Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics

“No Panicking in Obama-Land”

According to Noam Scheiber of TNR, the Obama campaign is pretty confident about their current position. Three weeks ago, the national finance board of the campaign met and was divided into two camps:

In one camp were the people relatively new to the world of high-powered fundraising, who seemed rattled by Obama’s standing in the national polls and the media narrative about Obama stalling out. In the other camp were veterans of previous campaigns, many of them former Kerry fundraisers, who felt comfortable–even encouraged–by Obama’s Iowa numbers and shared an overall sense that the campaign was on track.

In the end, Scheiber says, the newbies were comforted by Barack’s appearance and talk with them.

Categories
Election 2008 Politics

Graphics of Election 2008 Polls

A nice feature on Slate that I just came across. I did not realize how precipitous John Edwards’s decline in Iowa was until I saw it on this graph. Kudos to Mark Blumenthal and Charles Franklin on the feature.

Categories
Election 2008 Politics

The Beginning of the End of Hillary 2008

Maybe Senator Obama had a bit more reason to be satisfied after last night’s debate than I thought. The focus of all the coverage I have seen has been on Clinton’s dissembling and the relentless attacks on her. As the Politico says: “When Hillary has a bad night, she has a really bad night.” Drudge is reporting that Hillary is blaming Tim Russert for being too tough on her:

CLINTON INNER-CIRCLE BLAME ‘UNFAIR’ MODERATOR TIM RUSSERT. ‘HE BORDERED ON THE UNPROFESSIONAL,’ TOP HILLARY ADVISER CHARGES. ‘HE BROKE DEBATE RULES AND WAS BELLIGERENT’…

Last night actually made me respect Russert all the more because he took no bullshit from Hillary. She kept trying to avoid answering his questions, keeping her position “fuzzy”, and he tried to get her to give a clear answer. He also seemed to have prepared statements Hillary had made refuting every point she was kind of making. With as long a career in the public eye as Hillary has had, I think she could have brushed off these challenges by taking a solid stand last night. Instead she made it worse, reminding us that her husband was the first president to question what the meaning of is is.

Clinton still has a formidable campaign, but I believe the weakness she demonstrated last night spells the beginning of the end. She’s not going to win the news cycle by blaming her lack of candor on Tim Russert. And she will not get sympathy for being attacked because she has cultivated a reputation for being ruthless in attacking her opponents. Most of all, with primary voters and caucus goers deciding which candidate is best suited to beat the Republican nominee come next November, this night will loom large. Given all her experience in the public eye, given her practical incumbency, one would expect her to be able to give the appearance of being straight-forward, of directly answering questions instead of getting annoyed when anyone points out she is merely mouthing platitudes.

Regarding my hand-picked candidate: Obama didn’t do enough. He did not make his case. I am not sure if this was intentional or not. Obviously Edwards came off very strong. He was aggressive and forceful. He demonstrated an instinct for zoning in on the kill. Here, his trial experience must have been very helpful.

But few people saw Edwards’s strong performance last night; and although the headlines and stories all mention Edwards’s good performance, they include it as a footnote to the main story: Hillary had a really bad night.

If Obama had performed at the top of his game, I am not sure it would have stood out amidst the carnage. Perhaps – and this is wishful thinking on my part – he did not want to be known for taking out Hillary. Rather, he wanted to make his case when he could be positive. The question everyone was asking before the latest national polls showing Hillary with a 20% lead was how Obama could get Edwards to do the dirty work of taking out Clinton for him. If that was the goal, Obama succeeded last night. Given Edwards’s lack of a national campaign structure and relative weakness in the money race, Obama still stands most to benefit from Clinton’s stumblings. What he needs to do now is to present a compelling positive vision of his view for America. Now.

Categories
Domestic issues Election 2008 Politics

David Brooks gets it right for once…

I have been increasingly critical of David Brooks’ past columns. Like the rest of The New York Times‘ columnists, he seems to focus more on making sound bites into columns – I’m looking at you especially Maureen Dowd. His conservatism has also seemed woefully unmoored – ready to accept any comers. I do not see in him an especially astute political strategist, technician, or wordsmith. His ideology seems a mish-mash that seems to center on trying to figure out what Teddy Roosevelt would do. There are worse role models, but I feel Teddy’s great wisdom as channeled through sound bites may not be enough.

However, as a social and political observer, David Brooks is astute. Today’s column, thankfully, illustrated this. Awkwardly titling his column “The Happiness Gap”, Brooks’s essential point of view is that Americans don’t want big changes. Rather, they want to ensure that America does not change too much from where we are now. And on this, I think he gets it about right.

In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt could launch the New Deal because voters wanted to change the country and their own lives. But today, people want the government to change so their own lives can stay the same. Voters don’t want to be transformed; they want to be defended.

“Voters don’t want to be transformed; they want to be defended.” I think they still want a leader who can guide them to some greater purpose, and to transform America’s position in the world. But domestically, my feeling is that Americans just want things to stay as they are, with some improvements on the health care front.

Categories
Election 2008 Humor Politics

A First Lady I’d Like To ….

Categories
Election 2008 Foreign Policy Obama Politics

Live-blogging the MSNBC Debate…

First reaction, seeing Hillary respond: She is way too over-confident. She’s going to lose. Someone on that stage is going to beat her. What is that maniacal smile as she listened to Tim Russert describe her vote on the Kyl-Lieberman bill.

As I’ve told people: I think this is the first make-or-break moment in the campaign. If Obama doesn’t “beat” the expectations of the press or impress a large number of Iowans and New Hamphirites, he’ll have missed his biggest opportunity so far and demonstrated a lack of ability to go for the jugular. And without that ability, he will never be able to beat Hillary or most of the top Republican nominees.

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics

As the race tightens…

The University of Iowa’s newest poll shows John Edwards and Bill Richardson slipping in the polls and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the top two places in a dead heat.

Categories
Election 2008 Morality Obama Politics

The Evangelical Crackup

The New York Times had a piece this Sunday describing the supposed crackup of the evangelical movement as a single-party political force.  The article cites two factors.  First, according to Rev. Gene Carlson, a prominent conservative Christian pastor of the Westlink Christian Church, evangelical Christians are beginning to realize:

“When you mix politics and religion, you get politics.”

Mike Huckabee, perhaps the only evangelical still in the race went further:

“In biblical terms, it is like the salt losing its flavor; it’s sand,” Huckabee said. “Some of them have spent too long in Washington. . . . I think they are going to have a hard time going out into the pews and saying tax policy is what Jesus is about, that he said, ‘Come unto me all you who are overtaxed and I will give you rest.’ ”

The second factor is that many evangelicals are focusing more on traditionally Democratic issues such as the environment and health care.  Paul Hill, an associate pastor and a member of what is termed an “emergent” church explains:

“There are going to be a lot of evangelicals willing to vote for a Democrat because there are 40 million people without health insurance and a Democrat is going to do something about that.”

I find the “emerging” church phenomenon fascinating, although the article barely touches on it.

Obama

According to the article, the primary mainstream candidate that evangelicals, especially younger evangelicals, seem to have an interest in is Barack Obama.  And, if the 2008 race were between Giuliani and Obama:

“You would have a bunch of people who traditionally vote Republican going over to Obama,” said the Rev. Donald Wildmon, founder of the Christian conservative American Family Association

David Kirkpatrick, the author of the piece, gives this anecdote about a potential Obama supporter:

Patrick Bergquist, a former associate pastor at a local evangelical church who as a child attended Immanuel Baptist, became a regular. “From a theological standpoint, I am an evangelical,” Bergquist, who is 28, explained to me. “But I don’t mean that anyone who is gay is necessarily going to hell, or that anyone who has an abortion is going to hell.” After a life of voting Republican, he said, he recently made a small contribution to the Democratic presidential campaign of Barack Obama.

The article ends though on this negative note:

In the Wichita churches this summer, Obama was the Democrat who drew the most interest. Several mentioned that he had spoken at Warren’s Saddleback church and said they were intrigued. But just as many people ruled out Obama because they suspected that he was not Christian at all but in fact a crypto-Muslim — a rumor that spread around the Internet earlier this year. “There is just that ill feeling, and part of it is his faith,” Welsh said. “Is his faith anti-Christian? Is he a Muslim? And what about the school where he was raised?”

