I appreciate Senator John McCain’s frankness. Especially in contrast to the political styles of Senator Hillary Clinton and President George W. Bush.
Glenn Greenwald always seems to be at his best when attacking liberals and Democrats. I don’t mean that as a slight. He points out obvious truths and fundamental flaws. So he did yesterday, describing Terry McAuliffe, a top Clinton aide, discussing Senator John McCain and “toughness” on MSNBC thus:
If the Democrats want a blueprint for a sure losing strategy, they need look no further than McAuliffe’s answer…McAuliffe never once dared to criticize McCain on national security – not one word of criticism. Instead, he ignored the issue, immediately switched the topic to the economy, accepted the premise that McCain was “tough” and formidable on foreign policy, and then argued that Hillary was just as “tough” and would not, therefore, be vulnerable to attack. In other words: Hillary and McCain are the same on national security – equally “tough” – therefore that can be ignored and the focus should be on domestic issues.
That is the same failed strategy that Democrats have been pursuing with complete futility for the last eight years.
Categories
The Reactive Executive
Philip Roth, the prominent novelist summed up one of the main arguments against the importance of Ms. Clinton’s nuanced plans and in favor of Mr. Obama’s style of letting voters understand how he thinks:
They’ll respond to particular situations as they arise.
Mr. Roth dismisses the talk as “pure semantics”, and favors Mr. Obama because he wants a black president. But his summary of what each candidate will do in office is essentially correct. We cannot know what any candidate will do – even if a candidate puts forth a 12-point plan outlining exactly what they want – because in the end, Presidents are mainly driven by “particular situations as they arise.”
History demonstrates this clearly.
Categories
Songerize
Came across reddit: this easy-to-use “play any song you want” music player. Just type in the name and artist, and the song plays.
They don’t have everything – but they have a lot. Going for more obscure tracks, I found they had about half of the ones I looked for – including modern-day jazz and classical performances, country, and alt-rock. For more mainstream titles, I tried fewer, but every one came up.
This isn’t the best music player – you can’t create playlists for example. But when you want to play a song for someone – it’s right there. When you need to listen to a particular song for some reason – again it’s there.
[digg-reddit-me]To Tara from the train tonight:
You said something that I often hear – that Ms. Clinton knows how she is going to change things, while Mr. Obama is light on the details. Yet each candidate has laid out detailed and similar plans. They each have taken advantage of the growing liberal think tanks and combined the best of the various approaches. Neither candidate can take credit for these ideas – as they are the product of a liberal consensus, and specifically, the consensus of many in think tanks and similar institutions in Washington, D.C.
There are minor differences in the goals each candidate is proposing – but I’ll leave those for another day – because what you said, and what I have heard many other people say, is not that Mr. Obama has different goals than Ms. Clinton, but that he has not thought out how to accomplish his goals.
This simply isn’t the case. You can compare the level of detail in the plans on and Mr. Obama’s and Ms. Clinton’s website.
But Mr. Obama clearly talks less about policy specifics than Ms. Clinton. The Senator from New York often will list a few dozen policies and rattle off some specific ways her plans will function. It’s an impressive show. But the show is also deceptive and ineffective.
Although Ms. Clinton explains how her plans will work, she does not explain how she will put them in place. She cannot – because if she begins to, it ruins the illusion that is a great part of her appeal. Ms. Clinton may have all the details planned out now, but her carefully wrought and nuanced proposals will not survive the legislative process. When the time comes to make these policy plans into laws and programs, legislators, business interests, bureaucrats, and anyone else remotely affected by the policy will get their say – and the details will quickly change. A major reason why her health care initiative during her husband’s administration failed was that she failed to change the details – and threatened to “demonize” anyone who got in her way, including the friendly liberal Senator from New Jersey, Bill Bradley.
Given Ms. Clinton’s history, she realizes that detailed policy plans don’t survive attempts to enact them. Yet she still insists on presenting them as if they were what she would do, rather than what she would attempt to do. There’s nothing wrong with this – but it is deceptive. I don’t blame Ms. Clinton for this. This is standard politics – and it is also a major reason why so many Americans are fed up with politics, and those candidates who “say they will do one thing” but don’t. Part of the problem is that candidates promise things that they do not control – and enacting Ms. Clinton’s policy proposals will not be entirely up to the President.
Which brings us to Mr. Obama. He also has detailed policy proposals – but he does not present them as one of the basic pillars of his campaign. Rather he focuses on creating a movement, an active citizenry, that will demand change; on changing the processes by introducing elements such as transparency and direct accountability. Mr. Obama explains his approach and his thought process – two elements Ms. Clinton guards as a tactical secrets – because he acknowledges that he cannot promise specific items.
Not only is Mr. Obama’s approach more honest – it is also more effective. Think of the last presidential candidates who spouted policies versus those who campaigned on broad themes. Senator Kerry campaigned on policy; President Bush on themes. Vice President Gore campaigned on policy; Governor Bush campaigned on themes. President Clinton campaigned on some amalgamation of policy and theme – in a way I have only seen Mr. Clinton fuse them – and Senator Dole campaigned … you know, I don’t know what Mr. Dole’s campaign was about. But going back further over the past half-century – most winning presidential candidates have focused less on policy, and more on character, themes, and narratives.
Drew Westen wrote a book about the matter last year – explaining why Democrats were losing. His diagnosis of the problem was simple: Democrats focused on policies; Republicans focused on character and narrative. Republicans did this because it was effective. Now, we have Mr. Obama who can compete – indeed, dominate – the Republicans in rhetoric, in character, in creating election narratives, in weaving political themes into his moving speeches.
President Ronald Reagan was able to create a major realignment of the electorate in a conservative direction because, infused with a proud conservatism, he was able to explain to the American people why they needed Republican values. He told the story of America and his punch line was: that is why you need someone who believes what I do in the White House. So, in 1981, it was Morning in America.
Mr. Obama is the only candidate today who could create a similar shift – who could reinterpret the American story and reshape the electorate to create a lasting liberal majority.
[digg-reddit-me]On February 12th, the birthday of a prominent Illinois lawyer/politician, blueinks over at Daily Kos suggests a Barack Obama “Money Bomb”. Previously, Congressman Ron Paul has benefited from two “money bombs” – or independently organized online fund raising days.
I propose that on February 12th (Lincoln’s Birthday) we have a money bomb extravaganza of small donations of $5.01 for Senator Obama. The reasons for this amount are easy to see:
- Small donations are powering Obama’s campaign
- Lincoln is on the $5 bill and the penny
- .01 is also for us online progressives making a statement to the campaign that we are here and we’ve got money. That we aren’t the huge bundlers for campaigns. We sacrifice parts of paychecks that mean more proportionally to those of us with smaller incomes. We buy into Barack Obama because we do dream of a more hopeful future instead of cynicsm. I would much rather be called a Hopemonger than a Warmonger. So if you believe in the hope that small donors are powering the Obama campaign, please join me in showing that when Americans united with Hope can wield large influence with small donations!
Categories
Real change is still hard.
[digg-reddit-me]At this point, more than half of the Democratic electorate has voted for a candidate. And the voters are almost evenly split between the two frontrunners. It is an election that has captivated the country. Yet still there is deadlock. Real change is hard. And it can only be won with perseverance.
Our children will read about this election in their history books; and a dozen years from now, we will read about the battle between Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton for the heart and soul of the Democratic party. Both candidates have emerged as savvy competitors; given Ms. Clinton’s reputation as a ruthless competitor, her resilience is to be expected. But Mr. Obama has proven in the past few weeks that he can take a punch, and he can throw one, and that he can hold his own against two of the toughest political brawlers in America. It is time to put to rest the fiction that Mr. Obama is too pure for politics, or too pure to win. He is a politician – and a good one. He has proven his ability to fight in the trenches of a political campaign – and the fact that he still maintains some semblance of ethics should not be held against him.
It is always difficult to see the broader patterns emerge watching cable news and following the latest headlines. We are too caught up in the present; and the future is veiled. But from my all-too-caught-up-in-the-present position it is clear that Barack Obama’s vision, campaign, and candidacy is the only one directed to our particular historical moment.
With neither Mr. Obama nor Ms. Clinton able to declare victory tonight, the campaign will continue.
But there is one thing I take from today – something that cannot be taken away. This morning I woke up early, to vote on my way to work. I signed my name on the roster, went into the booth; I flipped the toggles for Mr. Obama and his delegates, and pulling back the curtain, registered my vote. As I left the polling station and walked out into the brisk morning, I suddenly felt an irrationally strong surge of exhilaration. I felt like I had pulled some successful bank heist, as if I had just gotten away with something I shouldn’t have been able to do, as if I had somehow gamed the system.
Yesterday, for the first time in my life, I had gone into a voting booth and voted for a candidate, rather than against the rest of the politicians on the ballot. It was an odd feeling, an exhilarating experience – and one I hope to repeat in November.
Categories
The Case for Barack Obama
Photo by Joe Crimmings.
