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
Monday, March 17, 2008
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)