Much was made of a recent Gallup report indicating some 28% of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee, while just 19% of Obama supporters would do the same if Clinton gets it.
What does this mean and where does it come from?
Well, first, it does not help that HRC is running a deliberately disparaging campaign against Obama, intent on making herself and John McCain the adults and Obama, despite being in her own party, some sort of unelectable child. Her supporters are partly just taking the message from the top down.
What else accounts for such a percentage? Well, I'll say it. Race!
Consider the CNN Ohio Exit Poll: of the 20% of voters who said race was a factor in their decision, they went 59%-39% for HRC. The trend is there in other state polls, and not just the deep south ones.
Nonetheless, I think these divisions are overstated. Nomination contests are often divisive (think the GOP in 2000), but the parties tend to coalesce. That assumes, of course, the loser drops out before the convention and allows the party the summer to build organization and unify before a fall campaign. Consider this bit of analysis from Gallup:
Still, when almost 3 out of 10 Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain over Obama, it suggests that divisions are running deep within the Democratic Party. If the fight for the party's nomination were to continue until the Denver convention in late August, the Democratic Party could suffer some damage as it tries to regroup for the November general election.
It's on you, Hillary. The party, or you?
Monday, March 31, 2008
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Do the Beltway Media aid in creating the White Backlash Effect?
I wonder.
The white backlash vote is well documented in the history books. It helped hand Nixon two victories in '68 and '72, powered Reagan and Bush 41, and has been the subject of countless stories and political theories. Whether it's the Willie Horton ad, or Nixon's successful use of busing as a campaign issue, white, blue-collar folks--"Reagan Democrats"-- have repeatedly shown anger at what they apparently view as excessively "repentant" philosophies of civil rights and liberal government.
So the question has been posed repeatedly throughout this campaign: is Barack Obama different? When he wins a state like Wisconsin, he clearly is, as he essentially ties HRC in the white and under $50,000 a year vote. When he loses a state like Ohio, he's apparently in deep shit. Especially when exit polls show 20% of voters took race into account (of those who took race into account in Ohio, they went for HRC by a 3:2 ratio, according to the CNN exit poll). Commentators then speculate: is BHO too black? Are they flocking to Hillary because of race or just becuase they like her on bread and butter issues? Their answer: probably both.
So when the Jeremiah Wright controversy erupted, and because these political analysts have been raised in the political journalism tradition of seeking out demographic trends and carelessly fitting them into their ideas of American history, it was suddenly clear: Obama's white support is tanking in the primary, and this will hurt him with white voters in the general. They did not wait for polls to show this. They, instead, predicted, and, indeed, may have contributed to, this process.
When writers say things like (from Politico):
A failure [to address the Wright problem] could leave many of the white independent voters — a key group behind Obama’s swift rise in national politics — doubting whether he is really the bridge-builder and healer he has portrayed himself to be.
...I can't help but feel as if they are helping to make it so. Now, one would argue they have historical bases for their statements, and they do. But the simple fact is that Barack Obama is not every other black guy, and this is not 1988. Media commentators have wondered if he would be "branded" as the Jesse Jackson kind of black politician, and thus far, he hasn't been. But when such moral deference is given to the white backlash voter--essentially, that it's understandable and even defensible if he strays from Obama over his former pastor's comments--it contributes to the racial problem in our politics. This is more than mere analysis. It is a sort of moral "thumbs up" to white voters. It's OK if you get freaked out by the pastor and black guys generally... your fathers did! Why not you?
The white backlash vote is well documented in the history books. It helped hand Nixon two victories in '68 and '72, powered Reagan and Bush 41, and has been the subject of countless stories and political theories. Whether it's the Willie Horton ad, or Nixon's successful use of busing as a campaign issue, white, blue-collar folks--"Reagan Democrats"-- have repeatedly shown anger at what they apparently view as excessively "repentant" philosophies of civil rights and liberal government.
