Spin Cycle

The spin cycle has gotten running so fast on the elections that I think I'm stuck in my washing machine. If you don't believe it, go to the Washington Post editorial page, where there are five by-line columns devoted to the idea of the campaign, four of them on the fate of Hillary Clinton.

Depending on your angle, Hillary has to drop out to save the party, should stay in to save the party, should fly to the moon to save the party.

Harold Meyerson over at the WaPo has written the liberal view on what a lot of conservatives have been saying about the final outcome of the Democrat's process in "Titans On The Mat".

That view is that Clinton can't win without destroying the party. A victory by her will assure that the black vote stays home, or shows in a dwindling number come november. The youth vote that Obama has gained would walk too, and then of course, Hillary would be crushed by McCain.

The problem with that is if Hillary doesn't get the nomination, then you have the Florida and Michigan voters who will (rightfully) be able to say that Obama didn't want them counted. Make no mistakes about it, quotes from Obama and his crew that killed any possibility of a revote in those states back in March and April, and having them count will pop up in October.

This hasn't been discussed much since April when Obama killed the "do over" vote plans in both states, and now acts as if they don't exist.

The other group that will probably bail on Obama in fair numbers is the white working class. Especially those in the upper middle class who will be reminded (ad naseum) of his tax plans that will crunch that group hard. He hasn't done well with them in any state, and it's hard to believe a scenario where suddenly they find him the savior. In fact many of them might be a little "bitter" about him.

Finally, and I think this group is ignored way to often by the media and politicians, the older vote. Hillary Clinton has carried the AARP vote in every primary. Many of them will see in McCain a guy their age, or slightly older, with more experience, who can talk to them.

And while the Democrats love to rage about the youth vote, the AARP group is voting in much bigger numbers in every primary. When you break down the demographics, it's a much more important block of voters than the unreliable youth, who may well lose interest by November if a good PS3 games comes out.

It's going to be an interesting time, the next few weeks, as Hillary tries to hang on, and I think eventually realizes she can't. But she will try, and may well alienate more voters in the process, creating a bigger chasm in the Democratic Party in the process.

Read The Full Post!

A Week Later

A week after Barack Obama's speech the Washington Post has four different columns about the speech and it's effect and consequences in today's paper.

Robert Novak looks at the problems it may be causing him with super delegates.

David Broder comments on the presidential bully pulpit aspect of the speech.

Bomani Armah asks Barak to show us his "white side" in a satirical look at the speech and the "one drop rule".

Jonetta Rose Barras writes on why she's no longer in the camp of the Rev. Wrights of the world after spending a few decades believing it was the correct path.

Novak makes the point that since the speech Obama's numbers have fallen in Pennsylvania, as some of the undecided white vote decided he was just "another black candidate" based on his speech, not a trancendant one.

Having watched any number of white people be "tossed under a bus" because of racially inept statements, they evidently don't get why Obama can't disown his minister like Hillary was forced to disown Geraldine Ferraro.

This, according to Novak is going to cause a superdelegate problem for Obama, as the start looking at electability once again. They'll wonder if the Republican Attack Machine won't roll Rev. Wright back out come the fall, and beat Obama to death with the good Reverend's words.

Broder's piece is about the substance of Obama's speech and it's delivery. He believes it helped Obama paint himself as a person, like Reagan (sorry Democrats), who can use words to effect change and rally people behind him.

There's little doubt that Obama is a great orator who's come up with top notch speech writers. For him to get to the place Broder puts him though, he has to get past the problems Novak pointed out.

Barras' piece is long, but explains her journey from a person who saw everything in the country as separate for blacks and whites to someone who realized that working together works better. It kind of reminded me of the David Mamet piece in the Villiage Voice, "Why I am no Long a Brain-Dead Liberal".

She doesn't think, by a long shot, that racially everything in the country is perfect. Instead she seems to have found that while imperfect, it's not nearly as bad as the Rev. Wrights, Jesse Jacksons, and Al Sharptons believe it to be. She seems to have stepped out of the comfort zone of those folks, ventured into the "real world" and found out that there are whites, asians and hispanics that aren't afraid to help, all you have to do is ask. And evidently she found enough to give her some hope that all isn't lost as Wright seems to think.

Armah takes a tongue in cheek look at Barack Obama's heritage and tells him it's time to start showing off his "white side". He's gained his black "street cred", and now needs to remind people, by posing for pictures with the other half of his family that he's white, too. Read the comments to see how many foaming at the mouth liberals don't get satire, even when it's pointed out in above the title line.

Read The Full Post!

Naive On Iraq

I think someone at the Washington Post missed the memo on not criticizing Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on their Iraq stands. Today's lead editorial in the Post is titled "Fantasies on Iraq", and skewers both Clinton and Obama's stances on ending the war and naive and short sighted.

The Post, or at least the editorial board, seem to be getting the fact that if the US leaves Iraq, someone will have to fill the security vacuum, and there aren't many good choices out there.

How bad is it for Obama and Clinton? Well, here's the best line of the editorial, and one that shows how little the folks at WaPo think of the two's withdrawal ideas.

In all, Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama speak as if they have no understanding of Iraqi leaders, whom they propose to treat as willing puppets.

It's not the first time they've spoken like that. Their stands on NAFTA and other trade agreements share that same trait. They seem to think that every leader will bend to their wishes, and there will be no repercussions from their actions.

I guess we can hope that this is all a big show to try and appeal to the base of their voters while the two are still locked in a tough primary struggle, and that after the convention the winner will gain some common sense.

Maybe, now that the Post has had the courage to call out the candidates on their stands more folks from the MSM will start asking them tough questions about it, and asking for answers, not campaign slogans.

Read The Full Post!

Building Bridges out of Nothing

David Ignatius at the Washington Post has a great piece up today contrasting Barack Obama's claims to be a "bridge builder" and the reality of his voting record.

Obama supporters can look forward to more pieces like this, should he wrap up the nomination shortly and it may make life a little bit painful. Readers of the Post should appreciate that someone there is asking questions other than "would you like another pillow" (thanks SNL).

Ignatius performed what one of my favorite talk show host refers to as a "flagrant act of journalism" by looking at Obama's record both in Illinois and the US Senate for the signs of how he's going to build the bridges to reunite America. Unfortunately for Obama's supporters what he found was a lack of construction skills nearly 180 degrees out of sync with his message.

This is kind of a telling portion of the column, and points to the "softball issues" that Obama claims as bipartisan victories:

The Obama campaign sent me an eight-page summary of his "bipartisan accomplishments," and it includes some encouraging examples of working across the aisle on issues such as nuclear proliferation, energy, veterans affairs, budget earmarks and ethics reforms.

Let's look at that list, and see if there is anything on it that wouldn't have bipartisan support from pretty much anyone in the Senate.

Nuclear Proliferation... Not since Barry Goldwater can I think of anyone from either party who didn't think that slowing the spread of nuclear weapons was a good idea.

Energy, well the parties have differences on how to work a policy, but the vote in the Senate on the current energy bill was pretty bipartisan since 40 votes to block it couldn't be found.

Veteran's affairs, especially after the Walter Reid stories broke a few years ago EVERYONE in Congress wanted to fix the DoVA. Prior to those stories in 2005 though few people did anything about it, except argue over funding for Concurrent Receipt of disability and retirement pay (which still isn't 100% happening).

Budget earmarks, considering when Obama came into office, and why the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, it was a no brainer that both sides would work towards earmark reform. If you look at how the Democrats have made this "transparent" though you might question if the reform as done any good at all.

Ethics Reform, again, Obama was elected at the height of the Tom DeLay scandal, and Duke Cunningham's problems were in the news. Anyone voting against ethics reform wouldn't be seen as partisan, they'd be seen as stupid!

Ignatius points out, correctly, that there isn't an instance on that list where Obama worked across the aisle on a subject that would raise eyebrows with the party base. Even on one topic he did work on that's contentious, immigration reform, he didn't work at the front of the pack, like McCain and Ted Kennedy. Even in 2005 before they took over Congress, it was the Democrats working from the position of power on the topic, with 41 votes locked up to stall any bill that didn't meet Harry Reid's liking.

The truth is that Obama's campaign rhetoric isn't exactly inclusive, bipartisan, or "post-partisan" as one commenter on Ingatius' article claimed. It's basically Howard Dean and John Kerry in 2004, running hard left against "Bush Policies" though Bush won't be on the ballot.

His rhetoric on labor, trade, and taxes all smack of the politics of class warfare, not inclusion, yet he's going to be the 'great uniter'?

McCain may have had a change of heart on the Bush tax cuts of '01 and '03, but he's honest enough to note they've worked. Obama (and most democrats) can't even acknowledge that they took 20 MILLION of the lowest income workers completely off the federal income tax rolls because it doesn't fit the "only rich got breaks" mold that they've been running on since 2003.

If you get a chance, go read Ignatius' column, and if you are an Obama-maniac try and do it with an open mind. You might learn something about your candidate.

Read The Full Post!

No Love On Trade

When the Secretary of Commerce beats up both Democratic candidates positions on NAFTA (at least as they stated them last week), it's to be expected. When the GOP Candidate whips up on them about it, it's to be expected. But when the editorial board at the Washington Post schools them, they should take note.

In their final head-to-head meeting before Tuesday's Ohio and Texas primaries, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) declared that they would opt out of the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico unless those two countries renegotiated the pact's labor and environmental provisions to the United States' liking. For two candidates who pledge to repair U.S. standing in the world, it was an odd swipe at our next-door neighbors.

The last line is especially true, it's hard to gain better standing anywhere when you want to renegotiate approved treaties from a "me first" perspective.

The Congressional Budget Office studied NAFTA in 2003, and found that the effect of it on the US economy wasn't huge, but it was a net positive, with our exports to Mexico growing faster in all but 3 of the first 10 years of the agreement than our imports from Mexico.

Carlos Gutierrez, the Secretary of Commerce makes two good points, one current and one historic. The current one being that while the economy has slowed due to the housing and credit crunches, our exports have been increasing, and cushioning that slow down. This was pointed out in the Wall Street Journal on January 28th by Brian Wesbury, who noted:

With housing so weak, the recent softness in production and durable goods orders is understandable. But housing is now a small share of GDP (4.5%). And it has fallen so much already that it is highly unlikely to drive the economy into recession all by itself. Exports are 12% of the economy, and are growing at a 13.6% rate. The boom in exports is overwhelming the loss from housing.

Does either Democratic candidate truly believe that we'll sustain that kind of export growth if we decide that unilateral renegotiation of trade agreements is the path we should take?

Gutierrez's historical note was based on the protectionist past of the US, and it's devastatingly bad impact on the economy:

There was a time in our nation's history when we sought to protect Americans by withdrawing from the world. In reaction to increasing agricultural imports, our government raised tariffs to historically high levels. We tried to protect jobs. But instead of the prosperity Americans expected, our unemployment rate increased to 25 percent and international trade dropped 66 percent. Protectionism was the wrong approach during the Great Depression, and it's still wrong in 2008.

We've seen this occur in small pieces over the last decade or so, whether is was the net loss of 250,000 manufacturing jobs to protect 60,000 steel workers with a misguided tariff on imported steel, or the decrease in agricultural exports to Europe when we decided to impose tariffs on certain imports from them, and got beat up at the WTO.

While it's easy to pander (as the Post puts it) to certain segments of the population for political gain, it's harder to reverse the notion with trade partners that you want to redo set agreements for your own gain. That same sentiment will end up creeping into negotiations with other potential partners, and soon you find that even if you support decent trade agreements you can't negotiate them because of the perceptions that are out there.

Isolationism and protectionist trade rants aren't going to turn back the clock to 1950, when the US was the supplier of everything to nearly everyone. It's not going to bring back jobs that were lost when segments of our industries became uncompetitive and too expensive to compete in the world market that has been emerging for the last two decades.

Instead, that type of rhetoric, and the actions suggested by both Clinton and Obama would bring back the 1930's, not a time many of us are yearning to return to. (Or in my case visit for the first time).

Read The Full Post!

Still No Unity

My title doesn't refer to Iraq, where our Congress would have us believe that not having complete unity of the country after 5 years makes any efforts there a complete failure. Instead, it refers to this article in today's Washington Post, about the lack of full unity in Bosnia.

It seems that 12 years after ending their civil war, they still have no national security force, instead it's divided between the two ethnic enclaves in the country. Yet that country is the example of how to "do it right" by some on the left. Funny, but they are fractured into two major "sectors", each lead by it's own leader, reporting to a PM, each supplying it's own security forces, even in different uniforms. That's not exactly a "unified" country.

I bring it up because I'm surprised the Post published the story. It gives credence to the idea that maybe our Congress is pushing for too much to fast in Iraq, and setting unrealistic benchmarks. Hell, it will probably become fodder for the legion of right wing talk radio hosts and bloggers to point out that progress is slow in new democracies.

And rightfully so; it took 3 years for the fledgling US to come up with the Articles of Confederation, our first shot at a national unity government. It failed after just a few years, and we started from scratch with the Constitution we now have. It was five and a half years after the end of the Revolutionary war before we had a President under the Constitution; that was 13 years after we declared our independence. Iraq, though, should have everything done in under six, with no infighting or problems, right?

Technorati Tags: Iraq, Bosnia, United States, Government, Unity

Read The Full Post!