In watching Obama back away from many of his campaign promises, might the Left conclude that Obama is to the Left as Bush was to the Far Right: more lip service than action?
Yes, the Shrub did actually support a lot of the right wing agenda but, to a large extent, Republicans have never given the far right religious component of the party what it has most wanted because, of course, Republicans know that that constituency has no other place to go.
So it is with the left and Obama. Regardless of his poll numbers in 2012, he will be the Democrat's nominee. The Republican is bound to be more conservative. So Obama can break every promise he has ever made and all the Left can do is complain.
The main question, however, is about Obama's continuing tendency to cave in. Remember all those pieces of the Stimulus Package he put in to please the Republicans? For which he got zip?
Then there's health care. He never promised what Hillary did - universal coverage - but month by month his criteria for reform have shrunk until they are limited to "lowering costs" and "improving access". In short, tinker around the edges and call it reform.
Guantanamo is still open. The pictures won't be released. Military tribunals are back. (Military tribunals, for those who don't know, are designed to convict. There is no presumption of innocence.)
His justice department continues, in court, to defend Bush positions.
Torture? Let's just forget the past, shall we? Cheney feels no compunction about attacking Obama, but Obama refuses to attack the Bush administration.
Leftists may ask themselves why. We Hillary supporters know why. Obama, like Bill Clinton, seems pathologically incapable of fighting for anything. Not being a psychologist, I don't know if this is because Bill and Obama simply don't like conflict or because there is simply nothing about which they feel strongly enough to be willing to fight for it. Maybe a bit of both.
The Left wanted Obama. Now they've got him and it turns out that he is, as anybody who had checked into his political history or listened to him campaign would know, Bush Light.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Friday, May 15, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Health Care Reform - DOA?
During the past couple of months, I've seen Q&A with Sen. Baucus, Grassley, and Hoyer (on C-SPAN) - and it is clear that not only is single payer DOA but so is a Public Plan Option. Obama himself appears lukewarm in his support (with each new statement by Obama on health care, it appears that his minimum requirements become broader and less meaningful) - but then I don't think there is anything Obama is truly willing to fight for.
It looks as if we'll get the worst of all possible worlds: a mandate to buy insurance based on a poverty level that bears no resemblance to reality with cut-rate policies that probably won't be worth the premiums anyways.
What I find especially frustrating is that Democrats continue to echo Republican insistence that individuals must be responsible for their own health care (lose weight, exercise, etc.) but never say a word about how Insurance company administrative costs (8-14% not including what individual doctors must do to fill out dozens of forms for diff. companies) and profits (all those high executive salaries) contribute to high health care costs.
Oh, Grassley is also dead set against comparative effectiveness; he doesn't want doctors to be reimbursed based on "govt" guidelines. Again, I've heard no Democrat point out to him that insurance companies spend millions (billions?) of dollars finding all kinds of reasons to deny coverage.
It looks as if we'll get the worst of all possible worlds: a mandate to buy insurance based on a poverty level that bears no resemblance to reality with cut-rate policies that probably won't be worth the premiums anyways.
What I find especially frustrating is that Democrats continue to echo Republican insistence that individuals must be responsible for their own health care (lose weight, exercise, etc.) but never say a word about how Insurance company administrative costs (8-14% not including what individual doctors must do to fill out dozens of forms for diff. companies) and profits (all those high executive salaries) contribute to high health care costs.
Oh, Grassley is also dead set against comparative effectiveness; he doesn't want doctors to be reimbursed based on "govt" guidelines. Again, I've heard no Democrat point out to him that insurance companies spend millions (billions?) of dollars finding all kinds of reasons to deny coverage.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Media Missing in Action: Presidential Press Conference Mar. 24, 2009
What did we learn from this press conference? That the members of our media become dumber and more out of touch with every passing year. Before long I suspect that prepubescent children could ask better questions.
It's not just the "gotcha" journalism to which we've been endlessly subjected for the past 20 or 30 years. It is the shear stupidity on display. And that was clear with the first question. The reporter wondered why, given the problems with AIG, the government wanted greater regularity authority. Doh? One could almost see Obama wondering if she were really that dumb or if it was simply a setup question so he could explain about the lack of current authority to wind down non-bank institutions.
I'd say more but, quite frankly, I'd have to watch the whole mess over again to isolate the one or two semi-reasonable questions that were asked and it, quite frankly, is not worth the time.
If you have not yet watched the press conference or have seen only TV excerpts, go to C-SPAN and watch the last 30 seconds or so. Obama's answer to the final dumb question tells you all you have to know about one of our biggest media problems: that they have the attention spans of infants.
It's not just the "gotcha" journalism to which we've been endlessly subjected for the past 20 or 30 years. It is the shear stupidity on display. And that was clear with the first question. The reporter wondered why, given the problems with AIG, the government wanted greater regularity authority. Doh? One could almost see Obama wondering if she were really that dumb or if it was simply a setup question so he could explain about the lack of current authority to wind down non-bank institutions.
I'd say more but, quite frankly, I'd have to watch the whole mess over again to isolate the one or two semi-reasonable questions that were asked and it, quite frankly, is not worth the time.
If you have not yet watched the press conference or have seen only TV excerpts, go to C-SPAN and watch the last 30 seconds or so. Obama's answer to the final dumb question tells you all you have to know about one of our biggest media problems: that they have the attention spans of infants.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Media Missing in Action: Small Business and Obama's Awful Tax Increase
Well, Republicans have been screaming for days about how Obama's tax increase on those earning over $250,000 will kill small business.
It turns out that only 3% of the small businesses in this country would be affected. (Thank you Peter Orszag for this rather important fact that none of our useless media ever bothered to ferret out.)
When faced with that fact, a Republican changed tactics. Yes, that's true. But that 3% employs 50+% of all small business employees. So?
And, remember, we're talking about turning back the top marginal tax rate to where it was in 2000. Less than a 4% increase.
But we are supposed to believe that a 4% tax increase on 3% of the small businesses in this country will cause these business people to ... what? Shut down their businesses? No, I don't think so. Refuse to expand or hire new employees? That's kind of hard to see, too. Don't most businesses expand when there is increased demand for their products? So unless a tax increase is confiscatory - costs the company more than it can earn through expansion - I find it truly difficult to imagine this outcome either. (Any of you small business people earning more than $250,000, please let me know if I am wrong.)
This reminds me of an argument that I haven't heard in a couple of decades:that the progressive income tax on individuals will cause them not to seek promotions. Because promotions come with salary increases, usually, and some salary increases come with increased taxes. Now, I have never known anybody to turn down a promotion because of an associated tax increase. Again, if the increase totally wipes out the salary increase, I suppose a person might refuse the promotion - but being primates, I suspect most of us would still go for the promotion.
It turns out that only 3% of the small businesses in this country would be affected. (Thank you Peter Orszag for this rather important fact that none of our useless media ever bothered to ferret out.)
When faced with that fact, a Republican changed tactics. Yes, that's true. But that 3% employs 50+% of all small business employees. So?
And, remember, we're talking about turning back the top marginal tax rate to where it was in 2000. Less than a 4% increase.
But we are supposed to believe that a 4% tax increase on 3% of the small businesses in this country will cause these business people to ... what? Shut down their businesses? No, I don't think so. Refuse to expand or hire new employees? That's kind of hard to see, too. Don't most businesses expand when there is increased demand for their products? So unless a tax increase is confiscatory - costs the company more than it can earn through expansion - I find it truly difficult to imagine this outcome either. (Any of you small business people earning more than $250,000, please let me know if I am wrong.)
This reminds me of an argument that I haven't heard in a couple of decades:that the progressive income tax on individuals will cause them not to seek promotions. Because promotions come with salary increases, usually, and some salary increases come with increased taxes. Now, I have never known anybody to turn down a promotion because of an associated tax increase. Again, if the increase totally wipes out the salary increase, I suppose a person might refuse the promotion - but being primates, I suspect most of us would still go for the promotion.
Monday, February 9, 2009
The Stimulus Package - What I Wish Obama Would Say
Instead of relying on the same points Obama has been making for weeks now, I wish Obama would do the following (quotes are my attempt to imitate his pattern of speech).
1. Emphasize that this is a global crisis
"You know, this is not just a U.S. crisis. Countries around the world have been pouring money into their own banks with their own TARPS. Did you know that Iceland, the country of Iceland, the entire country!, has gone bankrupt? And, just as we are putting together a financial stimulus package, so are they. In short, there are a lot of people around the world who believe that what we are doing is the right thing to do. And they're putting their money where their opinions are. "
2. Give a brief economic lesson.
"A lot of you are wondering why your tax dollars should be used to bail out rich bankers who made bad decisions. You wonder why, when you've been prudent and have a mortgage you can afford, your tax dollars should be used to help the person who wasn't prudent. And, you know, it isn't fair. But sometimes punishing the bad guy can hurt the good guy even more. If we hadn't stabilized the financial system, and if we don't continue to work to make it healthier, we could have been faced with a situation like that which occurred in the Great Depression. Thousands of banks failed. People lost their life savings. In today's terms, you might not have been able to go to your ATM or write a check on your bank. And it won't help your financial situation any if half the houses on your block or in you neighborhood or city are abandoned. So, yes, it's not fair that your tax dollars have to be used to bail out the bad guys but, in this case, the alternative would be worse.
"Second, there's an economic concept you need to understand. It's called the paradox of thrift and it works this way. Too many of us have gotten too deep in debt over the past decades. And now we've gotten religion. We're buying less and saving more. And, under normal circumstances, that's good. If you've still got a job, you want to save in case you lose it. If you don't have a job, you have to save. But what happens when everybody stops buying and starts saving at the same time? Companies can't sell enough. So they shut down factories and lay off workers. And those workers spend less because they have less to spend. So companies cut back further. It creates what economists call a deflationary spiral. And that is what we fear. There is almost nothing economists fear more because it is hard, really, really, really hard to get out of such a spiral once it gets in motion.
Now, it would be irresponsible for you as individuals in this economic environment to spend money you don't have. And State governments can't help. They have to balance their budgets. In an economic downturn, their tax receipts decrease, so they have to cut services. And that, too, contributes to this deflationary spiral. The only entity that can spend money is the Federal Government. And, yes, it is borrowed money. But it is borrowed money to buy goods and services that American workers create. To generate the demand that will keep businesses from shutting down more factories or laying off more people. And that's what the stimulus package does.
So, finally, that's why I'm asking you to bail out banks and the auto companies and people with bad mortgages, because if we don't do this, all of you who have been careful, have done the right thing, will get hurt, too. As you sometimes tell your children, don't cut off your nose to spite your face."
3. Focus on the three major parts of the stimulus package:
"Now, I know the stimulus package is big. But it needs to be big because we have a big economy and we need to give it a big kick in the pants to get it started.
And it has the three key components it needs. First, it gives tax cuts to working Americans because we know you're hurting. Second, it helps the people who are out of work by increasing the number of weeks of unemployment insurance - because the people who are out of work aren't responsible for the length of this downturn and it is going to be long - and helping them keep their health insurance by helping them pay for COBRA. Third, and most important, it spends money on things we should have been spending money on anyway: roads, bridges, school, information technology, etc.
Is this a perfect bill? No. It would have been if I had written it, of course, but I didn't. We live in a democracy. The Congress has over 500 members, each representing a district or state. And they all want to do what is best for the people they represent. And they should. That's what you hired them to do. So, the bill's a compromise. That's what we do in a democracy. We compromise. There are tax cuts for Conservatives and spending for Liberals. But no earmarks. None.
So does the bill have a perfect mix of tax cuts and spending? Probably not. Will all of the money be spent in the most effective way? Probably not - although we're going to do our darndest to make sure that most of it does do what we expect. Will it work all at once? No. Will we have to do more? Probably. But we are in the worst worldwide economic crisis in our lifetimes. Make no mistake. This is not an ordinary recession. This is a major crisis. And this stimulus package is a down payment, a critical down payment, on turning the economy around. So call, email, write your representatives and Senators and tell them to vote for this bill. It is time we got started on the road to recovery."
1. Emphasize that this is a global crisis
"You know, this is not just a U.S. crisis. Countries around the world have been pouring money into their own banks with their own TARPS. Did you know that Iceland, the country of Iceland, the entire country!, has gone bankrupt? And, just as we are putting together a financial stimulus package, so are they. In short, there are a lot of people around the world who believe that what we are doing is the right thing to do. And they're putting their money where their opinions are. "
2. Give a brief economic lesson.
"A lot of you are wondering why your tax dollars should be used to bail out rich bankers who made bad decisions. You wonder why, when you've been prudent and have a mortgage you can afford, your tax dollars should be used to help the person who wasn't prudent. And, you know, it isn't fair. But sometimes punishing the bad guy can hurt the good guy even more. If we hadn't stabilized the financial system, and if we don't continue to work to make it healthier, we could have been faced with a situation like that which occurred in the Great Depression. Thousands of banks failed. People lost their life savings. In today's terms, you might not have been able to go to your ATM or write a check on your bank. And it won't help your financial situation any if half the houses on your block or in you neighborhood or city are abandoned. So, yes, it's not fair that your tax dollars have to be used to bail out the bad guys but, in this case, the alternative would be worse.
"Second, there's an economic concept you need to understand. It's called the paradox of thrift and it works this way. Too many of us have gotten too deep in debt over the past decades. And now we've gotten religion. We're buying less and saving more. And, under normal circumstances, that's good. If you've still got a job, you want to save in case you lose it. If you don't have a job, you have to save. But what happens when everybody stops buying and starts saving at the same time? Companies can't sell enough. So they shut down factories and lay off workers. And those workers spend less because they have less to spend. So companies cut back further. It creates what economists call a deflationary spiral. And that is what we fear. There is almost nothing economists fear more because it is hard, really, really, really hard to get out of such a spiral once it gets in motion.
Now, it would be irresponsible for you as individuals in this economic environment to spend money you don't have. And State governments can't help. They have to balance their budgets. In an economic downturn, their tax receipts decrease, so they have to cut services. And that, too, contributes to this deflationary spiral. The only entity that can spend money is the Federal Government. And, yes, it is borrowed money. But it is borrowed money to buy goods and services that American workers create. To generate the demand that will keep businesses from shutting down more factories or laying off more people. And that's what the stimulus package does.
So, finally, that's why I'm asking you to bail out banks and the auto companies and people with bad mortgages, because if we don't do this, all of you who have been careful, have done the right thing, will get hurt, too. As you sometimes tell your children, don't cut off your nose to spite your face."
3. Focus on the three major parts of the stimulus package:
"Now, I know the stimulus package is big. But it needs to be big because we have a big economy and we need to give it a big kick in the pants to get it started.
And it has the three key components it needs. First, it gives tax cuts to working Americans because we know you're hurting. Second, it helps the people who are out of work by increasing the number of weeks of unemployment insurance - because the people who are out of work aren't responsible for the length of this downturn and it is going to be long - and helping them keep their health insurance by helping them pay for COBRA. Third, and most important, it spends money on things we should have been spending money on anyway: roads, bridges, school, information technology, etc.
Is this a perfect bill? No. It would have been if I had written it, of course, but I didn't. We live in a democracy. The Congress has over 500 members, each representing a district or state. And they all want to do what is best for the people they represent. And they should. That's what you hired them to do. So, the bill's a compromise. That's what we do in a democracy. We compromise. There are tax cuts for Conservatives and spending for Liberals. But no earmarks. None.
So does the bill have a perfect mix of tax cuts and spending? Probably not. Will all of the money be spent in the most effective way? Probably not - although we're going to do our darndest to make sure that most of it does do what we expect. Will it work all at once? No. Will we have to do more? Probably. But we are in the worst worldwide economic crisis in our lifetimes. Make no mistake. This is not an ordinary recession. This is a major crisis. And this stimulus package is a down payment, a critical down payment, on turning the economy around. So call, email, write your representatives and Senators and tell them to vote for this bill. It is time we got started on the road to recovery."
Thursday, November 20, 2008
It's Always Hillary's Fault
Surfing into Anderson 360 tonight, I discover that the reason Obama hasn't nominated a Treasury Secretary is that Hillary hasn't made up her mind. Apparently, The Chosen One, the reincarnation of Lincoln and FDR can't do two things at the same time.
And, of course, Obama's super secret, efficient, disciplined, loyal staff are angry because Hillary's people are responsible for all the leaks. I guess they're responsible for the leaks about the Attorney General and Homeland Security Secretary and Commerce Secretary, too?
Now, let me see. Obama, President-Elect, CIC, Leader of the Free World, can't "handle" the Clintons. Because, you see, he can't ask her formally to take the position unless he knows she will say yes (um, so what exactly happened with Pritzker? Did he just sort of hint around, like, um, maybe, do you think, maybe, .... and when Pritzker shook her head "no", that was it?) But, he can still, of course, ask Bill to lay bare his entire financial history - just in case, of course, he decides to offer her the job.
I'm not sure who comes out the worst here. These idiotic talking heads or Obama. Couldn't he, like, you know, just issue a statement that he hasn't offered anybody any position in his cabinet and will issue a press statement when he does? No? Too easy?
Quite frankly, the longer this goes on, the more I wonder why Hillary would even want to be in this amateur's cabinet. It's a dead end job, as far as I can tell. She wouldn't be able to run for the Senate again, unless, of course, she moved to another state. Governor? Maybe.
And, of course, Obama's super secret, efficient, disciplined, loyal staff are angry because Hillary's people are responsible for all the leaks. I guess they're responsible for the leaks about the Attorney General and Homeland Security Secretary and Commerce Secretary, too?
Now, let me see. Obama, President-Elect, CIC, Leader of the Free World, can't "handle" the Clintons. Because, you see, he can't ask her formally to take the position unless he knows she will say yes (um, so what exactly happened with Pritzker? Did he just sort of hint around, like, um, maybe, do you think, maybe, .... and when Pritzker shook her head "no", that was it?) But, he can still, of course, ask Bill to lay bare his entire financial history - just in case, of course, he decides to offer her the job.
I'm not sure who comes out the worst here. These idiotic talking heads or Obama. Couldn't he, like, you know, just issue a statement that he hasn't offered anybody any position in his cabinet and will issue a press statement when he does? No? Too easy?
Quite frankly, the longer this goes on, the more I wonder why Hillary would even want to be in this amateur's cabinet. It's a dead end job, as far as I can tell. She wouldn't be able to run for the Senate again, unless, of course, she moved to another state. Governor? Maybe.
Friday, November 7, 2008
NMJY (Not My Job Jet)
Well, for the past couple of days CNBC has been opining that Obama, in his first press conference as Pres-Elect had to offer specific plans. And the political reporters have all been saying how important it is that he name at least his Treasury Secretary. They were pleased that he already had a Chief of Staff (as opposed to that awful Bill who didn't name one until January - just reporting, don't know if that date is accurate).
So, what did we get? More campaign fluff, with the ever-present "bi-partisanship", and the new "I am not yet President".
Ok, he's right. The Shrub is still President, the old Congress is still there. But this was also a get-out-of-jail play. And does anybody doubt that her not yet being sworn in would have kept Hillary from setting out her detailed plans? No. Oh, but hey, she's already done that in areas like housing, only I guess that doesn't count because it's not her job. Obama did, however, give us a hint of what his excuse will be if he doesn't get his plan through when he has a plan: partisanship.
Almost forgot: those fast appointments Obama was going to give us? Well, fast means "weeks". Weeks before he is President: about 10.
So, what did we get? More campaign fluff, with the ever-present "bi-partisanship", and the new "I am not yet President".
Ok, he's right. The Shrub is still President, the old Congress is still there. But this was also a get-out-of-jail play. And does anybody doubt that her not yet being sworn in would have kept Hillary from setting out her detailed plans? No. Oh, but hey, she's already done that in areas like housing, only I guess that doesn't count because it's not her job. Obama did, however, give us a hint of what his excuse will be if he doesn't get his plan through when he has a plan: partisanship.
Almost forgot: those fast appointments Obama was going to give us? Well, fast means "weeks". Weeks before he is President: about 10.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Now they're worried about experience?
In Newsweek's Oct. 6, 2008 issue, Alter and Zakaria are apoplectic about Palin's lack of qualifications.
These are the men who for months have been assuring us that Obama's lack of experience is irrelevant. What matters is his judgment.* Zakaria went so far as to assert that Obama's having lived abroad for two years (as a pre-teen boy aged 10-12) is worth more than a PH.D in foreign affairs, negotiating experience, and world-wide travel as an adult.
But then, of course, Obama has a Y chromosome and we all know what that means: he was born with a gene for Presidential leadership.
Lithwick, in her column entitled From Clarence Thomas to Palin argues that Palin represents the worst effects of Affirmative Action. What does she think Obama represents? No White man (or Black man or woman) with his resume would be where he is today. (The Economist, another supporter, admits that Obama ". . . has the thinnest résumé of any nominee in living memory" but, like Newsweek, will probably announce on Nov. 1 that it doesn't matter). Obama was named President of the Harvard Law Review after the requirements, which he didn't meet, were changed. He got into the Illinois Legislature by disqualifying all of his opponents. Then, in his last 2 years when Democrats gained the majority, he convinced Emil Jones to give him credit for legislation he had little or nothing to do with. He won his Senate seat after his initial Republican opponent had to drop out and was replaced by a carpetbagger. Then there was that plum Democratic Convention speaking spot. And Oprah's endorsement. [Much of this was documented in The Chicago Tribune's March 25, 2008 series entitled Barack Obama: The Making of a Candidate.] His only accomplishments in life have been the advancement of his own career. Nobody can name anything he has ever done for anybody outside his family or any time that he risked political capital for a principle. Indeed, he has shown repeatedly throughout this campaign that he will swing in whatever direction he has to in order to win.
Andrew Sullivan, in a Dec. 2007 Atlantic puff piece gives these reasons for nominating & electing Obama: :"What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan." "Consider this hypothetical. It's November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America's soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama's face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can."
Michael Kinsley in his July 10, 2008 Time column asserted that "For many Clinton supporters, the chance to elect an African-American President represents the culmination of a cause they have been fighting for all their lives." Oh? As a lifelong liberal, that's news to me. I keep looking for another RFK and, believe me, the Kennedys' support notwithstanding, Obama doesn't even come close.
*Judgment: a one-sentence objection to the Iraq war uttered at a meeting where he wasn't even the main speaker, in a liberal district, that got 0 publicity at the time (in contrast, say, to the abuse Barbara Lee endured for her principled vote against the war authorization bill). His pastor, his decades' long friendship with Rezko, Ayres and throwing his grandmother under the bus 3 times (in his memoir, making her seem even worse in a speech, and finally nailing her with that "she's a typical white woman") don't count.
For the record, I don't happen to think Palin is qualified either and can't help but wonder why McCain didn't choose one of the several much more qualified Republican women. But I don't think Obama is qualified to be President either. And if we are to have one unqualified person on either ticket, it seems preferable for that person to be in the VP slot.
These are the men who for months have been assuring us that Obama's lack of experience is irrelevant. What matters is his judgment.* Zakaria went so far as to assert that Obama's having lived abroad for two years (as a pre-teen boy aged 10-12) is worth more than a PH.D in foreign affairs, negotiating experience, and world-wide travel as an adult.
But then, of course, Obama has a Y chromosome and we all know what that means: he was born with a gene for Presidential leadership.
Lithwick, in her column entitled From Clarence Thomas to Palin argues that Palin represents the worst effects of Affirmative Action. What does she think Obama represents? No White man (or Black man or woman) with his resume would be where he is today. (The Economist, another supporter, admits that Obama ". . . has the thinnest résumé of any nominee in living memory" but, like Newsweek, will probably announce on Nov. 1 that it doesn't matter). Obama was named President of the Harvard Law Review after the requirements, which he didn't meet, were changed. He got into the Illinois Legislature by disqualifying all of his opponents. Then, in his last 2 years when Democrats gained the majority, he convinced Emil Jones to give him credit for legislation he had little or nothing to do with. He won his Senate seat after his initial Republican opponent had to drop out and was replaced by a carpetbagger. Then there was that plum Democratic Convention speaking spot. And Oprah's endorsement. [Much of this was documented in The Chicago Tribune's March 25, 2008 series entitled Barack Obama: The Making of a Candidate.] His only accomplishments in life have been the advancement of his own career. Nobody can name anything he has ever done for anybody outside his family or any time that he risked political capital for a principle. Indeed, he has shown repeatedly throughout this campaign that he will swing in whatever direction he has to in order to win.
Andrew Sullivan, in a Dec. 2007 Atlantic puff piece gives these reasons for nominating & electing Obama: :"What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan." "Consider this hypothetical. It's November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America's soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama's face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can."
Michael Kinsley in his July 10, 2008 Time column asserted that "For many Clinton supporters, the chance to elect an African-American President represents the culmination of a cause they have been fighting for all their lives." Oh? As a lifelong liberal, that's news to me. I keep looking for another RFK and, believe me, the Kennedys' support notwithstanding, Obama doesn't even come close.
*Judgment: a one-sentence objection to the Iraq war uttered at a meeting where he wasn't even the main speaker, in a liberal district, that got 0 publicity at the time (in contrast, say, to the abuse Barbara Lee endured for her principled vote against the war authorization bill). His pastor, his decades' long friendship with Rezko, Ayres and throwing his grandmother under the bus 3 times (in his memoir, making her seem even worse in a speech, and finally nailing her with that "she's a typical white woman") don't count.
For the record, I don't happen to think Palin is qualified either and can't help but wonder why McCain didn't choose one of the several much more qualified Republican women. But I don't think Obama is qualified to be President either. And if we are to have one unqualified person on either ticket, it seems preferable for that person to be in the VP slot.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
The Economic Crisis - A Republican Plot?
If I were a conspiracy addict, I'd believe that this entire economic crisis was devised by Republicans. Why?
Well, simple. Just as in 1990, knowing they would lose the Presidency, the Republicans have made sure that the economy would be in such a mess, and the deficit so huge, that even a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress would be unable to implement any of the traditional Democratic policies - not that Obama or Pelosi or Reid has any interest in them anyways.
So, Obama will get the blame for the recession that may last into 2010 - close enough to Congressional elections to give the Republicans a solid chance at winning back one or both Houses. And the strategy will probably succeed.
Well, simple. Just as in 1990, knowing they would lose the Presidency, the Republicans have made sure that the economy would be in such a mess, and the deficit so huge, that even a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress would be unable to implement any of the traditional Democratic policies - not that Obama or Pelosi or Reid has any interest in them anyways.
So, Obama will get the blame for the recession that may last into 2010 - close enough to Congressional elections to give the Republicans a solid chance at winning back one or both Houses. And the strategy will probably succeed.
What's the Difference Between a Republican and a Democrat? Convictions
Watching John McCain and Sarah Palin mouth the same old Republican platitudes (low taxes, government is bad, etc., etc.) at a time when most of the people in the country know it is just those principles which got us into this mess, has made me aware yet again of the strength of Conservative convictions and the weakeness of Liberal ones.
Obama can barely bear to mention the word Democrat. His campaign is all about him. He panders to the Right, not even to the center. He is all "soft": both parties are at fault, we have to come together, etc., etc. Why? Well, partly of course, it's because he has no political convictions, but mainly because he cares only about what he has to do to win.
Unfortunately, this describes most Democrats today. Republicans (Conservatives) stuck to their principles throughout the reigns of FDR, Truman, Kennedy and LBJ. Their mantra of personal responsibility (social Darwinism), low taxes, no government regulation (except, of course, when it comes to morality), and the supremacy of the free market has never changed.
We can see this in the McCain/Palin campaign. At a time when McCain needed to reach out to Independents and disaffected Democrats, he chose possibly the least qualified and most conservative Republican woman candidate around because she would appeal to the Right Wing base of the Party. He, himself, has given up any pretense to being a maverick. He continues to sell himself as a Bush Republican, but a Bush Republican who will actually govern as a Republican.
The Democrats, OTOH, after the Vietnam War seemed to completely lose their way. Not only did they stop promoting Democratic (Liberal) values, they stopped defending them. Even Bill Clinton campaigned and governed mainly as Republican Lite. (Hillary, OTOH, is much closer to the FDR, RFK ideal.)
Today we have Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc. all bowing to the Conservatives, begging for their support, doing everything they can to avoid creating controversy, least they be accused of being Liberals.
What I don't understand is why. Why do Conservatives never lose faith in their principles, no matter how much reality differs from fact while Liberals caved in at their first major loss (to Reagan)?
Obama can barely bear to mention the word Democrat. His campaign is all about him. He panders to the Right, not even to the center. He is all "soft": both parties are at fault, we have to come together, etc., etc. Why? Well, partly of course, it's because he has no political convictions, but mainly because he cares only about what he has to do to win.
Unfortunately, this describes most Democrats today. Republicans (Conservatives) stuck to their principles throughout the reigns of FDR, Truman, Kennedy and LBJ. Their mantra of personal responsibility (social Darwinism), low taxes, no government regulation (except, of course, when it comes to morality), and the supremacy of the free market has never changed.
We can see this in the McCain/Palin campaign. At a time when McCain needed to reach out to Independents and disaffected Democrats, he chose possibly the least qualified and most conservative Republican woman candidate around because she would appeal to the Right Wing base of the Party. He, himself, has given up any pretense to being a maverick. He continues to sell himself as a Bush Republican, but a Bush Republican who will actually govern as a Republican.
The Democrats, OTOH, after the Vietnam War seemed to completely lose their way. Not only did they stop promoting Democratic (Liberal) values, they stopped defending them. Even Bill Clinton campaigned and governed mainly as Republican Lite. (Hillary, OTOH, is much closer to the FDR, RFK ideal.)
Today we have Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc. all bowing to the Conservatives, begging for their support, doing everything they can to avoid creating controversy, least they be accused of being Liberals.
What I don't understand is why. Why do Conservatives never lose faith in their principles, no matter how much reality differs from fact while Liberals caved in at their first major loss (to Reagan)?
Obama is President - Don't Need the Polls to Know
Well, if there had been any doubt about this election, close as the polls have been, it is over. The economic crisis has driven the last nail in the McCain/Palin coffin.
How did I reach this conclusion? Not from the polls. I've been reading the WSJ and watching Fox for the last week. Neither the paper nor the Republican news channel has shown any enthusiasm for the ticket and when forced to defend it do so with an air of "well, we have to at least go through the motions".
This was eminently clear after the VP debate when I watched Rove, Barnes, Krauthammer, etc. (a bunch of guys who look almost as old as McCain) trying to whip up some enthusiasm. These guys know politics and they know the race is over.
This doesn't thrill me. I think Obama is just about the least qualified and one of the least deserving people ever to run for the Presidency. He has no experience, no principles, nothing he wants to accomplish other than getting the job - which pretty much sums up his whole career. I suspect that Biden will do all the hard work. And, to make matters worse, his supporters, including the media, believe in him as if he were the Messiah. We can expect no public oversight or criticism. He can change his positions every day, as he has, and his defenders will defend him.
I console myself with the thought that Hillary will not be held responsible for his loss or for fixing the mess Bush is handing over to Obama.
How did I reach this conclusion? Not from the polls. I've been reading the WSJ and watching Fox for the last week. Neither the paper nor the Republican news channel has shown any enthusiasm for the ticket and when forced to defend it do so with an air of "well, we have to at least go through the motions".
This was eminently clear after the VP debate when I watched Rove, Barnes, Krauthammer, etc. (a bunch of guys who look almost as old as McCain) trying to whip up some enthusiasm. These guys know politics and they know the race is over.
This doesn't thrill me. I think Obama is just about the least qualified and one of the least deserving people ever to run for the Presidency. He has no experience, no principles, nothing he wants to accomplish other than getting the job - which pretty much sums up his whole career. I suspect that Biden will do all the hard work. And, to make matters worse, his supporters, including the media, believe in him as if he were the Messiah. We can expect no public oversight or criticism. He can change his positions every day, as he has, and his defenders will defend him.
I console myself with the thought that Hillary will not be held responsible for his loss or for fixing the mess Bush is handing over to Obama.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Best Reason not to support Obama: His Supporters
Bill and Hillary give some of the best speeches of their lives in support of Obama, but is that enough? No. His supporters in the media (print and video) and the so-called liberal blogosphere continue to snipe. They weren't sincere enough, they didn't praise him enough, they're not working hard enough for him.
In Iowa, Obama showed himself to be an ungracious winner. In New Hampshire, he showed himself to be a poor loser. Like leader, like follower.
The Obamanuts are a bunch of puerile, whining, disgusting, racist misogynists who have been running a negative campaign all year and just can't stop. There's nothing new or hopeful about these people. They are the Democrat version of Karl Rove's minions.
And I don't think I want this country to be run by them.
In Iowa, Obama showed himself to be an ungracious winner. In New Hampshire, he showed himself to be a poor loser. Like leader, like follower.
The Obamanuts are a bunch of puerile, whining, disgusting, racist misogynists who have been running a negative campaign all year and just can't stop. There's nothing new or hopeful about these people. They are the Democrat version of Karl Rove's minions.
And I don't think I want this country to be run by them.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Why the Super Delegates Have Little Choice But Obama
Kristen Breitweiser (posted on Taylor Marsh:You Broke It You Own It ) asks how the Super Delegates will justify nominating Obama and losing the GE.
Here's why I think they must (in their minds) nominate Obama and how they will justify a Nov. loss.
Nominate Obama
1. Massive media support. The TV networks & major news magazines have already declared Obama to be the winner. It doesn't matter whether they are right at this time (they are NOT), they have created a perception that he is the Democratic nominee. So if the SDs vote for Hillary, they will be roundly and loudly and widely criticized for stealing the nomination from Obama. They will also be accused of being racists. The details (delegates, Florida and Michigan, etc., etc.) will not matter.
2. They can point to a lead in pledged delegates (even if that means excluding Florida and Michigan, because of the Rulz) and, possibly, in votes (although we won't know that for sure for a couple of more weeks.)
3. Obama has already given 2-3x as much to SDs for their election campaigns as Hillary has. I have no doubt that he is waving dollar bills under the noses of the remaining udecided SDs.
3. Most of Hillary's supporters will vote for Obama.
4. So Obama loses the GE. How do the SDs defend themselves? They will blame Hillary for staying in the race so long that Obama didn't have the time to campaign against McCain. They will also claim that Americans as a whole are more racist than Democrats and those racists were the margin of victory. This may work if the election is close. It will, of course, fall flat if McCain wins big. They will also point out that there is no proof that Hillary could have done better.
Nominate Hillary
5. Same as #1 above. SDs are human, too. The media backlash for voting against Obama will be vicious.
6. They would have to include Florida & Michigan in spite of the Rulz. Florida can be easily justified. Michigan cannot, even if Obama chose not to put his name on the ballot. Then they would have to say that votes (assuming Hillary gets the most votes) count more than delegates even though it has always been the delegate count that has mattered (that this is probably because there's never been such a close nominating race under the current rules is irrelevant.)
7. The Democratic Party will lose almost all the African American votes, and possibly destroy that base for the future.
8. If Hillary wins, the media will say that Obama could have won, too and should have been the nominee. If she loses, the media and Obama's supporters will claim that he could have won and if the SDs had followed the lead of the Party (delegates, states, caucuses, etc.), a Democrat would be President.
Conclusion
If the nominee wins and that nominee is Hillary, there will still be considerable dissent in the Party on the part of the Obama supporters. The media will criticize every little thing that Hillary does for 4 years, or more.
If the nominee is Obama, there will be vast media support for his Presidency and, possibly, an extended honeymoon ala Bush 43's. Disgruntled Hillary supporters will disappear from view (not to be unexpected since her supporters have been ignored by the media for months).
If the nominee loses and that nominee is Hillary, they will face the wrath of the media and Obama supporters (which we have already seen can be massive).
If the nominee loses and that nominee is Obama, they will blame Hillary and racist Americans. The media will support them.
Each SD will be weighing the consequences of a vote in terms of his or her own electability. They perceive that a vote for Obama, even if he loses in the GE, will be more advantageous (or less disadvantageous) than a vote for Hillary.
In short, the cost of being wrong about Obama is lower than the cost of being wrong about Hillary.
(see also Obama: Super Delegates and Affirmative Action)
Here's why I think they must (in their minds) nominate Obama and how they will justify a Nov. loss.
Nominate Obama
1. Massive media support. The TV networks & major news magazines have already declared Obama to be the winner. It doesn't matter whether they are right at this time (they are NOT), they have created a perception that he is the Democratic nominee. So if the SDs vote for Hillary, they will be roundly and loudly and widely criticized for stealing the nomination from Obama. They will also be accused of being racists. The details (delegates, Florida and Michigan, etc., etc.) will not matter.
2. They can point to a lead in pledged delegates (even if that means excluding Florida and Michigan, because of the Rulz) and, possibly, in votes (although we won't know that for sure for a couple of more weeks.)
3. Obama has already given 2-3x as much to SDs for their election campaigns as Hillary has. I have no doubt that he is waving dollar bills under the noses of the remaining udecided SDs.
3. Most of Hillary's supporters will vote for Obama.
4. So Obama loses the GE. How do the SDs defend themselves? They will blame Hillary for staying in the race so long that Obama didn't have the time to campaign against McCain. They will also claim that Americans as a whole are more racist than Democrats and those racists were the margin of victory. This may work if the election is close. It will, of course, fall flat if McCain wins big. They will also point out that there is no proof that Hillary could have done better.
Nominate Hillary
5. Same as #1 above. SDs are human, too. The media backlash for voting against Obama will be vicious.
6. They would have to include Florida & Michigan in spite of the Rulz. Florida can be easily justified. Michigan cannot, even if Obama chose not to put his name on the ballot. Then they would have to say that votes (assuming Hillary gets the most votes) count more than delegates even though it has always been the delegate count that has mattered (that this is probably because there's never been such a close nominating race under the current rules is irrelevant.)
7. The Democratic Party will lose almost all the African American votes, and possibly destroy that base for the future.
8. If Hillary wins, the media will say that Obama could have won, too and should have been the nominee. If she loses, the media and Obama's supporters will claim that he could have won and if the SDs had followed the lead of the Party (delegates, states, caucuses, etc.), a Democrat would be President.
Conclusion
If the nominee wins and that nominee is Hillary, there will still be considerable dissent in the Party on the part of the Obama supporters. The media will criticize every little thing that Hillary does for 4 years, or more.
If the nominee is Obama, there will be vast media support for his Presidency and, possibly, an extended honeymoon ala Bush 43's. Disgruntled Hillary supporters will disappear from view (not to be unexpected since her supporters have been ignored by the media for months).
If the nominee loses and that nominee is Hillary, they will face the wrath of the media and Obama supporters (which we have already seen can be massive).
If the nominee loses and that nominee is Obama, they will blame Hillary and racist Americans. The media will support them.
Each SD will be weighing the consequences of a vote in terms of his or her own electability. They perceive that a vote for Obama, even if he loses in the GE, will be more advantageous (or less disadvantageous) than a vote for Hillary.
In short, the cost of being wrong about Obama is lower than the cost of being wrong about Hillary.
(see also Obama: Super Delegates and Affirmative Action)
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
The NARAL Endorsement - 3 Theories
To quote the Illinois Chapter of Illinois chapter of NOW:
So why did the National NARAL endorse Obama? I have 3 theories.
1. He offered to funnel a large amount of money to NARAL.
2. He offered a "seat at the table" in his administration: i.e., one or more high-paid jobs.
3. NARAL realized that with a Democratic President in the White House and a Democratic Congress, thus ensuring protection of the right to choose, NARAL's funding and membership would dry up. With a Republican in the White House, Mr. McCain, NARAL would still be needed. So, by endorsing Obama they hope to add to the bandwagon effect, to ensure that a candidate who cannot beat McCain in the GE will get the Democratic nomination - and NARAL will continue to exist.
Too Machiavellian? No. Self-preservation is a primal force for organizations as well as human beings. So NARAL's self-preservation is more important than the rights of women? Well, I'm sure they convinced themselves that with a Democratic Congress, womens' rights would still be preserved - but with an anti-choice Republican President, there would be just enough uncertainty to keep the money and memberships flowing in.
As a State Senator, Barack Obama voted ‘present’ on seven abortion bills, including a ban on 'partial birth abortion,' two parental notification laws and three 'born alive' bills. In each case, the right vote was clear, but Senator Obama chose political cover over standing and fighting for his convictions. When we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass. He wasn’t there for us then and we don’t expect him to be now.
So why did the National NARAL endorse Obama? I have 3 theories.
