Jay Cost has a great breakdown of the race right now. In it, to spare those poor souls for whom reading is an unpleasant chore for the anemic grey matter that rests comfortably above their necks, he presents a statistical arguement for why Obama's victories have not been due to any sort of momentum, but rather, because of the demographic contituencies he has put together.
Black voters vote for him overwhelmingly, but so do white voters with incomes over $50,000. Hillary plays better with women and Hispanics. The states that have voted so far haven't bucked any of the trends, it's more of a coincidence that 7 states that have favorable demographics for Obama were stacked in a row. It's a very interesting arguemnt.
And it indirectly highlights one of the critical aspects of politics in general: image management. The Obama campaign may be able to turn a demographic coincidence into actual momentum. In essence, they would take something that doesn't necessarily exist, if Mr. Cost is to be believed, and make it exist. And then it would have always existed; people will look back on this recent sweep of seven states as the time when Obama began to pull away.
But only a fool would count Hillary out. She's proven that too many times in an election where there are very good reasons to not trust previous patterns.
On the other side of the aisle, it's obviously over. Going back over some of the prediction I've made, I find myself a bit chagrinned at my initial thoughts on John McCain (interesting side note: do I like him more now because he won or because I know him better?). I find myself respecting McCain, and maybe regreting some of my earlier animosity.
Perhaps it's a weakness or psychological trick that draws those of us who follow politics in like moths to the quadrennial flame, but I really do think he's the best possible nominee. I think that now. I didn't then.
Perhaps it's the lackluster position that the Republican party finds itself in now. After 8 years of Bush and compassionate conservatism, talk of Democratic irreleveance as a national party seems further away than 3 years ago. Who would have thought that the Golden Boy of the Right, George W., would have been the man who sundered the conservative coalition apart? But the base is dispirited, the religious right is petulant, and the libertarians are cynical and bolting. The moderates are showing signs of Obamania.
Into this politically hellish perfect storm, could a better candidate be found than one who has clearly been at odds with his President and the extreme factions of his party? A man of nigh-on unimpeachable personal character, who also draws Hispanic and Independent voters in large numbers? A man who actually has a proven record of bipartisanship? In fact, a man who has shown himself to be so willing to work with moderates that the wing nuts of his own party did everything they could to torpedo his nomination?
I think not.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Rhetorical revelations and the obfuscating Obama
Obama. Obamania. Obamaniacs.
I recently was involved in several discussions about this guy where I just didn't have the time, or it would have been horribly impolite, to really get into why he'd make an awful president. That's right, I said it. And yes, I AM going there.
Let's start with his eyes. Those piercing dark eyes that crinkle up when he smiles. And his smile, his so spot on, so warm and friendly smile. You know who also has great eyes and a smile? Tom Cruise. Tom "I Believe Alien Souls are Inhabiting My Body" Cruise. So lets move past the whole "he looks so good" thing.
But then there's his Voice. It's the Voice of a new generation. The Voice of a new America. Our hopes and our dreams and our highest aspirations are carried up higher and lifted to new horizons, guided by the melodious sounds of his vocal chords. To quote another famous wordsmith, "his words are a very fantastical banquet, just so many strange dishes."
There is power in words. Words are important and inspiring. But words are important because they are symbols, simple sounds strung together in patterns that have recognized significance. Take away that significance and what do you have? Words are inspiring because of their message. If that message is undeliverable they have no substance. Without substance behind them they're simply foul. And, "foul words are but foul air, and foul air is but foul breath, therefore I shall depart unkissed."
Obama has a decent record as an Illinois State Senator. He has a tolerably decent record as a U.S. Senator. He hasn't been in bed with a dead girl or a live boy yet, so that's good. He was just rated as the most liberal senator in the entire body, so I have some issues with his politics, but lets put that aside for a minute and just look at his ability to deliver on his message.
His message is change. Non-partisan change, working from a centrist position to move America forward. His voting record is one of the most partisan on record in either party, so I'm not sure he means it, but lets assume that he does. The next president is going to have to deal with two major issues, right off the bat: the economy, and Iraq.
Economically speaking, one of three things is going to happen: serious tax increases, serious spending cuts, or deficits that will put already legendary Bush level spending to shame. What's the centrist solution there? Probably some amalgamation of tax increases on the rich and corporations (which will slow down the economy even further), spending cuts for the military and perhaps one or two entitlement programs, and continued deficits. Notice how I'm not even mentioning what nationalized health care will do to the economy. Now, he's being advised by reasonable centrist types, so that's good. He's also backed away from some of the protectionist garbage that other Democratic candidates, and even Republican candidates (Mr. Huckabee, I'm looking at you here) have been peddling. So we'll pretend that he'll somehow keep the left wing of his party mollified while he reaches towards the center fiscally and move on (.org).
But on Iraq, his hands are so tied it hurts. How does he pull away, as he's committed to doing, from a situation that even Democrats are acknowledging is getting better? He loses the military worse than Clinton did if he tries. And if he keep troops present, even in a much more peaceful Iraq (as our Arab allies, fearful of the chaos of 2006, would privately like us to do- to say nothing of Iraqi's themselves), how does he keep his party together? How does he tell Democrats who have sweat and fretted (and sometimes even frothed) for so long to get their party in a position of power so that they can get us the hell out of Iraq that he plans on staying for a few years? That's an Obama speech I'd love to hear.
And we're going to be expecting a man who was only a relatively busy state level politician just a few short years ago to be able to handle challenges like these? Really? Really?
He's shown no executive ability, no brilliant legislative ability, and no ability of any kind other than his truly legendary power to speak pretty. And he does it so well it hurts. He does it so well that I sometimes find myself wishing there was some substance there. He has the number one requirement of a politician down pat: he can get people to care about him. But where's the substance?
Where's the beef?
I recently was involved in several discussions about this guy where I just didn't have the time, or it would have been horribly impolite, to really get into why he'd make an awful president. That's right, I said it. And yes, I AM going there.
Let's start with his eyes. Those piercing dark eyes that crinkle up when he smiles. And his smile, his so spot on, so warm and friendly smile. You know who also has great eyes and a smile? Tom Cruise. Tom "I Believe Alien Souls are Inhabiting My Body" Cruise. So lets move past the whole "he looks so good" thing.
But then there's his Voice. It's the Voice of a new generation. The Voice of a new America. Our hopes and our dreams and our highest aspirations are carried up higher and lifted to new horizons, guided by the melodious sounds of his vocal chords. To quote another famous wordsmith, "his words are a very fantastical banquet, just so many strange dishes."
There is power in words. Words are important and inspiring. But words are important because they are symbols, simple sounds strung together in patterns that have recognized significance. Take away that significance and what do you have? Words are inspiring because of their message. If that message is undeliverable they have no substance. Without substance behind them they're simply foul. And, "foul words are but foul air, and foul air is but foul breath, therefore I shall depart unkissed."
Obama has a decent record as an Illinois State Senator. He has a tolerably decent record as a U.S. Senator. He hasn't been in bed with a dead girl or a live boy yet, so that's good. He was just rated as the most liberal senator in the entire body, so I have some issues with his politics, but lets put that aside for a minute and just look at his ability to deliver on his message.
His message is change. Non-partisan change, working from a centrist position to move America forward. His voting record is one of the most partisan on record in either party, so I'm not sure he means it, but lets assume that he does. The next president is going to have to deal with two major issues, right off the bat: the economy, and Iraq.
Economically speaking, one of three things is going to happen: serious tax increases, serious spending cuts, or deficits that will put already legendary Bush level spending to shame. What's the centrist solution there? Probably some amalgamation of tax increases on the rich and corporations (which will slow down the economy even further), spending cuts for the military and perhaps one or two entitlement programs, and continued deficits. Notice how I'm not even mentioning what nationalized health care will do to the economy. Now, he's being advised by reasonable centrist types, so that's good. He's also backed away from some of the protectionist garbage that other Democratic candidates, and even Republican candidates (Mr. Huckabee, I'm looking at you here) have been peddling. So we'll pretend that he'll somehow keep the left wing of his party mollified while he reaches towards the center fiscally and move on (.org).
But on Iraq, his hands are so tied it hurts. How does he pull away, as he's committed to doing, from a situation that even Democrats are acknowledging is getting better? He loses the military worse than Clinton did if he tries. And if he keep troops present, even in a much more peaceful Iraq (as our Arab allies, fearful of the chaos of 2006, would privately like us to do- to say nothing of Iraqi's themselves), how does he keep his party together? How does he tell Democrats who have sweat and fretted (and sometimes even frothed) for so long to get their party in a position of power so that they can get us the hell out of Iraq that he plans on staying for a few years? That's an Obama speech I'd love to hear.
And we're going to be expecting a man who was only a relatively busy state level politician just a few short years ago to be able to handle challenges like these? Really? Really?
He's shown no executive ability, no brilliant legislative ability, and no ability of any kind other than his truly legendary power to speak pretty. And he does it so well it hurts. He does it so well that I sometimes find myself wishing there was some substance there. He has the number one requirement of a politician down pat: he can get people to care about him. But where's the substance?
Where's the beef?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
