2 weeks ago
Friday, July 25, 2008
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."
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."
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
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 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...
Monday, July 14, 2008
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 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.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
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. "
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. "
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, July 07, 2008
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.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, June 13, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, June 08, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
The Morning After
Our long national nightmare is over.
It's been widely reported and confirmed by higher ups in the Clinton campaign that Hillary will acknowledge reality on Saturday, and endorse Barack Obama as the Democratic Party nominee. And late Wednesday comes a letter from Clinton herself confirming this.
The end came today, and the coup de grace was dealt by her own supporters. First the New York congressional delegation, led by Charlie Rangel (who later went public) told her that her speech last night was a mistake, and that they wanted to endorse Obama immediately, and she should do the same. Then, according to Howard Fineman of Newsweek/Keith, a group of 8 Senators who'd supported her told her in a conference call that the time to endorse Obama is now--a call initiated by higher ups in her campaign.
All this was after negative reactions to her speech, and her attempt to muster her supporters (which led to racist remarks to at least one black Obama congressional endorser's office) and some rebellion in her ranks (Hillary Rosen: "I am not a bargaining chip. I am a Democrat."
The writing was on the wall by the time Clinton and Obama literally crossed paths after he spoke to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and before she did. Especially as he was accompanied by Rahm Emmanuel, who'd been for Clinton but had endorsed Obama just hours earlier.
And the flood of endorsements continued today, including former Clinton supporters Senator Barbara Boxer and Rep. Maxine Waters. Here's one list, and here's another (neat picture.)
Along with the collapse of Clinton's support came a collapse of talk about her being VP. Obama appointed three people to begin the selection process--the surprise being Caroline Kennedy. Apparently she's been advising as well as appearing onstage for awhile now. Update on this point--E.J. Dionne saying at greater length and probity in Thursday's Washington Post what was said here Tuesday night:" Hillary Clinton talked her way out of the vice presidency on Tuesday night. Barack Obama may never have intended to make her the offer. But Clinton's largely self-focused non-concession speech suggested that what some call a dream ticket could turn into a nightmare.
But gaining the vice presidency by invoking leverage just can't work. It makes the presidential candidate look weak. It breaks in advance the trust that running mates need. It can only presage conflicts and power struggles in a new administration. Hillary Clinton is an enormously talented public servant. Many who ended up supporting Obama once hoped to support her. But Clinton's political future requires her to accept that Obama has prevailed, that the primary campaign is over and that graciousness in defeat can, paradoxically, be turned into the most powerful leverage of all. "
Meanwhile, the historic nature of Obama's nomination was especially recognized and applauded abroad:
From hundreds of supporters crowded around televisions in rural Kenya, Obama's ancestral homeland, to jubilant Britons writing "WE DID IT!" on the Brits for Barack discussion board on Facebook, people celebrated what they called an important racial and generational milestone for the United States.
"This is close to a miracle. I was certain that some things will not happen in my lifetime," said Sunila Patel, 62, a widow encountered on the streets of New Delhi. "A black president of the U.S. will mean that there will be more American tolerance for people around the world who are different."
Unless he decides to show up at the Hillary event Saturday, Obama is taking the weekend off. It's about time for this blog to take some time off, too. In fact, to slow down for the near future. So my handful of regular visitors should expect a weekly rather than daily report, as events warrant and the spirit moves.
It's been fun playing pundit, fun seeing that I did it pretty well, often enough anticipating news points and judgments, as well as catching the gist as well as the drift of events. But time to turn to other, harder follies for awhile.
Our long national nightmare is over.
It's been widely reported and confirmed by higher ups in the Clinton campaign that Hillary will acknowledge reality on Saturday, and endorse Barack Obama as the Democratic Party nominee. And late Wednesday comes a letter from Clinton herself confirming this.
The end came today, and the coup de grace was dealt by her own supporters. First the New York congressional delegation, led by Charlie Rangel (who later went public) told her that her speech last night was a mistake, and that they wanted to endorse Obama immediately, and she should do the same. Then, according to Howard Fineman of Newsweek/Keith, a group of 8 Senators who'd supported her told her in a conference call that the time to endorse Obama is now--a call initiated by higher ups in her campaign.
All this was after negative reactions to her speech, and her attempt to muster her supporters (which led to racist remarks to at least one black Obama congressional endorser's office) and some rebellion in her ranks (Hillary Rosen: "I am not a bargaining chip. I am a Democrat."
The writing was on the wall by the time Clinton and Obama literally crossed paths after he spoke to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and before she did. Especially as he was accompanied by Rahm Emmanuel, who'd been for Clinton but had endorsed Obama just hours earlier.
And the flood of endorsements continued today, including former Clinton supporters Senator Barbara Boxer and Rep. Maxine Waters. Here's one list, and here's another (neat picture.)
Along with the collapse of Clinton's support came a collapse of talk about her being VP. Obama appointed three people to begin the selection process--the surprise being Caroline Kennedy. Apparently she's been advising as well as appearing onstage for awhile now. Update on this point--E.J. Dionne saying at greater length and probity in Thursday's Washington Post what was said here Tuesday night:" Hillary Clinton talked her way out of the vice presidency on Tuesday night. Barack Obama may never have intended to make her the offer. But Clinton's largely self-focused non-concession speech suggested that what some call a dream ticket could turn into a nightmare.
But gaining the vice presidency by invoking leverage just can't work. It makes the presidential candidate look weak. It breaks in advance the trust that running mates need. It can only presage conflicts and power struggles in a new administration. Hillary Clinton is an enormously talented public servant. Many who ended up supporting Obama once hoped to support her. But Clinton's political future requires her to accept that Obama has prevailed, that the primary campaign is over and that graciousness in defeat can, paradoxically, be turned into the most powerful leverage of all. "
Meanwhile, the historic nature of Obama's nomination was especially recognized and applauded abroad:
From hundreds of supporters crowded around televisions in rural Kenya, Obama's ancestral homeland, to jubilant Britons writing "WE DID IT!" on the Brits for Barack discussion board on Facebook, people celebrated what they called an important racial and generational milestone for the United States.
"This is close to a miracle. I was certain that some things will not happen in my lifetime," said Sunila Patel, 62, a widow encountered on the streets of New Delhi. "A black president of the U.S. will mean that there will be more American tolerance for people around the world who are different."
Unless he decides to show up at the Hillary event Saturday, Obama is taking the weekend off. It's about time for this blog to take some time off, too. In fact, to slow down for the near future. So my handful of regular visitors should expect a weekly rather than daily report, as events warrant and the spirit moves.
It's been fun playing pundit, fun seeing that I did it pretty well, often enough anticipating news points and judgments, as well as catching the gist as well as the drift of events. But time to turn to other, harder follies for awhile.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
