Two month ago, John McCain challenged Barack Obama to visit Iraq, expecting him to decline, but Obama called the bluff. He saw McCain's Iraq and raised him Afghanistan, Israel, and three European nations. Never one to fold easily, McCain raised Obama right back. Fresh from his own mission-critical visits to Columbia and Mexico, McCain suggested that Obama to visit "some of the other countries of the Americas for the first time." Obama has not yet responded to this latest challenge, but pundits suggest that in light of his inexperience in intrahemispheric relations, he has no choice but to tour Central and South America, Canada, Greenland, and the Galapagos. Fortunately for Obama, he recently vacationed in the Virgin Islands, so he can cross one remote island chain off the list.

Democratic strategists have expressed concern that McCain will next challenge Obama to visit Africa, Australia, and Antarctica, which could keep Obama off the campaign trail until November. But there are new hints from insiders at the McCain campaign that they have prepared an even more formidable stratagem. Hank Moody, one of McCain's top national security advisers, recently implied that unlike McCain, Obama has little aviation experience. According to Moody, "If you were riding in a plane that was being shot at by terrorists, I think that most Americans would prefer to have an experienced Navy pilot like John McCain in the cockpit. I mean, Obama might sound nice over the intercom when he tells you to relax and enjoy your flight, but that's not the priority when terrorists are shooting missiles at you."

Taken on its own, such a comment might be interpreted as typical political posturing, but a second comment by McCain's chief torture adviser, Fred Krueger, hints at a broader strategy. Discussing the possible closure of Guantanamo Bay, Krueger suggested that Obama lacks torture experience: "John McCain was tortured for five years by the Vietnamese. Barack Obama, maybe he's seen torture in the movies--there were some pretty gnarly scenes in Saw 2--but he doesn't have personal experience with it. I don't think Americans trust someone with zero experience to set torture policy."

Political analysts have suggested that these statements may be part of a choreographed strategy to prepare the stage for McCain to argue that Obama should be shot down over Vietnam and tortured for five years. Such a challenge would certainly offer risks for McCain. If Obama were to meet the challenge, McCain would lose one of his primary political advantages, as he would then be unable to differentiate himself based on his experience as a war hero. Moreover, if Obama were shot down over Vietnam, he would gain the credibility to openly question whether having one's plane shot down is a qualification for serving as President. On the other hand, the risk to Obama in accepting the challenge is substantial. Even under ideal conditions, being shot down is dangerous and can result in injury or death, which might impede Obama's political career. Second, there is no guarantee that Obama would be able to resist the torture. Were he to become brainwashed and leak military secrets to the Vietnamese, he would be unable to obtain the military clearance necessary to be Commander in Chief. Finally, even if it were to help him win the election, five years of torture would interfere with his ability to run the country. While technology improvements have made working remotely more feasible than ever before, there is no substitute for face-to-face meetings in the Oval Office and photo ops on the White House lawn.

Obama may yet have a face-saving way out. Though they once relished shooting American planes and torturing the pilots, the Vietnamese have reformed many of their old policies, and they may decline the opportunity to torture as prominent an American as Barack Obama. Nonetheless, the Vietnamese government remains unpredictable, and Obama might not know whether he would be shot down until he entered Vietnamese air space. Furthermore, if he were to fail to be shot down by the Vietnamese, McCain may challenge him to be shot down in a more welcoming environment where resident authorities are enthusiastic about shooting planes and torturing people, such as western Pakistan, rebel-held Columbia, and Washington D.C.

That said, Obama's nimble campaign has managed to outmaneuver McCain in the past, and they may yet have a plan to neutralize the threat of such a challenge. They may, for example, go on the offensive and challenge McCain to grow up in Indonesia and become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. Either way, pundits are advising American voters to buckle their seatbelts, as the election campaign promises to be a bumpy ride.

July 19th is a momentous day in the brief history of TPM-aholics. This group was formed a few months ago to bring together those of us who have come to know one another, after a fashion, at the Cafe, and to utilize theses relationships to help Barack Obama win the White House and Democrats to win across the country. So far, we've hosted results watching parties, purchased virtual beers for one another, and chatted online. But tomorrow is our first organized fundraiser. Members of the cafe will host parties in New York, San Francisco, Seattle, Austin, Tucson, and Taipei. If you live in one of these places and would like to attend a fundraiser, click the associated link or contact me at xengis@google.com, and I'll put you in touch with the host.

If you don't live in one of these places, you can still participate. At 9:15pm EST / 6:15pm PST / 9:15am in Taiwan, we will have a conference call with Don Bivens, superdelegate and Chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party, who will speak with us about building Democratic inroads and purple states and offer his perspective on a certain well-known senator from Arizona. If you wish to participate on the call, please sign up for the event, and we'll send you details for calling in.

I also encourage any of you who can't make the events to contribute to our fundraiser by offering a campaign contribution at our fundraiser page.

I would like to officially extend the party invitation to all TPM staff, particular to the main office in New York and to David Kurtz in Austin. While we know that you cannot officially endorse this fundraiser, if you should happen to get lost in Brooklyn and wander in by accident, we promise not to tell.

Finally, I would like to thank in advance all the party hosts--Boo_lala, Chino Blanco, Bademeus, Benjoya, and AM--and my fellow organizers California Paige and Articleman, for helping to pull this off.

PS Please recommend this post to spread the word.

PPS For those of you who read my last post and are nonplussed by my
sudden change of sentiment, I assure you that I am not a flip-flopper.
My position has evolved over the last 24 hours.


PPPS This event is not supported or endorsed by Talking Points Memo.

PPPPS Just wanted to push it to 4 P's.

I stood by him when he defended his racist minister and threw his dear grandmother under the you-know-what. I dismissed his terrorist connections and shady real estate deals. I defended his FISA cave and his faith-based whatevers. I even excused his bowling. But I have just learned that Barack Obama is anti-humor, and as I am a lifelong member of humoritarian wing of the Democratic party, I have no alternative but to offer my vote to someone else this November.

I know that you Obamanauts will say that it's no big deal. You'll drone on about the war and abortion and the environment and blabbelyblabla. But this party was built on humoritarianism. When Whig candidate Benjamin Harrison's supporters yelled out "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too," the Democrats had a witty and memorable rejoinder: "Ripsey Rampsey, Rumpsey Dumpsey, Colonel Johnson Shot Tecumseh." ROFL. We've been the party of funny ever since. The Republicans have Limbaugh, Coulture, and O'Reilly. We have Stewart, Colbert, and Kinky Friedman. Without the funny, we'd be the party of quixotic campaigns, petty bickering, and endless self-examination. With the funny, we're the party of quixotic campaigns, petty bickering, endless self-examination, and the funny.

The sad truth is that the Republicans have been closing the funny gap recently. Funniest primary candidate this year? Squirrel-poppin' Mike Huckabee, Republican. And John McCain is no funny slouch either. "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran."  LOL. That's what I call humoritarian. Even better than "Rumpsey Dumpsey." Or remember this gem: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno." I choked on my coffee when I heard that one. Or I would have if I drank coffee. It was more like a dry heave. It is true that G.W. isn't much of a jokester, but he has nonetheless fostered humoritarianism by nobly sacrificing his own gravitas to provide fodder for the stand-ups. Indeed, I suggest that the greatest gains in the history of the humoritarian cause have been made under his administration.

As the Republicans surge, the Democrats cut-and-run. Faced with painfully unfunny nominees like Gore and Kerry (he of the "botched joke"), we take the stealth approach. "Of course," we knowingly assure one another, "I've heard that [insert Democratic politician] is very funny in person." Even Hillary Clinton was rumored to be "funny in person." But Barack Obama? He's anti-funny. Too lofty, too gravitas-y, too--you know--black-y. Yes, I know, he did Letterman's top 10, and he did that stand-up thing during the primary. But really, he shouldn't quit his day job. For crying out loud, the man uses proper grammar. How are we supposed to make jokes about a black man with good grammar?

Last week, the proud New Yorker took a stand. The editors of that citadel of American humoritariansim, whose cartoons have caused liberal elites to chuckle condescendingly for generations, refused to surrender to the anti-funny forces destroying our way of life. And what did the Obamanauts do? They threw the New Yorker under the b-word. LIBERALS THREW THE NEW YORKER UNDER THE B*$&#!!! That's like Hindus throwing the cow under the elephant. I never thought that I would live to see the day. I am ashamed. I am appalled. I am really frigging POed. No, I will never vote for McCain even though he can run in funny circles around Obama. But I cannot in good conscience offer my vote to an anti-humoritarian villain who would deny us our constitutional right to think that things are funny. In protest, I will write in someone with a funny name. Like Barack Hussein Osama.

It's summertime. The heady passions of spring have been subsided. Our summer state of mind may be described as nervous optimism. Obama spanks McCain in the national polls and shows strength in ridiculously red states, McCain's anemic campaign is twisted in knots, and the Republican Party is about as popular as Lyme disease. Nonetheless, we're concerned that Obama has abandoned his principles, we know that Karl Rove and company are still lurking out there, we don't trust the American people to think straight in the voting booth, and in the pit our collective stomach, we're deeply anxious that the Democrats will find another ingenious way to screw things up. With little news to occupy us, we exercise our anxieties by squabbling, rehashing tired arguments, criticizing one another for squabbling/rehashing tired arguments, or simply logging off.

I have the cure. It is action. Time to stop the petty squabbling about who called who a troll and who violated the terms of what truce. Whether you're unrepentant Obamanaut or a reluctant Hillbot, we must not forget our shared objective. After eight years of disastrous Republican control, we cannot sit idly while conservative voters usher another inept, war-mongering, supply-siding abortion opponent into office.

We have four assets to offer the Obama campaign:
1) Our vote
2) Our voice
3) Our time
4) Our money

Our vote, we will offer when the time comes. Our voice, we offer everyday on this site and others. Many of us have already offered our time and money to the campaign, and many more will do so before November.

But few of us have much money to offer, and the amount that we can give is limited in any case. We can, however, augment our own contributions by persuading others to donate as well. A number of us plan to host fundraising parties next Sat., July 19th. If you have a least one friend and a home with at least one room, I encourage you to join the effort. Invite your friend, offer him a beer and maybe some chips, and request that he make a donation to the campaign, whatever he can afford. (At the New York party, the suggested donation will be $25.) If you have no friends or your home has no rooms, you can attend the party of another TPMer. We have parties planned in New York, San Francisco, Seattle, Singapore, western N. Carolina, Austin, Phoenix, Tucson, and Saint Louis. I hope that we will also get volunteers to host in L.A., Chicago, D.C., Philadelphia, Atlanta, Denver, and Boston, and anywhere else that a member of TPM cafe lives.

If you wish to host, please contact me at xenghis@gmail.com, or you can friend me or California Paige at my.barackobama.com. If you cannot host yourself but would like to find a party, please contact us, and we'll try to put you in contact with someone in your area. Also, if you haven't joined our TPM-aholics group at my.barackobama.com, I encourage you to do so.

Regards,
Genghis
California Paige
Articleman

6/16/08: FISA
6/17/08: FISA
6/18/08: FISA
6/19/08: FISA

6/20/08: FISA

6/21/08: FISA

6/22/08: FISA

6/23/08: FISA

6/24/08: FISA

6/25/08: FISA

6/26/08: FISA

6/27/08: FISA

6/28/08: FISA

6/29/08: FISA

6/30/08: FISA + Wes Clark

7/01/08: FISA

7/02/08: FISA

FISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISAFISA

According to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, John McCain's recently released tax plan is very regressive "even compared with a system in which the 2001-06 tax cuts are made permanent." It provides "relatively little tax relief to those at the bottom of the income scale while providing huge tax cuts to households at the very top of the income distribution."

Many have remarked on McCain's inconsistency in proposing a tax plan even more regressive than the Bush tax cuts he once opposed. His criticism at the time was passionate and consistent. He first spoke out against Bush's proposed tax plan in January of 2000, arguing: I don't believe the wealthiest 10% of Americans should get 60% of the tax breaks. I think the lowest 10% should get the breaks. 

McCain then voted against Bush's tax cuts in both 2001 and 2003, explaining: When you look at the percentage of the tax cuts that--as the previous tax cuts--that go to the wealthiest Americans, you will find that the bulk of it, again, goes to wealthiest Americans... A lot of Americans now are paying a very large a--low and middle-income Americans are paying a significantly larger amount of their income in taxes. I’d like to see them get the bulk of the relief.

McCain skipped significant tax votes in 2004, and it was not until 2006 that he voted to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

McCain's change of heart in 2006 is particularly curious, since he only recently moved away from supply-side economic theory. In 2000, he explained: In the interest of full disclosure, I didn't pay nearly the attention to those issues in the past. I was probably a 'supply-sider' based on the fact that I really didn't jump into the issue.... I also hope that my thinking has changed as a result of the times. I am compelled by information that indicates that there's a growing gap between haves and have-nots in America.

McCain's economic advisor, Kevin Hassett, added: The Bush plan is a 1980s plan, and it ignores the lessons of the '90s. Senator McCain challenged his economic team to figure out why we're doing well in the '90s.

All the more strange then that Hassett and McCain have now returned to supply-side theory. This year, Hassett argued: What really happens is that the economy grows more vigorously when you lower tax rates. It is beyond the reach of economic science to explain precisely why that happens, but it does.

But does it? The lessons of the 80's and 90's, which Hassett noted in 2000, demonstrate the opposite. The consequences of Federal policies in the 80's and 90's suggest that tight fiscal policy, not tax cuts, spurs growth. Moreover, the few years of economic growth between recessions under the Bush Administration pale in comparison to economic boom of the 90's, so there has not been new information to contradict the lessons of the 90's. Finally, the income gap that McCain cited in 2000 as justification for his criticisms of supply-side theory has grown dramatically for the last eight years.

Without new information to lead McCain and Hassett to change their minds, one naturally suspects political motivations. John McCain, having been attacked by fellow Republicans for his opposition to Bush's tax cuts, conveniently returned to the conservative economic fold not long before running for President, and his change of heart certainly helped him during the Republican primary. Such an interpretation also fits with Hassett's shoulder-shrugging non-explanation for supply-side's alleged success as "beyond the reach of economic science." But if driven by political expediency, why has McCain continued to push an even more regressive tax policy after winning the nomination? While outdoing Bush on tax cuts for the wealthy helps him to maintain support from rank-and-file Republicans, he has lost significant strategic ground to Obama, since Obama's plan offers more tax relief to lower and middle class Americans than McCain's does. He has also underscored the validity of Obama's charge that he would continue Bush's policies.

There is a third possibility. McCain's rejection of Bush's tax policies from 2000 through 2003 may have been more politically motivated than his current economic position. That is to say, he may have exaggerated his opposition to those policies at the time in order to bolster his reputation as a maverick. This possibility is supported by the fact that there was a discrepancy between McCain's words in 2000 and his policies. While he argued that "the lowest 10%" of earners should receive the most tax breaks, his own tax proposal at the time offered them almost nothing; all the benefits would have gone to the top 40%. Attempting to demonstrate that his economic plan benefited "the have-nots", McCain noted his proposal to raise the income threshold subject to the fifteen percent tax bracket: If you put more and more people into the fifteen percent tax bracket, you would have a significant beneficial effect. The have-nots are not the poorest necessarily; the have-nots are lower- and middle-income Americans, who are not rising as fast as the wealthiest Americans, as well. But as noted by Jonathan Chait of the New Republic, those making more than the threshold included only the top 25% of tax payers. When told this, McCain acknowledged the discrepancy between his tax proposal and his stated intentions: Maybe I'm not paying enough attention to the poorest of America. Maybe my priorities are not correct. I selected this course not thinking that it's perfect but thinking that it's the best that I could come up with.

Yet in 2008, McCain has had a new opportunity to come up with a more perfect plan. His new and improved tax plan all but ignores the poor in favor of tax cuts for the most wealthy. Whether he never meant those words, whether he has since rejected them, or whether he has decided that political expediency forces him to contradict them, it seems that John McCain has chosen to pay even less attention to the poorest of America.

After weeks of reading breathless discussions and confident prognoses concerning Obama's running mate, I have concluded that I'm smart, and everyone else is stupid. The obvious choice is right in front of us, but most people have trouble seeing what's right in front of them because they're so stupid. (See previous sentence.)

As everyone knows, the ideal running mate for Obama would have the following qualifications:
- Military experience
- Appeal to white, working class Americans
- Swing state association
- Name recognition
- Not a Muslim


There is one American who fits these qualifications better than anyone else. You know him well.

Dick Cheney

Think about it...

Military experience. In addition to playing a key role in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush and oversaw Desert Storm. True, he's not a war hero, but he had better things to do during the Vietnam War, as proven by his five draft deferments. And unlike Hillary Clinton in Bosnia, Dick Cheney was the target of an actual assassination attempt in Afghanistan. Now that's military cred.

Appeal to white, working class Americans. Cheney flunked out of Yale. His rejection of elitist institutions offers a counter-balance to Obama's namby-pamby teacher's-pet profile. Cheney is also very white, which offers a counter-balance to Obama's blackness. White, working-class Americans don't only like white people. They also like guns. Cheney owns a lot of guns and he knows how to use them. Finally, Cheney speaks in a low, gruff voice, which polls show white, working-class Americans appreciate.

Swing state association. Some people think that Wyoming is not a swing state, but they're stupid. Obama won 7 delegates in the Wyoming primary. McCain won 0 delegates. This demonstrates that Wyoming is up for grabs. With Cheney at his side, Obama would sweep the Equality State. Cheney could also help Obama to win Nebraska, where he was born.

Name recognition. Check.

Not a Muslim. Though he is related to Barack Obama, Dick Cheney is not a Muslim as far as I know.


Though I have presented the case for Cheney so eloquently that no one with any sense could disagree with me, I'm sure that some feeble minds will protest that Cheney is too conservative for Obama. Wake up people. The primary is over. It's time for the Obama to move right and shake off that "most liberal Senator" reputation that he's been dragging along like a decomposing albatross. He's not going to win Wyoming by prancing around with his ultra-liberal buddies. There is no better cover for a skinny liberal black elitist than a far conservative white ass-kicker.

Next post: The perfect VP for McCain - Dick Cheney

I'm here in San Francisco at Club Waziema, everyone's favorite Ethiopian club, with California Page, Oakviolin, and a bunch of other non-TPMers. I made two  beer bets tonight:

1) Hillary would not concede
2) Hillary would not mention HillaryClinton.com (an implicit concession)

Looks like I broke even. Sadly. May it end this week. Looking forward to Obama's victory speech.

(Pointless thread for discussion purposes only.)

PS I'd like to thank the academy...

PPS 9/11

I posted this commentary on Greg Sargent's thread about Hendrik Hertzberg's analysis of the popular vote but felt that it merited it's own thread...

There has been much debate about the popular vote over the past couple of months. The vote only affects the outcome of the primary insofar as it moves superdelegates to vote for one candidate over the other. There are two obvious ways in which the popular vote might rationally influence superdelegates:

1) It reflects electability
2) It offers legitimacy

The popular vote totals of both candidates are so close that 1) is a wash. The Democratic electorate is almost evenly split. Other factors, like demographic appeal, campaign organization, fundraising, etc. should be considered much more significantly in gaging electability.

The second reason is the rub. Legitimacy is a construct, meaning that it has to do with perceptions. No candidate deserves to win an election in any absolute sense outside people's perceptions of just deserts. Americans, in particular, tend to believe that legitimacy is conferred by the one-person, one-vote principle. Never mind that our electoral systems only approximate the principle and that in a very close race, it is practically speaking impossible, even with a coherent voting system, to honor the principle completely. If a case can be made that the loser of a race has won the popular vote by even one vote, the loser's supporters will feel that their candidate was robbed of a rightful victory. There can, however, be a conflict because many Americans also believe that electoral rules confer legitimacy. When those standards of legitimacy conflict, chaos is bound to ensue.

The Democratic Party doesn't want chaos, and it's important that the nominee be perceived to be widely legitimate, or millions of voters will be angry and alienated. That's why Clinton is arguing so strenuously that she has won the popular vote. It's a claim to legitimacy. She is simultaneously trying to count MI & FL in order to undercut Obama's claim to legitimacy via the rules for apportioning pledged delegates.

If she had a clear popular mandate, there might be something to her claim, but then the superdelegates and the party would be forced to navigate conflicting standards of legitimacy: the rules (pledged delegates) and the popular vote. Fortunately for the party, Clinton's claim to the popular vote is so strained that it cannot lead to a widespread perception of legitimacy, leaving Obama with a clear win in terms of pledged delegates and a more widely accepted win in terms of the popular vote. Indeed, Obama's claim to legitimacy is so strong that were Clinton to somehow succeed in persuading enough superdelegates to give her the nomination, there would likely be massive outrage and alienation of Obama supporters, who would perceive Obama to have been robbed of a rightful nomination.

One might contend that the superdelegates are part of the process. Therefore, their votes confer legitimacy on whomever is selected. That's true to an extent, but for better or for worse, superdelegates are not perceived to offer the same level of legitimacy as pledged delegates. While technically within the rules, they are at the same time perceived to act as external forces, and I doubt that such arguments would comfort those who would feel alienated by superdelegate-determined nomination of Clinton.

For these reasons, I cannot see a large majority of superdelegates risking the ire of Obama supporters. Clinton's quest to demonstrate legitimacy is therefore hopeless. Worse, it is dangerous for the party. Clinton cannot win the nomination but the better job she does convincing her supporters of her own legitimacy, the more alienated they will feel when she doesn't get the nomination. This will not only hurt Obama's chances but also the chances of all Democratic candidates in Congress and state and local governments if alienated Clinton supporters refuse to go to the polls.

After a string of embarrassing election losses, Republicans have had enough. In a major address to the American people, Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, chairman of the underrated Republican Study Committee, has declared that Republicans leaders are feeling sober.

We have been sobered by three special election losses in a row. We are sobered by the massive cash advantage that Democrats have to get their message out.

After some sober study, the Republican Study Committee has concluded that Republicans need to harness all this soberness and come up with some messages and some unity. For example:

The party leadership in the House has already begun to roll out its own agenda under the rubric "The Change You Deserve," but some lawmakers have said the party needs to be more aggressive. Others are skeptical about overreacting to the elections or embracing too strong a conservative theme.

In order to encourage even more messages and unity from sober Republican lawmakers, the House leadership has encouraged them to make suggestions, arguing that the making of suggestions is "healthy and good." The members have soberly complied with the following proposals guaranteed to return American voters to the Republican fold:

Immediate moratorium on earmarks. Everyone loves bashing other people's earmarks. Unfortunately, anti-unity Republicans have rejected the suggestion, arguing that "it is a chief responsibility of representatives to win federal aid for local initiatives."

Constitutional amendment to prohibit federal spending from growing faster than the economy except in times of war or national emergency. Vague constitutional amendments that have no chance of passing never fail to excite the electorate.

Simplified flat tax. Truly, in these trying times of war and recession, Americans should not be distracted by complicated tax forms.

Tax credits for buying health insurance. Well, maybe our tax forms aren't that complicated after all.

More domestic energy production. Because the energy industry needs more tax credits, and Alaska has too many polar bears.

Streamlined terrorist surveillance program. Department of Homeland Security II.

Extend welfare work requirements to food stamps and housing assistance "so that those who are not old, young or disabled are either working in the private sector or serving in their community." After all, who doesn't love reading about malnourished children.

To summarize, the sobered Republican Study Committee has proposed nothing less than a Republican revolution: stalemates on earmark reform, empty amendment campaigns, inconsistent tax changes, energy industry handouts, environmental destruction, ineffective intelligence bureaucracies, and deprivations for poor families. As Rep. Hensarling explained, "We have to get back to our core identity."

For more details, please see the full article from the New York Times, 5/20/08.

This world is the will to power -- and nothing besides.
-- Nietzsche, The Will to Power

Nietzsche has argued that the will to power, the will to not only survive but to dominate, is the fundamental driving force of all life. The will to truth, by contrast, is subsidiary. We seek truth in order to increase our power. But Nietzsche regards truth as an artificial construct. The powerful are capable of creating truth as an exercise of power and as a means of extending their dominance.

One need not subscribe to Nietzsche's nihilism in order to apply his doctrine. Substitute "perception" for "truth" to get an apt representation of modern American political discourse.  Political candidates and elected officials vie for power. Their spokespeople, surrogates, press secretaries, talking points, and war rooms are tools for shaping public perceptions in order to exercise power and achieve their objectives. We often call such exercises "spin".

A politician's ability to control perception is proportional to his or her power. A totalitarian regime which controls the media can shape the perceptions of its citizens to a considerable degree. American politicians must rely on less direct mechanisms--subtly manipulating the press, exploiting access to privileged information, pressuring officials and politicians, and taking advantage of the authority of public office.

The Bush Administration's selling of the Iraq War offers a prime example of the will to power in American politics. By presenting sensational allegations of WMD's and Al Qaeda connections to the press, by referencing classified data, by enlisting the support of Republican legislators and pressuring Democratic legislators, and by using the offices of the President and Vice-President to persistently represent Saddam Hussein a grave threat to the country's security, the Administration created the perception that an invasion of Iraq was necessary. The creation of this perception was both an exercise of power and a means of augmenting authority via the Iraq War Authorization and Patriot Act.

Another recent example of the will to power in American politics has been the spin strategy of the Clinton campaign. Throughout the primary season, the campaign has aggressively worked to shape public perception so as to benefit Clinton's bid for power. Since January, she and her spokespeople and surrogates have regularly denigrated Obama's successes (small states, caucuses, red states, black voters, young voters, elite voters, etc.) and promoted her own successes (big states, swing states, working-class voters, Michigan and Florida) in an attempt to create the perception that she deserves the Democratic nomination. These efforts have been somewhat successful in that Clinton was widely perceived to be a viable candidate long after her statistical odds had plummeted.

But the Clinton campaign also undermined its efforts through its aggressiveness. To shape perception, the hand of the politician must remain essentially hidden. The representation must be seen as arising from the "facts" rather than from manipulation. Once the manipulation has been exposed as "spin", the manipulator loses credibility, and his or her powers of manipulation decline. Manipulation may be exposed directly, as in exposes about the Bush Administration's selling of the Iraq War. It may also be exposed indirectly by simply contradicting the perception. For instance, George Bush's credibility was diminished when no WMD's were found in Iraq. This example exposes the limits of political power to shape perception in American politics. If the government directly controlled the media, it could easily have fabricated the existence Iraqi WMD's. But while the American media can be manipulated, it resists such attempts to an extent. Journalists may have dutifully publicized the Administration's suspicious satellite photographs, but when tangible evidence could not be found, the Administration lacked the power to continue to sell the myth.

Thus, it's important for politicians intent on manipulating public perception to choose their battles carefully, as it were. If a politician obviously attempts to shape perception and fails, the effort will be exposed as "spin", and the politician will lose credibility, which is what has happened to the Clinton campaign. Clinton and her surrogates have pressed the myth of her electoral superiority so often and in the face of so much evidence that journalists no longer take them seriously. The articles at TPM have grown increasingly disparaging of Clinton spin tactics to the point that Josh Marshall has now posted a video which ridicules the continued efforts of Terry McAuliffe to represent the Clinton campaign as competitive. Clinton also overreached in her attempt to create the perception that she had gained considerable foreign and military policy as First Lady. When a CBS video contradicted her Bosnia narrative, her credibility plummeted, and her effort to shape perceptions about her experience was undermined.

Efforts by Barack Obama's campaign to shape perception have been less aggressive or at least less obvious. Examples include campaign advisers' attempts to lower expectations before primaries, Obama's disparagement of the importance of experience, and his contrasts between himself and "Washington". But at least with respect to the state of the race, the campaign seems content to let public perception develop without its influence; campaign representatives tend to answer the Clinton campaign's efforts to shape perception about the race with figurative shrugs. This willingness to refrain from trying to shape perception may itself be seen as a passive exercise of power; the campaign is confident enough that it does not deem such efforts necessary. It is also important to note that since Obama does not have a reputation for spin, he may be able to shape perception more effectively than Clinton.

John McCain's effectiveness at shaping public opinion seems, so far, to be mixed. On one hand, by occasionally working with Democratic legislators and taking positions that contradict Republican doctrine, he has created the perception that he is a "courageous", "honorable" "straight-talker", which offers him considerable credibility and the ability to shape perception without being accused of "spin". On the other hand, he has a history of ill-considered comments and confusions which undermine his credibility, including his proclamation of a secure Baghdad after his tour of a market there, his admitted ignorance on economic issues, and his confusion between Sunnis and Shiites and between Al Qaeda and other terrorists. It is important to note that the latter examples, while undermining his intellectual authority, do not expose deliberate attempts to manipulate public perception. If he is judicious in his efforts to shape perception going forward, he may be able to maintain credibility through the election, which means that like Obama, he will be able to spin more effectively.

In order for us voters to satisfy our own wills to power and, more importantly, to avoid disastrous consequences from the reckless pursuit of power by our leaders, we should resist their attempts to shape our perceptions. That means that we should be ever conscious of manipulation, both of the blogosphere's biggest bogeyman, mainstream media, and of the blogosphere itself. When a blogger posts an ill-sourced smear of a candidate which MSM won't touch, that too is manipulation and an example of the author's will to power. We should take a hard look at all news articles, even by our beloved Josh Marshall, and question whether they bear the fingerprints of manipulation by candidates or their supporters, when, for example, such articles simply repeat lines that politicians have pushed. Insofar as we have voices ourselves, we should also be mindful of our own credibility. When we curse, engage in name-calling, or constantly accuse those with whom we disagree with of bias and stupidity, we expose ourselves as manipulators and undermine our own credibility and our own power. Finally, we must be ever vigilant of our political candidates, especially those we love, for these are the ones who have the most power over us.

This is rather alarming. Apparently, the "electability" powerpoint that Clinton sent out to House Dems was a decoy. Select uncommitted superdelegates obtained a very different pointpoint. I've managed to obtain a leaked copy and posted it here. Please check it out, and forward it to your friends

A couple of days ago, I argued that after Tuesday, the race would essentially be over because there would no longer be a way for Clinton to win the popular vote, her only remaining plausible argument for superdelegates to vote for her.

I reran the numbers based on the tonight's results, which were substantially better for Obama than my conservative assumptions.Clinton would now have to convince at least 75% of the remaining superdelegates to vote for her in order to win the nomination. To win the popular vote, including Florida, she would need to win by average of 65% (a 20 point spread) in the remaining states, which is essentially impossible.

Meanwhile, the pundits have begun talking about the endgame even sooner than I anticipated...

CNN: Delegate counter: Can Obama be overtaken?
ABC: Hillary Squeaks Out Win in Indiana, But Will Her Campaign Stay Afloat?
NYT: Options Dwindling for Clinton
CBS: Analysis: Clinton Barely Hangs On
TPM: Is Hillary Running Out Of "Game Changers"?
FOX: Apocalyptic Sect Leader Arrested on Sex Charges


So allow me to reiterate, this will all be over soon.

I've declared repeatedly since the PA primary that this race is over soon after May 6th. Despite the high anxiety of Obama supporters and all the talk of Clinton momentum, I stand by this projection. My reason for saying so is very simple. There will not be enough remaining votes after May 6th to make a difference. Not to the delegate count. Not to the popular vote. After May 6th, you won't need any fancy delegate calculators to see that. It will be obvious to all. Once it's obvious, the media announces the inevitable, Clinton's money dries up, and the undeclared superdelegates move in greater numbers to Obama.

May 6th Projections

Let no one accuse me of May optimism. For my May 6th projections, I've selected the most Clinton-friendly polls to be had:

Indiana
4/30-5/1 ARG Clinton +9 (Avg. Clinton +5.5)

North Carolina
5/1 InsiderAdvantage Obama +5 (Avg. Obama +10.6)

Now let's see what these numbers would mean...

The Delegate Count

According to those Clinton-friendly polls, here are the delegate results after May 6:

Obama
Has: 1,837*
Needs: 188 (37% of remaining pledged + supers)

Clinton
Has: 1,699
Needs: 326 (63% of remaining pledged + supers)

Now, let's say Clinton wins the remaining primaries by an average spread of 10 points, which is extremely optimistic, especially since the largest state to vote after May 6th is Obama-friendly Oregon:

Obama
Has: 1935
Needs: 90 (30% of remaining supers)

Clinton
Has: 1818
Needs: 207 (70% of remaining supers)

So even under optimistic conditions for Clinton, Obama only has to convince 30% of the remaining 274 superdelegates and 19 Edwards delegates to vote for him. Clinton, by contrast, would have to convince 70% of them to vote for her. I do not imagine that she'll be able to do that without a solid popular vote win. By solid, I mean counting the caucus states and not counting MI. She may be able to convince some superdelegates to buy the twisted logic of including MI while excluding the caucus states but surely not 70% of them.

* For purposes of calculation, I've assumed that the delegates will be split roughly according to the projected popular votes, though in reality, it's more complicated than that. In addition, the Obama campaign claims more delegates than attributed to him at realpolitics.com. I've used the more conservative number.

The Popular Vote

Including the caucus states and Florida, Clinton is behind by about 317,000 votes. According to the Clinton-friendly polls, after May 6th, she'll be behind by 313,000 votes. How big would she have to win in the remaining primaries just to tie Obama in the popular vote? 59%. That's an 18 point spread. Raise your hand if you think Clinton will win the remaining states by an average of 59%. In this entire primary, Clinton has won only a single state by more than 59%. Arkansas.

(Note: I did not include Puerto Rico in the popular vote projections because I don't have voter numbers there and because it's not clear how they should count towards the total, since Puerto Ricans can't vote in the general election. If you were to include PR, the percentage would be slightly lower.)

How It Will Play Out

After the vote, the major news outlets will have their math geeks run the numbers, and they will say that Clinton has to win between 60% to 70% of the remaining votes (depending on the May 6th results) in order to win the popular vote. Then the news outlets will roll out their political analysts who will say that Clinton has as much chance of winning 60% (or more) as Obama has of bowling a 300. Then any superdelegates who were waiting to endorse Obama will cry "Yahoo!", and hop off the fence. Then the news sources will start counting down the number of delegates for an Obama win. Then Clinton's money sources, ashen faced, will put their wallets in their pockets. Then Richardson and various Obama supporters will call for Clinton to concede. Clinton will protest of course. She'll say she's a fighter. She'll say she's going all the way to the convention. But it won't matter anymore because the pundits will start their postmortems, the superdelegates will make their pronouncements, and everyone else will watch the clock tick down.

Homework Assignment

Count the number of journalists who employ the cliche, "writing on the wall," in the next three weeks.

Announcements

If you live in the NYC area, come watch the IN/NC results on May 6th at Revival, 129 E. 15th St., New York, NY.

Please join our group, TPM-aholics, at my.barackobama.com to help organize for Obama. We're planning a fundraiser in June. Please friend and contact me at TPM-aholics if you'd like to participate.

These events are not supported or endorsed by Talking Points Memo.

Calculations

You can see the spreadsheet I used for the calculations here:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pGeAYzG6mYCJZkbsfDIvJEA

There are some minor discrepancies due to rounding errors.

Data Sources

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/23/935854.aspx
http://www.pollster.com/08-NC-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
http://www.pollster.com/08-IN-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Representative P.J. Urbinato of N. Carolina has just endorsed Obama