All Politics is Local - Unfortunately, Sometimes

Barack Obama's remark to Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press yesterday, in response to a question about Caroline Kennedy's expression of interest in HRC's vacant Senate seat, takes on new meaning today, huh? Something like he likes Caroline, but he doesn't need to weigh in on New York politics because he's got enough on his plate with Illinois politics. Rod Blagojevich indeed has hit a new low in Illinois state politics, and that is saying something.

I remember encountering the comment some years ago, in law school I think, in the context of federal vs. state power, and the notion that a part of the beauty of the federal system is that we've got 50 states to experiment with different levels of regulation, different regulatory approaches and the like, and that, where we can, we should leave matters to the states to regulate because they are "closer to the people." That is, viewing the state legislatures as so-called "laboratories of democracy" as the Reagan "New Federalism" was still relatively fresh--moving power from the federal governments to state/local governments. And an effective counter to that argument (or at least it seemed so to me at the time) was that if you wanted to see how powerful lobbyists could get, unleash them on the state regulators. They could be rolled with ease, and that, even though there were 50 state governments, if you really wanted to see an industry (e.g., take the tobacco industry) control their own governmental regulatory regime, turn it over from the feds to the states.

I think events in Illinois today prove that that surely would be a probable result.

Put to Rest, Finally

Well, I am happy to report that the fabled "liberal media bias" myth has been dispelled once and for all! Why do I say that, you ask?

Well, how has the VP debate been covered? Either it was a tie, no damage done to either campaign, but no "game changers" either. Or alternatively, Sarah Palin "won" because (pick any or all that apply): (1) she was more folksy, made a connection with the people (you know what I'm saying, "wink, wink, ;)"); (2) Biden was "boring" (all those facts and figures); (3) Biden was off his game and "lost" the first part of the debate (too passive); (4) Biden generally did not attack back ever (didn't take the bait, for example, on the "white flag of surrender" poke); and/or (5) Palin "exceeded expectations", in part because of the disastrous Katie Couric interviews, and did not run crying from the stage, vomit on the stage or freeze up -- generally saying some combination of words that vaguely resembled sentences, including nouns and verbs. [Matt Lauer asked Guiliani the next morning whether she had "mastery of the facts" or whether it sounded like she crammed for a test for a week. Guiliani said he didn't know how you could separate the two. To Matt's credit, interupted and said, well, "one is knowlege of subjects built up over years, and the other is cramming for a test." Seems pretty simple to me] [http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&vid=186bb7cd-4845-4572-b1ad-6f2808b6a4b4&playlist=videoByUuids:uuids:d1214ac3-0f54-4f1e-a498-decf5f2e6a49%2Ca57aca04-9d6b-48f5-b85a-fe3a4e7d300b%2Ceb7a7857-f982-411d-9670-83c8961cc2fa&from=MSNHP&tab=m1191248204226]

Am I right on how it's been reported? You betcha!! (Ok, maybe not the NY Times editorial page, but Palin will pick that up, because she reads "all" of the newspapers, remember?)

So that's the media reporting, including the "liberal elites." What's the objective evidence? CBS poll immediately following debate: Biden over Palin, 51% to 36%. CNN poll I just saw reported tonight: Biden 51%, Palin 36%. What about the "gender gap", you ask? Men: Biden 51%, Palin 36%. Women: Biden 51%, Palin 35%. Hmm. That's starting to sound like a Biden victory. But put facts aside--it's about personal connection, right? Now what was the most moving moment of the debates so far, on personal level? Was it Joe being emotional about being a single dad, not knowing if his sons are going to make it after he tragically lost his wife and infant daughter at age 29? Say it ain't so!!!

Now, doggone it Joe, there you go again....

Sarah-phonics

Finally, someone has written that Sarah Palin didn't tie or win the the debate. And I think we have a new phrase:

"Sarah-phonics , a mash up of sentence fragments and colloquialisms glued together with misplaced also’s and there’s — gibberish really."

Here's the entire post: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04blow.html?ref=opinion

Don't worry, Sarah Palin will never see it - it was in a newspaper (NY Times).

"This is an important election..."

How many times have we heard that? Only every election, right? However, we now know this is a truthful statement sometimes.

Only bad thing is, we can now see it was 2000 (and/or 2004). The deregulation chickens have come home to roost. Big time. We really need to know what happened to our economy. This is sickening.

Bubbles Bursting in Mid-Air

Well, the economic scene was fascinating and scary this week. Seems like we came close to a complete melt-down. Nothing like a little socialism injected into our society that cannot do a lot of good. Heard a commentator say (and I don't know if this is pretty close to the truth) that its a good thing we have Paulson as president these days. Where is Mr. Bush anyway?

I had the feeling earlier that the McCain/Palin bubble is bursting too. Could have just been a good week for Obama on the stump (but maybe we've turned a corner)? Seems like it was a lot of things--(1) blatant flip-flopping on "I'm a deregulator/I'll clean up Wall Street and go after those fat cats" (2) press calling Mr. McCain to account for his misleading ads (MSNBC not shy about using the "l" word) (3) even a lot of conservative commentators (Brooks, Will, even the inane Krauthammer, as I understand) flipping out about Ms. Palin not being ready for prime time. And I'm sure other things.

What do you think, folks? Should the government be bailing out financial institutions? I don't know that they had any choice. But when will we figure out that what we like, expect and think works in this country is regulated capitalism?

Gregory Ascendeth

This summer I predicted that David Gregory would be tapped for the Meet the Press gig (see post on June 23). Looks like he might be gathering steam, as he will now host MSNBC's election night coverage, rather than Olbermann and Matthews. Also looks like he's being "groomed" for the MTP spot, per this article.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3i425366f6874393a74ad59e9c25b234b7?imw=Y

Palin Comparison

Palin's pick has reportedly "energized the base". I know one person who is a card-carrying member of the base who was down-hearted with Sen. McCain who was personally very energized by Ms. Palin's selection. We don't ever go toe-to-toe, because we are friendly and we don't want to ever release our nukes on each other. But it baffles me how he could have been poised to consider Obama, and when an ultra-conservative appears on the scene as the veep choice, then he is more excited about Mr. McCain's chances. I still don't get it.

Of course, the lack of experience here will not seem to matter to the Republicans--after all, this is just the vice president, not the president, and how could the Democrats put a person so unready at the top of the ticket? Putting aside that the experience of Mr. Obama's is superior to that of Ms. Palin, Mr. Obama went through the electoral process. People had a chance to make their case on his experience or lack thereof, and he won nonetheless, vanquishing the mighty Clinton machine. He earned it. While she might be smart, capable and bright (even if I disagree with her views), Ms. Palin has not. Plus, I've heard, and tend to believe, that some of the best "executive" experience is in fact running a campaign for president--which Obama did better, by all accounts, than Clinton, McCain, Giuliani, or any other candidate in the field this year.

But the bottom line for me is that John McCain simply did not pick the person he thought was best to take over should something happen to him. There is just no doubt about that. Again, she might well turn out to be a terrifically smart and capable person, but McCain could not have said to himself, 'this person is the best, or among the best, most capable people to lead the country if that becomes necessary.' She is someone who he thinks will help him politically, plain and simple. He met her once, six months ago, at a conference. She has not thought much about the Iraq war. She did not even know John McCain's Iraq policy yesterday. You can bet Biden knew Obama's backward and forward in late 2007 (and probably earlier), and has great ideas to help give it shape and make it work better. This is what we need.

Here's what gets me: even if you are a die-hard Republican and her views are in line with yours, you do not have any idea how she could perform the job of president--it might be okay (from your perspective), but you simply don't know and don't have any basis right now to credibly predict. Come on, Mr. McCain. You can and should have done better than this. We deserve it; you might be our next president, for crying out loud. Start doing the right thing!!!

Biden Time

I was a Biden man before I was a Baracknafile. I've been burned by David Brooks before (he has turned on my main man from Illinois and gone all conservative on me--I feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football). But he wrote a nice piece today on Biden's good qualities. We shall see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/opinion/22brooks.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

More On Saturday

Well, this is very interesting. The Voodoo Blues is now apparently opening for Barack Obama (of sorts). The Old Capitol Blues Festival, where we'll be competing in the ICBC Blues competition on Saturday afternoon, will be one block from Sen. Obama's rally with his new veep choice.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/1116586,CST-NWS-sweet20.article

The competition will pause momentarily for Sen. Obama and his speech. We are slated to hit the stage from 12:30 to 1:00. Obama speechifies at 2:00. The note we received from the ICBC President was that plans were to press ahead--e.g., he still thought we'd be able to park near the stage, they're just anticipating a short pause. I don't know--that's hard to imagine. But boy, will it be exciting!!

As of yesterday, it looked like Biden was rising fast. Joe was my actual favorite in the Presidential field until it became apparent he had no legs and had to drop out post-Iowa.

What's wrong with Gerry Ferraro?

I'm sorry, but the notion of her saying that the Dem race is sexist after the race bomb she threw into the stream this spring gets my goat. It is also prompting this post, which I make with trepidation on the fear that some may find it offensive. [So it might get taken down--feel free to comment that I should remove it.]

At the risk of wading where no white male should go, I'd like to observe that yes, there are, unfortunately, racists and misogynists in the U.S. today, and that many vote with race or gender as a principal (negative) motivating factor. And it's not right in either case, although the dynamics may differ, given that women are not, technically speaking, a "minority". There is a kernel of truth in what Ms. Ferraro said (namely, that Sen. Obama has been helped by his race, to some degree), but it seems to me that one reasonable way to look at the situation is as follows:

1. In case you had not noticed, Sen. Obama is black. That, generally speaking, has not been a plus in national Presidential politics (especially for someone with his name). His race is a factor for many who vote. It is a positive factor for most African Americans, who have a measure of pride in having a wonderfully gifted African American candidate, and as a result that constituency has supported him in great numbers. That does not trouble me. On the other hand, there are many (unfortunately) who apparently have voted against him on account of his race. That troubles me. So the question is, has race been a net plus or a net negative for him?

2. In case you had not noticed, Sen. Clinton is a woman. That, generally speaking, has not been a plus in national Presidential politics. Her name, too, carries some baggage. Her gender is a factor for many who vote. It is a positive factor for many women, who have a measure of pride in having a wonderfully gifted female candidate, and as a result that constituency has supported her in great numbers. That does not trouble me. On the other hand, there are many (unfortunately) who have voted against her because she is a woman. That troubles me. So the question is, has gender been a net plus or a net negative for her?

That's the germ of sense in what Ms. Ferraro said: Obama's race certainly has shaped what his voters have looked like, demographically. (I say 'germ' because I think she actually was trying to get at a slightly different point, but I think that notion that, for some, his race is a positive for him, has truth.)

Whether or not either factor (race or gender), on a net basis, has been helpful or hurtful is the thing that no one has any clue of how to analyze or answer effectively.

One For Chris Matthews

I'm not a huge Chris Matthews fan, generally speaking. But his ripping into conservative radio talk show host Kevin James for not knowing basic history when Mr. James was on to discuss the Bush remarks to the Israeli Knesset is what more media people should do: if a question is fair, keep asking it until you get to the nut of the thing.



Strangely a good week for Obama after losing West Virginia by 40+ points: first, John Edwards. Then, Bush elevates Obama by that crazy speech, so that people have a lot to talk about other than the West VA loss and Obama's weakness among voters who vote based on race.

"We're who we've been waiting for..."

A somewhat derided campaign line from one of Barack Obama's earlier acceptance speeches this primary season. I was reminded of it listening to MSNBC this week when Chuck Todd said sometimes you don't see turning points when you are in them. As HC's lead was dwindling Tuesday night in Indiana, the punditocracy was taking that, coupled with the big win in North Carolina, as the effective end of the Democratic primary. (I myself have been known to worship at the altar of Rev. Tim Russert ("we now know who the Democratic candidate will be, and no-one will dispute it")). Todd drew a parallel to the Obama victory in Missouri on Super Tuesday.

Same narrative--Clinton ahead early, but wait, the city vote is coming in late (go St. Louis!) and Obama does much better (winning in Missouri and coming close in Indiana). Two states that border Illinois. And, in Indiana and Missouri, two states that might, without further analysis, appear to favor the Senator from New York. But Todd rightly reminded us of the importance of that win in Missouri, giving Barack a good victory outside the deep South on that Super Tuesday and turning that day more or less into a wash, with a slight nudge to Clinton, rather than be viewed as a blow-out for Clinton. (See two earlier my posts, if interested, in February on Mighty MO, including the fact that George Will said the state to watch on Super Tuesday was the Show Me state. Also see Will's editorial from Thursday of this week--great: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050703190.html.)

