(derekbaker)

Embarrased to Admit: Liveblogging Thursday's DNC

2008-08-28T20:49:00.010-04:00

Yes, I Can

have no pretensions that anyone is going to bother reading my blog while this Thursday night of the Democratic National Convention is going on. But I want to do this for myself, as a sort of journal entry, because I want to be able to go back to remember what is a historic night. Not as historic as Obama's inauguration will be, obviously -- yes, there's a huge assumption I just slid right past -- but still historic, nonetheless.

And I've never done this before, and there's little likelihood I'll get myself too far from the TV while it's going on, so I might as record what I'm thinking while I'm thinking it. Natalie Goldberg, author of "Wild Mind," call your office.

The Mile High Stadium looks less like the Lincoln Memorial than I expected, hearing there would be "columns" -- marking the 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. Instead, it looks more like Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas. Really. (And someone will no doubt make an Albert Speer reference to all this, if they haven't already, but seriously: it's the Shops at the Forum, not the Nuremburg Rally.)

Al Gore is currently speaking. Very quickly. Someone obviously told him they were running over time, to speed it up. Or else he's not used to speaking to 75,000 people. I don't know. But this is the old Al Gore, the same one who didn't get a (large enough) majority of votes to win the 2000 election. He's now making an analogy between Barack Obama with Abraham Lincoln. I like it, but half the people hearing this will find it presumptuous, as they find anything Obama does (or is done on his behalf) to make the case that he's qualified to be president. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for him, annoying half the people with what you do, and half the people with what you don't.

Overall, a very lame speech by Al. I'm sure a lot of people hearing that are saying, "Oh, yeah: maybe it's not so bad he decided not to run this time around after all."

I'm flipping mostly between C-SPAN and PBS tonight. I've mostly watched C-SPAN and MSNBC all week, but MSNBC has become such a train wreck over the course of the week (as evidenced by this, this, this and especially this, which were cited on Salon for the same reason), I decided I wanted the sober demeanor of Jim Lehrer, the professorial frumpiness of Mark Shields, and even the innocuous David Brooks -- who's a pompous tool, but I have to give him credit for the public Biden plug, it even makes me wonder if he had an inside track.

Following Al Gore was the musician (not my friend by the same name) Michael McDonald, reprising (not nearly as well) Ray Charles's performance of "America the Beautiful" at the 1984 Republican (yes, Republican) convention. They should have gone with Keb' Mo's version.

Susan Eisenhower (Ike's granddaughter) also rushed through her speech -- but she's definitely not used to speaking to a stadium of people. I can't tell if the stiffness so far tonight of the speakers is a factor of the time they're trying for, to get Obama's own "segment" teed up for right at 10pm, or if the venue is intimidating (and how could it not be?) or...what.

Actually, Joe Biden just came out to speak, and this wasn't in the original schedule, so maybe that's why they rushed people through, to make room for him.

He just made a Floyd Little (Denver Broncos) reference. Why do I suspect Democrats between now and November are going to be saying several times, "Good ol' Joe"?

He needs to find a fresh formulation of "the cops and the firefighters, the teachers and the assembly line workers." Twice, exactly like that, is okay, but after three times, it's going to start to sound like interest groups, not careers of regular Americans.

These speeches by the "American Voices" are classic fare: members of the other party who are voting for the other party's candidate, hard-luck tales (from Democrats) or success stories (from Republicans). For the partisans, like the conventions overall, they give you a lift -- "yes, we can!" -- but then afterward you read the distanced, jaundiced commentary and the cynical, sophisticated tone of the pundits (even from your own side, usually, if you're a Democrat), and learn that it didn't earn the candidate that big of a bump in the polls, and you wonder if you were watching the same convention as everyone else, or maybe you're just more gullible than other people.

That's okay. I'll have the gullibility hangover tomorrow. Tonight, I'm enjoying the spectacle and, just as I did four years ago, I'm hoping Americans have moved enough beyond cynicism and really would like to believe in something other than the dark vision of the Republican Party that's been the prevailing message these past 7+ years.

9:56pm: With Dick Durbin up now, this is where it really begins. It's turning 7pm on the West Coast. The East Coast is still up. This is the moment they built this whole week up to. Man, I love political theater!

Obama's bio video was pretty understated, as these things go. And now he's getting ready to speak. Of course, this would be when my laundry needs to come out of the dryer...

The second round of applause I've heard this week from the Democratic convention for John McCain's service. Remains to be seen if there's any applause for Obama's achievement as the first African-American presidential nominee at the GOP convention.

Michelle Obama: that is one fantabulous dress!

Okay, I loved that speech. Apparently, the AP already has a story out there that says, basically, "ho hum." But I think it was a pretty great speech. Who knows how far these move people along in making up their mind? It's telling that Barack Obama had something like 80,000 people in attendance (not counting the millions like me, by television), whereas John McCain is apparently having problems giving away tickets to tomorrow's announcement of his running mate.

And now to bed -- and tomorrow, to Dallas for a few days of interconvention vacation with friends. Happy Labor Day!

Hillary Knocked It Out of the Park

2008-08-27T00:42:00.002-04:00

Despite Her Age

great speech by Hillary Clinton — and exactly the response she deserved and in the best venue for her, which is a large crowd of raucous partisans of whatever stripe — that should put to bed the PUMA misallocation of principles or goals.

How can anyone who supported her as president — and as the anointed standard bearer of the Democratic Party — ignore what she's had to say since June 7, if they actually take her and her candidacy seriously? How can they continue to pretend that they support their own goals or hers by supporting John McCain or sitting out this election? They can say it — but they immediately indicate that they really didn't care about Hillary Clinton's views all along but only about what they felt she stood for.

Fair enough. It's intellectually dishonest, and disrespectful to Hillary Clinton herself, but if you're more interested in retaining generational power in the Democratic Party than in what's good for the country, then of course you'll discount her words since June 7 and still work and argue against Barack Obama as president.

Speaking of "generational power," how to say this? I guess by eliminating first the things I'm not saying.

Race is definitely an issue in this campaign. Bill Clinton's all bent out of shape that he got portrayed as a racist, when in truth he's always treated black political aspirations the same as Obama portrayed his wife's: as worthy and beneficial, especially for the group they/she represented. (He probably discounts Geraldine Ferraro's racist observations; I know I did.) But I don't think race it the primary demographic issue.

Gender was (and maybe still is) a major issue in the campaign. Hillary was the brunt of a whole load of misogyny from the media and, in a few instances, even from Obama surrogates -- let alone the misogynist expressions from Obama supporters posting on discussion boards and blogs. But I also don't think gender is the primary issue in this campaign.

Increasingly, I'm thinking Obama's problem with voters has less to do with race or gender, and everything to do with age.

Hillary Clinton is 60 years old. Her husband is 62. Oft reported, John McCain turns 72 -- the outer side of mandatory retirement for a lot of Americans -- on Friday.

Barack Obama just recently turned 47 a few weeks ago. And I'm starting to think, he's too young for too many voters.

Race, at least in marketing, is often used as a proxy for generation. Show a dreadlocked guy and you've checked off the youth vote in your ad campaign. (Yes, he'll also be youngish, but a white guy fraternity boy in a bow tie -- and there's probably a picture of me somewhere that shows exactly that -- hardly says "youth" to marketers.)

Gender is often marketed in the same way, and is a proxy for youth or generational openness to shared power.

Here's what I'm getting at: I think the fault line -- among both Democrats and Republicans -- may be age. Republican Baby Boomers have no problem voting for someone older, because they've always fetishized the past. But more importantly, I think Democrats over the age of 50 are having a tough time supporting a candidate younger than they are.

Of these Democrats, they were overly enthusiastic about Bill Clinton, despite his failings. And, I think, they're overly confident in Hillary Clinton or, even, John McCain. What they can't seem to do is get past the idea of a president who's, finally, younger than they are.

There are all sorts of holes in my theory, not the least of which is that 70-somethings also supported Hillary over Barack, unless you consider that she was less young than he is.

But all intraparty criticism I hear about him regards his "inexperience." Even though Hillary doesn't have a whole lot more. "But she's got Bill.' Sure. And now he's got Joe Biden, who's got more national experience than any of them. So your point is... ?

Striking further, I think the Baby Boom isn't ready to go out on George W. Bush. I don't blame them. Despite the Clinton fatigue that may have made enough people (at least five on the Supreme Court) ready for a change in 2000, and despite what Bush has done to the country for the past 8 years, there are still enough of them who want another chance to make it right.

Strictly speaking, Obama is a Baby Boomer too -- as I am, if only by six weeks. But the bulk of the Baby Boom is now 50 or older, and most of the anger I hear and see is from Democrats over 50. And I think there's an objection -- not based on race, not even based on gender -- but based on age. Baby Boomers have had to accommodate themselves to doctors younger than they are, even CEOs (and managers) younger than they -- but where they've got a choice, in a voting booth, they have a real problem voting for a president younger than they are.

It's ageism in reverse. I still hope they come around to supporting Obama in November. But now that I've realized this, it changes the way I view their opposition to an Obama presidency -- less with incredulity and more with empathy and, yes, pity.

Tags: Hillary Clinton|Baby Boomers|ageism

Michelle Rocks

2008-08-26T10:24:00.005-04:00

Best Speech by a Political Spouse Ever?

n listening to The Brian Lehrer Show this morning, a caller just said that she hated Michelle Obama's speech, that it was "too yearning, too sing-song." She wanted a harder edge; in fact, she admitted, she wanted Hillary Clinton.

Now, as I've said before, I like Hillary, I'll continue to vote for her as senator as long as she chooses to serve, and if she'd been the nominee, I'd be voting for her in November. But Hillary isn't a great speechmaker. She's got like two notes, and nowadays she uses them to pretty good effect, depending on the audience (she didn't use to), but otherwise, she generally gives a speech the way John McLaughlin sings lullabies.

I thought Michelle Obama's speech was superb. I thought Ted Kennedy's appearance was superb. It was great television, it was great political theater. If I could have had anything from the first night of the Democratic National Convention, it would have been a little more on pointing out Republican hypocrisy on the issues. That, I think, is the best way to make the intellectual case against that party and its nominee -- much as I appreciate the need for the gut-level, too-many-houses-to-remember charactizations, too. Campaigning that McCain would be four more years of Bush only goes so far; I don't think most McCain leaners think that, for the simple reason that he isn't Bush. But he's been a hypocrite in all his flip-flopping on issues. And the Republican positions overall are hypocritcal. (Tax cuts for the elite; support the troops, until they come home; compete globally by gutting education, etc. etc. etc.)

And I'm sensitive to the criticism that an "all Obama, all the time" convention only lends credibility to the charges of arrogance and that this is a coronation. So, if I were planning this schedule, now that "family night" is over, where it was all about the personal anyway, I'd make Tuesday and Wednesday night far more substantive. Which, given the speakers, I imagine it will be.

Speaking of Hillary and her speech tonight: she has a high bar to hit here, partly through no fault of her own, partly from her own fault. Why John McCain decided to run a number of ads (at least two so far) that use her statements from the primary race about Obama BEFORE she has a national audience to rebut them (and McCain) -- and same with Biden -- is beyond me. Seems kind of stupid. And as everyone points out, there's a whole bunch of Republicans on video that are going to make great ads for Obama after the GOP convention.

But it has also occurred to me and others: if Hillary had won the nomination, what statements from Obama's own mouth would McCain be using in advertising against her? I can't think of anything, but then I didn't get too much up in arms about either of their statements about each other, chalking it up to electioneering. So maybe there were a few and I didn't notice. But I'd still like to know the answer.

Tags: Michelle Obama|Hillary Clinton|GOP hypocrisy

Change, "Negative" Campaigning and Veterans

2008-08-23T21:27:00.006-04:00

Change Isn't Just "Who." It's Also "How."

One thing that occurs to me about Biden as VP is that this really would be a very different administration than what we've seen for 8 years, which is really what Barack Obama is arguing for. Sure, Joe Biden has more seniority in the Senate than all but four of his colleagues there (since he's been in the Senate since he was 30). More important, however, is that Biden has always spoken his mind about what's right for his constituents or for America, and he's notoriously not a favorite of the K Street lobbyists for this very reason. In fact, he's listed as the "poorest" Senator in the Senate, despite his years of service and opportunities for, shall we say, "financial self-aggrandizement" (whereas John McCain is the "richest" -- because he married money).

But it's not whether Obama represents change -- he obviously does, unless you haven't seen our currency -- or whether Biden doesn't. The change comes in "how" the government operates, and the first step of that is nominating a VP who will argue forcefully within an administration for his point of view but not insist upon it, and maybe even speak out publicly when he is of a different mind. That's the way our early Republic worked, and if an Obama-Biden administration have some public dust-ups over policy proposals in the next four years, but can continue to respect each other and work together, that's one sign of a change in Washington, no doubt about it.

The charge that, by responding in tone and content to McCain's low-road attacks, Obama is going back on some pledge not to "attack" his opponent, here's what he actually said on November 10, 2007 (emphasis added):

"Our moment is now. I don't want to spend the next year or the next four years re-fighting the same fights we had in the 1990s. I don't want to pit Red America against Blue America. I want to be President of the United States of America.

"And if those Republicans come at me with the same fear-mongering and swift-boating that they usually do, then I will take them head on. Because I believe the American people are tired of fear and tired of distractions and tired of diversions. We can make this election not about fear, but about the future. And that won't just be a Democratic victory; that will be an American victory."

Finally, and probably most importantly, in July McCain claimed, "I have a perfect voting record from organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion and all the other veterans service organizations." One problem with that: the VFW and American Legion don't compile congressional voting records.

Even more seriously, among those that do, McCain has a dismal record for veterans. According to the Disabled American Veterans, he has supported their issues only 34% of the time. Obama, on the other hand, has voted with disabled vets 89% of the time -- almost as much as McCain has voted with George W. Bush.

Another veterans group that tracks voting records, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, gives McCain a "D" -- since he voted to support their issues only 58% of the time. Obama supported this group's favored legislation 89% time, earning a B-plus.

More information (and from which I culled this information) is here, from the Central Shenandoah Valley News Leader.

Tags: Biden|Obama|veterans

Biden for VP. McCain calls Obama "Middle Class."

2008-08-23T13:16:00.003-04:00

McCain Doesn't Speak for the McCain Campaign

o it's Joe Biden. I'm fine with that. Actually, pretty pleased. He's had his own gaffes, will have others, but nothing compared to McCain's outright lies, flip-flops, evasions, gaffes and misstatements. More on one of the latest ones in a minute.

