Remember this?
That's right, the very first post on UA. Here, now, is the last.
Roughly fifteen months ago, I had an idea for a blog that would combine different strands of the same basic thought, though I had expected more disagreement than what one commonly finds from, say, Powerline. And for a time, the proprietors of this site did just that. One is of course welcome to search the archives--which will remain for posterity--for some of the better back-and-forths on 9/11 Truth, substantive due process, etc.
I think it is useful to try and imitate the best bloggers to acquire a real sense of how much work they put into their sites and the dedication and talent required to churn out quality as well as quantity. Indeed, some of the most impressive blog as a full-time occupation, you can find my favorites along the right-hand column of this page.
Blogging is tiring; it is work, particularly in a slow news cycle. Sometimes I found it very simple to find a topic of interest, other times not so much. I imagine the ghosts of "RCT" and "Joe" would echo those sentiments. Nevertheless, blogging, on its best days with the best ideas, remains a very enjoyable experience. It is one I hope to return to in the future, hopefully with a better system than the one I tried to implement here.
The overriding factor, however, in the end of this blog is that my current living situation is set to undergo a major transformation and I will simply have to prioritize my time differently than I do today. I will not have the same internet access, for one, and I will have a plethora of responsibilities to meet in just ten days. Nor do I view with satisfaction keeping a blog "live" when I do not intend to post on it and when my compatriots have long since left it.
Life, presumably, called away "RCT" and "Joe," although rumors of video games for at least one continue to fester... I thank them cordially, though, for what they did choose to provide, even if it is better left unsaid the ratio of LMD03/LJB08/OESY0208 posts to theirs (hint: The Old Cranky Lady might find it, "disturbing")
Maybe someday we will do this again, though a longer roster of contributors would seem warranted to eclipse the status of this operation.
To our admittedly small readership, a final thank you. Now go do your part to elect Barack Obama as the forty-fourth US president!
Friday, June 20, 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
Yes, Ohio hurt in 2004, nonetheless...
Huh?
"Barack Obama's campaign envisions a path to the presidency that could include Virginia, Georgia and several Rocky Mountain states, but not necessarily the pair of battlegrounds that decided the last two elections – Florida and Ohio."
Look, it is smart to have to contingency plans, but I find this talk a little troubling. Namely, I fail to see how the Obama campaign thinks that winning Georgia is possible (last Dem win: 1992) or, worse, how Georgia would somehow turn "blue" yet NOT Florida. While it is true that Bill Clinton accomplished that very feat sixteen years ago, his victory in Georgia likely owed much to an anachronistic environment, i.e., conservative Democratic dominance of the South. Barack Obama offers a more liberal candidacy, and although his racial background might lead greater Atlanta to turn out in record numbers... President Bush won this state by seventeen points and Rasmussen has Mad Mac up ten.
Ohio, unlike Florida, is a must-win for Democrats, even if the culture isn't as antagonistic toward Republicans as in 2006, this state is clearly there for the taking. Few other states would respond as well to Senator Obama's anti-NAFTA (at least in rhetoric) platform. Furthermore, while ultimately I don't believe Pennsylvania will switch sides, it remains a (Times word) disturbing possibility.
Virginia is very interesting, but John McCain's military experience will likely keep a future "purple" state from turning "blue" at least for an additional four years.
The campaign also urges a focus on the Southwest:
"Plouffe also has been touting Obama's appeal in once Republican-leaning states where Democrats have made gains in recent gubernatorial and congressional races, such as Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, Alaska and North Dakota."
Fact is that Senator McCain is uniquely positioned to hold all of those states, due to his southwestern background, even if Colorado and Nevada in particular look very tempting. I think the Democratic nominee will win New Mexico. As to why Alaska and North Dakota are listed, well, only a 1964-like landslide would render them pick-ups.
Still, I like the aggression which manifests itself in forays to Virginia and Colorado. Senator Obama has the money (for now) to do that. But he has to watch his Midwest flank, or the coterie of states (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, and long-shot Minnesota) that will almost assuredly tell the tale on the Fourth.
Expanded maps are wonderful, but Candidate Obama cedes only Indiana to Mad Mac in the Midwest/Mid-Atlantic then he wins the race, period. The campaign's implict worry that a split of that region is possible is (Times word) worrisome.
"Barack Obama's campaign envisions a path to the presidency that could include Virginia, Georgia and several Rocky Mountain states, but not necessarily the pair of battlegrounds that decided the last two elections – Florida and Ohio."
Look, it is smart to have to contingency plans, but I find this talk a little troubling. Namely, I fail to see how the Obama campaign thinks that winning Georgia is possible (last Dem win: 1992) or, worse, how Georgia would somehow turn "blue" yet NOT Florida. While it is true that Bill Clinton accomplished that very feat sixteen years ago, his victory in Georgia likely owed much to an anachronistic environment, i.e., conservative Democratic dominance of the South. Barack Obama offers a more liberal candidacy, and although his racial background might lead greater Atlanta to turn out in record numbers... President Bush won this state by seventeen points and Rasmussen has Mad Mac up ten.
Ohio, unlike Florida, is a must-win for Democrats, even if the culture isn't as antagonistic toward Republicans as in 2006, this state is clearly there for the taking. Few other states would respond as well to Senator Obama's anti-NAFTA (at least in rhetoric) platform. Furthermore, while ultimately I don't believe Pennsylvania will switch sides, it remains a (Times word) disturbing possibility.
Virginia is very interesting, but John McCain's military experience will likely keep a future "purple" state from turning "blue" at least for an additional four years.
The campaign also urges a focus on the Southwest:
"Plouffe also has been touting Obama's appeal in once Republican-leaning states where Democrats have made gains in recent gubernatorial and congressional races, such as Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, Alaska and North Dakota."
Fact is that Senator McCain is uniquely positioned to hold all of those states, due to his southwestern background, even if Colorado and Nevada in particular look very tempting. I think the Democratic nominee will win New Mexico. As to why Alaska and North Dakota are listed, well, only a 1964-like landslide would render them pick-ups.
Still, I like the aggression which manifests itself in forays to Virginia and Colorado. Senator Obama has the money (for now) to do that. But he has to watch his Midwest flank, or the coterie of states (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, and long-shot Minnesota) that will almost assuredly tell the tale on the Fourth.
Expanded maps are wonderful, but Candidate Obama cedes only Indiana to Mad Mac in the Midwest/Mid-Atlantic then he wins the race, period. The campaign's implict worry that a split of that region is possible is (Times word) worrisome.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
No Law Means No Law... Except for Islam
Hugo Black, the legendary free-speech absolutist of the US Supreme Court, must be rolling over in his grave with news that some of the very worst of Europe and the rest of the world might soon find a home "in the land of the free."
"Two members of the Canadian Islamic Congress say the magazine, Maclean’s, Canada’s leading newsweekly, violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up hatred against Muslims. They say the magazine should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their 'dignity, feelings and self-respect.'"
In other words, they don't seek a mere strengthening of the British Columbia law, they seek humilation. This is akin to saying a father, having heard his daughter's date criticize some of her faults, is entitled to a public apology and punitive damages from the date or his family.
Punitive damages, always.
As I have said before, in a few decades, just don't say you weren't warned. We are moving towards a world where ANY criticism of that-which-shall-not-be-named will result in fines and/or imprisonment. This has consequences. This incident occurred in Canada, aside from England and Australia the country most analogous to our own.
If I have said it before, I nonetheless feel obliged to say it again: Islam is different, folks. This does NOT mean all Muslims are supporters of mass murder for crass political ends. But, as yesterday's NYT story proved yet again, they are not like the West. Their women stand in line for surgeries in Europe to replace their ruptured hymen so as to conceal their loss of virginity. Their men, louder and louder, are demanding that their religion is sacrosanct.
And, as the old song lyric went, something's happenin' here...
"Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Israel and France forbid the sale of Nazi items like swastikas and flags. It is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Canada, Germany and France."
This, along with its new religion (climate change), represents the part of the Left I cannot stomach very well. Each facet wishes to force cloture and end any discussion. Al Gore is a prophet and if you don't think so, you're bankrolled by "Big Oil." Hate speech is terrible and if you don't move to outlaw it, you're as wretched as a Nazi-sympathizer and no better than the killers of James Byrd.
"Earlier this month, the actress Brigitte Bardot, an animal rights activist, was fined $23,000 in France for provoking racial hatred by criticizing a Muslim ceremony involving the slaughter of sheep."
Chills. Racial hatred? All of this is about Islam, much in the same way slavery so tethered itself to states rights arguments in the 1850s. How far are we, truly, from the days when the US Congress refused to debate slavery and when mobs intimidated and/or murdered Elijah Lovejoy and other abolitionist printers???
Apparently, not close enough:
"'It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,' Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, 'when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.'"
Atmosphere of mutual respect? BS. And, sir-whom-I-would-not-share-a-foxhole-with, what is meant by "certain forms"??? But more troubling is the apparently-shifting disposition of an old liberal lion:
"Mr. Lewis wrote that there was 'genuinely dangerous' speech that did not meet the imminence requirement."
Woodrow Wilson, perpetuator of the greatest subversion of the First Amendment in US history, must be smiling somewhere...
Fortunately, some sanity:
"When times are tough, there is a tendency to say there is too much freedom... Free speech matters because it works...
--Harvey A. Silvergate, civil liberties lawyer in Cambridge, Massachusetts
As for an eye-opening comment, look no further than Jason Gratl, a key figure in Canadian law:
"'Canadians do not have a cast-iron stomach for offensive speech... We don’t subscribe to a marketplace of ideas. Americans as a whole are more tough-minded and more prepared for verbal combat.'"
The phrase "marketplace of ideas" of course originates from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s dissent in Abrams (1919). Mr. Holmes believed that poisonous ideas would not survive public scrutiny and would thus self-marginalize without the need of the Feds.
International courts, of course dripping with sophistication and nuance, convict teachers for expressing negative opinions about Jewish people. The Keegstra case (1990) remains instructive: a Canadian teacher was criminally convicted for his statements. While he should have lost his job, yet his freedom too??? Yes, because to Canadian Chief Justice Brian Dickson:
"The international commitment to eradicate hate propaganda and, most importantly, the special role given equality and multiculturalism in the Canadian Constitution necessitate a departure from the view, reasonably prevalent in America at present, that the suppression of hate propaganda is incompatible with the guarantee of free expression."
Ah, multiculturalism, of course. Silly me, I thought other matters were more important. And, no, people will not realize this, en masse, until it is far too late.
A penny for Mr. Obama's thoughts on the Maclean imbroglio...
"Two members of the Canadian Islamic Congress say the magazine, Maclean’s, Canada’s leading newsweekly, violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up hatred against Muslims. They say the magazine should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their 'dignity, feelings and self-respect.'"
In other words, they don't seek a mere strengthening of the British Columbia law, they seek humilation. This is akin to saying a father, having heard his daughter's date criticize some of her faults, is entitled to a public apology and punitive damages from the date or his family.
Punitive damages, always.
As I have said before, in a few decades, just don't say you weren't warned. We are moving towards a world where ANY criticism of that-which-shall-not-be-named will result in fines and/or imprisonment. This has consequences. This incident occurred in Canada, aside from England and Australia the country most analogous to our own.
If I have said it before, I nonetheless feel obliged to say it again: Islam is different, folks. This does NOT mean all Muslims are supporters of mass murder for crass political ends. But, as yesterday's NYT story proved yet again, they are not like the West. Their women stand in line for surgeries in Europe to replace their ruptured hymen so as to conceal their loss of virginity. Their men, louder and louder, are demanding that their religion is sacrosanct.
And, as the old song lyric went, something's happenin' here...
"Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Israel and France forbid the sale of Nazi items like swastikas and flags. It is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Canada, Germany and France."
This, along with its new religion (climate change), represents the part of the Left I cannot stomach very well. Each facet wishes to force cloture and end any discussion. Al Gore is a prophet and if you don't think so, you're bankrolled by "Big Oil." Hate speech is terrible and if you don't move to outlaw it, you're as wretched as a Nazi-sympathizer and no better than the killers of James Byrd.
"Earlier this month, the actress Brigitte Bardot, an animal rights activist, was fined $23,000 in France for provoking racial hatred by criticizing a Muslim ceremony involving the slaughter of sheep."
Chills. Racial hatred? All of this is about Islam, much in the same way slavery so tethered itself to states rights arguments in the 1850s. How far are we, truly, from the days when the US Congress refused to debate slavery and when mobs intimidated and/or murdered Elijah Lovejoy and other abolitionist printers???
Apparently, not close enough:
"'It is not clear to me that the Europeans are mistaken,' Jeremy Waldron, a legal philosopher, wrote in The New York Review of Books last month, 'when they say that a liberal democracy must take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack.'"
Atmosphere of mutual respect? BS. And, sir-whom-I-would-not-share-a-foxhole-with, what is meant by "certain forms"??? But more troubling is the apparently-shifting disposition of an old liberal lion:
"Mr. Lewis wrote that there was 'genuinely dangerous' speech that did not meet the imminence requirement."
Woodrow Wilson, perpetuator of the greatest subversion of the First Amendment in US history, must be smiling somewhere...
Fortunately, some sanity:
"When times are tough, there is a tendency to say there is too much freedom... Free speech matters because it works...
--Harvey A. Silvergate, civil liberties lawyer in Cambridge, Massachusetts
As for an eye-opening comment, look no further than Jason Gratl, a key figure in Canadian law:
"'Canadians do not have a cast-iron stomach for offensive speech... We don’t subscribe to a marketplace of ideas. Americans as a whole are more tough-minded and more prepared for verbal combat.'"
The phrase "marketplace of ideas" of course originates from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s dissent in Abrams (1919). Mr. Holmes believed that poisonous ideas would not survive public scrutiny and would thus self-marginalize without the need of the Feds.
International courts, of course dripping with sophistication and nuance, convict teachers for expressing negative opinions about Jewish people. The Keegstra case (1990) remains instructive: a Canadian teacher was criminally convicted for his statements. While he should have lost his job, yet his freedom too??? Yes, because to Canadian Chief Justice Brian Dickson:
"The international commitment to eradicate hate propaganda and, most importantly, the special role given equality and multiculturalism in the Canadian Constitution necessitate a departure from the view, reasonably prevalent in America at present, that the suppression of hate propaganda is incompatible with the guarantee of free expression."
Ah, multiculturalism, of course. Silly me, I thought other matters were more important. And, no, people will not realize this, en masse, until it is far too late.
A penny for Mr. Obama's thoughts on the Maclean imbroglio...
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Less Than Five Months To Go
Obviously, much can occur over the last leg of the campaign to alter the landscape. Nonetheless, here is my crystal ball for November 4...
ALABAMA (9) - 58-41, MCCAIN (9-0)
ALASKA (3) - 55-45, MCCAIN (12-0)
ARIZONA (10) - 54-46, MCCAIN (22-0)
ARKANSAS (6) - 54-46, MCCAIN (28-0)
CALIFORNIA (55) - 56-43, OBAMA (55-28)
COLORADO (9) - 51-49, MCCAIN (37-55)
CONNECTICUT (7) - 56-43, OBAMA (62-37)
DELAWARE (3) - 54-45, OBAMA (65-37)
WASHINGTON DC (3) - 88-9, OBAMA (68-37)
FLORIDA (27) - 53-47, MCCAIN (64-68)
GEORGIA (15) - 57-42, MCCAIN (79-68)
HAWAII (4) - 63-36, OBAMA (72-79)
IDAHO (4) - 59-41, MCCAIN (83-72)
ILLINOIS (21) - 63-36, OBAMA (93-83)
INDIANA (11) - 54-45, MCCAIN (94-93)
IOWA (7) - 52-48, OBAMA (100-94) PICK UP
KANSAS (6) - 54-44, MCCAIN (100-100)
KENTUCKY (8) - 60-39, MCCAIN (108-100)
LOUISIANA (9) - 56-43, MCCAIN (117-100)
MAINE (4) - 54-44, OBAMA (104-117)
MARYLAND (10) - 60-39, OBAMA (114-117)
MASSACHUSETTS (12) - 53-47, OBAMA (126-117)
MICHIGAN (17) - 50-50, MCCAIN (134-126) PICK UP
MINNESOTA (10) - 57-43, OBAMA (136-134)
MISSISSIPPI (6) - 58-42, MCCAIN (140-136)
MISSOURI (11) - 53-47, MCCAIN (151-136)
MONTANA (3) - 52-48, MCCAIN (154-136)
NEBRASKA (5) - 55-44, MCCAIN (159-136)
NEVADA (5) - 51-49, MCCAIN (164-136)
NEW HAMPSHIRE (4) - 51-48, MCCAIN (168-136) PICK UP
NEW JERSEY (15) - 52-48, MCCAIN (183-136) PICK UP
NEW MEXICO (5) - 53-47, OBAMA (141-183) PICK UP
NEW YORK (31) - 57-43, OBAMA (172-183)
NORTH CAROLINA (15) - 53-47, MCCAIN (198-172)
NORTH DAKOTA (3) - 54-46, MCCAIN (201-172)
OHIO (20) - 51-49, OBAMA (192-201) PICK UP
OKLAHOMA (7) - 56-44, MCCAIN (208-192)
OREGON (7) - 54-45, OBAMA (199-208)
PENNSYLVANIA (21) - 51-49, OBAMA (220-208)
RHODE ISLAND (4) - 59-40, OBAMA (224-208)
SOUTH CAROLINA (8) - 53-47, MCCAIN (216-224)
SOUTH DAKOTA (3) - 57-43, MCCAIN (219-224)
TENNESSEE (11) - 55-45, MCCAIN (230-224)
TEXAS (34) - 54-44, MCCAIN (264-224)
UTAH (5) - 58-42, MCCAIN (269-224)
VERMONT (3) - 60-39, OBAMA (227-269)
VIRGINIA (13) - 52-48, MCCAIN (282-227)
WASHINGTON (11) - 56-43, OBAMA (238-282)
WEST VIRGINIA (5) - 56-42, MCCAIN (287-238)
WISCONSIN (10) - 52-48, MCCAIN (297-238) PICK UP
WYOMING (3) - 57-43, MCCAIN (300-238)
MCCAIN 300, OBAMA 238
OTHER SCENARIOS...
OBAMA (best case) - 353 electoral votes
MCCAIN (worst case) - 185 electoral votes
MCCAIN (best case) - 364 electoral votes
OBAMA (worst case) - 174 electoral votes
Be forewarned, I felt John Kerry would win decisively at this time four years ago...
ALABAMA (9) - 58-41, MCCAIN (9-0)
ALASKA (3) - 55-45, MCCAIN (12-0)
ARIZONA (10) - 54-46, MCCAIN (22-0)
ARKANSAS (6) - 54-46, MCCAIN (28-0)
CALIFORNIA (55) - 56-43, OBAMA (55-28)
COLORADO (9) - 51-49, MCCAIN (37-55)
CONNECTICUT (7) - 56-43, OBAMA (62-37)
DELAWARE (3) - 54-45, OBAMA (65-37)
WASHINGTON DC (3) - 88-9, OBAMA (68-37)
FLORIDA (27) - 53-47, MCCAIN (64-68)
GEORGIA (15) - 57-42, MCCAIN (79-68)
HAWAII (4) - 63-36, OBAMA (72-79)
IDAHO (4) - 59-41, MCCAIN (83-72)
ILLINOIS (21) - 63-36, OBAMA (93-83)
INDIANA (11) - 54-45, MCCAIN (94-93)
IOWA (7) - 52-48, OBAMA (100-94) PICK UP
KANSAS (6) - 54-44, MCCAIN (100-100)
KENTUCKY (8) - 60-39, MCCAIN (108-100)
LOUISIANA (9) - 56-43, MCCAIN (117-100)
MAINE (4) - 54-44, OBAMA (104-117)
MARYLAND (10) - 60-39, OBAMA (114-117)
MASSACHUSETTS (12) - 53-47, OBAMA (126-117)
MICHIGAN (17) - 50-50, MCCAIN (134-126) PICK UP
MINNESOTA (10) - 57-43, OBAMA (136-134)
MISSISSIPPI (6) - 58-42, MCCAIN (140-136)
MISSOURI (11) - 53-47, MCCAIN (151-136)
MONTANA (3) - 52-48, MCCAIN (154-136)
NEBRASKA (5) - 55-44, MCCAIN (159-136)
NEVADA (5) - 51-49, MCCAIN (164-136)
NEW HAMPSHIRE (4) - 51-48, MCCAIN (168-136) PICK UP
NEW JERSEY (15) - 52-48, MCCAIN (183-136) PICK UP
NEW MEXICO (5) - 53-47, OBAMA (141-183) PICK UP
NEW YORK (31) - 57-43, OBAMA (172-183)
NORTH CAROLINA (15) - 53-47, MCCAIN (198-172)
NORTH DAKOTA (3) - 54-46, MCCAIN (201-172)
OHIO (20) - 51-49, OBAMA (192-201) PICK UP
OKLAHOMA (7) - 56-44, MCCAIN (208-192)
OREGON (7) - 54-45, OBAMA (199-208)
PENNSYLVANIA (21) - 51-49, OBAMA (220-208)
RHODE ISLAND (4) - 59-40, OBAMA (224-208)
SOUTH CAROLINA (8) - 53-47, MCCAIN (216-224)
SOUTH DAKOTA (3) - 57-43, MCCAIN (219-224)
TENNESSEE (11) - 55-45, MCCAIN (230-224)
TEXAS (34) - 54-44, MCCAIN (264-224)
UTAH (5) - 58-42, MCCAIN (269-224)
VERMONT (3) - 60-39, OBAMA (227-269)
VIRGINIA (13) - 52-48, MCCAIN (282-227)
WASHINGTON (11) - 56-43, OBAMA (238-282)
WEST VIRGINIA (5) - 56-42, MCCAIN (287-238)
WISCONSIN (10) - 52-48, MCCAIN (297-238) PICK UP
WYOMING (3) - 57-43, MCCAIN (300-238)
MCCAIN 300, OBAMA 238
OTHER SCENARIOS...
OBAMA (best case) - 353 electoral votes
MCCAIN (worst case) - 185 electoral votes
MCCAIN (best case) - 364 electoral votes
OBAMA (worst case) - 174 electoral votes
Be forewarned, I felt John Kerry would win decisively at this time four years ago...
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
A Race Won on Denver's Podium
This continues the series analyzing the Race for the White House from the Barack Obama supporter perspective. This series assumes Senator Obama will claim the nomination until proven otherwise. Most often this series will focus on a mainstream media article, opinion essay, or blogpost.
Previous Installment: Part III
The Fall Campaign, Part IV:
Today's issue: Barack Obama's candidacy, despite his record-breaking fundraising and toppling of the once-invincible-in-a-Democratic-Primary Hillary Clinton, has stalled over the past few months. Much of this blame falls to Trinity United Church in Chicago, particularly Reverend Jeremiah Wright, but also to Mr. Obama's inability to put the issue behind him for weeks. Furthermore, the Illinois senator has suffered some embarrassing defeats due to continued hostility from white, working-class Americans--the very people who brought him seminal victories in Iowa and Wisconsin. Worst of all, though, the image that he has so carefully cultivated, i.e., the post-partisan, now seems indistinguishable from just another liberal politician.
Unlike any major nominee since perhaps Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, Barack Obama must carefully avoid the appearance of using "old" or "slash-and-burn" politics. I still think he is the favorite, but the early winter dreams of a 400-450 electoral vote total now seem rather remote. He's going to have to fight for this job, irrespective of all the institutional problems readily inherent to the current Republican Party. How?
Today's NYT headline, "Obama, Awaiting a New Title, Hones His Partisan Image," must have rankled David Axelrod and the rest of the campaign staff. The equation is simple: the more Senator Obama draws partisan contrasts, as every serious contender must do, the more "normal" and less transcendent he seems to the populace. Now, honestly, I've always been skeptical of his "post-partisan" hype, but, hey, if it could fool some Americans in Ohio and other battlegrounds and give us liberal judges...
"For 17 months, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, has changed remarkably little about his stump style. He projects the image of a post-partisan candidate with the confidence of a man convinced he holds a copyright."
What is your greatest strength is often the other side of the coin from your greatest weakness...
When the Obama campaign tries to pretend that their man is only expressing "difference of philosophy," this only leads others to become more cynical of his otherwise-extraordinarily promising candidacy (OK, so I've sipped a few glasses of Kool-Aid on occasion). It also leads me to wonder if this group even has a strategy, post-Denver, or if they remain confident another humdinger of a convention speech will leave Mad Mac in the dust.
The Old Cranky Lady declares:
"And the list of presidential candidates who have tried midcampaign image makeovers is a long and unfortunate one, filled with formal politicians who try flannel shirts and wonkish governors who push Army helmets down over their hair."
Yes, but most of those politicians, from Dukakis to Gore, needed to do something at a critical juncture of the race to alter the dynamic. The Obama camp needs to decide, and soon, whether his prior image is in fact sustainable for five more months or if he will have to resort to time-honored political hardball, a la the famous "War Room" of 1992 in order to best John McCain in what increasingly looks like a closer election than fundamental numbers (incumbent president's job approval, right track/wrong track, economic trends) would suggest.
I would advise the campaign to select a tough critic of Senator McCain for the bottom of the ticket and allow Obama to exist in the clouds of his arrogance that he can ride his alleged post-partisanship all the way to the White House. He has to recreate his 2004 speech about "One America," or else he will forfeit his good standing with many independent voters that find the GOP upsetting but remain unnerved by liberals. Senator Obama can fully regain the moderates and independents with a Rocky Mountain showstopper because most know of him only from Boston '04 and his books. For better or worse, the Democratic candidate made his choice long ago, we now wait to see if it was the correct one.
Previous Installment: Part III
The Fall Campaign, Part IV:
Today's issue: Barack Obama's candidacy, despite his record-breaking fundraising and toppling of the once-invincible-in-a-Democratic-Primary Hillary Clinton, has stalled over the past few months. Much of this blame falls to Trinity United Church in Chicago, particularly Reverend Jeremiah Wright, but also to Mr. Obama's inability to put the issue behind him for weeks. Furthermore, the Illinois senator has suffered some embarrassing defeats due to continued hostility from white, working-class Americans--the very people who brought him seminal victories in Iowa and Wisconsin. Worst of all, though, the image that he has so carefully cultivated, i.e., the post-partisan, now seems indistinguishable from just another liberal politician.
Unlike any major nominee since perhaps Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, Barack Obama must carefully avoid the appearance of using "old" or "slash-and-burn" politics. I still think he is the favorite, but the early winter dreams of a 400-450 electoral vote total now seem rather remote. He's going to have to fight for this job, irrespective of all the institutional problems readily inherent to the current Republican Party. How?
Today's NYT headline, "Obama, Awaiting a New Title, Hones His Partisan Image," must have rankled David Axelrod and the rest of the campaign staff. The equation is simple: the more Senator Obama draws partisan contrasts, as every serious contender must do, the more "normal" and less transcendent he seems to the populace. Now, honestly, I've always been skeptical of his "post-partisan" hype, but, hey, if it could fool some Americans in Ohio and other battlegrounds and give us liberal judges...
"For 17 months, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, has changed remarkably little about his stump style. He projects the image of a post-partisan candidate with the confidence of a man convinced he holds a copyright."
What is your greatest strength is often the other side of the coin from your greatest weakness...
When the Obama campaign tries to pretend that their man is only expressing "difference of philosophy," this only leads others to become more cynical of his otherwise-extraordinarily promising candidacy (OK, so I've sipped a few glasses of Kool-Aid on occasion). It also leads me to wonder if this group even has a strategy, post-Denver, or if they remain confident another humdinger of a convention speech will leave Mad Mac in the dust.
The Old Cranky Lady declares:
"And the list of presidential candidates who have tried midcampaign image makeovers is a long and unfortunate one, filled with formal politicians who try flannel shirts and wonkish governors who push Army helmets down over their hair."
Yes, but most of those politicians, from Dukakis to Gore, needed to do something at a critical juncture of the race to alter the dynamic. The Obama camp needs to decide, and soon, whether his prior image is in fact sustainable for five more months or if he will have to resort to time-honored political hardball, a la the famous "War Room" of 1992 in order to best John McCain in what increasingly looks like a closer election than fundamental numbers (incumbent president's job approval, right track/wrong track, economic trends) would suggest.
I would advise the campaign to select a tough critic of Senator McCain for the bottom of the ticket and allow Obama to exist in the clouds of his arrogance that he can ride his alleged post-partisanship all the way to the White House. He has to recreate his 2004 speech about "One America," or else he will forfeit his good standing with many independent voters that find the GOP upsetting but remain unnerved by liberals. Senator Obama can fully regain the moderates and independents with a Rocky Mountain showstopper because most know of him only from Boston '04 and his books. For better or worse, the Democratic candidate made his choice long ago, we now wait to see if it was the correct one.
Friday, May 30, 2008
So You Wanna Talk Like the Times?
You want to be thought of as sophisticated and yet not realize the remarkably consistent unintentional humor you will provide? Well, you're in luck!
Regular readers of the unsigned commentaries delivered every day on the New York Times editorial page might note the Andrew Rosenthal-led gang's proclivity to use certain words. I call them Times words and phrases and have referenced them in earlier posts. We may have to update once a week if necessary, but here is today's installment...
"A Step Closer to Justice":
assure, we fear*, it is not enough
"Sticker Shock and Awe at the Pentagon":
disturbing*, incredible, mystery, Congress should be willing*, That is what we call a sound... (note: the word "sound" is also acceptable by itself)
"Louisiana Tries Again":
notoriously troubled (note: "troubled" shows up in consecutive paragraphs!), needs to make sure*, should embrace the advice of*
428 Wolves:
Sadly, It is still possible, We hope*
CLIFFNOTES VERSION, VOL. I:
WE FEAR
DISTURBING
CONGRESS SHOULD BE WILLING
NEEDS TO MAKE SURE
SHOULD EMBRACE THE ADVICE OF
WE HOPE
Alack! What good are these words and phrases without talking points? Can Pinch and Andy deliver? Of course they can!
Rinse and Repeat...
WE FEAR THAT THE ROBBER SENT TO PRISON WILL BECOME A VIOLENT CRIMINAL, WHAT HE TRULY NEEDS IS COUNSELING! (note: combining "we fear" and "truly" is the sign of a master Timesologist)
THE FACT THAT CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN G. ROBERTS HAS TILTED THE COURT TO THE RIGHT IS DISTURBING (bonus points if you add the adjective, "profoundly").
CONGRESS SHOULD BE WILLING TO IMPEACH VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY JUST FOR LOOKING INSIDIOUS AND BECAUSE WE DO NOT RESPECT THE 51% OF THE ELECTORATE THAT SENT THESE TWO CLOWNS BACK TO WORK IN DC.
JOHN MCCAIN NEEDS TO MAKE SURE THAT HIS SURROGATES DO NOT ATTACK BARACK OBAMA'S CANDIDACY IN ANY WAY, OR WE WILL CALL IT "SWIFT-BOATING" AND DEMAND THAT HE CEASE AND DESIST OR ELSE WE WILL NEVER CALL HIM "MAVERICK" AGAIN.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH SHOULD EMBRACE THE ADVICE OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD AND IMMEDIATELY COMMENCE AN ORDERLY ARMED FORCES RETREAT FROM IRAQ AND CONCLUDE HIS DISASTROUS WAR (note: any references to the Iraq conflict MUST include the word "disastrous").
WE HOPE THAT SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (WHOM WE ENDORSED AND FETED FOR SEVEN YEARS) EXITS THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL RACE BEFORE WE GET EXTREMELY UPSET AND ACT SURPRISED AT HER BEHAVIOR EVEN KNOW WE SHE'S THE SAME PERSON FROM 1992.
Regular readers of the unsigned commentaries delivered every day on the New York Times editorial page might note the Andrew Rosenthal-led gang's proclivity to use certain words. I call them Times words and phrases and have referenced them in earlier posts. We may have to update once a week if necessary, but here is today's installment...
"A Step Closer to Justice":
assure, we fear*, it is not enough
"Sticker Shock and Awe at the Pentagon":
disturbing*, incredible, mystery, Congress should be willing*, That is what we call a sound... (note: the word "sound" is also acceptable by itself)
"Louisiana Tries Again":
notoriously troubled (note: "troubled" shows up in consecutive paragraphs!), needs to make sure*, should embrace the advice of*
428 Wolves:
Sadly, It is still possible, We hope*
CLIFFNOTES VERSION, VOL. I:
WE FEAR
DISTURBING
CONGRESS SHOULD BE WILLING
NEEDS TO MAKE SURE
SHOULD EMBRACE THE ADVICE OF
WE HOPE
Alack! What good are these words and phrases without talking points? Can Pinch and Andy deliver? Of course they can!
Rinse and Repeat...
WE FEAR THAT THE ROBBER SENT TO PRISON WILL BECOME A VIOLENT CRIMINAL, WHAT HE TRULY NEEDS IS COUNSELING! (note: combining "we fear" and "truly" is the sign of a master Timesologist)
THE FACT THAT CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN G. ROBERTS HAS TILTED THE COURT TO THE RIGHT IS DISTURBING (bonus points if you add the adjective, "profoundly").
CONGRESS SHOULD BE WILLING TO IMPEACH VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY JUST FOR LOOKING INSIDIOUS AND BECAUSE WE DO NOT RESPECT THE 51% OF THE ELECTORATE THAT SENT THESE TWO CLOWNS BACK TO WORK IN DC.
JOHN MCCAIN NEEDS TO MAKE SURE THAT HIS SURROGATES DO NOT ATTACK BARACK OBAMA'S CANDIDACY IN ANY WAY, OR WE WILL CALL IT "SWIFT-BOATING" AND DEMAND THAT HE CEASE AND DESIST OR ELSE WE WILL NEVER CALL HIM "MAVERICK" AGAIN.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH SHOULD EMBRACE THE ADVICE OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD AND IMMEDIATELY COMMENCE AN ORDERLY ARMED FORCES RETREAT FROM IRAQ AND CONCLUDE HIS DISASTROUS WAR (note: any references to the Iraq conflict MUST include the word "disastrous").
WE HOPE THAT SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (WHOM WE ENDORSED AND FETED FOR SEVEN YEARS) EXITS THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL RACE BEFORE WE GET EXTREMELY UPSET AND ACT SURPRISED AT HER BEHAVIOR EVEN KNOW WE SHE'S THE SAME PERSON FROM 1992.
Too Cool to Talk To Us in High School
Maureen Dowd, Old Cranky Lady columnist, once used words to that effect to describe the chill to open hostility certain women feel with Barack Obama's candidacy. Ms. Dowd posited that these women, somewhere in the early primary season, did not gravitate towards Senator Obama--irrespective of his looks and charm--because he reminded them of a smug scholar-athlete that ignored them in school.
Well, it seems this "resentment" has not receded:
"Forty-nine percent of white women view Obama unfavorably, while only 43 percent hold a favorable opinion. In February, 36 percent of these women viewed Obama unfavorably, while 56 percent had a positive perception of the likely Democratic nominee."
F___.
Ah, but wait some reassurance???
"Intraparty divisions that arise during the primary season are typically mended over the course of the general election. Bill Clinton struggled with college-educated Democrats in the 1992 primary, as John F. Kerry did with young Democratic voters in the early stages of the 2004 race. Both candidates won back these blocs in the general election."
Women, particularly white ones, are the single most important part of any competitive Democratic candidacy. If Mr. Obama is only able to defeat Mad Mac 53-47 among this group, he will get swamped in the fall. Simply put, he needs +15 if not +20, or somewhere just beyond Clinton-era numbers.
Still... this is not encouraging:
"White women as a whole now prefer John McCain over Obama, by 49 percent to 41 percent. Last month, Obama was ahead of McCain among white women, 49 percent to 46 percent. The head-to-head matchup between McCain and Obama has not significantly shifted among white men."
Not to go all Gail Collins on you, but, people, that will not serve us well in November. Have no fear, Democratic pollster Anne Greenburg has the solution:
"The priority is going to be to bring back these voters."
Duh.
Barack Obama's greatest concern is that his story is too exotic for the majority of Americans to swallow. Whispers of whether he is a Muslim, whether he supports the existence of Israel, despite his clear explanations, continue to permeatate and possible corrode his campaign. Are white women truly going to choose the old guy and husband of a beer heiress over him?
Let's examine why this matters: Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all narrowly rejected George W. Bush twice (good Americans), yet Mad Mac's faux independent streak threatens this quartet, which may well decide the election. I could see Senator Obama losing Pennsylvania and still winning (by virtue of Ohio and Iowa), but he cannot lose more than one. If I were advising John McCain I would strongly urge a heavy campaign buy in this part of Big 10 country. Dems simply cannot get to 270 electoral votes without these states, even if the early Florida numbers are wrong.
White women of America, we NEED you!!! Do not let us down! Yes, I know white men may vote for Mad Mac by a twenty-point bulge, but you need to give us Gore '00 (if not Clinton '96, '92) numbers! You elected Bill Clinton, we voted for Bob Dole! Hell, we probably would have voted for Phil Gramm, whose disastrous (Times word) economic policies may yet find a home in the next administration... if you don't push Barry over the finish line.
"Over the same period, Democratic white women’s negative view of Obama increased from 21 percent to 35 percent, while their positive view decreased from 72 percent to 60 percent — roughly the same rate as white women overall."
S___.
Well, it seems this "resentment" has not receded:
"Forty-nine percent of white women view Obama unfavorably, while only 43 percent hold a favorable opinion. In February, 36 percent of these women viewed Obama unfavorably, while 56 percent had a positive perception of the likely Democratic nominee."
F___.
Ah, but wait some reassurance???
"Intraparty divisions that arise during the primary season are typically mended over the course of the general election. Bill Clinton struggled with college-educated Democrats in the 1992 primary, as John F. Kerry did with young Democratic voters in the early stages of the 2004 race. Both candidates won back these blocs in the general election."
Women, particularly white ones, are the single most important part of any competitive Democratic candidacy. If Mr. Obama is only able to defeat Mad Mac 53-47 among this group, he will get swamped in the fall. Simply put, he needs +15 if not +20, or somewhere just beyond Clinton-era numbers.
Still... this is not encouraging:
"White women as a whole now prefer John McCain over Obama, by 49 percent to 41 percent. Last month, Obama was ahead of McCain among white women, 49 percent to 46 percent. The head-to-head matchup between McCain and Obama has not significantly shifted among white men."
Not to go all Gail Collins on you, but, people, that will not serve us well in November. Have no fear, Democratic pollster Anne Greenburg has the solution:
"The priority is going to be to bring back these voters."
Duh.
Barack Obama's greatest concern is that his story is too exotic for the majority of Americans to swallow. Whispers of whether he is a Muslim, whether he supports the existence of Israel, despite his clear explanations, continue to permeatate and possible corrode his campaign. Are white women truly going to choose the old guy and husband of a beer heiress over him?
Let's examine why this matters: Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all narrowly rejected George W. Bush twice (good Americans), yet Mad Mac's faux independent streak threatens this quartet, which may well decide the election. I could see Senator Obama losing Pennsylvania and still winning (by virtue of Ohio and Iowa), but he cannot lose more than one. If I were advising John McCain I would strongly urge a heavy campaign buy in this part of Big 10 country. Dems simply cannot get to 270 electoral votes without these states, even if the early Florida numbers are wrong.
White women of America, we NEED you!!! Do not let us down! Yes, I know white men may vote for Mad Mac by a twenty-point bulge, but you need to give us Gore '00 (if not Clinton '96, '92) numbers! You elected Bill Clinton, we voted for Bob Dole! Hell, we probably would have voted for Phil Gramm, whose disastrous (Times word) economic policies may yet find a home in the next administration... if you don't push Barry over the finish line.
"Over the same period, Democratic white women’s negative view of Obama increased from 21 percent to 35 percent, while their positive view decreased from 72 percent to 60 percent — roughly the same rate as white women overall."
S___.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
