One of the many depressing aspects of the health care "reform" process (more appropriately called the "preserve private health insurance profits" process) is the degree to which the patient is being blamed.
Republicans all but assert that Americans use too much health care because they don't pay directly for the services they get. To Republicans, there is no difference between buying health care and buying a car. Insurance company profits? Not an issue. The lack of true competition in most health insurance markets? Not a problem. Doctors ordering tests because they have a financial interest in the labs? Not a problem. No. American citizens are at fault.
But Democrats, too, blame the patient. We don't exercise enough. We don't eat right. We don't get regular checkups.
One can only conclude that Americans belong to a different species, that we are physically and psychologically distinct from Canadians, the British, the French, Scandinavians, the Japanese (who, BTW, visit doctors more often every year - an average of, if I recall the statistic properly, 17 times a year - than any other nationality), etc. all of whom live in countries where the average cost of health care as a share of GDP and per person is significantly less than it is in the good old U.S.A.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
HARRY MARKOPOLOS - HIS OWN WORST ENEMY
Listening to this man's testimony (Feb. 4, 2009) was fascinating, not just for what he did but for who he is. This is a man who is so close to being your typical web jerk that is easy to understand why he might have been ignored.
He honestly believed that he was endangering his life by reporting on Madow.
He left an envelope for the head of the SEC in a library he thought the man would be at, and made sure he left no fingerprints.
He offered to go undercover (change his name, appearance, leave his family), etc., to expose the fraud for the sake of the country.
He doesn't know the people at the SEC but he is confident that ALL of the senior staff should be dismissed and that all of them are so dumb they couldn't find first base in a baseball stadium.
For anybody who spends much time on internet forums, these characteristics and the sense of self-righteousness, are all too common of a certain kind of net flake. That he supplied the SEC with detailed information backing up his allegations doesn't change this. Indeed, it is typical. There are people on the web who can write pages and pages and pages of complex text and calculations proving that perpetual motion machines do work and the earth does not revolve around the sun. (Pharyngula regularly exposes the "intellectual" diatribes of anti-evolutionists.)
I don't mean to excuse the SEC. They are clearly understaffed. They get hundreds of thousands of complaints and I don't even know if they have a method for logging them into a central database (issuer of the complaint, nature of the complaint, object, documentation, etc.) But Markopolos's personality and his persistence are so typical of a certain kind of internet pest that I can partly understand why he was ignored.
He honestly believed that he was endangering his life by reporting on Madow.
He left an envelope for the head of the SEC in a library he thought the man would be at, and made sure he left no fingerprints.
He offered to go undercover (change his name, appearance, leave his family), etc., to expose the fraud for the sake of the country.
He doesn't know the people at the SEC but he is confident that ALL of the senior staff should be dismissed and that all of them are so dumb they couldn't find first base in a baseball stadium.
For anybody who spends much time on internet forums, these characteristics and the sense of self-righteousness, are all too common of a certain kind of net flake. That he supplied the SEC with detailed information backing up his allegations doesn't change this. Indeed, it is typical. There are people on the web who can write pages and pages and pages of complex text and calculations proving that perpetual motion machines do work and the earth does not revolve around the sun. (Pharyngula regularly exposes the "intellectual" diatribes of anti-evolutionists.)
I don't mean to excuse the SEC. They are clearly understaffed. They get hundreds of thousands of complaints and I don't even know if they have a method for logging them into a central database (issuer of the complaint, nature of the complaint, object, documentation, etc.) But Markopolos's personality and his persistence are so typical of a certain kind of internet pest that I can partly understand why he was ignored.
"BAD" GOVERNMENT SPENDING
There's been a lot of news coverage on all the "wasteful" government spending in the stimulus package - thanks to the Republicans' ability to sell their message, the media's lack of interest in anything remotely resembling research, and our MIA Democratic leaders.
Why the Washington Mall spending was attacked is beyond me. By all accounts, the Mall is a national disgrace. Fixing it up would mean hiring workers, buying landscaping supplies, sweeping, repairing/replacing public bathrooms, etc. This is spending. People get hired. Supplies get bought. And the result is a necessary improvement of a national monument. Yes, it does mean spending money in D.C., which may be the real problem, but unemployment there is high, so why not?
Buying hybrid cars for government employees? Yes, it benefits those terrible government civil servants. But the Detroit 3 are bleeding. January sales were even worse than the worst expectations. I don't think Detroit cares who buys the cars and they sure have cars to sell.
Finally, let's be brutally honest here: the Federal government could spend 40 million dollars buying dog food and handing it out to dog owners around the country and that would be stimulative. It would help not only the producers and sellers of dog food but would relieve dog owners, temporarily, of an expense - and they could spend that savings elsewhere.
In an economic disaster like this one, with a deflationary spiral a real threat, there is no such thing as bad government spending. Yes, ideally, the money should be spent on projects (like the Washington Mall or repairing school buildings) that will have long-term benefits, but in this environment, even Washington pork isn't all that bad.
Why the Washington Mall spending was attacked is beyond me. By all accounts, the Mall is a national disgrace. Fixing it up would mean hiring workers, buying landscaping supplies, sweeping, repairing/replacing public bathrooms, etc. This is spending. People get hired. Supplies get bought. And the result is a necessary improvement of a national monument. Yes, it does mean spending money in D.C., which may be the real problem, but unemployment there is high, so why not?
Buying hybrid cars for government employees? Yes, it benefits those terrible government civil servants. But the Detroit 3 are bleeding. January sales were even worse than the worst expectations. I don't think Detroit cares who buys the cars and they sure have cars to sell.
Finally, let's be brutally honest here: the Federal government could spend 40 million dollars buying dog food and handing it out to dog owners around the country and that would be stimulative. It would help not only the producers and sellers of dog food but would relieve dog owners, temporarily, of an expense - and they could spend that savings elsewhere.
