Jobus has her first. Also, hospitals are exceptionally boring places. The waiting room here is 10x10, maybe. The TV has been ripped out of the wall. I tried reading, but with everyone talking, its so hard to concentrate. I'm glad that we won't be here all night long. Way to hustle up, Little Buddy.
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
Lucky enough to get hand-me down seats 3 rows back.
LeBron is a freak...different cast, same story for the Cavs.
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
Josh Marshall nailed it: Russert epitomizes "militant simpletonism". Was he hoping for a George W. "Musharraf moment" when he asked Hillary if she knew the name of Putin's successor? (Of course, to continue the silly SNL line of attack – why didn't Russert ask Obama this question, since he is the one whose foreign policy credentials are more open to question?)
I missed the middle half hour of the debate (had to have my nightly "In Treatment" fix), so (based on press reports today that the debate was fairly even) my view may be skewed, but while I was watching, I though Hillary rocked (except for the lame SNL joke – she just does not do well with scripted humor). Two images/moments remain fresh:
1. Obama looking like a little school boy, raising his hand to be heard.
2. When Obama answered Russert initially on the Farrakhan question (which, given all the internet chatter, was I think fair game until Tim went way overboard on follow up), I thought Obama's answer was a bit too careful in its wording but I was prepared to accept it because I don't accept the whole guilt by association charge in this particular instance. I was also thinking that even though this was not a question that called for a response from Hillary, it would be a perfect opportunity for her to score some grace points by stating she knows Barack Obama and the type of person he is and she knows something about innuendo and these internet reports are ridiculous. Instead, she chimed in with a personal incident about her first Senate campaign which managed to draw attention to how he had danced around his answer, and while he tried to make a joke about whether there is a difference between "denounce" and "reject" – and maybe he was right on the merits – I think he looked bad in the moment. Whether Hillary would have been better served by personal grace than hardball remains to be seen.
I had been thinking that if Hillary lost either Texas or Ohio, she was done. Now I'm thinking that if she wins Ohio convincingly (which last night may help her do), loses Texas narrowly and picks up either Vermont or Rhode Island, she will live to get to Pennsylvania. Can't wait for March 4.
So, my friend David Modigliani has made a terrific documentary about the residents of a small town in Texas by the name of Crawford. Crawford, TX is not the town that many people assumed (ie, it's not just the bike-riding, brush-clearing, summit-hosting vacation home of our soon-to-be-former President).
Crawford has been accepted into the South by Southwest Film Festival (SxSW) and it needs a little help. Because the film features footage from television newsreels, they must raise some money to keep this original (and essential) footage in the film. In truth, I feel like my introduction is sort of a ramble, when I am posting with a real purpose. I will leave the details to Modig:
It's been great news for CRAWFORD -- first we got into SxSW, then we were given 3 screenings, all at the Paramount -- the 1300-seat Theater downtown.So please give if you can. It's really important to support independent filmmakers, particularly a filmmaker like David who has really captured an amazing story. Give if you can!
Check out the trailer:
Exciting stuff. Been working 18 hrs. a day to knock out the final cut -- bringing the project from standard def. back into HD (which we shot it in) for the big screen, mixing audio at a professional studio for the 5-1 speakers in theaters, and - this has been the hardest - licensing about 7 minutes of archival news footage at $80/sec. The networks nail you on that.
I'm really proud of the movie and this is the final push -- we give SxSW the master on March 1. We need to raise $50K and we've raised $38K. Getting close. A contribution (tax-deductible) would be a huge boost. You can contribute online -- here or you can write a check to Refraction Arts with "Crawford" on the memo line and send it to me at:
Crawford Movie
1312 Willow St.
Austin, TX 78702
It looks like we'll have a chance to screen the film in NYC this summer.
Pumpkinhead accidentally makes good? The question about Dmitri Medvevev in Russia was asked in a stupid gotcha manner (christ, he even went into detail afterwards and followed up with a stupid hypothetical), but it brought up an important point. We've been so focused on Iraq and "The Forgotten War" in Afghanistan that our government (President and all Presidential nominees (D and R)) has completely forgotten about the former Iron Curtain.
Both candidates on stage disappointed me with a lack of up-to-date knowledge of the situation (good try HRC, but it wasn't that you couldn't pronounce his name). How could neither mention HOW Putin plans to stay in power or all of the gas line shenanigans? Meddling in Iran? Nothing compared to the meddling in Ukraine, where they have actual candidates for office. Come on kids, you're better than that!
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
What is the point of having Tim Russert co-host these debates? Is he some kind of pumpkin-headed robot, programmed to pull random quotes from 30 years ago and ask yes-or-no "gotcha" questions? And what's with the constantly interrupting the candidates?
I've heard some speculate this could be the last debate of the primary cycle. I guess this assumes the potential Obama victory in TX will close the door on HRC. I'm not sure this is the case. I know I've said it previously, but I'm starting to think Mark Penn's "States that Don't Count" strategy is winning inside the Clinton campaign. If this were the case, feel pretty strongly that my earlier opinion of HRC will be my final opinion of her: I like the person and Senator a lot, but the campaigner has surrounded herself with the worst of strategists. Too bad, too. While I agree with Josh Marshall that we evaluate all of these outcomes with the benefit of hindsight, I've been saying from the first moment I heard/saw Mark Penn that I believed him to be a horrendous person/advisor and that I liked HRC despite her continuing to rely on his advice.
In fact, I was undecided until right before Super Duper Tuesday, when I was forced to make a decision and cast a vote. And while grummish accuses me of being a Hillary hater, "just like every other Obama lover," I really do believe Clinton would have made a fine President. Unfortunately, on the road there, she was convinced to run a campaign as the inevitable front-runner, then seemed unprepared for a long contest. Some say that a campaign is a reflection of managerial experience; ie since Obama ran a tight, efficient, targeted campaign, he has a related potential as a chief executive. I don't necessarily buy this logic. I do, however, believe the inverse to hold (at least a little) true. If you surround yourself with inept advisors who continually shoot you, and themselves, in the foot and you stick with them because of personally loyalty, that bodes ill well for the type of executive you'll be.
Every CEO has to cut the fat to save the business at some point. Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson (who I blame in some way for toning down Ned Lamont's aggressive insurgent campaign in CT) should have gone a long time ago.
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
Well, after posting the Sarah Silverman - Matt Damon clip a while back, I was wondering how long it would take before Jimmy Kimmel put up something similar. Worth the wait I think:
I would normally never post anything during work hours, but this made me laugh out loud...a lot:
Much respect to Matt Damon for not taking himself too seriously.
I don't know if it was because the writers' stike didn't allow enough time to come up with funny stuff or not, but I found tonight's Academy Awards to be pretty boring. I enjoyed when Jon Stewart brought Marketa Ingvar out to let her say thank you, but it seemed pretty un-memorable otherwise. Too bad, pefect night for some major upsets or surprises. Where's the streaker or the freaking out actor (paging Cuba Gooding Jr.) to liven things up a bit? I did think Stewart did a good job, though.
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
I have to say that as bad as SNL has been over the last few years, I've always found their political coverage has stayed pretty sharp. Now back from the writers' strike, they had a couple of segments on the current state of the Presidential race. I think it was pretty sharp all around:
Still not sure exactly what I'm doing here or why...
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
Strangers just told me to come back in the morning. I could have sworn my condo association pays someone to do this at the first sign of snow.
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
The shitshow in Boston:
Its been coming down for a while now and is seemingly getting worse. Final predictions from the weathermen range from 6" to 10". As is almost always the case here in Boston, the snow was dirty/slushy from the moment it hit the ground. My money is on 5" of actual accumulation.
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
I think this whole thing has been stupid. Obama is not plagiarizing anyone. I know some have argued that it's more a question of authenticity, but the press continues to play it like a real campaign issue for him. I think this pretty much sums up why it's a dumb meme and why it will go away:
I mentioned at the end of my debate blog that the pivot of Hillary's powerful concluding remarks came from Bill Clinton's 92 campaign. Clinton had various permutations to it back then. But TPM Reader CG found one example in this November 1992 article by Anna Quindlen ...
Clinton, 92: "The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time."
Hillary Clinton, tonight: "You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country."
Just to be 100% clear, there's nothing in the least wrong with this. And it's a great line. But I think it shows the silliness of the 'plagiarism' charges based on a few borrowed lines. Politicians borrow good lines and catch-phrases. Happens all the time. There's nothing wrong with it.
That's the word for Boston today. I woke up to "flurries" with "showers" kicking in this afternoon. I don't really understand the term "snow showers." If someone were to take a snow shower, wouldn't it take him/her forever to get his/her hair wet? Also, I generally like hot showers and I've never been in hot snow before.
Anyway, "showers" are due to "pick up" and turn into "storms" with possible "white out" conditions this evening. And there is always potential for a "Nor'easter." I used to really wonder about that term, but I just read "1776" by David McCullogh and apparently "Northeaster" was a term used by colonials to describe certain storms. In modern times, we're just too lazy for the "th."
I guess this is better than saying its snowing "a little," "medium," "heavy," or "really heavy." But I do sometimes think the weatherman thinks he is/wants to be the anchorman.
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
The calls for HRC to "gracefully" exit the Democratic primary started shortly after Obama's stunningly large wins in the Potomac region. They have become even more pronounced since his decisive win in Wisconsin, particularly as he has gained ground in Ohio and Texas. While I think it would be peachy if Clinton exited the race at this point, I don't think she has any obligation to do it. In fact, while the mo' favors Obama, if Clinton were able to sweep the final three large contests, she'd have as much a claim to the nomination as Obama. So why quit now?
In truth, I do think it would be better for HRC to quit now. Not because it's already lost or for the good of the party (which, again, I think are true). I think HRC should drop out for the good of HRC. The long campaign has taken its toll on HRC's credibility as a practical, experienced manager. Her campaign is in serious financial trouble. She's had trouble controlling surrogates from the get-go (Bob Johnson, Bob Kerrey, Billy Shaheen to name three). She was on the brink of firing her chief strategist before New Hampshire. She just fired her campaign manager and replaced her with someone even closer to her inner circle. A number of members of her team have been out there essentially saying certain states don't count (caucus states, states with large black populations, states D's can't win in the fall to name three). Now, she's got wealthy donors putting together a 527 in Ohio to launch a campaign subtly going after Obama. Certainly nothing here helps her image with Americans who view her as willing to do anything (even dirty) to win the nomination.
She started this campaign as an immensely popular Senator from New York. At a certain point, nearly every ad she airs, every attack she makes on Obama, etx will be perceived as a negative (even if she is trying to accentuate her own skillset). With no intention of exiting public life, I think she needs to manage her image carefully. She could/should still be a star in the party going forward, including a potential Senatorial leadership post. The last thing she needs is a hit to popularity or being labeled as someone who put the party in peril for the sake of her own personal ambition.
We're not nearly at this point yet. Should she not sweep TX and OH, then I think she would step aside. But I'm not betting on it.
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
I feel like I've slept 35 total hours in the last week. Between travel, sleeping on floors, early morning breakfasts and meetings, late night drinks (and Cantor's!) I just feel a little bit like I'm sleep walking. I never used to be this way. I used to function on four or five hours of sleep a night month problem. Somewhere along the way, I think when I was in NYC, my system established an 8 hour minimum.
On the train back to Boston, the guy across the table (I took Amtrak B-Class) from more looked at me as I was dozing in and out of consciousness and said one word: "age.". This seems counterintuitive to me. I always figured you need less sleep between the ages of say 18 and 50. Little people need the sleep because they are growing. Older people need the sleep because their systems run slower. To use a car analogy: kids are the Tesla's, 18-50 year olds are regular cars (some Fords/GMs and some BMWs/Jaguars) and older people are Mercedes Benz's with Diesel engines (not sure if that last part of the analogy works...at all).
I don't know. I just thought that at my current age, health, regimen I would be able to function well with ~5 hours a night. Not the case. Man, I need coffee.
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
My regular computer hard drive fried itself right before I was heading out for a one day conference and I needed something on which to type up notes.
Sir,
In your leader this week on Barack Obama's ability to produce detailed strategies and policies and deliver, you espouse the same meme circulating in the media (and from the opposing candidate's camps) that Obama is all fluff and little experience and substance. to quote you, Obama's Iraq plan consists of "little more than pulling out quickly, convening a peace conference, inviting the Iranians and the Syrians along and hoping for the best." I'm sorry, where has Obama said anything remotely that simplistic? I must have missed the part where he said he was crossing his fingers as I was busy reading detailed policies readily available on his website.
After reading your glowing excitement ("Half -way There," February 19th) over McCain's resurgence and "reputation for straight talk (mostly, if not entirely deserved," I should have come to expect this type of lazy, conventional wisdom type of reporting. After all, McCain's "huge experience of international affairs" was the source of his detailed solution for Iraq: "I'd sit the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds down and say, guys, cut the bullshit already."
Wow, McCain's huge cache of experience has really led to a much more detailed plan than Obama's.
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
I have to say that I was largely unimpressed with the Obama plagiarism contretemps. It seemed like pretty small potatoes and another example of Clinton low-blowing. It’s not negative campaigning if you’re telling facts, but the approach is still distasteful. I continue to rationalize these nicks and jabs on the theory that whatever the Republicans will throw at Obama will be far worse, so it is better for him to become battle toughened now. And if he shows he has a thin skin or isn’t a strong enough fighter, maybe Hillary will wind up with the nomination. Then, I saw this analysis: Huff Po and I understood that Obama did not just share ideas with Deval Patrick, he took virtually his exact speech. Watch Patrick:
Let me congratulate the inventor of bathroom heat, it really was a stroke of genius. The bathroom light and bathroom vent (or bathroom light/vent combo) seem obvious to me, but I guess should also be recognized. After all, everyone hates foggy mirrors, peeling paint and brushing their teeth in the dark.
I guess, for me, shower heat just takes everything to another level of comfort, a feeling you definitely want in the lav. When I first bought my place, the master bath had a heat/vent/light combo that was original to the unit (probably 18 years old) and the heat and ventilation barely worked. I took showers in the morning only to be greeted by something out of Stephen King's "The Mist" when finished. With that much steam floating around, my towel was wet before I even used it. Additionally, I would freeze my ass off. As a result, I would go to work tired, cranky and jew fro'd (from the excess humidity of the steam).
After a four (should have been hour) day project, the new system was in. The fan and light did their jobs, but the heat was revolutionary. The system has the kind of heat that runs current through a coil and uses a fan to push the hot air into the bathroom. Unlike a heat lamp, where you have to get directly underneath, this thing heats the whole bathroom. Now, after a shower, I go to work tired, cranky and "Heat Misered.".
The bathroom heat is so good, I even use it while brushing my teeth and washing my hands. Now, if I could only figure out how to lower my electricity bill. Maybe I don't need to run heat in the rest of the apartment.
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
What was a great day for a hike turned foggy. Views were still pretty awesome.
Eppo decides to take a step forward in technology with his newest cell phone purchase. He's replacing his iPhone with this new model from Nokia.
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
No cuts rolls at all and a sign at the front door stating as much.
From TNR:
(T)he fact that Bush was willing to let the law expire rather than compromise is telling--if reforming FISA isn't important enough for Bush to sacrifice immunity, then there's no reason for Democrats to unilaterally give in. Ted Kennedy had the most apt summary of the situation:Think about what we’ve been hearing from the White House in this debate. The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retroactive immunity. No immunity, no new FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he is willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies.--Josh Patashnik
I was a little nervous, with George Lucas (post IJ: QFtHG) involved that this might end up like the disastrous "Phantom Menace," but I think Spielberg is a force for good. The title is so-so to me, but it looks like Indy is back and older than ever:
I know this probably makes me sound bitter or something, but I hate this stupid holiday. Guys really need a reason to treat their gfs/wives well? Really? You can't do something nice just because its a Wednesday? You need the pudgy, acne faced kid behind the counter at CVS to remind you to buy candy and a card?
Just like every other holiday, this day has been so overly commercialized, it has almost ceased to have any meaning. I would bet money that at least 50% of those polled would have no idea about the story of St. Valentine. Now, granted, I will be flying solo on the holiday this year. But I still think it lame and thought it lame when I had someone to buy flowers/candy/jewelry/a card for. The thing is, I didn't need FTD or someone on the teevee to tell me to do it and I didn't need a day in the calendar either.
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
From TNR:
No More Waiting by the Phone
It's hardly a surprise at this point, but it appears that Al Gore has decided against endorsing a candidate in the Democratic primary. Greg Sargent: I've just spoken to a source close to Gore myself, and this person confirmed that the report is correct: Gore will not endose.... Basically, Gore appears to be preserving for himself the option of stepping in and declaring a winner in the event of a war over superdelegates, and thus being seen as a kind of mediating figure, rather than as someone trying to influence the outcome.
Pleased as I would have been had he decided to endorse Obama, I have to say this strikes me as a pretty sensible posture.
--Christopher Orr
Up at 4:40am this am for a work related call. I'm not sure how mgp does this everyday of the week. I didn't even open my eyes until I had swallowed a couple of cups of coffee. Now, 2.5 hours later, I feel like death and the day hasn't even started. I'm not exactly sure how to proceed from here. Probably more coffee. Now I understand why wrk goes for the quad espressos in the morning. I could really a jolt cola or something.
I'm traveling for work and can only get updates via BlackBerry (though I am 3 hours behind, so at least I can watch speeches at early dinner time). Watching the Republican results, I wonder if Mitt Romney is going to endorse anyone at all. I think the initial presumption in the press was that he would fall in line with McCain. Now watching the results of the last few days, I wonder if he will.
Now, I don't think Huckabee is a favorite of the establishment, but I also don't think they hate him as much as McCain. Huckabee's support comes from the most committed of Republican base voters, while McCain seems to be losing his core constituency to Obama. While I still think it might be too late to stop McCain at this point, I think everyone (including Romney) is thoroughly enjoying seeing him twist in the wind. Why should Romney upset his institutional backers by supporting McCain (who really enjoyed trashing Romney for months)? Additionally, if Huckabee wins a few more states and gets close, Romney could leverage his support (and his pledged delegates' potential support) into something big.
I guess to me, the biggest winner from the Hucka-bump is Mitt Romney (obviously post getting smoked on Super Tuesday). It would be funny if the CW reversed one more time and the Republicans headed for a brokered convention right as the Democrats coalesced around Obama. Mitt could play kingmaker.
Oh the joy. Go Obama...run up the score.
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
Well, that was a brief respite at home. Now its off to California for a week of work (with a little vacation). Finishing the week in LA. I'm psyched for my friends that can return to work now that the strike is ending, but I was sort of hoping to see what a traffic disaster LA was with no one really working. Guess I'll have to wait until the next standstill 3 years from now.
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
Now this is the kind of winter in Boston I remember. Its 10 degrees outside with 40mph gusts, creating a sub-zero windchill. My car doorlock was frozen. When I pulled into my garage and some water dripped onto my windshield, it froze immediately. People will claim this is an aberration in the midst of a mild winter. In reality, this mild winter has been an aberration. What a perfect time to head to California.
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
I was back in NYC for the weekend, hanging out with some friends and one of my buddy's roommates was walking around with this on:
MGP and I were discussing the possibility that John McCain would choose Senator Deputy Dog for his Presidential ticket, completing Lieberman's all-but-official conversion to Republicanism. this would probably satisfy some sort of McCain the Maverick and Bipartisan media obsession in one swoop, leaving the press writing homages to the wonders of two independent minded senators working in a bipartisan fashion to ensure...the destruction of the planet as we ephing know it (and not in the slow painful, global warming sort of way).
The idea that the two biggest war cheerleaders and success-mongers (no two men have claimed success more times over the last four years, save Dick Cheney) are some sort of ticket which should be lauded and worshipped is an example of the simple minded nature of the bipartisanship worship that goes on in the DC press corps. In reality, Joe Lieberman is an Independent (lone representative of the Connecticut for Lieberman party). He was allowed to keep his seniority by an umimpressive Senatorial Democratic leadership after being booted from the party by its members in his home state. He won re-election by winning a large majority of Republican votes in the general election who voted tactically to keep Ned Lamont out of the Senate. Since then, he has alienated his core constituency of Democrats and Independents in CT (and probably elsewhere) with his non-stop, sanctimonous support of the war. Polling in CT shows that if voters had to do it over again, Ned Lamont would have won an 8% victory in CT including a plurality of Independents.
So my response to a McCain-Lieberman ticket? Please, please, please, please, please. Obama is already polling ahead of McCain among Independents (alienated, no doubt, by his recent pandering and continued war support). Another former "maverick" war supporter isn't going to help with those voters.
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
I hate the term jet lag. Or worse, "I'm jet lagged." I don't think that should be the most common way to describe the feeling after a long plane trip between time zones. I guess it's shorter than, "I haven't quite adjusted to the time differential between the origin of my travels and my current location." Still, "lag" doesn't work for me. Here me out.
If you travel west to east, it makes sense. Your body is still on the earlier time when you land, hence you lag the current time. But when you travel east to west, the opposite is true: your internal clock is actually ahead of the local time. So how is that lagging/lagged/lag? And what if you don't even fly on a jet? What if you fly on an airplane? Not everything that is in the air uses jet engines. Some make use of that new fangled technology called a propeller. If I take a prop plane from Omaha to Los Angeles, can I really be jet lagged?
So, is there a better term? I hate semi-PC things like "travel fatigue." That sounds like something a marine might wear while flying from Virginia to Baghdad. I think this is one of those things that should have a name that is totally unrelated to the actual feeling (like when your hand or feet "go to sleep." Really, when things are asleep they have an annoying feeling like they are being jabbed with pins and needles? I was unaware.). I'm going with "Cush Lash."
I am so cush lashed from my flight back east last night. Yeah, my body is totally feeling the time lag after my jet flight across country.
I have to say, to the cabbie who scooped up my BlackBerry at 5am on Monday, held onto it, put it in an envelope and then just drove it over to me at 11pm, you are a gentleman and a scholar. I am an idiot and for some reason he felt compelled to apologize to me. Seriously, Cab #1042, you are a man among boys in this city. I remain an idiot.
I haven't really had anything to say in the mornings this week and it's because of a couple of things:
1) I've been away from home at a work related conference. As a result, the only commute I've had has been from my hotel room, down to the lobby, across the lobby, up another set of elevators to meetings.
2) It's hard to write on the move when you are an idiot who leaves your BlackBerry in a cab for the second time in three weeks (though this time I was able to get ahold of the cab driver who is graciously holding it for me until my return (yes I am an idiot (yes, I will make sure it is all the way in my pocket before exiting cabs from now on (yes, it is extremely strange to go five days without a cell phone (yes, it's even stranger to be the guy using a pay phone in a nice hotel)))).
3) My mini-rambles in the morning are usually inspired by the people shoving/standing in the aisle on the Silver Line in Boston. Hence, why I've written about the people who shove/stand in the aisle on the Silver Line in Boston. Seriously, get out of the aisle, the entire back of the bus is completely empty and there is a door for you to exit through in the back. Please, don't make me be the shoving guy who wants to move back to allow other people onto the bus. But I digress.
4) I've been so glued to cable news since Monday that I haven't really had time to sit down and digest much of what's going on. I've previously expressed my feelings in advance of Super Duper Tuesday, but haven't really said what I thought about the result. I'll save that for another time, but this is pretty amazing:
5) For some reason, my ThinkPad refuses to charge beyond 20% full, despite having been turned off and plugged in all night long. I mean, what's up with that? I had the battery set to "Longer Battery Life," which I guess let's it run down farther than normal before recharging, but I shut that setting off. Now, I want this thing fully charged so I can read stuff or write meaningless rambles on my flight back across the country. Come on already.
6) Wait, I think I got sidetracked from what I was originally writing about, which is why there were no "Morning Commute" posts this week. Anyway, I'll be back on the bus tomorrow, probably towards the back, writing about how flying back and forth across the country is never fun, except when it is.
From the NYT:
But Mr. Obama said most of that fighting would be done on the ground in the next voting states, not in debates. When asked whether he would accept the invitation from Mrs. Clinton to attend four more debates in the coming weeks, he laughed.
“I don’t think anybody is clamoring for more debates,” he said. “We’ve had 18 debates so far. I think we’ve had 10 more than we’ve had in the last Democratic contest.”
He said he would agree to at least one debate, but noted, “It’s very important for me to spend time with voters.”
Of course, there has only been one debate since the field was reduced to two candidates and it became a lot easier to draw direct comparisons between Obama and Clinton. I thought they both did well on CNN last week, but I’m sure the Obama camp, in addition to recognizing that Barack’s speechifying is better than his debating, believes that Hillary’s performance in that debate went a long way towards stemming Obama’s momentum and avoiding a Super Tuesday disaster for her and they don’t want too much more of the same.
This whole thing is crazy. Really really crazy. If the superdelegates end up deciding the nomination, I think it could destroy the Democratic party. When people get this involved, they will take it very personally if pieces of the political machine end up usurping their decision, particularly if Obama heads in with an elected delegate lead, but a deficit in superdelegates. It has disaster written all over it. Eph me.
It strikes me as strange that McCain could be declared the presumptive nominee without crossing 40% in a single state. If the Mittster wins in CA, maybe he is rejuvenated, but if not could McCain knock out his biggest rival without gaining a majority in a single state? Even when the Democratic race was a three way, candidates were able to score big wins (Obama SC is the most obvious one). Can McCain really claim the same? I know he has been leaning on Huckabee to keep Romney down, but if Romney were to drop out, would that really cause the party establishment to coalesce around him? I don't know. As someone who wants to see the Republican party destroy itself, I don't think I could ask for a better trend and better results so far this evening.
No wonder Rush Limbaugh is blowing a gasket. In reality, if I were a Romney supporter, my head probably would have exploded by now.
I'm sure this isn't illegal, but it will be interesting to see if McCain gets any negative press out of this or if it will just be about Huckabee topping Romney in WV. It certainly will not help McCain with the Limbaughs, et al.:
(CNN) -- Republican Mike Huckabee scored the first Super Tuesday victory, winning all 18 delegates at stake in West Virginia -- partially with the help of Sen. John McCain's backers.
The former Arkansas governor won with the support of 52 percent of the state's GOP convention delegates on the second round of balloting. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in second with 47 percent of the vote, and Sen. John McCain was backed by 1 percent of the delegates.
Romney was ahead in the first round of voting in Charleston but failed to get the majority needed to win.
I think people are probably voting today. They should be, anyway. It's not really a hard thing to do. Even if you don't think you can get to the local polling station before work, or during your lunch break (if you have a lunch break (some people work through lunch)), getting an absentee ballot is wicked easy. Or I should say was wicked easy, since it's now too late to get an absentee ballot. But fear not, most polls are staying open until 7pm. So maybe on your dinner break (some people work past 7pm (and some of those people apparently get dinner breaks)), you can go vote. You really should. It's not too often that you can affect who will be the next supreme ruler of the free world (Copyright 2000, GWB).
There are a number of different reasons why someone like myself would end up choosing Obama in this 2008 Democratic primary (and the 2008 general election). He’s the choice of young people. He’s a new generation of politician. He is my generation’s JFK. He’s an outsider. He’s socially liberal, but he doesn’t wear it on his sleeve. He speaks in a post-partisan tone. He’s looking to get moved past the “partisan gridlock” in Washington. These are some of the popular one-liners and clichés that have become popular in the press for defining Obama and his candidacy. And these may be some of the reasons young people support Obama, but I think there is so much more to it than that.
I should probably have prefaced this with a little background. I don’t think I am your typical, 27 year-old political animal. While I was too young to truly know what was going on in the political fights of the early 90’s, I certainly was quite aware of what was happening in 1998, with the Clinton impeachment. I have always been extremely politically aware and active. I volunteered for the Gore campaign in 2000, while in college. I’ve been reading blogs since 2003 (though only came to political blogs in the summer of 2004). I took a day off from work in 2006 to volunteer for Ned Lamont’s campaign in CT (for the general, not the primary). Needless to say, I’m pretty liberal/progressive and extremely partisan.
That said, I work in the financial services world. I believe that free trade and free markets can be forces for good. I don’t like corporate social responsibility. I don’t like the idea of penalizing China for “currency manipulation.” I don’t like the idea of private social security accounts or school vouchers. Ok, before I continue off on a complete tangent, I’m just saying you can’t put me in a box. My main point is this, my beliefs actually match up quite substantively with Obama and Clinton, both of whom are not classic Bernie Sanders socialists. But I think there really is a difference in the details of those beliefs and how to most effectively implement them in policy.
While I think a lot of people like to complain about the bitter partisanship in Washington, something that Obama effectively campaigns against, I actually think it’s ok. I’m only 27, so my memory is short, but I’m not sure when there was a time that everything was super-duper peachy in the government. Pundits and people like Unit ’08 (now draft Bloomberg) like to claim that only way to do good things for the American people is by being nice and agreeing on stuff. Really? That’s how things get done? These guys served in government, right?
See, I believe that people fundamentally disagree on things. This is perfectly ok. Why is it bad that some of my friends believe in a national sales tax, some of them believe in a flat income tax and I believe in a progressive income tax? We argue the merits of our beliefs. We all believe strongly in things and want to fight to make them become a reality. Was there wonderful unity surrounding the passing of the Civil Rights Act? How about the New Deal? Abolition? No, difficult things that people believe in deeply, from different angles, tend to require a fight. Tell me why this is bad?
Recent examples of bipartisanship in Washington include:
Leave No Child Behind Act
USA PATRIOT ACT
Iraq War AUMF
Confirmation of Samuel Alito
Gang of 14 judicial filibuster compromise
Non-existant investigations of Iraq War intelligence, missing billions in Iraq and Katrina
The list goes on. Is bipartisanship really this awesome? There’s a fight going on over FISA legislation right now. Those who don’t seem to understand what is at stake in terms of the destruction of civil liberties say, “don’t let partisanship get in the way of protecting us from terrorists.” But what they are really pushing for is retroactive immunity for telecom services companies, warrantless wiretapping of US citizens and the inability of US citizens to seek justice for violations of their 4th Amendment rights in court. Yea bipartisanship (thanks goodness for Chris Dodd and his purely partisan beliefs that the Constitution, and not the President, is the highest law in the land).
Why am I rambling on about bipartisanship? Isn’t this an argument against the message that Obama is campaigning on? No, and here is why:
Obama’s ability to bring people together isn’t simply to come up with a compromise solution for the sake of agreement/compromise. Obama is pitching his ability to bring Independents and Republicans into the Democratic coalition to pass legislation that reflect his core beliefs. With a Democrat in the White House and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, there is an opportunity of transformative legislation to be passed. Obama is a committed progressive and he is not campaigning as anything but. He isn’t out there tacking to the middle or the left on issues like Iraq, the economy, immigration or anything else. Independents and disgruntled Republicans hear his positions now, know what he stands for and still find themselves drawn to him: his soaring rhetoric and powerful personal story are almost intoxicating.
If the Democratic coalition is likely to grow with him at the head of the ticket, possibly increasing margins in both houses of Congress, helping down ticket candidates in Red States and driving countless new voters to the polls, isn’t that a major reason to support his candidacy? Forget about the fluffy feel good part; if you share many of the same core principles of the Democratic party, shouldn’t you want someone at the top of it most likely to convince other people of the same?
So, like I said, enough of the fluff. What about the issues. Thursday night’s debate in Los Angeles was shockingly full of policy for something moderated on a cable news network (though to Wolf Blitzer’s lack of credit, he did throw out a number of Russert-isms, including trying to get Obama to call Clinton “naïve” over her vote for the Iraq war resolution). I think it gave people (who are not losers who spend time reading the policy details on candidate’s websites like some other people) a chance to see actual policy differences between the two, despite extremely similar beliefs. Maybe we should run through them here so I can illustrate why I believe Obama to be the better candidate, no just on the process, but on the issues:
Iraq/Foreign Policy: This is the easiest one, I think, by far. Democrats need to go into the general election with a clear contrast on the war. While Clinton has clearly come out against the war and wants to end it, she did support it in the beginning. She voted for it. She voted against the Levin Amendment. She (though like Obama) has voted to continue funding it every time. She has proposed what I think is a Constitutionally dubious “de-authorization” of the war. She voted for the awful Kyl-Lieberman Iran war mongering bill (though Obama missed that vote, so he doesn’t get 100% credit). She won’t admit her vote for the war was a mistake (maybe because she doesn’t believe it was). She says that she won’t meet with the leaders of opposition countries in the first year of her presidency, because she doesn’t want to give up the prestige of the presidency to countries that haven’t earned it. While HRC says she wants to bring troops home as soon as possible (and I believe her), how can she run a credible campaign on it?
Obama opposed the war from the beginning. From a contrast perspective, that’s almost enough right there. While I wish he would have voted against funding the war (the only constitutionally feasible way for Congress to end any war, really), I understand that our political and legislative process has become so perverted, that it’s nearly impossible. Additionally, Obama has a much more common sense foreign policy. You don’t need to be hawkish to keep America safe. You need to be smart. Do people honestly think we didn’t talk to the Soviets during the Cold War? Why shouldn’t we be talking to the Iranians, Syrians or North Koreans? Additionally, Obama is more likely to move us away from a foreign policy that idiotically groups countries like Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Syria together into some kind of axis. He’ll move us away from talking about the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizbullah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Sunni Insurgency, etc. as one group of terrorists that “want to destroy us.” Can HRC do that? She voted for Kyl-Lieberman, which essentially calls out Iran for meddling in Iraq and pursuing nuclear weapons, when all published reports say that their influence in Iraq isn’t as dramatic as perceived and they halted their weapons program in 2003. Democrats suffered the 2004 election without a contrast on the War, they shouldn’t do it again.
Economy: Now, I know that Presidential candidates tend to not have the deepest fundamental understanding of how the economy works. They are generally very wealthy, they are heavily influenced by headline risk. They talk about the stock market or bond market like it is the entire US market (ok, maybe only Romney does that). HRC pitches herself as a sleeve rolling, nuts and bolts policy wonk who is willing to get dirty to get things done: it’s a big part of her experience pitch. Without going off on too much of a tangent, I have mixed feelings about her experience campaign. I do think that experience matters and I think life experience is part of that. HRC has experience as a big time lawyer. She has proposed legislation from the White House and in the Senate. Having been the target of Republican/Conservative venom for 16 years, she’s definitely battle tested. Additionally, as she is about 12 or 13 years older than Obama, she has more life experience. I think these are all fair characterizations of her advantages over Obama (though I’m not sure experience is the number one strength is she then ran against McCain, but I digress from my digression). But this while this experience might make her understand the current process better than Obama, it does not necessarily make her better understand what the right solutions are. When pressed on the current sub-prime crisis, HRC said she wants to put $600 in everyone’s pocket and invest in things like clean-tech jobs. Specifically, she wants to freeze interest rates for five years. She wants to work out a negotiating window to help people work out a deal with their lender to prevent foreclosure. I believe she wants to extend unemployment benefits and food stamps as well.
Obama has a similar plan, though I believe his tax rebate is smaller. The key difference is the interest rate freeze, which Obama does not support. Freezing interest rates for five years is possibly the worst idea to try and loosen credit, save homes and reboot the housing market. It belies a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy works and what kind of solutions will helps it when it founders. Obama opposes the interest rate freeze. He understands (as he stated in the debate) that a freeze of interest rates would probably make banks less likely to lend, rather than the opposite. An independent central bank, and a regulated banking system below it, have are the corner stone of our market based economy, whether through home lending, corporate lending, interbank lending, etc. Over-regulating the banks could further drive the economy to a halt. Certainly a lot of fraudulent mortgage applications were submitted in the last 5 years and there was a tremendous amount of predatory lending. But those mortgages were packaged up, structured, sold-off, restructured, repackaged, etc. The global financial market exposure to these mortgages is in the trillions of dollars. There have already been $250b of write-downs of these assets with more to come. I believe we may be on the brink of a major global financial crisis that would make 1997-1998 look like peanuts.
If this is the case, who do you want as the figure-head of US policy (the President has advisors and think-tanks that come up with the actual policy)? I want someone who understands the way that the economy works, who’s experiences haven’t led him to believe that the best response to a crisis is more regulation, per se. Sure, Obama (and Clinton) wants to crack down on predatory lending and does not want to bail out speculators. There is nothing wrong with that. But again, for me, an interest rate freeze shows a fundamental lack of understanding how the economy/markets work and a set of experiences that say protectionism is the solution to a crisis.
HRC has had similar responses to individual free-trade agreements and China. The solution to economic problems is not necessarily more regulation. Short-term fixes should not create long term problems. Anyone with 20+ years in government should know that. And so it comes back to experience vs. judgement: maybe she can roll her sleeves higher and get her hands dirtier, but would the outcome be better?
Immigration: Either of them are better than the nativists who have taken over the Republican party. I think Obama has the advantage of being the son of an immigrant who lived in different parts of the world and grew-up in Hawaii. But really, I see this purely as a campaign narrative advantage Obama would have over McCain or Romney, not any real policy difference from Clinton.
Healthcare: The US spends more on healthcare than any other country in the world and yet has nowhere near the best care. That is insane considering there are a lot of countries with some form of universal coverage. I’m always amazed by claims that a single-payer system in the US would be a disaster, but I’m not really sure how it could be any worse than our current system that leaves 45mm+ uninsured. Only in America could a major manufacturer on the scale of GM be at risk from healthcare related expenses (though I guess some of it is pension related and union related as well). I wish both candidates were proposing single-payer systems, but that would have been highly unlikely from the get-go. So what are the options.
HRC is proposing a mandate driven system, similar to what is in place in Massachusetts. Everyone has to have insurance. It will be subsidized for those who can’t afford it. The system will be modernized with electronic records, etc. to save costs. Children will be covered. I think on this issue, HRC has a much better grasp of the mechanics and policy. I think, for her, it might be the most important domestic policy issue. I think that she learned from her experience in 1993 that single payer would be very difficult to pass, considering the influence of the insurance lobby. That said, how do you penalize those who don’t follow the mandate, a fine? While the MA plan was lauded when passed, it is still unclear if it actually works.
Obama’s plan has no mandate. He believes in a simple premise: people lack healthcare, not because they think they don’t need it or don’t want it, but because they can’t afford it. He has proposed a system without a mandate that seeks to heavily subsidize healthcare for those who need it the most. He has also proposed modernizing the system to save costs.
To be honest, I’m not really clear on the details of these plans, nor the overall mechanics of healthcare purchasing, coverage and service. I do know our current system does not work. Do I think that there are people out there that really want healthcare and were it affordable, would buy it? Yes. Do I also think there are probably people out there who think they are young and healthy and don’t need healthcare because it’s a waste of money (or some such nonsense)? Yes, thought probably not the 15mm people HRC claims Obama’s plan will leave uncovered.
For me, without someone proposing single payer, I look to who is more likely to get their proposal enacted into law. I’m not really sure who that is, but going back to who will increase the Democratic coalition and potentially increase majorities in the houses to pass tough, transformative legislation? I think the only answer there is Obama.
Experience vs. Judgement: To be honest, I only came to my final decision about a week ago. I spent much of this (way too long) primary season trying to evaluate all of the candidates, though I knew there were only ever three contenders. Dodd was my initial first choice, but he had little to no chance. Once he dropped out after Iowa, I was forced to start over again. I have been truly undecided until recently. Unlike many people, I quite like HRC. I think she is smart, personable, driven and intellectually curious. She has been a great Senator for the state of New York and has continued to fight for causes that are important to her. I have mixed feelings about whom she surrounds herself with, which certainly gives me pause. I love WJC, but can’t stand the likes of Mark Penn and James Carville. I don’t think I could take four or eight years of those types in the White House, poll driving HRC into oblivion. I have some issues with the dynastic nature of HRC’s candidacy, which wouldn’t have been as concerning had GWB not spent the last 7 years dramatically expanding the power of the executive. But, at the end of the day, I do think HRC would make a very good President. I think Thursday’s debate couldn’t have made it any clearer. She is a formidable campaigner and a formidable person. That said, I just don’t think she is the best candidate for the Deomcratic party in 2008.
For me, it really came down to the central theme of Obama’s campaign: judgement vs. experience. I don’t discount the value of experience. Certainly my parents, my colleagues, my friends, all of whom have the benefit of greater/different/longer experiences, have a larger pool to draw upon when making decisions. Certainly, my parents have been driving cars for a long time. They’ve been on the road in diverse conditions. They have driven in different countries. They have driven many different cars. Does this make them better drivers than me (they would certainly say yes)? Does it mean they have the best sense of direction? Does it mean they respond better in an emergency? Maybe it’s not a good analogy, as it’s pretty abstract. The point I’m trying to make is that life, and the experiences of making decisions all through out it, does not necessarily make one the best qualified to make the right decision in any given situation. Two people with the exact same knowledge base, when faced with the same situation, might make drastically different decisions. It is someone’s judgment that determines the final outcome.
I think this is a pretty difficult argument for Obama to have been making all of this time, though I do think it’s starting to resonate a little. The questions about the Iraq war at the debate crystallized it for some. As HRC tried to, somewhat torturously, explain her vote for the AUMF, what she learned from it, how she had been mislead, etc. something became clear to me: despite that experience, she still didn’t have the right judgment to stop giving the administration the benefit of the doubt by voting no on Kyl-Lieberman, to stop conflating the different threats emanating from the Middle East or to know that admitting a mistake was probably the best way to move past her vote.
Obama simply pointed out that he opposed the war from the beginning and that the name of the bill “The Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq” was a vote that authorized a war. Didn’t matter that he had only been a civil rights attorney or a state senator until that point. His “experience” told him that a vote for a war is a vote for war, not a vote to put inspectors in or something else. Experience is only an asset when it gives you the skillset to make the right decision. Whether that’s about war, foreign policy, farm subisidies, immigration, the economy, whatever, I believe the person who can best channels those experiences into the best decisions should be my choice. And I think it’s pretty clear that person is Barack Obama.
Lots of thoughts on yesterday's Superbowl, my delayed presidential endorsement and what's ahead...al delayed by the fact that my brain barely functions this early in the morning. My regular commute has been sidetracked by a 6:10am flight out west. More to come from the airplane (once I land).
Congrats to Elisha, though. Can't believe the Jints won the Superbowl...awesome!
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
We are rapidly approaching the 5pm deadline to get the extension done and ESPN is reporting the sides can't agree on guaranteed years: Santana wants 6, Mets are offering 5. Apparently Santana's agents opened the negotiations at 6 years, $28mm per year and the Mets came in with 5 years, $21mm per year with a vesting option for a 6th year.
While I can't believe the scale of this deal, for a guy who will only play every fifth day, I can only say this: GET THIS EPHING DEAL DONE!
Don't screw this one up, sign Kyle Lohse and tell me we look great for 2008. I swallowed that after the loss to the Cardinals going into 2007. While Maine and Perez were better than we ever could have expected, Pedro is one year closer to retirement and Beltran is one more year through his prime. You are in the biggest market. You have your own TV network. You MUST get this deal done.
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
I would normally never post anything during work hours, but this made me laugh out loud...a lot:
I have much to say about last night's debate from Hollywood. Too much to say for my 7 minute bus ride to work. I would like to say this: both candidates are extremely impressive people and I'd prefer either of them to McChuckaney McRomabee. I do have a preference between the two, which I will discuss at length before Tuesday.
I thought last night was really good stuff.
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
John Judis of TNR captures the dichotomy faced by Democratic voters in their choice this year:
Many of my friends and colleagues are firmly committed to either Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama, but I am among those Democrats who shift their allegiance from week to week, and sometimes from day to day, and will probably finally decide who to vote for when I enter the polling booth in Maryland on Feb. 12. And the debates don't help me decide. They exacerbate my indecision, because they invariably highlight the complementary strengths and weaknesses of the two candidates.
Clinton is substantive; a policy wonk who knows what she is talking about even when she is hedging her position. Healthcare certainly, but her discussion of immigration or foreign policy also seems to respect the complexities of the issues. Yet Clinton seems incapable of articulating broader political themes--saying in a novel and interesting way what is wrong with the country and what needs to be done about it. She is running on experience, which is to say on her own past, and on a promise to use that experience to solve problems. That tells voters something about herself, but nothing about how she sees the country or them. The two prior Democratic presidential candidates, Al Gore and John Kerry, had a similar problem.
Obama is the epitome of a thematic politician. He is very much a Democratic version of Ronald Reagan. He captures the essence of his own appeal--and his own biography--in his promise to unite a hitherto divided America and world. But his discussion of policy is perfunctory and plagued with inconsistency. That was evident during this debate. As my colleague Jon Cohn has explained, you can't really have a well-functioning universal healthcare system--or a social security system--without everyone participating. But Obama keeps saying that he doesn't want to "force" people to buy insurance.
Obama spoke seemingly eloquently of America as a nation of immigrants. He said it was "scapegoating" to blame immigrants--and presumably he meant illegal immigrants--for taking inner city jobs, but later in the debate, he justified giving undocumented workers a path to citizenship "because if we don't, they will continue to undermine U.S. wages." Well, if they undermine U.S. wages, they do so by replacing native workers who were getting higher wages. And it's not clear why providing a path to citizenship would eliminate the downward pressure on wages. It didn't seem like he had thought it through--and perhaps like Reagan and unlike Clinton he is not that interested in the details.
Clinton was clearly not at her best in trying to justify her vote for the Bush administration's resolution on war with Iraq. But I have never found Obama's promise to bring the world together through diplomacy very compelling. He thinks setting a specific date for withdrawal will "prompt the Shia, the Sunni, and the Kurds to actually come together and negotiate." Maybe, but I have my doubts. I am not sure Clinton knows what to do either, but when she refuses to be pinned down on a date for withdrawal, I hear someone who appreciates the difficulty of what she would inherit if she becomes president in January 2009. I worry about Clinton's political ability to get the country behind what she wants to do; but I worry that Obama wouldn't know what to do. And the last debate didn't ease these concerns.
While I will be happy to vote for either of them next November, I guess because I am so pessimistic about the country’s current condition I come down slightly on the side of detailed problem solving (Hillary), not the vision thing.
Personally, I think this big. Or maybe more accurately, could be big. Paul Volcker has a tremendous amount of economic credibility; something he earned while destroying inflation and rescuing the US economy in the early 80's. Volcker is no market/economic push-over like our current Fed Chairman and he has not endorsed anyone before.
I think that if Obama plays this right, he can appeal even more to fiscally minded R's and I's and increase his margins in primary states where people can still change their registration between now and primary day. Volcker, more than anyone, can recognize a crappy, inflationary/stagflationary US economy (basically we're ephed...and yesterday's further cut made us more ephed) and he believes Obama is most qualified and has the right policies/beliefs to help combat our bleak outlook. This may not sway rank-and-file, labor D voters, but it should help continue to bring new voters to the polls to vote for Obama that would otherwise stay home or vote in a different primary.
That is, if Obama plays this right.
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
I have to say I'm pretty giddy with excitement over tonight's season four premiere of "Lost." Its been a really long time since last season's jaw dropping season finale and I've been anxious to see, not only what happens to the characters but also, how the narrative/storytelling style changes. Once the announcement came out that they had a set end date, I knew it was in good hands.
I tried to make the grummings catch up on the show by watching the season 3 DVDs with me. I had already made her watch season 2, much to her dissatisfaction. I promised that season 3 was much better, particularly after episode 6. Needless to say, she did not agree and she quit after 10 episodes. With no other new TV on (save a few episodes of House) and an empty DVR, it did serve as pretty good hangover entertainment.
That's the strength of TV shows on DVD. They are 22/42 minutes of candy. You can watch an entire disc of Seinfeld in the time it would take to watch one Paul Thomas Anderson movie.
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
Victorious. One hiccup, who would have thought Dan Quayle ran for President after four disasterous years as veep and 3 years out of office. Nelson Rockefeller, I hardly knew ya.
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
I don't even want to talk about HRC, the DNC delegate controversy and potential lawsuits. The whole thing has been handled pretty miserably and, unless there is a brokered convention, those delegates are going to be seated anyway.
No, I'm interested in the R results and what the media coverage will look like going forward. First, let me say THANK GOD that Giuliani got smoked and is withdrawing from the race. There was no one more fundamentally ill-prepared for the Presidency and no one who would put the country at greater risk in the race. Second, I'm extremely interested to see how the media handles this McCain victory. When I went to sleep, he had a four point edge over Romney, with Giuliani and Huckabee both capturing mid-teens percentages. As I shut off the TV, talking heads were saying this was a big win for McCain, which no doubt it was.
But because the press loves McCain, I have to be careful with my words. McCain needed to win FL to keep the race going. He is nearly out of cash. A Giuliani was bound to exit and a Romney win might have been enough to put Huckabee on the ropes. McCain has not gotten a majority of "conservative" or "Republican" voters in any contest to this point. Had it turned into a two-way race between him and Romney, this trend would be unlikely to change, with Romney serving as the establishment candidate and without lower tier candidates syphoning votes.
But with the win in FL, McCain is hardly unstoppable. He still needs to raise money, fast. With Romney still in it, are establishment conservatives like to shift money from him to McCain (who they traditionally hate)? Seems unlikely. Romney was running second or first in most of the Super Tuesday primaries before FL, with Giuliani sucking up a lot of votes in places like NY and CA. Will McCain win all of these votes? No. A majority? Maybe. Either way, with 6 days to go, this R race is hardly over. I'm curious to see how the press covers it for the next week.
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
News has been coming across the wire all afternoon stating that the Mets have agreed with the Twins on a trade to acquire Johan Santana. The Mets will part with four prospects, including Carlos Gomez and Phil Humber. They now have 48 hours to negotiate a deal. I can hear all of my Yankee and Red Sox fan friends saying in unison, "That's it!? That's all it took!?"
I say give hime 7yrs, $150mm if he wants it. The Mets called the Twins bluff going back to the Winter Meetings when everyone around baseball said they didn't have the talent to get the deal done. Not with the Sox and Yankees bidding their most prized assets. But oh, the Twins got a little greedy and since that time, Lester, Ellsbury, Buchholz, Kennedy, Hughes came off the table. And who was waiting to swoop in with some top tier-ish talent and a Citigroup funded checkbook? The Mets baby.
Let's hope Pedro stays healthy.
-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless
From The Plank:
Who Would McCain Appoint to the Court?
Apologies if you've seen this already, but John McCain's recent comments on Supreme Court appointments seemed worth a blockquote:
McCain mentioned that Sam Brownback would play an advisory role in helping decide who he should nominate for the Supreme Court. As models of who he would select, John McCain pointed to Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia.
The idea that McCain would let Sam Brownback do the honors of picking John Paul Stevens's replacement is unnerving, but hardly unexpected. People like Jacob Weisberg have occasionally suggested that, despite McCain's zero rating from NARAL and his vote to confirm Robert Bork in 1987, the man really has moderate views on, say, abortion and gay rights and wouldn't actually elevate Janice Rogers Brown to the Supreme Court. But, no. Even if McCain is a social moderate deep down inside (and I doubt it), the chances that he'll buck Brownback and friends on judicial nominees have always been unlikely.
Update: To keep this thread going, here's what John Fund reported earlier today:
More recently, Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because "he wore his conservatism on his sleeve."
Now, the daylight between Roberts and Alito looks pretty paltry to me (and anyway, McCain was downright gushing when Alito was first nominated), but the National Review folks didn't like where this was heading, so McCain's spokesman initially had to deny that any such blasphemy was ever uttered, and then McCain had to cobble together a conference call where he solemnly swore to appoint Alito-like judges. As a bonus, McCain then assured conservatives that he'd be just fine with nominating a justice who would strike down McCain-Feingold...
--Bradford Plumer
