What can we learn from Terry McAuliffe
2 Comments Published by Augur on Thursday, May 15 at 12:27 PM.
Terry McAuliffe is a happy and tenacious warrior. A true party animal. Throughout this cycle his mendacity has been maddening. I often wonder whether or not he feels like he's lying, whether he actually processes his own spin. Is there a straight face test? There doesn't seem to be. In the mind of Terry McAuliffe, there is no truth; there is only message. Because of his optimism, despite my hating him, I can't help liking him. Very soon Hillary's campaign will be over, and for better or worse (almost certainly better), the showman will be silenced. Below is a video from TPM of various clips featuring Terry the unflappable optimist at his best.
While I would never want to emulate him, we can learn lessons from McAuliffe about tenacity, loyalty, staying on message, and the power of optimism. It will be interesting to watch how this loss impacts his position within the party.
I'm reminded of another lesson from the best teacher at Illinois, Ira Carmen. Professor Carmen once said, "I've never met a successful person who wasn't also an optimist."
While I would never want to emulate him, we can learn lessons from McAuliffe about tenacity, loyalty, staying on message, and the power of optimism. It will be interesting to watch how this loss impacts his position within the party.
I'm reminded of another lesson from the best teacher at Illinois, Ira Carmen. Professor Carmen once said, "I've never met a successful person who wasn't also an optimist."
Labels: 2008, Augur, Democratic politics, message
West Virginia is Hillary Clinton's kind of state. Most projections have her taking the state by 25-35%. Fortunately for team Obama, it doesn't really matter. I'm most interested in seeing whether or not the irrelevancy of this contest will diminish the vote total. No one likes to go out and vote in an election that's already over, for a candidate who has already lost. Perhaps a bandwagon effect will give Obama a surprisingly good night, but the best he could hope for is to lose by only 20%.
If Hillary wins by more than 40% and there is a heavy turnout, she could net over 100,000 votes, and cable news may try to make the win seem significant, citing the plausibility of her taking the lead in the popular vote.
For those of you who still choose to closely watch this race, I want to direct you to a tremendous resource I've been reading lately, that Chris at the Outside Report got me hooked on. It's a blog with very detailed analysis and polling data, where the polls are weighted based on the polls past performance (and other factors). Check out FiveThirtyEight.com, and if you're interested, here is their WV primary preview.
Update from Buck B.
Further re-enforcing the "everyone-hates Republicans" thing I wrote about below, Democrats have, incredibly, won Mississippi's 1st Congressional District in a special election today....by eight points! This is a district Bush won with 62 percent of the vote in 2004. Republicans have now lost three special elections in a row this year, all in heavily Republican districts.
Oh, and as expected Hillary has officially cornered the market on ignorant white people who will likely vote Republican in November anyway. Congratulations, Sen. Clinton.
If Hillary wins by more than 40% and there is a heavy turnout, she could net over 100,000 votes, and cable news may try to make the win seem significant, citing the plausibility of her taking the lead in the popular vote.
For those of you who still choose to closely watch this race, I want to direct you to a tremendous resource I've been reading lately, that Chris at the Outside Report got me hooked on. It's a blog with very detailed analysis and polling data, where the polls are weighted based on the polls past performance (and other factors). Check out FiveThirtyEight.com, and if you're interested, here is their WV primary preview.
Update from Buck B.
Further re-enforcing the "everyone-hates Republicans" thing I wrote about below, Democrats have, incredibly, won Mississippi's 1st Congressional District in a special election today....by eight points! This is a district Bush won with 62 percent of the vote in 2004. Republicans have now lost three special elections in a row this year, all in heavily Republican districts.
Oh, and as expected Hillary has officially cornered the market on ignorant white people who will likely vote Republican in November anyway. Congratulations, Sen. Clinton.
Labels: 2008, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, politics
Andrew Sullivan asks why the question of whether Hillary can win black votes is not focused on as much as the question of whether Obama can win rural, working-class, white votes. I think the answer is that the media pretty much assumes that there's not much doubt as to whether the black vote will vote Democrat no matter what. And in reality, I think that's a pretty safe assumption. But the double standard does reflect, I think, a somewhat condescending attitude on the part of the media, because clearly the media does not treat it as a safe assumption that working-class voters will vote Democrat no matter what. And remember that we've been talking about Democratic voters this entire time, so the working-class voters we're talking about are largely union members and other voters who have been reliably Democratic.
Why, one wonders, would the media not think it's safe to assume that these loyal Democrats will not stay with their party if Obama gets nominated, but that black voters will stay with their party if Clinton gets nominated? Could it perhaps be that the media thinks these rural, working-class voters are a bunch of racists who don't just prefer Clinton to Obama but rather can't accept the possibility of a black president? Maybe?