1. He offered to funnel a large amount of money to NARAL.
2. He offered a "seat at the table" in his administration: i.e., one or more high-paid jobs.
3. NARAL realized that with a Democratic President in the White House and a Democratic Congress, thus ensuring protection of the right to choose, NARAL's funding and membership would dry up. With a Republican in the White House, Mr. McCain, NARAL would still be needed. So, by endorsing Obama they hope to add to the bandwagon effect, to ensure that a candidate who cannot beat McCain in the GE will get the Democratic nomination - and NARAL will continue to exist.
Too Machiavellian? No. Self-preservation is a primal force for organizations as well as human beings. So NARAL's self-preservation is more important than the rights of women? Well, I'm sure they convinced themselves that with a Democratic Congress, womens' rights would still be preserved - but with an anti-choice Republican President, there would be just enough uncertainty to keep the money and memberships flowing in.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
After Pennsylvania - The Math - Plus Ça Change....
Well, the day after and nothing has changed. Obama's supporters and the media say that Hillary's win doesn't matter. She didn't pick up that many delegates and will lose them in North Carolina - which has many more delegates than Indiana and is owned by Obama. (38% of the registered Democrats are African American.) Hillary's forces don't deny that they will lose N.C. They just hope it will be a respectable loss.
Then, of course, there is "The Math". Some of the calculations, by supporters of both Hillary and Obama are wondrous in their complexity. After all, there is a lot to work with: Florida and Michigan - to count or not and if to count, how. Turning caucus votes into "real" votes. Even the pledged delegate votes have some wiggle room due to the multi-stage process of assigning them. Then there are the maps of electoral votes vs. primary & caucus wins. And so on and so on. The one constant amidst all of this complexity is that the method employed always ends up supporting the designer's preferred candidate. It is unlikely that any of them will impress a supporter of the opposite candidate, although the designers hope their models will influence the Super Delegates (SDs).
Will the SDs be impressed by these models? I doubt it. I've discussed my analysis of their decision making earlier, but will repeat and add a bit here.
The SDs want the Democrats to win in November. But they have a couple of perhaps insurmountable obstacles.
1. Supporters of one candidate who say they won't vote for the other candidate.
I think these percentages are overstated and represent the gulf that has opened up between the two camps in the past several months. I blame Obama's supporters for this gulf, but, then, I am a Hillary supporter. But, when the proverbial push comes to the proverbial shove, most will vote for the Democrat. There are, however, and unfortunately, a couple of exceptions.
Hillary's voters:
Certainly, some of Hillary's supporters will either sit on their hands next November or vote for McCain. I think this is most likely to happen in Florida if its votes are not counted in full, as voted. Who will switch from Hillary to McCain rather than to Obama? Most likely the older voters. They may not approve of many of McCain's ideas, but I suspect that given a choice between a man of their generation, a war hero and the guy (Obama) they think stole the nomination from Hillary by disenfranchising them, they will go for McCain and probably in large enough numbers (it doesn't take many in Florida) to swing the state to the Republicans.
Obama's voters:
Yes, some of the white elitists will sit on their hands, write in a name, or even vote for McCain. They have done this before (voting against their political interests) to disastrous effect going back to Nixon vs. Humphrey. But they are not the main problem the SDs must consider.
The main problem is the African American vote. It has gone 90% for Obama. Barring some major misstep on his part, it will take very little in the way of "math" to make an SD vote for Hillary appear to be racist. SDs are not dumb. They know this. For the Democratic Party to deprive an African American candidate of the nomination when even some, not to say most, of the numbers favor him will likely do to the Party a variation of what LBJ's Civil Rights movement did to the Party. LBJ knew he was turning over the South to the Republicans. The SDs may rightly believe that a majority of AAs will not vote for McCain. But they will also, rightly I think, assume that enough AAs will sit home to deprive Hillary of a win in November.
There are two ways to solve the Florida problem.
The first, of course, is to count Florida but not Michigan. (Michigan's voters might get just as mad, but most will admit that since Obama's name was not on the ballot, it wouldn't be fair to give the state to Hillary. True, it is Obama who refused to accept a revote, but relatively few of the Democratic voters, in my estimation, realize that.)
The second is for Hillary to drop out. And that is why there is such a clamor for her to do just that. There is simply no way to finesse the African American vote. Her voters will be disappointed if she drops out, but they will be furious if they think that Obama stole the nomination (by pressure on the SDs or some version of "The Math".)
Do I want Hillary to fight until the end? Yes. Do I think that Obama can win in November under any circumstance? No. Not because he is AA (think Colin Powell), but because he is so clearly unprepared for the job compared to McCain. However, I also think the odds are against Hillary's winning in November (the misogyny her campaign has exposed is greater than anything we could have anticipated.). Not so great that she couldn't pull out a victory, but it would be a victory that would leave an uncomfortably large segment of the Democratic Party unwilling to give her the support she would need as President.
I hope I am wrong, but I fear that we have backed ourselves into a corner from which there is no conceivable good way out.
Then, of course, there is "The Math". Some of the calculations, by supporters of both Hillary and Obama are wondrous in their complexity. After all, there is a lot to work with: Florida and Michigan - to count or not and if to count, how. Turning caucus votes into "real" votes. Even the pledged delegate votes have some wiggle room due to the multi-stage process of assigning them. Then there are the maps of electoral votes vs. primary & caucus wins. And so on and so on. The one constant amidst all of this complexity is that the method employed always ends up supporting the designer's preferred candidate. It is unlikely that any of them will impress a supporter of the opposite candidate, although the designers hope their models will influence the Super Delegates (SDs).
Will the SDs be impressed by these models? I doubt it. I've discussed my analysis of their decision making earlier, but will repeat and add a bit here.
The SDs want the Democrats to win in November. But they have a couple of perhaps insurmountable obstacles.
1. Supporters of one candidate who say they won't vote for the other candidate.
I think these percentages are overstated and represent the gulf that has opened up between the two camps in the past several months. I blame Obama's supporters for this gulf, but, then, I am a Hillary supporter. But, when the proverbial push comes to the proverbial shove, most will vote for the Democrat. There are, however, and unfortunately, a couple of exceptions.
Hillary's voters:
Certainly, some of Hillary's supporters will either sit on their hands next November or vote for McCain. I think this is most likely to happen in Florida if its votes are not counted in full, as voted. Who will switch from Hillary to McCain rather than to Obama? Most likely the older voters. They may not approve of many of McCain's ideas, but I suspect that given a choice between a man of their generation, a war hero and the guy (Obama) they think stole the nomination from Hillary by disenfranchising them, they will go for McCain and probably in large enough numbers (it doesn't take many in Florida) to swing the state to the Republicans.
Obama's voters:
Yes, some of the white elitists will sit on their hands, write in a name, or even vote for McCain. They have done this before (voting against their political interests) to disastrous effect going back to Nixon vs. Humphrey. But they are not the main problem the SDs must consider.
The main problem is the African American vote. It has gone 90% for Obama. Barring some major misstep on his part, it will take very little in the way of "math" to make an SD vote for Hillary appear to be racist. SDs are not dumb. They know this. For the Democratic Party to deprive an African American candidate of the nomination when even some, not to say most, of the numbers favor him will likely do to the Party a variation of what LBJ's Civil Rights movement did to the Party. LBJ knew he was turning over the South to the Republicans. The SDs may rightly believe that a majority of AAs will not vote for McCain. But they will also, rightly I think, assume that enough AAs will sit home to deprive Hillary of a win in November.
There are two ways to solve the Florida problem.
The first, of course, is to count Florida but not Michigan. (Michigan's voters might get just as mad, but most will admit that since Obama's name was not on the ballot, it wouldn't be fair to give the state to Hillary. True, it is Obama who refused to accept a revote, but relatively few of the Democratic voters, in my estimation, realize that.)
The second is for Hillary to drop out. And that is why there is such a clamor for her to do just that. There is simply no way to finesse the African American vote. Her voters will be disappointed if she drops out, but they will be furious if they think that Obama stole the nomination (by pressure on the SDs or some version of "The Math".)