[digg-reddit-me]A few weeks ago, I wrote a post listing the reasons Senator Hillary Clinton should bow out of the race for the presidency for the good of liberalism, the Democratic party, and the nation. Predictably, she did not do so. But the list also happens to double as a catalog of some of the top reasons not to vote for her. (Here is a more subtle argument against her candidacy and in favor of Mr. Obama’s.)
But now, today, the day before the crucial February 5th primaries, I make the positive case for why you should vote for Senator Barack Obama tomorrow – if you happen to be lucky enough to be in one of the Super Tuesday states.
At the moment, Barack has the momentum: the money; the rising polls; and a string of major endorsements (from MoveOn.org to Ted Kennedy to Maria Shriver to Susan Eisenhower to La Opinion.) It will still be difficult to overcome the substantial lead Ms. Clinton has – based on her name recognition, her long history in the public eye, and the generally competent campaign she has run. Some have taken to describing this coming Super Tuesday as a battle between an immovable object and an unstoppable force – with Ms. Clinton’s base – some 15% of the general electorate and 30 – 40% of the Democratic primary electorate – as the immovable object and coalition of the growing youth vote, the independents, the crossover voters, the black voters, and a majority voters under the age of 45 as the unstoppable force. I can’t say who is going to win tomorrow – and some sort of tie seems most likely. This, however, is my attempt to influence the decision, to fire up those already backing Barack, and help, in whatever way I can, the next President of the United States of America:
The case for Barack Obama in 12 parts (with a bonus).
- His Focus on Changing the Process.
Mr. Obama is running a “process-oriented” campaign. ((When Ms. Clinton’s candidacy seemed inevitable in early November 2007 to the beginning of December of that year, many pundits concluded that Mr. Obama’s campaign had failed to catch fire because it was focused on process rather than on tangible goals directed at specific interest groups. In the time between then and now, Barack did not change his message. His campaign for the presidency remains focused on how to improve the political and governmental processes.)) Because Mr. Obama sees that the problems America faces today are not merely the result of a poor presidency, but a broken system, he is focused on improving governmental and political processes.To take one example: our nation was constituted with the understanding that when a chief executive made a bad decision, he would be checked by the other branches of government. In the case of Iraq, President George W. Bush made a bad decision – and through the power of the presidency, he was able to overcome all objections and force his way. ((By abusing the intelligence services; by making Iraq a political issue; and most of all, by using his position as president to exert pressure.)) The fact that the president is so powerful – especially that Mr. Bush was able to consolidate so much power – is a systematic issue. To fix it, we need more than a President with different goals than the current one; we need a President who will change the process and restore balance to our federal government. Ms. Clinton has made clear that she wants to protect the imbalance of power in Washington because it will aide her in getting things done. Mr. Obama has campaigned on the theme of the restoration of balance. (See Reasons #4, #5, and #7 for specific measures Mr. Obama has stressed.) - His Judgment.
It is not enough for the American people to have a choice in this coming election between a woman who supported the biggest strategic blunder of the past half century and a man who supported the biggest blunder of the past half century. We need a president who can see the dangers before we entangle ourselves in them. ((See also Ms. Clinton’s and Mr. Obama’s contrasting opinions on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that gave Mr. Bush significant authority and cover in the event of a war with Iran.)) No other candidate stood against the war when it was unpopular to do so. Displaying sound judgment, Mr. Obama said at the time: “I am not opposed to all wars. I am opposed to dumb wars.” After analyzing the leadership qualities of dozens of top executives over the past few decades, two business professors came to this conclusion: “With good judgment, little else matters. Without it, nothing else matters…” The past seven years have demonstrated this point – that experience (Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the many who went along with them) is no substitute for good judgment. Throughout his career – and most dramatically with regards to the Iraq war – Mr. Obama has demonstrated sound judgment. - His Focus on the Importance of Transparency.
Mr. Obama believes that light is the best disinfectant. One of the pillars of his agenda is to increase transparency in government. As a state senator in Illinois, he responded to complaints about coerced confessions in death penalty cases by pushing through (with support from the police, Republicans, and Democrats) a law requiring all interrogations in death penalty cases be video-taped. As a U.S. Senator, he was one of the key proponents of the Federal Funding Transparency and Accountability Act that created an open online database of federal spending. When asked by Ms. Clinton about how he would pressure health insurance companies to go along with his health care reforms, he explained that he would open up the deliberations to all Americans with live video – and that these companies would have to explain their position in public. (He did not mention that when Ms. Clinton attempted to put together a health care plan, she did so in secret, creating precedents that Vice President Cheney later relied upon.) - His Support for Technology Issues.
