Biden! Biden! Biden! Biden! (JM)

Perhaps later today I will add, you know, content to this post, but until that time let's just say I approve wholeheartedly of this choice (despite the constant feeling this ticket should be flipped). Anyway, by choosing Biden I have actually gained a lot of respect for Obama, who clearly feels comfortable enough giving authority to the most qualified person, despite their senority and the fear of being overshadowed. More on this later, for now I am going to the beach.

Free Advertising, Just Act Indignant (JM)

The most impressive strategy I've seen from the McCain campaign thus far is it's ability to create and spread media without spending any money. The recipe for this has been remarkable simple. Create webads (or low media buy ads) with a little bit of controversy in them. For instance the already famous "Celebrity" ad starring Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. This ad has become so noteworthy that Paris Hilton responded with her own ad, Hilton's mother spoke out (as she is a major McCain donor) and myriad terrible internet parodies were spawned. Out of indignity and attempted mockery came a gazillion dollars worth of free ad time for John McCain.

Now comes this latest web ad:

Already the band is getting ginned up for another round of, "this is racist and disrespectful". Just check out this post on TPM and the comment thread. How much do you want to bet that this hits the mainstream media in the next two days. This is precisely what the McCain campaign wants. I recognize calling any criticism of Obama racist was a pretty effective strategy in the primary, but this is a different situation and entirely different demographic. One which, it is sad to say, is unlikely to be persuaded by such a criticism. But there's a bigger principle at stake here, because in this case the criticisms are simply wrong. Just because this ad mocks Obama love (I mean it shows a girl stating explicitly that she "loves the softness" in Obama's eyes) doesn't mean that this is attempting to play on racism. It is, to sadly quote a legal term, facially neutral, and quite possibly nothing more than an attempt to mock youthful support and irrationality, not try to create a, "Where the white women at?" moment.

Ultimately when it comes to these sorts of ads the best response is simply to ignore them and attack on issues. This isn't swiftboating, it isn't challenging Obama's past or credentials. Simply put, there is no good way to respond to these ads, only a good way to get more people to pay attention. I actually think the campaign itself is doing a pretty good job with this, it's rather Obama's rather passionate internet supporters that drive this story on blogs, which then drives the story in the MSM. So those that are made angry by this ad I would caution outrage and instead suggest that in the long run there is less to be outraged about when fewer people see the "offensive" material.

Endorsements Galore (JM)

Senator Obama is being endorsed all over today: this morning by NARAL and now tonight, by John Edwards. If nothing else is the nail in the coffin, it is this tandem the day after Hillary pulled of a 45 percent victory. Unless Obama uses the word "honkys" or to a less extent "suckers" in the next two weeks it is just over.

This Is a Dreadful Idea (JM)

Dear Bunch of People From Other Countries Who Are Calling Here to Convince Us to Vote For Obama,

I know you really like Barack Obama, he's exotic and liberal, he is just like you! He is basically a European's European. That's fine, you have a right to like people, I like foreigners. I would, for instance, vote for Dame Maggie Smith to run Britain, with the assistance of Lord Alan Rickman (I know he is not a Lord, but he should be). Anyway, let's say I even agreed that you have a right to try and influence our election, which I don't, but it's pretty irrelevant. You can't. I mean seriously, if you're calling a Hillary or swing voter this little script of yours probably won't be all that successful. To prove my point, a play:

Indiana Joe: Ach, who is this? It's four o'clock in the morning!

British Obama Supporter (for sake of convenience, let's just call him Daniel): Well, jolly good day sir, my watcherola says it's nine AM here. Anyhoo, if you can spare a minute I would like to tell you just how Barack Obama can improve the world.

Indiana Joe: Are you kidding me, it's four AM?!

Daniel: Sir, please don't be so Amerocentric, I said it was nine AM, so nine AM it is. You see sir, hope for the international community is so important. Are you aware that America's standing in the world has been declining steadily due to your arrogant foreign policies?

Indiana Joe: Is this Mickey?! Are you drunk? I have to fucking work in the morning. This isn't funny!

Daniel: Golly gee sir, no I am Daniel, and this isn't funny. It's dreadfully important. You see, I feel that Barack Obama would be a good influence on our government and make us a whole lot cheerier with you?

Indiana Joe: Are you serious? Is this really some British person telling me who I should vote for at 4 AM?! Why would I care who you want me to vote for, I work at a factory part time and make 22 thousand dollars a year! I have three kids to support.

Daniel: Well I don't think you understand our perspective here. There is more than just America to consider. Think of it this way, Barack Obama inspires thoughts of Britain's greatest Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston.

Indiana Joe: Lord Palmerston?! Try, Pitt the Elder!

Daniel: Lord Palmerston!!

Indiana Joe: Pitt the Elder!!

Lawyer: Excuse me gentlemen, I represent the estate of Matt Groening, you are quite guilty of copyright infringement.

Daniel: See, yet another reason to support Barack Obama.

Indiana Joe: This is insane, how did that lawyer even get on my phone? Also I am a Hillary supporter.

Daniel: Well one of the positives of Barack Obama is he is not a lying, cheating monster like Hillary Clinton. Also did I mention that Muslims in Holland love him?

Indiana Joe: Muslims love him?

Daniel: Oh yes, in all international polls he is by far the preferred candidate. In Europe, Africa and the Middle East!

Indiana Joe: Oh... I see.

Daniel: Yes, well I do rightfully hope I have helped you make a sensible decision today.

Indiana Joe: I dare say you have old chap.

Fin

Note that this play followed the script provided pretty accurately. I think we can all agree that even without my strawman portrayal, this is just a terrible idea for Obama's supporters.

I Still Hate Claire McCaskill (JM)

I'll make a deal with all Obama supporters. I will start supporting him if you will join me in drumming Claire McCaskill out of the Democratic Party. Today she claimed the Clintons "keep throwing nails in front of the bus" as a justification for bringing up things like Whitewater and Clinton land deals for which they were long ago exonerated. I mean go negative if you want, I hope everyone enjoys a heaping dose of the "new politics" and "hope" we are getting. But there are two quick things I want to address here:

1. If you cannot beat Hillary and "unify" the Democratic party then how in the world are we supposed to believe that you can "unify" red and blue states. On face such a claim is absurdist, if you have to roll in the mud to beat someone with almost exactly the same positions as you then you are not going win against the GOP in any other way. In fact, if this is what it takes to win then why not nominate Hillary instead, she is much better at it and more competent.

2. I wish Obama supporters would understand the weird, disingenuous nature of phrases like "throwing nails in front of the bus". Essentially, since he won Iowa, his supporters are treating Hillary like a felon for trying to win the nomination. This is the presidency and quite frankly it deserves to be contested, especially between two very strong candidates. This weird notion that Obama's politics and negative campaigning somehow legitimate, but Hillary's is not is actually one of the slimier tactics used by Obama and his supporters.

Anyway, I still hate Claire McCaskill and I definitely hate self-righteousness. We are about to see how genuine is the Obama campaign's commitment to a "new politics". My guess is that they will have surrogates go negative and deny responsibility and when they go negative themselves they will blame Hillary. New politics, just like the old, but looks more like an iPhone.

(Hat tip: Ben Smith)

A Tactical Mistake? Why Obama Should Face Clinggate Head On. (JM)

Greg Sargent over at TPM has a recording a robocall going out in PA, from the mayor of York. Essentially it is a push back over the bitterness comments, which you can read in the post below. However, the tactic seems to focus on the "bitter" portion of his remarks, rather than the idea of "clinging to religion and guns". This seems like a really poor decision on the part of the Obama camp. Obama supporters seem to be getting indignant and dismissive, saying that Obama misspoke but the "bitterness" is real. This is just not going to fly.

No one, no one in the world thinks that rural Pennsylvanians are not bitter. Of course they are. The question the Obama raised, and the one that is going to be constantly repeated by the GOP, is how Obama really sees both religious belief and gun-ownership. I think it is rather unambiguous that these comments tied their belief-systems to their social position and desperation and no amount of spin is going to make this disappear. Mickey Kaus, at Slate, had a very effective explanation of the real issues behind these remarks. What this leaves me with is the fear that at this point it won't be enough to turn things around for Hillary, but it'll be just enough to help McCain drub Obama in the general.

Let's take a quick look at a few key swing states:

1. Florida- Obama is already polling poorly against McCain here. McCain has strength amongst older voters, Jewish voters and Hispanic voters. These are all groups amongst which Obama runs quite weakly. But let's not forget Obama's weakness doesn't end here, because of the debacle with not allowing a revote in Florida. I am not excited to rehash the "Who Killed the Florida Relection Debate", though I suppose if you really want to do this throw it down in the comment section and bring it on, but either way Obama is clearly perceived as one of the key figures in preventing a revote. All of this spells a lot of bad news for the Dems in Florida.

2. Michigan- Obama appears to be running even with McCain here, though the fall out of not seating the delegates may impact him at some point in the future. Regarding his recent comments he is probably okay here. If the Dems are going to win Michigan it will be on the back of economic progress, not social issues.

3. Ohio- Very similar demographics to Pennsylvania with a little bit of Michigan on the side. This is not a disaster scenario for the Democrats, but this certainly hurts Obama amongst the Huckabee populists, a group he had hopes of courting before this debacle occurred. This is yet another state in which Hillary is running much stronger than Obama.

4. Pennsylvania- I honestly think that if things stand as they do now, this literally kills any chance Obama had of taking PA. We'll need to wait to see new polls, but there was already a dearth of support amongst the working class in Pennsylvania. Obama's PA base will stay with the party regardless of the nominee, Hillary's is far less likely to do so. It's hard to imagine Obama winning PA, but impossible if he doesn't address this issue head on, instead of pretend there is much ado about nothing.

5. The New Map- One of the cornerstone arguments amongst friends of mine regarding the ascendancy of Barack Obama, is that he redraws the electoral map for the Democrats. I very much look forward to this day, but I am more skeptical than others. Let's take one example of this kind of state, perhaps the most favorable one, Virginia. Certainly the demographics of Virginia have become more and more conduced to electing a Democratic candidate. As the northern suburbs fill out with D.C. commuters and traditional liberal households, Democrats gain strength. However, these very comments, ones that can easily be perceived as denigrating those that believe in both religion and guns, are likely to provoke resentment in the very swing voters we'd require to win the state. Religion and guns are not just core beliefs, but part of a fundamental identity of many of these individuals. If this is true, and these comments stick, there will be no new map and we will be listening to States of the Union from President McCain while Wilford Brimley stares sternly out at the television audience from his seat next to Nancy Pelosi (that's right, Vice President Brimley, you heard it here first).