Why, one wonders, would the media not think it's safe to assume that these loyal Democrats will not stay with their party if Obama gets nominated, but that black voters will stay with their party if Clinton gets nominated? Could it perhaps be that the media thinks these rural, working-class voters are a bunch of racists who don't just prefer Clinton to Obama but rather can't accept the possibility of a black president? Maybe?
It is very rare to see Laura Bush in the White House Briefing Room. For the last seven years, she has stayed almost completely behind the scenes. Today's briefing could have been handled by any number of officials in the Bush Administration, and her speaking to the issue was likely intended to demonstrate her devotion to humanitarian relief and her opposition to the junta. Laura Bush handled herself very well.
If I were a GOP operative, I would constantly advocate for a greater public role for Mrs. Bush. Consider the following factors: (1) Her husband's approval rating is hovering around 30%; (2) As much as many liberals love Michelle Obama, far too many Americans see her as an angry black woman who isn't proud of her country; (3) it helps Republicans to continually use the stand up line "Do you really want Bill Clinton back in the White House with nothing to do?"; (4) Cindy McCain looks more like a First Lady than any other First Lady in History.
Because of the last factor, more than any other, elevating the role a first lady can play, and perhaps even should play, in public life only helps John McCain. One reasonable strategy for the Republicans going forward is to elevate the public roles of both Laura Bush and Cindy McCain.
Labels: 2008, Augur, republican politics, strategy and tactics
Recently several of your contributors here have been emailing each other about John McCain's character. If you've been visiting the Agora for long, you can guess where the battle lines were drawn. In today's news cycle we have evidence that both sides in our debate can cite: McCain's repudiation of the North Carolina GOP's ad featuring Rev. Wright.McCainiac: "Did you hear McCain condemned the NC attack ad? What a great guy! See, he's about a new kind of politics, character and substance."
Dumb Anti-McCain Response: "Yeah, but if he's the nominee, what does it say about his leadership skills that he cant even get the NC GOP to stop running the ad?"
Astute Anti-McCain Response: "The worst thing for Obama is for McCain to go on TV and say 'OMG don't run this ad...it's so awful...no one look!!' McCain takes that position for two reasons: (1) it makes him look good, and (2) he knows that his condemnation of the ad takes it from running in a few local NC markets and instead shifts it to running in an unending loop on cable news for free."
McCainiac rebuttal: "You conspiracy theorist wack job, so he isn't supposed to say 'don't run the ad.' He sure isn't supposed to say 'run the ad.' No matter what he says you'll think he's up to something. I suppose we blew up the Pentagon too, right Jackass?"
Responding to the McCainiac: "Time will tell. If in a few days he's still trying to talk about his condemnation of the ad, why that type of ad is harming our politics, etc. That shows McCain is just a typical opportunist pol w/ a good PR shop. If McCain doesn't take shameless steps to try to keep spinning this, and merely says 'I've made my views on the ad clear, I'm done discussing it. That just gives you guys an excuse to keep running it.' Then score one for the McCainiacs."
Labels: 2008, Augur, John McCain, politics, tactics
One of the most commonly quoted "facts" about Barack Obama on conservative talk radio is that he is the "most liberal member of the Senate." The National Journal does an annual study where they rank Senators on a political spectrum by cobbling together the results from a sample set of "key votes." Here is a link to the oft quoted report. This report itself is critiqued and refuted all over the blogosphere. I wont address the methodology here or discuss potential bias or motivation for picking the votes to lead to this result, thought it probably does bring in a few dollars. Instead, I want to make a brief tactical suggestion:
The Obama campaign should quietly approach 3-5 other publications and public interest groups and have other studies with a different methodology find him in the middle of the pack, say the 42nd most liberal Senator. Doing this costs the campaign very little, and it creates a nice rebuttal for the National Journal piece. It creates the following helpful argument: "Wait, that's just one of several rankings. The Clinton supporting National Journal just wanted to sell magazines. All the other studies show Obama in the middle of the pack."
A little something for all the little John McCainiacs out there, as Mother Jones points out: "This line from the NJ press release is awesome: 'Republican presidential candidate John McCain did not participate in enough roll calls to receive a composite score.'"
The Obama campaign should quietly approach 3-5 other publications and public interest groups and have other studies with a different methodology find him in the middle of the pack, say the 42nd most liberal Senator. Doing this costs the campaign very little, and it creates a nice rebuttal for the National Journal piece. It creates the following helpful argument: "Wait, that's just one of several rankings. The Clinton supporting National Journal just wanted to sell magazines. All the other studies show Obama in the middle of the pack."
A little something for all the little John McCainiacs out there, as Mother Jones points out: "This line from the NJ press release is awesome: 'Republican presidential candidate John McCain did not participate in enough roll calls to receive a composite score.'"
Labels: 2008, Augur, Barack Obama, politics, tactics
The PA Primary & Restricting the Franchise
12 Comments Published by Augur on Tuesday, April 22 at 6:59 PM.
The PA results are just about to come in. Chris at the Outside Report. He also has a liveblog thread here.
I just saw the picture below, which is how I picture the typical Clinton supporter:
Some Hillary supporters like to talk about how if the Dem Primary system used the GOP winner take all system, Hillary would win. Until I saw this picture, I always responded "well...here in realityland, that's not how we are keeping score." When I saw this picture and looked at the exit polls I thought if only the Democratic Primary restricted the franchise to exclude the votes of the senile and those with an IQ under 100, Obama would win in a landslide.
I just saw the picture below, which is how I picture the typical Clinton supporter:
Some Hillary supporters like to talk about how if the Dem Primary system used the GOP winner take all system, Hillary would win. Until I saw this picture, I always responded "well...here in realityland, that's not how we are keeping score." When I saw this picture and looked at the exit polls I thought if only the Democratic Primary restricted the franchise to exclude the votes of the senile and those with an IQ under 100, Obama would win in a landslide.Speaking of those with an IQ under 100, I just talked to Jaybandit (pictured below). Carville famously says Pennsylvania is Pittsburgh on one side and Philly on the other, with Alabama in the middle. Jaybandit lives outside of Pittsburgh, just on the edge of "Alabama." He agrees that the people of PA would be better off with the limited franchise I've proposed. He did his part by not voting.
Labels: 2008, Democratic politics, politics
Tonight may be the final Democratic debate. Lets use this thread for any debate predictions, and for anyone who is interested, to live blog comments on the debate. A few previews: WaPo, Politico & ABC.
Labels: 2008, Augur, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, live blog, politics, predictions
Today's new Washington Post - ABC News Poll is very bad news for the Clinton campaign.
Her unfavorable numbers have jumped from 40% in January to a record high 54%. How can any of her surrogates make an argument based on electability while holding a straight face.
This is simple math: 100-54 = 4 years of John McCain.
One of the most stark changes in Clinton's numbers is the dramatic fall in the honest/trustworthy metric. As reported by the WaPo:
Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy.
Bosnia + her recent negativity (perception she'll say anything to win) + increased awareness of Mark Penn's Duplicity + increased discussion of past dishonesty by both Clintons + unanswered questions in tax returns (it doesn't seem like public service = $100 million).
In other news, the Huffington Post may now be discussing the next phase in the elitism message, if it sticks. Apparently in 1995, while talking about working class whites, Hillary Clinton said "Screw 'em" in a meeting.
Her unfavorable numbers have jumped from 40% in January to a record high 54%. How can any of her surrogates make an argument based on electability while holding a straight face.
This is simple math: 100-54 = 4 years of John McCain.
One of the most stark changes in Clinton's numbers is the dramatic fall in the honest/trustworthy metric. As reported by the WaPo:
Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy.
Bosnia + her recent negativity (perception she'll say anything to win) + increased awareness of Mark Penn's Duplicity + increased discussion of past dishonesty by both Clintons + unanswered questions in tax returns (it doesn't seem like public service = $100 million).
In other news, the Huffington Post may now be discussing the next phase in the elitism message, if it sticks. Apparently in 1995, while talking about working class whites, Hillary Clinton said "Screw 'em" in a meeting.
Labels: 2008, Augur, Hillary Clinton, polling analysis
Progressive Media USA has created its first ad against the GOPs favorite fusty contrarian, John McCain.
"Same Old Politics." Initial caps are probably because the word "Old" is so important. I'm surprised they were this subtle. I'll bet someone wanted to toss OLD up in all caps, italicized with a double underline, perhaps on a scroll.
"Same Old Politics." Initial caps are probably because the word "Old" is so important. I'm surprised they were this subtle. I'll bet someone wanted to toss OLD up in all caps, italicized with a double underline, perhaps on a scroll.
Labels: 2008, advertising, John McCain
I want to say from the outset, I am extremely reluctant to discuss this whole matter of Obama's recent "bitter" comments, with which I'm sure everybody's familiar. There is an obvious and explicit desire on this blog to discuss things that are important and interesting. The trouble is that oftentimes, situations will arise in which a news story is both wholly irrelevant and highly reported on. It is a struggle to know how to deal with those things. On the one hand, they deserve to be ignored. On the other hand, to ignore them entirely is to leave the issue to be discussed only by demagogues and political opportunists. So it's a tough spot for somebody who tries to engage in value-adding commentary rather than noise, even if only on a meager blog like this one.All that throat-clearing by way of saying I'm gonna talk about this, but I think it's really dumb.
What I want to talk about in particular are two instances of the same criticism of Obama's comments that I encountered within a few minutes of one another. It's a criticism not without merit (unlike, say, Hillary Clinton's absurd grandstanding). First, Tyler Cowen, in a post that is only partially critical, notes that "guns and religion do not closely track economic decline." Second, I asked on G-chat what co-contributor Billy thought about the subject, to which he in part replied:
him saying that economic conditions compel their frustrations was dishonestbecause i don't honestly see the correlation between economic conditions and religion or hunting, but it is possible to see a nexus between economic conditions and anti-immigrant or anti-trade sentimentsthose people would be just as religious and prone to hunting no matter the state of the economy
Now, that's certainly true, but I think it reflects a misunderstanding of what Obama was saying (a misunderstanding that even Obama has admitted he brought upon himself, but still). I think what Obama was trying to say was something he expressed in a much better way on the Charlie Rose show in late 2004:
As I think is made clear by this clip, Obama's argument is not that people hunt and believe in God because they are in dire straits economically. Rather, it's that people who are in dire straits economically base their votes on the fact that they hunt and believe in God. It's not a causal relationship between being poor and having particular values; it's a causal relationship between being poor and voting based on those values. The argument is that these people don't trust politicians to actually help them recover from their economic problems, so they just vote for the politician who is saying that the traditions and values that they can rely on will not be assaulted and taken away (even if that politician in reality makes their economic problems worse).
Is that a generalization of the rural working class and the rural poor? Yes. Is it a generalization that in large part relies on the assumption that this is a group of people (though not the only group of people) that is not invested in the details of public policy? Yes. Does that make it elitist and out-of-touch? I don't think so.
Whatever one can say about Obama's statements, I don't think one can fairly listen to his tone and find any judgment of the type of people he's talking about. Indeed, he tends to make this argument as a way of criticizing the Democratic elite for not being respectful and conscious of the cultural values he's talking about. These people are busy working at whatever jobs they can find, trying to raise their families as best they know how, he seems to be saying. We have to do a better job communicating to them, and more importantly, when we do get in power, we need to actually help them.
In the end, it's about delivering the goods - Democrats, because of their stances on cultural issues, cannot win over these voters unless they can be trusted to help improve these voters' lives. But Democrats have failed to do that in any really big way since the days of FDR (and, to a lesser extent, LBJ). Given the current political conditions in the country, I suspect Obama will get his chance to deliver those goods starting next January. We'll see how he performs.
As I think is made clear by this clip, Obama's argument is not that people hunt and believe in God because they are in dire straits economically. Rather, it's that people who are in dire straits economically base their votes on the fact that they hunt and believe in God. It's not a causal relationship between being poor and having particular values; it's a causal relationship between being poor and voting based on those values. The argument is that these people don't trust politicians to actually help them recover from their economic problems, so they just vote for the politician who is saying that the traditions and values that they can rely on will not be assaulted and taken away (even if that politician in reality makes their economic problems worse).
Is that a generalization of the rural working class and the rural poor? Yes. Is it a generalization that in large part relies on the assumption that this is a group of people (though not the only group of people) that is not invested in the details of public policy? Yes. Does that make it elitist and out-of-touch? I don't think so.
Whatever one can say about Obama's statements, I don't think one can fairly listen to his tone and find any judgment of the type of people he's talking about. Indeed, he tends to make this argument as a way of criticizing the Democratic elite for not being respectful and conscious of the cultural values he's talking about. These people are busy working at whatever jobs they can find, trying to raise their families as best they know how, he seems to be saying. We have to do a better job communicating to them, and more importantly, when we do get in power, we need to actually help them.
In the end, it's about delivering the goods - Democrats, because of their stances on cultural issues, cannot win over these voters unless they can be trusted to help improve these voters' lives. But Democrats have failed to do that in any really big way since the days of FDR (and, to a lesser extent, LBJ). Given the current political conditions in the country, I suspect Obama will get his chance to deliver those goods starting next January. We'll see how he performs.
McCain-Rice 2008: 'To Torture or Not to Torture' Ticket
8 Comments Published by Augur on Thursday, April 10 at 11:28 AM.
The following was posted at the Huffington Post by Joshua Roman, a friend of Urbanagora:
New reports demonstrate that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice played a pivotal role in the approval of "enhanced interrogation techniques," which are, by any definition but the Administration's, torture. This comes shortly after reports of Rice spending the last few weeks aggressively seeking to become Senator John McCain's running mate. Together, these reports beg the following question: How could John McCain ask Condi Rice to be his running mate, when were she to succeed him, the U.S. would almost certainly engage in torture?
McCain's opposition to torture is far more than a political position. His opposition is elemental. It is seared in his mind and scarred in his flesh - a public morality born of private tragedy.
Following the outcry over Abu Ghraib, Rice was approached by CIA officials and asked for her support for the continued use of "enhanced interrogation techniques." According to the ABC Report, "Then-National Security Advisor Rice, sources said, was decisive. Despite growing policy concerns -- shared by Powell -- that the program was harming the image of the United States abroad, sources say she did not back down, telling the CIA: 'This is your baby. Go do it.'"
These discussions took place at a meeting of the Principles Committee, which included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft. Then-Attorney General Ashcroft, who is hardly a humanitarian, was so troubled by these discussions he asked aloud after one meeting "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."
But how will John McCain judge Condi Rice's remarks?
"This is your baby. Go do it."
McCain has said, "only by ensuring that the United States adheres to our international obligations and our deepest values can we maintain the moral credibility that is our greatest asset in the war on terror." How can he reconcile his statement with hers?
The answer may well be McCain sacrificing his morality to bolster his electability. We have already seen evidence of McCain picking political pragmatism over principle on this very issue. And his moral flexibility may give way if he buys into data like the new poll of NY state voters showing a McCain-Rice ticket ahead of a Democratic "Dream Ticket."
And the most important question of all: How will the Americans, and particularly independents, judge John McCain if he adds Rice to his ticket, despite her pivotal role in authorizing torture?
Labels: 2008, Condoleezza Rice, Joshua Roman, McCain, politics, republican politics, torture, Vice Presidential Candidates
A Tale of Two Endorsements: Lee Hamilton and Evan Bayh
0 Comments Published by Augur on Wednesday, April 2 at 3:40 PM.
The following was posted at the Huffington Post by Joshua Roman, a friend of Urbanagora:
Lee Hamilton is a true statesman. His endorsement of Senator Obama should carry great weight in the national dialog about who would be the most capable President and Commander in Chief. Hillary Clinton's chief Hoosier surrogate is perennial Vice Presidential hopeful Evan Bayh. With the Indiana primary quickly approaching, how should Hoosiers weigh these endorsements?
Lee Hamilton's endorsement proves Barack Obama is ready. Evan Bayh's endorsement proved to voters he wanted to be Hillary Clinton's Vice President.
Evan Bayh built a career trading on the legacy of his legendary father Birch Bayh. In Indiana, Evan Bayh is a popular former Governor and part of a political dynasty. However, inside the Beltway, Evan Bayh is thought of by many as a pretty boy in an empty jacket. He looks like he shares a stylist with John Edwards, and he sounds like a conservative centrist without charisma.
Evan Bayh's father Birch Bayh is an Indiana hero, a courageous leader who was willing to take unpopular stands to promote justice, and a visionary who was ahead of his time. His fidelity to progressive values cost him the Democratic nomination in 1980. It is a shame for Indiana and for America that Evan Bayh isn't more like his father. No one would ever accuse Evan Bayh of being ahead of his time. He doesn't stick his neck out or take unpopular stands. Don't expect a Profile in Courage.
Although Bayh is a member of Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee, he hasn't distinguished himself by showing leadership on tough issues. Bayh treads the cautious line of a future-candidate, more concerned about running the races of someday, than tackling the issues of today. He is a lightweight who appears afraid to take tough, principled stands, perhaps in part because of what happened to his father.
Lee Hamilton is an academic powerhouse, a heavyweight. He devoted over forty years to serving America. Most recently he co-chaired President Bush's Iraq Study Group and served as the vice-chair of the 9-11 Study Group. He currently sits on numerous boards and advisory councils, including both the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and Homeland Security Advisory Council, and he is the President of the prestigious Wilson Center. He spent 34 years in Congress and chaired the Foreign Affairs and Intelligence Committees. As Senator Obama said "Few public servants have done more to advance American foreign policy."
Lee Hamilton's name is synonymous with wisdom, diplomacy, service and statesmanship. Speaking of his faith in Obama's foreign policy capabilities, Hamilton said, "He will work with our friends and allies. Obama will strengthen our ability to use all the tools of American power, and relentlessly promote the American values of freedom and justice for all people."
Lee Hamilton endorsed Senator Obama because of he is impressed with Obama's unifying capacity and his approach to both National Security and Foreign Policy. When Evan Bayh endorsed, he was impressed foremost with Senator Clinton's ability to make him Vice President. Midwesterners understand that motives matter. Despite Evan Bayh's popularity, Lee Hamilton's endorsement should carry more weight.
Lee Hamilton is a true statesman. His endorsement of Senator Obama should carry great weight in the national dialog about who would be the most capable President and Commander in Chief. Hillary Clinton's chief Hoosier surrogate is perennial Vice Presidential hopeful Evan Bayh. With the Indiana primary quickly approaching, how should Hoosiers weigh these endorsements?
Lee Hamilton's endorsement proves Barack Obama is ready. Evan Bayh's endorsement proved to voters he wanted to be Hillary Clinton's Vice President.
Evan Bayh built a career trading on the legacy of his legendary father Birch Bayh. In Indiana, Evan Bayh is a popular former Governor and part of a political dynasty. However, inside the Beltway, Evan Bayh is thought of by many as a pretty boy in an empty jacket. He looks like he shares a stylist with John Edwards, and he sounds like a conservative centrist without charisma.
Evan Bayh's father Birch Bayh is an Indiana hero, a courageous leader who was willing to take unpopular stands to promote justice, and a visionary who was ahead of his time. His fidelity to progressive values cost him the Democratic nomination in 1980. It is a shame for Indiana and for America that Evan Bayh isn't more like his father. No one would ever accuse Evan Bayh of being ahead of his time. He doesn't stick his neck out or take unpopular stands. Don't expect a Profile in Courage.
