Categories
Election 2008 Foreign Policy Iraq McCain Obama Politics

Andrew Sullivan nails it.

Andrew Sullivan nails it.  He compares whether Mr. McCain or Mr. Obama would better be able to withdraw troops from Iraq, but then issues this damning and dead-on projection of a Ms. Clinton presidency:

The one thing I do know is that Clinton would be paralyzed. Unable to withdraw swiftly for fear of looking like a “weak” leader, and unable to unite the country behind staying, a president Clinton would mean the status quo in Iraq indefinitely. She is tough when resisting attacks; she has never been tough and effective in forging difficult new policy. On that score, she is merely ideological and brittle and unpersuasive. Like Bush.

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics The Clintons Videos

Edwards: Santa Claus & Easter Bunny More Plausible Than Hillary as the Agent of Change

[digg-reddit-me]The Charlotte Observer headlined ((Or is subheadlined more appropriate?)) an article yesterday:

Bill Clinton: N.C. now crucial
He says wife’s bid to get nomination will hinge on Tar Heel state
Like it did in Texas and Ohio, the Clinton campaign for president has drawn a line in the sand, down the middle of the Tar Heel state.

Donklephant interprets this to mean Mr. Clinton is saying that if his wife doesn’t win North Carolina, she’s out. As Mr. Obama is ahead by high double digits in most polls, this line in the sand is surprising. Donklephant asks:

One can’t help but wonder if Hill and company have a big endorsement announcement up their sleeves if Bill is drawing a line in the sand like this.

A prominent North Carolina Democrat who has not yet endorsed anyone and whose opinion might have significant weight – perhaps enough to throw the state to Ms. Clinton. That narrows it down to this list:

  1. Former Senator John Edwards (D-NC).

With the recent revelations by John Heilmann that caused a stir a few weeks ago that Mr. Obama offended Ms. Edwards by objecting to both Ms. Clinton’s and Mr. Edwards’ health care mandates too strongly while Ms. Clinton charmed both of the Edwardses after Mr. Edwards dropped out. I’ve also heard the rumor that Mr. Edwards demanded the position of attorney general to endorse Mr. Obama; but that Mr. Obama refused to give it to him. Regardless, there is some sort of bad juju between Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama since Mr. Edwards suspended his campaign. It’s enough to overcome the natural alliance that should exist between the two men with similar diagnoses of the nation’s problems, and the alliance that did exist while both tried to catch up to Ms. Clinton.

But for Mr. Edwards to endorse Ms. Clinton would be to go against his rationale for running in the first place, and would elevate his personal feelings over what he knows to be best for the country and for the Democratic party. In his own words:

In the end, I don’t think John Edwards will endorse anyone until after the last primary. He can’t choose Ms. Clinton because of his politics; and he doesn’t want to choose Mr. Obama for mainly personal reasons.

Categories
Humor Politics The Web and Technology

Ed Markey’s Avatar

Absolutely bizarre story from Dana Milbank’s Washington Post:

“Ladies and gentlemen, in approximately 10 seconds, the Ed Markey avatar is going to gavel this hearing,” the flesh-and-blood Chairman Edward Markey (D-Mass.) announced in the panel’s Rayburn hearing room. “There he is. He’s done it.”

Markey looked across the room at a jumbo computer screen showing his cartoonish avatar, named EdMarkey Alter. “My avatar actually looks like he’s been working out,” Markey noted approvingly, adding: “There are also several other avatars who have been invited to watch today’s hearing.”

Indeed there were: a goth character with feathered wings, a pink cat, a phantom with shimmering gray dreadlocks, a winged grasshopper, women in tube and bikini tops, and a naked man floating through the air. They were all “watching” the hearing from cyberspace via the virtual community Second Life — and the lawmakers were agog.

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) admired Markey’s avatar. “He looks like he is a bit younger, and he probably appreciates that, having come off a little basketball injury.”

Categories
Libertarianism Politics

Fighting the Advil menace, one strip search at a time

Reason magazine had an excellent piece yesterday on the “Advil menace” and the extraordinary measures taken to ensure that 8th graders haven’t “adopted drug-smuggling practices associated with international narcotrafficking”.  Both funny and pathetic.  Well worth a read.

Categories
Excerpts from my Journals Iraq Politics The War on Terrorism

A harsh judgment

Excerpts from my Journals
[Dated July 16, 2003.]

If we find W.M.D. in Iraq, but lose Iraq, Mr. Bush will not only go down as a failed president, but one who made the world even more dangerous for Americans. If we find no W.M.D., but build a better Iraq – one that proves that a multiethnic, multireligious Arab state can rule itself in a decent way – Mr. Bush will survive his hyping of the W.M.D. issue, and the world will be a more hospitable and safer place for all Americans.

Thomas Friedman in the New York Times.

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics Videos

The Obama Girl Effect

When I first posted this video, I found a few elements of it cringe-worthy, but overall, I thought it was weirdly effective.

A female friend wrote to me about the video though: “What is wrong with [Obama girl]? Watching that video made me embarrassed to be female.”

Apparently, a lot of women feel that way. I’ve seen quite a few videos rated using this method before – and the female line for this video is the most negative trend I have seen on any of them.

Categories
Election 2008 McCain Obama Politics

Duck-and-cover

I think Abe Greenwald’s post over at the Contentions blog of Commentary magazine is fascinating – especially when coupled with the comments.

Mr. Greenwald is writing about Senator John McCain’s new ad and how damned effective it is. The supremely effective theme of the ad is summarized as follows: “What must a president believe about us? About America?”  Mr. Greenwald concludes:

Thanks to Jeremiah Wright and Michelle Obama. McCain will be able to stay on this point for as long as he wishes.

A commenter readies to parry the inevitable counter to the ad by asking the obvious question: “How long until the media brands this ad as unfairly questioning Obama’s patriotism?”  As Mr. Greenwald points out, if the ad is directed against Mr. Obama – which he believes it is – then this is clearly the point of the ad – to question whether Mr. Obama believes about America what he should.  A few comments below this one, someone called CK McLeod explains what the ad is doing:

Barack can swear up and down the street that he loves this country and all the people in it, but the issue joined here isn’t what he or McCain says he is, but who each really is.

Clearly, the people here believes that the ad is questioning Mr. Obama’s patriotism – and they also seem to be preparing to call “Foul!” when the media – or anyone else – point this out.

But my favorite line in this whole mish-mash is Mr. Greenwald’s conclusion:

With the Obama hysteria having been exposed for what it is (to a degree), it’s hard to imagine what kind of second wave the Illinois senator will be able to marshal against this McCain attack.

Reading that – and most of the comments – I realize that these “conservatives” have no idea what an Obama candidacy would mean.

There are many plausible scenarios in which Mr. McCain might win the election – but if it is “hard to imagine” how Mr. Obama would respond to this ad, Mr. Greenwald and his readers have not been paying attention.  It is precisely on this type of question, in response to this type of attack, that you will find Mr. Obama’s strength.

The problem with most politicians is that the public can sense a certain tension between their public persona and their inner selves.  Ms. Clinton, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Gore all have been skewered on this issue – as their stodgy, careful, parsing outward personality seemed inauthentic.  Mr. Obama seems comfortable with himself, and unashamed of what he believes.  He does not debate from an ideological defensive crouch, but in an open, unapologetic manner.

William Kristol made a similar argument to Mr. Greenwald in his New York Times column several weeks ago – arguing that Mr. Obama, by not apologizing for his wife’s comments (only saying she misspoke), by not apologizing for taking off his American flag pin, and by not being candid about his relationship with Reverend Wright and by choosing instead to explain why he acted as he did – was showing arrogance that was dangerous and would cost him the election.

I think perhaps that Mr. Kristol actually sees precisely what Mr. Greenwald misses – that Mr. Obama’s authenticity is a significant strength.  Mr. Kristol is attempting to undermine this strength by painting it as a tragic flaw.  While most politicians – when confronted over these issues – would try to apologize, minimize, and move on, hoping the public will forget, Mr. Obama has done the opposite because he believes he is in the right and he has seen, and felt as the rest of us have, how this duck-and-cover strategy has failed, allowing especially Democratic candidates to be painted as weak.

Mr. Greenwald – and quite a number of other conservatives – won’t be able to see what’s hit them come September and October.

Categories
Domestic issues Politics The Clintons

Rich dumb kids

Last week at a Council of Foreign Relations event on the “history maker” Lawrence Summers, former Treasury Secretary and former President of Harvard University, the main event, Mr. Summers himself said that:

It is really a tragedy that if you look in the United States today… rich dumb kids are much more likely to go to good universities than poor smart kids.

