GR360

Not fawning, but . . .

2008-07-16T22:18:00.000-07:00

If we're honest with ourselves, it's apparent that Barack Obama has a better chance than not of being elected President, so hopefully we won't end up seeing this as the most exciting outcome of the election. But it appears to me that Obama's campaign will have some positive externalities for the country regardless of whether Obama ultimately wins the Presidency.

First, the "Obama Organizing Fellows" program has the potential to have a lasting impact. By giving college students an easy way to get into community organizing, he is providing a path to public service that will attract larger numbers of young people. Some people (like myself) might end up going into a job (or law school or medical school) because it's a more well worn path than something else, with a more clear future. By establishing this program, he is providing a structured path into public service. He is literally enabling a substantial number of college kids to shun the private sector for something more meaningful (like he did, at least according to Dreams from my Father) - this should improve the quality of our government and other public servants in the future.

Second (on a more partisan level), by getting young people (including kids who can't vote yet) excited about politics, Obama is helping establish the party identity of the next generation. If all the young people supporting Obama (currently 48% of people aged 18-29, compared to McCain's 36%) remain Democrats as they become adults, this country will become much more Democratic in the coming years.

Now I would doubt that these side benefits are at the forefront of Obama's mind as he runs his campaign. On the first one he is probably just implementing a strategy he thinks is effective based on this days as a community organizer. And I'm guessing the second one is incidental to running a good campaign. But from my perspective, his campaign will leave the country better off even if McCain somehow pulls it out.

It's Good to Know What's Really Important

2008-07-16T14:25:00.000-07:00

Compare:

President Bush said Tuesday that he will not call on Americans to conserve gasoline despite the rising price of oil, saying consumers are "smart enough" to figure out for themselves that they should drive less.

-with-

The federal government's "no sex without marriage" message isn't just for kids anymore. Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.

Larry Kudlow: Hack

2008-07-15T10:50:00.000-07:00

I enjoy reading the Corner on the National Review Online because it's always good to get the other side's perspective, and they have some intelligent and thoughtful writers working for them.

Larry Kudlow is not one of them.

Kudlow's specialty is linking economic news to political events in such a way as to prove the correctness of conservative ideas about the economy.

Here's a classic example:

after Obama’s big North Carolina win, a night he nearly carried Indiana, stocks opened way down. . . Markets don’t like Obama. If he wins alongside Democratic gains in the House and Senate, taxes are going up big time.

I see, so markets don't like Obama and therefore they go down when he does well. I guess the markets going down on May 7 (the day after the NC primary) didn't have anything to do with this:

On Wednesday, stocks ended sharply lower as fresh record highs for crude-oil prices touched off concerns that the stock market's recent gains might have been premature as consumers grapple with rising energy and food costs.

Kudlow is smart enough to know that the movement of the markets aren't so easily explained by a single factor (be it movement in oil prices or Obama winning the NC primary) - if they were, I would be a much better investor. That leads me to believe that Kudlow is being intentionally disingenuous and trying to use his label as a financial expert to push a political agenda.

The Corner is filled with a bunch of very smart political commentators, so I find it hard to believe that they can't see through Kudlow's rhetorical tricks. So I would appeal to them from a self-interested standpoint: Kudlow makes you all look like hacks, and he shouldn't be allowed to blog about politics.

Anyway, here's Kudlow's latest foray into political commentary:

In a dramatic move yesterday President Bush removed the executive-branch moratorium on offshore drilling . . . Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136. . . Now isn’t this interesting?

Here's the Wall Street Journal's take:

Crude futures were recently down $8.14 at $137.04 a barrel in New York, weighed down by several factors. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries gave a downbeat outlook for world oil demand in coming months. Traders also said it appears that some funds are unloading positions, either to book profits from oil's hefty long-term rally or to raise money to cover soured bets on credit securities that can't be unloaded.

Not to mention the fact that the news about Bush lifting the offshore oil drilling ban was known to the world at least by 3:35pm EST yesterday (July 14), yet the price of oil only went down $0.10 from 3:35pm until the market closed, and it opened up this morning about $0.60.

Does this guy even look at the data before he starts writing?

McCain's Gambling Problem

2008-07-06T12:11:00.000-07:00

Here goes my attempt at original reporting -

This article in Time from last week talks about both McCain and Obama's gambling proclivities. The bottom line is that McCain is a craps man, while Obama sticks to poker.

This aside caught my attention though:

Aides say McCain tends to play for a few thousand dollars at a time

First of all, that's a lot of money to play at any given time (especially since an ill-timed 7 roll can wipe out all your bets in an instant).

But, more importantly, if McCain is playing for a couple thousand dollars at a time, he must have some substantial gambling winnings and losses over the course of a year. I was curious about exactly how much McCain had won or lost over time so I figured I would check his tax returns to see what kinds of gambling related gains/losses he reported.

Turns out he hasn't reported any - at least for 2006 and 2007 (the tax returns of McCain's that are available on his website).

Gambling gains are supposed to be reported as "Other Income" on line 21 of Form 1040, and McCain has not listed any "Other Income" for 2006 and 2007. It's true that gambling losses can offset gambling gains for tax purposes, but the gains still need to be reported as "Other Income" and the losses to offset it are then reported as itemized deductions on Schedule A.

It's possible that McCain didn't gamble at all in 2006 or 2007 and therefore wouldn't have any gambling gains/losses to report - in fact, I would guess that he probably didn't in 2007 since he was immersed in the presidential campaign. But I would be surprised if he didn't play at least a little dice in 2006 (the article states that he played in 2005). The sense the article gives is that McCain likes him some craps, and I find it hard to believe he hasn't played at all in the last two years. Take this anecdote for example:

In the heat of the G.O.P. primary fight last spring, he announced on a visit to the Vegas Strip that he was going to the casino floor.

That's about as far as I can take it, but it would be great if a real reporter could ask the McCain campaign a couple things:

1) Did McCain gamble at all in 2006 or 2007?
1a) If yes, why did he not report his gambling-related income on his tax returns?
2) It's known that McCain gambled in 2005 - was his gambling-related income properly reported for that year? What about for previous years?

Just to anticipate some objections:
a) Yes this is a relatively trivial issue, but it's a slow news week. So the easiest thing to do would just be to get this out in the open and clear the air. Plus, this story certainly is as important (if not more) than the Barack Obama birth certificate "controversy."
b) Yes any failure to report was likely an oversight rather than an attempt to avoid taxes. But unfortunately the IRS doesn't recognize oversight as a legitimate excuse for failing to report income.
c) Yes the article discusses Barack Obama playing poker and he didn't appear to have reported any gambling-related income (though I didn't check thoroughly). But clearly there is a difference in kind between a "$1 ante and $3 top raise" poker game (where I imagine on a good night, Obama might have maybe walked away with $50) and playing craps for several thousand dollars at a time.

P.S. If this becomes a big story, remember you read it here first.

UPDATE: This photo (if the June 3, 2006 date accompanying the story is correct) would seem to indicate that McCain did gamble in 2006.

Run the Ball

2008-06-25T10:52:00.000-07:00

I'm not going to go through and refute each point in this article about why Hillary is the obvious choice for VP, but sufficed to say I would probably be a little weary of taking political advice from the campaign manager for Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign.

More importantly, this article, and a lot of calls for Hillary to be VP, are ignoring the reality of the current situation. Barack is up on McCain somewhere in the 8-12 point range nationally, and in most of the battleground states. This lead can easily go away of course, but if I were Obama I would probably not take any big risks or vary too much from what I am currently doing.

It's like in football - you don't throw a deep pass when you're up by 10, you protect the ball and run out the clock. Without getting complacent, that's exactly what Barack should do.

I don't care what anyone says - picking Hillary would upset some of Barack's current supporters and cause them to vote for McCain or not at all. True, Hillary would bring in some new supporters, but we can't know whether the net effect would be positive or negative.

So since Barack is up fairly big already, why risk it?

Perfect Law School Hypothetical

2008-06-25T10:16:00.000-07:00

Did you know that adherents of the Sikh faith are required to carry a ceremonial sword (Kirpan) at all times?

I find this fascinating because it's not often that real-life facts present such a perfect law school hypothetical (say there is a religion that requires its members to carry a weapon . . . what are the limits of religious freedom in this case . . .).

