The Economist’s spoken word edition has no truck with any of this “bleeping” nonsense. (Skip to 1:30)

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other content filed under: Clippings, Culture & Media, Politics

“He hasn’t called him a crook!”

We’re now supposed to believe that Obama is at best insufficiently appalled at Blagoyevich’s behaviour - which, let’s not forget, is still legally unproven - and at worst implicated in it, because he uses calm language. And talk-show guests talk openly about Obama’s camp “admitting whatever it’s done”, apparently without feeling the need to admit that so far there’s not a shred of evidence Obama’s camp were involved with Blagojevich in anything other than entirely standard ways.

I can’t think of a more perfect example of how the desperate need to fill 24 hours of news a day has maddened America’s political culture. Not exactly news, I know, but I’m still frequently shocked.

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other content filed under: Clippings, Culture & Media, Politics

“This is nothing to do with Obama. But some people are going to try to make people think this has something to do with Obama. So this is bad news for Obama. What is the Obama camp going to do about this bad news?”

US Media FAIL.

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other content filed under: Clippings, Culture & Media, Maverick A Strike - A US Elections Blog, Politics

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other content filed under: Clippings, Culture & Media, Politics

"US Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Senator Barack Obama points on his way to board his campaign plane in Columbia, Missouri, October 31, 2008"

Well, yes. He clearly is pointing. This superb photo series of Obama’s campaign is only slightly impaired by the ponderous captions.

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other content filed under: !Media, Clippings, Maverick A Strike - A US Elections Blog, Politics

This must be a damning indictment of something.

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other content filed under: Clippings, Politics

I don’t remember many people singing “God Save the Queen” in May 1997.

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other content filed under: Clippings, Maverick A Strike - A US Elections Blog, Politics

The analytical quote:

1. The modern conservative movement began with the crushing defeat of Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential race. The modern conservative movement ends with the crushing defeat of Arizona Sen. John McCain — who took Goldwater’s Senate seat upon his retirement — in the 2008 presidential race.

2. Modern liberalism began its implosion with riots in Chicago’s Grant Park at the 1968 Democratic Convention. Tonight, modern liberalism is reborn at Chicago’s Grant Park, where a black Chicago Democrat will celebrate winning the presidency.

- Rod Dreher

The personal quote:

Nothing in my life has actually changed in the 30 minutes since it was announced Obama will be our next president. I have the same bills, the same amount of money in the bank, my dishwasher is still broken, and my 5 month old beagle won’t stop peeing on my carpet. Everything in my life is exactly the same as it was 30 minutes ago; and yet I feel as though everything is different.

I feel so much hope.  I feel so much pride. I feel like my one vote was a single drop of water in a great Tsunami of change. I feel like I was one of a million voices screaming in the night, ” I love my country and I’m taking it back!” I’m so proud of the country that I love and have so much hope in my heart that we can together heal the wounds that have been such a source of pain and anger to us all.

I know Obama isn’t going to fix the economy overnight, I know he won’t be able to provide healthcare to all Americans by February ‘09. I know Obama isn’t a Messiah who four years from now will have turned this country into a fabled utopia. But I also know Obama will make moral decisions. I know Obama will try to unite where others try to divide. I know Obama will help to make America the beacon of hope it once was to others. I know that at 27 years of age, I witnessed one of the most important and hopefully glorious chapters in American history.

I know hope.

- Anonymous Daily Dish reader

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other content filed under: Clippings, Maverick A Strike - A US Elections Blog, Politics

And, of course, there are hundreds of state and city referenda on particular issues. These vary from the vastly important to the - well, less so. This list of LA Times endorsements gives you the idea. You probably know about Proposition 8, the measure to amend California’s constitution to ban gay marriage (LA Times says: “No”). But what about Prop 5, introducing new drug rehabilitation agencies (LA Times: also “no”)? Or Prop 2, on the size of battery-hen cages (also, interestingly, “no”)?

The Guardian sums up some of the other, wackier, ballots out there. As well as waking up tomorrow in a world with a black US President-elect, we may be in a world where Colorado’s state constitution defines life as beginning at birth. I look forward to reading the coroner’s reports on the thousands of miscarriages that must take place in Colorado every year…

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other content filed under: Clippings, Maverick A Strike - A US Elections Blog, Politics

Dear God, it’s finally here.

