Hillary's McGovern Problem

Robert Novak:

Strategists for Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign believe it is imperative to identify her high-flying opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, with the "McGovern wing" of the Democratic Party -- but they want to keep their candidate's fingerprints off the attack.

During the two weeks remaining before the important Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4, Clinton insiders want to spread the message that Obama represents the radical left-wing politics of George McGovern's 1972 candidacy, which won only one state. But they don't know how to accomplish this. When Clinton herself has launched past attacks on Obama, it has hurt her with voters.

The Clinton campaign is confident of winning in Texas because of the state's Hispanic vote. But it sees the need in Ohio to identify Obama as a leftist in the eyes of lower-income white voters, who often have supported Republican candidates against Democratic opponents they consider too liberal.

Behold Obama, He Makes All Things New

Two pieces on the incipient messianism of the Obama campaign.   Charles Krauthammer critiques Obama's confusion of politics for salvation. 

This kind of sale is hardly new. Organized religion has been offering a similar commodity -- salvation -- for millennia. Which is why the Obama campaign has the feel of a religious revival with, as writer James Wolcott observed, a "salvational fervor" and "idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria."

"We are the hope of the future," sayeth Obama. We can "remake this world as it should be." Believe in me and I shall redeem not just you but your country -- nay, we can become "a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, and make this time different than all the rest."

Patrick Deneen agrees with Krauthammer, but theologically raises him.  Obama, writes Deneen, is participating in some very old fashioned Christian heresies:

I don't need to consult with my Catechism to detect several heresies here, among them Pelagianism (belief in the human capacity to achieve our own salvation) and Montanism (ecstatic prophecy). Krauthammer's misgivings are well placed and should generate more widespread suspicion and concern.

So the response to Obama, Deneen argues, is not from outside organized religion, as Krauthammer intimates, but from within orthodox Christianity.  Note the discussion of hope.

[The greatest critique of Obama is founded in] orthodox belief, particularly the main Christian tradition firmly established by Augustine during the early Church. Insisting upon the distinction between the City of God where the heart can rest and salvation lies, and the City of Man, which is inescapably marked by the stain of Original Sin and the inexpungable human lust for dominion ("libido dominandi"), Augustine chided heretical contemporaries against the belief in perfectibility in this world, cautioned against the belief that salvation lie in our power to achieve, and urged upon his contemporaries a realism and humility regarding what is possible in the realm of politics. Most importantly, Augustinian realism clarifies the distinction between "hope" and "optimism," the former which is closely aligned to humility and modest expectations for what is possible in the saeculum, the latter which inclines toward over-confidence in the human power of transformation and perfection. Hope resists ideology and overinvesting in the prospect of political transformation; optimism either results in ideology resistant to the hard data of reality with attendant abuses by political elites, and ultimately elicits in optimism's close kin, disappointment, cynicism and despair.

That Augustine was one audacious dude.

Read the entirety of Deneen's piece for his intellectual connection of Barack Obama to the Progressive heroes John Dewey and Herbert Croly.  For more on what the Progressives believed, see this old post.

McCain-Rice For President

No, this isn't an endorsement, it's a moment of not so wild speculation.  My Keloland colleagues Jon Schaff and Todd Epp have been vetting John Thune for McCain's running mate.  I have a better idea, and I wish I could say that I thought of it first.  But in fact it was Nicholas Von Hoffman, writing in The Nation of all places, who suggests Condoleezza Rice.  And he shudders as he suggests it. 

Besides being the greatest two-for in GOP history, Rice brings other huge pluses to the decorated Vietnam hero. Indeed, she may be enough to elect the venerable hero/naval aviator.

McCain's troubles with the religious wing of his party could well evaporate with the churchgoing Rice at his side. She solidifies that part of his base overnight.

With Rice on the ticket, the GOP would have somebody to get enthusiastic about. The Secretary of State is immensely popular with Republicans. For a party that up to now has been clueless about how to run against either a woman or a person of color, Condoleezza Rice is pure political gold.

Woe to any Democrat who thinks taking her on in a debate is a sure thing. The woman is tough, fast on her feet and able to give better than she gets. Anyone who has seen her in action testifying in front of a hostile House or Senate committee knows that she will be able to wipe up the floor with a plodding, ordinary pol of a Democratic vice-presidential candidate. Take Rice lightly at your peril.

Now if Todd Epp can have a man crush on Barack Obama, I can have a crush on Condi Rice.  I admit that I have long admired her, if I have not always agreed with her.  Von Hoffman stresses that Rice would make it much easier for McCain to attack the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, without fear of offending political correctness.  I would add something else.

Rice will hardly split the Black vote, especially if Obama is the nominee.  Black voters are suspicious of anyone in a Republican administration.  If you don't believe me, ask Clarence Thomas.  It looks to them like selling out.  But she will appeal to White voters who want to vote for a Black candidate. She may be particularly attractive to non-Black women.  Moreover, Rice has already been the target of the campaign of vilification, and I suspect that the quiver is pretty much exhausted.  Some of that was openly racist.  I produce the following evidence:

That kind of mischief is, as Von Hoffman says, pure gold for the Republicans. 

Of course Rice will make the ticket top-heavy with respect to foreign policy, and she carries a lot of baggage for voters who are mad about the Iraq war.  But with the war going remarkably well at the moment, that may not be a big liability.  Moreover, voters are not likely to forget that there is a world beyond our borders, even if the entire Democratic Party has forgotten that.  McCain-Rice would have a lot of work to do to convince Americans that they can handle the domestic economy.  Still, this ticket is a very interesting idea. 

It would be funny if President McCain one day admits that he got the idea from Von Hoffman.  It would be even funnier if he says he got it from South Dakota Politics. 

Barack Obama: Change Or The Same?

It has been standard issue now to criticize Barack Obama for being all style, no substance.  Upon examination, though, Obama has a distinct world view open to criticism.  Obama has many virtues, namely his passion and rhetorical gifts.  But what else is there?  Let's look.

Obama is the most pro-abortion major party candidate in American history.  See here and here.  Obama not only takes the conventional pro-choice position, he also opposes parental notification bills, the partial birth abortion ban, and as a state senator in Illinois he refused to support a bill to grant legal protection to babies who survive abortion. 

Obama has surrounded himself with pro-Palestinian foreign policy advisers who tend to see Israel as the cause of unrest in that region rather than Palestinian terrorism.  Also on foreign policy, Obama recently was one of 29 Democrats to vote against granting immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperate with our intelligence agencies in counter-terrorism efforts.  The New Republic's Leon Wieseltier (ht Joe K)has grave doubts about Obama's seemingly naive view of international politics:

What is the role of a conciliator in an unconciliating world? You might think that in such conditions he is even more of an historical necessity-but why would you think that all that stands between the world and peace is one man? George W. Bush was not single-handedly responsible for getting us into our strategic mess and Barack Obama will not be single-handedly responsible for getting us out of it. There are autonomous countries and cultures out there. The turbulence that I have described is not caused by misunderstandings. It is caused by the interests of powers and the beliefs of peoples. Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, Pyongyang, Islamabad, Gaza City, Khartoum, Caracas-does Obama really believe that he has something to propose to these ruthless regimes that they have not already considered?

Even rhetorically, is Obama the candidate of change?  Witness the Journal's Daniel Henninger (another ht to Joe K):

Listen closely to that Tuesday night Wisconsin speech. Unhinge yourself from the mesmerizing voice. What one hears is a message that is largely negative, illustrated with anecdotes of unremitting bleakness. Heavy with class warfare, it is a speech that could have been delivered by a Democrat in 1968, or even 1928. (snip)

Unease about the economy is real, but Sen. Obama is selling more than that. He is selling deep grievance over the structure of American society. That's the same message as John Edwards, or Dennis Kucinich for that matter. Hillary Clinton's mistake may have been to think this is 2008, not 1938, with the solution lying in leveraging votes in a Democratic Congress. Instead of Hillary's wonkish geniuses, Barack is selling the revolution -- change "from the bottom up."

When one looks at Obama's policy proposals on the economy, education, and health care, what one sees is that Obama believes that more government programs, which means more government spending, is the answer.  For example, on education Obama believes that the problems in American education stem from lack of spending on the part of the federal government, even though the Department of Education's discretionary budget has increased 40% under George W. Bush and total American spending per pupil as more than doubled since the mid-sixties (see table, which I found here, and which is in constant dollars).

What we can say about Obama, the candidate of change, is that there is little he believes in that is not believed by, say, Ted Kennedy or Barbara Mikulski, just to name two politicians who would not usually be considered agents of change.  Obama is a consistent and conventional man of the left whose promise for the future is larger government, higher taxes, and a Carteresque foreign policy.   

 

A Correction on the History of SDP

From intrepid reader and former student, Steve:

I happen to know Jason Van Beek, the creator of the blog you now post on, and it was not created as an instrument of the Thune campaign.  I went to law school with Mr. Van Beek, and it is my understanding that Jason created SDP while in law school to voice his thoughts on politics in general and his frustration over the Argus Leader and Dave Kranz in particular.  Yes Jason is currently a staffer with Sen. Thune, but his blog was not created as an instrument for the good senator.  I do not dispute that under the leadership of Jon Lauck the site became more or less a tool for the campaign, but I believe your comment in your recent SPD post needs to be revised slightly.

Right.  I knew that.  Actually, I did, I just wasn't thinking about it very hard. 

Coal Fuel Power Plant Chooses Selby

From the American News:

A Walworth County site is the location a North Dakota company would prefer to build a $2 billion coal-fueled power plant.

Basin Electric hopes to have its so-called NextGen plant operational by 2014. Tentative plans call for it to produce about 700 megawatts of power. However, it's not yet certain that the plant will be built.

Floyd Robb, a Basin Electric spokesman, said the plant would serve Basin Electric's expected increase in demand. But, he said, several factors will determine whether it will be built. They include economics, transmission concerns and regulatory uncertainty.

This is the kind of economic activity that keeps rural American alive.  Let's hope Basin Electric makes a final commitment to Walworth County, and soon.

Update: John Thune comments:

“This is great news for Walworth County and an economic development home run for South Dakota. This facility will create new jobs and generate economic development, and promises a bright future for north central South Dakota. I congratulate the people of Selby, Mobridge, and the surrounding communities for all their hard work in advocating for the Walworth County location. On several occasions over the past months, I have personally met with Basin's leadership and staff and have encouraged them to select South Dakota for this exciting project, and I look forward to continuing to work with all stakeholders as this opportunity becomes a reality.”

CU Politics

An effort to remedy the University of Colorado's financial problems is generating a backlash by those who don't want change.  The state has proposed making Bruce Benson, a Colorado oilman and Republican (the horror!) who only has a paltry BA degree (gasp!) head of the University of Colorado system (note this quote from State House Majority Leader Alice Madden, a Democrat and CU law school graduate, who declared Benson would be "the least educated president ever considered in modern history.")  Most of the reaction against Benson is because his politics differs from the majority of the faculty, but the opposition is centering on his lack of an advanced degree.  I have it on good authority that CU's PhD program (in History, anyways) is on the verge of collapse due to funding restrictions.  Seems to me the university should worry more about its financial conditions than the politics of Mr. Benson.  Hat tip to Prof. Reynolds.

On Hillary Clinton & The Moment

My pal Anna at Dakota Women responds to my recent post as follows:

"Nearly everyone" thinks the Clintons as a pair are sleazy? Clearly that's not the case, since Hillary Clinton has garnered about half of the Democratic primary vote so far this year, and is, in particular, wildly popular among some groups of Democratic voters (so far, apparently, older white women, lower income voters, Latinos, and Asians). It seems that Ken is actually suggesting that Bill Clinton is 'sleazy,' which might be an easier sell, but still doesn't explain why people shouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton. Who, p.s., is the person actually running for elected office.

Anna commits a small sin against logic.  Thinking that the Clintons are sleazy, and voting for one or the other, are not mutually exclusive categories.  Surely a lot of people voted for Clinton in 96 knowing full well what he was.  And surely Bill's sleazy character is not a matter for dispute.  If you look up sleaze in the dictionary, you will see his picture.  Nor does it help to point out that it is Hillary running for office.  The Clintons have always offered themselves as a package, and Senator Clinton has used her husband as a powerful if ultimately unfortunate campaign instrument.  She has to take responsibility for for all the persons officially campaigning on her behalf.  It is clear that the Clinton campaign has cynically tried to use the race card to defeat Obama, and they are still using it. That is political sleaze on the highest shelf.

It is very questionable whether Senator Clinton ever was "wildly popular" among any groups.  It is certainly true that the Clintons once enjoyed strong support from the African American community.  That they have forfeited forever.  In the contests over the last week, Clinton was hardly getting "half of the primary vote."  Obama is crushing her two to one in almost all of these contests.  Moreover, he seems to be cutting deeply into all those constituencies that Anna mentions.  In Virginia, I believe, she won only the White women voters. 

Anna goes on:

Ken, if John McCain is the better candidate for president, which is what you seem to think, why not make a case for him? On the front page of South Dakota Politics, I see about half a dozen posts on the Clintons, four or five on Obama, and really nothing other than reporting on election results for the Republican candidate. Why is that?

Anna: I have posted something in support of John McCain, directed at conservatives who resist him when it is clear that he is the only viable prospect.  But now, with McCain apparently about to wrap up the nomination, it is not the time to make the case for him.  That is assuming that I ever chose to do so.  SDP was once a partisan blog in the simple sense: it was created as an instrument of the Thune campaign for senate.  It is still, to be sure, a moderately conservative and Republican-leaning blog site.  But we who run the blog today are more interested in callin'em like we sees'em, and seein'em like they is, than in trying to tell people who to vote for.  And just right now, the Democratic race is the more interesting subject to comment on. 

You accuse me, Anna, of some measure of glee over Ms. Clinton's troubles.  I confessed.  But you are surely subject to the corresponding dismay over the apparent collapse of the first woman to have a realistic shot at the White House.  I do not say this as an accusation.  It is perfectly reasonable.  But both of us will have to make do with things as they are. 

I have noted more than once that Hilliary Clinton did a lot of the good hard work that earned her a shot at history.  But she attached herself early to a very flawed man, and the truth is that she has ridden his success all the way to the present.  She would not be Senator from New York, let alone presidential contender, without his presidency.  As I showed in my recent post, she herself just doesn't seem to have the character and genius that Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama or John McCain have demonstrated. I have no doubt that a woman who does have such qualities will one day win the Oval Office.  But it might not be this year. 

McCain: Conservative Enough?

This Ross Douthat piece in the NTY makes a sober point: some conservatives are making the same mistakes parts of the left used to make, namely holding their candidates to a level of purity that even differences on relatively small issues represent deal breakers. 

Republican primary voters who turned to Mr. Limbaugh for their marching orders were asked to believe that Mr. McCain’s consistently hawkish record — on Iraq, Iran, the size of the military and any other issue you care to name — mattered less to his standing as a conservative than his views on waterboarding. Or that his extensive record as a free-trader, a tax-cutter and an opponent of pork-barrel spending wasn’t sufficient to qualify him as an economic conservative, because he had opposed a particular set of upper-bracket tax cuts in 2001.

Similarly, religious conservatives who listened to James Dobson were asked to believe that Mr. McCain’s consistent pro-life voting record was less important than the impact his campaign-finance bill had on the National Right to Life Committee’s ability to purchase issue ads on television 60 days before an election. Or that his consistent support for conservative judicial nominees, and his pledge to appoint Supreme Court justices in the mold of John Roberts and Sam Alito, mattered less than his involvement in the “Gang of 14” compromise on judicial filibusters.

McCain is clearly no conservative ideologue, and this is why he deviates rhetorically from conservatives from time to time and why his voting record also sometimes deviates.  But on the whole McCain's voting record indicates that he is basically a man of conservative instincts.  One should not concentrate on minor differences in an attempt to prove too much.  Douthat's foreign policy example is prescient.  Does anyone really think that John McCain is soft on terrorism or is essentially a dove because he is upset about waterboarding, a technique our government has used exactly three times?  Anyone who really believes that is just fooling themselves. 

McCain's ACU record bears this out.   McCain over his career has supported the American Conservative Union position 82% of the time.  That's pretty good, I'd think; certainly far from the "liberal in sheep's clothing" some make him out to be.  But, some argue, look at his latest rating that has him only voting conservative 65% of the time.  See, they say, he is getting more liberal (or less conservative) as he gets older.  But if one looks at the actual votes used to tally the score, most of McCain's deviance from orthodoxy pertain to one issue: immigration.  Granted, immigration is a major issue, but if deviation on one issue makes one an apostate, then most conservatives are apostates on something.  One could also note that McCain's pro-immigration position is similar to that of the conservative paper of record, The Wall Street Journal. 

To be sure McCain probably has been less reliably conservative in recent years.  But it is easy to overreact and paint McCain as something he is not.  Oddly, many conservatives seemed ready to embrace Mitt Romney as one of their own even though a few short years ago Romney agreed with them on virtually nothing.  John McCain basically adopts conservative policy positions even if his soul is not ideologically conservative.

Update: For an honest explanation of McCain's ideals, see his victory speech from last night. 

Hezbollah Leader Mughniyeh Killed

One of the planners of the 1983 bombings in Beirut that killed 241 Marines and another 63 people at the U.S. embassy in Lebanon has been killed by an explosion.  Imad Mughniyeh, a Hezbollah leader who was listed on the FBI's Most Wanted list, also took part in the 1985 TWA hijacking that resulted in the death of Navy diver Robert Stethem.  Excerpt:

A senior Hezbollah commander implicated in some of the most high-profile international terrorist attacks of the last 25 years has died in an explosion in Syria, Hezbollah TV said Wednesday.

Imad Mughniyeh was suspected by Western intelligence agencies in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, which killed 63 people, as well as the truck bombing that year of the U.S. Marine barracks there, an attack that killed 241 people and preceded the U.S. military withdrawal from Lebanon, according to a CNN report from 2001.

The FBI listed Mughniyeh as one of its "Most Wanted Terrorists," blaming him for his role in the June 14, 1985, hijacking of TWA 847, a terrorist episode that captivated television viewers in the United States and around the world for more than two weeks.

Hijackers seized the plane as it traveled from Athens, Greece, to Rome, Italy, and forced it to land at the airport in Beirut, starting a 17-day ordeal during which a U.S. Navy diver, Robert Dean Stethem, was shot and killed.

Hezbollah has blamed Israel for the bombing, which they deny.  They would have good reason to go after him since he was behind the attacks on Israel's Argentina embassy and a Jewish center in Buenos Aries that killed 100 people.  He was also implicated in Hezbollah's kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers in 2006, leading to Israel's incursion into Lebanon.  However, car bombings aren't exactly how Israel handles things.  There's a possibility Syria's military might be behind it, but I don't believe Damascus would risk alienating Hezbollah.  Nor would they want to anger Iran, where Hezbollah originates and backs their terrorist activities.  Though, it's hard to say.  Mughniyeh had enough enemies that anyone could've supported the attack.  Andrew Exum has further thoughts.  Philip Jacobson says Mossad was behind it.  More here.  Also note this:

"Bin Laden is a schoolboy in comparison with Mughniyeh," says an Israeli who knows Mughniyeh . "The guy is a genius, someone who refined the art of terrorism to its utmost level. We studied him and reached the conclusion that he is a clinical psychopath motivated by uncontrollable psychological reasons, which we have given up trying to understand. The killing of his two brothers by the Americans only inflamed his strong motivation."

Those that live through terrorism can expect their enemies to strike back.  Good riddance, and lets hope the rest of Hezbollah goes the same way. 

Progress in Iraq

The Iraqi National Assembly passed more important reform legislation today that addresses concerns some American politicians had with progress.  The legislation authorized provincial elections and limited amnesty for Sunni detainees in Iraqi custody.  Provincial elections will be held on October 1st and give more authority to the provinces, allowing more local control over resources and investment.  Coupled with the de-Baathification reform law passed one month ago, this legislation demonstrates the continuing progress being made in Iraq:

Iraq's parliament on Wednesday passed three key pieces of legislation that set a date for provincial elections, allot $48 billion for 2008 spending, and provide limited amnesty to detainees in Iraqi custody.

The three measures were bundled together for one vote to satisfy the demands of minority Kurds who feared they might be double-crossed on their stand that the budget allot 17 percent to their semiautonomous regional government in the north.

The vote came a day after the Sunni speaker of the fragmented parliament, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, threatened to disband the legislature, saying it was so riddled with distrust it appeared unable to adopt legislation.

Following the session, which capped weeks of wrangling over the budget and other issues, the parliament began a five-week holiday.

The draft law on provincial elections, which includes a detailed outline on devolving power to the provinces, initially had said voting would begin Oct. 1. Other details on that law and the amnesty were not immediately known.

Inside the Clinton Campaign

If you want to understand how Hilliary Clinton went from "l'etat c'est moi" to "I could'a been a contender," in about two weeks time, you need to read  Joshua Green's inside account of the Clinton organization in The Atlantic Online.  You also need to know that the author's reporting is part of the story he reports.  First for the content:

For the many people in and around Washington who obsess over the latest machinations in Hillaryland, the firing of Solis Doyle—and she was fired, several insiders confirm—is a big deal, but for reasons somewhat different from what the media coverage has suggested. Her title of “campaign manager” implies a loftier role than the one she actually played. She is the furthest thing from a Rove-like strategic genius (Mark Penn inhabits that role for Hillary), so her leaving doesn’t signify an impending change of strategy, as some reports seem to assume. Rather, Solis Doyle, who began as Clinton’s personal scheduler in 1991 (and who, as it happens, coined the term “Hillaryland”) was Clinton’s alter ego and was installed in the job specifically for that reason.

In other words Clinton had, as campaign manager, a woman who had no competence at that job.  She was there specifically because she was a perfect reflection of her boss's will and personality. 

I’ve always felt that the most revealing thing about Solis Doyle is her oft-repeated line: “When I’m speaking, Hillary is speaking.” It is revealing both because it is true and because it conveys—and even flaunts—an arrogance that I think is the key to understanding all that has gone wrong for the Clinton campaign. Such arrogance led directly to the idea that Clinton could simply project an air of inevitability and be assured her party’s nomination.

You can afford to conceal your real campaign staff behind an incompetent but a creature of your own devising if, and only if, you are holding a winning hand.  For a long time that looked to be true of the Clinton campaign, and that is why Green's reporting received little attention. But not so little that the Clinton's  were not moved to suppress it.  As The Politico reports:

Early this summer, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign for president learned that the men’s magazine GQ was working on a story the campaign was sure to hate: an account of infighting in Hillaryland.

So Clinton’s aides pulled a page from the book of Hollywood publicists and offered GQ a stark choice: Kill the piece, or lose access to planned celebrity coverboy Bill Clinton.

This is pure Clintonism: instead of resolving the growing tensions within the campaign, spike the article revealing those tensions.  GQ went along, which I think was very bad for the Clintons.  If the disarray in her campaign had become public much earlier, she might have corrected it in time to do some good. 

But the real error of the Clinton campaign is one she shared with Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani: a failure to appreciate that, in the current techno-political environment, waiting can be fatal. The moment of crisis was back in 2006. 

Instead of launching her presidential campaign, even informally, Clinton and Solis Doyle insisted that no one so much as mention the possibility of a White House bid until after she’d been reelected to the Senate—a move insiders now concede was a serious tactical flaw that allowed Barack Obama’s campaign to take off unchallenged. The error wasn’t simply letting Obama get a head start in raising money. It was failing to realize that the world of political fund-raising had changed dramatically since Bill Clinton had last run for president, in a way that put a premium on different kinds of fund-raisers than the ones to which the Clintons had ties.

Perhaps the bigger problem than fund raising, it would turn out, was fund spending.  Here is how Senator Clinton's re-election bid went:

Here, too, Solis Doyle was disastrous; her lack of skill in areas other than playing the loyal heavy began to show. The first public sign of this came just after Clinton’s reelection to the Senate. Even though Clinton had faced no serious opponent, it turned out that Solis Doyle, as campaign manager, had burned through more than $30 million.

It didn't get better over the course of the campaign. 

[D]espite her late start, Clinton did not lag on the money front: she has raised $175 million since winning her Senate seat in 2000, which should have been enough to fund a formidable campaign... That the money was so obviously mismanaged and Clinton was essentially left helpless to compete in last weekend’s primaries and caucuses is the reason Solis Doyle ultimately had to go. The problem, as before, was mismanagement—only this time against a worthy enough opponent that the cost was obvious to everyone.

The Clinton campaign is now in full tilt crisis.  Yesterday, as he was racking up Virginia, Maryland, and Washington DC by large margins, Senator Obama was not in any of those states.  He didn't need to be.  He was in Wisconsin, which votes next Tuesday.  Ms. Clinton wasn't on the Potomac either.  It wouldn't have done her any good.  But neither was she in Wisconsin.  She was in Texas.  It may do her campaign some good to remember the heroism of the Alamo.  It would also do to remember that the defenders of the Alamo all died. 

Lincoln: Moral Teacher

Today is Abraham Lincoln's 199th birthday.  A word in his honor is required.  There is much one can speak of in honoring Lincoln.  His prudent and moderate statesmanship.  His steady hand at the rudder during civil war.  The poetry of his political rhetoric.  But let's focus on one of Lincoln's political teachings: his stirring defense of natural right. 

Lincoln believed something that is not in vogue in our day, namely that there is a law built into nature to which our lives, specifically our political lives, must conform if we are to achieve justice.  While it is true that complete justice is unlikely to be found in this world (this is Lincoln's moderation), nature holds up to us a standard by which we can judge reality.  Defending this standard makes the statesman's task a moral enterprise.  While recognizing the practical limits of popular opinion, the statesman must constantly work to keep before the public this moral principle of natural right. 

Deriving the relevant political content of natural right from the Declaration of Independence, Lincoln argued passionately yet with devastating reasonableness against slavery and the arguments in defense of it brought forth by its apologists.  Yet Lincoln was most concerned not with the "positive good" arguments of the Southern "fire eaters," but with the "don't care" policy of Stephan Douglas of Illinois. Lincoln instinctively knew that the "positive good" argument was so obviously an offense against American principles that its danger to the American conscience was limited.  But Douglas's "don't care" approach that treated slavery as a matter of indifference corrupted the nation's soul by asking the people to turn politics from an exercise in morality to a simple matter of power.  By this corrupt way of thinking, a thing becomes good because the people will it to be so.  There is, then, no standard of justice other than self-interest, and if I can prove a thing is in my self-interest I have proven it good. But, Lincoln argued, slavery is an offense against nature even if people say it is not.  Slavery is not a good thing simply because some claim it is a good thing, nor is an indifferent thing because some people say it is an indifferent thing.  Lincoln continued to call slavery what it is, an evil to be ended, even if he realized the practical limits of seeking its immediate end. 

Take a look at a passage from the last Lincoln-Douglas debate, October 16, 1858 in Alton, IL. Here Lincoln argues that there is indeed a right and a wrong, discernible in nature.   To teach indifference to natural right is to corrupt the people by teaching them not to care about that very thing they should care about most as a political people. Natural right sets up a standard beyond individual choice. 

And if there be among you any body who supposes that he, as a Democrat can consider himself "as much opposed to slavery as anybody," I would like to reason with him. You never treat it as a wrong. What other thing that you consider as a wrong, do you deal with as you deal with that? Perhaps you say it is wrong, but your leader never does, and you quarrel with any body who says it is wrong. Although you pretend to say so yourself you can find no fit place to deal with it as a wrong. You must not say any thing about it in the free States, because it is not here. You must not say any thing about it in the slave States, because it is there. You must not say any thing about it in the pulpit, because that is religion and has nothing to do with it. You must not say any thing about it in politics, because that will disturb the security of "my place." There is no place to talk about it as being a wrong, although you say yourself it is a wrong.
[snip]
Try it by some of Judge Douglas's arguments. He says he "don't care whether it is voted up or voted down" in the Territories. I do not care myself in dealing with that expression, whether it is intended to be expressive of his individual sentiments on the subject, or only of the national policy he desires to have established. It is alike valuable for my purpose. Any man can say that who does not see any thing wrong in slavery, but no man can logically say it who does see a wrong in it; because no man can logically say he don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. He may say he don't care whether an indifferent thing is voted up or down, but he must logically have a choice between a right thing and a wrong thing.

Obama v. McCain

McCain won all three contests tonight (DC, Maryland, and Virginia) by respectable margins.  The last was most important, as it is crucial state for Republicans, and it is one of those Southern states where Huckabee seemed to have all his strength.  It is now all but impossible for Huckabee to win.  I expect McCain will be treated as the nominee apparent from here out.

Obama was expected to win all three, and he did.  But the margins were awesome.  DC is no surprise, but almost two to one in Virginia and Maryland, that's a blowout.  Given the process on the Democratic side, she can still win mathematically.  The momentum looks to be all on the other side though, and Wisconsin, next week, looks crucial.  It is not until March 4 that she gets a crack at Texas and Ohio, states where she was once expected to do well. 

Tonight's Big Winner

Best in show:

SDP Jazz Note: Herbie Hancock Takes the Grammy!

I have resolutely ignored the Grammy since Joan Osborne's masterful Relish lost to that dreadful jagged little what's her name.  This year I was compelled to pay attention because Joe Lovano and Hank Jones were up for best Jazz Instrumental Album (Kids), and I saw Lovano play in Sioux Falls.  Kids is a beautiful series of duets, and it would have been a very respectable winner.  But I didn't expect it to win. 

I thought the winner of Best Jazz Instrumental Album would be Michael Brecker's Pilgrimage, and I was right.  Brecker, a major tenor player for decades, died of leukemia before the CD was finished.  It featured contemporary giants Brad Mehldau and Herbie Hancock on piano, and guitarist Pat Metheny. It is a little too fusionesque for my tastes, but it surely had the sympathy vote.

Herbie Hancock's River: The Joni Letters not only won Best Jazz Album, but Album of the Year. I can hardly say I'm disappointed.  It's been about forty years since a jazz recording has won that prize.  In retrospect, one can say that River was designed to win a Grammy. The title is a little precious, but it does well-deserved honor to Joni Mitchel, who was both a pop icon and a fine jazz singer.   It has an all-star cast, including Norah Jones, Tina Turner, Corinne Bailey Rae, Leonard Cohen.  It also features my personal favorite jazz man, Wayne Shorter, on sax.

I first heard a cut off River, Tina Turner singing "Edith and the Kingpin," on Ken Laster's In The Groove: Jazz and Beyond.  Turner's voice is perfect for the tale, transporting the listener (at least this one) to the land of blue fantasy.  I sat right down and downloaded the album from iTunes. All of it is good.  Hancock plays subtle, gorgeous notes behind each singer.  Besides, Herbie Hancock is not only one of the old men of jazz.  He still makes for a very sexy album cover.  This time the Grammy came through for jazz.   Like most of the music industry, Jazz is in crisis.  River is worth celebrating.    

Clinton's Moment of Truth

My pal Anna at Dakota Women is a little bit concerned with all the Hillary bashing that is going on. 

I guess I'm surprised, however, by the level of vitriol being directed at Hillary Clinton from all sides, both nationally and in the local blogosphere. Ken Blanchard's recent post about Clinton's losses and the shakeup of her campaign does not appear to me to be absent of some amount of glee regarding the situation in which Hillary finds herself. From the left, I don't consider Cory's assesment of Clinton vs. Obama to be entirely fair to Clinton.

I don't think there was any vitriol in today's post, but Anna is right to detect some small measure of glee in Ms. Clinton's distress.  The Clinton's are a sleazy couple, as nearly everyone now acknowledges.  For more than eight years it was the job of Republicans to point this out, while Democrats closed ranks to protect Mr. Bill from the consequences of his misbehavior.  The Clintons seem finally to have worn out their welcome, at least among the activist core of the elder party, due in large part to the sleaziness of their campaign in South Carolina.  This looks a little bit like justice, and that is almost always a beautiful affair to anyone but the guest of honor.

Moreover my post of this afternoon went somewhat in Senator Clinton's favor.  But I admit that things are looking rather dire for her right now.  Intrepid reader and long time friend of SDP, Gene K, thinks that the fat lady has already belted out a few notes.

Professor, it seems to me that judgment day has come and gone for Clinton. She hyped her way into invincibility and when there was push back it collapsed. The bookends of the Clinton dynasty will be Ross Perot and Barack      Obama.  Yesterday over    18,000 folks stood (a few seats behind the makeshift stage) for 3 hours at the Virginia Beach Convention Center to hear Obama speak, 1200 came out for Bill Clinton and 150 for John McCain the day before. Barack Obama has tapped into the American psyche much as I remember of Bobby  Kennedy  did.  He has the gift to inspire people. I’ve often told the story of the two types of inspiring leaders I witnessed in the Navy.  There were those who said “follow me” which was quickly followed by the roar of thundering footsteps; and those who after uttering those words heard only the echo of their own footsteps.  All the Clintons are hearing now are echoes. 

Now that, dear readers, is an eloquent and compelling note!  Here is how things stand on the day: having lost four contests over the weekend, the junior senator from New York looks about to lose "the District," Maryland, and Virginia.  The first two are no big deal.  Virginia will be a heavy blow, especially if Obama takes it two to one, as polls suggest.  It's big.  It is one of the states that may easily determine the fall election.  Ms. C. is not even playing to win there, anymore.  She is playing to avoid a route.  From the Politico:

Clinton hopes to keep Obama from rolling up a big-margin victory in Virginia by courting white suburban women, Latinos, federal workers in Northern Virginia and poor, rural whites to the south and to the west – voters who had gravitated to the populist message of John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator who dropped out of the Democratic race last month.

That is a strategy of fall back and entrench.  And what comes next?  Wisconsin on the 19th, and then four crucial primaries on March 4th:  Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont.  Of the five, I think that Sen. Clinton stands the best chance in Texas, with its large Hispanic population.  She desperately needs to win Wisconsin and Ohio. 

There has been a lot of talk recently about a brokered Democratic convention.   That is what Republicans are hoping for, as they slowly unite behind McCain.  But Ms. Clinton's status as first or close second relies on the support of a lot of unpledged delegates.   Those may jump ship in large numbers if Obama keeps winning 67% of the primary vote.  Her ambitions are as close to being crushed as they have ever been, and if she does go down, it's down for good.  As I said, I take only a small measure of glee in this.  I think McCain could beat Senator Clinton.  I am not sure that anyone can beat Obama. 

The Cult of Che and Obama

Well, he has been promising change.  Look whose picture hangs prominently in Barack Obama's Houston campaign office:

Yes, that's the Cuban flag with Fidel Castro's executioner Che Geuvara superimposed upon it.  The picture comes from a Fox News Houston video.  Ed Morrissey writes: "Barack Obama may want to call his new Houston office and suggest some decorating ideas."  Indeed.  More thoughts from Ed Driscoll, who points out the irony for a movement that's suppose to resemble JFK more than McGovern.

Blanchard Goofs Up the Numbers

Intrepid reader Kyle points out that in my last post I was confusing the number of delegates to the state convention with participants at the precinct level in several states.  I should have realized that the numbers were a bit small for total participation, but I was doing a quick lunch blog.  That's me making excuses. Anyway, here is the Hill article that Kyle directs me to:

With 97 percent of caucus precincts reporting, 46,000 Maine Democrats had participated in the nominating contest compared with 17,000 in 2004, the state’s previous record, according to the Maine Democratic Party.  The high turnout in Maine follows a record-breaking turnout for Democrats in the Washington caucus Saturday, and Nebraska caucuses that saw participants overflowing election sites and caucusing outside. 

I have found it difficult to confirm the turnout in Washington.  I have seen one estimate as high as two hundred thousand, but it was vague.  The statewide turnout in Nebraska was apparently about 38,000. 

Dear Mr. Fantasy

Is it a "fantasy" that John McCain might pick John Thune as his running mate?  An objective view of the matter suggests otherwise, although I have already suggested here that there are better picks than Thune.  What are Thune's strengths and weaknesses as a VEEP candidate?

Strengths:
1. He has enough experience.  Must it be pointed out that John Thune, while not having has much governing experience as some, has more than Barack Obama?  If Barack Obama has enough experience to be president, Thune has enough to be Vice-President. 
2. Thune's relative young age and energy make up for a weakness for McCain. 
3. Ditto Thune's popularity among conservatives. 
4. Thune is tested in tough campaigns.
5. Objective viewers will not deny Thune extensive political skills.  I have seen Thune mesmerize crowds with detailed and inspiring rhetoric and with no script in front of him.  I have seen him give solid policy answers to obscure questions.  He knows policy and he knows how to communicate to people.  In short, Thune is a good campaigner.  To compare him to Dan Quayle is unfair.

Weaknesses:
1. Thune comes from an electorally marginal state that will surely go to Thune's party anyway. 
2. Thune has no executive experience excepting a brief time in a low level Reagan administration post.
3. Thune has no major legislative accomplishments.  Granted, this is true of most legislators (quick, name Tim Johnson's biggest legislative achievement), but that's why most legislators are not considered for VP. 
4. Whatever his experience, Thune does not bring Cheney-like gravitas. By this I mean you don't look at John Thune and go, "Now there's a president!"  Still, McCain has gravitas to spare, so this is not the biggest problem, and Thune, I believe, would rise to the occasion. 

While by no means being a perfect pick (no such person exists) Thune would be a sound choice for McCain.  Still, I'd recommend against it as I think McCain would do well to chose a governor such as Tim Pawlenty or Mark Sanford.  But Thune makes the grade that any Veep pick must: he would not hurt the ticket even if he doesn't help it much. 

Why Campaigns Matter

In his recounting of our Oglethorpe extravaganza last Wednesday, Joe Knippenberg asked whether an online edition of my comments might be in the offing.  It'd be ponderous to recount my comments in full, but here is the upshot. 

My comments were based on a Harry Jaffa quote that I've used here before: "This election will be determined by events which have yet to occur."  That's another way of saying the campaigns matter.  Events occur that we cannot predict and, of course, candidates make claims and counter claims against each other.  How they do that is important in determining an election's outcome.  Words and deeds shape the public's evaluation of candidates. 

You might think that is an obvious observation, but it isn't to many political scientists.  As I recounted in Atlanta, my only previous trip to Atlanta was for a political science conference shortly after the 2000 election.  As some may know, in the spring of presidential election years various political scientists come out with statistical models purporting to predict the coming election.  These models are usually very accurate.  In 2000 most of those models predicted a big win for Al Gore.  Of course Gore only narrowly won the popular vote (by 0.5%) and lost the electoral vote.  What went wrong? Well, some of those political scientists appeared on a panel in Atlanta to answer that question and their answer was clear: Al Gore ran the wrong campaign.  Not that their models were wrong, mind you, but that Al Gore was wrong. Now there is some truth to that.  These models are heavily dependent on economic data, and they suggest that if Gore had essentially run for a third Clinton term he would have been successful.  But he chose to distance himself from Clinton.  Perhaps that was a dumb move, although I'd point out that Gore's resurgence in the polls that year occurred after the Democratic convention when Gore unveiled his populist "people versus the powerful" (who apparently aren't people) message.   But this just goes to show that campaigns matter. 

This attempt to reduce politics to a science is rampant in my field (thus the name "political science").  In my new copy of the American Journal of Political Science, perhaps the second most prestigious journal in the field, there is an article regarding the influence on economics on voting.  This article, statistically rigorous, ends with these words: "[This study] vindicates the enormous amount of research that has come up with positive findings on economic voting.  These cumulative efforts at scientific achievement were not in vain."  That's some pretty bold prose!  This study must represent a giant achievement for political science.  So let's look at their findings.  Well, when one views the three statistical models it turns out that these three models explain 29%, 25% and 27% respectively of the variance (this is the "psuedo R squared" statistic).  This is the major scientific finding, one that leaves 70% of the variance unexplained?  I suspect Mr. Einstein could not get away with this.  Even if a political science model can explain 90% of the variance (and that is nigh on a miracle in political science) that 10% may be all the difference in elections. 

I don't mean to dump on behavioral political science (ok, I do a little).  I happen to think that most people vote their interests as defined by their socio-economic status, and that status can be quantified and analyzed.  But how people perceive the candidates in relation to those interests is formed by actions of the candidates.  So we need to look at behavior such as Vice-Presidential selection, strength during debates, and response to news events (e.g., if there is another major terrorist attack in the world).   Or, if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, how does she deal with Bill?  How does John McCain deal with the age issue?   How does candidate Obama deal with his relative inexperience versus McCain?

Let's look at that issue. McCain must be skillful in defining his age to mean experience and trustworthiness, while also using his "maverick" status and his personal biography to at least blunt the "change" message of Obama.  Obama must try to paint McCain as part of the problem and turn his own paucity of experience (especially compared to McCain) into a virtue.  This rather ethereal subject, one that defies hard quantification, is central to a McCain-Obama race.

Polls today suggest a rather close race with either Democrat versus McCain, and the electoral college race seems just as close.  But even if it wasn't close, that would mean little.  Most races have and ebb and flow.  As John Fund points out, Michael Dukakis once held a 17 point lead over George H.W. Bush and after Labor Day 2000 Al Gore held a substantial lead over George W. Bush.  Let's sit back and let the candidates be candidates and enjoy the show.

Update: Thanks for the link, Joe.

Judgment Day for the Clintons?

Perhaps this is what the last judgment will look like for Hillary and her Bill: an unstoppable Obama running through a series of caucuses.  But let not the angels blow their trumpets yet.  This is way too much fun for it to end suddenly. 

Obama swept four Democratic contests over the weekend.  He won by a healthy 2 to1 in Washington, Nebraska, and Maine, and 57-35% in Louisiana.  The first three were caucuses.  About 30,000 voters each participated in the Washington and Nebraska events, and about 3,000 participated in Maine.  Obama's lopsided victories tell us two things we already knew: that Ms. Clinton has fallen badly out of favor with the activist core of her own party, and that Mr. Obama is energizing that same core.  On the other hand, it is unclear how representative these small samples are of the Democratic electorate in each state, let alone the electorate as a whole.  Close to three hundred thousand voters participated in Louisiana, where the Black vote was more potent and Obama's margin more narrow. 

Thus the weekend's selection leaves questions about Obama's real strength nationally.  To see that, consider that Mike Huckabee has similar advantages in Southern caucuses. The Huck won by a lot in the Kansas Republican caucus, and very narrowly (43-42%) in Louisiana.  McCain narrowly edged out Huckabee in the Washington caucus. Huckabee's strength is a concern for McCain, but it is unlikely to deny him the nomination.  Obama is a much greater threat to Clinton, but we will soon be able to read the situation a lot better.  Between now and March 4th, there will be eight primaries and one caucus.  If Obama sweeps that group, or wins three out of four, he will be the nominee.  If Ms. Clinton does well, she is back on track. 

It is clear that the Clinton campaign has gone back into panic mode.  She is announcing the traditional shake-up, and has a new manager.  She thinks she is in big trouble.  From the Washington Post:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton shook up her presidential campaign yesterday, replacing campaign manager and longtime aide Patti Solis Doyle with Maggie Williams, her former White House chief of staff, in an acknowledgment of the unexpectedly difficult struggle in which she finds herself against Sen. Barack Obama.

Progress in Iraq

Iraqpundit:  "There was a time, not so long ago, when the only news out of Iraq was bad news. Good news, if there was any the mainstream media thought necessary to report, would be tucked into the inside pages of the newspaper. What's that old newspaper saying? If it bleeds it leads? Well, now it's AQI that seems to be doing the newsworthy bleeding."  (via Prof. Reynolds)

Forever In Blue Jeans

Readers may remember this post regarding blue jeans in church.  Now we have this article about the dress of another group of people with their own pieties, namely college professors.  The question is why can't the professorate dress like professionals and adults: 

Why the dress problem? Professors might be grown-ups chronologically, but, if you’ve attended faculty meetings, you know we haven’t gotten the behavior patterns right. Joseph Epstein writes:

One of the divisions of the contemporary world is between those who are prepared to dress (roughly) their age and those who see clothes as a means to fight off age.... I know of associate deans who never wear neckties. Others — balding, paunchy, droopy-lidded — have not had a fabric other than denim touch their hindquarters for decades. They, poor dears, believe they are staying young.

Roger Kimball adds, “There is something about the combination of denim and tenure that is inherently preposterous.”

Trying to look like students is partly self-denial, but scruffily dressed faculty also have highfalutin goals. Some sartorial underachievement is aimed at furthering a “nurturing” atmosphere. The classroom setting should be non-confrontational, it’s argued, with professors and students hangin’ out as buddies.

I recall early in my career showing up at my office on a non-school day.  I was simply wearing a button-up shirt and some khakis. A colleague was astounded.  "No one's around, you know, you don't have to dress up."  Two points.  First, when simply wearing a decent shirt and khakis qualifies as "dressing up" you know standards are low.  Second, my thought was I was going to work as a professional so I might as well kinda dress like one.  Apparently I was wrong. 

It is worth your while to read some of the comments in the linked article.  The most illuminating are the commentators who fairly spew spittle as they announce that how you dress doesn't matter.  The very anger in their writing indicates that apparently it does matter, and quite a bit.