In Four Years

The non-Poblano poster at fivethirtyeight.com had a piece listing the many wrongs Hillary Clinton did in this campaign, and says that he may never vote for her again. I think that he's right, and that he may even understate the case a bit. Obama pushed back on certain topics, but, by and large, he didn't call into question Clinton's basic morals, or bring up the 90's too much, presumably because he didn't want to awaken nostalgia for Bill Clinton's administration. But in 2012, 90's nostalgia is not going to be a campaign issue. And Clinton may not be lucky enough to be running against someone whose campaign is based on a new kind of politics. If I were running her opponent's campaign, I would just show her meeting with Scaife (with a clip of the "right-wing conspiracy" quote to lead in), promising to suspend the gas tax, and talking about hard-working Americans, white Americans, and have the slogan, "Hillary: she'll say anything to win." None of her campaign positions are going to play any better in 4 years.

right and left both attack obama: from Sekhar

I think most people on the left realize the unique nature of the election in the US this year. For the first time ever, a progressive and an oppressed minority has run a brilliant campaign and is very likely to become president.

Curiously, and this is perhaps a reflection of the state of the left historically, some don't share this understanding. They demand a platform acceptable to the left. I am not sure whether they actually fantasize that it is possible to win an election in the US on a [left]-friendly platform; a modicum of knowledge about where this country has gone in the past thirty-odd years should make the fantasy part very clear. The alternative is that they don't in fact care whether Obama wins or not, as long as he says all the right things.

There are three issues that are (and should be) very important to the left, but which will certainly sink any candidacy - Palestine, Cuba, Affirmative Action. I am confident, based on Obama's life experience, that he will be good on all three issues. Anyone who wants to debate the point should at a minimum read his first book.

At the same time, because of his progressive background, Obama cannot allow himself to be defined as beyond the pale (to use another meaning of the word). The right wing would love to hammer away on any one of these three topics and force him to defend himself day in and day out. Obama has to push these topics to the side so that the focus can remain on what Bush
has done to Iraq, to the economy, and to civil liberties. This means he has to say what is acceptable to most people - on these three issues, that is not what leftists would find acceptable. Most leftists undestand this and support Obama. Some, unfortunately, don't and spend their time hacking away.

The most recent example is Obama in Miami. It could just as well be AIPAC, which is coming up. What Obama said to the Cuban audience is not what I would like to say to them, but I am not trying to win Florida (or any place else). Obama wants to win that state along with many others. Two significant voting blocs there are Cubans and elderly Jews. There are quite a few in
both communities who will never vote for Obama because they are racist. The New York Times story talks about the racism of some of the older Jews. Likewise with the Cubans, where the situation is much more hopeless. The Jewish community, contrary to what the Times story says, has been quite steady in its support for Democratic candidates, second only to Blacks; the
Cubans are mostly reactionary. So why does Obama tell the Cubans he will keep the embargo for now? The topic has to be off the headlines. That is all.

Actually, there is more. Obama has made the debate to be about diplomacy. He has said he will negotiate with all world leaders, friend or not. He has been denounced by the right wing, and also by the Clintons, for this view. There are three things to be said about this. One is that it shows how backward US politics is, that even talking to adversaries is a big deal. Two, it is a debate that Obama can win, by appealing to people's common sense. Three, if Obama proposes actual solutions now like the dismantlement of settlements or normalization of relations, that will be the end of his candidacy.

These points all came out even in the way Obama's speech was received. We can all wish he had spoken differently. But the NY Times, for instance, focused on Obama wanting to meet with the Cuban leadership:

MIAMI - Senator Barack Obama on Friday called for greater engagement with Cuba and Latin America, saying the long-standing policies of isolation have failed to advance the interests of the United States or help people who have suffered under oppressive governments.

In a speech before an influential Cuban-American group here, Mr. Obama said he would meet with the Cuban leader, Raúl Castro, "at a time and place of my choosing." He derided Senator John McCain and other Republican critics as embracing what he called hard-line approaches that have failed.

"John McCain´s been going around the country talking about how much I want to meet with Raúl Castro, as if I´m looking for a social gathering or I´m going to invite him over and
have some tea," Mr. Obama said. "That´s not what I said, and John McCain knows it. After eight years of the disastrous policies of George Bush, it is time to pursue direct diplomacy, with friend and foe alike, without preconditions."

Sure, Obama could have said he would immediately lift the embargo. That will satisfy us leftists and make us feel good, but it will be futile. Obama won't win and the embargo will stay in place. The way Obama framed the issue, the general public will support him.

Of course, the Cuban leadership in Miami is not going to support him. They are reactionaries, bound to the Republican party. They will never support Obama, or any other Democrat. But they didn't dominate the discourse in the coverage. The left should recognize when one of their own controls the debate so well.

A few more Times excerpts from the piece about Florida Jews:

"The people here, liberal people, will not vote for Obama because of his attitude towards Israel," Ms. Weitz, 83, said, lingering over brunch.

"They´re going to vote for McCain," she said.

Ms. Grossman, 80, agreed with her friend´s conclusion, but not her reasoning.

"They´ll pick on the minister thing, they´ll pick on the wife, but the major issue is color," she said, quietly fingering a coffee cup. Ms. Grossman said she was thinking of voting for Mr. Obama, who is leading in the delegate count for the nomination, as was Ms. Weitz.

But Ms. Grossman does not tell the neighbors. "I keep my mouth shut," she said.

The article goes on to say, "[b]ut in recent presidential elections, Jews have drifted somewhat to the right." This has been disputed on various blogs. The percent of Jews voting for Republicans has not changed much in over twenty years; the Democratic vote has fluctuated somewhat, perhaps because of Ross Perot in 92 and 96.

Then, there are the false stories, many of which are circulated by Israel fanatics (the Times doesn't say so):

Mr. Obama is Arab, Jack Stern´s friends told him in Aventura. (He´s not.)

He is a part of Chicago´s large Palestinian community, suspects Mindy Chotiner of Delray. (Wrong again.)

Mr. Wright is the godfather of Mr. Obama´s children, asserted Violet Darling in Boca Raton. (No, he´s not.)

Al Qaeda is backing him, said Helena Lefkowicz of Fort Lauderdale (Incorrect.)

Michelle Obama has proven so hostile and argumentative that the campaign is keeping her silent, said Joyce Rozen of Pompano Beach. (Mrs. Obama campaigns frequently, drawing
crowds in her own right.)

Mr. Obama might fill his administration with followers of Louis Farrakhan, worried Sherry Ziegler. (Extremely unlikely, given his denunciation of Mr. Farrakhan.)

As with other ethnic groups, age is an important factor. Many Jews in Florida are older, having moved there after retirement.

Younger Jews have grown up in diverse settings and are therefore less likely to be troubled by Mr. Obama's associations than their elders, said Rabbi Ethan Tucker, 32, co-founder of a Jewish learning organization in Manhattan and the stepson of Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of
Connecticut. Rabbi Tucker said he had given money to Mr. Obama and would vote for him in the fall. "If association was the litmus test of identity, everyone would be a hopeless mishmash of confusion, or you´d have no friends," he said.

Lieberman won't support any Democrat; it is interesting that his stepson, an orthodox rabbi, is for Obama.

This is Obama's accomplishment, and that is what is going to help him become President, not just his progressive politics.

Here are some articles about attacks from the right -- in the Washington Post, lies we will hear about Obama. From Politico, viral emails forcing Obama to emphasize his American roots. One trusts the left is as smart as the right and can see who should be attacked and who should be supported.

More articles: from Newsweek, an attempt to show that not supporting Obama correlates with racist attitudes. Along the same lines, an Al Jazeera report on racism in Kentucky. http://isbarackobamaamuslim.com/ tries to answer itself.

Obama's massive rally in Portland (60,000) opened with a local indie band, the Decemberists who, it is said, often open with the Soviet national anthem. Some rightwing blogs think the choice of the band shows Obama's politics.

Where's the DNC memo?

Nobody seems to actually have the entire memo -- TPM has 7 pages dealing with Michigan. Michigan is a fairly clear-cut case, because it has a Democratic governor and house. The Michigan Democratic party can't very well claimed they did their best to prevent the primary from being moved up. Florida, however, can make that claim, however implausible. And the DNC rules allow the Rules Committee to reinstate delegates in that case. Now, I've written that Florida doesn't really have a case. I still think that. But the Rules Committee should be able, theoretically, to overrule itself and decide that Florida does have a case. I think they shouldn't, but I don't think it's a matter of law.

Is McCain really even with Obama?

The Times has a piece on McCain's slow progress in campaigning. Mentioned as a positive is that, despite a highly-damaged Republican brand, McCain is running even with Obama in national polls. But how much is going to change once Hillary drops out and her supporters are really, truly convinced that she's gone? How many of her supporters are going to (maybe grudgingly) accept Obama? Once Obama gets nominated, he's the Democratic candidate, not a Democratic candidate. My guess is a 5-point boost, at least -- and we're seeing some of that already in the more recent polls.

Irrational cable pricing

Cable companies claim that if they offered a la carte pricing, each channel would get more expensive, because each channel depends on the fees that come from subscribers. But the per-channel fee should be calculable so that this doesn't matter. Just take the total fees currently paid by subscribers, and divide by the total number of channels times the total number of subscribers. That's how much each channel should get for each subscriber. If the claim is that people won't ask for more TV, but will watch it if they have it, make canceling channels an opt-out. If the claim is that TV sucks people in, well then the cable companies should be forced to make that argument.

Three-way Left Irrationality towards Obama: from Sekhar

There is a view on the left that Obama should be rejected as a sell-out and that a left candidate should be supported instead. Leaving aside the arrogance and self-destruction of working to defeat the first black president, there is also the idealism - Obama is opposed for his stands on certain issues despite his long service to the poor people of Chicago, while random people are supported for their position papers, regardless of their actual record. Leftists who want to oppose Obama should, at a minimum, compare his community work with what the "left" candidates have done.

The second line of attack is that Obama was progressive once but has sold out. This is again idealism, ignoring the real-life problems faced by a radical and how one manages to deal with them while remaining progressive. McKinney, for instance, has so little political savvy she could not even hold on to her seat against another black candidate.

The Sunday NY Times has a long article on Obama in Chicago. It can be read in multiple ways. A pure leftist can read it as the story of a sell-out. I read it as how a man with good politics learned how to work in the system to do good. I was at a local community function on Sunday. They were honoring local people who were "good neighbors." The person who runs the group gave a talk, whose main point was that Obama's rise is about the importance of community organizing from the bottom up. I found one of his points very interesting - when Obama went to Chicago and began his community work (1984?), he found few takers for militant action; local blacks pointed out they had just elected the first black mayor, Harold Washington. Obama had to adapt to a reality different from what he had imagined for an oppressed black community.

The third line of attack is to call the Obama movement personality-based or charisma-based (the left may be too polite to say cult), and not a movement for social change. I am sure there are a few teens (and some older) who are like cult-followers. But the people who put their careers on hold to work for Obama are not just following the personality. Frank Rich has a vastly better-written account, also in the Sunday Times.

When one and a half million people contribute to a political campaign, and when, in quite a few states, more people vote in the primary than Kerry got in the general election in 2004, the Left should take it seriously.

The issue that drives so many is Iraq. The anti-war movement chose Obama because he was an early and consistent opponent. The NY Times article expresses surprise that, in his 2002 speech, he said he didn't oppose all wars. The reporter doesn't realize that people against the Iraq invasion are not anti-all wars. I was reminded of Cindy Sheehan who does fit the reporter's idea of an anti-war figure. A few years back, she spoke at the Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade program in New York. Speaking to an audience of people who had supported the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War (many with their lives) and then enlisted in the Second World War, and their descendants and admirers, Sheehan expressed her opposition to all wars, including the Second - not the best venue to express such a stupid thought. But I digress.

Returning to Iraq, moveon.org is a good example. I understand it was started by people who opposed Clinton's impeachment, the name coming from the sentiment to criticize Clinton for his behavior but to "move on" to other issues. The organization was supportive of the Clintons for several years. But Hillary's support of the Iraq invasion and general saber-rattling led to their endorsing Obama. This happened because Move-On is in fact a democratic organization.

Obama has just launched Vote for Change, a 50-state effort to energize the public, not just for this election but beyond it. One has to wait and see how these movements evolve. But to deride them for not fitting in with a preconceived notion of a "social movement" is to jump to conclusions prematurely.

The Sunday NY Times also had an article claiming that the negative campaigning by the Clintons with help from Jeremiah Wright has made Obama a better candidate for November. I think that is correct; it is far better that Wright came out now and not later. However, for whatever reason, the Clinton campaign did not raise the Palestinian question. We can be sure that will be a big issue for the Republicans, both to move Israel-supporters away from the Democratic party and also to link Obama to Islamic terrorism. McCain is already talking about Hamas endorsing Obama. The Times Obama profile gives a reasonable account of Obama's interactions with Palestinians.

Clinton's loan

In paying off her $11 million loan to her campaign, Bloomberg reports, as others have, that she cannot do so after the Democratic convention, making it more likely that she stay in. It does raise an interesting possibility, though -- she could ask donors who have given to her general election fund to redirect their contributions towards her 2012 Senate run. She could then pay off the vendors, etc., through that fund.