Just A Thought

If you want to send a strong signal that your wife is not a political target, I’m not sure Glamour Magazine is the place to do it.

Sphere: Related Content

Why Obama is Not Funny

There are a lot of people up in arms over why jokes about Obama tend to get less laughs. I think the answer is simple: he’s not nearly as funny as other presidents and candidates. To wit:

• Obama does not have the personality to do anything like this:
  

  The American leader, who has been condemned throughout his presidency for failing to tackle climate change, ended a private meeting with the words: “Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter.”

• He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock.
• Obama does not also have weird trivia about him, such as holding a man-sized safe in his office or shooting someone in the face.
• Obama is also not John Kerry, perhaps the most tone-deaf candidate since the introduction of television. The impersonation of Kerry by Seth Meyers on SNL was as good as any impersonation on the show ever.
• Obama is also not John Edwards, for obvious reasons.
• Obama is also not Al Gore. Gore ran as sort of a caricature of himself, with exaggerated references of the lockbox, and of course the infamous “sighing” problem. Gore himself seems to have realized how silly he sounded at times:
  

  “My plan to put Social Security in an ironclad lockbox has gotten a lot of attention recently, and I’m glad about that. But I’m afraid that it’s overshadowing some vitally important proposals. For instance, I’ll put Medicaid in a walk-in closet. I’ll put the Community Reinvestment Act in a secured gym locker. I’ll put NASA funding in a hermetically sealed Ziploc bag.”

• Obama is also not the biggest political humor magnet of all time.
• Even compared to John McCain, age is a much more rich area for jokes than inexperience is.

I think the key is that Obama, as Ambinder noted today, has protected his image throughout this campaign. The memes about him are often not fodder for jokes. Inexperience is, clearly, but it’s not something easy to make any jokes about. Moreover, the untruths about him are defined so clearly as to really make comedy very difficult, particularly subtle comedy.

There’s probably something to the theory that a lot of Obama supporters are so desparate for someone like him to come along that they don’t find jokes about him funny. But I think the reasons go deeper than that. Avoiding the silly image mistakes and ridiculous personality traits of his predecessors is something Obama and his team probably deserve credit for. Maybe we’ll discuss this more in the podcast tomorrow.

Sphere: Related Content

The Case That Divided Government is Irrelevant

One of the rationales brought up by people this election season for voting for John McCain is that with Democrats in control of Congress and the White House, this would create a problematic scenario. I think this idea is mostly ridiculous.

Michael Merritt lays out what he considers unified government:

What is unified government? I define this as the executive and legislative branches being controlled by the same party. In Congress, it means that both the House and Senate have comfortable enough margins of power to get their agenda passed swiftly without too much work.

I disagree with this characterization. One party has total control only if they have 60 members of the Senate, one reasons liberals are going crazy over that number this year. This is exceptionally unlikely to happen this year. Nate Silver projects that there is only about a 17% chance of that happening given the electorate.

Republicans did also not have 60 members in the Senate. So what happened? All of the partisan elements of Bush’s domestic agenda the past six years were either thwarted (Social Security) or co-opted by Democrats for various reasons (Tax Cuts, Energy Bill, FISA). The less partisan bills (No Child Left Behind, post-Katrina Bills) were in many cases co-authored by Democrats. There are other bills, such as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act and the Medicare Bill that fit into both categories to a certain extent. None of these depended on who held a majority in Congress; if Democrats had a slim lead on Republicans, much of the same would happen. The FISA Compromise in the Senate right now is indicatibe of that. The immediate effect of a new President in domestic policy is regulatory power; ability to set new standards, to appoint partisans to regulatory commissions, and whatnot. That is usually unhindered by Congress, except in extreme cases. This was similar for the Clinton administration: the partisan health care attempt failed, even with a majority of Democrats.

Moreover, in terms of foriegn policy, the development the past 50 years has strongly favored the President over Congress. Indeed, Bush has been able to do almost whatever he wanted in foreign policy, even after the Democrats took back Congress in 2006. Bill Clinton initiated the Kosovo campaign in the middle of being impeached.

The ultimate point is that in domestic policy, divided government is overrated. If one party has a supermajority, than they can accomplish very partisan things, such as what Democrats did in the early 60s. But there is little evidence that slight majorities change things dramatically either.

Merritt lays out other reasons.

1) Corruption

So why is having unified government so bad? Well, for starters, it leads to all sorts of corruption. You only need to look at the Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay and Mark Foley scandals to see what can happen when politicians get too comfortable with their own power. … As well as scandals in Congress, scandals in the executive branch can also go unchecked with unified government. Just look at the U.S. Attorney scandal, treatment of enemy combatants, and others.

Corruption is a worry not for divided government, but for parties that have any power whatsoever. As appealing as it would be if no party had power, that seems unrealistic. Moreover, it’s not just Republicans that have a monopoly on corruption; Democrats like William Jefferson are not squeaky clean, either.

As for Merritt’s second argument, Democrats have done absolutely nothing constructive regarding those scandals that they could not have done in the minority. Issuing unanswered subpoenas for instance. At best, you could argue that Democratic pressure made Alberto Gonzalez resign. But not even Republicans were not happy with him at the hearings.

2) Breakdown of Checks and Balances:

Merritt states:

Next, and arguably the worst, unified government creates a system where checks and balances break down, and the legislative and executive branches begin to take the country in too far of the wrong direction. Whether it’s more toward socialism or more toward laisse-faire capitalism doesn’t matter. When government is unified, the debate necessary to quash bad legislation just isn’t there, and the executive and party in control of the legislature can enact whatever they want without too much effort. Keep in mind that I speak of the kind of unified government that some commenters here are afraid of. That which has a large majority in the House (which the Democrats don’t quite have now but come close) and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate (which the Democrats don’t have now and probably won’t have even after this November).

As I noted above, the facts do not back this up; not at all. This type of strong push one way or another only occurs when one party has a supermajority, implicitly meaning that the people want the country to move in that direction. The reason is simple; the founding fathers created a system in the Senate that would check undivided government itself. Merritt completely glosses over this; he admits it exists, but does not want to trust it.

Less Partisanship:

At least with divided government, both sides are forced to compromise, at least in theory. This is in theory because it depends on how partisan minded your two parties are. If you get even one party that is unwilling to concede anything, then nothing gets done, as has often been the case with the current make-up of Congress. Yet, the partisanship we’ve seen isn’t so bad that we see no legislation come out of it. The Farm bill is just one example of where both parties got together to pass legislation.

This is also true when the same party is in control of Congress and the White House. I’ll take the Farm Bill and raise him every other bill I’ve mentioned: Tax Cuts, Energy Bill, Katrina Bills, No Child Left Behind, Medicare, etc. Even the poorly organized Democrats were able to negotiate somewhat with those. Moreover, even with undivided government, when negotiation failed, bills did not pass (Social Security).

Furthermore, I think the Farm Bill is a terrible example. Farm issues and immigration are two specific issues that naturally cut across both party lines. Support and Dissent on the bills is never aligned specifically by party. You find liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans agreeing to hate the Farm Bill, for instance. Somehow, I don’t think that what Merritt had in mind was that bipartisanship would emerge as a cabal of bipartisan representatives agreed to take money for their states.

There surely is some impact of divided government at the very margins. But that difference is dwarfed by the foreign policy differences between the candidates, even as their Iraq policies converge. It’s for that reason that I’ve defined myself as a foreign policy voter; if you want to effect a domestic policy, work and donate to Congress. For this Presidential election, too much is on the line in foreign policy to base a vote on marginal impacts of a divided government.

Sphere: Related Content

Review: Barack Obama Biography (Election Update)

The kind people at the Biography Channel were nice enough to provide us with advance copies of the Barack Obama biography that goes on sale at Wal-mart tomorrow.

The forty seven minute DVD covers mainly Obama’s rise to be Senator; a last segment that is added on covers briefly his chase for the nomination (not including his ultimate winning of that nomination). Obama’s biography draws a lot of attraction. At a local Barnes and Noble store yesterday, I found multiple books on Obama’s biography; conversely, there was only one on McCain’s biography, and it was written by the candidate himself (and is really more about his family than simply McCain himself, as evidenced by the name).

A challenge for me in reviewing this is to figure out what the DVD was trying to accomplish. This is not any fault of the Biography Channel, but rather a challenge for me, as I have essentially read everything I could on Obama; thus, I already knew a lot of this information. For people who already know Obama’s life story and have followed the campaign closely, there is not really much to be gained from this. Conversely, someone who wants to look at the DVD to get deep insight into Obama’s character (for instance, figure out why he joined Trinity Church), there is also little to be gained, which frustrated me. Jeremiah Wright is mentioned only in a footnote towards the end, without even mentioning why he was so controversial in the first place. The DVD is very good, though, at telling the story of the rise of Obama while glossing over political questions that really do not belong on a DVD.

The main narrative of the biography is the rise of Obama to give the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. Featuring interviews from his half sister Maya Soetoro-Ng and brother in law Craig Robinson, the parts of a young Obama growing up in Indonesia and Hawaii are really well done. It also heavily emphasizes the outsider status of Obama in terms of racial identity, having grown up in a white family but being perceived as an African American.

I’d highly recommend the DVD for the parts of Obama’s life outside of politics. Whenever the DVD veered into politics at all, it made me cringe, as it made a lot of broad statements that weren’t always necessarily true. The nonpolitical parts, by contrast, are good at highlighting Obama’s background and general worldview. Like Obama’s book, Dreams From My Father, the narrative focuses on his father significantly even though his mother seems to have more directly influenced him. The biography also details the rise of Obama at Harvard Law, focusing on the importance of it, and not as much on the specific details.

It’s important to be honest: This is an introduction to the character of Barack Obama, not a critical study of it. As an introduction, it’s a success, and encourages further research into his positions. For instance,

If you know a lot about Obama, and have read his books, insights on his character from family members and friends such as Marty Nesbitt and political advisor David Axelrod will be interesting. But it’s unlikely to be drastically different from what you have heard, and as the narrative gets further along, David Axelrod seemingly pops up more and more, and it feels like an extended campaign ad. But that’s not to complain. That’s just the nature of this sort of biography. Consider this the cliffnotes version of Obama’s own book. If you want a deeper and more critical look, I’d recommend for starters David Mendell’s book.

The much touted “Election Update” is already outdated - and will be even more outdated come the middle of November, win or lose. I’m a little perplexed at releasing this DVD now instead of then; but as I mentioned above, there’s a strong demand for biographical information on Obama.

However, it may be worth getting just for the footage of Obama walking around a cow at a local state fair, and for the look on David Axelrod’s face when talking about Jack Ryan.

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (06/29/08)

Today, we take a look back at this week in the election and also have an in-depth discussion about the Obama Campaign’s general election strategy.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (06/24/08)

John and Angelo are back and will be recording podcasts several times a week now.  This podcast covers (1) Obama’s ‘get over it’ statement and (2) McCain staffer Charles Black’s comments to Fortune Magazine regarding who would benefit from a terrorist attack.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content

Morning Briefing (April 9, 2008)

What’s news today…

• Mark Penn’s new role is clarified.  Despite all the hullabaloo, it’s clear that Penn will not play as influential a role as he was or what many still think he will.
• Sizzle: TNR scolds Obama for dismissing Clinton and McCain’s foreign policy experience as well as for  using his personal experience living abroad as a child to buttress his foreign policy credentials.
• An excellent look inside McCain’s campaign.  Is this what a McCain administration will look like?
• In our last podcast, we discussed Obama’s reversal on public financing and its political implications.  Coincidentally, it seems that Obama is preparing his justification for not opting into the public finance system should he become the nominee by contending, “We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the Internet and finance it, and they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful.”
• Why?  Howard Dean criticizes McCain and calls him “not a strong candidate.”  Somewhat ironically, one of the reasons he suggested McCain is a weak candidate is because “he is out of touch with the American people.”  To me, it certainly seems out of touch to suggest that McCain is a weak candidate.  I recognize that as Chairman, Dean has to support his party, but it seems that recognizing reality is often the fastest way to earn credibility.  Recognizing McCain’s strength is not mutually exclusive with opposing him.
• Bill Clinton’s recent trip to Puerto Rico could have gone better.  A report: While Clinton was giving a speech, in English:Nobody interpreted, and only a handful of audience members seemed to understand him. The crowd — raucous and dancing a few minutes earlier — remained mostly silent during the 10-minute speech. Some people left. Others chatted on their cellphones. ‘What is he saying? Do we clap now?’ asked Jerry Nieves Rosario, a college student who speaks only Spanish.
• Inform yourself: This roundup of Iran nuclear related news is useful.
• Can we just stop with the ‘calls to Al Gore‘ for the time being?  Honestly, who throws a shoe?
• A Democratic debate on Science?  Maybe, it’s still very early in the planning stage.  I like the idea, that’s for sure.

 

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (04/05/08)

During this show, the gurus discuss the state of the race, the Clinton tax returns, Obama’s strategy in Penn., McCain strategy, a general election preview and much more….

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast). 

Sphere: Related Content

The Bill Richardson Chronicles

In a word, boring. Michael Crowley gives the cliffnotes version:

Bill Richardson ran for president. He was nice to Hillary. Maybe he was angling for her veep? Then in Iowa he threw his non-viables to Obama. The Clintonites raged about a betrayal. Then he watched the Super Bowl with the other Bill and all was well. Then he was “genuinely torn” about who to endorse but didn’t like a phone call he got from a Clintonite. Then he endorsed Obama. Then Carville called him Judas. Then he blasted Carville for “character assassination.” Then they said he’d promised not to endorse Obama. Then he denied that. Then he said Hillary said Obama can’t win. Then Hillary’s people said he said Obama isn’t ready. Then he denied it. Then she seemed to deny saying what she supposedly said. Then her people said she didn’t deny saying that but won’t say if she did say it.

He’s going to make a really fun footnote in some historian’s book 50 years from now. Aside from that….

Sphere: Related Content

Behind The Scene At CDP: Bill Clinton Expresses Anger At Richardson And The Media; Turns Off Some Superdelegates

On Saturday, March 30, Bill Clinton addressed California Democrats State Convention.  This speech was not only intended to address the larger question of Democratic party unity, but also an opportunity to woo some of California’s remaining 23 undecided superdelegates.  California has 65 super delegates.  Of these 65, Clinton has the support of 29, Obama has 13 and 23 remain undecided.  During his speech, President Clinton struck a conciliatory and optimistic tone, saying:

“There is somehow the suggestion that because we are having a vigorous debate about who would be the best president, we are going to weaken this party in the fall.

“We’re going to win this election if we just chill out and let everybody have their say.”

However, Mr. Clinton offered a sharp contrast behind the scenes turning off some superdelegates.  Prior to his speech, he met privately with about 16 undecided superdelegates.

At first all was well and then: Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Lieberman and the Democrats Differ on Trade

This Sunday on This Week, Joe Lieberman chastised the Democratic Party for not being the party it used to be as reason for him endorsing John McCain:

Well, I say that the Democratic Party changed. The Democratic Party today was not the party it was in 2000. It’s not the Bill Clinton-Al Gore party, which was strong internationalists, strong on defense, pro-trade, pro-reform in our domestic government. It’s been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and basically will –and very, very hyper-partisan. So it pains me. I’m a Democrat who came to the party in the era of President John F. Kennedy. It’s a strange turn of the road when I find among the candidates running this year that the one, in my opinion, closest to the Kennedy legacy, the John F. Kennedy legacy, is John S. McCain.

Most of the focus on these comments have been regarding foreign policy. While many people point out the foreign policy ramifications of this, there seems to be less meat on that bone. Traditional Democratic and Republican foreign policy of yore really has little to no relevance. We don’t know how Democrats would have conducted foreign policy outside of the Cold War. It’s completely speculative. And while some guesses are better than others, it also seems pointless.

Moreover, Lieberman seems to be using somewhat of a straw man here. Neither Clinton nor Obama is as liberal on foreign policy as other Democrats. Indeed, Hillary Clinton could reasonably be described as one of the most hawk-like Democrats today at all. The candidates who are no longer in the race are all by far more liberal on foreign policy, save perhaps Biden. However, it’s a fair accusation in the sense that Clinton and Obama are currently locked in a silly argument on who could withdraw forces the fastest. As Ambers pointed out, that argument is spurious.

It seems to be more of a response to the Democrats taking the “100 years” comment of McCain out of context. That, in turn, seems to be in response to the general “cut and run” characterization of all Democratic policies.

Point being? Foreign policy is politicized. You have to wade through both sides’ rhetoric to find the truth.

The real disagreement seems to be on trade. The attempts to pander to the base of the party are clearly moving away from Democratic economic policies of the 90s. No one is admitting this, but strangely, no is worried about this. Conservative point to it as a matter of fact.

Picking a conservative blog at random, it seems Powerline last dealt with the substance of NAFTA back when Edwards was in the race. And it’s not that conservatives are not prepared to make this argument. Just that it has not been made yet. It’s coming.

I think this is something that could get more traction. On the same day that Lieberman made these comments, Chelsea Clinton said that her parents do not agree on NAFTA. Read more

Sphere: Related Content

God Bless First Read

Easter Shmeaster. There’s a better holiday:

Meanwhile, Bill and Chelsea hit Indiana all day today. They’ll be there for something called Dyngus Day. According to one Google search, Dyngus Day is a day where guys get to drench gals in water; apparently tomorrow, gals get to throw dishes at the guys. It’s a Polish holiday. Of course, what part of Dyngus Day will Bill Clinton take part in?

More on Dyngus Day here.

Sphere: Related Content

Bill Clinton: We Wrote The Texas Rules Assuming We Would Win

More or less, that is.

First Read reports today:

Here’s a quote from him campaigning in Odessa late last month: “Now look, this system was set up years ago when Texas was late, late in the primary process. No one ever thought that the votes would determine the nominee of the party. And frankly, the party leaders set this up, so they could go in. They knew nobody else would go to these conventions, and they could make sure they had a fair share of the folks that went to the national convention. It was never intended to basically reverse the results of a popular election in the daytime, but it could happen.”

Yet given that criticism, it’s worth noting that, according to Texas Democratic Party attorneys NBC spoke with in the last few days, Bill Clinton’s campaign helped write those rules for 1992, and Bill Clinton twice won the Texas primary using those rules.

Now, the point of this isn’t to attack Bill Clinton having a connection on writing the rules. As such a major figure in the Democratic Party over the last 16 years, that is to be expected (although saying votes were designed to not matter most of the time is … curious, to say the least). It’s more that I just disagree with him on the value of a two tiered primary. I mentioned it here, and the news reported here gives me an excuse to reprint my analysis the day before the primary: Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Weird Clinton Campaign Suggestion of the Week

The Obama campaign and its allies are outspending us two to one in paid media and have sent more staff into the March 4 states. In fact, when all is totaled, Senator Obama and his allies have outspent Senator Clinton by a margin of $18.4 million to $9.2 million on advertising in the four states that are voting next Tuesday.

Senator Obama has campaigned hard in these states. He has spent time meeting editorial boards, courting endorsers, holding rallies, and - of course - making speeches.

If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there’s a problem.

No need to cite everyone else that’s weighed on this. (Which has happened a lot.) But the message that Obama needs to win all four states next Tuesday when only a week ago none other than Bill Clinton said that Hillary Clinton had to win Ohio and Texas … well, it’s poppycock.

But that’s happening on so many Clinton memos nowadays that it drowns out whatever good they have to say. It’s as if they’re the campaign that cried wolf too many times. …

Sphere: Related Content

Clinton Campaign: Caucus or Death?

The Texas Primary includes both a primary vote and a caucus. The vote is to measure the width of support - who has the most supporters. The caucus, meanwhile, is to measure the depth of support - who cares the most. It’s a system I like more the more I read about it, since it resolves a lot of the problems traditionally associated with voting (Person A, who cares a lot, has equal say with Person B, who does not care who wins and chooses randomly). This rewards passion in supporters, while not solely basing it on passion. That’s a good thing, from where I sit.

But Bill Clinton thinks otherwise:

“The doors open at 7 and they close at 7:15. It would be tragic if Hillary were to win this election in the daytime and somebody were to come in at night and take it away.”

I can only presume that Bill is busy writing the concession speech if Obama wins the primary vote and loses the caucus vote.

It’s amazing how the Clinton campaign refers to caucuses as undemocratic but does not apply the same label to superdelegates.

Sphere: Related Content

Michelle Obama: Our Souls Are Broken

In case you were wondering, Michelle Obama would like you to know what’s wrong the country and what can be done to fix it:

We have lost the understanding that in a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another — that we cannot measure the greatness of our society by the strongest and richest of us, but we have to measure our greatness by the least of these. That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done.

That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.

Uhh…why are we talking about souls in a presidential election? I’m serious.  I wasn’t sure Michelle Obama could top her dreaming journey line, but she just did…

Could we please drop the vacuous rhetoric? Or, at least recognize it as such.  If she really believes this, then some serious questions need to be asked.  For instance: are we really not going to work on or solve problems until our souls are fixed?

In other Michelle Obama news, she’s finally proud of the United States as she indicated at a recent campaign stop in Milwaukee, Wisconsin:

“Hope is making a comeback and, let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change,”

I have seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues and it has made me proud.”

First, it’s an obvious shot at Bill Clinton’s administration, but, no one’s going to discuss that.  Secondly, I hate to break it to her, but the country was fairly unified around some “basic common issues” in 1984, when Reagan won 60% of the vote carrying 49 states (525 electoral votes).  But, who cares about history…

Diagnosis: Broken Souls
Prescription: Barack Obama

Sphere: Related Content

Miscellanea of the Week

Here’s a roundup of happenings from this past week:

• Tavis Smiley wants Barack Obama to address his “State of the Black Union” conference in New Orleans and is upset that Obama turned the invite down to campaign in Ohio and Texas. Reasonable people everywhere attempt to show Smiley how stupid he is being, while Smiley rejects an offer for Michelle Obama to address the conference. Hillary Clinton is attending, though; presumably in an effort to continue to rebuild bridges with the community should she win the nomination.
• Clinton started her Wisconsin tour today; she’s already made the decision to cut it short, touting surrogates like Wesley Clark.
• Michelle Obama predicted victory in Ohio. The last time she did that, if I recall, was in Iowa. Bold move, for sure. I’m going to go ahead and say it’ll be an uphill climb at best.
• Hillary Clinton launched an attack that “speeches don’t put food on the table” and Matthew Yglesias argues that it’s a false distinction between the ability to give speeches and having good substance, citing some examples. The line of attack here from the Clinton campaign is definitely meant to prey upon some people’s suspicions that Obama is all talk and no substance. We blog these speeches and these debates and what not, but it’s important to realize there’s more out there; both candidates have extensive plans online that are available for all.
• Western Democrat extraordinaire Brian Schweitzer is telling superdelegates to stay out of the way for the time being.
• Rich Lowry at NRO is bewildered more Democrats are not making the pragmatic vote for Obama to just get the race over with and avoid a nasty fight. Honestly, I don’t think many Democrats think that far in advance; and if they do, it’s only about the general election.
• Mike Huckabee dares me to compare him and his futile campaign to suspected terrorists. Haven’t we reached the point where his jokes are no longer refreshing but are just generally worrisome in terms of him being the Commander in Chief?
• Hillary’s gone hunting before, and has shot a duck.
• Obama is off to Texas immediately after Wisconsin.
• Everyone is speculating about McCain’s running mate. We won’t, at least much.
• Interesting thoughts on the dynamics of the media in the Clinton-Obama race.

Sphere: Related Content

Live Blog Of Bill Clinton Event In Madison, Wisconsin (February 14, 2008)

Today, Bill Clinton is campaigning for Hillary Clinton in Madison, Wisconsin. He’s scheduled to speak at 2:15 CST. I’ll be live blogging.

1:15: Alright, I’m here and I have my press credentials. He’s speaking at the UW Stock Pavilion. It’s probably worth noting that there are animal feces on the floor (not a lot, but enough to make the place smell a bit and certainly enough to mess up one’s shoes, like mine for instance). This is an especially sour point for me because I was forced to throw out my soda before taking my seat in the press area. Apparently, poop is okay, but Coke Zero is just going to create too much of a mess.

1:30: Apparently, President Truman spoke here during his campaign for reelection. I wonder if it was smelly/messy back then.

1:50: They’re still seating people. An inordinate amount of effort appears to be going into the locations of where people stand/stand.

2:12: And the seating continues. As of now, the venue is approximately half filled with some people on the floor in front of the stage. So, I’d say there are about 1100-1300 people right now.

2:16: “A Change Will Do You Good” is blaring from the speakers.

2:18: And now, they are playing Obama’s entrance music - U2’s “City Of Blinding Lights.” This was certainly not an accident. And this is the kind of lame actions that people criticize the Clintons for.

2:21: Some woman takes the podium. I have no idea who she is (and neither does anyone else in the press area). She talks about tomorrow being Susan B. Anthony’s birthday; then goes on to explain why she is supporting Hllary Clinton.

2:23: The speaker notes that “Hillary represents the kind of change we need to get our country back on track.”

2:26: She criticizes Republicans for cutting financial assistance to energy programs, then goes on to say “you don’t need to be from Wisconsin to know that people need heat” - an ironic statement given that this building isn’t heated and it’s freezing.

2:30: Congresswoman Hilda Solis from California takes the podium.  She begins, “Bienvenidos! That means welcome in Spanish.” Then she starts a chant, “What do we want!?” The crowd, obviously confused, did not respond. So she helps them by exclaiming, “Hillary Clinton!” She goes on, “When do we want it?!” Again, only a few responses from the crowd.  She tries another cycle of the chant, but quickly moves into her speech.  She begins by explaining that she’s campaigning in Wisconsin because she believes in Hillary Clinton.

2:37: Solis makes a reference to the low turnout at Bill Clinton’s earlier event Milwaukee (reportedly only had a few hundred people showed up). She says that there was a right wing radio host, who she didn’t name, that was telling people that the event was canceled or postponed. I should add that the event I am at has about 2,000 people.

2:43: Some annoying girl in the audience keeps inexplicably screaming “Hillary!”

2:44: The crowd roars as Bill Clinton takes the podium.  He begins by talking about how Rep. Solis’ district is comprised of Latinos and African Americans. Someone in the crowd shouts “YEA!,” there’s an awkward pause, Bill says “huh?” and then moves on with his speech.

2:48: Bill talks about the founders and their desire to create a more perfect union. He adds that Hillary believes in their vision, even though, at the time of the founding neither she nor Obama would have been allowed to participate because only white men were allowed.

2:50: He talks about the recession that most people are beginning to feel. Asks the crowd to compare these past 7 years with the 90s. Then, he goes on enumerate some economic problems: 1) growth rates, 2) job rates and 3) types of jobs. Already, this speech has more substance than Obama’s speech in Madison, which took place two nights ago. [To clarify: I'm not saying one is necessarily better than the other, I'm just saying is all]

2:53: Asks the crowd to raise their hand if they know someone without health insurance, then tells everyone to look around.  He states that this question couldn’t even be asked in any other wealthy country around the the world because they all have universal health insurance.

2:55: He launches into a discussion about the context in which this election is taking place. According to Bill, it’s taking place in the context of: the Iraq war, an international community that’s angry with us, climate changes and an economic downturn. After discussing each of those issues a bit (some more than others), he goes on to remind voters that their decision on who to vote for must be made in the context of these issues.  After complimenting the other people who have run for the Democratic nomination this cycle, he suggests a calculus for voters to use when making their decision.

2:59: But first, he responds directly to Obama’s movement of change for change’s sake by arguing that it seems unfair to eliminate someone solely because they were part of the struggle during the 90s.

3:00: Now, his proposed voting calculus: “how would you define success?”  Hillary’s answers this question with three considerations:  (1) She will want the American people to be better off after after she leaves office than when she started; (2) she will want the children and grandchildren of this generation to be better off; and, (3) she will want the United States’ prestige and respect restored in the international community.

3:02: Moving on, he offers a biographical discussion of Hillary.  He begins by referencing her decision to stay at law school an extra year in order to fight for children’s’ rights. He forgot what he wanted to say for a second and says to himself, “I’ve forgotten what I wanted to say.” Then, remembers, and offers some contextual information about the children’s issues that Hillary addressed at that time.  This speech is substantive.

3:06: Next up, he mentions Hillary’s work in the Irish peace process. Notes how when the Irish leaders recently came to Washington to thank Bush for his support, they also requested that Hillary be present.

3:09: Continuing with the ‘Hillary is a doer’ theme, Pres. Clinton talks about a conversation he recently had with a “crusty Republican,” who indicated that he’ll vote for Hillary because she’s the only person that’s ever “done something.”

3:10: Now, he talks about her work against PCBs, for increased health benefits for national guardsman and a few other things. Challenges the audience: ‘you can say that these things don’t mean anything, but they do’

3:11: Changing topics quickly, he talks about Climate change and Hillary’s plans to combat it, while also creating green collar jobs.

3:13: Changing topics now, now it’s health care.  He discusses how universal health care is possible now because businesses and labor unions are joining together to support universal coverage.  He adds, “now if you really think this [universal health care] matters, you only have one choice. There is only one candidate left that really offers universal coverage.”  Tells voters not to believe the ads that they have seen telling them otherwise.

3:15:  He explains the specifics of Hillary’s health care plan; if you want to know, go to her website, because I’m not going to write about it now.

3:17: Aside from talking about the specifics of Hillary’s plan, he offers a broader discussion about insurance, how it functions and why universal coverage is feasible.

3:20: New topic, now he’s on to education. He begins by going through the bullets from Hillary’s website regarding education.  He spends some extra time touting Hillary’s national service program, which offers educational debt relief for individuals that perform community service.

3:23: Talks about the need for reforms in general. He talks about taking the “politics out of science” (big applause for that line), fighting special interests and a few other reforms. Notably, he says, “we’re going to…” as opposed to “Hillary’s going to…” a few times. He adjusted this rhetoric to be more Hillary focused after using “we” a couple of times.

3:24: He offers the reasons why Hillary believes we need to get our troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible: 1) It’s best for Iraq because the greatest likelihood for success there is if they do it themselves and 2) It’s best for the American military - we’re strained now and need to get them out so we can fix our military.

3:30: Adds that if you elect her, she will send a message to the world: “America is back.”

3:31: Concludes: “You need to decide what you want in a president.” Says that there are not many differences between the two on issues, but there are some differences: 1) Only Hillary’s health care plan is universal; 2) Hillary’s plan for dealing with the mortgage crisis is more aggressive (then he starts to wander off into an explanation about this issue…I guess this is a side effect of not having a planned speech; sometimes, the speaker will meander)

3:33: “Finally, let me say, we need your help” - Then goes on to discuss how Hillary’s campaign ran out of money in early January, but people helped out by donating as soon as they found out the campaign was in trouble. Then urges people to volunteer to help, tells them text message the word “join” to 442008.  Concerned that people don’t get it, Bill explains that “it’s electing the 44th president in 2008.” The crowd gets it now. *sigh*

3:36: Ends on an optimistic note by saying that Hillary’s administration will be even better than his was in the 90s. Now, he promises to tell some jokes, since he recognizes that his speech was a bit heavy. This speech is ending like the third Lord of the Rings movie - just when you think it’s over, the screen goes dark, and then a new scene begins.

3:39: As promised, he tells some jokes about the presidency - jokes about music playing when you walk in a room and how you get to live in best public housing.  He says that the presidency is a fleeting time - “poof, it’s gone.” Then, he talks about how if Hillary is elected president, “she will never forget the look in your eye.” (He’s used this line a few times during this speech). I actually have no idea what it means or how it relates to anything.

3:43: He tells another story about a conversation he had with a fireman in New York City. The story isn’t all that interesting, but his inflection is pretty impressive. I fancy myself (and I am) an extraordinary public speaker. There are few people that I will openly admit are better public speakers than me; Bill is definitely one of them.

3:44: And here it is, the closer: “I think it would be a good thing for this country to have the first woman president…but that’s because I was born to a widowed mother.” Then goes on to say that he also thinks it would be a good thing for this country to have the first African American president, and how it’ll be good for this country when we have the first Asian, Jewish, etc.. elected president. Why? “because we shouldn’t be divided by our categories.”

3:47: And we’re done.

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »