McCain Shows How Lying Can Make Your "Larger Point"
F
rom Katie Couric's interviews with Obama and McCain on CBS this evening:
Obama: There is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence.
Less than two minutes later:
McCain: To deny that their sacrifice didn't make possible the success of the surge in Iraq I think does a great disservice to the young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.
Huh? He didn't say it -- in fact, he implied the opposite -- but Couric let McCain have the last word on that, regardless of whether it reflected the truth she'd just reported herself. But she was looking for a fight between the two, not any real examination of the issue.
For example, much as I want to like Katie Couric, she tends to ask dumb questions and makes dumb comments: "Senator McCain, you sound very frustrated with Senator Obama's perspective." Even he indicated that wasn't really relevant.
What actually is frustrating, Katie, is that you and everyone else are buying McCain's line that "the surge in troops has brought down violence in Iraq, therefore I have the better judgment." Violence has also declined in some places we don't even have troops. More importantly, this is basically saying, "See, we're making progress in fixing the problems we created," whereas Obama is saying, "Not only should those problems not have been created, your obsession on them has kept us from addressing even bigger problems that are becoming an even bigger threat."
But you don't get a real exploration of that in the binary world of media coverage -- he said, he said; who's right, who's wrong; answer the question, yes or no -- which, not coincidentally, the right-wing likes to frame everything in. And because this makes the media's job easier, it works.
Obama's right to keep the focus on "what is strategic." Because even if he does, the network news certainly isn't.
Stephen Colbert summed up the ridiculous way this is currently being discussed, in his interview Monday night with Sen. Jim Webb (who also made the point that, surge or no, fighting in Iraq wasn't and isn't in the strategic interests of the U.S., even though our military will do the job that's put to them and almost always have). Colbert argued, "I will grant you that perhaps it was a foreign policy disaster to go in, based on shoddy evidence. But now that the surge is working, it was worth it!" As usual, Colbert's character on Comedy Central shows just how stupid what passes for punditry is elsewhere on TV.
Nouri al-Maliki Suggests Obama Gets Iraq Better than McCain Does
So the American people want a timetable for getting us out of Iraq. Barack Obama has said he wants us out of Iraq in 16 months, more or less (assuming he means from the time he's in office and able to set that in motion). Now the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, says he thinks the US should be out of Iraq in about the same timeframe. Which is, to say the least, awkward for John McCain, who has said we'll get out when al-Maliki thinks we should. John McCain, check your voicemail... .
In other foreign affairs news, as Obama makes his way eastward (and middle eastward), McCain has a new ad slamming him for never once holding hearings on Afghanistan as chair of a Foreign Relations subcommittee. Only two problems with that: Joe Biden, the Foreign Relations chair, has held a number of hearings on Afghanistan, and Obama attended at least one of them. And John McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services committee, has attended none of the six Afghanistan-related hearings his own committee has held in the last two years.
I'm cynical enough to believe that McCain's ad will work with many voters, anyway. And, apparently, McCain is that cynical as well. Just a bit ago, he and his party were accusing the Democrats of "playing politics" by voting to restore doctor's fees under Medicare. Only problem with that is that when it was time to vote, where was the GOP's nominee? Out on the hustings, playing politics. In fact, he was the only senator to miss that vote. But he says he would have voted against it, anyway. Apparently he's one senior who thinks his health care is just fine and doesn't need to worry whether his doctor will opt out of Medicare or not.
"If you can't do irony on the cover of The New Yorker, where can you do it?" — Bill Maher, The New York Times, July 15, 2008
I honestly do not get this controversy about The New Yorker cover. If you haven't seen it, I'm not sure how you've missed it. But here it is (click for a larger version):
It's obviously satire, showing Michelle Obama with a big '70s Afro and Black Panther radical garb and gunfire, giving a "terrorist fist jab" to her husband, dressed in a dashiki and turban. There's an American flag burning in the Oval Office fireplace, and a portrait of Osama bin Laden above the mantel.
Basically, it's demonstrating the ridiculousness of all the goofy e-mail rumors your "low-information" voter friends may be sending around. Along the same lines of Stephen Colbert's mentions of Obama as a "secret Muslim," or Jon Stewart's nightly "Baracknophobia" segments. But many Obama supporters (and I count myself one, but certainly part company on this issue) are up in arms that someone has drawn a cartoon illustrating all these slanders that are already out there about the Obamas.
You read arguments like: "Too many voters won't read The New Yorker, they'll just see the cover and it will confirm their suspicions." "If National Review or the American Spectator had done this, what would be the difference?" "We can't afford the possibility that this will give fodder to the right-wing."
Each of those are stupid arguments. If this cartoon confirms anyone's suspicions, they weren't pulling the lever for Obama anyway. If National Review or the American Spectator had displayed this cover -- unless they're making fun of their own audience, which is unlikely -- it would have been a form of commentary about their worst fears, not satire. (And using a cartoon would be sending a decided mixed message in such an instance.) And I still don't see how this provides any fodder to any of the wingnuts that they're not already employing -- that, in fact, is the point of the satire.
For every idiot who sends this around as proof that "even the LIBERAL New Yorker thinks the Obamas are radical Muslims," I'm convinced there will be even more on-the-fence voters who see this as the satire it is, and in their minds, it takes the issue off the table: "Ha ha, Yeah, I guess those are pretty ridiculous suppositions my crazy brother-in-law keeps sending me." Even if they don't see the satire, but are offended on Obama's behalf, it makes them more sympathetic to the idea that the right-wing is slandering him, and so has the same effect.
Other than Internet fundraising and the Bush Administration's own ineptitude, the only consistently effective weapon in the progressive movement's arsenal has been satire. We'd be stupid to throw that away in the fear that someone might not see it for what it is.
Maybe I'm more loyal to The New Yorker than I am to the Obama campaign (I've been a reader and subscriber a lot longer than I've been a Democrat, I guess). But I don't think you win an election by demanding everyone on your side be as dumb as the people you're opposing. You need to be more politically savvy, you don't need to be dumber.
And if there are people crazy enough to see this cartoon cover as confirmation of their suspicions that Barack and Michelle Obama are Huey P. Newton and Angela Davis for the iPod generation, maybe they'll subscribe to The New Yorker. They may think they're getting Sean Hannity in print, but they'll really be getting Seymour Hersh and Hendrik Hertzberg. and there's a nice poetic justice in that.
The title of the cover, by the way, as reported on the ToC is "The Politics of Fear." Prescient, that.
Another thing I don't get: all the talk about Obama "moving toward the center" -- or moving rightward, leaving the center in the rearview mirror, in some people's eyes.
On almost all of the issues cited, as he said himself, if people think he's now moving to the center, they haven't been listening to him. He was already on record as believing that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual's right to bear arms (rather than a state militia's collective right, as I believe). He was already on record that some crimes (including the rape of a child, although he'd always included "and murder" in that formula) could warrant the death penalty, whereas I don't believe the state has any right to commit revenge murder on behalf of citizens. And Obama was already on record that local institutions, some of them faith-based (e.g., churches) often provide the most effective social services for the population that most needs them. (A position with which I agree; my own politically liberal Episcopal parish's food pantry relies in part on federal funds in order to hand out groceries to people who need them.)
Only on the new FISA law can I see signs of shifting positions, and I admit I don't know enough about the details (other than the telecom immunity) to judge whether this newer law really is better than the older law or not, and whether telecom immunity was worth getting it. I suspect I'd disagree with Obama's position here, too, but maybe not. However, I'm pretty sure it was the wrong choice politically, and will show up in lackluster fundraising at exactly the time Obama can't afford lackluster fundraising.
Speaking of fundraising, that wasn't a flip-flop. Or if it was, it was probably a good one. (And we've had almost eight years of a president who refused to change his mind about anything, so I don't see a foolish consistency being anything other than what Emerson said it was.) He hadn't committed to public financing, just to exploring it, And I think -- if he can remain an inspiring candidate people want to donate to, which is a big if -- he made the right call there. Public financing from the actual public really is better than forced spending, if you've got a wide enough number of contributors participating. Otherwise, it's just special interest money. The McCain campaign tried to portray Obama's decision to eschew public financing of his campaign as evidence that he's just another typical Washington politician -- which hardly flies. After all, he's the first presidential candidate to turn public campaign money down since the program was created in 1971.
Finally, among the things I also don't understand is the lingering animosity between Obama and Clinton supporters. I mean, I get it, but it was way out of proportion throughout the primaries and continues to be even now. I voted for Obama in the primary (my first choice, Edwards, having dropped out); the person I'm closest to voted for Clinton. We were both fine with that, and both said we'd be happy to vote for either of them in the general election.
But we're obviously off in some fantasy land, because to read the online commentary, at least, Hillary is an angry, conniving witch who is willing to say anything or do anything to get elected. And Barack is an unqualified empty suit who is willing to say anything or do anything to get elected. He's a confirmed misogynist. Bill and Hillary are lifelong racists. And I'm like...huh?
What I would find amusing if it didn't show signs of so many people I know and respect becoming so seriously unhinged is that most of the critiques of one side against the other are near mirror images, or at least cracked mirror images. Hillary supporters see misogyny in every anti-Hillary statement during the campaign -- of which there was some, sometimes a lot, from the pundits, to be certain -- but don't see any racism at all in Bill's or Hillary's (or even Geraldine Ferraro's) comments that alluded to race and racial lines in voting. Obamaniacs see racism and the assumption of white privilege in every utterance of the Clinton campaign -- but can't even hear themselves when they say really hateful things about Hillary Clinton that were probably last said when they were 15 and screaming at their mothers because she wouldn't let them stay out late on a school night.
Or, to put it another way, what Democrats liked about either of these candidates is one-half of what was Bill Clinton's appeal for them. For some, his policy wonkery made him a superb president, and they see how his wife shares that passion for the details. For others, he was an inspiring speaker and a personable character, and they want Obama because he makes them feel passionate about politics again (or for the first time, for many of them). Although I'm sure Bill doesn't see it this way, Hillary and Barack were each running against the other half of Bill's personality that people found appealing.
NB: Given what we've had in the years since, I miss having someone smart like him as president, but I was never that thrilled with him when he was in office. His returning to Arkansas during the campaign to deny a mentally retarded man a stay of execution was, for me, the equivalent of Obama's FISA vote. And when he signed DOMA -- and then crowed about it in campaign ads on Christian radio stations -- I figured he was about as ideologically pure as, well, Obama's critics are now calling him.
In fact, now that I've gone there, I suppose I have viewed both Hillary and Barack this year with some ambivalence, and therefore find the charges of sexism and racism so overwrought. After all, both candidates have trashed my demographic's full equality, but you don't see me running for the door marked "Nader." Or feeling much sympathy for the other poor put-upon folks being told to stand in line for their issues.
I don't think Hillary lost because of sexism; I think she lost because (a) she's been a polarizing figure all her public life, and had the highest negatives of any of the Democratic candidates, and (b) she ran a stupid campaign after Super Tuesday. She had a senior strategist who hadn't grokked that the Democratic primaries awarded delegates in proportion to the primary results, and couldn't figure out how to win caucus states, so didn't really try. She also had way too much infighting on her campaign to wage an effective general election battle.
She lost, in other words, to someone who proved to be a better politician, and so I guess I'm glad he won. I'm hoping (and voting, and contributing on the premise that) he can trounce John McCain as well. He wasn't my first choice when all this began, and we may well look back on this as yet another stupid nomination by a party that can't win even the unloseable elections. ("Here's an idea: let's nominate a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts who actively protested against fellow soldiers in the Vietnam War. If we remind people he fought in it, that's all they'll remember." Uh huh.) This year may best be remembered as the year the Democrats nominated a little-known black senator from urban Chicago, a self-described "skinny kid with big ears and a funny name" (and an even funnier middle name), and we'll have to add Obama as a partner to the firm of Mondale, Dukakis & Kerry, losers-at-elections. Maybe not.
So have we ended up nominating a John F. Kennedy this year or an Adlai Stevenson? Only history (and the election results) will tell.
Apropos of nothing, and certainly not worth a post in the heat of a presidential campaign on which I haven't written anything in two months, but I found the following interesting facts about my name on WhitePages.com:
There are 30,193 unique 'Derek' first names in the United States. Derek is the #461 ranked first name in the United States.
# 460 Franklin
# 461 Derek
# 462 Glenda
Top States for first Name Derek
1. California 2482 listings 2. Texas 2188 listings 3. Florida 1601 listings 4. Michigan 1179 listings 5. New York 1130 listings
Most Popular last Names for Derek
1. Smith 402 listings 2. Johnson 293 listings 3. Brown 208 listings 4. Williams 195 listings 5. Jones 188 listings
On the Other Hand Having said all this here on the left, I then saw this clip from Good Morning America today, reporting on the Democrats voting in today's West Virginia primary. I guess we really do get the politicians we deserve when people like this vote.And this article from The New Republic is just as dismaying.
We know Hillary's going to win West Virginia today — but it will be interesting if enough superdelegates continue to announce for Obama today or tomorrow to keep the total delegate spread the same.
I was bothered, however, by listening to a BBC World News radio report this morning from West Virginia in which a number of primary voters overtly said Obama couldn't beat McCain in November because Obama is black. (He's also half-white, but no one seems to remember this, including the media.) Of course, none of these people themselves said they wouldn't support him because he was black, only that "no one they know" will, so they want Hillary to get the nomination.
On the other hand, maybe we've reached an inflection point in American society, as much in West Virginia as elsewhere. Perhaps the Bradley effect is no longer in effect? Or even has been reversed?
In 1982, polls in the California governor race showed the black mayor of Los Angeles with a double-digit lead over his white opponent, George Deukmejian, but Bradley lost the election. This and similar poll/election disparities between white and black candidates led people to discuss a "Bradley effect" in polling, wherein likely voters would say to a pollster they were willing to vote for a black candidate, but in the voting booth wouldn't. No one could actually prove this was what was going on, but the Bradley effect entered the popular culture as a sign that racism was alive and well, at least covertly in the privacy of the voting booth.
