The promise of 2008 was enormous. Performance on that promise was disappointing, but adequate.
Failures:
Guantanamo
Budget negotiations with Republicans
Climate Change legislation
Successes:
Health Care
Immigration (nice save)
DADT repeal
Auto Bailout
Student loans
New START
Winding down the wars
Bin Laden
Improvement of environmental regulations
Economic record: mixed.
Good enough for my vote.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Monday, February 15, 2010
Senate Democrats Surrender
Monday night, 9pm, Democrats declare defeat in the 2010 elections only 9 months before they occur. "This was a close one," Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said. "But in the end, there was no chance we were going to be able to hold on to our 60-vote majority. We're lucky to resign alive." Trailing in the polls, nearly every Senate Democrat declared that they were not planning to run for re-election. The ones not up for re-election are resigning, to avoid prolonging their inevitable fate. "Those Republicans are just too damn tough," Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) said. "I'm surprised anyone ever elected us in the first place." Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) captured the mood: "There's really only one thing to do when you have the largest majority in decades. Surrender."
In other news, Senators Ben Nelson (D-NB), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), and Arlen Specter (D-PA) are switching to the Republican Party to avoid otherwise certain defeat. "I've always loved the Republican Party," Sen. Specter was heard to tell Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. "Can I have a committee chairmanship?" he asked the leader. "Please?"
Weak-ass liberal hippie Sen. Bernie Sanders (Socialist-VT) added, inexplicably, "Fucking pussies. No fucking principles."
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Wildness & Self-Acceptance
What I find depressing about life and have to grapple with daily is the duality of human nature. In the wilderness there are many dualities, or even a rich, deep portfolio of many-textured truths, but all are beautiful. So in re-entering the biodiverse natural realm we call wilderness, which matches fairly well the human psychological construct we call wilderness, I find comfort in now shallow-seeming duality of human nature. Humanity's redemption is in its wildness, in the grounding of our evils in the flux of evolving nature, which is altogether and irrevocably beautiful. That's also why the bad guy is delicious in any decent opera. When culture touches nature, we find purgation. When an individual enters wilderness, she finds salvation.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Oh, David Brooks, trying soooooo hard...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17brooks.html?em
After praising Senator Obama's equanimity and poise for the better part of his latest op-ed piece, comparing his cool, analytical self-confidence to that of F.D.R. and Reagan, David Brooks, wanting badly to write a column worth talking about, moves in for the kill:
Of course, it’s also easy to imagine a scenario in which he is not an island of rationality in a sea of tumult, but simply an island. New presidents are often amazed by how much they are disobeyed, by how often passive-aggressiveness frustrates their plans.
Hmmmm. Huh. Well. I guess Obama would be a new president if he were elected, yeah? Yeah. Shit. He might not be obeyed. Okay.
(Next sentences:)
It could be that Obama will be an observer, not a leader. Rather than throwing himself passionately into his causes, he will stand back. Congressional leaders, put off by his supposed intellectual superiority, will just go their own way. Lost in his own nuance, he will be passive and ineffectual. Lack of passion will produce lack of courage. The Obama greatness will give way to the Obama anti-climax.
Passive and ineffectual. Lack of passion. Shit.
(Next sentences:)
We can each guess how the story ends. But over the past two years, Obama has clearly worn well with voters. Far from a celebrity fad, he is self-contained, self-controlled and maybe even a little dull.
Dull. Dull? Shit. I don't want a dull president. But you said his problem was intellectual superiority. Shit. He must be both too smart and too dumb to be president. How did I not see this before?
And...scene.
Okay, David Brooks, you lost me when you assumed that an ability to take a step back and see things as an observer means that you lack passion, that you can't be rational and passionate at once. Not only is that a logical leap of startling fancy, it's clearly wrong, because Barack Obama, whatever else you say about him, is clearly both rational and passionate. See, e.g., any speech he's ever given. He doesn't get trapped in his own viewpoint, it's true. He's able to see things from other perspectives, including, most importantly, the average American who's tired of the politics to which we've become accustomed, of Bush and Kerry and Pelosi and Rove and Clinton and Cheney and DeLay and Clinton . That's his strength, that he can empathize with outside observers -- the voters.
By the way, the idea of combining rationality and passion is indicative of something obvious about Obama: he comes from the political school of organizing, rather than that of grandstanding. One pulls people together to get things done and inspires them with what they can do; the other speaks to be heard, to be agreed with, to be chosen. It can be a fine distinction in principle, but it's a yawning chasm of difference in practice.
It was a good attempt, I guess, David, to turn Obama's most admirable qualities -- things we should aspire to in ourselves -- into something to fear in a leader. It just wasn't very convincing, is all. Try again next time!
After praising Senator Obama's equanimity and poise for the better part of his latest op-ed piece, comparing his cool, analytical self-confidence to that of F.D.R. and Reagan, David Brooks, wanting badly to write a column worth talking about, moves in for the kill:
Of course, it’s also easy to imagine a scenario in which he is not an island of rationality in a sea of tumult, but simply an island. New presidents are often amazed by how much they are disobeyed, by how often passive-aggressiveness frustrates their plans.
Hmmmm. Huh. Well. I guess Obama would be a new president if he were elected, yeah? Yeah. Shit. He might not be obeyed. Okay.
(Next sentences:)
It could be that Obama will be an observer, not a leader. Rather than throwing himself passionately into his causes, he will stand back. Congressional leaders, put off by his supposed intellectual superiority, will just go their own way. Lost in his own nuance, he will be passive and ineffectual. Lack of passion will produce lack of courage. The Obama greatness will give way to the Obama anti-climax.
Passive and ineffectual. Lack of passion. Shit.
(Next sentences:)
We can each guess how the story ends. But over the past two years, Obama has clearly worn well with voters. Far from a celebrity fad, he is self-contained, self-controlled and maybe even a little dull.
Dull. Dull? Shit. I don't want a dull president. But you said his problem was intellectual superiority. Shit. He must be both too smart and too dumb to be president. How did I not see this before?
And...scene.
Okay, David Brooks, you lost me when you assumed that an ability to take a step back and see things as an observer means that you lack passion, that you can't be rational and passionate at once. Not only is that a logical leap of startling fancy, it's clearly wrong, because Barack Obama, whatever else you say about him, is clearly both rational and passionate. See, e.g., any speech he's ever given. He doesn't get trapped in his own viewpoint, it's true. He's able to see things from other perspectives, including, most importantly, the average American who's tired of the politics to which we've become accustomed, of Bush and Kerry and Pelosi and Rove and Clinton and Cheney and DeLay and Clinton . That's his strength, that he can empathize with outside observers -- the voters.
By the way, the idea of combining rationality and passion is indicative of something obvious about Obama: he comes from the political school of organizing, rather than that of grandstanding. One pulls people together to get things done and inspires them with what they can do; the other speaks to be heard, to be agreed with, to be chosen. It can be a fine distinction in principle, but it's a yawning chasm of difference in practice.
It was a good attempt, I guess, David, to turn Obama's most admirable qualities -- things we should aspire to in ourselves -- into something to fear in a leader. It just wasn't very convincing, is all. Try again next time!
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Twisting the Knife
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/opinion/28dowd.html
Maureen Dowd issues the latest criticism of Barack Obama for his failure to twist the knife once he's plunged it into his opponent. I hear this one all the time. Running for president is not about showing restraint, the argument goes. It's about making your opponent look as bad as possible. It's visceral, not cerebral.
Well, yeah, if we learned anything from 2004, it's that presidential politics is not cerebral. Still, I disagree (as I often find myself doing) with Ms. Dowd.
I think Senator McCain is dead wrong on just about every big issue this time around. The problem is that I'm not sure the majority of the country agrees with me entirely. I think much of our citizenry is tempted to believe this man when he says he knows what our foreign policy problems are and how to fix them. I sympathize with those who are worried Senator Obama isn't experienced enough to be president. I think his critics are on to something when they call him arrogant and presumptuous and would-be messianic -- I just also think that those sorts of labels are what people inevitably will attach to someone who represents as fundamental a change as Mr. Obama does. Make no mistake: we need a faith bordering on religious if we are to believe that America can rebound from the past eight years.
But not everyone agrees. Many are hesitant. Obama seems risky. McCain is a known quantity, an honorable man (most of the time), a war hero, white, old. Obama needs to attract Republicans and nominally independent voters in Virginia and Indiana, and I think he and his team are making a calculation that these folks would be turned off by distinctly partisan language. These people need to feel that they can safely emerge from their partisan bunkers and vote for the party of Clinton, Carter, Dukakis, and Gore. That's not easy. It takes coaxing.
If folks like Dowd want Obama elected, they need to let him do his job. He's assembled probably the best campaign team in history, and he knows what he's doing. At the moment, the rhetoric can't be aimed at making avowed liberals smile, nod knowingly, or even make us feel spectacular about supporting him. Instead, if we trust this man not just to be our president but to lead this country, we should trust that his air of respect toward McCain is the best available way to entice the good, hard-working, boring old white people of Virginia, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to vote Obama. He's not scared. It's a calculation, and it's necessary. Cut him slack.
Maureen Dowd issues the latest criticism of Barack Obama for his failure to twist the knife once he's plunged it into his opponent. I hear this one all the time. Running for president is not about showing restraint, the argument goes. It's about making your opponent look as bad as possible. It's visceral, not cerebral.
Well, yeah, if we learned anything from 2004, it's that presidential politics is not cerebral. Still, I disagree (as I often find myself doing) with Ms. Dowd.
I think Senator McCain is dead wrong on just about every big issue this time around. The problem is that I'm not sure the majority of the country agrees with me entirely. I think much of our citizenry is tempted to believe this man when he says he knows what our foreign policy problems are and how to fix them. I sympathize with those who are worried Senator Obama isn't experienced enough to be president. I think his critics are on to something when they call him arrogant and presumptuous and would-be messianic -- I just also think that those sorts of labels are what people inevitably will attach to someone who represents as fundamental a change as Mr. Obama does. Make no mistake: we need a faith bordering on religious if we are to believe that America can rebound from the past eight years.
But not everyone agrees. Many are hesitant. Obama seems risky. McCain is a known quantity, an honorable man (most of the time), a war hero, white, old. Obama needs to attract Republicans and nominally independent voters in Virginia and Indiana, and I think he and his team are making a calculation that these folks would be turned off by distinctly partisan language. These people need to feel that they can safely emerge from their partisan bunkers and vote for the party of Clinton, Carter, Dukakis, and Gore. That's not easy. It takes coaxing.
If folks like Dowd want Obama elected, they need to let him do his job. He's assembled probably the best campaign team in history, and he knows what he's doing. At the moment, the rhetoric can't be aimed at making avowed liberals smile, nod knowingly, or even make us feel spectacular about supporting him. Instead, if we trust this man not just to be our president but to lead this country, we should trust that his air of respect toward McCain is the best available way to entice the good, hard-working, boring old white people of Virginia, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to vote Obama. He's not scared. It's a calculation, and it's necessary. Cut him slack.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
A Series of Debates
So McCain has proposed a series of 10 town hall-style debates, and Obama is receptive. While Obama is still a bit busy pulling the blue team together and hasn't fully responded, it's clear that there's some disagreement on how the debates should be formatted.
McCain wants them to be 60-90 minutes long, have an independent local moderator (not, presumably, a journalist) with very limited moderation, and leave the question-asking to the audience. The Obama campaign's preliminary response is that they would prefer something closer to the original Lincoln-Douglas format.
To me, this is fascinating, and I can't help but let it stir my imagination. Each candidate wants the format to play to his strengths. McCain is great at shooting off answers that seem to come off the top of his head. It gives the impression that his instincts are well honed, that he shoots from the hip, and that he knows what he's talking about. Obama's less good at this -- he often ends up seeming thoughtfully hesitant, almost professorial in his consideration of the question, which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing, but I suppose for many people thoughtfulness is an elitist quality. Anyway, Obama's stellar oratorical skill blows away his more terrestrial Q&A abilities.
The original LD debates were structured as follows: 7 debates, one in each district of Illinois. First one of them would speak for an hour, then the other would go for an hour and a half, and then the first would get a 30 minute rejoinder. So three hours long. They would alternate who would go first. The debates were almost completely about the big issue of the day, slavery.
Now, the Obama campaign surely can't mean it wants three-hour long debates. But they could be resized to 2 hours: 40-60-20 minutes. That's no longer than the debates we've become accustomed to. Instead of all of the debates being on the same issue, the two candidates could agree to focus on a different issue at each debate. Instead of 10 shorter debates, 7 longer ones. But what would the issues be? And where would the debates be held? Swing states? Oh boy, is this exciting.
1) Harrisburg, Pennsylvania -- Economy
2) Camp Victory, Baghdad, Iraq -- Iraq War
3) Durango, Colorado -- Energy, Natural Resources, and the Environment
4) Fort Lauderdale, Florida -- Health Care
5) Las Vegas, Nevada -- Immigration
6) Madison, Wisconsin -- Civil Liberties /Civil Rights
7) Charlotte, North Carolina -- Foreign Policy
There, how's that? It's 4states Bush won in 2004, 2 that Kerry won. Swing states all. Some of them can even be conducted outside, with magnificent backdrops. I've given it the best geographical diversity I can muster, while also sticking to the biggest centers of electoral votes up for grabs.
But think about the potential of these debates! What an opportunity to rise above the dominion of the soundbite and the comeback and bring about some intelligent discourse in this country! I'll be rooting the concept on.
McCain wants them to be 60-90 minutes long, have an independent local moderator (not, presumably, a journalist) with very limited moderation, and leave the question-asking to the audience. The Obama campaign's preliminary response is that they would prefer something closer to the original Lincoln-Douglas format.
To me, this is fascinating, and I can't help but let it stir my imagination. Each candidate wants the format to play to his strengths. McCain is great at shooting off answers that seem to come off the top of his head. It gives the impression that his instincts are well honed, that he shoots from the hip, and that he knows what he's talking about. Obama's less good at this -- he often ends up seeming thoughtfully hesitant, almost professorial in his consideration of the question, which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing, but I suppose for many people thoughtfulness is an elitist quality. Anyway, Obama's stellar oratorical skill blows away his more terrestrial Q&A abilities.
The original LD debates were structured as follows: 7 debates, one in each district of Illinois. First one of them would speak for an hour, then the other would go for an hour and a half, and then the first would get a 30 minute rejoinder. So three hours long. They would alternate who would go first. The debates were almost completely about the big issue of the day, slavery.
Now, the Obama campaign surely can't mean it wants three-hour long debates. But they could be resized to 2 hours: 40-60-20 minutes. That's no longer than the debates we've become accustomed to. Instead of all of the debates being on the same issue, the two candidates could agree to focus on a different issue at each debate. Instead of 10 shorter debates, 7 longer ones. But what would the issues be? And where would the debates be held? Swing states? Oh boy, is this exciting.
1) Harrisburg, Pennsylvania -- Economy
2) Camp Victory, Baghdad, Iraq -- Iraq War
3) Durango, Colorado -- Energy, Natural Resources, and the Environment
4) Fort Lauderdale, Florida -- Health Care
5) Las Vegas, Nevada -- Immigration
6) Madison, Wisconsin -- Civil Liberties /Civil Rights
7) Charlotte, North Carolina -- Foreign Policy
There, how's that? It's 4states Bush won in 2004, 2 that Kerry won. Swing states all. Some of them can even be conducted outside, with magnificent backdrops. I've given it the best geographical diversity I can muster, while also sticking to the biggest centers of electoral votes up for grabs.
But think about the potential of these debates! What an opportunity to rise above the dominion of the soundbite and the comeback and bring about some intelligent discourse in this country! I'll be rooting the concept on.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Words Matter Because They Mean Things
Words do matter. Words do inspire. Words do win elections and lose them. Words can carry a movement, a generation, a country. It's not usually a whole bunch of them, either, that catch in people's minds. Think: "I have a dream," or the "better angels of our nature," or "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Imagine these worded poorly.
This election year, there has been a very clear word gap between the campaigns. One campaign seems to pull Weezer-like hooks together with stunning ease, and the rest seem to struggle to put together a sentence that doesn't seem corny, trite, pandering, opportunistic, or just plain stupid-sounding.
McCain, for instance, is excellent at ad libbing. You can feel the straight talk oozing out of him. But when he gives a prepared speech, it always sounds forced.
The word gap is most pronounced where it is most important to be pithy as well a convincing: slogans. Barack Obama's campaign slogans are so much better than everyone else's that now all of the other major campaigns have tried co-opting and distorting them. So far, that hasn't really worked.
There are only two of them:
It wasn't long after Obama's Iowa victory that the slogan-theft-and-contortion began. Mitt Romney, until then going with "True Strength For America's Future", tried positioning himself as the Republican candidate of change. The new slogan: "Change Begins With Us."
Clinton gave it a shot around then too. She'd already cycled through a bunch of duds, like "Let the Conversation Begin," "In It To Win It" (especially after losing Iowa), "Turn Up the Heat", and by far the least catchy: "Big Challenges, Real Solutions: Time to Pick a President." Here's a good Politico article documenting a litany of them -- and the best part is that it was written January 3rd.
Sensing that "Change" needed to be in there somehow, she went with variants of "The Strength and Experience To Make Change Happen." When that proved too bulky, she settled for a long time on "Ready On Day One." She shoved this one into every subordinate clause of every sentence she could. The crowds liked it, but, notably, it wasn't very chant-able. Instead, the wisdom of crowds landed on a curious choice:
"Yes She Will". A perversion of Obama's own slogan. The intent of "Yes She Will" was to make the point that Obama was all words and no action. And the other new Hillary slogan? "Change We Can Count On."
Notice that Clinton had been "ballparked" by Obama -- by needing to use his vocabulary, she was pulled onto his turf. But voters never, ever began to think that Clinton represented change better than Obama (as shown by exit polls).
And John McCain, until recently the candidate of "No Surrender," yesterday criticized Obama's purported naivety in front of a backdrop emphasizing that his is "Leadership We Can Believe In." Today, the big banner on his website brings a minor adjustment, with "A Leader We Can Believe In."
So Clinton and McCain both felt they had to do the same thing: out-Obama Obama. Find an opening to prove that they are the real candidate of hope, the real candidate of change (and by the way, they have decades of experience too!). In a sense, they have to let themselves be ballparked. Senator Obama captured the American imagination, and comprehended the American zeitgeist, so much earlier than his opponents that they have no choice but to play catch-up.
Their problem is they can't change that Obama does represent hope. We desperately want to believe that things can be better, that the hope Americans have always felt doesn't have to slip away. And what "Yes She Will" and "A Leader We Can Believe In" miss in our collective American longing is that we no longer trust politicians who claim to be able to solve our problems for us. No great philosophy or great policy position or great fighting spirit is going to fix our broken politics. We understand that the average American citizen has lost his centrality in American politics, and we want it back. There's only one candidate trumpeting our own power, our own innate strength and unity as a people. Because he can elucidate those contemporary American needs so clearly, we trust that he understands them well. And we find it easier to trust someone who, rather than tell us he's got the exact right blend of experience to set everything right for us immediately, expects us to keep working to achieve change for ourselves. Yes We Can. The "We" is what the other campaigns overlook, it's what got Obama the nomination, and it's what's going to make him president. It's what makes him truly worth believing in, and it's the real change being offered this time around.
This election year, there has been a very clear word gap between the campaigns. One campaign seems to pull Weezer-like hooks together with stunning ease, and the rest seem to struggle to put together a sentence that doesn't seem corny, trite, pandering, opportunistic, or just plain stupid-sounding.
McCain, for instance, is excellent at ad libbing. You can feel the straight talk oozing out of him. But when he gives a prepared speech, it always sounds forced.
The word gap is most pronounced where it is most important to be pithy as well a convincing: slogans. Barack Obama's campaign slogans are so much better than everyone else's that now all of the other major campaigns have tried co-opting and distorting them. So far, that hasn't really worked.
There are only two of them:
- Yes We Can
- Change We Can Believe In
It wasn't long after Obama's Iowa victory that the slogan-theft-and-contortion began. Mitt Romney, until then going with "True Strength For America's Future", tried positioning himself as the Republican candidate of change. The new slogan: "Change Begins With Us."
Clinton gave it a shot around then too. She'd already cycled through a bunch of duds, like "Let the Conversation Begin," "In It To Win It" (especially after losing Iowa), "Turn Up the Heat", and by far the least catchy: "Big Challenges, Real Solutions: Time to Pick a President." Here's a good Politico article documenting a litany of them -- and the best part is that it was written January 3rd.
Sensing that "Change" needed to be in there somehow, she went with variants of "The Strength and Experience To Make Change Happen." When that proved too bulky, she settled for a long time on "Ready On Day One." She shoved this one into every subordinate clause of every sentence she could. The crowds liked it, but, notably, it wasn't very chant-able. Instead, the wisdom of crowds landed on a curious choice:
"Yes She Will". A perversion of Obama's own slogan. The intent of "Yes She Will" was to make the point that Obama was all words and no action. And the other new Hillary slogan? "Change We Can Count On."
Notice that Clinton had been "ballparked" by Obama -- by needing to use his vocabulary, she was pulled onto his turf. But voters never, ever began to think that Clinton represented change better than Obama (as shown by exit polls).
And John McCain, until recently the candidate of "No Surrender," yesterday criticized Obama's purported naivety in front of a backdrop emphasizing that his is "Leadership We Can Believe In." Today, the big banner on his website brings a minor adjustment, with "A Leader We Can Believe In."
So Clinton and McCain both felt they had to do the same thing: out-Obama Obama. Find an opening to prove that they are the real candidate of hope, the real candidate of change (and by the way, they have decades of experience too!). In a sense, they have to let themselves be ballparked. Senator Obama captured the American imagination, and comprehended the American zeitgeist, so much earlier than his opponents that they have no choice but to play catch-up.
Their problem is they can't change that Obama does represent hope. We desperately want to believe that things can be better, that the hope Americans have always felt doesn't have to slip away. And what "Yes She Will" and "A Leader We Can Believe In" miss in our collective American longing is that we no longer trust politicians who claim to be able to solve our problems for us. No great philosophy or great policy position or great fighting spirit is going to fix our broken politics. We understand that the average American citizen has lost his centrality in American politics, and we want it back. There's only one candidate trumpeting our own power, our own innate strength and unity as a people. Because he can elucidate those contemporary American needs so clearly, we trust that he understands them well. And we find it easier to trust someone who, rather than tell us he's got the exact right blend of experience to set everything right for us immediately, expects us to keep working to achieve change for ourselves. Yes We Can. The "We" is what the other campaigns overlook, it's what got Obama the nomination, and it's what's going to make him president. It's what makes him truly worth believing in, and it's the real change being offered this time around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