Although Bayh is a member of Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee, he hasn't distinguished himself by showing leadership on tough issues. Bayh treads the cautious line of a future-candidate, more concerned about running the races of someday, than tackling the issues of today. He is a lightweight who appears afraid to take tough, principled stands, perhaps in part because of what happened to his father.
Lee Hamilton is an academic powerhouse, a heavyweight. He devoted over forty years to serving America. Most recently he co-chaired President Bush's Iraq Study Group and served as the vice-chair of the 9-11 Study Group. He currently sits on numerous boards and advisory councils, including both the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and Homeland Security Advisory Council, and he is the President of the prestigious Wilson Center. He spent 34 years in Congress and chaired the Foreign Affairs and Intelligence Committees. As Senator Obama said "Few public servants have done more to advance American foreign policy."
Lee Hamilton's name is synonymous with wisdom, diplomacy, service and statesmanship. Speaking of his faith in Obama's foreign policy capabilities, Hamilton said, "He will work with our friends and allies. Obama will strengthen our ability to use all the tools of American power, and relentlessly promote the American values of freedom and justice for all people."
Lee Hamilton endorsed Senator Obama because of he is impressed with Obama's unifying capacity and his approach to both National Security and Foreign Policy. When Evan Bayh endorsed, he was impressed foremost with Senator Clinton's ability to make him Vice President. Midwesterners understand that motives matter. Despite Evan Bayh's popularity, Lee Hamilton's endorsement should carry more weight.
Labels: 2008, Barack Obama, endorsements, Joshua Roman, legends, politics
Another Argument That The Race Is Over - With Numbers!
11 Comments Published by Brian on Tuesday, March 25 at 9:43 AM.
First Read looks at the delegate math for the primary and here's the bottom line:
Update: Also see here and here (the second one is David Brooks!).
If the remaining contests split up "as expected" meaning Clinton wins her base states (PA, KY, WV etc.) and Obama wins his base states (NC, OR, MT etc.) and the two split Indiana down the middle, the two campaigns will likely split those 566 delegates right down the middle 283-283 (margin of error +/- 5 delegates). This means Obama would need 34% of the uncommitted superdelegates to hit the magic 2024 number, while Clinton would need 72% of the uncommitted Supers to hit 2024. [emphasis added]Is there a reason the media is paying any attention at all to Hillary?
Update: Also see here and here (the second one is David Brooks!).
Check out this blog entry at the Huffington Post. It is by Joshua Roman, a friend of Urbanagora.
With Hillary gaining in both nationwide and head to head polling, and with the campaigns becoming dirtier and dirtier, there is a good chance the Clinton campaign will again hint at the formation of a joint ticket. This post discusses: the implications of a dream ticket, how Obama's campaign should respond if a joint ticket is suggested again, why people assume Hillary would head the ticket, who needs who as a VP, and the impact Hillary Clinton would have down ticket if she were Obama's VP.
In other news:
(1) My least favorite Democratic Rep. John Murtha has hit the trail in PA for Clinton. Prediction: within the next two weeks he will say something so stupid it will dominate the news cycle.
(2) More proof that Obama is a rock star. People bother watching videos of him just relaxing and talking on the phone.
(3) Senator Bird is still going strong.
(4) New Obama Girl hotness.
(5) As expected, very few will actually spend their rebate checks, but this isn't about economic policy, it's all about politics.
(6) Dr. Kevorkian to run for Congress! This will reinvigorate the assisted suicide debate. I remember talking to Dr. David Gill when he was running against Tim Johnson about this issue. Doctor Gill rejected my suggestions that he lose this element of his platform. In part because unlike Tim Johnson (arguably the single biggest disgrace to the U.S. Congress), Doctor Gill has integrity. Gill was convinced most of America was ready to support this. I'm not sure we are there yet, at least not in the Midwest, but it will be interesting to see this infused into the national debate.
(7) Interesting things are happening with Puerto Rico. They are moving up their primary. It didn't make much news, though it should have, but recently Puerto Rico changed its primary system from a caucus to a primary, and from being winner take all, to a hybrid proportional system. This move was evidently done to favor Obama. Obama is doing surprisingly well in Puerto Rico, due in part to a campaign blunder by the Clinton campaign. As I heard it, the Clinton campaign cancelled a meeting with the Governor of Puerto Rico, and Obama's camp heard about it and swooped in the next day. This agility appears to be paying dividends. It is curious that no other states have tried to increase their clout exponentially by making their Dem primary winner take all. Probably for fear of push back from the DNC.
(8) Hillary Clinton totally lied about Bosnia.
(9) My favorite GOP operative Roger Stone pwn3d Spitzer. Check it out. For more on Stone, you should seriously check out this amazing write up. I love his comic approach, his showmanship, and his rules to live by. Also, anyone who gets a tattoo of Nixon's face on his back is someone you don't want to mess with.
(10) David Brooks on Clinton's odds.
With Hillary gaining in both nationwide and head to head polling, and with the campaigns becoming dirtier and dirtier, there is a good chance the Clinton campaign will again hint at the formation of a joint ticket. This post discusses: the implications of a dream ticket, how Obama's campaign should respond if a joint ticket is suggested again, why people assume Hillary would head the ticket, who needs who as a VP, and the impact Hillary Clinton would have down ticket if she were Obama's VP.
In other news:
(1) My least favorite Democratic Rep. John Murtha has hit the trail in PA for Clinton. Prediction: within the next two weeks he will say something so stupid it will dominate the news cycle.
(2) More proof that Obama is a rock star. People bother watching videos of him just relaxing and talking on the phone.
(3) Senator Bird is still going strong.
(4) New Obama Girl hotness.
(5) As expected, very few will actually spend their rebate checks, but this isn't about economic policy, it's all about politics.
(6) Dr. Kevorkian to run for Congress! This will reinvigorate the assisted suicide debate. I remember talking to Dr. David Gill when he was running against Tim Johnson about this issue. Doctor Gill rejected my suggestions that he lose this element of his platform. In part because unlike Tim Johnson (arguably the single biggest disgrace to the U.S. Congress), Doctor Gill has integrity. Gill was convinced most of America was ready to support this. I'm not sure we are there yet, at least not in the Midwest, but it will be interesting to see this infused into the national debate.
(7) Interesting things are happening with Puerto Rico. They are moving up their primary. It didn't make much news, though it should have, but recently Puerto Rico changed its primary system from a caucus to a primary, and from being winner take all, to a hybrid proportional system. This move was evidently done to favor Obama. Obama is doing surprisingly well in Puerto Rico, due in part to a campaign blunder by the Clinton campaign. As I heard it, the Clinton campaign cancelled a meeting with the Governor of Puerto Rico, and Obama's camp heard about it and swooped in the next day. This agility appears to be paying dividends. It is curious that no other states have tried to increase their clout exponentially by making their Dem primary winner take all. Probably for fear of push back from the DNC.
(8) Hillary Clinton totally lied about Bosnia.
(9) My favorite GOP operative Roger Stone pwn3d Spitzer. Check it out. For more on Stone, you should seriously check out this amazing write up. I love his comic approach, his showmanship, and his rules to live by. Also, anyone who gets a tattoo of Nixon's face on his back is someone you don't want to mess with.
(10) David Brooks on Clinton's odds.
Labels: 2008, Augur, Barack Obama, David Brooks, heroes, Hillary Clinton, Joshua Roman, politics, pretty girls, Roger Stone
Editors note: This is a guest post by a friend of mine who will be commenting here and occasionally writing a guest post under the name "Satya." She was introduced to me by one of my smartest, most talented colleagues as "my smarter, more talented sister." Unlike most of us who pontificate about Obama while remained firmly planted on our asses, Satya has actually spent the last year working for the Obama campaign.
~by Satya
Barack Obama's landmark speech on race was not the best he has given thus far. His speech at the JJ dinner in Iowa, despite reaching most people via YouTube, surpassed this week's speech, and many still continue to hail his 2004 DNC keynote address as his finest.
What was remarkable about Barack's speech this week was the content. His critics accuse him of sounding great, but being light on content. This speech was all content. He apprised white people of things they either don't know, aren't cognizant of, or combination of the two because of white privilege.
His interview after with ABC News really drove this point home when he explained to Terry Moran about how differently white and black people react to the news of major crime. He explained it to him, as I [as a person of color] have many times in a nonthreatening way, how one's initial reaction to news of the major crime is to worry that the perpetrator might be of your subculture. Barack then clearly illustrated to him the privileges of being white in America by asking him if he would ever be worried about resembling someone who had done something bad.
Jon Stewart, as always, nicely summed up Barack's big gamble now. He has treated us like adults, put forth subtleties and difficult questions for us to digest. He got his message across, despite being asked idiotic question like, "Are you a black man or an American first?"
(Funny how being black is like being Muslim...you're still not allowed to have multiple identities if you're American.)
~by Satya
Barack Obama's landmark speech on race was not the best he has given thus far. His speech at the JJ dinner in Iowa, despite reaching most people via YouTube, surpassed this week's speech, and many still continue to hail his 2004 DNC keynote address as his finest.
What was remarkable about Barack's speech this week was the content. His critics accuse him of sounding great, but being light on content. This speech was all content. He apprised white people of things they either don't know, aren't cognizant of, or combination of the two because of white privilege.
His interview after with ABC News really drove this point home when he explained to Terry Moran about how differently white and black people react to the news of major crime. He explained it to him, as I [as a person of color] have many times in a nonthreatening way, how one's initial reaction to news of the major crime is to worry that the perpetrator might be of your subculture. Barack then clearly illustrated to him the privileges of being white in America by asking him if he would ever be worried about resembling someone who had done something bad.
Jon Stewart, as always, nicely summed up Barack's big gamble now. He has treated us like adults, put forth subtleties and difficult questions for us to digest. He got his message across, despite being asked idiotic question like, "Are you a black man or an American first?"
(Funny how being black is like being Muslim...you're still not allowed to have multiple identities if you're American.)
Labels: 2008, Barack Obama, Jon Stewart, politics, race, Satya
Buck already covered Obama's speech and voiced a pretty much identical opinion to my own. But I just wanted to note this: at this point, we have seen Obama give probably the best speech on the confluence of race and politics, as well as the best speech on the confluence of religion and politics, that we have seen in at least a generation, not to mention one of the greatest speeches at a party convention, which itself might be described as one of the best speeches on the confluence of partisanship and politics. He's also written one of the few political books by politicians that people seem to actually like.
Yes, those are all just words. But they're also ideas - ideas of great substance that possess a power and a depth and a level of nuance that most politicians dare not express. Obama's presidency would make history in a number of obvious ways, but I'm beginning to suspect that its greatest contribution might just be that it creates a successful model for other politicians to treat Americans as though they are actually intelligent human beings. Or maybe this will just be unique to him. Either way, this is a moment to savor.
Yes, those are all just words. But they're also ideas - ideas of great substance that possess a power and a depth and a level of nuance that most politicians dare not express. Obama's presidency would make history in a number of obvious ways, but I'm beginning to suspect that its greatest contribution might just be that it creates a successful model for other politicians to treat Americans as though they are actually intelligent human beings. Or maybe this will just be unique to him. Either way, this is a moment to savor.
A new Rasmussen poll has this to report concerning the recent "news" about Obama and his pastor:
Just out of morbid curiosity, do any readers here really, truly, actually care about this at all?
This is a pretty good rundown of the absurd media coverage of this story, particularly about 4:20 into it when it shows a pretty great exchange among Chris Wallace, Sen. Dodd, and Sen. Schumer on Fox News Sunday.
All this looks like it could be leading to this becoming the new attack on Obama: saying "What do we really know about Barack Obama?" over and over again.
Is that unfair? I'd say so. Is it racially charged? Absolutely. Does it make Geraldine Ferraro look like a moron? Clearly.
But I guess this is just the way it goes. Unless, by some chance, voters choose to reject it and actually vote for the guy running the kind of campaign they always say they want to see run.
On a lighter note, here is Tracy Morgan commenting on the racial politics of this presidential campaign on Saturday Night Live. Pretty quality.
Update: This news that Obama will be giving a major speech tomorrow on Wright in particular and racial politics in general makes me excited. (And honestly, how often can anybody - even political junkies - say they get excited to hear about a politician giving a speech? This is that whole "hope" thing people keep talking about.)
Later Update: This is spectacular.
Overall, voters are evenly divided as to whether Obama should resign his membership in the Church—42% say that he should while 40% disagree.Is it just me, or is that sentence truly sickening? We're really a country that feels that comfortable telling a politician to resign his membership in a church?
Just out of morbid curiosity, do any readers here really, truly, actually care about this at all?
This is a pretty good rundown of the absurd media coverage of this story, particularly about 4:20 into it when it shows a pretty great exchange among Chris Wallace, Sen. Dodd, and Sen. Schumer on Fox News Sunday.
All this looks like it could be leading to this becoming the new attack on Obama: saying "What do we really know about Barack Obama?" over and over again.
Is that unfair? I'd say so. Is it racially charged? Absolutely. Does it make Geraldine Ferraro look like a moron? Clearly.
But I guess this is just the way it goes. Unless, by some chance, voters choose to reject it and actually vote for the guy running the kind of campaign they always say they want to see run.
On a lighter note, here is Tracy Morgan commenting on the racial politics of this presidential campaign on Saturday Night Live. Pretty quality.
Update: This news that Obama will be giving a major speech tomorrow on Wright in particular and racial politics in general makes me excited. (And honestly, how often can anybody - even political junkies - say they get excited to hear about a politician giving a speech? This is that whole "hope" thing people keep talking about.)
Later Update: This is spectacular.
The great Eric Zorn posted a link to a series of six short, funny videos illustrating Hillary Clinton's logic in the primary campaign. Zorn tells us the videos are by Chicago filmmaker Steve Delahoyd and Schadenfreude.
My favorite two are based on the Michigan Primary and her overstated claims about her experience.
My favorite two are based on the Michigan Primary and her overstated claims about her experience.
Labels: 2008, Augur, Barack Obama, Eric Zorn, funny
Obama quickly responded to the political controversy of the day: several controversial statements from past sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Instead of making a public statement, he wrote this Op-ed for the Huffington Post.
Labels: 2008, Augur, Barack Obama, politics, religion