Do I want Hillary to fight until the end? Yes. Do I think that Obama can win in November under any circumstance? No. Not because he is AA (think Colin Powell), but because he is so clearly unprepared for the job compared to McCain. However, I also think the odds are against Hillary's winning in November (the misogyny her campaign has exposed is greater than anything we could have anticipated.). Not so great that she couldn't pull out a victory, but it would be a victory that would leave an uncomfortably large segment of the Democratic Party unwilling to give her the support she would need as President.
I hope I am wrong, but I fear that we have backed ourselves into a corner from which there is no conceivable good way out.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Poor Obama. He's going to have to go negative now?
I suppose it was to be expected. Obama lost in Pennsylvania because of Hillary's negative attacks. So now, the poor guy, in spite of all of his better instincts, is going to have to go negative?
This is what? The 100th time we've heard this. When, exactly, has he not been negative? I seem to recall his starting out the campaign by saying she was too old. Well, OK, he didn't exactly say she was too old. He just said, my paraphrase, that she was stuck in the old, adversary politics of the 60s. And it's pretty much gone downhill from there.
But there is a bigger issue here: the definition of "negative". As applied to Hillary, it appears to mean any attack of any kind against Obama: experience, positions, relationships with questionable people, public statements. None of these are acceptable targets.
Once upon a time, "negative" meant untruthful, distorted, grossly unfair. Now, at least for Hillary, it means any attempt to draw a distinction between her qualifications and his.
Similarly, "attack" is now a completely negative word. What, pray tell, should one call an attempt to draw distinctions between oneself and one's opponent?
This is what? The 100th time we've heard this. When, exactly, has he not been negative? I seem to recall his starting out the campaign by saying she was too old. Well, OK, he didn't exactly say she was too old. He just said, my paraphrase, that she was stuck in the old, adversary politics of the 60s. And it's pretty much gone downhill from there.
But there is a bigger issue here: the definition of "negative". As applied to Hillary, it appears to mean any attack of any kind against Obama: experience, positions, relationships with questionable people, public statements. None of these are acceptable targets.
Once upon a time, "negative" meant untruthful, distorted, grossly unfair. Now, at least for Hillary, it means any attempt to draw a distinction between her qualifications and his.
Similarly, "attack" is now a completely negative word. What, pray tell, should one call an attempt to draw distinctions between oneself and one's opponent?
Is Obama a Coward?
Well, let's see.
1. He (or his many, many surrogates) have been asking Hillary to quit since, when? March? In spite of the fact that he has had, according to "everybody that matters" an insurmountable lead by all possible criteria. You would think that he would appreciate the opportunity to expand his lead, right? Well, no. Perhaps because he's been afraid that his lead would shrink rather than grow?
2. He nixed revotes in Florida and Michigan. Again, they offered him an opportunity to expand his lead. Hillary, who most definitely won Florida and arguably won Michigan, has supported revotes in both states even knowing that she would be risking losing them because, of course, Obama was unstoppable.
3. He cancelled the pre-primary debate in North Carolina. Could it be because he doesn't do very well in debates? And he was worse than usual in the Pennsylvania debate? (it doesn't matter whether the questions were proper or not. None of them should have been a surprise, and Jon Stewart's clips of Obama from that debate showed that he couldn't frame a decent answer to either the gotcha questions or some of the policy questions.)
So, yea, I'd say that Obama is a coward.
1. He (or his many, many surrogates) have been asking Hillary to quit since, when? March? In spite of the fact that he has had, according to "everybody that matters" an insurmountable lead by all possible criteria. You would think that he would appreciate the opportunity to expand his lead, right? Well, no. Perhaps because he's been afraid that his lead would shrink rather than grow?
2. He nixed revotes in Florida and Michigan. Again, they offered him an opportunity to expand his lead. Hillary, who most definitely won Florida and arguably won Michigan, has supported revotes in both states even knowing that she would be risking losing them because, of course, Obama was unstoppable.
3. He cancelled the pre-primary debate in North Carolina. Could it be because he doesn't do very well in debates? And he was worse than usual in the Pennsylvania debate? (it doesn't matter whether the questions were proper or not. None of them should have been a surprise, and Jon Stewart's clips of Obama from that debate showed that he couldn't frame a decent answer to either the gotcha questions or some of the policy questions.)
So, yea, I'd say that Obama is a coward.
Monday, April 14, 2008
The Real Reason They Want Her To Quit
After reading yet another hyperbolic demand that Hillary withdraw from the race before she destroys Obama, The Democratic Party, the Unites States of America and Western Civilization, I decided to sit down and work through my interpretation of these calls (which can be summarized as "She Can't Win and He Will Be The Nominee No Matter What She Does So She Should Quit"):
Their Reasons (my interpretation)
1. It will destroy Obama.
I don't see how. They assure us that he is the nominee already in all but name.
2. It hurts Obama's chances against McCain because Obama can't campaign against McCain.
Well, if Obama is not free to campaign against McCain (because Obama is not yet the nominee), McCain by that same token is not free to campaign against Obama because, of course, Obama is not yet the nominee. So, no advantage to either side. There is, however, nothing about the current situation to prevent Obama from campaigning against McCain (or vice versa). He certainly has enough money.
3. Hillary's attacks will hurt Obama in the Fall.
If they haven't been damaging enough to keep him from being the presumptive nominee, why should they hurt him against McCain? And it is hard to believe that, at this stage, she could say anything that McCain doesn't already know or can't find out on his own. I vaguely remember a Republican by the name of George H. W. Bush deriding his opponent Reagan's economic plan as "voodoo economics" in 1980. Now, who won the Republican nomination and the election? Hmmm, let me think, gee whiz, it was Reagan.
4. It is distracting Obama from his need to focus on McCain.
What's distracting? He is the presumptive nominee. Nothing she does can change that, so why are they worried? He knows this to be true, so he doesn't have to spend any of his valuable time on Hillary. He can focus on McCain if that is what he should do.
The REAL reason: Fear of Losing
All of the above reasons and their variations are rationalizations and, deep down, their supporters know this. You see: Obama has only two ways to win (unless Hillary really blows it in the remaining primaries): Hillary can drop out or he can get more Super Delegates than she can. And that is the problem. If Hillary does not drop out and if, this is key, she beats him soundly in most of the remaining primaries, his claim to the nomination will be weakened.
For the DNC:
If Hillary does not drop out, and Obama can't reach the magic number of delegates, the DNC has two problems it must face:
1. Florida and Michigan
2. Super Delegates choosing the nominee.
The DNC, of course, does not want to deal with either.
For Obama and his supporters:
Consider a worst-case scenario: Hillary wins most of the remaining primaries & soundly trounces him. Perhaps she comes out slightly ahead in the popular vote while significantly narrowing his lead in pledged delegates. NOTE: I am not predicting this will happen or even that it is likely. I'm simply posing a worst-case scenario for Obama as an explanation for the demand that Hillary withdraw.
Obama will then have to convince the Super Delegates that his wins mean more than Hillary's wins. There are lots of ways to do this. The one Obama's supporters use most often (in addition to pledged delegates & the popular vote) is that he has won more states. Hillary's supporters argue that she has won more of the larger & more important states.
On The Hillary 1000 (Mar. 8, 2008), Donna Darko argues that, based on turnout, results in caucus states should mean less than results in primary states.
Related to this argument by Darko are the arguments that winning a majority of the states that held primaries is more indicative of potential success in the Fall than winning a majority of the states that held caucuses.
The New Editor pointed out that (prior to the Pennsylvania primary) most of Obama's popular vote margin can be attributed to Cook County in Illinois.
Sean Wilentz points out that the results would be different if the Democratic Party used a winner-take-all system instead of the current system.
The Reclusive Leftist has maps comparing Obama's wins to electoral results in 1996 (the last time Democrats won the WH).
I am not suggesting that the Democratic Party change the rules ex post facto. I am simply arguing that, under the above stated circumstances, the Super Delegates who have not yet committed themselves will need some criteria other than the primary results to determine which candidate to support, and that looking at the results of the primary season in different ways may be one method they will use.
Obama and his supporters do not want to be in this position in June. The only ways they can avoid this scenario are for Hillary to fail miserably between now and June or for her to drop out.
The real reason they want her to quit? In one word: FEAR.
Their Reasons (my interpretation)
1. It will destroy Obama.
I don't see how. They assure us that he is the nominee already in all but name.