It’s worth recalling just how absurdly action-packed this two-year campaign has been. The First Lady Candidate vs the ambitious young black senator. The earliest-ever primaries. The shock in Iowa, Hillary’s tears. The Michigan-Florida farrago, which saw the term “Democratic Rules Committee” enter water-cooler vocabulary. John McCain’s campaign out of money, written off, and then reborn in New Hampshire. Guliani’s Florida gamble. Rev. Wright and “A More Perfect Union”. Bill Clinton’s “fairytale”. “Clean and articulate”. The pit bull, Katie Couric, Tina Fey and Joe the Plumber (say it ain’t so, Joe!). The dramatic Powell endorsement. Then - just as it all seems to be over - Obama’s grandmother dies the day before the election. You couldn’t make it up.

I’m 28, British, and have only been watching elections closely since the Bush era began. But surely this has been the most dramatic campaign since 1968. I wonder if anything - short of, God forbid, an inaugural assassination - can bring it to a suitably compelling climax.

But the next 24 hours should be pretty damn good.

Essential resources (besides the obvious):

• Twitter’s election portal offers stream-of-conscious commentary from its (Obama-centric) young user base
• Twitter accounts @866OURVOTE and @electionjournal have live reports of voting problems and fraud, while Twitter Vote Report offers voting reports from across the country (on a map!)

I’ll be twittering non-stop once the results start coming in. Happy voting, America!

Permalink | One comment | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other content filed under: Clippings, Maverick A Strike - A US Elections Blog, Politics

The election’s over.

Sure, the votes still need to be counted.

And yes, things could radically change over the next two weeks.

But let’s be realistic: Republicans are in a bad spot.

And it’s never too early to start planning for 2012…

So far, so sane. Just the kind of thing the soul-searching the GOP needs to do.

…and a ticket that actually inspires the conservative base.

Uh-oh.

And that ticket is Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber.

Pfffbwahahahaah!

Sure, laugh now. But the main reason the Republican base hasn’t completely ditched McCain is because of Palin and her Jane C-Cup appeal.

Joe the Plumber, meanwhile, has about as much political experience as Palin did four years ago and has immense Joe Six-Pack appeal.

For God’s sake– his name’s Joe! It works perfectly!

It goes on. Once the election’s out of the way, this is going to be one highly entertaining GOP civil war.

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other content filed under: Clippings, Maverick A Strike - A US Elections Blog, Politics

Has Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, saved the world financial system?

… Mr. Brown and Alistair Darling, the chancellor of the Exchequer (equivalent to our Treasury secretary), have defined the character of the worldwide rescue effort, with other wealthy nations playing catch-up.

This is an unexpected turn of events … the British economy is far smaller than the U.S. economy, and the Bank of England doesn’t have anything like the influence either of the Federal Reserve or of the European Central Bank. So you don’t expect to see Britain playing a leadership role.

But the Brown government has shown itself willing to think clearly about the financial crisis, and act quickly on its conclusions. And this combination of clarity and decisiveness hasn’t been matched by any other Western government, least of all our own. [emphasis added]

- Paul Krugman, yesterday. Earlier that day, he won the Nobel Prize for Economics.

What we have here is a Prime Minister who, thanks to his quick thinking, is literally leading the rescue of the world’s financial system; and we want to throw him out of office in favour of an untried kid because, a year ago, he dithered over whether to call an election?

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other content filed under: Clippings, Politics

It’s a natural instinct for Obama supporters to leap to his defence in the face of every attack by conservatives. And there is a lot of crap being thrown around. But as polling day looms, it’s worth remembering that there are some real problems with Obama and his candidacy. Whether any of them is a dealbreaker, I’ll leave up to you.

Three attacks on Obama that shouldn’t worry you…

1. He’s friends with some shady types. 

You already know about Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The McCain campaign is now focusing on William Ayers, the former violent 1960’s radical who has served on a charity board with Obama; there’s also been controversy over Obama’s links to Tony Rezko, the property dealer currently charged with corruption, and ACORN, a voter registration group that supported his early campaigns and has been accused of voter fraud. The four cases are very different: Ayers’ sins are most serious, but were longest ago, and there’s no real evidence the two were friends.h They do appear to have retained some charity connections after Obama found out about his past _ I’ll leave it up to you whether it would be more honourable to drop a charitable project because of its founder’s childhood crimes, or to condemn those crimes and persevere. Rev. Wright’s relationship with Obama was the longest, but his crimes were minor - if you consider a little light demagoguery a crime at all - and Obama has denounced them thoroughly and publicly (indeed, Sarah Palin seems to be about the only person left in the McCain campaign who doesn’t understand why he’s no longer an issue). ACORN supported Obama’s early campaigns, but Obama hasn’t been otherwise involved with them since the early 1990s, back in his community-organising days. 