This is not to say that I think superdelegates need to take a second look at Hillary. Well, I mean, I do, but I think it is pointless at this time. I think the Dems (the ones who are not me at least) are about to reap what they've sewed. If Obama's team and supporters continue to just pretend that this was no big deal this will never die. If this never dies then the Rascal Scooter ready for the White House, because John McCain is coming to stay.

The Wisdom of "Bitterness" (JM)

I've been puzzling about what to think about the Obama comments in San Francisco. For those of you that are not aware, Obama essentially made a connection between the "bitterness" of rural Pennsylvanians and their love of guns and religion. Here is the relevant portion of the speech:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

At first blush I was surprised and maybe a bit impressed with the boldness of a remark like this. But then I was blown away by the political inanity of this remark. Sure, no one is going to disagree with truth that a good portion of this population is quite bitter, they have every reason to be. However, to connect deeply held values to their social position is quite likely to be perceived as condescending. This harms Obama's "one of the people" image; one to which he has a right. I have never really bought in to this whole elitist Obama meme, one of his really impressive characteristics is that he really seems to understand most people, and can make pop culture references to boot. No, for me it has always been the experience question and the "unity" theme that drive me away from Obama. I think this statement is quite divisive to the particular Republican community that he had he best opportunity of co-opting: Huckabee Republicans. The populist, religious conservatives that simply don't believe in McCain would be a good group for Obama to court. Unfortunately, by appearing to denigrate the sincerity of religious ideals, he has probably burned a bridge to this community. Whether or not it is a correct sentiment.

But is it a correct sentiment? I certainly believe that social context largely determines our ideological perspective. In other words, it seems pretty clear that what we believe is very much a function of the places and lives we live. But I suspect that maybe the roots of religious belief and gun culture are tied up in longer standing history and tradition. I agree that anti-immigration beliefs have something to do with this "bitterness", there is pretty clearly a perceived economic effect of illegal immigration to particular communities, and thus a sensible link between the two. However, in the case of religion and guns, these have always been long standing beliefs in the South. Even some of these midwesterny, Pennsylvania-like areas are more a part of the southern community (geographically-speaking). These types of ideals very much grow out of the political history and Southern nationalism of these communities.

Perhaps I will post more on the idea of Southern nationalism in the future, there are a lot of very interesting connections between the historical trials of the South and its ideological formation. But for the purposes of this conversation, that it's enough to observe that very similar political perspectives rose from a particular region and region whose only other major correlation is happening to share Confederate roots. Though that implies that devastation resulted in these particular beliefs it makes no mention of why these particular beliefs arose from such devastation. This is why Obama was missing the point in attaching these beliefs to the "bitterness" of the rural Pennsylvanians. Sure, beliefs did spring out of their history and position in society, but it is the question of why these particular beliefs that matters. If you believe in agency then you can conclude that it was the choice and interests of this community the particular types of beliefs they would have. Either way, Obama's idea doesn't dig deep enough analytically, but does an effective (but not positive) job of digging quite deep psychologically in to the voters of Pennsylvania.

Maureen Dowd is Mrs. O'Leary's Cow (JM)

Surrender Already, Dorothy

Ooh! I am excited, this is already a bad and somewhat surprising metaphor. I mean maybe there’s a chance Maureen hasn’t seen The Wizard of Oz, but probably not since I am pretty sure watching movies is the extent of her research, but Dorothy, you know, wins in the end. Also I would have expect a Wicked Witch of the West reference instead from Maureen, but Dorothy… fine… I guess that makes Maureen the Wicked Witch… in which case get me a bucket of water.

By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

It’s all about the magic, really.

Ummmmmm…. I can think of several things it is about. None of them are “the magic”. Magic, I believe falls well behind competence in foreign policy and perhaps directly after “the Benjamins”. In fact, strike that, reverse it.

And whether we can take a flier on this skinny guy with the strange name and braided ancestry to help us get it back.

Whoa! Time out. Does anyone else think the phrase “braided ancestry” is just a tinsy bit racist. And by “tinsy” I mean a lot and by “racist” I mean, get your coat.

Bernard Kouchner, the foreign minister of France and a strong supporter of the United States, recently observed that President Bush has done such a number on our image in the world that no one will be able to restore the luster.

“I think the magic is over,” he said.

Well gee willikers, the magic is over. The French foreign minister thinks so? Well, the French would never prognosticate the doom of U.S. hegemony without being absolutely sure of it. Well, I am just going to write my new book The Rise of Multilateral World, and sit back and wait for the royalties.

Pas si vite, mon vieux. In terms of style, the Obamas could give Carla Bruni-Sarkozy a run for her euros. And at least Obama is not in a fantasy world on Iraq, as W. and John McCain are, insisting it’s improving while we see it exploding.

“God people, paragraphs aren’t boxes where one thought actually follows another thought. We live in a postmodern world people! Just because the first sentence is nonsensical point about vapid topic A doesn’t me the second sentence has to be about those same things. Look, I mentioned the same people twice. I think that’s enough, don’t you?” –Maureen Dowd

Many voters decided last week to stick with Obama despite his less-than-convincing explanations about the Rev. Wright — even as many soured on Hillary, casting her as Lady Voldemort.

