South Carolina and The Gender Vs. Race Debate

At last night's speech in South Carolina, Obama showed the effects of the accelerated learning process that primaries are. I found his comment about "change is difficult" and about us having to overcome our "own doubts, fears, and cynicism" to be somewhat of a coming-of-age comment for the coalition that he has pulled together. And as expected, the only thing more rousing than his win last night was his victory speech. This guy can inspire with his words.

In reading some of the news articles this morning I came across an article by Jessica Reaves (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-obama_thinkjan27,0,1870901.story) of the Chicago Tribune. Let me start by saying she actually quotes Gloria Steinem's NY Times article as positive evidence for her case. Ms. Steinem exhibited an unfortunate sense of timing by publishing an article on why women are never the front-runners just 2 days before the New Hampshire vote. Now if Ms. Steinem had published that same article in the months before Iowa, she would command our attention and respect. Coming at the time it did, it was more of an apologist's tribute to the slipping Mrs. Clinton.

The Steinem article also reeked badly of an entitlement attitude - this is supposed to be Mrs. Clinton's turn; she endured all that humiliation and shame in return for this payback; she is the only woman of our generation who has a chance; a young, hopeful, inspiring upstart has no right to take it all away simply because he has a powerful personal story, has worked his heart out on the south side of Chicago helping the underprivileged, was successful at Harvard and Stanford, etc.

Ms. Reaves takes the Steinem hypothesis and builds upon it. A collection of 3 or 4 comments by folks like Chris Matthews and John Edwards is used as the basis for a sweeiping assertion of an imagined backlash against a successful woman. She uses an old journalistic trick by providing the only examples she can find to boost her hypothesis, makes a list, and adds an etc. at the end to make it look like there are more to add if only there were the time and space to do so. What is most telling is the irrational conclusion at the end of Ms. Reaves' article - if Obama wins then everyone will have to concede the point that in politics "gender remains a more profound obstacle than race." Apart from wanting to say "tell that to Jesse Jackson," isn't it appalling that journalists sometimes suffer from the same disease that politicians suffer from? If someone opposes or rejects their pet idea, it is obviously not because the idea isn't a good one but because there is a "vast _insert_your_favorite_category conspiracy" against the idea. Ergo, if Obama were to win then "Gender is a more profound obstacle in politics than Race." Would Ms. Reaves concede the opposite were Mrs. Clinton to win? That the results prove that Ms. Steinem was entirely wrong in her assertions and that, in fact, "Race remains a more profound obstacle than Gender?" Intellectual honesty and integrity would demand that she accept the challenge. But wait, the need for honest and integrity might in fact be the most profound obstacle to meaningful debate in the public sphere.

"Fairy Taled?"

So here is a prediction - by the next election cycle "fairy taled" will join "swift boated" as a new adjectival phrase that is used with a negative connotation.  "Fairy Taled" will likely come to mean that someone falsely maligned your "real story."  

Are the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth really good company for a former President to seek to be in?

Edwards The Loser

Thought I'd share an observation re: Edwards. That Edwards is desperate to turn this into a two person race with him still in it is not a surprise. But his tactic is a bit strange. When Hillary was number 2 going into NH, Edwards sided with Obama to attack Hillary (rememmber "us change mongers are always attacked by pro-establishment dorks") or something along those lines. Now sensing that Obama is number 2 in Nevada, Edwards is siding with Hillary to attack Obama. How can anyone count on a guy with such a sneaky, loserish plan. Sheesh Edwards.

Nevada Caucus Teacher's Union Lawsuit

You know, regardless of the outcome of today's court hearing, it will be Advantage Obama if you accept the premise that in popular public perception the Clinton team is somehow behind the lawsuit by the Teacher's Union.

If the Court decides against the Teacher's Union, then Obama will benefit in Nevada from having the Caucus sites along the strip.   The Culinary Workers' Union will be able to maximize the votes it can deliver to Obama.

If the Court decides in favor of the Teacher's Union, it will form a stunning example of the power of the establishment-backed Clinton to change previously agreed upon rules when the rules don't suit their purposes.  Remember, the decision to allow at-large caucuses was proposed in March 2007 by the state party and approved by the Democratic National Committee in August 2007 - Obama was nowhere close to Clinton in polling back then.  And tellingly no one opposed the ruling until the Culinary Workers decided to back Obama.  Bill Clinton can fake all the outrage he wants to fake but he knows he is in a bind.  Obama will go to town with strong evidence that backs his claim to being the "anti-establishment" change candidate.  In a way, I think I might prefer the Court ruling in favor of the Teacher's Union.  The benefit in the other states will be huge for Obama.

Just to throw in something to make you think - if the Teacher's Union loses, would Obama still be able to claim that he stood up to the establishment and prevailed?

Nevada Democratic Debate 1/15/2008

In the Democratic debate last night in Nevada everybody tried to show themselves in the light of an uniter and not a divider.  But with Hillary it felt contrived.  Very contrived.  While she looked presidential in the debate, especially because she had the center seat, her tone was shrill and her demeanor harsh.

Overall, I felt Obama prevailed in last nights' debate.  He appeared thoughtful and calm.  Of all 3 candidates, Obama was the only one who would answer the question head on, assert his positives, and stop talking.  Almost every single time Hillary and Edwards would try to either evade the question or talk about one of the other candidate's shortcomings.  Obama did it a couple of times but with the other two the negative contrasting seemed excessive to me.

Obama also made the audience laugh with him at least 3 times.  And each time his humorous comments had a genuine warmth to them.   He came across as the most human candidate of the 3.  By far.

BTW, commentators haven't noticed yet but they will soon.  The worst line last night came from Hillary "I am a political realist ..."  Great going.

The Parsing of "Is" - A Retrospective of the 2008 Clinton

Hillary and Bill Clinton make some stupid, ill advised comments that display a fundamental lack of understanding and respect for the impact of historical icons such as MLK.  But rather than admitting to making a mistake or even admitting to a poor choice of words, they would rather attack reasonable people for making reasonable inferences.   This insult-to-intelligence retrospective parsing that has been a characteristic of Bill Clinton (who, by the way, I strongly supported much to my recent chagrin) seems also to be a characteristic of Hillary.

Do the Clintons have a racist streak?  Probably not.  But the real message of the MLK incident is not really that the Clintons are somehow dismissive of the Black community.  The real message is that they are dismissive of everyone else in their grasping, desperate desire to grab power.  In fact, it is a fair bet that Hillary's moment of emotion in New Hampshire was really more about her feeling vulnerable and lost than about her concern for America's future.  Let me digress for a moment and talk about the NH result.

My theory is that Clinton took New Hampshire by a slim margin (with no delegate advantage) due to the following 3 reasons:

1. The Democratic establishment which is alive and well in the major cities went into overdrive in order to minimize the margin by which Hillary would lose.  Remember, the Clinton campaign thought she was sure to lose the primary in NH.  That panic drove the establishment folks into frantic action that resulted in a larger turnout of pro-establishment folks in the big cities.

2. The polls lulled independents into a sense of comfort about Obama ("oh he will win") and pushed those choosing between him and McCain to vote for McCain and save that candidacy from extinction this early in the process.

3. Women who saw Hillary's moment of emotion identified with her as someone in need of support at an emotional, not political, level.  They saw a woman who had to live through the humiliation of a philandering husband's public indiscretions.  And they saw her on the brink of total personal humiliation by losing the primary in a big way.  So a few, but a decisive few, came out and voted for her.

These 3 reasons could easily account for the small margin of victory.  But now that Hillary has been saved from that public embarassment women in future primaries are free to reject her.   And they will.

But back to the MLK incident.  The NH moment of emotion showed that Hillary is in the game for no larger cause than herself.  But unfortunately that moment gave her campaign the room to claim that it showed her "human" side.  The MLK incident shows, without any room for triangulation, that the 2008 Clintons are the same as the 1992 Clintons - they will attack anyone, any ideal, any icon, anything that they think stands in their way.  And they will do that without regard for the feelings and values of others.  So because Obama is compared with MLK and Kennedy they attack King as merely a dreamer and Kennedy as someone who was "hopeful" of getting it done.  Note that she dismisses King and Kennedy.  Even though, as we all know, the act was passed essentially due to King's leadership, Kennedy's vision, and his tragic assasination.

But note also that Hillary thinks of herself as being like LBJ.  In one of my management classes the professor talked about politicians and their leadership styles.  She presented us with a lot of material on LBJ.  What I remember is this - LBJ was the ultimate Washington insider, a political operator par excellence.  I will let the reader draw her or his conclusions.  

Finally, let me touch upon one other thought that sends chills down my spine.  I recently heard on the news that Hillary is reaching out to Latinos in order to counter her weak support among blacks.  Now, if you haven't guessed it yet from the rest of this blog, I hail from India.  India is the original home of "vote bank" politics that Karl Rove perfected in the US.  Slice and dice the electorate and put together a coalition of the slices and dices that guarantees victory even if the price is a highly polarized nation with a political environment that makes it impossible to pass anything other than cliched legislation.  If "vote bank" politics is not defeated as a discredited paradigm of politics then America will end up becoming a soft power.  And the world will be left without any decisive leader.

So to me the choice is not between Hillary and Obama, it is between a future where a strong, compassionate America is once again referred to as the United States and a future where America is effete and defensive.