CNN.com reports that McCain wants to "veto every beer." Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot sit back and allow John McCain to sap and impurify all of our precious hoppy fluids!
Lager Pilsner Bitter Stout! McCain hates beer let's kick him out!
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
This Man Must Be Stopped!
Mr. Kucinich Goes to Washington
I saw it first on Le Monde who was quoting Daily Kos! Denis Kucinich introduced no fewer than 35 articles of Impeachment against George Bush with all the supporting evidence yesterday on the House Floor. It took him four hours and forty minutes to complete his case. Thanks to USA TODAY, we have a complete transcript of his comments.
This isn't the first time. In 2007, he introduced a measure to impeach Cheney and had 24 cosponsors, but it went nowhere.
Back in January, he planned to try again, this time against Bush, but was convinced by the leadership to back off so that the judiciary committee could consider it. In other words, Pelosi told him not to embarrass the party.
Pelosi has already said that impeachment was out of the question. And as many times as we have all called for impeachment on this blog, at this rather late stage in the game, it probably won't be the best idea with elections and all. How unfortunate that no one has had the balls to move on this. How unfortunate that politics trumps statesmanship.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Sexism and Racism
Starting with the South Carolina primary, the Clinton campaign was making the argument that a Black candidate can't win in a general election. On the flip side, I'm still seeing interviews on CNN et al with Clinton surrogates that Hillary lost primarily because of rampant sexism directed against her. Do either of these views of American voters hold water? The videos posted earlier by Bell Curve show that the press coverage was full of misogyny especially but not exclusively on Fox News. But did sexism, as defined as voters who make their decision to support or oppose Hillary Clinton based on her gender, hurt her more than it helped her?
Looking at the CNN exit poll for Wisconsin, a state in which Hillary got clobbered even in the working class voters she later did well among we see some clues. First, 58% of the Democratic primary voters were women. Obama won 67% of the men and split among the women 50-50. About 28% of the voters were men who voted for Obama. This might suggest, an AHA! moment. But what if it is the even vote among women rather than the lopsided vote among men that was the anomaly? 12% of Wisconsin Democrats said that the gender of the candidate was one of several important factors in their decision. Among that group, 62% of them voted for Hillary. So 7.4% of Wisconsin Democrats were people who voted for Hillary because she is a woman. Conversely, about 4.6% of the voters voted against Hillary in large part because she is woman. Unfortunately, the poll is not reported in sufficient detail to determine the gender of these voters. If we can trust the self reporting about who votes based on gender at all, it would suggest that Hillary got more votes than she otherwise would have (about 2.8% of the vote) because she is a woman. I suspect that these polls probably over represent pro-Hillary sexism as women might be less embarrassed about saying that they'd vote for Hillary because of her gender than men would be about saying they'd vote against her for the same reason. But we have to wonder about how far off that bias drives the numbers. It could be quite significant and the gender issue would still be more or less a wash for Hillary.
What about racism? Racist remarks were far less common on TV news but there were a series of thinly veiled comments about race from the Clinton campaign - from Bill Clinton, from Geraldine Ferraro, not to mention the Clinton volunteer (later repudiated by Clinton) who sent mass emails to people saying that Barack Obama was a Muslim. But did it work any better than the misogynist attacks in the news media? 8% of Wisconsin voters were African American. 91% of them voted for Obama. So about 7.2% of Wisconsin voters were African Americans who voted for Obama. 10% of the voters said that the race of the candidate was one of several factors in the voting decision. Of those 53% voted for Obama. So 5.3% of Wisconsin voters voted for Obama because of his race. 4.7% voted against him because of his race. Obama was ahead on this issue by about .6% or less than 7000 voters. In Wisconsin, a largely white state, the race issue seems to have been a wash for Obama. It worked similarly to the gender issue for Hillary - albeit a little bit more negatively for Obama than gender was for Hillary.
So in Wisconsin the cynical view that American voters are bunch of sexists and racists doesn't seem to hold much water. But what about West Virginia?
Women: 53%
Black: 3%
Clinton: 67%
Obama: 26%
Saying gender an important factor: 11%
Gender voters voting for Clinton: 77%
Gender voters voting for Obama: 18%
Saying race most important factor: 8%
Race most important voters voting for Clinton: 86%
Race most important voters voting for Obama: 10%
Saying race one of several factors: 14%
Race voters voting for Clinton: 80%
Race voters voting for Obama: 13%
Interestingly, the West Virginia poll reports gender in more detail. 8% of voters in WVA were men who said gender was important. Among them, 64% voted FOR Hillary. 21% of WVA voters were Whites who said race was important to them. 84% of them voted AGAINST Obama. 17.6% of the vote went against Obama because of his race.
I take two things from this. Sexism and racism vary greatly by region in this country. Second, with an "n" of two (so huge caveats here) and using CNN's polls (more caveats), it appears as if sexist voting was far more likely to help Clinton than hurt her even in states where she lost. Racist voting was more complicated. In Wisconsin (a Midwestern swing state with very left wing pockets), it helped Obama. In West Virginia is was devastating.
So the claims by die hard Clinton supporters that she lost because of misogyny are probably invalid. At the same time, the claims that Obama can't win White voters are also not necessarily valid. That said, it probably is the case that Obama's race forces him to work from a different electoral map. He won't do well in places like West Virginia where the Clintons have a successful history. But he can compensate by doing better in the Midwest or in states with large numbers of heretofore untapped Black voters.
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Primary Primer
OK, there are several non-Americans who are friends of the blog. Spotted Handfish expressed some understandable confusion about what all the fuss has been about here in the "States" for the last few months. And one might be excused for wondering how it is that Barack Obama just won the majority of delegates generated by 57 state (and territory) elections and still has to win a majority of delegates from another 51 state elections before he's the President.
I'm not an expert on political party development in the US so some may quibble with what I'm about to say but I think this is a more or less reasonable take on how we got where we are. What just happened was that our two national political parties held a series of local elections to determine their nominees for the Presidential election coming up this fall. This was not always the means by which parties did this. It used to be that American parties chose their national candidates through the consensus of their elites. Of course, the US being obsessed with federalism the leaders of the parties from the individual states plaid a big role in this.
But in the 1960s, the race issue split the Democratic party. Southern Democrats refused to allow African-American participation in their state delegations. When the majority of the party leadership stood up for civil rights, these Southern, White Democrats fled for the Republican Party where their attitudes towards race have been tolerated and even exploited. But part of the fight that emerged as this extreme-right wing of the Democratic Party was expelled, involved who would control the nomination of the Presidential candidate - would it be voters or an entrenched party elite that was dominated by older, white Southern politicians. The voters won and the primary system is the result.
Then in the 1970s Watergate and its political fallout, rocked the Republicans. They eventually adopted a similar approach.
In many other democracies, when voters are upset with the dominant parties, they simply set up a new party. This happened in a number of democracies in the late 60s and into the 70s. The Dutch liberal party Democrats 66 emerged in this period. The Belgian political parties split along ethnic lines in the 60s and 70s. In the 1970s, the number of parties represented in the Danish parliament doubled. This kind of thing happened in many democracies. The 70s saw the rise of the German Greens too.
But the US electoral system is very unfriendly to new parties so the best option was to change the way the parties were run. Primaries were part of it. Another part of this was changes in the way the Democratic members of Congress allocated committee chairmanships and leadership positions like party whip and majority leader.
Non Americans may find our system puzzling but it is an important part of how an otherwise rigid two party system can still be accountable to the voters and continue to renew itself from time to time.
What Clinton Didn't Say
On Saturday, Hillary Clinton declared her full support for Barack Obama. Her words were emphatic and helpful. However, while Clinton congratulated Obama on his victory, she still could not bring herself to do what she really needed to do - admit defeat. I wanted Clinton to begin her speech with four simple words, "The people have spoken." Instead, she spoke of glass ceiling with "18 million cracks in it." And she repeatedly referred to her accomplishments. She conceded that he was the nominee but not that she lost. Her message was, basically, we have to support him because he's a Democrat, and, well, he's the next best thing to me. Obama has been incredibly gracious in praising Clinton, but I believe he expected, and deserved, to have Clinton admit that she lost. The people have spoken, and they chose Barack Obama.
Clinton just could not bring herself to give a real concession speech. So for all her words, she did not tell her supporters what they really needed to hear: that she lost, fair and square. That is crucial. To go through the stages of grief - we've been through anger, bargaining, and denial - you need to get to acceptance. Clinton isn't there yet. She believes that she "really" won because of the popular vote, and lost due to the delegate math, and she nurtures feelings of being cheated among her supporters.
Of course that's not true. Not only did Obama win the popular vote by any fair measure, but the popular vote itself is not a fair measure. Caucus states have, on average, 1/3 to 1/4 of the voter participation rate of primary states. So if you only count the actual # of votes, a victory in Kentucky is "worth" two or three times a similarly-sized victory in similarly-sized Minnesota. Yes, Clinton does better if you systematically devalue states that choose to hold caucuses rather than
primaries - but that's not fair and it's not the Democratic party. National polls have, not surprisingly, consistently showed Obama ahead since Febraury.
Clinton should have said "the people have spoken, and they chose Barack Obama." Then she should have invited her husband to join her on stage and endorse Obama. Until all this comes to pass, it will be hard for Obama to win all of the votes of Democrats who were in the minority of their party.
Friday, June 06, 2008
These Killed Me
I was a little bummed this week at how quickly Obama folded to AIPAC. I imagine that a guy has to do what a guy has to do. But I felt better after laughing at it all with this clip from Jon Stewart!
And this one killed me as well! Both are worth a viewing!
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Pettiness
The California Supreme Court refused to stay its own ruling on same-sex marriage yesterday. In response, the Kern County Clerk's office (Bakersfield) announced that they would stop solemnizing weddings altogether next week. They will still issue marriage licenses, as the law requires. And life goes on.
Brian Schweitzer for VP
Who is Brian Schweitzer? He's the Democratic Governor of Montana. He's also, it seems very educated, earthy, and enjoys a 70% popularity rate in a state that also now has two Democratic senators, and voted 56% for Obama in the primary, although it's normally thought of as ruby red.
Here's a long quote from the LA Times on 9/30/07:
"Perhaps no one is more of a poster child for that success than Montana's colorful governor, Brian Schweitzer. Three years ago, Schweitzer became the darling of Democratic politicos when he swaggered into office with a dog and a pair of cowboy boots.
Schweitzer, a cattle rancher and the grandson of homesteaders, is no Democrat in name only. He is a proponent of energy conservation and environmental regulation. He favors abortion rights. And while the Bush administration was pushing to expand surveillance powers with the Patriot Act, Schweitzer pardoned 78 Montanans, most of them German immigrants, who had been convicted of sedition during World War I.
He also champions gun rights and coal -- a major Montana export -- positions that reflect clear differences from the Democratic Party's coastal wings.
"There are two kinds of people in Montana," Schweitzer joked in a recent telephone interview. "Those who are for gun control, and those who run for public office."
Schweitzer doesn't bring much foreign policy experience, but he did work in Saudi Arabia for seven years and he speaks Arabic, among other languages. His website just says he has "communicated in several languages." Seems that is the most cosmopolitan you want to appear in Bozeman. And he guarantees a fair fight for the West. With Schweitzer on the ticket, I think NM, CO, and probably NV are a lock.
That's something to ponder.
He's also not a pretty boy. (Not by a long shot). What do you all think? Is it possible that what Obama needs is not a Party Elder, or Senior Statesman, but another fresh face?
Maybe I just worry about the sound of an O-Schweitz ticket...
Update by Bell Curve: Here's some video of Schweitzer in action, on Colbert. He certainly is a good speaker.
What if Obama and Hillary Played Poker?
So with all the shenanigans going on this week, I’ve been wondering what it would be like if Hillary and Obama played poker. Apologies to the Clinton folks out there but I come up with good jokes so rarely, I couldn't resist.
Hillary: I bet $50.
Obama: I’ll see your $50 and raise you $25.
Hillary: I’ll see your raise and raise you another $50.
Obama: Call (lays down a full house)
Hillary: (lays down a flush) I’ll raise you another $50.
Obama: I just called your bet and you lost.
Hillary: Don’t push me! How about if I raise you $25?
Obama: OK, I’m just going to take these chips here…
Hillary: THIEF!...That does it! I raise you another $50!
Obama: (gets up and starts to walk out) Hey Michelle, let’s go get some dinner. Let’s go somewhere nice, I just won some money.
Hillary: OK, we’ll split the pot.
Democratic Unification
It appears as if many of the constituencies that Hillary claims (via her surrogates) Obama cannot win without her on the ticket are moving to Obama with or without her. Here are the numbers:
According to CNN's 2004 exit poll, John Kerry won among women 51% to 48%. In the latest Survey USA poll, Obama wins among women 51% to 40% with 9% undecided (so Obama will out perform Kerry if only 1/10 of the undecideds break for him - it will probably be better than half for him). Interestingly, Obama's advantage among women dissapears if he nominates Kathleen Sebelius or Clinton booster Ed Rendell as his running mate but actually grows if he nominates Edwards. Figuring that one out will take some thought.
John Kerry won among Hispanics/Latinos 53% to 44%. Survey USA has Obama winning among that group 64% to 32% with 4% undecided.
John Kerry won among Independents 49% to 48% (basically a tie). Survey USA has Obama winning among Independents 45% to 41% with 14% undecided (again, Obama outperforms Kerry even if undecided Independents break overwhelmingly for McCain).
So among those three groups, Obama is already outperforming Kerry who came very close to beating Bush.
Here is Obama's secret weapon: Kerry got only 6% of Republicans to vote for him. Obama currently polls at 17% among Republicans. Bush got about 11% of Democrats to vote for him and right now, McCain is polling about 10% among Democrats. So McCain has no more appeal among Democrats than Bush did and Obama has about triple the appeal among Republicans that Kerry did. What's more according to the CNN exit poll for 2004, 37% of the voters were Democrats and 37% were Republicans. But according to Survey USA, Democrats now outnumber Republicans among respondents (registered voters) 41% to 33%. So, McCain is having trouble maintaining party loyalty at the same time as his party is demobilizing.
What does this mean? Two things. Most importantly it means that Obama is looking like he is in great shape to beat McCain in November. Second, it means that Hillary would be well advised to get on the Obama train before it leaves the station. Her constituents are already starting to move on without her. The longer she prevaricates about throwing her full support behind Obama (witness the last several days of alternating announcements of concession and vows to keep going), the less influence she will have. The longer she waits the weaker and less decisive she looks and the less credible are her claims to leadership among critical constituencies. Indeed, she may already have missed her chance to really use the leverage she gained in the close primary contest.
John McCain Wants To Destroy America
OK, maybe that title is a bit of an exaggeration but there are enough people affiliated with this blog who know about California's woes to understand how devastating this proposal from John McCain is:
On McCain's website he has this statement: "John McCain believes it should require a 3/5 majority vote in Congress to raise taxes."
And this at a time when our deficit and debt problems are dragging our economy down the drain! When McCain said in the primaries that economics wasn't really his thing he wasn't kidding was he!
California already has a similar rule in place and the fiscal dysfunction that has hit that state is truly shameful given how many economic advantages the state naturally has.
Leaving aside the fact that the Senate, an institution one would think McCain had some passing familiarity with (he's been in the Senate for over 20 years!), already has a supermajoritarian requirement for everything (it's called the cloture rule), this is just stupid. Imposing such a rule at the national level would be an unmitigated disaster!
The real motive for this proposal is that the Republicans reckon on losing HUGE in the Congressional elections this fall. Only through imposing yet another supermajoritarian requirement can the Republicans maintain influence over policy.
Why would it be stupid? Because right now we have some of the lowest tax rates among any industrialized democracies and in our own modern history. If we set up institutions that lock those tax rates in place, we'll find it very difficult to pay for the war we're currently in not to mention the massive chorus of "I'm old! Gimme gimme gimme!" that we'll hear when the Baby Boomers retire.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Beware of Voting Irregularities in the Fall
Obama as the nominee is going to do some really strange things to the likely voter models. African American turnout is likely to spike. This will mean that some voting precincts that never had high turnout before will suddenly find themselves inundated.
Democrats around the country need to start calling their local officials NOW and asking them about what they plan to do to accommodate the coming flood of voters in November. What we cannot have is another situation like we had in 2004 where Republican leaning districts had more voting stations than they needed and minority districts had long lines in the rain. Part of the get out the vote campaign needs to be not only registering new voters but working far in advance to make sure that the infrastructure is in place for those new voters to actually exercise their franchise.
I know some of the Citizens have worked as polling place volunteers and/or have personal or technical experience with voting technology. What kinds of questions should local Democrats ask about the November election and which level of government should they ask (i.e. city, county or state)?
Historic Candidacy
Barack Obama has won enough delegates to be the nominee of the Democratic Party for the Presidency of the United States. Sit and think about that for a minute. A man of mixed racial heritage, raised in a less than prosperous houshold, worked his way into scholarships to top schools, was elected to the Illinois State Senate and later the US Senate. Now, he is the presumed nominee of a major party to be the President of the United States. This guy is Horatio Alger on steroids!
What's more, he secured the nomination in an amazing upset win over one of the most effective political operations of the last 30 years. People seem to forget now that less than a year ago, Hillary Clinton was proclaimed the "inevitable" nominee. She started the primary season with a 20 point lead over the rest of the Democratic field - including Obama. She herself said that the campaign would be over by February 5th. In pulling off this amazing upset, he perfected the internet fund raising techniques pioneered by Howard Dean in 2004. His victory dependended in part on his victories in states with minimal African American populations - states like Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, North Dakota and Montana.
And consider this as well. The candidate he narrowly defeated was the most successful woman candidate in history.
This is a very important day in American history. So hear's to you Barack Obama!
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
A Tale of Three Speeches
I saw three speeches tonight.
McCain gave a tired and befuddled performance in what looked like a conference room at a hotel out by the airport - safely far from any "undesirables" in New Orleans proper.
Hillary gave a speech clearly gauged to carry on the fight against her supporters' most hated enemy...Barack Obama. The speech was delivered far better than McCain's. The venue was much larger than McCain's too. There were easily hundreds of people there. It really made McCain's event look pathetic. However, it was in a basement two levels below street level. And, given the classless refusal to recognize Obama's victory tonight, I'm moved to point out that perhaps given the jokes going around on youtube, Hillary's team could have picked a slightly less bunker-like venue for her latest refusal-to-concede speech.
And then there was Barack Obama. First, he chose to give his speech in exactly the large stadium that the GOP will hold their convention in this summer - the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, MN. The Minneapolis Star Tribune puts the crowd at about 17,000. His speech began by congratulating the other Democratic candidates especially Hillary Clinton who he said made him a better candidate and from whom he said he learned a great deal. The crowd cheer for Clinton (remember that the mood at Clinton's event was anti-Obama). Then he reached out to those people who voted for Clinton. He reminded Democrats that they didn't work for the candidates of their choice for the personal benefit of the candidate but for the issues. The speech was very good. The enormous crowd was really rocking.
From all this I take away the following. First, McCain is a confused old man who now that the media will be focusing more on him and less on the intraparty fights in the Democratic party, will see his image deteriorate rapidly. Second, both Hillary and Obama are infinitely better candidates than McCain. They both have better operations, better staffs and they're better speakers. And Obama has way more funds available. What's more the issues on their side.
It's too early to find Obama's speech on youtube. But if didn't see it live, I really encourage you to find it on youtube.
In Praise of Debra Bowen
Bowen is the Secretary of State for California and runs the elections process. In 2006 and 2007, she made people very upset by decertifying all sorts of voting machines and insisting on better ones. Today, I got to experience what a better voting machine is like, and I'm in awe.
As usual in CA, the primary election today was a seven page ballot that, even to a politico like me, was full of crap. Specifically, page after page of mostly uncontested judicial elections. The good stuff was on page one and page seven. I showed up primarily to vote against Prop 88 and against Bernard Parks for supervisor. Anyhoo, when I submitted my ballot, they told me to place it directly in a machine slot. I did so. The machine beeped and rejected my ballot, displayed a red light. I joked that I must have voted for the wrong people. As I was joking, a paper receipt printed out saying "overvote." Turns out I had voted for both judges in one of the few contested elections. So they voided the ballot and gave me a new one. I then went back and fixed it. Judge Ralph Dau, be happy for the extra vote you otherwise would have lost. When I submitted the new ballot, it put up a green light. All good.
If they had had such machines in Florida in 2000, Gore would have been president and tens of thousands of people would still be alive in Iraq, including thousands of American soldiers. America would be a much safer place, and more prosperous to boot. I'm very pleased to know that we can do better.
Hooray for Secretary Bowen!
Issues For November Part II (Foreign Policy)
McCain and Clinton agree on just one thing. They both disagree with Obama's stated intention to meet face to face with leaders from countries that are currently enemies like Iran. They have been badgering Obama about it. Granted, Clinton backed off somewhat on that issue after the California debates which just shows that she's smarter than McCain. Why?
Here is a Gallup poll that shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with Obama's general approach. The highlights: 70%-80% of Democrats and Independents think meeting with enemies is a good idea. 48% of Republicans do too! These majorities largely hold even when Iran is specifically mentioned.
These numbers suggest that Obama might be ill advised to adopt Hillary Clinton's foreign policy stance. First, it would appear like he was flip flopping. Second, given these numbers there is real reason to be concerned that it might lose more votes than it would gain.
This is very bad news for McCain who needs a hawkish atmosphere to the campaign to win. He's a war hero candidate running in a campaign about the economy and, secondarily, ending a war and certainly not starting any new ones. But as I pointed out in the previous post, McCain's best issue is Iraq. Even though he only really has marginal advantage or a tie on that overall issue, it's a better issue for him than the economy, health care, or reformist sentiments.
McCain wants the debates to be about who would be the best Commander in Chief and who has the most foreign policy experience. Obama said right from the start that this is a debate none of the Democratic candidates would win. Obama's position on diplomacy is in line with the main stream American sentiment on an issue that - quite frankly - most don't think is the highest priority right now.
In short, he's not likely to be that vulnerable here. He can do exactly what he did this week. When McCain attacked Obama's "naive" approach, Obama simply restated his position, and said McCain was distorting it to distract people from the Economy. There's one for the Clinton fans out there..."It's the Economy Stupid!"
The Issues for November
Obama is about to win Montana and South Dakota and the Super Delegates are already starting to line up to be the one that puts him over the top. The talking heads are talking about VP possibilities. But their conversation is dominated by the so called "dream ticket." But I think Obama will be picking a running mate based on who he is comfortable with that will be likely to bring more positives than negatives.
Here are some poll numbers that may inform his decision:
Issue (Percent saying very important for their decision in the fall):
Economy (88%)
Education (78%)
Jobs (78%)
Health Care (78%)
Energy (77%)
War in Iraq (72%)
Budget Deficit (69%)
Taxes (68%)
Abortion (40%)
Gay Marriage (28%)
What I think is interesting here is how the old standby issues of the GOP are just not registering among voters this time around. Guns, Gays and God just won't be a winning strategy this time.
What's really bad news for McCain is that voters trust Obama more than McCain on the biggest issues and on the issues you would expect McCain to clean up with, they are tied. Even on the "who do you think is a strong leader" question, McCain only beats Obama 46% to 42%. And on "who do you think has the better temperment to be president" Obama beats McCain 56% to 32%. Finally, on "who will bring change" and "vision for the future" Obama beats McCain.
And the killer: When asked "who understands the problems of people like you" Obama beats McCain 54% to 35%. This last one is important because the Clinton campaign has been saying that she won in Appalachia by campaigning against Obama the Elitist. This poll number suggests that McCain (a third generation Naval Academy grad and the son and grandson of Admirals) won't be able to make that stick.
Now, back to running mate issues. As I see it, Obama has two broad choices. He can play to his strengths by picking someone who polls well on the economic and change/vision issues (like Edwards, Sebelius or even Clinton or someone similar). Or he can try to compensate for his disadvantages on "experience" in which case he could go for someone with real experience like former Defense Secretary William Cohen or former Senator Sam Nunn. Sam Nunn would be particularly welcome to the Clintons because he's so old that he'd be unlikely to challenge Hillary in a primary after Obama leaves the White House.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Why Clinton Supporters Should Support Obama in November
In the wake of the Rules Committee decision there has been a flurry of threats from some Clinton supporters about a floor fight or abandoning the Democratic party to vote for McCain. I hope this is just a burst of frustration and not a reflection of long term divisions.
At some point, the case will be made for why people who voted for Clinton in primaries and caucuses should transfer their support to Barack Obama. Here are some of my first clumsy attempts at making that case.
If you look at the issues, Obama and Clinton are MUCH closer to each other than are Clinton and McCain. Most of the following comparisons are based largely on information from ontheissues.org.
Overall Positions: According that website's metrics, both Obama and Clinton are 80% liberal on social issues and 20% conservative on economic issues. In contrast, McCain is 20% liberal on social issues and 75% conservative on economic issues (almost the mirror image of the two Democrats).
Looking at some specific issues that might be presumed to be a particular concern to Clinton voters Obama, again, is much more in line with what they want than is McCain.
On abortion: Both Clinton and Obama are rated with a 100% pro-choice voting records by NARAL. McCain's voting record is rated as 0% by NARAL.
On civil rights for Homosexuals: Both Clinton and Obama are rated with 89% pro-equal rights voting records by HRC. McCain on the other hand, has a voting record rated at 33% pro-equal rights - sadly that's a fairly tolerant voting record by the standards of McCain's party.
On civil rights for racial minorities: Obama has a 100% pro-civil rights voting record according to the NAACP. Clinton has a 96% pro-civil rights voting record. McCain has a 7% pro-civil rights voting record.
On general civil liberties issues: Clinton has a 60% pro-civil rights voting record rating by the ACLU. Obama has an 89% pro-civil rights voting record rating by the ACLU. McCain has a 0% pro-civil rights rating by the ACLU. So, even if you voted for Clinton instead of Obama because you want a more moderate position on civil liberties, Obama's more orthodox approach to the issues the ACLU cares about is still half as distant from Hillary's position as McCain's position is. Of course, if you were indifferent between Clinton and McCain on civil liberties, chances are, you usually vote Republican anyway.
On Free Trade: According to the ultra-orthodox libertarian group The CATO Institute. Obama has voted against trade barriers 36% of the time and against subsidies 0% of the time (0/2). Clinton has voted against trade barriers 31% of the time and against subsidies 13% of the time (4/41). John McCain has voted against trade barriers 88% of the time and against subsides 80% of the time.
There are many other issues (health care, support for families, etc etc) but I couldn't find an easily communicable metric of comparison for the three candidates. However, if you look at the stated policies and individual votes of these three, you'll see the same pattern. Obama and Clinton are very similar and McCain is the odd one out.
Finally, with regard to the War in Iraq. Both Obama and Clinton (currently) favor some form of phased withdrawal to begin sooner rather than later. McCain is famously in favor of staying in Iraq indefinitely. The one area where Clinton and McCain are alike in their opposition to Obama is where Obama favors direct diplomatic contacts with our enemies (like Iran, like Hamas etc) and both Clinton and McCain oppose that.
Danish Embassy in Pakistan Bombed
A suicide bomber attacked the Danish Embassy in Pakistan (please note: that's Pakistan, not Iran or North Korea). Danish news sources report that "at least" eight are dead and 24 wounded. So far it appears as if none of the dead are Danes. However, two of the victims were Pakistani security guards.
The pictures look pretty bad. This was a BIG bomb. BBC News online has a video clip and links to photos here.
The Norwegian embassy has evacuated.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Obama Caves on Trinity
Senator Barack Obama, who famously said he could no more disown Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother, has now disowned not only the pastor but his entire church. I can only assume this was a difficult, perhaps even heart-rending decision made under great pressure... But even so I fear it is a great mistake. It suggests to me that Obama is letting his fears govern his decisions, not his hopes. If Obama imagines this will end the problem, I think that is sadly mistaken: it will only make him appear weak.
This feels to me like exactly the sort of thing Bill Clinton did in his first term that so angered me I did not vote for him in 1996: he cast aside his embattled friends in the face of pressure from conservatives, hoping that would fix the problem... but of course it did no such thing. No matter what you say about George W. Bush, he does not abandon his friends when they prove inconvenient--and for that he earns grudging respect from many Independent voters.
It is too late for Obama to change his mind--one does not want to waffle on matters like this. But I hope he senses this is the wrong decision and learns from it. I want a President who will stand by his friends when they are attacked and misused by the media and the right-wingers. And it is very sad that Obama feels he must leave his spiritual home to gain temporal power. He struck exactly the right tone in his great speech on race relations. I wish he would stick to that. Because if any man were capable of bridging these disparate worlds, I had hoped it would be Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)