- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
- Jan 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Feb 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–29
- Mar 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Apr 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–30
- May 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Jun 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–30
- Jul 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Aug 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30 31
- Sep 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–30
- Oct 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Nov 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- Dec 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Re: Hillary: The End
Posted by on 6.7.08 @ 8:45PM
I'm having trouble getting a video to load, but you could hear the boos when she mentioned Obama. Also, take note that at no point in her speech did she say she was releasing her delegates from their pledges on the first ballot. She may eventually do that, but she hasn't done it yet.
Hillary: The End
Posted by on 6.7.08 @ 2:13PM
Hillary Clinton's concession speech had all the elements of the Clinton speechmaking tradition: She showed up late, the speech was long, the historic struggles of the poor and the oppressed were made to relate to the Clintons' personal ambitions. Nevertheless, it was the speech many people were expecting Tuesday night. It was reasonably well delivered and, for Hillary, gracious in parts. Although the litany of good things that would happen if we elected another Democratic president -- "Elect Barack Obama!" -- sounded hectoring by the end, it was a strong endorsement of Obama that I think might help some of the Hillary dead-enders come to terms with her defeat.
Obama's nomination and Clinton's near-nomination are indeed historically significant and likely to inspire millions of blacks and women across America. Yet Clinton sometimes unwittingly played up the African American/woman alternative in a way that showed how much the Democratic Party has become a squabblng set of identity-politics interest groups. Reinstating the Clinton dynasty is Good for Women.
The crowd looked less Republican than the one watching her New York speech Tuesday: younger, more racially diverse, heavily female. Clinton alternated between celebrating her best shot at the presidential "glass ceiling" and trying to persuade these women that the causes they believed in would best be advanced by electing Obama. Aside from maybe some pitches on health care, there was relatively little that seemed aimed at the socially conservative white working-class voters who kept Clinton's candidacy alive in the final round of primaries. Perhaps she will revert back to her roots as a McGovern Democrat after briefly playing a Hubert Humphrey Democrat.
While Hillary said of looking backward "don't go there," the Clintonites have to have some regrets given how close they came to another "Comeback Kid" story. If they had taken Obama seriously earlier, if they had organized in the caucus states, if they hadn't allowed Obama to build an almost insurmountable delegate lead in February, if Florida hadn't moved up its primary date -- any of those "ifs" could have meant a victory speech rather than a concession. As liberal as Obama is, the Clintons' setback is something conservatives should enjoy. But based on the tone of Hillary's speech and Bill's enthusiasm working the crowd afterward, I would bet that we haven't heard the last of the Clintons.
UPDATE: And Obama hasn't heard the end of Hillary Clinton's jibes being used against him. Check out this new RNC website Clinton vs. Obama, noted by Stacy below.
Hating Hope For Fun and Profit
Posted by on 6.7.08 @ 10:15AM
Capitalism cashes in with anti-Obama T-shirt logos from StopHope.com.
GOP ready to define Obama
Posted by on 6.7.08 @ 9:44AM
As Barack Obama finishes his long twilight struggle against Hillary Clinton, he finds the vaunted Republican "attack machine" waiting to chew him into pulp. The RNC rolls out MeetBarackObama.com, including such categories as "Democrats vs Obama," with videos like this:
The Hill reports:
When Obama woke up as the presumptive nominee Wednesday, his opponents on both the national and state level lowered the boom. . . .This very much has echoes of 1972, when George McGovern emerged victorious from the Democratic primaries with the "Acid, Amnesty and Abortion" placard hanging around his neck -- because his Democratic rivals had put it there.
The RNC was stocked with video footage of Obama's Democratic rivals -- especially Clinton -- questioning his readiness to be commander in chief. . . .
"Once he wheezed across the finish line, we were ready to help educate voters about Obama's plans to raise taxes, cut troop funding, and negotiate with hostile leaders," Amber Wilkerson, an RNC spokeswoman, said. "Thankfully, we only had to look to comments from Democrat leaders -- including Hillary Clinton and John Edwards -- to pose some important questions about Obama's poor judgment and weak experience."
The Personal IS Political
Posted by on 6.7.08 @ 1:50AM
Echoes of "Crone Wars" from Michelle Goldberg at The New Republic:
[Feminists] watched professional media types sing smitten fanboy hymns to Obama and, at the same time, spend hours dissecting Clinton's laugh and cleavage. The prospect of electing a black man clearly thrilled commentators, while the prospect of electing a woman elicited a derisive shrug. For some women, reaction to the coverage was radicalizing.Whether or not this feeling of personal rejection will turn into a significant anti-Obama resistance among otherwise Democrat-leaning women is the lingering question. But there is surely no question about the "smitten fanboy hymns" for Obama from the media.
What's more, seeing Clinton losing to a younger, more charismatic man seemed to echo a primal experience of middle-aged female humiliation.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Running Against McCain, Almost Honestly
Posted by on 6.6.08 @ 6:16PM
If Barack Obama is looking for suggestions on how to run against John McCain, he could do worse than those offered by TNR's Jonathan Chait. But Chait frequently overstates his case.
Take Chait's second item: "Emphasize [Obama's] bipartisan compromises." In almost every instance, we are talking about uncontroversial consensus legislation that did not require him to take a stand against the left or a major constituency of his party. The best that can be said is that on ethics reform, he sided with good-government liberals and conservatives against Beltway status quo types. McCain, by contrast, bucked his party's consensus on campaign finance reform, climate change, taxes, immigration, and interrogation techniques. I think McCain is wrong on every issue except for the last one, but he did make bipartisan compromises that actually came at a partisan cost. Obama's compromises are largely cost-free.
Or Chait's third bullet point on striking terrorists in Pakistan. I'm not aware of any evidence that "follow bin Laden to the gates of hell" McCain is categorically opposed to snatch-and-grab operations in Pakistan. Obama was criticized for the following sentence: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." This was interpreted as endorsing incursions into Pakistan regardless of whether doing so might destabilize the government in Islamabad, to the benefit of Islamists. I for one welcome the realization that invasions of foreign countries filled with bad guys can have dangerous unintended consequences. In any event, the Bush administration has opposed and carried out snatch-and-grab operations depending on the circumstances. My sense is that a McCain or Obama administration would do the same.
Chait is on somewhat firmer ground with McCain's policy reversals: there have been plenty since the Republican primaries began (though, as Phil pointed out on the main site, Obama isn't immune from this charge either).But even some of these are exaggerated. McCain, as some of us predicted, has been shifting back toward his original immigration stance, with modifications. He is still on record as being in favor of cap and trade. Chait also counts as a flip-flop McCain's unwillingness to pick a fight over the pro-life plank in the Republican platform. But McCain hasn't actually changed his policy position on abortion. McCain will be the fourth consecutive nominee running on this platform plank who would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest. Only Ronald Reagan opposed abortion without these exceptions. The human life amendment hasn't seriously come up since 1984, when it got just 49 votes in the Senate.
Re: It's a Healy Kind of Day
Posted by on 6.6.08 @ 5:36PM
Re: The Bacon link question: We're all one degree away, because AmSpec Senior Editor Ben Stein had a small part in Planes, Trains & Automobiles. So did Kevin Bacon.
Triple Crown Dreaming
Posted by on 6.6.08 @ 4:50PM
I am on the bus en route to New York right now, because I couldn't miss the possibility of watching Big Brown pull off one of the most difficult feats in sports at the Belmont Stakes tomorrow. All the signs point to big victory for the Kentucky Derby and Preakness winner -- he's by far the strongest horse in the field, he's won every race with ease, and his workouts this week have been impressive by all reports. Also, his chief competitor, Casino Drive, has a bruised hoof and may not be able to race.
But there's a reason why no horse has completed the sweep since 1978 (and why 19 horses have failed trying over the course of history). Anything can happen in racing, and there are plenty of wildcards to consider that could stymie the heavy 2-5 favorite.
--The horse is suffering from a slight crack in his hoof, which a hoof specialist and a team of veterinarians has said is okay, but it's hard to know for sure.
--He drew the first post position, which is the most difficult, and he runs the risk of getting boxed in against the rail.
--The heat will be in the 90s, and it's hard to say how that will affect Big Brown's stamina, which has been incredible so far, but hasn't been tested in a race this long. At a mile and a half, the Belmont is 1/4 mile longer than the Derby and 3/16 longer than Preakness.
--He'll be up against the Klein curse -- the last time I went to Belmont, heavy favorite to win the Triple Crown, Smarty Jones, ran out of gas during the last stretch of the race and lost by a head.
With that said, while there's never any such thing as a sure bet in the crazy world of horse racing, Big Brown is about as sure of a bet as is possible. I'll be cheering for him loudly.
Little Whitey Lies
Posted by on 6.6.08 @ 4:07PM
David Weigel pokes holes in Larry Johnson's Michelle Obama "whitey" tape story.
Tort Reform Works
Posted by on 6.6.08 @ 2:53PM
My latest package of stories from the Examiner discusses success stories from state tort reform efforts. Might be of interest.
The Enron Environmental Bill
Posted by on 6.6.08 @ 2:04PM
Tim Carney weighs in with another reason to oppose Lieberman-Warner.
Re: New McCain Ad Is Anti-War, Pro Security
Posted by on 6.6.08 @ 2:02PM
McCain needs to win over independents who don't agree with him on the war. He did well among antiwar independents in the primaries and would like to keep these voters in his camp. The messaging in his ad seems a more promising way of doing so than pretending that disagreements over Iraq have dissipated or gone away.
The Meeting
Posted by on 6.6.08 @ 1:22PM
The NY Times reports that the meeting bewteen Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton actually occured at Dianne Feinstein's house. Only Obama and Hillary were in the room.
It's A Healy Kind of Day
Posted by on 6.6.08 @ 12:06PM
In his fine Politico column today, "Obama: Peacenik or Untested Warmonger," AmSpec editor/contributor Jeremy Lott references The Cult of the Presidency by Gene Healy, who is interviewed back yonder on our front page today.
When I figure out how this connects to Kevin Bacon, I'll add an update.
Little boy lost, he takes himself so seriously
Posted by on 6.6.08 @ 11:30AM
Bob Dylan has visions of Obama
Via Hit and Run.
New McCain Ad Is Anti-War, Pro Security
Posted by on 6.6.08 @ 10:19AM
This is a powerful McCain ad intended to counter the idea of him as a war monger while reminding viewers of his heroic service to the country. It ends with a simple message:
NYT Owned Radio Station Lets Hamas Dictate Ads
Posted by on 6.6.08 @ 9:55AM
Jamie Kirchick writes on the refusal of a New York Times-owned radio station to air a paid advertisement condemning the rocket attacks against Israeli civilians in Sderot:
The station's manager, apparently attempting to imitate his contemporaries at NPR, wrote to Harris informing him that WQXR would not air the advertisement because it might be construed as “misleading, at least to the degree that reasonable people might be troubled by the absence of any acknowledgement of reciprocal Israeli military actions." So it's "misleading" to condemn terrorist attacks on innocent people unless one simultaneously acknowledges -- and thus equates -- Israeli self-defense? "Reasonable people" are not "troubled" by the "absence" of this comparison. Moral idiots are.
Obama Flip Flops On Jerusalem
Posted by on 6.6.08 @ 12:40AM
Yesterday, I wrote a column about the growing number of policy shifts undergone by Barack Obama during this campaign, but his latest may be the most craven yet.
Attempting to calm fears over his stance toward Israel, Obama gave a speech to AIPAC on Wednesday, and declared: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." I was in the room, and it was one of the biggest applause lines in his speech.
But within a day of uttering those words, he has already changed his tune amid Palestinian pressure.
Reuters reports:
Palestinian leaders reacted with anger and dismay on Wednesday to Obama saying Jerusalem should be Israel's undivided capital.
"Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations," Obama told CNN when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.
As I wrote in my column: "given that Obama has such a thin public record, Americans have no way of evaluating him other than on the basis of what he is currently saying. If he is so willing to change his positions and alter his rhetoric on the basis of what is most politically convenient at the time, then voters have no way of assessing how he would actually govern."
UPDATE: I just went back and listened to my recording of Obama's AIPAC speech, and after this new development, the following line takes on added irony: "I want you to know that today I will be speaking from my heart."
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Chris Cannon Faces GOP Primary Challenge
Posted by on 6.5.08 @ 11:23PM
Two years ago, Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) was challenged in the Republican primary by John Jacob, who harshly criticized Cannon's pro-amnesty stance on immigration. Cannon won 56-44%, but this year faces another challenger, Jason Chaffetz, who nearly ousted Cannon at last month's state GOP convention, and forced the incumbent into a June 24 primary. A poll two weeks ago showed the contest is a dead heat.
Bay Buchanan's Team America PAC has called Cannon "one of our top targets," and Thursday she sent out a fund-raising e-mail over her signature:
The race in Utah is heating up and our man, Jason Chaffetz, is closing in on one of La Raza's favorite congressman, Chris Cannon. You remember the Cannon-he's famous for saying that in Utah, "We don't often times make the distinction between legal and illegal [immigrants]"Cannon reportedly has burned through more than $400,000 so far in the campaign -- outspending Chaffetz about 7-to-1 -- but had only $43,000 cash on hand as of April 20.
Two weeks ago, when in Utah for my son's wedding, I made a point of having lunch with Jason and his wife. I wanted to be certain he was the kind of candidate who deserved the endorsement of Team America and your support as well.
I am excited to tell you he is all that and more. . . . Jason is exactly what we need in Washington. . . .
But he needs our help if he is to beat Cannon. The establishment, ethnic lobbyists, and corporate buddies are once again pouring money into Cannon's coffers. They know he is a solid vote for their amnesty and guest worker bills. They will do all they can to keep Cannon in Congress -- and Jason out.
Obama and Hillary meeting
Posted by on 6.5.08 @ 10:20PM
Hillary Rodham Clinton met late Thursday with Barack Obama, a day after saying she would end her quest for the Democratic nomination and endorse the Illinois senator.Oh, to be a fly on that particular wall! Whatever negotiations are involved, you can be sure that Hillary's staggering campaign debt -- including the money she loaned her own campaign -- is central to the discussion. The Hill reports:
A senior Obama campaign official confirmed to NBC News that Obama delayed his departure from Washington Thursday night to meet with Clinton at her home here.
Geraldine Ferraro has a plan for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to recoup her sizable campaign debt: Have Sen. Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) fundraisers pick up the tab. . . .This will be a chance to see how Obama, who has said he is willing to meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions, handles very sensitive diplomatic negotiations.
[T]he campaign has accumulated debt of more than $19 million, according to campaign finance reports. . . .
Ferraro told The Hill, "These are the people raising hundreds of thousands of dollars. I would hope that [Obama] would do the same thing with his fundraisers to pay off Hillary's debt."
'Crone Wars' update
Posted by on 6.5.08 @ 9:32PM
Harriet Christian, featured in my Monday article about Hillary Clinton's disgruntled female supporters, now turns up on Neil Cavuto:
(Hat tip: Wake Up America.) Ms. Christian, who had ranted Saturday that Barack Obama is "an inadequate black male," defends herself against the accusation that this was a racist remark:
Why is it all right for a black to say that whites are racist, and they're not? . . . As far as I'm concerned, I am the furthest thing from a racist. But again, I say, I believe in equality for all. Why aren't we given the same equal rights? And I'm speaking of myself, personally, as a woman.BTW, Phil, speaking of old bitter women, sorry I was on the road Wednesday and didn't get back to you earlier on that bet about Hillary's "concession." To repeat myself:
A true concession would be for Hillary to release her delegates from their pledges on the first ballot and call for a unanimous vote for Obama. Hillary won't do that; she'll insist on at least a show-of-strength vote on the first ballot, meanwhile hoping for some surprise development that will send the superdelegates crawling back to her.And this, so far as I can see, is exactly what Hillary is doing. She is "suspending" her campaign, but she's not genuinely conceding. I suspect the reason for that is, just like Ms. Christian, Hillary doesn't really consider Obama's victory legitimate. At some point prior to Denver, a post-campaign depression may cause Hillary to toss in her cards and tell her delegates, "Screw it -- vote for whoever you want." But she hasn't done that, and I still don't think she will.
Leviathan Watch
Posted by on 6.5.08 @ 4:42PM
According to NTU, McCain has promised $68.5 billion in new spending. The price tag on Obama's promises: a whopping $343.6 billion. We stab it with our steely knives, but we just can't kill the beast...
