The Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee made fair and equitable rulings on the allocation of delegates for Florida and Michigan today. How Hillary Clinton and her supporters react will determine Barack Obama's prospects against John McCain in 2008 and her own prospects in 2012 or 2016.
To penalize the two states for moving their primaries ahead of the schedule the party set, the Committee cut the votes of both delegations in half. That is the same penalty the Republican Party imposed on the two states in its primaries. Florida will still send 172 pledged delegates and Florida 128 to the convention in Denver, but each delegate will only be able to cast one-half of a vote. This is a reasonable compromise, which is why both parties came to the same decision.
For Florida, the Committee approximated the voting results in parceling out the delegates. Clinton took 50% to Obama's 30% there, in a race in which neither candidate campaigned. Clinton will take 52.5 votes to the convention and Obama 33.5.
Michigan presented a more difficult choice, since Obama withdrew his name from the ballot after the DNC and both candidates agreed its vote would not count. Clinton's name stayed on the ballot, and she received 55% of the vote there to 40% for "Uncommitted." The committee decided to follow the Michigan Democratic Party's recommendation to consider the anti-Clinton votes as votes for Obama, and apportioned 34.5 votes for Clinton and 29.5 for Obama.
The day's deliberations produced 87 delegate votes for Clinton and 63 for Obama, a net gain of 24 for the New York Senator. Obama has 2051 and Clinton 1875, including superdelegates who have declared their support for a candidate. 2118 delegates will now be required for a majority at the convention, so Obama needs 67 more and Clinton needs 243.
86 delegates are at stake in the last three contests in Puerto Rico (55), Montana (16) and South Dakota (15). If Clinton does extremely well, say a 70% win in Puerto Rico, a narrow win in South Dakota and a close loss in Montana, she could pick up 54 delegates to Obama's 32 this week. That would put him at 2083 and her at 1929. So, even if Clinton has the best imaginable week at the polls Obama will need the support of only 35 of the remaining 179 superdelegates to secure the nomination. His nomination is about as certain as anything can be in politics.
Party leaders Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean are busy pressing the superdelegates to declare their intentions as soon as possible after Tuesday's votes in order to avoid a prolonged and divisive fight leading up to the convention. The upshot is that Obama ought to be able to declare victory within a week of the last balloting, around June 18. That's where it gets very sticky.
Clinton spokesman Harold Ickes spoke strongly at the end of today's committee meeting about her votes being "hijacked." He informed the committee, "Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her right to take this to the Credentials Committee." The Credentials Committee meets at the convention. The meeting had been frequently disrupted by angry shouts and chanting from Clinton supporters.
If she follows this course, claims the nomination was stolen from her, conducts a desperate fight at the convention and polarizes her followers against Obama's cause he will surely lose to McCain in November. That is completely within her power to bring about.
But if she does so, or fails to enthusiastically endorse him once he has the nomination in hand, she will be blamed by millions of Democrats for fracturing the party and costing the election. In that case she would also destroy any possibility for herself of becoming the party's standard bearer in 2012 if Obama loses or 2016 if he wins. She obviously wants to be president very badly, and knows that in 2016 she will be 68, three years younger than John McCain is now. That is why, unless I miss my guess, she will close ranks and endorse Obama soon after the voting ends.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
Bush Economy: 2001-2008
George W. Bush campaigned in 2000 as an apostle of the "supply side" economic theory championed by Ronald Reagan back in the 1980s. When he took office in 2001 he began putting it into effect right away. A look at the past 7 years is in order because the presumptive Republican nominee for president, Senator John McCain, has embraced the supply side tenets as the centerpiece of his economic policy.
This economic model is based on large tax cuts, particularly weighted in favor of the wealthy, investors, and corporations. It also entails cutting regulation and as many government services as possible. The idea is that flush with cash, the well-heeled will plow it back into the economy and create millions of good new jobs that will ultimately benefit the middle and working classes as well. The theory holds that cutting government revenue with the tax cuts will not result in deficits because the economy will grow tremendously and the newly-prosperous workers will need fewer government services.
When implemented in the 1980s, this plan resulted in reasonable growth, but it all went to the upper class. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer and the middle class worked longer hours to stay even. The deficit grew to all-time highs. Critics of the supply side theory began derisively calling it "trickle down," a sobriquet correctly implying that little did trickle down. So how has it done in its second go-around?
On the debt, Bush inherited a surplus of $236 billion. This year there will be a projected $354 billion deficit. The national debt has grown by $3,500 billion ($3.5 trillion) during Bush's 7 years in office, an all-time record.
All this borrowing has contributed to the devaluation of the dollar. The Euro was worth $1.01 in 2001 and is worth $1.45 now. Gold was $319 an ounce then and is $892 per ounce now. Oil sold for $26 a barrel and is currently over $130. The average price of a gallon of gas has gone from $1.47 to $3.96. The annual trade deficit has gone up from $380 billion to $759 billion.
Have there been any benefits from this policy? Well, the overall economy (GDP) has grown by an average of 2.65% these past 7 years, though that is less than the average 4.09% growth during the eight years of the previous administration. The ruinous price increases and job losses have, of course, left most people worse off. But it has been very good for some. Productivity per worker has gone up by 18%. Corporate profits after tax have grown from $503.8 billion to $1,351.9 billion. The profits of the Standard & Poor's 500 top companies were 8.6% of GDP in 2006, a record high. The number of billionaires has increased from 186 to 415, and their combined wealth has quadrupled from $816 billion to $3.5 trillion. The top 1% of Americans have received cumulative tax cuts of $546 billion. For the biggest corporations and the wealthiest individuals, times have been good indeed.
How about for regular working folks? Well, the median household income has fallen from $49,158 to $48,201. We have lost 3.1 million manufacturing jobs. The official unemployment rate has gone from 3.5% to 5%, an increase of 2.1 million people. The percentage including those discouraged and no longer seeking work and those underemployed (the real unemployment rate), has grown from 6.3% to 9%. Consumer credit debt has gone from $7.65 trillion to $12.8 trillion, home foreclosures are up 68% and the savings rate has fallen from +2.3% to -0.5%.
In addition, there are 46.9 million Americans without health insurance, an increase of 8.5 million. The average cost of family health insurance has gone from $6,230 to $12,106 a year. The average cost per year at a 4-year public university has gone up $4,600 to $13,000 and at a private university has risen $7000 to $29,000. The maximum Pell Grant now leaves a student $8,746 short of covering public university costs. These factors have resulted in a 75% increase in the average debt a graduate leaves school with, which now stands at $21,000.
I regret deluging you with all these figures. It may have seemed a bit tedious going through them all. But seeing them in print may provide a tangible picture for what you have probably been feeling in your gut. Giving more money to the top few percent and cutting services to everyone else has not resulted in general improvement for the American people. It has instead resulted in an enormous accumulation of wealth at the top, a steady worsening of conditions for the overwhelming majority and has left the nation awash in debt. These are the same results produced when the supply side theory was applied in the 1980s. You might want to keep this in mind when considering how to cast your vote this November. I know I will.
This economic model is based on large tax cuts, particularly weighted in favor of the wealthy, investors, and corporations. It also entails cutting regulation and as many government services as possible. The idea is that flush with cash, the well-heeled will plow it back into the economy and create millions of good new jobs that will ultimately benefit the middle and working classes as well. The theory holds that cutting government revenue with the tax cuts will not result in deficits because the economy will grow tremendously and the newly-prosperous workers will need fewer government services.
When implemented in the 1980s, this plan resulted in reasonable growth, but it all went to the upper class. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer and the middle class worked longer hours to stay even. The deficit grew to all-time highs. Critics of the supply side theory began derisively calling it "trickle down," a sobriquet correctly implying that little did trickle down. So how has it done in its second go-around?
On the debt, Bush inherited a surplus of $236 billion. This year there will be a projected $354 billion deficit. The national debt has grown by $3,500 billion ($3.5 trillion) during Bush's 7 years in office, an all-time record.
All this borrowing has contributed to the devaluation of the dollar. The Euro was worth $1.01 in 2001 and is worth $1.45 now. Gold was $319 an ounce then and is $892 per ounce now. Oil sold for $26 a barrel and is currently over $130. The average price of a gallon of gas has gone from $1.47 to $3.96. The annual trade deficit has gone up from $380 billion to $759 billion.
Have there been any benefits from this policy? Well, the overall economy (GDP) has grown by an average of 2.65% these past 7 years, though that is less than the average 4.09% growth during the eight years of the previous administration. The ruinous price increases and job losses have, of course, left most people worse off. But it has been very good for some. Productivity per worker has gone up by 18%. Corporate profits after tax have grown from $503.8 billion to $1,351.9 billion. The profits of the Standard & Poor's 500 top companies were 8.6% of GDP in 2006, a record high. The number of billionaires has increased from 186 to 415, and their combined wealth has quadrupled from $816 billion to $3.5 trillion. The top 1% of Americans have received cumulative tax cuts of $546 billion. For the biggest corporations and the wealthiest individuals, times have been good indeed.
How about for regular working folks? Well, the median household income has fallen from $49,158 to $48,201. We have lost 3.1 million manufacturing jobs. The official unemployment rate has gone from 3.5% to 5%, an increase of 2.1 million people. The percentage including those discouraged and no longer seeking work and those underemployed (the real unemployment rate), has grown from 6.3% to 9%. Consumer credit debt has gone from $7.65 trillion to $12.8 trillion, home foreclosures are up 68% and the savings rate has fallen from +2.3% to -0.5%.
In addition, there are 46.9 million Americans without health insurance, an increase of 8.5 million. The average cost of family health insurance has gone from $6,230 to $12,106 a year. The average cost per year at a 4-year public university has gone up $4,600 to $13,000 and at a private university has risen $7000 to $29,000. The maximum Pell Grant now leaves a student $8,746 short of covering public university costs. These factors have resulted in a 75% increase in the average debt a graduate leaves school with, which now stands at $21,000.
I regret deluging you with all these figures. It may have seemed a bit tedious going through them all. But seeing them in print may provide a tangible picture for what you have probably been feeling in your gut. Giving more money to the top few percent and cutting services to everyone else has not resulted in general improvement for the American people. It has instead resulted in an enormous accumulation of wealth at the top, a steady worsening of conditions for the overwhelming majority and has left the nation awash in debt. These are the same results produced when the supply side theory was applied in the 1980s. You might want to keep this in mind when considering how to cast your vote this November. I know I will.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Dear Mr. McClellan
Mr. Scott McClellan
Deputy Presidential Press Secretary, 2001-2003
Presidential Press Secretary, 2003-2006
Dear Mr. McClellan:
Thank you for setting the record straight about the despicable tapestry of lies the Bush Administration wove to mislead the American people into supporting an unnecessary war in Iraq, explain away its many other pathetic policy blunders and cover up its endemic criminality. The nation owes you a debt of gratitude.
Because of your new book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," you will stand in history as the first of Bush's inner circle to break ranks and tell the truth. What has up to now been informed conjecture has been exposed to the light of day by one who stood in the middle of events. Your conscience has placed you in the company of John W. Dean, whose honesty helped lead to the resignation of that earlier criminal president, Richard M. Nixon.
As one who was at the heart of crafting the Bush message, your description of a President who ran things according to "permanent campaign mode instead of the best choices for America," and who "convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment," while engaging in serial "self-deception" have the ring of authority. These are the kinds of things citizens need to know when they are choosing their highest public servant. No doubt you had good reasons for not disclosing these traits as the President was running for re-election in 2004.
All Americans will applaud your forthright assessment that you knew the war in Iraq was "a serious strategic blunder" being foisted on the nation by a "political propaganda campaign" based on the President's "decision to turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed." Your observation that this campaign of deception was abetted by a compliant press too tame to ask the hard questions or investigate the truth of the rationales you propounded to them from the lectern in the White House Press Room while you smeared the patriotism of skeptics marks you as a man of courage. Certainly the families of the 4,500 dead and 32,000 wounded U.S. troops will thank you for revealing these facts now, five years later.
Historians, too, will be glad you set the record straight about the President relying on the counsel of Presidential Political Adviser Karl Rove for his response to Hurricane Katrina. That explains to us why "the White House spent most of the first week in a state of denial," until "One of the worst disasters in our nation's history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush's presidency. Katrina and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush's second term." This is the kind of thing one can expect when a leader is more concerned about the political effects of problems than in actually preparing for them. Your candor will help writers of history better analyze why things went so wrong and will surely provide solace to the families of the 1,000 citizens who perished in the storm.
Your book will also contribute greatly to American justice and the principle that no one is above the law. By revealing that not only Scooter Libby but also Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and the President himself were involved in obstructing the investigation into the outing of CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame Wilson you have shown your fearless willingness to tell all and name names. And now that the trial is over and President Bush has only a few months left to serve you have done so while sparing the taxpayers the expense of several additional messy trials and possible impeachment hearings. The families of the agents Wilson was running in Iran can also rest easy now, knowing who was responsible for the arrests or disappearances of their loved ones. Sometimes truth can be its own reward.
So for all these reasons, Mr. McClellan, I salute you. The American people will now know the full extent of the venal and corrupt character of this President from one who knows him best. Now that he is about to complete his second full term thanks in part to your steadfast defense of his record in hundreds of press conferences, your timely memoir will help cement his reputation as one of the worst presidents of all time. You are a great American.
Admiringly yours,
Steve Natoli
Deputy Presidential Press Secretary, 2001-2003
Presidential Press Secretary, 2003-2006
Dear Mr. McClellan:
Thank you for setting the record straight about the despicable tapestry of lies the Bush Administration wove to mislead the American people into supporting an unnecessary war in Iraq, explain away its many other pathetic policy blunders and cover up its endemic criminality. The nation owes you a debt of gratitude.
Because of your new book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," you will stand in history as the first of Bush's inner circle to break ranks and tell the truth. What has up to now been informed conjecture has been exposed to the light of day by one who stood in the middle of events. Your conscience has placed you in the company of John W. Dean, whose honesty helped lead to the resignation of that earlier criminal president, Richard M. Nixon.
