This from the Chicago Tribune:
www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-mccain-differencejun08,0,3350838.storyA study in contrastsOne is 71, the other 46. One is a Vietnam War hero, the other was a child during the conflict. One is a longtime senator, the other a newcomer. One is white, the other African-American.By Mark SilvaWashington Bureau8:50 AM CDT, June 8, 2008WASHINGTON — In their age, experience, race, faith in the power of government and views of a complex world, Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain offer American voters one of the sharpest contrasts in candidates for the presidency in modern times, at least on a par with the Johnson-Goldwater and Reagan-Mondale elections.The 2008 presidential campaign, without an incumbent president or vice president in the race, will play out against a backdrop of deep restiveness, polling shows, with the public overwhelmingly dismayed about the direction the nation is taking.The public is clamoring for change, experts say. And both Obama, the Democratic junior senator from Illinois, and McCain, the Republican senior senator from Arizona, will try to capitalize on that appetite for a new course in American government.Yet while these two contenders are in some ways courting the same voters — independent swing voters who hold no allegiance to either party — they could hardly be more different. Both Obama and McCain are promising change, and the race may come down simply to whom voters believe and trust."I can't think of anything in our era that comes close to this," said Andrew Kohut, president of the Washington-based Pew Research Center. "They will bring people back to the fundamentals that 'I am choosing a person. I am not choosing a party or a philosophy' … It really comes down to the way that independent voters who are the least ideological look at these candidates and say, 'Which agent of change am I most confident in?'"The contrast is stark:•Obama is a generation younger. If elected president, at age 47 he would be surpassed in youth only by Bill Clinton, 46 at his election; John Kennedy, 43; and Theodore Roosevelt, at 42 the youngest person ever to become president, having taken office with the assassination of William McKinley in 1901. McCain, in contrast, would be the oldest president ever elected to a first term. He will be 72 in November, older than Ronald Reagan, who won in 1980 at age 69.•Obama is a first-term senator and relative newcomer on the stage of foreign affairs. McCain is a fourth-termer who has taken many congressional tours abroad.•Obama, born of a Kenyan father and American mother, would be the first African-American in the White House. McCain, from a long line of Scottish Presbyterians, is a third-generation graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, with ancestors who served in the Confederacy and one who served on the staff of Gen. George Washington.•McCain is a military veteran, with 22 years in the Navy, including 51/2 as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. He is the son and grandson of admirals. Obama was a child during the Vietnam War and has never served in the military.•When it comes to policy, Obama opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq from the start, before his election to the Senate in 2004. McCain, while critical of the Bush administration's conduct of the war in its early stages, voted for the authorization of military force and supports President George W. Bush's strategy today.•Obama is open to negotiation with recalcitrant world leaders, such as the president of Iran, who is pursuing the enrichment of uranium contrary to U.S. insistence that he stop. McCain holds a hard line against negotiation, instead insisting that the U.S. financially squeeze Iran.•Obama wants to offer universal health care for Americans and is willing to raise taxes on the wealthiest citizens to help pay for a costly new program. McCain, who voted against prescription drug benefits for the elderly under Medicare, warns against the expansion of government health care and vows to avert new taxes.As citizens of the world, they share an awareness of foreign shores: Obama was born in Hawaii and raised for a time in Indonesia. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, and his family, he has written, was "rooted not in a location, but in the culture of the Navy."Historic contrastsPast elections have certainly presented differences as well. George H.W. Bush's "read my lips" pledge of no new taxes, later broken, contrasted with Clinton's vision of an expanding social safety net. Jimmy Carter's insurgent candidacy confronted institutional Washington's Gerald Ford. The purist conservatism of Barry Goldwater was on a collision course with Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society." John Kennedy's charisma ran up against Richard Nixon's made-for-theater persona in a new age of telegenic appeal.But arguably no race in modern times has presented a contrast as broad as that of the personal profiles of Obama and McCain, combined with their views on government at home and America's involvement in a treacherous world.McCain, vowing to restrain government spending, wants to extend the Bush tax cuts. Obama, proposing new spending for health care, wants to boost taxes on wealthier Americans. McCain pledges to prosecute the war in Iraq to a conclusive victory. Obama promises to bring troops home in 16 months."These two individuals represent about as stark a choice as we've ever had in American politics," said Darrell West, professor of political science at Brown University. "Voters are going to get what Barry Goldwater long ago promised — 'a choice instead of an echo.' "He added, "The biggest differences are age, race and philosophy ... Those are things that translate into different perspectives on public policy."Even their campaign styles seem to come from different worlds. Obama electrifies large arenas, while McCain is far more comfortable in smaller gatherings. Possibly because of this, McCain on Wednesday challenged Obama to a series of 10 town hall-style campaign debates."What we haven't seen are these two candidates face-to-face with one another," said David Lanoue, chairman of the political science department at the University of Alabama and author of "From Camelot to the Teflon President." "Clearly, Obama is a very inspiring, eloquent speaker. … He is best behind a podium with a prepared speech. McCain is best in a person-to-person situation with no prepared remarks.""I think there is another dimension, and that is whether Barack Obama is seen as an elitist candidate," said Herb Asher, professor of political science at Ohio State University. "McCain will try to wrap himself in the mantle of change and present Obama as the agent of the wrong kind of change. ... It's really going to be a chance for Barack Obama to fill in the rest of his biography."Discontent unitesThe choice arrives at a time when Americans are unified in one thing: discontent.Seven in 10 Americans are dissatisfied with the state of the nation, the latest Pew Center survey indicates, and 27 percent of those surveyed in mid-May voiced disapproval of the job Bush is doing."The fundamentals are certainly going in a Democratic direction," Pew's Kohut said. "But there are rather sharp sets of really well-defined positives and negatives for each of these candidates, which makes it a much closer race."mdsilva@tribune.comCopyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune
That's all I have to say!
Go Obama!
Whatever the results are tomorrow, I feel GREAT tonight!
...sure sounded like an Obama endorsement.
But, since he's independent, he can't officially endorse a candidate--so the letter is part gentle scolding of all candidates and part gentle nudge of the population in Obama's direction.
Let's keep the momentum going...
I’m Not Running for President, but ... By MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG WATCHING the 2008 presidential campaign, you sometimes get the feeling that the candidates — smart, all of them — must know better. They must know we can’t fix our economy and create jobs by isolating America from global trade. They must know that we can’t fix our immigration problems with border security alone. They must know that we can’t fix our schools without holding teachers, principals and parents accountable for results. They must know that fighting global warming is not a costless challenge. And they must know that we can’t keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals unless we crack down on the black market for them. The vast majority of Americans know that all of this is true, but — politics being what it is — the candidates seem afraid to level with them. Over the past year, I have been working to raise issues that are important to New Yorkers and all Americans — and to speak plainly about common sense solutions. Some of these solutions have traditionally been seen as Republican, while others have been seen as Democratic. As a businessman, I never believed that either party had all the answers and, as mayor, I have seen just how true that is. In every city I have visited — from Baltimore to New Orleans to Seattle — the message of an independent approach has resonated strongly, and so has the need for a new urban agenda. More than 65 percent of Americans now live in urban areas — our nation’s economic engines. But you would never know that listening to the presidential candidates. At a time when our national economy is sputtering, to say the least, what are we doing to fuel job growth in our cities, and to revive cities that have never fully recovered from the manufacturing losses of recent decades? More of the same won’t do, on the economy or any other issue. We need innovative ideas, bold action and courageous leadership. That’s not just empty rhetoric, and the idea that we have the ability to solve our toughest problems isn’t some pie-in-the-sky dream. In New York, working with leaders from both parties and mayors and governors from across the country, we’ve demonstrated that an independent approach really can produce progress on the most critical issues, including the economy, education, the environment, energy, infrastructure and crime. I believe that an independent approach to these issues is essential to governing our nation — and that an independent can win the presidency. I listened carefully to those who encouraged me to run, but I am not — and will not be — a candidate for president. I have watched this campaign unfold, and I am hopeful that the current campaigns can rise to the challenge by offering truly independent leadership. The most productive role that I can serve is to push them forward, by using the means at my disposal to promote a real and honest debate. In the weeks and months ahead, I will continue to work to steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense; away from sound bites and toward substance. And while I have always said I am not running for president, the race is too important to sit on the sidelines, and so I have changed my mind in one area. If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach — and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy — I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House. The changes needed in this country are straightforward enough, but there are always partisan reasons to take an easy way out. There are always special interests that will fight against any challenge to the status quo. And there are always those who will worry more about their next election than the health of our country. These forces that prevent meaningful progress are powerful, and they exist in both parties. I believe that the candidate who recognizes that the party is over — and begins enlisting all of us to clean up the mess — will be the winner this November, and will lead our country to a great and boundless future. Michael R. Bloomberg is the mayor of New York.
WATCHING the 2008 presidential campaign, you sometimes get the feeling that the candidates — smart, all of them — must know better. They must know we can’t fix our economy and create jobs by isolating America from global trade. They must know that we can’t fix our immigration problems with border security alone. They must know that we can’t fix our schools without holding teachers, principals and parents accountable for results. They must know that fighting global warming is not a costless challenge. And they must know that we can’t keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals unless we crack down on the black market for them.
The vast majority of Americans know that all of this is true, but — politics being what it is — the candidates seem afraid to level with them.
Over the past year, I have been working to raise issues that are important to New Yorkers and all Americans — and to speak plainly about common sense solutions. Some of these solutions have traditionally been seen as Republican, while others have been seen as Democratic. As a businessman, I never believed that either party had all the answers and, as mayor, I have seen just how true that is.
In every city I have visited — from Baltimore to New Orleans to Seattle — the message of an independent approach has resonated strongly, and so has the need for a new urban agenda. More than 65 percent of Americans now live in urban areas — our nation’s economic engines. But you would never know that listening to the presidential candidates. At a time when our national economy is sputtering, to say the least, what are we doing to fuel job growth in our cities, and to revive cities that have never fully recovered from the manufacturing losses of recent decades?
More of the same won’t do, on the economy or any other issue. We need innovative ideas, bold action and courageous leadership. That’s not just empty rhetoric, and the idea that we have the ability to solve our toughest problems isn’t some pie-in-the-sky dream. In New York, working with leaders from both parties and mayors and governors from across the country, we’ve demonstrated that an independent approach really can produce progress on the most critical issues, including the economy, education, the environment, energy, infrastructure and crime.
I believe that an independent approach to these issues is essential to governing our nation — and that an independent can win the presidency. I listened carefully to those who encouraged me to run, but I am not — and will not be — a candidate for president. I have watched this campaign unfold, and I am hopeful that the current campaigns can rise to the challenge by offering truly independent leadership. The most productive role that I can serve is to push them forward, by using the means at my disposal to promote a real and honest debate.
In the weeks and months ahead, I will continue to work to steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense; away from sound bites and toward substance. And while I have always said I am not running for president, the race is too important to sit on the sidelines, and so I have changed my mind in one area. If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach — and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy — I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House.
The changes needed in this country are straightforward enough, but there are always partisan reasons to take an easy way out. There are always special interests that will fight against any challenge to the status quo. And there are always those who will worry more about their next election than the health of our country.
These forces that prevent meaningful progress are powerful, and they exist in both parties. I believe that the candidate who recognizes that the party is over — and begins enlisting all of us to clean up the mess — will be the winner this November, and will lead our country to a great and boundless future.
Michael R. Bloomberg is the mayor of New York.
I think that Hillary has a point.
Obama has my support, but when Hillary said that the media was against her--however out of place it was--she seemed to be right. At least if last night was the standard.
-- In the opening video sequence, the clip of Hillary that played was one in which she praised Obama. The clip that was played of Obama was an ambiguous statement that did not identify Hillary.
-- Tim Russert interrupted Hillary several times, and not Obama.
-- The accidental video footage ridiculed her with its misplacement. (Granted, it was footage of her actions...)
-- At the end of the (presumably) local broadcast on cleveland.com, the very first clip to be played after the cameras turned away from the candidates shaking hands was the clip of Hillary dropping the tactless SNL line. (Granted, it was footage of her actions...)
-- And more...
I'm not sure what this means, whether its intentional, or what its importance is, but it did make me wince on several occasions.
~
That said, Hillary and her campaign dug her own grave in the days leading up to the debate and in the debate itself. For the first time, I felt that Obama did respond more clearly and assertively than Hillary. He demonstrated perspective and poise in the face of cheap shots from his opponent and ludicrous questions from the moderators.
I shy away from saying that someone looks "presidential" because that seems to suggest that there is a stereotype for what it means to be a president, but last night Barack Obama showed that he has what our country needs right now: a clear sense of what the important issues are, a clear ability to cut through and diffuse political and media distractions, and the ability to share that sense and ability with us.
I'm impressed. I can't imagine anyone else pulling such a smooth, concise, and level reversal. This is from cnn.com:
Asked how he would fight the image of being unpatriotic, Obama said, "There's always some nonsense going on in general elections. Right? If it wasn't this, it would be something else. If you recall, first it was my name. Right? That was a problem. And then there was the Muslim e-mail thing and that hasn't worked out so well, and now it's the patriotism thing. "The way I will respond to it is with the truth: that I owe everything I am to this country," he said. The first-term senator from Illinois has been the subject of various debunked rumors since launching his presidential campaign -- allegations that he is a Muslim, that he took his oath of office on a copy of the Quran and that he attended a radical Islamic school while living in Indonesia as a boy. "You will recall that the reason I came to national attention was a speech in which I spoke of my love of this country," said Obama. He and his wife, Michelle, had already explained her comments. "She simply misspoke," he said. "What she was referring to was [that] this was the first time she has been proud of politics in America. "That's true of a lot of people who have been cynical and disenchanted. And she's spoken about how she has been cynical about American politics for a very long time, but she's proud of how people are participating and getting involved in ways that they haven't in a very long time." About not wearing an American flag lapel pin, Obama said Republicans have no lock on patriotism. "A party that presided over a war in which our troops did not get the body armor they needed, or were sending troops over who were untrained because of poor planning, or are not fulfilling the veterans' benefits that these troops need when they come home, or are undermining our Constitution with warrantless wiretaps that are unnecessary? "That is a debate I am very happy to have. We'll see what the American people think is the true definition of patriotism."
Asked how he would fight the image of being unpatriotic, Obama said, "There's always some nonsense going on in general elections. Right? If it wasn't this, it would be something else. If you recall, first it was my name. Right? That was a problem. And then there was the Muslim e-mail thing and that hasn't worked out so well, and now it's the patriotism thing.
"The way I will respond to it is with the truth: that I owe everything I am to this country," he said.
The first-term senator from Illinois has been the subject of various debunked rumors since launching his presidential campaign -- allegations that he is a Muslim, that he took his oath of office on a copy of the Quran and that he attended a radical Islamic school while living in Indonesia as a boy.
"You will recall that the reason I came to national attention was a speech in which I spoke of my love of this country," said Obama.
He and his wife, Michelle, had already explained her comments. "She simply misspoke," he said. "What she was referring to was [that] this was the first time she has been proud of politics in America.
"That's true of a lot of people who have been cynical and disenchanted. And she's spoken about how she has been cynical about American politics for a very long time, but she's proud of how people are participating and getting involved in ways that they haven't in a very long time."
About not wearing an American flag lapel pin, Obama said Republicans have no lock on patriotism.
"A party that presided over a war in which our troops did not get the body armor they needed, or were sending troops over who were untrained because of poor planning, or are not fulfilling the veterans' benefits that these troops need when they come home, or are undermining our Constitution with warrantless wiretaps that are unnecessary?
"That is a debate I am very happy to have. We'll see what the American people think is the true definition of patriotism."
I can't find the comment now, but one reader astutely noted:
Bring it out in the open, and you kill it.
Thanks are due to the reporter who asked these questions.
As this is the first time that I've been deeply politically active, I've learned to marvel at the depth and breadth of what candidates have to navigate and understand. I think that it is nearly, if not completely, impossible to have a thorough and nuanced understanding of every issue. There are simply too many constituencies, too many foreign nations, too many overlapping ambitions. Talking points, a candidate may have a grasp of, but an understanding of the complexities of every issue seems beyond reach.
Perhaps I am simply too new at trying to grasp them.
Or perhaps it is only after a dedicated career in politics that one can really have something to say about everything. For sure, one reason I do admire Hillary Clinton is that she does seem to have a concrete, multi-stage take on so many topics. She can talk about them all. It sounds and is truly impressive. However, the reason I support Obama is that what is more important than having something to say about everything is being able to find the right thing to say about anything.
By now, I have read enough about the way Obama approaches politics at large--and enough of his take on some key concerns of my own--to trust his approach on all of the issues. Several elements of his character seem plain as day to me:
That he understands and acts on these principles is enough in my mind to trust his judgment on any topic. Even though I cannot speak to his stance on every issue, I support him because the way he operates affirms that he will find the right answer. I can argue effectively on his behalf on issues like health care, Iraq, education, and a few more, but I trust that beyond those concerns, his intelligence and teamwork--his political process--will find the best course of action.
I believe that this reflects the only way that most citizens can make informed decisions. Unlike politicians and pundits, most citizens do not have the time or energy after long days of work to delve into the subleties of how different tax plans impact different demographics and relate to military spending and social services. Most people in our country live a fairly consistent life that revolves around a few fairly consistent concerns. For that reason, a few key issues and faith in the character of a candidate are enough to clinch many people's vote.
Naturally, this is a dangerous trait; it is exactly the logic the led millions of people to vote for George Bush. But the difference, of course, is that trust in Obama's character comes from his record of thoughtfulness, intelligence, and moral clarity, instead of whether he'd want to share a beer and watch some games.
Well, he'd do that, too.
One more item that offered a lighthearted glimpse at Obama's character.
From the New York Times:
...One might not guess that off stage Mr. Obama can act like an elusive starlet of late. When the press approaches, he rations words like gold. He held a brief news conference on Saturday to respond to a passionate attack from Mrs. Clinton, who accused him of distorting her position on trade. But that was his first nonscripted encounter in five days. Then again, he has that lead and perhaps it is more fun playing the tease. In Edinburg, Tex., Mr. Obama briefly stuck his head through a blue curtain at the far end of the press room. “Crank it up, guys,” he yelled to reporters bent over their laptops. “Words matter. Don’t listen to Hillary.” To which he added: “That’s a joke.” A reporter asked a question. The candidate smiled. And he disappeared from sight.
...One might not guess that off stage Mr. Obama can act like an elusive starlet of late. When the press approaches, he rations words like gold. He held a brief news conference on Saturday to respond to a passionate attack from Mrs. Clinton, who accused him of distorting her position on trade. But that was his first nonscripted encounter in five days.
Then again, he has that lead and perhaps it is more fun playing the tease. In Edinburg, Tex., Mr. Obama briefly stuck his head through a blue curtain at the far end of the press room.
“Crank it up, guys,” he yelled to reporters bent over their laptops. “Words matter. Don’t listen to Hillary.”
To which he added: “That’s a joke.”
A reporter asked a question. The candidate smiled. And he disappeared from sight.
Two excerpts from today's newspapers that I find compelling:
From The Washington Post:
...The assumption that experience equates with good judgment is a hard one to shake. We tend naturally to defer to the person who has been there before, measured the adversary, learned how the game is played. Yet if ever there were a test of the efficacy of experience, it was the Bush administration's decision to go to war in Iraq and its subsequent management of the postwar occupation. Bush's national security advisers were arguably the most experienced in modern times. But their performance was often very poor. That was partly, I think, because they overlaid the post-Sept. 11 challenges on a Cold War template about the uses of military power. ...To prepare for the next stage of the U.S. presidential campaign, try this thought experiment: Imagine the television footage of Barack Obama's first trip abroad as president -- the crowds in the streets of Moscow, Cairo, Nairobi, Shanghai, Paris, Islamabad. Now try to imagine the first visit by President John McCain to those same cities. McCain is a great man, and he would be welcomed with respect, deference, perhaps a bit of fear. Obama would generate different and more intense reactions -- surprise and uncertainty, to be sure, but also idealism and hope. Now tell me which image would foster a stronger and safer America in the 21st century.
...The assumption that experience equates with good judgment is a hard one to shake. We tend naturally to defer to the person who has been there before, measured the adversary, learned how the game is played. Yet if ever there were a test of the efficacy of experience, it was the Bush administration's decision to go to war in Iraq and its subsequent management of the postwar occupation. Bush's national security advisers were arguably the most experienced in modern times. But their performance was often very poor. That was partly, I think, because they overlaid the post-Sept. 11 challenges on a Cold War template about the uses of military power.
...To prepare for the next stage of the U.S. presidential campaign, try this thought experiment: Imagine the television footage of Barack Obama's first trip abroad as president -- the crowds in the streets of Moscow, Cairo, Nairobi, Shanghai, Paris, Islamabad. Now try to imagine the first visit by President John McCain to those same cities. McCain is a great man, and he would be welcomed with respect, deference, perhaps a bit of fear. Obama would generate different and more intense reactions -- surprise and uncertainty, to be sure, but also idealism and hope. Now tell me which image would foster a stronger and safer America in the 21st century.
From the New York Times, comparing the Clinton Campaign to the Iraq War--it's a little snarky, but it makes some good points:
...The Clinton camp was certain that its moneyed arsenal of political shock-and-awe would take out Barack Hussein Obama in a flash. The race would “be over by Feb. 5,” Mrs. Clinton assured George Stephanopoulos just before New Year’s. But once the Obama forces outwitted her, leaving her mission unaccomplished on Super Tuesday, there was no contingency plan. She had neither the boots on the ground nor the money to recoup. That’s why she has been losing battle after battle by double digits in every corner of the country ever since. And no matter how much bad stuff happened, she kept to the Bush playbook, stubbornly clinging to her own Rumsfeld, her chief strategist, Mark Penn. Like his prototype, Mr. Penn is bigger on loyalty and arrogance than strategic brilliance. ...As for countering what she sees as the empty Obama brand of hope, she offers only a chilly void: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and — talk about bizarre — against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country. Bill Clinton knocked states that hold caucuses instead of primaries because “they disproportionately favor upper-income voters” who “don’t really need a president but feel like they need a change.” After the Potomac primary wipeout, Mr. Penn declared that Mr. Obama hadn’t won in “any of the significant states” outside of his home state of Illinois. This might come as news to Virginia, Maryland, Washington and Iowa, among the other insignificant sites of Obama victories. The blogger Markos Moulitsas Zúniga has hilariously labeled this Penn spin the “insult 40 states” strategy. The insults continued on Tuesday night when a surrogate preceding Mrs. Clinton onstage at an Ohio rally, Tom Buffenbarger of the machinists’ union, derided Obama supporters as “latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust-fund babies.” Even as he ranted, exit polls in Wisconsin were showing that Mr. Obama had in fact won that day among voters with the least education and the lowest incomes. Less than 24 hours later, Mr. Obama received the endorsement of the latte-drinking Teamsters....What’s next? Despite Mrs. Clinton’s valedictory tone at Thursday’s debate, there remains the fear in some quarters that whether through sleights of hand involving superdelegates or bogus delegates from Michigan or Florida, the Clintons might yet game or even steal the nomination. I’m starting to wonder. An operation that has waged political war as incompetently as the Bush administration waged war in Iraq is unlikely to suddenly become smart enough to pull off that duplicitous a “victory.” Besides, after spending $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts in January alone, this campaign simply may not have the cash on hand to mount a surge.
...The Clinton camp was certain that its moneyed arsenal of political shock-and-awe would take out Barack Hussein Obama in a flash. The race would “be over by Feb. 5,” Mrs. Clinton assured George Stephanopoulos just before New Year’s. But once the Obama forces outwitted her, leaving her mission unaccomplished on Super Tuesday, there was no contingency plan. She had neither the boots on the ground nor the money to recoup.
That’s why she has been losing battle after battle by double digits in every corner of the country ever since. And no matter how much bad stuff happened, she kept to the Bush playbook, stubbornly clinging to her own Rumsfeld, her chief strategist, Mark Penn. Like his prototype, Mr. Penn is bigger on loyalty and arrogance than strategic brilliance.
...As for countering what she sees as the empty Obama brand of hope, she offers only a chilly void: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and — talk about bizarre — against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country.
Bill Clinton knocked states that hold caucuses instead of primaries because “they disproportionately favor upper-income voters” who “don’t really need a president but feel like they need a change.” After the Potomac primary wipeout, Mr. Penn declared that Mr. Obama hadn’t won in “any of the significant states” outside of his home state of Illinois. This might come as news to Virginia, Maryland, Washington and Iowa, among the other insignificant sites of Obama victories. The blogger Markos Moulitsas Zúniga has hilariously labeled this Penn spin the “insult 40 states” strategy.
The insults continued on Tuesday night when a surrogate preceding Mrs. Clinton onstage at an Ohio rally, Tom Buffenbarger of the machinists’ union, derided Obama supporters as “latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust-fund babies.” Even as he ranted, exit polls in Wisconsin were showing that Mr. Obama had in fact won that day among voters with the least education and the lowest incomes. Less than 24 hours later, Mr. Obama received the endorsement of the latte-drinking Teamsters.
...What’s next? Despite Mrs. Clinton’s valedictory tone at Thursday’s debate, there remains the fear in some quarters that whether through sleights of hand involving superdelegates or bogus delegates from Michigan or Florida, the Clintons might yet game or even steal the nomination. I’m starting to wonder. An operation that has waged political war as incompetently as the Bush administration waged war in Iraq is unlikely to suddenly become smart enough to pull off that duplicitous a “victory.” Besides, after spending $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts in January alone, this campaign simply may not have the cash on hand to mount a surge.
Here is a collection of articles and websites that have been pivotal in my decision-making about choosing a democratic nominee. I will add to this list as I encounter more.
Obama:
Maureen Dowd, “Darkness and Light”New York Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/opinion/06dowd.html?scp=2&sq=maureen+dowd&st=nyt
Eamon Javers, “Is Obama Good for Business?”Business Weekhttp://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/feb2008/db20080212_645487.htm
Caroline Kennedy, “A President Like My Father”New York Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.htmlNicholas Kristof, “Who is More Electable?”New York Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/opinion/07kristof.html?scp=2&sq=nicholas+kristof&st=nytNicholas Kristof, “Hillary, Barack, Experience”New York Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/opinion/20kristof.html?scp=1&sq=hillary%2C+barack%2C+experience&st=nytLawrence Lessig, “20 minutes or so on why I am 4Barack”Lessig.orghttp://lessig.org/blog/2008/02/20_minutes_or_so_on_why_i_am_4.html
** Larissa MacFarquhar, “The Conciliator”The New Yorkerhttp://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05/07/070507fa_fact_macfarquhar
Troy McMullen, “Obama Takes Europe by Storm”Abcnewshttp://abcnews.go.com/International/Story?id=4101774&page=1Michelman, Kate, (Former President, NARAL) “Why I’m Endorsing Barack Obama”Huffington Posthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-michelman/why-im-endorsing-barack-_b_84658.html
Adam Nagourney, “2 Years After Big Speech, a Lower Key for Obama”New York Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/08/us/politics/08obama.html
Charles Peters, “Judge Him by His Laws”Washington Posthttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.htmlWill.i.am, “Yes We Can Song”http://www.yeswecansong.com
Hillary: (these are not anti-Hillary pieces)
Matt Bai, “Mrs. Triangulation”New York Times Magaizinehttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/magazine/02hillary.html?pagewanted=1
Rush Limbaugh, “Limbaugh Says He’ll Fundraise for Hillary”Huffington Posthttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/07/limbaugh-says-hell-fundr_n_85593.html
George Packer, “The Choice”The New Yorkerhttp://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/28/080128fa_fact_packer