Mr. Obama is the only candidate in the race who has focused on technology issues. Barack not only supports net neutrality, but he has tried to educate the public about it:
He has also spoken about the need to safeguard individual privacy on the internet; to encourage local control of media outlets; to stand against the consolidation of television, print, news, and web outlets in the hands of a half dozen powerful individuals and corporations; to promote innovation and creativity; and to oppose Congress and other governmental bodies if they try to pass laws or create regulations that consolidate the power of dominant companies. - His Pragmatism.
“I’m a Democrat. I’m considered a progressive Democrat. But if a Republican or a Conservative or a libertarian or a free-marketer has a better idea, I am happy to steal ideas from anybody and in that sense I’m agnostic.” An example of the value of his “agnosticism” can be found in his health care plan. - His Emphasis on a Respectful Political Dialogue.
- His Engagement of the Disengaged.
Mr. Obama was a community organizer – and his campaign reflects that. Ms. Clinton has made clear that she believes change is directed from the top – as Lyndon Johnson believed. Mr. Obama believes that lasting changes come from popular movements; that the forces of change are not directed by presidents, but are unleashed by movements. This is part of the reason his campaign was the only one to organize in every state (while Ms. Clinton only organized heavily in the first four states which conventional wisdom deemed likely to coronate a winner.) Despite a commendable level of activism and community service, my generation is disengaged from power. My (our) generation is overwhelmingly behind Barack Obama because we are tired of a politics based on tears and smears, on the Bushes and the Clintons, on money and more money which is unable to produce meaningful or lasting change; because he calls on the better angels of our nature, calls on us to view politics as more than a transaction of money and votes for items on a self-interested agenda, more than targeting demographic groups with micropolicies to patch together a slim majority unable to accomplish anything of value. ((In 1960, President John F. Kennedy’s victory helped jump start the grassroots movements of the 1960s because with his election (and with the growing success of the Civil Rights Movement), young Americans became engaged with power – even if they were disappointed with the Democratic record over this time, Kennedy’s victory gave them a taste of progress.)) For many of us inspired by Mr. Obama, politics is about making a better world – a little at a time – and taking a stand because it is the right thing to do, rather than merely the politic thing to do. Mr. Obama speaks to the world as it is today – not as it was when Ms. Clinton came to power – and because he grew up in a different world, he is not afraid to say what be believes. This election cycle many of the disaffected in our polity believe they can make a difference – and that is the core of Mr. Obama’s message and the energy behind his campaign. - Winning the Larger Half of the Country.
As Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson, and Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius have endorsed Mr. Obama it has become part of the common wisdom that most red-state Democrats believe Barack will be better for down-ticket candidates than Ms. Clinton. More important perhaps, is that given Ms. Clinton’s divisive figure, and given her deliberate campaign strategy, the best she can hope for is a 50+1% victory. Over 40% of the country has stated they will not vote for her under any circumstances. Barack Obama, because of his considerable political skills, his message of hope and unity, and because of his relatively recent entrance onto the political stage, has a chance to win with a landscape-altering majority – a working coalition. For progressives who share many of Mr. Obama’s values, this should override any minor policy disagreements. For Americans of every political stripe who believe there are serious issues we must face as a nation that have been avoided – this is our chance to tackle them. - His Visionary Minimalism. (Or his conservative temperament.) ((Not as opposed to a liberal temperament, but as opposed to a radical temperament.))
- His Use of Morality & Narrative.
Mr. Obama does not speak of the policies he believes in as a list of Christmas presents. Drew Westen, in explaining and criticizing the failures of the Democratic party in the past few decades, explains that while Democratic candidates have campaigned on lists of promises and policies, winning candidates tend to “speak at the level of principled stands. They provide emotionally compelling examples of the ways they would govern, signature issues that illustrate their principles and foster identification.” When Mr. Obama talks about urban issues and health care, he makes both a policy argument and a moral one: “I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper,” invoking a moral imperative rooted in language that speaks to many Americans. When he talks about civil liberties, Mr. Obama refers to “the Arab American family next door”. He does not speak of community in a theoretical sense – he illustrates it. (See the speech excerpted below for examples of what I mean, and the rest of his speeches linked to below for more examples.) ((Ms. Clinton likes to make the point that while Mr. Obama campaigns in poetry, governing is about prose – and she’s largely right. (She took that quote from former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, who used to – and still does – give speeches that move people like few others.) But the point she misses is the reason why campaigns are about poetry: a candidate’s 15 point health care proposal may demonstrate something; but in the legislative process, every one of those points will be changed. Mr. Obama has chosen to base a large part of his campaign on the manner in which he will approach his goals – and, miraculously, he has made this interesting, and even inspiring. Most important: what Mr. Obama is promising is actually within his control; what Ms. Clinton is promising is largely outside of hers.)) Not only is Mr. Obama’s approach more effective in garnering support for the programs he supports, but it is more honest than campaigning on detailed 12 point plans. - This is his moment.
