My Comprehensive Exams

I passed 'em. Phew.

Back to the Horse Race

When I started this blog, I mostly planned on talking about the horse race -- specifically to argue against the conventional wisdom which is that Clinton was somehow still in it. The appearance of the Wright videotape derailed those plans. But just one week after the first bombshell, there appears a new article on Politico which spells out the argument I had originally intended to make. Though I must confess that Alex Koppelman on Salon is not wrong to argue that the groundwork for the argument had been laid down earlier.

One might think, however, that the Wright videotape changes the calculus. Before Wright, the argument was very simple. Obama had an insurmountable lead in elected delegates, which is the best measure of the will of the people. (I'll make a post about this later, but popular vote is a bogus measure). For Clinton to get the nomination, the superdelegates would have to side with the candidate who had LOST by that measure. In order to do so, they'd have to have a good reason. And that could really only be something new on the scene which suggested that Obama is unelectable.

Well, the reaction to the Wright video could potentially be seen as exactly that sort of event. The polls moved sharply against Obama over the last week, pretty much across the board. Tracking polls showed Clinton either ahead or gaining on him. State polls moved against him, with even North Carolina showing a dead heat -- potentially devastating since North Carolina should be a pretty safe bet for Obama.

For the first time there are real electability questions about Obama. But I think this just puts the superdelegates into an even deeper bind, as I argued in a comment I posted at Marc Ambinder's site:

The shift we are seeing now should not be read as momentum for Hillary. It's a movement away from Obama reflecting the sustained hits on race, some of which originated (intentionally or not) with the Clinton campaign.

And that's what leaves the party with a serious dilemma. If the damage to Obama turns out to be permanent, it's a reflection of the fact that racism in this country continues to be quite powerful. Turning to Clinton under these circumstances is a failure of hope and courage -- because it's a pure concession to the baseness of American political life. This needs to be underscored. Clinton has utterly failed to make a positive case for herself. If she gets the nomination at this point, it's based on the negative case that she's immune to the problems Obama confronts, problems which reflect badly on the nation, not on Obama.

It's notable in this regard that both McCain and Huckabee have come out against these attacks on Obama based on the Wright connection, while Clinton and other wise heads in the democrat party have remained silent. A choice to go with Clinton to avoid the Obama problems along with this deafening silence on the part of the democrat party would portray the democrats as a party that does not have the courage of its own convictions. When push comes to shove it did not challenge the race-based attacks on Obama, and instead bought into the landscape as is by nominating the 'safe' candidate.

The democrats might win this cycle just because the economy is very sour and there's a general mood to oust the incumbent party. But in the long run, the democrats position themselves to remain the minority party. Quite simply, they will still be seen as not standing for anything. The rhetoric on equality and opportunity and fairness will have been unmasked as being 100% empty. They'd deserve to lose the generation just now coming of age. And I expect they would.

More on Wright

It'll be interesting to see how the media develops this story. My own small contribution is the text of one on-line sermon that a quick google coughed up. It's about scary things like faith, determination and honesty. Give it a read. It's some good preaching.

The Audacity of Hope

I'm not usually very good at hope. Indeed, I'm definitely a glass-is-half-empty kind of a gal. So today is the sort of day when I usually fall into despair.

There is so much to be unhappy about. Barack Obama's pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright is shown on a seemingly endless-loop video tape denouncing America, and providing fodder for the universe of people determined to hate Obama. Turns out there are a lot of them. The drumbeat sounds. It's so unpatriotic. So un-Christian. So easy to condemn. As I read through all the self-righteous denunciation, look at the gleeful celebration that Obama's candidacy might be sunk, it makes me really despair about the state of America.

It's not that I think Wright's words aren't problematic. Obviously they are. But a true patriot, it seems to me, is one who loves our country, but who loves our country enough to admit that there are problems. And a true Christian, it seems to me, is one who can listen to things that sound so alien and so frightening, with a desire to understand before judging.

Wright sounds off about how America created AIDS to destroy people. An off-base conspiracy theory, to be sure. Completely false. But our own government allowed black men infected with syphilis in Tuskegee Alabama to remain untreated, just to see what would happen to them. Can we be real patriots if we are unable to admit that sometimes we are ashamed of our country? Can we be real Christians if we aren't willing to acknowledge that a people who have been subjected to the history that Blacks in America have experienced just might be a bit angry?

Wright points out that our country rained down death on ordinary citizens in Japan. Yes, we were at war. But that doesn't erase the fact that our great country used weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations. TWICE. A true patriot has to recognize that our country's actions have not always been morally pristine. A true Christian has to repent of our nation's destruction of so much innocent human life.

It's true that our nation is more than just its sins. And it is sad that in the video clips, at least, Wright seems to be more concerned with what is wrong in our nation than with what is right. There is an anger in the African-American community. And while I might understand where it's coming from, it's also fair to say that it's part of what makes it more difficult for our nation to begin to heal from the wounds racism has inflicted on all of us. Life is more complicated than "us good, them bad" sorts of thought, no matter which way that sort of thought runs. At the end of the day that's what's so sad about so much of the reaction. Bloggers stand on a soap box to denounce Wright for standing on a soap box to denounce. And there's a part of me that wants to stand on a soap box and denounce the denouncers of the denouncer. So it goes.

But I've decided on this last Friday before Holy Week to work harder on hope. There are some reasons to be hopeful, I think. First, there have been some thoughtful responses out on the web. Hilzoy has two posts on the subject that are well-worth reading. Donkelphant suggests that maybe it would be better to respond with a bit of grace. And even Powerline holds back, at least a bit. (OK, just a very little bit – but we're doing hope here). And a shout out to Talkleft, a generally virulent pro-Clinton site that explicitly decided to hold fire on this subject.

Second, by the time he got over to CNN, Obama was clearly articulating the desire to open up a discussion in America about the legacy of racism AND our desire to unite and move beyond it. There is an opportunity for something healing here. An opportunity for us to be truer Patriots, and for the Christians among us to be truer Christians. It takes audacity to hope for such an outcome. Especially for a pessimist like myself. But it's Lent. And hope is a virtue.

And how is this news?

Once I get done with my comprehensive exams on Wednesday, I plan on making at least a few posts on the subject of how the media has shown signs of bias against Obama rather than Clinton, at least since Clinton sold them on the notion that she's been unfairly treated.

But the latest article in the NY Times on Clinton's mismanagement of her campaign does not serve my cause. That her campaign is poorly managed is hardly news. And this did exactly nothing to move my state of knowledge on the subject. They planned on firing Solis Doyle, but the New Hampshire victory put that decision on hold! Who doesn't know that?

This is a campaign with serious transparancy problems; a host of highly dubious claims; and a pronounced disrespect for the intelligence of its audience. So we get yet another article on the one failing of the campaign that is universally acknowledged. It would be cynical in the extreme to suggest this was an example of the media doing its best to distract attention from the real problems with Clinton's candidacy. So I'm not going there.

And it is the case that the fact that she can't manage her campaign would seem to call into question her claim that she'll be ready on Day One. OK. Definitely a negative article on Hillary, albeit a repetitive one. Call Tina Fey!

My First Post

Hello! Quick intro: I'm an Independent. Really independent. No party. Not easily defined as left or right, except that all else equal I prefer Republican nominees to the Supreme Court to those that the Democrats would offer. The Republicans need to be out this year. Have great concern for the economically marginalized, but believe that the Democrats have nothing of relevance to offer on this subject. I don't think presidents have much to do with the state of the economy. They might have an impact on international affairs. But they matter because they set the tone.

This year I'm supporting Barack Obama. Actually, he's the first candidate I've supported probably in my whole life. There is a naive idealistic streak to me that just wants to have a candidate who credibly offers the possibility of a politics with something resembling integrity. Since Clinton is the anti-integrity candidate, you will find that I have little nice to say about her. Though I will try to be fair. Really.