Alright, I am all for gratuitous Harry Potter references you poor man’s Rita Skeeter, but this is just nonsense. Lady Voldemort?! Why no go with Lady MacBeth, a more analogous character went trying to attack Hillary and one that actually existed. I am also pretty sure no one but Dennis really believe she is trying to tear her own soul in to pieces by killing people in order to gain immortality. Maybe power, but not immortality.

Democrats are coming around to the point Jay Rockefeller made 10 days ago after introducing Obama in West Virginia: “Democrats always make a mistake by nominating people who know everything on earth there is to know about public policy. I introduced both Al Gore and John Kerry at their rallies. They knew all the policies, but people didn’t connect with them. You don’t get elected president if people don’t like you.”

Ohh awesome! That’s exactly the attitude I like to hear from the Democratic party. Screw it, the people don’t want some who knows what’s going on, let’s get someone likeable elected. That is both condescending and just awful. Thank you Sen. Jay “Let’s Compromise Everything Because the Only Thing That Matters Is That The Name Democrat Comes After The President” Rockefeller, thank you so very much.

Also, not to get too George Carlin here, but how could Jay Rockefella have said that “after” introducing Obama. It seems like Obama would have been talking at the time, and that would just be rude.

Despite Bill Clinton’s saying it was “a bunch of bull” that his wife should drop out, Democrats are trying to sneak up on Hillary, throw a burlap sack over her head, carry her off the field and stick her in a Saddam spider hole until after the Denver convention.

Enjoy President McCain once you alienate a good portion of the base suckers… Seriously, if they push Hillary out before she is ready to go every single Dorothy Zbornak in the Democratic Party is voting for John McCain. P.S. Blanche onced dated McCain, and it was steamy.

One Obama adviser moaned that the race was “beginning to feel like a hostage crisis” and would probably go on for another month to six weeks. And Obama said that the “God, when will this be over?” primary season was like “a good movie that lasted about a half an hour too long.”

Aww… poor Obama, democracy just a bit too long for you. No wonder you didn’t want to be trouble with Florida and Michigan voting again, gets in the way of your schedule.

Hillary sunnily riposted that she likes long movies. Her favorite as a girl was “The Wizard of Oz,” so surely she spots the “Surrender Dorothy” sign in the sky and the bad portent of the ladies of “The View” burbling to Obama about how sexy he is.

“Ladies of ‘The View’”=modern day equivalent of reading bird entrails.

But who knows? Obama and Bob Casey talking March Madness to the patrons of Sharky’s sports cafe in Latrobe, Pa., on Friday night seemed demographically clever. But it is always when Hillary is pushed back by the boys that women help hoist her up.

Obama, like the preternaturally gifted young heroes in mythical tales, is still learning to channel his force. He can ensorcell when he has to, and he has viral appeal. Who else could alchemize a nuanced 40-minute speech on race into must-see YouTube viewing for 20-year-olds?

Yes we get it. He is Luke Skywalker. He is Garion. He is Achilles. Blah, blah, blah…

But at several crucial points in the last year, he held back when he should have poured on, leaving his nemesis around to damage him further.

Obama has social engineering plans as ambitious, in their own way, as the Bush administration’s failed social engineering plans to change the psyche of America and the Middle East.

Ambitiously vague. Social engineer is largely insane and never works. Change is about time and generational overhauls, not talking. But screw it, let’s elect Obama, listen to Kermit sing, “It’s Not Easy Being Green” and watch Bill Frist and Nancy Pelosi wander down the street arm in arm exchanging long-protein strands. Might I add, don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.

“I think the president needs to use the bully pulpit to change our culture,” he said Thursday, talking energy at a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser in Manhattan. “We are a wasteful culture. It’s always been that way because of our history. We do everything big.”

He wants to make government “cool” again. He wants to banish the red-blue culture of conflict on TV and in Washington. And he wants to make the country healthier, thinner and smarter. “I want our students learning art and music and science and poetry,” he says, in a crowd-pleasing line.

AGGGGGGH! Seriously, do ANY of you really believe this can happen. Let’s all sit down and seriously think about what this means. Right now, Obama is going to appoint someone to the Supreme Court, do you really think he is going to convince the pro-life public that it’s really okay to be pro-choice? Do you really think that Americans who love the second amendment will suddenly stop (though to be fair no one seems to want to limit gun usage anymore, we lost that battle. Why did we lose it? It was the right wing’s rhetoric of unity and hope, right? No it was their insanely entrenched, unyielding, unmoving position. Good luck making government “cool” again*, I can’t wait.

Using his preacher voice, he urged a black audience in Beaumont, Tex., to be better parents, to put away chips and cold Popeyes for breakfast, and to turn off the TV and video games. “Buy a little desk or put that child at the kitchen table,” he instructed. “Watch them do their homework.”

It’s not certain that Obama could bring about an American renaissance. As the L.A. entertainment lawyer Nancy McCullough, who was on the Harvard Law Review with Obama, told Vanity Fair’s Todd Purdum, he tended to wallow in words. She said he was so intent on letting everyone have a say that “I actually would have been happier for him to say sometimes, ‘This is how we’re doing this, and shut up!’ ”

Ooh what a good source. I asked Chip, a guy Maureen Dowd went to kindergarten with, what he thought of Maureen. He said, “She was great, teachers would ask math problems and she would reference some episode of Scooby Doo she watched last night.”

The pollster Peter Hart says the central questions are: “Is Hillary honest?” and “Is Obama safe?”

Her foreign affairs plumping-up has hurt her, while his exotic and unorthodox narrative stirs doubt.

Why, why is this what people don’t like about Obama. This doesn’t bother me even slightly. There are soooooooo many good reasons to be wary of Barack Obama. This is not at all one of them.

“If I were to produce a spot for Obama,” Hart said, “I would take 100 photographs of everything that he does with his children and wife — that could range from Halloween to a picnic to everything we identify with as part of American life — so people could say, ‘I relate to that, I understand it.’ ”

“Boy, pollsters give great strategic advise”, said Mark Penn.

But, for now, Obama might want to leave the Trinity church photos out of the montage.

Ooh… score.

*I assume by “again” Maureen is referring to the incredibly hip administration of Rutherford B. Hayes. He used to throw parties that would last three days. Samuel Tilden was caught doing opium from the navel of a burlesque house girl. Carazzzzzy!

An Open Letter to Obama Supporters (JM)

It’s over. We Clinton supporters know this, because most of us are pretty smart. We get that Obama is going to be the nominee and the truth is that, for the most part, we’re okay with this. Barack Obama is a smart man with good advisors who clearly has a talent for politics. So yes, we’ll live, but the ball is totally in your court now.

What I mean by this is that polls have shown almost 28 percent of Hillary’s Democratic supporters are ready to peel off and vote for John McCain. This is obviously insane and those numbers will decrease, but how much they decrease is entirely up to you. So with that in mind as a fairly cerebral Clinton supporter let me give you some advice on how to not alienate former supporters of Hillary.

1. Don’t gloat: Seriously, I swear if I see any Facebook statuses, away messages or get any e-mails proclaiming how happy you are that Hillary is gone or the Saint Barack of Assisi has been anointed I will be far more likely to vote McCain. Your prize is that you get to have Barack Obama is the next president, you don’t get anything else. Remember, most of us simply don’t agree with you that Hillary is a terrible person or that Obama was the better candidate. Just because there are more of you doesn’t prove you’re right or more wise. So cut the crap and attack McCain.

2. Quit it with the pep rally crap: Most of us are glad we are no longer in high school. We don’t need to yell out, “Yes we can!” or hear that “We’re the ones we’ve been waiting for.” It is silly and comports to the exact sort of image that the McCain people will use to attack Obama in the general. I am happy if Barack Obama makes you feel good, but keep it on the inside or make arguments about policy and politics. I am fine with these, there are many good ones. For instance, I hear somewhere that John McCain knows next to nothing about the economy and that he’s eleventy billion years old. A lot of us don’t want to be part of a movement, we want to be part of a party with a candidate. Obama hasn’t changed the way politics is done, he’s politics as usual with a lot of charm. Start acting that way, because we’re definitely not going to get swept up and if you want us aboard (and you need us) stop with the alienating, weird behavior.

3. Stop equating McCain with Bush: This is a generalist thing I suppose, but it seems like one of Obama’s main assaults on McCain will be equating him with Bush. He’s not Bush, though he is a bit of a war-mongerer he eminently more practical. Actually see David Brooks column for some good distinctions in terms of foreign policy. He is also way more likable and a war hero. The fact is though, if you’re going to make him in to Bush III and he simply proves he isn’t, it’s game over. Personality and image is sadly what politics has been about this election cycle, but it won’t win against McCain. Issues and character can and will, attack McCain, don’t attack by analogy.

So in sum, I still think this is a mistake, but you win. Now act like real winners and bring together the party instead of enjoying what will assured by a Pyrrhic victory if you continue with this nonsense.

Fun With Push Polling (JM)

With some time off from hardcore politics we’ve decided to play a game. We all remember how George W. Bush beat McCain for the nomination. He created an exceedingly clever push poll in which voters were asked, "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain...if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" This really changed the scope of the campaign, winning George W. Bush the nomination and leading us to eight years of bad luck.

So in that spirit, AOTG would like present our suggestions for push poll campaigns against various political luminaries:

1) Hillary Clinton: “Would it change your likelihood of voting for Hillary Clinton if you knew that while in the White House she was had a reputation for being willing to eat anything for five bucks? (She once made fifty dollars off of Begala for eating several batches of Mike Espy’s moustache hair.)

2) Barack Obama: “Would you be more or less likely to vote for Barack Obama, if you knew he fathered a black child?”

3) Mitt Romney: “If you were made aware of Mitt Romney’s intention to nominate only werewolves to the Supreme Court would this change your opinion of his fitness to run for office?”

4) Chuck Schumer: “Rumors are now swirling that Chuck Schumer has hatched a plot with the Free Masons to trick people into believing Jesus wasn't real, does this change your opinion of him?”

5) Fred Thompson: “If you knew his only goal as President would be to create a dramedy about what life would be like if Biff from Back to the Future were the President of the United States, would this effect your decision to vote for him?”

6) Dick Cheney: “Apparently everything you’ve ever read about him is completely true, does this effect how you feel about him as a leader?”

7) Tom Harkin: “Some think that Tom Harkin is a vampire, given the fact that he is never seen outside during the day, his overuse of sunscreen, and his thick Transylvanian accent. Would this make you less likely to vote for him, more likely to vote for him, or no change?”

8) Nancy Pelosi: “Observers have heard Nancy Pelosi say that she, ‘Just didn’t get the deal with Seinfeld’, does this make it more or less likely to vote for her?”

9) Fred Flintstone: “Would you be more or less likely to vote for Senator Flintstone if you knew that he kept animals enslaved in house and showered in the excretions of a Wooly Mammoth?”

10) Mumm-ra: “If you were to find out that Mumm-ra was a displaced former Egyptian god, hellbent on destroying all of the Thundercats, would you be more or less likely to vote for him?”

(Special thanks to Ted for help on this post)

Fun With Push Polling (JM)

With some time off from hardcore politics we’ve decided to play a game. We all remember how George W. Bush beat McCain for the nomination. He created an exceedingly clever push poll in which voters were asked, "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain...if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" This really changed the scope of the campaign, winning George W. Bush the nomination and leading us to eight years of bad luck.

So in that spirit, AOTG would like present our suggestions for push poll campaigns against various political luminaries:

1) Hillary Clinton: “Would it change your likelihood of voting for Hillary Clinton if you knew that while in the White House she was had a reputation for being willing to eat anything for five bucks? (She once made fifty dollars off of Begala for eating several batches of Mike Espy’s moustache hair.)

2) Barack Obama: “Would you be more or less likely to vote for Barack Obama, if you knew he fathered a black child?”

3) Mitt Romney: “If you were made aware of Mitt Romney’s intention to nominate only werewolves to the Supreme Court would this change your opinion of his fitness to run for office?”

4) Chuck Schumer: “Rumors are now swirling that Chuck Schumer has hatched a plot with the Free Masons to trick people into believing Jesus wasn't real, does this change your opinion of him?”

5) Fred Thompson: “If you knew his only goal as President would be to create a dramedy about what life would be like if Biff from Back to the Future were the President of the United States, would this effect your decision to vote for him?”

6) Dick Cheney: “Apparently everything you’ve ever read about him is completely true, does this effect how you feel about him as a leader?”

7) Tom Harkin: “Some think that Tom Harkin is a vampire, given the fact that he is never seen outside during the day, his overuse of sunscreen, and his thick Transylvanian accent. Would this make you less likely to vote for him, more likely to vote for him, or no change?”

8) Nancy Pelosi: “Observers have heard Nancy Pelosi say that she, ‘Just didn’t get the deal with Seinfeld’, does this make it more or less likely to vote for her?”

9) Fred Flintstone: “Would you be more or less likely to vote for Senator Flintstone if you knew that he kept animals enslaved in house and showered in the excretions of a Woolly Mammoth?”

10) Mumm-ra: “If you were to find out that Mumm-ra was a displaced former Egyptian god, hellbent on destroying all of the Thundercats, would you be more or less likely to vote for him?”

(Special thanks to Ted for help on this post)

Is Obama's speech working? (Dennis)

So, I thought Obama speech last week on race was stunning and wonderful (when was the last time a presidential candidate admitted the Constitution was stained with the "original sin" of slavery or that Reagan used anger over affirmative action and welfare to build his coalition?), but I assume you already inferred that from my previous Obama support. Anyway, I think the important question isn't whether I liked it, but whether it could counter the damage done by Wright. Some evidence from Gallup is showing that the speech may be doing its job.

On March 13th, Obama's lead over Clinton in the Gallup nationwide poll of Democrats and those who lean Democratic stood at 50-44. In the wake of the ensuing Wright scandal, Obama's lead evaporated and Hillary Clinton built up her largest lead in months with a 49-42 advantage on the day of Obama's speech on race. Since then Obama has made steady gains every day in the Gallup, and now in polling done on March 19-21 Obama has regained his advantage with a 48-45 lead. We'll see if this trend continues and if Obama regains his previous lead.

Some Snark From The Clinton Camp and Cowboy Bill Richardson's Endorsement (JM)

In response to Rev. Wright situation, despite Obama's speech on race and getting beyond politics as usual, the Obama team has been pushing a picture of Bill Clinton shaking hands with Rev. Wright at the White House during his administration. When the NYT e-mailed Howard Wolfson, Clinton Communications Director, for a response he send the following: “Urgent indeed — a picture — oooooooo!”

Now maybe it's just me, but that seems like the most effective response to an incredibly different sort of situation.

Anyhow, last night, at around 12 AM Pacific Time, Gov. Bill Richardson endorsed Barack Obama. I have never been a huge fan of Gov. Richardson and I truly hope that he is not on Obama's short list should he get the nomination (though I would prefer to see him than Gov. Sebelius or, and I almost break my keys as I type this, Sen. Claire McCaskill). Richardson a bit silly and more of a rabble-rouser than anything else, and his foreign policy experience is as negotiator and back-slapper. If foreign policy credentials are what Obama is after (either that or economics would be desirable) I would think he'd be better off with Biden or Dodd. Anyway, I am not certain just how much impact a Richardson endorsement has at this point. The only state with a large Hispanic population yet to hold their primary is Puerto Rico, and that is an entirely different ballgame. The only real potential game changers left out there are Gore and Edwards, and at this point it just does not look like they will endorse either candidate.

(Hat tip: Marc Ambinder)

I Fervently Dislike Claire McCaskill and Philadelphia (JM)

The title pretty much says it all, and it's not surprising either given that rarely does a month go by without one more reason to dislike her. But here she is in all of her inane glory again:

McCaskill: Obama the first black leader to “come to the American people not as a victim, but rather as a leader.”

What a profoundly silly thing to say about every black leader in the history of America. I truly wish people would stop referring to her as a person who is the future of the party. I wish she'd switch parties, I really do, then I would feel way more comfortable with my hatred for her and her voting record would make more sense. Sigh... oh well at least Obama's grandmother is a "typical white person" according to an interview with him on Philly Sports Talk Radio. By the by, can anyone imagine a more hilarious place for an intense political discussion than Philadelphia sports radio?

Host: Caller, do you have a question for Senator Obama?

Len from Doylestown: Yeah, I have a question. Even if the Mets got Santana, they still suck, they're a bunch of $%*#ing chokers, Reyes can suck on it, Philly rules!

Obama: Well, that's not really a question, but I think we need to look to bring the people of America together, instead of focusing on the divisiveness of the past.

Host: Good question caller, don't forget Wright also sucks. Alright next caller, we've got Vinny from Camden.

::sounds of whispering::

Host: Oh, we have 17 different Vinnys from Camden? Alright, well just pick one!

Vinny from Camden: Ayyyyy!

Host: Hey Vinny! What's up?

Vinny from Camden: E-A-G-L-E-S!

Obama: Well Vinny, I will tell you this, there's no such thing as false hope.

(Quotes via Mark Halperin)

Political Rhetoric and Critical Analysis (JM)

So one of my hobbies is amateur critical theory. I occasionally, and by occasionally I mean way more often than I care to admit, spend time deeply deconstructing things like Matt Roush's TV Guide column. One of the things I particularly enjoy is tearing in to political rhetoric and speeches. With Obama's speech yesterday being hailed as one of the greatest speeches of all time (I didn't watch, but can only assume Chris Matthews favorably compared it to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount) I think it's high time to introduce a new series of posts, deconstructing and critically thinking about some of the greater speeches of all time. Not just why they were great, but what about them engaged the cultural milieu* of that time and what underlying implications they contained.

I will begin with the Obama speech from yesterday, because it is both timely and an interesting place to start. Other speeches I am considering taking a look at include Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech, JFK's Catholicism speech and a few different inaugural addresses. I will also try to include other speeches that come from outside the tradition sphere of politics as well (admittedly I don't anything actually falls outside of the sphere of politics, every action is inherently a political actions as well, but that's a different discussion altogether). I hope you find these posts interesting, if different than the usual snarky offering. To be fair, I actually don't care all that much. Either way though, I would certainly welcome suggests as to speeches and rhetoric to tackle and discuss as well as active engagement on these topics.

Anyway, that's all for now, drive safely and be sure to tip your waiters and waitresses.

*That is the first time I have ever used the word "milieu" in a post, I am allowed two more max, after that I will ban myself from posting.

Quite The Speech (JM)

Ben Smith over at Politico posted the full text of Obama's race and religion speech he gave in Philly today. It was a shockingly good defense of the entire Rev. Wright situation and just an excellent speech in general. It got a bit too Obamaesque towards the end, but as someone who just hasn't been as impressed by his speechmaking as pretty much everyone else the universe let me say, this was very very impressive. He took a strong stand in defense of Wright, he rejected certain viewpoints and he contextualized the place where Rev. Wright and the black community was coming from. It was sophisticated and nuanced, something I have thought lacking in much of Obama's campaign rhetoric heretofore.

The media is going to eat this speech up. The question is, will it make a difference? Racism is racism and in the end this speech, while a rousing defense and explanation of the entire situation, serves in the end to remind people of division. It comes down to just how sophisticated are voters with racially biases. So in the end I am not sure this takes Wright out of Hillary or the GOP's arsenal, but it does make me feel much more comfortable about how Obama will handle GOP attacks going forward.

Israel Should Count (Dennis)

Alright, I've been thinking about this a lot lately and I don't think there's a really good solution to the fact that people voted in Israel and won't be seated at the Democratic convention. We could simply leave them out, but do we really want to upset Israel? They are an important ally in the Middle East and we are going to have to deal with them either during or after the general election. And it is really patently unjust for people whose lives will be affected by the next administration to not have a voice in the process. I've come to the conclusion that the only way to solve this problem is to seat the delegates elected in the Israeli Primary.

I know, I know, nobody campaigned there and the voting pool is skewed as it is composed entirely of Israeli citizens, but let's be honest folks, what happened there was an election and is certainly more meaningful and representative than any of the horrible caucuses won by Obama. Yes, the only place the elections were held was at Israelis for Hillary rallies, but, honestly (I mean HONESTLY) do you think that had as much of a distorting effect as independents voting for Obama in open primaries?

Look, I'm even willing to be magnanimous: Obama can have McCain's votes. That way Hillary will only get a 157 delegate advantage coming out of Israel. What? Oh yeah, I know its a large number, I'll explain in my next piece "The Moral Necessity of Every Israeli Counting as Seven People, Unless They Vote For Obama, In Which Case They Need to Count as Negative Two Celery Sticks."

The Ethics of Voting Hillary (JM)

Is voting an ethical decision? I think it very clearly is. When designating an individual who will have power of the rights of the entire population there is a very real moral onus. Sometimes it's a particularly easy calculus: pick the guy or gal who has the best policies and the best possibility of enacting those policies. Rarely is there tension in this choice, it is usually surprisingly easy to pick out the candidate that, to my mind, stands out above all the rest. In this election it was Joe Biden, ethical, intelligent and experience, pretty much the perfect person to pull us out of this ditch George W. Bush drove us in to. But Iowans, in their infinite wisdom, made the decision for all of us, so no Joe Biden.

The next month was amongst lead to some seriously confused thinking on my part. In terms of issues I was most aligned with Edwards, but there always seemed to be something inherently weird and untrustworthy about him. Obama's popularity and background were quite intriguing to me, but I could not get over his complete lack of experience as well as total mistrust of his "not politics as usual" message. Any time a politician says that I expect people to softly snicker, there was way less snickering this time, but still Obama has proved himself to be a mere mortal politician as I expected. That left me with Hillary. I had deep misgivings about her, I never quite trusted her to be genuine or a clean campaigner, but I did believe that she supported the liberal agenda I believed in and, of the candidates left, was likely to be the most effective president of the remaining candidates, Democrat or Republican.

So since then I have been a supporter and grown more and more ardent in time. I like Hillary, I think she is a good and ultimately misunderstood person. I think a lot of the crap that has come her way has been rooted in misogyny and political gamesmanship. For some reason it has always been acceptable to tear the Clintons down in ways normal humans are never subjected to. In fact, it has its genesis in the crazy "Contract for America" Congresses from the mid-90s. I would remind those Obama supporters who think these kinds of attacks acceptable of the people from whom they are taking their marching orders. Moreover, I think it's very clear that the press is letting Obama's side get away with a lot more cheap shots than Hillary.

All of this said, I am now in something of a quandary. The increasingly racist and negative tone coming out of surrogates in the Clinton campaign (most notably Geraldine Ferraro) is utterly disturbing. The fact that Hillary hasn't strictly pushed away from this line of attack is discomforting to say the least (also inexplicably weird). I have some theories as to why this is the case, but weird, idle, psychological speculation has no place on the internets. Either way, it is simply an unacceptable form of politics. So here is where my problem lies: I am still absolutely convinced that Hillary Clinton would be an order of magnitude better President of the United States than Barack Obama and lightyears better than John McCain. I am also convinced she will be more likely to win in the general election than Obama would. You can feel free to try and persuade me otherwise, but since I doubt I will ever believe that politics is anything less than a contentious sport and that all the movements in the world won't change the fact that we are going to have fight tooth and nail to change the agenda of this country, I think Hillary is by far our best choice. That said, her campaign is devolving more and more in to a thoroughly unethical muck, one I am kind of disgusted by. It is definitely not as bad as some Obama supporters seem to think, I am getting real tired of hearing Hillary called things like "monster", "Stalin", "the president of the Ku Klux Klan"... thought admittedly "Hillzilla" can stay.

So there's my issue, does campaigning ethics trump a good presidency? I just don't know. This is the point at which some people simply drop out of the system, but to me that is the height of ethical irresponsibility. There's a right choice to be made, it's a matter of balancing perspectives and outcomes and it's not an easy choice. I suspect that, in the end, I will still support Hillary (I mean admittedly I no longer have any say in this) because ultimately I think maximizing the person in the presidency is more important than ethical standards. But at the point they threaten to hurt the party and people it's a very difficult line. I still don't trust Obama and think his campaign has been using race as a wedge issue as well, but it's definitely not a wash. So cleaner campaigner versus better president, a very tough decision, but one that I think it's still important to make.

Three Questions for Hillary and Geraldine. (Dennis)

Why hasn't Geraldine Ferraro, co-pilot of the worst Democratic defeat in a Presidential election history, apologized for her recent comments about how Barack owes his current position to the fact that he is black?

Here are her comments:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept,"

and here, for comparison, are comments Rush Limbaugh made that got him fired from ESPN:

"The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve."

Why hasn't the Clinton campaign (at least) condemned these remarks given that she is a finance chair on her campaign?

She has only said that she "disagreed" with the remarks and hasn't condemned them in any way.

What message do you think the Clinton campaign is trying to send?

As for me, I think this is a dogwhistle attack, aimed to fire up working class whites resentful at African Americans. I think my case has been furthered by the fact that Clinton hasn't really distanced herself from Ferraro, and that Ferraro has now said that she is being attacked "because she is white."

Hillary Clinton has run the most disgusting, shameful Democratic campaign in decades. Although, that is probably generous.

In Case You Were Wondering Who Got the All Important Sinbad Endorsement (JM)

Team: Obama trots out their secret weapon: Sinbad. Sinbad, in addition to being a hilarious comedian, is the former Undersecretary of State for Balkan Affairs and was one of the chief architects of the new Albanian constitution. He traveled with Hillary and Cheryl Crow to Bosnia during the Clinton administration. He attacks Hillary hard, saying amongst other things, that the "only 'red phone' decision that was made was where are we going to eat next." This seems pretty unlike in one of the more violent places on Earth. But, sure, chalk another one up for Obama. In case you were wondering we here at AOTG are pretty sure that the Houseguest endorsement would have been split were Phil Hartman still with us today, as he would definitely have appreciated eight more years of Bill around the White House. Also chances are The Simpsons would be far less mediocre, it's still truly sad that he is gone.