Slate's Bizbox
kausfiles: A mostly political Weblog.

Waiting for Obama's PivotWhat if he never turns back to the center?

By Mickey Kaus
Updated Monday, March 24, 2008, at 6:27 AM ET

Waiting For Pivot: A Kinsley Gaffe is offically defined as

when a politician tells the truth.

To cover the Obama race speech, we may need a second kind of Kinsley Gaffe, call it KG II, that would apply to the trouble generated

when a politican says what he or she actually thinks (whether or not it's the truth).

That is to say, whatever the result of Obama's race speech, it's hard to conclude he didn't honestly say what he believes. He believes, among other things: 1) black churches like Jeremiah Wright's are too victim-oriented; 2) it's offensively prejudiced to be wary of black men on the street.

He's also 3) reluctant to think white resentments over welfare and affirmative action are justified as objections to welfare and affirmative action, and 4) prefers to see them as expressions of "legitimate" frustration over uncertain living standards.

That's what he thinks! He's being "courageously honest." We have to deal with it.

Candor is surely the necessary starting point for a useful national conversation on race (the one that Obama didn't seem to want to have until his pastor got him in political hot water). One side says, "You're scared of young black men." The other side says, "Yes, and here's why." Progress becomes possible. One side says, "You get all these breaks just because of your race." The other side says ,"We have to be twice as as good to get the same respect." If you don't ever have the argument you probably can't get over the argument.

But candor isn't a sufficient--or maybe even necessary--quality in a President. That depends more on what you think about what Obama thinks.

For myself, I tend to agree with Obama's point 1), the passage that righty impressed Abigail Thernstrom. But I disagree with 2), and suspect a lot of other "typical" voters may also (and not like to be lectured about it). More important, on (3) and (4), it's hard to believe we're about to nominate a Democrat who doesn't acknowledge the lesson of the 1990s--that voters are worried about issues like welfare because they are worried about welfare, not because "welfare" is a surrogate for "lack of national health insurance." Can a Dem who hasn't learned that lesson can be elected in a two-candidate general election? That's no longer unthinkable, but it would require not only that the old Carter-Ford-Reagan-Clinton issues like welfare, crime, etc. recede into the background (replaced by Iraq and the economy). It would also require Republicans who are too stupid to find a way to bring them back into the foreground.

For those Democrats worried about Obama's seemingly old-fashioned liberalism--sorry, progressivism!--the great hope has been that of course he'll pivot and turn toward the reformist, Clintonian center once he's got the nomination in hand. But what if The Pivot never happens (as David Frum, for one, has predicted)? That's a big issue--maybe the big issue--raised by Obama's "race" address. That's a big--maybe main--reason that it's a gaffe. Obama's honesty is bracing. But he honestly doesn't seem to be the sort of neoliberal politician who wins national elections. ... 2:17 A.M. link

__________________________

The 'Bradley Effect' is Back? Gallup's national tracking poll has Obama retaking the lead over Hillary after bottoming out on the day of his big race speech. Rasmussen's robo-poll, on the other hand, shows Obama losing ground since last Tuesday. True, even Rasmussen doesn't seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on his survey's 6-point shift. But isn't this week's primary race exactly the sort of environment--i.e.., the issue of race is in the air--when robo-polling is supposed to have an advantage over the conventional human telephone polling used by Gallup? Voters wary of looking like bigots to a live operator--'and why didn't you like Obama's plea for mutual for understanding that all the editorial pages liked?'--might lie about their opinions, a phenomenon known as the Bradley Effect. But they might be more willing to tell the truth to a machine. ...

P.S.: I take no position on this issue. I say wait for Pennsylvania. I've previously argued that the robo-pollers' truth-divining advantage might well have disappeared because, with all the computers now tracking expenditures and generating credit ratings, etc.--people are scared to tell the truth to machines too. But this theory was dismissed by Pollster.com's Mark Blumenthal as lacking "supportive evidence." Picky! But maybe Blumenthal's right, in which case Obama should be worried. ...

P.P.S.: Of course, the 'Bradley Effect' could be inflating Obama's numbers in both the Gallup and Rasmussen polls to at least some extent, in which case Obama should be very worried. ...

Backfill: Blumenthal posted on another bad-for-Barack robo-poll (Survey USA) on Friday, but needs to update! ...

More: First Read's daily email identifies a third robo-poll, in North Carolina, in which Obama did relatively poorly (leading by only a point in a state he's supposed to win). ...

Three. Trend! ....

Blumenthal responds: Mystery Pollster notes that if you average poll results since the Wright controversy broke on the 14th, Obama does slightly better in Rasmussen's robo-poll (where he's a point above Hillary on average) than in Gallup's regular poll (where he's two points down on average). But the two polls aren't that different. ... kf: But if you look at the trend since Obama's 3/18 speech--which is what arguably charged the campaign with high-minded condemnation of racism and MSM sympathy for Obama of the sort that might produce a Bradley Effect--Obama gains 6 points in Gallup and loses 6 in Rasmussen through last Friday (and he's since lost one more on Rasmussen). That seems like a non-small difference. ... 3/25 Update: Obama has now lost a net of 8 points on Rasmussen since the 18th, and 11 points since the 14th. On Gallup, he's gained several points. ... 11:10 P.M. link

___________________________

Saturday, March 22, 2008

A job for Eliot!... 1:44 P.M.

___________________________

Friday, March 21, 2008

Sniper Fire: Hillary appears to have been totally busted on her claim of a dangerous landing during her 1996 Balkans trip. WaPo has photos and video. ... P.S.: Always trust content from Sinbad. ... 11:12 A.M.

___________________________

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Abby Thernstrom liked Obama's race speech for its anti-black-victim-mentality passages. I think she's a bit of a cheap date in that respect, but maybe I'm being too expensive. If only he'd left out the bogus parallel with "white resentments." ... In fact, wouldn't the best parallel to a black victim mentaility be the populist victim mentality that Bob Shrum always seeks to nurture--and, to a certain extent, that Obama seeks to nurture in this very speech with his talk about how the "real culprits of the middle class squeeze" are

a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests ...

I would tend to blame ... increasing returns to skill produced by trade and technological change! They are hard to personify and demonize--they're just problematic trends we all need to confront. But the need to demonize is the problem with a victim mentality, isn't it? ...

Update: Marc Ambinder gives Obama credit for saying "white resentments ... are grounded in legitimate concerns." The problem is he said that only after the populist passage cited above. The clear implication was not that resentment about welfare and affirmative action was "legitimate," but that these resentments were actually misguided symptoms of the legitimate anxiety, which would be anxiety over "stagnant wages," etc. caused by "corporate ... greed" etc.. ... If you think concern over welfare and affirmative action has an independent, legitimate basis apart from anxieties about the "middle class squeeze," it's highly condescending for Obama to tell whites (and similarly disposed blacks, for that matter) that, in effect, that they suffer from false consciousness--'I know you're really concerned about economics and declining wages and in your anxiety you let yourself be distracted into blaming welfare and affirmative action.' But that's what he says, as I read it and heard it. (Obama does allow that concern over crime is in itself legitimate, but spoils this 1992-era insight when he disses his grandmother--a "typical white person," he tells us today--for worrying about getting mugged.) ... 4:38 P.M. link

____________________________

Geraldine Ferrar ... Sorry, John Kerry speaks: Obama supporter Kerry says Obama's unique selling proposition is he's black. From First Read:

Obama supporter John Kerry gave an interview with a local N.H. paper, reports NBC/NJ's Mike Memoli. In it, Kerry said the color of Obama's skin makes him uniquely qualified for president and even reach out to the moderate Islam world. During an interview with the New Bedford Standard Times, portions of which were posted on YouTube, John Kerry says bluntly that Barack Obama has the potential to "bridge the divide in religious extremism" because he is black.

"It would be such an affirmation of who we say we are as a people if we can elect an African American president, a young leader who is obviously a visionary and got an ability to inspire people," Kerry said. "It will give us an ability to talk to those countries, to in some cases go around their dictator leaders to the people and inspire the people in ways that we can't otherwise."

The Massachusetts senator said Obama has an ability to perhaps even empower moderate Islam "to be able to stand up against the racial misinterpretation of a legitimate religion." Asked by a reporter what gave Obama the credibility to do so, Kerry said, "Because he's African American. Because he's a black man, who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country. [E.A.]

I don't think Kerry's argument is crazy at all. I just don't think the Obama campaign can then sneer at Geraldine Ferraro for saying the same thing--i.e., that Obama is where he is because voters are "caught up" in the Kerry argument. Obama's camp can't have it both ways--arguing we should vote for him "[b]ecause he's a black man" and then arguing it's racist to say being black has helped his candidacy. ... 1:51 P.M. link

_____________________________

Change You Don't Want to Xerox: Cautionary Obama precursor Deval Patrick's big casino gambling plan going down to defeat in the Massachusetts legislature. ... 12:36 P.M.

___________________________

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

The finely tuned affirmative action "goals" ("quotas are prohibited"!) of the California Democratic delegation to the party's August convention reminds me of Michael Kinsley's riff on the 1984 Democratic requirement of "fair and equitable participation of ... persons of all sexual preference consistent with their proportional representation in the party.":

Thirteen who prefer the lights on and thirty-seven who prefer the lights off. ...

Fourteen a cigarette afterward, ten a long talk, nine an old movie on TV, eight a shower, six chocolate-chip ice cream, three cab fare homw.

Fifty who prefer no sex at all to any cuts in Social Security.

P.S.: Part of an occasional series for whippersnappers who think everything about Democratic politics has changed since 1984. No it hasn't. ...[Tks. to JH] 10:42 P.M.

__________________________

Don't Let Caffeine Do This To You: A more ... intense discussion of Obama's speech. The problem with Obama's choice of churches isn't Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial (e.g., "damn America") statements. ... P.S.: I thought I might have gone overboard, in a might-as-well-be-hung-for-a-sheep kind of way, when I said Obama's big race speech was "a disaster." But maybe not. ... [Tks to reader C.M.] 10:21 P.M.

____________________________

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

We Can't Ignore Race, So Let's Ignore Race: Some (tentative!) reactions to Obama's somewhat arid talk--which a) probably advanced the discussion of racial issues, b) gave me a much better (and basically appealing) idea of where Obama is coming from, but c) didn't particularly advance his case to be President--especially, I fear among doubting white, male, non-college, etc. voters:

Obama gives Archie Bunker a chance to tune out: The speech starts by talking about slavery. Yikes. Why are we talking about slavery? We know about slavery. We want to know why Obama picked his paranoid pastor! One of the troubles with African-American pastors like Wright, after all, is what seems to be an excessive emphasis on the racial sins burdens of the past. The last thing we want from Obama is more talk of slavery.

Finally in paragraph six or so, the speech starts again on a better note. ("I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas.")

Troublesome Equivalence #1:

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action ... On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language ....

It won't do much to reassure voters worried about affirmative action, or worried that Obama is unqualified, to have their concerns lumped with Wright's "offensive words."

Two little Souljahs, too late? Finally, around Paragraph 13, a sentence that seems to recognize the problem:

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. ... Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America;

OK! Then:

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity;

Doesn't Obama mean Rev. Wright's comments were 'not only divisive but wrong,' rather than the other way around? Isn't it worse to be wrong than "divisive"? Is unity the overriding virtue for Obama?

The only other Souljah-esque passages I picked up were a half-sentence on welfare [E.A.]:

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened.

Also, a crucial but non-specific allusion to the way black anger "keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition," and an anti-victim paragraph about

taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

All good, but Obama can be very pointed and specific when he wants to be (e.g. "purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap"). Here he keeps the anti-victim language at a muffled level of high generality. Obama doesn't talk about never-married mothers, for example, or non-marrying non-working fathers--all things Bill Clinton was able to mention. Obama talks about general "responsibility" and a failure to spend time reading. (Also note that it's not necessarily a violation of liberal orthodoxy to say that welfare policies worsened the black family problem--many liberals lamented that welfare checks went mainly to mothers, supplanting the role of fathers. The liberal solution, though, was to put the fathers on welfare too.)

Troublesome Equivalence II

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street .... [E.A.]

The most disastrous sentence in the speech. If Obama's saying that those who fear young black men on the street are racists, the equivalents of Rev. Wright in offensiveness, then he's just insulted a whole lof ot people. If he loses the votes of everyone who fears young black men, he loses the election. People fear black men on the street--as even Jesse Jackson once momentarily admitted--because they cause a wildly disproportionate share of street crime. Does Obama want to be the candidate who says that thought is verboten?

Later, he says:

So when [whites] are told ... that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Who would tell them such a thing? Obama, a dozen paragraphs earlier, dissing his own grandmother.

In general. Obama's explanations of black anger seem intimate and respectful. His explanations of white anger seem distant and condescending. ("They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away ....") Unfortunately for him, it's white votes he needs.

Troublesome Equivalence III**: Drawing his central parallel between often-counterproductive black anger and white anger, Obama declares:

Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many ...

Wait. I thought Obama just told us that welfare exacerbated the decline of the black family. So white "anger over welfare" wasn't misdirected. It was directed toward what Obama himself fingers as a prime source of the black-white disparity. And if a culture of broken homes tends to produce more crime, it was also directed at a prime cause of urban disorder, the impoverishment of working class-white neighborhoods, and of white flight. In other words, it was directed at a "real culprit," not a phony culprit. Is Obama too locked into standard left "welfare is a scapegoat" ideology to admit this? If so, Bill Clinton had more "nuance" and "complexity." Obama's taking us back to 1991.

Can't we ignore race, please?

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now.

Actually, a lot of voters supported Obama because they'd kind of like to ignore race, you know? Wasn't the point of his celebrated South Carolina victory speech that thinking along racial lines was one of the "habits that prevent us from being who we want to be as a nation"? That's the whole point of Obama, from one perspective.

These voters resent the cropping up of Rev. Wright because he represents the thrusting of race back to the center of the campaign. By lecturing them on the centrality and unavoidability of race, Obama seems to be embracing Wright's error and undermining at least one basis for his appeal. (He gets into trouble with his wacky pastor and now he's challenging us on race?)

Fortunately, the we-cannot-ignore-race stand is a fraud. What's Obama's alternative?

Walk about the crumbling schools ... talk about ... the lines at the emergency rooms ... the shuttered mills ... the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life.

In other words, the alternative to ignoring race is ...to ignore race and talk about economics.

Obama's not a race man after all. Just a standard old fashioned doctrinaire blacks-and-whites-together-for-health-care progressive. One achievement of the speech is that it makes this leftish orthodoxy come as a relief.

P.S.: Excellent closing anecdote also helped. Would have been better 15 minutes sooner! ...

**--I'm not even getting into the parallel Obama draws between Rev. Wright and Geraldine Ferraro--Troublesome Equivalence IV. Whatever you think of the equation of the two (it's absurd!) how un-strategic is it for Obama to require white voters to disagree with Ferraro in order to agree with Obama? 4:40 P.M. link

___________________________

Early Souljah Is Like Yeast! In his Big Race Speech today, I hope Obama remembers the lesson of his breakthrough 2004 convention keynote address, which is a) say something conservative and anti-PC sounding; b) say it strongly and c) say it early. After that, you'll have the doubters on your side and you can more or less be as doctrinaire-left as you want. But the longer you wait to say something heterodox, the more heterodox you have to be to have the same effect.

In Obama's 2004 speech, the Early Souljah moment that made it work came about a third of the way in:

... children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. [E.A.]

Voters, including but not limited to the crucial white males and independents, heard that hard, unhedged dis of dysfunctional ghetto-poor identity culture--it pretty clearly isn't whites doing the slandering Obama's rejecting--and decided they liked this guy. A good way to introduce yourself as a different kind of African-American politician! After that, Obama could even sell them John Kerry.

Why do I worry Obama's forgotten this lesson?

P.S.: There are plenty of potential Souljahs still around: Race preferences. Out-of-wedlock births. Three strike laws! But most of all the victim mentality that tells African Americans (in the fashion of Rev. Wright's most infamous sermons) that the important forces shaping their lives are the evil actions of others, of other races. ...

P.P.S.: I've stolen the Early Souljah idea from an analysis I read the week of Obama's 2004 speech--I forget who wrote it. 1:32 A.M. link

___________________________

Monday, March 17, 2008

Paging Rush ... : McCain seems to say Republicans lost Hastert's House seat because of the "very strong anti-iimmigrant rhetoric" of GOP candidate Jim Oberweis. ... P.S.: On Hannity, McCain says:

I would have the border state governors certify that their borders are secure. Americans will trust the border state governors. They won't trust us in Washington. That's the message. [E.A.]

Do you trust the border state governors? I don't trust the border state governors. Does McCain really think "Americans" will? He must. Remember, this isn't a gimmick designed to get him through the election--to accomplish that, he only has to say he'll secure the borders first, period. This is a gimmick designed to let him shift to pushing for an illegal immigrant legalization bill shortly after he's actually elected. He wouldn't bring it up at all unless that's what he planned to do. ... P.S.: Note that McCain again ducks Hannity's question on whether he'd "sign McCain-Kennedy today," lending credence to those who thought his apparent concession on the subject in the January Reagan library debate was a misstatement. ... 4:03 P.M. link

___________________________

Maybach, kaput? Maybe the rich are not getting richer fast enough. Or maybe it was hideous. Or both. ... 3:37 P.M.

___________________________

Sunday, March 16, 2008

"Obama Attended Hate America Sermon"--Newsmax's Kessler: But not a sermon from the Greatest Hits collection. "[W]hite arrogance ... United States of White America"--sounds like one of Rev. Wright's more anodyne efforts. ... P.S.: The night is young. Obama is now at the mercy of any fellow congregant with a cell phone camera who can place Obama in the pews for, say, "God Damn America." ...

Update: Obama's campaign says he didn't attend Wright's church on the day (July 22, 2007) Kessler says he did. Commenters on Andrew Malcolm's blog claim Obama was at the La Raza event in Miami. Here's the speaking schedule. There's also video. Ball in Kessler's court! ...

More: Newsmax goes squishy on the date, saying

Our writer, Jim Davis ... stands by his story that during one of the services he attended during the month of July, Senator Obama was present and sat through the sermon given by Rev. Wright as described in the story. [E.A.]

HuffPo's Sam Stein notes that Obama was in Chicago on the morning of the 22d, though Obama's campaign says he didn't go to church. There are only so many Sundays in July, and presumably the Secret Service has records, so it should be possible to get to the bottom of this. ... Faster: Couldn't the Secret Service just be asked to release the dates of every sermon Obama attended in 2007 and 2008, saving Stein and others a lot of effort? ... 8:29 P.M. link

___________________________

Just asking: What do the Democrats do when Obama loses Pennsylvania, not by 10 or 15 points but by 20 or 25 points? That seems to be the way things are headed. ... 2:43 P.M.

___________________________

Obvious Non-Trivial Gotcha: These two Obama statements do not sit easily together!

1. "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial."

2. "When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn.

... And while Rev. Wright's statements have pained and angered me .... [E.A.]

If he was so agonized "at the beginning" of his campaign that he was thinking of leaving the church, why did he then reassure people during that campaign that his church wasn't controversial? ... [And is this a "new kind of politics."--ed Yes, that one's always there too!] ... Much more here. ... 2:25 P.M.

___________________________

Drezner:

Speaking of [Richard] Holbrooke, I have it on good authority that, not only does the former UN ambassador believe that he'll be Secretary of State if either Clinton or Obama wins, he genuinely thinks he'll have a comparable position if McCain wins.

Makes the whole election thing seem kind of superfluous. ... P.S.: And Steve Clemons thinks Holbrooke's already picked his deputy. ... [via Insta] 12:36 P.M.

___________________________

Friday, March 14, 2008

If it offends you I condemn it!

"All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn." --Barack Obama

This seems to be the General Rule of Obama--if it's going to damage him, he condemns it! And rejects and denounces. Vehemently! The Rule would seem to apply to all past and future controversial statements--his campaign could get that sentence printed up on little laminated cards and hand them out to reporters, or include them after the statements of all Obama surrogates, like those fine-print 'void where prohibited' waivers. "Condemned if controversial."

Is it that easy? Noam Scheiber raise some questions, especially:

How plausible it is that Obama wouldn't have known about Wright's, er, greatest hits. Obama strongly implies he didn't know his pastor had a habit of giving nutty sermons up until the outset of his presidential campaign. Is that believable?

Obama also engaged in a bit of McCainly overdenial, Scheiber notes. Specifically, did he have to deny that he had "personally heard" Wright utter any of the "controversial" statements? Wouldn't it be smarter to say "I heard him say some wacky things on occasion but dismissed them as his own eccentric political views. Like many Americans, I don't agree with all my pastor's political preachings." Even if Obama doesn't remember hearing any of those particular controversial statements, what if he remembers wrong?

Remember, this is a controversy Obama had to know was coming since at least (by his own admission) the beginning of his campaign. Ideally, he'd have issued his HuffPo statement many months ago.** In any case, it's not something he had to hastily draft. Unless he's clueless, he's been working on it for a while.

**--The obvious analogy is to George Bush hoping he could skate through the 2000 election without having to address his DUI conviction--a bit of wishful thinking that arguably cost him a clear-cut victory, plunged the election into the Florida recount mess, and eerily foreshadowed his vastly more consequential wishful thinking on Iraq ...and immigration ... and Social Security. ... 10:04 P.M. link

___________________________

They worship an awesome God in the blue states: Back in April of 2007, Tom Maguire wondered why the MSM wasn't making a big deal of Jodi Kantor's NYT piece on Obama's wild Afrocentric pastor. Now we know: It's because the MSM was planning to make a big deal of it eleven months later, after the Democratic race was all but over, when there was nothing voters could really do to take the controversy into account, and when it was guaranteed to cause maximum unnecessary chaos in the nominating process! ... P.S.: If Edwards had done well, imagine when they would have brought up Rielle Hunter!. ... P.P.S.: Always trust content from kausfiles! ... 9:51 P.M.

___________________________

"Is Fannie Mae Toast?" Barron's thinks maybe. The name of James Johnson--Mondale campaign manager, Kerry veep-vetter, Slate-basher, former King of Washington as chairman of both the Kennedy Center and the Brookings Institution, and kf nominee for Man Most Likely to Escape His Share of Blame in the ongoing FNMA disaster--is mentioned, shortly after the phrase "lush executive compensation." ... Backfill: David Smith explained back in January--using pop album covers and other cheap visual devices--how Fannie Mae's implicit government guarantee enabled it to take bigger gambles in the sub-prime market, creating "systemic" risk (not to mention the risk of a taxpayer bailout). ... 1:20 A.M. link

___________________________

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Did Obama benefit from race preferences? If you go to this page and shell out $14.00, you can read an article on black law review presidents in which Obama is quoted as saying:

"I have no way of knowing whether I was a beneficiary of affirmative action either in my admission to Harvard or my initial election to the Review. ... If I was, then I certainly am not ashamed of the fact, for I would argue that affirmative action is important precisely because those who benefit typically rise to the challenge when given an opportunity." [E.A.]

I cite this a) to save you $14.00 b) for those emailers who suggest Obama couldn't have benefitted from race-based preferences in his rise to the top at Harvard Law. ... P.S.: The affirmative action program at the Law Review is discussed here. ... P.P.S.: Obama did graduate magna cum laude, meaning he got very good grades while running the law review--and as far as I know there was no race preference program in grading. ... P.P.P.S.: Obama may not know whether he was a beneficiary of affirmative action. But there should be people who do know--people on the Harvard admissions department, and the editors of the law review who picked him after his first year. Have they been asked? ...

Backfill: Alert reader B. notes this from Ed Whelan at The Corner two months ago:

I'm reliably informed by one of Obama's colleagues on the board of editors of the Harvard Law Review that Obama told conservative editors that he did not check the box identifying himself as a minority on his law-school applications.

As Whelan notes, there would still have been plenty of ways for admissions officials to figure out Obama's background from his application. ... As Whelan also notes, if Obama had been completely comfortable with affirmative action, wouldn't he have proudly checked the box? ...

Update: Maguire questions the second half of Obama's quote--where he says "those who benefit typically rise to the challenge when given an opportunity." Maguire wants to know if there's actual evidence to back up the "typically." ... 11:46 P.M. link

___________________________

Maybe, like me, you haven't followed the career of John Doggett, one of the great characters of the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings. But you kind of knew he would become a "talk-show host who embraced conservative thought," didn't you? ... [via Instapundit] 10:28 P.M.

___________________________

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

If Obama's Face Were ... : Here's Andrew Sullivan in his big, widely applauded Atlantic piece making the case for Barack Obama:

What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan. Such a re-branding is not trivial—it's central to an effective war strategy. The war on Islamist terror, after all, is two-pronged: a function of both hard power and soft power. We have seen the potential of hard power in removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. We have also seen its inherent weaknesses in Iraq, and its profound limitations in winning a long war against radical Islam. The next president has to create a sophisticated and supple blend of soft and hard power to isolate the enemy, to fight where necessary, but also to create an ideological template that works to the West's advantage over the long haul. There is simply no other candidate with the potential of Obama to do this. Which is where his face comes in.

Consider this hypothetical. It's November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America's soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama's face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.

His face. Hello! Mrs. Ferraro? If one of the "formeost" things Obama offers voters is the "face of a brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia, etc." doesn't that mean "he would not be in this position if he were white"? If you like Obama because he might "rebrand" America to the world--well, he wouldn't accomplish that simply by having his election televised, as Sullivan suggests he would, if he were white, would he? Or think in purely domestic terms. If Obama were white, he wouldn't embody hopes of a post-racial future. Duh! That's part of his appeal. It seems obvious. Why does Obama dispute it? Why isn't Ferraro allowed to acknowledge it? Is it OK for Obama's "face" to appeal to egghead Atlantic subscribers but not ordinary Wyoming caucusers? Or was Sullivan being "offensive"" and "ridiculous" too?

I also think it's pretty clear that Sullivan-style logic is at the core what Ms. Ferraro meant when she said "[he] happens to be very lucky to be who he is" and that "the country is caught up in the concept" of his presidency. She's not arguing that he's where he is because black voters are caught up in identity politics--more the opposite, that white and black voters alike are caught up in the idea of ending identity politics. Nor does she does she seem to be arguing it's wrong to be at least temporarily "caught up" in this concept. But the concept wouldn't be there if Obama was white.

P.S.: Several normally canny commenters have taken issue with the idea that the Ferraro controversy hurts Obama. They suggest that, even if it loses him white male votes, what he needs now are superdelegates--and it will help turn disgusted superdelegates against Hillary. I don't know. Superdelegates are almost by definition political pros. Are they really going to turn against Hillary, and stay that way until August 25, just because they got ticked off by one of her surrogates yesterday? Skeptical conservative Democratic voters in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana might not forget so easily, though--especially if the Obama campaign can blunder its way to keeping this story alive for a week or two. What would really, permanently impress wavering superdelegates, after all, is if Obama can carry large chunks of the white male vote in those three big states.

Why doesn't Obama just say: "I think being black helps me in some ways, and hurts me in others. I'm running on my record, on the issues, on my ability to do the best job as President for all Americans, etc."--and tell his campaign aides to leave it at that?

P.P.S.: Would Obama be in this position if he weren't half-white--i.e. if he didn't have one white parent? That's a more difficult question. If embodying the post-racial future is an advantage, it would seem to help--but that's a bit ironic, isn't it (i.e., ironic if you can't lead America into the post-racial future unless you have the precisely correct mix of multiracial ancestry).

P.P.P.S.: If the Ferarro controversy does help Hillary, that would explain why Ferraro herself seemed to try to keep it alive yesterday with a silly, provocative comment: "I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?" ... Second Reading: In context, Ferraro seems to be trying to parody what she claims is the Obama campaign's tendency to cry "racism" everytime someone criticizes Obama. The problem with this argument is that hasn't been the Obama camp's tendency--rather, they cry "racism" everytime someone brings up the question of race. But Ferraro may have been thinking of Orlando Patterson's less-wacky-than-you'd-expect op-ed, criticizing Clinton's seemingly non-racial "3 A.M." ad as racist--indeed, Ferarro mentioned the Patterson op-ed in an earlier TV appearance. Maybe she just got her back up and saw perversity all around. But she's clearly not trying to tamp down the controversy. ... 10:42 P.M. link

___________________________

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

'Hillary needed that job. But they had to give it to a minority':

Geraldine Ferraro (Clinton supporter): " "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."

True statement (a.k.a. a Kinsley gaffe). And if Geraldine Ferraro was Gerald Ferraro, she'd be an unknown hack ex-Congressman, not a pathbreaking former vice-presidential candidate. Now Hillaryite Democrats suddenly feel the unfairness in the logic of race-based affirmative action? Where were they when Bill Clinton was 'mending it, not ending it'? And where's that Jesse Helms ad when she needs it?

Susan Rice (Obama aide): "That's a really outrageous and offensive comment."

David Axelrod (Obama strategist): ""The bottom line is this, when you wink and nod at offensive statements, you're really sending a signal to your supporters that anything goes."

Absurd and telling overreaction! Yes, Ferraro's statement is hypocritical. It drips with unseemly envy and entitlement. It's unrealistic--by the time any politician gets to the stratopsheric level of presidential contender, he or she has almost certainly had some morally arbitrary lucky breaks (like being a black, or an Italian, or a Bush, or just being in the right place at the right time). But why is it "offensive"? It is, after all, true. Maybe that's the problem. Is it 'offensive' to hit too close to the sensitive weak spot of Democratic race-preference ideology in a Democratic primary? I guess.

Update: Obama himself says "I don't think that Geraldine Ferraro's comments have any place in our politics or the Democratic Party." ... Ferraro says a) she's always said that if she were "Gerard Ferraro" she would "never have been the nominee for vice president;" b) "The truth is the truth is the truth." ... She also narrows the context of her statement to the 2008 campaign, rather than Obama's entire life--including race-based preferences he may have enjoyed at Harvard--which has the effect of protecting Dem preference dogma at least somewhat. Altogether a highly effective appearance. ...

P.S.: Does the Obama campaign really want to prolong this controversy? Doesn't he need white male votes in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and North Carolina? Didn't that Jesse Helms ad work? Just asking! ... Backfill: Jesse Jackson's response, when Ferraro said a similar thing about him in 1988, seems much savvier than Obama's. ... 3:31 P.M.

___________________________

Monday, March 10, 2008

Did CNN really have Bill Bennett on today to pronounce judgment on Eliot Spitzer ("Look, it's not good for him ... I think it's too much ") and Bill Clinton ("It was an intern")? I would have thought Bennett's days as arbiter of sin and virtue were over after his own humiliating public bout with vice--the 2003 Las Vegas gambling embarrassment, when it was revealed that he had a multi-million dollar slot machine jones. (At the time, Michael Kinsley argued Bennett should have "the decency to slink quietly away, as he is constantly calling on others to do."). ... I guess if Meet the Press can call on Doris Kearns Goodwin to judge Obama's alleged plagiarism .... 11:07 P.M.

___________________________

"Kristen," the NEA's Worst Enemy? Here's Ben Smith's 2006 New York Observer piece on the probable next governor of New York. OK, so there have been a few little fibs on his official bio. And he aims to please everyone, Clinton style. There's also this:

A prominent advocate of publicly funded vouchers for private schools, Clint Bolick, has given [now-Lt. Gov. David] Paterson money and describes him as a "very good friend of the school-choice movement," ... [E.A.]

Could be interesting. ... Also, I'm a sucker for gratuitous candor, which seems to be another Paterson characteristic. ... [This isn't a kf item. It's a parody of a kf item. "N.E.A. SUFFERS SETBACK IN NEW YORK NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST."-ed. First, I'm too tabloidy, Now you don't like the policy angle! So unfair. I feel like Michael Chertoff.] ...

Update: Yes, Spitzer was receptive to charter schools and even private school tuition deductions. But "Paterson "is even more hardcore about school reform and not a favorite of the teachers' unions," reports Eduwonk. "[H]is pick as LG caused [the unions] some consternation but was tempered because it was only LG ...." Heh! ... 5:11 P.M. link

__________________________

Have you noticed that the Center for American Progress' "new" approach to illegal immigration--"We must require illegal immigrants to become legal, and reform the laws so this can happen"--bears an eerie resemblance to the drug policy of erstwhile presidential candidate George C. Papoon?

A Papoon Presidency would eliminate all illegal drugs in the first week of its administration.

No American would be using illegal drugs under George G. Papoon!"

5:00 P.M.

___________________________

Sunday, March 9, 2008

McCain: Not Insane! It doesn't look to me like John McCain was "unhinged" or "irate" or losing his "cool" in his recent videotaped airplane confrontation with the NYT's Elisabeth Bumiller. He was simply employing the debating tactic he often uses when confronted with a question he can't answer safely--which is to bully and intimidate and interrupt the questioner, using up all the available conversational space until the "questioning" moves on. (To get a word in edgwise, whoever is confronting him would have to be ready to engage in an undignified shouting match, which most are unwilling to do.) McCain used the same technique in the Republican debates when confronted with questions he didn't want to answer on immigration.

Because this is intentional, strategic behavior it isn't a sign McCain is unstable or uncontrolled or overemotional or irrational. But it's a sign that, no less than Obama, he may have been underprepared for the fall campaign by his charmed life as a national press favorite. McCain's bullying evasion is the second campaign tic--the first is his habit of reflexive, righteous blunderbuss denials**--that he's apparently been able to get away with over the years. Neither is likely to hold up over a multi-month presidential race. And the bullying, unlike the righteous denial, doesn't even temporarily make McCain look good.

**--Indeed, Bumiller was asking McCain about one of his earlier reflexive, sweeping denials that later turned out to be inaccurate. ...

Backfill: Politico on McCain's "media strategy" of getting mad at critical home state reporters. ... 11:24 P.M. link

___________________________

Friday, March 7, 2008

3:35 A.M.--The Trouble with Dials: Despite lots of dismissive punditry--It's a cliche! Badly executed! And look at Obama's swift response!--Hillary's "3 AM" ad appears to have worked. Intriguingly, the ad also worked despite performing poorly in the MediaCurves.com sample of 554 Democrats hooked up to reaction meters (on which they registered their agreement or disagreement).

Which seems to demonstrate a problem I've always had with Frank Luntz-style "dial" groups: The meters measure the voter's visceral reaction to whatever the candidate is saying. If the voter hates abortion, and Candidate A attacks abortion, the meter goes up. If the voter is pro-choice, the meter goes down. What the meter doesn't capture is actual rumination--even fleeting doubts or flashes of confidence. The reaction loop's too short for that. So if something Candidate B says, in the course of defending a right to abortion, actually makes a pro-life voter think twice about the issue, that will happen later, after the meter has moved on (and probably after the meters are locked up and everyone's gone home). Indeed, the voter's immediate reaction to a candidate who prompts reconsideration of a long-held position may be more negative than usual, reflecting the voter's annoyance at being challenged and forced to think. ....

In short, the meters are good at measuring effective pandering, not at measuring effective persuasion. And sometimes candidates do persuade! ... In the case of the "3 A.M." ad, the MediaCurves "undecided" voters were viscerally turned off when they learned it was an ad for Hillary. Their dial-graphs plummet downwards. But a lot of "undecideds" seem to have been affected, non-viscerally, in a different way later. .... 4:37 P.M. link

___________________________

Thursday, March 6, 2008

Obama tried pandering to Latinos in California. It didn't work. He lost. He tried pandering to Latinos in Texas. It didn't work. He lost. He tried pandering on NAFTA in Ohio. It didn't work. He lost. Maybe he should try, you know, not pandering! That would fit better with his claim to practice "a new kind of politics and a new kind of leadership," no? ... Update: Going negative, as recommended by Dick Morris, does not fit well with that claim--it seems like the sort of campaign mistake that might actually cost Obama a large chunk of support when he's mathematically almost home. Halperin's brief on this subject is persuasive. ... There must be other ways for Obama to "start acting like he has a pair." Like by dramatically not pandering! ... 2:57 P.M.

___________________________

Pols In Treatment: If Hillary's a "Rorschach test"--as she said in 1993--isn't that the problem? [Unexpectedly NSFW] ... Psychologist Ellen Ladowsky also claims Obama's trying to recapture his childhood! Not that there's anything wrong with it. ... 2:17 P.M.

____________________________

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

7 Weeks to Pennsylvania: What's the most apt analogy for the grim prospect that now faces the American press and public? The Bataan Death March? I think there's a better comparison. ... 1:21 P.M.

___________________________

Just asking: If the superdelegates all voted with the winner of their state, would Hillary get the nomination? I think maybe. That would be one way she might colorably claim a superdelegate decision in her favor would vindicate democracy. ... Update--Just answering: Ann Hulbert, enlisting Slate's Trailhead in an unprecedented team effort, says Hillary gets a superdelegate lead of only 3 under this winner-take-all allocation rule--so far. But there are 124.5 superdelegates from states that still haven't voted. Hillary would have to win them by something like 104 to 20 (using Hulbert's numbers) in order to make up her deficit in "pledged" delegates--unlikely, but do-able under a winner-take-all rule. ... More: Trailhead notes that even this state-by-state winnter-take-all superdelegate allocation rule probably leaves both candidates short of the necessary 2,025 delegate majority. Why? Because there are also "about 50 nomadic superdelegates who aren't tied down to a state." Nomadic superdelegates? Yikes. ... Do they arrive at the convention in Winnebagos?.... Backfill: Steve Smith undertook this exercise before Wisconsin, noting that it's subtly biased in Hillary's favor because "Clinton's wins have generally been in large Blue states, which have a disproportionately higher number of SuperDelegates." ... 1:02 A.M. link

___________________________

Have the Obamans blamed their Texas loss on Limbaugh-directed Republican spoilers? Maybe they should. ... Update: Weigel adds non-anecdotal evidence supporting the Limbaugh theory. ... 12:49 A.M. link

___________________________

The Downside of Mutnemom: My friend S, originator of the eerily prescient theory that Hillary enjoys "reverse momentum," reminds me that it is double-edged. Hillary does well when she's just lost and is on the ropes. But she does badly when she's just won one and tries to hamhandedly capitalize on her triumph (which then comes across as gloating and has the opposite effect).

She wins losing, loses by winning.

Which would be good news for Obama, if there were a big primary in the next week or two. Which of course there isn't. But there's Wyoming--which the Mutnemom theory predicts Hillary will lose. ... If only Obama could somehow avoid that victory and keep Hillary's triumphal moment alive for a month and a half until Pennsylvania ...

P.S.: Bill Clinton's declaration that a Texas loss would doom Hillary --previously considered incredibly dumb--now shows "his legendary political instincts," according to the NYT, precisely because it triggered the "save poor Hillary" impulse that's the basis for her winning-by-losing advantage. ...12:24 A.M. link

___________________________

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

Fear of Feiler: How much of the press drumbeat of doom designed to drive Hillary from the race is motivated by journalists contemplating the gruesome prospect of seven weeks of campaigning without a major primary--this in a hyper-covered, fast-info era in which a mere two week campaign for Texas and Ohio has seemed like a Bataan Death March? ... 1:10 A.M.

___________________________

Would "the absolute consistency of [Obama's] position on the war" allow McCain to attack him as "inflexible and without nuance"? Stanley Fish's argument to this effect makes sense only if you assume that Obama wouldn't show new flexibility--the long-awaited Pivot--once he secured the nomination. Obama's smart enough to do that, right? ... Right? 1:04 A.M.

___________________________

And now for another view of William F. Buckley: Since Buckley can no longer defend himself, it seems bad karma to even link. But try to stop reading it. The ruptures on the Right over immigration long predate John McCain, it turns out. ... 12:45 A.M.

___________________________

Monday, March 3, 2008

Meet the Press on black turnout in the primary:

MR. RUSSERT: Bob Shrum, it is tough trying to figure out these primaries. For example, that poll in Texas estimates the black turnout at about 22 percent...

MR. BOB SHRUM: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...of Obama's overall. In 2004 it was 21 percent. The Obama camp will say it might be higher because of the energy in the campaign.

MR. SHRUM: Well, it will be. 2004 was a nonevent. John Kerry was already the Democratic nominee for president. ...

You'd think black turnout would rise with a black presidential candidate fighting for the Dem nomination. But in California you'd be wrong, at least according to the 2008 exit poll, which put black turnout at 6% of the total, down from 8% in 2004. ... Backfill: The black percentage didn't increase in Florida or Virginia either, apparently (but did in Arizona). ... 11:37 P.M.

___________________________

I'm with Althouse on Hillary's "as far as I know" answer on the Obama/Muslim canard. It seems like mere reflexive politico-legal ass-covering on her part, not innuendo-spreading. If you're Hillary, you have to have learned not to make sweeping declarations of fact about things you can't really know--e.g., "Obama is not a Muslim"--without adding a caveat. Her sin, if any, was not realizing that this instance was an exception to the normal rule --an occasion where she'd be expected to make a sweeping declaration of fact about something she couldn't really know. And to do it on 60 Minutes--where smart politicians are normally primed be very cautious.. ...8:55 P.M.

___________________________

Under-undernews Alert: Too bad the Globe lacks the credibility of the Enquirer. ...11:29 A.M.

___________________________

And she hasn't even cried yet: Obama slipping in Texas, falling behind in Ohio. Is Hillary's mutnemom kicking in? ... 10:16 A.M.

___________________________

Saturday, March 1, 2008

Running on Blade Runner: LA Weekly unloads its magnum opus on Mayor Villaraigosa's underdebated plan to make Los Angeles a couple of stories taller and a whole lot denser. a) The plans seem to call for 2.5 million more people. But when it comes to population growth, according to the Weekly

the two key causes are illegal immigration and the high birth rate among the poor and working poor.

If somehow various immigration-control measures actually slow illegal immigration--i.e., if the Gran Salida continues--will all those multi-story apartments actually be needed? Put another way, does Villaraigosa's growth plan depend on continued illegal immigration? b) There's a case for greater density. What's most alarming is that Villaraigosa seems to be planning greater density without first building the subway system that might move all those people around. The Weekly provides a helpful sidebar comparison with Mexico City. c) The most powerful anti-growth voice cited by the Weekly is County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky. But the city's already-dense West Side would have had a subway years ago if Yaroslavsky and his Democratic ally Henry Waxman hadn't foolishly stopped it in the 1980s and 1990s ... "He blocked the subway his city needed" is one of the things that will be on Waxman's tombstone, along with "He expanded Medicaid." ... "He busted Roger Clemens" is unlikely to make the cut. ...

Update: Emailer S.G. notes that the political system seems structured to produce the worse of both worlds: Powerful private developers are able to push through dense, multi-story housing. The only thing anti-growth forces are able to stop is the subway, because it (unlike apartment buildings) requires public, federal funding. The result: paralysis. Even in Blade Runner, there was a monorail, no? ... 5.55 P.M. link

___________________________

Friday, February 29, 2008

HuffPo--"Study Suggests Tougher Words for Dems On Immigration": An obvious con job by the Center for American Progress, et. al.. In this "confidential" study, comprehensive reform boosters urge Democrats to seem tough by adopting the rhetorical attitude of their opponents.

"It is unacceptable to have 12 million people in our country who are outside the system," it reads. "We must require illegal immigrants to become legal, and reform the laws so this can happen."

In other words, we will take a tough stand against illegal immigrants by making them all ... legal. Sorry, by requiring them to become legal! That'll teach them to mess with our laws again! ... Of course, you can make any kind of amnesty seem like a triumph for the rule of law through this rhetorical trick: These [insert violators here] broke the law. But now we are bringing them into the system by making them all law-abiding residents again! Before: illegal. After: legal! How much more law-and-orderish can you get? ...

If the pro-legalization Dems do have to adopt faux-tough rhetoric to appeal to voters, however, that does suggest they are losing the public debate-- and bodes ill for the House Dem leadership's attempt at a last-minute Semi-Amnesty Sneak Play that would combine some popular border enforcement measures with a new visa that would legalize illegals for five years. ... 6:53 P.M. link

___________________________

Thursday, February 28, 2008

The Katrina of All Potemkin Fences! Gee, it seems like only five days ago that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was singing the virtues of Boeing's "virtual fence" on the Mexican border:

"I have personally witnessed the value of this system, and I have spoken directly to the border patrol agents...who have seen it produce actual results, in terms of identifying and allowing the apprehension of people who were illegally smuggling across the border," Chertoff said.

Today we learn, from WaPo, that the "virtual" fence "did not work as planned" and has been delayed for three years by Chertoff's department.

The border fence saga can be confusing, filled with subtle twists, turns, and feints.** But here is my brief potted history. Please explain where I've got it wrong:

1) Border control advocates want an actual physical fence.

2) Respectable Bush comprehensivist types like Chertoff want to substitute a sophisticated hi-tech "virtual fence" for the crude actual physical fence.

3) Border control types say the "virtual fence" won't work.

4) Respectable Bush comprehensivists like Chertoff in fact cut back on actual fencing, choosing the "virtual fence."

5) Where it's installed, the actual fence works.

6) Where it's installed, the "virtual fence" doesn't work .

7) Chertoff feels sorry for himself ("I thought I heard myself getting roundly criticized ... as squishy and soft").

Then you can explain to me why Chertoff still has his job.

P.S.: Tammy Bruce has one unsubtle, but not implausible, explanation--Chertoff was only doing what he was supposed to do:

In other words, we've all just been taken for a ride .... In order to do whatever possible to avoid building an actual physical fence ... Bush, McCain and their amnesty cronies made sure a monumental amount of money was wasted on a fake, untested, unreal fence to placate conservatives ... .

And now, after the tens of millions of dollars spent on an unworkable, failed system, and a year of the Feds touting the genius of the 'virtual' fence, Amnesty Secretary Michael Chertoff now says the border will not be prot[e]cted by a physical fence or even a virtual fence ...

Instead, Bruce notes, Chertoff seems to be counting on plans "to double" the DHS "fleet of three unmanned aerial vehicles." That's a total of six (6) drones. Not joking. That's what he said. Three thousand miles of border. Six drones. Talk about a "light footprint"! This is the pre-Petraeus Iraq strategy applied to the border.

Except that this time John McCain almost certainly approves, at least in private. Of course, if McCain really wants to prove his bona fides as a newborn secure-the-border conservative, he might start by saying the things about Chertoff that he said about Donald Rumsfeld regarding Iraq (or that he now says he said about Donald Rumsfeld). ...

P.P.S.: Did both Democratic contenders for the presidency endorse the virtual fence in a debate only a week before WaPo reported that it doesn't work? I think they did! ...

** Note: For example, there was this deceptively simple exchange in a press conference a month before the 2006 election:

Are you committed to building the 700 miles of fence, actual fencing?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes ...

In fact, this was like an obvious typo in the paper, something experienced Washington observers discounted immediately. What Bush clearly meant to say was "No"--that he planned to finish only 370 miles of fence and also count "300 miles of vehicle barriers." ... [Thanks to reader S.] 6:54 P.M. link

___________________________

Should later primaries count more than early primaries? If Hillary wins Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, that's what she's going to claim. It's not a bogus argument. Voters in late primaries have more information than voters in early primaries. Superdelegates should be able to take note. That's different from arguing that Hillary should be able to pull strings and get superdelegates even if she keeps losing. ... kf's suggested HRC strategy: Cry. Duh. She cries, she wins! Wail Mary! It worked twice. Why not try it until it stops working? ... 5:57 P.M.

___________________________

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

McCain BS Denial #2? 10:12 A.M.

___________________________

Russert Chokes in Clutch: In Tuesday's debate, Tim Russert definitely let Obama off the hook on the issue of Obama's chosen pastor, Rev. Wright:

RUSSERT: The title of one of your books, "Audacity of Hope," you acknowledge you got from a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church. He said that Louis Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness." He said that he went to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan to visit with Moammar Gadhafi and that, when your political opponents found out about that, quote, "your Jewish support would dry up quicker than a snowball in Hell." What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it's Farrakhan's support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?

If Russert had broken it off quickly around where the boldface stops--e.g., "do you feel comfortable associating yourself with these sentiments"--he'd have had a pointed question that put Obama on the spot. By babbling on about Jews and Israel--as if only Jews could be offended by Farrakhan--he gave Obama an easy answer that let him ignore Wright and the avoid the tricky business of distancing himself from his pastor. ("Tim, I have some of the strongest support from the Jewish community in my hometown of Chicago ..." etc.).

Like Andy McCarthy, I don't think Russert was consciously helping Obama escape. But there are any number of potential subconscious motives for Russert's choke, including fear that his image wouldn't benefit if he were the heavy who skewered the popular, charismatic black Dem frontrunner. ... 12:33 A.M. link

___________________________

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Is Obama Deval Patrick II? Obama didn't steal the words of his buddy Deval Patrick, governor of Massachusetts. He borrowed them. OK. But what are the other similarities between Obama and Patrick? The two pols have a lot in common even aside from shared rhetoric. Has Patrick's term been a success, or has it been a cautionary example of a promising, race-transcendant Democrat squandering his mandate by governing as a hack interest-group liberal? Fred Siegel has an answer to this question. Excerpt:

Patrick's governorship is the closest thing we have to a preview of the "politics of hope"—and that governorship has been a failure to date. As Joan Vennochi observes in the Boston Globe, "Democrats who control the Legislature ignored virtually every major budget and policy initiative presented by a fellow Democrat." Patrick's record in office, Vennochi concludes, "shows that it can be hard to get beyond being the face of change, to actually changing politics." His stock has sunk so markedly that Hillary Clinton carried the state handily against Obama in the Democratic primary despite, or perhaps because of, Patrick's support for his political doppelgänger.

In one area, however, Patrick has achieved some of his goals. In thrall to the state's teachers' unions, he has partly rolled back the most successful educational reforms in the country. Most states gamed the federal testing requirements that were part of President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act. But Massachusetts, thanks to Republican governors William Weld and Mitt Romney, created the Office of Educational Quality and Accountability to ensure that the state's testing methods conformed closely to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—federal tests that are the gold standard for measuring educational outcomes. In 2007, Massachusetts became the first state to achieve top marks in all four categories of student achievement. One of Patrick's first efforts as governor was to eliminate the Office of Educational Quality and Accountability. [E.A.]

Isn't it incumbent on those prominent NEA-bashing neoliberal Obama supporters to explain just why his term as president won't quickly descend into a Patrick-like interest-group quagmire? Jon Alter, this means you! And Charles Peters as well. ... P.S.: Patrick could function as Obama's wrang-wrang, Vonnegut's term for a pioneer who by his bad example steers others away from a false course. Before neolibs go into a permanent campaign swoon, shouldn't Obama send them at least a subtle signal that he understands this?

Backfill: Here's Vennochi's column. She's a bit more charitable than Siegel. ... Update: Boston Globe on Patrick's strained relationship with the legislature. Hope= casino gambling? ... 4:19 P.M. link

___________________________

"Any comment that is disparaging of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is totally inappropriate."--Sen. McCain today. ... Is that really how McCain is going to run for president? Why can't you disparage your opponent in a political campaign? ... I'm obviously late on picking this up, but McCain really does have a habit of making categorical, blunderbuss statements that maximize, not the truth, or his political maneuvering room, but his own sense of righteousness. ... Examples: 1) It's not that he doesn't remember various Iseman-related meetings. They never occurred. 2) The United States will not torture (except, you know, when it will). 3) Any comment disparaging of Senator Obama is not just inappropriate, it's "totally" inappropriate (except down the road, of course, when it may become necessary ...). 1:47 P.M. link

___________________________

Meet the Press Moments! 1) Doris Kearns Goodwin, absolving Barack Obama on the question of his lifted uplift. ... Writes itself! ... 2) Goodwin, on politicans' sex scandals:

But I think the serious thing that happened is just this change in relationship between the candidates and the reporters has been such a sea change. In 1920, the reporters knew in detail that Warren Harding was having an affair for 15 years. They thought it wasn't their business to talk about the private life, compared to a front-page article that suspects an affair on the part of some aides. In fact, the Republican committee was so worried about this affair that they actually gave the woman $20,000 and sent her to the Orient during the entire campaign to get her out of the way. So we've changed the whole notion of what part of a private life matters. When the real story is what part of the public life matters. [E.A.]

Huh? If the Republican committee was so worried about Harding's mistress, doesn't that show she was considered relevant, and that there was a chance that at least some of the press would see it as their business?

Bonus PBS Newshour Moment: David Brooks defends the McCain campaign's reliance on lobbyists because

A lot of them work for no pay.

Um, doesn't that make it worse? If they work for no pay, then McCain owes them. Is he going to pay them back as President? On the other hand, if they get paid lavishly for their work in the campaign, he's freer to tell them to take a hike later, no? ...[Thanks to alert reader J] 12:14 A.M.

___________________________

Monday, February 25, 2008

'I helped Page Six for decades and all I got was this lousy squib'? I was never quite sure "Baird Jones" actually existed. He was such a flickering ominpresence in the gossip pages, he could easily have been invented. But he was apparently an actual person, who is now dead. The NY Post, which Jones practically kept afloat with a steady stream of mid-range celebrity gossip items, has covered itself with ungrateful shame in its stinting report, but Radar at least begins to do him justice, including revealing a seemingly crucial secret. ... 8:07 P.M.

___________________________

Things That Bother Media Matters: Now Tucker Carlson is echoing! Will he stop at nothing? P.S.: Either George Soros is wasting his money on MM or someone else is. ... 6:14 P.M.

___________________________

Hear No Univision, See No Univision: It's dispiriting to watch the conservatives at National Review bend over backwards to play down the New York Times' McCain-Iseman story. What if before McCain had effectively won the nomination--say, when he and Romney were contesting New Hampshire or Michigan--it had been revealed that he may have been excessively influenced by a gorgeous lobbyist for Univision, the Spanish language broadcaster with a vested financial interest in promoting bilingualism at the expense of a unifying common language? So much so that the lobbyist boasted of her influence at meetings? So much so that McCain's right-hand strategist tried personally to intervene and tell her to go away? You think it might have been an issue? ...

P.S.: National Review Online's David Freddoso scoffs at the idea that McCain received a mere $85,000 from Iseman's clients since 2000, arguing that if that's all McCain got he's "pathetic" at trying to "take advantage of people" in his committee's purview. Hmm. a) Former Univision CEO, controlling shareholder and Iseman client Jerrold Perenchio is a National FInance Co-Chair of McCain's campaign. Presumably he brings in more than $85,000; b) The worry isn't that McCain was taking advantage of Univision, et. al. It's rather the other way around. Or, more precisely, that this was a smarmy, mutually self-interested alliance that helped McCain and Univision in ways that maybe went beyond promoting the national interest.

If conservatives substitute "National Education Association" for "Univision" maybe the potential scandal will be easier to see. But at this point, McCain could be caught having an affair with Juan Hernandez and it wouldn't bother the National Review. ...

Backfill: Steve Smith, Matthew Yglesias and Matt Welch notice what the NR seems to miss. ... 1:44 A.M. link

___________________________

"Hillary Should Get Out Now": Why would it help either Hillary or the Democratic party if she were to drop out before March 4 Texas and Ohio primaries, as fantasized by my friend Jon Alter? If Obama wins the two states, he'll be a much stronger candidate for it. If he loses, then Hillary would have been a fool to drop out, no? The idea that two weeks more of a relatively tame primary campaign is going to damage Democratic chances eight months from now seems a stretch. ... If Hillary dropped out now while she still has a small but non-trivial chance, it wouldn't show "grace and class" so much as lack of judgment. ... Alter, an Obama supporter and is just going to bat for his guy. .. P.S. Also, Hillary's "beautiful closing answer" in the Austin debate wasn't a "more genuine" Hillary. It was one of her phoniest moments yet. Nice try, though. ... 12:51 A.M.

___________________________

Sunday, February 24, 2008

How is letting Marketa Irglova back on stage to finish her Oscar acceptance speech like Kosovo independence? Feels good, bad precedent. [Other ex.?-ed Immigration amnesty!] 11:37 P.M.

___________________________

Friday, February 22, 2008

The McCain camp declares "Mission Accomplished" on the Iseman story. I mean, what could happen now to give it legs? ... Oh wait. Isikoff already has BS McCain Denial #1, which is where his campaign says that

"[n]o representative of [Iseman client] Paxson [Communications] ...discussed with Senator McCain the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proceeding regarding the transfer of Pittsburgh public television station (WQED) ..."

It turns out McCain himself said in a deposition that he'd discussed it with Mr. Paxson himself. McCain's subsequent staff's defense doesn't help the Senator:

"I]t appears that Senator McCain, when speaking of being contacted by Paxson, was speaking in shorthand of his staff being contacted by representatives of Paxson."

Err ... McCain was fairly explicit on the issue in a sworn deposition, saying "I'm sure I spoke to [Paxson]". ****

Oh well, so he maybe got it wrong under oath. Another sign of his gruff authenticity!**

What's striking about the story so far is the extent to which core McCain supporters concede that if it's confirmed McCain is through. I don't see why that would have to be true--I'd think he could confess, cry, and weather the storm. (If the GOPs had someone to beat McCain they'd have beaten him already.) But here's McCainiac David Brooks:

At his press conference Thursday, McCain went all-in. He didn't just say he didn't remember a meeting about Iseman. He said there was no meeting. If it turns out that there is evidence of an affair and a meeting, then his presidential hopes will be over.

That means, of course, that even if the story is true, loyal McCain supporters would be under tremendous pressure--even self-imposed pressure--to deny it. Is McCain point man Charlie Black saying anything he wouldn't say if McCain did have the affair, and the meeting? A question to keep in mind.

**--Josh Marshall has more on McCain's distinctly un-Clintonesque style of blanket denial. In another politician this would just be recklessness. Does McCain do it because he hasn't been burned--i.e. the press has always given him a pass before? ...

****--Update: Paxson himself now tells Wapo he met with McCain. ... The McCain camp asks us to accept that when both parties to an alleged romance deny it, it didn't happen--but that when both parties to a meeting say it did happen, it didn't happen either. ... 4:21 P.M. link

___________________________

In 2006, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both voted for the Secure Fence Act, widely understood to entail building 700 miles of fence along the Southern border. Now Hillary says

There may be places where a physical barrier is appropriate. I think when both of us voted for this we were voting for the possibility that where it was appropriate and made sense it would be considered, but as with so much, the Bush administration has gone off the deep end, and they are unfortunately coming up with a plan that I think is counterproductive. [E.A.]

Hmm. Isn't that a little like voting for the Iraq War and then saying you were just voting for the possibility that if it were appropriate it would be considered?

In this case, though, Obama is attempting the same two-step. He says he and Clinton "almost entirely agree" regarding the fence, adding

As Senator Clinton indicated, there may be areas where it makes sense to have some fencing. But for the most part, having Border Patrol, surveillance, deploying effective technology, that's going to be the better approach. ... [E.A.]

Is voting for a fence and then denying you were actually voting for a fence the old politics of Washington or the new politics of hope? I get confused. ... 2:57 A.M. link

___________________________