In an economic disaster like this one, with a deflationary spiral a real threat, there is no such thing as bad government spending. Yes, ideally, the money should be spent on projects (like the Washington Mall or repairing school buildings) that will have long-term benefits, but in this environment, even Washington pork isn't all that bad.
BIPARTISANSHIP REPUBLICAN-STYLE
Thanks to the fact that Obama, Pelosi and Reid have been MIA when it comes to selling the stimulus package or defending how much they've given in to Republicans, Republicans have managed - with the help of our clueless media - to define "bipartisanship" as doing things the Republican way. It seems never to have occurred to CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc., etc., that "bipartisanship" means BOTH parties have to give a little. None of them is asking what Democratic ideas Republicans have accepted.
Now, I've spent hours watching C-SPAN hearings. There have been a number of bipartisan amendments. But the Republican amendments that have failed have been the same old Republican ideas (you know, the counterpart of the partisan "liberal pet projects"): across-the-board income tax cuts (5%), reducing the corporate income tax, a tax holiday from payroll taxes, tax credits for business, etc., etc. And the projects they oppose are the projects they've always opposed.
But the ordinary American watching cable wouldn't know this. And it isn't all the fault of those overpaid mannequins who pretend to be journalists. Democrats are not doing what they should be doing.
Now, I've spent hours watching C-SPAN hearings. There have been a number of bipartisan amendments. But the Republican amendments that have failed have been the same old Republican ideas (you know, the counterpart of the partisan "liberal pet projects"): across-the-board income tax cuts (5%), reducing the corporate income tax, a tax holiday from payroll taxes, tax credits for business, etc., etc. And the projects they oppose are the projects they've always opposed.
But the ordinary American watching cable wouldn't know this. And it isn't all the fault of those overpaid mannequins who pretend to be journalists. Democrats are not doing what they should be doing.
PELOSI AND REID - MIA AS USUAL
Has anybody noticed how the Republicans have hijacked the debate over the stimulus package? Well, I have. And Rachel Madow has. But Pelosi and Reid? Not so much.
Now, Reid's being MIA isn't so hard to understand. He's a Democratic Senator from the Republican state of Nevada and he's up for reelection in two years. And, oh yes, Tom Daschle, the former Democratic Majority Leader of the Senate and another Democrat in a Republican state (South Dakota) lost his reelection. So Reid doesn't want to upset his Republican voters. (Why Democrats would elect as Majority Leader a man beholden to Republican voters is a matter only a political shrink could explain.)
But Pelosi's inability or unwillingness to fight Republicans is harder to understand. She comes from a liberal district in one of the most liberal cities in the country, San Francisco. Yet, since she became Majority Leader, bipartisanship (read: appease the Republicans at all costs) has for her, as for Obama, been a mantra. She apparently believes, even after an overwhelming Democratic win in Nov. 2008, that the Republicans and Independents who switched parties really still believe in Republican policies. Republicans play to their base. Pelosi not only ignores hers, she is so unsure, apparently, of the rightness of Democratic ideas, that she believes she can't sell them to the very people who voted for them.
What did we ordinary voting Democrats ever do to deserve two such lily-livered Congressional leaders?
Now, Reid's being MIA isn't so hard to understand. He's a Democratic Senator from the Republican state of Nevada and he's up for reelection in two years. And, oh yes, Tom Daschle, the former Democratic Majority Leader of the Senate and another Democrat in a Republican state (South Dakota) lost his reelection. So Reid doesn't want to upset his Republican voters. (Why Democrats would elect as Majority Leader a man beholden to Republican voters is a matter only a political shrink could explain.)
But Pelosi's inability or unwillingness to fight Republicans is harder to understand. She comes from a liberal district in one of the most liberal cities in the country, San Francisco. Yet, since she became Majority Leader, bipartisanship (read: appease the Republicans at all costs) has for her, as for Obama, been a mantra. She apparently believes, even after an overwhelming Democratic win in Nov. 2008, that the Republicans and Independents who switched parties really still believe in Republican policies. Republicans play to their base. Pelosi not only ignores hers, she is so unsure, apparently, of the rightness of Democratic ideas, that she believes she can't sell them to the very people who voted for them.
What did we ordinary voting Democrats ever do to deserve two such lily-livered Congressional leaders?
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.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Conservative Chagrin and Chutzpah
During the past couple of weeks, I've been watching Fox and, in spite of my dislike for Obama, can't help but be alternately amazed and pleased by the Conservative response to his (forthcoming) election.
Conservative Chagrin
It has been nothing short of joyful, in a way, to see the constant complaining about "liberal media bias". Now, obviously, this is nothing new. Conservatives have been complaining about liberal bias for at least 30-40 years. But, this time, of course, they are right. The media has been, since Feb., almost solidly for Obama. And one can see in their faces and hear in their voices their amazement that, this year, their complaints are not being heard and not being acted upon. The media have failed to latch onto any of the time-proven attacks on a Democratic Presidential candidate - even when, as is true re Obama - many of the attacks are truthful in whole or in part. These Conservatives, quite simply, are baffled by this change. It isn't the way things are supposed to be.
Chutzpah
This year, Conservatives like Kristal, Krauthammer, Barnes, Limbaugh, etc. have outdone themselves and given a whole new meaning to the word "chutzpah".
First, of course, there is the utter dismay that "tax and spend liberals" will be in charge of the public purse. Horror of horrors, they fear for the national debt. Naturally, not a word about the "borrow and spend Republicans". Not a word about a Republican President and Congress that entered into a war of choice and not only did not raise taxes to support it but actually reduced taxes - something, I think, that has never occurred before.
Second: all the hand wringing about one party controlling Congress. Need one point out that there were no such concerns about the Republican Party controlling all the branches of government?
Third, Russ Limbaugh blamed the current economic crisis on Jimmy Carter! Like Reagan never happened. Like Bush 1 & 2 never happened. Our financial problems are all due to the Democrats.
Fourth, deficits matter! Yep, now that the Democrats are in control, it is important for them to recognize that they can't just spend money because of the deficit. For the past 8 years, after the Shrub turned Clinton's surplus into the biggest deficit in history, they have told us the deficit doesn't matter because it is still just a small part of the GNP.
Fifth, most recently, there was talk that, even if Obama won by a large majority, the Democrats should not assume that they have a mandate! Election night, Barnes was practically apoplectic about a liberal agenda. And he believes it is the Democrats who have shown no inclination to compromise! No inclination to compromise? That's all the Democrats have done for the past two decades. Which party was it that threatened the "nuclear" option in the Senate (a change in rules)? Oh, yea, it was the Republicans.
Good grief. Bush, in 2000, having won the Presidency only because of a Republican Supreme Court, started governing as if he had had a Reagan-type landslide. And I didn't hear a peep from any Conservative that, maybe, it was unwise or unjustifiable. One wonders if, once Obama is safely in office, the media will go back to their Republican souls and repeat this advice and concern that Democrats must be careful not to overreach themselves. (Update: Yep, it's already happening and Obama hasn't been President-elect for even 24 hours.)
Krauthammer, however, wins the prize for schizophrenia (i.e., a total disconnect from reality). This four-star misogynist asserted a couple weeks back on Fox that feminists hate Palin because she chose not to abort a fifth pregnancy when she learned the child would have Down's Syndrome. According to Krauthammer, her situation was the poster campaign for abortion, the reason (he made it sound like the "only" reason) feminists support abortion. Worse, he actually seems to believe the crap that he is spouting.
That these gray or bald heads (and the age of this cohort is quite noticeable) would pull out the old "tax and spend liberals" or rail against Democratic control of the Executive and Legislative branches is no surprise of course. That one-party rule isn't good for the country, that the American People prefer divided government, that the Party in control cannot assume it has a mandate are all familiar, and silly, refrains. Did any of these Conservatives worry about one-party control when the party in question was Republican? Of course not.
What offends me, however, is not their opinions. It is their pretense that all their concerns about the deficit, governing from the left rather than the center, one-party control of Washington, etc., etc. are based on principle.
And that, my friends, is the political definition of chutzpah.
Conservative Chagrin
It has been nothing short of joyful, in a way, to see the constant complaining about "liberal media bias". Now, obviously, this is nothing new. Conservatives have been complaining about liberal bias for at least 30-40 years. But, this time, of course, they are right. The media has been, since Feb., almost solidly for Obama. And one can see in their faces and hear in their voices their amazement that, this year, their complaints are not being heard and not being acted upon. The media have failed to latch onto any of the time-proven attacks on a Democratic Presidential candidate - even when, as is true re Obama - many of the attacks are truthful in whole or in part. These Conservatives, quite simply, are baffled by this change. It isn't the way things are supposed to be.
Chutzpah
This year, Conservatives like Kristal, Krauthammer, Barnes, Limbaugh, etc. have outdone themselves and given a whole new meaning to the word "chutzpah".
First, of course, there is the utter dismay that "tax and spend liberals" will be in charge of the public purse. Horror of horrors, they fear for the national debt. Naturally, not a word about the "borrow and spend Republicans". Not a word about a Republican President and Congress that entered into a war of choice and not only did not raise taxes to support it but actually reduced taxes - something, I think, that has never occurred before.
Second: all the hand wringing about one party controlling Congress. Need one point out that there were no such concerns about the Republican Party controlling all the branches of government?
Third, Russ Limbaugh blamed the current economic crisis on Jimmy Carter! Like Reagan never happened. Like Bush 1 & 2 never happened. Our financial problems are all due to the Democrats.
Fourth, deficits matter! Yep, now that the Democrats are in control, it is important for them to recognize that they can't just spend money because of the deficit. For the past 8 years, after the Shrub turned Clinton's surplus into the biggest deficit in history, they have told us the deficit doesn't matter because it is still just a small part of the GNP.
Fifth, most recently, there was talk that, even if Obama won by a large majority, the Democrats should not assume that they have a mandate! Election night, Barnes was practically apoplectic about a liberal agenda. And he believes it is the Democrats who have shown no inclination to compromise! No inclination to compromise? That's all the Democrats have done for the past two decades. Which party was it that threatened the "nuclear" option in the Senate (a change in rules)? Oh, yea, it was the Republicans.
Good grief. Bush, in 2000, having won the Presidency only because of a Republican Supreme Court, started governing as if he had had a Reagan-type landslide. And I didn't hear a peep from any Conservative that, maybe, it was unwise or unjustifiable. One wonders if, once Obama is safely in office, the media will go back to their Republican souls and repeat this advice and concern that Democrats must be careful not to overreach themselves. (Update: Yep, it's already happening and Obama hasn't been President-elect for even 24 hours.)
Krauthammer, however, wins the prize for schizophrenia (i.e., a total disconnect from reality). This four-star misogynist asserted a couple weeks back on Fox that feminists hate Palin because she chose not to abort a fifth pregnancy when she learned the child would have Down's Syndrome. According to Krauthammer, her situation was the poster campaign for abortion, the reason (he made it sound like the "only" reason) feminists support abortion. Worse, he actually seems to believe the crap that he is spouting.
That these gray or bald heads (and the age of this cohort is quite noticeable) would pull out the old "tax and spend liberals" or rail against Democratic control of the Executive and Legislative branches is no surprise of course. That one-party rule isn't good for the country, that the American People prefer divided government, that the Party in control cannot assume it has a mandate are all familiar, and silly, refrains. Did any of these Conservatives worry about one-party control when the party in question was Republican? Of course not.
What offends me, however, is not their opinions. It is their pretense that all their concerns about the deficit, governing from the left rather than the center, one-party control of Washington, etc., etc. are based on principle.
And that, my friends, is the political definition of chutzpah.