As one who was at the heart of crafting the Bush message, your description of a President who ran things according to "permanent campaign mode instead of the best choices for America," and who "convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment," while engaging in serial "self-deception" have the ring of authority. These are the kinds of things citizens need to know when they are choosing their highest public servant. No doubt you had good reasons for not disclosing these traits as the President was running for re-election in 2004.
All Americans will applaud your forthright assessment that you knew the war in Iraq was "a serious strategic blunder" being foisted on the nation by a "political propaganda campaign" based on the President's "decision to turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed." Your observation that this campaign of deception was abetted by a compliant press too tame to ask the hard questions or investigate the truth of the rationales you propounded to them from the lectern in the White House Press Room while you smeared the patriotism of skeptics marks you as a man of courage. Certainly the families of the 4,500 dead and 32,000 wounded U.S. troops will thank you for revealing these facts now, five years later.
Historians, too, will be glad you set the record straight about the President relying on the counsel of Presidential Political Adviser Karl Rove for his response to Hurricane Katrina. That explains to us why "the White House spent most of the first week in a state of denial," until "One of the worst disasters in our nation's history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush's presidency. Katrina and the botched federal response to it would largely come to define Bush's second term." This is the kind of thing one can expect when a leader is more concerned about the political effects of problems than in actually preparing for them. Your candor will help writers of history better analyze why things went so wrong and will surely provide solace to the families of the 1,000 citizens who perished in the storm.
Your book will also contribute greatly to American justice and the principle that no one is above the law. By revealing that not only Scooter Libby but also Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and the President himself were involved in obstructing the investigation into the outing of CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame Wilson you have shown your fearless willingness to tell all and name names. And now that the trial is over and President Bush has only a few months left to serve you have done so while sparing the taxpayers the expense of several additional messy trials and possible impeachment hearings. The families of the agents Wilson was running in Iran can also rest easy now, knowing who was responsible for the arrests or disappearances of their loved ones. Sometimes truth can be its own reward.
So for all these reasons, Mr. McClellan, I salute you. The American people will now know the full extent of the venal and corrupt character of this President from one who knows him best. Now that he is about to complete his second full term thanks in part to your steadfast defense of his record in hundreds of press conferences, your timely memoir will help cement his reputation as one of the worst presidents of all time. You are a great American.
Admiringly yours,
Steve Natoli
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
McCain Floats Interesting Ideas
Jonathan Alter of Newsweek has gone beyond the headlines to write about some interesting ideas John McCain spoke about recently. http://newsweek.com/id/137530?from=rsswww. While the Republican candidate has gotten more publicity for seconding President Bush's thinly-veiled characterization of Barack Obama as an appeaser, he has also floated some intriguing proposals on government transparency.
One is "pledging to abandon Bush's pernicious habit of attaching signing statements to bills." This practice, when it is used to change the intent of Congress when it passed the bill, is, in my view, unconstitutional. Bush has used it for that purpose time and time again.
Another is a promise to restore weekly press conferences. This would be a welcome change from the secretive conduct and the rare and highly scripted nature of most Bush press conferences. The American people miss out on quite a bit when their President does not share his mind with them extemporaneously. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Reagan were very open in this way.
But the bombshell idea was this one: "I will ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to take questions, and address criticism, much the same as the prime minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons." Alter comments, "As C-Span viewers of the weekly British Question Time can attest, this would be revolutionary, even if our version proved far tamer."
That is certainly true, and even an understatement. It indicates McCain possesses a tremendous confidence in his knowledge of government operations, given that he could be asked practically anything under the sun by Democratic Senators or Representatives. He would also need to study hard to prepare for these sessions, and that would keep him on top of innumerable programs and issues.
One thing is for sure; a proposal like this certainly shows McCain has guts. And if he were able to pull it off successfully it would do much to help him advance his agenda in office.
One is "pledging to abandon Bush's pernicious habit of attaching signing statements to bills." This practice, when it is used to change the intent of Congress when it passed the bill, is, in my view, unconstitutional. Bush has used it for that purpose time and time again.
Another is a promise to restore weekly press conferences. This would be a welcome change from the secretive conduct and the rare and highly scripted nature of most Bush press conferences. The American people miss out on quite a bit when their President does not share his mind with them extemporaneously. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Reagan were very open in this way.
But the bombshell idea was this one: "I will ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to take questions, and address criticism, much the same as the prime minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons." Alter comments, "As C-Span viewers of the weekly British Question Time can attest, this would be revolutionary, even if our version proved far tamer."
That is certainly true, and even an understatement. It indicates McCain possesses a tremendous confidence in his knowledge of government operations, given that he could be asked practically anything under the sun by Democratic Senators or Representatives. He would also need to study hard to prepare for these sessions, and that would keep him on top of innumerable programs and issues.
One thing is for sure; a proposal like this certainly shows McCain has guts. And if he were able to pull it off successfully it would do much to help him advance his agenda in office.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Class: The Other Taboo
The candidacy of Barack Obama has inevitably raised the issue of race. It is a topic most Americans would rather not talk about. Yet there is another issue that remains if anything an even greater taboo, and that is class.
If you want to make any number of predictions about a person's prospects at birth there is no surer way than by learning the income and educational level of his or her parents. This provides a more accurate barometer than race. Life expectancy, income, crime and incarceration figures, even traffic accident prediction are most accurately achieved by applying socioeconomic factors. Auto insurers know this. That is why they base insurance rates so heavily on a customer's zip code.
With race, there is a palpable discomfort level with most people. There are those who see its influence everywhere and others who feel that society is completely past it, that anyone who brings it up is simply whining or making excuses. But with most there is an underlying sense that it still matters, though how much or how little is difficult to determine and to talk about it is to walk on eggs. With class, however, there is usually the blank stare of incomprehension.
Sociology is the discipline that studies how people behave in groups. Put people in poverty and you get a consistent pattern of overall behavior. Overcrowd people and you get another. Expose them to danger or to greater or lesser degrees of opportunity and you get high correlations of definite behavior patterns. These understandings run counter to the propensity of upper and middle class Americans to believe that group factors do not matter; that everything is determined by individual choices for which individuals are personally responsible. They point to poor individuals who have "pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps" as evidence.
Yet the aggregate numbers are clear. Tulare County, California, where I live, is a good case in point. The county is largely rural. The unemployment level is about triple the national average. The demographics approximate rural Mississippi or rural Appalachia quite closely. They share similar high school dropout rates of around 40%, high teen pregnancy rates, divorce rates, incarceration rates, lower than average life expectancy rates and so on down the line. The economic conditions of poor Mexican-Americans in rural California, poor whites in Appalachia and poor blacks in the rural South lead to similar societal ills.
What worries me is the apparent national abandonment of a consensus to do anything about this problem. Historically, the national calamity of the Great Depression led to a great move toward egalitarianism. Millions from all walks of life got jobs with the CCC or the WPA. In World War II, the draft brought Americans of all sorts into the national service together. The GI Bill that followed it provided a hand up that moved millions into the white collar middle class. Brown v. Topeka and the Civil Rights Act began ending legal segregation. The 1950s and 1960s saw the formation of the greatest middle class society and the greatest widely shared growth of opportunity and prosperity in the nation's, and perhaps in the world's, history.
But the commitment to that vision ebbed and has seemingly been replaced in many places by a return to fear. Gated communities proliferate. More people send their children to private schools, which are no longer segregated by race but by income. Even public schools vary enormously depending on the wealth of their supporting community, and people with means move to where the schools are reputed to be better. There is a vibrant home-schooling movement. Tuition rates at public colleges and universities go up while scholarships are cut. The volunteer military increasingly is bifurcated into an enlisted mass drawn from the lower and lower middle classes and an officer corps drawn from the upper middle and upper classes. The national political, business and media leadership is nearly completely in the hands of people from these upper strata as well. People increasingly get their news from opinionated niche outlets that tell them what they want to hear, reinforce their own world views without contradiction, and demonize those who think differently.
Unlike those earlier eras, there exists very little impetus to recreate the shared experiences that once drew the nation's people closer together. There seem to be few who call for addressing these developments by making a concerted effort to improve life for those at the margins and integrate them into the middle class mainstream; instead that seems to have been relegated to the status of a lost cause for which the only answer is to hunker down behind protective walls to keep the riff raff out.
It seems as though we lived in a different America in 1967. That summer my father took me to a baseball game in Kansas City. During the game he sent me on an errand. I took my game program and a pen about three rows down and a few seats over to get the autograph of Warren Hearns, Governor of Missouri. That the Governor of the state would be sitting in the stands along with everyone else was just how it was. No one thought anything of it. Today a governor would be in a sky box behind glass with other mucky-mucks, shielded there from contact with the hoi polloi by astronomical prices and by security officers whose job it is to refuse entry to that stadium level to those who do not bear a golden ticket.
President Kennedy said, "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." Can it be that knowledgeable people are not aware from historical example where the balkanization of a society into class-based enclaves leads? Can we have forgotten Kennedy's words so soon?
If you want to make any number of predictions about a person's prospects at birth there is no surer way than by learning the income and educational level of his or her parents. This provides a more accurate barometer than race. Life expectancy, income, crime and incarceration figures, even traffic accident prediction are most accurately achieved by applying socioeconomic factors. Auto insurers know this. That is why they base insurance rates so heavily on a customer's zip code.
With race, there is a palpable discomfort level with most people. There are those who see its influence everywhere and others who feel that society is completely past it, that anyone who brings it up is simply whining or making excuses. But with most there is an underlying sense that it still matters, though how much or how little is difficult to determine and to talk about it is to walk on eggs. With class, however, there is usually the blank stare of incomprehension.
Sociology is the discipline that studies how people behave in groups. Put people in poverty and you get a consistent pattern of overall behavior. Overcrowd people and you get another. Expose them to danger or to greater or lesser degrees of opportunity and you get high correlations of definite behavior patterns. These understandings run counter to the propensity of upper and middle class Americans to believe that group factors do not matter; that everything is determined by individual choices for which individuals are personally responsible. They point to poor individuals who have "pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps" as evidence.
Yet the aggregate numbers are clear. Tulare County, California, where I live, is a good case in point. The county is largely rural. The unemployment level is about triple the national average. The demographics approximate rural Mississippi or rural Appalachia quite closely. They share similar high school dropout rates of around 40%, high teen pregnancy rates, divorce rates, incarceration rates, lower than average life expectancy rates and so on down the line. The economic conditions of poor Mexican-Americans in rural California, poor whites in Appalachia and poor blacks in the rural South lead to similar societal ills.
What worries me is the apparent national abandonment of a consensus to do anything about this problem. Historically, the national calamity of the Great Depression led to a great move toward egalitarianism. Millions from all walks of life got jobs with the CCC or the WPA. In World War II, the draft brought Americans of all sorts into the national service together. The GI Bill that followed it provided a hand up that moved millions into the white collar middle class. Brown v. Topeka and the Civil Rights Act began ending legal segregation. The 1950s and 1960s saw the formation of the greatest middle class society and the greatest widely shared growth of opportunity and prosperity in the nation's, and perhaps in the world's, history.
But the commitment to that vision ebbed and has seemingly been replaced in many places by a return to fear. Gated communities proliferate. More people send their children to private schools, which are no longer segregated by race but by income. Even public schools vary enormously depending on the wealth of their supporting community, and people with means move to where the schools are reputed to be better. There is a vibrant home-schooling movement. Tuition rates at public colleges and universities go up while scholarships are cut. The volunteer military increasingly is bifurcated into an enlisted mass drawn from the lower and lower middle classes and an officer corps drawn from the upper middle and upper classes. The national political, business and media leadership is nearly completely in the hands of people from these upper strata as well. People increasingly get their news from opinionated niche outlets that tell them what they want to hear, reinforce their own world views without contradiction, and demonize those who think differently.
Unlike those earlier eras, there exists very little impetus to recreate the shared experiences that once drew the nation's people closer together. There seem to be few who call for addressing these developments by making a concerted effort to improve life for those at the margins and integrate them into the middle class mainstream; instead that seems to have been relegated to the status of a lost cause for which the only answer is to hunker down behind protective walls to keep the riff raff out.
It seems as though we lived in a different America in 1967. That summer my father took me to a baseball game in Kansas City. During the game he sent me on an errand. I took my game program and a pen about three rows down and a few seats over to get the autograph of Warren Hearns, Governor of Missouri. That the Governor of the state would be sitting in the stands along with everyone else was just how it was. No one thought anything of it. Today a governor would be in a sky box behind glass with other mucky-mucks, shielded there from contact with the hoi polloi by astronomical prices and by security officers whose job it is to refuse entry to that stadium level to those who do not bear a golden ticket.
President Kennedy said, "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." Can it be that knowledgeable people are not aware from historical example where the balkanization of a society into class-based enclaves leads? Can we have forgotten Kennedy's words so soon?
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Talking to the Enemy
One of the most refreshing prospects for this year's election is that the two major candidates offer strikingly different views on a number of issues. This promises to give voters a clear choice in November. One of the issues that has been in the news lately is whether the United States should engage in diplomatic talks with international adversaries. John McCain seems to want to give the silent treatment to international rivals and Barack Obama wants to talk with them.
The item first got on the national radar screen in a Democratic debate. Obama said he would have face to face talks with leaders of countries like Iran, and without preconditions. Hillary Clinton jumped on that one right away, calling Obama naive. Since then, Obama has refined his stance a bit, admitting that preparatory work would first need to be done at lower levels of officials below the president. But he has stuck to his guns on this one.
The issue was rejoined when President Bush was in Israel. He likened speaking to enemies as appeasement and explicitly mentioned the Nazis to his Jewish audience. McCain joined in the attack so quickly there is little doubt he and the Prez had planned this as a one-two punch together. Due to a couple of factors, though, it did not have the effect they expected.
First of all, Bush is practically without credibility at this point of his tenure. With approval numbers around 30% for two years, no one but the already-committeed diehard core of the Republican base even listens to the man anymore. Nothing helps a Democrat more these days than to be able to directly engage Bush on an issue.
Second, Obama held his ground, offered historical examples and caught McCain advocating the practice himself. Kennedy stared down Khruschev. Nixon went to China. Reagan talked with Gorbachev. McCain himself was shown in a two-year old tape saying we would sooner or later have to deal with the Palestinian organization Hamas.
Obama dug in further with recent remarks in Florida about the issue of relations with Cuba. He called for "direct diplomacy with friend and foe alike," to "turn the page," to allow unlimited visits to relatives on the island and the sending of remittances to relatives there. His appeal is similar in some ways to part of the detente approach of the 1970s in that an increase in personal contacts between Americans and citizens of the adversary regime was welcomed and even pushed as a way to undermine support for the other nation's system. Older Cuban exiles are highly skeptical of Obama's idea, but many of the younger generations appear much more open to it.
How has the diplomatic cold shoulder policy been working these past fifty years? Well, the Castros are still in power. Meanwhile, 10 U.S. Presidents have come and gone. The rest of the world trades with Cuba, so the U.S. embargo has very little effect. The embargo policy stands actually as evidence of its own impotence.
Meanwhile, diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe hastened the day when those regimes fell. Relations with China have eased that nation's entry into the capitalist world economy and given it a stake in the global system. Engagement with Libya has been successful in weaning that country from the terrorist orbit.
Will constructive engagement always result in success? Certainly not, but the alternative idea that rogue regimes are "punished" and brought to reasonability if we refuse to talk to them is silly. The key is to understand that negotiation and appeasement are not the same thing. Negotiation is talks; appeasement is giving countries to the enemy. McCain's narrative of Obama the naif, with whom talks can only lead to capitulation, is of course nothing but a cartoon caricature meant to define his opponent unfavorably for the election. Just as is McCain's own image of himself as one who will not treat with the bad guys at all. He has shown he will when the opportunity appears worth it.
The item first got on the national radar screen in a Democratic debate. Obama said he would have face to face talks with leaders of countries like Iran, and without preconditions. Hillary Clinton jumped on that one right away, calling Obama naive. Since then, Obama has refined his stance a bit, admitting that preparatory work would first need to be done at lower levels of officials below the president. But he has stuck to his guns on this one.
The issue was rejoined when President Bush was in Israel. He likened speaking to enemies as appeasement and explicitly mentioned the Nazis to his Jewish audience. McCain joined in the attack so quickly there is little doubt he and the Prez had planned this as a one-two punch together. Due to a couple of factors, though, it did not have the effect they expected.
First of all, Bush is practically without credibility at this point of his tenure. With approval numbers around 30% for two years, no one but the already-committeed diehard core of the Republican base even listens to the man anymore. Nothing helps a Democrat more these days than to be able to directly engage Bush on an issue.
Second, Obama held his ground, offered historical examples and caught McCain advocating the practice himself. Kennedy stared down Khruschev. Nixon went to China. Reagan talked with Gorbachev. McCain himself was shown in a two-year old tape saying we would sooner or later have to deal with the Palestinian organization Hamas.
Obama dug in further with recent remarks in Florida about the issue of relations with Cuba. He called for "direct diplomacy with friend and foe alike," to "turn the page," to allow unlimited visits to relatives on the island and the sending of remittances to relatives there. His appeal is similar in some ways to part of the detente approach of the 1970s in that an increase in personal contacts between Americans and citizens of the adversary regime was welcomed and even pushed as a way to undermine support for the other nation's system. Older Cuban exiles are highly skeptical of Obama's idea, but many of the younger generations appear much more open to it.
How has the diplomatic cold shoulder policy been working these past fifty years? Well, the Castros are still in power. Meanwhile, 10 U.S. Presidents have come and gone. The rest of the world trades with Cuba, so the U.S. embargo has very little effect. The embargo policy stands actually as evidence of its own impotence.
Meanwhile, diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe hastened the day when those regimes fell. Relations with China have eased that nation's entry into the capitalist world economy and given it a stake in the global system. Engagement with Libya has been successful in weaning that country from the terrorist orbit.
Will constructive engagement always result in success? Certainly not, but the alternative idea that rogue regimes are "punished" and brought to reasonability if we refuse to talk to them is silly. The key is to understand that negotiation and appeasement are not the same thing. Negotiation is talks; appeasement is giving countries to the enemy. McCain's narrative of Obama the naif, with whom talks can only lead to capitulation, is of course nothing but a cartoon caricature meant to define his opponent unfavorably for the election. Just as is McCain's own image of himself as one who will not treat with the bad guys at all. He has shown he will when the opportunity appears worth it.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Clinton's Support Collapsing
New polling data that you will soon see in the national news indicates that at long last, Democratic voter opinion is beginning to move decisively in the presidential race. Hillary Clinton's support is collapsing across the board and is coalescing around the candidacy of Barack Obama.
Ever since Obama's stunning victory in the Iowa caucuses back in January, Clinton had avoided his knockout punch. First in New Hampshire, then in Ohio and Texas, and finally in Pennsylvania, Clinton's support had held firm and kept her in a race that had clearly become an uphill struggle for her. While party leaders fretted about party unity, surveys consistently showed the party faithful wanted the contest to go on. The rank and file appear now to have joined the movers and shakers in the view that the race is settled and it's time to wrap it up.
Brave Gnu Whirled reader Jeff sent me the latest Gallup daily tracking poll. It shows Obama surging 12 points to a commanding 16-point lead over Clinton among Democrats nationally. From May 1 to May 13, Obama led 49% to 45%. The 3-day tracking poll conducted May 16 to 18 saw that margin grow to 55% to 39%.
All subgroups evidenced movement toward Obama. He increased his lead among men from 55-39 to 63-31. He caught up among whites, going from a 52-41 deficit to a 47-47 tie. For the first time, he gained the upper hand among Hispanics, going from a huge 56-39 deficit to a 51-44 lead. Even more ominous for Clinton, Obama has even taken the lead among women, going from down 50-44 to up 49-46. You can see all the data at http://www.gallup.com/poll/107407/Obama-Surge-Fairly-BroadBased.aspx#1
These findings are corroborated by the Real Clear Politics averages of national polls, which show Obama suddenly leading Clinton by 12.2%. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/ The RCP averages showed a dead heat from May 1 through the 11th, with the race tied 7 days, Obama up by 2 one day and up by 1 the other three days. On May 12, the day before West Virginia, he jumped to a national 5-point lead. It stayed between 5 and 8 points for the next eight days, until May 19, the day before Oregon and Kentucky, when it jumped to 9. It went to 11 on the 20th and 12 on the 21st.
The RCP average is considered as good a bellweather as there is in polling, since it consists of an average of several polls and is thus thought to minimize the anomalies inherent in the results of any one poll. If they're all saying the same thing it gives added statistical weight to the findings by greatly increasing the sampling size. The only time it has been drastically off this year was just before New Hampshire.
If the next Gallup tracking poll and RCP average duplicates what these are saying, expect the talk urging Clinton to withdraw to get increasingly pointed and direct. Even more important, expect to see the superdelegates begin declaring for Obama in droves. Superdelegates are, after all, politicians. They are naturally skittish about taking chances that might antagonize a lot of voters, voters who seem to have wanted to see the battle to go on until May 12. But on that date they decided they had seen enough. Neither Clinton's West Virginia win nor the Oregon-Kentucky split changed their minds; indeed they appear to have hardened their resolve that the race is over, Obama is the nominee, and it's time get on with it.
Ever since Obama's stunning victory in the Iowa caucuses back in January, Clinton had avoided his knockout punch. First in New Hampshire, then in Ohio and Texas, and finally in Pennsylvania, Clinton's support had held firm and kept her in a race that had clearly become an uphill struggle for her. While party leaders fretted about party unity, surveys consistently showed the party faithful wanted the contest to go on. The rank and file appear now to have joined the movers and shakers in the view that the race is settled and it's time to wrap it up.
Brave Gnu Whirled reader Jeff sent me the latest Gallup daily tracking poll. It shows Obama surging 12 points to a commanding 16-point lead over Clinton among Democrats nationally. From May 1 to May 13, Obama led 49% to 45%. The 3-day tracking poll conducted May 16 to 18 saw that margin grow to 55% to 39%.
All subgroups evidenced movement toward Obama. He increased his lead among men from 55-39 to 63-31. He caught up among whites, going from a 52-41 deficit to a 47-47 tie. For the first time, he gained the upper hand among Hispanics, going from a huge 56-39 deficit to a 51-44 lead. Even more ominous for Clinton, Obama has even taken the lead among women, going from down 50-44 to up 49-46. You can see all the data at http://www.gallup.com/poll/107407/Obama-Surge-Fairly-BroadBased.aspx#1
These findings are corroborated by the Real Clear Politics averages of national polls, which show Obama suddenly leading Clinton by 12.2%. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/ The RCP averages showed a dead heat from May 1 through the 11th, with the race tied 7 days, Obama up by 2 one day and up by 1 the other three days. On May 12, the day before West Virginia, he jumped to a national 5-point lead. It stayed between 5 and 8 points for the next eight days, until May 19, the day before Oregon and Kentucky, when it jumped to 9. It went to 11 on the 20th and 12 on the 21st.
The RCP average is considered as good a bellweather as there is in polling, since it consists of an average of several polls and is thus thought to minimize the anomalies inherent in the results of any one poll. If they're all saying the same thing it gives added statistical weight to the findings by greatly increasing the sampling size. The only time it has been drastically off this year was just before New Hampshire.
If the next Gallup tracking poll and RCP average duplicates what these are saying, expect the talk urging Clinton to withdraw to get increasingly pointed and direct. Even more important, expect to see the superdelegates begin declaring for Obama in droves. Superdelegates are, after all, politicians. They are naturally skittish about taking chances that might antagonize a lot of voters, voters who seem to have wanted to see the battle to go on until May 12. But on that date they decided they had seen enough. Neither Clinton's West Virginia win nor the Oregon-Kentucky split changed their minds; indeed they appear to have hardened their resolve that the race is over, Obama is the nominee, and it's time get on with it.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
What Does Hillary Do Now?
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton played to their strengths again today, each easily winning a state favorable to their customary base of support. Clinton romped in Kentucky, 65%-30% and Obama rolled in Oregon, 58%-42%. Both results were about 3% more one-sided than predicted.
With these results, Obama crosses the threshold of securing the majority of pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses. Superdelegates have also been trickling his way, and he now holds a 20-vote lead among those who have declared their intentions. Tomorrow's figures should show Obama with 1959 total delegates to Clinton's 1780.
Still to be decided are 212 undeclared superdelegates and 86 pledged delegates to be won in the final contests of Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota. For Clinton to get the nomination she needs 246 of the 298 outstanding votes. That is better than 80%, and it isn't going to happen. It has been calculated that even if Michigan's and Florida's nullified results were counted the way Clinton would like, she would still need 65% of the remaining delegates to win. That isn't going to happen, either.
The big question now is how this race will be ended. In her Louisville victory speech, Clinton vowed to fiercely carry on the fight, but also said the Democratic Party must unify behind the nominee whether she or Obama wins. She made no sharp attacks against Obama. She then made her case for the nomination, clearly with an eye on the superdelegates. She claimed to have a lead in popular vote and to have won in states where a Democrat must prevail to win in the general election.
The popular vote claim is only valid if you include Michigan, where Obama's name was not on the ballot, and do not count the estimates of the popular vote equivalent in several caucus states. Her stronger case is the second, about electability. She hopes that almost all the unannounced superdelegates will conclude Obama cannot win in November and that she can. To do that they would have to vote against the candidate who has won the majority of pledged delegates, an unlikely scenario.
Obama, speaking in Des Moines to highlight his closing in on the nomination in the state whose caucuses launched his prospects, was extremely gracious to Clinton. He credited her with, "shattering myths, breaking barriers and changing the world for my daughters." He then turned his fire on John McCain for echoing the "failed policies of President Bush" and delivered his prescriptions for change on a number of issues. Obama is clearly trying to give Clinton a dignified way out, trying to court her supporters, and trying to touch off the general campaign against the Republicans, what the pros call "pivoting." He definitely has cause for concern. Exit polls in Kentucky show 40% of the Clinton voters there say they will not vote for Obama in November.
At this point, Obama's November prospects mostly depend on how Clinton manages the end game of this race. If there is a bloody fight at the May 31 credentials committee meeting over Michigan and Florida, if she resumes attacking him personally or if she vows to take matters to the convention in August after Montana and South Dakota wrap things up on June 3, she could sabotage Obama's chances against McCain. The threat of her doing any of these things could be used to force him to include her on the ticket, if that is what she wants.
But on the other hand, if Obama were to lose to McCain and Clinton is seen to be largely responsible, it would forever alienate much of the Democratic Party against her. She would do better to be a team player and try to help him win. If he were to lose she would have a decent shot at the nomination in four years. If he were to win, another run for her in eight years would not be out of the question.
It will be fascinating to see how she proceeds. The next two and a half weeks will tell the story. Oh, one more thing. Obama's plane left Iowa tonight. Next stop? Florida.
With these results, Obama crosses the threshold of securing the majority of pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses. Superdelegates have also been trickling his way, and he now holds a 20-vote lead among those who have declared their intentions. Tomorrow's figures should show Obama with 1959 total delegates to Clinton's 1780.
Still to be decided are 212 undeclared superdelegates and 86 pledged delegates to be won in the final contests of Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota. For Clinton to get the nomination she needs 246 of the 298 outstanding votes. That is better than 80%, and it isn't going to happen. It has been calculated that even if Michigan's and Florida's nullified results were counted the way Clinton would like, she would still need 65% of the remaining delegates to win. That isn't going to happen, either.
The big question now is how this race will be ended. In her Louisville victory speech, Clinton vowed to fiercely carry on the fight, but also said the Democratic Party must unify behind the nominee whether she or Obama wins. She made no sharp attacks against Obama. She then made her case for the nomination, clearly with an eye on the superdelegates. She claimed to have a lead in popular vote and to have won in states where a Democrat must prevail to win in the general election.
The popular vote claim is only valid if you include Michigan, where Obama's name was not on the ballot, and do not count the estimates of the popular vote equivalent in several caucus states. Her stronger case is the second, about electability. She hopes that almost all the unannounced superdelegates will conclude Obama cannot win in November and that she can. To do that they would have to vote against the candidate who has won the majority of pledged delegates, an unlikely scenario.
Obama, speaking in Des Moines to highlight his closing in on the nomination in the state whose caucuses launched his prospects, was extremely gracious to Clinton. He credited her with, "shattering myths, breaking barriers and changing the world for my daughters." He then turned his fire on John McCain for echoing the "failed policies of President Bush" and delivered his prescriptions for change on a number of issues. Obama is clearly trying to give Clinton a dignified way out, trying to court her supporters, and trying to touch off the general campaign against the Republicans, what the pros call "pivoting." He definitely has cause for concern. Exit polls in Kentucky show 40% of the Clinton voters there say they will not vote for Obama in November.
At this point, Obama's November prospects mostly depend on how Clinton manages the end game of this race. If there is a bloody fight at the May 31 credentials committee meeting over Michigan and Florida, if she resumes attacking him personally or if she vows to take matters to the convention in August after Montana and South Dakota wrap things up on June 3, she could sabotage Obama's chances against McCain. The threat of her doing any of these things could be used to force him to include her on the ticket, if that is what she wants.
But on the other hand, if Obama were to lose to McCain and Clinton is seen to be largely responsible, it would forever alienate much of the Democratic Party against her. She would do better to be a team player and try to help him win. If he were to lose she would have a decent shot at the nomination in four years. If he were to win, another run for her in eight years would not be out of the question.
It will be fascinating to see how she proceeds. The next two and a half weeks will tell the story. Oh, one more thing. Obama's plane left Iowa tonight. Next stop? Florida.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Obama and Clinton in Kentucky and Oregon
We should see a split decision on Tuesday, with Barack Obama taking Oregon and Hillary Clinton Kentucky. Hillary is Queen of the Ohio Valley and Barack is King of the West. The impact will be similar to what we saw two weeks ago, when Clinton won Indiana and Obama took North Carolina. The upshot is, Clinton will not make up sufficient ground to appreciably slow Obama's march to the nomination.
Kentucky portends another Ohio Valley blowout for Hillary. She should win by a 2-1 margin and emerge with roughly 34 of the Bluegrass State's 51 delegates. The demographics there play to her strengths, blue-collar whites who are older than average.
Oregon ought to be a solid Obama state. He should win by about 13 points. That will get him about 29 of the 52 delegates at stake. Oregon is a fairly liberal state, and the highly-educated hub of Portland is full of the kind of professionals who like Obama.
If these projections hold, Clinton will come out of Tuesday's voting with 56 delegates to Obama's 46. That will close her overall deficit to 180 overall delegates, give or take a handful. It's too little too late for the New York Senator.
Superdelegates continue to flow to Obama; he picked up 10 more over the weekend to Clinton's 4. With Puerto Rico (55 delegates) the last contest of any size, there simply aren't enough delegates left for her to win. Even if Michigan and Florida were to be included on her terms it still wouldn't be enough.
Many ask why Hillary goes on. From her perspective, one might ask, why not? There are only two weeks left until the process ends on June 3. Having come this far she has nothing to lose by running to the tape. She will have burnished her credentials as a dogged, never-say-die fighter. She could well be thinking that might come in handy somewhere down the road.
Kentucky portends another Ohio Valley blowout for Hillary. She should win by a 2-1 margin and emerge with roughly 34 of the Bluegrass State's 51 delegates. The demographics there play to her strengths, blue-collar whites who are older than average.
Oregon ought to be a solid Obama state. He should win by about 13 points. That will get him about 29 of the 52 delegates at stake. Oregon is a fairly liberal state, and the highly-educated hub of Portland is full of the kind of professionals who like Obama.
If these projections hold, Clinton will come out of Tuesday's voting with 56 delegates to Obama's 46. That will close her overall deficit to 180 overall delegates, give or take a handful. It's too little too late for the New York Senator.
Superdelegates continue to flow to Obama; he picked up 10 more over the weekend to Clinton's 4. With Puerto Rico (55 delegates) the last contest of any size, there simply aren't enough delegates left for her to win. Even if Michigan and Florida were to be included on her terms it still wouldn't be enough.
Many ask why Hillary goes on. From her perspective, one might ask, why not? There are only two weeks left until the process ends on June 3. Having come this far she has nothing to lose by running to the tape. She will have burnished her credentials as a dogged, never-say-die fighter. She could well be thinking that might come in handy somewhere down the road.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Health Care
When it comes to health care I have no ideological axes to grind. I don't care whether it's fully private, fully government-funded or a mix of the two. All I care is that it works. Kids should get inoculations. Expectant mothers should get prenatal care. Older folks should get regular checkups. When people are sick or injured they should be able to go to the doctor. When someone has a serious condition that requires surgery or expensive treatment in order to get well, they should be able to get what they need without facing bankruptcy. The noise put out by people with ideological preconceptions to defend or financial interests to serve does not interest me. Good medical care does.
That is why we should cut through the fog and take a stark look at health care in America. If our system worked well for all our people I would be more than satisfied. But it does not. The figures are quite clear on this. 17% of the American Gross Domestic Product is now spent on health care. The average for OECD countries is 9%. (Thirty countries belong to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group that started with the U.S., Canada and European countries receiving Marshall Plan aid and now extends to much of the rest of Europe plus others such as Japan, Korea, Australia, Mexico and Turkey.)
16% of our people are completely without health coverage. No one in any other OECD nation is. Average life expectancy in our country is 75 for men and 80 for women. The OECD averages are 78 and 83. The infant mortality rate in the U.S. is the highest and the maternal mortality rate is the third highest. We have the second lowest hospital beds per capita and the fifth lowest number of physicians per capita. These results are not acceptable.
There are many people in the United States who like mindlessly to chant, "USA! USA!" and, "We're number one! We're number one!" They feel it is reflexively patriotic to so believe. They do not like to hear news that contradicts their ignorance.
There are others who believe that an unfettered "free market" is always the best solution to every problem. When evidence demonstrates otherwise on a particular issue they are quick to offer a myriad of excuses. They do not like to hear facts that do not fit their ideological preconceptions.
There are others yet who feel their profits depend on maintaining arrangements as they are, and many others they pay to advertise, advocate, and legislate to protect these arrangements. They like to pretend, and may in some cases even believe, that their personal interests and the national interest are one and the same. They do not like to hear anything that questions this.
The bottom line is that we are paying much more and getting much less for our health care dollar than comparable countries. The Canadian, French, British, German, Japanese, Italian and many other plans work better than ours at far less cost. If we spent what they do per capita we would have an additional $100 billion to devote to other things. And these costs have been going up by 12% a year. The economy cannot sustain a bubble like that any more than it could sustain housing prices annually going up at that rate. This is not about politics or ideology. It is about practicality.
John McCain wants to take away the business deduction for providing insurance. So one would expect companies to stop offering it for their employees. Instead, people will get a $2,500 individual or a $5,000 family tax credit for buying their own health insurance. The average family health insurance plan costs $12,000. The kinds of plans people could buy for $5000 have huge gaps in coverage. If they want a good comprehensive plan they will have to pay $7,000 out of pocket, $7,000 that already-strapped families are not paying now. And what of those who cannot afford any plan? And how is this to be paid for? McCain's idea is worthless.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want to rescind the Bush tax cuts for people making over $250,000 and use that to fund their health insurance plans. Employers would be encouraged to provide coverage for their employees as many do now. Otherwise, people could go into a medicare-type plan or they could opt for better, paying the difference on a sliding scale. Clinton would require people to join or buy. Obama would make the system available to all but would require people to purchase, if necessary, only for their children.
The Clinton and Obama plans are considerably better than McCain's, though even they probably overstate the amount that can be funded from the tax restoration and that will be saved from various cost-control measures their plans will try to require of the private insurers and health care providers. They represent a halfway approach that tries to reform the present system rather than go to a truly national system such as the other countries have. They would be an improvement over the way things are done now, but will not fully rectify the problems. But they may be all that is politically possible given the resistance of the entrenched interests and the weight of people's preconceptions. More's the pity.
That is why we should cut through the fog and take a stark look at health care in America. If our system worked well for all our people I would be more than satisfied. But it does not. The figures are quite clear on this. 17% of the American Gross Domestic Product is now spent on health care. The average for OECD countries is 9%. (Thirty countries belong to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group that started with the U.S., Canada and European countries receiving Marshall Plan aid and now extends to much of the rest of Europe plus others such as Japan, Korea, Australia, Mexico and Turkey.)
16% of our people are completely without health coverage. No one in any other OECD nation is. Average life expectancy in our country is 75 for men and 80 for women. The OECD averages are 78 and 83. The infant mortality rate in the U.S. is the highest and the maternal mortality rate is the third highest. We have the second lowest hospital beds per capita and the fifth lowest number of physicians per capita. These results are not acceptable.
There are many people in the United States who like mindlessly to chant, "USA! USA!" and, "We're number one! We're number one!" They feel it is reflexively patriotic to so believe. They do not like to hear news that contradicts their ignorance.
There are others who believe that an unfettered "free market" is always the best solution to every problem. When evidence demonstrates otherwise on a particular issue they are quick to offer a myriad of excuses. They do not like to hear facts that do not fit their ideological preconceptions.
There are others yet who feel their profits depend on maintaining arrangements as they are, and many others they pay to advertise, advocate, and legislate to protect these arrangements. They like to pretend, and may in some cases even believe, that their personal interests and the national interest are one and the same. They do not like to hear anything that questions this.
The bottom line is that we are paying much more and getting much less for our health care dollar than comparable countries. The Canadian, French, British, German, Japanese, Italian and many other plans work better than ours at far less cost. If we spent what they do per capita we would have an additional $100 billion to devote to other things. And these costs have been going up by 12% a year. The economy cannot sustain a bubble like that any more than it could sustain housing prices annually going up at that rate. This is not about politics or ideology. It is about practicality.
John McCain wants to take away the business deduction for providing insurance. So one would expect companies to stop offering it for their employees. Instead, people will get a $2,500 individual or a $5,000 family tax credit for buying their own health insurance. The average family health insurance plan costs $12,000. The kinds of plans people could buy for $5000 have huge gaps in coverage. If they want a good comprehensive plan they will have to pay $7,000 out of pocket, $7,000 that already-strapped families are not paying now. And what of those who cannot afford any plan? And how is this to be paid for? McCain's idea is worthless.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want to rescind the Bush tax cuts for people making over $250,000 and use that to fund their health insurance plans. Employers would be encouraged to provide coverage for their employees as many do now. Otherwise, people could go into a medicare-type plan or they could opt for better, paying the difference on a sliding scale. Clinton would require people to join or buy. Obama would make the system available to all but would require people to purchase, if necessary, only for their children.
The Clinton and Obama plans are considerably better than McCain's, though even they probably overstate the amount that can be funded from the tax restoration and that will be saved from various cost-control measures their plans will try to require of the private insurers and health care providers. They represent a halfway approach that tries to reform the present system rather than go to a truly national system such as the other countries have. They would be an improvement over the way things are done now, but will not fully rectify the problems. But they may be all that is politically possible given the resistance of the entrenched interests and the weight of people's preconceptions. More's the pity.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Gay Marriage, Again
The California State Supreme Court reopened the gay marriage issue in a 4-3 decision yesterday, ruling that same sex marriages will be legal in the Golden State in 30 days. The delay is to give counties time to get their licensing procedures in line with the mandate.
There are two facets in play here, constitutional and political. Constitutionally, the court is on firm ground. Politically, the action carries the potential to hurt Democrats and help Republicans in this election year.
Constitutionally, the court demolished the arguments against same sex marriage. Chief Justice Ronald George's 30,000-word opinion dealt in detail with each contention raised by the lawyers arguing against the practice. At the heart of the ruling is the constitutional requirement for equal protection under the law. The decision states, "An individual's sexual orientation-like a person's race or gender-does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights." The court specifically cited as precedent the 1948 California Supreme Court decision Perez v. Sharp that overturned laws against interracial marriage, placing gender-based discrimination in the same category. Simply stated, under a constitution that mandates equality, there actually has to be equality. Period.
Another principal justification was the existence of a strong civil union law in the state. By already legally extending the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same sex couples the court held that the state has, in fact, already approved it. But by refusing to use the term and establishing the rights under a separate set of laws, the state evidences a pattern of discrimination. A duck is still a duck. Calling it a goose doesn't change the reality.
The ruling also answered specific objections raised in lawyers' arguments in the case. One contention was that the state has an interest in promoting the propagation of children into families. Since same-sex couples cannot produce children, they can be treated differently than opposite sex couples, the reasoning went. The court's answer: "If that were an accurate and adequate explanation...it would be constitutionally permissible for the state to preclude an individual who is incapable of bearing children from entering into marriage. "
On constitutional principles the ruling is irrefutable. It is noteworthy that six of the seven justices of the court are Republicans appointed by Republican governors. The majority could come to no other conclusion than that it is plain hypocrisy for a society to stand for equality in its foundational constitutional documents and then single out certain groups as exceptions. It is about time this principle, applied by earlier courts to race and gender, was similarly established with respect to sexual orientation.
Politically, however, it is a different ballgame. The latest Gallup national survey on the matter, taken this month, finds 40% of Americans in favor of permitting same sex marriages and 56% opposed. George W. Bush may owe his re-election in 2004 to the legalization of same sex marriage in Massachusetts that year. The resulting furor energized opponents of the practice, particularly evangelicals, who turned out in droves to vote for the President who shared their views. It is possible that could happen again this year, to the overall benefit of Republicans and the detriment of Democrats.
Gallup's findings on the matter found that 16% of respondents consider the issue so important that a candidate must share their position on gay marriage to get their votes. 49% said it was one of many factors, while 33% said it was not an important issue to them. Democrats supported same sex marriage 50% to 45%, independents opposed it narrowly, 47% to 41%, and Republicans opposed it 67% to 26%. Interestingly, all three groups support civil unions: Democrats 46-41, independents 49-37 and Republicans 46-43. What is unclear about these figures is the reasoning of the respondents. We might presume that Republicans who oppose both gay marriage and civil unions do so for the same reason. But how many Democrats of the 41% who were against civil unions did so because they felt they were not enough, that gay marriage should be completely legalized? The poll does not tell us.
Two additional factors come into play are the breakdown by age and time. Younger voters in the 18-24 and 25-39 age groups were more supportive and older ones more opposed. Every succeeding age group was less favorable than the younger group before it. People over 65 were overwhelmingly opposed, to the tune of better than 85%. It could be argued that if this issue assumes major importance in the 2008 election, the record primary turnouts of younger voters might do much to minimize the Republican electoral advantage if they come out again in November.
And by time, I refer to how support for gay marriage has increased over the years. When Gallup first began asking the question in 1996, only 27% were in favor and 68% were opposed. The "pro" side has been growing by about 1% per year. Some supporters feel that as older Americans fade from the scene and successive generations continue to change the demographics, same sex marriage will eventually be accepted by the overwhelming majority. They point to surveys showing that interracial marriage was favored by only 27% at the time of Perez v. Sharp. I tend to think this expectation will be borne out, but certainly have no empirical way of knowing. Time will tell.
In California, opponents of the ruling are working hard to qualify an initiative for the November ballot that would amend the state constitution to forbid same sex marriage. It is expected to get enough signatures to be placed on the ballot, and could spawn similar efforts in other states. Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has twice vetoed bills sent to him by the legislature that would have legalized same sex marriage. But following the court's ruling this time the Governator said he had attended same sex commitment ceremonies and that they were,"no big deal." He said he would follow the court's ruling and will not support the initiative campaign to overturn it.
In terms of the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama has said he opposes same sex marriage but supports civil unions. John McCain supported a same sex marriage ban in Arizona but did not vote for the federal "Defense of Marriage Act," on the grounds that he feels marriage and family law are the purview of the states. Based on the absence of any mention of marriage in the U.S. Constitution I would say he is right about that.
But getting back to its effect on the balloting, I surmise the issue has lost some of its punch compared to 2004. The voters are facing so many more pressing issues that are directly impacting their lives this year. But with the Republicans seemingly headed for desperate straits I expect them sooner or later to try to make it a major rallying cry in this campaign. I feel it will help them some, but not as much as it did four years ago. And if they hang onto it in future years there will come a point at which it begins to hurt them. The times they are a changin' on this one.
There are two facets in play here, constitutional and political. Constitutionally, the court is on firm ground. Politically, the action carries the potential to hurt Democrats and help Republicans in this election year.
Constitutionally, the court demolished the arguments against same sex marriage. Chief Justice Ronald George's 30,000-word opinion dealt in detail with each contention raised by the lawyers arguing against the practice. At the heart of the ruling is the constitutional requirement for equal protection under the law. The decision states, "An individual's sexual orientation-like a person's race or gender-does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights." The court specifically cited as precedent the 1948 California Supreme Court decision Perez v. Sharp that overturned laws against interracial marriage, placing gender-based discrimination in the same category. Simply stated, under a constitution that mandates equality, there actually has to be equality. Period.
Another principal justification was the existence of a strong civil union law in the state. By already legally extending the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same sex couples the court held that the state has, in fact, already approved it. But by refusing to use the term and establishing the rights under a separate set of laws, the state evidences a pattern of discrimination. A duck is still a duck. Calling it a goose doesn't change the reality.
The ruling also answered specific objections raised in lawyers' arguments in the case. One contention was that the state has an interest in promoting the propagation of children into families. Since same-sex couples cannot produce children, they can be treated differently than opposite sex couples, the reasoning went. The court's answer: "If that were an accurate and adequate explanation...it would be constitutionally permissible for the state to preclude an individual who is incapable of bearing children from entering into marriage. "
On constitutional principles the ruling is irrefutable. It is noteworthy that six of the seven justices of the court are Republicans appointed by Republican governors. The majority could come to no other conclusion than that it is plain hypocrisy for a society to stand for equality in its foundational constitutional documents and then single out certain groups as exceptions. It is about time this principle, applied by earlier courts to race and gender, was similarly established with respect to sexual orientation.
Politically, however, it is a different ballgame. The latest Gallup national survey on the matter, taken this month, finds 40% of Americans in favor of permitting same sex marriages and 56% opposed. George W. Bush may owe his re-election in 2004 to the legalization of same sex marriage in Massachusetts that year. The resulting furor energized opponents of the practice, particularly evangelicals, who turned out in droves to vote for the President who shared their views. It is possible that could happen again this year, to the overall benefit of Republicans and the detriment of Democrats.
Gallup's findings on the matter found that 16% of respondents consider the issue so important that a candidate must share their position on gay marriage to get their votes. 49% said it was one of many factors, while 33% said it was not an important issue to them. Democrats supported same sex marriage 50% to 45%, independents opposed it narrowly, 47% to 41%, and Republicans opposed it 67% to 26%. Interestingly, all three groups support civil unions: Democrats 46-41, independents 49-37 and Republicans 46-43. What is unclear about these figures is the reasoning of the respondents. We might presume that Republicans who oppose both gay marriage and civil unions do so for the same reason. But how many Democrats of the 41% who were against civil unions did so because they felt they were not enough, that gay marriage should be completely legalized? The poll does not tell us.
Two additional factors come into play are the breakdown by age and time. Younger voters in the 18-24 and 25-39 age groups were more supportive and older ones more opposed. Every succeeding age group was less favorable than the younger group before it. People over 65 were overwhelmingly opposed, to the tune of better than 85%. It could be argued that if this issue assumes major importance in the 2008 election, the record primary turnouts of younger voters might do much to minimize the Republican electoral advantage if they come out again in November.
And by time, I refer to how support for gay marriage has increased over the years. When Gallup first began asking the question in 1996, only 27% were in favor and 68% were opposed. The "pro" side has been growing by about 1% per year. Some supporters feel that as older Americans fade from the scene and successive generations continue to change the demographics, same sex marriage will eventually be accepted by the overwhelming majority. They point to surveys showing that interracial marriage was favored by only 27% at the time of Perez v. Sharp. I tend to think this expectation will be borne out, but certainly have no empirical way of knowing. Time will tell.
In California, opponents of the ruling are working hard to qualify an initiative for the November ballot that would amend the state constitution to forbid same sex marriage. It is expected to get enough signatures to be placed on the ballot, and could spawn similar efforts in other states. Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has twice vetoed bills sent to him by the legislature that would have legalized same sex marriage. But following the court's ruling this time the Governator said he had attended same sex commitment ceremonies and that they were,"no big deal." He said he would follow the court's ruling and will not support the initiative campaign to overturn it.
In terms of the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama has said he opposes same sex marriage but supports civil unions. John McCain supported a same sex marriage ban in Arizona but did not vote for the federal "Defense of Marriage Act," on the grounds that he feels marriage and family law are the purview of the states. Based on the absence of any mention of marriage in the U.S. Constitution I would say he is right about that.
But getting back to its effect on the balloting, I surmise the issue has lost some of its punch compared to 2004. The voters are facing so many more pressing issues that are directly impacting their lives this year. But with the Republicans seemingly headed for desperate straits I expect them sooner or later to try to make it a major rallying cry in this campaign. I feel it will help them some, but not as much as it did four years ago. And if they hang onto it in future years there will come a point at which it begins to hurt them. The times they are a changin' on this one.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Behind the Headlines
All of a sudden things are happening so fast it's hard to keep up with them all. In the last couple of days we've had the Edwards endorsement, McCain laying out an imagined retrospective of a successful first term and Bush blasting Obama as an appeaser to the Israeli Knesset. Let's take a look behind the headlines.
Barack Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod recently said the campaign was husbanding some announcements for use in the near future. They wheeled out one of the biggest yesterday, as John Edwards appeared with Obama in Michigan and endorsed the Illinois Senator. The timing was brilliant. Hillary Clinton was given all of a day and a half to bask in the glow of her sweeping win in West Virginia before this news knocked it off front pages across the country. These guys are good.
In an instant the question turned from "why can't Obama win white working-class votes?" to "how many will Edwards help him win?" Obama is also likely to pick up most or all of the 19 delegates Edwards won in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Eight of them announced for Obama already today. It is too late for Edwards to have much of an effect in the remaining primaries. In the general election he may help a bit with white southerners and union members across the country; not decisively but a little. Of course, there could be states where just a little may spell the difference between victory and defeat. But the main impact is the immediate. It hammers another nail into the Clinton coffin.
John McCain battles gamely. Yesterday he had the guts to go into the environmentally-conscious Northwest and campaign on global warming. Today he entered the hope contest, sharing his goals for the upcoming years. These include reviving the economy through tax cuts, fixing health care, not needing to be engaged in combat in Iraq in five years, and eventually balancing the budget. It is always welcome to hear a candidate spell out what he intends to accomplish and how he intends to accomplish it. Unfortunately, his tool kit for achieving these goals is the outdated set borrowed from George W. Bush. Voluntary solutions for global warming. Market solutions for health care. Staying the course in Iraq. Balancing the budget by slashing the revenues. Laudable goals pursued by methods that have failed time and again.
This is why the Republican brand is in trouble this year. Unlike Bush, at least McCain recognizes the problems. But like him, he cannot imagine any other ways to fix them than those in the same old Republican playbook that have gotten us into the mess we're in. Americans are looking for new approaches. Obama leads McCain nationally by an average of 4.4 percent in polls released in May. McCain-Obama Polling Data If Team McCain can't come up with better than this, Team Obama will have an easy time hanging the "Bush third term" tag on McCain. He must shake this. If not, game over.
The President himself chose this moment to try to help McCain by taking a swipe at Obama on foreign policy. Speaking in Israel on the anniversary of the founding of the Jewish State, Bush decried those who would show willingness to meet with foreign adversaries. In typical Bush-Rove fashion, and without mentioning Obama by name, he invoked images of fear to try to scare up some votes. This time it involved memories of appeasement and Nazi tanks rumbling into Poland. The Obama campaign and leading Democrats were quick to hit the President for politicizing U.S. foreign policy to a foreign audience.
If the Obama campaign is smart, this response will morph into two branches. One would emphasize historical examples such as Kennedy staring down Khruschev in Vienna, Nixon going to China and Reagan meeting Gorbachev. The other would make the case that it's a good idea to talk to some foreign rogues because, well, some of them could use a good talking to. Bush's plea assumes the only thing that can come out of talks is capitulation. Obama can make it clear that if he encounters threat and provocation the foreign leader will leave only with the impression of a steely-eyed American President giving a clear warning to back off or you will live to regret it. That is the kind of meeting that could have prevented, for instance, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
What Bush's remarks do accomplish for McCain are to help solidify the fundamentalist and strong defense conservatives behind McCain by painting a picture of Obama they already want to believe. Handled properly by Obama, though, all three of the issues I've discussed tonight should rebound to the Democrat's overall benefit.
Barack Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod recently said the campaign was husbanding some announcements for use in the near future. They wheeled out one of the biggest yesterday, as John Edwards appeared with Obama in Michigan and endorsed the Illinois Senator. The timing was brilliant. Hillary Clinton was given all of a day and a half to bask in the glow of her sweeping win in West Virginia before this news knocked it off front pages across the country. These guys are good.
In an instant the question turned from "why can't Obama win white working-class votes?" to "how many will Edwards help him win?" Obama is also likely to pick up most or all of the 19 delegates Edwards won in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Eight of them announced for Obama already today. It is too late for Edwards to have much of an effect in the remaining primaries. In the general election he may help a bit with white southerners and union members across the country; not decisively but a little. Of course, there could be states where just a little may spell the difference between victory and defeat. But the main impact is the immediate. It hammers another nail into the Clinton coffin.
John McCain battles gamely. Yesterday he had the guts to go into the environmentally-conscious Northwest and campaign on global warming. Today he entered the hope contest, sharing his goals for the upcoming years. These include reviving the economy through tax cuts, fixing health care, not needing to be engaged in combat in Iraq in five years, and eventually balancing the budget. It is always welcome to hear a candidate spell out what he intends to accomplish and how he intends to accomplish it. Unfortunately, his tool kit for achieving these goals is the outdated set borrowed from George W. Bush. Voluntary solutions for global warming. Market solutions for health care. Staying the course in Iraq. Balancing the budget by slashing the revenues. Laudable goals pursued by methods that have failed time and again.
This is why the Republican brand is in trouble this year. Unlike Bush, at least McCain recognizes the problems. But like him, he cannot imagine any other ways to fix them than those in the same old Republican playbook that have gotten us into the mess we're in. Americans are looking for new approaches. Obama leads McCain nationally by an average of 4.4 percent in polls released in May. McCain-Obama Polling Data If Team McCain can't come up with better than this, Team Obama will have an easy time hanging the "Bush third term" tag on McCain. He must shake this. If not, game over.
The President himself chose this moment to try to help McCain by taking a swipe at Obama on foreign policy. Speaking in Israel on the anniversary of the founding of the Jewish State, Bush decried those who would show willingness to meet with foreign adversaries. In typical Bush-Rove fashion, and without mentioning Obama by name, he invoked images of fear to try to scare up some votes. This time it involved memories of appeasement and Nazi tanks rumbling into Poland. The Obama campaign and leading Democrats were quick to hit the President for politicizing U.S. foreign policy to a foreign audience.
If the Obama campaign is smart, this response will morph into two branches. One would emphasize historical examples such as Kennedy staring down Khruschev in Vienna, Nixon going to China and Reagan meeting Gorbachev. The other would make the case that it's a good idea to talk to some foreign rogues because, well, some of them could use a good talking to. Bush's plea assumes the only thing that can come out of talks is capitulation. Obama can make it clear that if he encounters threat and provocation the foreign leader will leave only with the impression of a steely-eyed American President giving a clear warning to back off or you will live to regret it. That is the kind of meeting that could have prevented, for instance, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
What Bush's remarks do accomplish for McCain are to help solidify the fundamentalist and strong defense conservatives behind McCain by painting a picture of Obama they already want to believe. Handled properly by Obama, though, all three of the issues I've discussed tonight should rebound to the Democrat's overall benefit.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
The Mississippi First
The big news tonight is not Hillary Clinton's 40-point blowout win over Barack Obama in the West Virginia primary. That was expected and will not change the Democratic nomination race. No, the big news is that Democrat Travis Childers beat Republican Greg Davis in the special election in Mississippi's First Congressional District. It's a tsunami warning for Republican candidates all across the nation this year.
The seat became vacant when Republican Senator Trent Lott retired earlier this year. Republican Governor Haley Barbour appointed Roger Wicker, the First's 12-year incumbent, to fill Lott's vacated Senate seat. That left the First open and necessitated a special election to fill the post until the November general election. Neither Barbour nor Davis figured retaining the seat would be much of a problem. The northeast Mississippi district has been described as a "ruby red" Republican seat. President Bush carried the district by 24 points in 2004.
Trouble came seemingly out of nowhere when Childers won a plurality of 49% to 46% in the first round in April. The rules require the winner to get a majority, so a second round between only the top two finishers was scheduled for today. Childers bested Lewis 53% to 47% in today's voting, which saw a turnout 100,000 greater than in April.
Both candidates are white in the largely white district. Vice President Dick Cheney flew in to campaign for Lewis. Lewis ran ads with a sinister-sounding narrator backed up by monster-movie music repeating that Childers was endorsed by Barack Obama, Barack Obama, Barack Obama! In the ad, footage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright played next to an unflattering black and white photo of Childers while the Boris Karloff sound-alike narrator reminded viewers that Wright had cursed America, Obama was Wright's friend and Obama had endorsed Childers. Lewis lost anyway.
This marks the third straight time the Republicans have lost an ostensibly safe seat in a special election this year. It follows the election of Democrats Bill Foster to former House Speaker Denny Hastert's seat in Illinois and Don Cazayoux to a formerly safe Republican seat in Louisiana. If the Republicans cannot hold onto congressional seats like these it suggests the party is in major trouble with the voters this year. Iraq, the economy and the unpopularity of President Bush are like millstones around their necks. Democrats now hold 236 seats in the 435-member House of Representatives, continuing to extend the majority they won in 2006.
What lessons has the Republican leadership drawn from the debacle? Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) leads the Republican House campaign effort as Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. He sent out a statement to his party's congressmen saying the Mississippi results "should be a concern to all Republicans." He advised them to run as strong conservatives, but also implored, "Republicans must undertake bold efforts to define a forward-looking agenda that offers the kind of positive change voters are looking for." That is a tough assignment. To be a conservative and run on change when your party holds the White House is no easy feat.
Lewis will get another chance in November, and it is plausible that the normally strongly Republican district will revert to form. But with only 27% of voters nationally now identifying themselves to pollsters as Republicans and with Democrats having registered over 2 million new voters this year, the GOP looks to be in a perilous position. Unless something changes dramatically in the next few months, what we are seeing so far indicates they could be facing their worst drubbing since 1964.
The seat became vacant when Republican Senator Trent Lott retired earlier this year. Republican Governor Haley Barbour appointed Roger Wicker, the First's 12-year incumbent, to fill Lott's vacated Senate seat. That left the First open and necessitated a special election to fill the post until the November general election. Neither Barbour nor Davis figured retaining the seat would be much of a problem. The northeast Mississippi district has been described as a "ruby red" Republican seat. President Bush carried the district by 24 points in 2004.
Trouble came seemingly out of nowhere when Childers won a plurality of 49% to 46% in the first round in April. The rules require the winner to get a majority, so a second round between only the top two finishers was scheduled for today. Childers bested Lewis 53% to 47% in today's voting, which saw a turnout 100,000 greater than in April.
Both candidates are white in the largely white district. Vice President Dick Cheney flew in to campaign for Lewis. Lewis ran ads with a sinister-sounding narrator backed up by monster-movie music repeating that Childers was endorsed by Barack Obama, Barack Obama, Barack Obama! In the ad, footage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright played next to an unflattering black and white photo of Childers while the Boris Karloff sound-alike narrator reminded viewers that Wright had cursed America, Obama was Wright's friend and Obama had endorsed Childers. Lewis lost anyway.
This marks the third straight time the Republicans have lost an ostensibly safe seat in a special election this year. It follows the election of Democrats Bill Foster to former House Speaker Denny Hastert's seat in Illinois and Don Cazayoux to a formerly safe Republican seat in Louisiana. If the Republicans cannot hold onto congressional seats like these it suggests the party is in major trouble with the voters this year. Iraq, the economy and the unpopularity of President Bush are like millstones around their necks. Democrats now hold 236 seats in the 435-member House of Representatives, continuing to extend the majority they won in 2006.
What lessons has the Republican leadership drawn from the debacle? Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) leads the Republican House campaign effort as Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. He sent out a statement to his party's congressmen saying the Mississippi results "should be a concern to all Republicans." He advised them to run as strong conservatives, but also implored, "Republicans must undertake bold efforts to define a forward-looking agenda that offers the kind of positive change voters are looking for." That is a tough assignment. To be a conservative and run on change when your party holds the White House is no easy feat.
Lewis will get another chance in November, and it is plausible that the normally strongly Republican district will revert to form. But with only 27% of voters nationally now identifying themselves to pollsters as Republicans and with Democrats having registered over 2 million new voters this year, the GOP looks to be in a perilous position. Unless something changes dramatically in the next few months, what we are seeing so far indicates they could be facing their worst drubbing since 1964.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Can America Adapt to a Changing World?
For over sixty years Americans have taken their pre-eminence in the world for granted. That status may now be palpably coming to an end as more and more of the world follows the American path to material bounty, social egalitarianism and liberal democracy. How will the United States react to this? Will it embrace the growing ranks of its peers, or will it attempt to stifle or build walls against the transformation it did so much to create?
In a brilliant new work, Indian-born American commentator Fareed Zakaria explores these questions. His new book, The Post-American World is excerpted in the current issue of Newsweek.
He illustrates:
Think of the world 100 years ago, when Britannia ruled the waves and the sun never set on the British Empire. No financial or international action of importance was taken without turning an ear to what London might think. Today Britain is a prosperous country, but no one who isn't dealing directly with them much cares what they think. That is seemingly where the world is heading today with respect to the United States. The change appears incremental taken year by year but is breathtakingly rapid in historical terms. Zakaria maintains that this is happening not so much because the U.S. is in decline as that the rest of the world is taking off.
Why is this happening? Zakaria observes,
In a brilliant new work, Indian-born American commentator Fareed Zakaria explores these questions. His new book, The Post-American World is excerpted in the current issue of Newsweek.
He illustrates:
Look around. The world's tallest building is in Taipei, and will soon be in Dubai. It largest publicly traded company is in Beijing. Its biggest refinery is being constructed in India. Its largest passenger airplane is built in Europe. The largest investment fund on the planet is in Abu Dhabi; the biggest movie industry is Bollywood (India), not Hollywood. The largest Ferris wheel is in Singapore. The largest casino is in Macao, which overtook Las Vegas in gambling last year. The Mall of America in Minnesota once boasted that it was the largest shopping mall in the world. Today it wouldn't make the top ten. In the most recent rankings, only two of the world's ten richest people are American...consider that only ten years ago, the United States would have serenely topped almost every one of these categories.
These factoids reflect a seismic shift in power and attitudes...But while we argue over why they hate us, "they" have moved on, and are now far more interested in other, more dynamic parts of the globe. The world has shifted from anti-Americanism to post-Americanism.
Think of the world 100 years ago, when Britannia ruled the waves and the sun never set on the British Empire. No financial or international action of importance was taken without turning an ear to what London might think. Today Britain is a prosperous country, but no one who isn't dealing directly with them much cares what they think. That is seemingly where the world is heading today with respect to the United States. The change appears incremental taken year by year but is breathtakingly rapid in historical terms. Zakaria maintains that this is happening not so much because the U.S. is in decline as that the rest of the world is taking off.
How much? Well, consider this fact. In 2006 and 2007, 124 countries grew their economies at over 4 percent a year. That includes more than 30 countries in Africa. Over the last two decades, lands outside the industrialized West have been growing at rates that were once unthinkable...Antoine van Agtmael, the fund manager who coined the term "emerging markets," has identified the 25 companies most likely to be the world's next great multinationals. His list includes four companies each from Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, and Taiwan; three from India, two from China, and one each from Argentina, Chile, Malaysia, and South Africa. This is something much broader than the much-ballyhooed rise of China. It is the rise of the rest--the rest of the world.
Why is this happening? Zakaria observes,
This is one of the most thrilling times in history. Billions of people are escaping from abject poverty. The world will be enriched and ennobled as they become consumers, producers,
inventors, thinkers, dreamers, and doers. This is all happening because of American ideas and actions. For 60 years, the United States has pushed countries to open their markets, free up their politics, and embrace trade and technology...Yet just as they are beginning to do so, we have become suspicious of trade, openness, immigration, and investment because now it's not Americans going abroad but foreigners coming to America. Just as the world is opening up, we are closing down.
Generations from now, when historians write about these times, they might note that by the turn of the 21st century, the United States had succeeded in its great, historical mission--globalizing the world. We don't want them to write that along the way, we forgot to globalize ourselves.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Almost Heaven
Almost heaven West Virginia, Blue Ridge Mountains Shenandoah River. So sang folk artist John Denver 35 years ago, and so the pretty but poor Appalachian state will seem to Hillary Clinton on Tuesday. She will roll up an enormous win there, but it comes too late to do her flagging campaign much good.
The Mountaineer State has a demographic profile that plays right into Hillary's wheelhouse this election cycle. It's almost all white, downscale, has relatively few college graduates and is older than average. Grand slam. Sen. Clinton could well romp to a 70-30 landslide that could net her 20 of West Virgnia's covey of 28 delegates.
What's of greater concern to the Democratic Party is that her strength in the state would give her an excellent chance to win it and its 5 electoral votes against John McCain in November. West Virginia used to be a reliably Democratic state, but that changed this decade as its social conservatism overcame its miner's union past and George W. Bush beat both Al Gore and John Kerry. Polls have Clinton running ahead of McCain in a state tossup but show Obama hopelessly behind.
That is the kind of argument Clinton is still trying to make to superdelegates, that she is more competitive against the Republicans in several states, particularly in the Ohio River Valley area. She probably is. But Obama makes the counterargument that he will win Pennsylvania anyway and will make up for West Virginia and possibly Ohio with wins in places where she is less likely to prevail--places like Oregon, Iowa and Colorado.
The argument is largely moot at this point in any case, Obama having at this point all but a lock on the nomination. The key for Obama and the Party is whether Hillary will ease the situation by strongly endorsing and campaigning for him in such areas and among hispanics and women in the months ahead. My reckoning is that she will. For Obama in these parts, that would be almost heaven.
The Mountaineer State has a demographic profile that plays right into Hillary's wheelhouse this election cycle. It's almost all white, downscale, has relatively few college graduates and is older than average. Grand slam. Sen. Clinton could well romp to a 70-30 landslide that could net her 20 of West Virgnia's covey of 28 delegates.
What's of greater concern to the Democratic Party is that her strength in the state would give her an excellent chance to win it and its 5 electoral votes against John McCain in November. West Virginia used to be a reliably Democratic state, but that changed this decade as its social conservatism overcame its miner's union past and George W. Bush beat both Al Gore and John Kerry. Polls have Clinton running ahead of McCain in a state tossup but show Obama hopelessly behind.
That is the kind of argument Clinton is still trying to make to superdelegates, that she is more competitive against the Republicans in several states, particularly in the Ohio River Valley area. She probably is. But Obama makes the counterargument that he will win Pennsylvania anyway and will make up for West Virginia and possibly Ohio with wins in places where she is less likely to prevail--places like Oregon, Iowa and Colorado.
The argument is largely moot at this point in any case, Obama having at this point all but a lock on the nomination. The key for Obama and the Party is whether Hillary will ease the situation by strongly endorsing and campaigning for him in such areas and among hispanics and women in the months ahead. My reckoning is that she will. For Obama in these parts, that would be almost heaven.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Why Hillary Lost
Here are the six reasons Hillary Clinton's campaign for the Democratic nomination went from an expected inevitable coronation to a tantalizingly close second-place finish. Five reasons are to be found in the campaign itself. The sixth was simply, for her, the luck of the draw.
She ran on experience in a change year. This was her first and greatest mistake, a strategic misjudgment of the mood of the Democratic primary electorate after seven years of the Bush Administration. This wasn't rectified until Pennsylvania, where Hillary finally caught her stride as the feisty tribune of blue collar America. By then it was too late.
She didn't organize strongly in caucus states. These were the states where Obama gathered most of his majority. It doesn't matter whether this was because of incompetence or overconfidence. A tight campaign leaves nothing to chance and competes everywhere delegates are to be selected. It assumes the race will be close and that no fish are too small to fry. A few thousand voters could have completely turned states like Kansas, Alaska and Nebraska around. Hillary's campaign didn't have enough boots on the ground ringing doorbells and setting up carpools in such places. It was death by a thousand pinpricks.
Her fundraising plan didn't understand the internet. Her bundlers did a great job, raising the second most funds ever for a primary campaign. But the tremendous donor list compiled by the Clintons over the years was tapped out at the maximum of $2300 each, halfway into the contest. Obama's internet-driven fund base of smaller donors giving more often was the gift that kept on giving. His team learned the lesson first demonstrated by the 2004 Dean campaign. Hers did not.
Her campaign did not anticipate having to run after Super Tuesday (February 5). It therefore was beaten to the punch in organization, fundraising and media in most of the states after that. The Clinton campaign would set up shop in places like Virginia and find the Obama forces already there in strength with a month-long head start.
There was division within the Clinton campaign's senior leadership. Penn, Solis, Williams, McCauliffe and husband Bill were often at odds. Authority and responsibilties were not clearly delineated and turf was battled over. Consequently, strategy and message kept changing.
Finally, she had bad luck. Despite all these deficiencies, Hillary Clinton's 2008 primary campaign raised more money and won more votes than any other in history--except one. It was her bad luck that a charismatic opponent would emerge and run a nearly flawless race, besting hers in all five areas mentioned above. The Obama campaign was marred principally only by its initial mishandling of the incendiary remarks of the candidate's pastor, a storm that came late in the process and was dealt with at least well enough to prevent implosion. Mistakes and misjudgments made earlier were too much to overcome, resulting in an effort that was still almost good enough--but not quite.
She ran on experience in a change year. This was her first and greatest mistake, a strategic misjudgment of the mood of the Democratic primary electorate after seven years of the Bush Administration. This wasn't rectified until Pennsylvania, where Hillary finally caught her stride as the feisty tribune of blue collar America. By then it was too late.
She didn't organize strongly in caucus states. These were the states where Obama gathered most of his majority. It doesn't matter whether this was because of incompetence or overconfidence. A tight campaign leaves nothing to chance and competes everywhere delegates are to be selected. It assumes the race will be close and that no fish are too small to fry. A few thousand voters could have completely turned states like Kansas, Alaska and Nebraska around. Hillary's campaign didn't have enough boots on the ground ringing doorbells and setting up carpools in such places. It was death by a thousand pinpricks.
Her fundraising plan didn't understand the internet. Her bundlers did a great job, raising the second most funds ever for a primary campaign. But the tremendous donor list compiled by the Clintons over the years was tapped out at the maximum of $2300 each, halfway into the contest. Obama's internet-driven fund base of smaller donors giving more often was the gift that kept on giving. His team learned the lesson first demonstrated by the 2004 Dean campaign. Hers did not.
Her campaign did not anticipate having to run after Super Tuesday (February 5). It therefore was beaten to the punch in organization, fundraising and media in most of the states after that. The Clinton campaign would set up shop in places like Virginia and find the Obama forces already there in strength with a month-long head start.
There was division within the Clinton campaign's senior leadership. Penn, Solis, Williams, McCauliffe and husband Bill were often at odds. Authority and responsibilties were not clearly delineated and turf was battled over. Consequently, strategy and message kept changing.
Finally, she had bad luck. Despite all these deficiencies, Hillary Clinton's 2008 primary campaign raised more money and won more votes than any other in history--except one. It was her bad luck that a charismatic opponent would emerge and run a nearly flawless race, besting hers in all five areas mentioned above. The Obama campaign was marred principally only by its initial mishandling of the incendiary remarks of the candidate's pastor, a storm that came late in the process and was dealt with at least well enough to prevent implosion. Mistakes and misjudgments made earlier were too much to overcome, resulting in an effort that was still almost good enough--but not quite.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Third Tour
I have a student in one of my History 18 classes, US History Since 1865, who will be going back to Iraq for a third tour soon. Talking to me after class yesterday he shared some of his impressions of that faraway country where we are currently in our sixth year of fighting.
Gustavo is about 24, an intelligent and conscientious student. He is clean-cut, well-spoken and dutiful about showing up and getting his work in on time, traits that are highly characteristic of most of my students who are vets. A couple of weeks ago he let me know his guard unit was going on training for a week. He showed me his orders so I would excuse him from class, and had done his chapter study guide ahead so he would be sure to get credit for it. He returned this week and checked in with me to see if he had missed anything. This young man is even more responsible than most of my vets. I mused in my mind about whether being in the military inculcates these good attributes in young people or whether it's mostly good young people like that who enlist in the first place. A "chicken or the egg" conundrum? Probably some of both, I thought. Either way, I couldn't help thinking that American society could use more like him.
Gustavo also let me know his unit would be going back to Iraq for a third tour this summer. He'd done two tours then gone into the guard, coming back home to get his schooling in for a couple of years. He had a choice to go to Kosovo on this latest active duty but chose to rejoin his old unit which is going back to Iraq. You might wonder why would someone do that. For one thing, he said, "there's nothing to do in Kosovo." For another, he would be with people he didn't know. He would rather be with his old comrades. That says a lot about the kind of bond that is established among soldiers who face combat together.
We did not get into the political questions about who is winning and so forth. But he did have quite a few interesting things to say about Iraqi society. "What are the people like there?" I asked. "They're very lazy," he replied, "and they have no sense of order. If you have them line up for something, as soon as you turn your back they turn into a chaotic mess. That includes the Iraqi troops we were trying to train."
He also observed, "The corruption is absolute." Nothing gets done without connections or a bribe. "Does everyone there accept that as normal?" I asked. "Not everyone," he answered, "Most do, but those who don't look at it like, 'I'm one person, what can I do?'" I wondered if Gustavo thought American influence could help change that. "No way," he replied. "They act just like we would if they came here and told us how to run our country."
Now I was mystified. Here was this young man, apparently convinced by two years in the country that its problems were irremediable, certainly at least by us, and yet volunteering to go back when he didn't really have to. I said nothing but he may have sensed my confusion. "You know, they (the Army) teach us that a lot of the younger people here are too young to remember 9/11."
If Gustavo doesn't make it back it will really hit me hard.
Gustavo is about 24, an intelligent and conscientious student. He is clean-cut, well-spoken and dutiful about showing up and getting his work in on time, traits that are highly characteristic of most of my students who are vets. A couple of weeks ago he let me know his guard unit was going on training for a week. He showed me his orders so I would excuse him from class, and had done his chapter study guide ahead so he would be sure to get credit for it. He returned this week and checked in with me to see if he had missed anything. This young man is even more responsible than most of my vets. I mused in my mind about whether being in the military inculcates these good attributes in young people or whether it's mostly good young people like that who enlist in the first place. A "chicken or the egg" conundrum? Probably some of both, I thought. Either way, I couldn't help thinking that American society could use more like him.
Gustavo also let me know his unit would be going back to Iraq for a third tour this summer. He'd done two tours then gone into the guard, coming back home to get his schooling in for a couple of years. He had a choice to go to Kosovo on this latest active duty but chose to rejoin his old unit which is going back to Iraq. You might wonder why would someone do that. For one thing, he said, "there's nothing to do in Kosovo." For another, he would be with people he didn't know. He would rather be with his old comrades. That says a lot about the kind of bond that is established among soldiers who face combat together.
We did not get into the political questions about who is winning and so forth. But he did have quite a few interesting things to say about Iraqi society. "What are the people like there?" I asked. "They're very lazy," he replied, "and they have no sense of order. If you have them line up for something, as soon as you turn your back they turn into a chaotic mess. That includes the Iraqi troops we were trying to train."
He also observed, "The corruption is absolute." Nothing gets done without connections or a bribe. "Does everyone there accept that as normal?" I asked. "Not everyone," he answered, "Most do, but those who don't look at it like, 'I'm one person, what can I do?'" I wondered if Gustavo thought American influence could help change that. "No way," he replied. "They act just like we would if they came here and told us how to run our country."
Now I was mystified. Here was this young man, apparently convinced by two years in the country that its problems were irremediable, certainly at least by us, and yet volunteering to go back when he didn't really have to. I said nothing but he may have sensed my confusion. "You know, they (the Army) teach us that a lot of the younger people here are too young to remember 9/11."
If Gustavo doesn't make it back it will really hit me hard.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Big Night for Obama
Barack Obama all but clinched the Democratic nomination for president today with a sweeping win in North Carolina and a narrow loss to Hillary Clinton in Indiana. His victory address in Raleigh, North Carolina had the feel of an acceptance speech. In it, he congratulated Clinton for a race well fought and sounded themes he will emphasize in his general election campaign: ending the war in Iraq, speaking truth to the American people, focusing on their economic needs and promising to change the way politics is practiced in Washington, D.C.
Clinton's speech to her supporters began with an appeal for funds. She claimed victory in Indiana and promised to carry on the campaign, but her congratulations to Obama were followed by a call that, "no matter what happens" her partisans need to rally around the Democratic nominee in the fall. She promised to work hard for Obama and campaign for him if he is that nominee.
In perhaps a telling development, Clinton cancelled her scheduled appearances on Wednesday's morning news shows. She will have a meeting with superdelegates instead. It looks as though she is setting May 7 aside for some reflection. No doubt she will be conferring with trusted advisers about whether to continue in the race. What the superdelegates tell her may influence her decision.
Obama deflated Clinton's rationale for election by exceeding expectations in the two contests. She and her surrogates had made the case that momentum was on her side, Obama was slipping and that he would therefore be the weaker general election candidate. This appeal was intended to cause the uncommitted superdelegates to break her way decisively, her only chance at the nomination given Obama's lead in pledged and already announced supers. The averages of polls released in the last days prior to the voting had Obama up by 8 points in North Carolina and Clinton ahead by 5 in Indiana, with the trends moving her way. A big win for her in Indiana and a closing and narrow defeat in North Carolina would have seemed to confirm her reasoning.
But instead Obama won resoundingly in the Tar Heel State, piling up a 56-42, 14- point win. He also came close to taking the Hoosier State, falling short by 2 percent at 51-49. The numbers should give Obama about 100 delegates to Clinton's 87. There are not enough delegates left in the remaining states to change the overall outcome, even if somehow Florida and Michigan are counted or revoted. Obama now leads by over 150 in the delegate count. Clinton would need nearly 200 of the 265 or so undeclared superdelegates to win at the convention. If they were to do that it would wreck the Party and hand the election to the Republicans. So they will not.
In the end, the voters appear to have resisted impulses to base their ballot on Rev. Wright or succumb to pandering on the gas tax issue. Obama increased his percentages among Catholics and working class whites, running about 10% better than he did in Pennsylvania. Barring getting struck by the political equivalent of the San Francisco earthquake, Barack Obama is now the presumptive Democratic nominee. The general election campaign now begins.
Clinton's speech to her supporters began with an appeal for funds. She claimed victory in Indiana and promised to carry on the campaign, but her congratulations to Obama were followed by a call that, "no matter what happens" her partisans need to rally around the Democratic nominee in the fall. She promised to work hard for Obama and campaign for him if he is that nominee.
In perhaps a telling development, Clinton cancelled her scheduled appearances on Wednesday's morning news shows. She will have a meeting with superdelegates instead. It looks as though she is setting May 7 aside for some reflection. No doubt she will be conferring with trusted advisers about whether to continue in the race. What the superdelegates tell her may influence her decision.
Obama deflated Clinton's rationale for election by exceeding expectations in the two contests. She and her surrogates had made the case that momentum was on her side, Obama was slipping and that he would therefore be the weaker general election candidate. This appeal was intended to cause the uncommitted superdelegates to break her way decisively, her only chance at the nomination given Obama's lead in pledged and already announced supers. The averages of polls released in the last days prior to the voting had Obama up by 8 points in North Carolina and Clinton ahead by 5 in Indiana, with the trends moving her way. A big win for her in Indiana and a closing and narrow defeat in North Carolina would have seemed to confirm her reasoning.
But instead Obama won resoundingly in the Tar Heel State, piling up a 56-42, 14- point win. He also came close to taking the Hoosier State, falling short by 2 percent at 51-49. The numbers should give Obama about 100 delegates to Clinton's 87. There are not enough delegates left in the remaining states to change the overall outcome, even if somehow Florida and Michigan are counted or revoted. Obama now leads by over 150 in the delegate count. Clinton would need nearly 200 of the 265 or so undeclared superdelegates to win at the convention. If they were to do that it would wreck the Party and hand the election to the Republicans. So they will not.
In the end, the voters appear to have resisted impulses to base their ballot on Rev. Wright or succumb to pandering on the gas tax issue. Obama increased his percentages among Catholics and working class whites, running about 10% better than he did in Pennsylvania. Barring getting struck by the political equivalent of the San Francisco earthquake, Barack Obama is now the presumptive Democratic nominee. The general election campaign now begins.
Monday, May 5, 2008
North Carolina and Indiana Predictions
It's the night before the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, so I'll polish up my crystal ball and take a stab at predicting the primary results. It looks as though it will be a split decision to me. Barack Obama will win North Carolina and Hillary Clinton will prevail in Indiana.
Obama will take North Carolina with 52.7% of the vote, besting Clinton's 47.3% This 5.4% win will get Obama 60 delegates to Clinton's 55. Obama is running ahead by about 7% as an average of several polls. The undecideds have begun to break to the candidates now, and the split appears to be about even. Some 7% still haven't made up their minds, and based on the results of previous states we can expect the majority of last-minute deciders to go for Clinton. One interesting figure is that 13% of the ballots have already been cast in "early voting" through the mail. North Carolina is a closed primary, so only Democrats vote in the Obama-Clinton contest. That helps Clinton a bit, since Obama does better with independents, and will keep his margin relatively small. Still, a win is a win, and a victory here for the senator from Illinois will prevent Clinton from developing game-changing momentum.
Clinton will take Indiana with 54% of the vote to Obama's 46%. This 8% victory will give her 39 delegates to Obama's 33. Clinton's lead in an average of recent polls stands at 5%. As the fence-sitters come to a decision, roughly 60% of them will go for Hillary. Both candidates are trending upward as the undecided pool shrinks, with Obama beginning to eat a bit into the Clinton lead. But this will be offset by Indiana's wide-open rules that allow independents and even Republicans to cast their ballots in the Democratic race. I feel enough will do so, and most for Clinton, to up her final edge to the 8% margin predicted above.
The candidates themselves have shown how they think this will play out. Obama is holding his election night rally in Raleigh while Clinton has booked hers in Indianapolis. There is no better indicator of the outcomes than these choices. No one wants to schedule a televised appearance where their supporters will be down after a loss.
The delegate count currently stands at Obama 1747, Clinton 1608. This includes both pledged delegates and announced superdelegates. Just today Obama gathered in four more supers to Clinton's none. He now trails in that count 271-256. The bottom line results of the two May 6 contests will see Clinton gaining 94 pledged convention delegates to Obama's 93. The net gain of one for Clinton will reduce her overall deficit to 138. She will trail 1840 to 1692. And with time running out, that is not good enough.
But fortunately for her, next up is West Virginia in one week on Tuesday the 13th. In what ought to be one of her strongest states, Clinton will again try to make the case that this race is not yet over.
Obama will take North Carolina with 52.7% of the vote, besting Clinton's 47.3% This 5.4% win will get Obama 60 delegates to Clinton's 55. Obama is running ahead by about 7% as an average of several polls. The undecideds have begun to break to the candidates now, and the split appears to be about even. Some 7% still haven't made up their minds, and based on the results of previous states we can expect the majority of last-minute deciders to go for Clinton. One interesting figure is that 13% of the ballots have already been cast in "early voting" through the mail. North Carolina is a closed primary, so only Democrats vote in the Obama-Clinton contest. That helps Clinton a bit, since Obama does better with independents, and will keep his margin relatively small. Still, a win is a win, and a victory here for the senator from Illinois will prevent Clinton from developing game-changing momentum.
Clinton will take Indiana with 54% of the vote to Obama's 46%. This 8% victory will give her 39 delegates to Obama's 33. Clinton's lead in an average of recent polls stands at 5%. As the fence-sitters come to a decision, roughly 60% of them will go for Hillary. Both candidates are trending upward as the undecided pool shrinks, with Obama beginning to eat a bit into the Clinton lead. But this will be offset by Indiana's wide-open rules that allow independents and even Republicans to cast their ballots in the Democratic race. I feel enough will do so, and most for Clinton, to up her final edge to the 8% margin predicted above.
The candidates themselves have shown how they think this will play out. Obama is holding his election night rally in Raleigh while Clinton has booked hers in Indianapolis. There is no better indicator of the outcomes than these choices. No one wants to schedule a televised appearance where their supporters will be down after a loss.
The delegate count currently stands at Obama 1747, Clinton 1608. This includes both pledged delegates and announced superdelegates. Just today Obama gathered in four more supers to Clinton's none. He now trails in that count 271-256. The bottom line results of the two May 6 contests will see Clinton gaining 94 pledged convention delegates to Obama's 93. The net gain of one for Clinton will reduce her overall deficit to 138. She will trail 1840 to 1692. And with time running out, that is not good enough.
But fortunately for her, next up is West Virginia in one week on Tuesday the 13th. In what ought to be one of her strongest states, Clinton will again try to make the case that this race is not yet over.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
More Contractors in Iraq?
An article in the Washington Post today revealed that the US Army is planning to hire contractors to take on the job of training the Iraqi Army. Teams of 10-12 contractors would be trained in the United States. The plan is for them to go to Iraq under the command of a serving officer and for them to live with the Iraqi units they will be training. The Army is resorting to this expedient due to a critical shortage of mid-level officers such as captains and majors who are resigning their commissions after repeated long deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.
In a related development highlighting, or perhaps lowlighting is a better word, the shortcomings and failures of privatization in a war zone, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) held hearings of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee on Monday, April 28 into contractor waste, fraud abuse in Iraq. The testimony was as depressing as ever. One of those testifying was Philip E. Coyle III, Senior Advisor to the Center for Defense Information, who reported that $10 billion from 2003 funds is still unaccounted for.
Bunnatine Greenhouse, the highest-ranking civilian in the Army Corps of Engineers, stated of the Restore Iraqi Oil contract awarded to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg-Brown-Root, "In 12 years I never saw anything approaching the arrogant and egregious ways in which the Corps treated Halliburton's competitors and violated federal laws and regulations to ensure KBR kept its RIO work." Under this no-bid, sole source contract, KBR was issued "a waiver absolving KBR of its need to provide cost and pricing data." "The Pentagon claimed Halliburton was best qualified because it extinguished 320 oil fires in Kuwait, but as pointed out, it was Bechtel, not Halliburton, who managed the entire 650 oil well firefighting efforts and the entire oil field reconstruction effort" following the 1991 Gulf War. Vice President Dick Cheney is the former Chairman of Halliburton and still draws bonuses from the corporation into his blind trust.
There was other testimony from Halliburton employees concerning the firm's failure to chlorinate the water supplies at army bases and then falsifying the records to show it had done so, the delivery of expired and spoiled food to army troops, their repeated billing for services and supplies not rendered or at vastly inflated prices, and their practice of gathering up leftovers from US Army bases and taking them to feed Turkish and Filipino workers, rather than providing them with meals according to their national customs as required by their contract. Employees who complained were threatened with or assigned to ride with truck convoys into areas known to be under insurgent attack. Jeffrey Jones, former Director of the Defense Energy Support Center, reported that Halliburton profited from these missions by charging the DESC seven times its cost of delivering fuel supplies.
Testimony about Blackwater, the private security firm, said that the company sent its guards into dangerous areas without armored vehicles, body armor, adequate intelligence or sometimes even a map. An e-mail from the Baghdad office to Blackwater corporate headquarters complained the company was sending men out without, "body armor, hard cars, weapons and ammo they needed," and putting on a "smoke and mirrors show doing just enough to sustain the appearance of operational capability," while giving false reports that, "did not reflect the appalling truth on the ground."
Former Coalition Provisonal Authority contractor Robert Isaakson testified that construction contracting firm Custer Battles, "asked me three times to assist in preparing fake invoices and leases they could then submit to the government." He went on, "As a result of my continuing refusals to cooperate in their fraud, they pointed machine guns at us, stole our weapons and seized our identification. While our brave men and women in uniform were fighting and dying for our safety and liberty in Iraq, these former U.S. Army Rangers and CIA officers were accosting witnesses to their proposed fraud, forcing them to be held at gunpoint, disarming them so they could be killed in Iraq by the insurgents. Custer Battles left us to fend for ourselves in the streets of Baghdad."
These are but a small part of the kinds of reports the committee has received. The profit motive seems to be an uneasy bedfellow to the effective conduct of operations in a war zone. When oversight is difficult and crony-driven contracts are cost plus, it is often the case that unsafe and dishonest practices are more lucrative than doing right by the troops. It is all too clear what such temptations can lead to-degrading the combat readiness of our troops, getting more of them killed, and wasting untold billions of the American people's dollars.
In a related development highlighting, or perhaps lowlighting is a better word, the shortcomings and failures of privatization in a war zone, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) held hearings of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee on Monday, April 28 into contractor waste, fraud abuse in Iraq. The testimony was as depressing as ever. One of those testifying was Philip E. Coyle III, Senior Advisor to the Center for Defense Information, who reported that $10 billion from 2003 funds is still unaccounted for.
Bunnatine Greenhouse, the highest-ranking civilian in the Army Corps of Engineers, stated of the Restore Iraqi Oil contract awarded to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg-Brown-Root, "In 12 years I never saw anything approaching the arrogant and egregious ways in which the Corps treated Halliburton's competitors and violated federal laws and regulations to ensure KBR kept its RIO work." Under this no-bid, sole source contract, KBR was issued "a waiver absolving KBR of its need to provide cost and pricing data." "The Pentagon claimed Halliburton was best qualified because it extinguished 320 oil fires in Kuwait, but as pointed out, it was Bechtel, not Halliburton, who managed the entire 650 oil well firefighting efforts and the entire oil field reconstruction effort" following the 1991 Gulf War. Vice President Dick Cheney is the former Chairman of Halliburton and still draws bonuses from the corporation into his blind trust.
There was other testimony from Halliburton employees concerning the firm's failure to chlorinate the water supplies at army bases and then falsifying the records to show it had done so, the delivery of expired and spoiled food to army troops, their repeated billing for services and supplies not rendered or at vastly inflated prices, and their practice of gathering up leftovers from US Army bases and taking them to feed Turkish and Filipino workers, rather than providing them with meals according to their national customs as required by their contract. Employees who complained were threatened with or assigned to ride with truck convoys into areas known to be under insurgent attack. Jeffrey Jones, former Director of the Defense Energy Support Center, reported that Halliburton profited from these missions by charging the DESC seven times its cost of delivering fuel supplies.
Testimony about Blackwater, the private security firm, said that the company sent its guards into dangerous areas without armored vehicles, body armor, adequate intelligence or sometimes even a map. An e-mail from the Baghdad office to Blackwater corporate headquarters complained the company was sending men out without, "body armor, hard cars, weapons and ammo they needed," and putting on a "smoke and mirrors show doing just enough to sustain the appearance of operational capability," while giving false reports that, "did not reflect the appalling truth on the ground."
Former Coalition Provisonal Authority contractor Robert Isaakson testified that construction contracting firm Custer Battles, "asked me three times to assist in preparing fake invoices and leases they could then submit to the government." He went on, "As a result of my continuing refusals to cooperate in their fraud, they pointed machine guns at us, stole our weapons and seized our identification. While our brave men and women in uniform were fighting and dying for our safety and liberty in Iraq, these former U.S. Army Rangers and CIA officers were accosting witnesses to their proposed fraud, forcing them to be held at gunpoint, disarming them so they could be killed in Iraq by the insurgents. Custer Battles left us to fend for ourselves in the streets of Baghdad."
These are but a small part of the kinds of reports the committee has received. The profit motive seems to be an uneasy bedfellow to the effective conduct of operations in a war zone. When oversight is difficult and crony-driven contracts are cost plus, it is often the case that unsafe and dishonest practices are more lucrative than doing right by the troops. It is all too clear what such temptations can lead to-degrading the combat readiness of our troops, getting more of them killed, and wasting untold billions of the American people's dollars.
Friday, May 2, 2008
What's at Stake in Indiana and North Carolina
As we turn the corner into the last weekend before the Indiana and North Carolina primaries it's time to step back and see what's at stake for the two Democratic hopefuls.
First, the situation: According to Real Clear Politics Barack Obama has 1738 delegates and Hillary Clinton has 1600. Indiana's primary awards 72 delegates and North Carolina's 115. 279 superdelegates remain uncommitted. If Clinton were to win both states by 10 points she would gain about 19 on Obama's lead, whittling it down to 119.
Looking ahead, Kentucky and West Virginia look solid for Clinton. Oregon, Montana and South Dakota look strong for Obama. The smart money says Puerto Rico will go to Clinton. If Hillary wins all her states 60-40 and ties in the presumed Obama states she will catch up by another 17. That would still leave Obama with a 102-delegate lead. To overcome that she would have to take the superdelegates 191-88, or 68.5% of them. What should be obvious is that she has no chance of gaining the lead in pledged delegates. Her strategy must be to trounce Obama so convincingly that he appears to be a sinking ship at the end of the primary battles, figuring the supers will abandon the vessel to prevent electoral catastrophe in November. That is her only hope.
Three things can happen this Tuesday. The first is that Obama could win both. That would effectively end the Clinton campaign. The second is that they could split, each winning one. That would keep Obama in good shape, holding steady as time runs out. The third is that Clinton could win both. That would keep her very much in the contest. If she were to win both, superdelegates would freeze in anticipation of the next rounds. She would continue her momentum with a likely win in West Virginia on May 13. If she were to then take both Kentucky as expected and Oregon in an upset on May 20 the pledged delegate count would no longer matter. Losing two states heretofore considered safe, Obama would appear mortally wounded and the supers would begin flocking to her side.
Perceptions matter and the superdelegates are the wild card. The Democratic Party wants one thing above all else-to win in November-and the superdelegates are the core of the Party's leadership. Yes, Hillary Clinton still has a chance. All she has to do is run the table.
First, the situation: According to Real Clear Politics Barack Obama has 1738 delegates and Hillary Clinton has 1600. Indiana's primary awards 72 delegates and North Carolina's 115. 279 superdelegates remain uncommitted. If Clinton were to win both states by 10 points she would gain about 19 on Obama's lead, whittling it down to 119.
Looking ahead, Kentucky and West Virginia look solid for Clinton. Oregon, Montana and South Dakota look strong for Obama. The smart money says Puerto Rico will go to Clinton. If Hillary wins all her states 60-40 and ties in the presumed Obama states she will catch up by another 17. That would still leave Obama with a 102-delegate lead. To overcome that she would have to take the superdelegates 191-88, or 68.5% of them. What should be obvious is that she has no chance of gaining the lead in pledged delegates. Her strategy must be to trounce Obama so convincingly that he appears to be a sinking ship at the end of the primary battles, figuring the supers will abandon the vessel to prevent electoral catastrophe in November. That is her only hope.
Three things can happen this Tuesday. The first is that Obama could win both. That would effectively end the Clinton campaign. The second is that they could split, each winning one. That would keep Obama in good shape, holding steady as time runs out. The third is that Clinton could win both. That would keep her very much in the contest. If she were to win both, superdelegates would freeze in anticipation of the next rounds. She would continue her momentum with a likely win in West Virginia on May 13. If she were to then take both Kentucky as expected and Oregon in an upset on May 20 the pledged delegate count would no longer matter. Losing two states heretofore considered safe, Obama would appear mortally wounded and the supers would begin flocking to her side.
Perceptions matter and the superdelegates are the wild card. The Democratic Party wants one thing above all else-to win in November-and the superdelegates are the core of the Party's leadership. Yes, Hillary Clinton still has a chance. All she has to do is run the table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)