Since ABC and other networks broke the news sometime after midnight that Obama had picked Biden, I'm wondering if the text message that went out around 3 a.m. was trying to get out in front of early morning reports or a subtle reference to the phone call that comes in at 3 a.m. Probably the former — but it's interesting to think of Mark Penn's cellphone beeping at 3 a.m. with the news that the U.S. senator with the most actual experience in foreign affairs was joining the Obama ticket.

So here — from the Chicago Sun-Times — is the extent of the "scandal" around the Obamas' house in Chicago. Sounds like a good deal, getting it for 85% of the listing price, but hardly a sweetheart deal. Fifteen percent off the original listing price isn't unheard of at all, and probably doesn't even come close to the deal I got on my apartment 8 years ago.

"A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood — a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million — $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price — $625,000 — for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard."

he fact that McCain can't remember how many houses he owns — whether to live in, for investment purposes, or whatever — is a hilarious turn of events. It'll die down during the conventions, I expect, although several of the speakers at this next week's Democratic National Convention should build on that point further.

Did McCain & Co. really think no one was ever going to ask this question, if only for background purposes? And is it that hard to figure out — even if the answer is "We have one home we live in, one we use for my work in Virginia, two vacation homes, and then we have some investment properties" as some pundits have suggested as a possible answer. (That's still not exactly the right tone to set if labeling your opponent an out-of-touch elitist is your gameplan, but at least you don't look like Ritchie Rich or Scrooge McDuck.)

What I thought was even more inept, however, was the statement put out by the McCain campaign after Obama and surrogates made note of McCain's too-rich-to-know-how-rich statements. "Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses? Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people "cling" to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who's in touch with regular Americans?"

Leaving aside the Rezko reference — which, frankly, is really lame and a stretch as a scandal (see sidebar) — the libel against the 50th state as something exotic and elite, and the ridiculous jab at U.S. farmers who grow anything other than iceberg lettuce, what struck me most about this flailing was the first line about the Obama's income (which is mostly from book sales). Whoever wrote this (McCain spokesperson Brian Rogers) didn't watch his own candidate at Saddleback Church last weekend, apparently. According to McCain himself, the Obamas are middle-class — since he said himself "rich" doesn't kick-in as a description before you hit $5 million.

On the other hand, the McCain campaign has indicated several times that John McCain doesn't speak for the McCain campaign. This would apparently be the latest such example.

I realize so many of my latest posts (the air conditioning issue aside, which has been resolved) have been about politics — it's an election year, after all. But I've also been reading some interesting scripture as part of the Daily Office of Morning and Evening Prayer in the Episcopal Church's Book of Common Prayer. So, the next time one of these strikes me as something worth thinking further about out loud (well, here), I probably will. You've been warned.

Tags: Biden|McCain|elitism|potkettleblack

The Cranky Old Man (Me, Not McCain)

2008-08-08T21:31:00.004-04:00

Air-Conditioning Hassles and John Edwards Get My Dander Up

hey say you're not supposed to call old significant others when you're drunk (or do a lot of other things, for that matter). I think for me, the rule would be you shouldn't blog when you're cranky. Unfortunately, no one took away the keys to the blog as I was getting crankier and crankier today. Let me walk you back through it...

Sometime last night, the window-unit air conditioner in my bedroom decided the compressor was optional. "We're cutting you off! We have to think of the rest of the us: the fan, the coils, the stupid timer that only goes up to 12 hours! It's every feature for him- or herself!" So now it only blows air, a slightly warmed variation of whatever is outside.

As anyone who has lived with me knows, I'm pretty much tied to air conditioning indoors in the summer. I'm okay being outside in the heat and humidity for awhile, but when I'm inside, I want it cool. I want it cold if I'm sleeping. I want condensation on windows, if possible.

So that started me off on the wrong foot today, and it isn't just the hassle of replacing a window-unit air conditioner. That would have been the case at one time, with my old windows. But in their collective wisdom, my co-op board decided every apartment in the co-op (all 500-and-something units, across five different buildings around a central garden) needed new windows, and they had to all be the same, and it didn't matter if your current windows were just fine, worth 2-3 times what the replacements would be (my case), or the drafty originals from 1939. We were all getting new windows.

I objected strenuously, but I also recognized that I live in a cooperative. Outside of New York, that maybe doesn't mean anything to anyone. And, in day-to-day practice, a "co-op" and a "condo" are practically interchangeable. But unlike in a condominium, I don't actually own my apartment, I own shares in the overall cooperative, and am assigned (or maybe I lease? not sure the legal definition) my individual apartment. Like a co-op, I pretty much own the apartment "from the paint in." Which means I don't own the windows, as they're structural and part of the outside of the building too -- and uniformity on the outside was an issue for the co-op board, even though my original windows matched the color scheme of the others very well, they were just far better quality, and I'm on a floor that has slightly different windows anyway from the other floors.

So I gave up the fight about the windows, and probably had the value of my apartment reduced by about 5K or more, I'm guessing. Whatever.

But when it came time to re-install the window-unit air conditioners -- the co-op's buildings are too old to have central air, unfortunately -- they kind of kluged together a solution that essentially involves soldering and sealing the cabinet of your window unit into the open window, using Plexiglass for the side panels, if needed, and lots of clear caulk.

Which is what this means, now that one of those hermetically sealed air conditioners has died on me: I will probably need to schedule a time (and pay) for a window crew to come and take out the current AC unit, get delivery on a new unit from the people who sold me the last one (since it's still under extended warranty, and they'll replace it for the same value) and they take away the old unit, then get the window crew back to install the new unit. If I'm exceedingly lucky, I can get the current unit out, separate from the "cabinet" that houses it, and can get a new AC unit that will fit inside that same cabinet (i.e., the same model, if they still sell it), so the window crew doesn't need to be involved. That is the big question mark at present. All previous attempts to figure out how to remove the AC from the cabinet have failed -- as if it, too, had been sealed in when they sealed in the whole AC to the window -- but I have a newfound urgency to solving that problem, so in the depths of my frustration, there is some hope, somewhere. Meanwhile, I just want the evening temperatures in New York City to remain cool-ish here in August until I have a new air conditioner that can best the humidity.

So it is with all this as background that I started work today, from home (in the still-air-conditioned living room). A friend told me last night that he's decided he "doesn't suffer fools gladly"; he "makes fools suffer." That strikes me as a pretty harsh frame of mind to go through life with -- with more harm, ultimately, to the harm purveyor than the sufferer -- but I admit that became my mental frame of mind today, already annoyed by the air conditioning fiasco.

I have to say, however, that I work with very smart and yet still very real people, and in all the conversations I had today at work, I was struck by how decent and, well, human my colleagues can be. I don't often talk about work on this blog, for a variety of reasons, the primary one being that I've already got a professional platform, being in Communications there, but I don't want the two -- ibm.com and derekbaker.com -- ever confused. (As if.) But I have to say that the people I work with on a regular basis and the vast majority of people I connect with for ad hoc purposes are really decent and helpful folks, in spite of vacation schedules, family pressures, health issues, executives breathing down their necks, whatever it is. That alone helped me get some perspective on the day, but then came Big Annoyance Number Two: John Edwards.

Dude, what in the hell were you thinking? Seriously.

Let's leave aside the fact that you cheated on your ill wife. That would be bad enough, but the entire nation is already feeling sympathy for her, so you were just looking to be the asshole that made her life worse, weren't you? But let's put that aside for a moment, because politics is an ego game to some degree to begin with, and John McCain has done much worse. He cheated on his sick wife, too, but went ahead and divorced her to marry the blonde chick he'd cheated with. (That would be the present Mrs. McCain -- an admitted drug addict who stole prescriptions from poor kids to support her habit. But she's clean now. Whew.)

But, Senator Edwards, how stupid do you have to be to think that your affair isn't going to get discovered and reported on, especially if you're running for President of the United States?

You dolt. I supported you. I sent you money, which you apparently turned around to pay for "videos" (heh heh) produced by your paramour for your Web site -- despite her not having much background or talent to do such.

Infidelity has affectecd the lives of all the front runners' families other than the Obamas (as far as we know so far), from the McCains to the Clintons to now the Edwardses. So more importantly, it's the hypocrisy that makes me cranky. You said you couldn't support the right of gays and lesbians to marry because it conflicted with your personal religious beliefs about marriage. And, from what I've been able to determine, you were "undecided" on the Family Medical Leave Act or immigration rights applying to same-sex couples.

To your credit, you favored the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." And you cosponsored the act that adds protections based on sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation. And I have to say, I even respected the way the you expressed your opposition to gay marriage (even if that was only to play both sides of the electorate) by explaining that you weren't there yourself, but your wife and kids had made it clear that they thought you were wrong. That was a much more honest answer than what I heard from Obama or Clinton, at least, who are still neanderthals on this issues.

But -- and I'm sorry, but I have to say it -- your saying that a gay relationship isn't worthy of the status of "marriage" under Federal law even while you're debasing your own heterosexual, government-endorsed marriage is the height of hypocrisy.

I'm mad at you for a number of reasons, John. (And, having sent you money, most recently the exact day before you pulled out of the race in fact, I feel we can speak on a first-name basis, at least.) But not least among them is that you chose to debase my relationship on the grounds that yours was somehow more sacred -- and then didn't even honor that.

So, all in all, a cranky day. Not without reason. Here's hoping tomorrow, for everyone, is a better one.

Tags: Edwards|air conditioning|cranky

Here's How It's Done

2008-07-23T00:21:00.005-04:00

McCain Shows How Lying Can Make Your "Larger Point"

rom Katie Couric's interviews with Obama and McCain on CBS this evening:

Obama: There is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence.

Less than two minutes later:

McCain: To deny that their sacrifice didn't make possible the success of the surge in Iraq I think does a great disservice to the young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.

Huh? He didn't say it -- in fact, he implied the opposite -- but Couric let McCain have the last word on that, regardless of whether it reflected the truth she'd just reported herself. But she was looking for a fight between the two, not any real examination of the issue.

For example, much as I want to like Katie Couric, she tends to ask dumb questions and makes dumb comments: "Senator McCain, you sound very frustrated with Senator Obama's perspective." Even he indicated that wasn't really relevant.

What actually is frustrating, Katie, is that you and everyone else are buying McCain's line that "the surge in troops has brought down violence in Iraq, therefore I have the better judgment." Violence has also declined in some places we don't even have troops. More importantly, this is basically saying, "See, we're making progress in fixing the problems we created," whereas Obama is saying, "Not only should those problems not have been created, your obsession on them has kept us from addressing even bigger problems that are becoming an even bigger threat."

But you don't get a real exploration of that in the binary world of media coverage -- he said, he said; who's right, who's wrong; answer the question, yes or no -- which, not coincidentally, the right-wing likes to frame everything in. And because this makes the media's job easier, it works.

Obama's right to keep the focus on "what is strategic." Because even if he does, the network news certainly isn't.

Stephen Colbert summed up the ridiculous way this is currently being discussed, in his interview Monday night with Sen. Jim Webb (who also made the point that, surge or no, fighting in Iraq wasn't and isn't in the strategic interests of the U.S., even though our military will do the job that's put to them and almost always have). Colbert argued, "I will grant you that perhaps it was a foreign policy disaster to go in, based on shoddy evidence. But now that the surge is working, it was worth it!" As usual, Colbert's character on Comedy Central shows just how stupid what passes for punditry is elsewhere on TV.

Tags: Obama|McCain|Couric|binary thinking

16 Months: May 2010?

2008-07-19T14:35:00.005-04:00

Nouri al-Maliki Suggests Obama Gets Iraq Better than McCain Does

So the American people want a timetable for getting us out of Iraq. Barack Obama has said he wants us out of Iraq in 16 months, more or less (assuming he means from the time he's in office and able to set that in motion). Now the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, says he thinks the US should be out of Iraq in about the same timeframe. Which is, to say the least, awkward for John McCain, who has said we'll get out when al-Maliki thinks we should. John McCain, check your voicemail... .

In other foreign affairs news, as Obama makes his way eastward (and middle eastward), McCain has a new ad slamming him for never once holding hearings on Afghanistan as chair of a Foreign Relations subcommittee. Only two problems with that: Joe Biden, the Foreign Relations chair, has held a number of hearings on Afghanistan, and Obama attended at least one of them. And John McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services committee, has attended none of the six Afghanistan-related hearings his own committee has held in the last two years.

I'm cynical enough to believe that McCain's ad will work with many voters, anyway. And, apparently, McCain is that cynical as well. Just a bit ago, he and his party were accusing the Democrats of "playing politics" by voting to restore doctor's fees under Medicare. Only problem with that is that when it was time to vote, where was the GOP's nominee? Out on the hustings, playing politics. In fact, he was the only senator to miss that vote. But he says he would have voted against it, anyway. Apparently he's one senior who thinks his health care is just fine and doesn't need to worry whether his doctor will opt out of Medicare or not.

Tags: McCain|Obama|hypocrisy

What I Don't Get

2008-07-15T02:15:00.011-04:00

Three Things Among Many

I honestly do not get this controversy about The New Yorker cover. If you haven't seen it, I'm not sure how you've missed it. But here it is (click for a larger version):

It's obviously satire, showing Michelle Obama with a big '70s Afro and Black Panther radical garb and gunfire, giving a "terrorist fist jab" to her husband, dressed in a dashiki and turban. There's an American flag burning in the Oval Office fireplace, and a portrait of Osama bin Laden above the mantel.

Basically, it's demonstrating the ridiculousness of all the goofy e-mail rumors your "low-information" voter friends may be sending around. Along the same lines of Stephen Colbert's mentions of Obama as a "secret Muslim," or Jon Stewart's nightly "Baracknophobia" segments. But many Obama supporters (and I count myself one, but certainly part company on this issue) are up in arms that someone has drawn a cartoon illustrating all these slanders that are already out there about the Obamas.

You read arguments like: "Too many voters won't read The New Yorker, they'll just see the cover and it will confirm their suspicions." "If National Review or the American Spectator had done this, what would be the difference?" "We can't afford the possibility that this will give fodder to the right-wing."

Each of those are stupid arguments. If this cartoon confirms anyone's suspicions, they weren't pulling the lever for Obama anyway. If National Review or the American Spectator had displayed this cover -- unless they're making fun of their own audience, which is unlikely -- it would have been a form of commentary about their worst fears, not satire. (And using a cartoon would be sending a decided mixed message in such an instance.) And I still don't see how this provides any fodder to any of the wingnuts that they're not already employing -- that, in fact, is the point of the satire.

For every idiot who sends this around as proof that "even the LIBERAL New Yorker thinks the Obamas are radical Muslims," I'm convinced there will be even more on-the-fence voters who see this as the satire it is, and in their minds, it takes the issue off the table: "Ha ha, Yeah, I guess those are pretty ridiculous suppositions my crazy brother-in-law keeps sending me." Even if they don't see the satire, but are offended on Obama's behalf, it makes them more sympathetic to the idea that the right-wing is slandering him, and so has the same effect.

Other than Internet fundraising and the Bush Administration's own ineptitude, the only consistently effective weapon in the progressive movement's arsenal has been satire. We'd be stupid to throw that away in the fear that someone might not see it for what it is.

Maybe I'm more loyal to The New Yorker than I am to the Obama campaign (I've been a reader and subscriber a lot longer than I've been a Democrat, I guess). But I don't think you win an election by demanding everyone on your side be as dumb as the people you're opposing. You need to be more politically savvy, you don't need to be dumber.

And if there are people crazy enough to see this cartoon cover as confirmation of their suspicions that Barack and Michelle Obama are Huey P. Newton and Angela Davis for the iPod generation, maybe they'll subscribe to The New Yorker. They may think they're getting Sean Hannity in print, but they'll really be getting Seymour Hersh and Hendrik Hertzberg. and there's a nice poetic justice in that.

The title of the cover, by the way, as reported on the ToC is "The Politics of Fear." Prescient, that.

Another thing I don't get: all the talk about Obama "moving toward the center" -- or moving rightward, leaving the center in the rearview mirror, in some people's eyes.

On almost all of the issues cited, as he said himself, if people think he's now moving to the center, they haven't been listening to him. He was already on record as believing that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual's right to bear arms (rather than a state militia's collective right, as I believe). He was already on record that some crimes (including the rape of a child, although he'd always included "and murder" in that formula) could warrant the death penalty, whereas I don't believe the state has any right to commit revenge murder on behalf of citizens. And Obama was already on record that local institutions, some of them faith-based (e.g., churches) often provide the most effective social services for the population that most needs them. (A position with which I agree; my own politically liberal Episcopal parish's food pantry relies in part on federal funds in order to hand out groceries to people who need them.)

Only on the new FISA law can I see signs of shifting positions, and I admit I don't know enough about the details (other than the telecom immunity) to judge whether this newer law really is better than the older law or not, and whether telecom immunity was worth getting it. I suspect I'd disagree with Obama's position here, too, but maybe not. However, I'm pretty sure it was the wrong choice politically, and will show up in lackluster fundraising at exactly the time Obama can't afford lackluster fundraising.

Speaking of fundraising, that wasn't a flip-flop. Or if it was, it was probably a good one. (And we've had almost eight years of a president who refused to change his mind about anything, so I don't see a foolish consistency being anything other than what Emerson said it was.) He hadn't committed to public financing, just to exploring it, And I think -- if he can remain an inspiring candidate people want to donate to, which is a big if -- he made the right call there. Public financing from the actual public really is better than forced spending, if you've got a wide enough number of contributors participating. Otherwise, it's just special interest money. The McCain campaign tried to portray Obama's decision to eschew public financing of his campaign as evidence that he's just another typical Washington politician -- which hardly flies. After all, he's the first presidential candidate to turn public campaign money down since the program was created in 1971.

Finally, among the things I also don't understand is the lingering animosity between Obama and Clinton supporters. I mean, I get it, but it was way out of proportion throughout the primaries and continues to be even now. I voted for Obama in the primary (my first choice, Edwards, having dropped out); the person I'm closest to voted for Clinton. We were both fine with that, and both said we'd be happy to vote for either of them in the general election.

But we're obviously off in some fantasy land, because to read the online commentary, at least, Hillary is an angry, conniving witch who is willing to say anything or do anything to get elected. And Barack is an unqualified empty suit who is willing to say anything or do anything to get elected. He's a confirmed misogynist. Bill and Hillary are lifelong racists. And I'm like...huh?

What I would find amusing if it didn't show signs of so many people I know and respect becoming so seriously unhinged is that most of the critiques of one side against the other are near mirror images, or at least cracked mirror images. Hillary supporters see misogyny in every anti-Hillary statement during the campaign -- of which there was some, sometimes a lot, from the pundits, to be certain -- but don't see any racism at all in Bill's or Hillary's (or even Geraldine Ferraro's) comments that alluded to race and racial lines in voting. Obamaniacs see racism and the assumption of white privilege in every utterance of the Clinton campaign -- but can't even hear themselves when they say really hateful things about Hillary Clinton that were probably last said when they were 15 and screaming at their mothers because she wouldn't let them stay out late on a school night.

Or, to put it another way, what Democrats liked about either of these candidates is one-half of what was Bill Clinton's appeal for them. For some, his policy wonkery made him a superb president, and they see how his wife shares that passion for the details. For others, he was an inspiring speaker and a personable character, and they want Obama because he makes them feel passionate about politics again (or for the first time, for many of them). Although I'm sure Bill doesn't see it this way, Hillary and Barack were each running against the other half of Bill's personality that people found appealing.

NB: Given what we've had in the years since, I miss having someone smart like him as president, but I was never that thrilled with him when he was in office. His returning to Arkansas during the campaign to deny a mentally retarded man a stay of execution was, for me, the equivalent of Obama's FISA vote. And when he signed DOMA -- and then crowed about it in campaign ads on Christian radio stations -- I figured he was about as ideologically pure as, well, Obama's critics are now calling him.

In fact, now that I've gone there, I suppose I have viewed both Hillary and Barack this year with some ambivalence, and therefore find the charges of sexism and racism so overwrought. After all, both candidates have trashed my demographic's full equality, but you don't see me running for the door marked "Nader." Or feeling much sympathy for the other poor put-upon folks being told to stand in line for their issues.

I don't think Hillary lost because of sexism; I think she lost because (a) she's been a polarizing figure all her public life, and had the highest negatives of any of the Democratic candidates, and (b) she ran a stupid campaign after Super Tuesday. She had a senior strategist who hadn't grokked that the Democratic primaries awarded delegates in proportion to the primary results, and couldn't figure out how to win caucus states, so didn't really try. She also had way too much infighting on her campaign to wage an effective general election battle.

She lost, in other words, to someone who proved to be a better politician, and so I guess I'm glad he won. I'm hoping (and voting, and contributing on the premise that) he can trounce John McCain as well. He wasn't my first choice when all this began, and we may well look back on this as yet another stupid nomination by a party that can't win even the unloseable elections. ("Here's an idea: let's nominate a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts who actively protested against fellow soldiers in the Vietnam War. If we remind people he fought in it, that's all they'll remember." Uh huh.) This year may best be remembered as the year the Democrats nominated a little-known black senator from urban Chicago, a self-described "skinny kid with big ears and a funny name" (and an even funnier middle name), and we'll have to add Obama as a partner to the firm of Mondale, Dukakis & Kerry, losers-at-elections. Maybe not.

So have we ended up nominating a John F. Kennedy this year or an Adlai Stevenson? Only history (and the election results) will tell.

Tags: Obama|Clinton|surcease

Banana-Fana Fo-Ferek

2008-07-09T00:06:00.003-04:00

My first name has baloney

Apropos of nothing, and certainly not worth a post in the heat of a presidential campaign on which I haven't written anything in two months, but I found the following interesting facts about my name on WhitePages.com:

There are 30,193 unique 'Derek' first names in the United States.
Derek is the #461 ranked first name in the United States.

# 460 Franklin

# 461 Derek

# 462 Glenda

Top States for first Name Derek
1. California     2482 listings
2. Texas          2188 listings
3. Florida        1601 listings
4. Michigan       1179 listings
5. New York       1130 listings
Most Popular last Names for Derek
1. Smith           402 listings
2. Johnson         293 listings
3. Brown           208 listings
4. Williams        195 listings
5. Jones           188 listings

Take that, Glenda!

Tags: Derek|names

West Virginia and Superdelegates

2008-05-13T10:57:00.005-04:00

Hard-working Americans, White Americans

We know Hillary's going to win West Virginia today — but it will be interesting if enough superdelegates continue to announce for Obama today or tomorrow to keep the total delegate spread the same.

I was bothered, however, by listening to a BBC World News radio report this morning from West Virginia in which a number of primary voters overtly said Obama couldn't beat McCain in November because Obama is black. (He's also half-white, but no one seems to remember this, including the media.) Of course, none of these people themselves said they wouldn't support him because he was black, only that "no one they know" will, so they want Hillary to get the nomination.

On the other hand, maybe we've reached an inflection point in American society, as much in West Virginia as elsewhere. Perhaps the Bradley effect is no longer in effect? Or even has been reversed?

In 1982, polls in the California governor race showed the black mayor of Los Angeles with a double-digit lead over his white opponent, George Deukmejian, but Bradley lost the election. This and similar poll/election disparities between white and black candidates led people to discuss a "Bradley effect" in polling, wherein likely voters would say to a pollster they were willing to vote for a black candidate, but in the voting booth wouldn't. No one could actually prove this was what was going on, but the Bradley effect entered the popular culture as a sign that racism was alive and well, at least covertly in the privacy of the voting booth.

But that was a generation ago. I'd like to think that we've moved enough as a society that, today, we might even see a reverse Bradley effect in the voting booth come November. By which I mean that poll respondents may have a lower opinion of their neighbors' fair-mindedness than they have themselves. In other words, I'm willing to suspect that white voters may be more willing to vote for a white candidate than they think they're neighbors are — but in the privacy of the voting booth, they can.

Given the advantage the Clintons have had in West Virginia elections since the 1990s, I don't think Hillary winning there today is necessarily a sign or result of racism among Democrats in West Virginia. And in the general election, it's hard to say. The governor, both senators, and two of its three Congressional representatives are all Democrats. It was the only southern state to vote for Michael Dukakis in 1988, and went for Bill Clinton by large majorities in his two elections. But it also voted twice for George W. Bush — and in 2004 by an even larger margin than in 2000.

None of those races were, at least very much, about race. Unfortunately, the latest polling from West Virginia does show Clinton beating McCain there as of today, but also shows McCain beating Obama. That's not necessarily racism at work — it could just be familiarity. And a lot could change between now and November. In fact, I hope it does.

Tags: Clinton|Obama|West Virginia|Bradley effect

The Good Hillary Could Do

2008-05-10T14:56:00.002-04:00

And Where Both Campaigns Should Be Focused

Every minute of television or speech time that either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton spend comparing themselves to their rival for the nomination is another minute where John McCain gets a free pass.

Yes, as a Democrat, an Obama supporter and someone who can add up numbers, I think Hillary Clinton should drop out now. But whether she does or doesn't, she and Obama need to be focused on beating John McCain in the Electoral College. Anything else is a media, fundraising, or political distraction from that goal. And you don't have a very strong spoke in for your party's nomination if your own ambitions trump its goals — which would have to also include freeing up some of the donation cash to House and Senate races, not to mention all the local state office Democrats running who can't get a word in edgewise while these two fight it out.

The arguments have been made, and made again, and then made again, each time lowering the level of discourse to decide this nomination. Most recently: "Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening... ." Before that: "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them... ."

At this point, negatively characterizing your opponent in the primary race is not going to gain you any new superdelegates — in fact, hers are starting to publicly switch to him; I'm not aware yet of any of his that have switched to her. More important, negatively characterizing either candidates supporters (or lack thereof among some demographics) isn't going to unify the party between now and November.

I think this article sums it up best: if Hillary is going to stay in the race to the end, she needs to do it for the sake of her party and its unity, not for her own nomination. If Obama is going to stay in the race to the end (as he obviously is, since he's winning more states, more popular votes, and now has more pledged delegates), he gains nothing by saying a single negative thing about Clinton, and could gain volumes in praising her. Nobody who is currently an Obama supporter is going to switch to supporting Clinton because he was magnanimous. No one who is on the fence is going to hear his graciousness as an argument for Clinton's candidacy. And it could only help to pave the way for her supporters to return to the Democratic fold by the convention. They've assumed all along that they are the core of the Democratic Party; he can at least make it easy for them to continue to feel that they still belong.

If Clinton could be seen as a vital asset for the Democratic party in its fight against McCain and the Republicans, then an argument could even be made that the debt her campaign is in (with the Clintons themselves and advisers like Mark Penn as the creditors) could be assumed in part or whole by the eventual presidential campaign — essentially paying her campaign off for the good she could do between now and November, like one would for any consultant or (high-dollar) campaign official. But if she puts her interests above the party's — and equating those interests is the same thing; it's called hubris — then she makes the best argument herself for why superdelegates shouldn't support her, why Democratic primary voters shouldn't support her, and why her debt should be her own going forward.

Tags: Clinton|Obama|distractions

Twitter explanation

2008-05-08T00:00:00.006-04:00

What the "mini-blog" means

If you've seen the right-hand column of my Web site, you've noticed the far-more-frequent updates via Twitter.

These come from my Twitter feed, which I can publish to with far less effort than I can full posts to my blog. Most of the time you'll just see the kind of top-of-mind updates I add there (e.g., the Jamba Juice menu layout). But occasionally you'll also see an entry that begins with the "@" symbol (e.g., "@timwasher"). These are "personal" messages to an individual, but obviously made public via Twitter.

To see my own Twitter feed, you only need to go to my Twitter page. To see the feed of anyone I'm messaging, just replace Twitter name in the URL (e.g., www.twitter.com/derekbaker) with the name of the Twitteree following the "@" symbol.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled blog tracking...

Tags: Twitter

GOP Wealth Redistribution; Spring Sprung

2008-04-23T11:30:00.007-04:00

Further Evidence that the GOP Isn't What It Says It Is

Primary Race
From the NYT today: "Sixteen percent of white voters said race mattered in deciding who they voted for, and just 54 percent of those voters said they would support Mr. Obama in a general election; 27 percent of them said they would vote for Mr. McCain if Mr. Obama was the Democratic nominee, and 16 percent said they would not vote at all." Is this just rust-belt Pennsylvania? Or is this really (and still) the picture of the Democratic party overall? That statistic makes me kind of sick to my stomach.

A discussion with friends about how much a particular state has paid into the federal highway fund and gotten back from it (Oklahoma, which over the past 50 years has gotten back only 91¢ for every $1 it paid into the fund) made me start to wonder how the states' Congressional delegations compare with how they feed at the overall federal trough. (The "good" news for Oklahoma: federal highway spending aside, the state get $1.36 in federal spending for every $1 it pays in taxes, ranking it 15th. And it should be noted that 85 percent of Oklahoma's Congressional delegation are Republicans.)

These facts come from the Tax Foundation's annual reports and are for FY2005, the last full year they've analyzed as of this post.

So time for a quick red/blue analysis of the top 10 and the bottom 10 states that are feeding at the pork trough. (I should hasten to point out here that, "bridges to nowhere" notwithstanding, I'm not connecting the earlier discussion of highway construction and maintenance to pork — infrastructure is something we actually should be investing in in this country. But as it isn't possible to separate the fat from the lean in the federal budget, thanks to earmarks, this is just a look at federal spending per state overall, with the assumption that some major part of that is pork barrel politics rather than needed investment.

States' Federal Spending to Taxes Paid; Congressional Delegations
Rank	State	Fed Spend/$1 in Fed Taxes Paid	# Cong D's	# Cong R's	% Republican
1	New Mexico	$2.03	2	3	60%
2	Mississippi	$2.02	2	4	67%
3	Alaska	$1.84	0	3	100%
4	Louisiana	$1.78	3	6	67%
5	West Virginia	$1.76	4	1	20%
6	North Dakota	$1.68	3	0	0%
7	Alabama	$1.66	2	7	78%
8	South Dakota	$1.53	2	1	33%
9	Kentucky	$1.51	2	6	75%
10	Virginia	$1.51	4	9	69%
$Avg \| Total		$1.73	24	40	63%

41	Colorado	$0.81	5	4	44%
42	New York	$0.79	25	6	19%
43	California	$0.78	36	19	35%
44	Delaware	$0.77	2	1	33%
45	Illinois	$0.75	13	8	38%
46	Minnesota	$0.72	62	4	40%
47	New Hampshire	$0.71	2	2	50%
48	Connecticut	$0.69	6	1	14%
49	Nevada	$0.65	2	3	60%
50	New Jersey	$0.61	9	6	40%
$Avg \| Total		$0.73	106	54	34%

I know it's not so cut and dried as simple party affiliation: the top 10 states include West Virginia (thanks to Robert Byrd), with a delegation that is only 20% Republican, and North Dakota, which has no Republicans in Congress at the moment. And the District of Columbia isn't even among the rankings (at $5.55/$1), for obvious reasons, given where the federal government is itself encamped, and without any voting delegation in Congress. But by taking both the top 10 and bottom 10 as a group, as shown above, it does seem to further belie the claim that the GOP is the party in favor of "fiscal responsibility" and against "the redistribution of wealth."

(My previous red/blue analysis from past election years here and here.)

Spring in Manhattan. Yes, Manhattan, New York.

Spring has hit New York City with a happy vengeance. Here's the view from my apartment as of last Thursday, compared with that same view today:


April 17, 2008	April 23, 2008

The early blooms (including the cherry trees and tulips) were already in full force last Thursday around sunset. Here's a further look at my corner of Manhattan in springtime.

Tags: spring|federal expenditures|federal taxes|hypocrisy

Fubar Infighters

2008-03-07T16:27:00.002-05:00

Get Along, Will Ya?

I suspect that the worst tactic either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton could engage in right now is to attack each other as a way to get the nomination. Not just because it's potentially damaging to the Democratic party. But I wouldn't be a bit surprised if every vote their campaigns gain from "making distinctions" for voters (i.e., going negative) loses them another vote elsewhere. Plus a vote for John McCain in the general election. So go negative, but you risk losing the nomination and will in all likelihood lose the general election even if you get the nomination.

Wouldn't it be far better (and more effective) if both of these candidates took on John McCain now? Wouldn't the candidate who can, today, make the best case against John McCain -- and make it consistently -- earn the right to make it in November? For that matter, since they're both in the news until one wins the nomination, wouldn't it be far more effective to have two voices making the case against McCain than to wait until after the convention to start doing that?

Tags: Clinton|Obama|McCain|Slapfest

TIME Heals No Wounds

2008-02-08T18:04:00.000-05:00

Reality and Post-Reality Checks

TIME magazine's site (not sure if these articles will also appear or have appeared in the dead-tree version) has two articles that gave me a pause.

1) If the electorate has moved away from the Republicans, does that necessarily they have moved to the left? Or even if they would be more willing to call themselves "moderate" than "conservative" these days, will they see John McCain as the candidate who better reflects their own political journey? He's pretty conservative by most measures (including the American Conservative Union's), but given all the right-wing wailing at the prospect of a John McCain administration, he may just be seen as the centrist. Article: "The Price of Overconfidence."

2) The Bishop of Durham explains what he says is the true (at least biblical) Christian view of heaven. I've heard this before in discussion with or sermons from more than one clergyperson -- but they don't talk about it a lot, because they probably don't completely understand it, either (who does?), and it's not quite as appealing a promise as the common, if unfounded in Scripture, idea of the resurrection. Article: "Christians Wrong About Heaven, Says Bishop". (That should probably read "Many Christians" in the headline, because as I say, I've heard this expressed before.) One thing that doesn't get addressed here, however, is that if God stands outside of time, then perhaps that final victory is as real and accessible to souls who have entered the Church Triumphant as today's battles are for the Church Militant -- or the Creation was to God.

But perhaps TIME didn't want to tackle the issue of time.

Tags: Democrats|Republicans|heaven|cold water

Words of Warning

2008-02-08T00:19:00.000-05:00

Obama vs. McCain vs. Clinton

I don't regularly read the Washington Post, but my impression of David Broder is that he can be somewhat behind the curve at times. Even still, a recent column offers these words of warning for Democrats:

[T]he recent Washington Post-ABC News poll ... showed McCain in a statistical tie with either Democrat, leading Clinton by 49 percent to 46 percent, and trailing Obama by a similar margin.

In either scenario, women break for the Democratic candidate. McCain leads Clinton by 13 points among men, but only runs even with Obama. Party lines are sharp, and the battle for independents would be close. Currently, independents give McCain a 12-point lead over Clinton but favor Obama by 6 points over the Republican.

A fascinating dynamic appears when voters are asked to judge the candidates' strength and experience versus their new ideas and potential for bringing change. McCain and Clinton match closely in both dimensions, while McCain leads Obama by 20 points on strength and experience, but Obama has a 31-point edge on representing a new direction.

It could be, between now and November, that the surfeit of microphones and cameras around these days could showcase John McCain's well-documented temper: a "macaca moment," his own variation on Howard Dean's famous (for famously insane) roar. Or, since most of the news from here on out about the Republicans will actually be about John McCain, perhaps he'll have the same effect on the country as he's had on so many of his fellow professional Republicans who already know him and who, despite the less-familiar voters' preference, can't stand the guy.

But it's going to be a nail biter, nonetheless.

Tags: McCain|Clinton|Obama|that queasy feeling

Si Se Puede

2008-02-06T22:58:00.000-05:00

And the Numbers May Support It

So I pulled the lever for Obama. (And, yes, in New York City, we still use voting machines from the 1960s that use levers to record our votes. That's supposed to change by next year, but we'll see.)