If you believe that America’s current crisis is not a deep one, if you think that pragmatism alone will be enough to navigate a world on the verge of even more religious warfare, if you believe that today’s ideological polarization is not dangerous, and that what appears dark today is an illusion fostered by the lingering trauma of the Bush presidency, then the argument for Obama is not that strong…
But if you sense, as I do, that greater danger lies ahead, and that our divisions and recent history have combined to make the American polity and constitutional order increasingly vulnerable, then the calculus of risk changes. Sometimes, when the world is changing rapidly, the greater risk is caution. Close-up in this election campaign, Obama is unlikely. From a distance, he is necessary. At a time when America’s estrangement from the world risks tipping into dangerous imbalance, when a country at war with lethal enemies is also increasingly at war with itself, when humankind’s spiritual yearnings veer between an excess of certainty and an inability to believe anything at all, and when sectarian and racial divides seem as intractable as ever, a man who is a bridge between these worlds may be indispensable.
Bonus reason: He inspires me, and many others as well, to believe in America again – to believe in the promise of a great nation fallen, to give of our time and our energy to make a better tomorrow; Barack Obama inspires me:
(N.B. The speech is still moving, even if you don’t play Hans Zimmer’s Gladiator soundtrack behind it. But Hans Zimmer gives it an extra kick.)
In trying to understand Mr. Obama’s thought, it is also worth checking out his Call to Renewal keynote address, his video internet sensation the Ebenezer Sermon, his complete speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention that launched him into the public spotlight, his prescient speech against the war in Iraq, his Iowa caucus victory speech beginning with the weighty: “They said this day would never come,” his South Carolina victory speech that best captured his response to Clintonism, and finally, the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner speech that catapulted Obama to the forefront of the Iowa polls and gave him, in the words of the influential Iowa columnist, “The Big Mo’ “. All of these speeches were excellent – far above the level of any other politician today. More important, they speak to the moment we are in as a country in a way that no other politician tries to. At the same time, they give insight into how Obama’s politics works – and what drives him. (It’s also worth noting that Mr. Obama’s head campaign speechwriter is an acquaintance of mine from college, Jon Favreau.)
Concluding thoughts
Tomorrow, liberals and Democrats get to decide who can best fight for a progressive agenda in Washington; independents and Republicans (in some states) get to choose which man or woman they want to lead our nation in troubled times; the younger generation can demonstrate in emphatic fashion that they are not a political force to be ignored – that we are taking responsibility for our politics and our country. We realize that America is in a state of moral, political, legal, and economic decline, and that our choice is between Ms. Clinton who will competently manage our country’s decline and Mr. Obama who has a chance to restore and renew our civic life.
So when you stand in the voting booth tomorrow – alone, with only your judgment as a guide – think about who can lead our country, who can call forth the better angels of our nature, who will be prudent in his use of the powers of the presidency. Dare to hope:
But in the unlikely story that is America , there has never been anything false about hope. For when we have faced down impossible odds; when we’ve been told that we’re not ready, or that we shouldn’t try, or that we can’t, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people.
Yes. We. Can.
Categories
Fair-minded words
[digg-reddit-me]Barack Obama has told the story of how a Chicago doctor wrote him a letter respectfully criticizing his website for speaking of abortion in charged language after he won the Illinois Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate seat. Barack concludes this story:
Re-reading the doctor’s letter, though, I felt a pang of shame. It is people like him who are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion in this country. They may not change their positions, but they are willing to listen and learn from those who are willing to speak in fair-minded words. Those who know of the central and awesome place that God holds in the lives of so many, and who refuse to treat faith as simply another political issue with which to score points.
So I wrote back to the doctor, and I thanked him for his advice. The next day, I circulated the email to my staff and changed the language on my website to state in clear but simple terms my pro-choice position. And that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own – a prayer that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.
In a similar manner, the day before the New Hampshire primary, a group of pro-life protesters interrupted an Obama rally. They refused to stop chanting to allow Mr. Obama to speak, and after a few minutes, they were removed by security. The largely Democratic crowd was clearly on Barack’s side in this – booing the protesters, drowning their chants out. But after they left, Mr. Obama gently scolded the crowd:
Let me just say this though. Some people got organized to do that. That’s part of the American tradition we are proud of. And thats hard too, standing in the midst of people who disagree with you and letting your voice be heard.
Compare this with Ms. Clinton’s mocking of the protesters at her debates or President Bush’s removal of anyone wearing a pin for the opposing party.
Wish I had been there for this: