President Obama will be inaugurated when it's 2 a.m. on Wednesday in Tokyo - 3 1/2 hours after I post this. So we will watch it on our Apple TV or on the web when we wake up.
I'm feeling hopeful about what Obama can do - he is so brilliant and energetic and graciously non-ideological. But I'm also concerned that no human being can meet the expectations and difficulties that await him, and then what will we do?
Can he really tame the most severe partisans in both parties? Can he end the war, fix the banking system, re-arrange health insurance, fix Social Security, improve education, rebuild bridges and schools, make peace in the Middle East, walk on water, and all that?
It will be thrilling to watch, in any case. Good riddance, GW Bush.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Post-election post
Geez, it's been almost an entire week since the election, and I'm finally getting around to writing about it. Thrilling result, obviously.
My mom, Sheila, was visiting with my stepfather, Blake. So we threw an election-day party. The Denver mother of a Tokyo friend, Susan Mulcahy, was here, with another Denver friend - whose daughter, it turned out, went to elementary and junior high school with me. Does that make sense? Grandmothers, mothers, and daughters - that sums it up. I also invited some American friends from Nishimachi. We had pastries, lots of coffee from Tully's and, eventually, sandwiches for lunch.
We turned on CNN at 8 a.m. Wednesday in Tokyo, which is 6 p.m. Tuesday on the East Coast, just as the first states were done voting. Things went pretty quickly in Obama's favor, as everyone knows.
Arno was an unexpected party guest; his teacher called me at 10 a.m. to say he wasn't feeling well. I brought him home and gave him a little medicine, and he was fine; he even refused to nap so he could hang out w/the grownups and watch election coverage.
My mom, Sheila, was visiting with my stepfather, Blake. So we threw an election-day party. The Denver mother of a Tokyo friend, Susan Mulcahy, was here, with another Denver friend - whose daughter, it turned out, went to elementary and junior high school with me. Does that make sense? Grandmothers, mothers, and daughters - that sums it up. I also invited some American friends from Nishimachi. We had pastries, lots of coffee from Tully's and, eventually, sandwiches for lunch.
We turned on CNN at 8 a.m. Wednesday in Tokyo, which is 6 p.m. Tuesday on the East Coast, just as the first states were done voting. Things went pretty quickly in Obama's favor, as everyone knows.
Arno was an unexpected party guest; his teacher called me at 10 a.m. to say he wasn't feeling well. I brought him home and gave him a little medicine, and he was fine; he even refused to nap so he could hang out w/the grownups and watch election coverage.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Election in Tokyo
In a few hours, we'll go to sleep while America votes. And then we'll wake up on Wednesday, November 5, 2008, and watch the election returns on CNN. I think the first polls close at something like 8:30 a.m. in Tokyo.
My mom, who is a huge Obama fan and volunteer in Denver, is visiting, so we've invited some friends over to watch the returns with us. Should be fun. Full blog report tomorrow.
And if, by some stretch of horror, Obama loses, we're well-positioned to commit suicide.
My mom, who is a huge Obama fan and volunteer in Denver, is visiting, so we've invited some friends over to watch the returns with us. Should be fun. Full blog report tomorrow.
And if, by some stretch of horror, Obama loses, we're well-positioned to commit suicide.
Elex analysis
Here's what I've been thinking about lately - stories I'd like to see or write if I could. Of course this is predicated by the view that Obama will win tomorrow or hell will freeze over.
1. Look at the difference in nastiness between the Obama and McCain/Palin campaigns. True, Obama did imply that McCain was too old ("erratic") to be president and all but called Palin a ditz (that ad this weekend that featured her winking). But in lots of ways, the nature of the Obama campaign is the dog that didn't bark.
Take, for example, Al Qaeda's apparent/alleged endorsement of McCain. The Obama people didn't even mention it - but does anyone think the GOP would have ignored that for 5 mins had AQ's website promoted Obama?
Everyone thought the lesson of the Bush v. Gore and Bush v. Kerry campaigns was that you had to play as dirty as the GOP and Rove. That is, you had to grab every tiny opportunity to trash people.
But Obama managed, perhaps because of his generally sunny personality and smile and also because he focused mainly on big messages ("We can't afford 4 more years" and "voted with President Bush 90% of the time), to tiptoe through the tulips mostly unscathed without gutting his opponents personally. Kinda like this JibJab video when he flies around on a unicorn spouting "change!".
2. McCain has a weird Senate-ness about him - serial obsessions and language that prove he was stuck on the Senate floor focused on too-narrow issues that don't add up to anything significant. Like earmarks, and Columbia and Georgia (which he seems to mention constantly thanks to his lobbyist foreign-policy advisor), and the Boeing tanker deal he scotched, and "My friends!" I mean, sure, he could still win, but that would be in spite of himself, not because of his approach to campaigning. He's better off in the Senate, and he's lucky he didn't resign, like Dole did.
3. McCain does deserve credit for not playing the Rev. Wright card. This is, of course, what conservative Republicans will say did McCain in: they'll say he wasn't tough enough, he held back, he should have played even dirtier. But McCain and Palin don't deserve any credit for talking about socialism and Communism. That's just stupid.
4. Having said that, the McCain campaign did drop all sorts of anti-black and anti-gay hints at the end of the campaign. Like references to how raising taxes of hard-working people to "spread the wealth" to allegedly non-working people, which to me was an obvious allusion/smear of black welfare recipients. And various mentions of Barney Frank to crowds of Middle America - hmm, gee, why did they possibly mention Frank?
5. Palin is toast. She will run in 2012 and she will fail miserably and slink back to Alaska. Dan Quayle tried to run for President and it just didn't work. Once conservatives don't take you seriously, forget it. Also, it seems likely that there are more scandals buried in Alaska just waiting to turn up - who knows, maybe she won't survive her re-election campaign in 2010?
6. When it's all over, Hillary and McCain will go out to a bar and drink shots of tequila and whine about losing. Can you imagine the conversation: "I can't believe we both lost to Obama!" That would be a good SNL skit in the next few months.
7. I'd like to read a story about how black voters were mobilized in the South, presumably by churches or the NAACP or the Obama campaign. If Obama wins anything in the South, it will be because of black turnout - which takes serious organization, yes, but also serious commitment on the part of black leaders to get every possible voter registered and to the polls. Maybe that story has been written, but I haven't read it.
1. Look at the difference in nastiness between the Obama and McCain/Palin campaigns. True, Obama did imply that McCain was too old ("erratic") to be president and all but called Palin a ditz (that ad this weekend that featured her winking). But in lots of ways, the nature of the Obama campaign is the dog that didn't bark.
Take, for example, Al Qaeda's apparent/alleged endorsement of McCain. The Obama people didn't even mention it - but does anyone think the GOP would have ignored that for 5 mins had AQ's website promoted Obama?
Everyone thought the lesson of the Bush v. Gore and Bush v. Kerry campaigns was that you had to play as dirty as the GOP and Rove. That is, you had to grab every tiny opportunity to trash people.
But Obama managed, perhaps because of his generally sunny personality and smile and also because he focused mainly on big messages ("We can't afford 4 more years" and "voted with President Bush 90% of the time), to tiptoe through the tulips mostly unscathed without gutting his opponents personally. Kinda like this JibJab video when he flies around on a unicorn spouting "change!".
2. McCain has a weird Senate-ness about him - serial obsessions and language that prove he was stuck on the Senate floor focused on too-narrow issues that don't add up to anything significant. Like earmarks, and Columbia and Georgia (which he seems to mention constantly thanks to his lobbyist foreign-policy advisor), and the Boeing tanker deal he scotched, and "My friends!" I mean, sure, he could still win, but that would be in spite of himself, not because of his approach to campaigning. He's better off in the Senate, and he's lucky he didn't resign, like Dole did.
3. McCain does deserve credit for not playing the Rev. Wright card. This is, of course, what conservative Republicans will say did McCain in: they'll say he wasn't tough enough, he held back, he should have played even dirtier. But McCain and Palin don't deserve any credit for talking about socialism and Communism. That's just stupid.
4. Having said that, the McCain campaign did drop all sorts of anti-black and anti-gay hints at the end of the campaign. Like references to how raising taxes of hard-working people to "spread the wealth" to allegedly non-working people, which to me was an obvious allusion/smear of black welfare recipients. And various mentions of Barney Frank to crowds of Middle America - hmm, gee, why did they possibly mention Frank?
5. Palin is toast. She will run in 2012 and she will fail miserably and slink back to Alaska. Dan Quayle tried to run for President and it just didn't work. Once conservatives don't take you seriously, forget it. Also, it seems likely that there are more scandals buried in Alaska just waiting to turn up - who knows, maybe she won't survive her re-election campaign in 2010?
6. When it's all over, Hillary and McCain will go out to a bar and drink shots of tequila and whine about losing. Can you imagine the conversation: "I can't believe we both lost to Obama!" That would be a good SNL skit in the next few months.
7. I'd like to read a story about how black voters were mobilized in the South, presumably by churches or the NAACP or the Obama campaign. If Obama wins anything in the South, it will be because of black turnout - which takes serious organization, yes, but also serious commitment on the part of black leaders to get every possible voter registered and to the polls. Maybe that story has been written, but I haven't read it.
Election guessing
Back of the envelope guess about battleground states:
Obama will win PA, NC, VA, OH, CO, NV, NM, NH, ND and MT. Which would be a really huge win, and maybe I'm guessing a few states too far.
McCain will win FL, IN, and GA.
I'll go out on a limb and say the Dems will win 60 Senate seats, too. In 2006, everything broke their way in the Senate - so why not now? Maybe Obama voters will deliver an upset in KY or GA. One can only hope to wave au revoir to Mitch McConnell or Saxby Chambliss.
I don't have any idea about House numbers, but it won't really matter. It would be nice if Marilyn Musgrave, a GOP member in Colorado, loses because she's quite horrible.
And Christine Gregoire will be narrowly re-elected as WA governor. Hard to see how that many voters in WA split their tickets, when the state should be very strong for Obama.
So there are my guesses. But I do remember 1994, when I covered what I assumed would be the losing campaign night of an obnoxious GOP House member on Long Island - and he went on to win, along with Pataki (over Cuomo) and heaps of Republicans. What did I know then - and maybe what do I know now?
Obama will win PA, NC, VA, OH, CO, NV, NM, NH, ND and MT. Which would be a really huge win, and maybe I'm guessing a few states too far.
McCain will win FL, IN, and GA.
I'll go out on a limb and say the Dems will win 60 Senate seats, too. In 2006, everything broke their way in the Senate - so why not now? Maybe Obama voters will deliver an upset in KY or GA. One can only hope to wave au revoir to Mitch McConnell or Saxby Chambliss.
I don't have any idea about House numbers, but it won't really matter. It would be nice if Marilyn Musgrave, a GOP member in Colorado, loses because she's quite horrible.
And Christine Gregoire will be narrowly re-elected as WA governor. Hard to see how that many voters in WA split their tickets, when the state should be very strong for Obama.
So there are my guesses. But I do remember 1994, when I covered what I assumed would be the losing campaign night of an obnoxious GOP House member on Long Island - and he went on to win, along with Pataki (over Cuomo) and heaps of Republicans. What did I know then - and maybe what do I know now?
Friday, August 29, 2008
McCain's VP
Sarah Palin? Totally bizarro selection. Quickie analysis:
- If he wanted to pick a woman to peel off Hillary voters, he could have gone with Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina - but maybe they are both pro-choice. Or he could have gone with Olympia Snowe or Kay Bailey Hutchison (though I read somewhere that Hutchison and McCain don't get along). But a 2-year, radically pro-life governor with a 5-month-old infant? I don't see HRC voters moving dramatically in that direction, unless they were already planning to vote for McCain.
- Even stranger, the people who seem most thrilled about the choice of Palin are those right-wing and anti-tax GOP men who, in the past, have tried hardest to destroy McCain: People like Karl Rove, Ralph Reed, Grover Norquist, and Christian conservatives like Richard Land and James Dobson, whom McCain once called "agents of intolerance." I think it says something about McCain's insecurity that, even now, when he's the nominee of the party, he has to suck up to people he clearly detests by choosing someone (alas, a woman) who is so clearly not ready for the job.
- All criticism aside, the selection of Palin does bring one huge benefit to the race: some fresh novelties and absurdies. Who knows when the wheels might come off?
Of course, I could be really, seriously wrong about all this, as I've been before.
- If he wanted to pick a woman to peel off Hillary voters, he could have gone with Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina - but maybe they are both pro-choice. Or he could have gone with Olympia Snowe or Kay Bailey Hutchison (though I read somewhere that Hutchison and McCain don't get along). But a 2-year, radically pro-life governor with a 5-month-old infant? I don't see HRC voters moving dramatically in that direction, unless they were already planning to vote for McCain.
- Even stranger, the people who seem most thrilled about the choice of Palin are those right-wing and anti-tax GOP men who, in the past, have tried hardest to destroy McCain: People like Karl Rove, Ralph Reed, Grover Norquist, and Christian conservatives like Richard Land and James Dobson, whom McCain once called "agents of intolerance." I think it says something about McCain's insecurity that, even now, when he's the nominee of the party, he has to suck up to people he clearly detests by choosing someone (alas, a woman) who is so clearly not ready for the job.
- All criticism aside, the selection of Palin does bring one huge benefit to the race: some fresh novelties and absurdies. Who knows when the wheels might come off?
Of course, I could be really, seriously wrong about all this, as I've been before.
Obama's speech
Back of the envelope thoughts about Obama's speech:
- The family stuff, the patriotism bit, the McCain criticism were all fine. The domestic policy section and the ending were really terrific, and the MLK reference at the end was particularly moving.
- But the foreign affairs stuff was muddled. The line about McCain not following Osama to his cave was one of the very few tin notes in the speech.
- Biggest surprise: Obama was notably subdued and serious throughout the speech. We didn't see much of his big grin, and he didn't evoke the usual euphoria that's typical for nominees who've just had the most important night of their lives. (Michelle Obama was also similarly serious-faced.) Obama is smart and he's run an incredibly sharp campaign, so we have to assume this was all strategy - that even though his campaign set him up to speak to 80,000 people, he (and they) didn't want to ride too high in that crowd.
- Which makes the set even weirder. I mean, why the faux White House? Weird and fake and unnecessary at a moment when Obama was pushing authenticity.
- Then again, the speech was really strong and presented Obama as strong and presidential - so, in the end, that's the reason for the faux White House.
- And I guess the success of the speech can be measured partly in the totally hypocritical reax from the NYT's David Brooks, who complained on the NewsHour that Obama didn't have enough high-flying rhetoric... and this from Brooks, who's obsessed with Obama's fancy-schmancy Hyde Park connections and pushed Biden as the VP, but now doesn't want to give Obama any credit for, well, anything. (And what is this totally kookoo Brooks column?
Now for McCain's veep choice. Alaska's Palin would be a bonkers choice vs. Biden. The networks say it isn't Pawlenty or Romney (Gail Collins will be disappointed.). So, Lieberman? We'll know soon anyway, but Lieberman would be decisively annoying.
- The family stuff, the patriotism bit, the McCain criticism were all fine. The domestic policy section and the ending were really terrific, and the MLK reference at the end was particularly moving.
- But the foreign affairs stuff was muddled. The line about McCain not following Osama to his cave was one of the very few tin notes in the speech.
- Biggest surprise: Obama was notably subdued and serious throughout the speech. We didn't see much of his big grin, and he didn't evoke the usual euphoria that's typical for nominees who've just had the most important night of their lives. (Michelle Obama was also similarly serious-faced.) Obama is smart and he's run an incredibly sharp campaign, so we have to assume this was all strategy - that even though his campaign set him up to speak to 80,000 people, he (and they) didn't want to ride too high in that crowd.
- Which makes the set even weirder. I mean, why the faux White House? Weird and fake and unnecessary at a moment when Obama was pushing authenticity.
- Then again, the speech was really strong and presented Obama as strong and presidential - so, in the end, that's the reason for the faux White House.
- And I guess the success of the speech can be measured partly in the totally hypocritical reax from the NYT's David Brooks, who complained on the NewsHour that Obama didn't have enough high-flying rhetoric... and this from Brooks, who's obsessed with Obama's fancy-schmancy Hyde Park connections and pushed Biden as the VP, but now doesn't want to give Obama any credit for, well, anything. (And what is this totally kookoo Brooks column?
Now for McCain's veep choice. Alaska's Palin would be a bonkers choice vs. Biden. The networks say it isn't Pawlenty or Romney (Gail Collins will be disappointed.). So, Lieberman? We'll know soon anyway, but Lieberman would be decisively annoying.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Wow. Obama.
Pretty amazing results in the Dem presidential campaign. I mean, even though this was telegraphed after Super Tuesday, it's actually happened. Remarkable.
The WashPost has this great story on "how Obama did it" by focusing on small states to amass delegates. Seems odd that this story wasn't written before now, but I certainly learned a lot from it. The Obama campaign must have embargoed a lot of these details till after the nomination was over.
The WashPost has this great story on "how Obama did it" by focusing on small states to amass delegates. Seems odd that this story wasn't written before now, but I certainly learned a lot from it. The Obama campaign must have embargoed a lot of these details till after the nomination was over.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Time flies
Where has the week gone? Here's the update: Blaine and I both have colds and are grabbing kleenex at a frightful pace. The kids are fine; Arno has discovered the joys of wearing his blue turtleneck, while Lucinda has a full schedule of playdates.
And Hillary wins Ohio and Texas, which means another six weeks of hard campaigning to get to Pennsylvania. Which not-so-brilliant blogger confidently predicted that Obama would at least win Texas? Um...
Maybe I should explain that political reporters - especially those who are 9,000 miles away - really don't know what the hell they're saying. If anything is certain in this campaign, it's that no one - not Tim Russert, not anyone - knows what's going to happen.
On to the blog...
And Hillary wins Ohio and Texas, which means another six weeks of hard campaigning to get to Pennsylvania. Which not-so-brilliant blogger confidently predicted that Obama would at least win Texas? Um...
Maybe I should explain that political reporters - especially those who are 9,000 miles away - really don't know what the hell they're saying. If anything is certain in this campaign, it's that no one - not Tim Russert, not anyone - knows what's going to happen.
On to the blog...
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Hillary vs. Obama
For the first time during the campaign, I was hanging around the house during last night's Democratic debate (that is, at 11 a.m. in Tokyo) and could watch the action - mostly live, with buffering delays - on msnbc.com.
My back-of-envelope analysis:
1. Obama is such a natural that HRC and her staff must be going nuts that her intense preparation and criticism don't rattle him. He has an innate ability to respond rhetorically when he's under pressure - and to know in advance how the audience will hear him. He's a rhetorical boxer, very light on his feet, and about 99 percent on message.
So he always sounds tough on big issues, i.e. when he criticizes her vote on the Iraq War. He's wonky enough - but not too wonky as to bore anyone - on policy stuff like health care. On bland subjects like the economy or veterans, he filibusters with long-winded, uncontroversial answers so she can't interrupt. And when he's asked about her criticism of him, he fends it off with a joke.
For example, in the debate tonite, he sort-of praised the "timing and delivery" of her sarcastic "choirs will sing" speech of last weekend. I think he wants to convey to the audience that he doesn't take anything personally; conversely, when HRC complained that she always gets the first tough question in debates - like the Saturday Night Live skit - it proved again that the Clintons do take everything personally.
But what I also think is so tactically smart is that Obama knows when to concede a lesser point - that is, to give in and get on with it, while Hillary is primed (like many powerful women) to argue every point because she always wants to look tough and in control and to make him look soft.
The best example was the question about Louis Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama. I thought Obama's original response was quite tepid - "I've denounced him many times, blah, blah, etc." Hillary saw an opening and feasted on it, saying sternly said that he should "reject" Farrakhan's endorsement. (Side note: I'm sure that at that moment, the NY Post's political editor said, "Hey, what about the time she kissed Suha Arafat after Suha trashed Israel?")
But Obama just slipped away. Instead of getting into a "mine is bigger" contest, he tossed off this quick line about, effectively, "reject or denounce - I'll do both if it makes you happy." End result: no headlines, nothing big, move on.
2. She's not going to win Texas. The Newshour tonite interviewed Texas reporters who said that early voting was, like 900 percent higher than last year - especially in big cities like Houston, which have large black populations, and in Austin, home of the Univ of Texas. There's nothing to suggest that HRC is inspiring or inciting people to flock to the polls.
3. Bill Clinton said she has to win both TX and OH, but I think if she wins one of two (i.e., Ohio), she'll move on to Pennsylvania and drag it out for a few more weeks.
4. McCain: I think the NYT's story about his alleged affair was half-baked, and the story was wedged uncomfortably into a "McCain's history with lobbyists" profile. I assume the NYT reporters knew more than they could print - but heck, even if he did sleep with her, they should have offered more than the "concerns" of two former aides and a corporate plane ride from Miami to DC.
5. But the brief, NYT-inspired love affair with McCain ended in the past 24 hrs, after McCain denounced a conservative radio talk show host's nasty speech about "Barack Hussein Obama." That's exactly what conservatives want to use in the general election, and they don't like it when McCain takes the high road.
My back-of-envelope analysis:
1. Obama is such a natural that HRC and her staff must be going nuts that her intense preparation and criticism don't rattle him. He has an innate ability to respond rhetorically when he's under pressure - and to know in advance how the audience will hear him. He's a rhetorical boxer, very light on his feet, and about 99 percent on message.
So he always sounds tough on big issues, i.e. when he criticizes her vote on the Iraq War. He's wonky enough - but not too wonky as to bore anyone - on policy stuff like health care. On bland subjects like the economy or veterans, he filibusters with long-winded, uncontroversial answers so she can't interrupt. And when he's asked about her criticism of him, he fends it off with a joke.
For example, in the debate tonite, he sort-of praised the "timing and delivery" of her sarcastic "choirs will sing" speech of last weekend. I think he wants to convey to the audience that he doesn't take anything personally; conversely, when HRC complained that she always gets the first tough question in debates - like the Saturday Night Live skit - it proved again that the Clintons do take everything personally.
But what I also think is so tactically smart is that Obama knows when to concede a lesser point - that is, to give in and get on with it, while Hillary is primed (like many powerful women) to argue every point because she always wants to look tough and in control and to make him look soft.
The best example was the question about Louis Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama. I thought Obama's original response was quite tepid - "I've denounced him many times, blah, blah, etc." Hillary saw an opening and feasted on it, saying sternly said that he should "reject" Farrakhan's endorsement. (Side note: I'm sure that at that moment, the NY Post's political editor said, "Hey, what about the time she kissed Suha Arafat after Suha trashed Israel?")
But Obama just slipped away. Instead of getting into a "mine is bigger" contest, he tossed off this quick line about, effectively, "reject or denounce - I'll do both if it makes you happy." End result: no headlines, nothing big, move on.
2. She's not going to win Texas. The Newshour tonite interviewed Texas reporters who said that early voting was, like 900 percent higher than last year - especially in big cities like Houston, which have large black populations, and in Austin, home of the Univ of Texas. There's nothing to suggest that HRC is inspiring or inciting people to flock to the polls.
3. Bill Clinton said she has to win both TX and OH, but I think if she wins one of two (i.e., Ohio), she'll move on to Pennsylvania and drag it out for a few more weeks.
4. McCain: I think the NYT's story about his alleged affair was half-baked, and the story was wedged uncomfortably into a "McCain's history with lobbyists" profile. I assume the NYT reporters knew more than they could print - but heck, even if he did sleep with her, they should have offered more than the "concerns" of two former aides and a corporate plane ride from Miami to DC.
5. But the brief, NYT-inspired love affair with McCain ended in the past 24 hrs, after McCain denounced a conservative radio talk show host's nasty speech about "Barack Hussein Obama." That's exactly what conservatives want to use in the general election, and they don't like it when McCain takes the high road.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Super Wednesday
Funny, we are just going to bed on Wednesday night, and the US is waking up to heaps of Super Tuesday analysis. I will read it all tomorrow.
My ideas about Super Tuesday:
1. McCain is a terribly weak GOP nominee. Flying leap guess: he'll choose Huckabee as his VP.
2. Hillary won the establishment states: CA, NY, NJ, MA. Obama won Missouri and 12 others, which is a pretty big deal when you consider Hillary's 99.9% national name recognition. If HRC wins the nomination, she would have a hard time winning Missouri in November.
3. Obama would easily beat McCain. Hillary probably would, but that's not a lock.
4. So does this continue all the way to the convention? I'm betting that there's a scandal related to Bill or Hillary, or something dramatic that shakes up the race, not an endlessly drawn-out contest with a scrap for the last delegate. Obama has more money than she does and now more time to introduce himself in states like Ohio - should work in his favor.
5. Edwards will endorse Obama in the next 10 days, and if Obama wins, Edwards will be his Atty General.
How's that for the back of the envelope?
My ideas about Super Tuesday:
1. McCain is a terribly weak GOP nominee. Flying leap guess: he'll choose Huckabee as his VP.
2. Hillary won the establishment states: CA, NY, NJ, MA. Obama won Missouri and 12 others, which is a pretty big deal when you consider Hillary's 99.9% national name recognition. If HRC wins the nomination, she would have a hard time winning Missouri in November.
3. Obama would easily beat McCain. Hillary probably would, but that's not a lock.
4. So does this continue all the way to the convention? I'm betting that there's a scandal related to Bill or Hillary, or something dramatic that shakes up the race, not an endlessly drawn-out contest with a scrap for the last delegate. Obama has more money than she does and now more time to introduce himself in states like Ohio - should work in his favor.
5. Edwards will endorse Obama in the next 10 days, and if Obama wins, Edwards will be his Atty General.
How's that for the back of the envelope?
Monday, February 4, 2008
Second thoughts?
The New York Times endorsed Hillary Clinton about 10 days ago and, in my view, missed an opportunity to surpass the essential stodginess of the establishment. Since then, the LA Times, Philly Inquirer and many other papers have endorsed Barack Obama.
Now, however, Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor - that is, the guy in charge, after the publisher - wrote this "editorial comment" after he attended an Obama rally in California where Maria Shriver, Oprah, Carolyn Kennedy and Michelle Obama talked up Obama. Rosenthal said it was the "best campaign rally" he'd ever seen.
Is someone at the NYT having second thoughts?
McCain is obviously going to win the GOP nomination; Romney is just too fakey. But I'm going to revise my thinking that an insurgent candidate probably can't win. Obama will win the nomination, because you don't get 16,000 Dems to a rally in Boise, Idaho, for god's sake, unless your campaign is cooking with some serious gas - or is kicking some serious ass.
Now, however, Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor - that is, the guy in charge, after the publisher - wrote this "editorial comment" after he attended an Obama rally in California where Maria Shriver, Oprah, Carolyn Kennedy and Michelle Obama talked up Obama. Rosenthal said it was the "best campaign rally" he'd ever seen.
Is someone at the NYT having second thoughts?
McCain is obviously going to win the GOP nomination; Romney is just too fakey. But I'm going to revise my thinking that an insurgent candidate probably can't win. Obama will win the nomination, because you don't get 16,000 Dems to a rally in Boise, Idaho, for god's sake, unless your campaign is cooking with some serious gas - or is kicking some serious ass.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Let's talk politics
Thoughts on the presidential campaign:
1. Big victory for Obama in SC - much deserved, and a big slap to the Clintons. Now he needs to add some policy meat to his rhetoric to give people a better reason to believe that he could fix the US economy and Iraq.
2. The Clintons are increasingly detestable, destructive, depressing and devious - and I actually think McCain could beat Hillary in November after what happened in the past few weeks. The WaPo's Colbert King wrote a good column about their self-absorbed self-pity.
Hillary was blatantly dishonest when, after Obama described the Republicans as the party of "ideas," she associated him with a desire to crush Social Security. Bill Clinton's post-presidency polish is tattered, after he pushed the notion that Obama is the black candidate supported mainly by black people.
Hillary also showed, by relying on Bill as a surrogate attack dog, that she isn't strong enough to win on her own. If Bill is such a loudmouth during the primaries, he would never shut up during a Hillary presidency - and the GOP may successfully, and it appears accurately, make the case that a Clinton II presidency would be as chaotic and destructively dramatic as Clinton I.
3. I think Obama would easily win over McCain. Other than the "do you want a novice in the White House" line - which could be overcome if Obama made a strong VP choice - it would be hard for the GOP to overcome Obama's high-minded themes and "firstness".
4. Having said all of that, Hillary has to be the favorite to win the nomination because her voter ID is so high and many big unions and Dem electeds support her as part of the established order of things.
5. Could Obama turn things around? Either he, or his surrogates, need to toughen their rhetoric about the Clintons; this Politico.com story, "Obama Pulls Punches vs. Clintons,, (which my mother pointed out to me) makes the cogent point that Obama or his surrogates must remind Dems of the Clinton dramas - from Whitewater to Paula Jones to Monica - because the GOP certainly will if Hillary is the nominee this fall.
1. Big victory for Obama in SC - much deserved, and a big slap to the Clintons. Now he needs to add some policy meat to his rhetoric to give people a better reason to believe that he could fix the US economy and Iraq.
2. The Clintons are increasingly detestable, destructive, depressing and devious - and I actually think McCain could beat Hillary in November after what happened in the past few weeks. The WaPo's Colbert King wrote a good column about their self-absorbed self-pity.
Hillary was blatantly dishonest when, after Obama described the Republicans as the party of "ideas," she associated him with a desire to crush Social Security. Bill Clinton's post-presidency polish is tattered, after he pushed the notion that Obama is the black candidate supported mainly by black people.
Hillary also showed, by relying on Bill as a surrogate attack dog, that she isn't strong enough to win on her own. If Bill is such a loudmouth during the primaries, he would never shut up during a Hillary presidency - and the GOP may successfully, and it appears accurately, make the case that a Clinton II presidency would be as chaotic and destructively dramatic as Clinton I.
3. I think Obama would easily win over McCain. Other than the "do you want a novice in the White House" line - which could be overcome if Obama made a strong VP choice - it would be hard for the GOP to overcome Obama's high-minded themes and "firstness".
4. Having said all of that, Hillary has to be the favorite to win the nomination because her voter ID is so high and many big unions and Dem electeds support her as part of the established order of things.
5. Could Obama turn things around? Either he, or his surrogates, need to toughen their rhetoric about the Clintons; this Politico.com story, "Obama Pulls Punches vs. Clintons,, (which my mother pointed out to me) makes the cogent point that Obama or his surrogates must remind Dems of the Clinton dramas - from Whitewater to Paula Jones to Monica - because the GOP certainly will if Hillary is the nominee this fall.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Hillary in NH
Wow, Hillary wins the NH primary. Pretty amazing, and a damn exciting political story. I'd love to be covering it!
We're still in Guam, which broadcasts the US network nightly news nearly 24 hours late, and we heard all the reporters on CBS News talking about what might happen "if Hillary Clinton loses NH" without any reference to what might happen if she wins.
My back-of-the-envelope analysis:
1. HRC won the women's vote in NH after losing women to Obama in Iowa. Why? Because NH (and Northeast) women are less traditional than Iowa women and more comfortable with professional, well-educated women like HRC.
This is good for HRC in the short term in delegate-rich primary states like FL, NJ, NY and CA, but speaks to continued weakness with women voters in a general election - if she gets that far.
2. The youth vote still isn't reliable. Great, they turned out for Obama in Iowa because they had to be in a certain place at a certain time for the caucus - sort of like an appointment for a final exam - while lots of working people and single moms were effectively shut out of the caucus process because they don't have evening free time. (the NYT recently had an editorial criticizing the Iowa caucuses but now I can't find it to link to it.)
3. My gut feeling is that Obama wins the nomination because so many people dislike HRC. But victories by insurgent candidates are very rare and HRC is the Dem Establishment candidate. Think Mondale vs. Hart in 1984 and Gore vs. Bill Bradley in 2000 or Dean vs. anyone in 2004.
Still, Obama has plenty of money, terrific self-control (so far) and much better publicity than they did - and he's not a weird loner - which evens his chances considerably.
We're still in Guam, which broadcasts the US network nightly news nearly 24 hours late, and we heard all the reporters on CBS News talking about what might happen "if Hillary Clinton loses NH" without any reference to what might happen if she wins.
My back-of-the-envelope analysis:
1. HRC won the women's vote in NH after losing women to Obama in Iowa. Why? Because NH (and Northeast) women are less traditional than Iowa women and more comfortable with professional, well-educated women like HRC.
This is good for HRC in the short term in delegate-rich primary states like FL, NJ, NY and CA, but speaks to continued weakness with women voters in a general election - if she gets that far.
2. The youth vote still isn't reliable. Great, they turned out for Obama in Iowa because they had to be in a certain place at a certain time for the caucus - sort of like an appointment for a final exam - while lots of working people and single moms were effectively shut out of the caucus process because they don't have evening free time. (the NYT recently had an editorial criticizing the Iowa caucuses but now I can't find it to link to it.)
3. My gut feeling is that Obama wins the nomination because so many people dislike HRC. But victories by insurgent candidates are very rare and HRC is the Dem Establishment candidate. Think Mondale vs. Hart in 1984 and Gore vs. Bill Bradley in 2000 or Dean vs. anyone in 2004.
Still, Obama has plenty of money, terrific self-control (so far) and much better publicity than they did - and he's not a weird loner - which evens his chances considerably.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Iowa and Obama
Some thoughts about the Iowa caucus results; of course I have to weigh in even from a distance.
1. I'm sure I'd be enthusiastic enough if Hillary were the Dem nominee, but Obama's victory is simply thrilling. I watched these last-minute videos by Clinton and Obama, and thought she was using her parental-low-voice to sound in control, while he effortlessly conveyed a sense of warmth and intelligence.
I was left thinking that, even if Hillary is ready to be president on "Day 1," is her pained readiness something to celebrate? I don't think so.
2. If/when the end comes for Hillary, I'm inclined to blame the overuse of Bill Clinton in the Iowa and NH campaigns. Sure, Dems think positively about his administration, but who can forget the headaches that come with Clintons? Could Bill Clinton reliably return to the White House without sabotaging his wife, perhaps with another affair? I doubt it.
Obama very effectively tapped into this sentiment during his closing message by saying that his election would mean a turn away from old battles. That was smart and inspiring.
3. New Hampshire should be fascinating - and only 5 days away. The Clintons have strong advocates there, but independent voters, who apparently flocked to Obama in Iowa, could do the same in NH and steal indie votes from McCain. Could that throw the GOP nom to Romney, the biggest faker in the field? And could Romney survive in the Bible Belt?
A neat political season to watch, if only from afar.
1. I'm sure I'd be enthusiastic enough if Hillary were the Dem nominee, but Obama's victory is simply thrilling. I watched these last-minute videos by Clinton and Obama, and thought she was using her parental-low-voice to sound in control, while he effortlessly conveyed a sense of warmth and intelligence.
I was left thinking that, even if Hillary is ready to be president on "Day 1," is her pained readiness something to celebrate? I don't think so.
2. If/when the end comes for Hillary, I'm inclined to blame the overuse of Bill Clinton in the Iowa and NH campaigns. Sure, Dems think positively about his administration, but who can forget the headaches that come with Clintons? Could Bill Clinton reliably return to the White House without sabotaging his wife, perhaps with another affair? I doubt it.
Obama very effectively tapped into this sentiment during his closing message by saying that his election would mean a turn away from old battles. That was smart and inspiring.
3. New Hampshire should be fascinating - and only 5 days away. The Clintons have strong advocates there, but independent voters, who apparently flocked to Obama in Iowa, could do the same in NH and steal indie votes from McCain. Could that throw the GOP nom to Romney, the biggest faker in the field? And could Romney survive in the Bible Belt?
A neat political season to watch, if only from afar.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Presidential politics
Wow, isn't the presidential campaign fantastic??!! Such fascinating and weird characters running, and we really have no idea who will win each nomination.
I'm usually totally obsessed with these campaigns and read everything I can find in three or four newspapers, but this year I'm watching it through the filter of distance and a 12-hour time difference.
Anyway, my mom and I have been talking a lot about Hillary's and Obama's prospects. We both want to like Hillary, but we both find ourselves drawn toward Obama. And my sister, Rebekah, and her husband Dave, who live in Iowa City and get telephone calls from pollsters about three times a week, are volunteering for Obama.
In 1988, as my mom reminds me, I told her that the country wasn't ready for a President Dukakis. Too strange sounding. So what about Obama in 2008?
Twenty years later, I think that Obama is the Tiger Woods of politics: he's multi-racial and, really, post-racial. He plays at the highest level of a white man's game without selling out his values. He connects with liberals and moderates - from Ivy League grads to loyal Oprah viewers (are they one and the same? not too likely), without aligning himself with Al Sharpton's view of the world. Americans - at least those who came of age with MTV's invention - are used to a multi-culti world where non-whites win Oscars, the Masters and Wimbledon. It's the world of Tiger, Halle Berry, J-Lo, the Williams sisters.
So, yes, I think Obama can win. Hillary could probably win, and it would be thrilling to have a woman president, but she comes with so much Clintonian baggage. Does anyone doubt that Bill would get into trouble as the "First Lad?" Or that Hillary would be a target of Fox News starting 1 second after her Nov 2008 victory speech? Is that what the US needs right now? I don't see how she can overcome that.
I'm usually totally obsessed with these campaigns and read everything I can find in three or four newspapers, but this year I'm watching it through the filter of distance and a 12-hour time difference.
Anyway, my mom and I have been talking a lot about Hillary's and Obama's prospects. We both want to like Hillary, but we both find ourselves drawn toward Obama. And my sister, Rebekah, and her husband Dave, who live in Iowa City and get telephone calls from pollsters about three times a week, are volunteering for Obama.
In 1988, as my mom reminds me, I told her that the country wasn't ready for a President Dukakis. Too strange sounding. So what about Obama in 2008?
Twenty years later, I think that Obama is the Tiger Woods of politics: he's multi-racial and, really, post-racial. He plays at the highest level of a white man's game without selling out his values. He connects with liberals and moderates - from Ivy League grads to loyal Oprah viewers (are they one and the same? not too likely), without aligning himself with Al Sharpton's view of the world. Americans - at least those who came of age with MTV's invention - are used to a multi-culti world where non-whites win Oscars, the Masters and Wimbledon. It's the world of Tiger, Halle Berry, J-Lo, the Williams sisters.
So, yes, I think Obama can win. Hillary could probably win, and it would be thrilling to have a woman president, but she comes with so much Clintonian baggage. Does anyone doubt that Bill would get into trouble as the "First Lad?" Or that Hillary would be a target of Fox News starting 1 second after her Nov 2008 victory speech? Is that what the US needs right now? I don't see how she can overcome that.
Friday, October 5, 2007
My sister is on NPR!
My sister, Rebekah Kowal, who is a dance history professor at the University of Iowa, is in a Morning Edition story on NPR on Fri 10/6. She attended a Barack Obama event and was interviewed by David Greene.
Becky is interviewed at the end of the story - and isn't she articulate! She would be a lucky find for any reporter, because she reads, she can express herself, and she's an educated, undecided voter (deciding between Obama and Hillary) in Iowa.
I have been thinking positively about Hillary, but this story changed my mind a little bit: that is, why shouldn't we vote for hope, instead of voting for a political sledgehammer?
Of course I can't be sure, but if Obama wins the Dem nomination, I don't think there are enough people/racists who would view his blackness as a more definitive quality than his ability to solve the trainwreck left behind by our current president.
Becky is interviewed at the end of the story - and isn't she articulate! She would be a lucky find for any reporter, because she reads, she can express herself, and she's an educated, undecided voter (deciding between Obama and Hillary) in Iowa.
I have been thinking positively about Hillary, but this story changed my mind a little bit: that is, why shouldn't we vote for hope, instead of voting for a political sledgehammer?
Of course I can't be sure, but if Obama wins the Dem nomination, I don't think there are enough people/racists who would view his blackness as a more definitive quality than his ability to solve the trainwreck left behind by our current president.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