Mr. Summers appears to have been referring to the work of Peter Schmidt, deputy editor of the Chronicle of Higher Education who wrote the book Color and Money: How Rich White Kids Are Winning the War Over College Affirmative Action.

Mr. Summers identified this as the largest problem in higher education today. Part of the reason must be that he sees this as one of the root causes of the problem The Economist identified prominently in 2004 [subscription required] – that America is less socially mobile than it was a generation ago, and has fallen behind Europe in allowing social classes to become more stratified. The children of the rich are more likely to be rich, and the children of the poor and middle class are less likely to move beyond their class than those in Europe. The Economist posited that part of this effect might be due to the rise of meritocracy in America: as those with more talent were given greater opportunity (especially as a result of the institutionalization of standardized testing), their children have genetic as well as financial advantages, and so are more likely to maintain their social position in a society that rewards talent. Despite this possibility, The Economist still sees the trend as disturbing.

Mr. Summers seems to agree. He believes the top educational priority of the next president should be to even out the admissions process at the elite colleges.

Just as a matter of historical what-if: imagine a world where the rich and “legacy” admissions did not guarantee George W. Bush entrance into Yale, with his mediocre school records.

The elite colleges represent real advantages for those individuals who seek to attain the highest political and business positions. Our past three presidents have all been graduates of Ivy league institutions. (As a matter of fact, all three were products of the Yale university system.) Beyond the Ivy League, the United States has only elected one new president who was not a graduate of a top university or military academy since the 1920s – Ronald Reagan.

The stratification of American society is a big deal – and one that no candidate is talking about. Even John Edwards, the champion of the little guy, focused more on eliminating poverty – a worthy goal certainly – than on the growing gap between the rich and the rest of us.

N.B. I know from my experience – as a middle class kid at a top college – that a significant number of my peers seemed to have gotten into Holy Cross based on financial factors alone. Many of these people saw attendance at an elite college as something owed to them.  Tom Wolfe, an author of limited scope and insight, made the same point rather well in his I am Charlotte Simmons, which, though winning “Most Awkward Sex Scene(s) of 2005” was still George W. Bush’s favorite book of that year.

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics Videos

Obamusic

[digg-reddit-me]Great political campaigns – and successful political movements – inevitably inspire music. It’s not always great. It’s often cheesy and ages pathetically. In a few years, most of it will make you cringe, if it doesn’t already. Movements and politicians may be remembered well by history, but campaign music rarely is. But in the moment, it’s beautiful and inspiring.

Here’s a selection of Obama-inspired music. Vote on your favorite. You can add your own. I’ve avoided adding the already played out “Yes We Can!” video by will.i.am and the “I’ve Got a Crush on Obama” video by Barely Political’s Obama Girl.

{democracy:2}

Categories
Excerpts from my Journals History McCain Politics Prose Reflections

Senator McCain and Senator Bradley

Excerpts from my Journals
[The week of January 21st, 2000; shortly before the New Hampshire primaries.]

If neither McCain nor Bradley make it past the primaries, I will be disillusioned. I am confident that if either one makes it to the general election, he will win. I find it hard to see how someone can vote for Gore or Bush unless they have some vested interest in one of their candidacies, or because of single-issue loyalty. The two establishment candidates merely want to win. Bush makes careful statements to secure the loyalty of those hardliners in his party yet avoid arousing the ire of those who disagree with him in the mainstream. There is nothing wrong with that – it merely shows shrewdness, but it seems hard to believe Bush thought of these careful statements himself. He seems a man propped up by aides, a cardboard figure given life by the establishment, a soul whose only joy is victory. Gore comes off as more pathetic – a Pinocchio trying to pretend to be a real politician to voters, a man who lacks charisma trying to charm, someone who hates defeat but does not consider himself worthy of winning.

In the end, I voted for Ralph Nader – because I could not bring myself to vote for either candidate.  I can see now how my decision was wrong – and how Mr. Gore, although a poor candidate, would have made a competent president.  I also seriously underestimated the radical nature of the Bush presidency.  What I believed the country needed in 2000 was a non-establishment president – and so, I set my hopes on John McCain and Bill Bradley.

Unfortunately, we were forced to choose between Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush.