Archive for October, 2007

There are any number of things to discuss about last night’s Democratic presidential primary debate, and consider this post an open thread to talk about it.

To summarize my view:

It felt very strange seeing literally everybody on the stage gang up on Hillary, and I have no idea whether that helps her or hurts her. I’m betting she takes a hit in the polls, but not a big one, and not to any other particular candidate’s distinct advantage. Some people who were Hillary supporters probably became undecided, but at the same time, some people who were Obama supporters probably lost some confidence in his ability to go for the jugular. At least, that was his effect on me. If this is how Obama performs when he’s on the attack, I worry about what would happen when Giuliani/Romney/whoever started gunning for him were he to get the nomination.

Basically, this debate encapsulated all of my thoughts on the race up to this point: I agree with Obama more on the substance (particularly foreign policy), and I think he would represent the greatest change from Baby Boomer-style politics. On the other hand, I have complete confidence in Hillary’s political competence, and the extent to which I favor Obama on the substance might be too marginal if I lose confidence in his ability to fight off attacks by Republicans. I haven’t lost that confidence yet, thanks largely to the fact that I think any Democrat is going to be in a very strong position no matter what, but I would definitely feel more comfortable if Obama were able to show me something more than what he put on display last night.

More importantly, however, I want to emphasize how awful Tim Russert was as a moderator. This column in the American Prospect by Paul Waldman explains what is wrong with him pretty well, particularly this excerpt that talks about a question from Russert in a September debate which asked for each candidate’s “favorite Bible verse”:

Russert’s Bible question encapsulates everything wrong with him, and with our political coverage more generally. It seeks to make candidates look bad rather than finding out something important about them (if you want to explore a candidate’s religious beliefs, you don’t do it in pop-quiz form and give them just ten seconds to answer). It substitutes the personal anecdote for the policy position, the sound-bite for the substantive answer. It distills the debate into a series of allegedly symbolic, supposedly meaningful moments that can be replayed.

This type of debate question is not about what the candidate believes and would actually do in office, but about how clever the moderator is for cornering the candidate. And above all, it takes a genuinely relevant matter (a candidate’s view of the universe) and crams it through a channel by which the thoughtful candidate will be pilloried and the shallow, pandering, overly rehearsed candidate will garner praise.

I have a fantasy that at one of these moments, a candidate will say, “You know what, Tim, I’m not going to answer that question. This is serious business. And you, sir, are a disgrace.”

The stuff about favoring sound-bites over substantive answers is a lot less Russert’s fault than the general format of televised debates, especially primary debates. But the stuff about how Russert is only looking tough without actually being challenging in a valuable way is dead on.

“A Giuliani presidency would represent the return and final triumph of the Republicanism that conservatives went into politics to purge from power. A Giuliani presidency would represent repudiation by the party of the moral, social and cultural content that, with anti-communism, once separated it from liberal Democrats and defined it as an institution.

Rudy offers the right the ultimate Faustian bargain: retention of power at the price of one’s soul.”

Read all of the article here .

My prediction for New Hampshire: Romney over Rudy by 10 points, Ron Paul in third place (causing everyone in the party to freak out) followed by McCain. Fred in fifth, formally ending his candidacy.

Tom

One of my favorite new senators, Claire McCaskill, recently disappointed me by voting to sustain a filibuster against the DREAM Act, which would have given young illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship if they (1) were brought here as children by their parents, (2) graduate high school, and (3) either complete two years of college or serve two years in the military. The idea, basically, is to not hold children responsible for the actions of their parents so long as they grow up to be responsible adults.

Interestingly enough, 11 Republicans (including decidedly non-moderate ones like Trent Lott, Orrin Hatch, and Sam Brownback) voted against the filibuster, which would have been enough to kill it were it not for the 8 Democrats (including McCaskill, Mary Landrieu, and Jon Tester) who voted for it.

If even this relatively modest reform can’t get passed, things don’t look good for anything comprehensive any time soon. And this is one of the few issues on the agenda today (Iraq, health care, energy, ENDA) where the obstruction isn’t coming from the White House, so I can’t even console myself by saying, “just wait until 2009.” Sigh.

Here’s an interesting tidbit from a Slate article on whether veganism or vegetarianism is better for the environment. After the writer discusses a University of Chicago study which concluded that purely as a matter of greenhouse gas emissions, veganism is the best route, he continues:

But Eshel [the co-author of the study] hastens to add…that your vegan acquaintance isn’t necessarily some environmental saint. That’s because direct carbon dioxide emissions are only part of the story when it comes to food’s eco-impact. You also have to look at the issue of land use—specifically how much and what sort of land is required to sustain an agricultural enterprise. In a region with poor-to-mediocre soil, for example, it may be more efficient to operate a well-managed egg farm than to try growing vegetables that can’t flourish under such conditions. And animals are handy at consuming low-quality grain that isn’t necessarily fit for human consumption. (Rather than going to waste, that grain can help create nutrient-rich dairy products.) In fact, a recent Cornell University study concluded that modest carnivorousness may actually be better for the environment than outright vegetarianism, since cattle can graze on inferior land not suitable for crops. Squeezing more calories out of the land means that less food needs be imported from elsewhere, thereby reducing the burning of fossil fuels.

Just something to chew over (ha?).

It turns out my current city of residence, Washington, D.C., is home to the least fun and the second ugliest people of any of the top 25 American cities. But, hey, at least we’re the fourth smartest and most worldly. Plus the monuments and museums. All this according to a survey of tourists in Travel & Leisure.

My heart, of course, lies in Chicago, where residents can brag about their great food and spectacular skyline (though not much else, as it turns out).

Also of note: Chicagoans tend to rank their city much higher than the rest of the country, while those no-fun D.C. residents tend to rank themselves lower.

Just something fun to poke around on.