It's Not The Economy, Stupid

I just wrote this email to a friend who was asking me to help her out of these Palin-induced blues:

Unfortunately, I don't have anything for you. Other than this picture, nothing has made me smile since last Thursday. It is as I feared. Obama keeps trying to make the campaign about issues. Every Democrat tries that. It's NOT FUCKING ABOUT ISSUES! Getting elected President in America is all about personality. And it doesn't even have to be about your personality as long as you (or your surrogates) can effectively lampoon your opponent's personality. I hate to say this, but we need a thousand Keith Olbermans - loudmouthed jerks with at least some populist sensibility (ie, not Bill Maher), a big megaphone, and a real hard-on for good soundbytes. We also need to get really, really good at righteous outrage at perceived personal attacks. If you say, "I can't BELIEVE Sarah Palin would stoop as low as to attack stay-at-home-moms" a million times, it does not matter if it's true. The media will cover it, and the McCain campaign will have to respond.

Biden the Prophet?

Did we just nominate "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" (thanks, Biden) more or less because he is, err.. the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy?

Did we nominate someone who won't be able to carry Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, New Hampshire, Michigan or Minnesota?

Did we just kick someone to the curb who would make a serious play for those states, plus Arkansas?

Did we just put New York State in play?

Did we forego someone who can play the politics of soundbyte and image with the best of 'em in favor of soaring rhetoric and honesty?

Did we nominate the best person to win?

Did we?

April 4, 1968

The anger of the Lord flared against Israel, and He made them wander in the desert for forty years until the entire generation who had done evil in the eyes of the Lord had died out. (Numbers 32: 13)

But What About the Homer Simpsons?

Atlanta Journal Constitution journalist Cynthia Tucker said this about the Obama Speech, yesterday on "This Week":

This Speech was not aimed at rank and file voters. It was aimed at political elites, mostly superdelegates.

It's a great point.

To be blunt: Unless Obama tattoos a swastika on his forehead, declares allegiance to al Qaeda AND cheats on Michelle with a white boy, Clinton is not going to surpass him in pledged delegates, popular vote, or States won. The only immediate political exigency he has left is to shore up enough support among the superdelegates to block his opponent's last path to the nomination. Obama needs to (re-)assure them in a measured and intelligent manner that he has the social, intellectual and rhetorical capital to rise above the "scary Black man"/anti-American motif planted by the Rev. Wright controversy. This is exactly what an Obama candidacy will face in the general election, and there has been growing concern that it would cost him (and the Democrats) the Presidency.

The Democratic superdelegates are people who pride themselves as having an intellectual streak, roots in the Civil Rights movement, and a hankering to rely on their "better angels" (yes, even class-A in-fighters like Rahm). And among them, I think the Speech was successful (witness Richardson's endorsement).

That said, there was a secondary and a terciary audience for whom the Speech was a mixed bag.

Among Obama supporters (regular citizens and journalists alike), it also reassured them. To paraphrase one excitable blogger, it was like giving the ball to Michael Jordan or Joe Montana with seconds left on the clock, holding your breath, and then sighing in relief when they came through as you knew/hoped they always would. Don't discount this secondary audience. Their support is critical to maintaining positive reinforcement in the media echo chamber.

The tertiary audience is, as Fox News and George Stephanopoulos (!!) has so frequently reminded us, the dominant voting block in a general election - white, working-class males. For these guys, there's a paradox: One Speech isn't going to do it (in fact, certain de-contextualized points of the Speech exacerbate the problem). But a few more of these Speeches, and Obama becomes "the Black candidate" - something that will undoubtedly sink his chances in the general.

Hmm...

The Speech

Barack Obama spoke today in Philadelphia about race in America.

Did you see it? Did you read it? Here it is.

Do you think America will realize how incredible that speech was?

Do you think America will realize how incredible it was that someone rose to write it and deliver it in such a fashion?

My Trusted Sources

Where do you go for your political information and punditry?

Here's my list:

Podcasts:
Now (PBS)
Bill Moyers Journal (PBS)
Face the Nation (CBS)
Countdown with Keith Olbermann (MSNBC)
Hardball (MSNBC)
Meet the Press (NBC)
On the Media (NPR)
Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)
This Week (ABC)
Brian Lehrer Show (NPR)
World News Webcast (ABC)

Websites:
New York Times
Talking Points Memo
Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish
Political Punch (ABC News)
The Note (ABC News)
Daily Kos
My DD
Powerline
The Corner (National Review)
Red State

Wait For It... Wait For It...

Never Ask Me Again What's Going On With The Democratic Nomination

In the run up to Super Tuesday, the media has coalesced around five priorities for both Senators Obama and Clinton: (1) Each needs to project momentum. (2) Both have been saddled with the paradox of backing off aggressive rhetoric while still managing to sharply define their differences. (3) With the shift from retail to national politics, quantity/quality of surrogates and airtime is more important than policy discussions. (4) Win over Edwards supporters. (5) Rack up delegates, cuz next Tuesday ain’t going to decide it.

The funny thing about momentum is that the media talks about it as though they simply report rather than generate and define it. In Clinton’s case, the press has boxed “momentum” into her ability to position Florida as the canary in the coal mine. She won more decisively among Whites, beat Obama in the younger demos, shored up the older voters, and took a slightly bigger piece of African Americans. The Clinton campaign largely lost that battle for “the big mo” in the first 24 hours after the Florida primary, but has gained some ground in subsequent days by forcing at least a bit of discussion about whether or not to seat the Florida delegates.

Obama’s momentum is more of a multi-pronged beast, with the media pushing narratives of success in South Carolina, Inspiration/Camelot, a glut of high-profile endorsements (specifically Ted/Caroline and the red state senators and governors), record fundraising in January, and tightening poll numbers in both key states (California, New York) and nationally. All of these are being coaxed along, of course, by the Obama campaign (Plouffe, Axelrod, etc) in process stories, though not generally made explicit by Obama (thank “JoeMentum” for killing that tactic).

On the fight/don’t fight paradox, there appears to be universal agreement that the Clinton campaign needs to tone it down. With Obama, the media says two things – often in the same breath: He needs to stay above the fray/look “Presidential,” but also show that he can really mix it up so that voters don’t think he’d get steamrolled in the General. Both candidates seem to be tacking pretty close to this advice. Much to the surprise of the cynics, Bill Clinton has kept largely quiet since his post-South Carolina Jessie Jackson comment (although has been attacking Obama surrogates, notably Senator Kennedy for his support of No Child Left Behind). Hillary Clinton has passed on a few Grand-Canyon-sized opportunities to attack Obama, and there have been no Sheehan- or Bob-Johnson-like smears SO FAR.

Obama on the other hand, has been cool and collected during the larger press and campaign events while his surrogates (Plouffe, Kennedy) have taken thinly veiled jabs at Clinton. Perhaps the most interesting manifestation of Obama’s “fight” motif though, was a few sarcastic cracks he aimed at McCain during a campaign stop in Albuquerque. New polls out in the back half of the week showed Obama falling considerably behind Clinton in the “strongest leader” category (a result of the pre-S.C. chicanery from the Clinton camp?), so look for him to come out with more aggressive rhetoric in the final 72 hours before the voting starts.

When it comes to surrogates and airtime, Obama has it down pat. Not only have his volunteer spokespeople been high profile and actively engaged, but they also reinforce his message of unity and electability. McGaskill, Conrad, etc. all hail from traditionally red States with small African-American populations. His campaign has purchased television advertising in 21 of 22 states, with different messages in different markets.

With the exception of her husband and outspoken California Congresswoman Maxine Waters, the press has largely ignored Senator Clinton’s endorsements – even those from the remainder of the Kennedy family. Her television advertising is similar to Obama’s in scope.

Before we move on to Edwards supporters and delegate grubbing, its worth noting that both candidates have ignored press assumptions that policy falls by the wayside in the final days before Super Tuesday. The final debate was a wonk’s wet dream, and campaign stops on both sides have been marked as much by substantive discussions as by out-and-out rallies (though it’s the latter that the media reports).

In death as in life, Edwards’ rhetoric continues to push the Obama and Clinton camps toward more progressive territory. Each has mentioned him (respectfully, endearingly) by name several times. Clinton even composed a love song to him, written special for the CNN debate. The press goes back and forth – and discusses how they go back and forth – on whether Edwards’ exit means good things for Obama (progressive rhetoric) or Clinton (white voters), though everyone knows its anyone’s game.

Finally, the least sexy, but most interesting, part of the coverage and tactics in the week prior to Super Tuesday has been the realization that the nomination will not be decided come Wednesday morning. Neither camp expects a blow-out, and both have the funds to continue on. Accordingly, the Clinton campaign has been very active in Obama’s home state of Illinois, as has Obama in New York. Five or six delegates may make a big difference.

Primaries Prediction

On the Democratic side, it's going all the way to the convention. Clinton will have more delegates, but not the number needed to win the nomination. Edwards will play kingmaker.

On the Republican side, it's McCain.

In Defense of Senator Obama

A couple of days ago, Senator Obama gave an interview to a Reno newspaper where he said the following:

Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

Liberal press outlets like Democracy Now and the Huffington Post and certain activist friends have jumped all over this as an indicator that Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing:

They say when he mentioned "the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s" he was referring to the civil rights and women's rights movements.

They say that Reagan was a union buster, and Obama's statement is tacit approval of such tactics.

They say that Reagan did more than any other President to roll back social progress in this country, which means Obama will also head in that direction.

Here's what I say: You're smarter than that, guys. Don't fall into the same decontextualized, gotcha mentality that drives political dialogue 99.9% of the time.

Obama was making an academic statement about an historical moment in this country where the confluence of public attitudes, political message and personal charisma caused our country to move in a fundamentally different direction. He was suggesting that the country is ripe for another such categorical shift, and that he is best positioned (because of his message and his charisma) to make that shift happen.

This is exactly what I was suggesting when I mentioned Reagan in an earlier post.

Obama is not anti-union.

Obama is not pro-corporation.

Obama is not anti civil rights/women's rights.

In fact, there's more in John Edwards' record than Obama's record to suggest that HE'S a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I don't think either of them are. I'm just sayin'.

Please, stop practicing the same gotcha politics that already hampers real discussion. And start thinking about this in a bit more rational terms. All three viable Democratic candidates agree what the big picture problems are in this Country. The nomination comes down to a question of style:

Do you think we need an activist to tackle our problems head-on? Then Edwards is your candidate.

Do you think we need someone to inspire us, which will give an Administration the political will to address our problems? Then, Obama is your candidate.

Do you think that we can triangulate our way out of our problems? Then, Clinton is your candidate.

In Defense of Senator Clinton

The opening segment of this weekend's On the Media broadcast touched on a subject that's baffled and frustrated me for sixteen years now - the media's Clinton coverage and the public's response to it.

For eight years, the mainstream press gleefully repeated false, ad hominem attacks against both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Depending on the month, they were money launderers, extortionists, murderers, liars, cheaters, sexual/social deviants... the list goes on (after all, eight years is a lot of space to fill with false charges). And when they weren't parroting bald and baseless accusations, the mainstream press was making snide remarks about the pair's supposed politicking, about their private relationship, or about their theoretical hidden agendas.

Congress spent more than $80 million in taxpayer dollars investigating these charges, and never found a thing. Two special prosecutors overturned every single rock, and came back empty-handed. Did the press report that? Technically yes. But, it never made the kind of headlines that the accusations made, and the general public was left with, at worst, a sense of impropriety, at best, Clinton fatigue.

After Clinton left office, the press soldiered on with its attacks. Remember all of those reports about the Clinton administration trashing the White House and Air Force One on their way out? All false. Congress spent another few million bucks digging into that one.

Along with millions of other Americans who still supported President Clinton after his impeachment (approval rating of 73%), I asked myself, "what the fuck?!"

In 2000, Hillary Clinton became Senator Clinton, representing my great state of New York. In 2006, she was re-elected by a landslide, carrying many of the traditionally Republican counties upstate. Why? Because she listened, she worked hard, and she transcended false perceptions to get real things done for real people. She is, as anyone in or covering the Senate will readily admit, a workhorse and a Senator worthy of respect. Before her Presidential campaign began (and the media trash talking came back in earnest), she enjoyed a 72% approval rating, including half of the State's registered Republicans.

The average approval rating for a Senator is 53%.

Is any of that being reported during her Presidential run? Of course not. In the past few weeks alone, we've seen flat out repugnant mainstream coverage of the Clinton campaign.

During the ABC News debates before the NH primary, every major press outlet spun an exchange she had with Senator Edwards as an example of her being "shrill" or "losing her cool" or "getting angry." Anyone who actually watched the debate knew that hers was an excellent, even-keeled response to the empty-headed sound-byte politics of the moment. Don't believe me? Did you watch the debate?

When Senator Clinton showed emotion in the day before the NH primary, every single publication and broadcast spun it as her crying under pressure. The headlines were disgusting. "Hilllary Gets Teary," "Hill Weary And Teary," "Hillary's Soft Side: Cold, Calculated, Crying." Hey you - public: Watch the video and make your own call. I think it was a very real exchange (where ZERO tears were shed, by the way).

President Clinton, stumping for his wife last week, called the media meme of Obama's steadfast and vocal disapproval of the Iraq War "a fairy tale." Senator Clinton, in a separate conversation, noted that Martin Luther King Jr did not achieve civil rights reform on his on, that he had a partner in President Johnson. Immediately, the media spun these two remarks as racially coded, which set off a maelstrom of anti-Clinton rhetoric from the Black community. Bullshit, all of it. Listen to the full quotes. Listen to the context. You will see.

I am not a supporter of Senator Clinton's Presidential aspirations. But the media's consistent disrespect and appalling misrepresentation of her campaign are causing me to re-examine that. She *has* been an agent of change for 35 years. She *has* served my state of New York well. She *has* earned the respect and admiration of her Senate colleague on both sides of the isle for the work she's done there. She *has* been tested on the international stage. Why am I - and so many others who seek a more progressive platform - so dismissive of her?

In my case, I think it sadly boils down to what I've been writing about here: A President has to unite. A President has to inspire. A President has to achieve. And as long as the media continues to go full bore against Senator Clinton, she will never, ever have the opportunity to do this. She will always be fighting false charges. She will always be refuting ridiculous and irrelevant attacks - or ignoring them and seeing her silence dominate press coverage. We cannot have a leader that's hamstrung like this.

What's Wrong With John Edwards

Okay, Pinko et al, here are some not fully-baked thoughts on Edwards and why my loyalty will likely lie elsewhere when the time comes:

When in the course of modern American politics has populism or righteous anger ever netted anything more than disappointment? Jennings Bryant was a failure. For all of his trust-busting talk, Theodore Roosevelt fell far short of his promise. Debs never got more than 6% of the popular vote in his runs for President. Malcolm X and Bobby Kennedy were gunned down before they could effect change. Nader has become at best a gadfly.

On the other hand, look how far LBJ got by working the system, MLK got with his platform of non-violence, and so on. Hell, look what Reagan netted with his inspirational, inclusive rhetoric.

Debate Thoughts

Here are some random thoughts about last night's Presidential debates on ABC:

One pot shot at Romney was enough. The rest just made the shooters (esp. McCain) look stupid.

Despite the statement above, someone should be measuring Romney for his coffin. The guy's finished.

Ron Paul was the only grown-up on stage during the Republican debate. I'm not one of those Paul-ites by any stretch, but the man is refreshing and intelligent. He's not beholden to the politics of fear, nor is he bound by theocratic ideals. Too bad he's against public education, and public everything else for that matter.

Why is Fred Thompson in this race?

Did anyone count how many times Guiliani mentioned 9/11?

Someone made Huckabee do his homework on foreign policy. Finally.

Senator Clinton had the best answer when it came to questions of nuclear proliferation.

Obama looks Presidential. And sounds it, too. Loved his response when Clinton unloaded all the oppo research: "That's a legitimate policy dispute we have. There's no need to go distorting each other's records." Talk about deflecting.

All pundits' comments about Clinton's "shrill" response to the Obama/Edwards double-team are bullshit. She *has* been getting her hands dirty with progressive issues for 35 years. She *has* been around the block. And her response was not shrill; it was very crisp, and exactly what was called for.

Despite the statement above, I still don't think she's got my vote, the nomination, or the Presidency. There's too much bad blood with the media, too much fatigue with the public, and too little, well, inspiration there.

Iowa

Tonight at 7 pm CST, Less than 250,000 citizens in Iowa will set the tone of the 2008 Presidential primary races.

I love everything about the Iowa contest - From the living room candidate forums to the caucus itself, true, citizen-fueled democracy is in effect.

FDR had his proverbial fireside chats, but in Iowa, campaign stops include actual fireside conversations, where serious candidates come into your neighbors' homes, sit down for tea and cookies, and address serious challenges posed by real Americans. Some of them like Joe Biden and Chris Dodd might not make it out of Iowa, but will go down in history like Webster and Clay (well, maybe Cabot Lodge, Vandenberg and Wagner) for their contributions to our country. And Iowans will have a chance to speak one-on-one with them. Others, like Romney or Clinton are ivory-tower politicians, buttressed by billions of dollars and rarely available to us common folk. But you might run into them at the pizza shop in Iowa.

The caucus is also a phenomenon, a true public sphere. Everyone in your neighborhood packs into a school gym and declares allegiances in plain sight. Arguments are made. People are persuaded. And at the end of it all, winners emerge.

We shall see what happens.

Ron Paul, John Stossel, and Me

I just sat in on a 60 minute interview that John Stossel did with Ron Paul. It will be available next week, exclusive to abcnews.com (not aired on television).

It's not often you get to see a Presidential candidate be granted a full hour to discuss his beliefs/positions in an unfettered fashion. If you're interested in hearing that from Ron Paul, go to the site on Monday.

I Ran Into Bill Richardson

... in the halls of ABC News. It was cool.

Other than that, this has been a pretty shitty week.

Jefferson Jackson Dinner - Iowa, 11/10/2007

If you're still the least bit uncertain about the differences between each of the top Democratic candidates, watch their speeches at Saturday night's Jefferson Jackson dinner:

You Think You've Heard It All...

This New York Times story is going to become a really big deal.

Choice tidbits:

When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret.

Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said. The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard.

Congress and the Supreme Court have intervened repeatedly in the last two years to impose limits on interrogations, and the administration has responded as a policy matter by dropping the most extreme techniques. But the 2005 Justice Department opinions remain in effect, and their legal conclusions have been confirmed by several more recent memorandums, officials said. They show how the White House has succeeded in preserving the broadest possible legal latitude for harsh tactics.

It adopted the new measures without public debate or Congressional vote, choosing to rely instead on the confidential legal advice of a handful of appointees.


Never in history had the United States authorized such tactics. While President Bush and C.I.A. officials would later insist that the harsh measures produced crucial intelligence, many veteran interrogators, psychologists and other experts say that less coercive methods are equally or more effective.

Mr. Comey strongly objected and told associates that he advised Mr. Gonzales not to endorse the opinion. But the attorney general made clear that the White House was adamant about it, and that he would do nothing to resist.

Teaching

The question of schools always factors heavily into our discussions of real estate here in the Josephson family. And the more we touch on that topic, the more the fact that teachers barely get paid a living wage shifts from an abstract social ill to a concrete, vein-pulsing, focal point for dinner table rants.

Check out high school teacher/slam poet Taylor Mali's response to a lawyer that belittles his earnings at a party. "Come on," says the lawyer. "Be honest. What do you make?"

"I make a difference," says Mali. "So fuck you."

From the Memory Hole

In the wake of the second major mine disaster of the week, I thought I'd dust off a few forgotten headlines:

U.S. Is Reducing Safety Penalties For Mine Flaws

Whistleblower Warns the Bush Administration Is Cutting Back Mining Safety Regulations

Mining Industry Contributes $3.1MM To Bush Campaign

Coal Mining Industry Contributed More Than $10MM To Republican Campaigns From 2000-2006