Post any thoughts or comments on the Edwards endorsement here. I've seen much talk saying he's a coward for waiting, and that he's endorsing now because it's his last chance to play kingmaker in any meaningful way. Others speculate that he's been in the bag for a while, and Obama was waiting until he needed him to change the story. Maybe he waited until after NC in deference to Hillary, perhaps at his wife's request. Perhaps he wanted to avoid being seen as embarrassingly weak in NC, compared to Obama, reminding voters that he couldn't carry the state in 2004. Edwards is weaker in NC than most people realize. Many suspect Mrs. Edwards isn't supporting Obama, but she will likely stay quiet to avoid undermining her husband.
Edwards spent so much time in the beginning talking up Hillary, for a second I almost thought he was going to Pwn Obama by using his crowd to try to endorse Hillary! He would have been booed so loudly it would have messed up his hair, but that would have really been something.
Obama and Edwards really looked like a ticket tonight, but I hope and trust that Obama wont invite Edwards to join the ticket.
Prediction: I also think Hillary will suspend her campaign before the end of the month, maybe before the end of next week.
Edwards spent so much time in the beginning talking up Hillary, for a second I almost thought he was going to Pwn Obama by using his crowd to try to endorse Hillary! He would have been booed so loudly it would have messed up his hair, but that would have really been something.
Obama and Edwards really looked like a ticket tonight, but I hope and trust that Obama wont invite Edwards to join the ticket.
Prediction: I also think Hillary will suspend her campaign before the end of the month, maybe before the end of next week.
Labels: Barack Obama, Democrats, John Edwards, politics, predictions
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
Note: The following exercise in Obama wankery and bitching about the media is only for those with a high tolerance for such things. All others should use caution. In other words...
We won, bitches! Suck it!
Buck B: Can I just say that this is the fucking awesomest thing ever?
Brian Pierce: I keep thinking that it's finally, finally over, and then realize there's a whole general election campaign left
Buck B: Yes. But I was a lot more worried about Hillary than I was about whoever the Republicans nominated.
Brian Pierce: I'm not worried as much as I am exhausted. But, yeah, it's a fun night. Nice to see none of the nonsense the past few weeks has hurt him.
Buck B: Amazing, really. Maybe people are actually. waking up.
Brian Pierce: Yeah, for all the talk about Obama not responding effectively, it seems like in reality he has an almost uncanny ability to cut through bullshit in a way that is actually persuasive to voters.
Buck B: It's called "telling the truth".
Brian Pierce: No kidding! I think it's not so much that people are waking up, but that the media has this weird view of what "regular people" think that kind of assumes they're all really dumb. So you hear a lot of talk about, "Well, Hillary may be totally full of shit on the gas tax holiday, but it's good politics!"
Buck B: Right. The media won't just give the candidates to the people directly and let them make up their minds, they think they have to analyze it for them. It's hard to build a convincing case in 15-second sounds bites followed by five minutes of analysis.
Brian Pierce: And analyze it not based on what's true, but what's "effective."
Buck B: Yup. With "effectiveness" based on absolutely no empirical evidence.
Brian Pierce: I mean, it should be extraordinarily offensive every time some pundit says that this gas tax holiday stuff was good politics and then in the same breath say that it's bad policy. Yet they say it totally un-self-consciously. Even though there's no way that could be true unless you are saying, "The American people are too stupid to understand they're being lied to."
Buck B: Well...unfortunately, that's at least partly true. But that's why it's so important the media take on the role of informing them. And not reporting on them like they're some sort of amusing beast.
Brian Pierce: Yeah, it's true to great extent because the media doesn't even attempt to ascertain whether the claims politicians are making are true or false. Every time I see Tim Russert chuckling about spin I want to punch him in the face.
Buck B: That's why I prefer partisan media.
Brian Pierce: Ideological media.
Buck B: I don't like wasting energy trying to figure out how a reporter is responding to spin. I want to know what his position is from the start. Who the fuck's side is Russert on? What is he doing? No one knows.
Brian Pierce: And because Tim Russert doesn't have a particular stake in anything, there's much more of a focus on game-playing.
Buck B: Yes. Surprisingly, taking a particular side makes you focus more on issues and less on politics.
Brian Pierce: In part because a focus on politics leads the public to view everybody as being the same, because it's just this confusing haze of spin. But if you're trying to advocate one side, you're going to be jumping up and down trying to draw clear distinctions on issues.
Buck B: And because you assumably believe in what you're advocating, you're going to want to build sound and convincing arguments.
Brian Pierce: That's why I used the term "ideological media" before, rather than "partisan." If you're advocating a particular point of view (as opposed to being purely partisan), you will be willing to call even candidates of your own party on shit you don't like. Fox News is just a partisan version of CNN, but with all the same flaws as CNN that we're talking about.
Buck B: Good point. That kind of distinction might be the eventual death of the two-party system.
We won, bitches! Suck it!
Buck B: Can I just say that this is the fucking awesomest thing ever?
Brian Pierce: I keep thinking that it's finally, finally over, and then realize there's a whole general election campaign left
Buck B: Yes. But I was a lot more worried about Hillary than I was about whoever the Republicans nominated.
Brian Pierce: I'm not worried as much as I am exhausted. But, yeah, it's a fun night. Nice to see none of the nonsense the past few weeks has hurt him.
Buck B: Amazing, really. Maybe people are actually. waking up.
Brian Pierce: Yeah, for all the talk about Obama not responding effectively, it seems like in reality he has an almost uncanny ability to cut through bullshit in a way that is actually persuasive to voters.
Buck B: It's called "telling the truth".
Brian Pierce: No kidding! I think it's not so much that people are waking up, but that the media has this weird view of what "regular people" think that kind of assumes they're all really dumb. So you hear a lot of talk about, "Well, Hillary may be totally full of shit on the gas tax holiday, but it's good politics!"
Buck B: Right. The media won't just give the candidates to the people directly and let them make up their minds, they think they have to analyze it for them. It's hard to build a convincing case in 15-second sounds bites followed by five minutes of analysis.
Brian Pierce: And analyze it not based on what's true, but what's "effective."
Buck B: Yup. With "effectiveness" based on absolutely no empirical evidence.
Brian Pierce: I mean, it should be extraordinarily offensive every time some pundit says that this gas tax holiday stuff was good politics and then in the same breath say that it's bad policy. Yet they say it totally un-self-consciously. Even though there's no way that could be true unless you are saying, "The American people are too stupid to understand they're being lied to."
Buck B: Well...unfortunately, that's at least partly true. But that's why it's so important the media take on the role of informing them. And not reporting on them like they're some sort of amusing beast.
Brian Pierce: Yeah, it's true to great extent because the media doesn't even attempt to ascertain whether the claims politicians are making are true or false. Every time I see Tim Russert chuckling about spin I want to punch him in the face.
Buck B: That's why I prefer partisan media.
Brian Pierce: Ideological media.
Buck B: I don't like wasting energy trying to figure out how a reporter is responding to spin. I want to know what his position is from the start. Who the fuck's side is Russert on? What is he doing? No one knows.
Brian Pierce: And because Tim Russert doesn't have a particular stake in anything, there's much more of a focus on game-playing.
Buck B: Yes. Surprisingly, taking a particular side makes you focus more on issues and less on politics.
Brian Pierce: In part because a focus on politics leads the public to view everybody as being the same, because it's just this confusing haze of spin. But if you're trying to advocate one side, you're going to be jumping up and down trying to draw clear distinctions on issues.
Buck B: And because you assumably believe in what you're advocating, you're going to want to build sound and convincing arguments.
Brian Pierce: That's why I used the term "ideological media" before, rather than "partisan." If you're advocating a particular point of view (as opposed to being purely partisan), you will be willing to call even candidates of your own party on shit you don't like. Fox News is just a partisan version of CNN, but with all the same flaws as CNN that we're talking about.
Buck B: Good point. That kind of distinction might be the eventual death of the two-party system.
Labels: Barack Obama, media, politics
She's not only merely dead, she's really most sincerely dead
3 Comments Published by Augur on at 8:39 AM.
Labels: 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?
For those of you who haven't been paying attention, PETA just announced a $1,000,000 (1 million) prize for the first scientist who can grow chicken meat in a test tube and make it commercially viable.
EEEWWW. Does no one else fine the concept of eating meat grown in a test tube revolting? I've recently become a vegetarian - okay, well a 95% vegetarian, I'll still eat meat to avoid offending someone or when there aren't many options - and my rationale wasn't animal cruelty. If a group is concerned with animal cruelty, pointing out the conditions the animals are raised in and lobbying for more sustainable practices or offering attractive vegetarian alternatives seems the way to go. Developing meat in a test tube sorta doesn't.
Test tube meat seems to offer something for nothing. We get meat without hurting the animals. We get meat presumably without the methane. We get meat. I'm not going to lie, meat is pretty damn tasty, but really? Test tubes? I'm all for sustainable agriculture and a shift away from factory farming. I actually wouldn't mind having a chicken coop for eggs like my dad used to when my sisters were kids. People and livestock animals have a symbiotic relationship and this would completely destroy that relationship. There wouldn't be a cow if humans hadn't engineered them from Aurochs. There wouldn't be any of these animals, especially at the numbers they currently exist, if we hadn't taken the most docile specimens of the original stock and selectively bred them for stupidity, fatness, and docility.
This wouldn't really help the animals, without the need for meat, we wouldn't have the need for the animals. I suppose the next project would be eggs and milk from floating udders or something. I'm not religious, but this strikes me as profoundly against the laws of all gods and nature. Meat is supposed to come from a living thing. You eat the flesh of another you gain its strength and all that. I'm not defending the status quo, I think it's pretty bad. But test tubes seem like going from bad to worse.
Imagine a world where one private company holds the patent rights to your chicken or your beef. Ok well the beef thing is sort of true alreday. Something like 90% of all Holstein cows (our black and white dairy cows) are descended from two bulls. That's a disaster waiting to happen, but anyway. Maybe I'm paranoid, but if they started marketing test tube meat I would either want strict labeling or I'd never eat meat again, even at the risk of being "that guy" at dinners.
Efforts should be focused elsewhere. On improving the conditions of raising livestock. Encouraging people to eat less meat. Phasing out subsidies on feedstock to make the price of meat reflect the actual costs of production, thereby assisting in #2. Helping people raise their own livestock so they see the value of that succulent chicken breast as they feed and eventually kill their own chicken.
"PETA is offering a $1 million prize to the contest participant able to make the first in vitrochicken meat and sell it to the public by June 30, 2012. The contestant must do both of the following:
• Produce an in vitro chicken-meat product that has a taste and texture indistinguishable from real chicken flesh to non-meat-eaters and meat-eaters alike.
• Manufacture the approved product in large enough quantities to be sold commercially, and successfully sell it at a competitive price in at least 10 states."
Okay, so first off I'm going to go at it from an economic point of view. A million dollars, really? Is that all? I imagine that developing technology to mass market test tube meats would cost tens of millions. A million sounds like a tiny drop in the bucket.
EEEWWW. Does no one else fine the concept of eating meat grown in a test tube revolting? I've recently become a vegetarian - okay, well a 95% vegetarian, I'll still eat meat to avoid offending someone or when there aren't many options - and my rationale wasn't animal cruelty. If a group is concerned with animal cruelty, pointing out the conditions the animals are raised in and lobbying for more sustainable practices or offering attractive vegetarian alternatives seems the way to go. Developing meat in a test tube sorta doesn't.
Test tube meat seems to offer something for nothing. We get meat without hurting the animals. We get meat presumably without the methane. We get meat. I'm not going to lie, meat is pretty damn tasty, but really? Test tubes? I'm all for sustainable agriculture and a shift away from factory farming. I actually wouldn't mind having a chicken coop for eggs like my dad used to when my sisters were kids. People and livestock animals have a symbiotic relationship and this would completely destroy that relationship. There wouldn't be a cow if humans hadn't engineered them from Aurochs. There wouldn't be any of these animals, especially at the numbers they currently exist, if we hadn't taken the most docile specimens of the original stock and selectively bred them for stupidity, fatness, and docility.
This wouldn't really help the animals, without the need for meat, we wouldn't have the need for the animals. I suppose the next project would be eggs and milk from floating udders or something. I'm not religious, but this strikes me as profoundly against the laws of all gods and nature. Meat is supposed to come from a living thing. You eat the flesh of another you gain its strength and all that. I'm not defending the status quo, I think it's pretty bad. But test tubes seem like going from bad to worse.
Imagine a world where one private company holds the patent rights to your chicken or your beef. Ok well the beef thing is sort of true alreday. Something like 90% of all Holstein cows (our black and white dairy cows) are descended from two bulls. That's a disaster waiting to happen, but anyway. Maybe I'm paranoid, but if they started marketing test tube meat I would either want strict labeling or I'd never eat meat again, even at the risk of being "that guy" at dinners.
Efforts should be focused elsewhere. On improving the conditions of raising livestock. Encouraging people to eat less meat. Phasing out subsidies on feedstock to make the price of meat reflect the actual costs of production, thereby assisting in #2. Helping people raise their own livestock so they see the value of that succulent chicken breast as they feed and eventually kill their own chicken.
Labels: food, Hanno, politics, science, terrible fucking ideas, vegetarianism
Hillary Clinton is arguing that she has overtaken Obama in the popular vote. She counts her margin in Florida and all of her votes in Michigan, she has more votes than Obama. While a semi-reasonable argument can be made for counting Florida, the argument that Michigan should count doesn't pass the straight face test, since Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot. Hillary making this argument is a net plus for Obama because the ridiculousness of counting Michigan reinforces the notion that she is intellectually dishonest and fundamentally untrustworthy.
Obama can use light humor and assert that her math is beyond fuzzy -- it lacks common sense. How do you make an electability argument relying on data from a race in which you were the only one on the ballot?
Obama has another opportunity, and a difficult math problem of his own. The popular vote doesn't include everyone who voted. Many of the caucuses are conducted in a manner that results in those voters being excluded from the popular vote. As you know, Obama has smoked Hillary in the caucuses. Here's my question to the Agora: How should Obama count the voters who caucused for him? Imagine you are his communications director - what approach would you take?
A few options:
(1) for each state where the vote wont count, multiply Obama's percentage of the vote by the best turnout estimate and claim the result as the popular vote. It may help to give this number a name like "the true popular vote"
(2) say Obama won X states where none of the folks are counted in Hillary's popular vote total
(3) just keep saying an estimated X voters are left out of her equation - estimate of total number of voters - and say most of these supported Obama
(4) concoct your own method
A few considerations:
Obama can use light humor and assert that her math is beyond fuzzy -- it lacks common sense. How do you make an electability argument relying on data from a race in which you were the only one on the ballot?
Obama has another opportunity, and a difficult math problem of his own. The popular vote doesn't include everyone who voted. Many of the caucuses are conducted in a manner that results in those voters being excluded from the popular vote. As you know, Obama has smoked Hillary in the caucuses. Here's my question to the Agora: How should Obama count the voters who caucused for him? Imagine you are his communications director - what approach would you take?
A few options:
(1) for each state where the vote wont count, multiply Obama's percentage of the vote by the best turnout estimate and claim the result as the popular vote. It may help to give this number a name like "the true popular vote"
(2) say Obama won X states where none of the folks are counted in Hillary's popular vote total
(3) just keep saying an estimated X voters are left out of her equation - estimate of total number of voters - and say most of these supported Obama
(4) concoct your own method
A few considerations:
- reminding people of the specific states may remind folks that most of these are unwinnable for dems
- some of these states have small populations
- making up a number might make him look as sketchy as Hillary
Labels: Augur, Barack Obama, communications, message, politics, 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
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
Thoughts on Petraeus/Crocker Hearing, Part II
1 Comments Published by Brian on Tuesday, April 8 at 3:41 PM.
Okay, back for Round 2 in front of the Foreign Relations committee. One thing just off the bat is that this is an impressive committee with a lot of impressive people. Some brief thoughts:
(1) Biden Nails Crocker: One of the best moments of either hearings was when Biden asked Crocker whether, if he had to choose between taking out al-Qaeda in Pakistan/Afghanistan or al-Qaeda in Iraq, which he would want to focus on. It placed Crocker in a tough spot, and of course he was forced to give the only sensible answer, which is to focus on Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is a central point, and Biden made it better than anybody.
(2) Sensible Republicans: Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel showed off the best we can expect from the Republican Party on Iraq. Neither have been ideal, and Lugar in particular has shown a disappointing reluctance to show some more fight in his opposition to our Iraq policy. But nevertheless, they both clearly realize that we are engaged in a failing strategy - or, more accurately, we have no strategy at all.
(3) Feingold Shows These Hearings Are Pointless: Russ Feingold, unsurprisingly, rocked the house. He expressed his disappointment that the only two people testifying at these hearings are people whose jobs are to narrowly focus on Iraq rather than taking a broader regional or global perspective. It's a point that Petraeus and Crocker themselves drove home throughout the hearings as they repeatedly answered questions about the broader consequences of our Iraq strategy by saying (accurately) that it isn't their job to look at those broader consequences. These hearings are getting a lot of attention, and in a lot of ways that's good because Iraq needs to be paid more attention than it has been recently. But ultimately, these are not the guys we most need to hear from. They're doing the best they can with the mess they've been handed, but the important decisions that the Congress and the President need to make require a broader view than either Petraeus or Crocker can possibly provide.
(4) Obama Doesn't Disappoint: I wasn't quite sure where Obama was going when he started out. His questions seemed meandering and a little insignificant, but he tied everything up pretty neatly in the end, making two good points. The first was that if Prime Minister Maliki can engage in relations with Iran despite the fact that everybody knows Iran is supporting insurgent Shi'ite militias who would like to bring Maliki's government down, then surely the United States can participate in the same kind of diplomacy. The second addressed directly the point I made in my previous post on these hearings about McCain's stunningly ambitious definition of success in Iraq. Obama first forced Petraeus and Crocker to acknowledge that we have no hope of creating a situation in which there is no remnant of al-Qaeda in Iraq and there is no degree of influence from Iran, and used these two points to illustrate the fact that any realistic notion of success in Iraq has to be messy. Requiring success in Iraq to meet something like McCain's definition, Obama said, "portends the possibility of us staying for 20 or 30 years." We have to acknowledge that when we leave, there will be some level of terrorist violence, some level of Iranian influence, and Iraq's government will not be a fully functioning, prosperous democracy.
(1) Biden Nails Crocker: One of the best moments of either hearings was when Biden asked Crocker whether, if he had to choose between taking out al-Qaeda in Pakistan/Afghanistan or al-Qaeda in Iraq, which he would want to focus on. It placed Crocker in a tough spot, and of course he was forced to give the only sensible answer, which is to focus on Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is a central point, and Biden made it better than anybody.
(2) Sensible Republicans: Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel showed off the best we can expect from the Republican Party on Iraq. Neither have been ideal, and Lugar in particular has shown a disappointing reluctance to show some more fight in his opposition to our Iraq policy. But nevertheless, they both clearly realize that we are engaged in a failing strategy - or, more accurately, we have no strategy at all.
(3) Feingold Shows These Hearings Are Pointless: Russ Feingold, unsurprisingly, rocked the house. He expressed his disappointment that the only two people testifying at these hearings are people whose jobs are to narrowly focus on Iraq rather than taking a broader regional or global perspective. It's a point that Petraeus and Crocker themselves drove home throughout the hearings as they repeatedly answered questions about the broader consequences of our Iraq strategy by saying (accurately) that it isn't their job to look at those broader consequences. These hearings are getting a lot of attention, and in a lot of ways that's good because Iraq needs to be paid more attention than it has been recently. But ultimately, these are not the guys we most need to hear from. They're doing the best they can with the mess they've been handed, but the important decisions that the Congress and the President need to make require a broader view than either Petraeus or Crocker can possibly provide.
(4) Obama Doesn't Disappoint: I wasn't quite sure where Obama was going when he started out. His questions seemed meandering and a little insignificant, but he tied everything up pretty neatly in the end, making two good points. The first was that if Prime Minister Maliki can engage in relations with Iran despite the fact that everybody knows Iran is supporting insurgent Shi'ite militias who would like to bring Maliki's government down, then surely the United States can participate in the same kind of diplomacy. The second addressed directly the point I made in my previous post on these hearings about McCain's stunningly ambitious definition of success in Iraq. Obama first forced Petraeus and Crocker to acknowledge that we have no hope of creating a situation in which there is no remnant of al-Qaeda in Iraq and there is no degree of influence from Iran, and used these two points to illustrate the fact that any realistic notion of success in Iraq has to be messy. Requiring success in Iraq to meet something like McCain's definition, Obama said, "portends the possibility of us staying for 20 or 30 years." We have to acknowledge that when we leave, there will be some level of terrorist violence, some level of Iranian influence, and Iraq's government will not be a fully functioning, prosperous democracy.
Labels: Brian, foreign policy, Iraq, politics
I was unavoidably delayed this morning and ended up not being ready soon enough to get to class on time, so I just decided to take the day off. And I picked a good day, because now I get to watch General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testify before the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The Foreign Relations hearing is just getting under way, but a few initial thoughts on this morning's Armed Services hearing.
(1) Bad Timing: One important part of Petraeus and Crocker's testimony dealt with the recent conflict in Basra between Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki and Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Claire McCaskill asked Crocker a spot-on question: wasn't the outcome of the Basra conflict a sign that al-Sadr is in a position of power over Maliki? Crocker tried hard to argue that this was not the case: "What I've seen since the [violence] in Basra has been very broad-ranging political support for Maliki." Maliki had issued al-Sadr an ultimatum to either disband his Mahdi army or give up politics. Al-Sadr responded today by threatening to end the cease-fire. More importantly, Iraq's top Shi'ite religious leaders today told al-Sadr not to disband his army. This totally undermines Crocker's argument that Basra is a sign of progress and has led to greater support for Maliki. McCaskill rightly pointed out that al-Sadr is holding all the cards here.
(2) Unexpectedly Impressive: I've never been a fan of Evan Bayh or Bill Nelson, and obviously I have my differences with Hillary Clinton. But all three of these senators were showing their best selves today and grilled Petraeus and Crocker with pointed, incisive questions. Of these three, Bayh was perhaps the best, nailing down most of the strongest arguments for withdrawal from Iraq: the central threat to American security is not in Iraq but in Pakistan and Afghanistan; we shouldn't be taking "marching orders from Osama bin Laden;" the intelligence community at large does not tend to take the rosy view of political progress that Crocker does; etc.
(3) Expectedly Impressive: Less surprising was the fact that Sens. Jim Webb, Claire McCaskill, and Jack Reed were consistently sharp. Reed pointed out the seemingly impossible task of disarming the Mahdi army. Petraeus admitted that for Maliki to order the Mahdi army to disband would "undoubtedly result in violence," but tried to argue that a more gradual process could be successful in which members of the Mahdi army are provided "alternatives" for employment. Reed was skeptical: "It sounds like less an employment problem than an existential one." Webb asked Crocker a particularly smart question about the status of forces agreement currently being negotiated with Iraq, trying to pin down what sorts of provisions would need to exist in such an agreement such that the President would be required to submit it to the Senate for advice and consent. It didn't really get anywhere, but it was a good question nevertheless, and maybe Webb will push harder on that point this afternoon when it's his turn on the Foreign Relations Committee.
(4) McCain's Definition of Success: I obviously didn't expect to be in agreement with John McCain or many of the other Republicans on the committee. But unlike most of the other Republicans, McCain displayed a somewhat bizarre level of optimism. While the other Republicans did their best to emphasize that "progress" was being made as compared to the war's low point in 2006, tried to argue the central cause for that progress was the surge, and stirred up fears of a worst-case scenario for withdrawal, McCain went beyond this. Not only did he argue that there had been progress, but he painted a vision of success that was incredibly ambitious: "the establishment of a peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic state that poses no threats to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists." That sure does sound awesome, but also far beyond what even many supporters of a continued troop presence would think reasonable to hope for.
Petraeus is in the middle of his testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee and then questions will be underway there. There are some pretty heavy hitters on this committee: Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Jim Webb, Russ Feingold, as well as Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel on the Republican side. Obviously all eyes will be on Barack Obama, but I'm betting he won't be the only one who lands some blows. I'll try to throw up some more thoughts when it's over.
(1) Bad Timing: One important part of Petraeus and Crocker's testimony dealt with the recent conflict in Basra between Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki and Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Claire McCaskill asked Crocker a spot-on question: wasn't the outcome of the Basra conflict a sign that al-Sadr is in a position of power over Maliki? Crocker tried hard to argue that this was not the case: "What I've seen since the [violence] in Basra has been very broad-ranging political support for Maliki." Maliki had issued al-Sadr an ultimatum to either disband his Mahdi army or give up politics. Al-Sadr responded today by threatening to end the cease-fire. More importantly, Iraq's top Shi'ite religious leaders today told al-Sadr not to disband his army. This totally undermines Crocker's argument that Basra is a sign of progress and has led to greater support for Maliki. McCaskill rightly pointed out that al-Sadr is holding all the cards here.
(2) Unexpectedly Impressive: I've never been a fan of Evan Bayh or Bill Nelson, and obviously I have my differences with Hillary Clinton. But all three of these senators were showing their best selves today and grilled Petraeus and Crocker with pointed, incisive questions. Of these three, Bayh was perhaps the best, nailing down most of the strongest arguments for withdrawal from Iraq: the central threat to American security is not in Iraq but in Pakistan and Afghanistan; we shouldn't be taking "marching orders from Osama bin Laden;" the intelligence community at large does not tend to take the rosy view of political progress that Crocker does; etc.
(3) Expectedly Impressive: Less surprising was the fact that Sens. Jim Webb, Claire McCaskill, and Jack Reed were consistently sharp. Reed pointed out the seemingly impossible task of disarming the Mahdi army. Petraeus admitted that for Maliki to order the Mahdi army to disband would "undoubtedly result in violence," but tried to argue that a more gradual process could be successful in which members of the Mahdi army are provided "alternatives" for employment. Reed was skeptical: "It sounds like less an employment problem than an existential one." Webb asked Crocker a particularly smart question about the status of forces agreement currently being negotiated with Iraq, trying to pin down what sorts of provisions would need to exist in such an agreement such that the President would be required to submit it to the Senate for advice and consent. It didn't really get anywhere, but it was a good question nevertheless, and maybe Webb will push harder on that point this afternoon when it's his turn on the Foreign Relations Committee.
(4) McCain's Definition of Success: I obviously didn't expect to be in agreement with John McCain or many of the other Republicans on the committee. But unlike most of the other Republicans, McCain displayed a somewhat bizarre level of optimism. While the other Republicans did their best to emphasize that "progress" was being made as compared to the war's low point in 2006, tried to argue the central cause for that progress was the surge, and stirred up fears of a worst-case scenario for withdrawal, McCain went beyond this. Not only did he argue that there had been progress, but he painted a vision of success that was incredibly ambitious: "the establishment of a peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic state that poses no threats to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists." That sure does sound awesome, but also far beyond what even many supporters of a continued troop presence would think reasonable to hope for.
Petraeus is in the middle of his testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee and then questions will be underway there. There are some pretty heavy hitters on this committee: Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Jim Webb, Russ Feingold, as well as Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel on the Republican side. Obviously all eyes will be on Barack Obama, but I'm betting he won't be the only one who lands some blows. I'll try to throw up some more thoughts when it's over.
Labels: Brian, foreign policy, Iraq, politics
Check out this post by Chris at the Outside Report on the recent PPP poll showing Obama up 45-43%. The Obamaniac in my wants it to be true, but it doesn't really seem possible. I think Chris's explanation makes a lot of sense. Because it's short, I'm going to copy the full post here.
I've gotten a couple of emails from people asking me whether the PPP poll showing Obama up 45-43% was real. The one thing I've learned from watching polls over the last several years is to look at the baseline poll number for the poll compared to other polls and look at the number of undecideds. Basically, in virtually every recent poll of Pennsylvania, including Rasmussen, SurveyUSA, and Quinniqupac, Obama's numbers range from 41%-45%.
Much like New Hampshire and virtually every other state, it is Clinton's numbers
that greatly vary, ranging from 53% to 43%. What does this mean? It means that
PPP, as a telephone poll, needs to push its undecided voters more. Obama is
probably pulling 43% of the Pennsylvania vote, but Hillary is still likely
pushing the mid-50%. The problem is Hillary's supporters are notoriously hard to
poll.They appear fickle with telephone pollsters but in fact, they almost never
change their mind. When Hillary is "under" attack, they are less likely to say
who they support, but ultimately they support her. This has been true in every
state. Obama pulled "even" with Hillary in Texas and in Ohio, but ultimately,
her voters always come back. Remember that when reading these types of
polls.
Labels: Barack Obama, Outside Report, politics, polling analysis
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
