Sometimes the tide of history is inescapable.
Sometimes the need for change is so overwhelming that it infuses the very soul of a nation and propels a new crop of political heroes into leadership.
When the political arguments of an older generation must yield to the new concerns and new problem solving methods of a newer generation, we call this a shift of the political landscape.
In the United States, very regularly, there have been many of these shifts. Political scientists have created a naming scheme for these shifts - called the Party Systems. Depending on who you ask, there have either been Five or Six of them in all of American History.
From the first Presidency in 1789 to the election of 1824, the United States existed in a political regime now known as the First Party System. Presidents were exclusively chosen from the Revolutionary War generation, political parties were regularized, newspapers were exclusively in the hands of politicians, and the country was developing its nascent foreign policy with respect to the European Powers.
This era ended when the Federalist party ceased to be a political force, and the Democratic-Republicans split between Jackson and Clay during the contentious 1824 election. This was the first election that did not feature a Revolutionary War veteran (Jackson was an 1812 veteran), and was bitterly disputed. The election was thrown to the house of representatives, and John Quincy Adams (not the winner of the popular vote - this was Jackson) was elected. This divisive election framed the battles of the future where the Whigs (the party of the rich with no clear policy on slavery) battled the Jacksonian Democrats (expansionist frontier oriented). The period lasted from 1837 to 1852, leading to the Third Party System and the lead up to the Civil War.
The Third Party System is commonly thought to have existed between 1854 and 1896. It was marked by the upheaval of the Civil War and the terror ridden reconstruction era. The Republican Party rose to replace the Whigs with their traditional pro-business constituency, but took a clear stand against slavery. This new party eventually out-muscled every other party in the developed north and commanded a majority of the electoral votes - so that in 1860 it sowed the seeds of the Civil War. After the war, American politics was dominated by reconstruction politics with Civil War Veterans dominating the debate.
Williams Jennings Bryan, the brilliant populist orator, altered politics-as-usual again with his triumphant loss to McKinley in the election of 1896. This Fourth Party System is generally referred to as the Progressive Era and was dominated by domestic issues and populist politics. Although Bryan was never elected President, he maintained control the Democratic Party for years. During this period, Theodore Roosevelt, a veteran of the Spanish American War became a prominent reformer and populist in the Republican Party. The Republican Party dominated the presidential elections in this period.
The Fifth Party System began with the election of FDR after the failure of the pro-business Republican Party to deal with the Great Depression. It ushered in a period of dominance for the Democratic Party in presidential elections - they won 7 of the next 9 contests. This period is commonly referred to as the New Deal Period and was marked by a dramatic increase in social programs and government spending. The Democratic majority was secure due to the Solid South that was broken by the Civil Rights Bill and Nixons southern strategy. The contentious election year of 1968, and the failure of the Democratic Party to deal with the Vietnam War (or, as some would argue, the Cold War in General) marked the end of this period.
From 1968 to 2004 the Republican party won 7 of 10 presidential elections. Until the election of 1992, politics was largely dominated by veterans of WWII, and was largely fought on cold war issues. Republican dominance was largely the result of a coalition between the pro-business, strong defense, and social conservatives. The southern strategy began by Nixon was cemented by Reagan and led to the creation of a new Solid South in the hands of the Republicans. By the time of the elections of '00 and '04, the winner of the electoral college was determined by a handful of swing states such as Florida, Ohio and Missouri. The transitional period (and there is some debate about the dates here) began with the election of Clinton in '92 and saw the re-invention of the Democratic Party as a force capable of combating this new Republican majority. The Presidency of George W. Bush contributed to the collapse of the Reagan coalition and led to the landmark election of 2008.
The contentious election of 2000 will be regarded as the beginning of the end of the Sixth Party System. The election of 2008 may be regarded as the beginning of the Seventh Party System.
Here is a brief prediction of what will characterize this new period in American Politics.
1) The Democratic Party will dominate presidential elections for 30 years. This is not simply looking at the natural seesaw of history, but also some of the underlying problems within the Republican Party. The traditional Reagan coalition is broken, and all three factions are now openly vying for control of the party. Romney represents the business wing, Huckabee represents the social wing, and McCain or Giuliani represent the defense wing. Just as in 1968 for the Democratic Party, this open warfare will create lasting divisions in the party and will characterize their internal debates for years.
First Party System - ?
Second Party System - Democratic Republicans
Third Party System - Republicans
Fourth Party System -Republicans
Fifth Party System - Democrats
Sixth Party System - Republicans
Seventh Party System - ?
2) The Republican Party will fragment into the Social, Defense, and Fiscal wings that comprised the Reagan coalition (or as George Will recently called the Great Fusion).
3) The Democratic Party will increasingly be seen as pro-business in a climate of increasing emphasis on environmentalism and energy independence. The Democratic Party is now the only party poised to deal with the dominant issue of the time.
In every transition period, a major party loses power because it can not cope with the dominant issue that is driving the electorate.
The Fourth System ended with the Great Depression -> New Deal (Fifth System)
The Third System ended with the economic crisis of 1890s -> Progressive Period
The Second System ended with the slavery crisis -> End of Slavery, Reconstruction
What is the dominant issue of our time? Is it terrorism? I argue not. This is a symptom of western dominance in the middle east due to our energy policy.
The dominant issue of our time is our dependence on oil and the destructive foreign policy that this creates. If we wait one generation to tackle this problem, oil may very well be $300 a barrel. If we wait one generation to tackle this problem, the planet may not be able to recover from Global Warming. If we wait one generation to tackle this problem, the United States may go bankrupt defending its traditional sources of energy.
Every change in Party Systems is marked by a generational shift.
The Sixth System was dominated by veterans of WWII and in the transitional period, Vietnam veterans.
The Fourth System was dominated by Spanish American War veterans.
The Third System was dominated by Civil War veterans.
The Second System was dominated by veterans of the War of 1812
The First System was dominated by Revolutionary War veterans
Barack Obama is the new face of leadership of the Seventh Party System. This much is now abundantly clear to me. He is unmarred by the 'food fights' of the Vietnam Era, and he is neither a veteran of WWII (last one was Dole in '96) nor a Vietnam veteran or draft dodger (Clinton, Gore, Bush, Kerry).
The change that he talks about - the end to grid lock, the end of special interest lobbyists, a practical non-partisan approach is the siren song of this new period in American Politics. The Democratic Party will dominate presidential politics during this period but its policies will be marked by non-partisan practical problem solving.
Barack Obama is the leader of this new Period in American History.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Friday, December 28, 2007
In the final days: Remember that the They is You
Whatever happens in Iowa this year, the Barack Obama campaign has changed American politics.
An African-American is running as a healing, centrist, anti-war candidate amid two traditional left wing panderers.
At this point, I'd like to take a moment to reflect on what the experience has taught me about this country.
As the race has progressed over the summer and fall, I heard many things that both inspired me about the character of this land, and heard other things that came close to dashing my hopes.
I made a point of asking many people about Obama and trying to get their honest opinion. What I heard from people that were not politically informed was curious, hopeful and sometimes disheartening.
Many said that they liked him. Many said that it would be great to see a principled man like him in the White House.
Quite often though, the statement I got was "He's great, but they'll never let a black man become president".
At first, I was shocked. I didn't know what to think. Was this a way of hiding latent racist fears and using "Them" to excuse the statement? Maybe, maybe not. More often than not this statement came from African-Americans. So what did it mean...? That the hopes of a group of people have been so systematically dashed over the ages that hoping itself is almost nonexistent? Perhaps.
My only response to this kind of sentiment is that there is no "They" unless you create them. Last time I checked, we still live in a democracy. Last time I checked, if you pull the lever, or raise your hand at a caucus, they MUST count you.
My only response is that if you let the fear, or a concept of "They" determine your actions, or prevent you from being counted then you are the "They". You have created your own nightmare and you deserve the government and society that you get.
This does not apply to any single cultural group. It applies to all of us. It applies to the college students that still have a glimmer of hope, but might just need to see the Orange bowl that day. It applies to the liberal anti-war couple in Iowa that decides its cool to vote for Kucinich despite any rational strategic thought. It applies to the Reagan Democrat that knows they will stay at home rather than voting for a Republican or a tragic pander-bear the Democrats keep throwing at them. It applies to everyone that allowed themselves to imagine a new era of government, or at the very least, a new face of America to the world but couldn't get of the couch because they didn't believe that "They" would ever let it happen.
THE "THEY" IS YOU IF YOU GIVE UP
THE "THEY" IS YOU IF YOU DON'T VOTE
An African-American is running as a healing, centrist, anti-war candidate amid two traditional left wing panderers.
At this point, I'd like to take a moment to reflect on what the experience has taught me about this country.
As the race has progressed over the summer and fall, I heard many things that both inspired me about the character of this land, and heard other things that came close to dashing my hopes.
I made a point of asking many people about Obama and trying to get their honest opinion. What I heard from people that were not politically informed was curious, hopeful and sometimes disheartening.
Many said that they liked him. Many said that it would be great to see a principled man like him in the White House.
Quite often though, the statement I got was "He's great, but they'll never let a black man become president".
At first, I was shocked. I didn't know what to think. Was this a way of hiding latent racist fears and using "Them" to excuse the statement? Maybe, maybe not. More often than not this statement came from African-Americans. So what did it mean...? That the hopes of a group of people have been so systematically dashed over the ages that hoping itself is almost nonexistent? Perhaps.
My only response to this kind of sentiment is that there is no "They" unless you create them. Last time I checked, we still live in a democracy. Last time I checked, if you pull the lever, or raise your hand at a caucus, they MUST count you.
My only response is that if you let the fear, or a concept of "They" determine your actions, or prevent you from being counted then you are the "They". You have created your own nightmare and you deserve the government and society that you get.
This does not apply to any single cultural group. It applies to all of us. It applies to the college students that still have a glimmer of hope, but might just need to see the Orange bowl that day. It applies to the liberal anti-war couple in Iowa that decides its cool to vote for Kucinich despite any rational strategic thought. It applies to the Reagan Democrat that knows they will stay at home rather than voting for a Republican or a tragic pander-bear the Democrats keep throwing at them. It applies to everyone that allowed themselves to imagine a new era of government, or at the very least, a new face of America to the world but couldn't get of the couch because they didn't believe that "They" would ever let it happen.
THE "THEY" IS YOU IF YOU GIVE UP
THE "THEY" IS YOU IF YOU DON'T VOTE
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Hillary Humphrey Clinton
This is what the Democratic Party needs to come to terms with.
This is what is wrong with the American Left.
The year was 1968.
America was choosing a candidate to change the direction of the country and deal with the increasingly unpopular war. The nation was psychically pummeled by the string of assassinations, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, and others. The Democratic party was torn between its moderate left/conciliatory roots (conciliation with the Dixiecrats) due to the civil rights movement and the passage of the civil rights bill. Its greatest hope - to unite the party, end the war, and return to responsible government was snuffed out by the same faceless cabal that killed his brother 5 years earlier.
What did the party do?
It nominated a timid, pandering 'my turn' candidate by the name of Hubert Humphrey.
The rest is history. Richard Nixon began a dynasty of Republican presidents that shut the door on the Kennedy dream forever.
The Democratic party ran from its ideals and has been running ever since.
Hillary Clinton would be a wonderful addition to this string of pandering, calculating, establishment placating politicians.
How long will the string of defeats continue? How long can a country starving for a leader resort out of fear to the compromise language of failure? A lot longer, I fear.
I am also positive that if it continues, this country of great enlightened founders will cease to be a beacon of hope or an origin of dreams for this planet.
But who is really to blame for this? The cabal that executed a successful coop in 1963? or a naive and irresponsible left who refused to continue pushing the ideas that would inspire hope in successive generations. An American left that went home or started wasting their vote because they no longer had a movie star leader to inspire them.
Humphrey failed, not in small part, due to the failure of the anti-war idealists to support him, despite his lack of conviction on the greatest moral failure of that generation.
Al Gore lost, not in small part, due to the record number of Democratic voters that abandoned him for a former consumer advocate.
Jimmy Carter lost, not in small part, due to the rebellion of the left of his party - embodied by the last vestigial Kennedy mounting a selfish attempt to live up to his name.
The American Left is the problem. Having failed to take over the Democratic party, despite the reforms and primary systems initiated in the 1970s, they have selfishly eaten their young and handed that party a historic string of defeats. This has turned them into a bitter, paranoid defeatist group of complainers that no one takes seriously.
Now, in this modern age where reform, openness, and responsive government are now a matter of life and death - not just for American Troops but for the planet as a whole - the supposed beacon of this pathetic movement, The Nation Magazine chooses to endorse Dennis Kucinich.
Why don't you just endorse Rudy Giuliani, or Romney, or Huckabee?
Katrina Vanden Heuval - WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?
I have one more addition to this post, and then I will calm down and relax.
When Obama started his run, everyone in the press was building him up so they could tear him down.
Is he the new Kennedy? Bobby or John F.?
Is he Martin Luther King? Is he as great as we need him to be?
This was the fundamentally wrong question. This is same question that has destroyed the Democratic party as a force for idealogical change.
The question everyone should be asking, and should have been asking was "Is the Democratic party the same as it was? Will they self destruct using the same basic play that they've been executing since 1968?"
Will they, as before, demand perfection as an excuse for abandoning hope?
This is what is wrong with the American Left.
The year was 1968.
America was choosing a candidate to change the direction of the country and deal with the increasingly unpopular war. The nation was psychically pummeled by the string of assassinations, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, and others. The Democratic party was torn between its moderate left/conciliatory roots (conciliation with the Dixiecrats) due to the civil rights movement and the passage of the civil rights bill. Its greatest hope - to unite the party, end the war, and return to responsible government was snuffed out by the same faceless cabal that killed his brother 5 years earlier.
What did the party do?
It nominated a timid, pandering 'my turn' candidate by the name of Hubert Humphrey.
The rest is history. Richard Nixon began a dynasty of Republican presidents that shut the door on the Kennedy dream forever.
The Democratic party ran from its ideals and has been running ever since.
Hillary Clinton would be a wonderful addition to this string of pandering, calculating, establishment placating politicians.
How long will the string of defeats continue? How long can a country starving for a leader resort out of fear to the compromise language of failure? A lot longer, I fear.
I am also positive that if it continues, this country of great enlightened founders will cease to be a beacon of hope or an origin of dreams for this planet.
But who is really to blame for this? The cabal that executed a successful coop in 1963? or a naive and irresponsible left who refused to continue pushing the ideas that would inspire hope in successive generations. An American left that went home or started wasting their vote because they no longer had a movie star leader to inspire them.
Humphrey failed, not in small part, due to the failure of the anti-war idealists to support him, despite his lack of conviction on the greatest moral failure of that generation.
Al Gore lost, not in small part, due to the record number of Democratic voters that abandoned him for a former consumer advocate.
Jimmy Carter lost, not in small part, due to the rebellion of the left of his party - embodied by the last vestigial Kennedy mounting a selfish attempt to live up to his name.
The American Left is the problem. Having failed to take over the Democratic party, despite the reforms and primary systems initiated in the 1970s, they have selfishly eaten their young and handed that party a historic string of defeats. This has turned them into a bitter, paranoid defeatist group of complainers that no one takes seriously.
Now, in this modern age where reform, openness, and responsive government are now a matter of life and death - not just for American Troops but for the planet as a whole - the supposed beacon of this pathetic movement, The Nation Magazine chooses to endorse Dennis Kucinich.
Why don't you just endorse Rudy Giuliani, or Romney, or Huckabee?
Katrina Vanden Heuval - WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?
I have one more addition to this post, and then I will calm down and relax.
When Obama started his run, everyone in the press was building him up so they could tear him down.
Is he the new Kennedy? Bobby or John F.?
Is he Martin Luther King? Is he as great as we need him to be?
This was the fundamentally wrong question. This is same question that has destroyed the Democratic party as a force for idealogical change.
The question everyone should be asking, and should have been asking was "Is the Democratic party the same as it was? Will they self destruct using the same basic play that they've been executing since 1968?"
Will they, as before, demand perfection as an excuse for abandoning hope?
Monday, December 24, 2007
A Game of Seconds
There has been much written about the horse race in Iowa.
Here is another brief analysis of current polls taking into account the second choices for the various candidates.
First, the raw initial poll numbers:
Obama - 28.3%
Clinton - 28.3%
Edwards 23.2%
If the Iowa Caucuses finished like this, it would be a dead heat between Obama and Clinton with Edwards finishing third, and likely out of the race. These numbers are from the website www.realclearpolitics.com where multiple polls over the same time period are averaged. The numbers above represent an average of 6 polls all with a margin of error of approx. 4-5%. If we assume that the methods used for the 6 different polls were identical, we may estimate a margin of error of about 2% for the average numbers above. This clearly places Edwards behind the leading two contenders outside the margin of error.
Now, lets take into account the second choices of the Iowa voters to estimate the real outcome of the voting process (ignoring of course, the real intangibles that may happen at voting time).
Adding up the numbers above, we see that about 80% (79.8%) of the Iowa voters will vote for the top three candidates as their first choice. This leaves 20% (20.2%) that will be forced to vote for their second choice or go home.
This is where it gets hard.
If the distribution of votes is not equal among the various polling stations, the number forced to vote for their second choice will increase. Also, a number of voters may go home and not vote for their second choice at all. In the absence of any data regarding this, we assume that the two factors will be a wash, and on average 20% of the electorate will have to vote for their second choice.
Recent polling data for second choices among the top tier candidates are as follows.
Edwards - 22.7%
Obama - 20.1%
Clinton - 13.8%
If these numbers hold, Edwards gets a 4.6% bounce, Obama gets a 4.1% bounce, and Clinton gets a 2.8% bounce. This leads to an estimate of final results as follows.
Obama - 32.4%
Clinton - 31.1%
Edwards - 27.8%
This gives the win to Obama. Is this enough of a margin to claim victory?
We shall see.
With the recent endorsement of the Nashua Telegraph going to Obama, coupled with one earlier from the Boston Globe, the Obama campaign may have all it needs to take two quick wins in a row.
Here is another brief analysis of current polls taking into account the second choices for the various candidates.
First, the raw initial poll numbers:
Obama - 28.3%
Clinton - 28.3%
Edwards 23.2%
If the Iowa Caucuses finished like this, it would be a dead heat between Obama and Clinton with Edwards finishing third, and likely out of the race. These numbers are from the website www.realclearpolitics.com where multiple polls over the same time period are averaged. The numbers above represent an average of 6 polls all with a margin of error of approx. 4-5%. If we assume that the methods used for the 6 different polls were identical, we may estimate a margin of error of about 2% for the average numbers above. This clearly places Edwards behind the leading two contenders outside the margin of error.
Now, lets take into account the second choices of the Iowa voters to estimate the real outcome of the voting process (ignoring of course, the real intangibles that may happen at voting time).
Adding up the numbers above, we see that about 80% (79.8%) of the Iowa voters will vote for the top three candidates as their first choice. This leaves 20% (20.2%) that will be forced to vote for their second choice or go home.
This is where it gets hard.
If the distribution of votes is not equal among the various polling stations, the number forced to vote for their second choice will increase. Also, a number of voters may go home and not vote for their second choice at all. In the absence of any data regarding this, we assume that the two factors will be a wash, and on average 20% of the electorate will have to vote for their second choice.
Recent polling data for second choices among the top tier candidates are as follows.
Edwards - 22.7%
Obama - 20.1%
Clinton - 13.8%
If these numbers hold, Edwards gets a 4.6% bounce, Obama gets a 4.1% bounce, and Clinton gets a 2.8% bounce. This leads to an estimate of final results as follows.
Obama - 32.4%
Clinton - 31.1%
Edwards - 27.8%
This gives the win to Obama. Is this enough of a margin to claim victory?
We shall see.
With the recent endorsement of the Nashua Telegraph going to Obama, coupled with one earlier from the Boston Globe, the Obama campaign may have all it needs to take two quick wins in a row.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Up is Down and Down is Up for Hillary
Up is down and down is up - and this is a good thing.
There have been a lot of comparisons so far this season regarding comparisons between the 2008 election year and others, notably 1968, 1972, and 1992.
I'm sure this won't be the last.
If you don't remember a popular refrain from the 1992 campaign issued by Clinton and Gore many times, I'll repeat it.
"Unemployment is up, New housing starts are down, Poverty is up, Income is down, Bankruptcies are up, Consumer confidence is down. Everything that is up should be down, they've got it upside down, and we want to turn it right side up again."
We have the same phenomenon right now in the Democratic primary fights, the difference is that upside down this time is a good thing.
Let me elaborate.
When this campaign between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton started to heat up this fall, the Clinton Group wanted to make the choice about "Experience" vs. "Naivete".
Barack Obama has turned this around, by highlighting Clinton's war and Iran votes, by making it about "Judgement". He had the judgment to oppose the war from the beginning and this trumps all the experience in the world. He also reminds voters that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had more experience than anyone - and look where that has gotten us.
Hillary Clinton chooses now to accentuate the fact that she is "tested and ready", and by comparison Barack Obama is untested and - as her husband would say "a roll of the dice". But look who is looking like an amateur on the campaign stage? Look who is changing her message day to day to appear: soft, strong; likable, tough; experienced, open to change? It is Hillary Clinton that is looking over-handled, and shaky when it comes to defining a consistent message about who she is and where she will take the country.
Now lets turn to electability...
This is the real kicker.
Since spring Hillary Clinton has been claiming that she is more electable than any other Democrat in the race. This is despite the high negatives she has and the obvious fact that Republicans are chomping at the bit to run against her. In fact, as it has been said by David Ignatius and others that Hillary Clinton is that last thing that has a hope of actually uniting the fractured Republican party.
To further prove this point, lets look at some recent NBC polls on the issue.
Clinton 46% - Giuliani 43%
Clinton 46% - Huckabee 44%
A close race by any measure, and even more striking when one considers that a generic Democrat wins 46%/36% over a generic Republican (Rasmussen Dec 14). The data unmistakably shows that more Republicans are energized to vote AGAINST Hillary Clinton than they would if facing a generic Democrat.
By contrast, here are the Barack Obama numbers from the same poll.
Obama 49% - Giuliani 40%
Obama 48% - Huckabee 36%
These numbers show a rout by comparison. Obama does better than a generic Democrat and Guiliani and Huckabee remain near the baseline for the generic Republican candidate.
My larger point is that everything Hillary Clinton is running on is a falsehood. She is NOT the most tested candidate - Obama has more elected experience than her. She is NOT the candidate with better judgment. She is NOT the one that knows better how to fight the Republicans.
If the reader has any doubt on this issue, I refer them to a brilliant article by Mark Schmitt on the nuts and bolts of Obama's political genius: "The theory of Change Primary"
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_theory_of_change_primary
To complete my blog, I will return briefly to the issue of the Reagan Democrats.
My assertion of yesterday was confirmed on Meet the Press this morning by John Harwood when he recounted a story: "I was with an old school friend recently, classic Reagan Democrat, works in the auto body business, had a copy of the Lou Dobbs book 'War on the Middle Class' on his kitchen table. And he said 'You know, I've been voting Republican for years but I've decide that they're for the rich, I'm sick of the Republicans. And I said 'oh, so you're prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton? And he said 'Never'. There are millions of people like that - how they decide this could impact whats going to happen in the general election".
This is a very telling quote because it confirms my feeling, talking to my friends, and what I have learned by talking to voters in California and Nevada.
Barack Obama is the obvious electable choice against any generic Republican.
There have been a lot of comparisons so far this season regarding comparisons between the 2008 election year and others, notably 1968, 1972, and 1992.
I'm sure this won't be the last.
If you don't remember a popular refrain from the 1992 campaign issued by Clinton and Gore many times, I'll repeat it.
"Unemployment is up, New housing starts are down, Poverty is up, Income is down, Bankruptcies are up, Consumer confidence is down. Everything that is up should be down, they've got it upside down, and we want to turn it right side up again."
We have the same phenomenon right now in the Democratic primary fights, the difference is that upside down this time is a good thing.
Let me elaborate.
When this campaign between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton started to heat up this fall, the Clinton Group wanted to make the choice about "Experience" vs. "Naivete".
Barack Obama has turned this around, by highlighting Clinton's war and Iran votes, by making it about "Judgement". He had the judgment to oppose the war from the beginning and this trumps all the experience in the world. He also reminds voters that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had more experience than anyone - and look where that has gotten us.
Hillary Clinton chooses now to accentuate the fact that she is "tested and ready", and by comparison Barack Obama is untested and - as her husband would say "a roll of the dice". But look who is looking like an amateur on the campaign stage? Look who is changing her message day to day to appear: soft, strong; likable, tough; experienced, open to change? It is Hillary Clinton that is looking over-handled, and shaky when it comes to defining a consistent message about who she is and where she will take the country.
Now lets turn to electability...
This is the real kicker.
Since spring Hillary Clinton has been claiming that she is more electable than any other Democrat in the race. This is despite the high negatives she has and the obvious fact that Republicans are chomping at the bit to run against her. In fact, as it has been said by David Ignatius and others that Hillary Clinton is that last thing that has a hope of actually uniting the fractured Republican party.
To further prove this point, lets look at some recent NBC polls on the issue.
Clinton 46% - Giuliani 43%
Clinton 46% - Huckabee 44%
A close race by any measure, and even more striking when one considers that a generic Democrat wins 46%/36% over a generic Republican (Rasmussen Dec 14). The data unmistakably shows that more Republicans are energized to vote AGAINST Hillary Clinton than they would if facing a generic Democrat.
By contrast, here are the Barack Obama numbers from the same poll.
Obama 49% - Giuliani 40%
Obama 48% - Huckabee 36%
These numbers show a rout by comparison. Obama does better than a generic Democrat and Guiliani and Huckabee remain near the baseline for the generic Republican candidate.
My larger point is that everything Hillary Clinton is running on is a falsehood. She is NOT the most tested candidate - Obama has more elected experience than her. She is NOT the candidate with better judgment. She is NOT the one that knows better how to fight the Republicans.
If the reader has any doubt on this issue, I refer them to a brilliant article by Mark Schmitt on the nuts and bolts of Obama's political genius: "The theory of Change Primary"
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_theory_of_change_primary
To complete my blog, I will return briefly to the issue of the Reagan Democrats.
My assertion of yesterday was confirmed on Meet the Press this morning by John Harwood when he recounted a story: "I was with an old school friend recently, classic Reagan Democrat, works in the auto body business, had a copy of the Lou Dobbs book 'War on the Middle Class' on his kitchen table. And he said 'You know, I've been voting Republican for years but I've decide that they're for the rich, I'm sick of the Republicans. And I said 'oh, so you're prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton? And he said 'Never'. There are millions of people like that - how they decide this could impact whats going to happen in the general election".
This is a very telling quote because it confirms my feeling, talking to my friends, and what I have learned by talking to voters in California and Nevada.
Barack Obama is the obvious electable choice against any generic Republican.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Chris Matthews is Right
More and more over the last few months I have been filled with a feeling of pride when watching 'Hardball' daily and the Chris Matthews Show on Sunday.
It is rare that a nationally known pundit of his caliber shows such foresight when analyzing the current political landscape.
The Story - as in what is at the crux of what is happening these days between Clinton and Obama.
The Story - as in what is the correct way to cover the events...
The Story is the story of Clinton campaign sleaze.
When Bill Shaheen came out and talked about Obama's youth drug use, he not only repeated what Obama readily admitted in his book, but made a potentially slanderous statement regarding whether Obama had ever 'sold drugs'.
Without substantiation, this is a serious legal issue. Bill Shaheen knew that there was no evidence for this assertion (as was shown by his subsequent resignation) therefor it certainly qualifies as slander.
Chris Matthews called it right away. The Story on the Chris Matthews Show that Sunday morning was how predictable a Clinton strategy this was.
Here is how it is done in the Clinton/Bush textbook...
1) Take a high ranking operative and get him to make a 'mistake' by saying something underhanded about your opponent
2) Get this operative to apologize and resign
3) Get your candidate to distance themselves from the comment
This accomplishes everything needed.
- The underhanded comment gets coverage and the opponent needs to distract themselves discussing and/or denying the charges
- The candidate is inoculated and thus the 'mudslinging' charge does not stick back on your candidate
Lather, Rinse, and Repeat
Next thing you know, everyone is dispirited with the process, less people vote, and the establishment candidate wins. (Read as Clinton or Bush)
There is also a bigger socio-political issue here with regard to Chris himself and why I believe his is so energized by the Obama campaign.
Chris Matthews was in college in the Sixties and became political in part due to the assassination of Bobby Kennedy and the upheaval of 1968. He remembers a moment on the Tonight Show when Johnny Carson - a normally apolitical figure - was moved by the string of assassinations to urge people to write a letter to the President regarding the control of handguns. He did so, and says that it was this moment in his life that moved him toward public service. The rest is history for Chris Matthews the politico. He then served in the peace corp from 1968 to 1970 in Swaziland and Mozambique and spent many years in politics as a Democrat.
Chris Matthews, a self-professed Roosevelt Democrat, worked as a speech writer for the Carter administration, and served as a top aide to Tip O'Neill for many years.
My point about bringing up Matthews' background is that he, in my view, represents the pragmatic middle of the Democratic party, but he's an independent thinker, strong on defense and fiercely patriotic. He is certainly not from the latte-sipping coastal elites, and is ideologically close to the Reagan Democrats. He is old enough to remember the hope and optimistic message of J.F.K., and as a catholic from Philadelphia - I'm sure was personally disappointed by campaigns and leaders that followed. Over the years, he has seen the Democratic party lose election after election by compromising beliefs - Rooseveltian Beliefs - in order to get elected.
Let me remind the reader
1968 - Humphrey (not McCarthy)
1972 - McGovern
1984 - Mondale (Not Hart, or Glenn, or Biden)
1988 - Dukakis (Not Hart, or Gore)
2004 - Kerry (Not take your pick)
An impressive slate of losers and apologists that were afraid to say what they believe for fear of losing the middle. Afraid to stand too strong on defense for fear of losing the anti-war fringe, but not eloquent enough to convince the patriotic middle. This is exactly what Republicans have NOT done for the last 50 years and it is why they keep winning.
When I see a candidate that I know is honestly stating what they feel I respect them even if I don't agree with them. This is why I can respect Ronald Reagan, G.H.W. Bush and a slate of Republican Presidents. This is also the reason that I do not respect Hillary Clinton.
My point is that if Barack Obama is winning Chris Matthews, he can win the Reagan Democrats and he can win the white house.
The elect-ability argument is clearly won in my mind, and it is clearly in favor of Barack Obama.
It is rare that a nationally known pundit of his caliber shows such foresight when analyzing the current political landscape.
The Story - as in what is at the crux of what is happening these days between Clinton and Obama.
The Story - as in what is the correct way to cover the events...
The Story is the story of Clinton campaign sleaze.
When Bill Shaheen came out and talked about Obama's youth drug use, he not only repeated what Obama readily admitted in his book, but made a potentially slanderous statement regarding whether Obama had ever 'sold drugs'.
Without substantiation, this is a serious legal issue. Bill Shaheen knew that there was no evidence for this assertion (as was shown by his subsequent resignation) therefor it certainly qualifies as slander.
Chris Matthews called it right away. The Story on the Chris Matthews Show that Sunday morning was how predictable a Clinton strategy this was.
Here is how it is done in the Clinton/Bush textbook...
1) Take a high ranking operative and get him to make a 'mistake' by saying something underhanded about your opponent
2) Get this operative to apologize and resign
3) Get your candidate to distance themselves from the comment
This accomplishes everything needed.
- The underhanded comment gets coverage and the opponent needs to distract themselves discussing and/or denying the charges
- The candidate is inoculated and thus the 'mudslinging' charge does not stick back on your candidate
Lather, Rinse, and Repeat
Next thing you know, everyone is dispirited with the process, less people vote, and the establishment candidate wins. (Read as Clinton or Bush)
There is also a bigger socio-political issue here with regard to Chris himself and why I believe his is so energized by the Obama campaign.
Chris Matthews was in college in the Sixties and became political in part due to the assassination of Bobby Kennedy and the upheaval of 1968. He remembers a moment on the Tonight Show when Johnny Carson - a normally apolitical figure - was moved by the string of assassinations to urge people to write a letter to the President regarding the control of handguns. He did so, and says that it was this moment in his life that moved him toward public service. The rest is history for Chris Matthews the politico. He then served in the peace corp from 1968 to 1970 in Swaziland and Mozambique and spent many years in politics as a Democrat.
Chris Matthews, a self-professed Roosevelt Democrat, worked as a speech writer for the Carter administration, and served as a top aide to Tip O'Neill for many years.
My point about bringing up Matthews' background is that he, in my view, represents the pragmatic middle of the Democratic party, but he's an independent thinker, strong on defense and fiercely patriotic. He is certainly not from the latte-sipping coastal elites, and is ideologically close to the Reagan Democrats. He is old enough to remember the hope and optimistic message of J.F.K., and as a catholic from Philadelphia - I'm sure was personally disappointed by campaigns and leaders that followed. Over the years, he has seen the Democratic party lose election after election by compromising beliefs - Rooseveltian Beliefs - in order to get elected.
Let me remind the reader
1968 - Humphrey (not McCarthy)
1972 - McGovern
1984 - Mondale (Not Hart, or Glenn, or Biden)
1988 - Dukakis (Not Hart, or Gore)
2004 - Kerry (Not take your pick)
An impressive slate of losers and apologists that were afraid to say what they believe for fear of losing the middle. Afraid to stand too strong on defense for fear of losing the anti-war fringe, but not eloquent enough to convince the patriotic middle. This is exactly what Republicans have NOT done for the last 50 years and it is why they keep winning.
When I see a candidate that I know is honestly stating what they feel I respect them even if I don't agree with them. This is why I can respect Ronald Reagan, G.H.W. Bush and a slate of Republican Presidents. This is also the reason that I do not respect Hillary Clinton.
My point is that if Barack Obama is winning Chris Matthews, he can win the Reagan Democrats and he can win the white house.
The elect-ability argument is clearly won in my mind, and it is clearly in favor of Barack Obama.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
The Softer Side of Hill?
In the closing two weeks of this campaign for Iowa, Hillary Clinton has launched a new 'softer side'
initiative. She parades around with her daughter and her mother, and says things like she's shy and doesn't like talking about herself.
Are you kidding me?
Is this really going to work?
Are the American people really that dumb?
Remember... this is the woman that was commonly joked to be running the 'secret police' of the white house during the Clinton Presidency.
Remember - Travel Gate? Where Hillary Clinton was found to have given false testimony to the special council?
William Safire was right. Hillary Clinton was and is a vindictive power player. Why do we want this back in the white house?
initiative. She parades around with her daughter and her mother, and says things like she's shy and doesn't like talking about herself.
Are you kidding me?
Is this really going to work?
Are the American people really that dumb?
Remember... this is the woman that was commonly joked to be running the 'secret police' of the white house during the Clinton Presidency.
Remember - Travel Gate? Where Hillary Clinton was found to have given false testimony to the special council?
William Safire was right. Hillary Clinton was and is a vindictive power player. Why do we want this back in the white house?
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
The Real Reason Why Bill Did Not Run in '88
One name - Gennifer Flowers
Remember this?
Remember the 12 year affair he had between 1977 and 1989 behind his wife's back while he was governor of Arkansas?
Remember the denial during the 1992 campaign?
Remember the FULL ADMISSION of this affair during depositions 21 years later.
Look... I'm not a huge moralist and I don't think that our Presidents need to be perfect. Just stop lying.
Everyone knows that Bill Clinton was advised not to run in 1988 because he was a well known womanizer and needed to get his affairs behind him.
NOT - as Bill claimed in his recent interview with Charlie Rose last sunday - that he thought he was 'not ready' to be President. This not so subtle dig at Barack Obama is another shameless attempt to rewrite history by the Clinton Clan.
So... Bill Clinton waited to run. He waited to run to save the country from the torture of a scandal, or to save his own candidacy?
Regardless, it worked well for him. He was elected by a plurality of the vote.
All we got was a paralyzed Presidency because of a woman named Lewinsky, a semen soaked dress, and a bunch of hypocritical senators rambling sanctimoniously about morality for 2+ years.
Is this the kind of soap opera we want again in the oval office?
Not me. And I hope, not the American people.
Look, exactly how much pain Bill Clinton caused his wife and how much damage he did to his wife remain a secret shared by Bill and Hillary. But do we really want that psycho-drama back into the halls of power in this country? Can't we get past this?
Can't we get a President that is not going to drape his/her emotions all over the international stage like some low budget TV series.
Please. Please. Please.
Remember this?
Remember the 12 year affair he had between 1977 and 1989 behind his wife's back while he was governor of Arkansas?
Remember the denial during the 1992 campaign?
Remember the FULL ADMISSION of this affair during depositions 21 years later.
Look... I'm not a huge moralist and I don't think that our Presidents need to be perfect. Just stop lying.
Everyone knows that Bill Clinton was advised not to run in 1988 because he was a well known womanizer and needed to get his affairs behind him.
NOT - as Bill claimed in his recent interview with Charlie Rose last sunday - that he thought he was 'not ready' to be President. This not so subtle dig at Barack Obama is another shameless attempt to rewrite history by the Clinton Clan.
So... Bill Clinton waited to run. He waited to run to save the country from the torture of a scandal, or to save his own candidacy?
Regardless, it worked well for him. He was elected by a plurality of the vote.
All we got was a paralyzed Presidency because of a woman named Lewinsky, a semen soaked dress, and a bunch of hypocritical senators rambling sanctimoniously about morality for 2+ years.
Is this the kind of soap opera we want again in the oval office?
Not me. And I hope, not the American people.
Look, exactly how much pain Bill Clinton caused his wife and how much damage he did to his wife remain a secret shared by Bill and Hillary. But do we really want that psycho-drama back into the halls of power in this country? Can't we get past this?
Can't we get a President that is not going to drape his/her emotions all over the international stage like some low budget TV series.
Please. Please. Please.
New Iowa Poll
Barack Obama, 33%
Hillary Clinton, 29%
John Edwards, 20%
Bill Richardson, 8%
The Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted Dec 13-17 and involved telephone interviews with 652 adults likely to vote in the Iowa caucuses.
This matches well with my prediction for the final numbers from Iowa.
Expect John Edwards to get a 5-10% 'rural' bump due to the way the caucuses weight delegates.
Also, expect Barack Obama to get a 5-10% bump due to his 'second choice' power. Delegates from Richardson and Biden will go preferentially to Obama or Edwards.
Hillary Clinton, 29%
John Edwards, 20%
Bill Richardson, 8%
The Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted Dec 13-17 and involved telephone interviews with 652 adults likely to vote in the Iowa caucuses.
This matches well with my prediction for the final numbers from Iowa.
Expect John Edwards to get a 5-10% 'rural' bump due to the way the caucuses weight delegates.
Also, expect Barack Obama to get a 5-10% bump due to his 'second choice' power. Delegates from Richardson and Biden will go preferentially to Obama or Edwards.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Politics Matters Resolution
I pledge to post something each day until Super Tuesday.
Too much is happening in the campaigns to let things fly by anymore.
Too much is at stake in this election.
To get back on track, it seems that my prediction may be coming true regarding the Obama strategy.
In my March 12th blog, I wrote that if Obama played his cards right he could win the anti-war left and the moderate disenchanted middle - giving Clinton no where to go.
This, in my view has come true. This can be evidenced by her constant character attacks and Bill's back handed reference to his candidacy as "rolling the dice" in Sunday's Charlie Rose interview.
They have nothing.
There is no rational for her candidacy except inevitability and dynasty.
The only thing preventing Obama from running away with this nomination is the nagging doubts that the Clinton's are continually creating about his experience and elect -ability.
The only thing holding this 'establishment', DLC-generated message together is that she has intimidated most of the career party wonks into supporting her for fear of losing their jobs if she wins.
This is not the America I want, and this is not the Nominee that America needs.
Andrew Sullivan is right to be enthusiastic about a possible Obama presidency. In the December Atlantic Monthly he wrote "Obama’s candidacy in this sense is a potentially transformational one. Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America—finally—past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us".
This is the essence of what Obama offers and it contrasts 180 degrees with what Clinton exactly does not.
Is she "tested and ready"? Well, if you look at the last 3 weeks of flailing and disorganized attacks by her campaign you wouldn't think so. In fact, if you hadn't heard it thrown at you through the airwaves continuously since February of this year, you would never use these words to describe her at all.
The reality is that Clinton, as opposed to her husband, is a relatively green and unnatural campaigner and the strains are showing. Rumors of squabbling about strategy. Power struggles between Bill and her other advisors...
Is this the kind of president that we want? Because, like it or not, this is a hint of what it will be like during her presumptive presidency.
Will Iowa have the courage? Will they have the foresight to reject the barrage of conventional wisdom that has been thrown at them all year?
This blogger believes that they will.
This blogger predicts the results of the Iowa caucus as follows:
Obama 35%
Edwards 30%
Clinton 25%
Clinton will finish third. She has not the ground game of Edwards in the small precincts, or the momentum and excitement of Obama. It will not finish her candidacy but it will test her as a campaigner and a leader.
What behavior will we see during that test? Whatever it is it will be another glimpse into what we would truly be electing next year... if she gets that far.
Too much is happening in the campaigns to let things fly by anymore.
Too much is at stake in this election.
To get back on track, it seems that my prediction may be coming true regarding the Obama strategy.
In my March 12th blog, I wrote that if Obama played his cards right he could win the anti-war left and the moderate disenchanted middle - giving Clinton no where to go.
This, in my view has come true. This can be evidenced by her constant character attacks and Bill's back handed reference to his candidacy as "rolling the dice" in Sunday's Charlie Rose interview.
They have nothing.
There is no rational for her candidacy except inevitability and dynasty.
The only thing preventing Obama from running away with this nomination is the nagging doubts that the Clinton's are continually creating about his experience and elect -ability.
The only thing holding this 'establishment', DLC-generated message together is that she has intimidated most of the career party wonks into supporting her for fear of losing their jobs if she wins.
This is not the America I want, and this is not the Nominee that America needs.
Andrew Sullivan is right to be enthusiastic about a possible Obama presidency. In the December Atlantic Monthly he wrote "Obama’s candidacy in this sense is a potentially transformational one. Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America—finally—past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us".
This is the essence of what Obama offers and it contrasts 180 degrees with what Clinton exactly does not.
Is she "tested and ready"? Well, if you look at the last 3 weeks of flailing and disorganized attacks by her campaign you wouldn't think so. In fact, if you hadn't heard it thrown at you through the airwaves continuously since February of this year, you would never use these words to describe her at all.
The reality is that Clinton, as opposed to her husband, is a relatively green and unnatural campaigner and the strains are showing. Rumors of squabbling about strategy. Power struggles between Bill and her other advisors...
Is this the kind of president that we want? Because, like it or not, this is a hint of what it will be like during her presumptive presidency.
Will Iowa have the courage? Will they have the foresight to reject the barrage of conventional wisdom that has been thrown at them all year?
This blogger believes that they will.
This blogger predicts the results of the Iowa caucus as follows:
Obama 35%
Edwards 30%
Clinton 25%
Clinton will finish third. She has not the ground game of Edwards in the small precincts, or the momentum and excitement of Obama. It will not finish her candidacy but it will test her as a campaigner and a leader.
What behavior will we see during that test? Whatever it is it will be another glimpse into what we would truly be electing next year... if she gets that far.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Obama's secret weapon - Michigan
Barack Obama has publicly pulled out of the Michigan primary due to the fight between the state and federal Democrats.
Michigan moved its primary to January 15th. This upsets the federal party and, like Florida, puts its delegates at risk IF the candidate campaigns there.
Quite some time ago, I thought that this was not a smart move.
Michigan is a blue collar state with many African-Americans, and would normally be a great state for Obama to pick up early.
Even if the federal party took away his delegates, it would be a great symbolic victory.
Also, let us not forget, that Jesse Jackson won that state in 1988 by 55%.
So why did Obama let it go, possibly to the famous front runner that would undoubtedly have an advantage due to national poll position?
Maybe. Just maybe. He didn't.
Jesse Jackson Jr. is a strong supporter of the Obama campaign.
Jesse Jackson Sr., the winner of the state in '88, is a supporter, but less vocal.
There is evidence that the Jackson machine may be assisting the Obama campaign, on the sly, in the Wolverine state.
http://www.topix.com/city/jackson-mi/
2007/10/jesse-jackson-hosts-forclosure-forums
This would be an enormous benefit to the campaign if they pull it off.
Not only would it be a surprise victory early in the primary season, but Obama would keep all the delegates because he had not personally campaigned there.
If its true, I said it first.
Watch for it on the 15th!
Michigan moved its primary to January 15th. This upsets the federal party and, like Florida, puts its delegates at risk IF the candidate campaigns there.
Quite some time ago, I thought that this was not a smart move.
Michigan is a blue collar state with many African-Americans, and would normally be a great state for Obama to pick up early.
Even if the federal party took away his delegates, it would be a great symbolic victory.
Also, let us not forget, that Jesse Jackson won that state in 1988 by 55%.
So why did Obama let it go, possibly to the famous front runner that would undoubtedly have an advantage due to national poll position?
Maybe. Just maybe. He didn't.
Jesse Jackson Jr. is a strong supporter of the Obama campaign.
Jesse Jackson Sr., the winner of the state in '88, is a supporter, but less vocal.
There is evidence that the Jackson machine may be assisting the Obama campaign, on the sly, in the Wolverine state.
http://www.topix.com/city/jackson-mi/
2007/10/jesse-jackson-hosts-forclosure-forums
This would be an enormous benefit to the campaign if they pull it off.
Not only would it be a surprise victory early in the primary season, but Obama would keep all the delegates because he had not personally campaigned there.
If its true, I said it first.
Watch for it on the 15th!
Monday, November 5, 2007
Is Keith Olbermann the last American Patriot?
If you haven't seen it.
If you missed it.
If you were like me and you thought the debate over Mukasey (and water boarding, and his non-response on its legality) was over.
Watch it.
I am not exaggerating when I say that I wept when watching such a cogent courageous defense of the American system in the face of such an obvious, insidious attempt by this administration - and its democratic enablers - to subvert it.
Watch it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/
(for the full text - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21644133/ )
What immediately struck me after I heard this speech was the horrible realization that it was not, in fact, courageous at all but obvious and beautiful in the simplicity of its truth. What struck me, was that everyone else in the press and the media has forgotten why they love their country. Why in fact, America IS better than other countries.
What struck me is that everyone ELSE has forgotten that there are some issues that do not have two sides... that there are things in this world that are right and wrong. More importantly, that their president is on the horribly wrong side of a struggle that has DEFINED freedom and humanity for hundreds of years, not just in America but in the world.
The unique role of America, The United States of America, was to define human endeavors, in politics and government, in a way that would always preserve human rights and human dignity. This is what we all should embrace, and this is what will allow this country to defeat any foe and support any friend. This country is defined by an allegiance not to a king, and certainly not to a president (created as this president would define it: as a king by another name), but to an ideal. That ideal is the rule of law, the proposition that all men are created equal and hold in their hands the true power of the nation. No force, least of all the president should be able to squander such an ideal.
No doubt he will be attacked in the following days for saying what he said.
He did suggest, and rightly so, that this president should fear not only impeachment but incarceration for his decisions regarding torture in the past 5 years.
He is right.
If anyone else in the government believed an ounce of their patriotic rhetoric, not only would they not confirm this attorney general nominee, but they would be in the midst of impeachment proceedings for high treason against this president.
Thank you Keith.
Thank you for saying it.
Thank you for adding a true patriotic voice to this debate.
If you missed it.
If you were like me and you thought the debate over Mukasey (and water boarding, and his non-response on its legality) was over.
Watch it.
I am not exaggerating when I say that I wept when watching such a cogent courageous defense of the American system in the face of such an obvious, insidious attempt by this administration - and its democratic enablers - to subvert it.
Watch it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/
(for the full text - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21644133/ )
What immediately struck me after I heard this speech was the horrible realization that it was not, in fact, courageous at all but obvious and beautiful in the simplicity of its truth. What struck me, was that everyone else in the press and the media has forgotten why they love their country. Why in fact, America IS better than other countries.
What struck me is that everyone ELSE has forgotten that there are some issues that do not have two sides... that there are things in this world that are right and wrong. More importantly, that their president is on the horribly wrong side of a struggle that has DEFINED freedom and humanity for hundreds of years, not just in America but in the world.
The unique role of America, The United States of America, was to define human endeavors, in politics and government, in a way that would always preserve human rights and human dignity. This is what we all should embrace, and this is what will allow this country to defeat any foe and support any friend. This country is defined by an allegiance not to a king, and certainly not to a president (created as this president would define it: as a king by another name), but to an ideal. That ideal is the rule of law, the proposition that all men are created equal and hold in their hands the true power of the nation. No force, least of all the president should be able to squander such an ideal.
No doubt he will be attacked in the following days for saying what he said.
He did suggest, and rightly so, that this president should fear not only impeachment but incarceration for his decisions regarding torture in the past 5 years.
He is right.
If anyone else in the government believed an ounce of their patriotic rhetoric, not only would they not confirm this attorney general nominee, but they would be in the midst of impeachment proceedings for high treason against this president.
Thank you Keith.
Thank you for saying it.
Thank you for adding a true patriotic voice to this debate.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Big Debate Bounce for Obama
Take a look at the recent primary state polls taken after the debate, and one can easily see a post debate bounce for Obama.
In New Hampshire, an American Res. Group poll taken after the debate puts Clinton and Obama tied (the previous CNN poll had Clinton up 33 to 25). In a similar American Res. Group poll for South Carolina, Obama has over taken Clinton by 33 to 29 (the previous Insider Advantage poll had Clinton leading by a whopping 43 to 28!). This is significant given the percentage of African American voters in the State Democratic Primary and the conventional confusion thus far on the fact that they have not (yet) moved toward Obama. This shift may be starting.
The next reasonable question is what triggered this shift in the polls. One does not have to look that far to see that it is likely the recent exchange between the candidates regarding their approach to diplomacy. Clinton tried to draw blood in the debate, and afterward, by highlighting her opponents youth and inexperience. It backfired big time, and hopefully this will explain why.
In a posting by this author after the first NC debate, it was predicted that this was a winning strategy for Obama, and now we see the proof in the pudding.
Allow this author a brief recap...
In the April 30th, 2007 post, I stated...
"If Obama can find the right language ( and this is a tough one ) he can mute this difference and turn it back into a pure positive. Does the base of the party really want a candidate who's views of the world are 'Bush Lite'? If they do, why wouldn't they just vote for Guiliani? The truth is, it is a dangerous skate that Clinton is performing by moving to the right on war issues. If Obama continues to win the Democratic left, and the independent anti-war, Clinton may quickly have nowhere to go."
It now seems clear that the Obama camp recognized the same thing, and attacked as they needed to.
1) Allowing a continued attack from Clinton regarding foreign policy would have shown weakness, and would have garnered statements that the 'rock star' had a glass jaw.
2) Obama's strength in the primaries is clearly that he is new and unfettered by the
kind of traditional thinking that lead us into war. Obama can turn the page, Clinton will keep fighting the dorm room arguments of the sixties.
3) He let Clinton hit first.
4) He hit back in a way that put him on par in stature to the former first lady. A big achievement for a rookie Senator.
Obama used the 'Bush-Lite' line beautifully. The Clintonian reserve and experience is now painted as the same old problem that is leading this country over the cliff. It will be interesting to see what she does with it, but she may never again pick a fight on the foreign policy turf. This would be an enormous victory for Obama.
Obama did something else that was brilliant. The fact that Clinton attacked first, allowed him to maintain his moral high ground in the exchange. At the same time, her phraseology of Obama being 'irresponsible, and frankly, naive' was turned on its head by Obama bringing up the war vote.
Throughout the week, personalities like Chris Matthews were clearly sympathetic to the Obama side, as was shown by his repeated quoting of Kennedy's famous 'let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate' line in this inauguration speech. Chris Matthews also shamelessly repeated the Obama attack by questioning her surrogates if 'voting for the resolution and not expecting to go to war' was naive. Awesome.
It got so bad for Clinton, being pummeled in the press by Obama supporters, that Bill had to step in and 'make peace' through his 'Democrats are all better than Republicans on the issue of diplomacy' comment. Fine, it was a good time to stop, but the blood was already drawn. For, now and until the primaries, supporters and enemies will use this fight to create daylight between the two candidates, and this will help our freshman Senator from IL. More importantly, it was a fundamental mistake by the former president in how it judges the mindset of the Democratic primary voters, and it will get them in trouble in the future. The misjudgment is on how much the core Dem voters want change. They don't want a little less torture, a little less domestic wiretapping and a little less lying to get us into war. They don't want any of it. If Clinton continues to present herself as the 'compromise' Democrat - because she fears the labels that could be thrown at her in the general - she will quickly be seen as the 'say anything' candidate. No one wants a candidate who ONLY takes safe positions in order to be most electable. This is her Achilles heal and this is what will, in the end, remove her from consideration come January.
A prediction came true (yes, I'm patting myself on the back), or advice followed (even better), it matters not. What matters is that the proof is in the polls and Hillary was wounded for the first time in the contest. Despite everything, she is beatable, and this exchange proved it.
In New Hampshire, an American Res. Group poll taken after the debate puts Clinton and Obama tied (the previous CNN poll had Clinton up 33 to 25). In a similar American Res. Group poll for South Carolina, Obama has over taken Clinton by 33 to 29 (the previous Insider Advantage poll had Clinton leading by a whopping 43 to 28!). This is significant given the percentage of African American voters in the State Democratic Primary and the conventional confusion thus far on the fact that they have not (yet) moved toward Obama. This shift may be starting.
The next reasonable question is what triggered this shift in the polls. One does not have to look that far to see that it is likely the recent exchange between the candidates regarding their approach to diplomacy. Clinton tried to draw blood in the debate, and afterward, by highlighting her opponents youth and inexperience. It backfired big time, and hopefully this will explain why.
In a posting by this author after the first NC debate, it was predicted that this was a winning strategy for Obama, and now we see the proof in the pudding.
Allow this author a brief recap...
In the April 30th, 2007 post, I stated...
"If Obama can find the right language ( and this is a tough one ) he can mute this difference and turn it back into a pure positive. Does the base of the party really want a candidate who's views of the world are 'Bush Lite'? If they do, why wouldn't they just vote for Guiliani? The truth is, it is a dangerous skate that Clinton is performing by moving to the right on war issues. If Obama continues to win the Democratic left, and the independent anti-war, Clinton may quickly have nowhere to go."
It now seems clear that the Obama camp recognized the same thing, and attacked as they needed to.
1) Allowing a continued attack from Clinton regarding foreign policy would have shown weakness, and would have garnered statements that the 'rock star' had a glass jaw.
2) Obama's strength in the primaries is clearly that he is new and unfettered by the
kind of traditional thinking that lead us into war. Obama can turn the page, Clinton will keep fighting the dorm room arguments of the sixties.
3) He let Clinton hit first.
4) He hit back in a way that put him on par in stature to the former first lady. A big achievement for a rookie Senator.
Obama used the 'Bush-Lite' line beautifully. The Clintonian reserve and experience is now painted as the same old problem that is leading this country over the cliff. It will be interesting to see what she does with it, but she may never again pick a fight on the foreign policy turf. This would be an enormous victory for Obama.
Obama did something else that was brilliant. The fact that Clinton attacked first, allowed him to maintain his moral high ground in the exchange. At the same time, her phraseology of Obama being 'irresponsible, and frankly, naive' was turned on its head by Obama bringing up the war vote.
Throughout the week, personalities like Chris Matthews were clearly sympathetic to the Obama side, as was shown by his repeated quoting of Kennedy's famous 'let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate' line in this inauguration speech. Chris Matthews also shamelessly repeated the Obama attack by questioning her surrogates if 'voting for the resolution and not expecting to go to war' was naive. Awesome.
It got so bad for Clinton, being pummeled in the press by Obama supporters, that Bill had to step in and 'make peace' through his 'Democrats are all better than Republicans on the issue of diplomacy' comment. Fine, it was a good time to stop, but the blood was already drawn. For, now and until the primaries, supporters and enemies will use this fight to create daylight between the two candidates, and this will help our freshman Senator from IL. More importantly, it was a fundamental mistake by the former president in how it judges the mindset of the Democratic primary voters, and it will get them in trouble in the future. The misjudgment is on how much the core Dem voters want change. They don't want a little less torture, a little less domestic wiretapping and a little less lying to get us into war. They don't want any of it. If Clinton continues to present herself as the 'compromise' Democrat - because she fears the labels that could be thrown at her in the general - she will quickly be seen as the 'say anything' candidate. No one wants a candidate who ONLY takes safe positions in order to be most electable. This is her Achilles heal and this is what will, in the end, remove her from consideration come January.
A prediction came true (yes, I'm patting myself on the back), or advice followed (even better), it matters not. What matters is that the proof is in the polls and Hillary was wounded for the first time in the contest. Despite everything, she is beatable, and this exchange proved it.
Monday, April 30, 2007
More Obama Buzz
There was a comment from Howard Fineman (Chris Matthews - Apr22, 07) recently that knocked my socks off and I just have to repeat.
On the "tell me something I don't know" segment, Fineman claimed that Obama was talking to Colin Powell about foreign policy. He rightly views this as his Achilles heel, and he is asking a well respected elder statesman for advice. It matters greatly that this stateman is a (possibly former) Republican. If he gets Powell's endorsement, this could shake up the campaign. I have yet to read any confirmation of this buzz. Anyone want to comment?
On the "tell me something I don't know" segment, Fineman claimed that Obama was talking to Colin Powell about foreign policy. He rightly views this as his Achilles heel, and he is asking a well respected elder statesman for advice. It matters greatly that this stateman is a (possibly former) Republican. If he gets Powell's endorsement, this could shake up the campaign. I have yet to read any confirmation of this buzz. Anyone want to comment?
SC Democratic Debate
Some quick notes on the first Democratic debate at South Carolina State.
Initially, I thought Obama looked shaky compared to his normal oration in front of a large crowd. This, I'm sure, will improve with time. The real headline was the comfort and ease of Clinton. She nailed virtually every question, and clearly was well prepared for the event.
Gravel was an interesting addition, and made Kucinich look like a mainstream candidate.
Richardson looked prepared and knowledgeable, but allowed a serious question about his judgment to continue. He repeated that he did not call for the resignation of AG Gonzales because he was a fellow Hispanic. The press down played the gaff, but it is a serious one. Imagine if Clinton said that about a woman, or if Obama said it about an African American.
Big no no.
Biden was good and competent. I do hold out hope that his demeanor does not prevent him from breaking into the top tier of candidates. He is certainly more qualified than Edwards.
Obama did better in the later sections of the debate. He was the first to mention inner city poverty, and he was the first to highlight the real difference in his candidacy. I'm not refering to the corruption question by Brian Williams, he did not answer that particularly well, although it will do no damage. It is already abundantly clear that he is the money-cleanest of the top tier candidates.
No.
I'm referring to the abortion question. He answered it in a way that has a hope of winning over the vast majority of the population that believes that abortion should be rare and legal. Obama chose to stress aspects of the problem that 'we can all agree on' - programs for reducing teen pregnancy through counseling. This is smart, and if he does this in every debate he will score points.
Clinton's much touted "national security" question response was impressive. She was the first of the candidates to use the word 'retaliate' when it came to an attack on the American homeland. This was repeated often among the pundits... always foaming at the mouth for a win or lose moment.
The truth is, however, more complicated
Think about the base of the Democratic party and what they want and how they think.
Do they really want another cowboy? No, and she did use the word 'prudent' when she talked about the response, but lets play this out.
Her stance on the Iraq war has been less than pure to say the least as far as the base is concerned. How far does her "Machismo" extend. Does it extend to a cryptic policy on torture? Does it extend to a continuation of Guantanamo? The far left may be wondering just that right now.
If Obama can find the right language ( and this is a tough one ) he can mute this difference and turn it back into a pure positive.
Do the base of the party really want a candidate who's views of the world are "Bush Lite"? If they do, why wouldn't they just vote for Guiliani?
The truth is, it is a dangerous skate that Clinton is performing by moving to the right on war issues. If Obama continues to win the Democratic left, and the independent ant-war, Clinton may quickly have nowhere to go.
This election represents a focal point for change that is not just American, but may be truly world wide if one considers the enormous global impact of US foreign policy. Clinton is playing a safe game, old-style politics, that targets the traditional pillars of the Democratic party - firefighters, unions, etc...
Obama is successfully playing game based on change and hope.
Initially, I thought Obama looked shaky compared to his normal oration in front of a large crowd. This, I'm sure, will improve with time. The real headline was the comfort and ease of Clinton. She nailed virtually every question, and clearly was well prepared for the event.
Gravel was an interesting addition, and made Kucinich look like a mainstream candidate.
Richardson looked prepared and knowledgeable, but allowed a serious question about his judgment to continue. He repeated that he did not call for the resignation of AG Gonzales because he was a fellow Hispanic. The press down played the gaff, but it is a serious one. Imagine if Clinton said that about a woman, or if Obama said it about an African American.
Big no no.
Biden was good and competent. I do hold out hope that his demeanor does not prevent him from breaking into the top tier of candidates. He is certainly more qualified than Edwards.
Obama did better in the later sections of the debate. He was the first to mention inner city poverty, and he was the first to highlight the real difference in his candidacy. I'm not refering to the corruption question by Brian Williams, he did not answer that particularly well, although it will do no damage. It is already abundantly clear that he is the money-cleanest of the top tier candidates.
No.
I'm referring to the abortion question. He answered it in a way that has a hope of winning over the vast majority of the population that believes that abortion should be rare and legal. Obama chose to stress aspects of the problem that 'we can all agree on' - programs for reducing teen pregnancy through counseling. This is smart, and if he does this in every debate he will score points.
Clinton's much touted "national security" question response was impressive. She was the first of the candidates to use the word 'retaliate' when it came to an attack on the American homeland. This was repeated often among the pundits... always foaming at the mouth for a win or lose moment.
The truth is, however, more complicated
Think about the base of the Democratic party and what they want and how they think.
Do they really want another cowboy? No, and she did use the word 'prudent' when she talked about the response, but lets play this out.
Her stance on the Iraq war has been less than pure to say the least as far as the base is concerned. How far does her "Machismo" extend. Does it extend to a cryptic policy on torture? Does it extend to a continuation of Guantanamo? The far left may be wondering just that right now.
If Obama can find the right language ( and this is a tough one ) he can mute this difference and turn it back into a pure positive.
Do the base of the party really want a candidate who's views of the world are "Bush Lite"? If they do, why wouldn't they just vote for Guiliani?
The truth is, it is a dangerous skate that Clinton is performing by moving to the right on war issues. If Obama continues to win the Democratic left, and the independent ant-war, Clinton may quickly have nowhere to go.
This election represents a focal point for change that is not just American, but may be truly world wide if one considers the enormous global impact of US foreign policy. Clinton is playing a safe game, old-style politics, that targets the traditional pillars of the Democratic party - firefighters, unions, etc...
Obama is successfully playing game based on change and hope.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
The Big Picture in Iraq
There is an undercurrent in the present Iraq debate that is dishonest and bares exposure, and I feel that I must comment on it.
So much has been spouted back and forth regarding 'victory or defeat', and an endless re-definition of why the war was fought in the first place and why we are still fighting it. Can we salvage victory? Can we turn this pile of crap into something that is less horribly disastrous for American prestige that it now seems to be? Hmmm. Really, Mr., and Mrs., politician? This is really what is occupying your brain? I doubt it.
What is clearly at the top of the agenda is so obviously a fight over who can turn this pile of crap into a partisan political victory.
Why else would Bush create this standoff over the current war budget? Not because he himself could never tolerate milestones (he must have them internally), not because he himself believes that US troops will be there forever (not even the most extreme lefty would portray him as that big a buffoon)... but because he sees this as the only way to clutch onto hope of an internal US political victory.
If the congress cuts funding, Republicans will always be able to claim that 'hey, we were winning, and we would have won if you guys hadn't cut off the funds!"
This would forever muddy the waters of historical perspective on this conflict and forever give the Republicans their 'surrender monkey' label for the Democratic party.
How do I know that this is the game? I know because this is exactly what happened in Vietnam, and exactly what prevented 20 years of Republican political defeats for continuing such a ridiculous foreign policy blunder.
Is this how bad American politics has become? That the cost of an ideological victory at home can be paid for by hundreds of billions of dollars and the blood of thousands of young Americans?
It is possible that the American people are waking up to this shamelessness. The problem is that congress may be so afraid of this tactic, that thousands more Americans will die before the election cycle can rectify the issue in 2008.
So much has been spouted back and forth regarding 'victory or defeat', and an endless re-definition of why the war was fought in the first place and why we are still fighting it. Can we salvage victory? Can we turn this pile of crap into something that is less horribly disastrous for American prestige that it now seems to be? Hmmm. Really, Mr., and Mrs., politician? This is really what is occupying your brain? I doubt it.
What is clearly at the top of the agenda is so obviously a fight over who can turn this pile of crap into a partisan political victory.
Why else would Bush create this standoff over the current war budget? Not because he himself could never tolerate milestones (he must have them internally), not because he himself believes that US troops will be there forever (not even the most extreme lefty would portray him as that big a buffoon)... but because he sees this as the only way to clutch onto hope of an internal US political victory.
If the congress cuts funding, Republicans will always be able to claim that 'hey, we were winning, and we would have won if you guys hadn't cut off the funds!"
This would forever muddy the waters of historical perspective on this conflict and forever give the Republicans their 'surrender monkey' label for the Democratic party.
How do I know that this is the game? I know because this is exactly what happened in Vietnam, and exactly what prevented 20 years of Republican political defeats for continuing such a ridiculous foreign policy blunder.
Is this how bad American politics has become? That the cost of an ideological victory at home can be paid for by hundreds of billions of dollars and the blood of thousands of young Americans?
It is possible that the American people are waking up to this shamelessness. The problem is that congress may be so afraid of this tactic, that thousands more Americans will die before the election cycle can rectify the issue in 2008.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Why Obama Matters
It was Bill Clinton that supposedly remarked "Republicans like to fall in line, Democrats like to fall in love".
This recently lead to George Will's remark that "Democrats have fallen in love, just not with Hillary". They've fallen in love with Barack Obama and there are no signs that this affair is just an infatuation.
If one studies the present back and forth between the Democratic front runners, that about sums it up. Hillary had one major strategy, and that was to out raise the Obama campaign by over two to one in order to build the aura of invincibility.
At this, she will fail.
I know this is just a guess at this point, but I put Obama either ahead in money raising by the end of March, or at least within 10-20 points. This will cause shock waves in the community and will foster a real horse race between possibly the first woman president, and the first African American president. I am guessing this from both the buzz on his campaign trail, and from recent comments by Howard Fineman (Chris Matthews - Mar11, 07) and others that Obama is raising money faster than anyone expected. In fact, his comment was that the Clinton people were complaining that every time they called a big donor they had already been called by Barack Obama HIMSELF. This is a big scoop. He is working hard and he wants to shock the establishment.
But does it matter? If, deep down, Hillary and Obama are more or less aligned on all the major issues, then... does anyone care?
The answer is yes, because this country is in urgent need of upheaval and Obama is the right man for the right time. I think it matters and I will tell you why.
Over the course of the next year, there will be much written about where the two stand on iraq, education, health care, welfare, minimum wage, abortion, etc.. etc.. but lets keep in mind what these questions are supposed to tell us.
Do we really care that a candidate agrees with us 95% on everything compared to 80% for the other one? No. This leads to over-calculated poll-driven politics. It also leads to a White House that has to run everything through the political advisers before making policy. That's exactly what we have now, Rove driven disasters. That is also the kind of White House that Hillary will create. The signs of it are already written on the wall from the way she is running her campaign.
Look at her Selma response. Look at her attack at the Geffen statement. Its politics as usual, and its the same old trap that leads to an electorate that can barely hold their nose by the time they finally make it to the voting booth.
Obama is different. Here is why.
There is no question that this man has thought about running for president for more than 2 years. Did this cause him to make a calculated political decision to support the war or "the resolution but not the war" or some such nonsense that came out of Kerry in '04, and Clinton in '07? No.
He said what he knew was right and he let the voters fall where they may. He was honest and he took a risk.
This is the kind of leadership America needs and this is what Obama represents.
If Obama were a conventional calculating politician, he would have waited. He would have taken a deal from the establishment, supported Hillary and would have run later with more experience in '12 or '16. He would still be young enough to run then, but he didn't. He recognized an opportunity, with lots of risk and he went for it.
Leadership.
How is he running his campaign? The same way. He's not afraid to shake the tree in Clinton's home turf in New York, and he's gathered major support in Hollywood. He is also not afraid to bring religion into his stump and into his campaign. This is something that definitely contributed to the Kerry loss.
Can he win in a general. Yes.
The way he is running his campaign shows it all, with a very important comment. If you listen to the way Clinton talks about republicans, she says things like "I know them, I can beat them".
Divisive, acrimonious, old politics.
Even her first major sound bite "I'm in it to win it" represents a mis-step in my opinion. Think about it. Is winning all that matters? Or is the struggle and the endeavor, the end goals most important? A candidate should be an agent for achieving results not an end in itself.
Here is also something to remember. What makes Clinton represent politics as usual is her methods, her words and her beliefs, not her sex. Yes, she would be the first woman president, but she would be more divisive than any male that came before her. Likewise, what makes Obama new and fresh is not his skin color. It has nothing to do with how "black" he is. It has everything to do with what he says, how he says it and what he truly believes.
If you listen to Obama he says of republicans "I will talk to them." "We are all Americans. There is no red America or blue America. There is the United States of America". That can win a general. Hillary's comments will pull us back into politics as usual. No one wants to be beaten down. No one wants their beliefs trivialized. No one wants another winner take all candidate. Everyone, now more than ever, wants a true political discourse and wants a true leader to be in charge.
Barack Obama is a leader. Barack Obama is new. He just happens to be black.
This recently lead to George Will's remark that "Democrats have fallen in love, just not with Hillary". They've fallen in love with Barack Obama and there are no signs that this affair is just an infatuation.
If one studies the present back and forth between the Democratic front runners, that about sums it up. Hillary had one major strategy, and that was to out raise the Obama campaign by over two to one in order to build the aura of invincibility.
At this, she will fail.
I know this is just a guess at this point, but I put Obama either ahead in money raising by the end of March, or at least within 10-20 points. This will cause shock waves in the community and will foster a real horse race between possibly the first woman president, and the first African American president. I am guessing this from both the buzz on his campaign trail, and from recent comments by Howard Fineman (Chris Matthews - Mar11, 07) and others that Obama is raising money faster than anyone expected. In fact, his comment was that the Clinton people were complaining that every time they called a big donor they had already been called by Barack Obama HIMSELF. This is a big scoop. He is working hard and he wants to shock the establishment.
But does it matter? If, deep down, Hillary and Obama are more or less aligned on all the major issues, then... does anyone care?
The answer is yes, because this country is in urgent need of upheaval and Obama is the right man for the right time. I think it matters and I will tell you why.
Over the course of the next year, there will be much written about where the two stand on iraq, education, health care, welfare, minimum wage, abortion, etc.. etc.. but lets keep in mind what these questions are supposed to tell us.
Do we really care that a candidate agrees with us 95% on everything compared to 80% for the other one? No. This leads to over-calculated poll-driven politics. It also leads to a White House that has to run everything through the political advisers before making policy. That's exactly what we have now, Rove driven disasters. That is also the kind of White House that Hillary will create. The signs of it are already written on the wall from the way she is running her campaign.
Look at her Selma response. Look at her attack at the Geffen statement. Its politics as usual, and its the same old trap that leads to an electorate that can barely hold their nose by the time they finally make it to the voting booth.
Obama is different. Here is why.
There is no question that this man has thought about running for president for more than 2 years. Did this cause him to make a calculated political decision to support the war or "the resolution but not the war" or some such nonsense that came out of Kerry in '04, and Clinton in '07? No.
He said what he knew was right and he let the voters fall where they may. He was honest and he took a risk.
This is the kind of leadership America needs and this is what Obama represents.
If Obama were a conventional calculating politician, he would have waited. He would have taken a deal from the establishment, supported Hillary and would have run later with more experience in '12 or '16. He would still be young enough to run then, but he didn't. He recognized an opportunity, with lots of risk and he went for it.
Leadership.
How is he running his campaign? The same way. He's not afraid to shake the tree in Clinton's home turf in New York, and he's gathered major support in Hollywood. He is also not afraid to bring religion into his stump and into his campaign. This is something that definitely contributed to the Kerry loss.
Can he win in a general. Yes.
The way he is running his campaign shows it all, with a very important comment. If you listen to the way Clinton talks about republicans, she says things like "I know them, I can beat them".
Divisive, acrimonious, old politics.
Even her first major sound bite "I'm in it to win it" represents a mis-step in my opinion. Think about it. Is winning all that matters? Or is the struggle and the endeavor, the end goals most important? A candidate should be an agent for achieving results not an end in itself.
Here is also something to remember. What makes Clinton represent politics as usual is her methods, her words and her beliefs, not her sex. Yes, she would be the first woman president, but she would be more divisive than any male that came before her. Likewise, what makes Obama new and fresh is not his skin color. It has nothing to do with how "black" he is. It has everything to do with what he says, how he says it and what he truly believes.
If you listen to Obama he says of republicans "I will talk to them." "We are all Americans. There is no red America or blue America. There is the United States of America". That can win a general. Hillary's comments will pull us back into politics as usual. No one wants to be beaten down. No one wants their beliefs trivialized. No one wants another winner take all candidate. Everyone, now more than ever, wants a true political discourse and wants a true leader to be in charge.
Barack Obama is a leader. Barack Obama is new. He just happens to be black.
Why? Chuck, Why?
Senator Chuck Hagel put off his bid to run for president today, according to the new york times.
Here are a few good excerpts of his comments that hit the nail on the head and show that... should he run, he's got his head in the right place.
“The political currents in America are more unpredictable today than at any time in modern history,” Mr. Hagel said. “We are experiencing a political re-orientation, a redefining and moving toward a new political center of gravity.”
He added: “This movement is bigger than both parties. The need to solve problems and meet challenges is overtaking the ideological debates of the last three decades — as it should. America is demanding honest, competent and accountable governance.”
“America stands at an historic crossroads in its history,” Mr. Hagel said. “It is against this backdrop that I find myself at my own crossroads on my political future.”
These quotes are taken from the new york times article of JEFF ZELENY Published: March 12, 2007
He is clearly aware of the seismic shift that is about to occur in American politics. But will he be a player?
A more important question is whether the republican party will be left behind. Like a trapeze artist, the GOP must grab for a better, larger constituency - disaffected fiscal conservatives, non-lefty greens (a growing group), or small government social moderates... just as they are leaping away from their old war hammer - the religious right. Can they do it all at once? Yes. The GOP was founded on a previous such great revolution, and it is smart enough and strong enough to leap again. If it doesn't, it will take more than one election cycle to make them viable again.
Here is another question... Does Chuck know something we don't?
Did someone talk to him and possibly convince him not to run given the strength of a present candidacy? Keep the ears open.
Here are a few good excerpts of his comments that hit the nail on the head and show that... should he run, he's got his head in the right place.
“The political currents in America are more unpredictable today than at any time in modern history,” Mr. Hagel said. “We are experiencing a political re-orientation, a redefining and moving toward a new political center of gravity.”
He added: “This movement is bigger than both parties. The need to solve problems and meet challenges is overtaking the ideological debates of the last three decades — as it should. America is demanding honest, competent and accountable governance.”
“America stands at an historic crossroads in its history,” Mr. Hagel said. “It is against this backdrop that I find myself at my own crossroads on my political future.”
These quotes are taken from the new york times article of JEFF ZELENY Published: March 12, 2007
He is clearly aware of the seismic shift that is about to occur in American politics. But will he be a player?
A more important question is whether the republican party will be left behind. Like a trapeze artist, the GOP must grab for a better, larger constituency - disaffected fiscal conservatives, non-lefty greens (a growing group), or small government social moderates... just as they are leaping away from their old war hammer - the religious right. Can they do it all at once? Yes. The GOP was founded on a previous such great revolution, and it is smart enough and strong enough to leap again. If it doesn't, it will take more than one election cycle to make them viable again.
Here is another question... Does Chuck know something we don't?
Did someone talk to him and possibly convince him not to run given the strength of a present candidacy? Keep the ears open.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Chuck Hagel and the battle against boredom
I feel compelled to write about Chuck Hagel and what he could represent for the present presidential race... possibly. The possibility, however, is so attractive and exciting that even if there is a vanishingly small chance of it coming to be - it is worth wishing for.
What I am talking about is a major shakeup and shift in the pattern of American politics.
That possibility is an end to the traditional stalemate of coalitions that has hampered American politics for a quarter century. Ronald Reagan may be a hero to modern republicans, but he created a monster when he tied the party to the success of an unstable coalition of religious, social and fiscal conservatives. George senior could not hold this coalition together, the religious right sat on their hands, and the swing voters jumped as fast as they could toward Perot. Now look what we've got. George junior was so paranoid about losing his base that he has become President of 30% of the United States.
For too long, the traditional lines of 'conservative' and 'liberal' have defined the playing field in what is accepted for politics in this country. What is a 'conservative'? As far as I am concerned, there are at least 3 major types if not more.
Why have these gone together in every national election since 1980? The Reagan 'coalition' essentially as it has been called, was created to allow the Republican party to become a majority party after the seismic shifts caused by the civil rights movement and Watergate.
Today, it simply doesn't make sense and is stifling political discourse. Fiscal conservatives want small government, for good reason, but would hopefully rail against government intrusion in the form of 'defense of marriage' concepts or abortion issues forced on them by the zealots. Not only that, but religious conservatives come in all flavors (or at least they used to before the 'religious right' decided that their best hope for control rested in a takeover of the republican party after 1980. We have all forgotten, perhaps, that Jimmy Carter talked about God in every second sentence. Also, Jimmy Carter, in 1980 won almost the entire South.
The thread that links this diatribe to Chuck Hagel, and perhaps Barack Obama may seem convoluted, but it is there, I assure you. Present politics has not only stagnated into a blurring of all political views into 'right' and 'left', which is difficult, but has also rolled up the present conflict in Iraq into all of this.
How many times have you heard on the traditional media that if someone is against the war they are 'more left'. ie) Hillary is 'right' of Obama on the war. WHAT? Who is writing this crap. Do people forget that republicans opposed Roosevelt early in 1940? Do people forget that to a man republicans voted against the Clinton action in Kosovo? Were all those republicans 'left' of Clinton back then? I think not.
Neither is Hagel a 'lefty'. On every major conservative issue, regardless of how you want to slice it, he is solid. Yet, he is against the war. Why? because he has served in the military and knows first hand the cost of war. Something every notable civilian in this administration is unable to claim.
Will he garner support? Who knows. With the present republican field ducking the war question (Giuliani - comparing it to WWII or the Civil War on Larry King? Please.) or suffering because of it (McCain), there is a significant swing voter republican constituency that is looking for someone to tell them the truth (and have a chance of winning). With the present field either looking like born again conservatives (Romney and McCain), or trying to wink at them through the 'conservative judges' looking glass, there is room for a true patriot here. Chuck Hagel is a true patriot, and if he runs, he will shake things up. He will give the base a reason to turn out, and will give the anti-war anti-liberal voters something to cheer for. People need to remember that
60% +of voters are against this war. Not all of them are tie-dyed hippies. Some of them are just smart and want to use American power judiciously.
What is needed now is a third way, and I'm not the first to observe this. Perhaps this means a new party, or just a new type of candidate. Signs of this winning way can be seen in California. The most popular republican in the country is green, socially moderate, and fiscally conservative.
Can Chuck Hagel win? Ultimately, I think not. The majority of the country is not as conservative as he is. Can he shake up the race and make people re-examine why they identify with one party over the other? Yes. The majority of this country wants an end (with reasonable preparation) to this war and wants someone who has above all honesty and integrity.
He may announce his candidacy tomorrow. I hope he does.
What I am talking about is a major shakeup and shift in the pattern of American politics.
That possibility is an end to the traditional stalemate of coalitions that has hampered American politics for a quarter century. Ronald Reagan may be a hero to modern republicans, but he created a monster when he tied the party to the success of an unstable coalition of religious, social and fiscal conservatives. George senior could not hold this coalition together, the religious right sat on their hands, and the swing voters jumped as fast as they could toward Perot. Now look what we've got. George junior was so paranoid about losing his base that he has become President of 30% of the United States.
For too long, the traditional lines of 'conservative' and 'liberal' have defined the playing field in what is accepted for politics in this country. What is a 'conservative'? As far as I am concerned, there are at least 3 major types if not more.
Why have these gone together in every national election since 1980? The Reagan 'coalition' essentially as it has been called, was created to allow the Republican party to become a majority party after the seismic shifts caused by the civil rights movement and Watergate.
Today, it simply doesn't make sense and is stifling political discourse. Fiscal conservatives want small government, for good reason, but would hopefully rail against government intrusion in the form of 'defense of marriage' concepts or abortion issues forced on them by the zealots. Not only that, but religious conservatives come in all flavors (or at least they used to before the 'religious right' decided that their best hope for control rested in a takeover of the republican party after 1980. We have all forgotten, perhaps, that Jimmy Carter talked about God in every second sentence. Also, Jimmy Carter, in 1980 won almost the entire South.
The thread that links this diatribe to Chuck Hagel, and perhaps Barack Obama may seem convoluted, but it is there, I assure you. Present politics has not only stagnated into a blurring of all political views into 'right' and 'left', which is difficult, but has also rolled up the present conflict in Iraq into all of this.
How many times have you heard on the traditional media that if someone is against the war they are 'more left'. ie) Hillary is 'right' of Obama on the war. WHAT? Who is writing this crap. Do people forget that republicans opposed Roosevelt early in 1940? Do people forget that to a man republicans voted against the Clinton action in Kosovo? Were all those republicans 'left' of Clinton back then? I think not.
Neither is Hagel a 'lefty'. On every major conservative issue, regardless of how you want to slice it, he is solid. Yet, he is against the war. Why? because he has served in the military and knows first hand the cost of war. Something every notable civilian in this administration is unable to claim.
Will he garner support? Who knows. With the present republican field ducking the war question (Giuliani - comparing it to WWII or the Civil War on Larry King? Please.) or suffering because of it (McCain), there is a significant swing voter republican constituency that is looking for someone to tell them the truth (and have a chance of winning). With the present field either looking like born again conservatives (Romney and McCain), or trying to wink at them through the 'conservative judges' looking glass, there is room for a true patriot here. Chuck Hagel is a true patriot, and if he runs, he will shake things up. He will give the base a reason to turn out, and will give the anti-war anti-liberal voters something to cheer for. People need to remember that
60% +of voters are against this war. Not all of them are tie-dyed hippies. Some of them are just smart and want to use American power judiciously.
What is needed now is a third way, and I'm not the first to observe this. Perhaps this means a new party, or just a new type of candidate. Signs of this winning way can be seen in California. The most popular republican in the country is green, socially moderate, and fiscally conservative.
Can Chuck Hagel win? Ultimately, I think not. The majority of the country is not as conservative as he is. Can he shake up the race and make people re-examine why they identify with one party over the other? Yes. The majority of this country wants an end (with reasonable preparation) to this war and wants someone who has above all honesty and integrity.
He may announce his candidacy tomorrow. I hope he does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)