But that was a generation ago. I'd like to think that we've moved enough as a society that, today, we might even see a reverse Bradley effect in the voting booth come November. By which I mean that poll respondents may have a lower opinion of their neighbors' fair-mindedness than they have themselves. In other words, I'm willing to suspect that white voters may be more willing to vote for a white candidate than they think they're neighbors are — but in the privacy of the voting booth, they can.
Given the advantage the Clintons have had in West Virginia elections since the 1990s, I don't think Hillary winning there today is necessarily a sign or result of racism among Democrats in West Virginia. And in the general election, it's hard to say. The governor, both senators, and two of its three Congressional representatives are all Democrats. It was the only southern state to vote for Michael Dukakis in 1988, and went for Bill Clinton by large majorities in his two elections. But it also voted twice for George W. Bush — and in 2004 by an even larger margin than in 2000.
None of those races were, at least very much, about race. Unfortunately, the latest polling from West Virginia does show Clinton beating McCain there as of today, but also shows McCain beating Obama. That's not necessarily racism at work — it could just be familiarity. And a lot could change between now and November. In fact, I hope it does.
Speaking of the Electoral College, there's a rumor afoot that Ohio Governor Ted Strickland could be on the short list for Obama running mates. Although he hasn't been a governor for much over a year, he was in Congress off and on since the early 1990s, he's popular in Ohio, and he's a generation older than Obama. Something to think about.
Every minute of television or speech time that either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton spend comparing themselves to their rival for the nomination is another minute where John McCain gets a free pass.
Yes, as a Democrat, an Obama supporter and someone who can add up numbers, I think Hillary Clinton should drop out now. But whether she does or doesn't, she and Obama need to be focused on beating John McCain in the Electoral College. Anything else is a media, fundraising, or political distraction from that goal. And you don't have a very strong spoke in for your party's nomination if your own ambitions trump its goals — which would have to also include freeing up some of the donation cash to House and Senate races, not to mention all the local state office Democrats running who can't get a word in edgewise while these two fight it out.
The arguments have been made, and made again, and then made again, each time lowering the level of discourse to decide this nomination. Most recently: "Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening... ." Before that: "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them... ."
At this point, negatively characterizing your opponent in the primary race is not going to gain you any new superdelegates — in fact, hers are starting to publicly switch to him; I'm not aware yet of any of his that have switched to her. More important, negatively characterizing either candidates supporters (or lack thereof among some demographics) isn't going to unify the party between now and November.
I realize I've made this point already, in shorter form, almost exactly two months ago. I only mean it more so now.
I think this article sums it up best: if Hillary is going to stay in the race to the end, she needs to do it for the sake of her party and its unity, not for her own nomination. If Obama is going to stay in the race to the end (as he obviously is, since he's winning more states, more popular votes, and now has more pledged delegates), he gains nothing by saying a single negative thing about Clinton, and could gain volumes in praising her. Nobody who is currently an Obama supporter is going to switch to supporting Clinton because he was magnanimous. No one who is on the fence is going to hear his graciousness as an argument for Clinton's candidacy. And it could only help to pave the way for her supporters to return to the Democratic fold by the convention. They've assumed all along that they are the core of the Democratic Party; he can at least make it easy for them to continue to feel that they still belong.
If Clinton could be seen as a vital asset for the Democratic party in its fight against McCain and the Republicans, then an argument could even be made that the debt her campaign is in (with the Clintons themselves and advisers like Mark Penn as the creditors) could be assumed in part or whole by the eventual presidential campaign — essentially paying her campaign off for the good she could do between now and November, like one would for any consultant or (high-dollar) campaign official. But if she puts her interests above the party's — and equating those interests is the same thing; it's called hubris — then she makes the best argument herself for why superdelegates shouldn't support her, why Democratic primary voters shouldn't support her, and why her debt should be her own going forward.
If you've seen the right-hand column of my Web site, you've noticed the far-more-frequent updates via Twitter.
These come from my Twitter feed, which I can publish to with far less effort than I can full posts to my blog. Most of the time you'll just see the kind of top-of-mind updates I add there (e.g., the Jamba Juice menu layout). But occasionally you'll also see an entry that begins with the "@" symbol (e.g., "@timwasher"). These are "personal" messages to an individual, but obviously made public via Twitter.
To see my own Twitter feed, you only need to go to my Twitter page. To see the feed of anyone I'm messaging, just replace Twitter name in the URL (e.g., www.twitter.com/derekbaker) with the name of the Twitteree following the "@" symbol.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled blog tracking...
Further Evidence that the GOP Isn't What It Says It Is
Primary Race From the NYT today: "Sixteen percent of white voters said race mattered in deciding who they voted for, and just 54 percent of those voters said they would support Mr. Obama in a general election; 27 percent of them said they would vote for Mr. McCain if Mr. Obama was the Democratic nominee, and 16 percent said they would not vote at all." Is this just rust-belt Pennsylvania? Or is this really (and still) the picture of the Democratic party overall? That statistic makes me kind of sick to my stomach.
A discussion with friends about how much a particular state has paid into the federal highway fund and gotten back from it (Oklahoma, which over the past 50 years has gotten back only 91¢ for every $1 it paid into the fund) made me start to wonder how the states' Congressional delegations compare with how they feed at the overall federal trough. (The "good" news for Oklahoma: federal highway spending aside, the state get $1.36 in federal spending for every $1 it pays in taxes, ranking it 15th. And it should be noted that 85 percent of Oklahoma's Congressional delegation are Republicans.)
These facts come from the Tax Foundation's annual reports and are for FY2005, the last full year they've analyzed as of this post.
So time for a quick red/blue analysis of the top 10 and the bottom 10 states that are feeding at the pork trough. (I should hasten to point out here that, "bridges to nowhere" notwithstanding, I'm not connecting the earlier discussion of highway construction and maintenance to pork — infrastructure is something we actually should be investing in in this country. But as it isn't possible to separate the fat from the lean in the federal budget, thanks to earmarks, this is just a look at federal spending per state overall, with the assumption that some major part of that is pork barrel politics rather than needed investment.
States' Federal Spending to Taxes Paid; Congressional Delegations
Rank
State
Fed Spend/$1 in Fed Taxes Paid
# Cong D's
# Cong R's
% Republican
1
New Mexico
$2.03
2
3
60%
2
Mississippi
$2.02
2
4
67%
3
Alaska
$1.84
0
3
100%
4
Louisiana
$1.78
3
6
67%
5
West Virginia
$1.76
4
1
20%
6
North Dakota
$1.68
3
0
0%
7
Alabama
$1.66
2
7
78%
8
South Dakota
$1.53
2
1
33%
9
Kentucky
$1.51
2
6
75%
10
Virginia
$1.51
4
9
69%
$Avg | Total
$1.73
24
40
63%
41
Colorado
$0.81
5
4
44%
42
New York
$0.79
25
6
19%
43
California
$0.78
36
19
35%
44
Delaware
$0.77
2
1
33%
45
Illinois
$0.75
13
8
38%
46
Minnesota
$0.72
62
4
40%
47
New Hampshire
$0.71
2
2
50%
48
Connecticut
$0.69
6
1
14%
49
Nevada
$0.65
2
3
60%
50
New Jersey
$0.61
9
6
40%
$Avg | Total
$0.73
106
54
34%
I know it's not so cut and dried as simple party affiliation: the top 10 states include West Virginia (thanks to Robert Byrd), with a delegation that is only 20% Republican, and North Dakota, which has no Republicans in Congress at the moment. And the District of Columbia isn't even among the rankings (at $5.55/$1), for obvious reasons, given where the federal government is itself encamped, and without any voting delegation in Congress. But by taking both the top 10 and bottom 10 as a group, as shown above, it does seem to further belie the claim that the GOP is the party in favor of "fiscal responsibility" and against "the redistribution of wealth."
(My previous red/blue analysis from past election years here and here.)
Spring in Manhattan. Yes, Manhattan, New York.
Spring has hit New York City with a happy vengeance. Here's the view from my apartment as of last Thursday, compared with that same view today:
April 17, 2008
April 23, 2008
The early blooms (including the cherry trees and tulips) were already in full force last Thursday around sunset. Here's a further look at my corner of Manhattan in springtime.
I realized the other morning that I've voted, at one time or another (and, in one instance, twice) for each of the three leading people running for President. I wrote in John McCain in 2000, since I couldn't stomach voting for Bush and wasn't nearly as enthusiastic about Al Gore as I would be today. I've voted for Clinton twice in her Senate races. And I voted for Obama in the New York primary this year. You'd think I'd be happy, therefore, with whoever wins. Not exactly.
I suspect that the worst tactic either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton could engage in right now is to attack each other as a way to get the nomination. Not just because it's potentially damaging to the Democratic party. But I wouldn't be a bit surprised if every vote their campaigns gain from "making distinctions" for voters (i.e., going negative) loses them another vote elsewhere. Plus a vote for John McCain in the general election. So go negative, but you risk losing the nomination and will in all likelihood lose the general election even if you get the nomination.
Wouldn't it be far better (and more effective) if both of these candidates took on John McCain now? Wouldn't the candidate who can, today, make the best case against John McCain -- and make it consistently -- earn the right to make it in November? For that matter, since they're both in the news until one wins the nomination, wouldn't it be far more effective to have two voices making the case against McCain than to wait until after the convention to start doing that?
TIME magazine's site (not sure if these articles will also appear or have appeared in the dead-tree version) has two articles that gave me a pause.
1) If the electorate has moved away from the Republicans, does that necessarily they have moved to the left? Or even if they would be more willing to call themselves "moderate" than "conservative" these days, will they see John McCain as the candidate who better reflects their own political journey? He's pretty conservative by most measures (including the American Conservative Union's), but given all the right-wing wailing at the prospect of a John McCain administration, he may just be seen as the centrist. Article: "The Price of Overconfidence."
2) The Bishop of Durham explains what he says is the true (at least biblical) Christian view of heaven. I've heard this before in discussion with or sermons from more than one clergyperson -- but they don't talk about it a lot, because they probably don't completely understand it, either (who does?), and it's not quite as appealing a promise as the common, if unfounded in Scripture, idea of the resurrection. Article: "Christians Wrong About Heaven, Says Bishop". (That should probably read "Many Christians" in the headline, because as I say, I've heard this expressed before.) One thing that doesn't get addressed here, however, is that if God stands outside of time, then perhaps that final victory is as real and accessible to souls who have entered the Church Triumphant as today's battles are for the Church Militant -- or the Creation was to God.
But perhaps TIME didn't want to tackle the issue of time.
I don't regularly read the Washington Post, but my impression of David Broder is that he can be somewhat behind the curve at times. Even still, a recent column offers these words of warning for Democrats:
[T]he recent Washington Post-ABC News poll ... showed McCain in a statistical tie with either Democrat, leading Clinton by 49 percent to 46 percent, and trailing Obama by a similar margin.
In either scenario, women break for the Democratic candidate. McCain leads Clinton by 13 points among men, but only runs even with Obama. Party lines are sharp, and the battle for independents would be close. Currently, independents give McCain a 12-point lead over Clinton but favor Obama by 6 points over the Republican.
A fascinating dynamic appears when voters are asked to judge the candidates' strength and experience versus their new ideas and potential for bringing change. McCain and Clinton match closely in both dimensions, while McCain leads Obama by 20 points on strength and experience, but Obama has a 31-point edge on representing a new direction.
It could be, between now and November, that the surfeit of microphones and cameras around these days could showcase John McCain's well-documented temper: a "macaca moment," his own variation on Howard Dean's famous (for famously insane) roar. Or, since most of the news from here on out about the Republicans will actually be about John McCain, perhaps he'll have the same effect on the country as he's had on so many of his fellow professional Republicans who already know him and who, despite the less-familiar voters' preference, can't stand the guy.
The funk soul, brother The Church of the Ascension's Lenten Devotions are again available on the parish Web site (thanks to yours truly), as well as, this year, available at Sunday services in hard copy for the days in the following week. Check it out now.
So I pulled the lever for Obama. (And, yes, in New York City, we still use voting machines from the 1960s that use levers to record our votes. That's supposed to change by next year, but we'll see.)
Like a lot of other people quoted in the news, it felt good to vote for a candidate I was actually excited about. I'll be very happy if, instead of Obama, Clinton gets elected in November. But she's so much of a known quantity, I don't expect there to be much excitement over the prospect of her as president, other than that it will mean there won't be a Republican administration finally and, of course, the first woman president of the United States is exciting in its own right, just as the first black president would be.
Several people I'm close to voted for Hillary, and we all had our reasons. For a lot of people, it probably comes down to a choice between competency and vision -- and only the most hyperbolic would say he's incompetent or she has no vision, so the distinctions are more shades of gray than (if you'll excuse the expression) black and white.
We're in an interesting period now: Obama is slightly ahead in the delegate count, but Clinton has more of the Democratic party "superdelegates" in her column. As John Aravosis of AMERICAblog has pointed out, this could lead to a very fractious (and damaging) national convention this summer if Obama wins more delegates through primary voters and caucus-goers but the superdelegates throw it to Hillary. Such a move could burn up a lot of goodwill, activism, and cross-over appeal moving into the general election, I think. Hopefully, the remaining contests will be decisive enough to avoid that, or a similarly damaging, situation.
And Hillary is herself in a tough position now, as Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen on Politico point out. Many of the upcoming races favor Barack (D.C., Maryland, Virginia) and/or are caucus states where he tends to do better (Washington, Nebraska, Maine, Hawaii); he raised twice as much money as she did in January; and he generally has more independents and Republicans voting for him in open primaries, such as Texas on March 4. So it really is still up in the air.
Hearing last night about all the high turnout, especially in the Democratic primaries, I was wondering if any hopeful extrapolation could be made between the number of people engaged enough this year to vote in the primaries versus how the actual election went four years ago. So I crunched some numbers, based on Wikipedia or CNN sources of votes in the primary and votes in the general election four years ago. Bear with me here. And keep your eye on that fifth column. (Pun intended.)
Super-Duper Tuesday Turnout, 2008, vs. Votes Cast in General Election, 2004
Democrats
Republicans
R+%
D+%
Kerry
Bush
R04+%
D04+%
Alabama
533,521
550,573
3
693,933
1,176,394
41
Arizona
368,828
439,347
19
893,524
1,104,294
19
Arkansas
273,449
203,533
26
470,230
573,182
18
California
3,697,467
2,196,311
41
6,745,485
5,509,826
22
Connecticut
349,288
150,159
57
857,488
693,826
24
Delware
96,341
50,062
48
200,152
171,660
17
Georgia
1,040,873
952,692
8
1,366,149
1,914,254
29
Illinois
1,937,730
873,572
55
2,891,989
2,346,608
23
Massachusetts
1,220,745
496,171
59
1,803,800
1,071,109
68
Missouri
823,530
584,618
29
1,259,171
1,455,713
14
New Jersey
1,103,824
554,894
50
1,911,430
1,670,003
14
New York
1,718,155
602,215
65
4,314,280
2,962,567
46
Oklahoma
417,095
329,843
21
503,966
959,792
47
Tennessee
612,791
547,614
11
1,036,477
1,384,375
25
Utah
122,617
283,759
131
241,199
663,742
64
Total
14,316,254
8,815,363
38
25,189,273
23,657,345
6
I didn't include states that had caucuses, because those are each run so idiosyncratically and turnout can't be compared the way it is in primary states. Plus, there were some Republican caucuses yesterday that didn't even have a concurrent Democratic caucus. So just in looking at the 15 states that held primaries yesterday, Democratic turnout was 38% higher than Republicans.
That may not be such notable number in itself, since it included the first-, third- and fifth-ranked states according to population (California, New York, and Illinois), all of them already blue according to the 2004 presidential election. But look closer at the states I've highlighted in bold above.
George Bush took each of those states in 2004 against Kerry, but they had higher turnout among Democrats this past Super Tuesday than they had among Republicans. Arkansas went for Bush by 18 percent -- but 26 percent more Democrats turned out for the Arkansas primary. Georgia was even more solidly blue than Arkansas four years ago, yet more Democrats still turned out for this primary. Missouri, considered a bellweather state, had 29 percent more Democrats voting in this primary than Republicans, despite also being in the blue column four years ago.
Finally, the one that intrigues me (because I'm originally from there and it's the best evidence of the Reagan Revolution, which moved the state from being solidly Democratic to solidly Republican in national politics, even though Democrats outnumber Republicans by 11.6 percent) went for Bush over Kerry by a whopping 47 percent. But it still had 21 percent higher turnout among Democrats in the primary. And, based on the 302,169 votes cast in the 2004 Democratic primary in Oklahoma, 38 percent higher turnout this time around.
Trends like this could bode very well for the Democrats this November, leaving aside the he-said/she-said of the current race (and, for that matter, leaving aside race, as well). A lot of course could happen between now and November. John McCain could (will likely, in fact) win the nomination, and he's got the most cross-over appeal among the Republican candidates. Mayor Mike (Bloomberg) could enter the race, which would be a real shame, because he's a pretty good mayor but doesn't stand a chance to win as president (as he himself has pointed out, he's a short, Jewish, divorced New Yorker -- not exactly going to be swept to victory across the Sun Belt), nor should he. Ralph Nader, unsafe at any speed in any election, could enter from the left; Ron Paul could decide to run on his own on the right.
So how 15 states turned out yesterday for their primaries may hold nothing more than wisps of smoke to augur some fire down below. But barring a guaranteed win, which I'd take if I could, I'll take this for now as a hopeful sign that voters may finally be saying, in the words of George W. Bush: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me... you can't get fooled again."
I was planning to vote for Edwards next week; if he's dropping out, I'm voting for Obama for the pennant. But I will vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee in November -- even if it's Hillary (whom I've voted to the Senate twice), even if the Rethuglicans pull out dossiers on all the girls Bill's fooled around with in the last 8 years (as the rumor goes he's done and they plan to do). I won't be thrilled if she gets the nomination, because even the Republican leadership says her nomination is the one thing that will help unite their party (and that means their party's organization and players), but I'll still vote for whoever is the Democrat to keep a Republican administration from recurring.
And, as I've admitted before, I actually wrote in McCain 8 years ago, because at the time I stupidly thought that would be more principled than voting for Bush's idiocy and Gore's pedantry. I've changed my mind completely about Gore, and realize I did no better than the Nader voters in New Hampshire and Florida who gave the White House to Bush. Having seen what today's Republican party will do once it's in power, there's no way I'd vote for McCain again. And there's no way I wouldn't just "not vote" -- that's childish, seeking the perfect candidate before you'll vote for him or her. Never happens and if it does, they'd never win. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
I do find it interesting that (a) McCain and Clinton are both hated passionately by many in their party's base, which could make for an interesting election; and (b) Clinton received far more votes in the Florida Democratic primary than McCain did in the GOP primary -- despite the fact that none of the Democrats campaigned in Florida and that primary was merely a popularity contest, without any delegates coming from it (as of today, at least).
And here we are at the Michigan primary. Hillary and Mac won New Hampshire. Bill Richardson (everyone's best candidate for running mate) dropped out. So it's a fight for delegate counts (not unlike November's fight for electoral votes) as much or more than a fight for each state. I find it telling that Barack won more independent votes than Hillary did, and that independents turned out four to one for the Democratic primary than three to one, for the Republican. (If I've misstated that, sorry, but the point is that 40% of voters in the Democratic primary were independents, whereas about a third of voters in the Republican primary were independents.)
I have to stay, though, that I'm extremely exasperated with the National Democratic Party for deciding to "sanction" Michigan and Florida for holding their primaries before Super-Duper Tuesday. I'm sure it made some kind of sense at the time, but the end result is that it gives Democratic candidates (including the eventual nominee) far less chance to appear in person in front of two key states of the general election. And for some voters, it fits exactly into their suspicion of an autocratic party that can't wait to tell local communities how to live their lives. I overstate what this means, of course, but trust me: that's the interpretation that's going to get played during the general election in both those states.
But enough about how the Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Let's go to the mailbag, shall we?
A friend in Oklahoma writes:
"Consider this food for thought for your blog: I think Hillary’s negatives are one major factor that don’t get parsed and probed enough (not by the press or by Obama or Edwards). Hillary could seriously cost the Dems the election. I’d personally hate to see that happen, but the level of animosity toward her can’t be underestimated. The major East Coast press really misses the boat on that with respect to the South, and Southwest."
He's right, and I've said that to anyone who'd listen to me for nearly a year, but I haven't posted a lot here about it. It's true, however: Hillary Clinton's negatives in the South and Southwest are as big, or bigger, than her positives, to use polling jargon. (Or a layperson's understanding of polling jargon?) You thought an elitist senator from the northeast was a good idea for 2004? Then nominate Hillary Clinton -- among the most polarizing figures of the last two decades -- this time around.
Me, I think she'd actually make a great president: smart, decisive, politically savvy but with America's best interests at heart, regardless of any personal failings. Not unlike...well, let's not bring him up. But I do think there hasn't been enough attention to the negative opinion so many Americans have of Hillary Clinton, deserved or not. Maybe, as another friend says, she only needs a bare minority of the electoral college to win and can win it, but I doubt it. And I think the South Carolina and February 5 primaries will show that, but we'll see.
For now, I think Hillary is too hated -- and no, not by people who normally vote in the Democratic primaries, but by people who don't, yet who vote in November -- to win the general election. Maybe she could win against Romney. Definitely against Giuliani (having faced at least the first days of an election between those two, I can say that), but against anyone else: I doubt it.
Notice I haven't said "why" -- and I don't think there is any coherent rationale behind it. The real reason is probably two decades of talk radio, Fox News, and unimaginative editorial cartoons. Which, at the end, is probably enough to keep her from being president.
Or, from my friend in Oklahoma again: "I also support many of her views, and I'd love to see a woman in office, but I simply think she’s the wrong one. She'll further divide the country. She's not our panacea. What's more, I don't get the blind trust so many Dems give her."
He may not be aware just how hated Hillary (and even Bill) are by so many people on the left for their largely centrist, "corporatist" Democratic Leadership Council history and positions, so she's certainly not universally loved among Democrats -- far from it. But my own ideas on why she garners so much support is threefold:
People who shake their head in disbelief at how we went from a competent, intelligent administration to an incompetent, anti-intellectual band of snake-oil handlers, and who look back at the Clinton practice of political triangulation as a form of realpolitik that can get stuff done.
People who support her precisely because she's so hated by Rush Limbaugh et al.; who are closely related to...
People who discern in her a mirror of what some Republicans liked about George W. Bush, which is that -- unlike with most other politicians who have confidence in their positions and candidacy -- in Clinton, some people infer an arrogance in her positions and attitudes, and they like that lack of self-doubt. (And these would be the sworn enemies of the people who ate up W's characterization of "swagger" as just what they call "walking" in Texas.)
Again, I think the February 5 primaries will tell us a lot about what people in those states feel about Hillary Clinton, albeit it will be Democratic primary voters, who may or may not be an accurate reflection of the wider general election voters in that same state. Another friend, this time from Texas, writes to say:
"Personally I think you are selling the 'red states' short and I think what happened in Iowa (and New Hampshire, I hope) [DAB note: he wrote this before the NH primary] demonstrate that. Look what he did for turnout and young voters, To me that speaks VOLUMES to what this guy is about."
He's talking Obama, obviously, and I don't discount it, because this is someone who voted for Bush in the last two elections, but is now rooting for Obama. And is someone who won't vote Hillary, in all likelihood, no matter who is running against her. He, like a lot of Americans, is eager to get off the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton train and (if you'll forgive the term) "move on." Which, I think, is a powerful subtext for many voters in both parties. They don't want their nose rubbed in the fact that the last two elections were a disaster for the country, but they don't want to repeat the mistake again.
This is why I find it interesting that Obama got more support from independents in New Hampshire than Clinton. There are Republicans or Republican-leaning independents who don't feel Obama has already enlisted himself as their sworn enemy, whereas more Republicans (and especially Republican men) think Clinton is too far gone in Marxist feminist circles (despite the fact that she consistently drives the political left nuts and many feminists are notably lukewarm about Hillary being the first serious woman candidate for president) for them to ever support her.
This is going to sound overly simplistic, but there's a good chance we've reached a point in America where a white, male Republican can happily support Barack Obama as president because of other things going on in the culture, particularly where Republican identification is strongest. Nationwide, an older generation of entrenched racial prejudice has died, and a younger, browner picture of America has become more mainstream. But I also think there has been a slow evolution in the part of the country that is on record for being the least likely to believe in that other kind of evolution.
Over 40 years ago, Dick Gregory said: "In the South, they don't care how close I get as long as I don't get too big. In the North, they don't care how big I get as long as I don't get too close." Which surprised and discomfited a lot of northerners at the time. (White northerners saw segregation as a hateful attempt to reify the kind of de facto separation of races they experienced in most of the North, whereas southern racists saw it as a defensive posture against the intermingling of two races who were already closer in number and proximity than they liked.) While familiarity may have bred contempt among the races in the South during the first 200 years of the country's history, the past 30 years have changed a lot.
Blacks and whites attend the same megachurches in greater numbers than ever before in the Sunbelt. In the other prominent religion of the region, there are more black quarterbacks and black football coaches than in decades past, and each has a lot of white male fans rooting for him. And in 2006, Bill Lester, a Berkley-educated, former Hewlett-Packard engineer, became the first black NASCAR driver in 20 years. (There are apparently none qualifying in the current rankings, however, making the southern-focused nascar.com as white or whiter a Web site than the northern-dominated nhl.com.)
This may not be enough for red-state America to elect a black president -- but I would say we're closer to that point than at any other point in our history, so I'm willing to entertain at least a modicum of the audacity of hope. And, finally, speaking of Obama, another friend, here in New York, wrote to clarify what he'd said about Barack Obama as a Muslim. He knew he attended a Christian church in Chicago (and even that some people call it an overtly "afro-centric" church), but he was referring to the larger implications of a man with a Kenyan Muslim father, who grew up for a time in Indonesia, has the middle name of Hussein, etc., running for president in America today. Which was the point I was making, too, but as I reflect on it, I shouldn't have blithely used his same discussion of that issue as the evidence that people may find Obama problematic. And, for the record, in addition to Fox News, he's actually also a consumer of information from MSNBC, CNN, NY1 (a local cable news channel), and Air America -- and the New York Post's Page Six and the New York Times crossword. I offered to post a correction here, which he graciously said wasn't warranted since he was just goofing on me, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized that using a caricature of what he was saying to make a point about why people might not vote for Obama wasn't a whole lot better than someone making a caricature of Obama's background as a reason to vote against him, so I wanted to clear that up.
And, like the other two friends I mentioned above, he's not real thrilled with the idea of Hillary as president, either.
A break from the political blathering to mention something I saw tonight on my way to the grocery store: a subway train, rolling up Broadway. And not on an elevated track (which we have up here) or somesuch. It went by pretty fast, and I was actually a block away, looking east toward Broadway, but I was able to see that it was actually on the back of a (large) flatbed truck, followed by another truck with what was probably a "wide load" sign.
Considering that there are train yards just east of Broadway way up here on the northern end of Manhattan, where they do repairs and such, it isn't the most surprising thing, but I hadn't seen a subway car rolling up the street before and I know I did a classic double-take. I wish I'd had a camera or cellphone camera to take a picture to show you. Trust me: it was the New York equivalent of seeing a jetliner being hauled up a highway — not that most people have seen that, either, I realize.
Isn't it time Dennis Kucinich dropped out? The guy couldn't win a statewide race in Ohio, let alone a national election. Mike Gravel is also just taking up space that could be put to better use. I was sorry to see Biden and Dodd lose so badly in Iowa — I think either would make good presidents, but they don't have the rock star effect that is apparently the leading criterion today. Television (and talk radio) are destroying politics, and politics is destroying government, which seems dead set on destroying the country. So the question is: how do we destroy television?
A few thoughts following the Iowa caucus yesterday. I'd actually be thrilled to have any one of the leading Democratic candidates (or even Biden or Dodd, who have now bowed out) as president over any of the Republicans running, but having said that, someone needs to look at this in terms of how people will actually vote in November.
Barack Obama gave a great speech following his victory in the Democratic caucuses, which was much analyzed on CNN, at least. And I agree: he's very charismatic and can give great speeches. But he reminds me of Mario Cuomo: great, stirring speeches, smart guy — but why again should he be president? Or, beyond that (since people never seem to vote for who would be the better president, but the one they feel more comfortable voting for) how is it he could win a general election? Not only does his name end in a vowel — the third oldest political no-no in U.S. presidential elections, combined with the latest political no-no, which his last name rhymes with "Osama" and his middle name is "Hussein." More to the point, he's a black man, which is probably the second oldest political no-no. Or, even more problematic, he's half-black and half-white. That prejudice is much closer to dead now than it might have been forty or thirty years ago, but — as they say in the places where it's especially true — "I will guar-on-tee you" that it's a prejudice that will still affect voters regardless of what they say to pollsters. Perhaps those people would never vote for the Democratic candidate whoever it is. But it's a gigantic question mark whether there are enough people who vote in general elections without prejudice who can like or at least accept his story — "with a father from Kenya, a mother from Kansas and a story that could only happen in the United States of America," as he put it — to outweigh those who are disturbed by it.
A friend of mine even said that it was interesting to have a Muslim running for president. Now, this friend has admitted in the past that he gets his news from Fox, so that shouldn't surprise me, but he honestly hadn't heard that Barack Obama is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois. And this friend works in media, albeit not news media. But how many people who don't work in media in New York think he's a Muslim, too — even if they get their news (if they pay any attention to the news) from somewhere other than Fox?
Mike Huckabee is probably the bigger story today, since he was far more of a come-from-behind candidate and ended up far ahead of the better financed Mitt Romney. Huckabee is favored by social conservatives, but scares Wall Street (as evidenced by today's WSJ opinion article by David Sanders).
The big question mark for Huckabee in a general election is whether or not his overt social conservatism scares a majority of voters. Possibly, but not necessarily, given the percentage of people in America who call themselves "evangelical/fundamentalist" Christians.
As to the other leading candidates:
I also question Clinton's electability in a general election, along the same lines as I question Obama's. For one thing, she represents the oldest political no-no in presidential politics, which is that she's a woman. Surely we are beyond that prejudice, but I wouldn't yet bet money (or my primary vote) on it. But it's not just that she's a woman, but a Democrat. And a highly caricatured, hated Democratic woman at that. Huge swaths of the country look at Hillary Clinton and think "Andrea Dworkin reincarnated," even if they've never heard of Dworkin. Talk radiots call her a "feminazi" and while even larger numbers of people may not hate her quite as much as the people who would never vote for a Democrat anyway, she leaves a bad taste in many mouths. There may not be the true fire of man-hating feminism there, they think, but there's enough acrid smoke to keep them from wanting to see her on their television sets every night for 4 years.
Despite our progress as a country, I think that the only woman that might get elected president in America today would be a Republican. As disastrous as it would be, I suspect Condoleeza Rice has more chance today of being the first black or woman president than Obama or Clinton has as either. Only Nixon could go to China, and only Kay Bailey Hutchison or Elizabeth Dole could get elected to the Senate in places like Texas and North Carolina. And not because they represent some kind of weak feminity, because they don't. But because they're the kind of women the average red stater knows at church or, increasingly, work: smiling, gracious, but smart and strong. Iron fists in velvet gloves, in other words, same as what appealed to conservatives about Margaret Thatcher. With Hillary, I fear, too many voters still see only fingernails in brass knuckles.
Having said that — disclosure time — I voted for Hillary twice to the Senate and would continue to do so. I want a senator who has a national agenda and national ambitions on a national stage. But based on the part of the country I know best, I don't think she could win a general election, and may have even less chance than Barack. (I think she'd definitely have less chance if his name were different.)
Mitt Romney strikes me as the Republicans' John Kerry: capable, smart, but too stiff and not someone people would have much good feeling about voting for, unless possibly they feel "good" about voting against Clinton or Obama, which isn't a very positive kind of good feeling, to say the least. And when it comes to flip-flopping, he makes Kerry's nuancing look rock-ribbed.
Giuliani's name ends in a vowel and he can't even get the support of New York firefighters. Plus he's got more baggage than Samsonite. But mostly, his constant trope (quote today, after disastrous Iowa caucus: ""None of this worries me — Sept. 11, there were times I was worried") is going to wear thinner and thinner as the election wears on. It worked for George Bush four years ago, but my sense is that voters want this to be the election that moves us beyond 9/11. Even to a "please, dear God, can we not move on from 9/11?" degree.
McCain is the wildcard. Independents like him, talk shows like him. As much as he's played himself the maverick, there's could be a sense among Republicans (for whom loyalty counts a lot more than with Democrats) that he's earned it over the last eight years. Disclosure: I actually voted for McCain eight years ago (as a write-in candidate), because I didn't want a country led by George W. Bush and couldn't stomach four years of Gore's pedantry. I feel 180 degrees different about Gore today, given what's transpired since then, and almost 180 degrees different about McCain, but we'll see. The best I can say about McCain now is that he'd be an improvement over Bush, at least. Perhaps.
Which brings us to: John Edwards. Why, if Edwards came in second, is the other big story today about "what the Iowa caucuses mean for Hillary Clinton"? The mainstream media is so invested in an Obama-Clinton battle, they can't get off that story even when the electorate is pointing in another direction.
I think he's electable, especially against what you see among the Republicans. He's got more passion and more gravitas now than he had four years ago, and even if I don't necessarily agree with his solutions entirely (I'm not a big protectionist myself, and I'm not convinced nuclear energy is all that bad these days), he's at least pointing out problems in the country that are something other than George Bush's incompetence and partisanship, which is the only thing Obama and Clinton seem to focus on.
Completing the disclosures, Edwards is the only candidate this time around to whom I've donated any money — despite, as I've said, my misgivings on some of his positions. Not sure if I'll continue that, but I think, of all the Democrats (save, perhaps, Bill Richardson, who has the most stellar résumé but seems to excite no one), Edwards is the most electable in a general election. He's a white guy from the South, and you have to go back almost half a century to find a Democrat who won the White House who wasn't.
I obviously left out Fred Thompson from the above, but only inadvertently. Add him to the list in the sidebar box, with a special checkmark beside him: the politician created by television.
From The New York Times, about the material recently donated from the estate of Katharine Hepburn to the New York Public Library:
One episode she recounted was when, driving from Tulsa, Okla., to Wichita, Kan., she and her driver were arrested for speeding. Taken by the police to a lawyer’s office in Blackwell, Okla., Hepburn declared, "I have been arrested by this moron." Hepburn’s fury grew as they were unable to find a judge. "I said that I was sorry I did not have a week to take off," she wrote, "and if I ever found an Oklahoma car in Connecticut, I would flatten all the tires."
She ended up singeing her coat (probably a mink, Ms. Houghton [her niece] said) on a gas stove. "You must have paid $700 for it," the lawyer commented.
Hepburn wrote, "I am ashamed to say that I was cheap enough to answer: 'Certainly not. $5,500.' And he just looked pathetic, and I must say I felt awfully moronic."
Maybe it's the change in the weather, on a bright and breezy Friday in autumn when all my meetings miraculously got canceled. Maybe it's the fact that I have Bruce's new album awaiting its first listen on the hi-fi later today. Or my less-than-successful attempts to cut out the coffee this week.
Whatever the reason, learning on this morning's NPR broadcast (of course) that Al Gore had won the Nobel Peace Prize, along with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it felt like we'd received a call from our original universe, just checking in.
That would be the universe we lived in up until sometime in 2000, when something affected our Hubble volume, and we entered another plane of the multiverse and life started to seem more like a comic book written by a couple of 13-year-old boys, complete with the Supreme Court appointing the president, a dastardly attack on America's financial and military structure from an evil, international supervillain, which somehow became the pretext for an attack on another, unrelated country and...well, you get the picture.
Apparently, I'm not the only one who had this thought. In checking around, I see that Joan Walsh at Salon had the same sense that, with Gore's Oscar-Emmy-Nobel trifecta, quantum decoherence had come a-knocking.
Just like in keeping a journal (or in exercising regularly, for that matter), I'm not very good at maintaining good habits, if blogging could be considered a good habit. It's getting to the point where the "sorry it's been so long since I've posted" are the only posts I post. As always, I resolve to be more regular (if only to achieve my goal of daily writing-that-isn't-for-work), and think one way to do that is to ignore the need for every post to be a complete essay unto itself.
Not that they've been all that good, as essays, I realize, but having a complete thought, exploring it thoroughly, and making some kind of point always seems the ideal -- but as Voltaire said, "the perfect is the enemy of the good." ("Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien," which would normally translate as "the best is..." but such exactitude in translation is, perhaps, exactly what Voltaire was warning me about. I must ask him when we meet next.)
So a few random thoughts for now, if only to stake a claim for perhaps future posts. Otherwise, this blog is likely to revert back to its natural state, overgrown with kudzu and marauding bears.
There's a skunk at the garden party. Or to be more precise (apologies to V.), we have skunks in my co-op's garden. For non-New Yorkers, a "co-op" is an apartment building or complex in which you own shares in the overall "co-operative," but don't own your actual apartment. It differs in some legal ways from a "condo," but in practical terms, it means you have to be approved by the board before you can buy and they can sometimes impose rules that condos generally can't. (As I understand it, a condo you own "from the paint in." In a co-op, officially, you don't, but they generally treat it the same.)
Anyway, my co-op is actually five separate buildings, each divided into two sections with separate entrances, surrounding a 2+ acre (?) garden, which is obviously a rarity in New York City. A few weeks ago, they posted a sign in the elevator informing us that the management office was aware that we had a skunk in the garden and that a humane trap had been set, and the skunk would be removed (and released elsewhere?). A week or so later, the note in the elevator told us all that we had so far caught four skunks. I saw a fifth, dead skunk on a sidewalk about a half block from our co-op a week ago that someone had likely poisoned (as it was lying beside a snow shovel that had the remains of an orange, probably poisoned, on its blade.
If you follow anything going on in the Episcopal Church or the wider Anglican Communion, you know that there's a huge showdown underway between the U.S. church, the minority of fundamentalists in our church, and the fundamentalist Anglican archbishops (also a minority, but representating a majority of the world's Anglicans) of other national churches. It's getting both tense and ridiculous, but listening to the arguments on all sides, it's made me update my bias against Biblical literalism, which would be....
I've long felt that Biblical literalism replaced a worship of God with a worship of the Bible -- or bibliolatry, in other words. Despite the fact that the church created the Bible (or determined its canon and scriptural nature), and not vice versa. I've decided that, too often, even that doesn't adequately describe the ways literalism is used to pervert the Gospel of Christ. Pretty much these days, it's not even worshiping the Bible, it's worshiping a concordance of the Bible.
An excellent exposition on this was written by the Rev. Thomas Woodward at the Episcopal Majority blog, to which I posted a comment and then got into the kind of "Bible says/Jesus says" argument that this stuff generally comes down to these days.
I'm co-chairing a capital campaign at church this fall, and the preparation for it (including a four-color brochure and pledge cards) is taking up all my non-work time. But this is also the time of year that life picks up steam, anyway. Right now, for example, I need to quit adding random bullets to this post and go practice a few hymns on the keyboard, as I said I would play the bells before the service tomorrow. I'm also filling in for someone else as a torchbearin' acolyte. And next week, I have a Voices of Ascension concert to attend (at Carnegie Hall; normally they're at church), and a campaign committee meeting to attend. So as I say, the fall is picking up steam. As in "steamroller."
All sorts of serious and not-as-serious things to talk about -- Virginia Tech (serious), Don Imus (whatever), rogue Episcopal parishes (redundant?), the importance of early screening for breast cancer (serious), the politicization of (pick one) the Justice Department, the FDA, the military, healthcare (all varying degrees of seriousness and ridiculousness) -- and I'm choosing tonight to ignore them all.
Instead, I'd rather write something personally revealing. Which is music. I just exported a list of all the songs on my iPod that I've given five stars to, which is the basis for my "Favorites" playlist. (Or, to be precise, my "--Favorites" playlist, so it will show up first in the list.) I figure this says a lot about me, althought not everything. There's nothing classical or liturgical in this list, and very little in the way of jazz, for that matter, even though I listen to those genres pretty frequently too -- as well as podcast editions of NPR's Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me, The Splendid Table and Speaking of Faith; To The Best of Our Knownledge; audiobooks; and more of the genre "Pop Vocals-Classic" and "New Age" than is reflected in this list.
But this list reflects my ideal playlist if I owned my own radio station for a day, as it represents 22 hours worth of music, leaving roughly enough time for commercials and promotional spots. And, for pop music, it shows my tastes as well as any other list. (With the caveat that much of these songs either have never been "popular" or were popular s
