Barack Obama delivered a speech in Philadelphia yesterday. The speech was intended to address a significant negative reaction to statements made by Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright.
(http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/people2/just_8_have_favorable_opinion_of_pastor_jeremiah_wright)
In my estimation, this speech was lacking thematic clarity. I would liken it to a horoscope … a jumble of ideas loosely tied together from which the listener can latch onto whatever resonates with his or her own experience. As such, it may be effective for some of its audience (the ones who are inclined to believe in horoscopes give Obama the benefit of the doubt). However, for those that needed to understand Obama’s rationale for closely associating himself and his family with Pastor Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ, the speech came up short.
Let me say for the record that Obama and his team have proven themselves to be communicators of the first order. Thus there is a different standard for his speeches. Usually after an Obama speech, I can immediately jot down the main theme, the target audience, the intended take-away, etc. However this time, the only thing that was clear was the target audience – clearly this was the swing voting blue collar white males.
I will do my best to critique this speech. But I will qualify my commentary by saying that 10 different people could easily have10 different interpretations.
Theme of the Speech
In speechwriting 101, you are taught to immediately establish the theme … support … support … support … then conclude with a re-statement of theme. Obama doesn’t follow the template and thus, the theme is not clear.
In “A More Perfect Union”, Obama starts with 4 paragraphs of background on the Constitution, the founding fathers handling of the slavery issue, and the subsequent struggle to achieve the ideal of equality.
Finally, Obama makes the following statement which I believe is the theme of the speech:
“…unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren. “
Or restated: Through better understanding and alignment of goals between races we can take another incremental step on the way to our Constitutional ideal of equality.
Now restated as I believe this is meant to be interpreted by the target audience: Listen working class whites, YOU are not being treated equally AND African-Americans are not being treated equally as the Constitution says we should be. If these two groups can align their goals, they can form a powerful successful coalition.
So from this, I think we're going to get something similar to Obama's Pennsylvania stump speech.
Supporting Point 1: When racial issues are not in the way, this coalition has been successful
“Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans. “
(Nevermind that the white Americans have been more upscale than working class)
Supporting Point 2: African Americans need improved infrastructure to enable the American Dream (or alternatively the establishment has always done us wrong)
“ … Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.
Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.
Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.
A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us. “
Supporting Point 3: Working class whites need the same infrastructure to maintain the opportunity of achieving the American Dream (or alternatively, now the establishment is doing you wrong)
“…Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time. “
Supporting Point 4: This coalition which would otherwise be natural is kept apart by the political exploitation of racial resentment
“… Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding. “
Supporting Point 5: A great example of racial resentment exploited for political purposes … Jeremiah Wright
“…On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way “
So in other words, Obama doesn’t deny that resentment and anger exist in his church. Furthermore his friend and former pastor presents a “profoundly distorted” view of this country … which Obama condemns.
The big problem here is not that Obama and Wright are buddies, but that Wright is being taken out of context for the purposes of political exploitation
The $64K question: Why is the Obama-Wright relationship not a problem?
“…The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:
“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn’t need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild.”
That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.
And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.
Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.
But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality. “
Restated: Jeremiah Wright has done enough good in Obama’s life that he can overlook (and condemn) the “profoundly distorted” view of this country. Obama knows that there are underlying reasons why Wright is what he is. Furthermore Wright reflects (albeit in an extreme) the feelings of his community. Obama doesn’t want to disown his church and his community over his disagreements on the country and on racial resentment. He just wants to divorce himself from those ideas and still have those relationships. Obama then goes on to compare his relationship with Wright with his relationship to his grandmother who also made him “cringe” from time to time.
Now, if I put myself in the shoes of a working class white, I see Obama’s dilemma. I too have grandparents, uncles, etc that make me cringe. Yet I still love them. So the idea of the Obama-Wright friendship might not bother me anymore.
However, when I start imagining myself in a community and a church that is overtly bigoted and anti-American … this is a little tougher to swallow. However if my race was at one time enslaved and then suffered a century of injustice after that, OK … I might take Obama’s word for it.
But the final jump that I am asked to make is that Obama can completely divorce himself from these ideas held by his church and his community. Furthermore, that even though he disagrees with these ideas, he’s willing to steep his children in this church and community … no doubt perpetuating these bad ideas. The bottom line is that I think most people would find a church and community where those ideas that they consider bad are less intense for the benefit of their children.
I don’t think most people make that last jump. And I think some people won’t give Obama the benefit of the doubt on the anti-American and bigotry in their church leap. They’ll imagine themselves in a church where African Americans or America was being derided and they’ll stop thinking about the circumstances that might underlie that behavior. So at best Obama’s white working class audience will be uncomfortable with his explanation. At worst, they will reject his explanation out of hand.
Conclusion
I found this speech to be unusually poorly organized. There was a weak statement of theme, ideas didn’t flow correctly, and the ending restatement of theme was non-existent. Comparisons to “I have a dream” are completely beyond the pale as anyone who listened to Dr. King's speech could tell you the theme and the bullet points.
In my mind, the poor organization of the speech is suspect. Obama and his team are too good to put out a product like this at this moment. Did Obama mean to confuse us? Was he looking for a horoscope type reaction? Or worse … was he looking for an emperor has no clothes reaction? I can easily envision that Obama saw that his argument to his target audience was weak (at least with respect to Pastor Wright) and thus he had to give a speech that was a lot harder to figure out. He mixed his normal stump argument with a lot of distracting intellectually honest stuff about race and then threw in the Jermiah Wright argument. In the end we are all scratching our heads, wondering which way is up, and we’ve forgotten what this was all about in the first place.
The net effect of all this is that we're not talking about Jeremiah Wright anymore which is good for Obama. However, I have a feeling this isn't the last time we'll be examining this topic.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Great Minds Think Like Mine
Mark Schmidtt at Tapped concurs with my endgame strategy.
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=03&year=2008&base_name=what_should_obama_do_about_mic
Here's some further thoughts from The New Republic's Josh Patashnik
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/12/should-obama-agree-to-seat-florida.aspx
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=03&year=2008&base_name=what_should_obama_do_about_mic
Here's some further thoughts from The New Republic's Josh Patashnik
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/12/should-obama-agree-to-seat-florida.aspx
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Democratic Endgame
Barack Obama will be the Democratic Nominee. However he’s got a big problem. The TV networks, the Republican Party, and his opponent are all working as hard as they can to extend the Democratic primaries as long as possible. The TV networks are raking in dollars from all the campaign advertising and the high ratings. The Republican Party wants to see the Democrats spend all their money fighting each other. And Hillary Clinton is indicating that she’ll keep fighting in spite of the fact that her only winning scenario is extremely ugly and likely Pyrrhic.
The Obama campaign was well-positioned to go into end-game mode today … even with the Hillary Clinton victories. Going back to the spreadsheet leaked by the Obama campaign:
http://ia341038.us.archive.org/1/items/Obamaexcel/obamacampaignexcel.xls
They had expected to be ahead by 58 delegates today and they are 75 delegates ahead of that pace due to the overwhelming victories in the MD, VA, and WI primaries. Looking at the spreadsheet, if Clinton were to run the table with 15 point victories in every contest she would pick up roughly 100 delegates between now and the end of the race. So Obama’s 133 pledged delegate lead is looking pretty unbeatable right now.
Based on that outlook, the superdelegates are about to put their thumb on the scale. Obama is rumored to have about 50 new superdelegate commitments that he is going to roll out. This would erase the Clinton superdelegate lead and then some. Essentially, the race would be out of reach and more superdelegates would pile onto the Obama campaign, the outcome would be inevitable and Clinton would be forced to bow out.
This superdelegate thumb on the scale scenario or something close to it may still happen, but Gov Crist in FL threw a fly into the ointment. Gov Crist announced that he would support a re-do of the FL primary. This in spite of the fact that he that forced the early primary in the first place and thus was the reason that the FL delegates were disqualified. Until now, he had stood in the way of the re-do due to the $10M price tag (and assumably he wanted to damage the Democratic party’s chances to win FL in the general election). However since he’s now willing to accept the cost of the re-do (due to the damage an extended battle would cause to the Democratic candidate) FL’s 185 delegates and assumably MI’s 128 delegates are back in play. In the Hillary-run’s-the-table-by 15% scenario, she now passes Obama. Granted, this is still very hard but not impossible.
FL and MI create the same problem for Obama that TX and OH did … everyone knows how they will probably come out, but until they complete you can’t say that the Obama win is inevitable. So what’s Obama to do? An extended race with FL and MI in June would force him to spend money and time that he would otherwise use to fight John McCain.
If I were Barack Obama I’d strike the following deal: First, accept the original FL results. (he lost by 17% which resulted in 38 delegates net loss) on condition that a MI re-do would be a caucus held prior to PA.
Here’s the rationale:
1. He’s got enough delegates to to cover the loss in FL and still have the insurmountable lead.
2. He’s likely to lose a FL primary by 10-15% no matter what. FL is old and old is Hillary’s demo.
3. He owns caucuses so he’s likely to recover some of his losses in MI.
4. Hillary is likely to accept the deal because it’s good for her and she’d get a lot of pressure from her party to do so.
5. In the perception game, the FL loss will have an asterisk. Plus he’s taking a bullet for team D and thus is a hero. If the primary were to be re-run and he lost, then he’d risk losing momentum.
The bottom line is that if Obama cut such a deal, after the MI caucus he’d be basically where he expected to be today. The FL and MI problem would be neatly taken care of, and the superdelegates can avalanche to his side prior to PA more or less ending things.
UPDATE:
Crist is backing off of his statement that he'd support a re-do.
http://www.local10.com/news/15504360/detail.html
So Obama eating these delegates may not be necessary. One way or another the Dems have to figure out a way to end this after PA. In the end, Hillary supporters and FL and MI Dems have to feel like they got a fair deal.
The Obama campaign was well-positioned to go into end-game mode today … even with the Hillary Clinton victories. Going back to the spreadsheet leaked by the Obama campaign:
http://ia341038.us.archive.org/1/items/Obamaexcel/obamacampaignexcel.xls
They had expected to be ahead by 58 delegates today and they are 75 delegates ahead of that pace due to the overwhelming victories in the MD, VA, and WI primaries. Looking at the spreadsheet, if Clinton were to run the table with 15 point victories in every contest she would pick up roughly 100 delegates between now and the end of the race. So Obama’s 133 pledged delegate lead is looking pretty unbeatable right now.
Based on that outlook, the superdelegates are about to put their thumb on the scale. Obama is rumored to have about 50 new superdelegate commitments that he is going to roll out. This would erase the Clinton superdelegate lead and then some. Essentially, the race would be out of reach and more superdelegates would pile onto the Obama campaign, the outcome would be inevitable and Clinton would be forced to bow out.
This superdelegate thumb on the scale scenario or something close to it may still happen, but Gov Crist in FL threw a fly into the ointment. Gov Crist announced that he would support a re-do of the FL primary. This in spite of the fact that he that forced the early primary in the first place and thus was the reason that the FL delegates were disqualified. Until now, he had stood in the way of the re-do due to the $10M price tag (and assumably he wanted to damage the Democratic party’s chances to win FL in the general election). However since he’s now willing to accept the cost of the re-do (due to the damage an extended battle would cause to the Democratic candidate) FL’s 185 delegates and assumably MI’s 128 delegates are back in play. In the Hillary-run’s-the-table-by 15% scenario, she now passes Obama. Granted, this is still very hard but not impossible.
FL and MI create the same problem for Obama that TX and OH did … everyone knows how they will probably come out, but until they complete you can’t say that the Obama win is inevitable. So what’s Obama to do? An extended race with FL and MI in June would force him to spend money and time that he would otherwise use to fight John McCain.
If I were Barack Obama I’d strike the following deal: First, accept the original FL results. (he lost by 17% which resulted in 38 delegates net loss) on condition that a MI re-do would be a caucus held prior to PA.
Here’s the rationale:
1. He’s got enough delegates to to cover the loss in FL and still have the insurmountable lead.
2. He’s likely to lose a FL primary by 10-15% no matter what. FL is old and old is Hillary’s demo.
3. He owns caucuses so he’s likely to recover some of his losses in MI.
4. Hillary is likely to accept the deal because it’s good for her and she’d get a lot of pressure from her party to do so.
5. In the perception game, the FL loss will have an asterisk. Plus he’s taking a bullet for team D and thus is a hero. If the primary were to be re-run and he lost, then he’d risk losing momentum.
The bottom line is that if Obama cut such a deal, after the MI caucus he’d be basically where he expected to be today. The FL and MI problem would be neatly taken care of, and the superdelegates can avalanche to his side prior to PA more or less ending things.
UPDATE:
Crist is backing off of his statement that he'd support a re-do.
http://www.local10.com/news/15504360/detail.html
So Obama eating these delegates may not be necessary. One way or another the Dems have to figure out a way to end this after PA. In the end, Hillary supporters and FL and MI Dems have to feel like they got a fair deal.
Friday, February 29, 2008
McCain Healthcare Criticism
The following article is a slanted but informative criticism of the McCain healthcare program.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=7e9b013b-2fb7-45c7-91cb-e05218063a33
The summation is that McCain would incentivize the country to move to individual insurance (and away from employer-based insurance) via tax credits.
The disconnect in the McCain proposal is that without Govt intervention, there is no reason to think that the free-market will come up with a solution for individuals that have pre-existing conditions. Think about an analogy to auto insurance ... the cost of a policy for someone with a history of accidents can be an order of magnitude higher than for someone with a spotless record. Extrapolating that to health care, a high-risk family might be paying $4000/month if a healthy family pays $400/month. Obviously that cost would be prohibitively expensive for most high-risk families.
Continuing my auto insurance analogy, would it make sense for an insurer to offer auto insurance that didn't take driving record into account? Obviously the answer is no, there is nothing like that on the market. Why? Because good drivers would always opt for the lower cost insurance that they get because they are low risk. A risk-independent insurance market is equivalent to a high-risk insurance market.
For the health insurers to make money AND maintain costs to an affordable level for individuals, the healthy have to pay for the sick. In our current system, healty individuals effectively split the costs of sick individuals with employers.
So the bottom line on the McCain plan is that it's unsustainable as proposed. Practically speaking, such a plan could never produce legislation without significant modification. Ultimately it could only result in no action and thus status quo, or perhaps it is trying to remove the employer contributions and thus put the entire cost burden on individuals.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=7e9b013b-2fb7-45c7-91cb-e05218063a33
The summation is that McCain would incentivize the country to move to individual insurance (and away from employer-based insurance) via tax credits.
The disconnect in the McCain proposal is that without Govt intervention, there is no reason to think that the free-market will come up with a solution for individuals that have pre-existing conditions. Think about an analogy to auto insurance ... the cost of a policy for someone with a history of accidents can be an order of magnitude higher than for someone with a spotless record. Extrapolating that to health care, a high-risk family might be paying $4000/month if a healthy family pays $400/month. Obviously that cost would be prohibitively expensive for most high-risk families.
Continuing my auto insurance analogy, would it make sense for an insurer to offer auto insurance that didn't take driving record into account? Obviously the answer is no, there is nothing like that on the market. Why? Because good drivers would always opt for the lower cost insurance that they get because they are low risk. A risk-independent insurance market is equivalent to a high-risk insurance market.
For the health insurers to make money AND maintain costs to an affordable level for individuals, the healthy have to pay for the sick. In our current system, healty individuals effectively split the costs of sick individuals with employers.
So the bottom line on the McCain plan is that it's unsustainable as proposed. Practically speaking, such a plan could never produce legislation without significant modification. Ultimately it could only result in no action and thus status quo, or perhaps it is trying to remove the employer contributions and thus put the entire cost burden on individuals.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Obama: Re-Branding Liberalism
Barack Obama is making an interesting proposition to the American people. He’s trying to sell Liberalism to Independents and Conservatives that have rejected that philosophy for decades. And so far … it’s working.
To understand why it’s working, we have to understand Liberalism itself. In America, we equate Liberalism with a set of policy preferences …diplomacy over military action, stem-cell research, the legalization of same-sex marriage, secular government, stricter gun control, environmental protection laws, the preservation of abortion rights, etc … But in terms of core values, Liberalism is defined by the desire to provide everyone with an equal opportunity and to promote a creative and productive society.
Opposing philosophies (i.e. Conservatives) have been successful in branding Liberalism as “un-American”. Conservatives have no problem with the equal opportunity component of the Liberal philosophy. However, Conservatives believe that our society should be shaped only by the free market, the Constitution, and God – the ideas of the founding fathers of this country. When Liberals advocate an idea that they think makes the country better but has no basis in the free Market, the Constitution, or God (for example Social Security), Conservatives will often argue that the idea is un-American. Strictly speaking, they are right.
The Obama proposition is that our country as presently constructed denies opportunity to many middle and lower class families. Furthermore, the denial of opportunity is fundamentally un-American. Thus we have to build infrastructure in a way that’s not guided by the ideals of the founding fathers in order to maintain the ideal of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are being un-American either way, but one way is better than the other. Why? Because of this thing that Americans all hold near and dear … the American Dream. Making government a little bigger than it would otherwise be to preserve the American dream fits within the core values of Americans.
Thus, Obama is operating within Liberal philosophy AND he’s operating within Conservative philosophy. He’s advocating opportunity for all and he’s shaping America beyond its strict definition for some greater good. At the same time, he’s pushing the envelope only as far as it needs to be pushed to preserve the American Dream. If he’s successful, he’ll offer a brand of Liberalism than can’t be called “un-American”.
Let’s illustrate this with a couple examples.
Obama’s Health Plan
Obama argues that health care costs have risen to the point where ordinary American’s can’t afford coverage and also build a life for themselves and their families. Thus the government has to step in and insure that there is an affordable option that is available to everyone including those with pre-existing conditions.
The distinction between the Obama plan and the other Democratic candidates plans is subtle, and his campaign has taken a lot of heat from his opponents over his lack of “universal coverage”. However, in Obama’s brand of Liberalism, mandating that everyone has health coverage goes too far. Universal Health care is an idea that’s long been deemed to be un-American. However Americans accept that the rising cost of health care is swamping some families. And furthermore, American’s accept that pre-existing conditions and health care portability are further limiting opportunities. So if something can be done which solves those two problems, it won’t be un-American. It may require bigger government and Conservatives generally oppose things that make government bigger. But sometimes there are big problems that only the federal government can solve … the interstate highway system for example.
Another feature of Obama’s Liberal brand is that his programs in general will be smaller in scope than many Liberal ideas … after all they aren’t intended to make America “better”, they are only intended to make sure that opportunities are available. In fact Hillary Clinton believes that her Health care plan will cost $100B dollars while Obama estimates his as costing about half as much.
So in the Fall, McCain and Obama will argue over the relative merits of their respective health plans, but McCain can’t attack the brand … or if he does, many won’t buy into his attack. After all, the brand is keeping the American dream alive.
Obama’s Subprime Mortgage Crisis Recovery Plan
Another example of the Obama’s brand is his program to recover from the subprime mortgage crisis. In Obama’s view, the problem with the subprime lending market isn’t that middle class families are going to lose their homes. They were speculating and / or were taking too much risk and they lost their money. The problem is that people who rely on risky loans just to have a home shouldn’t get wiped out along with the speculators.
Contrast this to the Clinton plan that freezes interest rates on ARMs for 5 years across the board. Philosophically speaking, her plan isn’t grounded in the core American values and by the way … is much more expensive.
Conclusion
So the bottom line is that Obama’s program is at least palatable to the entire spectrum of political philosophies. His program is in fact, Liberal. However, it can’t be dismissed out of hand by anyone. Obama still has to convince Americans that his ideas are better than McCain’s ideas. However the argument won’t end when Americans read the brand name.
To understand why it’s working, we have to understand Liberalism itself. In America, we equate Liberalism with a set of policy preferences …diplomacy over military action, stem-cell research, the legalization of same-sex marriage, secular government, stricter gun control, environmental protection laws, the preservation of abortion rights, etc … But in terms of core values, Liberalism is defined by the desire to provide everyone with an equal opportunity and to promote a creative and productive society.
Opposing philosophies (i.e. Conservatives) have been successful in branding Liberalism as “un-American”. Conservatives have no problem with the equal opportunity component of the Liberal philosophy. However, Conservatives believe that our society should be shaped only by the free market, the Constitution, and God – the ideas of the founding fathers of this country. When Liberals advocate an idea that they think makes the country better but has no basis in the free Market, the Constitution, or God (for example Social Security), Conservatives will often argue that the idea is un-American. Strictly speaking, they are right.
The Obama proposition is that our country as presently constructed denies opportunity to many middle and lower class families. Furthermore, the denial of opportunity is fundamentally un-American. Thus we have to build infrastructure in a way that’s not guided by the ideals of the founding fathers in order to maintain the ideal of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are being un-American either way, but one way is better than the other. Why? Because of this thing that Americans all hold near and dear … the American Dream. Making government a little bigger than it would otherwise be to preserve the American dream fits within the core values of Americans.
Thus, Obama is operating within Liberal philosophy AND he’s operating within Conservative philosophy. He’s advocating opportunity for all and he’s shaping America beyond its strict definition for some greater good. At the same time, he’s pushing the envelope only as far as it needs to be pushed to preserve the American Dream. If he’s successful, he’ll offer a brand of Liberalism than can’t be called “un-American”.
Let’s illustrate this with a couple examples.
Obama’s Health Plan
Obama argues that health care costs have risen to the point where ordinary American’s can’t afford coverage and also build a life for themselves and their families. Thus the government has to step in and insure that there is an affordable option that is available to everyone including those with pre-existing conditions.
The distinction between the Obama plan and the other Democratic candidates plans is subtle, and his campaign has taken a lot of heat from his opponents over his lack of “universal coverage”. However, in Obama’s brand of Liberalism, mandating that everyone has health coverage goes too far. Universal Health care is an idea that’s long been deemed to be un-American. However Americans accept that the rising cost of health care is swamping some families. And furthermore, American’s accept that pre-existing conditions and health care portability are further limiting opportunities. So if something can be done which solves those two problems, it won’t be un-American. It may require bigger government and Conservatives generally oppose things that make government bigger. But sometimes there are big problems that only the federal government can solve … the interstate highway system for example.
Another feature of Obama’s Liberal brand is that his programs in general will be smaller in scope than many Liberal ideas … after all they aren’t intended to make America “better”, they are only intended to make sure that opportunities are available. In fact Hillary Clinton believes that her Health care plan will cost $100B dollars while Obama estimates his as costing about half as much.
So in the Fall, McCain and Obama will argue over the relative merits of their respective health plans, but McCain can’t attack the brand … or if he does, many won’t buy into his attack. After all, the brand is keeping the American dream alive.
Obama’s Subprime Mortgage Crisis Recovery Plan
Another example of the Obama’s brand is his program to recover from the subprime mortgage crisis. In Obama’s view, the problem with the subprime lending market isn’t that middle class families are going to lose their homes. They were speculating and / or were taking too much risk and they lost their money. The problem is that people who rely on risky loans just to have a home shouldn’t get wiped out along with the speculators.
Contrast this to the Clinton plan that freezes interest rates on ARMs for 5 years across the board. Philosophically speaking, her plan isn’t grounded in the core American values and by the way … is much more expensive.
Conclusion
So the bottom line is that Obama’s program is at least palatable to the entire spectrum of political philosophies. His program is in fact, Liberal. However, it can’t be dismissed out of hand by anyone. Obama still has to convince Americans that his ideas are better than McCain’s ideas. However the argument won’t end when Americans read the brand name.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Obama Takes Control of the Democratic Race; Obama and McCain Outline General Election Themes
Barack Obama has taken control of the Democratic race due to the stunning results in the VA, DC, and MD primaries. Obama was supposed to win these primaries by a pretty big margin. By the last set of polls, he was up about 17%. But when the results came in at 27% … the game changed. Obama is going to net something like 25 extra delegates above and beyond the expected 20-25. Those extra delegates will more than offset a 10 point Clinton victory in Texas. Effectively, Clinton lost Texas along with VA, MD, and DC yesterday.
Here are the ramifications of the extra delegates won last night:
1. Even if Clinton is able to get her expected victories in TX, OH, and PA, she will NEVER get the lead in pledged delegates. In fact, I now expect her to lose in pledged delegates by 90 or so. And that’s assuming that the demographic trends that happened in VA don’t extend to other states.
2. This effectively takes the scenario where Obama wins in pledged delegates but loses due to superdelegates out of play. Furthermore it’s hard to believe that Clinton’s 90 superdelegate lead will hold up if everyone knows that there is virtually no chance that she will regain the pledged delegate lead.
Bottom line: This is now Obama’s race to lose.
So where does Obama go from here? I believe he foreshadowed his approach in last night’s speech in Madison, WI.
Obama’s Themes for the Stretch Run to Denver:
Obama was able to break into Clinton’s coalition in the Potomac Primaries. The $40K/year and under white males were the group that will be key going into states like WI, TX, OH, and PA. As CNBC’s Andrea Mitchell quipped, “White Men Can Jump … to the Obama coalition!”. But in order to continue that trend, Obama will have to stress his economic program and how it helps the blue collar Democrats. This theme was stressed in Obama’s speech last night:
“… Because at a time when so many people are struggling to keep up with soaring costs in a sluggish economy, we know that the status quo in Washington just won't do. Not this time. Not this year. We can't keep playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expect a different result – because it's a game that ordinary Americans are losing.
It's a game where lobbyists write check after check and Exxon turns record profits, while you pay the price at the pump, and our planet is put at risk. That's what happens when lobbyists set the agenda, and that's why they won't drown out your voices anymore when I am President of the United States of America.
It's a game where trade deals like NAFTA ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart. That's what happens when the American worker doesn't have a voice at the negotiating table, when leaders change their positions on trade with the politics of the moment, and that's why we need a President who will listen to Main Street – not just Wall Street; a President who will stand with workers not just when it's easy, but when it's hard. …”
Obama’s Themes for the General Election
And to set some themes for the fall campaign, Obama struck a chord that will resonate with Republicans and Democrats alike. He didn’t argue against the war, but instead against spending for the war. Even the most hawkish conservatives will freely admit that they can’t abide the costs of the war in Iraq.
Obama then went on to point to McCain’s vote against the Bush tax cuts (a little salt for the wounds of fiscal conservatives). He underlined McCain’s rationale for not supporting the tax cuts at the time. This accomplished two things: first, it lends credibility to Obama’s argument that the tax cuts need to be rolled back. Second, it challenges McCain to either re-affirm his position as a maverick that does what he believes is right (the McCain that most of his fans like) or to position himself as a conservative establishment candidate (which the Republican base would love, but would probably spell disaster for the McCain presidential campaign).
“If we had chosen a different path, the right path, we could have finished the job in Afghanistan, and put more resources into the fight against bin Laden; and instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Baghdad, we could have put that money into our schools and hospitals, our road and bridges – and that's what the American people need us to do right now.
And I admired Senator McCain when he stood up and said that it offended his "conscience" to support the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in a time of war; that he couldn't support a tax cut where "so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate." But somewhere along the road to the Republican nomination, the Straight Talk Express lost its wheels, because now he's all for them.
Well I'm not. We can't keep spending money that we don't have in a war that we shouldn't have fought. We can't keep mortgaging our children's future on a mountain of debt. We can't keep driving a wider and wider gap between the few who are rich and the rest who struggle to keep pace. It's time to turn the page”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/politics/12text-obama.html?_r=1&fta=y&oref=slogin
The Failed Clinton Strategy … is it About the Money?
Clinton’s strategy of abandoning / conceding states cost her once more. The “Big State” strategy has been used successfully many times. However, that strategy doesn’t work when you get your clock cleaned in the small states. If Clinton was even competitive in the caucus states and the Potomac primaries, this race would be over by now. There’s no way that this can be intentional. Campaign funds must be an issue on the Clinton side.
One last comment on the Clinton Campaign, I don’t believe that the statement made by Clinton endorser Ed Rendell to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette yesterday was a coincidence or an accident:
“"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate,"”
I believe this was intentionally put out by the Clinton Campaign on the eve of Obama’s big win in the Potomac primaries in an attempt to mitigate the perceived damage of the losses. Clearly they anticipated that the white voters would support Clinton as they had in previous primaries. This was basically the same divisive racial strategy used when it became apparent that Clinton wouldn’t win in SC. This is interesting because the strategy backfired in SC, yet Clinton re-tooled it and used it again. Again the result will be a net negative for the Clinton campaign. They guessed wrong, and they look bad for trying it.
McCain Doesn’t Believe in Miracles
I’ll have to hand it to Huckabee. He nearly pulled off a miracle in VA. He was greatly helped by a massive crossover of Republicans and Independents to vote in the Democratic primary. The crossover left an electorate composed mainly of evangelical conservatives … who voted for Huck. VA was a winner-take-all state so the win would have been a major coup for Huckabee. But alas, it was not to be. McCain narrowly pulled out the victory.
I predicted in an earlier post that Huckabee would be out of the race before yesterday. At the time, I couldn’t understand why staying in would be a good idea. I still don’t. However, Huckabee can clearly make his presence felt in Wisconsin and Texas. I’m not sure why that’s a good thing. It will be interesting to find out what Huckabee was thinking post-mortem.
But let’s get back to John McCain. McCain, in his victory speech also started to lay out themes for the fall. First, he made the classic Republican argument:
“… But now comes the hard part, and for America, the much bigger decision. We do not yet know for certain who will have the honor of being the Democratic Party's nominee for President. But we know where either of their candidates will lead this country, and we dare not let them. They will promise a new approach to governing, but offer only the policies of a political orthodoxy that insists the solution to government's failures is to simply make it bigger. They will appeal to our dreams of a better future for ourselves, our families and our country, but they would take from us more of the wealth we have earned to build those dreams and assure us that government is better able than we are to make decisions about our future for us. They will promise to break with the failed politics of the past, but will campaign in ways that seek to minimize their exposure to questions from the press and challenges from voters who ask more from their candidates than an empty promise of "trust me, I know better." They will paint a picture of the world in which America's mistakes are a greater threat to our security than the malevolent intentions of an enemy that despises us and our ideals; a world that can be made safer and more peaceful by placating our implacable foes and breaking faith with allies and the millions of people in this world for whom America, and the global progress of our ideals, has long been "the last, best hope of earth."
We will offer different ideas, based in a better understanding of the challenges we face, and the resolve to confront them with confidence in the strength and ideals of free people. We believe that Americans, not our detractors and certainly not our enemies, are on the right side of history. We trust in the strength, industry and goodness of the American people. We don't believe that government has all the answers. We believe that government must respect the rights, property and opportunities of the people to whom we are accountable. We don't believe in growing the size of government to make it easier to serve our own ambitions. We believe that what government is expected to do, what we cannot do for ourselves individually, it must do with competence, resolve and wisdom.
The American people don't send us to Washington to serve our self-interest, but to serve theirs. They don't send us to fight each other for our own political ambitions; but to fight together our real enemies. They don't send us to Washington to stroke our egos; but to help them keep this beautiful, bountiful, blessed country safe, prosperous, proud and free. They don't send us to Washington to take more of their money, and waste it on things that add not an ounce to America's strength and prosperity; that don't help a single family realize the dreams we all dream for our children; that don't help a single displaced worker find a new job, and the security and dignity it assures them; that won't keep the promise we make to young workers that the retirement they have begun to invest in, will be there for them when they need it. They don't send us to Washington to do their job, but to do ours; to do it better and with less of t heir money… ”
McCain then went on to argue against Obama whom he now knows for the first time is his likely opponent in the fall. Of course his argument was similar to the Clinton argument that has worked to some degree … that Obama is style but not substance. But McCain went further. He insinuated that Obama was seeking self-glorification and considered himself “anointed by history”. I found this argument to be interestingly personal.
“… Hope, my friends, is a powerful thing. I can attest to that better than many, for I have seen men's hopes tested in hard and cruel ways that few will ever experience. And I stood astonished at the resilience of their hope in the darkest of hours because it did not reside in an exaggerated belief in their individual strength, but in the support of their comrades, and their faith in their country. My hope for our country resides in my faith in the American character, the character which proudly defends the right to think and do for ourselves, but perceives self-interest in accord with a kinship of ideals, which, when called upon, Americans will defend with their very lives.
To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude.
When I was a young man, I thought glory was the highest ambition, and that all glory was self-glory. My parents tried to teach me otherwise, as did the Naval Academy. But I didn't understand the lesson until later in life, when I confronted challenges I never expected to face.
In that confrontation I discovered that I was dependent on others to a greater extent than I had ever realized, but that neither they nor the cause we served made any claims on my identity. On the contrary, I discovered that nothing is more liberating in life than to fight for a cause that encompasses you, but is not defined by your existence alone. And that has made all the difference, my friends, all the difference in the world.
I do not seek the presidency on the presumption that I am blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need. I seek the presidency with the humility of a man who cannot forget that my country saved me. I am running to serve America, and to champion the ideas I believe will help us do what every American generation has managed to do: to make in our time, and from our challenges, a stronger country and a better world. …”
McCain then concluded by mocking an Obama standard closing line:
“I am fired up and ready to go”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/politics/12text-mccain.html?pagewanted=2&sq&st=nyt&scp=4
I’m guessing that McCain is looking for something that the conservative base can hate about Obama. It’s been said many times in this campaign that Hillary would be “the one thing that would energize and unite Republicans in the Fall”. For whatever reason, Hillary is disliked by the conservative base and reviled on conservative talk radio. However, Obama is only disliked for his policy differences. So McCain threw a couple of things against the wall in his speech and we’ll see if anything sticks.
One thing’s for sure, the threat of poor Republican turnout in the fall is very real. So at this point … anything that excites the Republican base would be a good thing.
Here are the ramifications of the extra delegates won last night:
1. Even if Clinton is able to get her expected victories in TX, OH, and PA, she will NEVER get the lead in pledged delegates. In fact, I now expect her to lose in pledged delegates by 90 or so. And that’s assuming that the demographic trends that happened in VA don’t extend to other states.
2. This effectively takes the scenario where Obama wins in pledged delegates but loses due to superdelegates out of play. Furthermore it’s hard to believe that Clinton’s 90 superdelegate lead will hold up if everyone knows that there is virtually no chance that she will regain the pledged delegate lead.
Bottom line: This is now Obama’s race to lose.
So where does Obama go from here? I believe he foreshadowed his approach in last night’s speech in Madison, WI.
Obama’s Themes for the Stretch Run to Denver:
Obama was able to break into Clinton’s coalition in the Potomac Primaries. The $40K/year and under white males were the group that will be key going into states like WI, TX, OH, and PA. As CNBC’s Andrea Mitchell quipped, “White Men Can Jump … to the Obama coalition!”. But in order to continue that trend, Obama will have to stress his economic program and how it helps the blue collar Democrats. This theme was stressed in Obama’s speech last night:
“… Because at a time when so many people are struggling to keep up with soaring costs in a sluggish economy, we know that the status quo in Washington just won't do. Not this time. Not this year. We can't keep playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expect a different result – because it's a game that ordinary Americans are losing.
It's a game where lobbyists write check after check and Exxon turns record profits, while you pay the price at the pump, and our planet is put at risk. That's what happens when lobbyists set the agenda, and that's why they won't drown out your voices anymore when I am President of the United States of America.
It's a game where trade deals like NAFTA ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart. That's what happens when the American worker doesn't have a voice at the negotiating table, when leaders change their positions on trade with the politics of the moment, and that's why we need a President who will listen to Main Street – not just Wall Street; a President who will stand with workers not just when it's easy, but when it's hard. …”
Obama’s Themes for the General Election
And to set some themes for the fall campaign, Obama struck a chord that will resonate with Republicans and Democrats alike. He didn’t argue against the war, but instead against spending for the war. Even the most hawkish conservatives will freely admit that they can’t abide the costs of the war in Iraq.
Obama then went on to point to McCain’s vote against the Bush tax cuts (a little salt for the wounds of fiscal conservatives). He underlined McCain’s rationale for not supporting the tax cuts at the time. This accomplished two things: first, it lends credibility to Obama’s argument that the tax cuts need to be rolled back. Second, it challenges McCain to either re-affirm his position as a maverick that does what he believes is right (the McCain that most of his fans like) or to position himself as a conservative establishment candidate (which the Republican base would love, but would probably spell disaster for the McCain presidential campaign).
“If we had chosen a different path, the right path, we could have finished the job in Afghanistan, and put more resources into the fight against bin Laden; and instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Baghdad, we could have put that money into our schools and hospitals, our road and bridges – and that's what the American people need us to do right now.
And I admired Senator McCain when he stood up and said that it offended his "conscience" to support the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in a time of war; that he couldn't support a tax cut where "so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate." But somewhere along the road to the Republican nomination, the Straight Talk Express lost its wheels, because now he's all for them.
Well I'm not. We can't keep spending money that we don't have in a war that we shouldn't have fought. We can't keep mortgaging our children's future on a mountain of debt. We can't keep driving a wider and wider gap between the few who are rich and the rest who struggle to keep pace. It's time to turn the page”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/politics/12text-obama.html?_r=1&fta=y&oref=slogin
The Failed Clinton Strategy … is it About the Money?
Clinton’s strategy of abandoning / conceding states cost her once more. The “Big State” strategy has been used successfully many times. However, that strategy doesn’t work when you get your clock cleaned in the small states. If Clinton was even competitive in the caucus states and the Potomac primaries, this race would be over by now. There’s no way that this can be intentional. Campaign funds must be an issue on the Clinton side.
One last comment on the Clinton Campaign, I don’t believe that the statement made by Clinton endorser Ed Rendell to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette yesterday was a coincidence or an accident:
“"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate,"”
I believe this was intentionally put out by the Clinton Campaign on the eve of Obama’s big win in the Potomac primaries in an attempt to mitigate the perceived damage of the losses. Clearly they anticipated that the white voters would support Clinton as they had in previous primaries. This was basically the same divisive racial strategy used when it became apparent that Clinton wouldn’t win in SC. This is interesting because the strategy backfired in SC, yet Clinton re-tooled it and used it again. Again the result will be a net negative for the Clinton campaign. They guessed wrong, and they look bad for trying it.
McCain Doesn’t Believe in Miracles
I’ll have to hand it to Huckabee. He nearly pulled off a miracle in VA. He was greatly helped by a massive crossover of Republicans and Independents to vote in the Democratic primary. The crossover left an electorate composed mainly of evangelical conservatives … who voted for Huck. VA was a winner-take-all state so the win would have been a major coup for Huckabee. But alas, it was not to be. McCain narrowly pulled out the victory.
I predicted in an earlier post that Huckabee would be out of the race before yesterday. At the time, I couldn’t understand why staying in would be a good idea. I still don’t. However, Huckabee can clearly make his presence felt in Wisconsin and Texas. I’m not sure why that’s a good thing. It will be interesting to find out what Huckabee was thinking post-mortem.
But let’s get back to John McCain. McCain, in his victory speech also started to lay out themes for the fall. First, he made the classic Republican argument:
“… But now comes the hard part, and for America, the much bigger decision. We do not yet know for certain who will have the honor of being the Democratic Party's nominee for President. But we know where either of their candidates will lead this country, and we dare not let them. They will promise a new approach to governing, but offer only the policies of a political orthodoxy that insists the solution to government's failures is to simply make it bigger. They will appeal to our dreams of a better future for ourselves, our families and our country, but they would take from us more of the wealth we have earned to build those dreams and assure us that government is better able than we are to make decisions about our future for us. They will promise to break with the failed politics of the past, but will campaign in ways that seek to minimize their exposure to questions from the press and challenges from voters who ask more from their candidates than an empty promise of "trust me, I know better." They will paint a picture of the world in which America's mistakes are a greater threat to our security than the malevolent intentions of an enemy that despises us and our ideals; a world that can be made safer and more peaceful by placating our implacable foes and breaking faith with allies and the millions of people in this world for whom America, and the global progress of our ideals, has long been "the last, best hope of earth."
We will offer different ideas, based in a better understanding of the challenges we face, and the resolve to confront them with confidence in the strength and ideals of free people. We believe that Americans, not our detractors and certainly not our enemies, are on the right side of history. We trust in the strength, industry and goodness of the American people. We don't believe that government has all the answers. We believe that government must respect the rights, property and opportunities of the people to whom we are accountable. We don't believe in growing the size of government to make it easier to serve our own ambitions. We believe that what government is expected to do, what we cannot do for ourselves individually, it must do with competence, resolve and wisdom.
The American people don't send us to Washington to serve our self-interest, but to serve theirs. They don't send us to fight each other for our own political ambitions; but to fight together our real enemies. They don't send us to Washington to stroke our egos; but to help them keep this beautiful, bountiful, blessed country safe, prosperous, proud and free. They don't send us to Washington to take more of their money, and waste it on things that add not an ounce to America's strength and prosperity; that don't help a single family realize the dreams we all dream for our children; that don't help a single displaced worker find a new job, and the security and dignity it assures them; that won't keep the promise we make to young workers that the retirement they have begun to invest in, will be there for them when they need it. They don't send us to Washington to do their job, but to do ours; to do it better and with less of t heir money… ”
McCain then went on to argue against Obama whom he now knows for the first time is his likely opponent in the fall. Of course his argument was similar to the Clinton argument that has worked to some degree … that Obama is style but not substance. But McCain went further. He insinuated that Obama was seeking self-glorification and considered himself “anointed by history”. I found this argument to be interestingly personal.
“… Hope, my friends, is a powerful thing. I can attest to that better than many, for I have seen men's hopes tested in hard and cruel ways that few will ever experience. And I stood astonished at the resilience of their hope in the darkest of hours because it did not reside in an exaggerated belief in their individual strength, but in the support of their comrades, and their faith in their country. My hope for our country resides in my faith in the American character, the character which proudly defends the right to think and do for ourselves, but perceives self-interest in accord with a kinship of ideals, which, when called upon, Americans will defend with their very lives.
To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude.
When I was a young man, I thought glory was the highest ambition, and that all glory was self-glory. My parents tried to teach me otherwise, as did the Naval Academy. But I didn't understand the lesson until later in life, when I confronted challenges I never expected to face.
In that confrontation I discovered that I was dependent on others to a greater extent than I had ever realized, but that neither they nor the cause we served made any claims on my identity. On the contrary, I discovered that nothing is more liberating in life than to fight for a cause that encompasses you, but is not defined by your existence alone. And that has made all the difference, my friends, all the difference in the world.
I do not seek the presidency on the presumption that I am blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need. I seek the presidency with the humility of a man who cannot forget that my country saved me. I am running to serve America, and to champion the ideas I believe will help us do what every American generation has managed to do: to make in our time, and from our challenges, a stronger country and a better world. …”
McCain then concluded by mocking an Obama standard closing line:
“I am fired up and ready to go”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/politics/12text-mccain.html?pagewanted=2&sq&st=nyt&scp=4
I’m guessing that McCain is looking for something that the conservative base can hate about Obama. It’s been said many times in this campaign that Hillary would be “the one thing that would energize and unite Republicans in the Fall”. For whatever reason, Hillary is disliked by the conservative base and reviled on conservative talk radio. However, Obama is only disliked for his policy differences. So McCain threw a couple of things against the wall in his speech and we’ll see if anything sticks.
One thing’s for sure, the threat of poor Republican turnout in the fall is very real. So at this point … anything that excites the Republican base would be a good thing.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Superdelegate Math
(click chart to enlarge)
Like the Obama and Clinton campaigns, I've done my own spreadsheet predicting the outcome of the Democratic race. I've made the assumption that current voting coalitions hold up and I take into account latest polling where possible.
I'm showing the picture 2 different ways. First, I show the pledged delegates at various points in time. Then I include the superdelegates assuming they continue to accumulate proportionally (i.e. no major break for one side or the other). In both cases, the race is always close ... the margin is never more than 100. The maximum margin happens after PA and includes the superdelegates. At that point, Hillary is leading and the margin is almost entirely provided by the superdelegates.
If status quo continues, Hillary ends up within a hair of winning the nomination. However, Obama will have won the pledged delegates. This is not a happy scenario for the Dems. I'm guessing that at some point, the superdelegates will have to put their finger on the scale even moreso than it already is (currently favoring Hillary by about 90). The question is ... when? and for whom?
Of course there is another possibility. Clinton or Obama may at some point peel off enough voters from the other's coalition that they open up a wide gap in pledged delegates. Ultimately, this would be the best case scenario for the party. But there is no reason to think that's going to happen. The coalitions on both sides are rock solid. Both candidates will probably have plenty of money. And there will probably be no major mistakes.
So now we see the stakeholders posturing on whether the superdelegates should should commit to a candidate or whether they should stay on the sidelines. Clnton advocate Donna Brazil has gone so far as to threaten to quit the Democratic party if the superdelegates "decide the race". Of course her position ignores the fact that the current difference of 90 superdelegates in favor of Clinton might very well decide the race. In my prediction, that 90 delegate margin is 2x the pledged delegate margin. The Obama side is openly urging the superdelegates to commit. The fact is that he NEEDS them to commit or he will most probably lose.
In a previous post, I tried to interpret a statement by Howard Dean that seemed to be trying to pressure superdelegates into commitment. Since then, various other "nuetral" figures in the Democratic party have suggested that the superdelegates wait "for a few more weeks" ... presumably they are hoping that someone will control of this race ... or possibly they don't want the superdelegates to pick sides at an Obama high point.
How will all this unfold? My crystal ball is very cloudy at the moment ... I'm guessing that after the March 4th primaries in Ohio and Texas the end-game should be pretty apparent to everyone. Either the superdelegates break for Obama and he wins, or status quo and Hillary wins. I can't tell which way this will go at the moment, but I can predict that the superdelegate gap on April 22 (the day of the PA primary) will predict the eventual winner. I say if the margin is closer to 90 than 0, Clinton will win. Otherwise, Obama will be the nominee.
Like the Obama and Clinton campaigns, I've done my own spreadsheet predicting the outcome of the Democratic race. I've made the assumption that current voting coalitions hold up and I take into account latest polling where possible.
I'm showing the picture 2 different ways. First, I show the pledged delegates at various points in time. Then I include the superdelegates assuming they continue to accumulate proportionally (i.e. no major break for one side or the other). In both cases, the race is always close ... the margin is never more than 100. The maximum margin happens after PA and includes the superdelegates. At that point, Hillary is leading and the margin is almost entirely provided by the superdelegates.
If status quo continues, Hillary ends up within a hair of winning the nomination. However, Obama will have won the pledged delegates. This is not a happy scenario for the Dems. I'm guessing that at some point, the superdelegates will have to put their finger on the scale even moreso than it already is (currently favoring Hillary by about 90). The question is ... when? and for whom?
Of course there is another possibility. Clinton or Obama may at some point peel off enough voters from the other's coalition that they open up a wide gap in pledged delegates. Ultimately, this would be the best case scenario for the party. But there is no reason to think that's going to happen. The coalitions on both sides are rock solid. Both candidates will probably have plenty of money. And there will probably be no major mistakes.
So now we see the stakeholders posturing on whether the superdelegates should should commit to a candidate or whether they should stay on the sidelines. Clnton advocate Donna Brazil has gone so far as to threaten to quit the Democratic party if the superdelegates "decide the race". Of course her position ignores the fact that the current difference of 90 superdelegates in favor of Clinton might very well decide the race. In my prediction, that 90 delegate margin is 2x the pledged delegate margin. The Obama side is openly urging the superdelegates to commit. The fact is that he NEEDS them to commit or he will most probably lose.
In a previous post, I tried to interpret a statement by Howard Dean that seemed to be trying to pressure superdelegates into commitment. Since then, various other "nuetral" figures in the Democratic party have suggested that the superdelegates wait "for a few more weeks" ... presumably they are hoping that someone will control of this race ... or possibly they don't want the superdelegates to pick sides at an Obama high point.
How will all this unfold? My crystal ball is very cloudy at the moment ... I'm guessing that after the March 4th primaries in Ohio and Texas the end-game should be pretty apparent to everyone. Either the superdelegates break for Obama and he wins, or status quo and Hillary wins. I can't tell which way this will go at the moment, but I can predict that the superdelegate gap on April 22 (the day of the PA primary) will predict the eventual winner. I say if the margin is closer to 90 than 0, Clinton will win. Otherwise, Obama will be the nominee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)