Category: Elections 2008

(via Les and DOF)

Those were the results when, two years ago, SurveyUSA polled 600 voters in each state, asking for their vote in a 2008 election between McCain and Obama. In that poll, Obama only carried Illinois, Hawaii, and DC.

Today …

While I’d prefer you vote the way I do, I’d rather you vote than not, regardless. That’s how the system works, how we all have buy-in to the results, how we all participate.

If you haven’t done it, just do it.

In the post-Super Tuesday celebration, back in February, at the Obama campaign.

See, I’m enough of a romantic to think a little moment like that is extremely cool. And something I’d like to see in the White House.

My deepest condolences to Sen. Obama and his family. How bittersweet that this happen on the verge of such a tremendous victory.

As he said at the Democratic Convention:

And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting her own business, I think about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle-management, despite years of being passed over for promotions because she was a woman. She’s the one who taught me about hard work. She’s the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life. She poured everything she had into me. And although she can no longer travel, I know that she’s watching tonight, and that tonight is her night as well.

I don’t know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine. These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped me. And it is on their behalf that I intend to win this election and keep our promise alive as President of the United States

Again, my thoughts and prayers are with the Senator and his family.

They aren’t huge fans, mind you, and it’s framed as a blunt rejection of Bush and of how McCain has been running his campaign, but the editorial board of The Economist magazine endorses Obama for President. (Emphasis mine.)

For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.

[…] Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.

[…] There is no getting around the fact that Mr Obama’s résumé is thin for the world’s biggest job. But the exceptionally assured way in which he has run his campaign is a considerable comfort. It is not just that he has more than held his own against Mr McCain in the debates. A man who started with no money and few supporters has out-thought, out-organised and out-fought the two mightiest machines in American politics—the Clintons and the conservative right.

Political fire, far from rattling Mr Obama, seems to bring out the best in him: the furore about his (admittedly ghastly) preacher prompted one of the most thoughtful speeches of the campaign. On the financial crisis his performance has been as assured as Mr McCain’s has been febrile. He seems a quick learner and has built up an impressive team of advisers, drawing in seasoned hands like Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. Of course, Mr Obama will make mistakes; but this is a man who listens, learns and manages well.

It is hard too nowadays to depict him as soft when it comes to dealing with America’s enemies. Part of Mr Obama’s original appeal to the Democratic left was his keenness to get American troops out of Iraq; but since the primaries he has moved to the centre, pragmatically saying the troops will leave only when the conditions are right. His determination to focus American power on Afghanistan, Pakistan and proliferation was prescient. He is keener to talk to Iran than Mr McCain is— but that makes sense, providing certain conditions are met.

Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy. Despite the protectionist rhetoric that still sometimes seeps into his speeches, Mr Obama would not sponsor a China-bashing bill. But what happens if one appears out of Congress? Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole.

So Mr Obama in that respect is a gamble. But the same goes for Mr McCain on at least as many counts, not least the possibility of President Palin. And this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.

(via DOF)

An Election Carol.

VOTE!

Mitchell Bard suggests that, issues and personality aside, another way to decide tomorrow is looking at how each of the candidates have run their campaign.

Running a presidential campaign is like running a business with just one product: yourself. It requires strategy, tactics, responding to changing events, logistics, communications, finances, personnel — indeed everything in the latter from hiring policies to choosing managers and advisers, both centrally and at the state level. In short, it can be an amazing example of a top-class executive job.

And Obama’s done it.

I’m trimming out the lengthy bits here where Bard knocks McCain (you can read the whole thing yourself; it’s much better organized than the below might indicate), to focus on the positives here for Obama. (Emphasis below is mine.)

I think a question every voter needs to ask himself/herself before voting is: Which candidate has run the kind of campaign operation I would like to see the federal government emulate? I think the answer to this query has a clear and simple answer: Barack Obama.

[…] The two leading figures in Obama’s campaign, David Axelrod and David Plouffe, have been with Obama since his 2004 run for the U.S. Senate. Obama and his team settled on a message and a plan that they have stayed on for two years. You’ve heard it so many times, you can probably recite it along with me: change (ending the financial and foreign policy strategies of the last eight years and adopting new ones that work better for all Americans), inclusion (no red states or blue states, only the United States), and hope (inspiring rather than tearing down).

Obama identified a goal, came up with an effective plan to attain that goal, and followed it. Not a bad thing for an administration to do, no?

[…] If Obama wins, the big story will be the historic act of America electing an African American president. And it should be. But what may be lost is the impressive feat that Obama pulled off, namely that as a first-time candidate for the White House, he was able to put together and oversee a vastly better operation than either of his two well-connected insider rivals, Hillary Clinton and McCain.

Starting from scratch, Obama and his campaign built a large, powerful, active, engaged and effective organization that worked harder and better than anyone else’s. It allowed him to dominate the Democratic caucuses and get out the vote for the Democratic primaries, and it looks like it will allow him to win in the general election in states in which nobody thought a Democrat could be successful.

After eight years of a government that is broken, it would be great to have an administration that works as well as the Obama campaign has.

And for those who say, “Well, he had so much money,” I have two replies: First, how do you think he got all that money? Sure, people had to be excited about the message, but without a well-organized campaign, Obama would not have been able to turn that enthusiasm into millions of small donations. Second, even with a money advantage, Obama’s campaign was leaner and meaner than McCain’s. Of the 10 highest-paid campaign employees, seven of the 10 work for McCain, including the three highest earners. At a time of economic crisis, the ability to work efficiently is essential, and Obama has proven he can do it.

[…] Regarding the vice presidential selections, Obama’s vetting process was so thorough, Tim Kaine joked on The Daily Show about how in-depth it was (including his “high school girlfriend’s middle name”). The result was the selection of Joe Biden, an experienced Senator with impeccable foreign policy credentials, the one area that was perceived to be a weakness for Obama.

[…] McCain’s conduct [in the economic crisis] was in stark contrast to the way Obama handled things. He took counsel from economic experts, stayed in touch with Congressional leaders, made his feelings known, and, most importantly, didn’t try and disrupt the legislative process by thrusting himself into the middle of it. And most of all, he remained calm, steady and collected.

[…] As you look back on the 2008 election, whose campaign would make you prouder to be an American? Obama certainly ran some tough ads challenging McCain’s policies and voting record, but McCain took the campaign into the gutter […] Obama never asked, “Who is John McCain?”, even though Obama really would have had more to say. […] Obama never struck back, allowing McCain to portray himself as he saw fit, unchallenged. […] Obama never raised anything from McCain’s past, even though I have no doubt that many undecided voters would be greatly affected if they read Dickinson’s article. In six months, you have never heard Obama utter the name “Keating,” and even when given a chance to say something bad about Palin during the third debate, he declined to do so (and McCain followed by eviscerating Biden).

At a time when the standing of the United States in the world has been battered by eight years of damaging conduct by the Bush administration, it is important for America to re-establish its international credibility. That is why looking at the way Obama and McCain conducted themselves during the McCain is so important. Obama offered an approach we can all be proud of, while McCain’s descent into the gutter is all too reminiscent of Bush’s behavior.

[…] Obama has rejected money from lobbyists and surrounded himself with advisers who have distinguished themselves in their fields (people like former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers and former National Security Advisor Tony Lake). You may not agree with the politics of Obama’s advisers, but they are unquestionably less tainted than the lobbyists with whom McCain surrounded himself.

[…] Obama took a 21st Century, post-partisan approach to the campaign, saying early on he would compete in traditional red states, a position that was roundly dismissed as wishful thinking by both the Clinton and McCain campaigns.

But Obama was proven correct. He is ahead in the polls in the Bush-won states of Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and Iowa; he is essentially tied in the formerly red states of North Carolina, Ohio, Missouri and Florida; and he is close in the formerly bright red states of Indiana, Montana, North Dakota, Georgia and Arizona.

[…] If you put aside the issues and personalities and judge Obama and McCain based on their campaigns, there is a clear choice as to what kind of America you want for the next four years. And if you’re looking for competence, organization, steadiness, vision, good judgment and behavior we can be proud of, the choice is obvious: Vote for Barack Obama.

Again, the full article is worth reading.

A note from Adam McKay:

If you’re voting for McCain and you’ve clicked to read this I promise this will be pain free and fast. First off, I respect you for voting tomorrow. Right away you’ve set yourself above the apathetic millions and clearly you care about this country.

Before you punch, click or fill in your ballot for John McCain I would like to have a small one sided non-argumentative conversation with you as a person who also cares whether this country continues to grow and flourish or not.

If you’re not going to vote for Barack Obama because of the emails and rumors that he is a terrorist or hangs out with criminals or is a Muslim please do not let that be the reason.

This begs the first question: why in the hell should you listen to me? Well my answer would be, why not? I have no tax breaks or corporate interests to be supported by Barack Obama. In fact, as someone who makes over 250k a year I will pay more. So why would I lie or shill for him unless I truly believed he is the right choice?

McKay goes on to talk about the war, the rumor-mongering, abortion, socialism, and all those other “deal-killers.” Worth reading, esp. if you’re really not quite comfortable with that McCain decision.

Alex Palazzo examines why so many scientists are voting for Obama — or, in more cases, voting against conservatives. Bottom line: they attack scientists with “inconvenient truths” as pushy society-tinkering elitists, and trot out their own pet “think tanks” to provide rhetorical cover for their preferences.

What scientists see in the GOP is a culture that neglects professional opinions when constructing national policy, a political operation that seeks to poison our national discourse and an unbridled self-serving ideology that has led to economic turmoil and an uncertain future.

From free-markets, to health care policy, to education, to the war in Iraq, to global warming, Scientists look at the GOP and see a commitment to an idea, right-wing ideology, despite reality itself might be telling us. And this is why almost all scientists are voting against the GOP ticket this election cycle.

Interestingly, that ties into the Jeffrey Hart article in terms of ideology trumping knowledge.

As I’ve noted before, I tend to, philosophically, prefer a split government, where no one party controls both the White House and both chambers of Congress. Such an arrangement keeps a single ideology or political agenda from running roughshod over the country (whether Left or Right).

But MS Bellows suggests that in this case it might not be a bad idea for a while to have just one party in the driver’s seat.

As Election Day nears and McCain’s chances of electoral success fade, the McCain campaign has started using a clever and deceptive argument with voters: that it’s dangerous to have single-party rule in Washington, headed by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

That’s a deceptive argument, because it ignores the fact that it was single-party government — Republican control of the White House, both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court for six of the last eight years, and Republican control of two of the three branches for the past decade and a half — that have caused almost all the problems the nation now faces. Even with Democratic control of the political branches, we still won’t have single-party rule, because Republicans still comprise seven of the nine Supreme Court justices, and the Court’s “conservatives,” despite their protestations, are astoundingly activist, “legislating from the bench” every chance they get.

I usually don’t count SCOTUS in the equation, for a variety of reasons, but his point is well made.

Let me note, parenthetically, that I really have very little use for either Pelosi or Reid. Both tend to be shrill partisans who remind me of fingernails on a blackboard. Worse, neither has been particularly effective in standing up to Bush over the last couple of years. That said, I am fairly confident that it will be Obama pressing his agenda over theirs not the other way around.

Bellows’ central point:

But we’re living in an exceptional time that proves the rule. Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst possible form of government — except for all the rest. What he meant was that the checks and balances and inefficiencies of democratic governments can hamstring both bad ideas and good ones. The best government of all, however, is one that can take decisive action on good ideas — and sometimes, a nation faces a future so dire that it cannot afford to hamstring itself.

Today — with our nation engaged in two wars, unable to deal with natural (let alone terroristic) crises at home, ten times deeper in debt than we were when the “fiscally conservative” Ronald Reagan took office and twice as deep as we were just eight years ago, and on the brink of a credit collapse and big-D Depression; with our nation’s schools overcrowded, our industrial base sold for scrap, our scientific and research communities falling behind those of other nations for lack of government incubation, and our economy paying three times as much per capita for healthcare as our competitor nations are paying; with global warming accelerating and our reliance on foreign oil still expanding and species dying and weather worsening — with our nation at the tipping points in so many diverse yet overlapping areas, with such tremendous opportunities and such terrible hazards confronting us, we cannot afford to be inefficient. Right now, we must be positioned to enact bold ideas boldly.

That’s not undemocratic. In two years, and again in four, we will have chances to reconsider most of our leaders. But until then, our nation’s ability to move nimbly and powerfully and well may determine whether the 21st will be another American Century, or the end of America’s century-long state of grace.

Put differently: there are a lot of fires right now. Our government is like a fire truck that must get around as quickly as possible if it wants to put them all out before they turn into a citywide conflagration. Cross-party voting is a way of intentionally hobbling our government — which, right now, is akin to disabling a couple of cylinders on the truck, so that it can’t drive so quickly — or having two drivers, each intent on putting out a different fire first. It won’t work.

Here’s the right formula: one driver, fast truck, save city.

Claiming that a particular time is exceptional is, of course, always dangerous. But I have little doubt that even if the Dems win big-time all over, the threat of the next Congressional election cycle (which officially begins November 5th) will provide a check, as will the Senate filibuster threat.

The filibuster should be used sparingly, but ever since Democrats won a slim majority two years ago, Senate Republicans have quietly filibustered over fifty pieces of legislation, shutting down every significant Democratic intiative (and then, with remarkable chutzpah, have campaigned this year by calling the Democrats “do-nothings”).

How’s that “intentional hobbling” worked out for us? Not well.

 So what does Bellows propose?

(a) Electing more Democrats to Congress, especially to the Senate;

(b) Electing as President a Democrat who is both willing to break from Establishment thinking and can inspire the herd of cats that is the Democratic Congress into pulling together on important issues like this, and demanding that he then actually act that way; and

(c) If the Congressional leadership can’t or won’t lead as boldly as their President needs them to do, then changing the Democratic leadership as well, replacing Reid and Pelosi and their lieutenants with progressives who actually have the courage of their convictions.

If we do this, then our government will have a fair chance to solve those problems that only government can solve, which is, after all, its job. And, again, for those worried about Democrats having too much power, if we don’t like what a gutsy Democratic government does, we can start cutting it back in only two years, when 1/3 of the Senate and the entire House will be up for re-election.

After six years of Republican dominance of all three branches of government followed by two years of gridlock, doesn’t it make sense to give a truly progressive Democratic government a two-year trial run, and see if they can do better than the neoconservatives have?

They can hardly do worse.

Hart is a former speechwriter for both Nixon and Reagan, and until recently was a senior editor at The National Review. He calls Obama the “real conservative” in the campaign based on his position (and how he got there) on the war and democratization of the Middle East, on Social Security, on stem cell research, and on abortion. He argues that from his perspective on Edmund Burke.

There are common sense conservatives who are prudential, who try to match means with ends, and who calculate the probabilities of gains and risks. But there are philosophical (analytical) conservatives, the most useful being Edmund Burke, whose “Reflections on the Revolution in France” (1790) understood the great dangers in trying to change society through abstract (republican) theory. My first book that dealt with these matters was “English Political writers: From Locke to Burke” (Knopf, 1963).

Hart’s argument is that, in each of the above cases, McCain (like Bush) is trying to effect change based on abstract theory without understanding the realities, the history, and the social facts surrounding each problem, whereas Obama seeks to understand all of those and lets them inform his position. On the War, for example:

Republican President George W. Bush has not been a conservative at all, either in domestic policy or in foreign policy. He invaded Iraq on the basis of abstract theory, the very thing Burke warned against. Bush aimed to turn Iraq into a democracy, “a beacon of liberty in the Middle East,” as he explained in a radio address in April 2006.

I do not recall any “conservative” publication mentioning those now memorable words “Sunni,” “Shia,” or “Kurds.” Burke would have been appalled at the blindness to history and to social facts that characterized the writing of those so-called conservatives.

Obama did understand. In his now famous 2002 speech, while he was still a state senator in Illinois, he said: “I know that a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, of undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without international support will fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda. I’m not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”

Burke would have agreed entirely, and admired the cogency of so few words. And one thing I know is that both Nixon and Reagan would have agreed. Both were prudential and successful conservatives. But all the organs of the conservative movement followed Bush over the cliff—as did John McCain.

It’s an interesting twist, as Obama is usually painted as a starry-eyed idealist, when in Hart’s view he’s much more grounded and “common sense conservative” than his opponent. Which is why Hart is voting for Obama.

Anti-flag, anti-anthem, anti-national-reputation, anti-life, anti-economy, anti-work, pro-lazy, pro-socialist  … don’t believe me? Just ask these McCain supporters:

(via J-Walk)

From a letter from a professed liberal about how and why her conservative parents are voting for Obama.

A week later (and a day before The Big Day), here we are at long last. This will be the last one of these I do, except as a retrospective with the “final” numbers. Here’s hoping it’s not an open-mouthed “where did everyone go wrong?” post.

(+ means an increase, * means unchanged, – means a decrease)

Obama maintains his significant (if electoral-magnified) lead and lock in all the polls and results. Several sites have shown that number dropping; a few have showed it increasing (mostly at the expense of toss-ups). None of the sites — left-or-right-leaning — sees McCain winning the EC.

Over in the other races, here’s how things are looking (the top number is the current split; the +/*/- refers to the Democrat numbers):

Numbers here have gotten pretty stable. The Dems will be close to, but certainly not at or over a filibuster-proof Senate. It will be interesting to see how that plays out, as it means that only a few Senators crossing the aisle can make stuff happen if it is worth their while or if they believe strongly in it. It does mean that a disciplined GOP can, if they are willing to, block pretty much anything the Dems put forward. Will that make for a restraint on excess, or a gridlock that belies the Obama narrative of change and reconciliation?

Looks like we’ll get a chance to see.

Rosenbaum, a film producer, talks about his three “encounters” with Obama.

At the 2004 DNC in Boston:

I was standing at the top of a set of bleachers, talking to one of our photographers, and waiting for something to happen. I remember it this way – there was someone on the stage speaking. The crowd was restless, noisy. Then – as the talk went on – the cavernous Fleet Center became quiet. On stage, an unknown speaker had done the impossible, he’d broken through the noise and clutter and garnered the attention of the entire room. It was Barack Obama.

Re-read the speech if you haven’t in a while, or watch the video.

At a fund-raiser back in … 2006?

I spoke to Barack for perhaps 5 minutes. We talked about technology, about the need to reach across our borders and fix our deeply broken relationships with former allies, and about the need to embrace entrepreneurs and the spirit of creation and invention that had made it possible for both of us to build lives here. I’ve been to plenty of rubber chicken political fundraisers. And I’ve done my share of grip-and-grin photos with political folks. But I came a way from this encounter with a profound sense of someone who had listened, absorbed, and didn’t look over my shoulder for a guy who could write a bigger campaign check.

Watching the Obama infomercial, assuming it would be standard election propaganda.

But in that half hour, I found that the spirit and the hope that had struck me first in 2004, and again in 2006 was still raw and ready to be drawn to the surface. Watching Barack Obama with his young daughters, I couldn’t help but think that his concern for children – not just his ours – was genuine and heartfelt. He was a father as much as he was a politician. And that feels important to me. Second, I’d never heard the story of him watching his mother struggle with health insurance forms as she died of cancer. Here too I was struck by just how clearly his personal agenda and his political agenda overlap. This resonated with me – as I want our President to act on behalf not just of our needs today, but of our children’s needs. And their children too.

Rosenbaun goes on to discuss where his decision comes down on: taxes and the economy, the war, and health care. He concludes:

I’m voting for Barack Obama because I think he is remarkable human being, deeply ethical, thoughtful, and committed to the kind of public service that few people are.