Also, Indiana really is the first time that a narrow loss has been widely construed as a victory, even though the punditocracy had been (wrongly) spouting that margin of victory was the thing to watch in earlier races (not fully appreciating that, mostly, a win is a win). But not so in the dear old Hoosier state.

Predictions

In response to an email from my Mom on April 22 (date of Pennsylvania primary, for those keeping score at home) that all us political junkies (she and I included) were having a hard time taking it (getting all whipped into a frenzy (even though the media is yanking us around, as she so aptly put it). My response on that date was as follows. I was a bit off, but since it still looks forward even from today, so I might as well post it:

"Let me take all the mystery out of it for you.

Hilary wins by 8%, stays in the race, and you've got two more weeks of "it all comes down to Indiana/North Carolina" (take your pick). More hand-wringing of the sort we've had for 6 weeks (is victory slipping out of the Dems' hands in a "can't miss" year? Are we handing the election to McCain? etc etc).

Then same thing happens in Indiana and NC. And "it all comes down" to Guam or Puerto Rico, or wherever. Then after that, "it all comes down" to what the super delegates do.

[That is not the worst case scenario, I suppose, but it seems to me it is probably the "most likely" worst case scenario. So expect that, and anything better is a bonus.]"

Even if you are a Hillary supporter (and I know a few read this blog), I am assuming this is killing you, too--maybe for slightly different reasons, but it seems crazy now, huh, that it feels so demoralizing on both sides for candidates who are so similar on the issues (compared with the alternative) to be ripping up on each other so bad?

Backlash?

Is it possible the Democratic primary voters in Indiana and North Carolina will actually backlash against the Wright flap, similar to the way New Hampshire voters reacted when they perceived that the press was taking too much glee in the supposed melt-down of the Hillary candidacy and the "end of the Clinton era"? I just wonder if there is a certain segment of the voters who are sick to death of hearing the talking heads pontificate on all the things that are supposed to move us. I don't know, but it occurred to me that there might be a certain segment that just wants to go out and show the press corps (again) that, paraphrasing Sergeant Shultz, "they know nuth-ink".

Whither The Daily Show (II)?

Jon Stewart skewered Hillary last night, showing her evolution of position on the role of voters in the Democratic primary system (from "the voters will decide--voters get to decide who wins" to a more recent "well, the voters play a part in the process (a very important part)"). And then there's the line that she has received more votes at the polls than any other candidate. This math works if you count of course Michigan (where Obama was not on the ballot), not to mention Florida. This sort of political expediency is what is driving a lot of us nuts.

But I refer you to my earlier post--what would have happened had Mr. Stewart been skewering her throughout the entire writers' strike? I don't know of course, and probably the answer is "not much."

And my fervent hope is that should she garner the nomination, that she beat McCain, and, most importantly, that whomever is president show some real leadership. It is a travesty that we are not even having a discussion, let alone moving toward solution, on vital issues such as global warming, Iraq, health care, the economy, etc. Global warming alone scares me, as I believe we are unleashing forces we do not understand, and may already be past the tipping point.

What's wrong with Paul Krugman?

His last editorial on the Democratic race was not comprehensible to me. I know he is a Hilary advocate and I have no problem with him using his column to argue in favor of her candidacy over Obama's, even at this late date. But his most recent column seems petty and holding Obama to a standard that he does not hold Hilary to. He criticizes Obama's criticism of economic policy over the last couple of decades, and takes him to task for lumping in the Clinton years (which he believes were pretty good). This despite her politicizing the San Francisco "bitter" remarks, which although not Obama's best political moment, seems mild in comparison. Well, if Krugman wants 4 more years of Republican presidency, he is doing a darn good job of trying to ensure it happens.

Dazed and Confused

I am terribly confused by the current state of the Democratic nomination process. I am disheartened by the fact that we've got a six-week slog to Pennsylvania, and that there seem to be at least two certainties in this period of general uncertainty: (1) Barack and Hillary will likely try to rip each other apart and (2) nothing will likely change after Pennsylvania. On the latter point, Barack seems likely to have a significant lead in the pledged delegate race even if Hillary wins decisively. And I can't articulate a logic for either of them to get out. Indeed, I would say the opposite--there is none. Why should she leave the race if she seems to have the momentum and has won a lot of big, important swing states that a Dem must carry to win the general and is behind by a relatively small margin? Even though she can't make it up, she is close enough to plausibly say they are essentially tied. And he has even less of a reason to leave, if he (as seems all but certain) will still be leading in pledged delegates. What is the rationale for quitting and conceding a race where you've won (1) the most states, (2) the most delegates and (3) (perhaps), the highest number of popular votes?

One thing that we seem to have learned is that Hillary has a base of committed supporters who seem unlikely to switch allegiance to Barack in the nomination process in large numbers. I think we already knew that about Barack's supporters (as the infamous David Brooks has described it, Barack's supporters are passionate and and many of them are not just supporters but believe he must be nominated and must win). While I don't know that I go that far in the Barack/Hillary battle (although I do go that far for whoever is the Democratic nominee, as I think another 4 years of Republican (at least Bush-style) leadership may put solving the world's environmental issues, in particular global warming, beyond reach for all time), I am one who believes that because there is a dedicated base of Hillary-haters in this country, that she will unite the opposition in a way that will be difficult to overcome.

But then back to point #1: in order to win, I think each of the Hillary and Barack camps feel the need to sharpen the distinctions between the two. I am not generally squeamish about a tougher campaign, but it works against Barack because that is one of the prime underlying rationales of his candidacy and its appeal: that he is a different kind of politician. But I despair that the likely result of the next 6 weeks (and beyond) is more fodder for the mounting Republican attack machine which will come with guns-ablazing against whomever--it matters not to them.

It also bugs me, as an aside, that Hillary includes in her laundry list of wins (and this is her, in her stump speeches, not just her campaign or other surrogates) Michigan and Florida. Florida is at least arguable, but including Michigan is completely disingenuous--no campaigning, and she was the only name on the ballot. (Didn't we used to criticize the USSR for "elections" where there were only Communist party candidates?) Every interviewer should question her on that in every interview until she stops. She has legitimate claims to victories, and, as Barack has said, to argue that her policies are superior to hers. But not to argue she won the Michigan primary where no-one else (most notably Barack) campaigned or was on the ballot. A whopping 40% took the trouble to come out and vote "uncommitted".

Also, although I can admire for sheer political chutzpah Hillary and Bill's notion that in a race in which you are behind, your solution is, we'll take the #1 spot and give you the veep nod, I'd also say it is possible to admire chutzpah (e.g., Lee Atwater and Karl Rove) and admit is is "brilliant" (or at least damningly effective) politics, while being disgusted by it.

I don't see any alternative but do-overs in Florida and Michigan. The argument in Michigan that we must "respect the voters" demands this--although not in the way most mean it. I hear that argument as a rationale that we must respect the votes cast in January. But what about those who would have wanted to vote for Barack (or others who were in the race at the time, Edwards most notably) but didn't have the opportunity? How is that showing "respect" for the voters of Michigan? 'Sorry, but you had one alternative, and since you took the trouble to come out, we're going to "honor" it.' That's just not right, no matter whom you support.

Missouri--a homer's perspective

I think George Will was correct to watch Missouri on Super-Tuesday. Maybe this is a "homer" mentality, but Missouri showed more courage than either "liberal" bastions California and Massachusetts. Illinois and New York don't count, given the "favorite son/daughter" dynamic. (See "It Isn't Easy Being Purple").

I am wary though of seeming to bash Hillary too much. I just worry she'll just unite the Republicans in a stroke, while Obama won't. So to all the Hillary voters who read this blog, I respect the choice you made--if you went by the debates alone, it is hard to make a case that she should not get the nod, hands down. I just don't think that's the end of the story. Looks like she is in a pickle and no consensus from the talking heads about what her campaign strategy moving forward should be--and they're not disagreeing on the edges but on fundamental approaches. No matter what happens, that Obama momentum appears it is going to be hard to slow.

Barack to the Future

Great speech by Obama last night--I thought he was talking directly to Calfornia and other states coming up with the "we need you" bit. Not at all desparate or whiny or angry, but with the right sense of urgency, like: "Get a hold of yourselves and do the right and courageous thing--now is the time to step up". Brilliant.

It isn't easy being purple

When asked what the one thing voters should be watching for in the political morass of Super Tuesday, George Will said: Missouri. Strap in, it will be fun to watch!