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Fire Howard Dean
Does anybody think Howard Dean is doing a good job, or even simply doing his job, as Chairman of the Democratic Party?
He, more than anybody, is responsible for the Florida/Michigan mess. The "rules" were his. It was he who decided that both candidates had to agree to any solution. Obama, of course, can't risk revotes that he might lose by even bigger margins. (I can't help but wonder just what Obama has promised Dean for his support.)
Just as bad, it appears that he isn't even very good at raising money. All year long, I've read articles about Democrats being far ahead of Republicans in the money-raising stakes. But it turns out that the DNC doesn't even have enough money to help pay for revotes in Florida and Michigan.
Can anybody think of anything positive this man does? Is there some way we can recall him and replace him with somebody who knows how to lead?
He, more than anybody, is responsible for the Florida/Michigan mess. The "rules" were his. It was he who decided that both candidates had to agree to any solution. Obama, of course, can't risk revotes that he might lose by even bigger margins. (I can't help but wonder just what Obama has promised Dean for his support.)
Just as bad, it appears that he isn't even very good at raising money. All year long, I've read articles about Democrats being far ahead of Republicans in the money-raising stakes. But it turns out that the DNC doesn't even have enough money to help pay for revotes in Florida and Michigan.
Can anybody think of anything positive this man does? Is there some way we can recall him and replace him with somebody who knows how to lead?
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Are They Pro-Obama or Anti-Hillary?
I don't have the bandwith, time or technical skills to test this hypothesis, but the impression I get from TV, magazine, and "liberal" blogs that are for Obama is that the ratio of anti-Hillary rants to pro-Obama posts/opinions/reports/puff pieces is about 10-to-1.
If's as if all the pro-Obama political coverage is actually nothing more than an extension of Just Hillary - whose owner at least openly admits to being obsessed with Hillary.
If's as if all the pro-Obama political coverage is actually nothing more than an extension of Just Hillary - whose owner at least openly admits to being obsessed with Hillary.
Why Do They Want Her to Quit? No, It's not "The Math"
Why do all off Obama's supporters want her to quit? They say she can't win, that Obama has it in the bag. So, why do they care? The primaries will go on whether or not Hillary is in the race, so the states to come won't save money. Do they want to save Hillary's supporters from wasting their money in campaign contributions? Unlikely. Are they trying to save Hillary the ignominy of defeat? (Is it less painful to resign than to lose?)
Or could it be that they are afraid Hillary will win most of the remaining primaries and head into the convention on a roll?
Or could it be that they are afraid Hillary will win most of the remaining primaries and head into the convention on a roll?
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
The Amazing Clinton
My admiration of Hillary Clinton has grown enormously during this campaign. She has demonstrated courage, class, unbelievable energy, and an unsurpassed grasp of the issues.
JoAnne Tybinka Blasko at The Democratic Daily has noticed it, too.
One of the many differences I've noticed between Obama and Clinton is that he is great at giving speeches from a teleprompter* but is a lot less fluent when being questioned (even by Larry King) and in the debates. I've suspected this is because Hillary really knows her stuff. Obama, like Bush 43 and Reagan, doesn't really know his stuff. He's just a superb a performer.
bostonboomer at The Confluence says it better.
* this was first evident when he lost in New Hampshire. Besides showing himself to be a poor loser, he gave a perfunctory congratulation statement and then launched in to the victory speech he had prepared. He was, to be blunt, completely unable to recast his speech to reflect reality.
Anglachel does it again with her post about Clinton's response to the market meltdown. I do not know how the MSM, let alone the so-called liberal blogosphere can be blind to the understanding and competence and simple level-headedness that Hillary demonstrates time and again. It's as if they find competence not just irrelevant but ridiculous and useless.
JoAnne Tybinka Blasko at The Democratic Daily has noticed it, too.
One of the many differences I've noticed between Obama and Clinton is that he is great at giving speeches from a teleprompter* but is a lot less fluent when being questioned (even by Larry King) and in the debates. I've suspected this is because Hillary really knows her stuff. Obama, like Bush 43 and Reagan, doesn't really know his stuff. He's just a superb a performer.
bostonboomer at The Confluence says it better.
* this was first evident when he lost in New Hampshire. Besides showing himself to be a poor loser, he gave a perfunctory congratulation statement and then launched in to the victory speech he had prepared. He was, to be blunt, completely unable to recast his speech to reflect reality.
Anglachel does it again with her post about Clinton's response to the market meltdown. I do not know how the MSM, let alone the so-called liberal blogosphere can be blind to the understanding and competence and simple level-headedness that Hillary demonstrates time and again. It's as if they find competence not just irrelevant but ridiculous and useless.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Open Letter to the DNC
OPEN LETTER TO HOWARD DEAN
SUBJECT: SEAT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA
I have drafted this letter in the hope that others will use it as a starting point for their own letters to the DNC and other major Democratic Party leaders (like Nancy Pelosi). This is a case where I think snail mail may be more effective than email.
Mr. Howard Dean
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St., SE
Wasington, DC 20003
Dear Mr. Dean:
I am writing to insist that the votes in Florida and Michigan count. The fate of the election, and of the country, most probably will depend on the outcome of the DNC's decision.
Michigan and Florida
I can think of no valid reason, other than "The Rules" for not seating Florida. Both candidates had a presence during the primary (Obama's national TV ads ran repeatedly). The campaign had national coverage. Yet the DNC seems to believe that it can exclude Florida's voters without harm. Has it forgotten 2000? Is it willing to do to its own Party what George Bush and the Republicans did to it in 2000? To, in effect, admit that what Bush did in 2000 was OK?
Moreover, the Democrats had no choice about the primary's date. So if the DNC penalizes the Party's voters, it is essentially letting the Republican Party determine whom the Democratic candidate should be.
Michigan is trickier because Obama's name was not on the ballot - even though that was his choice. But the DNC could assign the uncommitted votes, as well as those for the other Democrats on the ticket, to him with reasonable certainty that the distribution more or less reflected the will of the voters.
Obama's objections no longer deserve to be considered. Hillary was willing to accept a re-vote, with all the risk that implies. James Carville had pledged to raise half the money needed to stage the re-vote if Obama (who has a huge campaign war chest) would match the money. It was Obama who refused to go along. By my calculation, his refusal to agree to a solution accepted by his opponent abrogates his right to complain about the seating of Michigan's delegates.
The Rules
It is pretty obvious that, had the DNC known going in how close the race would be, it would have handled this situation differently.
More important for the long term is the fact that the DNC should not have continued to let Iowa and New Hampshire set the terms and dynamics of the primary season. It is well past due for a major overhaul of the system to prevent those two small states from, election after election, winnowing down the field before 99% of the Party gets a chance to vote. If there are any states to be penalized in the future, it is those two. It is absolutely vital that a rotating system of primaries be set up such that no single state will ever again be viewed as a gatekeeper to the nomination because there will simply be insufficient history for the media to seize on past history to predict current results.
If, however, the DNC insists that "The Rules" are "The Rules", then, to be consistent, the DNC must also permit Super Delegates to vote for whom they want, regardless of the results in their districts or states because those, too, are "The Rules". (And if Super Delegates Kerry and Kennedy and Richardson can publicly back Obama, in spite of the fact that their states voted for Hillary, then I simply do not see how the DNC can demand that other Super Delegates follow the votes rather than their own judgment.)
Legitimacy
The Party is split pretty much 50/50 between Hillary and Obama. If Hillary is perceived to have lost because the DNC did not count or only partly counted the votes from Florida and Michigan, her supporters will not consider Obama's nomination to be legitimate. The DNC may feel confident that the vast majority of Hillary's supporters will back Obama. Hillary has certainly pledged that she will. And I, too, will vote for him. But I won't, under those circumstances, contribute either time or money to the campaign. Nor will I feel compelled to defend him against attacks during either his campaign or, if he is elected, his term in office.
Worse, however, is the fact that some of Hillary's supporters will not vote for Obama under those circumstances. May I remind you that Gore lost Florida by about 1000 votes? Ask yourself one very simple question: How will you feel on Nov. 11, 2008 if the Democrats lose the White House again because of 1000 votes in Florida? Will you assert that playing by "The Rules" was more important than winning the election? I am not stating here that the Democrats will win if Hillary is the nominee. McCain will be a much stronger opponent than, for example, either Giuliani or Romney would have been. The Democratic nominee will need every possible vote to win this election. That's why the DNC cannot afford to alienate Democrats in two large states.
A Dream Destroyed
Democrats began the campaign season on a high. We had many good candidates to choose from. For various reaons, including, I am sorry to say, the behavior of some Party leaders, it has turned ugly.
No matter who wins the nomination, or how the nomination is won, many Democrats may feel cheated. But it is the DNC which has created the environment (a bizarre collection of primaries and caucuses and byzantine delegate rules and penalties) in which such hatred has taken root.
I can assure you that, as a Hillary supporter and a person who strongly believes that she is much better equipped to fight McCain than Obama, I do not consider her exit from the campaign to be the solution to this dilemma, however much some may want her to drop out.
There may be no fix which will appease everybody, but it is time to put away partisanship and pride in "The Rules" and at least try to engineer a fix - or McCain will be inaugurated next January and all the Democratic Party will have left for comfort is "The Rules".
SUBJECT: SEAT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA
I have drafted this letter in the hope that others will use it as a starting point for their own letters to the DNC and other major Democratic Party leaders (like Nancy Pelosi). This is a case where I think snail mail may be more effective than email.
Mr. Howard Dean
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St., SE
Wasington, DC 20003
Dear Mr. Dean:
I am writing to insist that the votes in Florida and Michigan count. The fate of the election, and of the country, most probably will depend on the outcome of the DNC's decision.
Michigan and Florida
I can think of no valid reason, other than "The Rules" for not seating Florida. Both candidates had a presence during the primary (Obama's national TV ads ran repeatedly). The campaign had national coverage. Yet the DNC seems to believe that it can exclude Florida's voters without harm. Has it forgotten 2000? Is it willing to do to its own Party what George Bush and the Republicans did to it in 2000? To, in effect, admit that what Bush did in 2000 was OK?
Moreover, the Democrats had no choice about the primary's date. So if the DNC penalizes the Party's voters, it is essentially letting the Republican Party determine whom the Democratic candidate should be.
Michigan is trickier because Obama's name was not on the ballot - even though that was his choice. But the DNC could assign the uncommitted votes, as well as those for the other Democrats on the ticket, to him with reasonable certainty that the distribution more or less reflected the will of the voters.
Obama's objections no longer deserve to be considered. Hillary was willing to accept a re-vote, with all the risk that implies. James Carville had pledged to raise half the money needed to stage the re-vote if Obama (who has a huge campaign war chest) would match the money. It was Obama who refused to go along. By my calculation, his refusal to agree to a solution accepted by his opponent abrogates his right to complain about the seating of Michigan's delegates.
The Rules
It is pretty obvious that, had the DNC known going in how close the race would be, it would have handled this situation differently.
More important for the long term is the fact that the DNC should not have continued to let Iowa and New Hampshire set the terms and dynamics of the primary season. It is well past due for a major overhaul of the system to prevent those two small states from, election after election, winnowing down the field before 99% of the Party gets a chance to vote. If there are any states to be penalized in the future, it is those two. It is absolutely vital that a rotating system of primaries be set up such that no single state will ever again be viewed as a gatekeeper to the nomination because there will simply be insufficient history for the media to seize on past history to predict current results.
If, however, the DNC insists that "The Rules" are "The Rules", then, to be consistent, the DNC must also permit Super Delegates to vote for whom they want, regardless of the results in their districts or states because those, too, are "The Rules". (And if Super Delegates Kerry and Kennedy and Richardson can publicly back Obama, in spite of the fact that their states voted for Hillary, then I simply do not see how the DNC can demand that other Super Delegates follow the votes rather than their own judgment.)
Legitimacy
The Party is split pretty much 50/50 between Hillary and Obama. If Hillary is perceived to have lost because the DNC did not count or only partly counted the votes from Florida and Michigan, her supporters will not consider Obama's nomination to be legitimate. The DNC may feel confident that the vast majority of Hillary's supporters will back Obama. Hillary has certainly pledged that she will. And I, too, will vote for him. But I won't, under those circumstances, contribute either time or money to the campaign. Nor will I feel compelled to defend him against attacks during either his campaign or, if he is elected, his term in office.
Worse, however, is the fact that some of Hillary's supporters will not vote for Obama under those circumstances. May I remind you that Gore lost Florida by about 1000 votes? Ask yourself one very simple question: How will you feel on Nov. 11, 2008 if the Democrats lose the White House again because of 1000 votes in Florida? Will you assert that playing by "The Rules" was more important than winning the election? I am not stating here that the Democrats will win if Hillary is the nominee. McCain will be a much stronger opponent than, for example, either Giuliani or Romney would have been. The Democratic nominee will need every possible vote to win this election. That's why the DNC cannot afford to alienate Democrats in two large states.
A Dream Destroyed
Democrats began the campaign season on a high. We had many good candidates to choose from. For various reaons, including, I am sorry to say, the behavior of some Party leaders, it has turned ugly.
No matter who wins the nomination, or how the nomination is won, many Democrats may feel cheated. But it is the DNC which has created the environment (a bizarre collection of primaries and caucuses and byzantine delegate rules and penalties) in which such hatred has taken root.
I can assure you that, as a Hillary supporter and a person who strongly believes that she is much better equipped to fight McCain than Obama, I do not consider her exit from the campaign to be the solution to this dilemma, however much some may want her to drop out.
There may be no fix which will appease everybody, but it is time to put away partisanship and pride in "The Rules" and at least try to engineer a fix - or McCain will be inaugurated next January and all the Democratic Party will have left for comfort is "The Rules".
Why do they all want Hillary to quit?
Why do all of Obama's supporters want her to quit? If she has the energy and courage to go on, if people like me are willing to contribute (however little it may be) to her campaign, and if people like Democrats in Pennsylvania seem to want her to go on, and some poll I read about said that a majority of Democrats want her to fight on, well, why shouldn't she?
Unless, just maybe, "The Math" isn't really "The Math" and Obama's supporters aren't quite as sure as they pretend to be that he's got the nomination in the bag?
What's even weirder, of course, is why all the pundits and so-called journalists want her to quit. What would they talk about for the next several months? How will they fill the air time if there is no Hillary to trash?
One would think that the TV networks, at least, would want the campaign to go on as long as possible, would want a brokered convention. Think about TV coverage of the conventions. It's shrunk considerably during the past several rounds because there was no drama and the networks got tired of trying to invent drama. Well, barring something truly weird happening, it looks as if the Democratic Convention may be a real, old-fashioned nail-biting thriller. Journalists should be falling all over themselves to ensure that Hillary goes the distance.
I am truly baffled.
Unless, just maybe, "The Math" isn't really "The Math" and Obama's supporters aren't quite as sure as they pretend to be that he's got the nomination in the bag?
What's even weirder, of course, is why all the pundits and so-called journalists want her to quit. What would they talk about for the next several months? How will they fill the air time if there is no Hillary to trash?
One would think that the TV networks, at least, would want the campaign to go on as long as possible, would want a brokered convention. Think about TV coverage of the conventions. It's shrunk considerably during the past several rounds because there was no drama and the networks got tired of trying to invent drama. Well, barring something truly weird happening, it looks as if the Democratic Convention may be a real, old-fashioned nail-biting thriller. Journalists should be falling all over themselves to ensure that Hillary goes the distance.
I am truly baffled.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
OBAMA AND HIS PASTOR - A DEFENSE
Caveats:
1. I am a Hillary supporter.
2. I think it is pretty obvious now that Obama lied when he said he had not heard any inflammatory sermons.
3. The sermons will give the Republican Party plenty of ammo in the GE.
4. Since I don't have broadband, I've not seen any videos. I assume, however, that the partial transcripts I've read contain the most objectionable parts of those sermons.
That said, I am dismayed to see so many hard-core liberals, even those who adore Obama, professing such great indignation at the pastor's words. They are not new or unusual. Indeed, they can be traced back at least to the 60s: the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement - yes, those old battles that Hillary's generation fought and Obama has dismissed as outmoded. Liberals who condemn the pastor for the words and Obama for continuing to frequent the church, cannot then object when Conservatives condemn the liberals of the 60s who used those same words - or who may use them in the future.
I also believe, to some extent, Obama's explanations for not leaving the church, and I admire him for not denying the friendship - not that he had any choice.
However, I suspect there is another reason for his not leaving his church. Granted, I don't know either man and have absolutely no proof, but that doesn't stop Hillary critics from in-depth analyses of her motives, so I don't see why it should stop me. I think the reason the pastor's words haven't bothered Obama is because Obama, a superb performer himself, knows that the pastor's sermons are pure performance art. The man may or may not believe what he is saying - I rather suspect he is something of an Elmer Gantry - but he is obviously playing to the audience he wants to acquire and maintain. In short, the pastor is a bit of a fraud and Obama knows it.
THE SPEECH
Obama's speech on race was wonderfully crafted. He managed to subtly accuse Hillary's side for the injection of race into the primaries, reduce the issue of the sermons to a minor scene in a greater picture, and also, a little less subtly, suggest that electing him President would be the first step in a healing of the nation's racial divides. Nevertheless, he deserves most of the credit he is getting for the way he chose to address the issue.
1. I am a Hillary supporter.
2. I think it is pretty obvious now that Obama lied when he said he had not heard any inflammatory sermons.
3. The sermons will give the Republican Party plenty of ammo in the GE.
4. Since I don't have broadband, I've not seen any videos. I assume, however, that the partial transcripts I've read contain the most objectionable parts of those sermons.
That said, I am dismayed to see so many hard-core liberals, even those who adore Obama, professing such great indignation at the pastor's words. They are not new or unusual. Indeed, they can be traced back at least to the 60s: the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement - yes, those old battles that Hillary's generation fought and Obama has dismissed as outmoded. Liberals who condemn the pastor for the words and Obama for continuing to frequent the church, cannot then object when Conservatives condemn the liberals of the 60s who used those same words - or who may use them in the future.
I also believe, to some extent, Obama's explanations for not leaving the church, and I admire him for not denying the friendship - not that he had any choice.
However, I suspect there is another reason for his not leaving his church. Granted, I don't know either man and have absolutely no proof, but that doesn't stop Hillary critics from in-depth analyses of her motives, so I don't see why it should stop me. I think the reason the pastor's words haven't bothered Obama is because Obama, a superb performer himself, knows that the pastor's sermons are pure performance art. The man may or may not believe what he is saying - I rather suspect he is something of an Elmer Gantry - but he is obviously playing to the audience he wants to acquire and maintain. In short, the pastor is a bit of a fraud and Obama knows it.
THE SPEECH
Obama's speech on race was wonderfully crafted. He managed to subtly accuse Hillary's side for the injection of race into the primaries, reduce the issue of the sermons to a minor scene in a greater picture, and also, a little less subtly, suggest that electing him President would be the first step in a healing of the nation's racial divides. Nevertheless, he deserves most of the credit he is getting for the way he chose to address the issue.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
The Amazing Hillary and Her Amazing Campaign
Today's conventional wisdom is that Hillary's lousy* campaign machine destroyed what was her claim to inevitability. There are, as usual with Hillary coverage, two problems with this claim. First and foremost, she never claimed that she was inevitable. It was the punditry which labeled her as the front-runner, long before even the first vote was cast. As for her campaign, well, I suppose there have been mistakes, but no other candidate has faced the obstacles Hillary has faced.
Once it became clear that Hillary had a real shot at the nomination, probably after the first debate, all the positive statements about her Senate performance, even from such Conservative slugs as Tucker Carlson, stopped. Since then, when the media, MSM and blogosphere, fell in love with Obama, press coverage has been brutally negative.
Not a single "liberal" magazine (The Nation, The New Republic, The Progressive, etc.), to my knowledge, has endorsed her. In the liberal blogosphere, all the first tier blogs (Kos, TPM, Huff, etc.) have been for Obama. This might not be all that exceptional except for the tone of the coverage. It has been brutal and almost completely personal. The language on the blogs, from owners, formal participants and commenters has been vicious. Supporters of Hillary have been slimed because they haven't accepted the divinity of Obama. The coverage by TNR, which hasn't been a liberal magazine since Nixon (but retains the sobriquet because once the media label anything or anybody, the label sticks regardless of reality), especially but not limited to its blogs, has become a cesspool of vitriol indistinguishable from all but the most disgusting comments about Hillary which have flooded the blogosphere.
We are not talking here about a reasoned evaluation of the careers of Obama and Clinton. Nobody in print or online is talking in detail about the careers of the two candidates, the votes they have cast, what they have done for their constituents, how their peers perceive their performance, to what extent they have voted in line with their major contributors, etc. No, that would require research, dull, unexciting research. And, these so-called journalists will say, it's not necessary because the facts are on their web sites. What they provide is "context", informed criticism. Bull. The coverage is little more than gossip about the two personalities in which the roles have been set in concrete: Obama is a saint and Hillary is Kali, the Destroyer.
TV coverage hasn't been any better. MSNBC has been the "Vote for Obama" network for months, led by the oleaginous Chris Matthews but including all the major pundits (Olbermann, Carlson, Scarborough, etc.) and their guest talking heads. NBC's "real" reporters, like Tim Russert, are down in the dirt with their MSNBC colleagues. CNN, ABC and CBS are not far behind.
Time and Newsweek just did cover stories on Hillary. In contrast to the glowing cover stories on Obama and his wife, most of the articles on Hillary in these issues are negative.
Yet, and this is what turned me from being neutral about Clinton (a year ago, I could easily have voted for any of the Democratic candidates except Gravel) into a supporter, Clinton has not only won the major primaries, she has done it in the face of this endless stream of abuse from all the media, and she has done it with grace, style, and humor. The contrast between her and Obama became clear after the Iowa loss and New Hampshire win. Clinton was gracious both in defeat and victory. Obama gloated and then sulked.
She is not only one smart cookie, she is one classy lady.
*according to The Clinton Rules, it is "lousy" only when she doesn't win. When she does, it is a diabolical machine that will stop at nothing in order to destroy Obama, The Chosen One.
Once it became clear that Hillary had a real shot at the nomination, probably after the first debate, all the positive statements about her Senate performance, even from such Conservative slugs as Tucker Carlson, stopped. Since then, when the media, MSM and blogosphere, fell in love with Obama, press coverage has been brutally negative.
Not a single "liberal" magazine (The Nation, The New Republic, The Progressive, etc.), to my knowledge, has endorsed her. In the liberal blogosphere, all the first tier blogs (Kos, TPM, Huff, etc.) have been for Obama. This might not be all that exceptional except for the tone of the coverage. It has been brutal and almost completely personal. The language on the blogs, from owners, formal participants and commenters has been vicious. Supporters of Hillary have been slimed because they haven't accepted the divinity of Obama. The coverage by TNR, which hasn't been a liberal magazine since Nixon (but retains the sobriquet because once the media label anything or anybody, the label sticks regardless of reality), especially but not limited to its blogs, has become a cesspool of vitriol indistinguishable from all but the most disgusting comments about Hillary which have flooded the blogosphere.