Rezko is probably the most worrisome connection, as the crimes are recent and the two were genuinely close. But Obama is accused of no wrongdoing. In the end, these issues aren’t resonating with voters because there’s no evidence that Obama ever sympathised with or collaborated in any of their wrongdoings (with the possible exception of Wright). Supposed “revelations” by conservatives, usually providing evidence of slightly closer ties than previously thought, have failed to suggest Obama was complicit in anything illegal or reprehensible. Obama’s initial riposte - that he should be judged by his own past, not that of his friends - seems to satisfy most voters. After all, realistically, it seems unlikely anyone can rise in Chicago’s notorious political scene without picking up some questionable associations.

2. He voted “present” 130 times in the Illinois senate. 

File this one under “true but misleading”. In fact, he voted “present” 129 times, but this accounts for only 3% of the over 4,000 votes he participated in. Nor are these the fence-sitting abstentions they seem. Illinois allows senators to vote “present”, and it’s traditionally used as a way of opposing measures with a little less risk than voting “no”. You might think that a little cowardly, but Obama’s use of it is nothing special by Illinois standards.

3. He’s been a do-nothing in the U.S. Senate.

Obama has been accused of missing most Senate votes to focus on his campaigning. As one snarky article put it, “For twenty years, Obama has walked the floors of the most prestigious institutions in the nation, but has left no footprints other than those from his runs for whatever office came next.” And it’s true that, in the last year, Obama’s Senate record has been decimated by his campaigning. He’s missed 47% of votes this year, placing him third in Washington Post’s ranking of vote-missers. But who’s at number one, missing a whopping 64.1% of this years votes? You guessed it: one Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

And one that should

1. Accessibility. The press is right to be angry at its lack of any opportunity to question Sarah Palin, barring one, heavily stage-managed press conference a few weeks ago. But Obama has not gone out of his way to make himself accessible. His early press conferences were marked by his tendency not to directly address difficult questions. His campaign stops have generally eschewed the traditional Q&A with audiences. And his campaign has come down hard on reporters they feel have misrepresented it or the polls. Even his much-vaunted web presence, while utilising thousands of volunteers around America, has been highly centralised when it comes to the media message. None of this is a problem, per se. But it suggests a man who isn’t really comfortable with criticism. And we’ve had someone like that for the last eight years. If Obama wins, his supporters should join in the outrage if he doesn’t improve on  Bush’s terrible record of inaccessibility to the press.

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other content filed under: Maverick A Strike - A US Elections Blog, Politics, Posts

Perpetually fretting Democrats will not want to accept it. The campaigns themselves can’t afford to believe it. Many journalists know it but can’t say it. And there will certainly be some twists and turns along the way. But take it to a well capitalized bank: Bill Ayers isn’t going to save John McCain.  The race is over.

John McCain’s candidacy is as much a casualty of Wall Street as Lehman or Merrill… Before Wall Street’s collapse Senator McCain was ahead. His approval ratings remained high, his VP pick had generated excitement and interest, and his campaign operatives were capable, on any given day, of winning news cycles and giving their opponents fits. And then the underpinnings of American capitalism begin to sink — and with them sunk McCain.

An election dominated at its inception by the war in Iraq is now overwhelmingly focused on the economy. More than half of voters in polls say that the economy is their top concern and Senator Obama enjoys double digit leads among voters asked who can better fix our economic mess. Put simply, there is no way Senator McCain can win if he continues to trail Senator Obama by double digits on the top concern of more than half of voters.

Howard Wolfson, “It’s Over: Why Bill Ayers Won’t Save John McCain“

What could turn things round? Wolfson points to a domestic terror attack as the only thing that could seriously shake things up now. I think the “Bradley effect” is likely to mean Obama’s vote will be smaller on the day than the polls suggest now, potentially making things very tight. And the danger is that overconfident Obama supporters will stay at home. The democrats have to warn against complacency and focus all their efforts on getting out the vote.

Still, it’s true: a McCain victory now would be a stunning turnaround.

Track the latest odds on the race

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other content filed under: Clippings, Maverick A Strike - A US Elections Blog, Politics

"Hey, can I call ya Joe?"

Who won Thursday’s vice-presidential debate? It depends on who you ask. The initial poll, from CNN’s panel of undecided Ohio voters, saw the Democrat Sen. Joe Biden rated as the winner 51-36. But conservatives have been crowing all weekend about the performance of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska. “She was polished, direct, folksy and on message,” said one Republican strategist. Right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin put it more succinctly with a post titled simply, “Sarah Rocks!”

“I would like to see all the Sarah doubters and detractors in the Beltway/Manhattan corridor eat their words,” Malkin wrote. “Sarah Palin is the real deal. Five weeks on the campaign trail, thrust onto the national stage, she rocked tonight’s debate.”

Certainly, Palin’s confidence took the audience by surprise. The internet messaging service Twitter offers a live stream of users’ election-related updates. Before the debate, it was, well, a-twitter with messages gleefully anticipating the meltdown of Palin in the face of Joe Biden’s experience and grasp of the issues. As the debate wore on, they grew increasingly quiet, to be replaced by crowing republicans exulting at Palin’s performance.

So who won? Perhaps the real question is: what does it mean to ‘win’ an electoral debate? After all, these events are hardly like a traditional debate on a single topic, where the aim is simply to win a majority of the audience over to your side of the argument. An electoral debate such as this is an opportunity for both candidates to show their grace under pressure, their ability as a debater, and their grasp of the facts and issues. It is, presumably, intended to provide a glimpse of how they would deal with things in office.

By this standard, the imaginary trophy clearly goes to Joe Biden. On most issues - from the war on terror to the economy - his answers, though hardly stunningly detailed, demonstrated far greater hold on the facts than Sarah Palin’s. Indeed, Palin had one fairly serious factual gaffe - referring to the US general in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan, as “General McLellan”. Biden responded directly both to moderator Gwen Ifill’s questions and to Palin’s challenges, while Palin avoided certain questions entirely, telling Ifill at one point, “I may not answer the question the way you want to hear, but I’ll talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record.”

So why are so many convinced that Palin, to use a common American metaphor, “hit it out of the park”? Partly, it’s because of the expectations game. After her disastrous interview with Katie Couric, anything better than blithering incoherence from Palin was bound to be seen as a stunning comeback. Or, as Queen Latifah told the audience in her impersonation of Ifill on this weekend’s Saturday Night Live, “due to the historically low expectations of Governor Palin, if she were to do a merely adequate job tonight - at no point cry, faint, run out of the building or vomit - you should consider the debate a tie.”

But it’s also because the aforementioned standard - the debate winner is the candidate who seems most prepared and on top of the issues - isn’t the standard by which debate winners are judged.

Elections, after all, are not fundamentally meritocratic. They’re not supposed to be won necessarily by the most competent, most experienced, most accomplished or most wise candidate. They’re not even always won by the candidate proposing the best answers to a society’s problems. The only guaranteed standard is that the winner will be the one the greatest number of people wants in the job - notwithstanding, of course, quirks of the electoral system that occasionally award victory to the candidate with fewer votes. For debates, too, the “winning” candidate is really the one who makes the most favourable impression on the public.

In my day job, I work as a legal journalist. I speak frequently to businessmen who tell me what they look for in their lawyers - what qualities convince them to spend hundreds of pounds per hour on one over another. Interestingly, they never tell me they chose a particular lawyer for their technical skill or grasp of the law. Not that it isn’t important. It’s just that, at the top level, that kind of knowledge is seen as a given: to be expected and, for a client, hard to assess. To choose between highly competent egg-heads, clients look for more intangible qualities. 24-hour availability. Keen commercial instincts. And, often decisively, a friendly, open demeanour. Given the choice between the world expert in a particular area of law, and a business-savvy, approachable advisor who merely knows it very well indeed, most will go for the latter.

Modern presidential politics is similar. Amidst all the claims and counter-claims, policy spats and questionable facts, the public doesn’t feel it can judge which candidate is most intelligent or most on top of their brief. There is a certain minimum standard for intelligence and aptitude that candidates have to meet - albeit a very low one - but once that standard is met, personalities become as important to many voters as their grasp on the issues or their brainpower. This has been true for a long time. In 1960, Richard Nixon famously bested John F. Kennedy in their debate in the minds of radio listeners, but Kennedy’s looks saw him score higher amongst TV viewers. In recent years, however, the importance of personal characteristics to political success has become more and more overt. Al Gore thought he was pummelling George W. Bush in the first 2000 debate as he offered slick answers and scoffed at Bush’s stumbling. But voters thought him arrogant and rude, and Bush saw the benefits.

Initial reviews of last week’s presidential debate handed it to McCain. But the polls quickly showed that it was Sen. Barack Obama, the Democrat, who benefited most from the occasion, which gave the still quite unknown - if extremely famous - young senator the opportunity to appear presidential under pressure before a mass audience. Republican John McCain was deemed to have turned voters off with his body language and demeanour towards Obama, particularly his lack of eye contact with his opponent, which many considered condescending. On Thursday, Biden held off from strongly attacking Palin to avoid the condescension trap. But he still seemed somewhat distant and offhand, while Palin, like Obama the week before, addressed both her opponent and the camera head-on.

More than any other candidate for national office in memory - with the possible exception of 1968 Nixon running mate Spiro Agnew - Palin has put personality front-and-centre of her campaign. Her much-vaunted convention speech was almost entirely autobiographical, and carefully calculated to appeal reinforce Palin’s credentials, not so much as a potential president, but as the representative in Washington of the American people. For all Obama’s talk of “the audacity of hope,” it’s Palin’s campaign that is truly audacious. She seeks to take the very thing which many feel makes her inappropriate for the vice-presidency - her everyday ordinariness - and make it her biggest strength.

The two candidates in Thursday’s debate, therefore, were aiming to do entirely different things. For Palin, it was essential to pass a certain minimum standard for competence and grasp of the issues; but once that was achieved, she could focus on reinforcing her populist appeal as a person. She met the first task, just about, by breathlessly reciting the talking points she had been cramming all week. She performed extremely well at the second, with a perky confidence that was remarkable, and a succession of folksy gimmicks - the wink, her remark “say it ain’t so, Joe” - that, while incensing traditionalists and some feminists, left her conservative base giddy with excitement. One conservative blogger said that Palin’s performance “sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America.”

For Biden, the goal was the reverse: to win a traditional debate victory, demonstrating his superior experience, knowledge and thoughtfulness, while passing a minimum standard of likeability by not appearing to bully or mock Palin. It’s a goal he clearly met. Biden wasn’t as loveable as Palin, but he didn’t need to be; Palin wasn’t as competent as Biden, but she didn’t have to be. Biden won the debate on the traditional measures of calm under pressure and grasp of the issues; Palin, supposedly at least, won on the modern measure of “connecting with the voters”.

I say “supposedly” because at this stage, it’s not clear how Palin’s folksy schtick really affected voters. And Biden had his own personality-led moment, towards the end of the debate, when he got choked up discussing the death of his wife and son. The results of CNN’s instant polling suggest this may have resonated with voters more than Palin’s winking.

In the end, there’s only one standard that really measures the winner of a debate - and that’s its effect on the polls. The initial signs are that, in the wake of the debate, Obama’s lead over John McCain continues to widen. That may have little to do with Thursday’s debate. But it’s worth remembering that, for vice-presidential candidates, the most important thing they can actually do for their campaign is to sell their running mate and score points on the other side’s presidential candidate. Biden’s refusal to directly attack Palin, while helping him avoid making her a figure of sympathy, also gave him plenty of time to pummel John McCain - singing his praises as a person, but slamming his positions and delivering a detailed critique of his claims to maverick status. He treated Palin like what, in the end, she is - a distraction from the question of who should be the next President. Though we’ll never know for sure the effect the debate has had on the polls, that strikes me as a victory Biden can be satisfied with.

Newsweek offers an editorial this week that addresses the issue of Palin’s qualifications in more detail and, frankly, with more coherence. Liberal hate-figure Karl Rove also offers a rebuttal.

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other content filed under: Maverick A Strike - A US Elections Blog, Politics, Posts

Hello Philly,

I am glad to be here today for this voter registration drive and for Barack Obama, the next president of the United States.

I’ve spent 35 years writing about America, its people, and the meaning of the American Promise. The Promise that was handed down to us, right here in this city from our founding fathers, with one instruction: Do your best to make these things real: opportunity, equality, social and economic justice, a fair shake for all of our citizens, the American idea, as a positive influence, around the world for a more just and peaceful existence. These are the things that give our lives hope, shape, and meaning. They are the ties that bind us together and give us faith in our contract with one another.

I’ve spent most of my creative life measuring the distance between that American promise and American reality. For many Americans, who are today losing their jobs, their homes, seeing their retirement funds disappear, who have no healthcare, or who have been abandoned in our inner cities, the distance between that promise and that reality has never been greater or more painful.

I believe Senator Obama has taken the measure of that distance in his own life and in his work. I believe he understands, in his heart, the cost of that distance, in blood and suffering, in the lives of everyday Americans. I believe as president, he would work to restore that promise to so many of our fellow citizens who have justifiably lost faith in its meaning. After the disastrous administration of the past 8 years, we need someone to lead us in an American reclamation project. In my job, I travel the world, and occasionally play big stadiums, just like Senator Obama. I’ve continued to find, wherever I go, America remains a repository of people’s hopes, possibilities, and desires, and that despite the terrible erosion to our standing around the world, accomplished by our recent administration, we remain, for many, a house of dreams. One thousand George Bushes and one thousand Dick Cheneys will never be able to tear that house down.

They will, however, be leaving office, dropping the national tragedies of Katrina, Iraq, and our financial crisis in our laps. Our sacred house of dreams has been abused, looted, and left in a terrible state of disrepair. It needs care; it needs saving, it needs defending against those who would sell it down the river for power or a quick buck. It needs strong arms, hearts, and minds. It needs someone with Senator Obama’s understanding, temperateness, deliberativeness, maturity, compassion, toughness, and faith, to help us rebuild our house once again. But most importantly, it needs us. You and me. To build that house with the generosity that is at the heart of the American spirit. A house that is truer and big enough to contain the hopes and dreams of all of our fellow citizens. That is where our future lies. We will rise or fall as a people by our ability to accomplish this task. Now I don’t know about you, but I want that dream back, I want my America back, I want my country back.

So now is the time to stand with Barack Obama and Joe Biden, roll up our sleeves, and come on up for the rising.

Bruce Springsteen, Vote For Change rally, Philadelphia, October 4

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other content filed under: Clippings, Culture & Media, Maverick A Strike - A US Elections Blog, Politics

Think of any sci-fi film you’ve ever seen with a scene where a character uses the TVs of the future. There’s always about seven mini-screens, isn’t there? Ever since the introduction of computers with multiple applications in moveable window, split-screen has been used as lazy shorthand for an information-overloaded future. It’s a lesson CNN have learned well. Its daily politics show, the absurdly-named Situation Room - hosted by the equally surreally-named Wolf Blitzer - is like a transmission from the starship Enterprise, with a vast screen showing footage from the day’s press conferences and campaign stops, along with a bizarre array of polling data and micro-analysis.

Of course, amidst the noise, all actual thought is in danger of being drowned out. Viewers of Thursday’s vice-presidential debate who watched in high-definition gained the added bonus of a bank of mini-screens at the side showing the running totals of the network’s political analysts as they recorded each candidates’ good and bad “moments” throughout the debate. Seen in aggregate at the end of the debate, the figures were almost breathtakingly meaningless. When one commentator thinks Palin had over 50 good moments, and Biden around 30, and another gives the score at 15-20, nothing is proven except that to break down complicated arguments in such way is entirely subjective.

But one of CNN’s high-tech tools of “real-time analysis” really does add something. Running under the footage were live feedback from its panel of undecided voters. Rather than voting Palin-Biden, they specified (I’m not sure how, but presumably using some sort of electronic slider or dial) they said how positively or negatively they felt about whatever was happening on screen at the time. For the first presidential debate, CNN divided the sample into three lines, for Democrats, Republicans and Independents. The results gave an interesting insight into what Independents do respond to (getting out of Iraq) and don’t (appeals to patriotism). But the real fun came with Thursday’s vice-presidential debate, where CNN divided the sample into men and women. The results are seriously fascinating. When Palin was first picked, it was seen by many as a transparent bid for female votes; but Palin’s winking on Thursday has been likened by some to a “cocktail waitress act”, calculated to turn on male voters (with, it seems, some success). So what’s the real story?

Annoyingly, CNN’s web video doesn’t show the lines, dashing my hopes for post-match analysis. But this post points up some interesting moments:

Anytime either candidate mentioned the word “nuclear” (or, in Palin’s case, “nukular”), the line for men shot upwards — literally at the very moment the word was uttered, like some kind of magic button was pressed in their brains…

Whenever Sarah Palin spoke about her track record and accomplishments in Alaska, both of the plot lines were flat. Apparently nobody gives a shit about her accomplishments in Alaska…

When Palin spoke of representing “regular Joe Six Pack” Americans, the meters did go up…

When the critical question was asked (one of Ifil’s only really good questions, I think) about how the candidates would handle ascending to the Oval Office if the President were to die, Palin’s chart was nearly flatline…

When Biden went on the offensive against Palin, the numbers did not respond. Fortunately for him he rarely attacked Palin in the debate. Pundits on both sides criticized him for being too gentle, but the numbers, both on the graph and in the post-debate polls, speak for themselves.

Palin’s winking and cute you betchas and goshdarnits didn’t work, either. When she said she wasn’t going to answer the moderator’s questions, and when she joked that she was new to this campaign and hadn’t made many promises, both meter lines dropped. People may like her and may even strongly agree with some of her positions, but they don’t like Palin not taking things deadly seriously.

Graphing the Debates - graphpaper.com

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other content filed under: Maverick A Strike - A US Elections Blog, Politics, Posts

A small boy asleep on his right side, the right arm stuck out, the right hand hanging limp over the edge of the bed. Through a round grating in the side of a box a voice speaks softly.

“The Nile is the longest river in Africa and the second in length of all the rivers of the globe. Although falling short of the length of the Mississippi-Missouri, the Nile is at the head of all rivers as regards the length of its basin, which extends through 35 degrees of latitude …”

At breakfast the next morning, “Tommy,” some one says, “do you know which is the longest river in Africa?” A shaking of the head. “But don’t you remember something that begins: The Nile is the …”

“The - Nile - is - the - longest - river - in - Africa - and - the - second - in - length - of - all - the - rivers - of - the - globe …” The words come rushing out. “Although - falling - short - of …”

“Well now, which is the longest river in Africa?”

The eyes are blank. “I don’t know.”

“But the Nile, Tommy.”

“The - Nile - is - the - longest - river - in - Africa - and - second …”

“Then which river is the longest, Tommy?”

Tommy burst into tears. “I don’t know,” he howls.

-Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other content filed under: Maverick A Strike - A US Elections Blog, Politics, Posts

Obamalies offers:

RTW Obama, what people are not allowed to know!!! http://tinyurl.com/3g57fb << The Truth Finally Comes Out - Video Proof! OMG!!!!!!!!!

(The link leads to an old video of cobbled-together coincidences, fury over Jeremiah Wright, and insinuations about Obama’s middle name)

If Biden isn’t drunk tonight I will be shocked! http://twurl.nl/3b2xd0 enjoy! pass it on!! LOL

(This one’s a possible gaffe by Joe Biden about the 1929 stock market crash, with no apparent slurring of speech)

@ursulas looks like your avatar is praying….you are going to need more than an avatar praying for you if you support abortionists

Katie Couric is a skidmark on the panties of CBS. She will be gone before her contract ends. Spineless Liberals can wait

Sarah4Prez, though slightly saner, has a lawyers’ knack for getting it technically right, but meaningfully so, so wrong:

Palin is the only candidate that has run anything larger than a debating society

We still have not seen Obama’s “original” birth certificate.

I wonder if Obama always threw is cigarette butts into a proper receptacle instead of on the ground as most liberal “green” smokers do.

If you examine his family tree, you will see he isn’t African American, though he has never mentioned this…more like Arab-American

“Obama Socialist” returns 3.2 million Google hits. Link #2 is Hillary saying he is.

Palin can’t remember a magazine, but at least she can read. The liberal run school system has a 50% dropout rate in many cities. Dems fault.

Save the Polar Bear, don’t kill terrorists, but go ahead and kill babies still breathing amniotic fluid….

etc etc

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other content filed under: Clippings, Maverick A Strike - A US Elections Blog, Politics

To this?

This woman - clearly not entirely stupid - has been destroyed, flattened by a crushing collapse in confidence. This insightful post argues that the McCain campaign’s determination to keep her away from the media has done more harm than good.

She has six days to bounce back and, frankly, I don’t see how she can. All the evidence suggests that those who said after the convention that a winning speech to a friendly crowd does not a capable politican make were dead right.

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other content filed under: Clippings, Maverick A Strike - A US Elections Blog, Politics

The lesson? The surge has not, as expected, neutralised Obama’s gains on having opposed the war. He can keep using having opposed the war, in mainstream arenas, and score real points on judgment. This is big news.

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other content filed under: !Media, Clippings, Culture & Media, Maverick A Strike - A US Elections Blog, Politics

CNN: On the topic of never letting this [9/11] happen again, do you agree with the way the Bush administration has handled the war on terrorism, is there anything you would do differently?

A: I agree with the Bush administration that we take the fight to them. We never again let them come onto our soil and try to destroy not only our democracy, but communities like the community of New York. Never again. So yes, I do agree with taking the fight to the terrorists and stopping them over there.

POLITICO: Do you think our presence in Iraq and afghan and our continued presence there is inflaming islamic extremists?

A: I think our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan will lead to further security of our nation, again, because the mission is to take the fight over there. do not let them come over here and attempt again what they accomplished here, and that was some destruction. terrible destruction on that day. but since September 11, Americans uniting and rebuilding and committing to never letting that happen again.

- CNN.com - Sarah Palin’s first press meet

Now, look, who Americans elect is none of my business, and I understand that it’s possible to be intelligent without being articulate. But… really.

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other content filed under: Clippings, Politics, Posts

Vintage political Americana with a handsome blond host. What’s! Not! To! Like!

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other content filed under: Clippings, Maverick A Strike - A US Elections Blog, Politics

The truth is, it’s not ridiculous to prefer a less capable candidate who you feel gets you, to a more capable one you fear doesn’t. For people who don’t have time to read up on every candidate’s economic plan, or discuss in detail the success or otherwise of the surge, a candidate’s character has to matter. Obama has to swing it back to policy, because he won’t win on character. But he also has to acknowledge that people’s concerns about character are natural and legitimate, and pass a kind of minimum standard of honesty and humility, before policies can become the focus.

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other content filed under: Maverick A Strike - A US Elections Blog, Politics, Quick thoughts

This is the first time I’ve realised just how dangerous going negative could be for Obama. Thanks to - conspiracy alert - McCain-Feingold, this and all other Obama ads have to have his specific approval message on. There’s no way to run a Biden-fronted anti-McCain TV campaign that Obama can distance himself from. So every attack has to be balanced against the risk of losing the sheen of bipartisanship that has made Obama attractive so far - especially risky given that McCain has now set out so hard for that same ground.

Obama has to stick to the same strategy he pursued with his convention speech - stay broadly positive and put some meat on the bones. We need details, and more details. That promise of tax cuts for 95% of Americans needs to be repeated, and trumpeted, and sung from the hills till everyone is sick of it. Those details - those specific promises - are the only thing that can keep this campaign from sliding right into a 2004-style gutter of character assasination. And if it comes down to character, Obama will lose. Sorry, he will. If Americans go into that booth and choose the person who, deep down, they just feel they trust more, like more, or would rather have a beer with - it will be McCain who comes out on top. War hero trumps inspiring black guy. It just does.

It’s ironic, given the characterisation of Obama’s victory over Clinton as being one of style over substance, that policy - and particularly economic policy - is actually Obama’s big advantage. He’s not playing it enough.

UPDATE: Andrea Tantaros agrees with me, sort of

UPDATE 2: Sullivan puts it more succinctly:

Obama must maintain the high road. He must keep insisting that the McCain-Palin camp has no new policies to offer on the most critical issues we face, especially in foreign policy. And he must carefully and relentlessly explain what he intends to do. If he does that and refuses to take the bait, he will win. If he descends into the foul sewer where McCain now resides, he will lose.

Karl McCain knows one thing: how to smear, lie, disorient, distract, and intimidate. You can’t beat these thugs and liars at their own game. Beat them at the task of government. They are unfit for it. Obama is not.

UPDATE 3: Joe Biden kind of gets it (he also follow’s Sullivan’s earlier advice to ignore Palin). But will Obama follow this line?

Permalink | No comments yet | Print this post

Email this | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share this on Facebook
See other content filed under: