Saturday, March 29, 2008

Colonoscopies, the Iraq War, and Campaign 2008

My dad died a year ago this March of colon cancer, ironically during the month which, since President Bill Clinton’s proclamation in 2000, has been designated National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month. According to the American Cancer Society (ACS), colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. According to the ACS, 40 percent of those who should be screened for the disease are not. One of these was my dad, who was told a colonscopy was not necessary, and by the time the cancer was discovered it had already spread to his liver. If caught before it spreads to another area of the body, colon cancer is 90 percent curable (5-year survival rate); 10 percent if it has metastasized (National Cancer Institute). If you are 50 or older you should be screened, earlier than this if there is a history of colon cancer in your family, history of inflammatory bowel disease, or other indicators that may put you at risk for the disease. The gold standard for screening is a colonoscopy, so if your doc tells you that you should have another screening method in place of a colonoscopy, tell him or her to go to Hell. My dad would certainly tell you they are not one and the same.

So what does this have to do with the 2008 presidential campaign? Everything. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have comprehensive health insurance plans that would extend health care to many of the 47 million Americans who do not have health insurance while expanding health care to the millions more who are woefully underinsured. Preventive services, such as colonoscopies, are important aspects of both the Clinton and Obama plans. John McCain has no plan at all, other than to continue to privatize health insurance and line the pockets of private insurers. Nothing about expanding care in any significant way to those currently without health insurance, let alone expanding benefits in any way. Just vague bluster about cutting costs and letting health care take care of itself. In this landscape, preventive services aren’t even an afterthought. In other words, health care under McCain will look just about the same as it does under George W. Bush.

The choices voters will make have great meaning for real people. If health care doesn’t do it for you, just think about the American lives (over 4000) and Iraqis (countless more) that have been lost as a direct result of electing W.

So in the spirit of my dad and spirit of all those who may live or die depending on the policies of our next President, I am including here contact info concerning colon cancer and screenings from the Centers for Disease Central website. Just a few moments nattering around on the website could save your life or the life of someone you love.

http://www.cdc.gov/Features/ColorectalAwareness/

Friday, March 28, 2008

Fight or Flight: What are Hillary Clinton and the Democrats to Do?? (Barbaric Yawp)

There are only a couple of readers who still believe in the promise of this blog—my wife and Barney, my dog—but one of them recently noticed a change in tone, that it appeared I’d all but conceded nomination to Obama. This, despite my writing almost obsessively in the past about HC’s greater electability.

True, every bit of it, but I’d like to explain myself.

I haven’t completely given up the notion that HC can win. I’ve watched too many football and baseball games—remember Franco Harris’ immaculate reception, or Kirk Gibson’s walk-off homerun?—too many Disney movies, and still remember Bush v. Gore to think anything is impossible. Anyway, it just isn’t American to think something is a lost cause until the final light blinks out, the door slams shut, or the fork is inserted all the way to the handle.

That said, HC really doesn’t have much of a chance at winning the Democratic nomination unless Obama falls squarely on his face. Even if she wins PA (April 22), NC, and Indiana (both vote on May 6) with about 60 percent of the vote in each instance, she would still have to convince the superdelegates as she would still trail in pledged delegates and probably popular votes (I’m not even going to mention states as this is wholly non-sensical measure, despite what the pundits frequently say).

Oh sure, Clinton would have a pretty good argument with the superdelegates after big wins in all three but an uphill battle even then to get them simply to do what they are supposed to do—exercise their judgment as they see fit. It would be a real slog as the super ds are unlikely to risk alienating black voters who are supporting Obama as completely and passionately as any constituency has supported any presidential candidate at almost any time in our history. So the truth is that were the nomination to come down to this unlikely scenario, that is, if HC wins big in all three of the remaining large primaries, the superdelegates are likely to vote for Obama because they can’t afford to enrage one of the most important elements of the Party’s base, even if the independence and relative lack of accountability (at least of about half of them who are not elected officials) of the superdelegates is considered a crucial aspect of the nominating process. So, no matter how you slice it, HC is likely to lose, even if she is less likely to go quietly into the good night.

I have been at least implicitly acknowledging this state of affairs in my recent writings, so my wife and Barney are right to notice. What I haven’t indicated, even implicitly, is what I think HC should do regarding forging on in the face of the poor delegate math and the Shakespearean bloodbath that probably awaits the Democrats should they go all the way to the convention without a nominee.

I haven’t written about this, I think, because I have mixed feelings. The reptilian part of me wants to see her take it as far as she can go, right into the maw of convention in Denver this summer. Although few will acknowledge it, there is, intermingled with the horror, excitement at the unfolding and aftermath of a head-on collision. It also would be instructive to see just where the creaky Democratic nominating process would lead. Never before has this odd hybrid of proportional representation and autocracy, volatile mix of caucuses and primaries, and ambivalence about the role of Party leaders and the hoi polloi been so thrown into relief. Maybe the more apt analogy would be to say that were it to come down to this kind of endgame, it would be most like examining the innards of Big Foot, finally captured.

The more reasonable part of me knows this is nonsense though, that it would be best for all concerned if HC were to continue through the big three primaries and then seriously reassesses her chances after the dust settles May 6 in the last of these. If things remain largely the same, that is, if Barack Obama is still upright and taking nourishment, Clinton should seriously consider getting out of the race. Were she to do this she would likely be able to say that she had won all of the big states, except Obama’s home state of Illinois, and, more important, all of the crucial swing states, the so-called purple states, for purposes of the general election, of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. And were she to fold her tent at that time she would certainly be praised for saving the Party from consuming itself and, better yet, rewarded with something other than a lousy speech at the national convention. And who knows what might happen four or five years down the road?

This doesn’t mean that I think Obama has the chance of a snowball in Hell in winning in November. Not only do I think he will lose to McCain, I think he will probably lose substantially. Make no mistake, this outcome is not what I want, and I am not one of those voters who, if Clinton loses, will not vote for Obama. But, for reasons I have discussed here before, I just don’t believe Obama will have the pull in the swing states I mentioned. Democrats have been unable to win without them in the past and, Obama’s meaningless victories in Idaho and Wyoming notwithstanding, they will surely need them again this time around.

This is why, Barney, a battle royal, despite all the possible consequences, remains so appealing, and why I can’t completely reject it.

Woofimus Maximus.

Thursday, March 27, 2008

John McCain's Star Turn: General Election Ads I'd Like to See

It’s a certainty that McCain or one of the 527 groups are already hard at work putting together some ads for the general election drawing on Obama’s association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright or Clinton’s various embellishments. You can all but see it now: a clip of Wright spewing “god damn, America!” with a shot of Obama, immediately following, with a big grin and his arm lovingly thrown around the pastor’s shoulder. And Hillary? How about a voiceover in which she talks about having to elude sniper fire upon deplaning in Bosnia, followed by a video clip showing the reality: HC glad-handing welcomers to beat the band, with daughter Chelsea and the comedian Sinbad in tow, no less. All of whom were looking like a million bucks and certainly not in fear of anything except perhaps the next meal.

When all is said and done, though, Johnny M. III might be the real superstar of the general election ad campaigns. Anyway, I’d like to think so. So, here are some possible ads that nearly make themselves, so easy that a child with a Razor phone could do it.

John Loves George, Georg Loves John. A compilation of video showing JM and GWB in frankly some fairly embarrassing embraces. I believe there is video out there of Bush even kissing JM on his noggin. The montage will include footage of Bush endorsing McCain in the White House rose garden as the latter looks on uncomfortably. Preferably there will be some spooky screeching violin music playing in the background.

John Loves Lobbyists. No really…he does love lobbyists. Anyway, a voiceover of a man who states matter-of-factly that John M. passed a bill ostensibly about ethics and campaign reform but then goes on to say, so why is the inner circle staffed with the Gucci Gulch and K-Street Crowd? The piece will end with a shot going from McCain’s head to his feet and then pan around the shoes surrounding him. All of these will lobbyist-type shoes, with tassels and similar ostentatious frippery (wardrobe!!!!)

My Big Fat Trip to the Middle East. A road trip in 60 seconds with shots of McCain mixing and matching Shiites and Sunnis, squinting into the desert sun, and asking everyone where the toilets are to be found.

On the Bus, Off the Bus. Shots initially of the Straight Talk Express as it wends its way through the American countryside. As the piece continues, and McCain’s flip-flops on everything from abortion to the tobacco tax are specified on voiceover, the bus begins to smoke and lurch and pieces of it begin to fall off. At the conclusion of the piece, McCain and a cohort of campaign staff (dressed as the cast from the TV show, Lost) stop the bus in the middle of nowhere, telling a lone puzzled-looking gas station attendant that he “believes he has deviated some from his initial itinerary.” No music necessary for this one. Alternative: Same, but bus transforms into Ken Kesey’s, acid bus, Further, and when McCain and crew get out in nowhere land they are glassy-eyed, dressed like hippies and frequently say “man,” “cool,” “groovy,” "let's do some bong hits in the White House," and the like.

Calm, Steady, Leadership. A mashup of infamous JM harangues—includes his peevish chewing out of the NY Times reporter on his campaign plane, and similar meltdowns caught on tape. At the conclusion, an announcer will say “Is this the man you want anywhere near the nuclear football?” before weeping and wailing inconsolably and screaming periodically, “we are all going to die,” as the piece goes dark.

100 Years of Solitude. All about how the US is, according to JM, prepared to go it alone in Iraq for 100 years, “if that’s what it takes.” Replete with quotations and video of the man himself saying a lot of malicious and disturbing nonsense.

John McCain, Maverick. Someone getting paid 5 bucks an hour to narrate the piece from his soundproofed (with aluminum and egg carton cardboard) shoe closet will read from our finest newspapers, television programs, and Internet blogs (giving credit to each, of course), several exemplary instances in which McCain is termed a “maverick.” After the narrator comes to a stop, he will then appeared puzzled and say, as if genuinely surprised, "I didn’t know that a maverick—

Cozied up to the likes of hate-mongers like Rod Parsley and John Hagee; turned tail on issues like immigration when the going got tough,” and all the other crap McCain has been doing lately to curry the flavor of the troglodytes of his party (you know who you are).

The piece will end with McCain wearing a droopy cowboy hat, mismatched lizard boots with a hole in one of the toes, and a rusty star pinned to his backside. Directly above his head will be the text “I guess this is what a maverick looks like.”

To Torture or not to Torture—Not Much of a Question. “John McCain knows what torture is like, that’s why he has been forcefully against water boarding and other extreme measures. So why has he recently changed his mind on this? Because he is running for President and he thinks that this will endear him to conservatives, that’s why.”

“John McCain, a man who has strongly-held principles—at least until he is running for for President.”

And my favorite—

John M. and the 3 am Phone Call. John, Hillary and Barack are all lying in the order listed in the same room on spartan-looking single beds, straight out of the old Dick van Dyke show, with identical red phones on the nightstands beside them. All three are awoken from deep sleep as the phones begin to jangle madly and incessantly. The next shot is of Obama and Clinton each sitting up on the side of their beds talking seriously and with concern but otherwise under control. The camera quickly moves to McCain who, in succession, thrashes around in his bedclothes unable even to get to the phone, knocks to the floor his dentures which are in a glass of water on the stand as he reaches for the phone, picks up the phone after he does secure it only to talk into the wrong end, yelling ever louder as no one seems to respond, and finally throws the phone to the ground in complete and utter frustration while clearly mouthing “f' it,” as he crawls back into the bed for some shut eye. Oh yeah, and it is revealed that McCain wears red Speedos for pajamas. Voice: "John McCain--Nuff said."

Keep your eyes peeled here for an actual mock up that will appear on this site soon. Hell, you can submit your own and if I like it well enough I might even sell it to the eventual Democratic nominee.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

John McCain III Watch

But enough about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama…what about that sniveling little imbecile, John McCain; what is he up to as the Democratic Party burns?

Well, as I’ve written previously, he has himself pretty much been running amok in the Middle East, recently confusing Shiites with Sunnis, pulling on Arabs' beards, like a child, to see if they are real, and otherwise displaying his ignorance about the region and its inhabitants. Not the best thing in the world if McCain’s attempt is to look like a statesman and a man at ease in the world, capable of not only navigating its complexities but actively influencing world events.

The good news is that if McCain keeps up his Charlie Chaplin routine, the Democrats can beat themselves silly right up to the convention without doing much damage to whomever is ultimately the Party’s nominee. And there is always the chance that if McCain stays abroad long enough, is briefed incessantly (think of the poor fellow in A Clockwork Orange who was receiving “aversion therapy”) on international relations, and receives a brain transplant he might actually come up with some kind of foreign policy that offers, with respect to Iraq, say, something other than the woefully inadequate and incompetent policies of George W. Bush. On the other hand, all the travelling in the world hasn’t helped Bush do much of anything in the hotspots of the world—the Middle East, Africa, China, New Orleans—and, if I remember correctly, the last time I saw him outside the country, he appeared as if he was permitting the prize raptor of one of the million Saudi princes, which was perching on the President’s forearm, to do its business on him.

At home in the good old USA, McCain is also up to his hips in it as he flip-flops and flap-flips in his ass-puckering attempts to court the crucial Republican snake handler and right-wing-radio-talk-show-host constituencies. He is so shameless about this, in fact, that there are rumors he will have to rename his bus from the current, Straight Talk Express, to the If you Don’t Like My Response Today Ask Me Again Tomorrow Milk Train before he will be permitted to take the bus across state lines (truth-in-advertising laws).

Why, McCain wouldn’t even support now the immigration bill he helped write, abortion rights which he once championed, or stick to his comments, made during his campaign when he was running against Bush, about the questionable ancestry of the religious zealots of the lunatic right, or even keep a respectful distance from the very lobbyists that are the target of McCain’s (and Feingold’s) campaign and ethics reforms . Apparently McCain has always had an outsized love for lobbyists as his current campaign staff—many of whom were lobbyists—makes clear. If he has in fact been boinking a lobbyist (as infamously implied by the New York Times) this would be the most innocuous relationship he has with any of these folks. But the list of McCain’s flip-flops is too long to go into further here, and even includes a recent reneging on a tobacco tax he championed. The shape-shifting is certain to continue through November, though, as McCain rushes around trying to curry the favor of the Republican lunatic fringe, so there will be many more opportunites to discuss this political Proteus with presidential aspirations.

Anyway, this is what McCain has been up while the Democrats beat themselves over the heads like Punch and Judy for the increasingly questionable prize of becoming the Party’s nominee. And as he trips and lurches through the Middle East and takes the circuitous and tortuous path around the issues in his smoking and creaky bus in this country, McCain looks more and more like he is cut from the same cloth as the current resident of the WH: his view of the war in Iraq nearly indistinguishable from the current commander-and-chief’s, his gaffes and blunders all too familiar, and the prospects of his bumbling his way to the presidency and having to deal with the complexities of the Middle East, a broken health care policy, and an economy headed for the ditch, at least as frightening.

Here's a fervent hope that all of McCain’s stumblings and bumblings will lead anywhere other than through the front door of the nation’s most famous house in November.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Barack Obama, the Perfect Candidate—for the Democratic Primary

Barack Obama is the perfect candidate—for the Democratic primary. His strategy to take what he could get from the bigger states like California and New York while picking off delegates from the caucus states has been brilliant—for the primary. And making a virtue of his inexperience by valuing above all his judgment, on his opposition to the Iraq War, for example—well, you know the rest.

All these things, from Obama’s marvelous bottom-to-top organization of precincts and caucuses to his steady, unconventional accumulation of delegates, which have to this point been a boon and have pretty much given Obama a stranglehold on the Democratic nomination, are likely to lead to disaster for the Democrats this fall.

If the Democratic nomination were winner-take-all as is the case in most of the Republican primaries and is so with the general election and the electoral college, Obama would already be back in the Senate dodging controversial votes on matters such as the FISA bill, and Hillary Clinton would be the Party’s nominee. But he isn’t and she isn’t, and instead Obama will likely take his association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the increasing recognition that he is far to the left of most Democrats, and questions about his patriotism and experience into the battle for the presidency with McCain.

Obama has been able thus far to turn the tables on his Democratic challengers, concerning the issue of experience and his liberalism or association with Wright isn’t nearly the problem with primary voters as it will be in the general election. But in the general election it will be all about experience, who is toughest on terrorism and security issues, and who is the most patriotic. And by the time it is all over, and the security moms and dads and every other idiot just cognizant enough to make it to a voting booth have punched their ballots, pulled their levers, activated their touch screens and done their bit for god and country, Obama’s judgment and patriotism will likely be devalued to the price of German banknotes in the 1920s, and the Democrats will be left holding the bag once again

Obama has developed an organization and implemented a strategy that has permitted him to accumulate more delegates, more popular votes, and more states than his only remaining competitor, and the superdelegates, though they are intended to save the Democrats from unelectable candidates, are almost certain to go with Obama because of great pressure from his supporters to do so. If Obama wins he will have earned it, Hillary Clinton’s operatives will need to have their heads examined for signs of brain activity, and the Democrats will deserve what’s coming to them.

Because if Obama is the nominee, it doesn’t mean that he is the candidate most likely to beat McCain in November, but that he mastered the ins and outs of the ludicrous Democratic nominating process which, with its patchwork of caucuses, arcane awarding of delegates in states like Texas, and emphasis on party activists, doesn’t bear any relation to determining a candidate’s strength in the general election.

So unfortunate as it is, when the general election is over, and Democrats have borne witness to another ritual slaughter, the DNC will need to get together and implement a nominating process that is efficient, fair, and has as its fundamental goal determining the candidate most likely to win in the general election, not just the primary.

Monday, March 24, 2008

Obama's Speech on Race in America

You can’t help but be impressed by the speech everyone is calling Obama’s race speech (for the record, Obama entitled it, A More Perfect Union ). It threaded a needle both politically and substantively concerning the matter of race in the United States and at a time when he needed to do it most. That it is one of the most literary speeches given by an American politician—imagine the current resident of the White House or Hillary Clinton for that matter giving a speech as artfully crafted and profound as this on any subject—is almost an afterthought though it, like the splendid Obama memoir, Dreams from my Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, is certain to take its place among this country’s literary and oratorical achievements.

Obama’s speech was insightful, courageous and, yes, politically astute. He both reassured blacks that he wasn’t going to jettison Wright or completely discount a view of history, race relations, and politics that many blacks share, while largely bringing back onto the track an issue that was in danger of careening out of control with each playing of the judiciously selected (for drama and ability to outrage) video snippet of Obama’s former “spiritual advisor” and mentor by journalism’s finest hucksters and charlatans. In addition, Obama threw a couple of meaty bones to Jews (he pointedly rejected Wright’s statement that the Israelis are primarily responsible for unrest in the Middle East) and Latinos, and balanced his discussion about the United States’ shameful treatment of blacks with empathy towards white immigrants who don’t feel that they are part of this legacy and who believe that they have started from scratch and have had to overcome obstacles of their own.

Despite its accomplishments, and Obama’s incredible dexterity, the speech didn’t help much with Obama’s biggest problem, which isn’t race but rather his left wing pedigree, something that his association with Wright makes clear and which leaves him open to charges that Obama doesn’t love his country, isn’t a patriot, and can’t be trusted to deal appropriately with security matters. This crude but time-tested strategy will be applied in full by the Republicans in November and very likely with the same success that it was used against McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and John Kerry. And not one of these candidates had as his mentor and spiritual advisor a man who said “god damn America,” or accused it of infecting black people with HIV/Aids. Such an association is political poison for any politician, not because of race so much but because of the perception that Obama may well share Wright’s radical views or that he is somehow unpatriotic.

Truth be told, there is probably little that Obama can do to rehabilitate his political stances or explain away his inexperience. These things are not nearly so important in the primary and his speech was successful, I think, in shoring up most of the constituencies that have been supporting him thus far. What he has lost or is in the process of losing are the independent voters and most any chance of getting the working class white Democrats. He was certain to lose many of these voters, anyway, Wright or no Wright debacle, as his voting record becomes known and his lack of experience juxtaposed with the seriousness of the war, terrorist threats, and other things that terrify so-called security moms and dads. In the 1990s, for example, Obama visited the home of former Weather Underground radical, William Ayers, who like Obama was politically active in Chicago, a story that has no legs now and even less substance but is something about which we are certain to hear more if Obama is the Democratic Party’s nominee.

When this Fall rolls around, after endless evocations of questionable associations imaginary and real, crude exegeses of his writings, votes, and god knows what else, Jeremiah Wright and race will almost certainly be the least of Obama’s problems.

Friday, March 21, 2008

John McCain’s Ignorance is Anything But Bliss

Given the excitement over Barack Obama’s speech on Reverend Wright and race the other day, it is no surprise perhaps that John McCain’s stumblings and bumblings about al-Qaeda, Iran, and Iraq have gone without much notice.

It’s a shame, though, because everyone ought to see what a dangerous little nincompoop the Republicans have chosen, once again, to lead their Party.

Earlier this week, McCain, with Senator Joe Lieberman at his side, spoke to the press somewhere in the Middle East where McCain is currently traveling in order to demonstrate and burnish his foreign policy and security credentials. So, just like a real statesman, McCain strode to a brace of microphones hastily arranged in the desert, looked out at the journalists with steely resolve, cleared his throat suggestively, and said imperiously, “it’s common knowledge” and “has been reported in the media,” that Iran has been training and supplying al-Qaeda, with the latter then going into Iraq. The only problem with this is that it is incorrect. Iran is largely Shiite, al-Qaeda is Sunni and never the twain shall meet, or just about.

Luckily for McCain, Lieberman scurried up to the microphone and whispered into the consumptive nominee’s ear, so that the latter could say, er, I meant to say, er, that Iran has been “training extremists, not al-Qaeda.”

Not a big deal you say, most Americans probably don’t know that Iran is Shiite and al-Qaeda, Sunni? Well, it’s a big deal if you are running for President. All the more so as this is not the first time that McCain has made this mistake (he did so in an interview with Hugh Hewitt). Just look at the trap in which George Bush and Co’s ignorance has ensnared us. More general ignorance about this region and its culture and the relationships of the various actors there permitted Bush or his braintrust, anyway, to convince folks that Iraq was somehow linked to al-Qaeda and the attacks on 9-11 (among the hoodwinked were lots of journalists and Democrats, sorry to say). Justification, in other words, for rushing headlong into a war that is politically and morally corrupt and from which it is difficult to conceive a quick and successful exit.

In addition to knowing little or nothing about Iran, Iraq or al-Qaeda, McCain has said himself he doesn’t know anything about economics. And healthcare? His healthcare “plan” consists of vague and wrong-headed musings about controlling costs and providing incentives for folks to buy health plans. In other words, McCain really has no plan whatsoever, just an anemic philosophy, no different than Bush’s, to continue to privatize federal healthcare by lining the pockets of private companies who frequently now provide health insurance instead of the federal government. Forget about increasing access to care, providing additional benefits, or taking any real steps that would actually reduce health care costs.

So if doesn’t know anything about foreign policy, economics, or healthcare care what is there, then, to recommend McCain to voters? Nothing at all. Hell, no one would even want to drink a beer with this guy. His incompetence in matters both domestic and international probably won’t prevent a large number of people from voting from him however. Just ask the current resident of the White House who, incredibly enough, is in his second term despite being ignorant and incompetent to such a degree that it is a wonder the man can tie his shoes.

We get the Presidents we deserve, I suppose, but I sure hope this time around we get something better than another know-nothing Commander-and-Chief who has no problem spilling the blood of Americans in a place about which he knows little or nothing and for a reason or reasons that have no basis in reality. After five years of war in Iraq and 3992 dead (the total as of the five-year anniversary of the war) Americans and thousands of Iraqis, 47 million or more Americans without insurance, and an economy heading off the rails, we simply can’t afford, again, to elect someone who doesn’t have a basic understanding of international or domestic affairs.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

The Audacity of Pragmatism

I spent some of the past weekend talking to friend of mine about Clinton and Obama. He is an unabashed Obama supporter and I grudgingly in the Clinton camp.

I mention this discussion—which probably would have ended in blows were we both not so dissipated—because it seems pretty representative of the positions many Democrats. For lack of better terms, it is a difference between idealists and pragmatists.

Anyway, for pragmatists it is all about electability, those Democrats who will vote for any candidate based on, in their minds anyway, his or her electability in the general election. For the idealists it appears to be about something different, making a statement about what is possible, some new politics of change, and a candidate whose actions are more transparent, more truthful. Idealists support their support of Obama by pointing to his appeal to young people, to independents, even perhaps the oft-mentioned-but-rarely-sighted Obamakin, the Republican voter supposedly so smitten with Obama and his transcendence of all that is evil and nasty about politics that he or she is willing to cross party lines to vote for him.

I want to say first that while I consider myself a pragmatist and my friend the idealist, it is not because I know, for a fact, that Clinton is more electable than Obama. There are a lot of things that indicate this, as I have suggested ad nauseum before, but no one can say for sure. Who is to say, for example, that Obama won’t do better with working-class white voters or any of the other constituencies where he has not fared so well in the primaries? Anyway, the distinction I am making is based solely on relative emphasis: if electability is your primary concern you are a pragmatist, if not, and you are driven by something else, such as change, a black man being President, an end to politics as usual, the transformation of the American political landscape you are an idealist or a romantic.

Although often treated as pejorative terms or as signs of weakness, idealism and romanticism are neither. It is a good and necessary thing to be able to think in these terms and, if people did not, we’d never get beyond our conceptual borders or the limitations of convention, of the present. History would be an even sadder narrative than it already is. So when I say to my idealistic friend, as I have from the outset, that Obama will become mired in race and deconstructed as one of the most liberal candidates Democrats have chosen to seriously consider for the nomination, I acknowledge this as a shortcoming of sorts on my part, an inability not so much to be unable to imagine an Obama presidency but to actually believe that it could come to pass in 2008.

I see Obama’s wonderful speech in Philadelphia yesterday, a result of his association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, in the same light. It shows Obama’s uncommon ability to discuss matters of race or class in a way that is at once profound and yet accessible, moving but based on real experiences. The man is obviously more than an empty suit, as Clinton and some of her supporters would have us believe and his appeal clear. The problem—the reality, if you will--is that Obama’s words, while reassuring black voters that he will not completely abandon Wright and moderate white voters that he doesn’t share Wright’s uglier views, is unlikely to convince the people that are likely most offended by his association with Wright, white, working-class Democrats, and many of the independent voters who have been attracted to Obama thus far.

My lack of romanticism, is a shortcoming, though, that I can live with. I’m simply not willing to make a statement or choose a candidate even if I am moved by his or her demeanor and promise, by the thought of how wonderful, after America’s long night of racial inequality, a black American could be the chief executive of the country that once considered legally and morally correct his enslavement. None of these things, important as they are, means anything if the candidate is unable to win in November. And the fact is, I believe Obama will lose in November if he is the Party’s nominee. So that’s what it comes down to for me and I don’t believe, whatever their motives, that this is the case for my idealistic friend and most of the other Obama supporters I know.

The Democrats have suffered a lot from such idealism over the years and it has been encouraged, in fact, by the Democratic nominating process and its various rules. Party liberals and activists not only set the rules but drive the caucuses where the activism of just a few hale and hearty souls can determine the victor. Such a process has rewarded the Democrats with candidates like Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis. In fact after the McGovern debacle in 1972, in which he was trounced by Richard Nixon, the bright lights of the Democratic Party came up with the idea of the superdelegates to help reign in such silliness. Idealism and romanticism, it seems, had come to be considered dangerous.

And rightly so. If Hillary Clinton does not end up with at least the majority of the popular vote, it is unlikely that even the superdelegates will be able to save the Party from its idealists. If that is the case, we will likely be adding Obama’s name to the pantheon of beloved but flawed candidates after he loses in November. If this comes to pass, the idealists--those educated, relatively wealthy people Bill Clinton was talking about when he said, they are voting (for Obama) but they are not the ones who need a President--will just as likely hold themselves blameless, another enviable ability granted them by their frame of reference, and vote for the next new thing that comes along which stokes the fires of their imagination.

And if Hillary Clinton is the Party’s nominee and she loses in November? I’ll just have to live with the fact that I not only lack imagination but that I was just plain wrong.

Monday, March 17, 2008

Presidential and Congressional Races 2008: Internet Hotspots

Blogs, newspapers and especially TV news programs are heavy on speculation and bluster and frequently light on the facts when it comes to the 2008 race for the Presidency. Therefore, I am including here a brief list of web sites that either are largely devoted to factual information or data about the campaigns—campaign contributions, exits polls, and source documents—or just plain good fact-based, analytical reporting so you can do your own sleuthing.

-- Realclearpolitics.org (advance polling, delegate counts, compilation of articles)
-- Opensecrets.org (contributors to the candidates)
-- CNN.com (exit polls from all the primaries and caucuses—conducted by Edison Media
Research)
-- Congressional Quarterly, cqpolitics.com (just good factual reporting, with lots of data, analysis)
-- Cook Political Report, cookpolitical.com (tracks and handicaps House and Senate races)

Also, a dandy article, by Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson, based on old fashioned research and observation that offers insight into Obama’s success in the caucuses as well as chronicles what is certain to be a fundamental change in how campaigns will be run in the future.

Machinery of Hope: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/19106326

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Obama’s Pastor Troubles

Obama’s association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is likely a very serious blow to his aspirations for the Presidency, if not the Democratic nomination.

It is so serious because it undermines the very core of his campaign: his call for unity, and end to divisiveness and polarization, and a post-racial politics.

The Rev. Wright, who is the pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ which Obama and his wife, Michelle, have attended for 20 years sounds more like Chuck D, the leader of the rap group, Public Enemy, than he does Martin Luther King Jr. In other words, he sounds like a lot of politically aware, black power activists of the 1960s, 70s and 80s, a constellation that also includes the Black Panthers.

Nothing wrong with this, and much of what these groups have said about racism, exploitation, and the bad actions of the United States domestically and abroad are true, at least to a point. The problem for Obama, is, that to be so closely associated with someone who (1) represents the far left wing of the political spectrum and (2) is so unabashed about his belief that at some level black and whites cannot reach common ground is pure political poison.

Many white liberals and blacks who are now supporting Obama will probably continue to do so despite his close connections to Wright. Much of what the pastor says is not so far from liberal positions and when all is said and done doesn’t amount to a rejection of the United States, and is simply strong but frequently fair, if heavy-handed, criticism of it. Liberals, too, are used to the black power posturings and, as Tom Wolfe has famously captured in his 1970 story, Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers, even welcomed it.

It is the independent and even Republican voters (so-called Obamakins), whose shoes your currently hear slapping the earth as they run away from Obama and likely into the camp of McCain. And the lunch bucket Democrats in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and West Virginny, all upcoming primaries, any chance they will vote for Obama now? Forget about it.

Race has largely taken a holiday in the Democratic race but it raised its head as early as South Carolina and has been simmering under the surface ever since. Ironically Obama won a huge victory there in terms of percentage of votes but a dangerous schism developed, with Clinton and Edwards getting a large majority of white voters, and Obama black voters. With a few exceptions, even after Edwards dropped out of the race, this kind of racial and economic split has continued--Obama now gets 80 and sometimes 90 percent of all black voters. Obama has in no way been marginalized in the way that Jesse Jackson was but it certainly appears that he has been among the crucial constituency of so-called lunch bucket Democrats, something that his association with Wright is certain to exacerbate.

While there is little to indicate that Obama shares Wright’s view of black and white relations or even his radical liberalism, perception in politics is, if not everything, nearly everything. And, frankly, Obama’s response to the videos in which Wright castigated and damned the US for its bad actions in Vietnam, South Africa, etc., or said, with respect to 9-11 that America’s “chickens had come home to roost,” just isn’t believable. Even his supporters must find it very difficult to believe that Obama hasn’t, as he has claimed to all the news programs and his Internet blog on Huffingtonpost, been present or wasn’t aware of such preaching on the part of the pastor in the past, especially as Wright was the campaign’s spiritual advisor, inspired the title of his book, Audacity of Hope, and baptized his children. Sure sounds like the same old politics to me. Understandable perhaps, but not when your whole campaign is based on judgement and a new kind of politics.

As damaged as I believe Obama is from his association with Wright, he may well win the Democratic nomination. The delegate math is becoming ever more favorable for him and just recently he has picked up delegates Iowa and Texas in a kind of after caucus in which the delegates are actually awarded. In Iowa, many of the Edwards delegates have since moved to Obama. Clinton will almost certainly not catch him in this measure and likely won’t do so in the popular vote either.

And who knows what the superdelegates will do. If Obama wins the delegates and popular vote they may have little choice but to vote him even though it looks, increasingly, like he will be unelectable in November, when the Democrats' chickens are likely to come home to roost.

Bill Clinton’s comment about Hillary being completely vetted as a result of her past experiences in a way Obama never has, is looking more and more perspicacious as the Democratic campaign rolls on.

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Look, It’s Not All About Momentum: Clinton, Obama, and the Fourth Estate

I have a couple of pet peeves best directed at the television and print journalists. So listen up.

First, don’t ever again, TV journalists and “expert” guests, preface your remarks with the word, “look.” I don’t quite remember when this interjection began making the rounds but now there is hardly a talking head who does not now do this. Watch any of the cable news programs, from MSNBC, to CNN or, if you can stomach it, Fox, and you’ll see what I mean. Chris Mathews of MSNBC’s Hardball is fond of having a “Hardball # of the day,” and he ought to have one of his interns count the number of times either he or one of his guests uses the word.

Another thing that makes me peevish is the indiscriminate use of the word “momentum.” Barack Obama has the big mo, until Hillary got her mo back in New Hampshire, before she lost again after Super Tuesday, then put an end to Obama’s mo in Ohio and Texas, and so on. This sports cliché has little meaning under the best of circumstances but it is an understatement to say that it has been reduced to complete and utter gibberish by the TV geeks, print scribblers, and those writing on the Internet. A Yahoo search today of Clinton and momentum turns up 20,900,000 hits; Obama and momentum results in 19,400,000. That’s a lot of mo, so much, in fact, that editors everywhere ought to say enough is enough and fire the next cretin who uses this term other than to point out how absurd it is.

While journalists aping one another by using look, nearly every utterance, is merely an annoyance, the use of momentum is part of the breathless and misleading narratives these journalistic quacks have been crafting, replete with all the artificial ups and downs of the candidates and the near hysterical drama these boobs work so assiduously to inject into the race.

Many of the same folks now squawking about momentum or any other of the pat terms or phrases they are so fond of, are same ones who, after Super Tuesday, correctly said, based on demographics and Obama’s strength in caucuses, and the like, that it was possible that Clinton would not win again until the Ohio primary in March. It wasn’t a cause for concern, wasn’t dramatic, just a reasonable supposition based on an analysis of voting patterns and demographics. And that was just the problem—not enough oompf for the gentle readers and viewers who need excitement, drama, and mania just to turn on the tube or plunk down 50 cents for the paper.

The truth is, the Democratic race is exciting enough and has its own drama without the need for any synthetic ups and downs, and dramatic but misleading storylines. Apparently managing editors simply believe readers and viewers are so stupefied that the strategic and procedural battles over the superdelegates and the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegates just won’t cut it; that the issues of electability and voting patterns based on race, income, and gender are just too boring; that issues like health care or the war in Iraq pale in comparison to fits and starts and vagaries of...momentum.

So, oh almighty media to which we plug in, stare at cross-eyed, or permit to stain our fingers with ink from god knows where, stop carrying on about the big mo (or even little mo) would ya, and spend more time focusing on the issues, the reasons voters may be voting the way they are, and which candidate is most electible in November.

Look, who knows, readers and viewers may actually find this stuff interesting--especially if they aren't overwhelmed by all the momentum.

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Election 2008: Clinton's Electability and Obama's Stunning Grass Roots Campaign


Not Your Grandfather or Grandmother’s Campaign

There’s a very good article in the March 20, 2008 Rolling Stone by Tim Dickinson about the structure and operations of Obama’s grass roots organization (The Machinery of Hope). It discusses the Obama camps, four-day intensive seminars on organizing, which have trained about 7000 organizers thus far who, in turn, go back to their various states and help organize Obama’s efforts there. The article also discusses Obama’s use of social networking sights and how he enlisted one of the founders of Facebook to create his own site, mybarackobama.com, to not only get new recruits but to allow organizers access names, telephone numbers, and emails of organizers at the precinct level. With such ground level organization it is easy to see how Obama has wiped out Clinton’s top-down organizational structure in especially the caucus states.

It’s all about the General Election, Stupid

There are a lot of print journalists and television news geeks who just don’t get it. Hillary Clinton thus far clearly appears more electible in the general election than Barack Obama. It isn’t so much a matter of big states, as so many say—California and New York will likely go to either candidate in the general election—but the big swing states like Ohio and Florida.

For the last several elections the pattern of red and blue states has been pretty clear and this time around should be no different. Once again, the presidency will come down to the swingers. All indications are that Clinton would do better in these states in November than Obama. Not only has she won these states in the primary, but the demographics favor her—Latinos, expatriate New Yorkers, and lunch bucket Democrats in Florida, working class Dems in Ohio, with fewer blacks and latte-drinking liberals than some other states. Sad, but true, a lot of these working class voters will go to McCain before they would vote for Obama.

In her article for USA Today, “Super delegate’ Dem choice may hinge on electabilty,” Jill Lawrence includes the following to support her argument that the issue of whether Clinton or Obama is most electible in the general election based on primary victories is a muddle--

“It is always very dubious to say somebody winning a primary or caucus will end up necessarily winning a general election," says Andrew Dowdle, a political scientist at the University of Arkansas.

Historian Eric Rauchway of the University of California, Davis, says, "There's no correlation at all between your performance in primaries and your performance in a general election."

While there is no simple correlation between the numbers Clinton received in Ohio in March and how she would do in November, her performance there against Obama clearly indicates that she would be more likely than he to do well in Ohio in November. Clinton is doing well in the swing states for a reason—she appeals more to voters in these States than does Obama—the demographics in these states are simply more favorable to her. This means, if nothing else, that she would be more likely than him to win these states in November. I’ll buy the argument, though, that winning the Wyoming or Idaho Democratic caucuses is pretty meaningless. No Democrat has won the general election there in ages and no Democrat, much less a liberal Democrat, will be winning there anytime soon.

If Clinton wins Pennsylvania in April there will be little question that she would be the candidate most likely to beat McCain. The only question, then, will be whether the superdelegates have what it takes to cast their lots with her instead of the candidate who will almost certainly be leading in pledged delegates and number of states won. My guess is that unless Clinton wins the popular vote, the superdelegates will go with Obama, even knowing that his chances in November will not be good.

Sunday, March 9, 2008

Democratic Rumblings 2008: Considering the Congressional Races

Forget all the talk about the superdelegates and what will happen to the Florida and Michigan delegates, and think for a moment about a couple of low profile but potentially very important Democratic events.

In the first of these temblors yesterday, Democrat Bill Foster defeated Republican Jim Oberweis for the position left vacant by Dennis Hastert, the Republican from Illinois and former Speaker of the US House of Representatives. Foster won 53 percent of the vote in a heavily Republican district. Wads of money were spent on this special election race (Hastert is retiring), and the candidates went head-to-head on issues like Iraq and health care, each with conspicuous support from McCain (Oberweis) and Obama (Foster) in what could be a preview of the general election. With an incredible five Republican senators retiring (four of the five senate races to replace the retiring senators are currently considered tossups by Congressional Quarterly), and the possibility of big wins in the House, such as yesterday’s, if Democrats remain excited enough to turn out in the general election, and change remains as powerful a theme as it currently appears to be, Democrats could do to the Republicans in congress what Republicans did to them when they swept Democrats from power in 1994.

The ground also shook a bit yesterday, way out west, in the Democratic caucuses in Wyoming, which Obama won 58% to 42%, when turnout eclipsed previous caucuses. Approximately 10,000 voters turned out yesterday, as compared to 675 in 2004. Everything is on a small scale in the miniaturized world of the caucus, and all the more so in sparsely populated Wyoming, but nonetheless the turnout was consistent with others Democrats have been receiving across the country and indicative of the great length voters will seemingly go to vote for a Democrat this time around.

While excitement about Hillary Clinton and, more generally, the battle between her and Barack Obama is responsible for some of the excitement, it is evident that Obama, especially, is the primary catalyst for the huge Democratic turnouts. He has won nearly all of the caucuses so far, which require quite a bit of effort on the part of voters simply to attend, and is met with huge crowds wherever he goes. He has even caught the attention of young voters (18-29) and consistently beats Clinton in this demographic. Obama is a rockstar and the Democrats, most of whom are more likely to have Frank Sinatra tunes in their head, know it.

No one in the Democratic party doubts Obama’s ability to attract new voters and bring out many traditional Democrats in a way that few other Democratic candidates have recently. That’s why the looming fight over superdelegates and the Florida and Michigan delegates could be so perilous. The Party simply can’t afford not to tap into Obama’s star quality and his ability to expand the electorate, and energize Democratic voters. If, as is likely, Hillary Clinton wins Pennsylvania, she will have a legitimate claim that she is electible and that Barack Obama is not. And if you look at the states that both candidates have won, it is pretty clear already that Clinton is more likely to win the crucial Electoral College votes than is Obama. Not only has she done well in the big states, she is doing well in the swing states such as Ohio and Florida one of which a Democrat will have to win in November if he or she is to be elected President.

And Obama, what happens to him if he loses Pennsylvania? He will almost certainly be able to argue throughout that he has more states, more delegates, and, if they don’t count Florida and Michigan, possibly the popular vote.

And Democrats, in general? They are facing a nearly insoluble problem. Leaving aside questions of fairness and the dangers of alienating especially black voters —there are plenty of folks already talking about these now and certainly will continue to do so in the days to come--if this scenario comes to pass, the superdelegates will be faced with another excruciating variable: should they go with the candidate most likely to win the presidential election or the one that is most likely to pump up the turnout and possibly radically transform the makeup of the House and the Senate?

This is where it would be great to say that Howard Dean and the rest of the geniuses leading the Democratic National Committee (DNC) could, like gods from the machine, descend from above and craft a solution that would lead the Democrats to glory—the presidency, big gains in the house and senate, and a losing candidate that at least believed he or she was not railroaded out of the nomination.

This would be an awful lot to ask of anyone, let alone the architect of the colossal mess of the Florida and Michigan (non) primaries, so you’ll have to forgive me if I’m not too sanguine about the prospects of Dean, the DNC, or the superdelegates even knowing what is best for the Party let alone coming up with a strategy to achieve it.

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

What's in a Name? Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Sidney McCain III, and Barack Hussein Obama Jr.

With a name like John Sidney McCain III, you’d think if anyone were receiving scrutiny for signs of possible subversiveness or latent Francophilia it might be John McCain.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Hillary Clinton’s decision at one point to use her maiden name, Rodham, in conjunction with her married name was cited by the usual crowd of idiots as anti-family, an indication that Clinton wanted to do away with families altogether, and raise kids collectively in some kind of perverse and secular commune ruled by monkeys. Even her book, “It Takes a Village,” is a sign of Clinton’s communist tendencies for these folks.

And Obama? Well, his middle name, which he shared with the US’ most hated enemy (after his transformation from the US’ best friend) just as surely indicates to these troglodytes that Obama was reared in a madrasa, has scabs on knees from kneeling towards Mecca, dreams of killing infidels, and is just waiting to devour the nation’s youngsters in their cribs.

This would all be very funny or at least just plain silly if it weren’t part of a larger, more insidious attempt to spread fear and hate among the electorate. As amazing as it is to think that using one’s maiden name could be associated with the decline of the West or one’s middle name with terrorism and beheadings, there are enough bladderheads who not only uncritically ingest such garbage but are somehow able to coax their brainless bodies into the voting booth.

One such schlub was interviewed last Sunday on the television program, 60 Minutes, by Steve Kroft who had gathered about him several Ohioans either laid off or reduced to lesser-paying jobs, ostensibly because of the predations of NAFTA. When asked by Kroft who he was voting for, the man said he was considering voting for Obama but was unsure because he had heard he might be a Muslim and that he didn’t place his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance.

Jesus. You don’t get much more moronic than this—Obama is not a Muslim and the incident to which the man vaguely referred was actually the playing of the National Anthem where neither propriety nor patriotism requires hand over heart—but nonetheless there are voters who believe such horseshit and who make decisions based on it.

In any event, whether focusing on Clinton’s maiden name or Obama’s Islamic-sounding middle name, the intention is to do harm to the candidate and persuade others not to vote based on religion, ethnicity or gender. It is no different from racism or any kind of attempt to incite hate for that matter. Clinton has been subject to hateful emails, web trash talking, and right-wing radio vitriol for some time. Obama is a more recent recipient of such filth and especially the Internet now is filled with racist and misleading garbage about his religion, education, and allegiance to the United States. In one especially repugnant email, a photo of Obama’s head is superimposed on a lawn jockey, suggesting that this is where Obama really belongs.

And the candidates themselves, what do they do when faced with such attacks? We all remember that Hillary, signaling that she was in fact the dutiful wife, spoke very conspicuously about baking cookies when Americans wrung their hands at her independence. And just the other day, Obama, trying to put the story that he is a Muslim to rest, said not only that he is a Christian and has gone to the same Christian church for twenty years but that he prays to Jesus every night? How pathetic that Clinton and Obama are reduced to playing this mean-spirited and stupid game and, even more, that voters apparently demand this.

Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton, of all people, is not above playing this game and when given an opportunity recently by the very same Steve Kroft to say definitively that the story circulating about Obama being a Muslim was untrue or to denounce the other misrepresentations that are following Obama and of which she is clearly aware, she punted, stating that she has “no reason not to believe him” when he said he is a Christian, and “as far as she knows” Obama is a Christian.

Clinton’s frequent duplicity and pettiness and the effects of these on her candidacy are another story, however. And anyway nothing she has said or hasn’t said can compare to what we are likely to hear in the general election if Obama is the Democratic nominee and pill-popping Rush Limbaugh, and boobs like Anne Coulter or Bill O’Reilly incite their followers to frenzy.

Maybe then we should turn our attention instead to John Sidney McCain III and the traditions and privileges his name evokes: a long line of John Sidney McCains who have marched lock step into the armed services (McCain’s grandfather (JSM) and father (JSM jr) were admirals in the Navy, and his son (JSM IV) is also in the Navy). Not only do the McCains not question the validity of wars like Vietnam and Iraq, they believe not enough was done to win the war (Vietnam) or that we will stay in Iraq for “a hundred years,” if necessary.

At least in this instance such a focus would have nothing to do with racism, misogyny, or hate. Instead it would perhaps draw attention to a real problem that besets folks like John Sidney McCain III, George Walker Bush, and Richard Milhous Nixon—the arrogance, sense of entitlement, and assumption that no one will question their motives, patriotism or even their middle names.

Sunday, March 2, 2008

Hillary Clinton's Ohio Argument

Democrats may well have a real dilemma after the March 4 primaries.

Those closest to Hillary Clinton's campaign--Bill Clinton and James Carville among them--have said that if she doesn’t win the Ohio and Texas primaries she will be out of the race. The idea being, I guess, that she would find it nearly impossible to overtake Obama in pledged delegates in the rest of the primaries and would have no real claim to the superdelegates.

What happens, though, if Clinton were to win Ohio, a state in which polls show her consistently ahead, and lose in Texas?

Texas has little meaning in terms of the general election as Democrats haven’t won the state since 1976 when Carter beat Ford, and are as likely to win it in November as they are Idaho or Utah.

But Ohio? This has been a swing state for the last several elections with the Democrats having to win this or Florida in addition to the blue states they are certain to win. If Obama cannot win in Ohio, a state that has chosen the President in the last 11 elections (1964-2004), the likelihood of him winning the general election is not good.

If she wins in Ohio, though, Clinton has a good argument that she is the Democrat with the best chance of being elected in November even if Obama ends up with the more pledged delegates. Although there was no campaigning there, she won handily in Florida, the other key swing state. Many of Obama’s delegates have come from states like Idaho, Kansas, or Utah, states that will not vote for a Democrat in November. And Clinton, despite her string of losses, has actually won in the smaller swing states of New Mexico and Nevada, albeit by narrow margins.

Even if she loses in Texas, should she win in Ohio, the question will then be whether Clinton will dare to take the battle forward--not just to Pennsylvania but to seat the delegates in Florida and Michigan and fight for the superdelegates--based on the argument that she is more electible.

It is an argument that is certain to be divisive but if Clinton wins in Ohio it is one that Democrats probably owe it to the country to have.