Category: Barack Obama

I get the sense that a lot of people out there — not necessarily a plurality, but enough to justify having a public conversation with them — share roughly my preference order with respect to the remaining non-Gravel Democratic Presidential candidates.  In terms of what I’d like to see in a nominee, I’d give Edwards a 90, Obama an 84, Clinton a 72, and I’ll explain where Kucinich fits in later.  So here’s where I stand after today’s debate, and y’all can hash it out in comments if you want.  There’s no special reason that you should be that interested in what I think, so there’s no particular reason that you should be abusive in comments.  I’m mostly setting this down as my own diary for the record, so I can refer to it years down the line.  (Thanks again, buhdy, for providing this service.)

Jeralyn links to this Las Vegas Sun analysis of the Nevada Caucuses. According to the Sun, it all boiled down to this:

And though it’s easy to slice and dice and analyze strategy, there’s this: Nevadan Democrats put their faith in Clinton and her experience.

At dozens of precinct locations voters interviewed by the Sun cited Clinton’s experience as the overriding factor in their decision.

Clinton’s “experience” over Obama’s call for “change.”

Jeralyn says this:

I continue to believe that when it comes time to vote, those adversely affected by our tumbling economy are going to be less concerned with aspirational change and more apt to ask which candidate has both a concrete economic program and a track record showing the ability to push it through.

I hope that’s true, but on an even broader scale. Because I don’t hear much about anyone’s economic programs. Even in the endlessly blithering blogosphere, the campaign themes are repetitively dumbed down to “experience” vs. “change.” And Jeralyn is spot on that people actually want to know about concrete policies. It would be nice if the campaigns and their supporters realized that.

If people really want real experience, they’d have supported Bill Richardson. If people really want real change, they’d be supporting Dennis Kucinich. The people who continually hype the illusion of Clinton’s “experience” or Obama’s “change” need to be a bit more honest with themselves, and figure out what it really is that makes them so adore their favorites. Maybe, then, they will do a better job of selling their candidates to we skeptics. Or maybe they won’t.  

Now that we Democrats have once again been consigned to the fringes and the Republicans are digging up a corpse to attempt to stanch the stench from the former leading confessed Republicans, barring an asteroid striking the earth the race is pretty much between The Empire and Amway.

I don’t know if anyone else here enjoys the titillation of getting political news from Marketwatch (hey, when you get too old for even Viagra).  Might tell you something about the primary places I haunt but even ghosts have perversions.

that he’s won Iowa, already has won in Dixville Notch, and could win New Hampshire’s primary today is live up to his campaign slogan

“Change We Can Believe In.”

He would be doing this by assuming leadership regarding an issue on which the Bush Administration has not led.

Namely New Orleans and Gulf Coast recovery, which need to be prominent in Obama’s campaign. Not only by front-paging it on his website, the first thing anybody including media people planning campaign coverage and debate topics sees, but also seizing this issue and making it his stand-out issue. While it is possible to find his rebuilding plan for that city and the communities devastated by Katrina and Rita, it’s buried below the fold.

it is possible that the contest for the soul of the Democratic Party will be between conservatives and liberals rather than between genders and mythological races.

Don’t get me wrong.  I am not forecasting that the Rapture is about to commence.  It is little more than a wan hope but I was surprised that even a sodden bastion of the MSM would spy such a wondrous mirage in the intellectual desert.  Newsweek asked if maybe the contest would be between Obama and Edwards after New Hampshire.

(I couldn’t immediately lay my hands on the article but try to believe me.  I saw it. I swear I did.  I had intended this entry as a critique when I started it. Maybe I am delusional. :-()

If any object that Obama is far from an ideal symbol of conservatism and maybe Edwards even less so as a stand-in for liberalism, I admit to the problem in advance.

Still the relative elitist against the mill worker’s son, the man who wants to get along for smooth sailing compared to the man who wants to make waves to rock the boat is a symbolism that only a Chris Matthews or Tim Russert could be blind to.

Could it happen?

“All things are possible,” says the Good Book.

Sometimes I wish I weren’t a committed heretic.

Best,  Terry

A picture sometimes really is worth a thousand words…

Rassmussen conducts a daily national tracking poll of all presidential candidates. The latest shows John Edwards picking up significantly more support, since the beginning of the year, than any candidate of either party.

The percent change for Republicans is: Huckabee 18.8% / Giuliani 13.3% / McCain 11.8% / Thompson 8.3% / Romney -6.3%.

So why isn’t this news?

crossposted from Daily Kos

On Saturday, part of my regular activity is to read two noteworthy columnists, Bob Herbert of the New York Times, and Derrick Jackson of the Boston Globe.   Both are Black, so it is not at all surprising that the columns of both are about the Obama phenomenon.   Both are interesting reading.  Herbert’s The Obama Phenomenon begins simply enough

The historians can put aside their reference material. This is new. America has never seen anything like the Barack Obama phenomenon.

.  Jackson, in his A night for the newcomers saw

An array of trump cards dropped like hammers in this part of eastern Iowa as a three-way dead heat in the polls became an 8-point Obama victory over Edwards and Clinton.

.

So what is happening?

Cultists speak a language that the non-believers will never understand.

It is of the same origin as idioglossia or “twin language” that twins may develop when language skills are delayed in development.

This should not be confused with Rovian or Clintonian cant that is carefully constructed to be the mirror image of what is being said; e.g., peace means war, “I am for you” means “I am for big corporations,” Democrat means Republican, etc.  A Tim Russert or Chris Matthews may not understand Rovianspeak but intelligent people with normal language skills do.    

Don’t get me wrong.  I would prefer the southern populist who wants to go after some real bad guys.  But even John and Elizabeth Edwards might take heart from this pioneering legislation offered by Barack Obama.

Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2006 (Introduced in Senate)

–

            (2) Personalized medicine is the application of genomic and molecular data to better target the delivery of health care, facilitate the discovery and clinical testing of new products, and help determine a patient’s predisposition to a particular disease or condition.

           (3) Many commonly-used drugs are typically effective in only 40 to 60 percent of the patient population.

           (4) In the United States, up to 15 percent of hospitalized patients experience a serious adverse drug reaction, and more than 100,000 deaths are attributed annually to such reactions.

           (5) Pharmacogenomics has the potential to dramatically increase the efficacy and safety of drugs and reduce healthcare costs, and is fundamental to the practice of genome-based personalized medicine.

–

(7) The cancer drug Gleevec was developed based on knowledge of the chromosomal translocation that causes chronic myelogenous leukemia, which is characterized by an abnormal growth in the number of white blood cells. The mean 5-year survival for affected patients who are treated with Gleevec is 95 percent, which contrasts to a 5-year survival of 50 percent for patients treated with older therapies…

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/…

I never thought I’d see the day, but David Brooks just made a point that made me slap my head and wonder why it didn’t occur to me before.  I dunno how he did it.

Brooks:

And Americans are not going to want to see this stopped. When an African-American man is leading a juggernaut to the White House, do you want to be the one to stand up and say No?

I don’t see that many will.  I don’t see how they can.  I thought the story from here was going to be “How will Obama blow it?”  But what I see coming is different, after reading those words.  The good story, and the only one nearly anyone can get away with, is the coronation of an American legend-to-be.  And if that is true, then the Obama campaign we’ve all maligned is actually a work of brilliance.  Because he hasn’t said anything that can really offend anyone.  Who wants to speak out against hope, against unity, against healing divides, much less to do so against a candidate whose very candidacy is a testament to the kind of progress this nation has made?

Indeed, is this displayed in any way better than by the pathetic nature of Paul Krugman’s swipe at Obama in his column today?  (As an aside, I am taking great satisfaction in watching Krugman’s unraveling as a columnist, which is clearly a result of the loss of his dispassionate eye for the truth as an economist which got him the gig in the first place.)  How, after today, can you possibly see anyone truly getting away with going after Barack Obama as “shallow”?  If he is shallow, then the entire American mythos is shallow (which may well be true, but not something anyone in politics can sell).

It is a dirty game, and I have no doubt that Sen. Clinton can play it as well as anyone.  But I’m having a hard time seeing how she can take Obama down.

(With the caveat that while all of this is somewhat interesting, I still don’t believe it particularly matters.)

‘I won’t tell you what you want to hear, I’ll tell you what you need to know.’

Gee, sounds like the worst of both worlds to me.

Not true. Tonight, when the aspiring leader of the free world declaimed: ‘I’ll tell you what you need to know’, my blood ran cold. Executive authority? Vive le roi!

Matt Yglesias purrs. Others squeal with delight. I, on the other hand, don’t like Obama; and I don’t like what he says.

And until he wins the nomination, I get to tell folks here why.

If he wins the nomination.

How do I loathe Obama? Well, actually it’s not that simple.

I’ve taken the measure of my hostility towards Obama and discovered a great deal I do like in the candidate.

I respect Obama’s intellect and his accomplishments. I respect his commitment to family and community. I respect his commitment to building a bright future for himself and for his family and community. ‘Nuff said.

How did that speech go?  “…in small towns and big cities you came together as Democrats, Republicans and Independents…”  Did I hear that right? Republicans are awarded second-place mention in Obama’s victory speech? Gee, I wasn’t aware that Republicans won anything in Iowa when Obama finished ahead of Edwards and other committed Dems.  

But Obama isn’t kidding. Obama appeals to Republicans, actively, as he did in Iowa tonight. And if you like the idea of climbing into electoral bed with the Andrew Sullivans and George Wills of the world: good news! Sullivan and Will are already there, with Tweety! Andrew informs us that NRO is chirping an Obama song, too.

Bill Bennett watched the Iowa results and shocked pundits by assuring his all Wall-Street buddies that Obama represents no threat whatsoever? Huh? I thought die-hard Republicans are supposed to paint the Dem winner in shades of red or pink. But Bennett, a career bible-thumper and gambler of long experience, looks hard at Obama…and likes what he sees. Bennett’ message is un-mistakable: upper-income voters should have no problem pulling the lever for Obama. Big Pharma doesn’t have a better friend than silly Sully. Sully’s giddy support for Obama and antipathy for universal health-care should be enough to worry folks. Clearly, many are too busy hoping.

If accountability matters to you, if you believe strongly that those who lied America into the war must be punished, if you believe corporate America is a threat to your freedoms, your income, your health and your job, you may want to think carefully before putting the forgiver-in-chief in the White House.  

Obama may win the nomination. That’s when critics like me get to STFU and commit to burning the Republican house to the ground. But if folks decide to follow a man who doesn’t scare Bill Bennett, don’t be surprised to discover some of the worst criminals are standing next to you inside the Dem tent before the match is struck.