There has actually been surprisingly little litigation about this issue - only a couple federal and state cases. I haven't read the full opinions, but apparently the state cases found that wearing a kirpan could not be banned (even where knives were otherwise not permitted). The federal case allowed a kirpan to be brought to a school if it were tied into a sheath and could not be removed (doesn't that violate the spirit of the kirpan?). I am somewhat surprised by these outcomes as I would think that restricting weapons would stand up to the strict scrutiny required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to restrict the practice of religion.

In any case, I support any practice that sets up such a perfect law school hypothetical.

The $300M Car Battery

2008-06-24T14:00:00.000-07:00

I agree with David Axelrod that McCain's idea for a $300M prize to the developer of a superior car battery is not completely dumb. It's good to see Republicans thinking creatively about energy policy.

That being said, it's still dumb.

Of all the things McCain could have chosen to reward, it was strange to single out a car battery. Prizes make sense when a promising technology might slip through the cracks because there are no parties doing research on it. But in this case, clearly the auto makers have been working and will continue to work on improving hybrid technology. So, are we really going to give $300M to GM if they come up with a better battery?

More generally, prizes make sense when research on a technology can't get funding because the ultimate reward to successful development of the technology is uncertain. For example, better ways to capture and/or neutralize carbon would be a huge benefit to the world, but not easy to monetize. A prize for carbon sequestration would guarantee a reward for that technology. But with car batteries, there is no doubt that there would be a huge upside because every car purchaser wants better gas mileage. The problem in developing a better car battery is not lack of reward.

If McCain was serious about trying to develop better battery technology, it would make more sense to take that $300M and invest it in R&D in related technologies that are not easily commercialized but which are important building blocks for further research. This is where government can really make a difference with some well targeted funding (as it has done with NIH and all the prescription drugs that were built on the back of basic government research).

Of course, actually spending $300M on R&D now is different than proposing a $300M prize (since that money will probably not be spent for years if ever). That's why I still file this proposal in the cheap political gimmick file (no political risk, questionable benefit to society).

Hypocrisy on Al Franken

2008-06-18T09:17:00.000-07:00

Remember in 2003 when Arnold Schwarzenegger was trying to replace Gray Davis as Governor of California, and Republicans were all up in arms about having an entertainer with such a vulgar body of work running for office (not to mention his famous interview in Oui magazine talking about the orgies and drug use he used to participate in).

Oh right, there was no outrage because he was a Republican, and everyone realized that he was an entertainer in his prior career, not a politician.

But apparently Al Franken's career as an entertainer is now reflective of his potential as a politician. And the alleged "vulgarity and viciousness" of his humor makes him inappropriate to serve in the U.S. Senate (even though his humor was good enough for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan on Franken's seven USO tours).

And the worst part is the way his jokes are misinterpreted - take this one quoted in Gerson's article:

Why don't we focus on what Afghan women can do? They can cook, bear children and pray. As I recall, that was fine for our grandmothers.

Republicans are claiming that he is mocking the plight of Afghan women. But, given that he was addressing the Feminist Majority at the time, it seems pretty clear that he was mocking the Taliban and their backwards views on women.

I know Franken is an easy target because of his past in entertainment, but let's try to at least keep our senses of humor sharp enough to understand the jokes we are criticizing.

McCain's Anger Problem

2008-06-12T15:10:00.001-07:00

When I see stories like this about McCain's anger issues, I can't help but think it's just a matter of time before McCain explodes in some public setting. I'm sure i'm not the only Obama supporter who is waiting anxiously for that to happen.

It's kind of like that episode of Friends where Ross sees Rachel's boyfriend (Ben Stiller) screaming at several people, but no one believes him until they see it for themselves.

read more | digg story

Fair is Fair

2008-06-12T10:15:00.000-07:00

In defending Fox News referring to Michelle Obama as a "baby mama," Michelle Malkin says:

I do know that it was Michelle Obama herself who referred to Barack as her “baby’s daddy” and has used the phrase “baby daddy ” to describe Barack while on the stump this year.

So if the press is allowed to refer to the candidates spouses as they refer to each other, does that mean it's okay for MSNBC to call Cindy McCain a c**t?

Polling Fallacies

2008-06-12T09:49:00.001-07:00

It's annoying when news stories include this kind of comparison when talking about polling data:

White suburban women, who make up 10% of the electorate, prefer a Democrat to be president by 11 points, 47% to 36%, the poll shows. And if Sen. Clinton were the nominee and the election were held now, she would beat Sen. McCain among this group by 14 points, 51% to 37%. Yet Sen. Obama loses to Sen. McCain by six points, 44% to 38%, among the same group.

What bothers me is that these articles inevitably fail to discuss tradeoffs - so Obama takes a hit among suburban women vis-a-vis Clinton, but he must also be outperforming her among certain groups (probably men). This part of the story is never discussed (not just with regards to Obama, but for all candidates) because it's not news that the person who won does better in polling. It's only news when they under perform. That's fine, except without discussing where Obama outperforms Clinton, it's gives a misleading view of the true dynamics of the race and insinuates that maybe Clinton would have been a better candidate. It also creates a press narrative that this is something Obama should be particularly worried about.

A vote is a vote, so if Obama can outperform in another demographic, he doesn't necessarily have to worry about his performance among one particular group (though, I will say it's frustrating for him to leave Democratic-leaning voters on the table).

If I were Obama's campaign manager . . .

2008-06-12T09:35:00.000-07:00

I would have him on a plane right now for Iowa and then Mississippi to view the damage from the tornadoes and flooding, and also to hopefully offer some comfort to people in those areas. It would offer a stark contrast from the McCain/Bush response to Katrina, and show him being a leader (apparently, just by showing up to a disaster you show leadership, see Giuliani, Rudy).

Traveling on the Same Plane

2008-06-10T09:05:00.001-07:00

Enough already from McCain about him and Barack traveling together on the same plane to these town hall debates.

First of all, are they coming from the same place before the debate and leaving for the same place after? If not, this would clearly just be a gimmick. Also, aren't each of their respective campaign planes pretty full? Who gets left off the magical unity plane? And i'll just say that as a matter of national security, it's probably not the best idea to have both major presidential candidates traveling on the same plane.

My guess is that this is a ploy by McCain to save money, and that he will have "accidentally" forgotten his wallet when someone hands the two of them the bill.

Vetting

2008-06-10T08:50:00.001-07:00

It will probably fall on deaf ears, but Obama is 100% right on this whole Jim Johnson kerfuffle. He says:

I am not vetting my VP Search Committee for their mortgages. You’re going to have to direct – it becomes sort of a – this is a game that can be played – everybody, who is tangentially related to our campaign, I think, is going to have a whole host of relationships. I would have to hire the vetter to vet the vetters. I mean at some point, we just asked people to do their assignments. Jim Johnson has a very discrete task, as does Eric Holder, and that is simply to gather up information about potential vice presidential candidates. They’re performing that job well. It’s a volunteer, unpaid position. And they’re giving me information, and I will then exercise judgment in terms of who I want to select as a vice presidential candidate. So these aren’t folks who are working for me, they’re not people who I have assigned to a particular job in a future administration. And ultimately, my assumption is that this is a discrete task that they are going to be performing for me over the next two months.

I know anything related to the subprime mortgage crisis is toxic right now, but we have to draw a line in the sand somewhere and this is it. Jim Johnson has a discrete task. He is not making policy, nor in a position to influence Barack on policy. He's been asked to do a simple information gathering task (one that he has done before for other candidates). And, in the end, he is responsible to Barack.

The case would be different if Jim Johnson were an advisor to the campaign on mortgage matters, because then he might be in a position to influence policy in a way that might be favorable to himself or his friends (like say, Phil Gramm).

50 State Strategy

2008-06-09T10:57:00.001-07:00

Got an e-mail from the Obama campaign just now which started with this:

Today, I am proud to announce that our presidential campaign will be the first in a generation to deploy and maintain staff in every single state.

I think this is a really smart move. While i'm sure some of the presences (Utah, Arizona) will be pretty cursory, there is great symbolic value in having staff in every state. It's also got to make McCain nervous to know that the campaign is serious about expanding the electoral map.

The Great Compromise (and why it can't happen)

2008-06-09T09:14:00.000-07:00

Bringing Hillary's supporters into the Barack camp is going to be no easy feat. Here's what I think should have happened in the next couple weeks, and then i'll talk about why it can't.

In closed door meetings, Barack should agree to offer Hillary the VP nomination, which she would turn down (citing her desire to lead the fight on the issues that matter to her in the Senate). In exchange for taking part in this bit of theater, Barack would promise to make Hillary his Secretary of Defense.

This arrangement would have several benefits. First, Barack's gesture of offering the role would hopefully ease the pain of Hillary's supporters at least somewhat, and make it easier for them to vote for Barack. It would be a demonstration of Barack's respect for Hillary (which for many of Hillary's supporters seem the most concerned about - though admittedly, some just want her and only her to be president). Second, by her turning down the VP slot, we could avoid all the problems that would come with a joint ticket (including the potential for haters of both candidates to oppose it, and the fact that Obama probably doesn't want her on the ticket). Finally, it would be groundbreaking to have a female Secretary of Defense - and I think Hillary would recognize the signal she would be sending to her female supporters by taking such a post.

Now for why it won't work. For this to work best, Barack and Hillary would have to keep this deal secret. If they publicly admitted that she was in line to be SecDef, it would negate the benefits of her not being on the ticket (and might inflame the right more since she would be in such an important role). So they would want to keep it quiet. But, no one would believe that Hillary would turn down the VP role without cutting some deal because she's publicly expressed interest already. This is why I really wish Hillary had held off on pursuing the VP slot - by doing so, she has closed off options for both of them.

Crazy Supporters

2008-06-08T20:57:00.001-07:00

Let's make a deal as a country. Let's agree not to judge the candidates based on the fact that they have some supporters who hold distasteful ideas. So, conservative bloggers, if you would agree to not jump on Obama for the fact that a very small number of his supporters may be anti-Semitic, I think we can get liberal bloggers to forego raining down on McCain when some of his supporters inevitably publish racist things.

Oh, it's on his official website you say so he should take it down, well then how can you turn around and give him a hard time for doing just that.

And as a Jewish individual (and I don't pull the "as a Jewish individual" card lightly), I would appeal to the Jewish community to stop assuming the worst about Obama. He's gone out of his way to reassure Jews that he is sufficiently supportive of Israel and doesn't harbor any of the anti-semitic idea of a guy like Louis Farrahan.

And it doesn't make us look good as a community. We are smart enough to know the differences between different types of brown people (African is not the same as Arab . . . and on a related note, Muslim is not the same as Arab).

What Barack Obama Underestimates

2008-06-05T09:54:00.000-07:00

Mark Halperin just posted 15 things that John McCain underestimates. I presume that he is going to do the same for Obama soon, so i'm going to beat him to the punch (and we'll see how close I get to his list):

1) The ferocity of the Republican attack machine - while McCain officially wants to keep the campaign clean, there are plenty of 527s and other surrogates who won't be afraid to hit Obama hard (and dirty)

2) The extent to which patriotism can be used as a bludgeon, no matter how much Obama wishes otherwise

3) The ability for some Americans to hold conflicting thoughts in their head, specifically that Obama is a Muslim and that he's got a crazy minister

4) The dislike of the American public for having their government controlled entirely by one party

5) The resentment of Hillary supporters over the primary - for most it will go away, for some it won't heal by November

6) The need to fight the pompous/arrogant/elitist label before it becomes the campaign narrative

7) The limits of speaking the unvarnished truth to the American public - Americans only like so much bad news and calls for sacrifice

8) The fear of change - some people think that as bad as things are now they can always get worse

9) The transition in the style of the campaign - Barack won't have a primary night every week or so in which he can give a big, nationally televised speech - he's going to have to create occasions to give speeches and make the most of them when he does

10) The ability of Republicans to raise money - Barack will have the money advantage, but not by as much as people think

11) The strength of McCain's personal story - he's a war hero without the Kerry post-war complications

12) The difficulty of the electoral map - he's going to have to win in places where Democrats haven't won in a while

13) The difficulty of linking McCain to Bush - despite simiarities in policy, people do see McCain as representing a different direction

14) The potential for Republicans to use referendums on divisive cultural issues to drive turnout (e.g., gay marriage in CA)

15) Changes in the economy - gas prices will likely start to come down by the fall as gas stations switch back from summer to winter blends and demand drops, this will feel to some voters as though things are getting better under the incumbent party

Obama as Role Model

2008-06-05T09:12:00.000-07:00

There were several articles yesterday and today about the impact of Obama's nomination on black communities. I thought this was one of the most striking anecdotes (told by Obama):

“Probably the most powerful story I heard was today at a conference, a woman came up to me,” he said in an interview on NBC News. “She said her son teaches in an inner-city school in San Francisco and said that he has seen a change in behavior among the young African-American boys there in terms of how they think about their studies."

Who could have guessed that having a positive black role model would inspire young black men?

I think what stories like this highlight is the overreliance on the dichotomy between de jure and de facto discrimination. America has patted itself on the back for eliminating de jure discrimination, but many people think that is as far as we should go as a society. Do young black men see our country's claim that society won't hold them back because of race as credible? How can they? Sure, there is lots of lip sevice paid to equality under the law, but we have not yet seen a black president. Does it really matter if society is holding back black men and women not through laws but through other forces? The bottom line, and what black men and women will see, is that society holds back black people. Whether discrimination is legally mandated or not has no effect on the material impact of discrimination for those who experience it.

That's why a moment like Obama's nomination is so important - it shows that not only is a black man legally allowed to be President, but that he actually could be president. And that is a concrete sign of progress.

"Black" v. "Black Candidate"

2008-06-04T12:16:00.000-07:00

I checked the NY Times and Washington Post websites last night after Obama officially clinched and they both said something to the effect of "first black to lead a major party."

This struck me as a somewhat brusque way of addressing Obama's race. I would have expected something more along the lines of "first black candidate for President from a major party" or "first black nominee on a major ticket."

There is something harsh about referring to someone as a "black" rather than a "black candidate." While the substance of the statement is the same, using race as a noun rather than as a adjective makes it seem so all defining, rather than simply acting as a modifier.

Interestingly, the NY Times story online now uses the "black candidate" construction.

McCain's Tactics

2008-06-04T11:29:00.000-07:00

This is a good point about McCain's big strategic move last night:

If McCain's campaign had waited a few weeks before issuing their town-hall meeting challenge letter, wouldn't it have sealed the Obama campaign in a box?

The Obama campaign has a good excuse to delay negotiations: they clinched the nomination 15 hours ago and need to focus on a few other matters before they get to the town halls. McCain has had three months to prepare for the general election; Obama's had lesst han a day.

And I think it speaks to a larger point which is that McCain's campaign has been very tactically weak to date. It's not even so much that he's done a lot of things wrong as that he hasn't been getting the most out of what he is doing. I don't know much about running a presidential campaign, but it seems to me that to be successful you need to extract every ounce of benefit our of everything you do - McCain has not been doing that at all.

Take last night - first you have Ambinder's point about his hasty invitation, plus McCain scheduled his speech at a time when he should have known it was going to be interrupted by Obama being declared the nominee (though seeing how bad the speech was, that probably wasn't a bad thing for McCain). But why isn't the McCain campaign thinking through these moves a bit more before making them - like in chess, they need to think two or three moves ahead to win. My hypothesis is that McCain's camp is very eager to get back into the national conversation since all the media oxygen has been sucked up by the Democratic primary. We'll see if McCain gets his act together as things settle down.

What Really Bothered Me about Hillary's Speech

2008-06-04T10:00:00.000-07:00

One of our country's great innovations in government is our ability - year after year, decade after decade - to maintain a smooth transition of power between individuals and parties. For all of our nation's flaws, we do set an example for the world in how we conduct elections in an orderly and peaceful way.

What I heard from Hillary Clinton last night was that - even though she had lost according to the rules of the electoral process - she was not willing to concede because she had the support of 18M people. She didn't outline an argument for her staying in based on the framework of the primary process. What I heard from her was "I have 18M people behind me, so the rules don't mean a thing."

Contrast this with Al Gore's situation in 2000. He had legitimate arguments about procedural flaws in the election process. His argument was never that "I have more supporters than Bush," it was that the election hadn't been conducted in accordance with the rules.

Hillary has no argument on procedural grounds, only one on grounds of power. It's sad that she's taking it to that place because that's not how our country works. Our country has been blessed with smooth transitions of power for over 200 years because we don't choose our leaders based simply on their ability to harness power, but rather based on the rule of our democracy. Because of this, our leaders have not sought to gain office through the exercise of raw power. But, that's what Hillary hinted that she might seek to do. And, to me, that indicates she is putting her desire for office above the interests of our country now and going forward. So to me, that's sad.

Grounding in Reality

2008-06-03T16:10:00.000-07:00

Just reading some of the vitriol coming from the HRC diehards on Hillary's blog. I can understand that they are upset, and I know I would be a little prickly if Obama had lost, but many of the commentators seem to think she is just a hair away from clinching the nomination. She's not. Even if the RBC had seated MI and FL in their entirety, she would still be losing the delegate race by over 100 votes. Maybe she has some karmic claim to the nomination based on being close in the popular vote, being a woman, or something, which her campaign can then argue should change the minds of superdelegates. But as a matter of fact, she is losing as things currently stand. The press is really just reporting what's going on here, so maybe HRC supporters could take it easy a bit on that front.

Also, I really can't understand where this type of comment is coming from:

Obama is the epitome of what is wrong with the world

Maybe he's a little pompous or arrogant (as Chris Rock notes, you have to have quite an ego to run for President), but how is he in anyway the epitome of what's wrong in the world? I'm going to give this commenter a pass and assume she is just caught up in the emotion of the day.

Here's another good one - maybe this is piling on, but I couldn't resist.

The article I read on Comcast made it clear she is ONLY acknowledging that Obama has the delegates to be the nominee
Not that he is or should be the nominee!!!

Race, Region, and Discourse

2008-06-03T10:08:00.000-07:00

Race is such a complicated issue that it really infuriates me when people try to apply overly simplistic arguments based on "common sense." One such example is the idea that whites and blacks must be held to the exact same standard in interacting with each other. So, in the context of the current election this argument usually comes out as "why are blacks allowed to vote for Obama based on race but whites aren't allowed to vote against him based on race." Of course, I don't need to explain how this ignores the legacy of slavery, history of race in America, etc.

I'm glad to see though that, at least in some cases, conservatives can recognize that parties in different positions might have different standards of interacting with each other because of extrinsic factors. From the National Review:

I know a New Yorker absolutely can't make jokes about West Virginia. And I know a West Virginian can make jokes about a New Yorker.

I know it was a light hearted post, but it's very telling that conervatives are willing to accept a supposed double-standard in the case of regional differences but not racial ones. If I asked Kathryn Jean Lopez why this double standard exists for NY and WV, she'd probably say something about wealth, power, and history. Sounds vaguely familiar . . .

#1 Pet Peeve

2008-06-02T18:23:00.000-07:00

I always vowed that if I ever had a forum, I would add to the chorus of complaints about the NY Times incredibly irritating decision to open a dictionary pop up when you double click on a word in an article. Like others, I frequently click on random words while i'm reading an article (which I think is either a sign of genius or OCD). Anyway, I'm surprised that this ridiculous feature has been continued to the present.

I was very pleased to discover that some equally genius/OCD developer has come up with a Greasemonkey script to disable this feature. Good work internet.

Standing and Plaintiff Financing

2008-06-02T17:38:00.000-07:00

This is a really interesting business:

A Bethesda firm is entering a high-stakes business in which it buys a portion of the rights to civil lawsuits before the victim has collected a dime.

It makes sense to have professional investment managers taking a role in the financing of litigation rather than the current system (where plaintiffs firms basically evaluate and take on the expense and risks of a large case). Professional financiers are going to be better at managing risk than lawyers (assuming of course that they have lawyers on hand who can understand and handicap the cases they are looking at). And it's interesting that they collect based on a set interest rate rather than taking a contingency fee - i'm curious why that is as it substantially limits their upside.

But, I wonder if this business might raise a standing issue for the plaintiffs involved. Plaintiff-side firms do foot the bill for the expenses incurred in an action they bring, but they don't actually provide the plaintiff with a forward on the expected damages (as far as I know). So the plaintiff still has 100% of the incentive to vigorously contest the case. With this setup, however, the plaintiff has a guaranteed minimum outcome. Given that the damages figure demanded in the initial filing will overshoot dramatically with the expectation that it will be cut down by courts, isn't it likely in some cases that 1/3 of what the plaintiff demands might be what they actually expect to get. In that case, the plaintiff might very well be content with the advance provided to them by Stone Street and lose any incentive to contest the case fully, which could create a lack of standing.

I'm sure Stone Street accounts for the gap between damages demanded and what they actually expect will be awarded, but I wouldn't be surprised if a court (particularly at the appellate level) took a second look at standing issues where Stone Street is involved.

Specificity

2008-06-02T16:27:00.001-07:00

I don't doubt that sexism has played a role in this campaign to some extent (along with racism and ageism), so i'm not totally unsympathetic to the strong emotions of some HRC supporters. But i'm curious about what specific incidents they are referring to when they complain about how poorly Hillary has been treated. Was it the questioning in the debates? The random misogynist commenting on a blog or making a commotion at a rally? My bigger question is did any of the treatment she got really fall that far outside of the normal rough-and-tumble of a presidential primary.

Honestly, I can't think of a major flare up in this campaign where Hillary really got the short end of the stick (like Gore did so many times in 2000). She certainly got slammed unfairly plenty in the 90's, but in general I don't think in this campaign the commentary about her went out of bounds.

Rothenberg on Third Parties

2008-06-02T12:35:00.000-07:00

Stuart Rothenberg today all but writes off any impact from Bob Barr's candidacy on the libertarian ticket:

People who will vote for Barr won’t vote for either Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) or Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) under any circumstance, so the Libertarians aren’t taking votes away from either man. This is a big country, and the Libertarians may well get half a million votes. But out of 120 million or so cast, that’s a drop in the bucket. In presidential politics, the Libertarian Party has established itself as nothing more than a party of protest.

Not sure I trust his instincts on third parties though - from August 25, 2000:

Gore's populist rhetoric in Los Angeles firmed up the Democratic base and should appeal to some voters who were flirting with Nader. And the closeness of the general election contest means that few voters will throw away their vote to either the Green or Reform nominee.

Also, isn't Rothenberg supposed to be an analyst - what's with all this damning commentary about third parties:

Some voters have always thrown away their votes, casting them for parties and candidates who have no chance of winning. That’s fine, of course. It’s a free country, and if some voters want to make a statement about Iraq, drug legalization, taxes, the two-party system or whatever, that’s their right. But the Libertarians deserve no more attention than any other largely irrelevant third party — which isn’t much at all.

I'm certainly no fan of the Green Party after Nader's antics in 2000, but Rothenberg seems to really disdain third parties as a concept. I can't really get on board with that (especially at state and local levels). Maybe as an analyst he has a vested interested in maintaining a two-party system - his entire career has been spent modeling a two party system so to throw a third one in there would really mess that up.

Hierarchy of Gaffes

2008-06-02T11:13:00.000-07:00

Perhaps this is an obvious point, but i'm going to make it anyway.

There was a meaningful difference between the two big candidate gaffes of the last couple weeks (McCain saying that troops in Iraq had returned to pre-surge levels, and Obama talking about his uncle liberating Auschwitz). McCain was making the point that the surge was working, which hinged on the accuracy of the statement in question. So whether it is true that troops are at pre-surge levels actually matters because if it is not true, then his larger policy point is less true.

The inaccuracy in Obama's statement did not affect the underlying point that he was making (though i'm not sure exactly what that point was - that he was cool with Jews?).

If Obama had spoken correctly originally, it would not have changed his message. If McCain had spoken correctly, it would have.

What I Learned in Law School

2008-06-02T10:53:00.000-07:00

There are lots of valid reasons why people disdain law school (the cost, the fact that what you learn bears very little resemblance to the actual practice of law), but one thing you do learn in law school is a certain deliberateness about how to resolve disputes. Because judges want to avoid making a difficult decisions unless absolutely necessary, they often use standing, jurisdiction, and other procedural matters to resolve a case without addressing the substantive issue. This seems like a cop-out, but I think it's a good way to look at the world: no reason to fight out the tough issues when the ultimate outcome can be determined easily by looking at another issue.

I really wish that Clinton supporters would take this lesson to heart. Clinton may very well have a good case that she should have been awarded four more delegates in Michigan by the RBC, but is it really worth making a federal case out of this? The ultimate outcome of the primary is not in dispute at this point - it's a waste to spend time fighting out a hard issue when the case has already been decided on easier grounds.

Of course, I suppose you could turn the same logic around on Obama supporters - since he's going to win anyway, might as well give her the four delegates and keep the HRC faithful happy.