That Michelle Obama Tape Rumor
Posted by on 6.5.08 @ 2:15PM
Back when I was a financial journalist at Reuters, it was always our policy not to report on rumors because we didn't want to affect the market by peddling false stories, but if the market, or a particular stock, was being helped or hurt by a rumor, we could report the rumor as a reason for that movement.
The point is, as a result of this background, I have always been reticent about publishing any unconfirmed rumors, and so I haven't posted anything on the reports about a damaging tape to emerge of Michelle Obama. As far as I'm concerned, the tape doesn't exist until I see it or it's confirmed by a reputable source.
But if you're still thinking that the tape might exist, I strongly advise you to read Dave Weigel's exhaustive case for why it's likely bogus.
Rezko Web Ad
Posted by on 6.5.08 @ 11:10AM
The RNC just released this Web video seizing on news that Rezko
was convicted. Yep, the general election is underway.
Obama-Webb
Posted by on 6.5.08 @ 10:45AM
Jim Webb will be introducing Barack Obama tonight at a rally I mentioned the other day, at the 25,000 capacity Nissan Pavillion in Bristow. Let the speculation continue.
More on McCain Blogger Call
Posted by on 6.5.08 @ 10:03AM
Having acknowledged that I misquoted the exact words of Sen. McCain during a bloggers' call yesterday, I now turn the focus away from me and back to McCain, where it belongs. (I write as a nervous but strong supporter of his campaign this fall.) Sen. McCain utterly deludes himself if he thinks, as he said in the call, that is is always respectful of his critics on the right. This is important. Self-awareness (as opposed to self-centeredness) is always important in a leader. A leader who is not aware of his effect on others, or who deludes himself about his own words and actions, is asking for trouble. And it is incontrovertible that McCain has lashed out with particular scorn and anger at those to his right. He called immigration opponents "nativists" and raised the Jim-Crow-like specter (withOUT using those two words) of those opponents acting like they wanted immigrants to stay at the back of the bus. He famously went way overboard in 2000 in taking what should have been a pointed push-back against overly harsh words from Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell into a full-fledged attack on the whole religious right. He accused Mitt Romney of insulting our troops and (tacitly) of being on the wrong end of serving "for patriotism, not for profit." (Somebody please tell McCain that the profit motive is not a bad thing, because he often acts as if the only people with the right to a profit motive are those who own beer distributorships.)
In arguing against the left, he says they are wrong and that he will gladly debate them on it -- and then he does debate them, strongly and sometimes fiercely. In arguing against the right, he says that not only are we wrong but that "there is no debate" -- as in his most recent jeremiad about global warning. We are not, therefore, just mistaken, but not even worth respecting with reasoned argument, according to McCain. (Another example: When discussing ANWR, he doesn't discuss and debate, but shuts off all debate by repeating that "it's pristine, it's pristine." And therefore, it's not even worth discussing.)
His insult to the CPAC 2007 has been well reported. His expletive-laced tirade at Sen. John Cornyn has been well reported. His profanity-laced tirades at other GOP senators have been well reported. He refused to shake the hand of Federal Election Commission opponent Bradley Smith, and refused to apologize for his slight, in so doing accusing Smith of repeatedly impugning his own integrity -- without giving evidence thereof.
And so on and so on. The point is that this tendency of his is a huge barrier to full-fledged conservative support for his campaign. I asked a respetful question yesterday, a constructive question. A candidate with grace would have said that he did not intend ever to be disrespectful, that sometimes he knows he gets passionate and that sometime it can come across wrong, that he has always acknowledged he won't win any "Miss Congeniality" contests but that he wants to take this opportunity to pledge that he will always TRY to be respectful and to listen, and that if he fails, he is only human and will try to do better next time.... or SOMETHING like that. The fact is that when the standard-bearer of the more conservative party says that his conservative critics on immigration are "nativists," it stings.
John McCain has many strengths. A lack of sanctimony is not one of them. He will do well not to deny the obvious truth that he tends to bristle rather too easily against fellow conservatives, and instead to take the opportunity to show real grace -- on the spot, not as a canned campaign line -- by reaching out, acknowledging past dust-ups, and re-stating his regard for those on the right who disagree with him.
My question yesterday was actually intended as a chance for him to show such unscripted grace. When asked, in follow-up, to provide examples, I screwed up with a misquotation. But that doesn't let this good man, John McCain, off the hook for the underlying premise of the question, or for his lack of grace in refusing to acknowledge any truth to it whatsoever.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Sounds Like A Concession
Posted by on 6.4.08 @ 9:07PM
Hillary Clinton's campaign just released the following statement:
Bob Barr on 'Colbert Report'
Posted by on 6.4.08 @ 7:59PM
NEW YORK -- "Did someone slip you a hash brownie?" So said Stephen Colbert, interrogating Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr, during the taping of tonight's "Colbert Report" on Comedy Center. The reference, of course, was to Barr's switch from a conservative stance on the war against drugs. One of Barr's key supporters in the Libertarian Party is the pro-legilization Marijuana Policy Project.
Update on Jim Crow
Posted by on 6.4.08 @ 7:10PM
While the substance of my question to John McCain earlier today remains, I believe, reasonable, fair, and important, I must acknowledge that further research still can't come up with examples of McCain using the words "Jim Crow" to describe immigration opponents; instead, just lots of bloggers and columnists saying that remarks of his were the EQUIVALENT of making the Jim Crow reference.
(The "nativist" quote is indeed correct, however.)
I therefore again apologize to the senator for misquoting his words.
Reaction To Obama At AIPAC
Posted by on 6.4.08 @ 6:51PM
Following Obama's AIPAC speech, I decided to talk to attendees to get a better sense of how he was received. Obviously, speaking to about a dozen people out of a crowd of more than 7,000 isn't very scientific, but of the people I spoke to, I would say the reaction was generally positive but not as enthusiastic as I would have thought, given the tremendous reception he received.
Bizarrely, the first person I randomly approached for reaction
turned out to be my childhood synagogue's cantor, who tutored me
for my Bar Mitzvah and who I hadn't seen in nearly 17 years.
An Obama supporter already, he thought the speech was "excellent,"
and insisted that the stories circulating about Obama having an
anti-Israel background were false. Was this a sign from the heavens
that I better embrace the Obamasiah? I prefer to paraphrase the
O-man himself: people have disagreements with their cantors all the
time.
Making my way through the exiting crowd, I caught up with Lynn Oves of Atlanta, Georgia.
"Of course, he was speaking to a captive audience, and when he spoke to us, he told us everything that we wanted to hear," Oves said. "I was very impressed. It was the first time I've seen him personally."
Although she liked everything he said about Israel, she said she was still undecided, and had concerns about his lack of experience and about his relationship with Jeremiah Wright. "There are a lot of spiritual leaders he could have sought out, the fact that he stuck with him bothers me," she told me.
While open to McCain, she said, "If he is going to just follow Bush, I'm not interested in that." Oves is a critic of the current administration's foreign policy, particularly in Iraq.
In his speech, Obama sought to reframe the Israel issue by arguing that the Jewish state's security is more imperiled as a result of Bush's presidency.
Another attendee wouldn't talk to me about Obama at first, because he said his mom taught him, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." I pressed him a bit further, promising not to use his name, and he told me that there is a huge gap between Obama's talk and his past record on Israel.
Robert Zeidman of Cupertino, California, who described himself as a Republican, acknowledged that Obama is an "eloquent and practiced speaker" who told the crowd what he knew they wanted to hear. To Zeidman, there was little substance.
For instance, he noted, Obama called for "strong diplomacy," but wasn't clear about what that meant, and he called for sanctions even though the sanctions we have already applied haven't accomplish anything. "I really didn't see him offering solutions, " he complained. "I saw him offering a lot of hyperbole and rhetoric appeals to this crowd, and that frightens me a bit."
Talking to people over the course of the three-day conference, Zeidman said most people were supporting either McCain or Hillary Clinton, but not Obama.
"He did get a better reception than I was hoping for, though I talked to some of the people afterward, even the people applauding, said they were voting for McCain," Zeidman said.
But Greg Millhauser of New York City, a Democrat who was leaning toward McCain before the conference, said he was now back to being undecided.
"(Obama) probably made a lot of progress with this group, because he addressed the concerns straight on," Millhauser said. He later added, ""He was able to do a good job of addressing concerns about having an anti-Israel stance."
Millhauser, who is 26, said he has done a lot of international traveling, and would like to see the America's opinion around the world improve, and he thinks that perhaps Obama will help that cause by bringing about change.
The general sense I came away with after speaking to these attendees, plus a number of others who didn't want to be quoted, was that people liked what they heard today, but they also aren't sure what to think of the stories that have been circulating about Obama's past views toward Israel.
I came away thinking that Obama's ability to win over this constituency (many of whom are naturally inclined to support the Democratic nominee on economic and social issues), will depend on what else emerges from his past that we don't already know, how much more comes out about his long associations with Israel bashers, and whether there is a more tangible record of him criticizing Israel at Arab community events in Chicago during his State Senate days than the accounts we currently have.
The People Speak
Posted by on 6.4.08 @ 5:49PM
I was talking to a friend of mine who doesn't follow politics closely but does vote and occasionally watches the news. She told a friend of hers that she planned to vote for Obama. Her friend replied that she was voting for "McLean" because Obama's wife is too militant and his best friend wanted to blow up the Pentagon.
Whether this ancedotal evidence means that Obama has his work cut out for him or that McCain will lose because people don't know how to spell his name, I don't know.
Tony Rezko Is Guilty
Posted by on 6.4.08 @ 5:09PM
Of some counts. The Chicago political fundraiser has ties to presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama.
A Popular War?
Posted by on 6.4.08 @ 4:18PM
David Frum opens a sensible call for the Republicans to get with it on health care reform with this jarring line: "If the 2008 presidential election were all about Iraq, John McCain would win." To back up this counterintuitive assertion, he cites the "authoritative Pew poll" which he says shows increasing public optimism about the Iraq war and only a small minority -- 14 percent -- in favor of an "immediate withdrawal."
It's true that the recent decline in casualties, both American and Iraqi, following the surge has reduced antiwar sentiment somewhat and perhaps reduced its intensity even further. But it's quite a leap to suggest that the war has become popular or a net plus for Republicans, and if McCain and the GOP campaign that way they will be every bit as far removed from the country as any conservative pining for 1980. There is an awful lot of polling data in addition to Pew's survey that suggests the war remains unpopular. That includes the decision to go to war, the administration's handling of the war, and any indefinite presence in Iraq. The public understands an immediate withdrawal, which neither candidate is seriously proposing or likely to deliver, is impractical and is willing to be somewhat more patient about exit strategies post-surge. But they still simultaneously want to win and get out.
That doesn't mean that there aren't ways McCain could frame the war, short of taking my own position, that turns Iraq into a winning issue. McCain has been moving toward an effective Iraq message. If the debate shifts to which candidate would draw down faster and under which conditions, McCain might also be able leverage his greater foreign-policy and military experience to Barack Obama's deteriment. The public might trust McCain's ability to "handle" the war more than Obama's or even Bush's. But that's not quite the same as claiming that the war is a political boon in its own right.
Re: McCain Blogger Call
Posted by on 6.4.08 @ 3:17PM
I see that Matt Lewis has also blogged on my question to McCain today. It is a question I wrote down to ask about three months ago, and never got the chance to. When I wrote it, I actually took time to check references; in addition, I still believe I remember McCain using the Jim Crow analogy explicitly. But fair is fair, and now I cannot find it in a quick Google search, but instead find multiple references to the same video in which McCain used what multiple observers compared to Jim Crow imagery without McCain himself actually using the phrase. McCain is an honorable man and he denies having used those words; unless I discover otherwise, I must assume that I transposed those interpretations of his words with his actual words (although the comparison he did use was still unfair almost to the point of being odious), and thus I apologize for the mistaken quotation.
The other quotes I used in the question were accurate (I just re-checked them). And the question is, I still believe, valid. It is, I believe, a key question for him to answer if he is to get conservatives fully on board with him. I say this judging from copious reader mail, by the way. For the record, here is the question as written to myself for note purposes several months back:
Examples: immigration opponents as "nativists" and like
supporters of "Jim Crow." Romney needing to "apologize to the
troops." "patriotism, not profit." "pharma as 'bad guys'."
I think it a legitimate question. Finally, also for the record, I continue to stand by my most recent, considerably more complimentary, column on McCain, here.
Re: McCain & Name-Calling
Posted by on 6.4.08 @ 2:35PM
I don't remember John McCain ever explicitly comparing people who disagreed with him on immigration to supporters of Jim Crow, but I do recall McCain surrogate Lindsey Graham's line, "We're going to tell all the bigots to shut up."
McCain Blogger Call Highlights
Posted by on 6.4.08 @ 2:16PM
John McCain just completed a conference call with bloggers in which he reiterated his call for a series of town hall debates with Barack Obama beginning next week, questioned the sincerity of Obama's shift on describing Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group, and then sparred with Quin Hillyer.
McCain discussed the letter he sent to Obama requesting that they have 10 town hall style debates beginning on June 12 in New York, and continuing through the Democratic convention. He said the agreement would be along the lines of the one that Barry Goldwater and John F. Kennedy had struck for the 1964 presidential election before JFK's assassination.
Asked whether this was just a ploy to drag Obama into a format
that he excels at and avoid the long speeches that he is at a
disadvantage under.
"I think it's the best format by far," McCain said of town hall
meetings. "It's the old form of how we participate in a
democracy…The American people…want a great debate. I
don't think they want to hear long speeches, to tell you the truth,
that's why I keep mine short."
Quin asked McCain about the fact that conservatives have had problems not just that he has had disagreements with him, but with his tone, and the fact that he not only questions their ideas, but their motives.
"I fundamentally disagree with your premise, I've treated everybody with respect, and I will continue to do so," McCain responded.
Quin followed up by citing specific examples on immigration, such as McCain calling opponents of his approach "nativists" or likening them to supporters of Jim Crow.
"No, I never said anybody was a supporter of Jim Crow," McCain shot back. "Please don't allege that…I never mentioned those two words now that I can ever recall."
I'll let Quin speak for himself, but my initial search suggests that McCain was right about having never used those words. The closest thing I could find was this video of a floor speech in which McCain argued that legal immigrants should be allowed to qualify for a certain tax credit. He said he didn't understand those who would want an "indefensible double standard," and asked, "What's next, are we going to say work-authorized immigrants have to ride in the back of the bus?"
Jennifer Rubin aksed McCain about Obama's about face on the
Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Last fall, he opposed the
Kyl-Lieberman amendment designating it as a terrorist group, but
identified its Quds Forces operating in Iraq as a terrorist group
in his speech to AIPAC this morning.
"He has switched on a number of issues, but remarkable on this one,
" McCain said. "He was very categorical about his position, and now
he goes before AIPAC and tries to change his position, he's trying
to change his position on sitting down without preconditions on
Ahmadinejad, he's softening his opposition to the surge. He's going
through a lot of evolutions here, and I don't think the American
people will buy it, to tell you the truth."
No Menage a Trois With the Clintons
Posted by on 6.4.08 @ 12:21PM
I'm no fan of Dick Morris's political analysis -- wasn't Condi supposed to be in a tight race with Hillary right now? -- but this column counseling against an Obama-Clinton ticket strikes me as basically right. But if Hillary really wants it, does Obama have the political strength to refuse?
Hillary Goes To Bat For Obama at AIPAC
Posted by on 6.4.08 @ 11:24AM
"I know that Senator Obama will be a good friend to Israel," she tells the crowd. She also follows up on the Obama theme of McCain wanting to continue the failed Bush strategies.
Profiles in Competence: Not the Mass GOP
Posted by on 6.4.08 @ 10:32AM
I wrote about Jim Ogonowski's bid to take on John Kerry for the main site earlier this year. He was the favorite of both the state and national GOP to take on Kerry. Yesterday, he failed to qualify for the primary ballot, falling about 30 signatures shorts. He blames several town clerks for the failure and might pursue a legal challenge. Ogonowski could also run a write-in or sticker campaign in the primary. Or Jeff Beatty, the Republican who did qualify, could run a stronger than expected campaign. But this is a major embarrasment for the Massachusetts Republican Party and one that makes even a semi-competitive race against Kerry much less likely.
UPDATE: A commenter below points out that the Massachusetts Republican Party as an institution was officially neutral in the primary, based on the bylaws, and shouldn't be blamed for the failure of signature-gathering. Fair enough, if we are talking about the state committee, party employees, etc. But it is pretty clear that most involved leaders in the state and national party -- from the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, to the recent GOP governors, to the 2006 GOP gubernatorial candidate -- were on board with Ogonowski. Thus his failure - or, if Ogonoswki is right, the town clerks' failure -- is an embarrasment to them as well.
UPDATE II: Jim Ogonowski is officially out of the race, leaving Democratic primary challenger Ed O'Reilly and Republican Jeff Beatty as Kerry's two remaining opponents.
Obama's Speech To AIPAC, Live Thread
Posted by on 6.4.08 @ 10:30AM
--Obama enters to a standing ovation, but it doesn't take long for his first flub, a reference to the three Israeli soldiers being held by Hezbollah, but he neglects to mention that one was being held by his endorser, Hamas.
--He refers to emails being circulated, telling ""tall tales and dire warning..." He says, "Let me know if you've seen this guy named Barack Obama, because he sounds like a scary guy."
--"As President, I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security." The crowd seems to be buying it.
--He brings his change message to a discussion of Israel, arguing that Israel is less safe under Iran, and opposes those who want to "continue and intensify this flawed status quo."
--He says a "secure and lasting peace" is in the interests of America, Israel, Palestinians and the Arab world, and calls for a two-state solution. Wow, what an original idea. Now try explaining that to the Palestinians.
-- "There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations," he thunders. But only nations that are financing and providing weapons to those organizations.
--On Iran, Obama tries to reframe the issue as an attack on the Iraq War and the administration's policies, which he says strengthens the Iranians. No bold talk of meeting face-to-face with Ahmadinejad, but instead talk of "strong diplomacy" with appropriate leadership in Iran at time and place of his choosing. He's against "self-defeating preconditions," but promises "careful preparations."
--Obama calls for strong bonds between Jews and African Americans.
--He exits to a rousing, sustained, standing ovation far more enthusiastic than the one received by John McCain on Monday -- a testament to the power of strong oratorical skills, and to the stubborn political stupidity of my co-religionists.
Kudlow Says McCain Needs Dollar Message
Posted by on 6.4.08 @ 10:18AM
As usual, Larry Kudlow is right, again saying that John McCain needs to adopt a "strong dollar" message -- and noting that Ben Bernanke FINALLY seems to be getting on board. One cheer for Bernanke, who is incredibly late to the cause.
Limping to the Finish
Posted by on 6.4.08 @ 10:09AM
Lost in last night's Obama self-back-patting was the fact that few nominees have ever limped to the finish line so weakly. For at least two solid months, EVERYbody in Conventional Wisdomland had said Obama would easily win both Montana and South Dakota. (Yes, in the last week a few had said South Dakota might be close, but even they were wrong.) Instead, he got walloped in South Dakota despite the strong and longstanding support of every major Democratic political figure in the state. This comes on top of weak showings in a whole string of states. When the smoke clears, it will be evident that among elected delegates (i.e., not superdelegates) he will barely beat Clinton, and that his overall margin right now comes substantially from his growing edge in superdelegates. In short, he built a big lead among elected delegates and used it to bring superdelegates on board, only to see the elected delegate lead dissipate badly. He will end up winning the nomination -- IF he wins, which is still an open question until the convention vote itself as long as Hillary draws breath -- because he cleverly played the expectations game in order to make himself the Anointed One. But he is an Anointed One with his sheen having been considerably dulled, who has won as much because his main opponent is so disliked (and distrusted) as because of any accomplishment of his own. And now he is in an almost no-win situation in terms of picking a Veep who is not Hillary but who will somehow make the Clintons and their people actually want to seriously help him win. Weak, weak, weak.
Still Waiting
Posted by on 6.4.08 @ 9:52AM
Harry Reid, John Boehner, and now Nancy Pelosi speaking before Obama and Clinton. Pelosi was introduced with a video from her trip to Israel, but shockingly the video left out any coverage of this.
Waiting for Obama at AIPAC
Posted by on 6.4.08 @ 8:41AM
I'm here at the AIPAC conference where Barack Obama is scheduled to address the more than 7,000 attendees within an hour, followed by Hillary Clinton. Obama will face somewhat of a skeptical crowd here, and for good reason. The candidate of choice for Israel haters from Hamas to Jimmy Carter, Obama has taken on a slew of anti-Israel advisors and has associated himself with some of the most prominent critics of Israel in America. (More here.) Furthermore, his willingness to meet unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has denied the Holocaust and threatened to wipe Israel off of the map, as well as his opposition to declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group, does him no favors.
With all that said, I think the crowd will be respectful of Obama and greet him warmly -- and here's why. While some people have a perception of AIPAC as the hawkish pro-Israel group, the reality is a lot more complicated. The purpose of AIPAC is to foster strong ties between the U.S. and Israel and keep both Republicans and Democrats on their side, so its attitude is greatly impacted by who is in office. During the 1990s, they were tight with the Clinton Administration while it was pushing the Oslo peace process with Yasser Arafat, drawing criticism from hawks. In the post-9/11, Bush-Sharon environment, it became much more hawkish. Since Obama now has a good chance of becoming the next president, they want to keep him within the tent, and I'm sure most of the crowd will receive him well. But I'm curious to talk to some attendees after to see whether his speech actually calmed their concerns.
Tyrrell: Purdum plagiarized me
Posted by on 6.4.08 @ 6:06AM
R. Emmett Tyrrell, editor of The American Spectator, says that Todd Purdum's Vanity Fair article was not original:
"Seventeen anecdotes and ideas are clearly lifted from my book, The Clinton Crack-Up," states Mr. Tyrrell. "Mr. Purdum's article did not make reference to the book once."
No wonder Bubba called Dee Dee Myers' husband "slimy." Purdum's suggestion of an affair between Clinton and actress Gina Gershon results in a threat from Ms. Gershon's lawyer:
Through the innuendo-laden assertion that Ms. Gershon has been "visiting" with President Clinton in California, [Purdum] outrageously insinuates that Ms. Gershon has had an inappropriate sexual relationship with President Clinton. This is absolutely false. . . . We demand publication of a retraction and correction. . . .So much for that rumor, I suppose. Perhaps Vanity Fair confused Gina Gershon the actress with Nina Gershon, the federal judge whom Clinton appointed in 1995? But let's not start any new rumors.
The truth . . . is that Ms. Gershon has only been in the same room as President Clinton on three occasions, during which she was always in the presence of anywhere from approximately a dozen people to several hundred or more.
Hillary for Veep
Posted by on 6.4.08 @ 1:22AM
In her speech tonight, Hillary Clinton made a powerful case for what she would add to the Democratic ticket. The style, tone, and substance of the speech made a powerful argument for why Obama would be a fool to choose her. She'd want a bigger role than Dick Cheney -- one that would include knifing a hypothetical President Obama in the back.
Re: Obama's Fuzzy Math
Posted by on 6.4.08 @ 1:20AM
My guess is Barack Obama is counting his years as a Chicago community organizer as part of his career in public service. He needs to understand that this is the general election now and non-Democrats tend to not think that professional leftism really counts that much.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Obama's Fuzzy Math
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 10:42PM
"I have seen people of differing views and opinions find common cause many times during my two decades in public life..."
By that he means under 12 years.
Obama on Visting Iraq
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 10:39PM
Talk about a red herring:
Obama's Dig At McCain
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 10:32PM
"I honor that service, and I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine," Obama says. Of course, if you don't have any significant accomplishments, it's difficult to accept them.
So far, midway into his speech, Obama hasn't mentioned a single accomplishment other than his nomination itself. Is he denying his own accomplishments?
Obama's Shoutout to Hillary
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 10:28PM
Here's what he had to say:
Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign not just because she's a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she's a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.
We've certainly had our differences over the last sixteen months. But as someone who's shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning-even in the face of tough odds-is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago; what sent her to work at the Children's Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as first lady; what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency-an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be. And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country, she will be central to that victory. When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen. Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Doesn't sound like that will be enough.
Hillary and the VP Slot
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 10:13PM
MSNBC is reporting is that Clinton will be pushing hard to be on the ticket. It would be a terrible political move for Barack Obama to tap Hillary Clinton as his runningmate, in my opinion, but right now, if she pounds on the whole "my supporters are 18 million strong so I earned it" drum, it'll certainly make things awkward for Obama if he resists.
DEN-VER!! DEN-VER!! DEN-VER!!
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 9:54PM
So chant the Hillary-ites. "No decision tonight," she says.
UPDATE: Visit her website, and there's banner declaring, "Be One of 18 Million, Stand With Hillary." A form on the right asks supports to write in to show their pride for Hillary.
Re: Hillary Wins South Dakota
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 9:18PM
On MSNBC, they're still droning on about the historic importance of Obama's victory.
Hillary Wins South Dakota
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 9:17PM
Fox News has called it. Takes a little bit of the sheen off Obama's victory night, doesn't it?
MSNBC Declares Obama Presumtive Nominee
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 9:10PM
Chris Matthews is having an Obamagasm, talking about blacks getting the right to vote in South Africa and Desmond Tutu.
UPDATE: Olbermann says it's the political equivelent of a man landing on the moon.
Re: McCain's Speech
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 9:07PM
The arguments on Iraq, on his own record of bipartisanship, on energy, on spending,are fine for an appeal to moderates and independents, but I can't help that the media will play up the contrast between his understated speech to a small crowd and what will no doubt be a wild, energenic Obama rally later this evening.
McCain's Speech
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 8:59PM
It is definitely aimed at Hillary Clinton supporters and independents more than the Republican base. Some of the delivery is a bit off -- he needs to lose the awkward cat that ate the canary grin -- but his handling of the Iraq war is fairly deft. He doesn't alter his position, and in fact takes partial credit for the surge as "the strategy that is now succeeding," but emphasizes his disagreement with the Bush administration's "mismanagement" of the war. This reputation helped him to do better with antiwar Republicans and independents in some primaries than even Ron Paul. It's an effective way to position himself on an issue that has been giving Republicans trouble.
Re: Is McCain Going for the Clinton Endorsement?
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 8:57PM
He's certainly going for Hillary's supporters. And he's hitting Obama hard right now.
Is McCain Going for the Clinton Endorsement?
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 8:47PM
Opens his speech by saying she hasn't gotten the credit she deserves for the compassion she's showed in the campaign, and for inspiring millions of women like his daughters.
Bobos Look for Obama But Can't Find the Salad Bar
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 7:47PM
This is the trouble with David Brooks's pop-sociology: You actually have to, you know, actually set foot in a chain restaurant before you can use it to determine Everyman's political preferences.
Here's To The Ladies Who Lunch
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 7:27PM
Mrs. Obama and Mrs. Farrakhan:
This comes care of Larry Johnson by way of Jim Geraghty. Johnson is spreading other rumors about Obama, but aficionados of the Wilson/Plame saga -- specifically the chapter where friends of Joe Wilson, including Johnson, were claiming that Karl Rove was going to be indicted -- will remember that he's a totally unreliable source. Still, this is pretty interesting on its own, and yet another indication of just how twisted a political environment Obama comes from.
Kmiec and Communion
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 7:25PM
I'm late getting to E.J. Dionne's column on Doug Kmiec being denied Communion on account of his support of pro-choice Barack Obama. It seems to me that Ross Douthat says most of what needs to be said. I'm not Catholic, but I agree with the Church's teachings on life issues and Just War theory. Kmiec's justifications for supporting Obama are not to my mind persuasive, but to him they constitute a proportionate reason to back the Democrat in spite -- not because -- of their differing views on abortion.
Obama's Victory Lap
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 5:48PM
Tonight, Barack Obama will cap off the primary season with Michelle by his side at the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, Minnesota, which uncoincidentally, is the site of this year's Republican Convention, so expect plenty of references to the GOP gathering in his speech.
Tomorrow morning, he'll try to mollify concerns about his stance toward Israel in a speech to AIPAC. Hillary will also be there, which should add to the drama. I'll be liveblogging the event from the site, so check back here. Later that morning, Obama pays respects to the SEIU union in a satellite speech to their conference, being held in Peurto Rico.
On Thursday, Obama will be campaigning in Virginia, with a night rally at the Nissan Pavillion in Bristow. The seating capacity is 25,000, so it should be a show of force as the general election gets underway, and since it's only 40 miles outside of DC, expect plenty of Beltway media attention.
Lunch With Sharansky
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 5:02PM
Earlier today, I attended a bloggers' briefing hosted by the Heritage Foundation and had the pleasure of hearing one-time Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky speak about his new book, Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy. The book is a follow-up to his earlier work, The Case for Democracy, which had a big influence on President Bush at the beginning of his second term.
In the new book, Sharansky argues that identity should not be seen as the enemy of democracy, but in fact a crucial aspect, which he learned as a prisoner, when his own identity and belief in freedom allowed him to persevere and bond with fellow prisoners who also realized that democracy was the only way they could be free to realize their own identity. This happened within a society in which there had been decades of Marxist assault on identity.
He said that the abandonment of identity in Western Europe, which began as reaction to the excesses of identity during World War II, has lead to an "aggressively rushing multiculturalism" in Europe, in which immigrants with anti-Democratic views are flooding the country, and weakening Democracy. America has maintained a strong democracy because - compared to Europe - Americans have maintained their identity and remain deeply religious. Faith, Sharansky said, is one of the bulwarks against moral relativism (a phenomenon that he credited Allan Bloom for first picking up on in The Closing of the American Mind).
During the Q&A, I asked Sharansky about groups like Hamas, which establish an identity based on martyrdom, glorification of death, and the destruction of Israel. Wasn't that an example of identity being a barrier to democracy?
Sharansky responded that at one end, you could have belief in freedom that is divorced from identity, which, as in the case of Europe, leads to powerless democracies, or, on the other end, identity can be taken to an extreme and detached from a belief in freedom, in which case you end up with fundamentalism.
With regard to Hamas and Palestinians specifically, Sharansky said the problem is that they have formed an identity based almost entirely on negative factors, rooted in what they are against rather than what they are for. They need an identity based on positive elements, but instead are filled with hatred and determined to kill Jews. "That is an identity we cannot accept," he said.
Asked about the Middle East peace process, he said that everybody needs to realize that at this point there is no Palestinian leader that really wants a two-state solution, and the more that Arabs come to see Israel as a "passing episode," the more it solidifies their opposition to accepting any Jewish state.
Asked to assess the idea of promoting democracy in the wake of Iraq, he said that America made a big mistake by not recognizing the identities of Sunnis, Shites, and Kurds from the outset, and working with moderate leaders in those communities all along. Instead, there was a rush to hold elections, which Sharansky believes should only come at the end of the process instead of at the beginning.
Obama clinches
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 4:39PM
So says the Associated Press. Champagne corks are popping. Noisemakers and whistles. Confetti and streamers. And that's just on the set of "The CBS Evening News." The real party tonight will be on Keith Olbermann's "Countdown."
Three months after securing the Republican nomination for John McCain, now the media elite have finally nominated Obama as the Democrat. I think we all know what comes next . . .
Best Idea Ever
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 4:34PM
An Obama-McGovern ticket! Yes, he's serious. Only in Kos-land...
Will Obama Reject And Denounce?
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 4:02PM
Jimmy Carter to endorse Barack Obama. Yet another thing the former president has in common with Hamas. Israel-haters of the world, unite!
UPDATE: It should be particularly interesting to see if Obama's campaign formally accepts Carter's endorsement on the eve of his speech before AIPAC. That would make things a bit awkward.
Re: Not Tonight
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 3:58PM
Stacy writes, "Even if Hillary herself is entirely rational about her prospects, her fanatical supporters are demanding all-out war for the nomination. If she pulls the plug, those fanatics will feel abandoned. Should Hillary decide to try again in 2012 or 2016, she's going to need those fanatics."
That argument doesn't make much sense to me. Anybody who is fanatical enough to go to war for Hillary at this point, will surely be on board if she decides to give it another shot in four or eight years, whereas by taking it all the way to Denver, she risks alienating a more substantial portion Democratic voters.
Re: Not Tonight
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 2:13PM
Well, sure, Jim -- but "start pondering an exit strategy" and "concession" are very different things. I'd imagine she's been pondering an exit strategy since March, and she might well continue "pondering" all the way until August.
Even if Hillary herself is entirely rational about her prospects, her fanatical supporters are demanding all-out war for the nomination. If she pulls the plug, those fanatics will feel abandoned. Should Hillary decide to try again in 2012 or 2016, she's going to need those fanatics. So her continuation of a campaign that is objectively irrational could be, in a political sense, much more rational than it looks.
Also, keep in mind that campaign debt, a lot of which consists of money that Hillary personally loaned her own campaign. If the DNC and Team Obama don't promise her some kind of repayment, Hillary is unlikely to play nice just for the sake of "party unity."
Re: Not Tonight
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 12:55PM
If Hillary loses both states tonight as expected, she'll have to start pondering an exit strategy, if you'll pardon the expression. But if she wins South Dakota, they might make one last pitch to the superdelegates. At least that's what I'd expect.
Re: Not Tonight
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 12:47PM
The hurry among the press and pundits to predict whether Hillary will or will not concede, and when, overlooks the question of incentives. Hillary's got an estimated $10 million campaign debt, she feels cheated and insulted, and Team Obama's got to offer something in return for her concession. If they don't want to deal -- say, a flat-out guarantee to pay off her debt -- then Hillary says, "Fine. I'll fight on. Whatever it takes."
Compared to running campaign offices and TV advertising in different states, it's relatively cheap for Hillary to maintain a post-primary skeleton campaign. She and her proxies just make the circuit of TV news programs with their "we wuz robbed" mantra, and the campaign continues. If Team Obama wants to convince her not to do that, they'll have to deal.
Hillary may surprise me and concede on TV tonight, but it would be a surprise.
On Marriage, The Voters Will Decide
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 12:38PM
A constitutional amendment to reverse the California supreme court's same-sex marriage ruling has qualified for the ballot. Supporters collected 1.1 million signatures.
Not Tonight
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 11:34AM
The Clinton campaign just released a terse statement:
Re: Wanna Bet?
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 11:08AM
Well Stacy, your last public wager over Clinton's performance in North Carolina didn't work out too well for you, so I don't think I'd want to take any more of your money.
The fact that a bunch of cranky Hillary supporters want her to go all the way to Denver won't really matter after tomorrow, with superdelegates expected to hop on the Obama Express en masse, including the likes of Pelosi and Reid. There's an old saying in show business about leaving them wanting more, and I think that will hold true in this case.
Though I will admit I'm one of those journalist who have been writing her political obituary since Iowa.
Video: Hillary says, 'It's not over'
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 10:53AM
Via Hot Air:
"I think I've got a very strong case. . . . People have been trying to get me out of this race since Iowa, and my political obituary has yet to be written, and we're going forward. . . . It's not over until the votes are cast. It's not over until there's actually a tally that gives someone the nomination."C'mon, Phil. Bet me.
President Rutherford B. Chimney
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 10:46AM
"I am not on principle opposed to health. Some of my best friends are healthy"--my fellow Postmodern Conservative guest blogger Helen Rittelmeyer kicking off her piece, "Is America Ready for a Cigarette Smoking President?"
The Quote of Last Month Today
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 10:28AM
"Maybe I was talentless, bad-complected, old-looking and slutty, but no one could call me a hypocrite"--Emily Gould in her interminably long New York Times Magazine piece on how gosh-darned tough it is to be a gossip blogger. Yes, I realize I'm way-late to this party. And, no, despite the nine pages of hinting at some grand and terrible denouement, nothing ever really happens. Somebody should tell Gould being a hypocrite is not the worst of all things.
Hey, Phil: Wanna bet?
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 10:15AM
Klein writes: "This doesn't sound like a couple preparing to fight all the way to Denver."
What I think you underestimate, Phil, is the echo-chamber effect. The people who might tell Hillary to pack it in -- well, those people aren't talking to Hillary right now, and most of them haven't been talking to her for months. Meanwhile, she's hearing from all these angry women who feel like they're being cheated by Obama and the DNC, women who are telling her not to quit. This dynamic has been going on for months:
"The most common thing the people say -- it happened here, it happened last night, it happens everywhere I go -- is, 'Don't give up,' 'Keep going,' 'We're with you.' And I feel very good about that, because that's what I intend to do."
As rational as it would be for the Clintons to arrange a peaceful exit from the campaign, the candidate herself is getting a lot of irrational feedback. That's why my money says Hillary will (a) trim her campaign staff down to a trusted handful; (b) make some conciliatory noises; and (c) keep up the behind-the-scenes intrigue all the way to Denver.
A true concession would be for Hillary to release her delegates from their pledges on the first ballot and call for a unanimous vote for Obama. Hillary won't do that; she'll insist on at least a show-of-strength vote on the first ballot, meanwhile hoping for some surprise development that will send the superdelegates crawling back to her.
Multitasking
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 9:59AM
Honestly, I'm not a fan of John Yoo or his extreme interpretation of executive power, but I loved the passage in John H. Richardson's fine Esquire profile, when Yoo and the reporter are strolling through a park in Berkeley, California and Richardson asks, "Do you often come here to mock the hippies?"
"I don't come here specifically for that," Yoo answers. "I try to multitask."
Crone wars update
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 9:53AM
The phenomenon I wrote about yesterday now gets examined by syndicated columnist Froma Harrop:
The woman who shouted "McCain in '08" at the Democratic rules committee was speaking for a multitude. After mounting for months, female anger over the choreographed dumping on Hillary Clinton and her supporters has exploded -- and party loyalty be damned. . . . What's dangerous for the Democratic Party is that, for many women, the eye of the storm has moved beyond Hillary or anything she does at this point. The offense has turned personal. . . .Live by identity politics, die by identity politics. John McCain cleverly finds occasion to praise Hillary.
No Ordinary Circumstances
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 9:53AM
Perusing the New York Times article on President Bush's commencement address at Furman University, I couldn't help but be struck, once again, by how self-interested and impolite the faux by-any-means-necessary left consistently is. Everyone absolutely has the right to express themselves, but can you imagine the indignant uproar if pro-life or pro-war students had behaved toward a left-wing figure's commencement address the way these people chose to behave toward Bush?:
More than 200 Furman professors and students signed a statement criticizing Bush administration policies and the Iraq war. "Under ordinary circumstances, it would be an honor for Furman University to be visited by the president of the United States," the statement said. "However, these are not ordinary circumstances."
The statement said the Iraq war had "severely damaged our government's ethical and moral credibility at home and abroad." A conservative student group defended the president and said that "liberal professors" were staging "a publicity stunt." Mr. Bush received a warm reception from the audience. He ignored about 15 faculty members who stood silently, wearing T-shirts that bore the words, "We Object."
Clinton Exit Seems Imminent
Posted by on 6.3.08 @ 9:52AM
The never surrender rhetoric of the Clintons has toned down several notches, and my guess is that she will in fact drop out of the race this week.
Yesterday, Hillary said:
Meanwhile, Bill, who when I saw him in Ohio and North Carolina was still delivering a lot of bluster about how everybody keeps counting Hillary out, but she'd win the nomination, had this to say:
Monday, June 2, 2008
Obama, McCain and The Jewish Vote
Posted by on 6.2.08 @ 4:34PM
Following John McCain's speech to AIPAC this morning, I wanted to get a sense of how he was received, as well as how Israel-conscious Jewish voters viewed Barack Obama.
I stumbled upon conference attendee Norman Lattman, who described himself as a down-the-line Democratic voter from
"I have to get a better sense of Obama," Lattman told me. "Right now he sounds more like a politician, and we don't know much about him as a statesman… He's a brilliant speaker, and he's been running for office, but is there any beef there? Is there any substance to any of that rhetoric?"
As for Jewish voters, he said, "He's got a lot of work to do with the Jewish population of this country. There sense is that they know McCain, they know
I also asked him, specifically, about the attitudes of his Jewish Democratic friends in
"Among traditional Democratic voters, there is a reluctance toward Obama, there's no question about it," he said, which he attributed mainly to concerns about Obama's views toward
This should be an interesting subplot to follow throughout the election year. It is my view that Jews will end up voting overwhelmingly for Obama because they still tend to be ideologically liberal and most do not vote primarily on
In 2004, Jews represented 5 percent of the
Other states where the Jewish vote could potentially come into play if McCain can make them competitive are
Tancredo in a Reflective Mood
Posted by on 6.2.08 @ 3:52PM
Tom Tancredo isn't sure that his presidential campaign did much to advance his positions on immigration. He's refreshingly honest about his limitations as a politician, but don't say I didn't warn him.
Re: I Feel Hillary's Pain
Posted by on 6.2.08 @ 3:50PM
Well, James, each of those rumors is subject to different interpretations. Once the primary campaign is over, obviously Hillary won't need a field staff anymore, but that's not the same as surrendering. As to the rest of it, all of those reporters have been trying to run Hillary out of the race since March, yet she's still running. Unless and until she says, "I quit," and releases her delegates from their pledges, she remains a candidate for the nomination when the Democrats convene in August. Besides, like she said, anything can happen in June, right?
Re: I Feel Hillary's Pain
Posted by on 6.2.08 @ 3:27PM
I dunno, the rumors that it's quittin' time are starting to build. (Most via the Drudge Report.)
Re: I Feel Hillary's Pain
Posted by on 6.2.08 @ 1:25PM
James, the real pain for Hillary is in choosing between two unpalatable options. Either (a) she keeps going and is seen by Democrats as a sore loser dividing the party, or (b) she packs it in and is seen by her supporters as a quitter who was insincere in her vow to fight it out.
One of the most persistent complaints of the Left in recent years is that Democrats don't fight, that they roll over too easily for the Bush administration. Whether this accusation is fair or not, there could be real value for Clinton in securing her reputation as a fighter -- even if it's fighting against Obama and the DNC all the way to Denver.
If Obama subsequently goes down to defeat in November, Clinton could then say, "I told you so," and begin her 2012 campaign with the mantle of a pugnacious candidate who never quits -- which is exactly what the Democratic base has been demanding for years.
About that Popular Vote
Posted by on 6.2.08 @ 1:00PM
A while back, James Thunder published a fine piece arguing that the Electoral College is no less democratic than our system of primaries and caucuses. It is a sound defense of the Electoral College that the layman can understand, but there was always the risk of people reaching the opposite conclusion: that state primaries and caucuses are insufficiently democratic. So what we talking about in the Democratic presidential race? The national popular vote. Bah.
The Gaffe of Gaffe Celebration
Posted by on 6.2.08 @ 12:04PM
I'm getting a slew of emails from various Republican and conservative groups about Obama the Gaffe Machine, but, lord, I have to say I'm much more concerned about the consequences of the things he actually means to say. When he's president we'll have much greater concerns on our hands than whether the guy thinks some town is called Sunshine or Sunrise.
Like, for example, Obamerica.
I Feel Hillary's Pain
Posted by on 6.2.08 @ 10:57AM
To an extent. Hillary Clinton has been beating Barack Obama by large margins in the last stretch of the campaign. She has a plausible electability argument for the general in November. She trails by just 0.1 percent in the most widely accepted popular vote count. Neither candidate has enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination. And yet Hillary is basically toast. That would be hard to take even if you didn't have the Clintons' sense of entitlement.
McCain Rocks AIPAC
Posted by on 6.2.08 @ 10:51AM
John McCain just left the stage here at AIPAC to a rousing standing ovation, after speaking about the importance of strong ties between the U.S. and Israel, and delivering tough words toward Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah. The speech also included several blistering attacks on Barack Obama.
"The Iranians have spent years working toward a nuclear program, and the idea that they now seek nuclear weapons because we refuse to engage in presidential-level talks is a serious misreading of history," McCain said in an obvious reference to the Obama, in a line that drew applause.
McCain also assailed Obama for opposing the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.
"Over three quarters of the Senate supported this obvious step, but not Senator Obama," McCain said. "He opposed this resolution because its support for countering Iranian influence in Iraq was, he said, a 'wrong message not only to the world, but also to the region.' But here, too, he is mistaken. Holding Iran's influence in check, and holding a terrorist organization accountable, sends exactly the right message - to Iran, to the region and to the world."
This prompted one of several standing ovations that McCain received during his remarks.
Instead of unconditional talks, McCain called for tougher political and economic sanctions, as well as a worldwide divestment campaign.
"If there are ties between America and Israel that critics of our alliance have never understood, perhaps that is because they do not fully understand the love of liberty and the pursuit of justice," McCain said in closing his speech. "But they should know those ties cannot be broken. We were brought together by shared ideals and by shared adversity. We have been comrades in struggle, and trusted partners in the quest for peace. We are the most natural of allies. And, like Israel itself, that alliance is forever."
Cherry Picking?
Posted by on 6.2.08 @ 10:13AM
It's true, as Marie Cocco notes in a recent column, that Barack Obama's health care plan wouldn't provide true universal coverage. Because it does not include a mandate (except for children), it's virtually guaranteed that some individuals wouldn't sign up for coverage. On the other hand, I'm not sure how Cocco arrives at the following conclusion:
Obama's plan explicitly includes a provision known as "guaranteed issue" that doesn't let health insurance companies turn people away for health reasons. Here's how his campaign website summarizes it:
Problem is, it's not clear that guaranteed issue and other measures which prohibit insurers from accounting individual risk factors is really a good idea. One study last year found that states which had implemented both guaranteed issue and community rating, which prohibits insurers from taking age and gender into account, resulted in worse coverage overall, saying that:
In other words, there's some reason to be skeptical that the sort of additional regulation of insurers Obama proposes will actually provide the promised results.
NY Times on 'Libertarian dreams'
Posted by on 6.2.08 @ 9:41AM
The paragon of MSM cluelessness weighed in Sunday:
[Libertarian Party presidential nominee Bob] Barr has said he hopes that [Republican Rep. Ron] Paul's million-plus supporters will vote for him instead. And the Barr campaign is trying to tap into some of the Ron Paul Internet magic, linking to social-networking sites like Facebook and My Space on its campaign Web site.
But without Mr. Paul on the ballot, many of his supporters may choose not to vote at all. And Mr. Paul, the Libertarian Party's nominee in 1988, does not plan to steer his supporters to Mr. Barr, said Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Mr. Paul.
Sigh. In hopes that MSM reporters might understand it, I will type this slowly: Ron Paul supporters have already joined the Barr campaign.
Barr's Web team is Terra Eclipse, the same company that did Paul's Web site. Barr's national homeschool coordinator, Shana Kluck, served in the same role for the Paul campaign. This same pattern is evident at the state and local level. Go to Barr's Facebook group and see how many members are also members of Paul's Facebook group.
As one Barr supporter explained it to me, "The Ron Paul movement wasn't about Ron Paul. It was about a movement." And the Paul movement effectively ended in February, when the candidate sent an e-mail to his supporters, announcing plans to scale back his campaign, focus on getting re-elected in Texas, and abjuring a third-party run.
Waiting For McCain At AIPAC
Posted by on 6.2.08 @ 9:18AM
I'm here at the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, where they're expecting over 7,000 attendees, as well as hundreds of members of Congress, to show their support for strong ties between the U.S. and Israel. John McCain is scheduled to speak at around 9:30 inside a large darkened auditorium, surrounded by big video screens.
I just read some excerpts of McCain's speech, and it includes several sharp barbs at Barack Obama over his vow to conduct unconditional presidential talks with Iran, his opposition to the bill declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guards a terrorist group, and his stance against the surge strategy in Iraq. It will be interesting to see how those assaults will be received by the crowd, because it will provide some sense of how big of a hill Obama will have to climb on Wednesday, when he gives a much-anticipated talk to the conference during which he hopes to quell fears about his stance toward Israel. (For added drama, Hillary Clinton will be speaking the same morning, which will be a day after the final Democrtatic primaries in Montana and South Dakota.)
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Video: Hillary's new ad
Posted by on 6.1.08 @ 8:53PM
Emphasizing her record 17 million primary votes:
"Some say there isn't a single reason for Hillary to be the Democratic nominee. They're right. There are over 17 million of them." That's the message she's running in Montana and South Dakota, coming off her 2-to-1 win over Obama in Puerto Rico.
