I'm sitting right now in a great panel discussion on the disaster which has the state of California hurtling towards a cliff with apparently no brakes.
I find it really rather silly that I'm starstruck by bloggers than 99.9% of the general population have never read.
I met Markos Moulitsas himself (actually a bit of a jerk, as brilliant as he is and as thankful as I am for what he's given this important movement), and have been around Matt Yglesias, Spencer Ackerman, Digby, John Amato, D-Day and lots of others. Very, very exciting.
D-Day's leading the panel; he really is my favorite blogger who posts daily (the title of my favorite blogger overall goes to the unfortunately irregular Phil Nugent), and he's one of the foremost experts in the blogosphere on California and its politics.
It's really horrifying to hear such knowledgeable people in such despair about California's situation. They've all more or less moved on from thinking that California can be saved, and onto what lessons the rest of the country can learn from Calfornia's failure. I'm no expert on the situation, but for the latest, greatest commentary on the topic, visit Calitics.
I'm at the 2009 Netroots Nation conference (formerly Yearly Kos) this weekend, a conference of (mostly) liberal bloggers and politicans. Today's the last day, and I haven't written anything yet (Blogger's been kind of bloggered), but it really is great to be at a conference where it's not considered rude to sit in a session while on a laptop.
I've seen some great things while I've been here in Pittsburgh, including Bill Clinton speaking:
I think the highlight of the convention so far for me was getting the chance to meet Don Siegelman, the former governor of Alabama who was railroaded all the way to federal prison by Karl Rove, and spent a year there. Though he's no liberal Dem, the netroots have coalesced around his cause due to the level of serious injustice involved. He's an incredibly nice guy. I spoke to him for a few minutes at last night's J Street party and also just listened to him in a panel discussion on the DOJ going awry.
From the Mouths of Conservatives -- Paul Broun (R-Off the Deep End)
From the AP:
"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may - may not, I hope not - but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."
. . .
"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."
As you might imagine, I'm deliriously happy today. As I was putting my older son to sleep last night, I had just heard about Ohio. I explained to the boy that Obama was going to win the election and become the first African-American President of the United States. The boy looked up at me, eyes filled with wonder, as one's kids will on occasion, and said, "Really? The first? How can that be?" My son will grow up in a different country than I did, a country where more things seem possible, where more things are possible.
The boy woke up today, left his bed, and stepped into his world of new possibilities. He marched into my bedroom and inquired about the election. I told him that Obama had won. He then asked about Proposition 8. I told him that it passed, that a majority of Californians chose to annul the marriages of several of his cousins and the parents of two of his good friends. He didn't say, "Really? How can that be?" But he was upset - even after I explained that the arc of the moral universe is long, but that it bends toward justice.
He's off to school now, and I'm left feeling like I should have worked harder against Proposition 8, like I should have spent more time phonebanking, should have raised more money. I'm ashamed that I was so overconfident, so sure that the day of justice was finally at hand. My son takes immeasurable comfort in his parents' marriage. His little cousins, his friends from school, the people he knows who will be most directly affected by Prop 8, awoke today into a world without that comfort. The arc of the moral universe feels unbearably long right now, even as a I celebrate President-elect Obama.
I can't believe I'm talking about a next generation...
Well, I'm a little disappointed, actually. Just like me to be a downer, right?
After the election was called last night, I spent time talking to the crowd at the bar at the hotel where I'm staying in suburban Boston. About half were sorta rednecky Republicans and half were Dems. All said they supported Obama, though all of the Republicans repeatedly stated that McCain was a "true American" and a "true patriot" because he was a POW. When I asked them why they'd support Obama over McCain, the Republicans, to a man, replied, "because we need change." At the same time, they challenged me on my support for Obama and wouldn't listen to any reasoning that had anything to do with any issues. Change is all well and good, but I'd love to see some sort of acknowledgment from Obama voters, other than staunch, involved Democrats, that there's at least one not-so-abstract reason for it. Maybe I'm asking too much.
But one of the narratives I heard last night at the bar as well as in the newspapers and on the interweb today was that African-Americans "have no excuse anymore" when it comes to their success, and some have gone as far as to say that it proves that racism is dead and buried. Now, while I've been one of the first to say that racism has diminished enough that Obama's campaign could overcome it, it's far from gone.
It took an incredible, unbelievable black man running the best campaign in anyone's memory versus an underwhelming, doddering old man in the shadow of the worst President in the history of this country to put a black man in office. The Onion put it best in two headlines today:
I confess a certain impatience, on this poignant day, with all the earnest talk about how America achieved something remarkable yesterday by electing our first African-American president, as if the choice has been about race all along. I do not mean to diminish an historic first, like electing a Catholic in 1960; I, too, choked-up when John Lewis spoke. But relief today is not about Americans choosing an obviously black man over a white man, which proves we can come to terms with our past. It is about our choosing an obviously brilliant, reciprocal man over a thick, cynical one--a man who articulates a coherent vision of global commonwealth over someone advancing vague, military patriotism--which proves we can come to terms with our future.
Racism, it is true, did not confound the choice, as some predicted it would. But racism has not confounded mainstream admiration for The Cosby Show or Orprah or Tiger Woods--and hasn't for some time. Most of the 46% who voted for John McCain feel deeply anxious about a world in transition, where erudition, open-mindedness and intellectual discipline matter more and more, and their own sheer willingness to labor hard matters less and less. I bet they are more skittish about Obama's supremely elegant mind, his worldliness, than his dark skin; more drawn to the repudiation of "elitism" than to the rejection of "welfare."
So our choices are: 1. A significant portion of the country is still racist, 2. A significant portion of the country deliberately doesn't want to see an intelligent person in office, or 3. A bit of both.
Doesn't reflect terribly well, but I guess #3 isn't all that surprising to too many of us.
A nice segue from Digby into something else that doesn't reflect all that well on us, Yes on California's Proposition 8, which takes the right to marry away from gays in California:
It's terrific that we are seeing a decline in racism to the extent that we are able to elect a black president. We've come a long way and there's no taking anything away from those who waged the struggle over all these centuries. But our society is not truly changed if it's still writing discrimination into law.
It's as if we just can't be America unless we are taking active steps to marginalize somebody.
So true. We always need at least one enemy and at least like half a dozen underclasses.
We just didn't get as many House or Senate seats as I'd hoped, though 60 Senate seats is still a vague possibility.
It looks like Alaska managed to reelect a convicted felon, Senator Ted Stevens, and his supercorrupt sidekick, Don Young. I think that Stevens' conviction may have in fact helped the two of them, because Alaskan voters often see issues as the "Lower 48" against them and they may have felt that the "Washington elite," as their Governor likes to say, railroaded him.
Also, the abhorrent McCarthyite Michele Bachmann was reelected to her seat in Minnesota. What are they thinking in that state, particularly if Coleman pulls out reelection in his still-undecided Senate race.
I am happy, however, that Sasha and Malia Obama are getting a puppy!
Also, the elections of Walt Minnick in Idaho, Alan Grayson in Florida, Jeff Merkley in Oregon, Dan Maffei in New York, and Larry Kissell in North Carolina, among others, are welcome news.
And of course, YES WE DID! YES WE DID!
And make sure you catch the replay of tonight's South Park, which apparently was partially recorded after the election last night. Those guys are still in form after 12 years on the air.
This Obama ad has been floating on the web for a few days now, but I've been avoiding it because it sounded stupid to me. I finally watching it, and it's not. It might be the best ad anyone's done all year. Fantastic. Watch:
No candidate this far back two weeks out has ever won.
Early voting is going strong and even if something big happens, those votes are already cast.
The Democrats have a 10% advantage in party registration; in 2004 it was even.
Obama is outspending McCain 4 to 1 in many states.
There is no evidence for the so-called Bradley effect in the past 15 years.
Obama is safe in all the Kerry states and ahead in half a dozen states Bush won.
If McCain were to win at this point, it would be the comeback to end all political comebacks. It just isn't going to happen. I'm going to put a wager on it -- if McCain does win, the background image on my blog for the next year will be me wearing a McCain-Palin T-shirt. Nah guh happen.
I believe in this election we will NOT see "The Bradley Effect". Instead, we will see what I call "The Simpson Effect", meaning, Obama will get elected simply because he is BLACK, in spite of the facts that he is "guilty" of being a Socialist, a liar, guilty of being in the MIDDLE of the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae debaucle that was responsible for the financial crisis, guilty taking in over $200,000 in illegal foreign donations, helping to campaign for and continuing a friendship with Prime Minister Raila Odinga who muscled his way into his position by encouraging his followers to commit mass genocide against the oppostion party, guilty of being pals with terrorists criminals, America haters and like Ayers , Rezco, Khalidi, Odinga, guilty of manipulating ACORN and encouraging voter fraud, guilty of running for President of the US when his Indonesion citizenship disqualifies him, GUILTY, GUILTY- but nobody cares because he is BLACK- just like OJ Simpson.
Currently, there are 86 Republican seats in play. If you have any others, please let me know in the comments (with links showing fundraising and/or polling numbers).
In the 110th Congress (2007-2008), the Dems hold 236 seats and the Republicans 199. The Dems are the majority in 27 of the states' delegations, the Reps 21, and 2 delegations are tied. In our best case scenario, the Democrats would have the majority in 40 states, the Republicans 7, with three ties (Idaho, Kansas, and Kentucky).
Here are the seats that at least one of those sites (or another source specified) rated as Dem pickup possibilities (New additions are signified with an asterisk):
Alabama: 7 districts, 5 Republican, 2 in play Best Case Scenario: 4 Dems, 3 Reps, Dem Majority
I'm planning on updating my list of Congressional seats that the Dems could possibly get their hands on in November on Sunday. There's going to be a lot to add, looking at the Cook Report's latest update. 25 updated races, all in favor of the Dems (though I'm sure Tim Mahoney's race in Florida will be updated the other way fairly soon).
In the meantime, for the real nerds, here's Swing State Project's latest update on the state of the state legislature races around the country.
Barack Obama as a murderous Communist dictator is a common theme among wingnut Republicans, and the drumbeat keeps getting stronger. Here's a quote from a rightie on Silicon Investor (yes, I spend too much time there):
Eventually [Obama] or his successor will make laws [business leaders] cannot avoid breaking, put them in jail, kill them, and take over the companies. Obama's people, ACORN and Democrats will then be the super rich.
For the politically uninitiated, the Bradley Effect is named for Tom Bradley, the former mayor of Los Angeles who ran for governor of California in 1982 and lost even though he was winning significantly a few days before the election. Since then political conventional wisdom would have it that going into an election, a black candidate needs to have a fairly large lead in the polls to compensate for the number of people who tell pollsters they will vote for the black candidate to avoid admitting that they will not vote for a black candidate.
Politico has some numbers and data that show that the "Bradley Effect" may have been simple polling error, and that Bradley's opponent actually did close the gap in the days before the election.
Jeff, a business associate of mine in my Albany office, floated an interesting idea yesterday. I'm not sure that I agree with it, but the essence of it is that there might be a "Reverse Bradley Effect," where people don't want to admit they MIGHT vote for a black candidate but vote for Obama because they feel like it's in their economic self-interest. Some interesting evidence from Ben Smith at Politico, about a focus group's reaction to a McCain ad:
Reagan Dems and Independents. Call them blue-collar plus. Slightly more Target than Walmart.
Yes, the spot worked. Yes, they believed the charges against Obama. Yes, they actually think he's too liberal, consorts with bad people and WON'T BE A GOOD PRESIDENT...but they STILL don't give a f***. They said right out, "He won't do anything better than McCain" but they're STILL voting for Obama.
The two most unreal moments of my professional life of watching focus groups:
54 year-old white male, voted Kerry '04, Bush '00, Dole '96, hunter, NASCAR fan...hard for Obama said: "I'm gonna hate him the minute I vote for him. He's gonna be a bad president. But I won't ever vote for another god-damn Republican. I want the government to take over all of Wall Street and bankers and the car companies and Wal-Mart run this county like we used to when Reagan was President."
The next was a woman, late 50s, Democrat but strongly pro-life. Loved B. and H. Clinton, loved Bush in 2000. "Well, I don't know much about this terrorist group Barack used to be in with that Weather guy but I'm sick of paying for health insurance at work and that's why I'm supporting Barack.">
He voted against the first Gulf War. He voted against it and, obviously, we had to take Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait or it would've threatened the Middle Eastern world [oil] supply.
1. He was asked about if Obama's $250,000 tax bracket would affect him, and he said, something to the effect of, "No, but it's a slippery slope -- if he decides now that $250,000 is rich, next he'll decide that $100,000 is rich, and then who knows?" No mention of employees or an actual business.
LATER UPDATE: He actually is registered to vote, and a Republican. Not only that, but he's a staunch right-winger who is against Social Security... and aside from that, he's a relative of Charles Keating! And a schmuck.
But he's Neil Cavuto's "kinda plumber...":
EVEN LATER UPDATE: It's been pointed out that there's no solid evidence on the Keating relation yet... at least for sure that Joe and Robert Wurzelbacher are related (Robert Wurzelbacher is, for sure, Keating's son-in-law). But I'll keep you posted.
(This is truly the wonkiest thing I've ever posted to this site)
Markos mentioned today that we are working toward a 100 seat Democratic majority in the House.
This morning, I was talking to a friend, and wondered aloud if we could reach a 2/3 majority, which would be 290 seats (to 145 Republican seats). We'd need to gain 54 to do that.
Trying to gauge the possibilities, I spent a good portion of the day looking over the ratings on Cook, Real Clear Politics, and Electoral-Vote.com, to get a baseline of the Republican seats that are in play.
Being that I'm looking at only the most optimistic scenario, I ignored all seats that are currently Dem and included as "in play" any Republican seats that are rated anything less than "Safe/Solid Republican."
It was a good feeling to see Microsoft Excel auto-fill "Solid Democratic" much more often than "Solid Republican."
Anyway, here are the seats that at least one of those sites rated as Dem pickup possibilities:
Virginia VA-02 (Cook) VA-05 (Cook) VA-11 (Cook, EV, RCP)
Washington WA-08 (Cook, EV, RCP)
Wyoming WY-AL (Cook)
Of note, aside from the last Republican seat in New England (CT-04) being in serious jeopardy, every Republican seat in Minnesota and Nevada are possible, and we can also grab four of the six seats that the Republicans still hold in New York. Real opportunities to step on their necks.
All in all, 58 states in play, just according to those sites. I know that there are others that aren't being picked up -- for instance, CA-03 and possibly MD-06. I'll include those in a future edition, with links to polls and such.
So, if everything moves in our favor, we can get that 2/3rds. But how many more? What's the BEST we can do? That's where I need your help. Between now and the next edition, if you have other races that should be included in this list, please post them in the comments along with links to relevant polls or fundraising numbers showing that the race really is in play.
I for one, won't be happy until we have every last Republican seat in the House and Senate. What can I say -- I'm a dreamer!
I don't have a lot to say about the debate tonight, other than I think Obama won by a bit (the poll or two I've seen seem to indicate he won by a lot more). McCain's last chance to make this a contest is at next week's debate, but I think this one's over. More tomorrow.
When it comes to elections, The term "ground game" refers to the campaign activities of people on the ground -- people making phone calls, registering voters, staffing field offices, etc...
The Republicans' ground game is usually a force to be reckoned with, and the Democrats' has often been so-so. Thanks to people like Howard Dean and Barack Obama, the Democrats' ground game is incredibly strong. It's been that way for Obama's whole campaign. He's been opening offices in every state, many in which Democrats don't normally compete, like Indiana. But I'd been under the assumption that the Republicans' still were doing pretty well on the ground. Yesterday, Sean Quinn of the amazing FiveThirtyEight.comdropped a bomb on that assumption:
Something interesting is happening with John McCain's campaign. Up until now, we've had no trouble gaining access to field offices and volunteers. Here in St. Louis, we were told by Tina Hervey, Missouri Republican State Party Press Secretary, that she had never heard of FiveThirtyEight, and while they trusted Politico, we were people who they had to decide whether we "shouldn't or don't need to be talking to." (McCain's Missouri press secretary actually works out of Iowa, and did not return calls or email.) I told Tina that's not a story we wanted to write, that this was our first Republican resistance, and that while she may not have heard of us, we'd probably go over 2.5 million site visits this week, now that we're regularly past 400,000 per weekday. I told her I'd hold off writing her flat refusal and give her the opportunity to change her mind.
No budging. We were told that we’d be asked to leave public field offices we now attempted to visit. We did not get any promised follow-up helping get access to the post-debate Palin rally last night, and we were locked out. Hmm.
Let's be clear. We've observed no comparison between these ground campaigns. To begin with, there's a 4-1 ratio of offices in most states. We walk into McCain offices to find them closed, empty, one person, two people, sometimes three people making calls. Many times one person is calling while the other small clutch of volunteers are chatting amongst themselves. In one state, McCain's state field director sat in one of these offices and, sotto voce, complained to us that only one man was making calls while the others were talking to each other about how much they didn't like Obama, which was true. But the field director made no effort to change this. This was the state field director.
Only for the first time the other day did we see a McCain organizer make a single phone call. So we've now seen that once. The McCain organizers seem to operate as maitre Ds. Let me escort you to your phone, sir. Pick any one of this sea of empty chairs. I'll be sitting over here if you need any assistance.
Given a choice between taking embarrassing photos of empty phone banks, we give McCain's people the chance to pose for photos to show us the action for what they continually claim we "just missed." No more. We stop into offices at all open hours of the day, but generally more in the afternoon and evening. "Call time," for both campaigns, is all day, but the time when folks over 65 are generally targeted begins in late afternoon and goes til 8 or 9pm. Universally, McCain's people stop earlier. Even when we show up at 6:15pm, we're told we just missed the big phone bank, or to come back in 30 minutes. If we show up an hour later, we "just missed it" again.
The McCain offices are also calm, sedate. Little movement. No hustle. In the Obama offices, it's a whirlwind. People move. It's a dynamic bustle. You can feel it in our photos.
Up to this point, we've been giving McCain's ground campaign a lot of benefit of the doubt. We can't stop convincing ourselves that there must -- must -- be a warehouse full of 1,000 McCain volunteers somewhere in a national, central location just dialing away. This can't be all they're doing. Because even in a place like Colorado Springs, McCain's ground campaign is getting blown away by the Obama efforts. It doesn't mean Obama will win Colorado Springs, but it means Obama's campaign will not look itself in the mirror afterward and ask, "what more could we have done?"
You could take every McCain volunteer we've seen doing actual work in the entire trip, over six states, and it would add up to the same as Obama's single Thornton, CO office. Or his single Durango, CO office. These ground campaigns bear no relationship to each other.
This may be shaping up to be a serious blowout in Obama's favor...
UPDATE: For an example of how good Obama's ground game is, check this out.
Peanut gallery in the bar: "We've totally lost interest and we're not going to let you hear the end of this. Sorry!"
All in all, this debate got us exactly nowhere, except we didn't get the Palin gaffe. So, boring. Very boring. Bob Schieffer thought Biden was very good and Palin was just OK.
This concludes this liveblog... Next one in another two years! I'll try to do the election, but no promises.
Ifill: Time to turn this into a job interview. Your biggest weakness, please?
Palin: Got none. I'm perfect, like America. So is John McCain.
Biden: I'm too passionate! And I ain't changing. Except for when it comes to change. I LOVE to change things. Sarah, I'll one-up your live family with my dead family! McSame! McSame! McSame! (Lexi: That was kind of hardcore.)
Palin: Maverick! Maverick! (Take two more shots) (Lexi: "Cripes, if I hear the word "maverick" one more time..."). The Republican party is a really diverse bunch of white people. McCain's your man for change...
Biden: He's no maverick! He's the same! How many times do I have to say it?
Ifill: Wait, I thought you guys didn't want to be VP!
Palin: I was joking! And so was Biden, but I was funnier.
Biden: I think this question is stupid, so I'm going to talk about education. Well, on second thought, I have a good answer, so what the heck? Obama's gonna listen to me.
Palin: (Lexi: "Wait, what?")
Biden: The VP is kinda like the President's second wife, unless his name is Cheney, then he's his "top."
Palin: I'm an outsider. You're a flip-flopper. Which one do Americans prefer? I really paid attention to politics before I got the nomination... really! Alaska is widely known as a leader against genocide. Just not widely enough to reach the elitists in the "lower 48."
Biden: I didn't flip-flop! I didn't really want this war. But Satan, I mean, Cheney, did, and McCain's his friend.
Palin: Talk to the hand. The media's gonna get you, you liar.
Palin: I don't know, but I'm cool with nukeular ones, but only in the hands of white people... those brown people and yellow people can't handle them. We, being the white people, are fighting terrorism and building schools!
Biden: General Not-Petraeus in Afghanistan said keep your surgey hands off of my territory! Something about the cost of Iraq vs. Afghanistan. McCain digs nukes.
Palin: It's my party, and I'll surge if I want to!
Biden: I have two favorite Republicans, and they're not surgemeisters.
Palin: The search worked. You didn't believe the mighty Petraeus or St. John, but it did. And we'll get out of their someday. We have a plan! Trust us! Obama didn't vote to fund the troops. Slips the word "Shia" in to sound smart.
Biden: I didn't hear a plan. And McCain and Obama voted against the same bill. Gotta have a timeline to get out; We can't spend our own money to help the people we bombed the ever-loving-fuck out of... they have to use their own. But we'll end the end the war.
Palin: Surrender monkey! French frog! The surge worked, dammit! Why can't Obama admit it? Dropping Iraqi names incorrectly from an index card... Starts to get pissed about Obama trying to take money from the troops.
Biden: McCain really did vote against the same goddamn bill! McCain really doesn't know squat about the war or anything else. Obama called it all correctly (really pushing it).
Ifill: What's worse, nuclear Iran or rogue Pakistan?
Biden: Both so scary (wets himself a little)! But Pakistan's more scary -- they have nukes, but Iran doesn't. McCain weakens us by keeping us in Iraq instead of Pakistan. We need to build democracy in Pakistan (like we did in Iraq?). No, not like in Iraq. We're really going to help them. And we're gonna get that guy bin Laden.
Palin: Petraeus and the leader of Al-Qaida say we should stay in Iraq, so we're gonna stay. I love Israel (Meredith: "oh she went there")! Pakistan, whatever. Iran is so scary! It's gonna destroy Israel! Castro's scary, too, but Obama loves him and all the other bad guys. Nukeular, nukeular, nukeular. They hate our gosh-darned freedom!
Biden: Obama does NOT love bad guys. If he loves bad guys, so do five secretaries of state and some Republicans! And McCain's hatred for Spain falls mainly on the plain!
Ifill: Two-state solution?
Palin: Yes! And Rice is working on it, as will we. Need I remind you I love Israel? If you don't want to make sexy time with Israel, you want another Holocaust. (Meredith: "Wow. She's reading AIPAC talking points."
Biden: I love Israel the mostest! I have a boner for it right now! McCain would need Viagra to do it with Israel.
Palin: We can have a threesome with Israel! Yeah, the administration has screwed up, but it's not really anyone's fault. MAVERICK HO!
Ifill: Do you support benefits for same-sex couples?
Biden: Yes. It's fair and called for in the Constitution (really? I think I could run a search for "gay" or "heterosexual" on the text of the Constitution and not turn up anything).
Palin: No, but I can hedge a little while choking back spittle. I don't support gay marriage. It's icky.
Ifill: Do you support gay marriage?
Biden: No. Neither does Obama. (Why do we live in a country of troglodytes?)
Ifill: Would you have supported the bankruptcy bill of 2005? McCain did (Biden CERTAINLY did, and I can't excuse him).
Palin: Yes.
Biden: Obama and I disagreed on that... changes subject to subprime mortgages... brings it back saying that Obama will do other things to help people in foreclosure. McCain wouldn't.
Palin: Not true. But I don't have to say why. I want to talk about energy! Drill, baby, drill! (She's really working up a head of steam.
Ifill: OK< let's talk about energy. Climate change?
Palin: Alaska feels climate change more than anyone (Meredith: "alaska knows about climate change more so than say louisiana") . But it's not man's fault. I don't want to talk about the causes (Lexi: "she's losin' it.") Other countries don't care about global warming, so why should we?
(Adrien: "you need to include biden laughing at her in every shot")
Biden: Of course it's man-made. We're running out of oil and we're so dependent on it. McCain doesn't care about alternative energy. Obama's for clean coal and safe nuclear energy (all tilting at windmills -- gotta call Biden out on that). We've gotta drill, too.
Palin: "Drill, baby, drill!." Joe, if you don't want to drill, you hate America! Biden doesn't really support clean coal.
Palin: I cut taxes. I don't have to answer your stupid questions.
Ifill: It's been said McCain's health insurance plan will raise taxes on people and cut 5 million from health insurance rolls.
Biden: Obama will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000. McCain will cut taxes for the wealthy. Tax breaks need to go to the middle class.
Palin: You're a Commie! You're going to tax small businesses. Todd and I are middle class! Remember I have a family!
Ifill: Can you talk about McCain's health care plan?
Palin: Yes, we'll give a tax credit (but it's still going to cost people more money and increase risk)... Government can't run healthcare! We Republicans have shown we can't run anything!
Biden: It's not "income redistribution" it's "fairness." Picks up on the real costs of McCain's healthcare plan. Very well done, Joe. It's the "ultimate bridge to nowhere" (huh?).
Ifill: What can't we pay for because the economy's doing badly?
Biden: Some of our foreign activity.... but we can't pull back on providing healthcare or creating alternative energy. We need to eliminate wasteful spending, like offshore tax avoidance, which is "unpatriotic" (good point).
Palin: McCain doesn't ever tell different things to different groups. I took on oil companies.
Woman behind me: "Bless their hearts".
Palin: Obama voted for an energy plan that gave tax breaks to oil companies.
Ifill: Nothing to take off the table?
Palin: Nothing. I know my talking points.
Biden: Obama voted for that bill because of its inclusion of funding for alternative energy. McCain's the one that wants to cut taxes for oil companies!
It's about to begin. I'm in the hotel lobby at the Albany Marriott (I'll explain later). I've got a peanut gallery of people around me, and if they say anything good, I'll let you know :)
It's time to start....
Gwen Ifill is moderating.
The candidates come out -- Palin: "Hey, can I call you Joe?" Weird.
Question about the bailout.
Biden: Attacks Bush administration about excess and deregulation, letting Wall Street run wild. Obama has four criteria for his rescue plan -- they involve oversight, restrictions of executives making money from the bailout, etc... (I personally agree with all of them, but I don't think that Obama's really sticking to that).
Woman here: "Put some lipstick on!"
Palin: Something about a soccer game. People are afraid. McCain represents reform and tried to prevent this two years ago with bipartisan efforts, but no one listened to him. He suspended his campaign to deal with this (he didn't, really, but that was suprisingly coherent).
Biden: Talks about McCain's "fundamentals of the economy are strong." John McCain flip-flops.
Palin: HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE WORKFORCE! (total, utter crap). I'm a reformer and a maverick, and we put partisan politics aside. Obama's a partisan. McCain's a maverick!
Waiter: "Who's the comedian on Saturday Night Live?"
Ifill: Who was at fault for the subprime meltdown?
Palin: "Darned right, it was the predator lenders." Hockey moms and Joe Six Packs, blah blah. People can learn lessons from this and not use debt in the future.
Woman behind me: "Pretty pathetic."
Biden: Obama warned two years ago about this. John called for more and more deregulation (Very, very true). It's not people's faults they're in debt. They can't even afford to fill their tanks.
Let's not kid ourselves.... pretty much no one is watching the debate for Biden. Republicans are watching it to cheer for her, and Democrats are hoping for a train wreck. I happen to think they're going to get that train wreck...
Since Palin's initial rather inflammatory but compelling introduction to the country at the Republican Convention, she's shown herself to be not only a dud, but incredibly ignorant. She can't name a Supreme Court case other than Roe V. Wade, she can't name a single newspaper she reads... It's not terribly surprising; she's a GOPACer. For those not in the know, GOPAC is an incubator for conservative politicians, and the baby of Newt Gingrich (remember him?). Kagro X on Daily Kos provides some good background:
Back in the heyday of GOPAC, when it was Newt Gingrich's operation, one of the chief functions of the organization was to equip the Republican "farm team" with the kind of rhetoric Newt was well-known for. Attention grabbing, bombastic, and most importantly, focus-group tested for resonance. Right down to the molecular level. They actually used to distribute a list of words they wanted you to use to describe Republicans and Republican policies, and those they wanted used to describe Democrats and Democratic policies.
For most Republicans, that rudimentary training is usually enough to get you through most situations. They rarely, if ever, face the national press corps for a full and wide-ranging examination of the breadth of their policy positions, instead perhaps occasionally doing national interviews on specific topics of expertise. Only the top leaders from each party tend to find themselves in a position like Palin will be facing on Thursday, and even then only for perhaps ten minutes at a time. It's highly unusual for such an untested politician to find themselves in this bright a spotlight, and it's only due to the fact that a vice presidential nominee can literally be picked out of the blue and thrust into the spotlight with no special prerequisites that this can even happen. Ordinarily, people choose their running mates with, you know, a little care and forethought. And that usually produces a selection who's actually ready for the job.
Not this time. This time, we're being given a chance to watch one of the GOPAC spawn in the larval stage, not yet fully developed, and we'll have a chance to see the limitations of trying to teach someone to talk and argue like Newt Gingrich before they're ready.
. . .
She hasn't helped herself by executing her training poorly of late, but there's only so much you can do once your questioners realize that you have only one set play for when you get in trouble: 1) repeat back some of the words in the question to establish that you're "answering" it; 2) parry by steering the frame of your answer toward a talking point that bears some relation to the subect of the question; 3) spray some transitional buzzwords that help you segue from what you were asked to what you have prepared to say, and; 4) deliver the focus group-tested answer you originally planned, even if it's kind of a non-sequitur.
From another Kagro X post, he provides a story from a former opponent of hers when she ran for governor of Alaska in 2006:
On April 18, 2006, Palin and I sat together in a hotel coffee shop comparing campaign trail notes. As we talked about the debates, Palin made a comment that highlights the phenomenon that Biden is up against.
"Andrew, I watch you at these debates with no notes, no papers, and yet when asked questions, you spout off facts, figures, and policies, and I'm amazed. But then I look out into the audience and I ask myself, 'Does any of this really matter?' " Palin said.
Pretty much tells you all you need to know about her attitude towards politics and governance.
The debate is set up so that the candidates can't question each other, which will probably help keep Palin on her game. But I think we'll still get some unprecedented screwups (fingers crossed). If we don't, it's likely to be a boring debate.
Reading this report from the Onion, though, I do expect that Palin will be very prepared on foreign policy.
I didn't watch much of the Democratic Convention, because, ironically enough, I was too busy trying to keep up with what the political blogs had to say about it. I do have to say, though, that I think Biden was a pretty good choice for VP; if nothing else, he'll make a great hatchet man for Obama.
When Obama announced his selection for VP, he made history by doing so to his supporters through text message.
I hear that along the same lines, McCain will be making his announcement by carrier pigeon. Stay tuned!
Just got back after a month of self-imposed hiatus from politics after Hillary dropped out of the race. Obama appears to have tacked to the center since then; for example on the surveillance legislation and faith-based initiatives.
All of the long-time Obamaniacs seem to be surprised by this (I'm not one of them, remember)... I'm not. I've always been a little uncomfortable with him (and Hillary) because he's just not really a liberal. Remember his 2004 keynote speech at the DNC?
We liberals are not going to love him as President, but after 8 years of Bush and faced with 4 more in McCain, Obama's still pretty damn appetizing...
Now that we have our nominees, I'm going to take a month off from politics online and in real life to get a bit of a breather. I'm hoping that by the time I start following again, Obama is up 10 points.
Amy Poehler does an awful Hillary Clinton (not surprising as Saturday Night Live has been terrible for going on fifteen years), but she manages to sum up Clinton's arguments pretty succinctly.
By the way I'm down in DC for the next couple of days, home on Tuesday, and in NYC on Wednesday.
One Clinton aide yesterday derided Mr Obama’s victories in "boutique" caucus states rather than the hardscrabble terrain of the rustbelt, saying: "Obama has won the small caucus states with the latte-sipping crowd. They don’t need a president, they need a feeling."
She sounds just like a Republican. She's doing it over and over again.
I just wish Obama would do a better job of fighting back, which is what I was worrying about in the first place with him. We'll see!
Why Don't You Give a F**k? -- Don Siegelman Is In Prison
A must-watch:
The former governor of Alabama, Don Siegelman, is sitting in jail because of a Republican vendetta. The judge, who has a personal rivalry with Siegelman, is keeping him from appealing. The U.S. Department of Justice is complicit.
Up until now, the story hadn't gotten a lot of play. But 60 Minutes just aired the sordid story in all of its sordid glory... but I haven't seen or heard much outside of the blogosphere.
Bush isn't the only musically-inclined politician out there...
On Friday night, a friend sent me a prank video shows three fat old men having sex in the shower. This one was more disturbing...
I've brushed off the idea that it's time for a new generation in the White House, but this is the best argument for it I've seen. Compare the above video to this one:
Ted sent me a report from the Democratic caucuses in Washington:
Well, we're done caucusing.......at least my precinct is. It was an interesting process. First it was amazing to see people streaming towards the school on foot, by car, by bike. It was like something out of a movie.....people coming from all directions, converging on this school. They clearly got more people than they expected.....not enough forms, not enough seats. They had to send someone to Kinko's to make more copies.
The crowd was fairly diverse.....old, young, white, black, purple; in fact, there were some teenagers and tweenies observing. As far as income, I could see no difference.....mostly middle class, probably white collar but that's a guess.
The caucus started promptly at 1:30 PM. We were separated into rooms by precinct. My room had 64 people of which 5 were undecided. My neighbors from across the street were there. We chatted it up.......we hadn't talked in a while. Unfortunately, I realized as I took our signup sheet to the front of the room that they were for Clinton. I guess there won't be too many summer barbeques this year. hehehehehe! (Jason's Note: "Ted" is actually Beavis)
Then we separated into three groups: Obama, Clinton and Undecideds. I know, I know.....you want the break out for Obama and Clinton but you ain't getting it til the end and no fair cheating. We started out by making a list of resolutions we wanted presented to the county wide delegate meeting to be held in April. Then each candidate group picked three delegates for a total of six.
Finally, the actual caucus began. The Undecideds told us their doubts about each candidate. Then 5 speakers were picked from Obama's group and 5 from Clinton's group. I was one of the 5 for Obama. They were asked to address the concerns and questions of the Undecideds. Did I mention that my neighbor was one of the speakers for the Clintons and that stupidly my comments piggy backed off what he said, and in the process, turned his argument around to the detriment of Clinton? Politically savvy like Obama I am not. Forget the "no barbeque problem"...I am hiring a security guard for my house. ;-((
After the speakers were done, the Undecideds were asked to go up to the precinct captain and indicate if they had changed their position. We started out with 5 Undecideds and ended up with one. In fact, one woman came up to me and told me what I said had turned her around for Obama. Yay! One for the Obama gipper! In fact, Obama got all but one of the Undecideds.
And now for the final tally: 46 for Obama, 17 for Clinton and 1 Undecided. From what I understand, the majority of the 6 delegates go to him but they weren't sure exactly how many he would get. I am unclear why anyone would think this process favors Obama. Whatever the reasons might be, it was not obvious to me.
Oh yeah, my neighbor......he looked at me strangely as I left and was not nearly as friendly as when we first saw each other. Oh well............
I didn't make my vote based on who I thought was "more electable." I thought that was a fool's game four years ago, and I think it's even more foolish this year. I'm picking for myself, not for you. Heck, I have a lot of political positions in common with most people on this community, and many of you would strongly disagree with how I cast my vote. If I can't figure out how you're going to vote, I'm not about to start puzzling what a truck driver in Portland, a single mother in Boise, or a middle manager in Cleveland is looking for in a president.
I didn't make my vote based on how I thought some other part of the world would react to a President Obama. I didn't consider whether some despot at the head of a failing state would think the new president too weak to thwart some scheme. I didn't ponder what they'd think in the cave. I didn't consider whether some faction of the populace in the Middle East, or China, or some other place look on black people as "weak" or "inferior." I didn't consider how Obama would get on with Putin or how he'd handle Chavez. You only have to look at George W. Bush and Tony Blair to know that predicting how world leaders will hit it off is tougher than lining up blind dates for your friends. Anyone making guesses about this is doing just that -- making guesses.
And above all, I didn't make my vote based on some assumption of racism or sexism on another part of the electorate. Not that I didn't have plenty of chances. At some point, it seemed like everyone I know brought up some variant of the Wilder Effect. They usually expressed it as something close to "I know what people tell the pollsters, but I'm really worried in November when it comes down to a woman/black man against a candidate like people have always known..." A relative put it a lot more bluntly in saying "It doesn't bother me that Obama slept with all those white women, but it'll bother other people."
From CNN: "72 percent of Democrats said they would be satisfied if Clinton won the party's nomination, while 71 percent say the same about Obama."
Not exactly a divided party.
I spoke to a friend tonight, who told me that he and his wife spent the weekend weighing Hillary vs. Obama, and decided not to vote because they couldn't make a decision. They both decided they'd be happy with either, and that was that.
Seems a lot of America feels that way. But after tonight's primaries, it looks like we're going to need some more time before we have one candidate to agree upon. But agree we will, and we're going to kick some pachyderm in November!
So, I did vote for Obama (though I flirted briefly with casting my vote for Edwards). It was easy, of course -- two minutes, in and out.
Not as much luck for K-hole, who had to deal with his first caucus, having recently moved to Colorado. He texted me: "This is the dumbest worst thought out process ever."
Here's a little detail you might be interested in. As you know, the Albany City Democratic Committee, which is Jerry Jennings's breakaway from the Albany County Democratic Party, has been ordering all of us City committee persons to campaign exclusively for Hillary. All of us were handed a list of female names in our respective election districts. This turned out to be a list of women 55 years of age or over whom we were supposed to target.
My Wife was on that list, erroneously. She's not yet 55. "That's it, I'm voting for Obama," she told the City Party Chairman.
One of my biggest problems with Hillary has been the people she associates with, from anti-union types like Chris Lehane and Mark Penn to establishment slimeballs like James Carville.
But if Jerry Jennings is going to push so strongly for her, then that does it for me. I'm voting Barack Obama tomorrow.
Who am I gonna vote for? Out of the myriad of choices? I'll be voting for the Democrat in November, even if Ralph Nader runs, and especially if Billionaire Michael Bloomberg runs.
I'm angry at Clinton for A) voting for and supporting the War Against Iraq, and B) voting for and supporting the so-called "Patriot" Act and related legislation. I mean, c'mon lady.
Concerning B), when we were trying to get the City of Albany to pass a resolution opposing the "Patriot" Act (which was ultimately successful, by the way) Melanie Trimble of the NYCLU tried to get an audience with her. She refused to even respond to our request, let alone meet with Melanie. (McNulty met with her, and literally laughed in her face.) As a result, our opponents on the Albany Common Council kept tossing us this line about "undermining Senator Clinton." You think I'm going to forget something like that?
So I guess I'm going to vote for Obama because I'm not as disgusted with him. But I'll tell you, I have serious doubts that a black person can win a national election in white America.
I like both Clinton and Obama, but if I had to pick one as the Democratic nominee right now and offer a single justification for my selection, I'd choose Clinton, and for the same reason that so many people regard her as unelectable: she's gone through a never-ending storm of shit with her head held high. I'm thinking that's the best practice anyone could have for making it to November in one piece. Obama has acknowledged that she has that much of an edge by saying that beating off her attacks have made him a stronger, better-tested candidate, but I hope he isn't really silly enough to think that bitch-slapping Bob Johnson is remotely equivalent to taking on the whole Fox News and right-wing radio manure machine. The people who are attracted to Obama because he's so "inspiring" don't seem to think this ought to be a factor in their decision. It's as if they think that his new-morning aura is so effective that it'll deflect any slander and inspire the other side to behave itself and play on a high ground, especially if the other candidate is the saintly and principled John McCain. They must be out of their motherfucking minds.
Poverty Rising: There are nearly 37 million poor Americans. Most Americans living in poverty work, but still cannot afford to make ends meet.
Minimum Wage is Not Enough: Even when a parent works full-time earning minimum wage and EITC and food stamps are factored into their income, families are still $1,550 below the federal poverty line because of the flat-lined minimum wage.
Yes folks, sprawl makes our taxes go up. This is not rocket science. Automobiles not only allow us to use more land than ever before. Autos demand that we use more land, to drive and park the damn things.
Global warming is not the only price we pay for our gas guzzling pollution machines. The more we drive our automobiles, the more land we need to use and pay for. Driving your car raises your taxes.
. . .
May I make a modest suggestion? To stop property taxes from increasing, we need a crash program to reduce dependence on automobiles. Not to eliminate automobiles, mind you. To reduce dependence.
Wouldn't it be nice to have choice? Imagine how delightful it would be to take a pleasant train ride to work, scanning your favorite electronic device or printed material, sipping your favorite coffee concoction and maybe even having a donut. I've lived in places where I could do that, why can't I do that in the Capital District?
Or imagine being able to hop a bus home at two o'clock in the morning after a raucous night out in a neighboring city. Don't we all want to reduce drunk driving? Again, I've lived in places where late night busses are expected and reliable.
I don't want to give up my pickup truck, nosiree. I need it to haul refrigerators and zip off to lumber yard when I want to. What I want is a choice, to not have to keep it full of expensive imported gasoline, to not be dependent on the damn thing. Is that too much to ask?
To reduce dependence on automobiles would require rebuilding our State. It would require transforming suburban sprawl hellholes into communities where it is easier to walk than to drive. It would be a massive job generator, very attractive to job-creating developers.
And while we're at it, why isn't New York State energy independent? We have wind, water and sunshine. We could cut loose from parasitic international energy corporations would make us a boom state. Our state could become virtually reccession-proof.
Reform No Child Left Behind: Obama will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law. Obama believes teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests. He will improve the assessments used to track student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner. Obama will also improve NCLB's accountability system so that we are supporting schools that need improvement, rather than punishing them.
Clinton:
End the unfunded mandate known as No Child Left Behind.
Advantage? Hillary. NCLB has to come off the table; like charter schools, it was molded by Republicans simply as an excuse to be able to weaken the teachers' lobby and to hurt the public school system.
Watch Season 4 of The Wire, and you'll get it...
Speaking of charter schools, neither candidate mentions them, nor private school vouchers at all, for that matter. Disappointing, as both are going to be major factors in inner-city education over the next decade.
Barack's a bit better than Hillary on the war; Barack's website says, "Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year." Meanwhile, Clinton's simply says her Cabinet would, "draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration."
Unlike most people, I don't give Obama any extra points over Hillary for having opposed the war in 2002. Nearly all of the Democrats in the Senate supported the authorization of force against Iraq, and it was less because they believed in it and more because if they didn't, they would be branded as traitors, which was the kiss of death to any national politician that soon after 9/11. Edwards supported it too, and I can't really give Obama the benefit of the doubt that he wouldn't have voted the same way had he actually been in the Senate at the time. Heck, I'm not sure I wouldn't have had to vote for it at the time. I am a little uneasy, however, that unlike Edwards, Hillary hasn't really backed off that vote.
All three candidates rattled sabers towards Iran, which is just plain stupid. Iran's a toothless (like me!) third-world nation that bears no threat towards us, and it's time we ignored them.
I went through Clinton's and Obama's health care issues pages this evening. Also, they're not so far apart here either. They address a lot of the same issues -- covering the uninsured, AIDS, autism, cancer). They also both offer people the option of getting the same plan that members of Congress have.
Ultimately, to me, Hillary's plan is slightly better, because it makes participation mandatory. But neither is anywhere near single-payer (UPDATE: Kossack Partially Impartial explains why this is important) (UPDATE 2: The Urban Institute releases a paper concluding the same).
Running an organization, I find that we spend over $6,000 per year on health insurance per employee, and it goes up close to 20% every year. For people insuring themselves, it's approaching $10,000 per year. How long can that continue? Single payer is the only answer, but it's not even on the table.
I read some of Hillary and Barack's economic platforms on their websites... nothing stood out as particularly good or bad as far as differences go.
One thing that bothered me in both was that there is too much concentration on tax cuts... that's buying into the Republican meme that taxes are too high. They're not; they were higher ten years ago and surveys showed that most people didn't complain then. And today, when we have a national debt approaching a trillion dollars, we cannot eliminate revenue sources.
I have 12.5% fewer teeth in my mouth than I did ten hours ago.
I have seven episodes of The Wire, or approximately 13.5% of the entire series, left to watch after I started watching two weeks ago (and it's every bit as good as I'd heard).
There are five days left until Super Tuesday, so by the end of tonight, I'd like to be 20% closer to choosing a candidate. But some arsehole (SEE UPDATE) Bob Cesca on Huffington Post thinks that I, and the rest of the progressive blogosphere, need to pick one candidate and unify behind him or her now.
Uh, no?
I'm going to pick my candidate before I vote, and I think every other blogger should do the same. But we're not a unit (hell, I'm just a speck), and we make up our minds for ourselves. As long as we're unified behind the Democratic candidate once the party has selected one, we're going to rock the Republican candidate (be it McCain, Romney, Huck, or whomever) in November. I'm confident in that prediction.
UPDATE: I got an e-mail from Bob Cesca pointing out that I was nasty for calling him names when he was making a reasoned argument. He's right... I'm getting a little touchy on the subject right now; I'm having a hard time understanding how it's so easy for others to make the distinction on whom to vote right now. Methinks me taking this a little too seriously...
So, I'll basically be back in bed and in pain for the next few days, starting tomorrow morning when I get all four of my wisdom teeth extracted. And, I need to find a new candidate to support in the Presidential election.
Over the next few days, I'm going to be combing the Issues sections on Clinton's and Obama's websites, and looking for distinctions. I'll post my observations, and hopefully, I can make a decision by Tuesday.
Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voters' sympathies, The Associated Press has learned.
I read several blog posts this morning touting Obama's victory speech, and then a friend called me up and told me that Obama incorporated some of Edwards's populist rhetoric last night. So, I watched it to see if there was anything for me to grab on to.
He did sprinkle in some populist-sounding phrases, and then came to a point where he said:
"There are people all across this great nation who can't afford four more years without health care..."
Good line.
"They can't afford another four years without good schools..."
Another good, very important line.
"They can't afford another four years without decent wages..."
Excellent.
"... because our leaders couldn't come together and get it done."
Wha??? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but once again, Obama shows he just doesn't get it. He makes it sound like there are procedural, bureaucratic issues, like the politicians in Washington just aren't talented enough.
But that's just not it. There's a side here that doesn't care about other people; one that is actively trying to keep us from having health care, that is dismantling our public schools brick by brick, that is trying to keep our wages down. The same side believes that we should be able to torture people, start whatever damn wars we'd like, spy on whomever we want to, keep our women in their places, and a whole spate of other things that are just plain wrong and harmful to tens of millions, or even hundreds of millions of people in this country.
We need to convince those who can be convinced that our side is right, and not try to compromise with the other side to come up with expensive "solutions" that make corporations rich and don't fix the problems. We need to repudiate them and rid Washington of the other side, not unite with them. Sure, I believe in two-party politics, but the other party is just SO wrong. We don't need to be more reasonable, they do.
The issue, unlike Obama seems to believe, is not that people can't get things done, it's that roughly half the people want to get the opposite done!
And thus, I'm still not on board with Obama, because he just doesn't get it.
And, despite the fact that I'm liking Hillary's tactics less and less, I'm leaning towards her more than Obama if it comes down to the two of them, because she at least understands what she's dealing with when it comes to the other side.
I was just at the wine bar on Lark St. (where else?) and spoke for a while to a guy who hates unions and thinks Obama is a Muslim. He also loves Hillary.
Yup, after his expected third-place showing in New Hampshire (not a state that would be inclined to favor his big-government populist message), I'm still on board. Daily Kos poster Felagund makes the case better than I have the desire to do in an insomniac state at 3:15 AM:
I can see that [Obama]'s charismatic, and maybe if I were in my early 20s that might be enough. But I'm forty, and extremely bitter and cynical about what's happened in American politics since the Clinton healthcare débacle, and at this point, I find his obvious charisma and rhetorical talents more of a turnoff than anything. I think he's an excellent salesperson, but I learned a long time ago that it's more important to check out the actual product.
And I don't see much of an actual product there. Sure, he had a good record as a state senator, and that's all great and everything, but I haven't seen him take any kind of a risk to stand up for anything progressive since he became a US senator. Other than coming out against the war long before it was fashionable, for which he deserves kudos, it's been careful, cautious centrism the whole way. I might be inclined to think there was a there there if the guy had stood up and opposed the Supreme Court nominations, or torture, or wiretapping... or anything. But it's just bland words about hope and unity.
And that's what turns me off the most about the guy. I don't want reconciliation, unity and bipartisanship. I want the next President to investigate, indict, prosecute and convict the living shit out of the thieves and murderers that have despoiled our beautiful country over the last seven years and well before. I want a President who's going to put on some boots and stomp on the throats of the Republicans, tear away the media lies and the layers of obfuscation and show everyone in America just what was done in our name. I don't want warm and fuzzy: I want thunder and lightning. I want a perp walk every night on the news.
I think Obama's just too cozy with his corporate donors to be willing to do that. If he really had that kind of fire in him, he'd have been doing it for years now. He'd have made his claim to the Presidency on the basis of real change, not just the rhetoric of change. I think Obama wants to be liked too much to take risks to do good.
. . .
Having Edwards in the race until the end not only enables us all to vote for someone who actually has battled with, and defeated, the corporate monsters that control us, but moves the race in a more progressive direction...
I don't dislike Obama as much as Felagund does, I just feel that Edwards has done something extremely important in coming out against corporate American on behalf of the middle and working classes, and not only is that maybe the most important thing a candidate can do in my eyes (and not something I've really seen wholeheartedly done before on a national level), but it also takes massive cojones. Bigger than Obama's. And hell, it's not like Edwards isn't a great speaker in his own right -- I find it impressive how on top of his game he is at all times (like tonight after losing in NH), and his speaking is a lot less abstract to me than Obama's (who admittedly made a great speech tonight in NH himself).
So, yes, until further notice, Edwards is my man in this race, as long as he's in it. But I'll happily pull the lever for either Obama or Hillary in the general if it comes to that. It's a good year to be a Democrat, and I'm happy that I don't have to support one of these clowns.
