The Debate Wrapup

This was Hillary Clinton's opportunity to open this debate back up again, and I don't think she got much out of it. This was at best a push for her, though I thought her line at the end of the debate was very good where she said that no matter what she and Obama would be fine, they had great families who support them, but that she hoped that she could say the same for the American people going forward.

Commander in Chief Questions

Obama just hit Clinton with the Iraq judgment argument, his strongest possible line of attack against her. He was right on the question of whether or not we should go into Iraq, and she was not, and there were profound consequences that resulted from that.

John King let her off the hook by getting her to respond to his question on whether or not the surge is working. The democrats will be fine on this issue v. McCain. Americans want their troops to come home, and the Iraq issue is now a political issue that only Iraqis can solve. Obama is making the case that he will be stronger against McCain because he was right on the Iraq issue from the beginning, and then launched into a rather wide-ranging attack on McCain that went all the way from the War to the economy.

The Plagirism Issue

Obama just got the question on the Deval Patrick plagirism, and he's hit back well. He's dismissed the whole issue as the absurd two day story that it is (How can he plagiarize from his national co-chair who suggested he use the line).

Clinton is actually pursuing the plagirism issue.

It looks like they are going to get into this. Wow! The crowd actually booed for a second. Does Hillary really think this is the winning attack line? Plagiarism?

Now she's hitting him on Health Care. Then tension is palpable. She really won't let this me against the world theme go.

Obama's speaking now, and you can tell that he's not really excited about getting into a fight with her. He doesn't like that kind of politics. Is this a weakness that McCain, the warrior, can exploit?

He's making the argument now, correctly I think, that Hillary went about getting universal health care the wrong way back when she was first lady. He can keep hurting her on this point because even a number of democrats have made this argument about her. She thinks that she knows more than everyone else, and can't understand how not involving other important political operators in the process of deciding on universal health care will poison them against her.

Now she won't let the Health Care thing go. Their differences on this will not be enough to get her votes. She looks pushy.

More on the Debate

So far the debate's been pretty civil. Hillary has shown no hints of going negative, and Obama certainly hasn't egged her on. She must then be resigned to winning on her own merits, and not by dragging Obama down. I think if she continues with this civil approach she will lose, but I think it is the right approach. She can't win in November by dividing the party

John King basically just begged Hillary to attack Obama. She's refusing to take the bait. Ooohh, wait a minute, she just brought up the Obama surrogate flub from Hard Ball. Obama's now listing his career accomplishments to establish his bona fides. He's now defining their differences on how they think change will come about. He seems a little perturbed by her attacks, and is hitting back in his rather elegant, careful manner that tries to stand above the fray but is underlined with passion, and commitment.

The Dems Debate in Texas

The Texas debate is just starting. Obama is beginning the debate by talking about the War in Iraq and the struggling economy. He's tying his remarks to people he's met on the trail in Texas and Ohio who have been negatively impacted by the War and the housing crisis.

Oooohh, good argument by Obama. He just said that America is not lacking in good ideas, but the problem is that Washington is "where good ideas go to die." What needs to change, he argues is the tenor, the tone, and the structure that Washington operates under that money and special interests pervade. This is an attractive idea to many Americans who see politics as highly corrupt, and because he and Clinton are so similar in terms of their policy proposals, it is a good way to set himself apart as Clinton has clearly stated that she will take money from special interests and lobbyists.

The McCain New York Times Story

Regarding the New York Times Story, "For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk" I think that Jack Shafer's article at Slate.com hits the nail on the head:

Where there's smoke, there's sometimes fire. That the imperfect Times article doesn't expose a raging blaze isn't sufficient cause for condemning it. The evidence the paper provides more than adequately establishes that McCain remains a better preacher about ethics, standards, appearances, and special interest conflicts than he is a practitioner, something voters should consider before punching the ballot for him.

The McCain story, for all its caveats and innuendo is actually an important story for it reminds us of the corrupting power of money in politics. No one, not even the heroic John McCain, is immune from the corrupting influences of money and power.

Talking Points Memo has a story arguing that Vicki Iseman, the lobbyist the Times cites as being at best a little too friendly with McCain, received little in terms of substantive policy favorable to her clients from her close relationship with the Senator. As the article points out, McCain's advocacy on the part of Iseman's clients was in line with his overarching views in favor of greater deregulation for the telecom industry. "The question naturally arises whether anything is remarkable about this "champion of deregulation" responding to the desires of telecoms and media companies. Was it special attention or typical indulgence?"

But that's just the issue. One almost never finds an instance of out and out bribery in politics anymore. The kind of influence peddling that goes on on Capitol Hill is far more subtle, but no less significant from a public interest standpoint. Here is one of the more important anecdotes form the Times story: "In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision."

His advocacy on her client's behalf may very well have fit within his own policy preferences, but one has to ask whether he would have drafted such a letter without her prodding. Furthermore, the contents of that letter were shaped by her input as she admits sending "information for drafting a letter" to McCain's office. This doesn't seem that insidious, after all, it's just a letter to the FCC. But it does show hipocrisy on McCain's part. He's supposedly spent the past 10 years fighting against this very kind of influence peddling. Perhaps all those campaign donations don't mean a thing, perhaps all that time spent talking with lobbyists has no effect, but if all that is true then why do these lobbyists do it? Why would they waste their time? Why would companies and other special interests waste their money? Why if it has no effect does it keep on happening?

It is in fact absurd to think that lobbying has no effect, though I don't think Hillary Clinton was fooling herself when she said to a room full of bloggers that lobbyists don't influence her. Contributions don't buy votes, or laws, or anything as clear cut as that. What they do buy is access, and access means an opportunity to shape laws and policies however slightly. Did lobbyists help to sink Hillary's healthcare plan? Absolutely. Such influence is not absolute, nor is it often effective. What it is is constant, pervasive, and directly against the central premises on which our Constitution rests, namely that no interest should have favor over any other. Interest is made to combat interest within such a structure as Publius argues in the Federalist papers. If those interests do not fight on a fair playing field, then one interest will surely win to the detriment of the larger national interest. This is surely what happened when McCain helped Charles Keating to secure deregulation for his Savings and Loan. When that Savings and Loan collapsed due to Keating's overly risky investments that would never have been allowed under the prior regulations, thousands of people lost their savings, and the economy as a whole took a major hit. The question the Times article raises is will McCain let that happen again. He has clearly shown that as with Keating, he is still susceptible to those same old temptations that Publius warned us about from the first.

The Meaning of Change

A lot of people have noted that Obama's definition of change is left undefined in his speeches, and have legitimately argued that this points to a "lack of substance" on his part. But such an argument misses the point of what change means for Obama, and for America more generally. Opinion polls have already made it quite clear that Americans are looking for a change. Bush's approval numbers are locked in the cellar, the Iraq War remains extremely unpopular, the economy is faltering inspiring widespread concern; to sum it all up, Americans generally feel that their country is on the wrong track. A majority want universal health care, a majority want education reform, a majority want to gain energy independence and stop global warming. The list could go on and on as the desire for change is abundantly clear, and on everyone of the issues just mentioned, Obama has come up with a proscription for alleviating it (you can go here to find out more).

But when Obama talks about change he does not want to stress his policies so much as the understanding that change will come not from above, i.e. from him or from Washington, but from below, from the movement bubbling up underneath him. He is merely trying to focus American's desire for change by connecting it with his candidacy, and reminding American's that they need not be despondent any longer. They can have hope for the future, hope that the change they desire, the change they need will come. It will come not from the politicians in Washington, or from Obama himself, it will come from themselves. Americans are the change America seeks. Seek and ye shall find. In other words, in wanting change Americans have the power to change, they need only look to themselves to find the change they seek. The people have already spoken on the issue of change, it is Washington that has yet to register that fact.

A Few More Thoughts on Obama

I'm listening to Obama's speech from Houston Texas right now, and he really sounds like he thinks he's the nominee. He's brought up immigration to try and draw a distinction with Republicans. He's also talking about veterans, maybe trying to preempt McCain, and about serving as Commander in Chief. He's using his judgment argument on Iraq, saying that he has the best judgment of any potential commander in chief because he was against the war from the beginning. He's also playing up the anti-Washington bias, which as a Senator works well for him because he has spent comparatively little time there, especially when you're talking about McCain. All of those arguments are general election type arguments.

Also, with regard to the commander in chief stuff, this exit poll number from Wisconsin really caught my attention. Obama beat Clinton 56% to 41% on who will "Improve relations with the rest of the world." I don't know that anyone necessarily votes on this, but I think it's a big part of his appeal. He's seen as someone capable of connecting with people who disagree with him, of repairing frayed relations. It's probably why he also beat Clinton 63% to 35% on who is "Most likely to Unite the Country."

One last mention about numbers, Obama beat Clinton 63% to 37% on who is "Most likely to win in November." That's huge. If he continues to be viewed at the "most electable" candidate, then no matter the delegate margin, if he's in the lead the super delegates will vote for him.

Oh one last thing. My favorite thing about Obama is that he campaigns with an uplifting vision of the future. He leads not through fear, but through visions of promise and opportunity. It's easy to get people to be afraid, it's a lot harder to convince that they need not be afraid, that there is a better future out there that stands within their grasp. Obama is one of those rare individuals whose words act not as cover and stuffing, but actually serve a purpose. He inspires with his words, moves people not simply to listen but to think.

The Clinton campaign has made the argument that talk is cheap throughout this campaign, but especially of late. But this argument ignores the unassailable point that words in and of themselves are actions, and can often have significant and lasting impacts.

Human societies are held together through words, or through communication more generally. It's why freedom of speech is such an important and basic right. By talking about hope, and change and opportunity Obama is fundamentally altering the basic public discourse in America. He is preparing the way for an administration that first and foremost will look to reestablish that pervading sense of optimism that has long made America great. As Obama often does in his speeches about hope, he references various points during American history when the hope of ordinary Americans helped inspire great change in our land: the hope of slaves singing freedom songs, of settlers setting out for the West, etc. He is calling on American's to hope again, and implicitly to change again. He is uniting past and present, uniting the whole country with a metaphor anyone can understand and relate to. This kind of talk may not put food on anyone's table, but as Obama said neither did NAFTA. Voters don't relate to policies as much as they do people, and Obama's rhetoric allows people to believe in themselves and their country again. Voters want leaders, and in my book the best kind of leader is one who points the way toward a better future, and then takes us there. Think Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, King and Kennedy. Obama has the talent and the vision to join them. I hope he can.

Obama Wins Wisconsin!

Ok, now it actually is over. CNN is calling Wisconsin for Obama. This isn't a surprise, all the polls had him ahead going in, but given the exit poll numbers, and the fact that Hillary actually put up a fight there, this is significant. It is further evidence that her attacks on him aren't working, and that he can siphon off her voters, but she can't get to his.

Hillary is playing defense now. I don't see how she can turn the momentum to her side. This makes 9 wins in a row for Obama, with number 10 likely to follow tonight in Hawaii.

She is facing the longest two weeks of her life. Can she hold onto her leads in Ohio and Texas for two weeks with Obama having won 10 races in a row, placing him firmly in the front-runner position?

Voters like to vote for winners; it's why nomination battles so often turn into routs once someone is clearly ahead. No one has managed to pull into the lead in this race yet, but Obama now stands on the brink of breaking through. It will be interesting to see how the media covers the race in these next couple of weeks, but you can be sure that Texas and Ohio are going to get plenty of attention. A Clinton loss in either, and this race is effectively over. Will the voters in those states respond to the Obamentum? Ohioans especially have been loath to trust Obama as capable of delivering the kind of change they need. Ohio has the nation's second highest unemployment rate, and leads the nation in foreclosures. The steady hand of Clinton has been seen by many Ohioans as the best bet to help guide them through these troubled times. But Obama's wins may signal to them that he is more electable. And with two weeks left to campaign, more exposure for Obama may convince Ohioans that he is more capable than they initially thought.

Whatever the case may be, these are dark days for Hillary. We will certainly find out what she is made of in the next two weeks because I can imagine no more trying circumstances for the once presumptive nominee to face.

Exit Polls Look Bad for Hillary

Hillary can't win the nomination with numbers like these. Wisconsin is a state that she should be able to win, but Obama is just the better candidate. He beats her 2 to 1 with men, and basically ties her (51% to 48%) among women. She needs to be getting a lot more of the female vote if she is going to get back in this race. CNN hasn't called Wisconsin yet, and perhaps these exit poll numbers are off a bit, but what has seemed clear in the last couple of weeks is that Obama has been able to make in roads into Hillary's base while maintaining and even strengthening support within his own. That's a pretty clear recipe for winning the nomination if that trend continues.

Every candidate needs a base of support, a coalition in order to win. What has been so amazing about this race so far is that Obama and Clinton's constituencies are of approximately equal size. Obama has African Americans, upper middle class whites, and men. Hillary has Hispanics, working class whites, and women. But if he's splitting women with her, it's over Johnny.

Ron Burgundy Hilarious!

Obama's Challenge in Ohio and Pennsylvania

America's greatest economic challenge for the foreseeable future will be to give American workers their first raise in real wages in four decades. Wages have been stagnant because middle class industrial jobs are gone and they're never coming back. We have to find a way to get people into careers that have the potential for wage growth. That generally means jobs that require a lot of education and training. This problem is what is preventing Obama from moving ahead in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Those are two states that have been really hard hit, and hard hit for a long time (since at least the end of the 60s) by the collapse of American industry.

Because people in those states have found themselves in such dire straits for so long, they are loath to accept Obama's message of hope and optimism. They need practical solutions because they often face truly dire circumstances. In order to break through, Obama has to be able to convince them that he can deliver and deliver big. It's not merely a matter of talking in greater detail, Obama has to show that he's tough, that he knows how to fight back, that he cares, that he's trustworthy, that he has the energy, the passion, the wherewithal to get people what they need.

He is not merely fighting against cynicism, he is fighting a generation's worth of broken dreams and unmet promises. The working people of Ohio and Pennsylvania were once the epitome of the American dream. Their middle class aspirations were fulfilled by plentiful factory jobs that promised the same ticket to middle class welfare to their children and their children's children. But that social compact was broken in the 1970s by a host of different forces that quickly shipped millions of jobs overseas, and put all blue collar jobs in jeopardy. Pretty soon GM, Ford, Chrysler, et al won't employ any blue collar workers in America. But people have been slow to awaken to this reality. The blue collar jobs are gone, but the workers remain. They have the work-ethic, but not the training or the skills necessary to compete in today's economy. America has to forge a new compact with its workers, or risk losing its middle class entirely. Obama has to find a way to reach this rightly disaffected group because he is the candidate best positioned to get them what they need, programs that will provide them with the skills necessary to compete.

Obama inspiring response to 'Just Words' Clinton critique

Obama is the Best Candidate, and Here's Why

I think so often in life one desires to only show up when it is convenient or easy to do so. But maturity and character demand that we play when the situation does not favor us, that we play when we are not at our best, that we play when it is inconvenient, when it is tough, when we are challenged and put upon. I believe that the best measure of any person is how they perform when they are at their worst, not when they are at their best for it is in these moments of difficulty, in these moments of trial and tribulation that one's truest colors shine through.

If life were full of easy choices would it even be worth living? The hard choices matter most because they are what ultimately come to define our lives. The road less traveled stands as such a powerful metaphor in Frost's famous poem because it makes all the difference to travel where others have yet to tread. It is hard to diverge from the easy path well trod by others who passed before. We know not what the future holds, and it is therefore far easier to follow the paths set before us by those who passed before. But if history teaches us anything it is that the wisdom of the past is not dispositive as regards the the direction of the future.

We are set forth in our journey through life with plenty of guidance from the past about what the future will hold. The past certainly repeats itself. But the future looks beyond the past into yet unimagined territory, and speaks with little certainty about it. We, all of us, must understand that new pathways into the future must be opened up if we are to move beyond our present station. That is why in examining our leaders in this primary season voters must not ask simply where have we come from, but where do we want to go, and how are we going to get there?

I would argue that Barack Obama has shown the greatest capacity of any of the candidates on these two critical aspects of leadership to both point the country in the right direction, and to lead it in that right direction. On the most critical question this country has faced since Vietnam, Obama is the only candidate who showed the strength and the prescience to vehemently denounce the War in Iraq from the very beginning. Obama knew that the War in Iraq was "dumb", that it had the potential to splinter Iraq into warring factions, that it would likely cost the United States greatly in terms of lives lost, debts incurred, and reputation tarnished, and lastly that it was unlikely to advance America's strategic interests much if at all, and could very well harm America's strategic position in the long run.

On every one of these points he has been proved right. But that's still the past, what about the future? Here again I think Obama proves his metal by emphasizing the need to move beyond the divisive politics that have permeated Washington over the past 20 years. It's fine to have disagreements when the stakes are low, but America clearly stands now at a crossroads, and the stakes have never been higher. China and India are ascendant, American industry is faltering, the Middle East is looking increasingly unsettled, the baby boomers are set to retire, globalization is continuing unabated meaning that competition for just about everything is increasing exponentially. America may as yet remain a "super power", but that sure means a lot less than it did 10 years ago. It is clear that we can no longer impose our will on the world, in fact the world seems increasingly able to dictate terms to us.

These enormous challenges necessitate bipartisan cooperation. America doesn't just need a few solutions to these challenges, it needs thousands. We cannot continue to be tied up in knots over every issue that comes our way. That is why Obama is the candidate of the moment because he is able to broker compromise, to work both sides of the aisle to come up with solutions to the myriad challenges we will face going forward. He is a man built for a complex, difficult, international, divisive world because that is the environment he grew up in. At the Harvard law review he was the only person that everyone could agree on as the choice for editor because everyone knew he would listen to them and give them a fair shake. In troubled times, and these are certainly troubled times, unity counts for everything.

There is a right path, it is a difficult one, one that requires hard choices by Democrats and Republicans alike, but it will ultimately lead to a better future for us all and that is the path of bipartisan cooperation. Barack Obama is the only candidate with the capacity to lead us on that path to the future America deserves, a future in which America will still find itself an important leader in a world of increasing complexity, competition and promise.

The Ultimate Team

If I could pick any basketball players from their prime to play on one 12 man team here's who I would choose:

The Starting 5

Point Guard: Ervin Magic Johnson. Best point guard who ever played, period. Also, incredibly versatile. Can play center if you need to win a championship.

Shooting Guard: From North Carolina, number 23 Michael Jordan. I don't know that a lot has to be said about this choice. Cleveland's still suffering from the shot on Eloh, and Karl Malone is still wondering where that ball, and his dreams of winning a championship, went.

Small Forward: Larry Bird. Others may have been better, but no one competed harder. He always got the most out of himself and his teammates. If you ever need a miracle steal, or a shot to win a game, this is your man.

Power Forward: Bill "The Champion" Russell. He won everything there is to win, and did so with grace, class, and an unbreakable will to win. Any team would be lucky to have had him. Boston certainly was, he helped them win 11 titles.

Center: Wilt "the Stilt" Chamberlain. Perhaps the greatest talent to ever play the game. If he had Russel's toughness he would have been unstoppable. But even so he was one of the best ever. His versatility is never given enough credit; he was one of the greatest passing big men to ever play the game.

The Bench

"The Big O" Oscar Robertson. The guy averaged a triple double for a season.! Are you kidding me!

"The Iceman" George Gervin. The nickname says it all, George Gervin was as silky smooth cool as they come. Certainly one of the best shooters the game has ever seen.

Dominique Wilkins. You want your face dunked on? No. Well then get out of Dominique's way!

Sir Charles Barkley. The round mound of rebound was as ferocious as they come. You'd have to be to try and rebound against guys half a foot taller than yourself.

Shaq "Daddy" O'neal, a.k.a. the Big Aristotle, the Big Maravich, the Big Everything generally. When the big man's got it going on, there are few, if any, who can stop him. One of the top two or three best post players of all time.

Dennis Rodman. Great energy guy if he's engaged, and when he's playing with the best he always is. You need guys like Rodman to come off the bench for you and help change the energy and tempo of the game with their full-throttle play. He was a key player on 5 championship teams, was a lock down defender and superb rebounder. There's only one ball, so any successful team needs guys who get other players the ball, and no one was better at chasing down the ball than Rodman.

Bernard King. One of the best scorers ever. Any good team needs guys who can come of the bench and provide instant offense, and King could certainly do that. He could put up 50 on you in a heart beat.

(Those who also received considderation: Pistol Pete Maravich - you gotta love the floppy hair, the slick moves, the passes that came from nowhere. Wes Unseld - You wanna get a fast break started? Just start running down the court, Wes'll get you the ball. Earl "the Pearl" Monroe - Black Jesus floated through the air like Christ walking on water. Isiah Thomas - Horrible coach, but this little man could play. Hakeem "Dream Shake" Olajuwon - Did so many little things well for a big man, and few have ever been as graceful. Just as Shaq had the power, Olajuwon had the finesse. He faked countless victims right out of their shoes. Lastly, Dwayne Wade - I love his game. He's always attacking, attacking, attacking.)

Why I'm for Obama

This video by Lawrence Lessig more or less sums up my views on why Obama is the best candidate for president. Issues are not the issue. In a job of this importance we need a person of character, a person of integrity, a person who can lead us to a better future, who inspires and represents the best in us. That person is Barack Obama.