The Partisan Review

Updated Electoral Map: Obama/Clinton v. McCain

2008-03-07T14:13:00.001-05:00

http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2008/03/all-victories-a.html

Hillary Clinton: The Nader of 2008

2008-03-07T08:38:00.002-05:00

Good article from the perspicacious John Chait:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ba30ff16-a5af-4035-a883-cf15ffee406c

Trenchant insight:
"Some Clinton supporters, like my friend (and historian) David Greenberg, have been assuring us that lengthy primary fights go on all the time and that the winner doesn't necessarily suffer a mortal wound in the process. But Clinton's kamikaze mission is likely to be unusually damaging. Not only is the opportunity cost--to wrap up the nomination, and spend John McCain into the ground for four months--uniquely high, but the venue could not be less convenient. Pennsylvania is a swing state that Democrats will almost certainly need to win in November, and Clinton will spend seven weeks and millions of dollars there making the case that Obama is unfit to set foot in the White House. You couldn't create a more damaging scenario if you tried.
Imagine in 2000, or 2004, that George W. Bush faced a primary fight that came down to Florida (his November must-win state). Imagine his opponent decided to spend seven weeks pounding home the theme that Bush had a dangerous plan to privatize Social Security. Would this have improved Bush's chances of defeating the Democrats? Would his party have stood for it?"

Obama v. McCain/Clinton v. McCain

2008-03-06T16:11:00.002-05:00

The first 50 state poll is out....

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/surveyusa_hillary_and_obama_wi.php

Sunstein on Obama...

2008-03-06T15:27:00.003-05:00

Great endorsement of Obama's real gift...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cass-r-sunstein/the-obama-i-know_b_90034.html

Sunstein on Obama...

2008-03-06T15:27:00.001-05:00

Great endorsement of Obama's real gift...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cass-r-sunstein/the-obama-i-know_b_90034.html

Obama/Clinton 2008

2008-03-05T10:49:00.003-05:00

I think I was a tad depressed and drunk last night, and it got the better of me. I momentarily lost all my marbles. Upon reflection, I think Clinton is much more suited to the attack-dog, small bore style befitting a Vice Presidential nominee. Obama, with his soaring, inspiring message and his conciliatory rhetoric is the proper Presidential nominee. Moreover, if Clinton was the President then Obama's role would be minor, as Bill would essentially be a co-President. She's won the major states, and is not that far behind in delegates and popular vote. Give the woman her due. As her victories in Ohio and Texas prove, Hillary knows how to attack and undermine an opponent very well. As such, she would be a boon to the ticket. But since she cannot overcome Obama in delegates, and is not likely to beat him in the popular vote overall, she cannot insist on being at the top of the ticket. Party elders (i'm talking to you Gore!!) need to lean on both candidates and say it's time to deal.

Prior to the South Carolina primary, Clinton noted her admiration for President Johnson and his role in the passage of key civil rights bills. She noted this as part of her strategy to undermine Obama's obvious rhetorical brilliance, which was being trumpted as a modern incarnation of President Kennedy and Dr. King. Well, I think, to an extent, that the analogy holds. Obama is Kennedy and Clinton is Johnson (the non-sexy, nuts-and-bolts, roll-up your sleeves and get to work type of pol). Kennedy and Johnson may have hated each other, as Obama and Clinton possibly do, but they made it work and won an election against a generally moderate Republican who's foreign policy bona fides (anti-communist crusader) were far superior to the Democratic nominees. An Obama/Clinton ticket would, like Kennedy/Johnson, prove to be dynamic and effective, in comparison to McCain's moribund manner.

An Obama/Clinton ticket would be historic. A black man and white woman. Both brilliant and passionate, though with different strengths, would lead to a tidal wave victory in November. Women would come out in droves, young people would come out en masse. The dream that is America would be validated. We need to bind the wounds in our party, and this is now the only viable option.

Obama/Clinton 2008: Change America, Change the World

Clinton/Obama 2008

2008-03-04T22:57:00.002-05:00

I hardly believe I'm typing this. Tonight has left me in a daze. I knew Hillary would win in Ohio, but I had no sense that she would win by such a large margin. And she's storming back in Texas. The latest numbers have her taking the lead. Even if the delegate distribution goes to Obama tonight, Clinton will now stick it out through April 22 at least. Many super-delegates will remain on the fence. The popular vote will be close no matter what and Obama will likely hold a delegate advantage even should he lose in Pennsylvania. But if Hillary is able to claim victories in NY, California, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, and secure the overall popular vote, then I believe that it will be in the best interests of the party for Hillary and Obama to make a deal whereby Obama would free his delegates in exchange for a VP slot. I know, I know. There's some bad blood. But tell that to Reagan/Bush 1980. A floor fight would be very bad for our party. A nomination secured by superdelegates would be insulting to the millions who have voted. We're all adults, and our wounds can heal. Hillary would need Obama's energy and enthusiasm, as well as his ability to attract new voters. Obama is young and is in need of some more national experience, some executive experience could serve him well. Of course, the results are not in yet for Texas. If he holds Texas, the pressure on Clinton to step aside will be great...

Texas and Pennsylvania....The only two states that matter now...

John Chait channels Dylan Thomas

2008-03-04T12:12:00.001-05:00

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chait4mar04,0,1105276.story

Matthew Yglesias: Clinton and the Media

2008-03-03T17:26:00.001-05:00

Spot on:

"The Clinton campaign is pushing hard on the idea that the press has been kinder to Barack Obama than it's been to her, and I know a lot of her supporters are totally up in arms about this. I'd say it's definitely true that, on balance, Obama has gotten better press than Clinton. Still, I think Clinton fans are going more than a little overboard with this monocausal account of the campaign. For one thing, one important exception to this is that if Obama had lost eleven contests in a row, there's no way he'd still be treated as a viable candidate. Similarly, if Clinton had reached a situation where nobody can mathematically see a way for Obama to catch his lead without altering DNC rules, I seriously doubt the race would continue to be covered as a serious competition.
From another direction, even though the press has often been unfair to Clinton about petty stuff, they have been very willing to go along with the idea that she has a vast experience edge over Obama even though it's always been unclear what exactly that edge consisted of. On top of that, the country's most prominent liberal columnist has been pretty consistently attacking Obama for months now. Now, yes, I do think there's been more BS thrown in her direction and there's obviously been an "Obama swoon" factor that there's no equal of on the other side (even Krugman, for example, writes only about his loathing of Obama and his supporters and never says anything good about Clinton) and that's been a factor in the race. Still, on the central argument of her campaign, Clinton's been treated reasonably well and the press has actually bent over backwards to keep her in the race under circumstances when almost anyone else would have been written off."

March 4 Predictions

2008-03-03T16:08:00.003-05:00

Obama wins Texas by about 4% points, and Vermont by 10+%...

Clinton wins Ohio by 7% and Rhode Island by 3%...

Overall, the delegate math doesn't change much. Under the rosiest of scenarios, Hillary doesn't come away with more than a net 12 of total pledged delegates. (A small win in Texas for Obama is much better, delegate wise, than an Ohio victory for Clinton by three times the Texas margin)...

Hillary will soldier on undoubtedly if she wins at least one of the biggies tomorrow. But she really needs to win both in order to completely change the dynamic of the race in a way that will give her the possibility of winning later states by larger margins, which is necessary for her to close the gap...

Also, don't forget that many post-March 4th states are shoe ins for Obama...(North Carolina, Mississippi, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota). That means that she has to completely crush (70-30 or better) Obama in Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Va, PR, Kentucky, as well as trying to force a do-over for Michigan and Florida (which still is a remote possibility)...While I think she can win Pennsylvania, the big post-March 4th prize, I doubt she can beat him by more than 15%. I really just dont see how she can make up all this ground w/o resorting to some nefarious backroom shady dealing...Party elders have been breaking toward Obama, and I just dont see her overcoming all of these obstacles unless we find out that Obama did something truly illicit...

Obama in Texas

2008-03-03T12:06:00.000-05:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0L2GEBhd2w&eurl=http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

Joseph Nye: A Liberal Realist Foreign Policy

2008-03-03T10:57:00.001-05:00

http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/03-pdfs/0308-36.pdf

Bush's $3 Trillion Bogus Journey

2008-02-28T15:49:00.003-05:00

Warning: Do not read this article if you are already in a depressive state....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/28/iraq.afghanistan/print

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-02-28T12:23:00.001-05:00

Juan Cole on why Obama's name is one to be proud of...

http://www.juancole.com/2008/02/barack-hussein-obama-omar-bradley.html

Deep in the Heart of Texas

2008-02-28T09:42:00.004-05:00

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/political_tectonics_in_texas_s.html

One of the many positive consequences of Hillary having remained in the race is the attention Democrats have showered on Texas. As the article I link to demonstrates, there is the distinct, albeit improbable, possibility that Texas can tilt to the Dems in the general this year. The author does not stress just how impactful this two-person, competitive race has been on our prospects in Texas. All of the media buys, direct mail, radio spots, public appearances and the concomittant free media, have enabled the Dems to build off of their inroads in Texas. Prospects would surely be even brighter had Mitt Romney or some other xenophobic, fear-mongering, anti-Hispanic candidate secured the Republican nomination, as opposed to McCain. However, though McCain is seen as friendly to the plight of immigrants, the local and state party chairs will be pressured to stir up the animosities of the base (even while McCain disingenuously denounces them) in order to best ensure good Republican turnout. The Democrats must use the venom of the GOP mainstream against them and turn out Hispanics in record numbers if they are to win in Texas.

It's a long shot, but for the first time in years, an opening exists.

Questions for Russert

2008-02-28T09:13:00.001-05:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/i-have-some-questions-for_b_88741.html

Combating the Third Wave of Terrorism

2008-02-28T09:05:00.001-05:00

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/threat_of_terrorism_may_be_ove.html

Buckley

2008-02-27T15:36:00.003-05:00

William F. Buckley, Jr., conservative icon, died today. The brand of conservatism he championed, however, died quite a few years ago. However much one disagreed with Buckley on the issues, one must admire the fact that he did not resort to ad hominim assaults and challenged people on the meta-level. He was a public intellectual. Unfortunately, the GOP faithful generally eschews serious thought these days, instead relying on cheap and easy appeals to xenophobia, bigotry, fear and division. Anti-intellectualism is predominant among Republicans today. Moreover, conservatism is no longer conservative. From now on I will refer to today's brand of "conservatism" as Republicanism. To be conservative is to be skeptical of concentrated power and the perfectability of man and society. Republicanism, rather, is a statist, moralist ideology that believes in the ultimate power of the government to deny women bodily autonomy, unabashedly deny citizens their most vital constitutional rights, detain and torture any suspect indefinitely without access to the judicial system, etc...

To state an old conservative maxim: Citizens should not fear their government, government should fear their citizens...

What We're Up Against

2008-02-27T14:49:00.001-05:00

http://www.tngop.org/wordpress/?p=113

The Tennessee GOP attempts to "enlighten" the base....

The Biblical Obama?

2008-02-26T15:03:00.000-05:00

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=a559152f-70db-4183-8a8e-ed818ce6df7c

Greenwald on Obama's Deft Touch

2008-02-25T14:50:00.002-05:00

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/25/obama/

Hillary has forever lost my vote

2008-02-25T11:03:00.010-05:00

Hillary Clinton has just received full membership privileges in the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy". In trying to push the "Obama is a Muslim" rumor, by sending Drudge a photo of Obama dressed in the traditional Somali Elder garb (while on a Congressional five-country African tour), Hillary has forever lost my vote. Should (by the intervention of Lucifer) she secure the nomination, I will vote for McCain. If not, I will surely vote Repuglican in 2012 when she stands for re-election to the Senate. She knows she cannot win, but she hopes that by using these scorched-earth tactics, she will help sabotage Obama's candidacy and allow for a McCain victory, thus positioning her for a 2012 run. The triumph of "anything goes" politics. This is so heinous. I knew she'd keep to a more strident tone, but I did not think she would go this low. I would not be surprised to hear her mention Obama's putative failure to say the Pledge or refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin.

I'm genuinely worried now. With a Democrat now advancing this bullsh*t lie and Nader announcing he'll run, i'm beginning to get a real fear that the political gods are conspiring to prevent a Democratic win. Also, by lending credence to these "Obama is a crypto-islamist" fabrications, it further signals to right-wing nutjobs that Obama is the enemy. For the first time, I'm actually growing worried for Senator Obama's safety. I hope the Secret Service proves itself up to the job (and does not continue to remain lax, as it was at a recent event in Texas) of protecting the good Senator. He's my generation's Bobby Kennedy, and we intend to keep him and utilize his talents for the betterment of our nation. Of course, today's NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/us/politics/25memo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) doesn't ease my worries. God bless and keep safe the next President of the United States...

PS: Honestly, if I were David Axelrod right now, I'd tell Obama to pull the plug on tomorrow's debate. 1) Hillary has been the one who has been beggin for debates...as she's the insurgent now, she needs the debate much more than Obama; 2) Hillary's fear & xenophobic tactic here is right out of the Fox News playbook and since the Dems all agreed not to reward Fox with a Dem debate, Obama should similarly punish Clinton for her scare tactics. Pull out of the debate, say that this manipulative junk has no place in Democratic politics, and call Al Gore and do everything you can to get his endorsement!!

Frank Rich on Clinton's un-American message

2008-02-24T13:25:00.002-05:00

Hillary's use of the "jaundiced eye" meme has certainly not benefitted her to date:

"As for countering what she sees as the empty Obama brand of hope, she offers only a chilly void: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and — talk about bizarre — against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Personality Tests and the remaining Presidential Candidates

2008-02-21T11:48:00.004-05:00

http://www.slate.com/id/2184696/

No real surprises here.

Under the Keirsey categories, I'm rated a "champion idealist" (which explains why I'm bored to tears by the more routine legal work that I'm often obligated to perform...). Maybe my rating says something about my affection and belief in Senator Obama, as he allegedly has the same rating.

Obama the Legislator

2008-02-21T11:37:00.003-05:00

For all of you Obama-haters out there who glibly parrot the line that Obama is an empty suit with no real legislative record, here is a compendium on that score. The most remarkable achievement was Obama's ability to not only cobble together a majority of Illinois legislators to pass a bill aimed at mandating the videotaping of interrogations, but that he was able to secure a unanimous vote on it. Normally a bill along these lines would be a third-rail for most legislators. Republicans are reflexively pro-law enforcement, and Democrats are generally petrified of the political consequences of voting for any bill that can be interpreted as favoring a criminal suspect. Check out hilzoy's compilation here:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/obama-actually.html

Hahaha

2008-02-20T15:56:00.002-05:00

Pretty hilarious mock press release from Clinton "strategist" Mark Penn...

http://tpi.blogspot.com/2008/02/tomorrows-mark-penn-memo-tonight-ive.html

Greenwald on the Coming Right-Wing War on Obama

2008-02-20T15:07:00.001-05:00

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/20/obama/

As always, insightful commentary from one of our nation's most articulate, reasonable liberals...

How to Beat McCain

2008-02-20T14:39:00.002-05:00

1) Turn his perceived strengths into weaknesses: (a) National Security: hit him on his vote for the Iraq War, his "100 Years" comment (which should be referred to in every Democratic speech and interview from now through election day), his jingoism and reckless nonchalance when it comes to the Iranian issue (Ads should replay the "bomb bomb bomb Iran" chant and then stress "Can our nation really afford yet another war?");
(b) his character and the perception that he is a man of principle: Hit him on his flip-flops with respect to the Bush tax cuts and his back flip on torture and his involvement in the Keating Five scandal in the 80's that cost the taxpayers billions...

2) Hit him with ads that zero in on his comment that he doesn't really know much about economics... "John McCain touts his experience. He has served in the Congress for over twenty years. He has chaired the Commerce Committee for a number of years. In all his time in Washington, Senator McCain still knows next to nothing about economics? During these tough economic times, don't we need a President who is willing to give the economy the attention it sorely requires?"

3) AGE, AGE, AGE...I want to see plenty photo ops of Obama jogging. Also, keep saying that McCain represents the "same, old Washington ways".

4) Every negative ad should show the picture of Bush and McCain sharing a warm embrace. "More of the same?" Every conceivable way of making a McCain Presidency an extension of Bush's should be attempted....

Texas

2008-02-15T12:29:00.002-05:00

New ARG poll has Obama beating clinton 48%-42%. (Also, about 1/3 of Texas delegates are chosen by caucus, which plays to Obama's strength with local party activists..)

The game ends on March 4th. Obama will win VT, RI, and now possibly Texas. But will Clinton soldier on despite Obama's inevitability? Can she play the gracious loser role? Interesting to see how her campaign comports itself as it slowly capsizes...Stay tuned...

Obama's Economic Agenda

2008-02-14T17:37:00.004-05:00

To read Obama's white paper on his economic plans, view it here:
http://obama.3cdn.net/8f478c5e1bb07ca0b1_sh1umv2zy.pdf

His Credit Card Bill of Rights is a long overdue package of measures...Also, the universal mortgage credit and the simplification of tax filings will be appreciated by all...Also, the American Opportunity Tax Credit to help pay for college education is pretty cool, especially as a condition is 100 hours of public service a year...

Fair and Deranged: Fox News Radiohost compares Obama with Hitler

2008-02-14T15:53:00.002-05:00

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802130016?f=h_latest

Is it possible to be stunned and yet not surprised at the same time?

Our Fundamentalist Military?

2008-02-14T15:28:00.005-05:00

Dovetails nicely with my friend's story, which I posted the other day, concerning intolerance of Democrats in the ranks of our armed forces...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080214063450.m1i2f0gz&show_article=1

Crowley on Obama's "Fairy Tale"

2008-02-14T09:32:00.002-05:00

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aaad0724-dd13-4ffa-810b-d5d3220ff055&k=88887

A lucid distillation of Obama's Iraq War record....

A Balanced View...

2008-02-14T07:33:00.006-05:00

Although I'm firmly in the climate-change believer camp, I found a very edifying new website that has been rolled out to present a compendium of articles (updated daily) reflecting both sides of the global warming debate. I'm not a climate change skeptic, but I also tend to shy away from relying on received wisdom, especially when that wisdom is received from but a few sources. The publishers of http://climatedebatedaily.com/ also publish one of my go-to websites, http://aldaily.com/. Check them both out...

On the Adkins Diet? Are you the presumptive Republican Nominee? Two Words: Avoid Rice

2008-02-13T16:25:00.006-05:00

Von Hoffman in the Nation tries to scare the shit out of Dems by positing that if McCain nominates Condoleeza Rice as his VP, then the Dems could be looking at a mess of trouble this November. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080225/howl2

Two words for you, Mr. Von Hoffman: Iraq War. Nominating Rice is only a few skin tones and X-chromosomes removed from nominating Dick Cheney. McCain is already looking at trouble with independents, unhappy Republicans, and "McCain" Democrats (his natural constituencies) due to his embrace of the "100 year" Iraq War and his various "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran" statements. Nominating Rice would further highlight that the 2008 Republican ticket is all about armed conflict. Rice has no background in business or economics, no executive experience, that would counterbalance McCain's weaknesses in those areas. Sure, she helps with the base. But McCain would lose a decent amount of independents, enough to tip the election to the Dems.

McCain would be best served, electorally speaking, by nominating a Governor or business executive. He needs someone who has no ties to this bungled misadventure in the sands of Iraq. Rice would be an initially sexy choice and the media would have a tizzy, but it wouldnt provide the proper balance to the Republican ticket. Sorry Repubs, no rice for you!! You come back in four year!

Gore Endorsement--funny feeling

2008-02-13T16:13:00.003-05:00

I'm fairly certain that Gore will remain on the sidelines indefinitely. However, I have a strong, instinctual feeling that if Edwards comes out and endorses Hillary and, as we know the ole trial lawyer can do well, begins hitting Obama hard for lacking the requisite toughness to take on the entrenched interests, then the 800 lb, Oscar wielding, gorilla (Gore) will endorse Obama. We'll have to just wait and see.

Unrequited Love: Evangelical Christians and Jews

2008-02-13T11:59:00.002-05:00

Money quote: "As Milton Himmelfarb once put it, “Jews earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans.”"

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_evangelicals.html

The most interesting aspect of the article concerns the incongruity of African-American anti-semitism.

Obama & Business

2008-02-13T11:37:00.000-05:00

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/feb2008/db20080212_645487.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_top+story

23 of 35

2008-02-13T10:47:00.003-05:00

Obama has won 23 of 35 contests, and has earned the majority of pledged delegates...By February 20, he'll have won 25 of 37. I've read from a number of sources, both biased and objective, that it's practically impossible for her to get ahead of Obama in pledged delegates (she'd have to win by 25-30% in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania...) Also, mind you that Obama should win Indiana, Vermont, Rhode Island, and North Carolina, as well (likely by big margins, though RI should be closer.) The game is coming to an end. Now we'll get to play the waiting game. I dont see them lasting to Pennsylvania any more. The manner in which Obama has been winning, the margins he's winning by, has pretty much closed that strategy (unless, Clinton pummels him in Texas and Ohio.) And I mean, pummel. Clinton needs to win both by large majorities to stay in the game, whereas Obama need only win Ohio, or even just keep Hillary's margin of victory in both states small, in order to force her out of the race.

The clock is ticking for you, Hillary. This is possibly your last moment under the klieg lights of a national campaign. Stay classy, Clintons.

All Eyes on Wisconsin

2008-02-13T08:05:00.002-05:00

After Obama's overwhelming victories in Maryland, DC, and most importantly, Virginia, last night, where he won nearly every demographic group (catholics, white men, educated, less educated, all income levels, blacks, latinos, circus acrobats...), Senator Clinton is on the ropes. Obama is picking up speed like an unmanned locomotive coming down the slope of K2. Wisconsin, which Hillary oddly seems to have now bypassed, may serve as a death knell for the Clinton campaign should Obama win. Wisconsin is not composed of a significant african-american constituency, and is home to a lot of blue-collar progressives. This should be natural Clinton turf, but Hillary's decision to avoid Wisconsin signals that her campaign has already written it off, possibly because Obama won a resounding victory in the neighboring Minnesota caucus. Should Obama win Wisconsin convincingly, he will be able to argue that (like he did in VA and MD) he can win among any demographic, thus disarming Clinton of one of her few remaining viable lines of attack.

If Obama wins Wisconsin, and as expected, Hawaii, he will have all the momentum (positive media attention, money showering down on him like manna from heaven) necessary to win in Ohio (especially as he ramps up his trade argument). If he wins Ohio, the game is over. The grand pooh bahs of the Democratic Party (Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Gore, Edwards, Kennedy, Rahm Emanuel, et al.) will forcefully nudge her toward the exit.

2008 election:

Obama/Webb vs. McCain/Sanford

Biggest Little Man

2008-02-12T15:44:00.000-05:00

A Change Is Gonna Come (NOT)

2008-02-12T15:37:00.000-05:00

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/8129

Where's Hillary????

2008-02-12T14:14:00.000-05:00

The Dodd/Feingold Amendment to block retroactive immunity for major telecom companies, who helped the Bush administration spy on american citizens without first getting approval from the FISA courts, failed today. Obama voted for it, while Clinton was a no-show. Obama should roll out an advertisement that shows HRC hammering him for his "present" votes, and then hitting her hard on her failure to appear for the vote on FISA immunity. I can't say i'm surprised at her absence, though, given Hillary's past comments regarding her views of executive power.

Hey Conservatives: Don't Blame McCain, Blame Bush

2008-02-12T14:12:00.001-05:00

Taking a break from his efforts to brand liberals as fascists...

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/should-conserva.html

Tale from the Dark Side

2008-02-12T13:44:00.000-05:00

Courtesy of a dear friend of mine:

A few weeks ago I somehow ended up telling this story to Sidney while discussing the upcoming Super Tuesday. I don't suppose there's one particular point to be culled from this tale except that it's true and perhaps a reminder to us New Yorkers who tend to forget about or not understand the other 90% of the country. In 2000, I was living and going to school in Arkansas (I grew up there) and was also in the Army Reserve unit in my home town. I had never been overly politically active but was starting to get more and more involved in politics to some extent. Having never voted before, I was actually excited when one of the younger sargeant's in my unit offered to help any one who was interested to register to vote. I filled out the form but failed to check the box for party affiliation. I didn't really think it was crucial that I declare my party affiliation. Especially since I was a young, non-politically active atheist, who grew up in the bible belt to liberal parents, and was now serving in the military and perhaps a bit confused. The sarg began to engage me in a somewhat aggressive manner as to which side I chose. He questioned me about my beliefs and who in the primary I would tend to support. I didn't exactly give a crystal clear answer but it was clear that I was more liberal than he. After about 15 minutes of being grilled by this doochebag in front of my colleagues, I was a little pissed and finally said "fine, if I have to declare right now, I'm a democrat" and I checked the box and handed him my form. His disdain was not well hidden. Still, I didn't care that much. I was happy to be registered and excited to vote. One of my friends, who was close with the sarg, ended up riding home with him later that day. He told me about their conversation initiated by my friend having asked "So, are you going to file that guy's registration?" The sarg simply replied "No, I'm not doing this to help them."
I was disgusted and at the same time not surprised. It was that sort of attitude along with many other things that eventually lead me to leave the Army early and not look back. In the long run, the decision to leave an organization where I was surrounded by the least free-thinking and most blindly loyal group of morons I've ever seen, saved me from the senseless war we are now engaged in.

CEO pay

2008-02-12T11:11:00.000-05:00

Courtesy of Samuel Brainsample:

http://lots-o-thoughts.blogspot.com/2008/02/graph-ceo-pay.html

What shouldn't be lost amidst our collective outrage at the explosive growth of CEO salaries relative the salaries of average workers is the fact that this graph tells but a part of the story. We should not forget that salary and stock options and golden parachutes are not the entire part of the compensation package for these CEOs. Lets not forget all the lunches, dinners, drinks that are either on the corporate credit card or easily written off as business expenses. Also, the gym memberships, taxi cab/limousine rides, the free tickets to the opera, Yankees games, corporate retreats, etc. I could go on ad nauseum. Average workers largely have to pay all of their travel expenses to and from work on their own, and do not get all the fringe benefits (which really adds up to a tremendous amount) that these executives get. It's obscene and it should inspire nothing but our righteous indignation...

Sherrod Brown: How to Win in Ohio

2008-02-12T11:01:00.001-05:00

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=283830

Most noteworthy, and sadly unnoticed by the national media, is Obama's Patriot Corporation Act, a balanced proposal to counteract the more pernicious aspects of globalization. I think this is what Democrats need to be about. It's not anti-corporate, or blindly pro-corporate. Rather, it's a bill that really underlines what Obama is all about. He seeks to effectuate liberal ends, through moderate, universally palatable means. It speaks to the fact that corporations are not inherently evil, but can be harnessed for good if we provide a few "carrots" (while keeping the corporations mindful of the big "stick" in President Obama's back pocket.)

Pimp: Explained

2008-02-12T10:54:00.001-05:00

Slate thankfully does what I'm far too lazy to do...(then again, blogging is not my full-time job and I'm no longer a student blessed with ample leisure time...)

http://www.slate.com/id/2184211/

Mark Penn: Bloviating Retard

2008-02-11T18:22:00.000-05:00

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/hillary_pollster_mark_penn_hil.php

On a conference call with reporters just now, Hillary pollster Mark Penn sought to make the case for her electability by dredging up bad memories of the GOP and right-wing media's successful efforts to redefine Al Gore and John Kerry, arguing that Hillary wouldn't succumb to such tactics.

So, Penn's saying that Hillary can't be defined by Republicans? Umm, haven't they already successfully done that? Half of this country hates her and many of these Hillary-haters operate under the misconception that Hillary is a card-carrying Socialist, when she's more or less a centrist. Once again Mark Penn demonstrates his profound ignorance. If half the nation already hates her for bogus reasons (she's a Red, she murdered vince foster, she's corrupt, etc...), then it's pretty obvious that she already has succumbed to such GOP tactics. D'uh!

Bill the Saboteur?

2008-02-11T18:05:00.000-05:00

http://www.theagitator.com/2008/02/11/did-bill-sink-hill-on-purpose/

I remain skeptical that he would consciously attempt to derail his wife's presidency. Though I don't presume to understand what percolates in the dark, inner recessess of his mind.

Pimpin' Chelsea

2008-02-08T18:12:00.000-05:00

So it seems MSNBC and its very own David Shuster are getting a lot of grief today from the Clinton campaign over a question David asked last night while filling in for Tucker Carlson. He and Bill Press were evidently discussing Chelsea Clinton's new role in the campaign (she's been working the phones hard trying to keep superdelegates in the HRC fold), and asked "But doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird way?"

Well, to answer his question, no, she isn't being pimped out. She's a responsible adult woman who is taking an active role in her mother's campaign.

However, what's most annoying is that Shuster was clearly using the modern use of the term "pimped out." That is, he questioned whether she was being exploited by her parents, not whether she was literally being forced to use her body to get superdelegate pledges. Of course, the Clintons love playing the victim card so expect them to use this episode to their advantage. The Obama campaign will also say that this was out of line, and Shuster will likely be forced to resign. But let's get one thing clear: you cannot equate this comment with the "nappy headed ho" Imus utterance. Shuster just used an expression which has become innocuous with Gen Xers and Yers, but still offends the sensibilities of the older crowd. Too bad, I actually liked Shuster's commentary. Oh well, he'll bounce back and hopefully learn to choose his words more carefully.

Supreme Court Pt. 3

2008-02-08T10:48:00.000-05:00

http://www.slate.com/id/2183930/

Perhaps Sunstein won't be an ideal pick, as I've suggested in the past, because his embrace of judicial minimalism does not comport with the Dems hunger for a liberal lion in the mold of a Justice Brennan or Thurgood Marshall.

"One of Obama's close advisers on legal matters, Cass Sunstein, is a proponent of judicial minimalism—the theory that judges should hew closely to the facts in the cases before them rather than issuing forth with bold and sweeping opinions. So I wondered if Obama might favor moderate judges over strongly liberal ones—a translation to the bench of his calls for unity and bipartisanship, in other words. But Minow and Tribe rejected that. And Sunstein himself has written that given the roaring conservative voices currently on the court and its shift to the right, minimalism isn't necessarily the best posture for the next justice. "I clerked for Justice Marshall, and while I don't agree with him on everything by any means, there is an argument that the court would benefit from someone with a vision of equality and liberty," Sunstein said. "That is clearly absent.""--Emily Bazelon

I'd say that whether to choose a strong liberal or nominate a jurist with a more moderate, casuistic, approach depends greatly on the party balance in the Congress. If it's tight, Obama will search for a dark horse who initially seems moderate in his approach but will veer left shortly after confirmation. Unfortunately, as David Souter or Anthony Kennedy can tell you, or Forrest Gump for that matter, you never know what you're gonna get.

The McCain Mutiny

2008-02-07T18:24:00.000-05:00

I was once a McCain guy. In the fall of '99, when I was a sophomore in college, I had the pleasure of working at McCain 2000's national hq in Alexandria, Virginia. At the time, (oh, misguided youth) I was a mostly pro-life, budget hawk who firmly believed in America's exceptionalism and the righteousness of using American military force to make the world safe for McDonalds, err I meant Democracy. Being from New York, however, and having been surrounded by democrats literally since birth, I figured that compromise with Democrats on matters of the most supreme importance was necessary to prevent the tearing of our national fabric. McCain struck me as an eminently reasonable politician. He has wit, humor, unrivaled integrity and a faith in the American people that awed me. The Limbaughs and Coulters who now regularly deride McCain and say that he's to the left of Hillary are outlandish caricatures, and nothing more. They have no faith in the American people, because they frankly hate the majority of us. They liken Democrats to terrorists, when many are in fact patriots. But McCain recognizes, as all good public servants must, that our political opponents are not our enemies. As Lincoln said, "[w]e are not enemies but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection."

In order to successfully govern, our public servants must extend their hands to their electoral foes and occasionally dare to compromise. Not on each and every issue, but on some of the most crucial ones where bipartisan support is most urgently needed. Of course this saps public policy of ideological purity, but that is a necessary result of our commitment to pluralism, democracy and the protection of minority rights. McCain is a responsible adult, unlike so many of our self-important, self-aggrandizing, preening "leaders." In the past he has often bridged the political divide in order to meet our most grave challenges, whether on global warming, our ballooning federal deficit, interrogation policy or on immigration policy. But the children on the right continue to cry "But he's not one of us!!" Well, for once the loons are right. He's not one of you. He's not Cheney or Bush or Limbaugh or Hannity. He is a proud American patriot. I disagree with him on a multitude of issues, not the least of which is his unwavering support of our bloody mess of a war, but I know that on some of them, he would be willing to engage me and my ilk rather than calling us terrorists, baby-killers or some other ill-conceived epithet.

An Obama-McCain match-up would give this nation what it most sorely deserves and has been lacking for decades. A mature debate as to the most pressing issues of the day. A sober discussion of what ails this nation and how to remedy those ailments.

But those on the right who insist on ideological purity, on conformity to a warped and twisted version of conservatism, fail to understand that they only help the Democrats by encouraging the shrinking of their party. I left the party around 2002 because of the War in Iraq and the fact that I noticed that the national Republican party no longer wanted to keep the moderate republicans in their fold. The party became virulent in its blind hatred of Democrats, and ceased to see their political opponents as Americans. That left a bitter taste in my mouth and in the mouths of many others across this vast country. Now that the Republicans are attempting to devour their own rather than us, we Dems can sit back and enjoy the carnage. However, they do themselves a great disservice b/c they cannot see how great a candidate they have before them.

Here's an article on the "kiddie wing" of the Republican party:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/the_kiddie_wing_of_the_gop.html

And on to the Superdelegates

2008-02-07T18:09:00.000-05:00

Apparently it is virtually impossible for the race to be decided on the basis of actual voting (barring the stunning revelation that either Obama is a gay Russian spy or that Hillary had a torrid love affair with Chandra Levy-remember her?-before murdering her and disposing of the body). The race will likely be decided by the unpledged superdelegates, elected officials and party bigwigs from across the country. Ain't democracy grand?

So the ultimate question is: Which is the more compelling driving factor-loyalty or the will to win?

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/02/07/the_democratic_math.html

Hmm...

2008-02-06T11:26:00.000-05:00

The Nation's Ari Melber points out something that I neglected to reflect on in my previous post:
"While Clinton scored a few victories in key coastal states like California, she only broke 60 percent in one state, Arkansas. Obama not only won more states, but racked up victories over 60 percent in seven states, buoyed in part by organizing prowess in caucus contests. More consequentially, he won independents by large margins in most regions, including states in Clinton's column, such as Arizona and New Jersey, where one out of five primary voters were independents. He won them by 15 points in Clinton's home state of New York, and by 30 points in California. In the swing state of Missouri, independents flocked to Obama by a decisive 37 points, securing his narrow victory there. "
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=280868

I think we'll see the hundreds of undecided superdelegates (who want the candidate most likely to win) begin to float toward Obama after the 19th b/c they'll consider:
1) the overall number of wins (which by 2/20 should break down this way:
Obama: Iowa, South Carolina, Connecticut, Illinois, Missouri, New Mexico, Delaware, Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, North Dakota, Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Minnesota, Alaska, Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington state, DC, Maryland, Virginia, Hawaii and Wisconson-
Clinton: New Hampshire, Nevada, New York, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Arizona, and Maine.
That's 23 states (and DC and Democrats abroad) for Obama against 11 for Clinton. Sure she'll have the delegate rich states, but Obama will by the end of this month have a decent, albeit not insurmountable, delegate lead and a 2-1 overall lead in state wins. The superdelegates will start crossing over, and he can seal the deal with a win in Ohio and a strong showing in Texas on March 4th.
2) Obama's clear strength among Independents and moderate Repubs
3) Obama's strong victories in red and swing states
4) Obama's stronger fundraising ability
5) the fact that Obama generally did far better in states Clinton won than Clinton did in states Obama won

Remember that in any campaign, whether political or military, a drawn out battle favors the insurgent b/c of its legitimizing effect.

The End of the Beginning

2008-02-06T09:22:00.000-05:00

The fates of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, after last night's draw, will be decided in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Obama did what he had to do, which was to match Hillary. It looks like he picked up slightly more delegates overall yesterday than Clinton, which keeps his candidacy very much alive. (He won 14-8) Surprising wins in Missouri, New Mexico, Connecticut, and a big win in Minnesota has given Obama legitimacy in the eyes of the nation. I would have liked a win in California obviously, but to lose by only 10 or so points when you were down 30% a few weeks ago is an incredible accomplishment. Moreover, though Clinton is trying to sell this draw as a win, the press will largely see this as 1) Kennedy's endorsement didnt matter that much (which is bull considering how much ground Obama gained in Massachusetts and among hispanics in Cali and New Mexico) and 2) the legitimization of Barack Obama. The winds are still very favorable for Obama. He stands to get solid wins and good press coverage for about the next month. He should win handily in the Chesapeake primaries of Maryland, Virginia and DC next week, as well as pick up Louisiana and Washington state this weekend. He'll win by a substantial margin in his home state of Hawaii, as well. She will likely pull out a win, though I'd still call it a toss up, in Wisconsin, where economic issues will be at the forefront. Luckily, Obama has more than enough money and time to invest in Ohio, where the majority of his time should be spent the next four weeks. Despite the gains he will make this month, should he lose by a significant margin in both Texas and Ohio, then he may be forced to bargain for a VP slot. Ohio will be a big public relations coup for him, since it is a bellweather state, and will offset a Texas loss (especially since he should have a decent, but thin, delegate lead going into March. If he does indeed win Ohio, then Pennsylvania on April 22 could decide the entire nomination.

I dont think Obama wants a floor fight. He fancies himself as the Great Uniter and is young enough to be thinking of 2012 or 2016. If he loses in Pennsylvania, then my sense is he'll concede, but what is less clear is whether he'd be willing to accept the VP slot. Clearly such thinking is premature as Obama was the victor last night, at least in terms of the greater narrative arc of this election cycle. Facing long odds against a well-known establishment figure, he has become a credible alternative. Super Tuesday was supposed to solve everything, but nothing has been solved. That, my friends, is all that is needed to prove my point that Clinton was the loser here, ultimately.

Obama better start making Ohio and Pennsylvania his second and third homes...Immediately...

The Tendentiousness of Taylor Marsh

2008-02-05T15:16:00.000-05:00

(Excerpt:) "Part of the primary story that has yet to be written is the secret sexism running rampant in progressive quarters and within our Democratic midst. I have never been so shocked as to see some supposed Democratic and progressive males react with such shameful sexist bias that is sometimes obvious, but also evidenced in unfair coverage of Clinton."

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26942

The nerve of her to castigate progressive males for preferring the candidate who does not come equipped with more baggage than The Big Red One. I honestly believe that both Hillary and Barack are passionately committed to pushing through an agenda that is consonant with progressive values. In the event of a tie, I would not, as a male, pick the male candidate over the female in order to further the "patriarchy." Ms. Marsh, however, seems to think that's the case. Actually, she presumes that Hillary is the better candidate (all that experience, you know), and as such Ms. Marsh thinks that her allegation of progressive misogyny holds even greater merit. She really has no clue, though, that the fulcrum isn't Hillary's additional "x" chromosome, but rather that she too often believes that she has to mitigate Providence's decision to make her a woman by voting and acting more like a denizen of Mars as opposed to Venus. Her misguided vote for the Iraq War resolution, whether she considered the resolution substantively justifiable or whether it was just an effort to seem "tough", as well as her equally foolish vote on Kyl-Lieberman, is what has made her an unappealing candidate to many progressives. Whether she is in actuality a hawk, or just thinks she has to seem a hawk from an electoral standpoint given that she's the first viable female candidate, makes no difference to me. Her gravely serious misjudgment on Iraq, which has led to over a hundred thousand deaths, should matter to men and women alike. Furthermore, her tendency toward secrecy and closed negotiations (as evidenced by her colossal failure on health care reform) is additionally worrying, and is contrary to the consensus-seeking approach that many women thankfully bring to both business and government.

I have no qualms with voting for a woman. But it can't be any woman, just as it can't be any man, or any New Yorker, or any Jew. As a Jew, I'd rather sit through a three-day Christian Rock festival than cast a vote for Joe Lieberman. In this post-modern age, each candidate should be judged on his or her merits and that is all. Hillary is just not the right woman for the job.

The West Wing Election

2008-02-05T12:16:00.002-05:00

Is this another case of life imitating art? For those of you who enjoyed The West Wing, you've got to be feeling a case of deja vu. The last two seasons of the show revolved around the battle to succeed President Barlett (Martin Sheen). The Republican nominee was a moderate (maverick), straight talkin' Republican from California named Arnold Vinnick (Alan Alda). The base was very skeptical of his conservative bona fides. As such, he chose as a running made a candidate who was well-respected by the Religious Right. In the real world, we have before us the likely candidate who fits the Vinnick mold with the added benefit of having courageously survived a tiger cage for 5 1/2 years. McCain is Vinnick, and he will likely choose Mike Huckabee to shore up support from the distrusting evangelical base.

More interesting is how the Democratic race has played out according to The West Wing's plot. In the West Wing universe, the race for the nomination went all the way to the national convention, which seems to be the likely case in the real world as well. The battle pitted an upstart, inspiring, unconventional and young (and largely inexperienced) Democrat by the name of Matt Santos (Jimmy Smits). His campaign was at first a seemingly quixotic one. Despite the urging of some advisors, he refused to play the normal ugly games required of a successful politician. His foil was the incumbent Vice President Bob Russell (Gary Cole). Russell, like Hillary, had all the advantages of incumbency: money, establishment support, etc...However, he was uninspiring and not up to thejob. As such, the delegates at the convention (aided by Bartlett applying pressure to the teacher's union) broke toward the upstart, Santos. To be honest, the Russell as Hillary analogy does not hold as much water as Santos as Obama or Vinnick as McCain, because Hillary is much more qualified and more inspiring. However, in truth she comes with enormous liabilities that Russell did not suffer from: namely, a divisiveness which risks making us Dems look like fools should we nominate her.

Let's hope that for the sake of our party, the nation and the world that the West Wing's writers' clairvoyance holds true and that Obama secures the nomination. Because just as Bingo Bob would have had his clock cleaned by Vinnick, we cannot expect Clinton to have an easy time overcoming the challenge a McCain candidacy offers.

Big Day

2008-02-05T09:02:00.001-05:00

It's the Unstoppable Force against the Immovable Object...which one will prevail?
I'll be at an Obama watch party tonight on Long Island, where we hope to steal some NY delegates from Hillary the Inevitable. If you're in Nassau County and want to join, just send me an email.

Super Duper Tuesday: Predictions!!

2008-02-04T14:23:00.000-05:00

State (Delegates at stake)

Alabama (60): Obama
Arizona (67): Obama in a squeaker, owing much to Gov. Napolitano's endorsement and fulsome support
Alaska (18): Clinton
Arkansas (47): Clinton for obvious reasons....
California (441): Obama by roughly 2% of all votes cast (late deciders will break his way)
Colorado (71): Obama by a good 6-7%
Connecticut (60): Obama by 3-4%
Delaware (23): Clinton by 5%
Georgia (103): Obama by 17%
Idaho (23): Obama by 8%
Illinois (185): Obama by 30%+
Kansas (41): Obama by 9%
Massachusetts (121): Clinton by 3%
Minnesota (88): Obama by 4%
Missouri (88): Obama by 2%
New Jersey (107): Clinton by 5%
New Mexico (38): Clinton by 10%
New York (281): Clinton by 12%
North Dakota (21): Obama by 6%
Oklahoma (47): Clinton by 22%
Tennessee (85): Clinton by 15%
Utah (29): Clinton by 17%

Overall, I expect Obama to win more states: 12-10, and for him to pick up enough delegates to maintain his status as the delegate leader...

Key states to watch: Massachusetts, New Jersey, Missouri, California, and Minnesota

(American Samoa: Clinton; American Abroad: Obama)

Remember that all he needs to do is acheive what David Axelrod says is "rough parity" in delegates...

Should Obama win more states and delegates, then this race could be wrapped up by February 12th. Washington state votes on February 9th, followed by Virginia and Maryland on the 12th. Due to large black populations in Virginia and Maryland (as well as Gov. Kaine's support in VA), Obama looks poised to win a strong majority of the delegates in those states. If he wins Washington as well, Hillary would be forced to concede after the 12th. If she wins marorities of states and delegates tomorrow, however, she'll deal w/ losing MD and VA, and look toward Texas, Ohio and possibly even Pennsylvania on April 22nd.

This should be fun (pass the Tums!)

Profile in Courage: Clinton, Obama and Landmines

2008-02-04T13:49:00.001-05:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/clinton-obama-and-clust_b_84811.html

Just another example of Obama's willingness to do what's right rather than what's merely politically expedient.

YES WE CAN

2008-02-04T09:25:00.001-05:00

http://www.dipdive.com/

I know, I know. It looks a bit like a Calvin Klein advert. But it supports that Cuomo maxim which I quoted in an earlier post...That you campaign in poetry. However, I'd take issue with the 'governing in prose' segment. Aside from substantial commander-in-chief powers, the greatest power a president commands is the bully pulpit. The ability to speak behind the Great Seal and have the entire world pay attention. For a president, much unlike the current officeholder, who has the gift of inspiration, who can transform a standard campaign utterance into a poetic call to arms, then he has in his hands the power to move an agenda forward. Governing requires the ability to project a vision and persuade a majority of citizens to rally around that vision. To do that requires poetry. At this dark hour in our history, we need a president who is capable of the knock-down, drag-out, bare-knuckle, behind-the-scenes partisan warfare that can move a progressive agenda through a complacent, sluggish Congress. However, to do that he/she will need a mandate. He/she will need a chorus of American voices shouting down the walls of Babylon. That is why poetry will still be required in order to rally Americans to overcome all the entrenched commercial interests, to overcome our collective cynicism which has given birth to an apathy that smells of self-immolation.

The future is here if we are willing to welcome it. Vote Obama tomorrow!

"The [Obvious] Choice"

2008-01-31T15:02:00.000-05:00

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080218/hayes

Why Obama considers himself in the Reagan mold (strategically)

2008-01-31T14:26:00.001-05:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/what-counts-as-an-issue_b_84177.html

The Romantics v. Realists

2008-01-28T16:27:00.000-05:00

Excellent piece in New York Magazine by John Heilemann.
http://nymag.com/news/features/43341/

He distills the real filter going on in the Democratic race: the wary realists vs. the romantics. A bit of a warning though for you Clinton realists out there...As Bill Clinton himself once said: "Democrats want to fall in love with their candidates, whereas Republicans want to fall in line behind their candidate."

Money sections:
"If you find yourself drawn to the Clinton candidacy, you likely believe that politics is politics, that partisanship isn’t transmutable, that Republicans are for the most part irredeemable. You suspect that talk of transcendence amounts to humming “Kumbaya” past the graveyard. You believe that progress comes only with a fight, and that Clinton is better equipped than Obama (or maybe anyone) to succeed in the poisonous, fractious environment that Washington is now and ever shall be. You ponder the image of Bill as First Laddie and find yourself smiling, not sighing or shrieking.
If you find yourself swept up in Obamamania, on the other hand, you regard this assessment as sad, defeatist, as a kind of capitulation. You’re perfectly aware that politics is often a dirty business. But you believe it could be a bit cleaner, a bit nobler, a bit more sustaining. You think that paradigm shifts can happen, that the system can be rebooted. Most of all, an attraction to Obama indicates you are, on some level, a romantic. You never had your JFK, your MLK, and you desperately crave one: What you want is to fall in love."

Which leaves me with: What the world needs now is love, sweet love....

Poetry vs. Prose

2008-01-28T16:09:00.000-05:00

"You campaign in poetry, but you govern in prose."--Mario Cuomo

Obama's Oratory

2008-01-28T10:37:00.000-05:00

In light of Obama's rousing speech (possibly his best) on Saturday night, I've decided to put together a mini-compendium of his best orations. If you've got some time, and great (and historic), evocative speeches tend to move you, check some of these out:

2004 Democratic Convention:
Part I: http://youtube.com/watch?v=MNCLomrqIN8
Part II: http://youtube.com/watch?v=56-m8wx1mwo

Announcement Speech (Springfield, Illinios): http://youtube.com/watch?v=U9eyhPOE4zw&feature=related

(At debate: re Clinton Advisors): http://youtube.com/watch?v=pv7K8S4kGQM

Jefferson-Jackson Dinner (MUST WATCH): http://youtube.com/watch?v=tydfsfSQiYc

Iowa Victory Speech: http://youtube.com/watch?v=XB-sNaaaJRU

New Hampshire Concession speech: http://youtube.com/watch?v=AkWdOa2ypYg

The actual Reagan comments: http://youtube.com/watch?v=HFLuOBsNMZA

Ebenezer Baptist Church (MUST WATCH): http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kf0x_TpDris

Hostile South Carolina Debate exerpt: http://youtube.com/watch?v=MD9F1t9GQzA

South Carolina Victory Speech (MUST WATCH): http://youtube.com/watch?v=-iVAPH_EcmQ

Enjoy...

HISTORIC!!

2008-01-26T22:29:00.000-05:00

I'm very proud of South Carolina tonight. They came out in droves and issued a forceful rejoinder to the Clintons that their old-school, sleaze-ball, race-based tactics will no longer be tolerated. Looks like Michelle Obama was pretty prescient when she noted that african-americans would ultimately come home to Obama. He wound up with an astounding 80% of them on his side, despite strong Clinton roots in the constituency. But what really makes me proud for my nation is that nearly a quarter of whites voted for Obama (not so far off from Clinton's and Edwards support among that demographic slice). Bill Clinton (again, keeping w/ the race card) today compared Obama to Jesse Jackson. Keep it up, Bill. The more the focus is on you, the more you play into Obama's hands. Jackson didn't win Iowa, he didn't nearly win New Hampshire. The two whitest places outside of the Arctic Circle. You offer a false analogy, which is a product of your abundant arrogance and thirst for power.

Check out tomorrow's NY Times where Caroline Kennedy endorses Obama and compares him and his transformational power with her father.

Obama's victory speech was probably one of his best speeches to date, which is saying an awful lot. Greatest American orators: Daniel Webster-Abraham Lincoln-William Jennings Bryan-FDR-John Kennedy-Martin Luther King, Jr....Barack Obama?!?

Memo to Obama: Time to bring out the heavy bat

2008-01-24T10:11:00.000-05:00

Senator Obama,

Given the negligible differences between you and Hillary on matters of policy, you have understandibly predicated your candidacy on your unique ability to unite this country, and in so doing, command a governing majority to propel forward a progressive agenda. It's time to couple this appeal with the fact that Hillary failed in her effort to pass healthcare reform in the 90's despite having a Democratic-controlled Congress with which to work.

Hillary is claiming she is the candidate with "experience." Well, in the White House years, her only visible policy role was heading up the health care task force. She came under criticism from Democratic leaders in Congress, and in the administration (Donna Shalala, Lloyd Bentson), for the way in which she led the effort. Despite majorities in the House and Senate, Hillary failed to UNITE the party (let alone the nation) behind her ideas. You should run an ad in the Super Tuesday states that plays on this. It undermines her claim of experience, as well as her ability to unite Democrats, let alone Republicans and independents. If she could not persuade members of her own party on health care, then it calls into question her ability to persuade anyone of anything. Also, indicate her failure on health care directly led to us losing the Congress to Republicans, and that the people have paid the ultimate price for Hillary's failure. We still don't have universal health care. In a debate, when she goes for your jugular on mandates and universality, simply outline what I just said, rather than playing defense. Time to break out the big bat, Senator Obama.

Futhermore, if Bill Clinton keeps inserting himself, like a Vice Presidential nominee, into this debate, attacking you, and crying to the media, then you should have your surrogates (much in the way HRC had her own call you out on the drug issue) begin talking about the litany of Clinton scandals that beset this nation in the 90's. [shady land deals, Lewinsky, Paula Jones, the loss of Bill's law license, fundraising scandals, travelgate, etc...] Also, they should note how the Lewinsky scandal indirectly caused Bush's win over Gore. That might fire up the Dems during the primary season....

If they're going to play dirty, well, let's start swinging our own elbows.

Your choice is Humphrey or Robert Kennedy, whom do you choose? No brainer, give me Kennedy (Obama) any day. Inspiration is hard to come by...

The State endorses Obama

2008-01-22T17:00:00.000-05:00

Hopefully this will help lock up South Carolina, a must-win for Obama.

http://www.thestate.com/opinion/story/293153.html

Most instructive passage:

"But we also have a good idea what a Clinton presidency would look like. The restoration of the Clintons to the White House would trigger a new wave of all-out political warfare. That is not all Bill and Hillary’s fault - but it exists, whomever you blame, and cannot be ignored. Hillary Clinton doesn’t pretend that it won’t happen; she simply vows to persevere, in the hope that her side can win. Indeed, the Clintons’ joint career in public life seems oriented toward securing victory and personal vindication.
Sen. Obama’s campaign is an argument for a more unifying style of leadership. In a time of great partisanship, he is careful to talk about winning over independents and even Republicans. He is harsh on the failures of the current administration - and most of that critique well-deserved. But he doesn’t use his considerable rhetorical gifts to demonize Republicans. He’s not neglecting his core values; he defends his progressive vision with vigorous integrity. But for him, American unity - transcending party - is a core value in itself. "

Sully's apt description of Hillary's changed style

2008-01-22T16:49:00.000-05:00

Looks as if she was being (for a change) 100% truthful when she revealed that this would be the "fun part" of the campaign...

"When she went for Obama over his respect for conservative ideas, she knew it was a phony charge, but she clearly relished wielding it. Ditto the Rezko swipe. And her gob-smackingly brazen lecture about Obama not taking responsibility for his own words - this from Bill Clinton's wife? And watching her, you could see she was loving it. There was this absolute unconcern for propriety - especially the unconscionably tacky interventions of her husband. There was a relish in small-bore partisan attacks. She is steeped in the old politics, and there's something clarifying about watching her enjoy flinging the dirt that is now caked under her fingernails." Andrew Sullivan

Full comment here: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/i-hope-youre-si.html

Last Night's Debate (and Hillary's inner Rove)

2008-01-22T10:17:00.000-05:00

If anyone caught the spectacle that was last night's Democratic debate, then you caught the "boxing match" that the media so loves to bring out of the candidates. While I usually abhor such political theatre, I felt that it was a necessary event last night what with Bill Clinton's consistent string of fabrications aimed at Obama or as to his own Iraq record. Obama is essentially fighting both Clintons now.

1) Bill Clinton, as he did while in office, consistently demeans the Office of the President. It is customary for a former President to embrace the role of party elder and eminence gris and stay on the sidelines of these campaigns. Hillary explains that he's just coming to her defense. Well, if she needs to rely on his legacy as tantamount to experience of her own, as a sin qua non of her candidacy, and if she requires him to be her attack dog and protect her during the campaign, then what can we expect from a Hillary presidency? What role will Bill Clinton play then? Can she control him once he breaks free of his leash? Bill Clinton is effectively running for his third term and is attempting to tear down and smear a fellow Democrat, and he has forfeited his role as party elder. Did the elder Bush act as attack dog against McCain or even Al Gore in 2000? Not at all. If GWB didn't need poppy bush to protect him in 2000, why does Hillary over-rely on Bill? Yet again, Bill's conduct is unbecoming of the office of the Presidency. For once, Hillary should be forced to do something on her own. This is dynasticism and nepotism at its worst, and embodies an anti-feminist sentiment that should be troubling for the Gloria Steinem's of the world. And ladies, I am an equal opportunity voter. Give me a Barbara Boxer or Diane Fienstein, and I'd vote twice if I could.

2) Last night's debate revealed for once and for all that Hillary is just as much a prevaricator as her husband. She again attempted to claim that Obama stated his support for Reagan and Republican policies. (This is laughably absurd in light of the fact that Bill's biggest successes as President were co-opted Republican proposals...) The fact that she isn't called out by the media as an outright liar is vexing. It's an odd tango. Bill and Hillary constantly decry the media's treatment of them (which, more or less, is accurate), but they never really get called out when they baldly lie. Why doesn't Obama simply say that the majority of Bill Clinton's agenda was based on Republican proposals? That BillClinton was essentially our best Republican president we've had since Teddy Roosevelt? For instance, these are the following anti-progressive bills or policies that Bill Clinton enacted:
1) Crime bill (federal death penalty expanded to more than 60 different offenses)...more cops on the street, but nothing done about mandatory minimum sentences, crack vs. coke sentences, treatment vs. imprisonment for non-violent drug offenses
2) the Communications Decency Act (surprise, it was in an election year...pusillanimity at its worst)
3) Telecom Reform Act (set the stage for media consolidation..."An FCC study found that the Act had led to a drastic decline in the number of radio station owners, even as the actual number of commercial stations in the United States had increased.")
4) Welfare Reform act
5) Defense of Marriage Act (God knows why a gay person would support HRC)
6) Iraq Liberation Act (which called for "regime change" in Iraq, and was relied on by Bush)
7) Extraordinary rendition was first approved by the Clinton administration....Clinton approved sending these suspects to Egypt for "interrogation"
8) The BS "don't ask, don't tell" policy...a monumental failure and a human rights travesty...

Hillary and Edwards also both teamed up on Obama as indecisive for voting present on 100 or so votes out of the 4,000 he cast in the Illinois Senate. Obviously neither of them know a thing about comparative politics. You cannot take a different system of government's processes and mechansims only on the terms that you're familiar with based on your own governmental processes. In the Illinois state legislature it is common to vote present in order to influence the shaping of the bill that eventually comes out or to show you have issues with the bill in its present form but would consider voting for something similar, albeit w/ the changes. This is a non-issue to me and should be to everyone.

3) After Obama rightly takes Clinton to task for her years of work on the board of Walmart, while he took a job as a community organizer, Clinton hits him on the 5 hours of work he did as an associate which indirectly benefited Tony Rezko (more or less a scumbag). Obama's relationship w/ Rezko should be questioned, but let's not forget that nearly every politician has at one time or another been allies with a creep. Truman, who has morphed into a mythic figure (despite his unpopularity while in office), was himself a product of the corrupt Pendergast machine in Missouri. And let us not forget the litany of shady deals, fundraising scandals, perjury charges, sexual harassment suits, an interesting episode of intern cigar-banging while in the hallowed Oval Office, that have beset the Clintons these last 20-30 years. Their hands are far from clean, people. Now that she raised the Rezko issue, I say Obama and his surrogates begin stating the obvious: "Do we really want to return to the scandal-plagued Clinton years? Do we really want a Restoration of these two politicians who often times get undone by their self-inflicted wounds?"

4) Hillary's inner Rove:
In 2004, Rove and the Bush campaign, aided by their surrogates, took John Kerry's strength (his courage, valor and bravery in Vietnam) and turned it into his weakness. The Swift Boating was particularly ironic in light of the failure of GWB and many of his cronies to fight in that misbegotten war. They were callow and selfish in the 60's, yet called into question Kerry's integrity on the very same issue...It was maddening.

This tactic has now been employed by Hillary Clinton and her surrogates. They've taken this tack on Obama's spirited and public opposition to the war in Iraq. While she voted to authorize the President's action, he spoke out earnestly against such premature and needless conduct. As we've wasted much blood and treasure on this war, and its failure is manifest despite recent gains, Clinton has now embarked on a strategy to turn Obama's strength into his weakness. They argue that he's all words, no action. That it's a "fairy tale" as Bill indicated. They state that he didn't vote to cut war funding once elected and removed his 2002 speech in opposition from his website in 2004 (big deal, right? gosh..) WTF??!!?? She voted for the damn thing. That's the only vote that mattered. And she voted FOR THE WAR. The temerity she exhibits when needling Obama on this issue is exasperating. Obama, like any responsible leader, will not simply cut funds for the troops in the field. It would be messy, cost lives, and be politically devastating for the Democrats in the next election. She voted for the war, and voted to put war with Iran on the table (essentially that's what Kyl-Lieberman was all about). We cannot let her accomplish her goal by using Karl Rove's tactics. The Clintons are dirty and do not care about the pernicious effects (like the Roves and Atwaters of the world) that their tactics have on popular participation in our democracy. They must be combatted vigorously. (The Clintons have also tried to use another Obama strength-his candor-against him. Most notoriously, it was in relation to his prior admissions of teenage drug use. They had multiple surrogates attack him for this refreshing honesty. Pathetic. Compare this with Bill Clinton's "I didn't inhale" line. Shameless. When asked if he inhaled, Obama once stated something along the lines of "Yeah, that was the entire point.") We do not need any more parsing or shading of the truth from our leaders. The Clintons must be shown the door. They are the past, not the future!

Hillary Clinton should change her placards to read:
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Hillary Clinton is Change.

Dr. King's Progeny

2008-01-20T18:40:00.000-05:00

Check out the link below for text of Obama's soaring speech delivered this morning at Ebenezer church in Atlanta. What is particularly noteworthy is that although Obama desperately needs African-Americans to come out in droves next week in South Carolina, he still will not pander 100% and will deliver some much-needed, if politically unadvisable, uncomfortable truths...

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/the-ebenezer-se.html#more

The politically courageous money quote:
"And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King’s vision of a beloved community.
We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.
Every day, our politics fuels and exploits this kind of division across all races and regions; across gender and party. It is played out on television. It is sensationalized by the media. And last week, it even crept into the campaign for President, with charges and counter-charges that served to obscure the issues instead of illuminating the critical choices we face as a nation.
So let us say that on this day of all days, each of us carries with us the task of changing our hearts and minds. The division, the stereotypes, the scapegoating, the ease with which we blame our plight on others – all of this distracts us from the common challenges we face – war and poverty; injustice and inequality. We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate. It is the poison that we must purge from our politics; the wall that we must tear down before the hour grows too late."

One of our best soldiers leaves the service...

2008-01-17T17:39:00.000-05:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011503359.html

Centrist think-tank w/ former Clinton officials? Hmmm, someone wants to be Deputy National Security Advisor under the next (likely Democratic) President....

GDP map of the United States

2008-01-17T15:06:00.000-05:00

Pretty cool...California=France, I can already hear the right-wingers cooing at that analogy...

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/gdp_map.php

Michael Ledeen's critique of Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism"

2008-01-17T12:19:00.001-05:00

http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/2008/01/14/fascism_liberal_and_otherwise.php

Amazing photos released by the Library of Congress

2008-01-17T11:59:00.000-05:00

Check 'em out. They really capture the essential American Spirit...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/

Reese Witherspoon as a younger version of Hillary?

2008-01-16T14:28:00.002-05:00

The nerve of some people getting in the way of a coronation...

http://slatev.com/player.html?id=1377935786

Clinton's Superior Experience?

2008-01-15T17:24:00.001-05:00

http://www.slate.com/id/2182073/

Hitch makes the case against Hillary

2008-01-14T17:33:00.001-05:00

http://www.slate.com/id/2182065

Obama will win Nevada

2008-01-09T13:47:00.000-05:00

He picked up the Culinary Workers Union, the most powerful union in the state. Reports indicate that the union can provide up to 16,000 caucus-goers out of the 40-50,000 that will likely take part. HUGE!! http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8U2H7O00&show_article=1

Nevada plus SC, will give him a victory in the South, West and Midwest going into Super Duper Tuesday. Pretty compelling statement...

How the Media tried to screw Clinton, but wound up screwing Obama

2008-01-09T11:44:00.000-05:00

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/01/09/hillary_nh/

Excellent analysis from a self-avowed feminist. I felt like the tide might turn during Saturday night's debate. It was not the moment when she raised her voice in agitation. Rather it was when she was essentially told she was unliked. Her response was sad, sweet and genuine. She followed this up with showing sincere emotion the following day in discussing the strain of trail and lamenting all of the opportunities that would be lost should she lose. These two moments, coupled with the massive media onslaught against her, created a backlash among New Hampshire women. And they certainly roared, didn't they?

What should not be lost in the moment is that Obama lost by only a couple of percentage points in a state where he was down by I believe 12 points only a few weeks ago. This is a real race. There is no longer any frontrunner. Obama will win SC, Michigan will likely go to Hillary since Obama and Edwards are not on its ballot anyway (and i dont think they'll be allowed to send delegates to the convention), Nevada will be tight. If Edwards comes in third in SC, he'll likely drop out. As he's been consistently siding with Obama, an endorsement is likely shortly after dropping out. (Besides, maybe he'd like to be Attorney General) If the progressive Edwards supporters break mostly to Obama, then we have ourselves a front-runner.

Should be interesting.

Obama suffered from the Bradley effect?

2008-01-08T23:53:00.000-05:00

Nearly all of the post-Iowa polls had Obama up (sometimes even by quite a significant margin)...Could hidden racial bias be a part of it? Honestly, this comes as no surprise. We have before us the first truly viable black candidate. It may take us, sadly, a little while longer to fully evolve. I'm merely praying that it will take only a day more to play itself out. I get heartburn just pondering the prospect of us passing up this opportunity. Barack has the ability to pull in 60% of the popular vote and give a progressive administration the opportunity to implement a full policy agenda.

however, I think it's more likely that independents saw obama as winning by a bigger margin than mccain, and so broke McCain's way. Looks like white men had no problem w/ him, but white women opted to vote based on nostalgia and a second X chromosome.

Good job, Mac, btw! You've got a long road uphill but SC (w/ it's vets) and Michigan (which you've won before) should give you reason to be hopeful.

btw, I find Hillary to be an incredibly sympathetic and admirable character. I think she's bright, energetic, strong-willed, progressive, etc. But you've got to admit that she comes with so much excessive baggage and such high negatives that it would be impossible to foresee more than just a 52-48 scenario for her. Not quite the amount to set in motion a progressive agenda. And that's best case scenario. She cannot coopt anyone. She may very well energize the republican base to vote in droves. Her candidacy worries me, that's all. If this was 2004, I would have been behind her full-throatedly. What if we end up with 4-8 years of huckabee or romney or, god forbid, giuliani should she be nominated? I do not begin to suggest why there is so much irrational fear of Hillary from the right. I just admit it exists and will be difficult to overcome.

Bill called the selection of Obama a "roll of the dice." However, it's Hillary who's nomination is the real risk. We may lose the general as a result. "Welcome to the White House, President Huckabee." "Why thank you, kind sir. Now, where shall we install the altar?" Enough to send shivers down my spine.

Countin' on you South Carolina, Nevada, Culinary Workers Union...

Larry David stumps for Obama in NH

2008-01-08T16:56:00.000-05:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/curbing-new-hampshire-la_b_80465.html

"At one point he noticed a student scratching himself and asked, "What are you doing itching your balls at an Obama event?""

Well said...America, let's all stop itching our collective balls, get off the couch, and turn this country around!!

Obama on the Women in his life

2008-01-08T14:02:00.001-05:00

http://www.glamour.com/news/blogs/glamocracy/2008/01/glamour-has-inv.html

Prediction

2008-01-08T12:13:00.000-05:00

Warm weather=phenomenal turnout=huge Obama victory...

Obama: 41%
Clinton: 29%
Edwards: 22%
Richardson: 5%
Kucinich: 2%

VP's cont'd

2008-01-08T11:55:00.000-05:00

Politico.com recently called Senator Webb (apparently a member of the "Redneck Caucus" along with Senator Tester, who I had the opportunity to meet last year. He's wonderful, btw!) a rookie of the year...

Article here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7441.html

“I can safely say that I am the only person ever elected to state office in Virginia with a union card, two Purple Hearts and three tattoos,” he [Webb] said in an interview.

Potential VP picks

2008-01-08T11:12:00.002-05:00

Since I've already begun a discussion with regards to prospective Obama SC nominees, I figure we should keep with the time-honored tradition of counting our chicks before they hatch. Next up: Vice President...

Conventional wisdom implies that Obama would choose a candidate who is white, male and presumably from the South or Midwest. Of course, as Galbraith once stated, the enemy of conventional wisdom is the slow march of events. So I could be wrong on that count. He'd likely want someone with some foreign policy experience as well.

Possibilities:
James Webb (Senator from Virginia) (former republican, former secretary of navy, critic of the Iraq War, decorated combat vet)
Mark Warner (former governor of Va)
Biden (if only he didnt suffer from foot-in-mouth disease)
Richardson (natural VP choice. But his hispanic heritage might be seen as pushing the envelope a little too much in this already ground breaking candidacy)
Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska): the press will talk this up, but it ain't happening. There'd be a Democratic revolt.
Evan Bayh (D-Indiana): I'm fairly sure he's a Clinton supporter, so this would give Obama an opportunity to build some bridges with the DLCers...He's smart, centrist, and likeable...He's also extremely white and midwestern.

My money is on Webb...

Anyone else have any ideas?

UPDATE: Warner's out b/c Democratic leaders desperately want that Virginia Senate seat, and Warner's polling well there.
Tim Kaine, the current governor of Virginia, is a decent bet, and he has been out in front for Obama. He's also helped by how handily Obama won Virginia last night.

Supreme Court Pt. 2

2008-01-07T12:33:00.001-05:00

Sandy writes:
"Sunstein would be an interesting choice, though his stated admiration for Justices such as O'Connor, rather than, say, Brennan, and his belief in narrower decisions, might cause him to be a nomination that would not excite liberal Democrats. However, in light of the replacement of Justice O'Connor with Justice Alito, I strongly suspect that the next nominee (no matter who wins) will be a woman. And there is no basis to believe that Hillary will pick Bill for the Court. She's not stupid."

I agree that it would be impractical and indeed foolhardy for Hillary to nominate her husband to a seat on the SC. I was just commenting on the fact it has been tossed about by the rumor mill. Furthermore, I would have to believe that Hillary would prefer Bill to be kept far from policy-making. I fear he would create a great amount havoc for a Hillary administration, as he has done for her campaign. he'd be as much a distraction as an erudite counselor. As an ex-President, he will always have many microphones in front of him, as well as some insightto offer, even when the HRC administration would rather see him muzzled. SC is a stretch, but I can't believe she'll just keep him overseas or puttering around the residence for four to eight years.

Back to Obama...I agree that appointing a woman should be a paramount goal, so if any of you have any ideas of a great female nominee then please let me know. I think Sunstein is a good fit, despite his Y chromosome. He is one of the brightest progressive legal scholars out in the field today. He'd be a good counterweight to Scalito. However, he is not progressive in the way that Brennan was. He has affirmed his position that cases should be decided upon their facts, rather than on the basis of a justice's ideological predispositions. I think he'll stay closer to the O'Connor framework that Sandy suggests is Obama's preference. But he will indeed be a major symbol of the progressive restoration, and for that the liberal dems will be exceedingly thankful.

Obama's Likely Pick for the Supreme Court

2008-01-06T11:46:00.000-05:00

With Justice Stevens turning 88 this coming year, it's only a matter of time before a replacement would need to be chosen. Some have speculated (CNN, ABA) that Hillary, should she secure the nomination, may appoint Bill to the Supreme Court. I don't know what qualifications you need to get ahead in the punditocracy, but this is certainly ludicrous. Filibuster, anyone? The Republicans will not allow it (especially seeing as how he had his Arkansas profession license suspended for being guilty of perjury) and it's possible that a loss on a SC pick could cripple her administration permanently.

But getting to Obama...Should he be elected President next November, whom would he choose? My guess is Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago. Very progressive, yet a judicial minimalist. He shares the same general temperament and disposition with Obama. Both were colleagues at Chicago, and Sunstein acts an informal advisor to the campaign. Check out his work on FDR's Second Bill of Rights proposal if you'd like to get the measure of the man.

Harlem reacts to Obama Victory

2008-01-04T15:49:00.000-05:00

Oh, how I wish I was still living at my old 125th Street and Lenox Ave apartment. Wish I could have been there to gauge reaction first hand.

This post will have to do then:
http://halfricanrevolution.blogspot.com/2008/01/post-iowa-thoughts.html

Obama wins!

2008-01-03T22:16:00.002-05:00

Big surprise: Obama looks to have pulled in a greater percentage of women than Clinton. This is huge. The fact that Obama and his message has seemed to resonate more with independents and republicans is also huge. Couple that fact with Thompson's superior showing to McCain leaves him in the race, we'll see Obama siphon independents from McCain in New Hampshire.

Obama keeps the civil rights movement firmly in his victory speech. Why would he do this considering he's already just been made credible and is going into completely white New Hampshire? South Carolina, people. He's also not wedded to the idea of being an uncle tom, which was probably conventional wisdom. That is exceedingly honorable and will, at the very least, win him South Carolina, but also a considerable amount of white liberals. Serious amount of props for not diminishing your place in history.

This is history people. this is monumental, not a narrow victory at all. Obama will go 3-1 in the first four contests (IO, NH, SC vs. NV). Feels good, doesn't it? Feels like progress? Many people might be quick to say it's just a symbolic victory, maybe even fleeting, but don't we have to acknowledge that symbols (in our hyper-consumerist state) are of supreme importance in representing and even moving public opinion?

Also, a hat tip to Biden and Dodd, both of whom dropped out of the race. They are both, in their own way (Biden for his realism and insight into solving, as best as possible, the Iraq sectarian divides; Dodd for his outspokenness with regard to the myriad gross and deliberate constitutional violations undertaken by our current presidency), an eminence gris, the elder statesmen, of this nation.

Richardson directing supporters to Obama as Second Choice

2008-01-03T14:02:00.000-05:00

http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1782

This doesn't make any sense to me as Richardson surely must know by now that he stands no chance of being nominated for the Presidency. As such, he must get his ducks in a row vis-a-vis Hillary. His best chance for a VP or cabinet position is by directing his voters to go Hillary's way. Sending his supporters to her chief rival's camp, while possibly good short-term nomination strategy, defies reason. The clintons do not forgive and forget grievances easily. This may very well spell certain doom for Richardson's political career on the federal level should Hillary win the nom.

A black bourgeois take on Obama

2008-01-03T13:58:00.001-05:00

http://jackandjillpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/01/barack-obama-for-president.html

Iowa prediction

2008-01-03T12:09:00.001-05:00

Thanks to record turnout and a significant number of independents and lapsed Republicans, Obama wins, narrowly defeating Edwards (who comes up big in rural districs with their disproportionate influence). The big surprise: Hillary does significantly worse than expected as she is the second choice (under caucus rules) of a small minority of caucus-goers. Second big surprise: Biden outperforms Richardson. Obama will have the momentum going into NH, Edwards will receive a significant uptick in contributions, and HRC will be hanging on for dear life, banking on Michigan, Nevada and then Super Duper Tuesday as South Carolina will be written off once Obama wins both Iowa and NH.

Iowa Breakdown:
Obama: 34%
Edwards: 30%
Clinton: 23%
Biden: 7%
Richardson: 4%

Time to start paying attention: Iowa prepares to speak

2008-01-01T18:23:00.000-05:00

Jefferson from Paris: "If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions."

Countdown to the end of the reign of wolves begins with Iowa and New Hampshire.

The Speech

2007-12-28T07:52:00.000-05:00

Video of Obama's closing argument here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jPtg-gvgWhE

Honestly, the best orator of our time. He employs such soaring rhetoric, as well as excellent phrasing and tempo. I know some chalk up this ability as merely superficial. While I agree that it is not sufficient in and of itself, clearly we do not wish upon the nation another empty suit, it is, however, necessary in these very bleak times. In this age of uncertainty, when war is perpetual and economic stability in peril, we require a leader who has the ability, through sheer force of persuasive argument, to move the hearts and minds of this nation to finally realize that no matter how dim the situation may seem, there is a better land beyond the horizon that we can reach only if we collectively break free from the shackles of cynicism and apathy that restrain us to our current trajectory- a declining and decaying Republic. For American Renewal, Vote Obama. The Moment is Now.

In the words of West Wing's President Bartlett: "Words when spoken out loud for the sake of performance are music. They have rhythm and pitch and timbre and volume. These are the properties of music and music has the ability to find us and move us and lift us up in ways that literal meaning can't."

Romney's Finger in the Eye of Patrick Henry

2007-12-27T17:15:00.000-05:00

"Our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive and the President should not hesitate to use every legal tool at his disposal to keep America safe."

WTF!? That statement is repugnant on its face. Everyone who has been martyred in the pursuit of liberty has just been insulted by a man who wishes to assume the constitutional obligation to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, but who clearly does not care much for the liberty guaranteed by that document. The right to be kept alive? Whatever became of "give me liberty or give me death"?

full article:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/RomneyQA/

Obama's Closing Argument

2007-12-27T15:58:00.000-05:00

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/12/27/obama_calls_on_iowans_to_stand.php

Money quote: On Hope

"In the end, the argument we are having between the candidates in the last seven days is not just about the meaning of change. It's about the meaning of hope. Some of my opponents appear scornful of the word; they think it speaks of naivete, passivity, and wishful thinking.
But that's not what hope is. Hope is not blind optimism. It's not ignoring the enormity of the task before us or the roadblocks that stand in our path. Yes, the lobbyists will fight us. Yes, the Republican attack dogs will go after us in the general election. Yes, the problems of poverty and climate change and failing schools will resist easy repair. I know - I've been on the streets, I've been in the courts. I've watched legislation die because the powerful held sway and good intentions weren't fortified by political will, and I've watched a nation get mislead into war because no one had the judgment or the courage to ask the hard questions before we sent our troops to fight.
But I also know this. I know that hope has been the guiding force behind the most improbable changes this country has ever made. In the face of tyranny, it's what led a band of colonists to rise up against an Empire. In the face of slavery, it's what fueled the resistance of the slave and the abolitionist, and what allowed a President to chart a treacherous course to ensure that the nation would not continue half slave and half free. In the face of war and Depression, it's what led the greatest of generations to free a continent and heal a nation. In the face of oppression, it's what led young men and women to sit at lunch counters and brave fire hoses and march through the streets of Selma and Montgomery for freedom's cause. That's the power of hope - to imagine, and then work for, what had seemed impossible before."

Why Obama?

2007-12-27T15:40:00.000-05:00

Anonymous Liberal endorses Obama and, in doing so, perfectly frames why Obama is the man for this moment:
http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007/12/obama-for-president.html

He makes an excellent point dispelling the Krugman conceit that the next Democratic President must be hyper-partisan and angry in order to achieve real change...
"But I think the kind of combative populism that Edwards is currently espousing has its limitations. While it may well be sufficient to command majorities, it seems likely to antagonize and polarize much of the electorate as well. The real trick in politics is to be strong, assertive, and demanding while appearing reasonable, conciliatory, and open to compromise. There is no question that, at times, you have to be willing to bear down and fight, but the rest of the time, it's far better to come across as a uniter, as someone who is willing to work with all sides to reach the right outcome. I think it's pretty unfair to point to Obama's inclusive rhetoric as evidence of his naivete or lack of appreciation of the difficulty of the task before him. I think Obama's strategy is to build up good will and trust in the first instance and then use his accumulated political capital to implement his agenda. "