xkcd with one of it’s New Yorker-like cartoons. But funny. And math-y.
Categories
Month: April 2008
Categories
Middle East Mayhem
Just a typical week in the Middle East these days as the vice president of the United States tries to derail peace talks with North Korea by releasing secret documents involving the Syria-Israel skirmishes of last fall and a ship associated with the American military in the Persian Gulf fires warning shots off the bows of two Iranian ships. “Simmering tension” one of the section headings declares (as oil prices shoot up $3).
No kidding.
An astute reader of Andrew Sullivan’s blog lays out the essential rationale for Obama’s candidacy and explains the strength of Clinton’s continued candidacy…
From Andy Borowitz of the New Yorker (h/t Joy)…
The Premise:
Al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri will soon answer the hundreds of questions submitted by journalists, militants and others about the terrorist network’s future, its media wing announced Wednesday.
—Associated Press.
Excerpts:
Dear Ayman al-Zawahiri:
Does Al Qaeda ever endorse political candidates? If so, I recommend that you give a big thumbs-up to Barack Obama. I guarantee you he hates America as much as you do (if not more)! It would be great if you appeared in a bunch of TV ads and called him “the evildoing President that evildoers have been waiting for.”
—Bill in Chappaqua
Ayman al-Zawahiri writes:
Al Qaeda is only interested in American elections to the extent that we can plunge them into abject chaos. So this year, as in every other year, we are supporting Ralph Nader.
…
Dear Ayman al-Zawahiri:
I have been trying to get through to WFAN Sports Radio 66 for the past three weeks, but they keep putting me on hold. So let me ask you instead: Do you think the Mets will go all the way?
—Mike in Flushing
Ayman al-Zawahiri writes:
Raining down misery and destruction on the Great Satan leaves me little time for such idle contemplations. That said, if Johan Santana puts up the kind of numbers he did for the Twins, look out.
[digg-reddit-me]A few months ago, I wrote a post called “Before we came here, we thought of ourselves as good people” using the words of Vince Foster to encapsulate the uncommon corruptions of the Clinton years. I was thinking of and looking for the video below when writing, from the conclusion of the film Primary Colors. Both the film and the book were intended to portray barely fictional representations of the Clintons. I believe that movie (slightly more so than the book) captured in a profound way both the appeal and the darker side of the Clintons. (See the trailer here).
The conclusion to the movie is pregnant with meaning given today’s current stand-off between a Clinton and a black man, especially given the arguments made at that time.
There are many issues to tease out of this clip.
Governor Jack Stanton, the clear stand-in for Bill Clinton, is trying to convince an idealistic young black man (of about the same age was Barack Obama in 1992 when the events of the novel happen) to support him as he justifies his use of scandals, smears, dirty politics to win a brutal primary against a candidate who is riding a public groundswell of support from people fed up with politics-as-usual. The governor explains why he needed to use every item in his disposal to take down the opposing candidate, despite their shared values – because the other candidate wouldn’t be able to win in November. The logic used then by candidate Clinton and his stand-in here, Jack Stanton, is the same as the logic used by Ms. Clinton to justify her tactics and continued presence in the race today.
It goes something like this:
1. The only way to win is to win dirty. (“Lincoln had to be a whore in order to call on the ‘better angels of our nature!’ “)
2. The Democrat opposing me won’t be able to win in November. (Because he isn’t willing to play dirty enough and/or because he has some other issues or scandals in his past.)
3. No one else with a chance to win would push the issues and care about the people the Clinton/Stanton candidate would.
4. Therefore, the Clinton/Stanton has a responsibility to save the Democratic party by taking down the candidate(s) opposing them by whatever means they can – because only they can win and push forward the liberal agenda.
Various news agencies have reported that this is exactly the argument that Ms. Clinton and her surrogates have been pushing in private calls to the superdelegates. It’s worth remembering that this is not the first time they have pushed this idea and used it to justify doing whatever they needed to win.
The Clintons seem to truly believe that they alone can win and save America – and that they are justified in doing whatever needs to be done to get them power. This has been their justification to the party for every betrayal, every time they have sold out their values, for every time they have taken out an intra-party opponent.
And if they can continue to make this argument to themselves, it is going to be a long summer.
And so Hillary Clinton wins another one with just enough to justify her staying in the race.
8.6% according to the final results.
Three months ago, I called on Hillary Clinton to withdraw from the race for the good of the Democratic party. In many ways, that argument is stronger today than it was then. The New York Times, who I excoriated at the time for endorsing Clinton, essentially un-endorsed her today. Obama’s lead is greater across the country now than it was at the time each of these states voted. But he lost his moment to ascend to the presidency on hope – Ms. Clinton made sure to sabotage that balloon before it got off the ground.
What Obama has run is a smart campaign – one which yesterday’s loss has done nothing to derail.
But Ms. Clinton has proved again that she is a fighter and that when her back is to the wall, she can avoid losing. Her base of support is strong, if limited. And she will fight another day.
It’s time for Obama to figure out how best to use Ms. Clinton’s presence in the race to his advantage.
Categories
Too Close to Call…
Drudge has it too close to call with the exits showing a 52-48 win for Hillary Clinton.
Others seem less optimistic noting the high turnout of seniors and women. Marc Ambinder quotes an Obama advisor pointing out that based on the current exit polls, Obama improved his performance in all demographic groups over his Ohio loss.
Mark Halperin points out that Obama’s statement from earlier today:
…I don’t try and pretend that I enjoy getting only 45 percent and that’s a moral victory. You’ve lost the state.
A 52-48 showing will significantly strengthen Obama’s strategic position in the Democratic race – and will probably cause a good number of superdelegates to endorse him. Anything better would lead to a stampede.
I’m nervous as the citizens of Pennsylvania vote and the rest of us await the results. The numbers have been pored over by everyone, and have already been pre-spun in a dozen different ways. Kos predicts an 8 point spread, which is well within the range of the polls. His main reason is that such a result would not resolve anything – which would be in keeping with how this race is going. I think that’s the safe bet.
My feeling – my gut feeling, based on nothing in particular, and everything in general – is that the race will be a lot closer. I’m predicting that the race will be within 3 points – with either candidate in the lead in the popular vote, and Obama winning a slightly larger number of delegates.
Worth reading as we await the results:
The excellent endorsement of the Philadelphia Daily News:
It would not be content with eking out slim victories by playing to the narrow interests of the swing voters of the moment while leaving the rest of the country as deeply divided as ever. Instead, an Obama administration would seek to expand the number of Americans who believe that they have a personal stake in our collective future – and that they have the power to change things.
It would motivate them to hold their representatives accountable for making it happen. That is, after all, the only way to get us out of Iraq, to address global warming, to make us energy-independent. It’s the only way to resist the forces arrayed against providing universal health care, rebuilding our infrastructure and returning our schools to world-class status. It’s the only way to give our children the means to compete with children in other parts of the world who are healthier, better-educated and have more opportunities than many of our own.
An Obama administration would be freer of the the corrupting influence of big-money donors and corporate interests. Obama has raised $240 million overall, with half coming in contributions of less than $200. People who contribute to political campaigns can feel they “own” a candidate and so Obama would owe allegiance to the wide swath of America that has financed his campaign.
Based on his experience in running a quarter-billion-dollar enterprise with thousands upon thousands of volunteers, we could expect an Obama administration to be well-managed and cost-effective, with the president choosing forward-thinking advisers committed to his program, demanding that they work as a team and pay attention to details.
He would be steady and calm, given neither to irrational exuberance or outbursts of anger. He would make mistakes, that’s for sure, but he could be expected to recognize them, adjust, and move forward.
He would adjust his views to reality rather than trying to adjust reality to his views…
As New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has said, Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate who has the skill and eloquence to help us raise our eyes and our aspirations beyond individual, personal concerns, beyond religion or region or race or gender, beyond our well-founded fears to a shared destiny.
Most candidates claim that they will change the way business is done in Washington. Barack Obama has made us believe that, yes, he can.
