aciel, posts by tag: elections - LiveJournal

Dear Angry Progressives,

I feel like you're over-simplifying the vote on FISA just a bit.

Yes, we're all upset about it. I don't think any progressive Democrat in his or her right mind thinks FISA was a good idea, and many of us think Obama really let us down with it.

Still, have you seen the roll call?

I intentionally link that particular page's entry on it since it gives a conservative perspective (read the comments). What I really want to emphasize first is that sixty-nine senators voted yes. That's filibuster-proof. That's veto-proof. Overwhelming, unfortunately, and it reflects the mentalities of many Americans.

Even had Obama not voted with them, it would have been veto-proof and filibuster-proof. And then, he would have been opening himself to a lot of criticism from people whom he really needs to win over by November.

The truth is that Obama gambled. He made a very small investment (by voting for a bill that would pass easily anyway, but that would cost him a lot to vote against). He's hoping that the return on it is the presidency. Why?

The bill is about three things. Limiting tort law (telecom immunity), presidential power (wiretapping), and one final thing that's much harder to summarize in a short catchphrase: how the hell do we handle law suits aimed at companies that were following an unconstitutional presidential decree?

The first, I agree, is stupid. The second is where we feel betrayed. But, from a constitutional perspective (and remember, Obama is a constitutional law scholar), I can't help but think the third is the thing that's made this bill so popular with the legislators. Pass this bill and we can talk about more important things, possibly; vote against it, and we'll still be stuck on it for months if not years.

Now, consider the pay-off of Obama's gamble.

Obama wins the White House. He's in control of the use of the wire-tapping provisions in FISA, but he's already indicated that he thinks they're unconstitutional. That means he won't use them--and really can't, since he's already laid out his feelings (as a constitutional law scholar no less) on the issue.

If McCain wins? Who knows. But Obama voting against the bill would have made a McCain victory more likely and changed nothing. It still would have passed.

I think Obama's mistake was in his failure to recognize (a) how upset progressives would be, but more importantly, that (b) people on the left would smear him more effectively than swiftboating over something that is really a non-issue.

I have no doubt that if his vote had been the tie-breaking vote, he would've gone against FISA instead of for it.

So, please, before you start broadcasting to everyone what a freaking idiot you think Barack Obama is, go learn some game theory.

I think this is the first time I remember hearing something really truly novel from a presidential candidate, in terms of platforms:

Obama Urges Mayors to Focus on Urban Growth, but Not to Expect Increased Federal Aid

Read the article, the title isn't the content.

The truth about suburbs is that they're awful. People talk about getting to know your neighbors, but that's not community. Community is the people you work with, the people you buy from and sell to, the people who support you and even, in dire circumstances, put out the fires.

Suburbs only have the neighborhood aspect, and they make everything else non-local.

A surprisingly balanced piece from FOXpropaganda is a story in and of itself.

I'm left with a slightly sour taste in my mouth. Hillary Clinton was playing the same game that has been played for years in Washington. Nevertheless, I think she was playing it for noble reasons--and then only because she didn't think there was another way. Then, just as she seemed near to capitalizing on this sacrifice of some of her values* for other, more important values, Barack Obama came along and changed the rules.

We all doubted her. We thought her strategy was Hillary-or-NO-Democrat-in-the-White-House; but we were wrong, I think, as she showed in the rather personal and heartfelt concession speech she gave today.

I truly think she's a good person and would've made a great leader. Maybe she'll consider running again in eight years.

* By this, I mean not pandering to the voters, not engaging in double-speak, etc.

Wow. Everything is changing. The tone of this election is heading in such a different direction from the 2000 election. I can't help but think that things would be a bit different if Clinton were the nominee; McCain is clearly trying to match Obama's hope message.

I haven't heard McCain using much strict-father framing. That makes sense: he's running as a moderate, not a conservative. But can he beat the progressives at their own game?

I'd like to take a moment--as if anyone cares--to endorse Hillary Clinton for vice president. I have a slightly irrational expectation that Obama will be shot, perhaps related to my own experiences*. If that does happen, I honestly believe Hillary has the conviction to take up Barack's campaign for hope, as Lyndon Johnson once took up Kennedy's Camelot banners.

I've often suggested that Hillary plays the same old political games. She's very, very skilled at them. I think that if Obama shows her that his way works, she can be won over--and that would make her a formidable leader indeed.

And that's true even if Obama doesn't get assassinated. Who knows--maybe Hillary in 2016?

* In case there's some confusion, I will be very upset if anyone shoots anyone.

A Victory Plan for Hillary [NYT Op-Ed]

My favorite op-ed in quite some time.

There is nothing that disgusts me more than cultural disdain for those who are well-educated. It's only slightly worse than calling into question the credibility of members of the judiciary for refusing to pander to politics.

Unfortunately, one of our presidential candidates has decided that the only way to make the "gas tax holiday" look good is to make the well-educated look bad.

From this article [Reuters]:
'I'm not going to put my lot in with economists,' Clinton said when asked to name an economist who backed her proposal.
'We've got to get out of this mind-set where somehow elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantage the vast majority of Americans,' said Clinton...

This is not elite opinion. It's professional, academic expertise [Bloomberg]. Nay, it is Clinton who expresses "elite opinion"--she is, after all, a graduate of Yale Law.

Would you rather trust the expertise of an economist on economic matters, or the opinion of a lawyer (or even a scholar of law)?

Would you prefer to trust the opinion of under-educated masses, or the expertise of, well, experts? On the other hand, I suppose as far as getting elected president is concerned, all Clinton needs is the opinion of the under-educated masses.

I hereby declare that I am in love with Barack Obama.

Barack Obama's statement on the anniversary of the Virginia Tech shooting [WSLS].

So here's the thing. It's clearly politically dangerous for him to even mention gun laws, and yet he does it anyway. There are so few of us out there who care that this doesn't increase his numbers much--but it shows that he is honest about his beliefs.

And here's the kicker [Daily Kos]. Clinton says nothing about changing laws (thus costing her nothing politically), and then tries to pull down Obama so that she doesn't look so bad. If she just posted the first thing, then fine--but how dare she use our tragedy as an attack on Obama?

Ugh. That makes me furious.

Clinging to guns, to religion?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008…

I don't exactly understand why it matters if a politician is elitist. They are elites. That's how they got into power. What are elites other than a group of friends in high places?

I do understand why people care. But not why it matters.

I'm also amused that apparently many Americans still think Obama is a Muslim, while simultaneously being angered by his Christian pastor's remarks. I can just imagine the conversation:

--I'm not voting for Obama because he's a Muslim.
--But he's not a Muslim. He's a Christian.
--And that's another thing! Did you hear what his pastor said?
--But you just said he was a Muslim.
--I wonder if his pastor is a Muslim, too.

Heh.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/…

Wow. Well done, news media. The tone in this article is completely different from that of articles of the past few weeks.

This is how the media changes people's minds. Something in the New York Times might as well be written on our hearts, as far as the subconscious is concerned.

If you're thinking of voting for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama (in one of those states yet to vote), I suggest you have a look at this. Then go listen to the interview, then read it again.

I do not want HRC to be president because I am tired of the Bush double-speak. I don't want a president who does one thing and then claims he or she did another thing. It's irresponsible.

Clinton is clutching at dead grass. She knows that Obama is winning, and she knows that the only way she can compete is to throw mud.

Unfortunately, it will come back to haunt us no matter who is selected in August.

Link courtesy of ario.