It's Ugly

And I wonder if it's going to stay that way. The political blogs are bursting with anger over perceived racism (against Obama) and perceived sexism (against Hillary.) Controversy over remarks that offend African Americans, including by a "feminist" defending Hillary. Controvery over remarks about Hillary that offend women, including remarks by other women. (These selections from Huffington Post are representative of what's going on elsewhere, but perhaps better written.)

All of this might be lauded as cultural consciousness raising but people vote their emotions, and there have already been angry women voting for Hillary and are likely to be angry African Americans voting for Barack, now that there are elections in states with notable black populations. And here's a sexist comment for you: it looks to me that the racial remarks are being discussed and debated out in the open, but that women are taking their anger with them to the voting booth in silence. On the other hand, as someone noted, Hillary has talked openly about being the first woman President, while Barack hasn't prominently mentioned being the first African American President.

By the way, if Giuliani were to win, he would be the first Italian American President. Think about what that says about stereotypes and prejudices.

This week Karl Rove entered the fray, sprinkling a column with racial code words in his lambasting of Obama, calling him "lazy" and referring to his playing basketball. He must be pretty happy about the polarization that's going on now.

Some dispute whether gender or race ultimately will matter for the electorate. I think in the general it will matter less. But you have to get to the general, and the primaries may well continue on their present course: ugly.

Now there's a diary at Kos: Clinton Polster: Latinos don't like Black leaders.

P.S. "it's the economy, stupid" has been a cliche since 1992, and has been used countless times with a different, "it's the x, stupid" to make a point by coining a new cliche. It's this generation's "gate" at the end of every scandal. In other words, it's stupid. It's also insulting to keep calling people who disagree with you, stupid.

Now for the first time since it was used in the original Clinton campaign, the economy is in serious danger of tanking, and somebody has actually come up with an apropos twist: It's Stupid's Economy.

It's the Economy

I'd hoped we'd heard the last "It's the x, stupid" cliche but no chance of that now. I see the Washington Post concurs with my insight that the economy has become a top campaign issue, and Hillary Clinton has taken the initiative with a new stimulus plan proposal. Obama better have something to say when the subject comes in at the debate in Nevada. If he doesn't, a slow uptake on this issue could turn out to be the fatal flaw come Tsunami Tuesday.

Why Obama

It's long been my contention and belief that the Climate Crisis is the most significant set of problems to face humanity, and therefore the core issue in electing the next U.S. President.

So I read with interest a Kos diary by JohnnyRook that expresses some of my sentiments about why I support Barack Obama, even though the apparent policy differences on this issue with Hillary Clinton (or John Edwards) seem small. Like JohnnyRook, I am not happy with Obama's apparent support for ethanol and clean coal, nor am I happy with his willingness to allow nuclear power into the mix, although in that case his caveats are significant: provided safety is proven and the nuclear waste problem is solved (and we're nowhere close to that.) But there are overriding issues, and JohnnyRock expresses one for me in this paragraph:

Policy differences (over coal, ethanol) are less significant in my calculation than the ability to inspire and motivate. Clearly, any of the Democratic candidates, if elected, will take action on global warming, but I believe that Obama is uniquely suited to the task, because of his ability to inspire a vision in people. Without that vision, I believe, there will be far greater resistance to the policies that we must of necessity adopt to halt the heating of the planet. I see in Obama and his rhetorical, motivational and organizational skills an American leader who can turn global warming in the public consciousness from an important issue into the defining issue of our age (which is what it truly is), giving us a genuine sense of national purpose (as opposed to the shoddy imitation of purpose that Bush has tried to make of the Iraq War.

Endorsements

I got an email today from John Kerry (as did three million other close personal friends) telling me he was going to endorse Barack Obama, and apparently he's already campaigning for him, with an appearance in South Carolina and some phone-ins to talk shows in Nevada. But probably more important to Obama's chances in the Nevada Caucuses was the Culinary Union's endorsement, and this article I happened across tells why. (South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson and a Congressman closely associated politically with Speaker Pelosi also endorsed Obama. Meanwhile, Gov. Bill Richardson dropped out of the race, not endorsing anyone.)

Chuck Todd, NBC's new political director, said on Keith that Hillary can afford to lose both Nevada and South Carolina, but she could really use at least a split going into Tsunami Tuesday. Obama must win the South Carolina primary. If he does, it proves he can attract black voters in the South, which gives him an advantage in the Southern states on TT. If he doesn't, it's going to cut into his credibility as a winner. I'm guessing that a victory in Nevada gives the victor an apparent advantage in the West and among Latinos.

And man, it's been hard to avoid the blather over the polls and the results in New Hampshire, including conspiracy theories. What little I've heard and perused tells me it's not that big a deal--the polls essentially got everything right except Hillary's surge, and that New Hampshire voters have done this before. It is a little scary how a glistening eye and a guy holding up an IRON MY SHIRTS sign close to election day can decide an election.

But what has impressed me the last few days is the lack of panic among Obama supporters and the follow-through on endorsements that were planned before New Hampshire. Tells me the support for Obama is real, and so is the belief that he can win.

This NY Times story suggests Obama could get more endorsements, this time from black leaders offended by Hillary's comments awkwardly making the point that the talk of Martin Luther King didn't get Civil Rights without the action of President LBJ. That is not playing well with black politicians in the South.

Pivot

I am not going to obsess about this, especially the polls. But--the Culinary Workers did endorse Obama, which is good news for his Nevada campaign.

That was the only story I read today on the election. But I couldn't help thinking (in the shower) that Hillary's narrow victory may well be most related to the somewhat surprising #1 issue in the exit polls of both party's primaries: the economy. People are worrying about the economy, and they went to a Clinton. Bill Clinton not only ran on that in 92, he delivered (or was the beneficiary of) some good economic times.

The economy is the issue Obama probably needs to pivot on, shaping his message to emphasize it. It's a very strong issue for Hillary since people give Prez Clinton credit for managing it in the 90s.

Okay, that's it. No more. Goodbye.

After New Hampshire

It's chaos. Hillary Clinton's surprise 2 point victory over Barack Obama throws this election season into complete chaos. Everything that seemed to be revealed by Iowa is called into question, probably until the final results on Tsunami Tuesday on February 5, and maybe not even then.

The Democratic race itself now has no shape, except as a two person contest, at least for the next month. If Obama had won by even 5 points, the endorsements would have started to roll in tomorrow, and the wave would keep building. Now the Culinary workers in Nevada, set to endorse him, are scratching their heads again. They are said to be a key to the Nevada caucus.

Hillary won her base constituency that Iowa said she'd lost: women and party Dems. The Obama organization lost out to the establishment party organization. The youth vote slipped back to its usual unpredictability--even whether it will show up at all.

The polls were spectacularly wrong, indicating a last minute surge, or more troubling, the race gap problem in which voters say they will vote for an African American candidate, but don't. The polls were not so wrong predicting John McCain's GOPer victory (though his margin decreased through the night to about 5 points) so race may be a factor. Ugly.

The questions that the New Hampshire results open up will not necessarily be answered in Nevada and South Carolina, where Obama still has to be favored.
The possibility that Hillary got traction with her last minute negative campaigning, and that of husband Bill and her usually negative staff, may make the next month Uglier.

In concession, Obama was eloquent, though adding only new phrases (Yes, we can) and emphasis (a New Majority) to his Iowa victory speech. In victory, Hillary's speech was great in tone and substance for its first half ("I have found my voice") and mostly meandering thereafter, stealing liberally from Obama.

As chaotic as the Dem contest is, the GOPers are in even greater confusion. They've had 3 state contests with 3 different winners, and may get yet another in South Carolina and another in Florida. Whereas the Democrats had record turnout in New Hampshire, the GOPers didn't even match 2004, when there was no actual contest.

I think I'm going to pull back from this electoral obsession--I really don't want to have to wallow in the muck and mire of the next month. On Feb. 5, I'm voting for Obama. I never thought we'd get the chance for the transformative, inspirational leader we will require to have a chance to save the world from the worst of the Climate Crisis. He's that hope. I don't see another.

New Hampshire Day

720PT--John Edwards is talking. The Edwards campaign lives in a world of its own, and every event is exactly the same, as if nothing around them was actually happening. It's arguably Edwards attacks on Hillary that energized women to defend her in the voting booth today, his focusing fire on her in the debate Saturday and especially his stupid comment that her tearing up was evidence she isn't tough enough. Meanwhile, he's at 17%, which is consistent with opinion polls, so this is definitely an Obama-Hillary race.

710pmPT--The difference for Hillary so far is the women's vote, which she lost in Iowa but which she's strongly winning in NH. My partner turned analyst said immediately that it was her tearing up, and the reaction to it in the media. I thought that would help her--it was unfair and sexist--but not to this extent. Still, the college town votes aren't in yet. A narrow victory for Obama is still a victory, but it will be interesting to see if the endorsements start coming in, especially the Nevada unions, as were expected when he was projected for a double digit win.

620pmPT--Surprising if not shocking so far: Hillary is holding onto a four point lead with some 36% of the votes counted. Exit polls indicate she's won on some issues, and some 14% didn't make up their mind who to vote for until today. But nobody expected her to win, including her own campaign, and her own husband. If she wins it will be major, and even if she leads on TV for the first few hours and comes in a close second, we'll hear "Comeback Kid" before the night is over.

If Obama's momentum is blunted a bit--though he is still likely to win the next two contests--the big question I have is whether his campaign's ground game was ready for prime time in New Hampshire. Hillary had the tested Kerry infrastructure getting out the vote today.

I'll also be curious to see the status of my theory of where the Independents went and why. Certainly John McCain's substantial and early victory suggests he got a lot of Independent votes.


A half hour or so before many of the voting places close-- though others are open an hour longer, some in urban areas--signs point to a big Obama victory. The final tracking poll from Reuters/Zogby has Obama by 13 points, voting turnout is reported to be very heavy, and exit polls are showing a lot of Independents voting in the Dem primary.

There's a little more mystery for GOPers. Though this same poll has McCain with a 9 point lead, reporters are saying the Romney campaign feels undecideds are swinging their way. If Romney falls short, he will be the first Massachusetts (former)governor or Senator to lose the New Hampshire primary. And one interesting finding from the exit polls has been released--showing major dissatisfaction among GOPers with the Bushite presidency. This could translate into bigger numbers for the only anti-war candidate on the GOPer ballot, Libertarian Ron Paul.

Key to New Hampshire

It's just a few hours before the polls open in most of New Hampshire (some have already voted.) The final poll at this hour, taken by the American Research Group Sunday and Monday shows Obama with a 9 point lead (down from 11 points), and at 40% of the total, followed by Hillary and Edwards. McCain has a 7 point lead over Romney, with Huckabee, Guiliani and Ron Paul.

Weather is forecast to be clear and bright, so turnout is expected to be high. The one unknown at the moment is which party will get the most Independent voters (they can vote in either party's primary but not both.) The nightmare scenario for McCain is that the Obama boom attracts so many Independents that his natural constituency is depleted enough to give Romney a narrow victory. The nightmare scenario for Obama is that all the talk of his runaway victory persuades too many Independents that their votes aren't needed, so they can afford to give McCain some help in the GOPer primary. But if those early voters in Dixville Notch are any indication, Obama has nothing to worry about. Out of 17 voters--12 Independents, 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats--he got 7 votes. 3 0ther votes went to Democrats, but none to Hillary.

Right now to even meet expectations, Obama has to win pretty big, while McCain has to win. Hillary may have won back a few votes in the past two days, but she probably lost others. Reporters are detecting a Romney surge but several newspapers are reportedly trashing him in very strong terms. His saturation negative ads seem to have hurt him. If I were to bet on the outcome, I'd say Obama wins by more than 10 points, maybe a lot more. And that McCain squeaks out a win of just a few percentage points--but he also could go bigger. But to make some real money I'd bet on Libertarian Ron Paul to come in fourth, above Giuliani. To meet expectations now, Huckabee has to come in a strong third. Anything over 12% and he gets a bump.

Obama may even get write-in votes in the GOPer primary. And a suggestion of how big this phenomenon is--and maybe how deep--there's a poll in Iowa taken after their caucuses matching Democratic candidates against Republicans. Obama obliterates them all: the closest race is with McCain (Obama wins by 17 points) and the worst drubbing is of Giuliani--Obama wins by 40 points.

Taking the Temperature

Judging from the polls and what reporters are saying, Obama is still plenty hot in New Hampshire. Their speculation now centers on how big a victory he'll have there tomorrow. (If he wins by less than 10 points, will their narrative be a Hillary resurgence?) On the GOPer side, the reporters are feeling a movement back to Mitt Romney, partly because Obama is attracting Independents who might otherwise have voted in the GOPer primary for McCain.

And of course they're all looking past New Hampshire. It's not clear where McCain goes if he does win there. A couple of polls show Huckabee with a large lead in the South Carolina primary. If Romney reemergences as the best of a bad lot in New Hampshire, that could be the end for McCain. And if he then wins in Michigan, he has some momentum going into Florida and the February states. But if McCain wins bigger than he's polling at the moment (he did that last time) then GOPer voters may take another look at him. But he'd almost have to win Michigan as well, because it's hard to see where else he posts another victory.

Guiliani is off the radar this week, campaigning virtually alone in Florida, which is supposed to propell him into Tsunami Tuesday, which includes primaries in New York and New Jersey. That's his last chance. So the GOPer scenario is still wide open, with the distinct possibility that they won't have a clear front-runner even after February 5.

The polls also show Obama is developing a large lead in South Carolina, so while Hillary has to campaign there to hold on to her endorsements from black political leaders in the state, her real resurgence--if it is to happen--will be on Feb. 5 in those Tsunami Tuesday primaries. That's where the Clinton influence on the Democratic Party mechanisms will have to work. Meanwhile Edwards hangs around to step in as an alternative should either of the other candidates falter.

As for Obama, he's become a phenomenon. Chris Matthews attended one of his recent speeches and he said that it was the best political speech he'd ever heard. Joe Scarborough said that there hasn't been an inspirational candidate like Obama since June 6, 1968, which was the day Bobby Kennedy died from gunshot wounds he suffered immediately after his victory speech from the California primary.

The 'False Hope' Example Hillary Can't Use

In Saturday's debate and on the stump, Hillary Clinton is making the argument that hope is fine, but that a candidate not ready to be President will raise "false hopes" by being too inexperienced to fulfill those hopes.

It's a reasonable argument, and there is a very good example which she knows very well, but that she can never use. It's Bill Clinton.

In 1992, it was (perhaps ironically) Bill Clinton who was the "change candidate." He was not only the young candidate--the first baby boomer to seriously seek the office--but he made "change" a major campaign theme. The other day, a reporter on TV said he counted how many times Barak Obama said the word "change" in one speech. A different reporter did the same thing with one of Clinton's debates with Bush the First. In both cases, they said "change" a lot.

After twelve years of Reaganistic Republicanism--with its ardent privatization and deregulation and hollowing out of needed government agencies, its championing of corporate power and policies of impoverishment, its lethal foreign adventures and war in Nicaragua, its corruption and abuses of power, and its demonization of political opponents and fostering of polarization--the country was in deep debt, the economy was wilting, the middle class endangered, the government threatened, and it was time for the kind of progressuve changes Bill Clinton articulated.

After decades near despair, his election was one of the sweetest moments of my life. We were able to breathe again. He was the "Man from Hope."

By the end of eight tumultuous years he had managed to lead us back from the brink, to reverse much of the destruction wreaked by 12 years of Republican rule, and put the country back on track and with a solid foundation to move ahead in the 21st century. On the other hand... We all know what threw his second term off track. But his first term also started disastrously.

Once in the White House, he attempted to move boldly, but he and his people failed to anticipate the powerful opposition to his attempt to reverse the ban of gays in the military by presidential order. His pencil thin Democratic majority in Congress gave him some early victories, but as other controversies and perceived disorganization allowed the Republican noise machine to blow mud on the waters, there were limitations and defeats.

The biggest defeat was on universal health care. This became an issue in the 1992 campaign mostly because of a single TV ad in Pennsylvania a year or so before, when Democrat Harris Wofford ran for the Senate seat that opened as a result of the tragic death of moderate Republican Senator John Heinz in a plane crash. In the ad, Wofford was seen outside an operating room or some such medical scene, asking why members of Congress get complete health care, and other Americans don't. Given little chance of winning at the beginning of his campaign, he was elected by 10 points, and suddenly universal health care became a winning issue.

The idea of universal health care was arguably Bill Clinton's most popular issue when he ran. It wasn't all "the economy." When he took office, it remained popular. He was so confident that Congress had to pass his plan that he branished a pen at a State of the Union address, and said he would use it to veto any plan that didn't include universal coverage.

But both Bill and Hillary Clinton weren't experienced enough in Washington politics to see the extent and the power of the opposition, particularly from powerful corporations and lobbyists. They weren't experienced enough to build coalitions in framing the plan, although the case can also be made that pretty much everyone--media included--believed that their plan would pass overwhelmingly, and that whatever mistakes they made were unforeseeable.

Partly because Clinton had raised hopes for change that he couldn't make, his popularity plummeted, and for this and other reasons--some probably more powerful than this one--the Democrats suffered their devastating off-year election defeat in 1994, when Newt Gingrich and his Contract on America swept into power, and swept many Democrats out (including Harris Wofford, who was defeated by newcomer Rick Santorum.) Democrats lost control of Congress, and have yet to fully regain it.

This is not an argument against or in favor of Hillary Clinton's candidacy, nor a knock against Barack Obama. If it wasn't possible to learn from other people's experience, we may as well forget about education. It's just, if you will, one of those curious ironies of political campaigns.

This is really the subtext of what Hillary Clinton means by experience--she lived through this nightmare, and eventually she and Bill Clinton survived and triumphed, though having done much less than they had hoped, or led those who elected them to hope.

But what she can't come out and say is, when an inexperienced change agent raises hopes and can't fulfill them, the immediate result can be disaster, and the attempt to survive the catastrophe will cause him to pull back on much of that change, and concentrate on what most needs to be accomplished that can be accomplished, and that can rehabilitate his political power. And the reason she knows this is it happened to her husband, and to her.

Polls and Other Pre-New Hampshire Notes UPDATED

Update 2: The USA today poll shows basically the same spread as CNN but this is the first to show Obama with more than 40% support. They have him at 41% vs. 28% for Hillary. Edwards is at 19%, about the same as in other polls. So that's the other part of this story--not only has Obama's lead grown but he's getting a higher proportion of the total field. Here's a summary of this poll and others announced Sunday. END of Update 2.

3pm PT: New polls are confirming a ten to twelve point lead for Obama in New Hampshire, including the CNN tracking poll which yesterday showed a tie. Their survey says Obama is gaining about 3 points a day, at the expense of both Hillary and Edwards. On the GOPer side, Huckabee is up a couple of points to 14% which may be good enough for third place, behind John McCain and Mitt Romney. The Rasmussen poll has a slightly larger lead for Obama, but otherwise is much the same. This poll was taken before the debate yesterday. If that changed anything, it won't show up until tracking polls tomorrow. A couple of other polls show the same Obama trend, but see the race as tighter. They agree that the order is Obama, Hillary, Edwards. END OF UPDATE.


Not all the New Hampshire polls show Obama will such a large lead--one of the latest has him up only a couple of points, while others show a tie with Hillary. But these polls are also consistent in not showing Huckabee with an appreciable Iowa bounce.

There are lots of stories about discontent and dissension among Hillary's top staff and monied supporters--but that's consistent with the predictable media narrative: the rise of Obama, the fall of Hillary. But if Hillary's staff is being criticized, it couldn't happen to nicer guys. And it is right now when we begin to see their true colors--when they're under pressure.

We've seen them when they were arrogant, now we see them being even nastier. They've already reportedly engaged in what they know is a false accusation about Obama's record on abortion. A similar argument was made before and they know what they are asserting is false: Obama had a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood while a state legislator, and he voted "present" on some bills at their request. And the Clinton staff is desperately attacking from the Rabid Right, noting Obama's past statement on limiting mandatory minimum jail sentences. Shades of George Bush the First v. Dukakis and the old "soft on crime." Truly despicable.

Apparently that's also the opinion of a number of executive officers of AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union that endorsed Hillary Clinton, who signed an open letter protesting the negative ads targeting Barack Obama that their union is sponsoring--not only on the basis of being unauthorized and directed against someone who has always supported their union, but for being distorted and misleading:

"It is also worth noting that the campaign that AFSCME is waging against Sen. Obama is fundamentally dishonest and inconsistent with past positions of our union, i.e. attacking him for not forcing individuals to purchase health care even when they can’t afford it. The ads are misleading in attempting to give the impression that they are associated with John Edwards rather than Hillary Clinton and in their claims that Sen. Obama’s health care plan will exclude 15 million people when in fact every person will have the opportunity to participate. This dishonesty is giving our union a “black eye” among many in the media and the progressive community."

Obamamania

It's hit New Hampshire. Accounts of large enthusiastic crowds for Obama, smaller ones for Hillary. According to some polls, Obama was already trending upward in New Hampshire before Iowa. Now he's pulling ahead: American Research tracking poll has him up by 12 points: he's beating Edwards among men, and Hillary among women. Rasmussen has Obama ahead by 10 points. They have Obama leading among Democrats by five points and among Independents (40% of New Hampshire's electorate) by 16 points.

"If we cast aside our fear and cast aside our cynicism and we stand up for what we genuinely believe, this is our moment, this is our time, you can feel it, you can see it," Obama told an overflow crowd in Nashua.

So far the polls I've seen haven't shown much of an Iowa bounce for Huckabee among NH GOPers. But more info on this should be available Sunday. Meanwhile, there are debates today for both parties' contenders. It may be Hillary's last chance to affect the outcome Tuesday, and Huckabee's only chance for GOPer voters to take a good look at him. He's still polling in the 11-12 % range.

Katherine Hall Jameison was on Bill Moyers last night. I always listen to what she has to say about the intersection of politics and media. She made a good point that commentators (especially Chris Matthews) who kept saying that two-thirds of the Iowa caucus voters voted against Hillary. She pointed out that the vote was for someone, not against anyone, and could indicate a preference among acceptable alternatives. She's right, especially this year. Polls show Democrats are pleased with the candidates running.

Where I differ from her is her assertion that the prediction that Huckabee will do less well in New Hampshire because of fewer Evangelical voters is an unfounded extrapolation. I think the data from Iowa entrance/exit polls pretty strongly indicates that Huckabee got most of his support from Evangelicals, and scant votes from GOPers who aren't. If he's going to be really viable, he'll have to do well in more groups than one.

Ironies of Change

Today everybody is a change candidate: Edwards, Hillary, even Mitt Romney join Obama and Huckabee. Well, they're all right--none of them is Bush.

Which is actually a big problem for Huckabee. If he was Gomer Bush, he'd be on his way to the nomination. But without establishment GOPer credentials, he's going to have to win it on his own, opposed not only by Democrats but by much of his own party.

But according to the persuasive E.J. Dionne, Huckabee may represent a change in the Evangelical community. In his conversation with Keith today, he points to a number of popular grassroots EC leaders who are folding in compassion for the poor and stewardship of the earth--in other contexts, traditional Christian constructions--to their political portfolios. However, at this point the EC community is split, and if Huckabee can unite it under a more capacious banner, that would be change.

Hillary Clinton would like to be the Democratic change candidate. The irony for her is that in 1992, Bill Clinton was the change candidate. I remember one network newser counting the number of times he said "change" in one of his debates with Bush the First, just as I heard one reporter today count the number of times Barack Obama said it in a speech.

On her first day in New Hampshire, Hillary and her people downplayed the significance of Iowa--they were never going to win there, it's a caucus not a primary, it's like running for mayor in a middle sized city. I'm not happy Hillary lost in Iowa, but I am happy Howard Wolfson and others on her staff lost. I'd like to see them lose their jobs.

But Hillary also sounded the theme she's likely to continue pushing, a judo move not on "change" which hasn't worked for her, but on Obama's "hope." She warned today against "false hopes," that is, pinning hopes on a candidate who doesn't have the experience to deliver. That's actually a reasonable argument and a decent formulation. We'll see how it plays. We'll see if Obama's personal qualities and charisma as well as his verbal response counter it.

But the Bill Clinton example is instructive in other ways. Clinton got elected as the change candidate, and he didn't bring it enough--or fast enough--and he was in political trouble pretty quickly in his first term. Perhaps he didn't have the experience. But it was also true that his missteps combined with an insurgency that had been building in the R party, led to the devastating losses of the 1994 off-year election in which Dems lost control of Congress.

If you listen to Obama talk about bringing people together to effect change, his premise is that he has the votes in Congress to make that possible. So if he gets the nomination that's going to be his message--he not only wants to be elected, he will make a Democratic majority in Congress part of his campaign.

Finally, this thought on change. The word itself isn't very specific--it could mean change for the good, for the worse, towards or away from any number of things. The direction of change is important. JFK ran effectively on the slogan of getting the country "moving again" which was a change in tempo and presumed direction, from the apparent torpor of the second Eisenhower term. Change in the right direction, and in the right way, is the support structure for the one-word anomalous slogan.

Dems in Iowa: Son of the Future


It's a phrase that popped out of the mouth of Chris Matthews, of all people, but if Iowa is any indication, it fits Barack Obama, the victor in the Iowa Democratic caucuses.

First the numbers: Obama won a decisive victory with 38%, 8 points better than John Edwards, 9 better than Hillary Clinton.According to entrance and exit polling, his victory was pretty much total: He won the highest proportion of men and women, of Democrats, Independents and Republicans; those making more than $50,000 a year and those making less--in fact he won every income group, except the one he tied ($15-30,000) with Edwards. He tied with Hillary among union households according to CNN (another poll says he won this), and won nonunion households. The only divided category was age: Hillary won 65 and older, Edwards won 45-64, and Obama won everyone younger, including a majority of voters 17-29.

Obama won on all the choices for top issue (Iraq, the economy, health care) and he won the categories of very liberal, somewhat liberal and moderate. Oddly, John Edwards won the self-described conservatives. But the most obvious statistic in Obama's win was this: 52% of these voters named "can bring change" as the most important candidate quality, and 51% of them voted for Obama.

The most sensational number was turnout. Something like 113,000 Dems voted in the caucuses in 2004. An optimistic projection was about 150,000. At last count, this year there were some 238,000. About twice as many voters caucused for the Democrats as for the Republicans--very good news for Iowa going Dem in the general election.

And as Obama pointed out in his victory speech, he and his campaign accomplished exactly what he set out to do: bring people together, bring people in, change the dynamic. And he did so by never compromising on principle.

He sure changed the dynamic of this campaign. He's now going to be the favorite in the first two primaries: New Hampshire and South Carolina. Hillary and Edwards will contest them, and everything up to and including February 5, but there's no minimizing the momentum this victory gives Obama. By the end of the evening, candidates Chris Dodd and Joe Biden officially ended their candidacies.

While Edward's "concession" speech was a solid but graceless rendition of his incisive stump speech (he failed to even mention Obama, let alone congratulate him, and barely acknowledged his wife Elizabeth, the hero of his campaign), and Hillary gave a graceful but slightly dazed concession, Obama's victory speech was remarkable. He had the MSNBC commentators falling over each other praising it, with Eugene Robinson nearly in tears and comparing him to Bobby Kennedy. In fact, both the speech and the victory seemed to bring out the best in almost everyone on TV, at least for awhile.

About the speech: first of all, it was beautifully stage managed. While Huckabee spoke with supporters right behind him--including Chuck Norris and an attractive blond--who took the focus away from him, and supporters were also crowded close to Hillary (with Bill Clinton perfecting his version of the Nancy Reagan adoring spouse stare--he never took his eyes off her), Obama's supporters were far enough behind him that they blurred when the camera focused on him.

I've only listened to excerpts from speeches of the past few days, but I heard the same mastery of cadence tonight. He has this little hand gesture with which he seems to be conducting his own sentences--his speech was so musical, that he had that largely white audience doing a little call and response. And he repeated not only some of the resonant lines from his latest stump speech, but a sentence from his 04 Dem Convention address that got him so much attention in the first place: "we are not a collection of Red States and Blue States, we are the United States of America..."

He spoke finally about hope, and this summarized everything that made this such an historic moment. The first (literally) African American candidate to win such a victory (I say literally because, as he said, he has a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas), a person whose victory is going to be heralded around the world and especially in the Third World--the first step to bringing this country back into the world community. A person of practical vision: serious, humane and confident.

Almost as important as the sight of Obama rising to the occasion was the proving of his organization, and his (and its) ability to get young voters to the polls. We heard a lot about the Dean campaign's use of the Internet, etc. last time, and his appeal to the young, but neither worked this well. That's good news for Democrats as well as the Obama campaign. Now we'll see if they can scale it up to do several states at the same time, and then the massive challenge of Tsunami Tuesday in February. (And that was another smart feature of Obama's speech--he gave a lot of credit to his campaign, and he spoke to their hearts--he revved them up to give their all the rest of the way.)

So the American Dash fearless forecast got the order of finish correct here, and Edwards stays alive (barely) while Hillary is no longer the favorite. (It seemed that Edwards either didn't care that he lost or it didn't register, because his speech would likely have changed little in victory. Or maybe he was just moving on.) Hillary's best strategy may be to run dutifully in New Hampshire but concentrate on the Tsunami Tuesday states, where the electoral experience available to her is an advantage in so many simultaneous elections.

But Iowa looked very much like a major "change" moment, as the commentators said, and I guess some of us got a glimpse of what we've waited for decades to see again, at least that possibility. This son of the future might be the leader we need but thought we'd never see again. And those of us of an age hope that our hopes are not dashed in the same catastrophic way as they were before, in 1963, and 1968. We have to hope that in 2008, we're given this last chance.

GOPers in Iowa: Huckabee's (Possibly) Hollow Victory

Mike Huckabee scored a pretty decisive victory in the Iowa Republican straw poll/caucus--a 9 point victory over Mitt Romney. But it was a one-dimensional victory: about 60% of the voters identified themselves in entrance polls as Evangelical Christians, and most went to Huckabee. Of those who identified themselves as not EC's, less than a fifth voted for him. There just aren't that many ECs in New Hampshire. He'll get a bounce out of Iowa and some fresh funding, but it won't be enough.

There's more bad news for him. Though he soundly defeated Mitt Romney, John McCain is neck and neck for third place with Fred Thompson (with 95% of the votes counted.) That's good enough to both give McCain some bounce in New Hampshire, where he's moving up anyway against Romney to be the favorite, and it's also enough to keep Fred Thompson in the race, preserving an alternative as conservative as Huckabee.

Huckabee's victory is causing consternation among Republicans already. He doesn't have the Bush pedigree to bring the Evangelicals and the Wall Street and Washington neocons all together. The latter two hated the Clintons for being upstart poor whites, and here's Huckabee who's governor of the same state and was born in literally the same little town as the Big Dog. In that sense and others, Huckabee is divider.

If Fred Thompson can finish third in New Hampshire (he has better pro help and probably looks a lot better to the heirs of Bush right now) and Huckabee is fourth, then it could all become complete chaos for the GOPers, right on to their convention.

All that said, Huckabee is also a wildcard. The polls that said he'd peaked in Iowa and his bubble had burst were dead wrong: a lot of his voters came to him in the past few days. He's probably going to have the resources to keep going well past New Hampshire and he has the possibility of raining on everybody's parade--including Rudy's last stand down in Florida--while not being strong enough to actually win the nomination.

On the numbers: the Des Moines Register poll was just about on the money on both races, and on a huge turnout (although even they underestimated that.) If I'd read their polling info more carefully on the proportion of evangelicals expected to vote, I might not have stuck with Romney in my prediction. I haven't seen any numbers on this yet, but I'd guess that most of the GOPer first timers were evangelicals voting for Huckabee.

Live Blogging Iowa


630PT: NBC is calling it for Obama. Chris Matthews can't stop talking about how big a victory this is, and how it's going to be global news.

6 pm PT: CNN is calling the GOPer straw vote for Huckabee, by a significant margin. NBC quickly followed. Entrance poll shows that 60% of the total GOPer voters were evangelical Christians.

David Gregory points out something important on the Dem side. The sheer number of votes don't entirely matter--it's kind of an electoral college situation, with the total number of delegates fixed by turnout the last time. This was always an Edwards strategy--that if he did well in the rural districts, that could offset big numbers for Hillary or Obama in the cities. Right now, with about a fourth of the delegates allocated, Obama is slightly ahead but they're all bunched around a third of the total.

5:50
The first results are coming in. What's interesting to me is the 0% for uncommitted, which means that supporters of the second tier candidates are going to someone else as second choice, and not to uncommitted. There's been talk all day of deals (denied by Biden and Richardson representatives) which would trade votes for them where Obama has more than enough, in exchange for second choice votes elsewhere.

545 PT: Donna Braizile on CNN is spinning incoming entrance poll stats as good news for Hillary, while MSNBC is projecting an Obama lead, and word is that turnout could be as high as 200,000, when 130,00 was expected and the Obama people were hoping for 150, 000. But it still matters who those new voters are.

A couple of interesting observations about Independents in Iowa. Independents and even Republicans can choose to caucus with the Democrats. Tim Russert points out that if a lot of Is and Rs are caucusing Dem, it suggests that Iowa could go Dem in the general election (it went for Gore in 2000 but Bush in 04.)
Also, Chuck Todd suggests that if Hillary loses because of so many Is and Rs, her spinmeisters will suggest that the choice of real Democrats is not yet known (and won't be next week either, as Is can vote in the D primary in New Hampshire.

5:15 PT: Early entrance poll indications that turnout is indeed big. MSNBC is monitoring one precinct in Des Moines where turnout for the Dems is more than three times what it was in 2004. Also, a computer model shows the possibility of a strong showing by Ron Paul among the Republicans, possibly even third place.

4:45pm PT: The caucuses have begun. Weather across the state was favorable to a large turnout (i.e. cold but no storms or snow.) Apparently the doors closed about fifteen minutes ago, and if the turnout is big, it will probably take longer to sort things out. Republicans have a quicker, secret ballot process, so their results will probably be known first--maybe an hour from now.


Actually, it's live-blogging only in a loose sense--just updates through the evening as warranted.

It's mid afternoon in California and still more than an hour before the Iowa caucuses start. The buzz however continues to be for Obama. Zogby has been polling daily, and today's has Obama ahead for the first time: it's Obama 31%, Edwards 27%, Hillary 24%. Lots of talk of deal or no deal, most of it involving Obama as well.

Awaiting Iowa

The Iowa caucuses are tomorrow, at last. And then the first real primary in New Hampshire on Tuesday. Right now the buzz is about Barack. He came in first in the Des Moines Register poll by the biggest margin anyone's had in that poll, and Iowans read the Register. Then Kucinich asked his supporters to support Barack at their second choice, if (or rather when) he doesn't get the required 15% of caucus attendees and is disqualified. Today there's word--or rumors--that the Richardson people are also steering their supporters towards Obama. Chris Dodd announced that he's not sending his supporters to anyone. And nobody is suggesting John Edwards, which would be a blow to his chances--until now, the buzz had him benefitting from second choice votes.

So what will happen? It depends on who shows up. But the signs point to Obama, then Edwards, then Hillary. If Obama wins, he's going to surge in New Hampshire and could win there, and then it will be a matter of whether Hillary or Edwards can stop him in the super primaries. If Edwards wins, it's big for him, because it's now unexpected, but he still has a big mountain to climb. If Hillary wins, it's very big for her, because it reinstates her as the favorite. It's all about momentum going into New Hampshire.

On the Republican side I'm sticking with my original prediction: Romney, Huckabee, McCain. If McCain places, he'll hold on to his New Hampshire lead. If not, the race there tightens up, but I don't think New Hampshire is likely to go for Huckabee or even Romney. But if Romney wins Iowa, he stays alive. If Huckabee wins, that's expected; if he loses, he's in trouble because New Hampshire doesn't like him, and he's got no money for other states.

If this isn't complicated enough for you, here's a piece that speculates that an Obama victory in Iowa could lead to a long fight for delegates which would eventually mean the nominee will be...Al Gore.

I wrote about the polls as they came in at Dreaming Up Daily, but for the historical record--this blog does go back a ways--here they are:

12/30:This is about when the polls start to matter--three or four days before the voting. It's more of a mess this year because of the New Year's Eve/New Year's Day interval. But here's the latest:The McClatchy poll shows the Dems still virtually tied, but the trend line has Edwards moving up, and Obama and Hillary down. It also suggests that the Huckabee bubble has burst, and Romney's trend is up.

The Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll has the Dem finish as Hillary, Obama, Edwards, and the GOPers as a virtual tie between Romney and Huckabee. The GOP finding is consistent with McClatchy; however the Zogby poll is not considered as reliable as most others. The poll to watch will be the Des Moines Register, which has been the most accurate.

A couple of other findings from the Zogby that supports the Hillary lead--she's still strong among older voters, who are (based on historical precedent) the most likely to caucus. (McClatchy agrees.) Zogby also found Hillary's supporters are the most firm in their support. Both of these bode well for Hillary, if they prove out.

McClatchy found that events in Pakistan have not changed preferences, and that Edwards would get the most "second choice" votes. My initial guess a month ago of Edwards and Romney is looking pretty good, but these two polls suggest Obama could finish third. On the other hand, the Washington Post touts the Obama Internet-savvy organization and get out the vote effort, which could provide an unprecedented counterbalance of younger voters. His crowds are reported to be younger. Young voters are probably the wild card in the caucuses.

Meanwhile, the American Research poll in New Hampshire also shows an upward trend for Edwards in that state, a lesser upward trend for Obama, and a large downward (9 points) for Hillary. But as in Iowa, it's essentially a statistical three-way tie. Romney and McCain are vying for top spot among the GOPers, both trending upward at the expense of Rudy. Huckabee apparently has no bubble to burst in NH--he holds steady at 11%, which thanks to Rudy's fall, places him third.

As the polls come in, I think I'll update this thread rather than start new ones, so if you're interested, you might revisit here.

UPDATE 12/31/07: This is the one I was waiting for: the Des Moines Register poll 3 days before the voting--which was just about the only poll that got the finish order right in 2004: it shows an upward trend line for Obama, who comes in first with 32% (up from 28% in November) while both Hillary (25%) and Edwards (24%) were flat: no change. Obama's lead now is the largest any candidate has had. There is some fluidity: 6% are undecided (the same percentage as in other polls) and up to a third could change their minds. The poll is of voters who are likely to attend the caucuses, and a great many of them are first-timers and even not registered (although they can register "on the way to the caucus"). A bright spot for Edwards: there was an uptick in his support during the four days of the polling, but there was also for Obama. Not good news for Edwards: the union household is split pretty evenly among the three candidates.

This poll also show GOPer Huckabee maintaining his lead, 32% to 28% for Romney. That's not a safe lead.

So three polls, three different Democratic leaders. The only commonality is that Hillary's support has remained firm--the question being how big it is. One thing does seem very likely: while the race between the top three Dems is very close, it is a three person race: no other candidate looks likely to get the 15% for viability in most caucuses. Perhaps for that reason, the Register poll shows that, contrary to McClatchy, the "second choice" votes aren't likely to change the outcome.

Update 1/1/08: To further muddy the waters, the CNN/Opinion Research poll (conducted Dec. 26- 30) shows a two-way tie on both sides. The GOPers are the same--Huckabee and Romney, with Romney showing the upward momentum and Huck downward. On the Dem side, though, the tie is between Hillary and Obama, with Hillary slightly ahead. This one shows momentum for both Hillary and Obama but not for John Edwards, who is a relatively distant third. Meanwhile, the Register poll may itself have given Obama new momentum. The other candidates attacked its new turnout model. It does seem that the outcome hinges on how many young voters actually caucus.

Also, Dennis Kucinich--who is polling at around 1 or 2%--has asked his supporters to give their second choice votes to Obama. He did this in 2004 as well, although then he steered his supporters to Edwards. The other candidates haven't weighed in, but observers believe that Dodd, Biden and perhaps even Richardson voters are more likely to back Hillary as second choice, but precedent indicates they are more likely to remain uncommitted, or in particular instances, to see if they can't get 15% for one of these second tier candidates by combining their votes. The Biden campaign is saying straight out that they're running for fourth.

How Iowa Decides

Iowa isn't just voting next week--they're caucusing. The Wall Street Journal (finally) explains what that means.

Democrats and Republicans gather at various locations in the 1,784 precincts of the state. Republicans make a pitch for their candidates and there is a secret ballot. Democrats gather in clumps around the room according to which candidate they support. But the key item for caucuses in both parties is this:

"Candidates who don't receive support from at least 15% of participants are "eliminated," but their supporters can realign with another group. A final head count at the Jan. 3 gatherings will determine how county-level (not statewide) delegates will be apportioned."

According to this account, the lingo is that more than 15% makes the candidate "viable." But that first vote isn't the last. If your candidate isn't viable, you can join your second choice candidate, or the group that remains uncommitted.

This is why polls ask for "second choice" candidates, but that doesn't say a lot because whether your second choice will matter depends on who your first choice is--that is, if your first choice is a second tier candidate unlikely to get 15%, your second choice matters more than if your first choice is one of the top tier, who are more likely to get 15%. Unless of course your second choice is also a below 15% candidate--then it's your third choice that matters.

Then again, there's nothing preventing anyone from switching for any reason or no reason, from any candidate (viable or not) or the uncommitted, until the final tally is taken.

The big variable is who will attend. Some of the problem is who can attend: even though the caucuses are held in the evening, lots of people work then--in retail, restaurants and other places open until 9, and notably police, fire and medical personnel who often belong to politically active unions. Employers are not required to give time off, because technically it isn't an election--it's a internal party matter.

In all, only about 10% of Democrats and 12% of Republicans are expected to caucus.

As things are shaping up now, if Obama wins it may be because of what some are reporting is a very strong new speech in the closing days, or because college students are able and willing to caucus; if Hillary wins it may be because her experience argument grafts onto concern about events in Pakistan, or because of her ad blitz or women who want to vote for a woman for President once in their lives; if John Edwards wins, it may be because of his strong organization in rural areas and the resonance of his anti-corporate argument where jobs moved offshore have created hardship and insecurity.

If Huckabee wins, it may be because his heavy fundie appeals have worked; if Romney wins it might be because his organization turns people out and some have become leery of Huckabee's weirdness; if McCain does well, it may be because the others seem untrustworthy and unappealing.

Who knows? Nobody. Who cares? Everybody involved. Iowa caucuses on Thursday, and New Hampshire votes the following Tuesday. The difference between who places first and third may be very slim, which may mean it means a lot, or not so much. All the chatter will immediately be about how the outcome will or won't affect New Hampshire. And nobody knows that, either.

At this point, it seems to me that if the top three Democrats finish as close as they appear to be in the polls (and once again the cell phone argument is being raised--the polls don't reach them, and lots of young people use them as their one and only phone), Iowa may not matter as much as it did last time.

But of course no one will be able to say that until a week from Wednesday, when the New Hampshire results are known. If Edwards wins Iowa (and I still think he's got the inside track) then he has to win New Hampshire--but it's not a given. If Hillary clearly wins Iowa, then she is likely to win New Hampshire--but that's not a given either. Last time, John Kerry from neighboring Mass. had an early lead there, and lost it in the Howard Dean (of Vermont) surge. But Kerry winning in the fields of Iowa made New Hampshire feel better about returning to him. Hillary's had a lead there for some time, but New York is not quite so close, and the suspicion has always been that her support was wider there (and nationally) than deep.

If Obama wins in largely rural white Iowa, he's got a better chance in not so entirely rural white New Hampshire. At the moment he's close enough in New Hampshire polls that an Iowa victory could well put him over the top in NH.

Sound like tapdancing? You bet. Personally I'm betting that there will still be three Democrats standing--and three Republicans--by the time I vote in February.

Watching Iowa...Listening to New Hampshire

The Iowa caucuses are less than two weeks away, and the final polls will be starting soon. I have the sense that Hillary has made up some ground, although I totally don't respect the tactics employed. Her campaign has made one voter's decision: I definitely will not vote for her in the California primary. But she is closer to winning Iowa than she was even a week ago, is my guess.

She has been helped, I fear, by John Edwards and Barack Obama going after each other. You'd think they would have learned from Howard Dean and Richard Gephardt knocking each other out last time. While the national talking head consensus has become that the electorate is in the mood for a big change, which doesn't favor Hillary, Edwards and Obama are making it hard for people to feel good about supporting them, while Hillary smiles and smiles.

On the Republican side, the Huckabee boom doesn't seem to have collapsed yet, and it's a question now of whether Iowa Republicans have soured on Mitt Romney even more than they are skeptical of Huckabee, and whether the religious right has actually gone to Huckabee, with sufficient fervor to show up and caucus. Right now I'd say the chances of Huckabee coming in first have improved.

The New Hampshire primary has some markedly different dynamics than Iowa--including the mechanics of a primary (which requires only simple voting) versus the caucus (which requires more time and actual discussion.) But at the moment both Democratic and Republican primaries are so close and in such flux that Iowa could be decisive.

Right now it appears that John McCain is rising and could very well win the Republican contest. He's been endorsed by newspapers and his policy positions are closer to New Hampshire, particularly in recognizing the reality of the climate crisis, which that state is seeing within its borders. McCain's age is a problem, but his biggest ally is the general disenchantment with Mitt Romney.

However, a strong first place for Huckabee in Iowa could present another alternative to those who have soured on both Romney and Rudy. (Huckabee has less of a natural constituency in New Hampshire than Iowa.) If McCain at least places in Iowa, his chances to win in New Hampshire are enhanced. At the moment, I'd suggest he's on track to win NH.

Among the Democrats, the key may be how Hillary's attacks on Obama affect Iowa. Obama is from neighboring Illinois, so his record is more likely to be known in Iowa than in New Hampshire. If Iowa swallows the Hillary campaign's largely false attacks, it could be tougher for him to sustain his current momentum in New Hampshire. A third place showing in Iowa could be fatal to Obama, resurrecting the Hillary coronation scenario. A second place to Edwards won't hurt him, though it won't help him. A second place to Hillary will hurt him, but maybe not fatally. It's hard to see how Edwards wins anywhere else if he doesn't win Iowa.

Not Safe

Making us safe has been a Bushite mantra, but it's mostly been very expensive marketing for a nonexistent product. When it comes to protecting citizens from the effects of disasters and emergencies at home, a new study by the nonprofit Trust for America's Health concludes, "the United States is not safe."

Individual states and the federal government are at fault: Many states still lack a stockpile of drugs, masks, gloves and other equipment needed to battle a pandemic of diseases, despite five years of constant and detailed warning, the Trust for America's Health said in its report. Overall, federal funding for state and local preparedness will have declined by 25 percent in 3 years if the president's FY (fiscal year) 2008 request is approved," the report reads.

The report focuses on pandemics and public health consequences of emergencies. Also out this week, a Washington Post story that lists some (but by no means all) of the possible consequences for health of the climate crisis."We are not dealing with a single toxic agent or a single microbe where we can put our finger with certainty on an exposure and the response," said Jonathan A. Patz, a physician and epidemiologist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. "Climate change affects everything."

It is the complexity of climate crisis effects that would test even a system ready to respond to known kinds of emergencies--and we still aren't anywhere near that. Public health is still in shambles, and the general infrastructure for emergencies found wanting in the above report applies to more than the health aspects. These effects are already happening, and they will happen more and more in our immediate future.

Months ago, Keith Olbermann quoted Winston Churchill: "The responsibility of government for the public safety is absolute and requires no mandate. It is in fact, the prime object for which governments come into existence." This basic civics lesson is also a question for 2008 candidates. What will you do to truly prepare, to truly try to make America safe?

Presidential Politics

With about three weeks until the Iowa caucus, Obama and Huckabee are surging, there and elsewhere. But I'm still betting on the following order in Iowa:

Democrats
1. John Edwards
2. Barack Obama
3. Hillary Clinton

Republicans
1. Mitt Romney
2. Huckabee
3. John McCain

The top two swapping in either race wouldn't be too surprising but the questions for Obama and Huckabee are whether their surges continue, and especially whether they have the necessary organization to be effective in the unique Iowa caucus system.

Maybe the most daring prediction there is McCain coming in as high as third. If he does come in third, he could win New Hampshire. The question is whether the controversies over Romney and Huckabee drive voters to McCain in Iowa. He's probably pretty strong in New Hampshire already.

Among the Dems, even with a second place showing, Iowa might help Obama the most for New Hampshire. Of course a lot can happen before anyone votes. But the sense of inevitability for Hillary and Rudy has gone overall, at least for the moment. Then again, this could be a very weird year, when what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire doesn't matter as much as it did in 2004.

Through political luck or shrewd planning, who knows at this point, Barack Obama is rising above the pack at just the right moment to give him a credible chance to play dominoes with the primaries and come out the Democratic nominee.

Hillary Clinton's campaign appears to be faltering, and it may be the people she employs that's doing her in. I've always felt that I can live with Hillary as the nominee, but I can't live with her staff. In any case, she can survive losing in Iowa and even New Hampshire, and still win the nomination with a turnaround in February's megaprimaries.

Then again, so could Obama. John Edwards probably has the will, money and muscle to hang around long enough to see if these two bump each other off. (I still think he's as likely as anyone to win Iowa.) The polls show the top three are very close, but Iowa is three weeks away. Three days before the voting will be the first time that the opinion polls may suggest the order of finish. Unless one of the other Dem candidates pulls a surprise showing in the top three in Iowa, they're all pretty much done.

Political analyst Craig Crawford seems to think that Obama's confession of drug use in high school could still hurt him--even though it seems to have hurt the Clinton campaign more at the moment, which has reportedly been feeding the story. I don't think it will. Smirk did worse and at an older age, and voters ignored it. They ignored it with Bill Clinton's 60s youth, despite media frenzy. Obama wrote about it himself a decade ago, in the same context he mentions it today--as a cautionary tale to young people.

Of course, Republicans have no conscience about these kinds of attacks, but Smirk also got away with it because of his born again thing. Voters want to believe in redemption, and I think they really want to believe in it in a black man as well as a white fundamentalist. It doesn't tarnish Obama's image--think of all the white evangelists with a checkered past.

Otherwise, it occurs to me that Obama could turn up the wattage in his favor by making service a keynote of his campaign--service to the country and to humanity, like JFK did with the Peace Corps. It's also a way of channeling voter dismay and disenchantment with Bushworld. The U.S. doesn't have enough diplomats to staff its embassies--a call to service would help. A call to serve the needs of the nation, especially of the poor, of children and the old-- Obama more than any other candidate can do this credibly, especially with young people, who seem to be most enthusiastic about his candidacy. Such a call to service could energize his campaign even more, and jolt Obamamania into high gear.

I don't know when the right moment to do this would be, but if the moment is right, it could do a lot to sweep him to the presidency.

Not Anybody's Finest Hour

It's pretty clear what the Bushite agenda is for the rest of Smirk's term: continued bullying, with special emphasis on pushing their failures into the next presidency, and protecting themselves from future law enforcement.

The "surge" of forces in Iraq was all about keeping that country from collapsing until after January 20, 2009, when the next President is inaugurated. The obstructionism in Bali on the climate crisis was more of the same, though maybe longer term, until it's possible to blame the Democrats for not responding to health and environmental catastrophes caused by global heating.
And of course, the CIA destroying tapes of torture is only the most awkwardly blatant of many furious mannings of the barricades to keep those responsible for horrors that violate laws from ever being held responsible in any court of law.

And the pathetic outcome is that the bullying is working. With an approval rating slightly higher than that for head colds, Bush refuses to compromise at all--in even the most usual ways--on any legislation before Congress, and he's getting away with it. Congress failed by one vote to put some muscle in the energy bill, especially in taxing the outrageous profits of oil companies, and passed a watered-down version. They've acceded to Bushite demands, only to be told that their humiliating obeisance was not craven enough.

And so they're passing Bushite bills, and the Democrats are reportedly fighting amongst themselves.It's crap like this that disgusts the electorate and makes people cynical about government ever working. (Fortunately for corporations, their insidious machinations and incompetence is seldom on the public record.) Fortunately there is an election coming up, so hope springs eternal, but right now it can't come too soon.

What Losing Arctic Ice Means

In his Nobel speech, Al Gore referred to the melting of Arctic ice, and the prediction that summer ice will be gone in seven years. But apart from the likely extinction of polar bears--which is a grim enough legacy-- what does this mean in the context of Climate Crisis effects?

The AP had a story on this, because some scientists, who initially "shocked" the community by predicting that summer Arctic ice could be gone as soon as 2040, are now saying it looks like it could be pretty much gone by 2012--in five years. The story explains some of the significance.

Jay Zwally is a NASA climate scientist: "The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming," said Zwally, who as a teenager hauled coal. "Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines."

The story goes on:

What happens in the Arctic has implications for the rest of the world. Faster melting there means eventual sea level rise and more immediate changes in winter weather because of less sea ice.

In the United States, a weakened Arctic blast moving south to collide with moist air from the Gulf of Mexico can mean less rain and snow in some areas, including the drought-stricken Southeast, said Michael MacCracken, a former federal climate scientist who now heads the nonprofit Climate Institute. Some regions, like Colorado, would likely get extra rain or snow.

Melting of sea ice and Greenland's ice sheets also alarms scientists because they become part of a troubling spiral. White sea ice reflects about 80 percent of the sun's heat off Earth, NASA's Zwally said. When there is no sea ice, about 90 percent of the heat goes into the ocean which then warms everything else up. Warmer oceans then lead to more melting. "That feedback is the key to why the models predict that the Arctic warming is going to be faster," Zwally said. "It's getting even worse than the models predicted."

NASA scientist James Hansen, the lone-wolf researcher often called the godfather of global warming, on Thursday was to tell scientists and others at the American Geophysical Union scientific in San Francisco that in some ways Earth has hit one of his so-called tipping points, based on Greenland melt data. "We have passed that and some other tipping points in the way that I will define them," Hansen said in an e-mail. "We have not passed a point of no return. We can still roll things back in time — but it is going to require a quick turn in direction."

Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Reality Series

Here's the movie/ TV series we're apparently living in: Marty McFly goes back to the future and discovers that in the early 21st century the United States is becoming a totalitarian oligarchical pseudo-theocratic no-nothing paranoid dictatorship, thanks to the accession of George W. Bush to the presidency. Let's hope he's back to the past, figuring out how to prevent it so that this time-line can end.

Those of us inside this sad story are deep into Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, the series, updated with cell phones and Internet Newspeak babble. Latest evidence centers on torture and the denial of Constitutional rights, and the astounding fact that Guantanamo, the American Gulag, is still open for business, and the Bushites are still fighting to retain their anti-Constitutional powers. There's the news that the CIA destroyed tapes of a torture session, and at least some outrage about it. It's clear now that so much of the Bushites' furious activity defending torture and spying is to protect their asses against courts to come.

Speaking of which, the Supreme Court is determining at this very late date just what rights those swept up by the Bushite Shock Doctrinaires in their war of terror really should have. On anything before the Court, I've found Linda Greenhouse to be the very best guide. Surprisingly, she seems to sense that the Court is not going to rubber-stamp the Bushite retrenchment to police state barbarism, but the actual decision won't happen until summer.

Another subplot of the series is the skittering towards theocracy and further intolerance, with damage not only to Constitutional freedoms but the unfettered creativity of thought so necessary to our particular future.The Christian Right's political and organizational disarray, and the silence coming from the White House since reelection, may have suggested this is yesterday's news--until Mitt Romney's speech this week showed just how far we've fallen in recent decades.

That the speech was billed as this Mormon candidate's statement mirroring JFK's famous speech to hostile Protestant ministers about being Catholic and running for President--that in fact Romney used JFK's speech as a virtual Cliff's Notes for his--showed how far we've moved from the Constitution.There are a couple of good articles at salon on the subject (and as they point out, Mike Huckabee is an even more direct threat), but getting to them can be pretty annoying. And there's this specific comparison, with links to others. The JFK passage that's so telling is this one:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

Granted, that the "no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote" was a bit tongue in cheek, because even then the more fundamentalist wing was willing to do so. But it wasn't the norm, and it wasn't done openly. Of course now, it's become standard, and because it's accepted, so much more dangerous. Go back another 30 years to Sinclair Lewis warning that when dictatorship comes to America, it will come under the banner of Christianity.

Romney's speech didn't come out and call for America as a Christian nation (nor is Huckabee likely to, though he comes close), but he does attempt to hijack the Founding Fathers to support his notion that we've got no America, no Constitution, without organized religion and belief in God. Which god, whose god, that's never said, but it's part of the tradition to make a few references to "our Jewish friends" and even "our Catholic friends" while meaning the Protestant God.

These days it's a little different than in the Christians vs. Communists 50s--there's more common cause among the most rabidly conservative wings of Protestant, Jewish and Catholic religions, as they come more and more to represent the whole of their bloc. Conservative--meaning traditional-- beliefs are honorable. Intolerance is another matter entirely, and that's where these folks are heading. Some of them are already there, openly. The next step is the Christian police state.

Romney's announced enemy is the "religion" of "secular humanism," a patently political attempt to make common cause with this contortion of categories spawned in the Reagan era that never quite caught on except as fund-raising bait in fundie mega-churches. Maybe a little better than the War on Christmas for rallying the Christian soldiers marching not as to, but to, war. Still, the implication leads to Guantanamo for secular humanists. Far-fetched? Look around, and tell me about far-fetched.

They'll be marching to war against their fellow countrymen, who must no longer be free to muse and make the most personal and most human judgments imaginable on the basic issues of our existence. To differ is to be cast out. It's as totalitarian as you can get, and leads directly to 1984 oppression and, even more directly, to dullness and stupidity.

Too bad. Really too bad. Because if we're going to have a future, we won't get there by mindless adherence to dogma, by blindness, dull comformity and stupidity. It is in enforcing these that religion becomes--in a kind of ultimate irony--soul-destroying. And these days, future-destroying too.

Why Are We in Iraqnam
(RIP Norman Mailer)

With the deal last week between the Bushites and the current Iraqi government to formalize the intention to keep U.S. troops in those huge permanent bases in Iraq, and to "encourage" foreign investment (i.e. U.S. oil companies and related Bushite corporations), two prominent theories--not mutually exclusive by any means--got additional evidence for their answers as to why the Bushites began and prosecuted the war and occupation of Iraq.

One theory is Naomi Klein's in her book, The Shock Doctrine. Basically she outlines a strategy used in various parts of the world to further the goal of enriching large corporations--almost always run by or with strong ties to the folks now identified as Bushites, but who have pulled strings, or assisted their mentors in doing so, in previous Republican administrations. On Thursday she got the opportunity--the first I know of--to explain what she means on U.S. television: on a very well done segment of Countdown with Keith Olbermann. (Her theory aside, Klein should be regularly analyzing geopolitics and the news on U.S. television.) Here's what she said about Iraq:

KLEIN: Well, Iraq is the classic example of the shock doctrine. You had a military strategy that was called Shock and Awe. It was a military strategy designed to maximize disorientation. The theory was—This is a quote from Richard Armitage, the former deputy undersecretary of state, who said that the theory was that Iraqis would be so shocked, they would be easily marshaled from point A to point B. In that moment when they were supposed to be easy to control, easy to martial, you had Paul Bremer waltz in his Brooks Brothers suits and Army beauties, the uniform of the disaster capitalists, and say Iraq is open for business, and create this sort of—an attempt to create a corporate Utopia for American multinationals. It didn‘t work out. Then you saw the emergence of a third shock, not an economic shock, but shocks to body, the shock of torture, as they attempted to control this rebellious country.

There‘s three kinds of shocks in “The Shock Doctrine,” the shock of the crisis, then an economic shock therapy program, and then, if people don‘t behave, a third shock, which is the shock of torture. But didn't it work out? Certainly it's been messy, and so far such favored corporations as Halliburton, Bechtel and Blackwater have had to take their considerable piles of money and run, but could this latest agreement be the Bushite victory?

Jim Holt in the London Review of Books reverse-engineers the Iraq war and sees how this is entirely possible. First, he outlines the prize Iraq represents. That it's all about the oil isn't a news flash to a lot of people, but probably most don't know just how much oil is involved:

Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves. That is more than five times the total in the United States. And, because of its long isolation, it is the least explored of the world’s oil-rich nations. A mere two thousand wells have been drilled across the entire country; in Texas alone there are a million. It has been estimated, by the Council on Foreign Relations, that Iraq may have a further 220 billion barrels of undiscovered oil; another study puts the figure at 300 billion. If these estimates are anywhere close to the mark, US forces are now sitting on one quarter of the world’s oil resources. The value of Iraqi oil, largely light crude with low production costs, would be of the order of $30 trillion at today’s prices. For purposes of comparison, the projected total cost of the US invasion/occupation is around $1 trillion.

To get and keep control of that oil--even if it takes another decade or two--is the purpose of those bases, Holt suggests. He mentions that "Five self-sufficient ‘super-bases’ are in various stages of completion. All are well away from the urban areas where most casualties have occurred. There has been precious little reporting on these bases in the American press, whose dwindling corps of correspondents in Iraq cannot move around freely because of the dangerous conditions." But they are all mini-cities or walled suburbs. He refers to Thomas Ricks' reporting on one of the bases, the Balad air base: "Although few of the 20,000 American troops stationed there have ever had any contact with an Iraqi, the runway at the base is one of the world’s busiest. ‘We are behind only Heathrow right now,’ an air force commander told Ricks."

(Holt mentions something that I pointed out a couple of years ago--that U.S. bases in Iraq meant that U.S. bases in somewhat unstable Saudi Arabia, that so upset Osama bin Laden, could be closed--and they have been.)

But even if the U.S. and the West can't get much Iraqi oil into their pipelines for awhile, they still win because the U.S. presence deters their major competitor for oil in the world: China. Without more energy, China's economy can't keep growing at its current rate. By denying China this source, the West has a chance to weather the Chinese economic storm.

So Holt wonders: Was the strategy of invading Iraq to take control of its oil resources actually hammered out by Cheney’s 2001 energy task force? One can’t know for sure, since the deliberations of that task force, made up largely of oil and energy company executives, have been kept secret by the administration on the grounds of ‘executive privilege’. One can’t say for certain that oil supplied the prime motive. But the hypothesis is quite powerful when it comes to explaining what has actually happened in Iraq. The occupation may seem horribly botched on the face of it, but the Bush administration’s cavalier attitude towards ‘nation-building’ has all but ensured that Iraq will end up as an American protectorate for the next few decades – a necessary condition for the extraction of its oil wealth.

Which is why the failure to nurture a strong central government is actually success: If the US had managed to create a strong, democratic government in an Iraq effectively secured by its own army and police force, and had then departed, what would have stopped that government from taking control of its own oil, like every other regime in the Middle East?

So if you're thinking in terms of dollars and cents--even in billions or trillions--the whole thing makes sound business sense:The costs – a few billion dollars a month plus a few dozen American fatalities (a figure which will probably diminish, and which is in any case comparable to the number of US motorcyclists killed because of repealed helmet laws) – are negligible compared to $30 trillion in oil wealth, assured American geopolitical supremacy and cheap gas for voters. In terms of realpolitik, the invasion of Iraq is not a fiasco; it is a resounding success.

In fact the only counter argument Holt can muster is that the Bushites don't appear to be this smart. Still, there is reason to be sceptical of the picture I have drawn: it implies that a secret and highly ambitious plan turned out just the way its devisers foresaw, and that almost never happens.

Yet it makes perfect sense, even rhetorically. When real politik Republicans talk about freedom, they mean the freedom of themselves, their rich cronies and supporters to loot the world unencumbered by law, morality or compassion. (It's also why they're not bothered at all about the missing billions likely used for graft and other payoffs. Or why the current rampant corruption in Iraq is of no concern. After all, China has no problem with it either in their colonies such as Cambodia. It's part of the price of business.) That certainly seems to be what the Bushites mean when they say they're bringing freedom to Iraq.

Blood Sport

In the stories before and certainly the stories after the latest debate among Democratic candidates, the media was vampirish in its desire for blood, specifically Hillary Clinton's. But that the debate itself got nasty was by design, not by the candidates, but by MSNBC, and specifically the twisted beady-eyed ferret, so-called moderator Tim Russert. He led the assault, which was notable for its focus on Senator Clinton; otherwise it was his usual accusatory questioning on about the level of a high school sophomore debater with limited intelligence but an instinct for the jugular. He's perversely entertaining, as we watch him try to make politicians sweat, and as we wait for him to lose it on camera, perhaps begin snarling and chewing on his own claws.

This debate was clearly part of a continuous narrative, begun with TV pundits and their more competitively-alarmed print counterparts (although these days they are often the same guys) and perhaps for the first time carried through deliberately by the so-called "moderator" in the debate itself. This is the final payoff of the switch from candidate debates being sponsored by the likes of the League of Women Voters--non-partisan, issue-oriented, public-spirited--to sponsorship by interest groups and especially by the media itself, in this case MSNBC. They are transforming a fitfully informative forum that explores candidate's positions and allows voters to see and hear the candidates answer questions, to a TV "reality" show. Who will get voted off the island, and who will do what despicable act to gain the advantage? For what those shows are all about is blood sport.

Hillary Clinton is not my candidate, at least not yet. I also don't fault the other candidates for what they said, when they were drawing specific distinctions with her positions, or even when they were pointing out possible problems with her as a candidate. In fact, I thought almost all the candidates were sharper in this debate, in expressing their own points of view. That so much was focused on Hillary was partly foisted on them.

MSNBC evidently decided that because the polls say Hillary is the frontrunner, she was to receive more of the attention than anyone else, followed by Obama and Edwards. And she was to be the prime target for the ferret attacks. Those are judgments new to the debate format, and we'd better notice them. And notice their function: to increase conflict and get a little violence into prime time, which is normally when MSNBC likes to turn America's prisons into entertainment.The TV networks make enormous amounts of money from presidential campaigns. They need to juice up the conflict, so they can dangle the audience numbers before the candidates, and continue to reap those millions, the lion's share of political contributions that prostitute the candidates and the electoral system.

The result is to twist the campaign into a sham that is harmful to the process and the country, and our shared future. By emphasizing violent conflict, they emphasize the supposed necessities of violent behavior in a president. They call it toughness but what they really are promoting is violence.Ironically, this works to the ultimate advantage of Hillary, whose campaign is apparently predicated on "strength," and to the detriment of Barack Obama, who is trying to bring some sanity back to the political dialogue, instead of this bipolar insanity over strength v. weakness, and stereotyping everyone as one or the other. In the New York Times blog on the debate, Katharine Seelye actually wrote these sentences about Senator Obama: "he has an amiable quality about him that seems to resist the whole messy business. That might raise questions about how tough he would be in the Oval Office."

That's insane, and dangerously so. There is no other support for this allegation. But it is also typical of the after-debate swarm. Obama talked in the debate about how "we are all in this together" and how we must turn away from "the politics of fear." Indeed, the NY Times columnist Paul Krugman just lambasted Republican candidates for engaging in that very thing. But the media wants to see Obama's 'killer instinct,' his willingness to attack--not his willingness to draw distinctions, to show where and why he disagrees, but to 'take a shot' at Hillary.

This is the kind of bloodlust bullshit that made it so easy for the Bushites to lie us into what may well turn out to be the war that most threatens our future of any in our history. It's no small thing--it's the culture of violence that makes violence, including torture and the antiseptic discussion of mass violence by airplanes and missiles, so acceptable, and so easy to do.

Finally, it is a dangerous mood to encourage in a campaign that is bound to touch on sensitivities and prejudices. I don't mean to pick on the Times, for their coverage is merely characteristic, but I select this metaphor to caution against this way of speaking about a process of deciding on our leadership and our future: In discussing Senator Obama's interview with the Times in which he drew distinctions between himself and Hillary, Adam Nagourney wrote that viewers should "watch for" whether Obama would repeat these statements in the debate. His metaphor was this: "Will he pull the trigger? "

I remember when someone did pull the trigger on a presidential candidate. His name was Sirhan Sirhan, and the candidate was Robert Kennedy. It was 1968, months after the assassination of Martin Luther King, in the period that saw Malcolm X gunned down, and George Wallace crippled by a bullet. It was a violent time, and a time of violent language. Robert Kennedy was trying to change that. Someone pulled the trigger on him, and our nation has suffered ever since. The time to think about that is now, before it happens again.

From The Hollow Men Series by Howard Penning.