The Financial Times of London explains why the Democrats must choose Obama.
Mr Obama has fought a brilliant campaign, out-organising his opponent, raising more money, and convincing undecided Democrats as well as the country at large that he was more likeable, more straightforward and more worthy of trust.
On form, he is a spell-binding orator and holds arena-sized audiences in thrall. He is given to airy exhortations, it is true, but genuinely seeks consensus and has cross-party appeal.
Mrs Clinton’s campaign, in contrast, has been a shambles…
The US has the urge to be inspired a little. Electing the country’s first woman president ought to be very inspiring. But not this woman – with her dynastic baggage and knack for antagonising the undecided – running against this man.
The Democratic party has waited an awfully long time for a politician like Barack Obama. Enough already.
The National Journal meanwhile writes that Obama’s campaign may well be considered the first of the 21st century:
The change is still incipient, but the unprecedented scale of the Clinton-Obama race suggests that presidential politics may be moving from the television-based network era to an Internet-based networked era in which candidates who can attract and inspire vast networks of supporters will enjoy potentially decisive advantages over those who cannot.
Many observers in both parties think that Obama has seized the advantage over Clinton and moved to the brink of winning their party’s nomination largely because he has aligned his campaign with the bottom-up principles of the networked era, while Clinton initially sought to run a more traditional, top-down campaign. Obama’s success against a rival who began the race with overwhelming advantages by most customary yardsticks—name identification, support from elected officials, and the backing of an established nationwide roster of donors—may go down in history as the tipping point in the way that presidential campaigns are organized and executed.
[digg-me]Not quite. But close.
Addressing the United Nations on Friday, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of reducing income inequality; of increasing international cooperation; of respecting the law; of having solidarity with the poor and weak; of opposing (unnecessary) ((I inserted unnecessary here although Pope Benedict did not. Although the pope spoke in this speech of avoiding war, I presume he speaks of this in the context of the “just war” theory that has been accepted by him and the rest of the Catholic Church in the past.)) war; of “giving attention and encouragement to even the faintest sign of dialogue or desire for reconciliation;” of creating “structures capable of harmonizing the day-to-day unfolding of the lives of people;” of the “protection of the environment…and the climate.” And like Barack Obama, though many conservative Catholics are loathe to admit, the previous pope, Pope John Paul II even specifically opposed the invasion of Iraq.
In the past eight years, the Republican party has come to stand for the right of the president to torture prisoners; for rising inequality and acceptance of corporate fraud; for elevating the executive above the Rule of Law and the other constitutionally co-equal branches of government; for ignoring the climate crisis; for refusing to give aid to the poor and weak because of potential “moral hazards” while bailing out big corporations; for preventive war; for refusing to engage in dialogue with our enemies. Pope Benedict’s speech was a direct challenge to the worldview and policies of the Bush administration and an articulation of basic moral principles and basic responsibilities of the state.
Within these principles articulated by the pope, we can easily find the mainstream Democratic agenda, a rejection of the radical policies of George W. Bush, and more specifically, an endorsement of the school of politics that Barack Obama stands for: talking with our enemies; avoiding unnecessary wars and violence; respecting the Rule of Law; reducing income inequality; promoting access to health care; and protecting the environment.
This is the Democratic agenda.
The Pope explained that it is the responsibility of “every generation [to] engag[e] anew in the arduous search for the right way to order human affairs…motivated by hope.” I would call that a pretty good encapsulation of Obama’s appeal – that he represents a new generation striving to find the best way to manage the world and our nation “motivated by hope”.
Jonah Goldberg may call it fascism; Steve Marlsberg may call such efforts to reduce inequality and allow citizens access to basic needs Communism; Rush Limbaugh may call efforts to focus on the real threat of Al Qaeda in the Pakistani/Afghani border “cut-and-run.” But those who listened to Pope Benedict’s address to the United Nations can see that he stands with those the so-called “conservatives” have labeled fascists, communists, and cowards – and the pope understood that the basic moral values he stood for are the essence of what he called “freedom.”
It’s almost enough to make one feel nostalgic for the Bush administration. Almost.