Scene from a side road

Thank goodness for Montana!

2008-06-04T15:38:28Z

I am feeling so appreciative of the State of Montana, and the Montana voters, this morning!

And I am also glad that I can reasonably claim some Montana roots, on the basis that Connie and I were married in that state in Great Falls) last September.

Montana-map

Although it was clear that Obama had clinched the nomination by 8 pm Chicago time, when the polls closed in South Dakota, it was the result in Montana (announced at 9:00) that concluded the final primary and made his victory completely clear.

Hilliary has claimed that she has the "support of hard-working Americans, white Americans." Montana certainly is mostly white: about 93%. (Fewer than 1% of the population is black).

Do they work hard?

I imagine so. Anyhow, they have an income considerably below the U.S. average.

It is a great state.

And I am proud to be one with them.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

John McCain on MSNBC's "College Tour"

2008-04-15T22:50:47Z

I have been watching John McCain on this 60 minute interview show, hosted by Chris Matthews, and am so struck by how much better McCain seems to me than Hillary Clinton! It is astonishing.

On "the issues," there is an awful lot he stands for that I wouldn't agree with at all. But I have to say that really, McCain definitely comes off as a true gentleman ("gentle man") and one of good character. He had several questions from students when he was basically invited to slam-bam his opponents, and he refused to do so. And not only did he refrain from making unjustified attacks, he also criticized the "independent" groups that lay behind the "swiftboating" and other similar episodes.

Just like Barack Obama, who was on a similar show two weeks ago, McCain does really seem to be trying to raise the level of political discussion. A presidential campaign between him and Obama could prove to be helpful and informative for our democracy, since there might be some genuine attentive to the serious policy problems that face our nation, and our world.

Hillary seems instead to rely almost solely on the Karl Rove brand of divisive politics, the politics of personal attacks.

Really, I find it so interesting! The woman I know who is the most attentive to politics, and a long time feminist, says she would never ever vote for Hillary--even though she agrees with nearly all of her policy positions. It is a matter of character--that Hillary basically sold out and adopted all of the worst characteristics of the DC "boys club" in order to advance her personal career.

Anyhow, certainly for now, it seems to me that Hillary Clinton is the destructive force in American politics, and that both Obama and McCain raise at least the possibility of reclaiming higher ground. After the 8 years of the Bush administration, that would be a wonderful accomplishment!

If you have access to MSNBC, I really urge you to watch McCain's "performance." Or, probably it will show up on YouTube.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Obama's remarks on the economy

2008-04-13T03:02:13Z

Barack Obama is being double-teamed by his rivals, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, for comments that he made recently about the economy, and the despair and political alienation felt by so many Americans. The argument being made apparently is that he lacks sympathy with "ordinary folk," that he is "elitist."

Just to balance this a bit, I am attaching below a section of Obama's major address on the state of the economy and the state, too, of working people and the middle class.

There is no question in my mind that he, as a former neighborhood organizer, and a rather poorly-paid one at that, is both a lot more sincere in his convictions and a lot more closely associated with the difficulties of people who have been facing hard times than certainly the Clintons, who have been living the good life for quite a while now, and certainly McCain, who has been a Senator since 1987, and reportedly owns eight houses.

Here is part of what Obama said a couple weeks ago:

We have to make government responsive once again to all of the American people.

And our final task, in fact, is to make sure that opportunity is available to all Americans.

You know, the bedrock of our economic success is the American dream. It's a dream shared in big cities and small towns, across races, regions and religions, that, if you work hard, you can support a family; that if you get sick, there will be health care that you can afford; that you can retire...

(APPLAUSE)

... that you can retire with the dignity and security and respect that you've earned; and that your children can get a good education and young people can go to college, even if they don't come from a wealthy family.

That's our common hope.

(APPLAUSE)

That's our common hope across this country. That's the essence of the American dream.

But today, for far too many Americans, this dream is slipping away.

Wall Street has been recently gripped by gloom over our economic situation. But for many Americans, the economy has effectively been in recession for the past seven years.

We have just come through...

(APPLAUSE)

We have just come through the first sustained period of economic growth since World War II that was not accompanied by a growth in incomes for typical families.

Americans are working harder for less.

OBAMA: Costs are rising, and it's not clear that we'll leave a legacy of opportunity to our children and our grandchildren.

And that's why throughout this campaign I've put forward a series of proposals that will foster economic growth from the bottom up and not just from the top down.

And that's why the last time I spoke on the economy here in New York, I talked about the need to put the policies of George W. Bush behind us, policies that have essentially said...

(APPLAUSE)

... policies that have essentially said to the American people, "You are on your own."

We need policies that once again recognize that we are in this together.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Did you see American Idol tonight?

2008-04-11T01:04:53Z

The three presidential candidates were on, each to plug the "Idol Gives Back" project of fund-raising for charities. They had probably 30 seconds or so each.

John McCain slammed the Democrats. His were the only overtly partisan comments.
Hillary Clinton included a plug for herself, for all her experience in good causes.
Barack Obama asked people to contribute, saying that a lot can be accomplished when people work together. (Or something like that).

It seemed to me pretty revealing of the character of each.

Honestly, it was embarrassing and distasteful to listen to McCain!

I imagine the video will show up on You Tube, then you can decide for yourself (as they say on Fox News). ;)

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Clinton just wants to defeat Obama--not win this time around?

2008-03-28T19:17:13Z

Here is an interesting post on the blog of a thoughtful relative. It, in turn, cites a New York Times article. Both are recommended reading.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Bi-Partisan Adoration

2008-03-25T01:18:52Z

2008-03-12-mccainclinton2008

Hillary_mccain2_web

Here they are, a Democrat and Republican, such close friends. The two "real patriots" running for the presidency, the two who have "experience." The two who have passed the "commander in chief" test, and could deal so excellently with a late-night international crisis.

And certainly not that young, skinny, black guy--he who speaks so well, is so smart, and tolerant, who offers people nothing but inspiration and hope for the future. Leadership. Only minor, inconsequential stuff like that.

Obama_time_cover_102306

Who needs "hope," anyway?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Which Democratic candidate has won the most "big" states?

2008-03-23T02:30:28Z

Hillary Clinton has been claiming that she (and only she) can win the "big states." And, further, the way she views it, only "big states" really should count. Other states--the small ones, rural ones, those that use caucuses, those with large black populations--they "don't count" in her view (or her husband's)

But I have seen little careful attention to just how well she and Obama really have done in the nation's largest states, so I've looked it up myself, relying on data from real clear politics, which I hope is accurate and up-to-date.

I judged (arbitrarily) that any state with more than 100 delegates is a "big" state. By this standard, the biggest state is California, with 370 delegates. The smallest "big state" is New Jersey, with 107. (And the "smallest" small state, with 12, is Wyoming).

Rummaging through the data, what I learned follows. The number in parentheses is the "margin of victory," the additional delegates won.

"Big" states won Clinton--4

New York (+46)

California (+38)

New Jersey (+11)

Ohio (+9)

TOTAL +104

"Big" states won Obama--2

Illinois (+55)

Texas (+2)

TOTAL +57

Assuming my calculations are all correct, here is what strikes me. Yes, it is true that Clinton has won more of the largest states, besting Obama by 4 to 2 (even though he has bested her in states overall and in total delegates). Moreover, she has earned almost twice as many delegates in the largest states, 104 to 57.

But, at the same time, it also appears to me that the margin isn't "massive."

First, I would suggest that it is unsurprising that Clinton won her home state of New York, and that Obama won his home state of Illinois. (Although Obama did better in his state than Hillary did in her own)! So, anyhow, let's scratch the home states; that only leaves four other "big states."

Of these, Clinton won three to Obama's one. Certainly that is "more!" But again the margin is fairly small. Clinton had significant gains in the "big" states mostly because of California: really just California plus New Jersey (a neighbor of her home state). She does deserve some recognition for that. (For a description of her winning coalition in California, see this article).

But the margin she gained wasn't all that substantial, except in California. While she did pick up 11 delegates in Jersey, Obama won by ten in Wisconsin, 14 in Maryland, 15 in Colorado, 11 in Iowa--to list just a few. So hers was not really a "big" victory. That is, she did not capture a "big" amount of delegates in any "big" state--except California.

You don't know that by reading the papers, though. What the press has touted as Hillary's "big wins" in Texas and Ohio actually were pretty slim. First, Clinton lost Texas; she didn't win it. Second, she picked up a margin of only nine delegates in Ohio. That is a heck of a lot less than the Obama margin in South Carolina, where he gained 13 delegates, and less than some of the other states listed above. While she had a victory, it was not a "big" one.

I am not totally sure what to make of this, except it does appear to me that there has been a lot of effort in the press to make the Democratic race seem "closer" than it is, and to give the Clinton camp major credit for relatively minor accomplishments. Just why this is true is not something I can guess, sitting here in Chicago, staring at a computer screen in the middle of the night prior to Easter. Maybe they just like having something to talk about? Or are they being extra-polite to the female candidate? Do they fear the power of the "Clinton machine?"

I'm not sure. But I do hope the full story does come out some day.

PS--If you find errors in my calculations or methods, I would be glad to be corrected. It certainly is possible! Also, some of the delegate counts may still change as state conventions are held.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Obama's speech today on race in America

2008-03-18T17:04:10Z

It is being called the most important since Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech.

You can see it here, after watching a brief commercial for milk and cookies.

What is astonishing to me is that the news channels are filled with discussions about the speech, mostly focusing on how excellent it was--but they are also mostly interviewing each other, and not showing the speech itself.

If no one gets to see it, how can it be "important?"

At the same time, listening to him, it also occurs to me that Barack Obama doesn't "need" to be president. First, he is young--there will be other chances down the road. But, second, he doesn't "need" to be president to satisfy his ego. He doesn't need that any more than Al Gore did. Gore has found useful work outside of running for or holding high office. The people who "lost" in the 2000 election really are all of us, who were left with eight years of the George Bush administration as a result of our lack of discernment.

Obama has made himself useful already. He has made a big contribution to the nation already, by enunciating ideals and showing, at a minimum, a new and at least partly successful way to run a political campaign.

The person who somehow "needs" to be president is Hillary Clinton. She seems to not have any idea of anything else to do worthwhile in the world except hold for herself the White House that once belonged to her husband. Even being Senator from New York doesn't satisfy her lust for status and power.

Once again, we the people may be the losers.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Hillary Clinton "endorses" Republican John McCain for President

2008-03-07T02:51:17Z

If there are any Voxers out there who don't follow a lot of current political developments (some of my best friends don't) you might be surprised to learn that HRC is heaping praise on the Republican presidential candidate--supposedly a partisan rival--in her effort to best front-runner Barack Obama. It isn't clear to me why she is doing this, but her actions seem based on a desire for personal aggrandizement rather than any desire to achieve a Democratic victory in November.

She praises McCain as being qualified to be commander-in-chief by a "lifetime of experience"--and also makes the same claim for herself. That he, and she too, have crossed some "threshold" that means they are sufficiently prepared to be our commander-in-chief.

Well . . .

McCain certainly DOES have major-league Washington experience. He has been a member of Congress since 1982. He isn't a Washington DC lightweight in the same sense that George Bush was upon his election: the latter entered politics in 1994, at the state level.

But the issue is whether this considerable experience and most particularly his current positions reflect any real of wisdom--or, in this nation with a government of, by, and for the people, respect for the the popular will. Mostly he is pledged to carry on pretty much the policies of the Bush administration.

Really, though, HRC is much more like Obama in regard to "experience" than she is like Senator McCain. She has served in the Senate since 2000 (and Obama since 2004). McCain thus has 18 years of seniority over her; she has just four years over Obama. That is not much, especially in an institution where getting major responsibility tends to take several terms in office.

Her efforts as the wife of a governor and then president's wife are hardly impressive, either. Her major "accomplishment" was a hugely important failure, the unsuccessful attempt to help formulate a 1993-94 proposal for national health care reform--which brought great scorn upon her personally, and took the issue off the national "agenda" for a decade. In my view, the main reason we haven't had significant legislative action in this area is because of her shortcomings as a policy-planner and the contrasting political skill of health reform's many well-funded adversaries.

Since then, she has confined her attention mostly to relatively small, symbolic matters affecting health, children, or women. Possibly, on this basis, she might be well considered for the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services, a post currently held by Michael O. Leavitt. But there is nothing in her resume that would suggest that she would be a good choice for the presidency or is qualified to deal with military or international relations crises. Or really, major domestic issues, either.

And there is much about her that is a huge cause for concern! Doesn't the inability to mount a successful primary campaign against someone who is, indeed--as she emphasizes--really something of a political neophyte suggest a considerable lack of political saavy? How could she possibly beat the Republican candidate when she can't even gain a lead over Obama?

How can we think she could pass meaningful health care reform now when she showed so clearly she was not up to the immense challenge the last time? Or deal with any other serious national challenge?

But now most especially--what kind of political skill is she showing by praising the partisan opposition?

Not much. I would think that the cooler heads in the Democratic leadership would be trying hard to rein her in. And It is not surprising that some observers have concluded that she is a psychological as well as political catastrophe.

And I guess I am coming to that view, too.

These are sad times.

Still, how about a McCain-Clinton ticket? Bill has emphasized what great friends the two are. Why not make it official?

012508_mccain2_web

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The politics of hope and fear

2008-03-04T02:28:03Z

Here is what Bill Clinton had to say about this issue in October, 2004.

He was right, of course. Politics is better when, as Lincoln put it, there is reference to and reliance on the "better angels of our nature."

But, sadly, now his wife is desperately employing the same "politics of fear" that has in fact been used so successfully by the Bush administration to aggrandize itself, and which is being employed by John McCain as really his only possible route to electoral success. We live in such a cynical era! It is pretty different from when I was young, in the early 1960s, and first decided to study political science and pursue a career in public service.

Now I am assuming that what will happen tomorrow in Texas and Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont, is that Hillary will win very few additional delegates, and that given her lagging well behind the obvious front-runner and popular choice there will be considerable pressure on her to step aside so that the focus of attention can be on the November election.

But I also assume that she won't. More and more, it seems like she is in this presidential race not out of principle, and not for the good of the Democratic party, or to benefit the nation as a whole, but simply to benefit herself (and, I imagine, Bill too).

It is a tremendously sad situation. I am wearing an Obama pin now, although I doubt that does much good.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend