Mitchell A's Blog tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2010:/talk/blogs/mitchell_a//2780 2010-01-25T07:36:41Z Movable Type Pro 4.21-en Thomas Friedman Gets the Politics Wrong, Once Again tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2010:/talk/blogs/mitchell_a//2780.315751 2010-01-25T04:51:01Z 2010-01-25T07:36:41Z Mitchell Aboulafia http://upnight.com/ In the New York Times on Sunday, January 24, 2010, Thomas Friedman writes in his piece, "More (Steve) Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, Jobs," about programs that can be helpful in getting the economy moving.  For example,

Obama should make the centerpiece of his presidency mobilizing a million new start-up companies that won't just give us temporary highway jobs, but lasting good jobs that keep America on the cutting edge. The best way to counter the Tea Party movement, which is all about stopping things, is with an Innovation Movement, which is all about starting things.

Fine.  Let's support programs that can provide education and opportunity.  But Friedman also gives the president some advice.

Well, here's my free advice to Obama, post-Massachusetts. If you think that the right response is to unleash a populist backlash against bankers, you're wrong. Please, please re-regulate the banks in a smart way. But remember: in the long run, Americans don't rally to angry politicians. They do not bring out the best in us. We rally to inspirational, hopeful ones. They bring out the best in us. And right now we need to be at our best.

This is a bad piece of political advice.  It pretends that one can decontextualize a politician's responses and hides behind the phrase "in the long run" in order to do so.  President Franklin Roosevelt sounded pretty angry when he spoke to the nation about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor--you remember, "a date which will live in infamy."  And then there was his cousin, Theodore.  He got pretty angry at those old monopolies in order to help pass some progressive anti-trust laws.   In general, can you imagine how the American people would react if an American president did not get angry at a perceived threat, domestic or foreign, to the well-being of the nation?

To say that Americans don't rally in the long run to angry politicians is one of those innocuous truisms that mean little in the real political world, for everything depends on what one means by "the long run."  (As Keynes said, "in the long run we'll all be dead.")  In the short run, and medium runs, the American people surely do rally to an angry president, as long as they can connect with the anger.  They also rally to presidents who know when to get angry and when to be inspirational.  (Presumably this would mean getting angry on and off, so it would sort of be in the long run.)  Oh, yes, and then there are those presidential moments that combine anger and inspiration.

Since the statement about anger is so obviously off the mark and hackneyed, one might be inclined to look for some other motivation for Friedman tossing it out.  Here's my guess.  Friedman is scared that if Obama goes too far in attacking the bankers a rift may develop between his administration and the wonderful world of capital.  And then America may find itself falling behind foreign nations in the new flat world of economic competition that we face.  According to Friedman, entrepreneurs, who at some point will require capital, are the movers and shakers in this world, and it will be a pretty scary place for those places and persons who aren't on board in terms of the new world order.

But back home, in the meantime, Obama only gets to use the bully pulpit with one hand tied behind his back while he is trying to back Wall Street down.  (Note Machiavelli here: it is better that the prince be loved and feared.)  Friedman wants Obama to re-regulate the banks.  In the real world of American politics just how is he supposed to accomplish this without some heavy duty support in Congress?  And given the special interests standing in the way of reforms, you can kiss them good-bye if the American people don't get sufficiently excited about the issue to get their representatives worried about reelection.

I have a piece of advice for Mr. Friedman and I hope that he won't mind.  It is in the spirit of his advice to the president:  Don't worry!  Obama won't forget about being loved over the long run.

]]> "Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace" tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/mitchell_a//2780.310081 2009-12-26T02:00:44Z 2009-12-26T05:38:15Z Mitchell Aboulafia http://upnight.com/ I went shopping for a Christmas card the other day.  I found only one card on the rack that mentioned Peace.  Not much of a sample, I know.  One display in one store.  But I remember, at least I think that I remember, a different sort of Christmas.   When I was younger there was more talk of peace.  More signs of peace.  More wishes for peace.  Peace and Christmas, they went together, even for Jewish kids like myself.

"Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace."   The words were Patrick Henry's.  They were a call to arms.  We are a country born in the arms of war.  I too was born in a time of war, the Korean War.   My adolescence was filled with images of another war, the Vietnam War.  I have lived through the Cold War, Grenada, Panama, a surrogate war in Nicaragua, Iraq I, Iraq II, the war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on cancer, on heart disease, on organized crime, on illegal immigrants.   Now Afghanistan.

"Wait," you say, "all of the wars that you have mentioned are not alike."  Some needed to be fought.  Some were barely wars.  Some were not even real wars.  But these distinctions matter little here.  Something has happened to us.  Too many years of real wars and counterfeit ones, of war language and war games, have reshaped us.  We are no longer a country that once fought a war to free ourselves from domination.  We are a country that must now struggle to free ourselves from the banality of war.

Every child born at the turn of the 21st century has no memory of a time without war, and with the continuation of the war in Afghanistan, our country's children will enter their teen years knowing only a nation at war.

Yes, Mr. President, agreed.   There are wars that we must fight.  Yet your elegant words in Oslo failed to address the toll that war has taken on the American people.  They failed to acknowledge the extent to which war has become "the new normal," as opposed to its travesty.  Evil can kill us and so can a poison that we ingest daily, in however small and camouflaged dosages.

UP@NIGHT

]]> Bronx on the Court, Empathy, and Obama's Pragmatism tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/mitchell_a//2780.272511 2009-05-29T01:55:00Z 2009-05-29T02:37:47Z In declaring his criteria for a Supreme Court nominee when Justice Souter announced his departure, Obama mentioned empathy and real world experience, in addition to a deep knowledge of the law.  At the time, right wing ideologues started screeching about... Mitchell Aboulafia http://upnight.com/ In declaring his criteria for a Supreme Court nominee when Justice Souter announced his departure, Obama mentioned empathy and real world experience, in addition to a deep knowledge of the law.  At the time, right wing ideologues started screeching about how the term "empathy" was merely a code word for a liberal activist judge. The fact that Obama has emphasized the importance of empathy in numerous contexts, not just with regard to the Court, was ignored. Since empathy must equal "activism," these ever so sharp right wing talking heads were prepared to shout in unison, "gotcha."

Sonia Sotomajor may be a left leaning centrist, but she is certainly no left wing radical. The reasons Obama gave for choosing her fall right in line with his version philosophical pragmatism, which is related to his insistence that empathy is a legitimate criterion for selecting a member of the Supreme Court.  Failure to understand that Obama is a philosophical pragmatist, as opposed to simply a political one, explains much of the confusion about his approach to selecting nominees and advisers.  When Obama talks about the importance of experience, when he talks about consequences (as opposed to abstract principles), when he talks about fallibilism, when he talks about consultation and cooperation, and when he talks about what works, he is using well known catch phrases of this tradition.  And he knows it.  Unfortunately, political commentators, left, right and center, don't.

Obama's commitment to philosophical pragmatism was highlighted this week when he invoked the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in announcing his selection of Sotomajor.  Obama and Holmes are on the same wave length in how they understand the role of law in society (and society in law).  And Holmes was deeply indebted to the pragmatist tradition and counted among his closest friends the leading pragmatists of his day. ( See, "Obama: Conservative, Liberal, or Ruthless Pragmatist?")  Holmes's most famous statement about the law is indicative of his pragmatism, and Obama cited it in order to help explain one of the most important decisions of his presidency.

So I don't take this decision lightly. I've made it only after deep reflection and careful deliberation. While there are many qualities that I admire in judges across the spectrum of judicial philosophy, and that I seek in my own nominee, there are few that stand out that I just want to mention.

First and foremost is a rigorous intellect -- a mastery of the law, an ability to hone in on the key issues and provide clear answers to complex legal questions. Second is a recognition of the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge's job is to interpret, not make, law; to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice; a respect for precedent and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.

These two qualities are essential, I believe, for anyone who would sit on our nation's highest court. And yet, these qualities alone are insufficient. We need something more. For as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." Experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers. It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live. And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court.  New York Times, May 26, 2009 (empahasis added)

"How ordinary people live," this too has been a great concern of pragmatists, which brings us back to empathy.  There is a misunderstanding about the term that stands behind many of the misguided attacks.   It has two major components, and they have been conflated in the MSM.  The first is the ability to, shall we say, stand in the shoes of the other guy.  Obama often speaks about empathy in this way.  George Herbert Mead, an important pragmatist of the early 20th Century, spoke about the importance of taking the perspective or role of the other.  To function as social beings we must be able to see the world through the eyes of others.  (Mead was close friends with John Dewey, perhaps the leading pragmatist of the 20th Century.  Dewey's granddaughter  was Obama's mother's graduate school adviser.)  Usually when we think of standing in the shoes of the other guy, we also think about being compassionate.  This is the second component of the term.  But these two aspects of empathy are not identical.  We sometimes find ourselves standing in the shoes of the other guy and still not feeling very compassionate about his or her actions.  But to understand this person, to make certain kinds of evaluations, which may even be negative (he's a cold-blooded killer, and that's what it feels like standing in his shoes), we must be able to take the perspective of this person.  Yes, doing so often leads to compassion, but it doesn't have to.

I am convinced that Obama is a sophisticated enough thinker to understand these basic features of empathy.  He is not confusing justice and mercy, as several conservative pundits have claimed, when he invokes empathy as a criterion.  He is not eliminating (judicious) judgment in favor of some sort of political correctness. (He specifically mentioned "impartial justice" in his remarks.)  Obama has a view of the law that respects its internal "logic," but understands that this so-called logic requires interpretive skills and a historical sensibility. It is not a transhistorical logic. In other words, there is no view from the mounatintop when dealing with human creations such as the law.  Justice requires a rich understanding of legal precedent, of legal argument, but also of people and of people's current circumstances, and for the latter, we must be able to stand in their shoes.  Justice is a balancing act.  It requires judgment, not simply deduction from set principles.  That's why we call those who interpret the law judges and not deducers.

For Obama, empathy and experience go hand in hand, because experience entails social interaction, and social interaction devoid of empathy is, well, inhuman, in both senses of the term (not human, not humane).  The kind of justice who will best serve us on the Supreme Court is one who understands that the life of the law is not logic but experience, which in turn entails empathy.
]]> "Obama's Pragmatism (or Move over Culture Wars, Hello Political Philosophy)" tag:www.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk/blogs/mitchell_a//2780.248660 2008-12-18T02:38:54Z 2009-10-05T01:33:22Z Mitchell Aboulafia http://upnight.com/
Comments regarding Obama's pragmatism constitute something of a cottage industry. These discussions usually involve contrasting Obama's pragmatism, for example, in choosing his cabinet, with the ideological approach of Bush and the neo-cons.  Here the term pragmatism is meant to denote political flexibility, comfort with the expedient, and a willingness to compromise.  For critics it is meant to suggest an unprincipled orientation toward questions of great moment. Given Obama's willingness to label himself a pragmatist, many have been mystified by his commitment to specific values, finding him not only unclassifiable in accepted political categories, but mystifying as a person.  For example, in a recent article in Harpers (Nov. 2008), "The American Void," Simon Critchley treats Obama as, well, a void.  He just can't figure the guy out.   In fact, as I have noted elsewhere (PBS site), there is nothing strange about Obama's political views for those who are familiar with the American philosophical tradition of Pragmatism or the Social Gospel Movement. Interestingly, Critchley makes much of Obama's mother being an anthropologist, but what he fails to mention is that Ann Dunham's thesis director was Alice G. Dewey, John Dewey's granddaughter. (John Dewey may be the most influential Pragmatist of the twentieth century). This is no accident. Obama's thought and practice can be located in the tradition of American Pragmatism (pragmatism with a capital P) and in the liberal Social Gospel Movement that was influential in Chicago during the early part of the 20th century. The latter is still influential in some Chicago churches and community groups, especially those that would have most engaged Obama's attention as a community organizer.

One of the few commentators who has begun to tease out the differences between Obama's pragmatisms is Chris Hayes. He writes in The Nation, "Pragmatism in common usage may mean simply a practical approach to problems and affairs. But it's also the name of the uniquely American school of philosophy whose doctrine is that truth is pre-eminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief. What unites the two senses of the word is a shared skepticism toward certainties derived from abstractions-one that is welcome and bracing after eight years of a failed, faith-based presidency. . . . And if there's a silver thread woven into the pragmatist mantle Obama claims, it has its origins in this school of thought. Obama could do worse than to look to John Dewey....For him, the crux of pragmatism, and indeed democracy, was a rejection of the knowability of foreordained truths in favor of 'variability, initiative, innovation, departure from routine, experimentation.' " The Nation, Dec 10, 2008

Hayes is moving in the right direction.  I would take his claims a step further.  There is no understanding of Obama without an understanding of Pragmatism. Take for instance the question of whether one can have principles and still be a pragmatist.  From the vantage point of philosophical Pragmatism, the question is non-starter.  The use of principles to address philosophical and political issues extends back to Plato and Aristotle, and migrates through Kant's ethics into the twentieth century.  But the Pragmatist wants to bypass this mode of thinking, one that requires us to believe that affirming values requires a principled affirmation of values.  Principles are in fact problematic and counterproductive.  Dewey, for example, railed against Kant during WWI, claiming that the rigidity of his ethics of principled imperatives was reflected in the dictatorial and undemocratic mindset of the German regime.  People who believe in democracy should be suspicious of permanent truths and principles.  As Hannah Arendt argues, debate is at the heart of political life, and Truth (with a capital "T") kills debate. (Obama's father was a man of principle to the point of stubbornness.  He had a failed career and a led a troubled life.  It is hard to read Dreams of My Father and not conclude that Obama came away from his "journey" with a lasting distaste for principles. His mother, on the other hand, was the epitome of a Deweyan in her love of experience, experimentation, novelty, change, and belief in the transformational power of education.)

In the "Epilogue" to Dreams of My Father, Obama reports a conversation that he and his sister, Auma, had with Dr. Rukia Odero, a professor of history.  A central question in the discussion: how should Africans adapt to the values that Westerners have brought to Africa?   That Obama chose to report the conversation is telling.  Rukia, I would argue, is meant to give voice to Obama's views.  She states, "I suspect that we can't pretend that the contradictions of our situation don't exist.  All we can do is choose."  And after discussing the complexities of the issue of female circumcision, she goes on to say, "You cannot have rule of law and then exempt certain members of your clan.  What to do?  Again you choose.  If you make the wrong choice, then you learn from your mistakes.  You see what works."  (Dreams from My Father, New York: Crown, 2004, p. 434)  "Seeing what works" is indeed the mantra of Pragmatism.  Yet as in existentialism, this doesn't mean that one doesn't feel the weight of moral and political decisions.  It means that one can't appeal to principles in advance to justify one's decisions or "what works."

But doesn't being a pragmatist, in both senses of the term, just make Obama a relativist?  No doubt for the ideologically committed, those who fear a leader without a moral compass, this would be a central concern.  But once again this is to frame the issue in the wrong fashion.  Relativism is a problem for moral absolutists.  Without a lasting commitment to absolutes, there isn't a problem of relativism.  Instead there is the problem of deciding what values to hold.  To frame the discussion in terms of absolutism versus relativism is already to accept the framework of the religious right, which is what the Republicans have been notoriously successful in doing for two generations.  However, the choice is not between absolutism and relativism.  It is between different values. Commitments to values arise from numerous sources, including thoughtful deliberation and prudential considerations.  And it is in the realm of "prudence" that one finds a symmetry between upper and lower case pragmatism.  For the Pragmatist prudential considerations do not always trump other values, but sometimes they do, because prudence or tactical maneuvering may be required to realize successfully a greater good.  As a matter of fact, a thoughtful political agent doesn't make dogmatic, read absolutistic, decisions in advance regarding what values and tactics may be the most vital and relevant.

The culture wars have depended on disagreements over specific values and the belief that principles are central to morality.  Or at least this is the way that the religious right has sought to frame the controversy, a perception that neo-cons have used to reinforce their political agendas.  When Obama speaks of being post-ideological, of being a pragmatist, I read him as trying to address logjams over values by avoiding divisive discourses based on principles.  How does one accomplish this?  Well, one way is to sound as if one is not ideological, for example, by showing flexibility on specific moral and political questions.  By so doing Obama is not simply maneuvering. He is not being disingenuous.  He is behaving as if he is a committed Pragmatist, and as such he is seeking to change the ground rules for political discourse.

Obama may very well succeed with a little help from his (several million) friends, and realities on the ground, namely, a serious financial crisis that suddenly has life-long, dogmatic free-marketers running for cover.  He may also succeed because he is attuned to something very basic about the American psyche.  It is no accident that Pragmatism is the most significant philosophy that America has produced.  There is something deeply American about it.  But is it Left, Right, or Center? Once again, this is to ask a misleading question.  Its tent is large enough to contain persons from across the American political spectrum, if one judges political commitments by specific values.  Yet in an American context Obama's Pragmatism presents a much greater challenge to the ideological Right than to the ideological Left.  How so?  If the conversation is shifted away from absolutes, the Right in America will lose the ground from which it has hurled its most potent missiles.  Some on the Right are beginning to recognize the threat that Obama poses.  Some still believe that they can bring back the days of the culture wars. The latter, however, are predicated on the "principled versus pragmatist" distinction, one that is becoming less consequential with each passing day.  So, I wish the dogmatic Right lots of luck. They will need it.  As for the non-dogmatic Right, if debate is crucial to a thriving democracy, I wish them well, and so does the Pragmatist Obama.

UP@NIGHT
]]> McCain's "A blog you can believe in" tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.200245 2008-06-16T05:24:24Z 2008-06-16T05:24:24Z Okay, maybe I am the last to find out.  But just in case I am not, do you know that there is something called the "McCain Report" on McCain's web site? And that the sub-title for the Report is, I... Mitchell Aboulafia http://upnight.com/ Below is currently (June 16, 1:00 AM EST) the first entry on the blog.  First, they don't get Obama's joke, that is, his play on the quotation from "The Untouchables," and second, they make a weak stab at humor.  I don't think that this is an organization that has much going for it.....We shall see.



Posted at 11:47 AM on 6/14/2008 by Michael Goldfarb

Obama Flip-Flop on Gun Control? Or New Politics? Or Both?


Barack Obama appeared at a fundraiser in Philadelphia last night where he delivered the following remark:


    “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."


A couple thoughts from McCain HQ on this. First, Barack Obama has a long track record as a proponent of stringent gun-control regulations--to the point that a questionnaire filled out by his staff, and with the candidate's handwriting on it, stated that Obama favored a ban on the manufacture, sale, and distribution of handguns. Can we assume that Senator Obama now opposes efforts to ban the possession of handguns?


Second, would Obama be carrying a concealed weapon to this fight? Will he have a permit?


And finally, we're having second thoughts about our proposed series of town halls.   [Italics added]



“A Dozen Reasons Why McCain Won’t Win: Money-Back Guarantee”

http://msa4.wordpress.com


And for fun for BSG fans, who know something about McCain:

"The Twelfth Cylon Revealed"

http://msa4.wordpress.com/



]]> The Popular Vote is out on DCW Site tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.197977 2008-06-01T16:30:35Z 2008-06-01T16:30:35Z Mitchell Aboulafia http://upnight.com/
(I have since written another piece detailing why I believe the Clintons have responded so poorly to the DNC's decision about Michigan.  Once again, it has to do with the bogus popular vote.  "Why is Clinton Really Objecting to the DNC's Decision"  http://msa4.wordpress.com/

See also, Al Giordano at The Field (June 1st) on this topic.
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1299

Mitchell Aboulafia said...

Please do your readers and the Democratic Party a favor. Get rid of or qualify the so-called "popular vote" on your site.

First, as Amicus insists above, and as so many of us have tried to argue over the last several months, you can't combine apples and oranges. "The national popular vote is a myth, or I should say, a mythical beast. It is a chimera. You cannot generate a national popular vote from contests that have included caucuses (which cannot produce nearly as many votes as primaries), contests that have permitted independents to vote, as well as states that have permitted Republican crossovers, etc."
[From "Why I Can't Stop Criticizing Hillary, yet (although I wish I could)http://msa4.wordpress.com/ ]

Second, the DNC sent a message today about the Michigan "primary." Its delegate compromise is meant to undermine Clinton's position on the popular vote in Michigan. Obama had the votes at the DNC for a 50/50 split of the delegates. He agreed to a compromise from the Michigan Democratic Party that gave Hillary a slim majority of the delegates, but also gave him more than he would have received from those who voted for "uncommitted." With this decision, the DNC is saying that there is no way that Hillary's numbers should be added to any "popular vote" total while leaving Obama out. Or, to be absolutely clear, it doesn't make any sense to try to manufacture popular vote totals from a state in which one candidate wasn't on the ballot.

Third, returning the first point, if you were to offer a popular vote total, you would need a mechanism to translate caucus state votes into something comparable to primary state votes. There is no agreed on formula.

Please let's stop the myth of the popular vote. It is only going to serve to undermine the legitimate winner of the Democratic race.

"The Popular Vote Myth (or why caucuses may be hazardous to your representation)" http://msa4.wordpress.com/page/2/

May 31, 2008 11:24 PM Yousri said...

Mitchell Aboulafia said...
Please do your readers and the Democratic Party a favor. Get rid of or qualify the so-called "popular vote" on your site.
_____________________
I agree with you.

Popular Vote is taken out for good!

May 31, 2008 11:43 PM
]]> The Latest Poll Results: Debunking Misconceptions Before the DNC Meets tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.197589 2008-05-29T20:25:40Z 2008-05-29T20:25:40Z At the risk of sounding hypocritical, since I did argue recently that we should not pay much attention to snapshot polls ("Snapshot Polls and the Popular Vote:Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" http://msa4.wordpress.com/ ), I post below the latest poll numbers... Mitchell Aboulafia http://upnight.com/ At the risk of sounding hypocritical, since I did argue recently that we should not pay much attention to snapshot polls ("Snapshot Polls and the Popular Vote:Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" http://msa4.wordpress.com/ ), I post below the latest poll numbers from RealClearPolitics.    

Why?  Because as we approach this Saturday's DNC meeting, the Clintons’ arguments have become increasingly implausible and even bizarre, depending on a mythical popular vote, and a claim that not only will she win the general election, but that she is (already) winning the general election, at least according to Bill. Of course one can’t be certain this far out about how things will play out in the general election.  And one certainly can’t use poll results as close as those found below to guarantee anything.  

All of this might matter little if some of Hillary's supporters weren’t being led to believe that the race is being stolen from her. A mythology that Hillary "was robbed," if it takes hold, will be very bad for the Party, and for the Party's chances in November.


From RealClearPolitics  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/...

Democratic Nomination Race.......Obama vs. Clinton
RCP Average 05/08 - 05/28 -- 51.0 40.5 Obama +10.5

Gallup Tracking 05/25 - 05/28 1279 V 52 42 Obama +10.0
Rasmussen Tr. 05/25 - 05/28 900 LV 47 44 Obama +3.0
Newsweek 05/21 - 05/22 608 RV 50 42 Obama +8.0
Reuters/Zogby 05/15 - 05/18 516 LV 59 33 Obama +26.0
Quinnipiac 05/08 - 05/12 864 RV 45 41 Obama +4.0
ABC News/Wash Post05/08 - 05/11  620 A 53 41 Obama +12.0

General Election.................Clinton vs. McCain
RCP Average 05/11 - 05/28 -- 45.7 45.0 Clinton +0.7

Gallup Tracking 05/23 - 05/28 4365 RV 47 45 Clinton +2.0 Rasmussen Tr. 05/25 - 05/28 1600 LV 46 46 Tie
Newsweek 05/21 - 05/22 1205 RV 48 44 Clinton +4.0
Reuters/Zogby 05/15 - 05/18 1076 LV 43 43 Tie
IBD/TIPP 05/12 - 05/18 953 A 44 39 Clinton +5.0
Dem. Corps (D)05/13 -05/ 151014 LV 49 47 Clinton +2.0
Battleground 05/11 - 05/14 1018 LV 43 51 McCain +8.0

General Election.................Obama vs. McCain
RCP Average 05/11 - 05/28 -- 46.7 44.0 Obama +2.7

Gallup Tr. 05/23 - 05/28 4365 RV 46 45 Obama +1.0
Rasmussen Tr. 05/25 - 05/28 1600 LV 42 47 McCain +5.0 Newsweek 05/21 - 05/22 1205 RV 46 46 Tie
Reuters/Zogby 05/15 - 05/18 1076 LV 48 40 Obama +8.0
IBD/TIPP 05/12 - 05/18 953 A     48      37  Obama +11.0 Dem Corps (D) 05/13-05/15 1014 LV 48 46 Obama +2.0
Battleground 05/11 - 05/14 1018 LV 49 47 Obama +2.0

And for what it’s worth, I throw in for good measure the latest results from Intrade.  The traders currently think that Obama will beat McCain. http://www.intrade.com/...

Presidential Election Winner
In the following order   Bid,   Ask,   Last,   Vol,  Chg

Barack Obama           56.6; 57.5; 59.8; 161015; +2.3

John McCain          37.4;   37.5;  37.5; 205793; -0.2

Hillary Clinton M          5.7;  6.4;  5.7; 299434; -0.2




]]> Iraq: It Was Never the Right Choice (and we told you so) tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.197426 2008-05-29T02:45:39Z 2008-05-29T02:45:39Z McCain and Co. will tell you that the problem with the war in Iraq has been in its execution. The war was not the problem, just bad management. Yet, contra McCain, others insist that had we known then, what we... Mitchell Aboulafia http://upnight.com/ At the time I wrote many drafts of op-ed pieces that I never bothered to polish or edit for publication. Quite frankly, I thought that they would do little, and just gave up on them. A correct assessment at the time. However, I now offer one from October 1st, 2002, exactly as it was written. Why? Because as many of us as possible now need to say, in as many ways as possible, "we told you so." And that in this election, we are going use our own good judgment, and elect leaders who will end a war that should never have begun.

A word about the context for the piece: I was suspicious at the time about whether WMD's existed. I certainly didn't think that Iraq had nuclear weapons. But I wanted to see if I could frame (in relatively few words) obvious problems with a war scenario, even assuming the existence of WMD's. The conceit of the piece was that by appealing to the self-interest of Republicans, we might be able to stop the war. (I hear you laughing and snickering). But as I note at the end, there were reasons to believe that it wouldn't work, then or now.

"Daddy, what's a Republican?"
October 1, 2002

We are all familiar with the Nasdaq Bubble of the 1990s, from which we learned how momentum has its own, well, momentum, until it all comes to a grinding halt. Yet the White House appears not to have learned this lesson. As the administration joyfully trades in patriotic slogans, and relishes the short term political gain that carrying the flag yields, another sort of bubble has arisen, a War Bubble. And just like those poor Wall Street traders who believed their own stories about the value of their shares, politicians caught within this new bubble do not realize that they are overvaluing a stock, Bush's stock with the American people. These politicians are called Republicans, and they are on the verge of making one of the greatest miscalculations in American political history.

Generals, as the story goes, are often caught fighting the last war. In this case we have politicians who are managing not only to fight the last war, but who are confusing the seemingly uncomplicated aftermath of that war with the war to come. Mr. Bush and company believe that we can take out Iraq without much difficulty, just like the last time. They tell us that American casualties will be low, and shortly after the invasion a new day will dawn for Iraq. And when this day dawns the President will be the man of the hour. He will be the leader who finally got the job done. He will have finished off the worst tyrant since Hitler. His poll numbers will rise into the stratosphere and, unlike his dad's, remain there for the next presidential election. And his coattails will be long indeed. But this outcome is a fantasy. Here is the reality, or at least something that more nearly approximates it.

Just as Bush's team says, our military will make short work of Saddam's forces. Within a week or two we will have secured most of the important military objectives, although not before Saddam has gassed and killed many of those who have opposed him (for example, the Kurds), turned weapons of mass destruction over to terrorist groups that will use them at their leisure, and blown up a number of oil fields. Our early military successes, however, will not end the war. Even after Hussein is killed or has fled, some Iraqi patriots will resist, and they will do so in major urban areas. There will be difficult urban warfare. Our soldiers will die and we will be tempted to level areas in some of Iraq's major cities in order to get the job done. Civilians will die. Children will die. The puppet government that we install will be resented by large number of Iraqis and by Muslims throughout the world. There will be no shortage of volunteers for terrorist organizations, and for the foreseeable future they will have little need to recruit. The land that we now know as Iraq will be unstable for years to come. We will either have to remain in force or watch the region disintegrate. The whole business will clearly be expensive in both material and human terms.

President Bush and his team have sold and will continue to sell the war on Iraq by playing on the vulnerabilities that Americans have felt since that horrific day in September. The rhetoric has been carefully constructed to conflate and confuse. Fear has done its job. Fear is leading to war fever and to war. But some day soon Hussein will be gone. What then happens when the terrorists strike America and this strike turns out to be worse than the last one? Or maybe there won't be a big strike, only a series of smaller strikes reminding us with each death and injury just how vulnerable we are. (Perhaps we will even discover that the weapons being used against us were made available to terrorists after we attacked Iraq.) We are being promised a safer America after this war, but it will not feel safer. And even if Americans are currently saying that they do not believe that getting rid of Saddam will end terrorism, in their heart of hearts they are expecting that the effort will lead to a big pay off in terms of safety. This is, after all, how the war is being sold. They will be disappointed.

But not only will America not feel like a safer place after the war, it will feel like a much poorer one. Everyone knows that our economy has been on the skids. The collective wisdom appears to be that we cannot expect the Stock Market to rise significantly anytime in the near future. To this fragile economy a war in Iraq will add a nice piece of change, starting at around forty or fifty billion, to our budget deficit. And don't expect much help from overseas in paying the tab. The arms that Mr. Bush twists to obtain support for his war will not extend themselves to dole out cold cash. It also appears that Afghanistan may end up costing more than we now expect, as will the campaign against terrorism. Yet in spite of their expense, all of these wars will not stimulate the economy in the manner of World War II. They simply aren't big enough. But they certainly will be big enough to place an additional drag on the economy. For example, a war with Iraq will cause risk premiums to rise, which may push up interest rates. To take a specific industry, the increase in oil prices, along with a decline in air travel, might help to bury a number of already shaky airlines. (For a discussion of the war's impact on the economy see, "Stiglitz: War Won't Boost U.S. Economy," a September 25, 2002 filing by Reuters in the New York Times. Joe Stiglitz is a Nobel-winning economist.) Further, we cannot depend on the consumer to bail the economy out, because consumer confidence will not readily recover in the age of Al Qaeda, higher oil prices, and continuing unrest in the Mid-East and around the world. It's reasonable to presume that the economy will stagnate if not weaken for the foreseeable future. Add to this our continuing sense of vulnerability in spite of winning a war with Iraq, and there is little doubt that Bush will be looking mighty ineffective, inept, and weak before the next presidential election. There will be no coattails in 2004. There probably won't even be a coat.

No series of arguments against the impending attack on Iraq has worked with the administration. Fear and dogmatism hold sway. So here is my extravagant hope. Bald self-interest will move the Republicans, because they will realize that if they don't get off the hobbyhorse of war, they will lose and lose big in elections to come. But I'm certainly not counting on it. Bubbles are mighty powerful. Just look at your 401K.

For photos and further commentary, http://msa4.wordpress.com/


]]> Why I Can't Stop Criticizing Hillary,yet (although I wish I could) tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.197061 2008-05-26T21:35:19Z 2008-05-26T21:35:19Z Trying to do my small part to help begin to unify the Democratic Party, I had promised myself that I would halt criticism of Clinton in print and on the Web. There is, after all, so much to be said... Mitchell Aboulafia http://upnight.com/ First, I have grown increasingly concerned that Senator Clinton’s continual references to the so-called popular vote may end up damaging Senator Obama’s candidacy. It has the potential to do so by delegitimizing his victory, that is, by making it appear that he didn’t win the nomination cleanly because more people voted for Hillary. Certainly Clinton is entitled to remain in the race through all of the caucuses and primaries, and if she must, until the convention. However, even though it is clear that Obama’s (increasing) delegate lead will give him the nomination, the Clintons have continued to appeal to the notion that she is entitled to it because she has won more votes. It’s of course not evident that she has won more votes, except according to the most contrived mathematical formulas (e.g., leaving Obama without any votes in Michigan). But on a more basic level, the national popular vote is a myth, or I should say, a mythical beast. It is a chimera. You cannot generate a national popular vote from contests that have included caucuses (which cannot produce nearly as many votes as primaries), contests that have permitted independents to vote, as well as states that have permitted Republican crossovers, etc. It isn’t necessary for the Clintons to make the popular vote argument to see the election through to the end, which is one of Hillary’s proclaimed reasons for staying in the race. The argument is shortsighted if you care about a Democratic victory in November. One can only speculate as to why the Clintons have chosen this course, but it isn’t for the good of the Party.

The second reason can be called the anti-mensch factor. Instead of stepping up to the plate and taking responsibility for her comments regarding RFK’s assassination, Hillary has come up with two lame strategies and one despicable one for explaining them away. The lame strategies involve trying to justify her comments by saying that 1) Teddy Kennedy had been on her mind, and 2) all she had meant to do was suggest a time line for long campaigns. I won’t comment on the first, except to say that her comments were a strange way to reveal caring and concern. Regarding the second, the time line argument simply doesn’t hold up. There is absolutely no reason why Bobby Kennedy’s assassination needed to be invoked as a marker. There are many other ways to talk about extended nominating contests. And if for some reason she had wanted to mention Bobby, all she had to do was say that he won the California primary in June. (This is not to say that she wasn’t thinking about a time line. The issue is about the role of the marker, RFK’s assassination, that she chose to use.)

But now I come to the despicable reason. Zachary A. Goldfarb reported on May 25th, in The Washington Post, the following. “Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign accused Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign of fanning a controversy over her describing the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy late in the 1968 Democratic primary as one reason she is continuing to run for the presidency. ‘The Obama campaign … tried to take these words out of context,’ Clinton campaign chairman Terence R. McAuliffe said on ‘Fox News Sunday.’ ‘She was making a point merely about the time line.’” [emphasis added] http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-talk/2008/05/clinton_camp_stokes_rfk_flap_b.html?nav=rss_email/components

As noted, the time line argument doesn’t work. And it is virtually inconceivable that some very bright Clinton people do not understand the flaw in their own argument. It’s just too obvious. So it is disingenuous for Clinton to claim that Obama took her words out of context if her own claim about ‘the context’ is justifiably suspect. Further, the reaction to Hillary’s words were viral. They were all over the web within hours if not minutes. In addition, you had papers like The Daily News and The New York Post running banner headlines about Hillary’s “killer gaffe.” McAuliffe’s words were meant to suggest that the Obama people were somehow responsible for the “attacks” on Hillary. It is inconceivable that the Obama organization, even if it had wanted to fan the flames, could have been so successful. There was genuine outrage. I can tell you as someone who lived through the assassinations of the sixties, the outrage was totally comprehensible. It didn’t need any “fanning” from the Obama organization.

But there is more.

According to Goldfarb, “Asked if Clinton has personally called Obama to apologize for the reference, McAuliffe said she has not, ‘nor should she.’ He added, ‘Let’s be clear. This had nothing to with Senator Obama or his campaign.’”

Obama, the first African-American candidate with a real chance of winning the White House, has had to receive secret service protection since last May, long before the other candidates (excepting Hillary as the spouse of a former President). This protection is necessary due to a very real concern, namely, that someone might try to shoot and kill him. As a black American he is uniquely vulnerable. And the Clinton campaign can’t see a reason for a phone call. Why? Because of how they read the politics: if we apologize, then we admit that she may have done or said something wrong. Political calculation trumps basic decency. (The irony, of course, is that they have the politics wrong. How they are handling this will cost them support, especially among Boomers who lived through the sixties.)

As a final note, I watched HBO’s new movie, “Recount,” this evening. I have heard that Hillary has already noted that the movie supports her claims about Florida and Michigan. Nonsense on stilts. The situations are totally different, and a slogan such as, “count all the votes,” had a totally different meaning in Florida in 2000 than it does in Michigan and Florida in 2008. But right now I am just hoping that I don’t feel compelled to write something more about Hillary Clinton.

For additional commentary on the campaign  http://msa4.wordpress.com/
]]> It’s Over: Clinton Won’t be the Democratic Presidential or VP Candidate (and Boomers will make sure) tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.196868 2008-05-25T03:32:35Z 2008-05-25T03:32:35Z Hillary’s most consistent supporters have been folks over 50, especially women over 50. With her statement about assassination, and her bizarre "apologetic" explanation (namely, I was thinking about Teddy and so I mentioned Bobby’s assassination), she just lost a substantial... Mitchell Aboulafia http://upnight.com/
Most of you reading this commentary will have heard what Hillary Clinton said yesterday afternoon, May 23rd, to the editorial board of South Dakota’s Sioux Falls Argus-Leader, in response to a question about staying in the race.

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?" she said. "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California." The New York Times, May 24, 2008, Katharine Q Seelye reporting. http://www.nytimes.com/...

And you may have heard Clinton’s "apology," also reported by Seelye in the Times.

" ‘The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy,’ referring to the recent diagnosis of Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s brain tumor. She added, ‘And I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive.’ "

Members of the Democratic Party who experienced the trauma of the assassinations of John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King will understand that Clinton crossed a line yesterday. Many will agree with Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, an uncommitted superdelegate. Seelye reports that Clyburn "said through a spokeswoman that the comments were ‘beyond the pale.’ " For those who remember Bobby lying in a pool of blood the night that he won the June California primary, little explanation is needed as to why prominent figures shouldn’t mention the assassinations of presidential candidates.

To say that Hillary was simply using RFK’s assassination as a time marker doesn’t cut it. There are simply too many other ways that Hillary could have talked about extended nominating contests. For example, she could have simply said, RFK won the California primary in June. "Oh, but Hillary would never wish the death of another candidate," a supporter might reply. But it is not a question of her wishes, whether benighted or angelic. I leave it to the psychologists to analyze her motives. What I do know is that someone who lived through the sixties as an adolescent or adult should understand the dangers of invoking the assassination of a presidential candidate during a campaign, especially one in which the front-runner is an African-American. And Clinton not only invoked an assassination, she invoked the assassination of the brother of a Senator who has just been diagnosed with terminal cancer. How disturbing is this? Just ask yourself, could you have imagined this story before it happened?

Please don’t tell me that her words can be explained away entirely by 'Hillary fatigue.' First, because she was quite lucid when she was speaking, and, second, because she has raised the issue of assassination before, without using the term.

"NBC/NJ’s Mike Memoli notes that Clinton said something similar the day after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. ‘Sometimes you gotta calm people down a little bit. But if you look at successful presidential campaigns, my husband did not get the nomination until June of 1992,’ she said. ‘I remember tragically when Senator Kennedy won California near the end of that process.’ " http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/...

Perhaps most tellingly, her "apology" showed little understanding of the seriousness of her "gaffe." Yes, she should have apologized to the Kennedys, but she should also have taken responsibility for her remarks and made a sincere apology to the American people. She is going to lose support among influential boomers, support that she can’t afford to lose at this point.

This is the end of Hillary’s quest. Her judgment can no longer be trusted. Democrats will not take a chance on running her for president or VP. It is just awful that it had to end like this.

(As a side note, Hillary has been misleading audiences when she has claimed that Bill’s race ran into June. Technically it did because California hadn’t voted. But he had the nomination sewed up before California’s primary in June. The situation is not analogous to the current race.)

The above was cross-posted on My DD and the Daily Kos, as well as on my blog. 

[When I wrote a blog last week about Teddy Kennedy and the assassination of JFK, "The President, The Senator, and the Candidate." http://msa4.wordpress.com/  of course I had no idea that Clinton would make such a thoughtless statement.  But I believe that this blog reinforces my claim that the trauma of these assassinations is very real for a certain age cohort. And it helps to show that this is not a matter of scoring points against Clinton.  It is heartfelt. I have seen too many knee-jerk defenses of Hillary on the Web. This one requires us to step back.]


]]> Let's Stop the Polling Foolishness and Special Pleading tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.196559 2008-05-22T21:40:37Z 2008-05-22T21:40:37Z Mitchell Aboulafia http://upnight.com/
Here are many of the latest poll results as compiled by RealClear Politics.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/latestpolls/index.html

It should be noted,

  1. It's notoriously difficult this far out from November to make predictions based on current polls.  
  2. Knowing #1, how could anyone look at these polls and use them to determine who should win the Democratic Contest?

The fact is that Obama has played by the rules and is winning in the delegate count.  In addition, the national popular vote is a myth. It is a bogus metric.  And the media has done the country a disservice by not explaining this adequately.

See, "The Myth of the Popular Vote (or why caucuses may be hazardous to your representation)" and "A New Game: The Metrics Game"  http://msa4.wordpress.com/

Democratic Presidential Nomination    Gallup Tracking    Obama 53, Clinton 42    Obama +11.0
California: McCain vs. Clinton    Rasmussen    McCain 35, Clinton 54    Clinton +19.0
California: McCain vs. Obama    Rasmussen    McCain 38, Obama 52    Obama +14.0
Democratic Presidential Nomination    Rasmussen Tracking    Obama 50, Clinton 42    Obama +8.0
Virginia: McCain vs. Obama    SurveyUSA    McCain 42, Obama 49    Obama +7.0
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton    Quinnipiac    McCain 37, Clinton 50    Clinton +13.0
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama    Quinnipiac    McCain 40, Obama 46    Obama +6.0
Ohio: McCain vs. Clinton    Quinnipiac    McCain 41, Clinton 48    Clinton +7.0
Ohio: McCain vs. Obama    Quinnipiac    McCain 44, Obama 40    McCain +4.0
Florida: McCain vs. Clinton    Quinnipiac    McCain 41, Clinton 48    Clinton +7.0
Florida: McCain vs. Obama    Quinnipiac    McCain 45, Obama 41    McCain +4.0
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton    IBD/TIPP    Clinton 44, McCain 39    Clinton +5.0
General Election: McCain vs. Obama    IBD/TIPP    Obama 48, McCain 37    Obama +11.0
California: McCain vs. Clinton    PPIC    McCain 39, Clinton 51    Clinton +12.0
California: McCain vs. Obama    PPIC    McCain 37, Obama 54    Obama +17.0
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton    Battleground    Clinton 43, McCain 51    McCain +8.0
General Election: McCain vs. Obama    Battleground    Obama 49, McCain 47    Obama +2.0

Crossposted



]]> The President, the Senator, and the Candidate tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.196283 2008-05-21T18:29:45Z 2008-05-21T18:29:45Z Today, as the severity of Senator Kennedy’s condition became more apparent, I found myself, once again, back in seventh grade. I am in a large hall, waiting in line. I am not sure what the line is for, and for... Mitchell Aboulafia http://upnight.com/ At 12 years old, I couldn’t fathom what I was hearing. I was struck dumb. I simply couldn’t respond. I just stared at her and turned away. Now, of course, I know that it was not her wish, but her parents’ or some relative’s wish. But over the years this fact has only intensified the shock. Everyone says that they remember where they were when they heard that Kennedy was shot. I remember. But I also recall a young girl who believed that she wanted to see him dead.

Before I became fully aware of the deep divisions in the country over civil rights, Vietnam, or “values,” I knew that if this young president could create such hostility, something was terribly wrong. And so it was. I suppose that this was my introduction to the 1960’s. Every now and again this scene reappears. Sometimes it arises for no apparent reason. Sometimes it arises at appropriate moments, like today, when we have learned that Senator Kennedy is gravely ill.

I have disagreed with the Kennedys. But I remember supporting Bobby. And of course I remember him being shot. I also remember Teddy trying so very hard, over four long decades, to do the right thing (as he saw it) for the underprivileged and marginalized. I recently cheered as The Lion of the Senate passed the torch to Obama. He was aging. Now that he had found someone he trusted to carry on the Kennedy legacy, there was an arc from 1963 to 2008, an arc that the last eight years of Bush, Rove, Cheney, et al, seemed to have made impossible. But as I have watched the returns from certain states, such as Kentucky this evening, I return to that space in 1963, and I am afraid. I fear that as a nation we will fail to do the right thing because we are still too afraid of those who are “not like us.”

At  http://msa4.wordpress.com/
and crossposted
]]> A Dozen Reasons that Obama will win the Presidency, for Obama and Clinton supporters tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.196097 2008-05-20T21:36:28Z 2008-05-20T21:36:28Z On this day, May 20th, in which Obama will win a majority of pledged elected delegates, I would like to offer a dozen reasons, a baker's dozen, for why Barack Obama will be the next president. I know that... Mitchell Aboulafia http://upnight.com/ 1. The Change Factor: Yes, you have heard it before, but it is for real. People are hungry for it, especially after the worst presidency in living memory. A key point here is that Obama has been on message about change from DAY ONE. He is the Change candidate.

2. The Organization Factor: Obama has built a remarkable organization. Nothing quite like it has been seen before in its capacity to raise money, generate enthusiasm, and get out the vote. For more on the uniqueness of Obama's organization, see Joshua Green's piece, "The Amazing Money Machine" http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806/ob ama-finance and Marc Ambinder's "His Space" in The Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806/am binder-obama

3.The Charisma Factor: Hard to explain. Hard to quantify. But you know it when you see it. (Obama's recent Portland crowd, 75,000 in a primary election, was no accident.)

4. The Republican Factor: They are in disarray and have money problems. This will have an impact on the Presidential race. How much? Good question. But no doubt it will have some.

5. The Money Factor: A corollary to the Organization Factor. Obama will have lots of it and will be able to raise more and more of it. To those who say that money can't buy love or office, agreed, at least in terms of the former. But money can certainly help win office. It is especially helpful if you have a good candidate, a good brand as they say, to sell. Obama is such a brand.

6. The Even Keel Factor: In this case, the young man, Obama, seems to have a more even temperament than the older candidate. This undermines a potential advantage for McCain and also defies expectations, namely, that age should bring a more even temper. (McCain's anger problem is for real.) Americans believe that we need a steady hand on the rudder in these difficult times.

7. The Intellectual and Expert Factor: There are those who have claimed that Obama is an elitist, a pointy head, etc., and that too many in his campaign fit this bill. But the bottom line is that candidates who can comfortably make use of experts and genuine intellectuals-not faux intellectuals, for example, the neo-conservative ideologues-are in stronger position than those who cannot. Knowledge may not be power, but it sure can help keep power from making foolish mistakes, like Iraq. It can also help win elections. (It was the "nerds," after all, who really understood how the delegate process worked in the Democratic race. And guess who had them on staff and who listened to them.)

8. The African-American Vote. Obama will draw the greatest number of African-American voters in American history. It will make a difference. As Poblano's analysis shows, just a 10% to 20% increase can make a significant difference in who wins in the fall. (Poblano suggests 13 electoral votes for each 10%.) See Josh Kalven's "Obama Over the Top: How New Voters Could Redraw the Electoral Map" http://progressillinois.com/2008/05/11/f eatures/obama-over-the-top

9. The Youth Vote and Support: Typically the youth vote is viewed as an unreliable voting block. But Obama has shown that he can increase the youth vote. In addition, youth represents `boots on the ground.' They do much of the door to door and office work that campaigns require. On how the youth vote could assist Obama, once again, see Josh Kalven's "Obama Over the Top: How New Voters Could Redraw the Electoral Map" http://progressillinois.com/2008/05/11/f eatures/obama-over-the-top

10. A Motivated Democratic Party: Yes, there is the issue of whether most of Hillary's supporters will come around. And there are unknowns in terms of whether Obama will be able to bring more working class folks into his corner. But the Democrats are hungry and they have resources. There will be some synergy between Presidential, Congressional, and local races.

11. The Oratory Factor. We know what the man can do. He is pretty much in a class by himself. Speeches matter. Words delivered well matter. McCain, on the other hand, is not a strong public speaker. (The "My friends" thing just isn't going to cut it.) In addition, Obama will best him in the debates.

12. The Bush factor: Obama is the anti-Bush. He listens to those outside an inner circle. He is anti-Iraq war, exceptionally intelligent, reasonably hip, etc. McCain, on the other hand, appears to be running for Bush's third term. The McBush notion will stick with a significant number of voters.

13. Michelle Obama: Michelle has made some gaffes. Some view her as coming on too strong. But her story will get out: poor kid from the South Side of Chicago, who through her own hard work and intelligence made it to Princeton and Harvard. She is now the mother of two young daughters, juggling family and career. Women, many of Hillary's supporters, will relate. Further, Michelle is a powerful speaker. The Republicans would be foolish to underestimate her.

For a baker's dozen of reasons for why McCain will NOT win, I shamelessly offer you a link to my blog  http://msa4.wordpress.com/


]]> It's Going to be Webb for VP(or someone else): Caveat Emptor: This Post is meant to be lighthearted tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.195704 2008-05-18T19:20:38Z 2008-05-18T19:20:38Z Mitchell Aboulafia http://upnight.com/ See, "It's Going to be Webb for VP, Probably"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/


]]> “A Dozen Reasons Why McCain Won’t Win: Money-Back Guarantee” tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2008:/talk//17.195367 2008-05-16T03:28:30Z 2008-05-16T03:28:30Z Here are a dozen, guaranteed, money back reasons why John McCain won’t be the next president. (I can only offer a limited-time, money-back guarantee, since unfortunately I can’t control world events.) 1. The McBush factor. McCain’s support of the Iraq... Mitchell Aboulafia http://upnight.com/ 1. The McBush factor. McCain’s support of the Iraq War will make it impossible for him to break from Bush, the most unpopular president in living memory. The photo of McCain hugging and being kissed by Bush will become increasingly embedded in the collective consciousness of the American people as the months roll on.

2. The Republican factor. Yes, McCain is a Republican. He will not be able to deny this fact. Currently, this is not the best party to have behind you in a push to the White House. Witness the recent loss of three traditionally Republican congressional seats and the declining number of Americans willing to identify themselves as Republicans. And then there are the comments of Congressman Tom Davis. “The political atmosphere facing House Republicans this November is the worst since Watergate and is far more toxic than it was in 2006” (NY Times, May 15th, 2008).

3. The Last War Syndrome. McCain and the operatives running his campaign are like generals fighting the last war. They are still convinced that negative advertising will be as successful against Obama as it was against Kerry. However, “The Times They are A-Changin.” And this leads to the next factor.

4. The Change Factor: Hillary tried experience, but this race is about change and the future. McCain appears to be operating a time machine that has only a reverse gear.

5. The Money Factor: Obama can raise a lot more, and a lot more quickly…..enough said.

6. The Age Factor: McCain’s age will hurt him. (I am not claiming that this is fair, but seems to be a fact. Older voters are especially concerned about McCain’s age.)

7. The Not So Straight-talk Factor: McCain has built his reputation on being a man of principle. This has two features: he believes in something and he sticks with what he believes in. McCain has recently begun to backpedal on principles and commitments. He is vulnerable to being viewed as a flip-flopper, if not dishonest, which will undermine his hitherto greatest strength.

8. The Organizational Factor: The evidence thus far suggests that Obama has a far better campaign organization. There will be a volunteer gap, that is, Obama will have a lot more of them and they will be more enthusiastic than McCain’s campaign workers.

9. The Skeleton Factor: The Keating Five and lobbyists, need I say more.

10. The Anger Problem: It’s real.

11. The Crass and Crude Comment Problem: A corollary to the anger problem. He has made outrageous, crude, sometimes vile remarks, and most Americans don’t know about them, yet. For examples, see http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/8/17456/91972/887/492360

12. And last, but not least, The Lack of Background in Economics Factor. McCain has acknowledged that he needs to read up on economics. Not great for building confidence in a candidate in the midst of a recession.

Okay, that’s twelve. But let’s make it a baker’s dozen.

13. The “My Friends” Factor. I don’t believe that Americans will be prepared to live with four or eight years of being addressed by John McCain as, “My Friends,” especially when it is followed by that rather strange little grin.

http://msa4.wordpress.com/




]]>