How Lucky We Are (with updates)

Among the reasons I have increasing confidence in Barack Obama is that he seems to be lucky. FDR was lucky. Until the obvious moment he wasn't, JFK was lucky. Obama is very intelligent, in all kinds of ways: on policy, on vision, on strategy, and he's acute about himself--he's got more of an introspective side than most pols. He's a good manager with a very good eye for talent, and his team continues to perform very well. But he's also been lucky, which may be yet another way of saying, this is our moment, this is our time.

But at least a couple of events during the last few days have shown how lucky the Democrats are that he's their nominee. What if it had been John Edwards, and all this sordid news broke just as the convention was about to start? What if it had been Hillary Clinton, who could not run her own campaign, let alone the country?

That's the conclusion of Joshua Green in his article in the Atlantic about what went wrong with the Clinton campaign: " Above all, this irony emerges: Clinton ran on the basis of managerial competence—on her capacity, as she liked to put it, to “do the job from Day One.” In fact, she never behaved like a chief executive, and her own staff proved to be her Achilles’ heel. What is clear from the internal documents is that Clinton’s loss derived not from any specific decision she made but rather from the preponderance of the many she did not make. Her hesitancy and habit of avoiding hard choices exacted a price that eventually sank her chances at the presidency."

Green's article is informed by hundreds of emails and memos donated by still bitter Clinton staffers. You might notice that other still-bitter Clinton acolytes are still trying to force Obama into ceding his campaign to her, if not abdicating before it's too late. Which suggests that it's not just her non-management style, but her judgment of people she depends on. And sure enough, one of her faves, Howard the Wolf's Son, the wolfman of press relations, put out his spin on the Edwards awfulness, by asserting that if this had been revealed last year, before the Iowa caucus, Hillary would have gotten enough Edwards' votes to win, and hence would have won the nomination. Nobody is actually buying this, because the numbers don't support it, but that's the quality of advice Clinton got. (Even Chuck Schumer gives lousy advice.) And also where the loyalties of these folks still lie (other than to themselves.)

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign is following the same kind of strategy that won them the nomination: organizing and targeting messages at the local and state levels, looking to win electoral votes. This piece at Five Thirty Eight is about part of that strategy. Update: And this great idea: give cell phones to the people standing in line for Obama's acceptance speech, with lists of voters they can call! It's brilliant!

As for the broader strokes, maybe all Obama needs is a tie. He's got the more uplifting ad on the Olympics, while McCain's is deadly, mostly because it is one outright lie after another. Even the hot air networks have noted this, but if you're willing to engage in Big Lie politics, you're going to turn some people who aren't paying much attention, and are looking for a reason not to vote for the new/black/young/guy.

But McCain has to win some other blocs of voters besides racists, neocons and the clueless. But he's not doing it. As noted before, he's losing Latinos, Jewish voters, etc. He no longer has a lock on Evangelicals, who are tepid at best about him, and some of whom are voting for Obama--maybe as many as 40%. Update: Obama is actually ahead among Christians by 9 points, according to this poll, and McCain has only a slight lead among Evangelicals.

McCain's not even so popular with military veterans. Meanwhile, he's got to fend off charges about his campaign financing, Big Oil contributions and lobbying.

The next bit of campaign news is likely to be Obama's choice for VP. You may have heard that the Obama campaign is offering to email its supporters immediately once that decision is made. I'll be on that list, so if I'm anywhere near a computer, the news will be here when it breaks.

Fact Check

Get To Work! MoveOn's Latest

Break Time

So basically what happened the past week or so since Obama came back from overseas was this: the Obama campaign began to flesh out domestic policy, first on the economy and then on energy. Obama met with experts on the economy, made speeches, and set out his energy plan. The McCain campaign, seeing the schedule or intuiting it or just getting lucky, went on the attack while Obama was trying to stay positive, so he could answer the question of exactly what his domestic programs are, which the pundits used to say he needed to do, but when he did, they paid absolutely no attention.

So McShame launched one scurrilous and eventually racist attack after another, and that got all the hot air blowing. This week Obama went on the counter- attack, while still talking substance, and hit McCain for his triviality and lies, while the Obama ads hit hard at McCain as McBush. That will probably continue the rest of this week, until Obama goes on vacation Friday for a week. McCain has tried to return to the positive this week, and his pronouncements and appearances suggest that the best thing Obama can do right now is leave the stage to him, because what Obama needs is for people to pay more attention to McCain, and what an utter embarrassment he is.

I'm hoping to take a vacation from the politics, too, although I hope to continue posting at Dreaming Up Daily on the substance of the Obama energy plan, which is a really significant change of direction for this country, and a very necessary one.

But there is this VP thing going on, so who knows. The latest on that: Obama did not announce Bayh as his choice today, so he won't announce anything until after his break, and one story indicated that Hillary was back on the short list. Then Hillary announces that she's trying to figure out how to let her supporters have their say at the convention, like by placing her name in nomination after all. So that's the shortest stay on the short list in history. Obama would no more pick her than Joe Lieberman. Despite the joint statement just issued by Obama and Hillary saying they are working on the convention thing together.

There is this interesting piece about John Kerry as Obama's best surrogate, and Bob Shrum--not everybody's favorite consultant--saying that if Kerry hadn't run for the big chair in 04, he'd be hands down favorite for VP this year. And maybe...

As for McBush, the latest fave has been Pawlenty again, and then today Pawlenty goes and compliments Obama on running a positive campaign, and suggest GOPers do the same. So unless McCain is planning on switching the usual roles--having his VP be positive while he as the prez candidate becomes the attack dog--Pawlenty is a goner as well. Although to be fair at this same appearance, Pawletty showed himself to be just as capable as McCain at irrelevant negativity.

By the way, every major poll shows Obama holding his lead, and the race essentially unchanged since June. That's actually pretty good news for Obama, in that the GOPers haven't stuck on image on him before the convention, as they did on Kerry. People will start to pay more active attention with the VP selections and the conventions. There will be a period in early September that the polls will go nuts a few times, before settling down to say something useful. Then come the debates, and there will be 3 presidential ones, two sit downs and a town hall, with Jim Leher, Bob Sheiffer and Tom Brokaw moderating--a decent chance at substance. If Obama is leading in October, his superior ground game and the enthusiasm of his young supporters should do the rest. Game, set, match. Pass the lemonade.

Maverick Reality Check

The Oil Company Candidate

Who's Presumtuous Now?

First he couldn't win the votes of women. He's winning their votes handily. Then he had a Latino problem. He's winning by growing margins among Latinos in every poll. And a Jewish problem. He's running away with the Jewish vote. So then there was this problem with "hard-working Americans"--white ones anyway.

So today the Washington Post writes about their latest poll, in which Barack Obama leads John McCain among low-wage workers by a 2 to 1 margin. His support among African Americans is overwhelming--but so is his support among Latinos.

And guess what? He leads among white low-wage workers--by ten points.

So it has to be just because he's a Democrat, or because they like his programs and they're willing to overlook his "presumptuousness" and his arugula-eating, way too skinny self.

Because the pundits all tell us that they're suspicious of him, they don't think he is one of us/them. So that's it, right?

The Post:

"The group, which accounts for nearly a quarter of U.S. adults, gives the Democrat the nod both as the more empathetic candidate and as the one who more closely shares their values."

Huh? How can that be? They support him because he's the more empathetic candidate who SHARES THEIR VALUES?

Quick--get Chris Matthews and his August sub some smelling salts. Make sure Dana Milbanks is on his meds. And don't let the McCain smear machine hear about this!

I wouldn't expect much crow consumption, though. More along the lines of this marvellously dry observation in the Post story:

"Obama's standing with the white workers runs counter to an impression, dating from the primary season, that he struggles to attract support from that group. "

YA THINK?

McCain thought he had a real chance with Latinos, but he's been sadly mistaken. And now...McCain advisers have said for months that they think the Republican can win a significant share of those voters because of Obama's performance in the spring. The survey suggests it will be difficult, but not impossible, for McCain to increase his appeal."

Maybe he'd like to try some arugula?

Rumors and Update

The first new name with the smell of credibility surfaces today: McCain is reportedly considering a relatively unknown congressman, Eric Kantor for VP. He is a member of the GOPer House leadership though, plus he's young, conservative, Jewish and from Virginia. At first glance, he looks like the best of the choices McCain's reportedly been considering. His obscurity may even be an asset: McCain needs a fresh face, because his certainly isn't. Lots of pluses, no apparent drawbacks, which is more than can be said for the other names generally believed to be on McSame's list. As a conservative ideologue, he won't have trouble filling the attack dog role in a campaign that seems to be going all negative, all the time.

Update: Here's a more reliable link to the story on this in the LA Times.

Meanwhile, an incomplete schedule which has Obama in South Bend, Indiana for almost 24 hours is suggesting to some folks that he's about to announce Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana as his VP choice. Some have speculated Obama might name his choice before his vacation to Hawaii during the Olympics, others figure he won't. I don't buy Bayh myself, but you knew that.

If McCain does pick Kantor, I think that puts more pressure on Obama to come up with an equally creative choice, and a strong one.

It's the 1st of August--Do You Know Where Your Candidate Is?

It's been a week of relentless attack by McCain and the GOPer chorus, as well as some members of the hot air media, and it ends with the Gallup tracking poll tied. So these are anxious times for Obama?

First of all, a video message that fellow contributors received today from the Obama campaign says that these attacks helped generate some 200,000 campaign contributions this week, and 100,000 yesterday alone, the last day of the month (on the last day of June, the Obama campaign took in almost as much as the McCain campaign did all month, perhaps in honor of my birthday, or maybe not.) A third of these contributors were new. Also during the month, Obama field offices opened all over the place, and after these attacks, volunteers were "pouring in."

As for the polls, the head-to-head national polls using whatever method still show Obama ahead, but the states are where the electoral votes are, and they look very good for Obama. Reviewing the most recent ones, FiveThirtyEight concluded: This is generally a pretty good set of polling for Barack Obama. Abstract these numbers for a moment. If you had told a Democrat a year ago that, on the last day of July, their candidate would be ahead in Ohio and Florida, well ahead in Pennsylvania , way ahead in California, tied in Montana, within single digits in a couple of states that went really red in 2000 and 2004, they'd be pretty thrilled with that set of polling."

Recall for a moment that John Kerry came with a few electoral votes of being elected President in 2004. The Gallup demographic data shows that Obama is scoring higher than Kerry in every demographic group, except that he's a few points behind in Democrats as a whole--he's winning them 80%-11%. Obama is now showing great strength in virtually every poll among Latinos--and that could be the ball game right there.

Speaking of the final score, Kos posted his monthly analysis, based on pollster.com aggregates of the polls of the month, and he calculates that Obama is winning 336 electoral votes to McCains 202. His June analysis showed Obama ahead 317 to 221. So Obama gained ground in July. The Obamagic number is 270.

Of course the race is still changing, but remember again: John Kerry was only a few electoral votes short--and factor this from Kos: Obama is winning all the Kerry states, most of them with bigger margins than Kerry won them. So Obama has a base of 210 safe votes. McCain has all of 72.

And we haven't had the conventions, we haven't had the debates, and the real ground game campaign is a month away from really beginning (although off the radar, the Obama army is registered voters all over the place.)

It's no time for complacency. But it's certainly no time for panic.

Convention news: Hillary Clinton will be the keynote speaker on Tuesday of convention week, and her name will not be entered in nomination.

Obama Responds

Polls, Veeps and Smears (with Updates)

Veeps first. I've just watched Tim Kaine being interviewed by Charlie Rose for 50 minutes, and I'm sold. I'd be very comfortable with him as Obama's VP. I think he'd add a lot to the dialogue, he's very positive, his vocabulary can connect with everybody--especially those much discussed white working men--he has a good grasp of Obama's vision and shares it, and he has a real presence in motion (as opposed to the still image.) He's fresh and refreshing, he talks sense and that's motivating. I think in his own quieter way he can bring some excitement to the ticket.

He's not likely to be the cliche of the attack dog VP, but the way McCain is going, what's there to attack? By attacking Obama so much so early--a smart strategy in some ways, for as Craig Crawford explained it Wednesday on Countdown, the McCain people want to burst the Obama balloon before they lose hold of it and it floats up, up and away--McCain is giving the Obama campaign ample opportunity to learn what works in defense. And they're starting to get good at it. Obama himself is calling McCain out, challenging him to articulate his positive vision---if he has one. Meanwhile, refutation of McCain lies seems to be working--but more on that in a minute.

As all this pertains to the VP, Obama doesn't need an attack dog, but maybe somebody like Kaine who can defend with a genial half smile and that great flat midwestern accent (for this Governor of Virginia is from Kansas City.) I don't much like the sound of Obama-Kaine, for several reasons (confusion with "McCain," the sound of it as one word and various associations) but if the campaign avoids using it as much as possible, looks to me like Kaine is a plus.

But for all the speculation, a NY Times piece indicates that the selection process is chugging along but not at the decision stage, and may not be for a few weeks. Their reporting shows that Obama hasn't yet become directly involved. Update: Chris C. of the WAPost agrees, saying that the list of names under consideration is still longer than generally believed.

On the GOPer front, I saw a fairly startling quote from Mitt Romney at the Political Wire, but no one else seems to have picked it up or read it the way I did--as a disavowal of interest in being McCain's VP. Meanwhile the debate goes on as to whether he'd be a plus or minus to McCain.

Which brings us to smears and lies. I'm trying to focus politics at this blog, but when this election has such a major impact on the future, I revert to posting about this stuff at Dreaming Up Daily, so there are pertinent posts about the latest round of McCain lies and negative ads here and here and here. What's been interesting about the lying doesn't care about the troops ad--which was directed at McCain's base: the media, since it has been played much more on the hot air networks for free than as a paid ad--is that while the bloviators, especially on cable, started by treating it as a false "controversy" the way they did the Swift Boat Liars in 2004, there was a backlash in the past couple of days thoroughly exposing the lies.

Partly that's because the facts were known to reporters traveling with Obama, and some of them took umbrage (although some at first simply allowed the lies and talked about how the Obama campaign should have handled the situation.) But part of the reason probably is that Obama enthusiasts aren't sitting still for it, whether on the blogosphere or in direct contact with networks and newspapers. Witness Wednesday's idiocy, when a Washington Post reporter (with a reputation for GOPer sympathies) took an Obama quote out of context to make it sound directly opposite to Obama's meaning. That inspired this call to let the Post know about it, and we'll see if that's also effective.

Update: Here is the revealing story of the campaign so far--David Kiley's column in Business Week (hat tip to Political Wire.) Kiley begins with a summary of the ad technique used by Faux News Hannity and political adsters of repeating a lie relentlessly until it becomes real in the political dialogue. He then turns to McCain. "I've written good things about McCain's ads in the past, and I expect I will again if they ever return to a level of at least being for grown-ups." But after reaffirming that the charges in the McCain ad on Obama not going to visit wounded soldiers in Germany were blatant lies, he reveals the other ad that the McCain people were preparing.

Recall that Obama ultimately decided not to visit that hospital after the Pentagon questioned whether bringing his military advisor would constitute a partisan campaign stop. Obama didn't want the visit to be politicized, and decided that it now would be, so rather than subject the troops and the hospitals to becoming political fodder, he didn't go.

Here then is what Kiley reveals: What the McCain campaign doesn’t want people to know, according to one GOP strategist I spoke with over the weekend, is that they had an ad script ready to go if Obama had visited the wounded troops saying that Obama was...wait for it...using wounded troops as campaign props. So, no matter which way Obama turned, McCain had an Obama bashing ad ready to launch. I guess that’s political hardball. But another word for it is the one word that most politicians are loathe to use about their opponents—a lie. End o update.

Is this this corporate media trying to fix the election, the result of a comfort level with the old buddy McCain over the new Obama and his new political team, or the frantic attempt to inject drama into an election that may be one-sided already? Well, it could be the first, but the second and third are sufficient. In any case, the controversy is more often about Obama than McCain. Tuesday's was: Sure Obama is leading in the polls and he has been for weeks (the recent Gallup poll showing McCain ahead has been pretty much discredited as using a lunatic likely voter model), but why can't Obama break 50%? Much bloviating on that matter, and then the CNN poll came out Thursday: Obama 51%, McCain 44%.

Today's blather was about Obama being presumptuous and arrogant (though that same poll showed the voters aren't buying it.) And supporting that was the misquote of something Obama has often said, that the campaign is not about him, he's just the symbol of the change America wants.

Some attention is being paid to McCain going relentlessly negative--even some GOPers aren't too pleased about it. But more apropos is Mark Green's focus in his piece titled "McCain's 1968 Heroism Can't Excuse His 2008 McCarthyism" : Pundits on the talks shows say that the '08 election is all about Barack Obama: Can he pass the commander-in-chief test and avoid gaffes and reassure white voters? The burden is always put on him. But another question is whether John McCain can pass the character test. So far, he's failing.

It's time that McCain's acolytes and the mainstream media stopped assuming that his extraordinary military service nearly 40 years ago gives him immunity to questions about being President today in a different century...Start with the truth that a maverick has morphed into a McCarthy -- and that the honorable McCain of 2000 wouldn't vote for the angry McCain of 2008.

Or wasn't eight years of a Liar-in-Chief enough?

Move On for Obama

Veep Creep

Veep news keeps creeping closer. The Washington Post seems to feel Tim Kaine is near the top of Obama's list, if not already selected. Unless the vetters know something I don't, I still like Kathleen Sibelius over Kaine. All his positives plus a proven ability to work with Republicans and Independents, which Kaine apparently doesn't have so much. A bit more experience as a governor, too. Only negative I see: he might help in Virginia, whereas she may not be able to help much in Kansas. But I still like her: she says change, they look good together, she'll help with women independents and Republican women as well as women Democrats. And just as the B. Clinton-Gore ticket was two young guys from the South, Obama-Sebelius is two fresh faces from the Midwest. Look West, Democrats. I have my doubts that Kaine would make the difference in Virginia anyway.

People are arguing whether McCain really needs Romney, or Romney will kill his chances, but the talk definitely is Romney.

Obama speaking, at least in the imagination of
a pre-schooler. See story below.

The Trip (with Updates)

The substantive evaluations of Obama's overseas week, such as they are, are starting to come in. Frank Rich writes about "How Obama Became Acting President" in the Sunday NY Times. (I've posted some excerpts at Dreaming Up Daily.) Mark Green writes of the week as 7 Days That Ended A War and a Candidacy, meaning McBush's.

So far the polls show a modest bounce, but since their tracking poll showed more movement for Obama late in the week, Gallup expects more to show up next week. Obama now has a 7 point lead in that poll, matching his largest margin. Update: Later Sunday, Gallup announced Obama's lead was 9 points, his largest. Obama is at 49 (just shy of the magic 50%) with McCain at 40 (also an important number--below 40 is trouble.) A week ago it was 45-42. Which makes the week's bounce from 6 to 9 points in the polls so far. Another new poll puts Obama over 50% (51%) and McCain below 40% (39%.)These polls don't mean a lot separately or for very long, but they're not meaningless either. If a candidate is over 50% and the opponent under 40% for very long, pros consider this a tipping point indicator.

But the evidence in other ways?...Check out this Kos diary in which a young parent observes pre-school kids dramatizing Obama speaking (the photo above.) Jon Stewart showed the American flags waving in Berlin and thought there was a malfunction--they weren't burning. Rich makes the same point: some children have never seen pictures of American flags flying in Europe unless they were burning. Until Obama spoke in Berlin. (Apparently he could have drawn just as big a crowd in Paris and perhaps London as well.)

Speaking of flags, a possible red one for some folks (like me, in fact) was Obama's talk about moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Are we trading one war for another? But in this interview, Obama says that goals in Afghanistan should be modest, and military action must be joined with diplomatic and humanitarian efforts. The entire interview is pretty interesting. Imagine there's a President who is thoughtful and speaks in complete sentences.

Speaking of imagining, one reporter heard a reference in Obama's Berlin speech that I missed (I only caught JFK, Reagan, Lincoln and FDR): John Lennon.

I read one article today about the poor press relations of the Obama campaign. Then there's this piece, that says they became pretty good after the beginning of the trip. I certainly saw the difference between (angry) night and (sunny) day in Andrea Mitchell's demeanor: angry when no reporters were in Iraq, and absolutely bubbling when she reported Obama's remarks to reporters on the plane to Berlin.

The McCain campaign is currently trying (in its usual inept fashion) to demonize Obama for not visiting wounded troops in Germany, which apparently was a problem with the military over campaign staff. The McCains cut a quick commercial on the subject, with Obama shooting that 3-pointer as evidence he was too busy to visit the troops, except of course it's obvious that he is visiting the troops in that very picture. Update: the two Senators who accompanied Obama on the congressional part of the trip to Iraq, Afghanistan etc.,--Democrat Jack Reed and Republican Chuck Hagel-- defended him against this charge and denounced the ad on Face the Nation Sunday, saying also that they all visited wounded troops in the battle zone.

The dirty little secrets the McCainites don't want revealed is that Obama has taken in more donations from servicepeople than McCain has, and in a recent poll taken within the military showed more than 54% favored Obama's Iraq policy, to nearly 39% favoring McCain's.

Most of the dramatics on this trip were visible to the cameras, with at least this exception: the King of Jordan personally driving Obama to the airport, bringing his sporty Mercedes to a screeching halt in front of the waiting Secret Service.

The Frank Rich column lists McCain's gaffes while Obama was away, and some of the visuals: Obama in the helicopter over Iraq with General Petreus; McCain in a golf cart with Pappy Bush. Obama in the Middle East; McCain in the cheese aisle of a supermarket (sharp-eyed Jon Stewart noted the "Dole" packages in the picture), his rambling attempt to redefine the Surge being interupted by the supermarket loudspeaker; Obama speaking at Magic Hour before a quarter of a million people in Berlin; McCain buying cream puffs in a lonely German restaurant, and talking to a fake customer (planted by the local GOPers) while bumping a load of apples onto the floor in yet another supermarket.

McCain announced an event on an offshore oil ring in Louisiana (although as Rich says, everybody with a TV knew that a hurricane was approaching), then quickly cancelled it. Even without the wind, there was the problem of the Mississippi being closed at New Orleans because of an oil spill. (However, polls showing more support for drilling suggest the GOPers will try to ride this issue.)

With good sense, Obama suggests the campaign will remain close because, although people want change, they don't know him that well. But there's also talk that it really isn't close; the hot air networks have to make it sound close, or they'd have nothing to talk about.

The next drama is the VP choice. For McCain, it's still likely to be Romney, with Pawlenty seemingly the only other one in the running. For Obama, much more complicated. Jack Reed took himself out of contention, John Edwards currently has a tabloid problem that probably isn't anything but..., and Hillary honcho Terry McAuliffe (man I thought I'd never have to hear from him again) is promoting Gov. Kaine of Virginia, which may be the kiss of death for that guy. And in the midst of this the name of an obscure Republican cabinet member surfaced. Please don't blow this, Barack! But one thing this overseas trip has probably done is obviate any need for foreign policy backup in a VP. The election is going to be won or lost now on the economy and energy. My instincts say to either go with one of the other presidential candidates (Edwards, Richardson, Dodd) for stature or go for the change poster with Kathleen Sibelius.

The Speech

At Dreaming Up Daily and elsewhere, I posted my first response to Obama's speech in Berlin (video and transcript here) and to the first round of media reaction, plus the sections of the speech I found most significant. Here are a few further reflections, partly inspired by the dearth of serious analysis, at least that I've heard.

This was a major speech by the candidate who could very well be the next U.S. President, and nobody seemed all that interested in what he said--when it was merely his coherent vision for U.S. foreign policy, especially as it relates to European allies, but well beyond that. But either the McCain complaining finally paid off, or the news media isn't interested in detailed reporting or analysis, or both.

First, the most obvious: Obama presented himself to Europe as the anti-Bush, and at some risk. He's going to be hammered by the rabid right simply for the line very early in the speech in which he says he is speaking as a U.S. citizen, and a citizen of the world.

He referred to--but did not dwell on--ending the war in Iraq. The crowd probably would have liked more of this, but Obama did not criticise a sitting President while overseas. (His later reference to American imperfections apparently sounded to rabid rightists like airing dirty laundry, but in context it was welcome humility.) But he struck all the issue notes Europeans needed to hear: nuclear proliferation, climate crisis, Darfur, torture, etc. Yet he also called for more NATO involvement in Afghanistan, not a popular position in Germany.

But most of all, he expressed his view that the U.S. must be ready to cooperate with its allies again, and to become a world citizen again. This is not only what Europeans wanted to hear, it is what Independents in America want to hear.
Another point on content: Obama presented a rational framework for attaining certain foreign policy goals. For example, he coupled military action in Afghanistan with humanitarian aid and development aid. He spoke out against Iran's nuclear ambitions, but he negated the current hypocrisy of U.S. policy by calling for an end to nuclear weapons everywhere, including the U.S.

Now a few thoughts on form. Obama used the Berlin airlift to create a structure in several ways. As a story about U.S. and German cooperation so soon after World War II, it was about strengthening that old alliance. But it was also about widening the cooperation it started, as exemplified by the European Union. Widening further, it is about creating more cooperation globally, to address global problems--and Obama showed that most problems we face are inevitably global:

"As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya."

As a story about the U.S. and West Berlin standing firm against the blockade by the Soviet Union, it was about allies standing together against other enemies, which also includes working together on tough problems like nuclear proliferation, unfair trade, the Climate Crisis and world poverty--which appear at least as hopeless.

As a story about cooperation that overcame barriers, it led naturally into the sub-theme of tearing down walls of prejudice. In terms of diplomacy, Obama's willingness to talk to everyone was demonstrated on this trip to be his ability to talk to everyone, and this speech reinforces that image.

As a story about the U.S. dropping food, not bombs, it was about the power of peaceful means. And as a story about how this U.S. effort won praise and trust from Europe and elsewhere in the world, it is a story about how the U.S. can regain its international reputation, which Obama showed was in other ways commensurate with characteristic American ideals.

In its rhetoric, it was of a piece with other Obama speeches. But it also recognized the two most famous American speeches in Berlin: given by John Kennedy and Reagan.

From JFK, Obama took the repeated refrains featuring the name of the city. JFK said several sentences in a row, "let them come to Berlin." Obama said "Look at Berlin" several times in a row. And instead of the famous Eich bein ein Berliner of JFK, Obama said simply,..."all free people - everywhere - became citizens of Berlin."

Reagan's only famous line was, "Tear down this wall!" Obama made tearing down walls a repeated refrain of his speech. Then there was this fascinating section:

"The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."

So there is Reagan and tearing down walls, but also an echo of Lincoln and "A house divided against itself cannot stand." In fact, Obama uses "stand together," and "cannot stand" in interesting ways several times.

There's another hint of Lincoln--of the Gettysburg Address. Lincoln said: "The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here."

Obama said: "They won hearts and minds; love and loyalty and trust - not just from the people in this city, but from all those who heard the story of what they did here. Now the world will watch and remember what we do here - what we do with this moment."

As for the themes and rhetoric familiar from Obama speeches, they gained new meanings in this particular context. He spoke about generational change and seizing opportunity (another JFK theme) with his signature refrain of "This is our moment. This is our time."

He used his biography to link hope in the context of individuals hoping for a better life, and the freedom to follow individual dreams and destinies, and the opportunity to make those dreams a reality, but carried these ideas through on a global rather than national scale. This is a point about America's role in the world--America as the symbol of hope, freedom and opportunity--but also shows that Obama's vision for America and his vision for the world are coherent, and both center on these key qualities necessary at the level of individuals. This is where issues connect with people (and here, there's a bit of a reference to FDR's Four Freedoms):

"What has always united us - what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America's shores - is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please. These are the aspirations that joined the fates of all nations in this city. These aspirations are bigger than anything that drives us apart."

Veeping

After Barack rocked Iraq, McCain must be weeping. So the rumor now that he'll soon be veeping--announcing his v.p. this week, to blunt further media dominance by Obama's overseas trip.

It's probably a bad idea, so I say, why be even more inconsistent, John? Go for it. He's got no good choices, but if McCain has a synapse still firing, he'll pick Mitt Romney, because if McCain doesn't win Michigan or PA, he doesn't have a prayer. Romney will piss off some rabid right Evangelicals because he's Mormon, but McCain's better alternative-- Tom Ridge, who might help him in PA--will REALLY piss off even more rabid rightists, because he's pro-choice.

He could then go for somebody neutral, like Pawlenty of Minnesota. I find a vp debate between Pawlenty and Evan Bayh hard to imagine--they are both so colorless that it will be like there's nobody on the stage. Now the gossip is about McCain visiting Gov. Jindal of Louisiana, the 37 year old very weird exorcist (literally, he performs exorcisms.) I can't wait to see that photo of them at the convention. That will be the biggest boost for Obama since Alan Keyes ran against him for the Senate in Illinois.

Barack's vp is another problem. I am appalled by the people the media are naming. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island is their latest favorite, and I'm sure he's a great guy, but he and Barack don't make a picture either. I admit the hot air networks have me doubting myself, but I don't see Barack making that kind of choice. The last time he addressed his criteria, he mentioned only somebody who shared his vision. So I see my usual suspects, especially Sebelius, and also, increasingly, I see John Edwards. Maybe Chris Dodd, and unless Joe Biden is playing possum, I still believe he's not interested. I don't see Bayh. I don't like the sound of Obama-Bayh. I can hear the GOPer chant already: "Obama-Bayh-bye."

But what do I know? Just riffing on veeping. Later, man.

The Obamas: The Reality.

Looking Ahead

For weeks now, the polls in individual states have shown Obama as surprisingly strong, especially in states where Republicans usually win by a lot. Now this strength is starting to show up in national polls---including a 7 point edge in Reuters, and 8 points in Washington Post/ABC News. The Quinipiac and Post/ABC polls have Obama at 50%--and anything over 50% indicates strength that could become insurmountable.

With enthusiasm numbers continuing to be high for Obama and low for McCain, there must be increasing comfort with Obama, and not completely a reaction against Bush and Republicans, especially on the economy.

I heard Barbara Boxer say on TV that she wished the election were tomorrow, and there's good reason for that. The numbers guys at FiveThirtyEight figure that if the election were held today, Obama would win in a blowout, with 303 electoral votes. But their projections show a slightly tighter race by November, though Obama still wins comfortably, with 293 EVs.

It remains likely, then, that Obama has to screw up, or some distortions take hold, for him to lose. But there is still the possibility--harped on endlessly on the hot air networks--that voters don't know him well enough yet to be comfortable with him.

That's about to end. Soon, Obama will be heading overseas, and the crowds he will get in Europe will ensure big media coverage here. If he confers with leaders in the Middle East and Iraq, that too will make news. After all, all three broadcast network anchors will be on the trip.

Then comes the announcement of the vice presidential candidate, and then the Democratic convention the last week of August, where Obama will speak to 75,000 on the anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. Millions will see this.

The contrast of John McCain and the Republican convention will be obvious. McCain will also have a birthday that week, and so everyone will know about his age.

Then the fall campaign, and above all, the debates. Expect a different debater than you saw in the Democratic primaries, where Obama did not want to go at fellow Democrats too hard.

There is the possibility as well that McCain will do or say something while really in the spotlight--at a debate for instance--that will finally focus attention on his appalling unfitness for the presidency. Maybe the media will even start reporting the views of those who feel he is temperamentally unfit--that he would be dangerous as Commander-in-Chief.

It seems possible to me that the fall campaign will see another wave of enthusiasm for Obama, as happened several times during the primaries, but bigger. In which case, the media may finally stop looking for reasons to doubt him, and it may even expose McCain.

Okay, I've been looking for another rapturous campaign since I was a starry-eyed 14 when JFK ran in 1960. Ever since I've paid my dues in blood, sweat and lots of tears, waiting. Now I'd like another one, please. And if I get it in the next several months, you better believe I am going to eat it up, and enjoy every moment. Yes, we can.

Seeing is Believing

The damage done to Barack Obama by the New Yorker cover won't be fully known until November 4. I will predict this: on November 3 and 4, that image will reappear in thousands if not millions of email in-boxes and mail boxes, so that a large number of voters will go to the polls with that image in their heads.
Because in this culture, seeing is believing.

There have been a lot of arguments made defending this cover on the basis of freedom of speech, press, expression, which to my mind completely miss the point. No government or corporation either suppressed that image, or forced anyone to print it. That cover was printed because of an editorial decision, which in my view was a very bad and irresponsible decision. Bad enough that the editors in question should resign, because they don't have the judgment to justify their jobs.

Let's go through the arguments that excuse the publication of that cover, and then why I believe it was irresponsible to print it.

Free Press, Expression, etc.

I know something about censorship, because I was censored. I was a columnist for a weekly youth-oriented newspaper in the late 80s, suddenly forbidden to write anything more about a subject I'd been covering, smoking and health, cigarette advertising, especially aimed at young people. I was forbidden to write about it because the paper started taking cigarette advertising from two big companies, and one of them specifically forbade any anti-smoking copy. Because I wrote such a column, and it was suppressed, I resigned, at considerable personal cost.

I got no political support for my action. At the time, being censored by a corporation was apparently too complicated a concept. Most people thought it was my own fault. It made perfect sense to them that the company paying for ads could control editorial content. And most of the time, they can. That's realistic. But it's also a real threat to a free press.

So I am aware of how elusive the concept can be. But I don't see it as the issue here. The New Yorker editors choose their covers. Nobody forced them to choose this one, and nobody said that they couldn't choose it. But to say they shouldn't choose it, and should pay the price for a serious misjudgment, is another matter.

They had many potential covers to choose from, I'm sure. Not everybody's idea or drawing gets to be expressed on the cover. And those whose covers aren't chosen, are not being censored. There's no free expression issue here.

I've been an editor. The job is to make judgments. In suggesting that New Yorker editors should have exercised better judgment, that their decision was seriously wrong in many ways, is a perfectly legitimate position.

Satire

The cover is justified as satire. I'm sure Don Imus justified his "nappy headed" comment as humor. That's not good enough. Especially when racial imagery and other inflammatory images are used.

I don't doubt it was meant as satire. But part of the reason it is so offensive is that it is so clumsy and ill-conceived that it functions less as satire than as incendiary imagery.

Political caricature is usually about the people depicted. The only interpretation of this drawing as satire is that it is not about the Obamas but about what some people say or believe about the Obamas. That's already a step removed. The usual way to view this is as something about the Obamas themselves. That's how such images are "read." That's how they work.

There are other complications. For example, everyone is familiar with the imagery of the fist-bump between the Obamas. The fact that it happened seems to justify what else is pictured. The fist-bump was true. The rest must be true. (I'm told someone on TV made this point Monday.) That may not be a reasoned interpretation. But seeing is believing.

It's Art

Is the artist responsible for how everyone will interpret an image? I've heard that argument made. The answer is that the artist is not. But the New Yorker cover is not a venue for art in the same way as a gallery or museum. It is the cover of a prestigious magazine that contains high level journalism within it. The New Yorker articles used to be called "fact pieces." The person who decides what goes on the cover is not an art curator, but the editor of the magazine.

Is the artist responsible for how everyone will interpret an image? No--but in this case, it is the duty of the editor to consider how everyone could interpret that image. This is an image depicting one of two major candidates for President of the United States, in arguably the most important election since at least 1932. It is imagery that evokes racial if not racist stereotypes.

It puts in visual imagery a number of false charges made against the Obamas, which apparently a significant percentage of American voters believe. These lies no longer have to be explained to them. They can now see them--as Rachel Madow said, in one handy 8x10.

It doesn't take a contemporary brain scientist or psychologist to know that imagery can be incendiary. Though one such scientist has already criticized even the Obama campaign's web site refuting these lies as keeping them alive just by repeating them. If words are that powerful, how about making a picture out of them?

This also comes into play when viewing this as satire. Those who read the New Yorker regularly may know that in recent years it has published covers of political satire. But on the other hand, this is not Mad Magazine. It is a serious magazine, and this cover is serious political comment. Therefore, the political interpretation of the cover should be a serious concern for the editors.

Of course some people will look at the picture and see how ridiculous these lies are. Perhaps some proportion of those people will have believed or half-believed those lies before, although I suspect that most people who get the joke already know they are lies. Otherwise, why would it be funny?

But I suspect that some people are going to look at this picture and be scared out of their wits. It may reflect back their own racial bias, or simply their fear of people who aren't exactly like them. But they no longer have to make a picture in their mind based on lies they would have to take time to read or listen to. Now they can just see it. And seeing is believing.

Political Correctness

Some make the argument that this cover is just like the Daily Show or Steven Colbert, and that to condemn this cover is just political correctness gone wild. Personally I believe this imagery is more in the Imus realm than the Colbert. The context comes into play here as well. Colbert has created a character in a TV show. This image is on the cover of a prestigious magazine with serious--and presumably sincere--political content. Colbert is on television, and his show is available only if you seek it out. This cover will be available as a virtual handbill before this campaign is out. The editors should have understood this.

Judgment

The defense given by David Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker, suggests to me a remarkable tunnel vision--you know, like the Lincoln Tunnel. He must know he is editing a magazine for more than New York intellectuals. He must know, or should have known, that this image would be seen by millions around the country and around the world on the Internet and TV, and he should have realized that it would be used by Obama opponents to depict the Obamas precisely as they are pictured.

This alone--considering the inflammatory racial and political imagery--should have told the New Yorker editors that publishing this on the cover was a very, very bad idea.

They should have known that the cover image is especially powerful, and therefore this was an especially important decision. Many thousands more people, perhaps millions more, will see this image than will read the articles on Obama inside. They can't be blind to the power of images in this country, this society--especially simple, emotional images, such as those using racial images--Muslims (the stereotyped enemy, the Other), Black Muslims (to be feared, like those black prisoners on TV), 60s revolutionaries (Black Power, Communists)and beneath it all, the first black candidate for President.

They should have known that this cover could become a powerful partisan weapon to defeat a particular candidate, and that it would become a powerful if not totally predictable factor in this presidential election, and that fact alone should have told them what an important decision they were making. But their statements tell me otherwise. They either didn't think it through, or they didn't care.

An important task and responsibility of the editor is to judge whether the editorial content communicates what it intends to communicate to the publication's audience. In my view, the editors have failed in this task. The most basic failure is that they apparently believed this image is so ridiculous that it exposes how unbelievable the lies about the Obama are. Some people will respond in that way. But many will not. To assume that this image communicates that message is a serious misjudgment.

There should have been enough doubts, enough red flags to call printing this into question, and then the stakes they are playing with--the presidency of the United States, and no less than the fate of the planet--should have weighed heavily in their decision. That it did not demonstrates arrogance as well as misjudgment.

I believe it is a serious enough failure that they should resign. I believe it is a serious enough act that I will boycott the magazine, and urge others to do the same.

I call on New Yorker writers and others in the New York and national press to protest this cover. But I don't expect this will happen. Even those who believe it is a serious and perhaps even a morally serious error, are unlikely to say so. The New Yorker and its parent corporation, Conde Naste, are too powerful. They have friends involved. They have paychecks to worry about.

Besides they can always shout about freedom of expression, and art and satire and political correctness, and people will snap to attention, afraid to be charged with supporting a fascist America, as I already have been at Daily Kos. Anything to divert from what they've actually done.

This controversy will probably die down in a day or two, if it hasn't already. We will have fresh disasters to consider. But that doesn't mean this cover will go away, not really.

I think you'll see it again, much closer to the election. You can believe me or not... but seeing is believing.

That's my take. Here's what Obama said about it to Larry King.

Update: Of the commentaries I read, this one makes the most sense to me, especially his ideas for a satirical cover that would have made the same point but with clarity--and it would have been funny: a couple watching the Obamas on TV, she sees them as JFK and Jackie, while he sees them as...

The Cover

The New Yorker cover is discussion #1 on the hot air networks. To gauge response to something like this, you have to remember that journalists and editors especially who are being interviewed are themselves gauging how much they can afford to offend the New Yorker and its owner, Conde Nast, and which way is the wind blowing among their colleagues they will depend on for jobs and support.

On the other hand, this Kos diary expresses my point of view pretty cogently (except I don't necessarily agree that the New Yorker was trying to hurt the Obama campaign), and it is supported by the longest list of recommenders I've ever seen there.

The Circus is in Town--but is Anybody Watching?

Last week was an amazing campaign circus. John McCain and his campaign made so many gaffes that they probably cancelled each other out. The Obama campaign wasn't running too smoothly either, as it creaks along in mostly fund-raising mode, trying to accumulate the means to wage a real campaign beginning next month. Although Obama did rise to the occasion with a zinger of a response to the Gramm/McCain "it's all in your mind" position on economic hardship.

As for the McCainite gaffes, take your pick: Social Security is a "disgrace," Americans are whiners about the recession that is "psychological," etc. etc. But the one gaffe that may have specific consequence was McCain's attempt to pander in Pittsburgh by reminiscing that while being interrogated as a prisoner of war, he "gave up" the names of the Pittsburgh Steelers defensive line instead of his unit. Steelers blogs were apparently first to ferociously note that the great Steel Curtain didn't exist while McCain was a POW, and nobody in their right mind knew the defensive line of the Steelers in the 60s, when they were terrible. Moreover, McCain himself told this story in his autobiography--but the names he gave up were the offensive line of the Green Bay Packers, a team that had just won the Super Bowl.

McCain needs Pennsylvania to win the presidency, and to win PA he will need Pittsburgh. Now he's been caught pandering with a falsehood, but not just about anything--about the Steelers, perhaps the only thing that unites Pittsburghers and western Pennsylvania of all classes, races, ages and political parties. And to make matters worse for McCain, he went directly from Pittsburgh to...Green Bay.

This week is likely to begin with a media firestorm over the caricature of the Obamas on the cover of the New Yorker magazine. The Obama campaign calls its tasteless and offensive, and while obviously meant to be satiric, it is also made-to-order imagery for multiple areas of racism and prejudice. Personally, I can't conceive of New Yorker editors being this irresponsible, but they have been in this case. Is that famous New York tunnel vision so strong that they don't understand how people outside their little orbit of sophisticates are going to see this? This cover is incendiary.

It's possible that this will be a one day or one week tempest, but it could get a great deal bigger, resulting in the cover being withdrawn and/or editors resigning. An early sign will be whether distinguished writers for the New Yorker and other literary and journalistic names go public in condemning it. I'm quite sure that thousands of subscriptions will be cancelled, no matter how many copies of this issue might be sold. This is a sad, sad day for a magazine with such a rich history and tradition.

All that said, you have to wonder whether anybody outside of political obsessives are paying much attention. And that actually makes the New Yorker cover more dangerous. It says everything the bigots are purveying in their emails, but without depending on the recipients' even marginal literacy. No matter what happens now, that cover will be around for the rest of the campaign.

It's been a couple of weeks since the media hyped up some McCain propaganda to accuse Obama of changing his position on Iraq. Now Obama has an op-ed in the New York Times that uses last week's multiple assertions by Iraqi leaders that they want the U.S. out of Iraq to re-state his policy. He notes not too subtly what he has said "many times" about being as careful getting out as Bushites were careless getting in, and adjusting the plan according to circumstances. But the plan is to begin withdrawing troops and getting most of them out in 18 months. The op-ed ends:

"In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war. "

V.P. Etc.

It's been confirmed that for his acceptance speech at the Dem Conven on August 28, Obama will speak to 75,000 in the stadium where the Denver Broncos play. Of course that's not the largest crowd that's heard a speech on that date--upwards of a quarter of a million were on hand--me among them--when Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his "I have a dream" speech for the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, 40 years before Barack's.

On the VP front, Jim Webb opted out. Also, I saw Janet Napolitano on TV and she looks too grim. So I'm down to two favorite possibilities: Kathleen Sibelius and Bill Richardson. Richardson because the southwest and the west are definitely in play, plus the Latino connection, plus the foreign policy experience. His drawbacks remain the same: possible emnity from the Clintons, a tendency to go off message and attract too much attention. I'm personally not wild about Richardson as VP, but unless Obama picks somebody who is on nobody's radar--like Bill Bradley or Gary Hart--there don't seem many good choices. I do think the VP candidate has to come with some stature, because the days of the nobody VP are over. Bradley and Hart do have stature, lots of international experience, known as creative thinkers and good communicators. So not every surprise candidate would be a welcome surprise. And I just don't see Obama pulling a Bush and naming a real old establishment guy, like Sam Nunn.

The political play of last week was the Obamas in Montana celebrating the 4th, and Obama's daughter Malia's birthday, while John McCain was nowhere to be seen.

An interesting if a bit cynical piece on Kathleen Sibelius as Barack's vp, with that second photo--they sure look good together. The third photo is one I came across on the Rolling Stone site--that's Barack and Michelle breakfasting at Pamela's, a place in Pittsburgh where I used to do the Sunday breakfast thing.

Otherwise there were various kerfluffles over Obama's positions on various issues, and a media self-manufactured frenzy over a change on Iraq Obama didn't make. A Bush environmental appointee quits, supports Obama. Another Salon piece on Obama as a literary kind of guy. Obama songs are the calypso rage, and may inspire some votes in Florida. Buzz that Obama may make his acceptance speech at the convention in the nearby stadium (JFK made his at an outdoor stadium in LA in 1960), and he may speak outdoors near the Brandenburg gate in Berlin on his upcoming overseas trip.

Intuition on Obama VP

For whatever this could possibly be worth: I was intrigued by a comment Obama made in his press conference yesterday. He was asked his opinion of Chicago politics. He said that mainly he had always run independent of the traditional Chicago and Illinois machines, but there is a quality of politics in Illinois--which he broadened into a Midwestern trait--of pragmatic problem-solving across partisan divides.

Obama is unlikely to pick someone just to maybe win a state, or only for that person's role in the campaign (some pundit or other said that the only function of the VP was to win the debate with the opposite VP, which is short-sighted in the extreme.) Obama responded to a question about his thinking on the VP yesterday by emphasizing the VP's qualifications to step into the job of President if necessary, and to be a close advisor otherwise. But the electoral map, including the polls today that showed Obama's strength in Midwestern swing states won't be ignored either.

Anyway, my intuition is that Obama has more of a comfort level with like-minded office-holders in the Midwest and probably the West as well. The hegemony of the East and South in dominating Democratic candidates may end this year. So I'm feeling that Obama's VP choice will come from the Midwest, or the West in general. Maybe Claire McCaskill, Kathleen Sibelius, Janet Napolitano, Bill Richardson or somebody completely off the radar at the moment (which is not unprecedented.)

Another factor I have a strong intuition about is age. I don't think Obama is going to pick someone significantly older. JFK did, and he was 4 years younger when he ran. But this is a generational election, and Obama knows that in picking a VP, he's signalling the party's future.

The unknown factor is how much he wants to avoid offending the Clintons. Picking Bill Richardson would probably tick them off big time, and there was noise about Hillary having a problem with any other woman. But if I had to bet right now it would be on one of the three women I named.

Sebelius is the oldest at 60 but she seems the youngest. McCaskill is 55, Napolitano is 51. Obama is reportedly close to all three. McCaskill (Missouri) has been probably the most politically helpful, and she will be a close political advisor no matter what. Sebellius (Kansas) has been the most visible, and Napolitano (Gov. of Arizona) the least, though the White House Project that focuses on women named her as one of the eight female politicians who could be President. Politically, I like her a lot. She has roots in traditional Democratic areas (she would be the first Italian American in the White House; she grew up in Pittsburgh as well as later in New Mexico), she's strong on education and family issues. Plus Arizona is in play, despite being McCain's home state.

Obama Everywhere

If John McCain wasn't getting relatively gentle treatment from the news media (which actually doesn't bother me at this point--but only if they go after him in September), his campaign would be in even more of a shambles. The best thing that happened to him recently is that he has a guaranteed $80 million for the fall, by accepting public financing. The RNC corporatists and lobbyists should kick in at least that much more.

But Obama is staying with his army of donors, 1.5 million and growing. His campaign brought in only $22 million in May, but there are whispers about a huge rebound in June, perhaps to be his biggest month ever. We'll see. But now that it's clear that the GOPers have nothing positive to run on, and must go negative on Obama to have a chance, and remembering 2004 when the Swift Boaters attacked Kerry between the costly primaries and when public financing for the fall kicked in (and even then, because of convention timing, he got about $11 million less than Bush) and Kerry had no money to fight back--well, it made perfect sense to keep the campaign in his control by staying with his donors and supporters, and passing up federal financing.

That's helping him continue to organize a formidable campaign, with a presence in every state. Obama is already showing surprising strength--no more so than in the Newsweek poll which shows him 15 points ahead of McCain. Another set of numbers has him ahead in the major swing states of Ohio, Florida and PA. These numbers may not hold up, but it's better than the reverse. My own guess is that it's closer in Ohio and Florida, but Democratic registration was so strong in PA that Obama will win it. With a concise personal and patriotic first ad ("Country That I Love") and his Father's Day exhortation, Obama is introducing himself to general election voters.

Polls like Newsweek's show that Obama can add the category of women to those (like Latinos, Jewish voters, working class voters, etc.) he isn't really having a problem with, and the importance of that increases on the choice issue--particularly as McCain is under pressure to limit his vp list to anti-choice candidates. Even his highly touted "Appalachian problem" seems exaggerated to one of the most respected numbers analysts in the blogosphere.

Obama came out and pretty much said that he expects an element of the fearmongering the GOPers will try will be on his race, but a Washington Post poll--while it shows racial concerns, prejudices and divides--has this silver lining: 90% of white voters surveyed said they would be comfortable with a black President. The poll shows there is potential for racial mischief, but at the moment, McCain's problems are worse: "Numerous polls, for example, have indicated that McCain's age may be a bigger detractor than Obama's race. And more are now concerned that McCain will heed too closely the interests of large corporations than said so about Obama and the interests of blacks."

But remaining on the list of problems this week at least are older voters, and specifically baby boomers. Though the poll's definition of what constitutes a boomer is not demographically correct (they polled those born between 1944 and 1958; the boom was 1946-1964), it shows Obama behind McCain by 18 points.

Though a decision is likely months away, the vice presidential sweepstakes got a lot of attention last week. The appointment of erstwhile Clinton campaign manager (but now reportedly estranged from the Clintons) Patty Solis Doyle to be that vp's chief of staff seemed to dim the likelihood of Hillary, as did a swing states poll that showed independent voters don't much like the idea of her on the ticket.

A couple of the less likely names also dropped off the list. Barney Frank put the kabosh on Sam Nunn for his anti-gay votes, and Senator Jim Webb came out for off-shore drilling the same week as McCain and Bush did, and Obama spoke out strongly against it. Chris Dodd accidentally got himself a preferential loan, and that may have stopped his chances. Besides Webb's problem, the other Virginians Mark Warner (said he won't) and Tim Kaine (doesn't seem to want to) seem less likely. Bill Richardson seems eager, but that might depend on how campaign insiders felt he performed after endorsing Obama--some stuff I've seen says not so well.

John Edwards seems to have gone back on his "not me" comments, so he remains in the running. As do Kathleen Sibelius and Janet Napolitano. Joe Biden maybe. But I see no chance (and would be very disappointed if) colorless Evan Bayh, old pols Strictland of Ohio and Rendell of PA, and all the other lazy choices. Wesley Clark doesn't seem to want it, though that's just a feeling.

Well, on to more important things, like songs. Of all the Obama songs this year, the one that sticks in my head is this one--"Obama Everywhere in Pennsylvania" by Earl Pickens and Thunder. Message to Earl: get busy on nationalizing those lyrics. I want to be hearing the new version real soon. Can we hear another guitar solo? Yes, we can.

A Long Way to Go

The long-term and more permanent damage that global heating will cause has seeped into even American consciousness, though other more pressing problems keep shoving it to the back of the line. Fortunately perhaps, the more proximate crises involving energy and energy costs may well be playing out in a way that, however sideways in intent, does something at least to lessen greenhouse gas emissions.

But the Climate Crisis is also causing--or making worse, or otherwise contributing to--bad stuff that is happening right now, and is very probably going to happen more in the near future, like extreme weather and its consequences. The more familiar crises these patterns cause are paradoxically the ones we seem unequipped to face or understand. Katrina is the poster child for poor government response and comprehension. But the Midwest floods this week exemplify the weakness of our public information systems, particularly our preposterous news media.

First of all, only major newspapers and the broadcast network news (plus certain shows on CNN) paid much attention. And their coverage was silly. John Stewart made fun of the "human dipstick" approach--focusing on reporters standing in flood waters to indicate how high they were--but that really seemed to be the general level of coverage. It was stupid.

Buried in print reports and blog reports were such facts as 25,000 homeless in Cedar Rapids alone, 24 deaths, billions in damages, toxic waters flooding homes, businesses and schools. Serious stuff, you would think.

What is it about the weather that makes people talk and act so dumb? Is it repressed fear? The cheery weather person dancing in front of the map, sing-songing about record this and not-quite-record that. Temperatures in excess of 100 for days on end, and "it's going to be another hot one out there." And so on. Either that, or it's alarmists breaking into programs to sow fear of a thunderstorm. Are these people that weak-minded?

Meanwhile, people die and weaken in the heat, power grids tremble, drought spreads and kills, fires burn trees (killing their carbon-holding capacity, and spewing carbon into the air), while a sudden tornados ambush Boy Scouts and tear through homes, and floods wash away crops (while perhaps poisoning the ground) and destroy homes and businesses.

It's refreshing that at least one presidential candidate--Barack Obama--heeded the request of overstretched law enforcement in Iowa not to come to be photographed looking at the flood. (He filled sandbags in Quincy, Illinois earler.) John McCain however could not pass up the photo op, ignoring the real needs.

We need a lot more of that maturity and judgment. We need media that can actually report on what's going on objectively, and as comprehensively as possible. Because as these events happen more frequently, and they are more damaging, the fact that they are unpredictable results of a predicted pattern can't come as a surprise, or the capacity of government and other agencies to deal with them to decrease suffering and longterm damage will be severely hampered.

A Good Start for Obama

This was a good week for Barack Obama. As the all-but-official nominee, he took hold of the Democratic National Committee--though Howard Dean (a fellow advocate for a 50 state strategy) remains as Chair, Obama brought in people he trusts, and moved parts of the operation to his HQ in Chicago. The first cadres of newly trained Obama volunteers were dispatched, and campaign offices are slated to open in every state, beginning in some major swing states.

The Obama campaign set up an impressive "Fight the Smears" web site to combat false charges. And while the Bushite administration shows little interest in the plight of the Midwest beset by floods and storms, the Obama campaign is organizing volunteers to help.

New polls taken at about the time Hillary conceded show a bump for Obama, which could be even larger in the next round of polls, taken afterwards. For example, Obama beat McCain by six points in the NBC poll, which had never shown Kerry ahead of Bush in 2004 (and Bush never ahead by more than 4 points.) Other match-up polls together with electoral vote forecasts like this one and this one looked even better. Obama also showed strength in individual state polls in Wisconsin and New Jersey. Also state and national studies showing Democrats or the Democratic party surging to the detriment of GOPers.

Plus the internals of these polls showed Obama gaining among groups where he was supposed to be weak, like women voters and older voters. Obama is more trusted on the economy than McCain. Combine that with earlier studies that showed him leading among Latinos and Jewish voters, and making inroads with black conservatives, plus prominent Republicans like Colin Powell and former Bush press sec Scott McClellan saying they are considering voting for Obama.

So what does this mean for the rest of the campaign? McCain has nothing in terms of issues plus he's screwing up and looking bad. Obama is campaigning aggressively and scoring points, and the country is crying out for change. Though McCain is after Hillary voters, many are consolidating for Obama, while even some congressional Republicans are making it known they won't vote for McCain. So as one cable commentator astutely observed, the only course McCain and the GOPers have is to negatively define Obama in a personal way, so voters won't trust him. Then it won't matter that voters are on his side on the issues.

That's why the Obama campaign is gearing up to counter a very negative campaign against them, while putting the candidate out there where people can see and hear him: familiarity breeds comfort, among those who need reassurance. That's why quickly solidifying himself as the party nominee and taking control of the party machinery this week was so important. Dems smell victories at every level, and they're beginning to sense that Obama is going to get them new voters, even in states he might not carry.

Another good sign--the Obama campaign continues to recruit and inspire its young volunteers, and their imagery is going to be there when media is looking for the story of this campaign. Plus their work on the local level: I heard Howard Fineman talking about the elderly ladies on Polish Hill in Pittsburgh who were a bit wary of Obama, but couldn't conceive of voting Republican. I thought immediately of young Obama volunteers offering to take those ladies to the polls, showering them with attention and their energy and committment. I'd say their votes are in the bag.

There are going to be moments of sheer beauty in the coming campaign. But it's also likely to get ugly.

R.I.P. Tim Russert

I haven't had too much good to say about Tim Russert here. But I learned a lot more about him in the remembrances I saw on MSNBC today, following his sudden death from a heart attack today. He was a superior Washington bureau manager, a mentor, a good friend, and dedicated not only to his family and his child, but to the families and children of colleagues.

Russert was a political process guy, not so good on policy, Tom Brokaw said. Maybe we need reporters who are just as intent on policy and other topics. The flooding in the Midwest continued today, and the reporting I've seen has been uniformly terrible. Print coverage doesn't seem much better. Maybe we need some reporters who bring that same intensity and hunger for knowledge to climate reporting as Russert brought to politics. It's been difficult not to get sucked into all politics all the time during this primary season, but that can't be everything.

The authenticity with which his colleagues spoke of Russert today suggests he was an authentic person, and a good person. He certainly seems to have touched many peoples lives for the good, and that's a great legacy to leave. Some of his colleagues also sounded lost, as if even his process-oriented rigor was a last bastion of quality news at the networks, which is scary. But for now we can note that many people will miss Tim Russert. May he rest in peace.

On the VP Short List

Just a brief comment on the VP short list "leaked" by a Senator who supports Obama. The cable bloviators and some Internet sites made a big deal of this, but doesn't anybody remember anything? This "list" seems to be one person's recollection of people he was asked about. Even if it isn't, even if it was actually "leaked" by the Obama campaign (which I don't believe it was), names have been leaked for all kinds of reasons in the past: as trial balloons, as something to make the people named feel good even if they aren't really being seriously considered, and as diversions for the media from the people who are actually being considered.

There have been times when the VP nominee wasn't even one of the "leaked" names. Paid journalists ought to be looking that up before they go off on their speculations. (Walter Shapiro has a go at Salon.) But then speculation is what feeds the cable/Internet audience: it offers viewers/readers reason to offer their opinions on the names, which provides the necessary illusion that they've got a huge audience. And gives bloviators ways to shape the hot air continously coming out of their mouths.

That Was the Week That Was

A week too astounding to take in yet, it ended with perhaps the biggest surprise: Hillary Clinton gave a gracious speech, endorsing Barak Obama. Despite the bitterness some of her supporters still express, polls show the healing has begun.

But it's Obama vs. McCain now, and a couple of interesting prospects: that Obama will do better than McCain among Latinos (because he already is), and Obama is poised to do what no Democrat has even fantasized doing--getting a chunk of the Evangelical Christian vote--maybe even 40%.

I don't know when Obama said this, but this video shows him talking about his priorities in his first 100 days as President. The issues are Iraq, health care, energy/climate crisis, and reviewing Bush executive orders to reverse the ones that are unconstitutional. Though he probably would emphasize some pressing economic issues now, it's worth a watch.

I notice that some Clinton supporters are making their enemies list. And even though I was with the victor, there are people I will never think about in the same way again (which doesn't include Clinton people I always despised, like Terry McC. and Howard the Wolfson, or pols like Gov. Strickland of Ohio I first met during the campaign and despised immediately) That list would include--well, Emily's List, as well as Bill Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Paul Krugman, Joan Walsh of Salon ..and a bunch of people I've already forgotten, who will stay forgot.