So the question has been posed repeatedly throughout this campaign: is Barack Obama different? When he wins a state like Wisconsin, he clearly is, as he essentially ties HRC in the white and under $50,000 a year vote. When he loses a state like Ohio, he's apparently in deep shit. Especially when exit polls show 20% of voters took race into account (of those who took race into account in Ohio, they went for HRC by a 3:2 ratio, according to the CNN exit poll). Commentators then speculate: is BHO too black? Are they flocking to Hillary because of race or just becuase they like her on bread and butter issues? Their answer: probably both.
So when the Jeremiah Wright controversy erupted, and because these political analysts have been raised in the political journalism tradition of seeking out demographic trends and carelessly fitting them into their ideas of American history, it was suddenly clear: Obama's white support is tanking in the primary, and this will hurt him with white voters in the general. They did not wait for polls to show this. They, instead, predicted, and, indeed, may have contributed to, this process.
When writers say things like (from Politico):
A failure [to address the Wright problem] could leave many of the white independent voters — a key group behind Obama’s swift rise in national politics — doubting whether he is really the bridge-builder and healer he has portrayed himself to be.
...I can't help but feel as if they are helping to make it so. Now, one would argue they have historical bases for their statements, and they do. But the simple fact is that Barack Obama is not every other black guy, and this is not 1988. Media commentators have wondered if he would be "branded" as the Jesse Jackson kind of black politician, and thus far, he hasn't been. But when such moral deference is given to the white backlash voter--essentially, that it's understandable and even defensible if he strays from Obama over his former pastor's comments--it contributes to the racial problem in our politics. This is more than mere analysis. It is a sort of moral "thumbs up" to white voters. It's OK if you get freaked out by the pastor and black guys generally... your fathers did! Why not you?
Obama and the branding of a politician
The concern among beltway types (we can practically feel them sweating over this) is whether the Wright controversy (and its currently, though much reduced compared to last week, viral nature) will brand him as an angry, divisive black candidate. This, of course, is the opposite of his message, and writers from Politico to the Washington Post seem worried. I would argue that while moderate white support is ditching him right now, much ground can be made up, and the branding is not as whole as one might assume.
Compare a week of intense, 24-hour Wright video playing on Fox News and CNN with 2 months of glowing press coverage, full of entire victory speeches and rallies throughout January and February. While yes, the controversy is hurting him right now, it seems a bit silly to assume that 2 months of good coverage gets overwhelmed by one intense week of bad. At the very worst, they cancel out, and I doubt even that. Just wait until this thing disappears (this will probably be the case by Monday) and watch his poll numbers creep up.
I also think one reason a lot of conservatives and other moderate voters who maybe once supported Obama are now questioning him is because he is clearly going to be the Democratic nominee. It is much easier to support the idea of a black guy (hey, they're cool!) who's fighting the evil (and female!) Hillary Clinton than the presumptive African American nominee of the Democratic Party. So perhaps this was bound to happen. In any case, we are seeing Obama bottom out. After all, unless more coverage emerges, how can it get any worse than this? The racialization that perhaps was inevitable has occurred at a miraculous time for him--March--leaving plenty of time until the convention. My prediction is he probably finishes this thing by early June (carrying states like Oregon, South Dakota, North Carolina, and, if he's lucky, Indiana, which would ease the "lunch-pail Democrat problem", ), independent groups gear up and thrash McCain and Obama, respectively, over the summer, and by the convention he will be able to beat the hell out of McSame over issues, while still being way nicer and more unifying in the press coverage than that angry preacher. September will show him creep up and take leads in key states--Colorado, Virginia, Iowa, New Mexico (some of which he already has good leads in)--and holding the allegedly McCain friendly Michigan and Pennsylvania. I don't know if he can win Ohio, but I don't think he needs to. The electoral map will change in November. The black-white divide just isn't as bitter in the states he needs to win--the Southwest, the newly contested (and increasingly creative-class) Virginia and North Carolina. Sure, this controversy has sucked, and sure, some will never get over it, but once the question becomes: 100 years of war and a precise continuation of Bush economics vs. smart foreign policy, renewed hope and unity, lobbying and ethics reform, and comprehensive proposals to fix the economy, healthcare, and energy, Americans will choose a smart young guy over an angry old war vet stuck in the Hanoi Hilton 30 years later. You wait and see!
Compare a week of intense, 24-hour Wright video playing on Fox News and CNN with 2 months of glowing press coverage, full of entire victory speeches and rallies throughout January and February. While yes, the controversy is hurting him right now, it seems a bit silly to assume that 2 months of good coverage gets overwhelmed by one intense week of bad. At the very worst, they cancel out, and I doubt even that. Just wait until this thing disappears (this will probably be the case by Monday) and watch his poll numbers creep up.
I also think one reason a lot of conservatives and other moderate voters who maybe once supported Obama are now questioning him is because he is clearly going to be the Democratic nominee. It is much easier to support the idea of a black guy (hey, they're cool!) who's fighting the evil (and female!) Hillary Clinton than the presumptive African American nominee of the Democratic Party. So perhaps this was bound to happen. In any case, we are seeing Obama bottom out. After all, unless more coverage emerges, how can it get any worse than this? The racialization that perhaps was inevitable has occurred at a miraculous time for him--March--leaving plenty of time until the convention. My prediction is he probably finishes this thing by early June (carrying states like Oregon, South Dakota, North Carolina, and, if he's lucky, Indiana, which would ease the "lunch-pail Democrat problem", ), independent groups gear up and thrash McCain and Obama, respectively, over the summer, and by the convention he will be able to beat the hell out of McSame over issues, while still being way nicer and more unifying in the press coverage than that angry preacher. September will show him creep up and take leads in key states--Colorado, Virginia, Iowa, New Mexico (some of which he already has good leads in)--and holding the allegedly McCain friendly Michigan and Pennsylvania. I don't know if he can win Ohio, but I don't think he needs to. The electoral map will change in November. The black-white divide just isn't as bitter in the states he needs to win--the Southwest, the newly contested (and increasingly creative-class) Virginia and North Carolina. Sure, this controversy has sucked, and sure, some will never get over it, but once the question becomes: 100 years of war and a precise continuation of Bush economics vs. smart foreign policy, renewed hope and unity, lobbying and ethics reform, and comprehensive proposals to fix the economy, healthcare, and energy, Americans will choose a smart young guy over an angry old war vet stuck in the Hanoi Hilton 30 years later. You wait and see!
Alien, and why Ridley Scott deserves the hype
I like some of his newer movies (Gladiator is pretty fun), but Ridley Scott deserves the buzz that surrounds his science-fiction films more than anything else. Bladerunner and Alien were not just groundbreaking and immensely influential (in terms of lighting, special effects, and themes), but also managed to take a genre out of the absurd and adolescent and humanize it. We do not just like Alien and Bladerunner because of the robots and aliens--though they are surely beautifully assembled, free of the yoke of CGI--but also because their characters are immensely human and his science-fiction films do what all sci-fi purportedly seeks to: they describe intricately what is unique about being human and the perils and pitfalls of connection between us. Rick endangers himself (assuming he is not a Replicant) in Bladerunner by falling for the dazzling Rachel--it is an irrational relationship but (and perhaps thus) a richly human one. Likewise, Alien is full of situations wherein rationality might have saved them. The robot's clear (but heartless) mind is contrasted with the cat-loving, friend-adoring humans who keep getting whacked. Move over, George Lucas, sci-fi films can be dark and scary on the one hand, and profound at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Did Obama's speech do what it needed to?
James Kirchick writes on The Plank over at TNR:
Charles Krauthammer has written, what I believe, the best distillation of Barack Obama's speech on race. Yes, it was a wonderful, even historic, address. But at the end of the day, I'm lost as to what it had to do with the crisis that prompted its delivery: Jeremiah Wright. Obama pulled off a masteful dodge-and-weave. He was faced with what I believed (and still believe) to be a near-insurmountable task -- the long overdue necessity of explaining his near 20-year close friendship with, financial support of, and intellectual affinity for a man who calls upon his congregants to "damn" America and who sympathizes with Hamas -- and artfully avoided it. Obama gave a sweeping speech about the history of race relations in America, the lyrical beauty and honesty of which few can doubt. Yet I'm still scratching my head asking how this speech addressed the specific issue of his affiliation with Pastor Wright.
He goes on to question, as many right-of-center writers and thinkers and critics at places like townhall.com and National Review are, why Obama changed the conversation from what they feel it should have been: a specific denunciation of each and every political view the pastor yelled about.
I think there are fair questions to be asked about Obama and this pastor, but, I would argue, it is ridiculous to assume Obama went to a church (this man was a lifelong non-believer, probably an agnostic) to get educated about government conspiracies and the problem with bombing Hiroshima. Much more likely, he had a genuine religious experience and/or saw that, whether it was because his wife liked the church or it would help him politically, this was an institution that in the short term would work for him.
As far as the question raised by Kirchick, who seems like several others to be concerned that Obama ducked and dodged and hasn't answered the American peoples' questions (and thus didn't accomplish in the speech what he needed to), I think the answer is right under their noses, and it's not what they think. While certainly some white folks will be put off by the pastor, and it may "blacken" him in the public eye for some, and the discussion of race may piss off blue-collar Reagan Democrats, the simple fact is that he did change the conversation and the narrative. That is exactly what he needed to do. There is not much to be done to defend going to that church, but by making this all about race, it compartmentalizes it and makes it much more plausible that by November people won't give much of a shit about Jeremiah Wright. It will be that "race scandal" or that "black pastor," but not much more. It essentially dodges, just like Kirchick says. That's what Obama intended to do. And I think he's succeeding.
Charles Krauthammer has written, what I believe, the best distillation of Barack Obama's speech on race. Yes, it was a wonderful, even historic, address. But at the end of the day, I'm lost as to what it had to do with the crisis that prompted its delivery: Jeremiah Wright. Obama pulled off a masteful dodge-and-weave. He was faced with what I believed (and still believe) to be a near-insurmountable task -- the long overdue necessity of explaining his near 20-year close friendship with, financial support of, and intellectual affinity for a man who calls upon his congregants to "damn" America and who sympathizes with Hamas -- and artfully avoided it. Obama gave a sweeping speech about the history of race relations in America, the lyrical beauty and honesty of which few can doubt. Yet I'm still scratching my head asking how this speech addressed the specific issue of his affiliation with Pastor Wright.
He goes on to question, as many right-of-center writers and thinkers and critics at places like townhall.com and National Review are, why Obama changed the conversation from what they feel it should have been: a specific denunciation of each and every political view the pastor yelled about.
I think there are fair questions to be asked about Obama and this pastor, but, I would argue, it is ridiculous to assume Obama went to a church (this man was a lifelong non-believer, probably an agnostic) to get educated about government conspiracies and the problem with bombing Hiroshima. Much more likely, he had a genuine religious experience and/or saw that, whether it was because his wife liked the church or it would help him politically, this was an institution that in the short term would work for him.
As far as the question raised by Kirchick, who seems like several others to be concerned that Obama ducked and dodged and hasn't answered the American peoples' questions (and thus didn't accomplish in the speech what he needed to), I think the answer is right under their noses, and it's not what they think. While certainly some white folks will be put off by the pastor, and it may "blacken" him in the public eye for some, and the discussion of race may piss off blue-collar Reagan Democrats, the simple fact is that he did change the conversation and the narrative. That is exactly what he needed to do. There is not much to be done to defend going to that church, but by making this all about race, it compartmentalizes it and makes it much more plausible that by November people won't give much of a shit about Jeremiah Wright. It will be that "race scandal" or that "black pastor," but not much more. It essentially dodges, just like Kirchick says. That's what Obama intended to do. And I think he's succeeding.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Social Occasions and Controversial Subjects
I got myself into a bit of trouble recently when, at a dinner party for a friend's birthday, I got into a rather prolonged conversation with two women about atheism and my objections to faith. These people were friends of mine, though certainly not close ones, and had known previously about my beliefs. I cannot remember whether or not I initiated the conversation, but I believe someone else broached international poverty or something like that and how faith and Christianity (by implication) in particular can provide people hope and help them deal with hardship.
To be blunt, such thinking drives me nuts, as I think religion does more to shackle the poor and disenfranchised than it might ever do to help them. If one believes that "my currently disastrous situation is acceptable because Jesus will provide an enjoyable afterlife," and as a consequence becomes even remotely more complacent about outrageous living conditions, one is being duped by religion and, I would argue, enslaved by it.
To be clear, it is highly unlikely (and I would say "not the case") that there is such a thing as an afterlife, as that would require humans to have some sort of soul that exists only in books and bibles. So to tolerate oppressive rulers or squalid conditions because of religious beliefs strikes me as one of the greatest tragedies imaginable.
In any case, we discussed this and managed to have a decent conversation about it, but the combination of it going on for about 40 minutes and my being rather emphatic (some would say close-minded) about the falsity of supernatural events and things, I got a bit of heat afterward for essentially being an "ass" and pushing the envelope in a social situation that was not my own (this was not my birthday, after all).
Upon further reflection, I agree on some counts. It would have been better for me to focus on the person whose birthday it was or the people there and the atmosphere and why we were there, as opposed to my own convictions. A friend I questioned about this said "yeah, I mean, the guy who brings abortion up at a dinner party is an asshole, he just is." Yeah, he probably is.
But I also take issue with the mandatory mundaneness of our conversations in social situations. If I am not to speak of atheism or other controversial subjects at dinner, when should I? At official debates? In classrooms? Now, one might say that I'm unfairly drawing the line between the extreme of having heated conversations all the time on one hand, and talking about nothing but how the food tastes on the other, and perhaps I am, but I do think that the extent to which we take such grievous offense at being questioned or pestered about our beliefs is ripe for changing. I have been taken to task for beliefs of mine at dinners and other events, and while I think it is fair to say that one ought not to go out in search of people to question or castigate, it is equally fair to say that if intelligent college-aged people are together, especially if they're sober and have little to do but eat, controversial subjects make things more interesting.
Then again, it was not my party. And these were not my best friends. Point taken, I suppose.
To be blunt, such thinking drives me nuts, as I think religion does more to shackle the poor and disenfranchised than it might ever do to help them. If one believes that "my currently disastrous situation is acceptable because Jesus will provide an enjoyable afterlife," and as a consequence becomes even remotely more complacent about outrageous living conditions, one is being duped by religion and, I would argue, enslaved by it.
To be clear, it is highly unlikely (and I would say "not the case") that there is such a thing as an afterlife, as that would require humans to have some sort of soul that exists only in books and bibles. So to tolerate oppressive rulers or squalid conditions because of religious beliefs strikes me as one of the greatest tragedies imaginable.
In any case, we discussed this and managed to have a decent conversation about it, but the combination of it going on for about 40 minutes and my being rather emphatic (some would say close-minded) about the falsity of supernatural events and things, I got a bit of heat afterward for essentially being an "ass" and pushing the envelope in a social situation that was not my own (this was not my birthday, after all).
Upon further reflection, I agree on some counts. It would have been better for me to focus on the person whose birthday it was or the people there and the atmosphere and why we were there, as opposed to my own convictions. A friend I questioned about this said "yeah, I mean, the guy who brings abortion up at a dinner party is an asshole, he just is." Yeah, he probably is.
But I also take issue with the mandatory mundaneness of our conversations in social situations. If I am not to speak of atheism or other controversial subjects at dinner, when should I? At official debates? In classrooms? Now, one might say that I'm unfairly drawing the line between the extreme of having heated conversations all the time on one hand, and talking about nothing but how the food tastes on the other, and perhaps I am, but I do think that the extent to which we take such grievous offense at being questioned or pestered about our beliefs is ripe for changing. I have been taken to task for beliefs of mine at dinners and other events, and while I think it is fair to say that one ought not to go out in search of people to question or castigate, it is equally fair to say that if intelligent college-aged people are together, especially if they're sober and have little to do but eat, controversial subjects make things more interesting.
Then again, it was not my party. And these were not my best friends. Point taken, I suppose.
Monday, March 10, 2008
The Ridiculous "Commander-in-Chief" Threshold
So the Clinton folks have decided they have a winner with this "ready at 3am to handle a crisis" business. I dispute Senator Clinton had much more than a ceremonial role when it came to crises in her husband's White House, but let's assume for a moment that she does have the goods here.
What have all these experiences got her? She voted in October 2002 to authorize military force against Iraq, by all measures a poor decision. She voted to saber-rattle Iran with Joe Lieberman in 2007. So the question here should not be one of experience--a new TIME article delves nicely into the complex question--as one can always surround oneself with competent, knowledgable advisors and thinkers. The important thing has got to be judgment, as Presidents often have lacked experience in crisis but done exactly what is necessary (think Abraham Lincoln, and to a lesser extent Bill Clinton himself). That's another thing: this ridiculous argument about experience is straight out of the Republcian playbook. Obama has done such things himself (think the Harry and Louise healthcare mailers), but i think this Clinton one move deserves some consideration.
One of the few things George H.W. Bush had going for him in 1992 was considerable military experience and gravitas. Clinton had zero, and Bush hammered him for it. No one really cared, though, because the economy was in the tank and the Cold War was over, but Clinton himself was forced to respond to this question. At a debate, he said "experience counts, but it's not everything. Values, judgment... should count for something." "Insanity is doing the same old thing over and over again, and expecting a different result." It is contrary to Democratic values and progressive politics to hammer someone over number of years spent in Washington, especially when making the arch-conservative argument about adults needing to protect the children (those of us without years in the White House). We progressives, though, don't value such trivialities. We value courage and good sense. That's why we chose Bill Clinton over George Bush, and that's while we will choose Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton.
Bill Clinton was exactly right. George H.W. Bush had shown he had plenty of experience, and had perhaps handled himself fine when it came to foreign affairs, but had the wrong values and judgment on the economy. HRC says she has the right experience, but not only has it failed her (unlike George H.W. Bush) on the Iraq War, but her values and ideology on foreign policy continue to appear out of touch with the Democratic base and the country at large. My concern with her about Iraq and foreign policy is not just of that October 2002 vote, but her insistence that it was about negotiations (a ridiculous assertion, as the title of the resolution made clear), and her refusal to back away from that sort of foreign policy in the future. Her's would be a continuation of Bush's foreign policy, with slightly more competence. Obama's would be fresh and strong: negotiate with adversaries, actually take action against Al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan. This is an important break from the past, and it's one America needs desperately.
What have all these experiences got her? She voted in October 2002 to authorize military force against Iraq, by all measures a poor decision. She voted to saber-rattle Iran with Joe Lieberman in 2007. So the question here should not be one of experience--a new TIME article delves nicely into the complex question--as one can always surround oneself with competent, knowledgable advisors and thinkers. The important thing has got to be judgment, as Presidents often have lacked experience in crisis but done exactly what is necessary (think Abraham Lincoln, and to a lesser extent Bill Clinton himself). That's another thing: this ridiculous argument about experience is straight out of the Republcian playbook. Obama has done such things himself (think the Harry and Louise healthcare mailers), but i think this Clinton one move deserves some consideration.
One of the few things George H.W. Bush had going for him in 1992 was considerable military experience and gravitas. Clinton had zero, and Bush hammered him for it. No one really cared, though, because the economy was in the tank and the Cold War was over, but Clinton himself was forced to respond to this question. At a debate, he said "experience counts, but it's not everything. Values, judgment... should count for something." "Insanity is doing the same old thing over and over again, and expecting a different result." It is contrary to Democratic values and progressive politics to hammer someone over number of years spent in Washington, especially when making the arch-conservative argument about adults needing to protect the children (those of us without years in the White House). We progressives, though, don't value such trivialities. We value courage and good sense. That's why we chose Bill Clinton over George Bush, and that's while we will choose Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton.
Bill Clinton was exactly right. George H.W. Bush had shown he had plenty of experience, and had perhaps handled himself fine when it came to foreign affairs, but had the wrong values and judgment on the economy. HRC says she has the right experience, but not only has it failed her (unlike George H.W. Bush) on the Iraq War, but her values and ideology on foreign policy continue to appear out of touch with the Democratic base and the country at large. My concern with her about Iraq and foreign policy is not just of that October 2002 vote, but her insistence that it was about negotiations (a ridiculous assertion, as the title of the resolution made clear), and her refusal to back away from that sort of foreign policy in the future. Her's would be a continuation of Bush's foreign policy, with slightly more competence. Obama's would be fresh and strong: negotiate with adversaries, actually take action against Al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan. This is an important break from the past, and it's one America needs desperately.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
The Problem with Hillary
From my Diary over at Openleft:
Why is it that those going after Obama from the left on healthcare and other issues--rightly--ignore Hillary Clinton's faults when it comes to progressive politics?
She is a CORPORATE Democrat. There is no other way to categorize her (except maybe as "DLC"). For a liberal near-socialist Democrat, i find my choice in this primary remarkably simple: forget Iraq, forget healthcare, forget everything--which candidate is going to at least attempt to end the stranglehold of corporations on our government? Barack Obama.
Another serious flaw Armstrong and Krugman and others do not seem to want to deal with: she essentially re-fights the 2004 campaign, doing NOTHING to change the electoral map. The attitude of her campaign about this has been very clear--Obama's states don't matter because they don't fit into our "electoral calculus" (aka the states Kerry won plus Ohio). That, to me, summarizes the Clintons quite well: they care not for their party, but for themselves. Bill Clinton left the Democrats in worse shape than he found them, and Hillary Clinton would gleefully do the same.
We need a Democrat who builds the party, who brings new people in, who, YES, does not plead at the feet of Reagan Democrats to come back, but instead gets a good cross-section of the country to choose sanity and liberalism, not partisan rhetoric with centrist policy positions and corporate dominance on the government.
I'm a former John Edwards supporter, and he said it best: We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats.
Vote Obama. Vote for CHANGE.
I haven't posted for a while, partially because I have a feeling this blog is read by about two people. But I will probably keep it up from now on, and try and figure out a way to get the word out about this thing.
Now, the race:
Obama has had a shitty week of press and campaign coverage. The advisors running their mouths, the primary results, etc., people are going at him and the HRC campaign's experience argument is working (or people are saying it is, which might be the same thing). He probably does need to do better at responding to attacks and winning the last 72 hours... he failed at this in NH and Texas/Ohio and it hurt him. All that being said, if he can retool and get a good messaging campaign out, I don't see Pennsylvania as being a Hillary firewall. The Philly area and the suburbs seem potential Obama strongholds, and a potentially huge portion of the vote will come from there, especially if disaffected GOP upper-income people come out for him.
As for this demographics argument about blue-collar Democrats, I don't buy that they won't come home in November. He's actually won them in several states (see Virginia, Wisconsin). they are not wholly opposed to him, they probably just like Hillary's "fighter" image better right now. Whoever he loses amongst "Reagan Democrats" I think could be regained amongst "Obamacans," upper-income GOP voters angry about Iraq, Katrina, etc.
And what a lovely day it was for a certain scientist from Illinois! We won in the IL-14, replacing Dennis Hastert with a progressive, zealous Democat named Bill Foster. Congrats to the netroots movement, which had a big role in this one. This aids Obama's coattails argument, as this is a traditionally Republican (went 55%-44% for Bush in 2004) district where Obama's cutting an ad for Foster appears to have helped.
I anticipate the next few days as being a question of how Obama's people aggressively (or perhaps not so aggressively) continue to respond to/attempt to change the narrative from the disaster that was last week. He needs to have a decent day tomorrow to bump up the score in Mississippi. If he barely etches out a win, it will be deemed a moral victory for HRC, and won't do him much good in the delegate count. I wonder why he waited until tomorrow to campaign? Perhaps he just needed to chill out in Chicago with the family. One could also argue they are all a bit shellshocked over there from last week and needed time to retool. We'll see what Axelrod comes up with.
Why is it that those going after Obama from the left on healthcare and other issues--rightly--ignore Hillary Clinton's faults when it comes to progressive politics?
She is a CORPORATE Democrat. There is no other way to categorize her (except maybe as "DLC"). For a liberal near-socialist Democrat, i find my choice in this primary remarkably simple: forget Iraq, forget healthcare, forget everything--which candidate is going to at least attempt to end the stranglehold of corporations on our government? Barack Obama.
Another serious flaw Armstrong and Krugman and others do not seem to want to deal with: she essentially re-fights the 2004 campaign, doing NOTHING to change the electoral map. The attitude of her campaign about this has been very clear--Obama's states don't matter because they don't fit into our "electoral calculus" (aka the states Kerry won plus Ohio). That, to me, summarizes the Clintons quite well: they care not for their party, but for themselves. Bill Clinton left the Democrats in worse shape than he found them, and Hillary Clinton would gleefully do the same.
We need a Democrat who builds the party, who brings new people in, who, YES, does not plead at the feet of Reagan Democrats to come back, but instead gets a good cross-section of the country to choose sanity and liberalism, not partisan rhetoric with centrist policy positions and corporate dominance on the government.
I'm a former John Edwards supporter, and he said it best: We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats.
Vote Obama. Vote for CHANGE.
I haven't posted for a while, partially because I have a feeling this blog is read by about two people. But I will probably keep it up from now on, and try and figure out a way to get the word out about this thing.
Now, the race:
Obama has had a shitty week of press and campaign coverage. The advisors running their mouths, the primary results, etc., people are going at him and the HRC campaign's experience argument is working (or people are saying it is, which might be the same thing). He probably does need to do better at responding to attacks and winning the last 72 hours... he failed at this in NH and Texas/Ohio and it hurt him. All that being said, if he can retool and get a good messaging campaign out, I don't see Pennsylvania as being a Hillary firewall. The Philly area and the suburbs seem potential Obama strongholds, and a potentially huge portion of the vote will come from there, especially if disaffected GOP upper-income people come out for him.
As for this demographics argument about blue-collar Democrats, I don't buy that they won't come home in November. He's actually won them in several states (see Virginia, Wisconsin). they are not wholly opposed to him, they probably just like Hillary's "fighter" image better right now. Whoever he loses amongst "Reagan Democrats" I think could be regained amongst "Obamacans," upper-income GOP voters angry about Iraq, Katrina, etc.
And what a lovely day it was for a certain scientist from Illinois! We won in the IL-14, replacing Dennis Hastert with a progressive, zealous Democat named Bill Foster. Congrats to the netroots movement, which had a big role in this one. This aids Obama's coattails argument, as this is a traditionally Republican (went 55%-44% for Bush in 2004) district where Obama's cutting an ad for Foster appears to have helped.
I anticipate the next few days as being a question of how Obama's people aggressively (or perhaps not so aggressively) continue to respond to/attempt to change the narrative from the disaster that was last week. He needs to have a decent day tomorrow to bump up the score in Mississippi. If he barely etches out a win, it will be deemed a moral victory for HRC, and won't do him much good in the delegate count. I wonder why he waited until tomorrow to campaign? Perhaps he just needed to chill out in Chicago with the family. One could also argue they are all a bit shellshocked over there from last week and needed time to retool. We'll see what Axelrod comes up with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