Like a lot of other people quoted in the news, it felt good to vote for a candidate I was actually excited about. I'll be very happy if, instead of Obama, Clinton gets elected in November. But she's so much of a known quantity, I don't expect there to be much excitement over the prospect of her as president, other than that it will mean there won't be a Republican administration finally and, of course, the first woman president of the United States is exciting in its own right, just as the first black president would be.

Several people I'm close to voted for Hillary, and we all had our reasons. For a lot of people, it probably comes down to a choice between competency and vision -- and only the most hyperbolic would say he's incompetent or she has no vision, so the distinctions are more shades of gray than (if you'll excuse the expression) black and white.

We're in an interesting period now: Obama is slightly ahead in the delegate count, but Clinton has more of the Democratic party "superdelegates" in her column. As John Aravosis of AMERICAblog has pointed out, this could lead to a very fractious (and damaging) national convention this summer if Obama wins more delegates through primary voters and caucus-goers but the superdelegates throw it to Hillary. Such a move could burn up a lot of goodwill, activism, and cross-over appeal moving into the general election, I think. Hopefully, the remaining contests will be decisive enough to avoid that, or a similarly damaging, situation.

And Hillary is herself in a tough position now, as Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen on Politico point out. Many of the upcoming races favor Barack (D.C., Maryland, Virginia) and/or are caucus states where he tends to do better (Washington, Nebraska, Maine, Hawaii); he raised twice as much money as she did in January; and he generally has more independents and Republicans voting for him in open primaries, such as Texas on March 4. So it really is still up in the air.

Hearing last night about all the high turnout, especially in the Democratic primaries, I was wondering if any hopeful extrapolation could be made between the number of people engaged enough this year to vote in the primaries versus how the actual election went four years ago. So I crunched some numbers, based on Wikipedia or CNN sources of votes in the primary and votes in the general election four years ago. Bear with me here. And keep your eye on that fifth column. (Pun intended.)

Super-Duper Tuesday Turnout, 2008, vs. Votes Cast in General Election, 2004
	Democrats	Republicans	R+%	D+%	Kerry	Bush	R04+%	D04+%
Alabama	533,521	550,573	3		693,933	1,176,394	41
Arizona	368,828	439,347	19		893,524	1,104,294	19
Arkansas	273,449	203,533		26	470,230	573,182	18
California	3,697,467	2,196,311		41	6,745,485	5,509,826		22
Connecticut	349,288	150,159		57	857,488	693,826		24
Delware	96,341	50,062		48	200,152	171,660		17
Georgia	1,040,873	952,692		8	1,366,149	1,914,254	29
Illinois	1,937,730	873,572		55	2,891,989	2,346,608		23
Massachusetts	1,220,745	496,171		59	1,803,800	1,071,109		68
Missouri	823,530	584,618		29	1,259,171	1,455,713	14
New Jersey	1,103,824	554,894		50	1,911,430	1,670,003		14
New York	1,718,155	602,215		65	4,314,280	2,962,567		46
Oklahoma	417,095	329,843		21	503,966	959,792	47
Tennessee	612,791	547,614		11	1,036,477	1,384,375	25
Utah	122,617	283,759	131		241,199	663,742	64
Total	14,316,254	8,815,363		38	25,189,273	23,657,345		6

I didn't include states that had caucuses, because those are each run so idiosyncratically and turnout can't be compared the way it is in primary states. Plus, there were some Republican caucuses yesterday that didn't even have a concurrent Democratic caucus. So just in looking at the 15 states that held primaries yesterday, Democratic turnout was 38% higher than Republicans.

That may not be such notable number in itself, since it included the first-, third- and fifth-ranked states according to population (California, New York, and Illinois), all of them already blue according to the 2004 presidential election. But look closer at the states I've highlighted in bold above.

George Bush took each of those states in 2004 against Kerry, but they had higher turnout among Democrats this past Super Tuesday than they had among Republicans. Arkansas went for Bush by 18 percent -- but 26 percent more Democrats turned out for the Arkansas primary. Georgia was even more solidly blue than Arkansas four years ago, yet more Democrats still turned out for this primary. Missouri, considered a bellweather state, had 29 percent more Democrats voting in this primary than Republicans, despite also being in the blue column four years ago.

Finally, the one that intrigues me (because I'm originally from there and it's the best evidence of the Reagan Revolution, which moved the state from being solidly Democratic to solidly Republican in national politics, even though Democrats outnumber Republicans by 11.6 percent) went for Bush over Kerry by a whopping 47 percent. But it still had 21 percent higher turnout among Democrats in the primary. And, based on the 302,169 votes cast in the 2004 Democratic primary in Oklahoma, 38 percent higher turnout this time around.

Trends like this could bode very well for the Democrats this November, leaving aside the he-said/she-said of the current race (and, for that matter, leaving aside race, as well). A lot of course could happen between now and November. John McCain could (will likely, in fact) win the nomination, and he's got the most cross-over appeal among the Republican candidates. Mayor Mike (Bloomberg) could enter the race, which would be a real shame, because he's a pretty good mayor but doesn't stand a chance to win as president (as he himself has pointed out, he's a short, Jewish, divorced New Yorker -- not exactly going to be swept to victory across the Sun Belt), nor should he. Ralph Nader, unsafe at any speed in any election, could enter from the left; Ron Paul could decide to run on his own on the right.

So how 15 states turned out yesterday for their primaries may hold nothing more than wisps of smoke to augur some fire down below. But barring a guaranteed win, which I'd take if I could, I'll take this for now as a hopeful sign that voters may finally be saying, in the words of George W. Bush: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me... you can't get fooled again."

Tags: primary|Democrats|Republicans|number crunching

Edwards Dropping Out?

2008-01-30T11:44:00.000-05:00

So Where To Now?

I was planning to vote for Edwards next week; if he's dropping out, I'm voting for Obama for the pennant. But I will vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee in November -- even if it's Hillary (whom I've voted to the Senate twice), even if the Rethuglicans pull out dossiers on all the girls Bill's fooled around with in the last 8 years (as the rumor goes he's done and they plan to do). I won't be thrilled if she gets the nomination, because even the Republican leadership says her nomination is the one thing that will help unite their party (and that means their party's organization and players), but I'll still vote for whoever is the Democrat to keep a Republican administration from recurring.

And, as I've admitted before, I actually wrote in McCain 8 years ago, because at the time I stupidly thought that would be more principled than voting for Bush's idiocy and Gore's pedantry. I've changed my mind completely about Gore, and realize I did no better than the Nader voters in New Hampshire and Florida who gave the White House to Bush. Having seen what today's Republican party will do once it's in power, there's no way I'd vote for McCain again. And there's no way I wouldn't just "not vote" -- that's childish, seeking the perfect candidate before you'll vote for him or her. Never happens and if it does, they'd never win. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

I do find it interesting that (a) McCain and Clinton are both hated passionately by many in their party's base, which could make for an interesting election; and (b) Clinton received far more votes in the Florida Democratic primary than McCain did in the GOP primary -- despite the fact that none of the Democrats campaigned in Florida and that primary was merely a popularity contest, without any delegates coming from it (as of today, at least).

Tags: Clinton|Edwards|McCain|Obama|triage