“Obama sounds too much like Osama,” said Kayla Nickel of Westlink. “When he says his name, I am like, ‘I am not voting for a Muslim!’ ”

Categories
Election 2008 Giuliani Politics

A thoughtful hit piece

The New Republic‘s John B. Judis published a thoughtful hit piece on Giuliani today, examining the role Giuliani’s Catholic upbringing and particular family background have had on this thought. Judis carefully identifies Giuliani’s Catholicism as a more traditional strain formed pre-Vatican II. (I initially was a bit wary to see The New Republic taking on Giuliani’s Catholicism, but Judis handled it well.) He puts into context Giuliani’s quote from a 1994 press conference about freedom and authority that has been making the rounds on the internet :

“Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.” Asked in the question period to explain what he meant, Giuliani said, “Authority protects freedom. Freedom can become anarchy.”

Judis explains the context in a sympathetic but critical way:

…individuals have to be encouraged to use their liberty well; and that is where authority comes into play. Authority, embodied by law and the state, encourages–at times, forces–free individuals to contribute to the common good. Or, to put it in Aristotelian terms:Authority–by creating a just order–encourages liberty over license.

Judis overall judges Giuliani’s first term as mayor as a success but excoriates him for overreaching in his second term:

Giuliani’s seemingly insatiable appetite for authority was evident, first and foremost, in the way he ran his administration. Obsessed, as always, with loyalty, he demanded that power be centralized in his hands and that he receive credit for any of the administration’s achievements. Even the Department of Environmental Protection’s daily reports on the water level in the reservoir had to be cleared through Giuliani’s press office before being released.

And then of course, there was Rudy trying mightily to hang onto power after 9/11, pushing for an extension of his term and a repeal of the term limits. It seems to me that most everyone who is paying attention has dismissed Giuliani. The exceptions are those who believe the price of safety is eternal vigilance, and that freedom is just another word for government omnipresence.

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics

“Throwing a few elbows…”

CNN has an article by a political analyst describing what Obama needs to do in order to gain ground on Clinton.  He needs to “get tough” and “show some fight.”  Or as Obama has described it, to “throw a few elbows”.  Obama’s political team certainly is ready to fight and fight back; and Obama himself has said he knows he needs to, and that he’s willing to.  I do not quite buy the premise that many in the media seem to have that Obama has not wanted to “get tough”. I still maintain my position that this is part of the Obama campaign’s strategy to wait, and then begin, late in October or early November to make his move.  This seems to be precisely what he is doing, hitting Clinton harder on Iraq and Iran, calling her out by name, and by suggestion.  The press will need a story to write about in the next two months until the election.  The “coronation” story will get boring, and with a quick succession of primaries and most voters still undecided, momentum could be everything.  Only a ruthless political machine and a lot of money could stop the momentum an Obama win in Iowa would generate.  And of course, this is precisely what Hillary brings to the table.  If Obama wins Iowa, and currently, he is not leading, the question will come down to this: can Obama’s campaign fight dirty enough to take out Hillary’s machine and sink her candidacy.

A harsher critique of Clinton, highlighting her current hawkishness and her Bush-like views on executive privilege, continuing to harp on her divisiveness; a Gore endorsement; one or two more Clinton mistakes; a few strong sound bites that get play; and a bit of luck.  With these on his side, Obama takes Iowa and sets up the real contest: where Hillary and Obama slug it out and all sorts of stories about Obama are leaked to Drudge, The New York Post and Fox News.  How Obama would respond to this hypothetical onslaught – that undoubtedly would become real in the event he wins Iowa or New Hampshire – will determine if he becomes president.  I believe this will be the real test.  If Obama’s “politics of hope” can survive and not be tarnished by “throwing a few elbows”, and if he is able to thwart Clinton in this, he will have proven he has the stuff to win the general election.

He will have proven that he is a candidate the Democrats can accept, as the piece in CNN said:

Democrats are tired of being bullied. They want a candidate who will punch bullies in the nose.