The question is not whether Obama will build on his lead Tuesday, but whether or not he can add enough to persuade Hillary that the jig is up. The Clinton camp seems resigned to losing Texas and Vermont already, and are even putting out the word that anything less than a clean sweep by Obama will be a disappointment.
Oh really? It's hard to see how a singular victory in Rhode Island will be enough. Indeed, it seem ready-maid for mockery. "Clinton takes smallest state! Touts R.I. as turning the tide!"
So it will come down to Ohio in the end, it appears. The latest polls show her holding on to a diminishing lead. The pattern so far as been for Obama to make big inroads inn the last week or so, but it's an open question whether he'll make up enough ground to win outright. The most likely result seem to be a Clinton victory in the single digits. A victory like that can plausibly be given a positive spin -- it is a victory, after all. But the reality is that it will do nothing to halt Obama's march to the nomination.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Obama threatens the money brokers
Obama now had one million donors. This article points out why that threatens the Washington establishment in ways much bigger than "empty rhetoric" does. http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/022608.html
Because Obama doesn't owe the money people they don't own him. Interestingly, because they've misunderstood what's happening, they started to band against him way too late. Under normal circumstances they'd all flock to the GOP candidate in order to preserve their power. But wait! They weren't paying close attention there, either!
While McCain is hardly the reformer that Obama is, he's still highly unfavorable territory for the money power people to work with. He may be slightly better, from their point of view, than Obama, but that's still just plain awful for their interests. It's like a condemned man having to choose between a hanging and a firing squad. Some choice.
All of a sudden they've got no buddy in the White House, either way! Oops.
Because Obama doesn't owe the money people they don't own him. Interestingly, because they've misunderstood what's happening, they started to band against him way too late. Under normal circumstances they'd all flock to the GOP candidate in order to preserve their power. But wait! They weren't paying close attention there, either!
While McCain is hardly the reformer that Obama is, he's still highly unfavorable territory for the money power people to work with. He may be slightly better, from their point of view, than Obama, but that's still just plain awful for their interests. It's like a condemned man having to choose between a hanging and a firing squad. Some choice.
All of a sudden they've got no buddy in the White House, either way! Oops.
New York Times getting ragged
Apparently the NYT is raising McCain's birth in Panama as some kind of possible impediment to being president under some theory that it somehow means he's not a "natural born" citizen and therefore constitutionally ineligible for the office of president.
This nonsense says a lot more about the declining news judgment of the NY Times than it does about McCain. The issue is really a stupid one, the kind of thing whispered by the same sort of person who tortures the language worse than a Gitmo detainee in order to argue things like the 16th amendment didn't actually establish an income taxing power.
The very first Congress, in 1790, which included quite a few Founders, made it clear that people who happened to be born overseas or at sea to a U.S. citizen couple were "natural born" citizens. Thinking otherwise results in the bizarre result that the child of some illegal immigrants who happens to be born in Texas has a better claim on being president someday than the child of two decorated U.S. military wartime veterans stationed in Germany who happens to be born on a U.S. military base. Come on. Does anyone think that's likely?
This "story" doesn't pass the smell test. It's a nonstory. It's something any decent reporter on a small-town daily would dump after a few minutes of research. It simply doesn't check out.
This nonsense says a lot more about the declining news judgment of the NY Times than it does about McCain. The issue is really a stupid one, the kind of thing whispered by the same sort of person who tortures the language worse than a Gitmo detainee in order to argue things like the 16th amendment didn't actually establish an income taxing power.
The very first Congress, in 1790, which included quite a few Founders, made it clear that people who happened to be born overseas or at sea to a U.S. citizen couple were "natural born" citizens. Thinking otherwise results in the bizarre result that the child of some illegal immigrants who happens to be born in Texas has a better claim on being president someday than the child of two decorated U.S. military wartime veterans stationed in Germany who happens to be born on a U.S. military base. Come on. Does anyone think that's likely?
This "story" doesn't pass the smell test. It's a nonstory. It's something any decent reporter on a small-town daily would dump after a few minutes of research. It simply doesn't check out.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
William F. Buckley has died
William F. Buckley is almost single-handedly responsible for my respect for conservative intellectuallism. Watching him as a teen on Firing line, I was always impressed by how he seemed to have the better of the argument. It was fascinating to watch him.
One of the saddest legacies of the Bush years is the resurgence of Yahooism in conservative circles, where emotion trumps reason, fear overcomes logic and core conservative principles are barely understood, more than simply abandoned. Here and there someone like George Will keeps up the good fight, but for the most part it looks like conservatives are likely to return to the wilderness for a while, and deservedly so. Having no clue about the root cause of Obama's appeal, they're likely to find themselves marginalized by him in a way not seen in a generation.
Buckley, himself, has raised objections to various aspects of Bushism, but the toll of advancing age meant he was unable to be a vigorous opponent. We can only hope that another strong advocate will emerge in due time. Liberalism will benefit from a proper critic.
One of the saddest legacies of the Bush years is the resurgence of Yahooism in conservative circles, where emotion trumps reason, fear overcomes logic and core conservative principles are barely understood, more than simply abandoned. Here and there someone like George Will keeps up the good fight, but for the most part it looks like conservatives are likely to return to the wilderness for a while, and deservedly so. Having no clue about the root cause of Obama's appeal, they're likely to find themselves marginalized by him in a way not seen in a generation.
Buckley, himself, has raised objections to various aspects of Bushism, but the toll of advancing age meant he was unable to be a vigorous opponent. We can only hope that another strong advocate will emerge in due time. Liberalism will benefit from a proper critic.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Negativity
Negative campaigning has been around since there have been elections. (And by negative campaigning, I do not mean simply criticizing your opponent. It's perfectly legitimate to criticize your opponent's substantive positions on issues.)
Smears, innuendo and worse has enjoyed a heyday in the past coup,e of decades, however. Some call it Clintonian. Some call it Rovian. Many blame the late Lee Atwater. It's had many fathers and many practitioners and the fact is that it has worked.
But like every marketing technique, it appears to have a shelf-life. And it appears it has expired. Those politicians running the most positive campaigns (Obama, Huckabee and McCain) have done the best. Some running campaigns relying on more negative techniques (Clinton, Romney) have faded.
Being positive is not a guarantee of success, of course. Otherwise Dodd and Biden would have done better. But the media and the public seem to have much less patience for crap like the Obama in Somali garb photo flap. (And is it embarrassing or what that a U.S. Congresswoman could be so ill-informed as to believe that this was Obama in the dress of his "native " country? Geesh! Get a clue, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones! Obama is U.S. born!)
Tonight Hillary will be tempted to go negative on Obama. Good luck on that. If she sticks to substantive criticism, good for her. But if she goes off into silliness expect her campaign to finally collapse.
Smears, innuendo and worse has enjoyed a heyday in the past coup,e of decades, however. Some call it Clintonian. Some call it Rovian. Many blame the late Lee Atwater. It's had many fathers and many practitioners and the fact is that it has worked.
But like every marketing technique, it appears to have a shelf-life. And it appears it has expired. Those politicians running the most positive campaigns (Obama, Huckabee and McCain) have done the best. Some running campaigns relying on more negative techniques (Clinton, Romney) have faded.
Being positive is not a guarantee of success, of course. Otherwise Dodd and Biden would have done better. But the media and the public seem to have much less patience for crap like the Obama in Somali garb photo flap. (And is it embarrassing or what that a U.S. Congresswoman could be so ill-informed as to believe that this was Obama in the dress of his "native " country? Geesh! Get a clue, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones! Obama is U.S. born!)
Tonight Hillary will be tempted to go negative on Obama. Good luck on that. If she sticks to substantive criticism, good for her. But if she goes off into silliness expect her campaign to finally collapse.
Monday, February 25, 2008
The most experienced presidential candidate ever
When George Will is on his game, no one can turn out a more witheringly effective take-down in print.
On Hillary's "experience" argument:
The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in
the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to being ranked as America's worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow.
On Hillary's "experience" argument:
The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in
the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to being ranked as America's worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow. If you need to lie to make your point ...
CNN has been running an ad from some outfit called "Defense of Democracies" (sic) http://defenseofdemocracies.wordpress.com/ criticizing the House refusing to cave in to the President on FISA. Or maybe better said the president's refusal to go along with a short extension so the House can deliberate on the merits of the issue.
The ad claims that the House let the law expire (not true) "crippling" out ability to monitor terrorists (a lie).
Life and politics can be pretty damn confusing and hard to sort out, but I think it's fair to say that any policy that needs lies to hold it up is almost certainly a bad one.
Conservatives, before they lost their minds, always knew this and often legitimately criticized the leftist habit of enlisting untruths and lies so long as they supported the Left's agenda.
It's funny that people who love to say things like "the scariest words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help" don't understand that calling something the "PATRIOT Act" was about as clear a signal as could be sent that it end up being no such thing.
The ad claims that the House let the law expire (not true) "crippling" out ability to monitor terrorists (a lie).
Life and politics can be pretty damn confusing and hard to sort out, but I think it's fair to say that any policy that needs lies to hold it up is almost certainly a bad one.
Conservatives, before they lost their minds, always knew this and often legitimately criticized the leftist habit of enlisting untruths and lies so long as they supported the Left's agenda.
It's funny that people who love to say things like "the scariest words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help" don't understand that calling something the "PATRIOT Act" was about as clear a signal as could be sent that it end up being no such thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
