The U.S. Senate was once home to some of the most eloquent speakers, finest political minds, articulate debaters, and renowned national leaders and opinion-makers in the country.
Today, the U.S. Senate is a laughingstock.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) is predicting the Senate will grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies as Congress takes up reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). . .
"I think we will prevail," Rockefeller said on Wednesday, adding that he hoped the Senate will finish the bill by next week. The FISA legislation expires in February, and both President Bush and GOP congressional leaders have demanded new legislation be in place by that time.
"It's a pretty bad idea to appear cocky," Rockefeller noted. "I am not pessimistic."
So, even though the chamber is controlled by Democrats, the fact that "both President Bush and GOP congressional leaders have demanded new legislation be in place by that time" means that Rockefeller and his Democratic colleagues must hasten to satisfy these demands and surrender whatever principles or interests they were elected to represent in order to ensure the Republican meanies won't say bad things about them...for a few minutes.
Yes, as Tim Tagaris notes at Open Left, our U.S. Senate, and its Majority Leader, who is finally taking a stand against automatic filibusters, albeit against those from his own party, are "A never ending reservoir of inspiration.."
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
War is Peace
I think this passage from 1984 represents religious fundamentalism as much as it does any totalitarian government:
"Even the humblest [church] member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph.
In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war [on Christmas, on the family, on marriage, on Christianity] is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist."
"Even the humblest [church] member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph.
In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war [on Christmas, on the family, on marriage, on Christianity] is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist."
Where Obama Comes Up Short
While I believe there are sound policy, electability, and visionary rationales for preferring Obama over the other Democrats running, there's no mistaking that Obama has largely been a non-factor as a U.S. Senator.
For all practical purposes, Obama has served in the U.S. Senate for two years, the last year being devoted to his presidential campaign. And while the typical rejoinder to the lack of experience argument is that such non-Washington credentials accents rather than diminishes his potential for real success (especially given the bad experience we've been acustomed to these last many years), it should still be said that the U.S. Senate is, or is meant to be, a place where national debates take place, and in which the public can be educated and be given access to the democratic process. The Senate represents America's premier forum for hashing out the differences, conflicts and aspirations of the national polity through the gathering and participation of America's finest political minds and most respected national leaders and spokesmen. But Obama's brief, and rather quiet, stay in the Senate has not been an example of the best the Senate has to offer (although neither have the presences of Edwards or Clinton for that matter).
For all practical purposes, Obama has served in the U.S. Senate for two years, the last year being devoted to his presidential campaign. And while the typical rejoinder to the lack of experience argument is that such non-Washington credentials accents rather than diminishes his potential for real success (especially given the bad experience we've been acustomed to these last many years), it should still be said that the U.S. Senate is, or is meant to be, a place where national debates take place, and in which the public can be educated and be given access to the democratic process. The Senate represents America's premier forum for hashing out the differences, conflicts and aspirations of the national polity through the gathering and participation of America's finest political minds and most respected national leaders and spokesmen. But Obama's brief, and rather quiet, stay in the Senate has not been an example of the best the Senate has to offer (although neither have the presences of Edwards or Clinton for that matter).
Two Maddening Primary Myths
Two myths I frequently encounter in blogland are (1) that the policy positions of Obama and Clinton are not that different and that (2) Obama and Clinton are about equal in terms of their electability.
Hilzoy, Jonathan Chait, and the Anonymous Liberal do a pretty fair job of challenging the second position.
As to the first point, even my sparse attention to policy details during this campaign reveals some rather startling distinctions between them.
There's a flip side to this of course, as one could point out Obama's allowance of anti-gay ministers to officiate at his events, his favorable remarks regarding Ronald Reagan that sent much of the left blogosphere into a tizzy, his use of the term "crisis" to describe Social Security's financing, etc. So the slate isn't completely clean on Obama's side.
But Obama's stances seem to me to represent the biggest break with the past as well as the present state of policy discussions, both foreign and domestic.
Hilzoy, Jonathan Chait, and the Anonymous Liberal do a pretty fair job of challenging the second position.
As to the first point, even my sparse attention to policy details during this campaign reveals some rather startling distinctions between them.
There's a flip side to this of course, as one could point out Obama's allowance of anti-gay ministers to officiate at his events, his favorable remarks regarding Ronald Reagan that sent much of the left blogosphere into a tizzy, his use of the term "crisis" to describe Social Security's financing, etc. So the slate isn't completely clean on Obama's side.
But Obama's stances seem to me to represent the biggest break with the past as well as the present state of policy discussions, both foreign and domestic.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
"There Will Be Blood"
*****SPOILER ALERT*********SPOILER ALERT******
Well, there's not a lot to spoil, really. Don't get me wrong, the movie had good acting, mostly from Daniel Day Lewis, and the story was somewhat interesting.
But the title of the movie is misleading and the slow, rising tension among the movie's characters and situation that I suspected was building to an oil-blood-gushing conclusion fails to materialize. There is a violent end to the flick, but it's rather anti-climatic.
One of the problem areas to the film is that it contains too many diversions and plotlines largely left hanging or left to end abruptly and unimportantly.
Many of the tensional relationships in the movie also fail to go anywhere. One point of conflict concerns the desire of Daniel Plainview (Lewis) to purchase, or to at least run an oil pipeline through the property bounds of a local, the only villager who hadn't sold out to Plainview when he began drilling in the fictional Little Boston (a geographic anachronism as the story is set in the deserts of California). It appears the hold out is not going to deal and that this relationship will end violently, perhaps setting spark to the movie's cataclysmic finale.
But the hold-out villager is more than willing to deal--provided Plainview gives his heart to Jesus Christ, is baptized, and joins the town's little church.
Ah, the church. The church is led by Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), his name no doubt an allusion to the famous preacher Billy Sunday. You might think Sunday would be a bit young to play the part of charismatic church leader(particularly since Dano was last seen as a rebellious, sullen youth in Little Miss Sunshine). Sunday's aims never seem quite clear. He's quite religious. And he has an obvious interest in the financial stakes involved in his town's oil claims.
But he also has a twin brother, maybe, by the name of Paul. And it was Paul who led Plainview to the town, but who afterwards apparently never reappears, leaving the viewer not sure whether Eli was Paul or what ever happened to Paul anyway. We get some idea of that later in the movie and in the life of Plainview when the aging, ailing oil tycoon refuses to come to Sunday's aid and reimburse him for the oil proceeds the preacher feels is due him in this now, his time of trial. When Dano's Sunday pays his final visit to Plainview 16 years after the movie's main events he doesn't appear to have aged a bit.
And there is a son, or an adopted son of Plainview's, who the oil man takes on when the child's father, a co-worker of Plainview's, is killed in a drilling accident. The boy, H.W., eventually loses his hearing in another oil blast, and after rehabilitating at a deaf-school, presumably in the East, H.W. returns home and later marries a sister of preacher-man Sunday.
In the mix is a Plainview "brother" who comes upon the scene and is taken in by Plainview as an aid-de-camp. But later in a drunken fit of rage, Plainview kills him upon finding out that the man is actually not a brother, or even half-brother, but a friend of a man who claimed to be a brother of Plainview. Too bad, the fake half-brother seemed like a decent, if down-on-his-luck, sort.
Along the way, in perhaps the movie's seminal self-explanatory passage, Plainview tells the fake brother that he doesn't like people much, that he's extremely competitive and only longs to be able to get away from the largest share of mankind.
Among the more interesting aspects of the movie are its first ten minutes or so that contain no talking, and most of which revolve around Plainview's early mining for silver adventures during which he labors mightily to retrieve from the earth the value that will someday provide a suitable return for the time and effort he has put forth to extract it.
That image is symbolic of the movie's viewers, who linger anticipating that the various angles and twists of the movie will lend themselves to a fullfilling return, after months and years of faithful application.
Well, there's not a lot to spoil, really. Don't get me wrong, the movie had good acting, mostly from Daniel Day Lewis, and the story was somewhat interesting.
But the title of the movie is misleading and the slow, rising tension among the movie's characters and situation that I suspected was building to an oil-blood-gushing conclusion fails to materialize. There is a violent end to the flick, but it's rather anti-climatic.
One of the problem areas to the film is that it contains too many diversions and plotlines largely left hanging or left to end abruptly and unimportantly.
Many of the tensional relationships in the movie also fail to go anywhere. One point of conflict concerns the desire of Daniel Plainview (Lewis) to purchase, or to at least run an oil pipeline through the property bounds of a local, the only villager who hadn't sold out to Plainview when he began drilling in the fictional Little Boston (a geographic anachronism as the story is set in the deserts of California). It appears the hold out is not going to deal and that this relationship will end violently, perhaps setting spark to the movie's cataclysmic finale.
But the hold-out villager is more than willing to deal--provided Plainview gives his heart to Jesus Christ, is baptized, and joins the town's little church.
Ah, the church. The church is led by Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), his name no doubt an allusion to the famous preacher Billy Sunday. You might think Sunday would be a bit young to play the part of charismatic church leader(particularly since Dano was last seen as a rebellious, sullen youth in Little Miss Sunshine). Sunday's aims never seem quite clear. He's quite religious. And he has an obvious interest in the financial stakes involved in his town's oil claims.
But he also has a twin brother, maybe, by the name of Paul. And it was Paul who led Plainview to the town, but who afterwards apparently never reappears, leaving the viewer not sure whether Eli was Paul or what ever happened to Paul anyway. We get some idea of that later in the movie and in the life of Plainview when the aging, ailing oil tycoon refuses to come to Sunday's aid and reimburse him for the oil proceeds the preacher feels is due him in this now, his time of trial. When Dano's Sunday pays his final visit to Plainview 16 years after the movie's main events he doesn't appear to have aged a bit.
And there is a son, or an adopted son of Plainview's, who the oil man takes on when the child's father, a co-worker of Plainview's, is killed in a drilling accident. The boy, H.W., eventually loses his hearing in another oil blast, and after rehabilitating at a deaf-school, presumably in the East, H.W. returns home and later marries a sister of preacher-man Sunday.
In the mix is a Plainview "brother" who comes upon the scene and is taken in by Plainview as an aid-de-camp. But later in a drunken fit of rage, Plainview kills him upon finding out that the man is actually not a brother, or even half-brother, but a friend of a man who claimed to be a brother of Plainview. Too bad, the fake half-brother seemed like a decent, if down-on-his-luck, sort.
Along the way, in perhaps the movie's seminal self-explanatory passage, Plainview tells the fake brother that he doesn't like people much, that he's extremely competitive and only longs to be able to get away from the largest share of mankind.
Among the more interesting aspects of the movie are its first ten minutes or so that contain no talking, and most of which revolve around Plainview's early mining for silver adventures during which he labors mightily to retrieve from the earth the value that will someday provide a suitable return for the time and effort he has put forth to extract it.
That image is symbolic of the movie's viewers, who linger anticipating that the various angles and twists of the movie will lend themselves to a fullfilling return, after months and years of faithful application.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
The Right To Vote
It's difficult to overstate how truly odious this challenge to the Nevada caucus law which was approved almost a year ago is. It's no secret that Republicans have yet to meet a voting restriction they didn't like. But for Democrats?
I'm half expecting the Clintonites to start calling for poll taxes if Obama wins another caucus/primary.
This is the kind of crap that makes conservative hate talk of the Clintons hard to refute.
I'm surprised this isn't getting much attention on the blogs, even from those who don't like the Clintons.
Thank God. Geesh.
I'm half expecting the Clintonites to start calling for poll taxes if Obama wins another caucus/primary.
This is the kind of crap that makes conservative hate talk of the Clintons hard to refute.
I'm surprised this isn't getting much attention on the blogs, even from those who don't like the Clintons.
Thank God. Geesh.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Republican Taliban
I guess by now you've heard of this story.
I'm wondering how long it will be before Faux News is identifying this former congresscritter as a Dem.
I'm wondering how long it will be before Faux News is identifying this former congresscritter as a Dem.
Monday, January 14, 2008
The LBJ Example
While I think Hillary's statement about MLK is being overly parsed, I tend to side with Steve Benen and Andrew Sullivan as to its implications.
But I think there's even something more too it than this, and which compares more favorably with Obama.
And that is that LBJ accomplished much of what he did, including the signing of the Voting Rights Act, the year after his massive landslide victory, which swept overwhelming Democratic majorities into congress on his coat-tails. And while the death of JFK and the extremist campaign of Barry Goldwater helped contribute to that victory, the fact is that LBJ needed those large majorities in Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act and to pass Medicare and Medicaid, among other notable legislative achievements. Obama is campaigning with the recognition that large electoral change is necessary to accomplish significant political legislative and executive change. Hillary's campaign is based implicitly if not explicitly, on the idea that no such electoral change can or will occur and that political and policy change will happen only through the tough grit of experience.
But I think there's even something more too it than this, and which compares more favorably with Obama.
And that is that LBJ accomplished much of what he did, including the signing of the Voting Rights Act, the year after his massive landslide victory, which swept overwhelming Democratic majorities into congress on his coat-tails. And while the death of JFK and the extremist campaign of Barry Goldwater helped contribute to that victory, the fact is that LBJ needed those large majorities in Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act and to pass Medicare and Medicaid, among other notable legislative achievements. Obama is campaigning with the recognition that large electoral change is necessary to accomplish significant political legislative and executive change. Hillary's campaign is based implicitly if not explicitly, on the idea that no such electoral change can or will occur and that political and policy change will happen only through the tough grit of experience.
Conservative Clinton
While Hillary's--and her various spokespersons'--statements on civil rights and race are drawing attention, other more-policy-focused remarks are also coming back to the surface.
At a forum in early December, Hillary came out against retroactivity in the reduction of crack-related offenses. Her pollster, Mark Penn, also made these revealing remarks:
In an interview after the debate, Clinton’s pollster, Mark Penn, pointed out that the Republican front-runner has already signaled that he will attack Democrats on releasing people convicted of drug crimes.
Aside from the fear-based nature of this conservative pander, I was immediately struck by Penn's reference to a, the, Republican front-runner. Given the noted volatility in the Republican race today, I wondered who Penn had in mind then.
Ah:
“Rudy Giuliani is already going after the issue,” Penn said. “He’s already starting to attack Democrats, claiming it will release 20,000 convicted drug dealers.”
Speaking in Florida earlier this month, Giuliani said he “would not think we would want a major movement in letting crack cocaine dealers out of jail. It doesn't sound like a good thing to do."
I wonder what Penn--and Hillary--think now that Guliani's no longer the front-runner? Should they change her position to fit with whoever they expect the GOP nominee to be? What if that prediction, too, needs to change in light of primary and caucus votes still to come? All this does is, besides illustrate policy-differences between herself and Obama, is reinforce the idea that Hillary lacks a central political core identity; something besides "experience".
Hillary's fears about how the GOP will smack us around on crime and other issues next fall has also led her to criticize Obama's more liberal--and I happen to think, wiser and more humane--stances on minimum sentencing guidelines and Cuba. (h/t Andrew Sullivan).
For this liberal, it's just more, confirming evidence that the choice between Hillary and Obama is a real, ideology and policy-wise, substantive one.
At a forum in early December, Hillary came out against retroactivity in the reduction of crack-related offenses. Her pollster, Mark Penn, also made these revealing remarks:
In an interview after the debate, Clinton’s pollster, Mark Penn, pointed out that the Republican front-runner has already signaled that he will attack Democrats on releasing people convicted of drug crimes.
Aside from the fear-based nature of this conservative pander, I was immediately struck by Penn's reference to a, the, Republican front-runner. Given the noted volatility in the Republican race today, I wondered who Penn had in mind then.
Ah:
“Rudy Giuliani is already going after the issue,” Penn said. “He’s already starting to attack Democrats, claiming it will release 20,000 convicted drug dealers.”
Speaking in Florida earlier this month, Giuliani said he “would not think we would want a major movement in letting crack cocaine dealers out of jail. It doesn't sound like a good thing to do."
I wonder what Penn--and Hillary--think now that Guliani's no longer the front-runner? Should they change her position to fit with whoever they expect the GOP nominee to be? What if that prediction, too, needs to change in light of primary and caucus votes still to come? All this does is, besides illustrate policy-differences between herself and Obama, is reinforce the idea that Hillary lacks a central political core identity; something besides "experience".
Hillary's fears about how the GOP will smack us around on crime and other issues next fall has also led her to criticize Obama's more liberal--and I happen to think, wiser and more humane--stances on minimum sentencing guidelines and Cuba. (h/t Andrew Sullivan).
For this liberal, it's just more, confirming evidence that the choice between Hillary and Obama is a real, ideology and policy-wise, substantive one.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
I Thought Unity Was Their Issue
From Atrios, Unity08 is closing up shop on the way to being swallowed up by Michael Bloomberg's independent presidential candidacy. But I wonder why Unity08's board fails to see the irony of their statement below:
The past year has taught us that it's tough to rally millions for a process without a candidate or an issue. In the past, third party movements that have broken through the monopoly of the established parties have always been based on a person (Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 or Ross Perot in the last decade) or a burning issue (slavery in the case of the insurgent Republican party in 1860). Motivating people to fix a broken system that drives candidates to the extremes by creating something more inclusive and sensible has proven to be a lot harder than we expected.
So despite--or perhaps because of--the fact that at least one of the leading party contenders "has made the theme of unity and the necessity of bridging the partisan divide an absolutely central theme of his campaign", Unity08 is moving on to bigger and brighter things--like the "independent" presidential campaign of Michael Bloomberg for which it was designed, whether many of its spokesmen were aware of it or not.
The past year has taught us that it's tough to rally millions for a process without a candidate or an issue. In the past, third party movements that have broken through the monopoly of the established parties have always been based on a person (Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 or Ross Perot in the last decade) or a burning issue (slavery in the case of the insurgent Republican party in 1860). Motivating people to fix a broken system that drives candidates to the extremes by creating something more inclusive and sensible has proven to be a lot harder than we expected.
So despite--or perhaps because of--the fact that at least one of the leading party contenders "has made the theme of unity and the necessity of bridging the partisan divide an absolutely central theme of his campaign", Unity08 is moving on to bigger and brighter things--like the "independent" presidential campaign of Michael Bloomberg for which it was designed, whether many of its spokesmen were aware of it or not.
Post-NH Op-Ed Special
Washington Post edition.
Shorter E.J.Dionne: The media, including me, really blew it.
Shorter George Will: January, named for the Roman god Janus, is a godforsaken month.
Shorter David Broder: The NH results mean I can keep writing about the 2008 primary season for a long time.
Shorter Robert Novak: The Clintons are a ruthless, give no quarter, attack machine; Republicans, and their supporters, who have never attacked anyone, had better nominate John McCain.
Shorter Harold Meyerson: This election reminds me of 1968 and 1972.
Shorter E.J.Dionne: The media, including me, really blew it.
Shorter George Will: January, named for the Roman god Janus, is a godforsaken month.
Shorter David Broder: The NH results mean I can keep writing about the 2008 primary season for a long time.
Shorter Robert Novak: The Clintons are a ruthless, give no quarter, attack machine; Republicans, and their supporters, who have never attacked anyone, had better nominate John McCain.
Shorter Harold Meyerson: This election reminds me of 1968 and 1972.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
There They Go Again
Call me crazy, but I can't believe the new rush among the punditry to bury Mitt Romney. The Republican race still looks like anybody's ball game to me. I don't see any one Republican winning Michigan and South Carolina. And even were a candidate to do so, it's far from certain that with the super tuesday February primaries still looming that any final determinations for the major contenders wouldn't wait adjudication until then.
At the same time, it is true that having been in the lead, Romney is suffering the pangs of dashed expectations. And the competitiveness, or fragmentation, however you want to look at it, in the Republican field owes a great deal to Romney's having chosen to reinvent himself from moderate business man and governor to a whoeveryouwantmetobe conservative, depending on the audience. I can imagine Romney having been in a much better position had he chosen a more straightforward and honest campaign message.
At the same time, it is true that having been in the lead, Romney is suffering the pangs of dashed expectations. And the competitiveness, or fragmentation, however you want to look at it, in the Republican field owes a great deal to Romney's having chosen to reinvent himself from moderate business man and governor to a whoeveryouwantmetobe conservative, depending on the audience. I can imagine Romney having been in a much better position had he chosen a more straightforward and honest campaign message.
Democrats, New and Old
To build on my last post, one way of thinking about the dynamics of this race is as a contest between new and old Democrats.
In 1992, Bill Clinton campaigned as a New Democrat. That Democrats, and political liberalism, had been hammered in three consecutive elections meant that the way was paved for a New Democrat to come calling and in whom even traditional Democratic voters might be willing to support if doing so would improve the party's electability.
In 2008, Obama is, obstensibly, the new Democrat and Hillary Clinton is the old Democrat. The question is, are Democratic voters ready to turn to a new brand? Have the developments of the last 8 years, or 16 years, created in the minds of most Democrats the need for another New Democrat? It certainly seemed as if many Democrats were in 2003 as Howard Dean made his mark at the California state Democratic conference when he famously asked where the Democratic Party had been when Bush was launching his unilateral invasion of Iraq (What I wanna know is...), chastizing the party's bipartisan acquiescence to Bush and ruling Republicanism.
By primary season of 2004, however, most Democrats had retreated to one of that year's old Democrats, John Kerry.
Now, four years removed from that episode, but with the country still mired in Iraq, what is the mood of Democratic voters?
These first two contests have put off an answer to that question as high numbers of Independents have voted in Iowa and NH. Upcoming contests will undoubtedly shed more light on this topic and the direction of the Party as presumably the influence of Independents in future contests dwindles as the number of closed primary states increase.
The paradox is, though, that while Obama is the New Democrat in the race, he isn't campaigning as an outsider, really. The language of bipartisanship, post-partisanship and unity he's invoked may be New Democrat but it is pretty much right up insider politics' alley. It is the pillar opposite of Howard Dean's 2003-2004 New Democrat campaign.
Conversely, Hillary--like Edwards--is campaigning as a more partisan alternative, New Democrat, at least as it was in the mold of Howard Dean. So, while Hillary is undoubtedly the most insider of Old Democrats, and has kowtowed to much of Bush's agenda, particularly the war and foreign policy, her campaign is largely usurping what a New Democrat would be expected to bring to this year's campaign.
Some of this strange turn-about is no doubt due to the Democrats having won control of Congress in 2006. This has served to disipate to some degree the Democratic anger that drove Howard Dean's campaign. That the "surge" in Iraq has served to alleviate some of the violence associated with our continued occupation of that country, and thus diverted media attention to the personalities and horse race aspect of the campaign, has also strengthened the cross-cutting New/Old Democrat juxtapositioning going on.
One implication of this is something I don't think has generated any consideration so far and that is that despite whatever affinity there might be between John Edwards and Obama, it seems to me that John Edwards' partisanly populist campaign probably has more connection with those inclined to support Hillary, who is dismissive of Obama's hope and optimism, warning that the only type of politics possible is that of partisan combat.
So, as the campaign moves on, it wouldn't surprise me that if this is a rough approximation of the mood of Democratic voters (and not of Independents) that a large portion of Democrats supporting Edwards could very well end up in the Hillary camp.
I think the challenge for Obama (much like the challenge that faced McCain in 2000) is to continue to win his party's primaries and his party's voters in those primaries. Despite McCain's 2000 uprising, he was unable to pull it off. It seems to me that as an opponent of the congressional Democratic approach the past eight years at least on the war, Obama is in a good position to make this outsider, New Democratic appeal. However, the irony is that the existing, old Democratic establishment has largely legislated in the very bipartisan manner that Obama has said he is seeking. So, continued bipartisan appeals during this partisan primary season may not work as well to his benefit. And would result, weirdly, in one our most bipartisan Democrats, Hillary, being rewarded for taking a more partisan approach during the campaign.
In 1992, Bill Clinton campaigned as a New Democrat. That Democrats, and political liberalism, had been hammered in three consecutive elections meant that the way was paved for a New Democrat to come calling and in whom even traditional Democratic voters might be willing to support if doing so would improve the party's electability.
In 2008, Obama is, obstensibly, the new Democrat and Hillary Clinton is the old Democrat. The question is, are Democratic voters ready to turn to a new brand? Have the developments of the last 8 years, or 16 years, created in the minds of most Democrats the need for another New Democrat? It certainly seemed as if many Democrats were in 2003 as Howard Dean made his mark at the California state Democratic conference when he famously asked where the Democratic Party had been when Bush was launching his unilateral invasion of Iraq (What I wanna know is...), chastizing the party's bipartisan acquiescence to Bush and ruling Republicanism.
By primary season of 2004, however, most Democrats had retreated to one of that year's old Democrats, John Kerry.
Now, four years removed from that episode, but with the country still mired in Iraq, what is the mood of Democratic voters?
These first two contests have put off an answer to that question as high numbers of Independents have voted in Iowa and NH. Upcoming contests will undoubtedly shed more light on this topic and the direction of the Party as presumably the influence of Independents in future contests dwindles as the number of closed primary states increase.
The paradox is, though, that while Obama is the New Democrat in the race, he isn't campaigning as an outsider, really. The language of bipartisanship, post-partisanship and unity he's invoked may be New Democrat but it is pretty much right up insider politics' alley. It is the pillar opposite of Howard Dean's 2003-2004 New Democrat campaign.
Conversely, Hillary--like Edwards--is campaigning as a more partisan alternative, New Democrat, at least as it was in the mold of Howard Dean. So, while Hillary is undoubtedly the most insider of Old Democrats, and has kowtowed to much of Bush's agenda, particularly the war and foreign policy, her campaign is largely usurping what a New Democrat would be expected to bring to this year's campaign.
Some of this strange turn-about is no doubt due to the Democrats having won control of Congress in 2006. This has served to disipate to some degree the Democratic anger that drove Howard Dean's campaign. That the "surge" in Iraq has served to alleviate some of the violence associated with our continued occupation of that country, and thus diverted media attention to the personalities and horse race aspect of the campaign, has also strengthened the cross-cutting New/Old Democrat juxtapositioning going on.
One implication of this is something I don't think has generated any consideration so far and that is that despite whatever affinity there might be between John Edwards and Obama, it seems to me that John Edwards' partisanly populist campaign probably has more connection with those inclined to support Hillary, who is dismissive of Obama's hope and optimism, warning that the only type of politics possible is that of partisan combat.
So, as the campaign moves on, it wouldn't surprise me that if this is a rough approximation of the mood of Democratic voters (and not of Independents) that a large portion of Democrats supporting Edwards could very well end up in the Hillary camp.
I think the challenge for Obama (much like the challenge that faced McCain in 2000) is to continue to win his party's primaries and his party's voters in those primaries. Despite McCain's 2000 uprising, he was unable to pull it off. It seems to me that as an opponent of the congressional Democratic approach the past eight years at least on the war, Obama is in a good position to make this outsider, New Democratic appeal. However, the irony is that the existing, old Democratic establishment has largely legislated in the very bipartisan manner that Obama has said he is seeking. So, continued bipartisan appeals during this partisan primary season may not work as well to his benefit. And would result, weirdly, in one our most bipartisan Democrats, Hillary, being rewarded for taking a more partisan approach during the campaign.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Final NH Thoughts
At one point in the election analysis, CNN's William Schneider showed exit poll info that had Obama's vote share made up of 50% independents, while Clinton's showed a much higher share of Democratic partisans.
I would have expected this sort of thing to happen in Iowa rather than NH, but I wonder if Obama's frequent tacking to the center and appealing to Independents and Republicans, his cross-over, post-partisan appeal came back to bite him tonight. Despite the role of Independents generally, and in NH in particular, NH Democrats wanted to vote for a Democrat running as a Democrat. While this is undoubtedly one of many likely factors that influenced Hillary's narrow victory tonight, I have to think it could have been as significant a one as any other.
I would have expected this sort of thing to happen in Iowa rather than NH, but I wonder if Obama's frequent tacking to the center and appealing to Independents and Republicans, his cross-over, post-partisan appeal came back to bite him tonight. Despite the role of Independents generally, and in NH in particular, NH Democrats wanted to vote for a Democrat running as a Democrat. While this is undoubtedly one of many likely factors that influenced Hillary's narrow victory tonight, I have to think it could have been as significant a one as any other.
Yes We Can!
He started off slowly and didn't come out with his new signature line until near the end of his speech.
It was and is a great line, but unfortunately, he didn't get to speak last tonight.
Hillary to me still seems a candidate without a vision, reading off of Bill's script from the last decade. I lived through the 1990's. While the economy did well, the Democratic Party did not. Nor were there any major advances in public policy. Bill Clinton's presidency ended in incremental and symbolic policy maneuvers (remember school uniforms and bridges to the 21st century?) and with liberalism largely in ruins and on the run, in worse shape than the Clintons found it.
It's possible that something good will come of this. Maybe this quick setback will give the Obama campaign some experience in handling adversity and encourage the candidate to better refine his message. But for now, a Hillary victory has only prolonged the prospect of enduring more months of a politics of the same.
It was and is a great line, but unfortunately, he didn't get to speak last tonight.
Hillary to me still seems a candidate without a vision, reading off of Bill's script from the last decade. I lived through the 1990's. While the economy did well, the Democratic Party did not. Nor were there any major advances in public policy. Bill Clinton's presidency ended in incremental and symbolic policy maneuvers (remember school uniforms and bridges to the 21st century?) and with liberalism largely in ruins and on the run, in worse shape than the Clintons found it.
It's possible that something good will come of this. Maybe this quick setback will give the Obama campaign some experience in handling adversity and encourage the candidate to better refine his message. But for now, a Hillary victory has only prolonged the prospect of enduring more months of a politics of the same.
Hillary still winning...
When are the gamdung college towns going to report in?
And on top of that, the teevee writers are still on strike.
Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan has some serious balls to post this reader's dissent.
And on top of that, the teevee writers are still on strike.
Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan has some serious balls to post this reader's dissent.
CNN Pundit Jeffrey Toobin
"You know, maybe people out there in the real world actually like Bill Clinton."
I suppose this is true
Ezra Klein:
And this is how it should be. It's a good thing that Iowa and New Hampshire don't simply decree the winner of the presidential race. It's a good thing that more states will participate, and the various candidates will have more time to hone their pitches, broaden their appeals, demonstrate their resonance in different regions and with different demographics. The campaign's been long, but the election remains young.
And this is how it should be. It's a good thing that Iowa and New Hampshire don't simply decree the winner of the presidential race. It's a good thing that more states will participate, and the various candidates will have more time to hone their pitches, broaden their appeals, demonstrate their resonance in different regions and with different demographics. The campaign's been long, but the election remains young.
Ugh
19% of the vote in: Hillary 40%; Obama 36%
This night is proving as dispiriting as last week's was uplifting.
This night is proving as dispiriting as last week's was uplifting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)