During the primary season, the popular website “Electoral-Vote.com” kept a running account of which Democratic candidate polled best against John McCain. In what is now a moot (but nonetheless interesting) point, take a look at the picture below, from May 27th. States where Barack Obama polled better against McCain are colored brown; where Hillary Clinton did better, they’re pink (see the legend below):
Do you notice something about the chosen colors? Yes, that’s it: the black man is brown, and the woman is pink (friend’s reaction: “brown and pink? I don’t… ooooooh”). Maybe it was subconscious, but the esteemed votemaster’s choices of color seem to have stereotypically highlighted each candidates’ unique deviations from the white-male-politician norm.
I can’t decide if it’s tacky or funny. I guess, just like so many plays on gender or race, it depends upon context, and upon who’s doing the playing. I’ll let you draw your own conclusion. We report; you decide.
Full disclosure: I didn’t pick up on this point, but my friend Natalie, who’s written for this site before, did… and because she’s otherwise occupied now, I get to post on it.
One of my regular commenters recently noted the upswing in pro-Hillary, anti-Obama rhetoric among WordPress’ politics blogs (thanks for the tip!). That’s a disappointing trend, but the actual sites he pointed to are even more disappointing, ranging from the racist to the delusional. I’ve noted before - just click that little “previous post” button above you - that it’s partly worrying, but mostly confusing, to see so many people turn from the Democrats upon Obama’s nomination. It suggests to me that the Clinton supporters who cling to her candidacy were never really about the issues in the first place. America is at a crossroads, and to let anger and resentment at Hillary’s loss defeat us in our last best chance to undo the damage of the Bush years borders on the absurd. It’s cutting off the nose to spite the face, it’s throwing a temper tantrum, it’s..
Irresponsible.
More on the worst offenders, below the line. (more…)
Wait, I take that back. Her pieces are actually remarkably consistent, in that they all follow the same structure. Begin with a nasty little lie, so mean as to be comical - in her latest piece, it’s “words mean nothing to liberals” - transition to the main part of the article, and close with an attempt at a literary coda. Her writing is so repetitive as to be puerile, and I stand by that adjective choice.
So, rather, what I mean to say is that logical consistency means nothing to Ann Coulter. She’s taken to repeating Hillary’s talking point - that, in the democratic primary, she won the popular vote, even if Obama won the delegates - and has construed Obama’s victory, regardless of this fact, as proof that liberals only selectively care about the popular vote.
Coulter bases her critique on an embrace of the rules of the game. After all, the rules of the Constitution, she reminds us, mean that the popular vote doesn’t matter in the presidential election. But here’s the thing. According to the rules of the game - the rules by which Florida and Michigan had their delegates pulled, or halved, the rules by which Barack Obama wasn’t even on one of the ballots, because he decided to play by the rules - Hillary didn’t win the popular vote (skip to the 3 PM post). Nor did she win the delegates, the polling system that the rules of the Democratic Party appointed.
All Ann is trying to do is tear the Democrats apart; and not with very good arguments either. We can’t let her, or McCain, or even Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, do that. Because at the end of the day, we’ve always been at war with people like Ann Coulter. And we - like all good Americans - always will be.
A few live-blogging comments on Barack Obama’s speech tonight.
10:20 - Is anyone else watching Barack Obama’s speech right now, and comparing it mentally against Hillary’s? Barack just spent about five minutes in the middle of an extremely important, highly-watched speech, to praise Hillary Clinton. I think the message is clear: Obama has just handed Clinton the (vice presidential?) olive branch. “I Have Come Not to Bury Clinton, But to Praise Her.”
10:23 - Barack: “We honor the service of John McCain. I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine.” Ouch. If, like me, you hadn’t caught on yet, we see now why Barack is giving his speech in St. Paul, Minnesota: the Republicans are having their convention there a few months from now. Barack claims his victory on enemy soil, and quickly segues into general election mode, mocking McCain’s claim to the “moderate” label. In rhetoric and in geographic location, he’s hitting the enemy where they’re strongest. Good for him. Like the Roman fetial priest, he’s flung the spear into the enemy’s own soil. Let’s see how he responds.
10:29 - …aaaaaand speeches like that are why Barack Obama won, and will win. (Ooops, it’s not over).
10:34 - Barack’s hitting valence issues, and taking on Rovian tactics. “What you won’t hear from this campaign, or this party, is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon…. We are always Americans first.” Followed by an immediate segue into commenting on McCain, neatly rhetorically linking the two.
10:39 - Can anyone see McCain doing a speech like that? With the rousing “this was the moment” chorus at the end? Obama was the right pick. I think the next right pick, though, may be Hillary for VP.
Defending the seating of Florida and Michigan’s delegates makes for a good story: “candidate X wants to give Florida and Michigan a vote, but candidate Y hates democracy.” But, like so many other talking points, it’s more spin than substance. Although it’s tactically a bad plan to oppose the seating of the delegates - and Obama seems to recognize that - it’s (1) strictly in accordance with the law, and (2) common sense. If a state refuses to follow the law, it ought not be able to debate the law away later on in the campaign cycle.
Hillary’s plan - seat at least portions of the delegates, claim a moral victory, and keep the bid going - reeks of desperation, divisiveness, and… perhaps something else that begins with “D.” She’s putting the health of her own bid, and her own need for a positive “spin” story, over the law, over reason, and over the potentially damaging effects of ticking off Florida. It’s ridiculous, and it has to stop.
Hillary Clinton just won West Virginia, by at least thirty percentage points.
Now, Clinton claims that no Democrat has won the presidency, since 1916, without the help of West Virginia. While her claim is technically true, she seems to be arguing that West Virginia is (1) a Democratic stronghold and (2) a key to victory. Both are incorrect. Anyone who argues that West Virginia is a “Democratic stronghold,” which any Democratic candidate can expect to win, hasn’t been paying attention to politics since 2000.
The Iranian exile’s group, the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran, who work against Ahmadinejad and for a free Iran, are often confused with Iranian terrorist organizations. No more.
Update: Barack Obama loses Indiana, 49.1 % to 50.9%, a narrow margin in a primary which was expected to give Hillary a 5-10% margin. While on the numbers, this is fairly bland (the candidates split the delegates evenly), the blow dealt to Hillary Clinton’s expectations is serious. And politics is all about expectations. My earlier, blasé prediction about tonight’s events may prove wrong.
Many scattered points to make. First, I’d like to congratulate Barack Obama for pulling in to an effective tie at the last minute in Indiana. This most recent success, coupled with polls suggesting that the Wright fiasco may have been overblown, bode well for Barack as he moves on to the race’s end game. More importantly, though, it’s time to build the party, and the evidence still suggests that we’ll have to play dirty in the general election. Let’s make our peace with that fact and do it.
On Barack Obama’s recent successes, apparently people are not themselves concerned about the Wright/Obama connection, but are concerned about its effect in November. To me, these data suggest that the Wright issue goes to that nebulous quality - electability - which only matters to you when you perceive that it matters to others. Perhaps we’ve overthought this primary season. Wouldn’t be the first time.
Moving on, while Hillary thinks it’s time to move on and continue her campaign - “now it is on to West Virginia, Kentucky and Oregon, where people are eager to have their voices heard” - I think now is the time for the party to pick a side. Luckily, the internet agrees with me (once, twice…), so let’s see.
And a coda. I do not lightly lightly make suggestions that Democrats use disingenuous campaign tactics, but the fact that Limbaugh is still trying to corruptly influence the primary proves that we cannot play nice, and expect to win. It’s time to pick a side, stick by it, build the party, and play dirty, so that we can later have the opportunity to place nice: “I must study Politicks and War, that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy.”
Time to get in gear, buddy. Nothing remarkable will happen today. All eyes - and all pressure - should be on Howard Dean to wrap this puppy up in an amicable way.
If you’re hoping that tonight’s primaries in Indiana and North Carolina will change anything in the Democratic nomination, I would hope the answer is yes, but I cannot imagine that will be the result. Obama is expected to sweep North Carolina, by a large margin, and despite leading in some polls, most consider Indiana a toss-up. So let’s consider North Carolina a given, and speculate on the results of Indiana. Any way you cut it, Indiana will not be a dealbreaker. (more…)
Small warning: this post represents the views of Ames, and probably Tim. But, it doesn’t represent a new contributor we’ve just added.
For years, I’ve defended Hillary Clinton as a good Democrat, worthy to be the next President. While I still think she’s better than McCain, she has entirely lost my vote for the primaries. Watch this YouTube clip to see why:
I recently posted about the tendency of American politicians to, when confronted with proof that their policies are wrong, decry the “experts” as “elitist” and stick to their guns on principle, seemingly arguing that objective reality is subject to their votes or vetoes. I have attributed this tendency more often to conservative politicians hoping to spin away the truth, and also leveled the accusation at creationists, the world’s most egregious factual relativists. Well, not so, or at least not exclusively. Now Hillary Clinton has joined the ranks of those who attribute well founded expert opinion to the “elites,” in an effort to dispel it. (more…)
Progressive political thought, spin, and a reaffirmation of the foundational values of equal justice and reason.
Ames Grawert is a law student at NYU and a New Yorker. His experience ranges from law to ancient history, and includes a tiny bit of science.
R. Timothy Brady is a composer and a New Yorker. He has written an award-winning opera, Edalat Square, which will be performed in Houston, Texas this summer. He is also the founder of the Soulbird Music Project, a collaborative charitable organization focusing on the nexus between music and human rights.
Senator John McCain sharply increased his spending in June as he ramped up his campaign and his presumed Democratic opponent became clear, according to new filings with the Federal Election Commission.
Stumble It!