job too well and the Bushistas knew it. Firing Federal prosecutors for prosecuting seems beyond the pale, don’t you think?
Yet as of this moment, Alberto Gonzalez, the latest in a line of W enablers, still has his job. Fredo, as W likes to call him, must be doin’ a heck of a job. Still, Bush knows Fredo did it, and if I were Fredo, I’d stay out of small boats.
Then Bush came on TV to tell us of the “unprecedented” access to documents he was giving Congress. The speech was made from the White House Library, a room W probably needed written directions to find. And as Bush stood there in front of the books, talking about the sanctity of the Executive Branch and how Congress should be grateful for the amazing amount of information he was letting them see, I couldn’t help but flash back to Richard Nixon making almost the same exact speech, sitting next to a pile of bound selections from taped White House conversations. Of course Bush lacks Nixon’s sense of propriety and accountability, so he hasn’t fired anyone over this. Bush also lacks Nixon’s respect for the Constitution – and that may be the most astonishing sentence I have ever typed. The overwheming ignorance of this man is matched only by his unrelenting insolence. When he talks about how Presidential aides can’t testify under oath before Congress because it would hurt their ability to give advice to the President, he is so full of shit that it’s coming out of his ears (not just it’s usual exit point, his mouth.) Throughout our history Presidential aides have testified before Congress. During WWII, FDR’s closest aides testified -- I know that war wasn’t as important as the “war on terror”, and that it represented “pre 9/11 thinking” but it seemed important at the time.
Bush, Cheney, et al, think they are above the law. Hell, like all other fascist leaders, they think they are the law. It is up to Congress to show them they aren’t.

What The Democrats Should Do

2007-03-08T20:50:00.000-08:00

It is time for the Congressional Democrats to do what the American people sent them to Washington to do, namely, end the war in Iraq. This is easier said than done, since it requires some level of agreement among those with various positions, as the staggering attempts to pass the simplest of measures shows. Yet they must do something, or else be condemned, and rightly so, for a lack of courage,
There are four factors which need to be taken into account when constructing an exit strategy for Iraq:

1. Humanitarian
2. Geopolitical
3. Economic
4. Domestic Political

Some of you may think the last two are unseemly, that #3 sounds a lot like “blood for oil” and #4 is flat out tawdry. But a result which causes the price of oil to zoom to $100 a barrel would cause untold damage to the world’s economy and make no mistake, the pain would not be shared equally, the poor and elderly would take the biggest hit. As for #4, I just think the future of this country and the world would be ill served if the result of Congressional action was a complete Republican takeover of the government. Now if you don’t think that would cause a great deal of distress to this country and the world, you can come to a different conclusion. I believe the Speaker of the House needs to take that into account and should.
The House Democrats have come up with a plan which will get us out no later than the end of August, 2008. In fact, within the Democratic Caucus, the battle is over whether to end it sooner, as in the end of December, 2007. They have a plan to set benchmarks for the Iraqis, begin redeployment, and ultimately achieve the complete withdrawal of troops and are attaching it to the financing for the war. There are a couple of problems here – first, it has little chance of getting through the Senate, and if it does, Bush will veto it and dare the Democrats to cut off funding. In addition, the nature of the bill means the Democrats will be taking control of the war from the President and the military. Frankly, Republicans should welcome this and make sure it passes – its a no-lose situation for them, since if it goes well, Iraq is off the table for the election and if it doesn’t, the Democrats will be blamed for the disaster.
The Senate also has a bill, but it’s a phased withdrawal and has all the weaknesses and none of the strengths of the intended House bill, as one would expect from the august body of wafflers.

Let’s look at the potential results taking into account the four elements I laid out at the beginning.
1 – Humanitarian – This is a potential humanitarian nightmare. It’s terrible now, but it could be much worse. Let me quote from the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq:

“Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq.
If coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this estimate (12-18 months), we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.
If such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the Iraqi Security Forces would be unlikely to survive as a nonsectarian national institution; neighboring countries — invited by Iraqi factions or unilaterally — might intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable; Al-Qaeda in Iraq. would attempt to use parts of the country — particularly Al Anbar Province — to plan increased attacks in and outside of Iraq; and spiraling violence and political disarray in Iraq, along with Kurdish moves to control Kirkuk and strengthen autonomy, could prompt Turkey to launch a military incursion.”

It is not unreasonable for Americans to care more about the lives and health of our soldiers than of Iraqis and it’s indisputable that the sooner we get out the fewer our casualties will be. But are we really willing to concede the nightmare? This is Darfur and Sarajevo rolled into one, only bigger and with TV coverage. We can ignore the NIE timeline and warnings, but is that the wisest choice? We must give this the best chance possible for a positive, or at least less negative, outcome.

2 – Geopolitical – An abrupt withdrawal will serve to do nothing to help our influence in the region. It is true that the war itself has damaged it critically, yet we still have some influence. On the other hand, a date certain for withdrawal achieves the key element of focus for the players in the region. The knowledge of when we are leaving gives the Saudis, Iranians, Syrians, Turks, and their assorted clients inside Iraq a ticking clock, which, when it strikes midnight, would get bloody and not with our blood but with theirs. The good thing about hanging is that it concentrates the mind wonderfully. There must be enough time for them to deal with the potential outcomes. Once we have made the commitment to leave, we can aid negotiations simply because we will not be directly involved there in the future. Staying in without a date certain accomplishes none of these things, just lets everything drag on.

3- Economic – If the collapse scenario comes to pass, the entrance into the ethnic/religious war of Saudi Arabia and Iran could result in a massive increase in the price of oil, both due to supply disruption and the need to finance a war. If we choose to stay indefinitely, we fend that off, but at the cost of our own blood. If we leave too fast, the disruption in the world economy could be swift and extremely painful. We ignore this at great peril. We must build up our strategic oil reserve and have plans in place to ameliorate the worst effects of a run-up in prices. Time is our ally in those goals.

4- Domestic Political – These seem like cold calculations in the face of death and disfigurement, yet the Democrats would be remiss if they ignored them. As I said earlier, a quick withdrawal will be a no-lose situation for the Republicans, as the war will only be an issue if the result is a disaster. It is utterly foolish for the Democrats to risk that result – which, we must admit, is still the most likely one. Make no mistake, if Congress forces the President, by whatever means, to withdraw our troops next Spring or Summer, it ceases to be his war and becomes theirs. The Iraq War, misguided and mishandled, could end up referred to as yet another war the Congressional Democrats lost. I know, it’s sort of silly, but Conservatives have done their best to sell the Vietnam War in those terms and incredibly, it seems to be working.

The Resolution That Should Be

Be it resolved that all United States troops shall be removed from Iraq no later than December 1st, 2008. To that end, the House shall not pass any appropriations which could be used for military action in Iraq subsequent to 12/01/08. In the event U. S. troops remain in Iraq beyond that date, the House shall pass no further defense appropriations of any kind.
Until that time, the President is authorized, as Commander-In-Chief, to conduct the war in Iraq using whatever strategy and military tactics he sees fit, subject to international law and the Geneva Conventions. This resolution does not give the President the authorization for any military actions outside the recognized borders of Iraq.

There it is, simple and definitive. What are the advantages of this resolution? There are two keys here – responsibility and the timeline. Congress was not designed to run wars. The attempt to micromanage a war through compromise and political machinations is foolish. Let the President do his job. Even if he does it badly, it is his Constitutional responsibility and, as I have pointed out, a far superior political choice. By moving the date to 12/1/08, the Democrats would accomplish three goals. One, of course, is the very act of setting a date certain, which I believe is needed to force a political solution in the region. Second, the Democrats should not ignore the message of the NIE. The difference between us and Bush is that we do not ignore expert advice. If the NIE says a complete withdrawal within 12-18 months is fraught with peril, then it behooves us to move the end date outside that timeline. We can emphasize that we will not have an open-ended commitment, even should a new NIE change the timeline, we must have an end, Third, and this is pure politics, by moving it beyond the 2008 elections, it reinforces the need for a Democratic Congress to enforce the resolution and end the war.
There’s one more thing – this resolution needs 218 votes in the House and nothing else. The Senate doesn’t need to agree and Bush doesn’t have to sign it. Money bills come from the House and if they say they won’t pass one, that’s it. The time is over for passing bills which will never take effect, this will do the job.

Numbers and Notes -- Slip Sliding Away

2007-03-07T13:51:00.000-08:00

The monthly Gallup Poll is out and there’s bad news aplenty for some of the trailers. It’s hard to say who received the biggest hit, but John McCain has to be very uncomfortable at the moment. He trails Giuliani 44-20 and his percentage has been steadily eroding for three months. Given the historical tendencies of the GOP, Giuliani’s clear front-runner status has to make McCain very nervous. Romney can take heart in the RNC polling by the LA Times, which found him the favorite among insiders, although with only 20%. Even there, McCain is not well situated, getting support from only 10% of the politicos.
Over in the weekly Rasmussen Poll, Giuliani’s lead has been about 15 since mid-February, with McCain consistently under 20%.

----------------------------

The latest Quinnipiac Poll has PA solidly for Rudy, with him leading Clinton 51-40. This is exactly the kind of polling data that can cause Republicans to line up behind him. It’s one thing for Democrats to get excited about their chances in Western states like CO, NV, and AZ, it’s quite another for Republicans to be favored in PA and NJ.

----------------------------

Mitt Romney has plans to launch an early media blitz to introduce himself to America. This seems like a good idea in that most Americans have never heard of him. On the plus side, it means his relatively low poll numbers can jump up if he can make a positive impression. On the other hand, he’s third in NH polling with 17%, and since he was Governor of Massachusetts, those people do know who he is.

----------------------------

On the Democratic side, Hillary is still leading, with sizeable leads in NY and CA polling. Obama still has plenty of time to make a move, since many people still don’t know who he is. As I pointed out earlier, in head to head matchups, Hillary is over 50%, which means votes have to be taken away from her.

----------------------------

The Clinton campaign has decided to organize women behind her under the banner Women For Hillary. Since 54% of the voters in 2004 were women, there are worse ideas. The danger, of course, is that this could turn off men. I know what you’re thinking – how can Hillary turn off men more than she already does? But I think it’s possible and that in a close race, men could be suspicious of Hillary’s agenda and shift to a male candidate.

----------------------------

I haven’t mentioned John Edwards yet, even though the title of this edition of N&N refers to him as well as McCain. The latest Gallup Poll is quite unpleasant for him, as he dropped from 13% to 9%, while Al Gore, on the strength of his Oscar appearance, went from 14 to 18%. Having half as much support as someone who is not running is never a good thing. He still does well in head to head matchups with Republicans, the problem is in his own party. The high point of his week was being called a faggot by Ann Coulter, the High Priestess of Hate. Edwards is actually trying to use the evil anorexic’s attack to raise money – actually featuring her on the front page of his web site. When you’re depending on the nastiness of strangers, your campaign ain’t all it needs to be.

Numbers and Notes – Some Inconvenient Truths

2007-02-28T14:57:00.000-08:00

Cue the music, run the retrospective of his campaign, Tom Vilsack has left the building. He seemed like a nice fellow, quite pleasant on The Daily Show, but as a former Governor of Iowa, the money just wasn’t there for him. He won’t be the last candidate to leave for that reason, the big dogs in this hunt are taking up all the air.

-------------------------------------------------

Speaking of the big dogs, Rasmussen has Hillary’s lead back into double digits this week, which could just be a blip, or could be a sign that the initial excitement over Obama’s announcement has lost its steam. The most interesting part of this is that at 37% and 26%, this is the high point in this poll for both Clinton and Obama. Rasmussen dropped Al Gore from the polling and that may have had some effect. Edwards is holding steady at 13% and he seems optimistic about raising money, which will be key. No one else is over 4% and I can’t take them seriously until they are.

-------------------------------------------------

Over on the GOP side, Rudy is steady as a rock, with a 16 point lead over McCain. The bigger numbers are still the head-to-head general election matchups, where he seems to be running much stronger against Clinton than McCain. That is his strongest weapon, as fear of President Hillary could be enough for the GOP faithful to cast aside their social agenda and get in line behind their best candidate. McCain is at 17% in the Rasmussen numbers, his lowest yet. In some sate polls, Rudy leads Hillary 53-37(!) in PA, while McCain has only a four point lead there.

-------------------------------------------------

The Zogby Poll had some odd results, with Obama winning against any Republican and Hillary losing to both Giuliani and McCain. The swing is pretty huge, with Obama beating Rudy by 6, while Rudy beats Hillary by 7. Obama beats McCain by 4, while McCain beats Clinton by 8. I am dubious about all of these numbers.

-------------------------------------------------

The big campaign news of last week was the David Geffen interview, causing great excitement among the chattering classes, who proceeded to overrate its importance and completely misread the effect, however tiny that might be, on the race. This will be completely forgotten by the time anyone votes, but raising the issue of integrity and philandering when it comes to the Clintons is not going to make for fun for the Hillary camp. They immediately responded by demanding that Obama give back all the money Geffen raised (yeah, right), and Hillary lamented the “politics of personal destruction”. Every time I hear that phrase I want to vomit. The Republicans won’t have any trouble destroying you, so you better get used to it. And remember, you wouldn’t even be here if Bill wasn’t your husband, so he, and his administration, which are your big selling point, are fair game. Obama refused to be lured into this nonsense, saying “why am I being asked to apologize for someone else’s statements?” – two points for Barack, the thought is still out there and he is above the fray.

------------------------------------------------

Big week for Al Gore, even if Rasmussen dropped him from their poll. The Oscars were a wonderful showcase for him and he was charming and was referred to in the most glowing terms possible – “inspiration”, “leadership”, “dedicated” – Hillary would pay to hear those words used in reference to her (and probably will). This prompted the punditocracy to leap into “what if” mode, positing that he is the 800-lb. gorilla of the party (no, not a fat joke) and he is the only one who could enter this late and still win. He has the ability to raise money fast, has the heft (no, not a fat joke), and could avoid the backbiting and general unpleasantness and show up in the Fall. They all agreed it was well within the realm of possibility, but most seem to feel it would be to stop Hillary, which contradicts what Gore’s people said, that he would come in if her campaign faltered. All of this is nonsense. The day when someone could enter late and win the nomination ended a long time ago. People are lining up, and once they commit, it will be hard to show up later and take them away. Psychologically, it is not the kind of thing people do. They are also ignoring the strange polling data on Gore. According to Rasmussen, he has the same unfavorable numbers as Hillary, 47%. That isn’t just Republicans, so the public is not waiting with bated breath for Al’s political reappearance.
Add to that the difficulty in the nature of the field. If Edwards is out of gas by the time he shows up, then it really looks like he is picking up the white guy banner, which won’t go down well in the Democratic party. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant, it just would make people uncomfortable.
Speaking of uncomfortable, I don’t think Al wants to run. He goes around the world talking about the single most important thing you can talk about and I don’t think he wants to trade that in for months of talking about farm subsidies, Yucca Mountain, and whatever the hell matters most in New Hampshire. It is the greatest flaw in our system that we make people beg and pander for the nomination and I doubt that Al wants to deal with that at this point in his life.

Strange Bedfellows

2007-02-21T17:34:00.000-08:00

You hear that the Supreme Court reached a 5-4 decision in the case of Philip Morris USA v. Williams you figure you can name the five, right? What if I told you that this decision, written by Justice Breyer was openly mocked by Justice Stevens? What if I told you that Justice Thomas actually wrote the phrase "I join Justice Ginsburg's dissent in full" -- a dissent which was joined by Justice Scalia? I know, you have to go work on your bomb shelter because the Apocalypse is clearly at hand.
The ruling was that in the trial in Oregon where Philip Morris was forced to pay $79.5 million in punitive damages for selling death sticks, the jury could take into account "reprehensible conduct" covering every smoker who died in Oregon in deciding the guilt, but could not in assessing punitive damages. Justice Stevens pointed out, accurately, I believe, that punitive damages are intended to punish for those reprehensible activities and restricting them just to the individual in the case makes little sense. Justice Stevens cited 5 previous decisions which this case effectively overturned, then, referring to Breyer's differention between when the jury can react to "reprehensible behavior" as a "nuance which eludes me." For those not used to reading Supreme Court dissents (at least those not written by Scalia), that language is downright nasty, worthy of two snaps and an "oh no you didn't" from the observers. Just to add to the overall tone of contempt for the majority, Stevens declared the decision an assault on judicial restraint, no less. Take that, Roberts and Alito.
What causes such odd groupings? Well, it can just be a random arrangement of judges seeing different things. On the other hand, there is something that might bind the majority -- Breyer, while liberal on most individual rights issues, is very pro-business. Roberts and Alito certainly could let their pro-business attitudes overcome their "non-activist" attitudes and their legendary (at least in Roberts' case) respect for precedent. As for Scalia and Thomas, say what you want, they have a clear philosophical attitude regarding what is and isn't in the Constitution. In this case Thomas, quoting himself, says "the Constitution does not constrain the size of punitive damage awards."
So, to summarize, once again activist judges (Roberts and Alito) have ignored the law and all precedent while outvoting those who believe in judicial restraint (Stevens and Ginsberg). Somehow, I don't expect Bush and the religious conservatives (who pray for non-activist judges) to attack this decision.

Someone Has to Win, Right?

2007-02-17T16:11:00.000-08:00

There is a style of betting on sports which is based not so much on direct evaluation of the relative strengths of the participants, but on the history surrounding the game. In pro football, those in the know will avoid a warm weather or dome team when they head north in December. In the NBA playoffs, the team that wins one game is unlikely to cover the spread in the next. People who bet this way are called technical bettors and those edges are located in every sport. Let’s look at the Presidential races through the technical betting lens and see who is more likely to win based on history.

Democrats to bet against:

Hillary Clinton: No woman has ever been nominated for President by a major party.
Barack Obama: You know why.
John Edwards: No candidate who lost for Vice President the previous election has ever been elected President. Only one person who ever lost for VP was later elected President, and that was FDR, who lost in 1920 and was elected in 1932, 12 years and one Governorship later.
Bill Richardson: No person of color has ever been elected.
Joe Biden: No Democrat over the age of 60 has ever been elected President (not counting the two, Johnson and Truman, who were already President when they ran.)
Chris Dodd: Same as Biden.
Tom Vilsack: No one from Iowa has ever been nominated for President.

Republicans to bet against:

Rudy Giuliani: No one has ever gone directly from being a mayor to being President. Only two Presidents, Cleveland and Coolidge, were ever elected mayor, and they held other offices between that and the Presidency.
John McCain: No one over 70 has ever been elected President. No Republican Senator has been elected President since Harding in 1920.
Mitt Romney: No Mormon has ever been elected and neither has anyone named after a piece of baseball equipment..
Newt Gingrich: Only one Speaker of the House has ever been elected President – James K. Polk. Only two others, James G. Blaine and Henry Clay, got their party’s nomination.

Well, not a lot to look at when trying to find a technical bet. But there are a couple:

Democrats: Al Gore – The last sitting VP to lose the Presidency and then run again was Richard Nixon, who ran and won 8 years later. Like Gore, Nixon lost a tight election, and many historians believe that, like Gore, he won the popular vote.

Republicans: Mike Huckabee - Republicans like to nominate Governors and Arkansas Governors are undefeated in presidential elections – it’s only one, but things are desperate on the GOP side.

Numbers and Notes – Good News For the Frontrunners

2007-02-15T12:35:00.000-08:00

This week’s polling data brings good news for the Presidential frontrunners, Clinton and Giuliani.
Based on the Gallup Poll from last weekend, Hillary Clinton’s lead over Barack Obama has grown for 11 in January (29-18) to 19 now (40-21). Since November, Clinton’s margin over Obama was consistently in the 12 point range, this is a significant jump up. Now it’s only one poll and we shouldn’t overreact and the extensive coverage of Obama’s entrance into the race might not have had the major effect that is expected, but it can’t be considered anything but good news for the Clinton camp. The other candidates are going nowhere, with Al Gore the only one gaining more than a point. In a head-to-head matchup among Democrats and those who lean to the Democrats, Clinton beat Obama 62-33, more than double the margin in January (53-39). Again, it’s only one poll and we have to wait until next month to see whether it’s indicative of a shift, but it could indicate a more general acceptance of Hillary as the likely nominee.

***********************************

Speaking of acceptance, the electability issue has been a key reason why many Democrats have been leery of Hillary. The same Gallup poll shows that 44% of Dems and leaners think Clinton is the most electable and 27% think Edwards is, with only 21% picking Obama.
This brings up the interesting possibility that Hillary is helped by having Obama in the race (and potentially, Obama by having Hillary there) – she ceases to be the “unusual” candidate with Obama there, enabling her (and voters) to be able to focus less on her historic nature and more on her qualifications. I still believe that having Nancy Pelosi as Speaker helps in the general acceptance of a woman in a position of power.

************************************
Yes, there’s a long way to go, but even 11 months out, the other Democrats, (or, “the white guys”), are going to have start getting some traction soon. Edwards has declared that he will raise enough money and has decided to pass on matching funds, but people don’t like giving money to losers and politicians don’t like supporting them either. WE may be 11 months from the start of the elections, but we’re less than 12 from the effective end of them and there just won’t be time to build momentum before the major primary states. As I’ve pointed out before, you may be able to raise money quickly via the internet, but you won’t have the time to spend it effectively.

************************************
Over on the Republican side, while John McCain has held steady at around 25% of the votes for months, Giuliani has jumped from around 30 up to 40. Rudy led 31-27 in January, that lead is now 40-24. Head-to-head, Giulaini’s lead over McCain has grown from 8 in January (50-42) to 18 now (57-39). The other Republicans haven’t moved at all.
Rasmussen, which polls weekly, has Rudy up by 14, up from 8 just a week ago, so this may be a real trend here.

************************************
Mitt Romney will be running some early TV commercials, apparently to let Americans know who he is. For a man whose religious beliefs will be an issue, announcing his candidacy at a museum honoring one of America’s greatest anti-semites, Henry Ford, was not such a good start.

************************************
Of course, we look at Rudy’s numbers with suspicion, since we can’t believe the religious right will vote for a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, thrice-married candidate. When will the negative ads begin? Who will pay for them? It starts to become a game of chicken within the GOP primary field and is a very interesting one to watch.

************************************
Two fascinating numbers from Public Policy Polling of 448 likely voters in North Carolina. First, 43% want the next President to be a Democrat, 41% want it to be a Republican. This has been a solid red state of late and this indicates a potential shift. Specific candidates will surely change this, but if NC is in play, surely VA will be.
The other interesting result is a health care question: 51% prefer "a universal health insurance program, where everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers”, 37% prefer the current system. If only the Democrats had the balls to actually get behind the Kennedy proposal and make this a real core issue. One can only dream...

Cue The Themes

2007-02-07T09:54:00.000-08:00

Last week at the DNC meetings, the potential Democratic nominees tried out their themes for the assembled. The top three could best be described as:
Back To The Future
Time For a Change
Gimme That Old Time Religion

Hillary Clinton – “Back To The Future” is clearly Hillary’s theme. Remember the 90’s when we had the White House and I was there? Good times. I was part of the team that won it, I know how to beat the Republicans, I have a team ready to take them on, so I’m the obvious choice here. Make no mistake, a Clintonian restoration has a strong pull for many Democrats and that is what she is counting on. It’s clear that her “theme” is more about answering the electability question, rather than the “why me?” question. Almost everything she says and does is calculated not just for the primaries but for the general election and her absurd Iraq policy is just the latest attempt to dance around whatever issue she finds out there. She may get the nomination, but there will be an astonishingly large number of Democrats unhappy if it happens.

Barack Obama – “Time For a Change” is his basic theme and no one could represent that more than him. Of course, the elements of this change, less partisanship, charting a course between the parties, bringing people together, and just getting things done without political dogmatism isn’t new at all. In fact, his campaign could be Back To The Future II, since it’s taken directly from Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign – remember the Third Way and the end to the “brain-dead politics of Washington”? His Iraq policy seems to have evolved into the Iraq Study Group’s position of withdrawal plus talk with the neighbors.

John Edwards – “Gimme That Old Time Religion” – if Hillary and Obama harkened back to the ‘90’s, Edwards went back further, to FDR, Truman, and JFK. Or at least Howard Dean’s “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party”. His terrific speech talked about the workers of America, their struggles, the power for good of unions, the need to help the poor and struggling middle-class – and was greeted by repeated standing ovations. His Iraq policy – get the hell out – certainly spoke to the hearts of the faithful in no uncertain terms. If he can galvanize union support (and workers) and raise enough money, he could surprise a lot of people focusing on the top two. Speaking of themes, the use of John Mellencamp’s “Our Country” as his campaign song is the stupidest idea I have ever seen (short of Hillary’s Iraq policy) – don’t pick music people associate with a car commercial and millions hate.

A word about Chris Dodd: he has pretty much been dismissed as a candidate, but he raised more money in the fourth quarter than anyone else and has positions which could be very attractive to many party activists – wants to amend the pernicious Defense of the Family Act to allow for and recognize civil unions, wants to repeal the pro-torture policy, seems to have aligned himself with Russ Feingold on Iraq – and could make more noise than anyone expects. Here’s a quote from his speech:

“Bipartisanship to me does not mean getting Democrats to agree with Republican principles; it means getting Republicans to agree with Democratic principles. That's what bipartisanship is.”

Amen, brother.

Why U.S. Politics Suck

2007-02-01T10:24:00.000-08:00

When people talk about “programmed” candidacies and carefully parsed statements designed to offend no one, they forget the reasons for such things. It isn’t cowardice so much as fear of a media machine so desperate for controversy that they will leap at any opening they get. There are two examples from the last week that illustrate this, and illustrate why we get the campaigns and candidates we do.
Let’s start with the Joe Biden - Barack Obama nonsense. In an interview with the New York Observer, Joe Biden made the following (clearly off-the-cuff) remark:
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
Here’s the problem: the quote is not accurate. I heard the actual statement, which a)includes the word “sorta” before mainstream, which reinforces the off-hand nature of the remark and b) there is a pause after “African-American”. Now you say, what’s the big deal about the omission of a pause? By not accounting for it in the written version, it indeed does look like he is saying that previous black candidates were not articulate – as ridiculous a statement as is humanly possible. That is why Obama was able to react the way he did. If you account for the pause, either by (pause) or by inserting a simple comma, it is much clearer that the rest of the description applies to Obama and is not meant to be derogatory to others. By not doing it, you make a compliment to Obama seem like a slam at every other black candidate. Anyone who honestly thinks that Joe Biden thinks that Jesse Jackson, Carol Moseley Braun, and Al Sharpton were not articulate is a fool. What interests me is why Obama would choose that specific word to respond to and why Biden would immediately get down on his knees rather than respond by attacking the writer of the piece and the judgment of anyone who would think he actually said that. Biden may be more careful in the future about talking to reporters, which would be a shame. This is why candidates are very careful in every word they say and it weakens our real view of these people.
Which brings us to Hillary’s joke. I am not the world’s biggest Hillary Clinton fan, but the reaction to her “I know about dealing with bad men” joke is frighteningly unfair. She made a joke, a good, smart joke, delivered with perfect timing. As a former comedy writer, I appreciate that skill, as did the audience, since she got a big laugh with it. Did the press react by praising her sense-of-humor? Did they appreciate her understanding the irony of her own life and career? No – they got their panties in a bunch and leaped into an inquisition about “Hillary is attacking Bill”. I rarely feel sorry for her, but when the most meticulous and programmed candidate ever says something witty, we should be thankful; yet here she was, defending herself for making a joke. Of course, in typical Hillary fashion, she backed off the joke, saying she wasn’t really talking about Bill. I want a President with a sense of humor, who can make a joke which might be reflective of the irony of life. You can do self-deprecating humor, and in front of your own people, you can do some generalized joke about the other party, but real wit is dangerous. We get the campaigns we deserve and the type of unimaginative candidates who can restrict themselves to rehearsed moments.

Indecision 2008

2007-01-31T13:48:00.000-08:00

I need to think of a name for these regular/semi-regular election updates, but for now, I’ll borrow The Daily Show’s very apt title. We’re less than a year away from the first primaries, candidates are campaigning, money is being raised, and pundits are punditing, so it’s time for me to jump in.

Democrats

Tier One – Hillary Clinton
Tier Two – Barack Obama, John Edwards
Tier Three – everyone else except...
An Inconvenient Tier – Al Gore

Tier One – Hillary is way out in front in national polling. Much if this is name recognition, but it’s notable that in head-to-head matchups with the others, she is over 50%, which means the others will have to take votes away from her, along with picking up all the undecideds. This will require some negative campaigning which Obama and Edwards will be loath to do. Hillary is also going to win the first primary – money – maybe by a large amount. This could prove determinative when it comes to what looks like early primaries in CA, NJ, and FL, where money will be a huge influence. Many are still uncomfortable with her, her current Iraq position is somewhere between silly and way over-calculated, and many Dems are fearful about her electability, but she is the 800-lb gorilla in this field.

Tier Two – On the good side, Obama has no negatives. On the bad side, he has little experience and could get seriously outspent by Hillary. He’s never run a real campaign and this is a tough place to start.
Edwards is only in this tier because he is polling very well in the early primary/caucus states. Mostly this is due to his having spent a ton of time in IA, NH, and NV, but his message resonates well among liberals and labor. If history is against a woman or a black man being nominated, it does him no favors, since no losing VP candidate has come back to win the Presidency the next election. In fact, Walter Mondale is the only losing VP candidate to get the nomination the next time and he was the sitting VP when he lost, which is a whole different thing. He still owes money from four years ago and it's hard to believe he can raise enough to really fight the Super-duper Tuesday war.

Tier Three – Biden is running because he thinks he’s the most qualified, Vilsack and Richardson are running for VP, Kucinich is running for president of the Lollipop Guild, and God only knows why Dodd is running. Until any of them is more than a blip in the polls, I will ignore them.

Al Gore doesn’t appear to be running. Until he’s spotted signing up for Nutri-system or Slimfast, I’ll assume he’s not interested. Some have said he will only run if Hillary’s campaign flounders – by the time that would happen, it would be too late. If he isn’t running by the end of March, he isn’t running at all.

Republicans

Tier One – Rudy Giuliani, John McCain (in that order)
Tier Two – Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich
Jesus Tier – Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee
Anti-Immigrant Tier – Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo
Unfaithful Servant Tier -- Chuck Hagel
And I am telling you, I am not running Tier – Condi Rice

Tier One – In the modern history of the Republican Party, the obvious candidate always gets the nomination, often with a fight, but he survives. This time around, that candidate was John McCain. Yet here we are, a year out, and McCain’s campaign looks worse by the day. I cannot find one good sign anywhere. He is trailing Giuliani nationally and in most states; he has lost his lead to him in NH, where he actually beat Bush in 2000. McCain is saddled with the unpopular troop increase and if you think his “it should have been bigger” stance will inoculate him, think again. The religious right doesn’t trust him at all and all his sucking up to Jerry Falwell hasn’t changed that. This has enabled Giulani to become the clear front-runner, yet it’s hard to believe a man with a history of three marriages, a mistress while married, support for gay rights (including marching in Gay Pride parades), and a pro-choice stance can get the GOP nomination.

Tier Two – Romney has the advantage of being a Governor, historically where the GOP finds its winners (not to be confused with the Senate, where it finds its losers). His polling numbers are unexciting, but it’s early. He’s raising money well and the opening is there, but he’s already flip-flopped on social issues and that could be a problem.
Newt is in this tier because he shows up well in polls, but his negatives are immense. Still, if he can emerge as the religious right’s candidate head-to-head against one of the top two, he can imagine winning.
“The only one of these guys who hasn’t had multiple wives is the Mormon” – Dick Morris

Jesus Tier – Brownback and Huckabee are darlings of the religious right. Brownback is their poster boy, now that Rick Santorum is gone. They haven’t gotten any traction in the polls, but that could change once debates start. Can they raise the money? Will Brownback’s anti-war Christian conservative position play well in the GOP? Stay tuned for this fight.

Anti Immigrant Tier – Hunter and Tancredo have no chance but will cause all sorts of trouble for the tier one guys by bringing up stuff they’d rather not talk about. Hunter is also seriously pro-war and pro-military -- I mean seriously pro-military.

Unfaithful Servant – If Brownback has a chance, you’d have to think Hagel, a war hero with similar positions and a more reasonable demeanor would. But the GOP hates turncoats and Hagel has not just been anti-war, but has given aid and comfort to the enemy (that would be the Democrats) – this doesn’t fly with the rank-and-file. The antipathy to rebellion is what differentiates the rank-and-file among the parties as much as anything and it is one of McCain’s problems, since he’s perceived as less-than-loyal to the party’s leaders.

And I am telling you – Condi’s here because she gets decent polling numbers, but I believe her when she says she isn’t interested. Might be in the VP derby, although Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Huckabee could have something to say about that.

The media may spend more time talking about the Democrats, because they’re obsessed with Hillary and Obamamania, but the Republicans are where the real action will be.

The California Primary

2007-01-26T09:30:00.000-08:00

Last Saturday’s LA Times headline proclaimed, with unrestrained glee, State Aims For Feb.5 Primary To Boost Clout. Since both parties seem to want this and since the Governator wants it, it seems very likely to happen. You see, Californians have been unhappy about just being a cash machine for candidates while the other states get to actually vote. By the time the primaries roll out here, the race is over. So this will enable California, with all its diversity and issues far different from those in Iowa (ethanol and farm subsidies) and New Hampshire (God only knows), to matter. Well, this is a nice theory. Unfortunately, early voting out here could have one of two results, both bad.
One is that the candidates haven’t been winnowed out yet. If you remember 2004, the Dens were down to two candidates (Kerry and Edwards), by the first week in March. This meant that all the people who had voted for other candidates no longer had any horse in the race. In NH, 49% of the voters voted for candidates other than Kerry and Edwards. The first week of February had 6 primaries which could reasonably be described as “western”. In Arizona, 50% of the voters voted for someone other than the big two, in New Mexico, 47%, in North Dakota, 40%, in Oklahoma, 43% (Wesley Clark won that one – talk about meaningless votes), and in Washington, 44% did. So absent a radical change in candidacies, we can expect about 45% of Californians to have no meaningful say, by means of voting for a candidate who will be gone soon anyway.
That doesn’t mean that will be the actual result. No, something worse is more likely. The first primary, as all politicos will tell you, is the money primary. It has already started (Hillary Clinton is leading) and with the creation of a key early state with absolutely no retail politics, where big TV ad buys in major media markets are everything, that money primary becomes the most important one. It has been pointed out (by Joe Trippi and others) that in the age of the internet, a candidate can raise a lot of money very quickly, allowing a second-tier candidate to emerge early and compete. But if the biggest and most expensive primary is just a couple of weeks after the first ones, how can that happen? Even if you could raise the money quickly, creating ads and buying time in California would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Therefore the most likely result of the early California primary would be to eliminate a lot of serious candidates in December, before a single vote has been cast, because they realize they can’t raise enough money to compete out here. Instead of candidates being able to build momentum and engage in a series of debates, we will face a shorter field whose messages will be carefully crafted to translate into 30 second commercials, which is all campaigns are about out here.
I understand the frustration over early, smaller, states having a disproportionate say in candidate selection. The problem is not necessarily with the placement of primaries, but with the selection process itself. In order to make the Fall campaign run smoother, the parties have front-loaded the system, trying to get the candidate chosen as early as possible. The key to this is a delegate selection system which assigns delegates proportionally, based primarily on total votes in a state, with some allowance for selection by district. The second candidate in the race can win the last four or five states and gain relatively little ground, just due to the math. Even if the front-runner doesn’t get an actual majority, the pressure to get this decided before the convention leads to delegates (those pledged to the ex-candidates and super-delegates) joining up with the guy closest to a majority. There is a solution to this. Let the smaller states do the vetting and winnowing out process, then with a gap of about a month preceding them, have NY, CA, and maybe one or two other major states, have winner-take-all primaries on the first Tuesday in June. That would enable the remaining candidates to have a national debate, raise money for media buys, craft a message for the showdown, and actually give the non-frontrunner (or two) a real chance to come from behind. Choose the actual delegates (for platform and other purposes) by whatever method you want, but the nominating votes selected by the primary would be pledged to the winner for the first two ballots. Make California the biggest prize at the biggest time and then we’ll really matter.

The State of the Union

2007-01-24T13:59:00.000-08:00

Mostly, it sucks.

Okay, now let’s get to the specifics. Bush had a good start with his salute to Nancy Pelosi – boy, that must have been tough to get out of his mouth (I know, he has trouble getting most words out of his mouth, but still...). I watched this just to see her sitting there and it was a fascinating experience, as her reaction to each of his proposals was a great indicator of how much real cooperation there was going to be -- not much.
His first proposal was about balancing the Federal budget. I guess he just noticed this, understandable since he was busy fighting a senseless war and keeping Terry Schiavo alive, both of which were very difficult, if not impossible. He also wants to do it without raising taxes, which got a huge cheer from the Republicans, who never bothered about balancing anything when they were in power. It will, of course, be impossible to do, but here’s my contribution – end the war in Iraq, end farm subsides, end oil and gas subsidies, end subsidies to health insurers, negotiate drug prices for Medicare as we do with the VA, and let’s see where we are after that.
He’s also found earmarks in spending bills to be a horrible thing. He somehow didn’t mind when the GOP spent a couple of hundred million to build a bridge to nowhere in Alaska, and never vetoed a spending bill in his first six years in office, in spite of the earmarks and deficits, but I guess, like when he ended his drinking days, he’s had some sort of epiphany – it occurred back in November, I suspect.
Once again he talked about fixing Social Security – which to W means something akin to “fixing” Barney.
His health insurance proposal was typical Republican nonsense. Tax deductions are fine for those making $60K – but those people probably have health insurance now. The people without it are mostly in two classes – those families in lower income groups ($40K and below) who can’t afford it, and who most likely pay little or no income tax now, and those who are turned down by insurers because they had a lingering cold in 2003. This proposal would do nothing for them at all. And if you think the insurers aren’t going to take this infusion of government money into the system as an opportunity to raise their rates, you haven’t been paying attention for the last couple of decades. This expenditure would be a significant drain on the treasury, making his “goal” of balancing the budget even more unattainable than it already is.
Immigration reform is an area Bush and the Dems may be able to agree – I guess that could be good.
I’m for energy independence – but until I hear the words “higher CAFE standards” coming out of Bush’s mouth, it’s all another giveaway to energy producers. By the way, I thought Charles Grassley (R-IA) was about to have an orgasm right there in the chamber – wow, say we’re going to increase the use of ethanol to Charlie and it’s party time in Iowa City.
Then he went into his Iraq portion of the speech. My favorite line “whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure” -- true, but that is what we got...funny how that works sometimes.

Then Senator Jim Webb of Virginia gave the Democratic response. That was simply the best speech I’ve heard by a Democrat in years. Strong, with a firm understanding about what truly matters to the party and what should matter to the country. Why can’t this guy run for President? He’s far more experienced than Obama, with a biography that clearly would reach out across America. Let’s see: a soldier, a lawyer, a novelist, a journalist, five years as a committee counsel in Congress, Assistant Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Navy – a job he resigned from because he didn’t agree with mandated cuts in the force structure. Yes, he resigned on a point of principle – I guess that disqualifies him from running for President. Never mind.

The Enemies of Freedom

2007-01-22T16:54:00.000-08:00

Two Canadian citizens, Stephen Lawrence and John Lefebvre, were arrested by the FBI on January 15th, , Lawrence in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Lefebvre in Malibu (both of which are barely in the USA). Their crime was money laundering, specifically, transferring money from offshore gambling web sites to users bank accounts, through their company, Neteller. This is a necessary move by our government to crush online gambling without actually attacking it directly. You see, they aren’t going to stop you directly from doing anything, just make it impossible by other means. In the interest of full disclosure, I used to use Neteller to transfer money in and out of poker sites, which was necessary because our government stopped credit card companies from allowing direct deposits. The really scary part here is that our government is arresting people for doing things which are perfectly legal in their country. In fact, they have long since stopped being active participants in the company, they are just 5% shareholders. It is very clear that our government will use whatever power they have to destroy individual freedom, including the secret police arresting foreigners who have broken no law in their own country. This is a precedent which should scare any American who travels abroad. If you publish something on the Internet that can be construed as attacking Islam, you’d better not travel in an Muslim country. If you attack the government of China, stay out of their territory. This is an immensely dangerous precedent.
I had hope that others around the world would rise up in opposition. I had some hope the EU, where most of the Internet poker and gambling sites are located, would protest this attack on their local businesses by a right-wing extremist government. I was wrong. They are actually moving in the opposite direction. They are about to pass a law stating that all Internet businesses must follow the laws of the country of the customer. The UK has protested this, saying that for a small internet business it is an onerous burden to have to research the laws of 27 countries in order to do business. Worse, it risks the dream of expanding freedom through the unfettered dissemination of information. In essence, if a book is banned by a country, no one in that country can purchase it on the Internet. That is a horrible precedent for a world full of repressive regimes, some even worse than ours.
Many of us had hoped that the Internet would break down barriers, would increase the availability of products and information around the world. That dream is dying and, in a desperate attempt to hold on to their power over their own people, the governments of the world seem to be happy with it. Bombs will not take away our freedom – but the government will.

And I'm No Kid Myself

2007-01-18T10:01:00.000-08:00

Along with Muhammad Ali, here are things that make me feel old:

Barack Obama – a new generation of politician running against...my generation, the old one

Sally Field – Gidget has osteoporosis and does commercials to her fellow elderly women so they can deal with their deteriorating bones. We really really like her, but don’t hug her too hard or something might break.

Medicine Commercials – I pay attention to all of them now, just in case some new miracle cure has been invented to fix something I have or surely will any minute.

Old People Commercials – the use of sixties music (“Time of the Season”) and sixties jargon (groovy) to sell retirement accounts.

Obituaries – my father used to read the obituaries daily and was mocked by my brother and me -- ”checking to see if you’re there, Dad?” Now I check them regularly and just like my father, I’m amazed at how young (their sixties) some of these people were.

Mailings From Mortuaries – which basically say, “at your age, you could die at any minute, so better buy a hole in the ground”

Woodstock – My having been at Woodstock used to make me sort of cool, now it’s like saying I was in the Civil War. The 1960‘s were my formative decade. Let’s do this as an SAT answer – me: the sixties = my parents: Roaring Twenties

And of course...mirrors.

Muhammad Ali is Old

2007-01-17T13:32:00.000-08:00

Muhammad Ali is 65 today – happy birthday...rumble, old man, rumble. Has there ever been a public figure like Ali, so controversial in his youth, so popular in his middle and old age? People have forgotten (or are too young to know) just how hated and reviled he was in the 60’s. His stance against the Vietnam war, his refusal to take the oath and join the Army, his adopting Islam and changing his name from Cassius Clay, brought forth a level of condemnation rarely seen. When he was stripped of his heavyweight title, his defenders were few and far between. Yet by the time of the Atlanta Olympics, less than 20 years later, he was a heroic figure, nearly universally beloved. Now, he is close to sainthood. Part of it is the passing of time, much of it is the ravages of his illness, which has left that most expressive of faces blank and mask-like, and that incredible athletic body a near prison.
Of course, one large part is that the generation which hated him most has died. Old (and most middle aged) people in the 60’s could not comprehend his refusal to accept being drafted, let alone his changing his name and religion. My father was among them, he thought he was a coward for refusing to accept induction. When the courts vindicated him legally and he was allowed to fight, finally getting the showdown with Joe Frazier, sides were drawn. I admit to being on the Frazier side, in spite of my youth. As a boxing fan, I preferred Frazier’s attacking style. On a personal level, Ali’s attack on Joe Frazier’s authenticity as an African-American offended me – while Ali grew up a middle-class kid in Louisville, Joe Frazier was actually picking cotton; you don’t get blacker than that. It was a great fight, living up to its Fight of the Century billing. After the fight, my father changed his opinion of Ali. My father was a long-time fight fan, and when Ali got up after being knocked down by a spectacular, jaw-breaking, left hook, my father said he knew then that Ali was not a coward, that a coward doesn’t get up and fight after that. No, he was no coward, he risked his career, one limited by age, for what he believed. He risked condemnation by a nation over a principle. Cowards don’t do that, heroes do.

Obamamania

2007-01-16T17:22:00.000-08:00

Comes now a young man from Illinois, with little experience in office, untested, yet with a message of change and hope, addressing the major issues of the day in an articulate and inspiring manner. Not wishing to be wed to the existing political stances, he claims his own ground. Put on a beard and a frock coat and he could be Lincoln – well, a darker version, of course.
Make no mistake, Obama represents something new, yet something very old – the search for someone fresh, getting away from a generation which seems locked in intransigent ideological battles and to a generation which just wants to fix the problems. This echoes back to JFK in 1960, yet also applied to Bill Clinton in 1992. It is ironic that Hillary Clinton would represent the old generation. As a member of that generation, it leaves me feeling older than dirt.
And how exactly do Hillary and John Edwards take him on? Hillary’s non-white-male appeal is certainly no help, and Obama goes to the heart of the Clinton base. Edwards can’t attack Obama’s lack of experience, nor emphasize his caring about the poor as a difference-maker. And of course, in any campaign against Obama, the other Dems have to be very careful not to offend his base. The tougher they are, the more dangerous it becomes. There is just no air for the rest of the candidates, not for publicity, and not for money. Speaking of money, liberals will race to give Obama money, Hollywood types will give early and often. And he was against the war from the very beginning – the magic position.
Sounds like a tough nut to crack, doesn’t it?
And yet...

Look, let’s dispense with the elephant in the room. Can a black man with an odd name be elected President? I have no idea. Can a white woman who is a polarizing figure be elected? Can a former war hero with two decades of political experience be elected? I threw the last one in there just so we can dispense with the electability concept here – John Kerry was the perfect candidate for that reason, and it ended up being worthless.
To me, the real question is should this man be elected, whatever his color? I find Obama frightening. There, I said it. He has said nothing I haven’t heard before and the people I heard it from don’t encourage me. Listen to his speech on his website and you will hear Jimmy Carter’s “a government as good as its people”, read his book or just listen to his railing against the partisanship stopping Washington from getting things done and you hear Bill Clinton’s “third way, neither liberal nor conservative”. Why is it that Democrats feel the need for these empty phrases which deny the birthright of their party? Bill Clinton’s attempt to avoid being a Democrat caused untold damage to the party, damage we’re still digging out from. Carter may be the better example here – a decent man with nowhere near the depth to handle the office. In Obama’s book, he rails against the old generation, still fighting the battles of 1960’s – big government vs. small government, and war vs. peace. Yes, he referred to those specifically. One of which, big vs. small, no one is fighting, and the other of which has never been more relevant.
When Obama was on Meet The Press, Tim Russert, in discussing his book, asked him about balancing the budget, which Obama declared was important. Russert asked him how he would do it. Obama said we have to look at every program with fresh eyes, not be wedded to the past and get rid of those that don’t work. Russert asked him which program he would get rid of. Obama ducked the question and said we should modernize the submission of forms and use e-filing, rather than paper and that could save millions. Russert pointed out that was trivial and asked again about what he would cut. He didn’t want to get into the specifics. This bold new concept is direct from the Ronald Reagan “waste, fraud, and abuse” hymnal.
This man is an empty suit. He is an empty suit full of empty words. What frightens me is that this crap works. It’s nothing new. Here’s a story for you: there is a terrific political movie from 1972, The Candidate, written by Jeremy Larner, directed by Michael Ritchie, starring Robert Redford. It’s the story of a political neophyte, a good-looking young community activist who is picked by a bunch of political activists to run for the Senate. They water down any real message to catch-phrases and slogans and give him empty, yet inspirational, speeches to deliver. In the filming of the movie, the director was a little nervous that when Redford gave a speech to an audience which was basically empty words, they wouldn’t react as he needed. He didn’t have to worry, when Redford gave the empty speech there was euphoria in the room – Ritchie described it as frightening. I am tired of empty words and calming phrases from political lightweights without real accomplishments. I want to see Obama lead on something, take some issue to have a real stand on with a real program. Vague talk about health care and jobs and a general opposition to the war in Iraq doesn’t cut it for me and it shouldn’t for you.

Bush Speaks

2007-01-12T13:08:00.000-08:00

One of George Bush’s many problems when speaking to the American people on Iraq (along with general inarticulateness and a complete lack of credibility) is his lack of an appropriate speaking style for a serious speech. Bush has several speaking styles – Belligerent, Patronizing, and Aw Shucks (the latter used for self-deprecating humor and being a good ol’ boy). None of those was actually useful for this speech, which called for Reaganesque grandeur or Clintonian sincerity. So W was left with a style which seemed a cross between deer in the headlights and catatonia – not the most persuasive mode of delivery.
Of course, the biggest problem was not stylistic but substantive. The speech could be broken down into three themes: Hope and Glory, Gloom and Doom, and Don’t Mess With Texas.
The Hope and Glory portion featured the plan to add troops, embed them with Iraqi units, divide the city of Baghdad into zones, and bring security to the Iraqi people. Toss in a few billion for a jobs program and reconstruction and you have a plan. And the Maliki government will do it right this time, not just because this was their idea, but because there will be benchmarks, along with a series of steps they have to take – rewriting the constitution, sharing oil revenues, disarming militias – that will bring stability and a shared sense of purpose to Iraq and its people.
One might ask what the threat is if they don’t meet the benchmarks. Bush said that if they fail, they will lose the support of the American people. Now, the American people don’t support this whole mess, so this doesn’t seem like a real threat. John Burns of the NY Times has made the point that the real threat is to replace Maliki and that we have someone waiting in the wings to do what we want done if he doesn’t. If this is the case, and I trust Burns reporting here, the “American people” Bush is referring to are located in the west wing of the White House. Bush must know that Maliki can’t take on the Mehdi Army, since Al-Sadr’s support is necessary for him to stay in power. So this is just a first step in changing more than just the rules of engagement, but the government of Iraq itself.
The Doom and Gloom portion started with a dandy mention of 9/11 – required in all Bush foreign policy addresses – and led to the collapse of the Middle East, combined with a terrorist haven in Iraq which would use oil money to finance another attack on us. In other words, we’re fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here. And if we pull out, no one will respect us – they won’t be able to trust our word or our resolve in the future. And the moderate regimes in that area who are sort of friendly with us will come under attack. Nothing new here except the depth of the gloom. Which begs the question – what if this doesn’t work? If we agree to the premise of the extreme destabilization of the region if we fail, what happens if the Iraqi government and army don’t do what we need/want them to? Given the overwhelming opposition among our citizenry to any expansion of the war and a sizable increase in our forces, the notion that we can’t fail there is logically unsustainable.
The Don’t Mess With Texas portion is the really scary part. Threatening not just Maliki, but Syria, and scariest of all, Iran. That Ahmadenijad would love to have the U.S. actually attack him seems to not have entered Bush’s mind at all. That is consistent with his total inability to understand how anyone thinks in that part of the world. Our moving a carrier group and a cruise missiles into the region is really scary – they have no functionality in Iraq, so why are they there? Bush is very good at making threats to be backed up by the lives of young American soldiers. That he is a fool is hard to dispute, that he is a dangerous fool is unnerving, to say the least. Joe Biden has threatened a “constitutional confrontation” if Bush expands the war into Iran, but what exactly will he do? Will he cut off all funding for the war? With over 100,000 Americans in Iraq, that will be hard to do. Will he just try for a selective denial of money? How will that work, exactly? Bush has shown a consistent inclination to do what he pleases in the face of opposition, claiming commander-in-chief powers far beyond anything intended by the founding fathers. Starting a legal battle will not stop any action against Iran, just muddy the waters during the fighting. The attack on an Iranian diplomatic consulate in Kurdistan yesterday is just one more instance of a country on the brink, ready to launch yet another front in the “war on terror”. The real war is Bush’s war on sanity, a war which he lost long ago and which we are all paying for.

Who Do You Hate Today? (Part 2)

2007-01-04T13:32:00.000-08:00

The first Who Do You Hate can be found here

These events date back to December, but I haven’t been able to get them out of my head, so out they come, separated from the holiday season where they assuredly didn’t belong.

Judith Regan is not my favorite person in the world. She was a publisher for HarperCollins, a division of News Corp., with her own imprint, ReganBooks. She published junk by Jenna Jameson, and political junk by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Most recently, she published If I Did It, by O.J. Simpson, which got her into immense trouble with her bosses. Her most recent effort was a salacious novel about Mickey Mantle, which was described by those above her as “unpublishable”. She was upset at the lack of support and complained to a friend at the company, corporate attorney Mark Jackson. Here is where the trouble happened. She complained about those who she felt were not being supportive of her book as a “Jewish cabal” – this is troubling. She did elaborate that Jews “should know about ganging up, finding common enemies and telling the big lie.” To me, this takes a bit of the curse off it, since it demonstrates a bit of sensitivity. Mr. Jackson then wrote down what she said and reported it to higher-ups, who summarily fired her for anti-semitism. I find the last part extremely troubling. That someone would write down such things and report them is scary, that a person who does not appear to have any history of anti-semitic acts or statements should be summarily fired for something she said to a third party is really scary. Have none of us ever said anything intemperate about someone else to a third person? What kind of corporate culture are we building, what kind of society are we building, where a remark can result in your immediate dismissal? Now we know why she was really fired – the Simpson book/TV show debacle had made her radioactive and they were looking for an excuse. But I find this being used as an excuse very troubling. Anti-semitic or racist comments are too big to be used as an excuse to fire someone. If there is a history of action or at least of direct confrontation then there is some basis, but on the basis of one remark to a third party...I don’t think so.
Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) sent a letter to a constituent which has reached the rest of the world, in which he decries the election of Keith Ellison, a Muslim from Minnesota, to Congress. He is opposed to Muslims being elected to office and is in favor of changing immigration policy to stop more Muslims from coming in, or else even more Muslims will be elected. He conflates our “values and beliefs” and “our resources” being overwhelmed by such immigration. Of course, Ellison is native-born and a convert to Islam and is probably not a threat to blow up the Capitol – although I’m sure there are many on the right who wouldn’t find it a bad idea, especially if he chose to stand next to Nancy Pelosi when he did it. One of the reasons I took my time writing about this was I wanted to see what became of it and how people would react. Bigotry and xenophobia are hardly new ideas in the halls of Congress, but this seemed to be a tad loony, even for Congress. There are some on the right who have pointed out, not altogether inaccurately, that Islam is different, that it doesn’t promote tolerance, and therefore its values are antagonistic to ours. They point out the Danish cartoon incident, where Muslims took to the streets against free speech, as well as the over-the-top reaction to Pope Benedict’s remarks about Islam. I would be more inclined to say they had a point against the dangers of a sizable Muslim vote if it wasn’t for President Bush’s reaction to the cartoon incident. Rather than standing up for free speech, Bush talked about how people shouldn’t publish anything that offends anyone’s religion – exactly what the Islamists were demanding. So we needn’t worry about enemies of freedom overrunning us, they already are in power. All in all, Rep. Goode needs to understand a bit more about what America stands for. Of course, he’s not alone in this, as I’ll continue this tomorrow by discussing Dennis Prager’s reaction to Ellison’s intention to the oath of office on the Koran.

Go Blue

2006-12-27T19:39:00.000-08:00

The death of Gerald Ford, America’s only unelected President, brings to mind a number of things. He gets credit for healing the country in the wake of Richard Nixon’s impeachment, but his pardon of Nixon left wounds which never healed. While basically a decent man and a solid politician, he was thoroughly ill equipped to be President, getting the job because, in the wake of Spiro Agnew’s resignation, Nixon needed someone who would be approved quickly by Congress, and who better than the House minority leader? As President he pardoned Nixon, fought inflation by suggest people wear buttons with the letters WIN on them, for Whip Inflation Now (seriously, he did that), and ended the Vietnam War – not that he had a choice there, since we had lost. This is not a sterling record, yet his moderation looks so, well, decent in retrospect that we yearn for that kind of person in the White House.
He was an All-American football player at the University of Michigan and never forgot those roots. We think of red and blue states by their modern designation, especially since the sharpness of the divide encapsulates the political nature of America in the twenty-first century. But that designation came from the TV networks on election night, not from any historical nature. In England, the Conservative Party (the Tories) has blue as its color, the left-wing Labour Party uses red – in fact, the phrase “true blue” comes from an electoral area which is solidly, unchangeably, Tory. So when color TV was invented it was natural, given the political antecedents, for the networks to assign blue to the Republicans and red to the Democrats. The 1976 election was very close, as Jimmy Carter took most of the eastern states, and Ford rallied as they headed west. Late in the evening, Ford was being interviewed by one of the networks and when the nature of the network’s electoral map, red in the large eastern states with more and more blue as they went west, Ford responded as any loyal Wolverine would – “Go Blue!”
Ford’s blue rally fell short that night, and subsequently, the networks reversed the colors, I assume because they didn’t feel comfortable using red to designate the Democrats with a hard-core anti-communist like Reagan as the Republican nominee. I can’t imagine a modern Presidential candidate doing that kind of open interview on election night with the race still up in the air. I think we all miss his kind of decent partisanship – clearly rooting for his party, supporting his ideas, without destroying the other guy.