2. It hurts Obama's chances against McCain because Obama can't campaign against McCain.
Well, if Obama is not free to campaign against McCain (because Obama is not yet the nominee), McCain by that same token is not free to campaign against Obama because, of course, Obama is not yet the nominee. So, no advantage to either side. There is, however, nothing about the current situation to prevent Obama from campaigning against McCain (or vice versa). He certainly has enough money.
3. Hillary's attacks will hurt Obama in the Fall.
If they haven't been damaging enough to keep him from being the presumptive nominee, why should they hurt him against McCain? And it is hard to believe that, at this stage, she could say anything that McCain doesn't already know or can't find out on his own. I vaguely remember a Republican by the name of George H. W. Bush deriding his opponent Reagan's economic plan as "voodoo economics" in 1980. Now, who won the Republican nomination and the election? Hmmm, let me think, gee whiz, it was Reagan.
4. It is distracting Obama from his need to focus on McCain.
What's distracting? He is the presumptive nominee. Nothing she does can change that, so why are they worried? He knows this to be true, so he doesn't have to spend any of his valuable time on Hillary. He can focus on McCain if that is what he should do.
The REAL reason: Fear of Losing
All of the above reasons and their variations are rationalizations and, deep down, their supporters know this. You see: Obama has only two ways to win (unless Hillary really blows it in the remaining primaries): Hillary can drop out or he can get more Super Delegates than she can. And that is the problem. If Hillary does not drop out and if, this is key, she beats him soundly in most of the remaining primaries, his claim to the nomination will be weakened.
For the DNC:
If Hillary does not drop out, and Obama can't reach the magic number of delegates, the DNC has two problems it must face:
1. Florida and Michigan
2. Super Delegates choosing the nominee.
The DNC, of course, does not want to deal with either.
For Obama and his supporters:
Consider a worst-case scenario: Hillary wins most of the remaining primaries & soundly trounces him. Perhaps she comes out slightly ahead in the popular vote while significantly narrowing his lead in pledged delegates. NOTE: I am not predicting this will happen or even that it is likely. I'm simply posing a worst-case scenario for Obama as an explanation for the demand that Hillary withdraw.
Obama will then have to convince the Super Delegates that his wins mean more than Hillary's wins. There are lots of ways to do this. The one Obama's supporters use most often (in addition to pledged delegates & the popular vote) is that he has won more states. Hillary's supporters argue that she has won more of the larger & more important states.
On The Hillary 1000 (Mar. 8, 2008), Donna Darko argues that, based on turnout, results in caucus states should mean less than results in primary states.
Related to this argument by Darko are the arguments that winning a majority of the states that held primaries is more indicative of potential success in the Fall than winning a majority of the states that held caucuses.
The New Editor pointed out that (prior to the Pennsylvania primary) most of Obama's popular vote margin can be attributed to Cook County in Illinois.
Sean Wilentz points out that the results would be different if the Democratic Party used a winner-take-all system instead of the current system.
The Reclusive Leftist has maps comparing Obama's wins to electoral results in 1996 (the last time Democrats won the WH).
I am not suggesting that the Democratic Party change the rules ex post facto. I am simply arguing that, under the above stated circumstances, the Super Delegates who have not yet committed themselves will need some criteria other than the primary results to determine which candidate to support, and that looking at the results of the primary season in different ways may be one method they will use.
Obama and his supporters do not want to be in this position in June. The only ways they can avoid this scenario are for Hillary to fail miserably between now and June or for her to drop out.
The real reason they want her to quit? In one word: FEAR.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Obama, Super Delegates and Affirmative Action*
I've thought a long time about whether or not to post this. I am a Hillary supporter. I do not believe that I am a racist. But I could be deluding myself.
Nevertheless, here goes.
The uncommitted Super Delegates have a real problem that is not being addressed amidst all the arguments about pledged delegates, caucuses, primaries, Florida, Michigan, etc. It is very simple. They will decide who the Democratic nominee will be. Their votes will be public. If Hillary wins because of Super Delegate votes, there will be an unholy chorus of objections from the MSM and the liberal blogosphere. The Supers will inevitably be accused of being racists and/or being bought off or threatened by the Clintons (although Obama's contributions to the campaigns of Supers far exceed that of Hillary Clinton). Hillary's campaign against McCain would be blighted.
But what if the Supers vote for Obama? Will they be accused of having being bought off? Of being sexist or misogynists? No. Hillary's supporters will be furious, but we lack the media megaphone that Obama has. Our objections will be treated as a footnote, as irrelvant. We will be patted on the head and told to "get over it". Obama's campaign will not be dogged by charges of illegitimacy because he owns the MSM and the A-List blogosphere.
So, it won't come down to whether the Supers believe Obama has a better chance of beating McCain than Hillary. Some of them may vote for him believing in their hearts that he will lose but concluding that losing the GE will be less painful than being individually targeted as racists. (Can you imagine the pressure if, in the worst of all possible worlds, it comes down to the vote of a single Super Delegate?)
Perhaps this is the elephant in the closet, the reason so many pundits are so sure that Obama will be the Democratic nominee. They know the Democratic leadership (Obama, Pelosi, Brazile, etc.) have made this calculation, too. They have two choices: nominate a woman and be accused of racism, and quite possibly lose the African American vote. Or nominate Obama and pray that he can beat McCain. Losing would hurt, but they would not bear the responsiblity.
I'm pretty sure Obama has made this calculation, too. In short, Barack Obama may turn out to be our first Affirmative Action Democratic candidate for President - and, possibly, our first Affirmative Action President.
*UPDATE: I'm using the Conservative definition here: hiring an unqualified or under-qualified person solely because of that person's gender, ethnicity, race or religion.
Nevertheless, here goes.
The uncommitted Super Delegates have a real problem that is not being addressed amidst all the arguments about pledged delegates, caucuses, primaries, Florida, Michigan, etc. It is very simple. They will decide who the Democratic nominee will be. Their votes will be public. If Hillary wins because of Super Delegate votes, there will be an unholy chorus of objections from the MSM and the liberal blogosphere. The Supers will inevitably be accused of being racists and/or being bought off or threatened by the Clintons (although Obama's contributions to the campaigns of Supers far exceed that of Hillary Clinton). Hillary's campaign against McCain would be blighted.
But what if the Supers vote for Obama? Will they be accused of having being bought off? Of being sexist or misogynists? No. Hillary's supporters will be furious, but we lack the media megaphone that Obama has. Our objections will be treated as a footnote, as irrelvant. We will be patted on the head and told to "get over it". Obama's campaign will not be dogged by charges of illegitimacy because he owns the MSM and the A-List blogosphere.
So, it won't come down to whether the Supers believe Obama has a better chance of beating McCain than Hillary. Some of them may vote for him believing in their hearts that he will lose but concluding that losing the GE will be less painful than being individually targeted as racists. (Can you imagine the pressure if, in the worst of all possible worlds, it comes down to the vote of a single Super Delegate?)
Perhaps this is the elephant in the closet, the reason so many pundits are so sure that Obama will be the Democratic nominee. They know the Democratic leadership (Obama, Pelosi, Brazile, etc.) have made this calculation, too. They have two choices: nominate a woman and be accused of racism, and quite possibly lose the African American vote. Or nominate Obama and pray that he can beat McCain. Losing would hurt, but they would not bear the responsiblity.
I'm pretty sure Obama has made this calculation, too. In short, Barack Obama may turn out to be our first Affirmative Action Democratic candidate for President - and, possibly, our first Affirmative Action President.
*UPDATE: I'm using the Conservative definition here: hiring an unqualified or under-qualified person solely because of that person's gender, ethnicity, race or religion.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Obama's Whiners: Neglecting the Obvious
Amidst all the hand-wringing by Obama's supporters about Hillary's staying in the campaign and hurting the Democratic Party, one sometimes forgets to notice the obvious.
With 10 states left to vote, Obama has the chance to increase his lead in both delegates and votes and, thus, make his claim to the nomination even stronger.
In short, this is a major opportunity for Obama to clinch the nomination. So why all the storm und drang?
The answer's kind of obvious, isn't it?
With 10 states left to vote, Obama has the chance to increase his lead in both delegates and votes and, thus, make his claim to the nomination even stronger.
In short, this is a major opportunity for Obama to clinch the nomination. So why all the storm und drang?
The answer's kind of obvious, isn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