We are not talking here about a reasoned evaluation of the careers of Obama and Clinton. Nobody in print or online is talking in detail about the careers of the two candidates, the votes they have cast, what they have done for their constituents, how their peers perceive their performance, to what extent they have voted in line with their major contributors, etc. No, that would require research, dull, unexciting research. And, these so-called journalists will say, it's not necessary because the facts are on their web sites. What they provide is "context", informed criticism. Bull. The coverage is little more than gossip about the two personalities in which the roles have been set in concrete: Obama is a saint and Hillary is Kali, the Destroyer.
TV coverage hasn't been any better. MSNBC has been the "Vote for Obama" network for months, led by the oleaginous Chris Matthews but including all the major pundits (Olbermann, Carlson, Scarborough, etc.) and their guest talking heads. NBC's "real" reporters, like Tim Russert, are down in the dirt with their MSNBC colleagues. CNN, ABC and CBS are not far behind.
Time and Newsweek just did cover stories on Hillary. In contrast to the glowing cover stories on Obama and his wife, most of the articles on Hillary in these issues are negative.
Yet, and this is what turned me from being neutral about Clinton (a year ago, I could easily have voted for any of the Democratic candidates except Gravel) into a supporter, Clinton has not only won the major primaries, she has done it in the face of this endless stream of abuse from all the media, and she has done it with grace, style, and humor. The contrast between her and Obama became clear after the Iowa loss and New Hampshire win. Clinton was gracious both in defeat and victory. Obama gloated and then sulked.
She is not only one smart cookie, she is one classy lady.
*according to The Clinton Rules, it is "lousy" only when she doesn't win. When she does, it is a diabolical machine that will stop at nothing in order to destroy Obama, The Chosen One.
Howard Dean - the Netroots thought this guy was Presidential timber?
Well, it isn't often that we get to know how effective a President will be without having to suffer the consequences, but is there anybody sane today who isn't grateful that the Netroots' first candidate for President, Howard Dean, never got very far.
I used to think that the media fuss about Dean's "scream" was another of those stupid tropes they use to shoot down or beef up candidates (spelling potato wrong, shouting that "I paid for this microphone"). However, given his total lack of leadership of the DNC, maybe this time the media got it right.
Let's start with the decision to punish Florida and Michigan. Obviously, Dean didn't think it would matter, nomination-wise, whether the delegates were seated or not. He apparently forgot that the Democrats lost the White House in 2000 because of Florida, where a mere 1000 votes or so tipped the balance. That the voters in those two states might be angry at his arbitrary decision either didn't occur to him or was dismissed out-of-hand. Worse, he was giving in to blackmail by New Hampshire and Iowa. If he wanted to exercise his power, and make a start to reforming the mess that is the primary season, he should have told New Hampshire and Iowa that they couldn't hold their caucuses or primaries before Jan. 2, 2007 or their delegates would not be counted. Then he should have, for this year, allowed the states to pick their own dates.
Now that the delegates from Florida and Michigan can make the difference, he is acting like a schoolboy on the playground with his "the rules are the rules". He seems totally unaware, like Obama's supporters, that if Hillary can't be a legitimate candidate without a majority of delegates, neither can Obama be seen as a legitimate candidate if Michigan and Florida are not counted because the party is split pretty much 50/50 between the two candidates. James Carville has guaranteed 15 million in contributions to pay for revotes. Obama refuses to contribute an equal amount, obviously because he fears losing. And the DNC? Well, it appears that the DNC can't afford to pay for new primaries either. Huh? For months now, I've heard and read nothing about a money crunch. To the contrary, when the subject comes us, the speakers/writers have all said that the Democratic Party was raising much more money than the Republican Party. Have they all been lying? Has Dean been lying?
Dean has proven that he is a disaster as a leader. And he may very well cost the Democratic Party the White House.
I used to think that the media fuss about Dean's "scream" was another of those stupid tropes they use to shoot down or beef up candidates (spelling potato wrong, shouting that "I paid for this microphone"). However, given his total lack of leadership of the DNC, maybe this time the media got it right.
Let's start with the decision to punish Florida and Michigan. Obviously, Dean didn't think it would matter, nomination-wise, whether the delegates were seated or not. He apparently forgot that the Democrats lost the White House in 2000 because of Florida, where a mere 1000 votes or so tipped the balance. That the voters in those two states might be angry at his arbitrary decision either didn't occur to him or was dismissed out-of-hand. Worse, he was giving in to blackmail by New Hampshire and Iowa. If he wanted to exercise his power, and make a start to reforming the mess that is the primary season, he should have told New Hampshire and Iowa that they couldn't hold their caucuses or primaries before Jan. 2, 2007 or their delegates would not be counted. Then he should have, for this year, allowed the states to pick their own dates.
Now that the delegates from Florida and Michigan can make the difference, he is acting like a schoolboy on the playground with his "the rules are the rules". He seems totally unaware, like Obama's supporters, that if Hillary can't be a legitimate candidate without a majority of delegates, neither can Obama be seen as a legitimate candidate if Michigan and Florida are not counted because the party is split pretty much 50/50 between the two candidates. James Carville has guaranteed 15 million in contributions to pay for revotes. Obama refuses to contribute an equal amount, obviously because he fears losing. And the DNC? Well, it appears that the DNC can't afford to pay for new primaries either. Huh? For months now, I've heard and read nothing about a money crunch. To the contrary, when the subject comes us, the speakers/writers have all said that the Democratic Party was raising much more money than the Republican Party. Have they all been lying? Has Dean been lying?
Dean has proven that he is a disaster as a leader. And he may very well cost the Democratic Party the White House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
