:: Yes, Race Will Be a Factor

Of course race will be a factor if Barack is the nominee - just as gender will be a factor if the nominee is Hillary.

Political reporter Matt Bai remarks, in blog post over at you-know-where, "In fact, on the eve of the Iowa caucuses, there’s been remarkably little discussion at all about Mr. Obama’s race, which 20 years ago would have been the dominant subtext of every word spoken about him." He wonders what impact, if any, race will have on Barack's support in the primary and general elections.

It got me to thinkin'.

I believe we aren't hearing race-based negativity about Obama because we're still in the Democratic primary. Most Democratic campaigns - most Democratic operatives - wouldn't fight that way if their lives depended on it.

But if Barack were the nominee in the general, I guarantee you all hell would break lose.

Remember that Bush in 2000 used racist messages against John McCain in South Carolina, and he's a man of no color whatsoever. Imagine what the same operatives would do this time around.

My guess is this: they'd start by finding ways to talk about "affirmative action," eventually leading up to saying that Obama - who doesn't have much experience and hasn't "paid his dues" - was trying to use his race to get "political affirmative action" in order to "cheat" his way into the Oval Office. There'd be lots of talk about how Obama only cares about getting ahead, about how ambitious he is (read: doesn't know his place).

The moment Obama would try to defend himself, the operatives and their media friends (Matthews, Williams, O'Reilly etc) would counter-charge that Obama is playing the "race card" because he doesn't think he should have to face tough questions, and that's he demanding "special treatment" because he's black. After another week or two they'd start saying its really Obama who is the racist, while the GOP is truly for equality because they don't believe in "special privileges" for anybody.

This is, after all, what's already happened to Hillary. First it was "she expects special treatment because she's a woman / she was First Lady" then when she countered, it was "she's playing the gender card to avoid criticism." Not too long after this you start hearing "she's the one who is the real sexist."

Unfortunately, this gambit plays well with a lot of people, particularly those who don't think of themselves as racist or sexist but do believe that civil rights activists and feminists want "special privileges" for minorities and women and are out to game the system to their own advantage.

Don't believe it? Check out the latest Maureen Dowd column, where she claims both Clinton AND Obama feel "entitled" to the presidency. The groundwork is already being laid.

I'm just as certain that the GOP will go racist against Barack as I am certain that they'll go sexist against Hillary. The Republicans don't have a really good nominee of their own lined up. They are going to have to work triple time cultivating the "anyone but" vote if they want to get their people motivated.

In this respect, no Democratic primary frontrunner has an advantage or disadvantage - neither Clinton, Obama nor even Edwards (the GOP has already started insinuating he's "swishy" i.e. the expensive hairdresser, the Breck girl comments, Coulter calling him a particular epithet). Things are going to get ugly no matter who is our nominee.

Of course, an attack like this would unify and energize a lot Democrats - myself included. Nothing would turn me into an Obama supporter faster than the first salvo of dirty GOP campaigning.

The only distinction I might draw is that I think Hillary's supporters know to expect this - I'm not sure Barack's supporters do. Read more!

:: Vive la Difference!

A comparison of the Clinton and Obama economic plans is... interesting!

God bless New York Times reporter David Leonhardt. His article, "Democrats: More Than Healthcare," gives us useful information on a substantive issue.

Leonhardt distills a philosophical difference in the economic proposals of each candidate. In his words, Mrs. Clinton prefers, "programs to encourage specific kinds of behavior, like tax breaks for college tuition, health care and retirement savings."

[Mrs. Clinton] believes in the promise of narrowly tailored government policies, like focused tax cuts. She has more faith that government can do what it sets out to do, which is a traditionally liberal view. Yet she also subscribes to the conservative idea that people respond rationally to financial incentives.

Mr. Obama, on the other hand, draws on behavioral economics, which "consider[s] an abiding faith in rationality to be wishful thinking. To Mr. Obama, a simpler program — one less likely to confuse people — is often a smarter program."

Leonhardt compares the each candidate's take on retirement savings:

[Mrs. Clinton's] retirement tax credit, for example, would match the first $1,000 saved by couples making less than $60,000. For those making from $60,000 to $100,000, the match would be 50 cents on the dollar. To Mrs. Clinton, these policies are more efficient than old-style bureaucracy and less expensive than across-the-board tax cuts.

[Mr. Obama's plan] would instead require companies to deduct money automatically from their employees’ paychecks and place it in a savings account the employee owned. Employees could opt out of the program. But if they did nothing, they would end up saving money. It’s an idea that comes directly from academic research showing that savings rates have jumped when individual companies have adopted such plans.

I bet Mr. Leonhardt will catch all hell for not including Mr. Edwards in his article, even though he has corresponding information about his economic plan here. The next article in this series will look at the Republican frontrunners... Leonhardt had better start battening down the hatches if he plans to exclude Ron Paul. Read more!

:: The Dirty, Hidden Corner that Campaign Finance Reform Forgot

The New York Times has an editorial today entitled "Drowning in Special Interest Money."
My comment is simply this.

The New York Times editorial board forgot to mention one critical - and terrifying - way that a certain set of mega-rich individuals and their for-profit corporations operate behind the scenes to manipulate the outcome of every presidential election.

These wealthy individuals are part of a secretive, elite group. They represent only their own narrow personal and family interests. They are accountable to no one but themselves. They spend corporate money to achieve their agenda but are not subject to any kind of disclosure of quid pro quo, personal gain, conflict of interest, or coordination with candidates.

Every four years this shadowy group meets privately with each of the presidential candidates. Behind closed doors the supplicant is subjected to a battery of carefully crafted questions designed to elicit the degree to which he (or she) would adhere to the group's agenda. The meetings are closed to the public and to federal regulators.

Out of this degrading cattle call a "winning" candidate is chosen. The prize? Millions of dollars of corporate resources spent "educating" the public in order to sway their votes.

This group would protest that they represent the interests of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans and that they act only with the best, most civic-minded intentions. These are attractive words that the public is supposed to take on faith - because without federally mandated rules guaranteeing full disclosure and transparency, there are no checks and balances on their power.

Not surprisingly, this group spent millions of dollars of corporate resources lobbying to have their own type of group exempted from McCain-Feingold. Not surprisingly, the resulting law is silent about this form of influence peddling.

Who is this shadowy group of elite, wealthy Americans?

They call themselves an "editorial board." The New York Times Corporation has one - and there are hundreds, maybe thousands more of these corporate so-called "editorial boards" operating throughout the country, completely beyond the reach of federal regulation.

The special interests behind these so-called "editorial boards" argue that the first amendment protects their right to choose a winning candidate. But banning "editorial boards" would not silence the individuals behind them. They would still be free - just like any citizen - to voice their opinion. They simply would not be allowed to use their corporate megaphone to drown out the voices of their less fortunate peers. "Editorial boards" might howl that the Constitution specifically protects "freedom of the press," but surely the founders did not foresee a day when the media would be a multi-billion dollar industry and the simple printing press would be replaced by technology that would let a few members of the wealthy elite reach millions of readers at the touch of a button.

The only way to level the political playing field in this country is to ban all special interest influence peddling vehicles - especially the pernicious 527s, PACs and "editorial boards" that make a mockery of the principle of one man, one vote.

Only when private special interest influence is banned, and all candidates must meet requirements determined by incumbent elected officials in order to apply to a government-run committee for their sole source of campaign funding, will true democracy be achieved in this country. Read more!

:: 2008 and the Politics of Divorce

The language of hating Hillary belongs in a
divorce court, not a political contest.

First, a confession. I've been spending way to much time following the comments over at the New York Times "blog" devoted to the Iowa caucuses; for the most part, that's the material that informs my impressions.

Okay then.

I've noticed a distinct variety of Hillary-hating that seems to come mainly from people who purport to be Barack supporters. I say "purport" because I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of these nutters turned out be provocateurs deliberately trying to play up resentment against Hillary and Barack. Really, who knows.

The theme is typified by commenter "Denise":

[Hillary] lacks the qualifications for the job, and the only way she will get elected is to align herself with Bill. That’s just the life-long Clinton strategy that moves Hillary into a position for which she is not qualified.

Every time Bill moves up (think Gov of Arkansas), Hillary moves up with him (think Attorney General of Arkansas). Bill moves up again (think President of the US); Hillary moves up with him (think US Senate). See the pattern, women?

Consider what America got with the first Clinton co-Presidency:

• Granting Presidential pardons to buy Hillary’s election to the Senate. As a woman who made it on my own, Hillary’s need to ride Bill’s coattails and her sense of entitlement (as in “it’s my turn and Obama should wait his turn”) makes me doubt her capabilities.

• Hillary’s long-suffering marriage to Bill, enabling a lifetime of sexual trysts and trying to contain the Bimbo eruptions, gives me a President without the backbone to stand up to a man. Hillary claims to be tough enough to play with the boys when, in fact, she is unable to leave a cheating husband. How will she stand up to other male leaders who see this in “Mrs.” Clinton and walk all over her?

• Being married to a former President does not make one qualified to be President.

Here's another, from "MT":

I don’t think most of us are claiming that Hillary is not intelligent. My issue with her is that she has uses her intelligence repeatedly for personal gain while someone clearly loses. I am a professional female with two advanced degrees - I would like to see a female in the White House. But HRC is the complete opposite of the kind of female who furthers women’s causes (yes - I am sure by her words she will claim to have done more than her share but as with anything, actions speak louder than words).

1. She is where she is today purely b/c, whether one likes him or not (I do not), her husband is a master politician and has given her instant name recognition and “history” in this country. This is not to say that she would have accomplished nothing on her own but she would clearly not be where she is today without him. Riding on the coattails of a man only reinforces the stereotype that a woman cannot achieve success on her own.

2. She more than anyone else skewered the women that Bill Clinton pursued. Paula Jones was far from perfect but she was denigrated in the media while she sought her claim against him. Hillary was also in full attack against Jennifer Flowers. All these women had very little power and Hillary used her status and influence to degrade and intimidate them. Hillary could have chosen to stay out of all that but she was front and center in taking these women down. That is not someone who walks in solidarity with other women.

I am sure that in her mind Hillary is a feminist. But if we are to judge her on her actions, she has shown to be otherwise. Intelligence is not the only requirement for the presidency. She has shown herself to be a calculating, self serving politician. There is a reason she has such high negatives - there is no smoke without some fire.

It is time to move on. So that is why I am supporting Barack Obama - he has not only proven his intelligence(president of the Harvard Law Review takes some brilliance) but a look at the diverse political make-up of his supporters (I am a Republican) tells you that he has already done what he said he would do - he will unite this country.

I could share lots more similar comments, but then someone would have to kill me. Instead, here's a short take on the commonalities - with a pronoun shift, as addressed to a fictional judge:

• Your honor, she hasn't worked for what she's got! I did all the hard work, and she just wants to cash in on the rewards. Please don't make me pay!
  

• Your honor, she feels entitled to her lifestyle just because of who I am and what I've accomplished, with no help from her. Its not fair!
  

• Your honor, she's a scheming, plotting, cold-hearted, calculating bitch. She doesn't deserve a cent!
  

• Your honor, she'd be nothing without me!
  

This isn't the language of politics, its the language of an ugly divorce. Apparently a significant number of people out there are reviewing their personal psychodramas through the prism of national politics.

A simple check of Hillary's Wikipedia entry provides enough material to verify that she is an intelligent, capable and accomplished individual - even if you discount all of her Arkansas and White House years. Yes - her pre-marriage years plus her post-White House years add up to more experience in public policy and public service than the entire careers of Barack and John.

Nevertheless, the hysterical, angry language keeps coming. It is simply not possible, these voices claim, to be a married woman and still be your own person. A married woman is a satellite of her husband. Anything different is profoundly, disturbingly wrong.

And things are only going to get weirder. Read more!

:: Why I Really Dislike Barack

Barack is looking worse every day.

Paul Krugman has a new item in his blog on the Obama campaign's use of GOP motifs. First Krugman pointed out the disingenuous and short-sighted way Barack talks about heath insurance mandates; this morning he notes Barak's increasing use of the term "trial lawyer" to imply that John Edwards is his moral inferior.

The use of GOP messages and techniques is a pattern of behavior that has come to define the man. In addition, he appears to fancy himself quite the moralist and the maverick. Its deja-Lieberman all over again.

I wonder how many have noticed that along with talk of "mandates" and "trial lawyers" he's used the right wing playbook on the question of "experience."

His campaign has busily tried to denigrate every aspect of Sen. Clinton's public service, going so far as to suggest her trips abroad as First Lady were nothing more than a series of tea parties. He regularly employs a double standard - his Senate experience is important, hers is meaningless - to his advantage.

It reminds me of the GOPs treatment of Sen. John Kerry's war record in 2004. Kerry started out as a war hero - he had the service record to prove it - but Bush, Cheney and friends assiduously hammered away at him until he came to be seen as a coward. Somehow Bush and Cheney - who never served - were seen as patriotic, while Kerry was seen as a traitor.

Now I am watching Obama's campaign try to transform Sen. Clinton - an intensely hard working and greatly accomplished person - into a gold-digger who chit-chatted her way through her adult life while her husband did all the heavy lifting.

Meanwhile, the question of what - if anything - Obama accomplished in his three years working as an organizer is left unanswered. His failed campaign against Bobby Rush, his maneuvering to get Alice Palmer and other candidates thrown off the ballot so he could cakewalk into his state Senate seat, and the twin implosions of Blair Hull and Peter Fitzgerald that helped pave the way for his U.S. Senate win are left out of the picture.

Any Republican campaign would chew him up and swallow him down like a Beagle on a snausage. Giuliani and McCain would mock and humiliate him on the security / terrorism issue. Huckabee would nail him on elitism and not seeming authentically "American." Romney would trump him on the economy, trade and business. It would be a debacle. Read more!

:: The Morning Read

What you need to know about the new Des Moines Register / Selzer poll on the Iowa Caucus, plus the Guardian takes feminism seriously - again.

Mark Blumenthal, aka "the Mystery Pollster," has done some phenomenal work analyzing and explaining the ins and outs Iowa Caucus polling. His latest post describes - in soothingly calm terms - the new results from what is considered by other pollsters to be the most reliable barometer of potential Caucus-goer opinion. Read it here.

There's a nice article in today's Guardian about Ann Lewis' role in the Clinton campaign. Nothing you don't already know, but a great example of what campaign coverage looks like when its free of the cynical, snider-than-thou attitude to which we've become accustomed. Its always refreshing to read about feminism in the Guardian - they take it seriously, something you almost never see in the US mainstream press (unless its some conservative take on why feminism is wrong, ala the New York Times' David Brooks and John Tierney).

Beyond giving me the warm fuzzies, a few points from the article - called "A Clinton Operative Plays Operator" - jumped out at me.

There's this quote, from Judith Lichtman, "I don't have to convince Hillary Clinton about the issues of importance to women and family."

My sentiments exactly. I don't trust John Edwards the same way, especially since part of his general election strategy would be to play on his potential Southern appeal. I certainly don't trust Barack Obama the same way, since his track record to date has been, shall we say, somewhat Liebermanesque (by which I mean that he appears to fancy himself quite the moralist, and, I suspect, who would enjoy playing the role of the man who "goes beyond party lines" to find "compromise"). The shorter version: Bill Clinton vetoed PBA twice without blinking, despite the poll numbers and the tenor of the press coverage of the issue. Were history to repeat, I am certain Hillary would do the same thing. I am not quite as sure about John, and I'm downright suspicious about Barack.

The author of the article writes "But much of the campaign's grab for women's support has been around amorphous nods to women and family issues... [that seem] based in a general idea of woman-ness that feels almost 19th-century in its simplicity."

True. Welcome to America, where the 19th century is still in re-runs. A good number of us are in thrall to capital punishment and torture, have a Dickensian attitude towards health care and social services, and believe Adam and Eve rode to church on a dinosaur*.

Oh, don't even get me started.

She also writes "When Lewis mentioned that the campaign has nurses reaching out to nurses, I ask which part of the (women's) nursing community is pro-choice versus pro-life. From her response, or lack thereof, one might think nurses are unconcerned by abortion politics (unlikely) or that women have a universal set of needs. Above all, the idea conveyed is that divisive politics don't play a part in candidate endorsements."

Um, no, I believe the idea being conveyed was that the question, though seemingly straightforward, didn't make sense in a strategic context. You target nurses with a "women" message because as a subgroup they are predominantly female. Because they are female and Democratic, they are also most likely predominantly pro-choice. But since all the Democratic candidates are pro-choice, at least on paper, it doesn't make much difference - if they are anti-choice and its a voting issue for them, they'll have to vote Republican (or not at all).

* I think the "Adam and Eve riding a dinosaur to church" line comes from the fabulous Tina Fey, though I can't find an exact reference. She is brilliant, isn't she? Read more!

:: Happy New Year

Does anyone have any good New Year's resolutions? Mine are the usual stuff...

1. Get organized, or at least do something about those drifts of paper;
2. Purchase (and use) a blackberry or sidekick (just to cut you off at the pass, I mean the T-Mobile variety, not Ricardo Tubbs or Donkey. Let's not get too crazy here);
   
3. Exercise a little, it probably won't kill me (also maybe take a vitamin once in a while);
   
4. Do my bit to elect our first female president; and
   
5. Accelerate the feminist revolution.

That's it for me. How about you? Read more!