Gay Ol’ Times in the Obama Campaign?

October 29, 2007

Meanwhile, it appears to me that Obama’s suffering from a self-inflicted foot injury with letting an anti-gay grammy-award-winnning singer perform at a major campaign event.

Human Rights Campaign, one of the biggest gay-rights groups, has come out strongly against the performance.

I was surprised by this, assuming it was a 2-hour scandal that would immediately blow over and that the campaign simply wasn’t aware of his background, but Obama’s supporting him while condemning his comments and reiterating the campaign themes of unity and tolerance.

As a sidebar, there sadly does seem to be a lot of homophobia and outright denial in the black community on this issue (check out On the Downlow, a rather poorly written but interesting book on the topic.)

Feels like Obama’s undermining his message with his messenger, and I’m a bit disallusioned. I also don’t get the politics; he comments that homophobia is prominent in the black community and clearly doesn’t want to push too hard against it. But Obama has not been pushing for the black vote, and doesn’t have it.

He does have the mojo with young voters, though, and they’re far more likely to be pro-gay-rights (check out Kevin Drum’s always-solid take.)

It’s 2007. I’d love to see one of the major candidates come out swinging for full-on gay marriage. It’s not that anyone is being particularly bold on this issue, but it seems another overly cautious position from Obama - and one that hits his main volunteers and contradicts his message.

I just don’t quite get it. A “scheduling conflict” for McClurkin would have been easy enough to arrange.

2 Comments | Obama | Permalink
Posted by cdog

Bold New Aggressiveness?

October 28, 2007

Things appear to be not going swimmingly for Obama: morale at the Chicago headquarters appears to be low; donors and supporters have increasing concerns about his double digit national poll gap with Clinton; and he is trailing in New Hampshire. These are the broad themes animating the Times front page interview titled “Obama Promises a Forceful Stance Against Clinton.” It is in this context that Obama is launching a concerted campaign to differentiate himself from Clinton–accusing her of voting like a Republican on national security issues, and of not being clear on where she stands on issues.

The Nation has an interesting take on the interview, pointing out that Obama’s New York Times interview is an attempt to test the waters for public sentiment before actually engaging the battle with Clinton. A legitimate point, though one could argue that the way national politics is covered by the media, you need to send signals in this public fashion (if not to Clinton, to your donors and supporters worried about the campaign) even as you act.

No Comments » | Clinton, Obama | Permalink
Posted by AAH4

Who the f$%# are you?

October 26, 2007

A must read profile of Giuliani’s youth on Salon. [Also worth checking out is this Salon piece identifying Giuliani as an "authoritarian narcissist"]. Defeated in a college race for junior class president many decades ago, Giuliani meets his one-time opponent in 1994: 

“”Powers encouraged Farrell to greet the mayor, who was seated at the dais. All those years later, the mayor barely resembled the cherubic young man Farrell knew at Manhattan College. Yet, in some ways, Rudy Giuliani hadn’t changed at all. “I reached up my hand, and Giuliani looked at me like, ‘Who the fuck are you?’” Farrell recalled. Then, without uttering a word, Giuliani turned away. “”

No Comments » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by AAH4

“No Crying In Baseball and No Politics in Music”

October 26, 2007

Expect Mike Huckabee to be receiving glowing endorsements from the likes of Bob Dylan, Mos Def, and Spearhead. And here’s more on the huckster from Arkansas in an interview with Slate:

“Before we bomb them [Iran], we ought to try to bankrupt them.”

“his is not a nation [Iran] building up nuclear arms to defend against somebody, because there is no one threatening them.”

“we’re not going to beat Hillary by demonizing her.” [Right...]

Slate: Barack Obama has been criticized for campaigning with a gospel singer who has called homosexuality a curse. Critics have claimed it’s as if a white candidate campaigned with David Duke. What’s your view on the equivalence of homosexuality with skin color in the civil rights debate?

Huckabee: Most of the African-American leaders with whom I’m familiar are very, very unhappy with tying the two together. First of all, because a person is black and discriminated against by sight. It’s not a matter of a relationship. It’s not a matter of even getting to find out that someone has a sexual preference other than hetero. If a person walks into a room and is black, you know it. You don’t necessarily know that a person might be homosexual. There is a different level of bigotry and discrimination. Most African-American leaders I’m familiar with believe it’s a huge jump to try to equate the two.

Ok, now onto the pieces of the interview that were a bit more saavvy and give plenty of nuggets for analysts to think about in regards to Huckabee’s potential:

Huckabee: We’ve raised more money the last six days online than in the entire first three months of the campaign.

Huckabee: We’ve raised more money the last six days online than in the entire first three months of the campaign. We’ve had to upgrade the server twice just to handle the traffic and get more people in to handle the phones, because we couldn’t get to them all. It’s just exploded on us.

Slate: Now what do you do?

Huckabee: We have to turn the momentum into funding. We have people who have been sitting on the sidelines, but now they’re willing to host fund-raising events. We now have a whole new energy. The amazing thing is that we’ve gotten this far by being patient and figuring if we stayed here long enough, the message would get through, and people would realize that many of the other candidates just don’t scratch the itch for them.

Slate: Does this mean that social conservatives are deciding to vote their principles rather than voting for the person who appears the most electable?

Huckabee: The rank and file are no longer waiting to be given the nod by people who are perceived to be their leaders. Many are frustrated they’re not getting more of a sense of leadership from the organizations they’ve supported. But also now even [those concerned with electability] are seeing that we have an opportunity to win. That I’m not out of this thing.

Slate: Your skeptics worry you can’t take on Hillary Clinton, about whom Republican voters are very emotional. Why are they so emotional, and can you take on Clinton?

Huckabee: Frankly, I’m the only person who can. I know her better than any other person running for president. I understand her better and how she’s going to approach this campaign. The contrast is going to be much starker if it’s Hilary and me than if it’s anyone else on our ticket. The other thing is that we’re not going to beat Hillary by demonizing her. If people believe that’s the way to win the election, they are quite wrong. They’re going to have to show contrast, but by showing a superior vision, not simply painting a nightmare scenario.

Slate: Are you going to use this moment to confront your GOP opponents more?

Huckabee: What I’ve got to do is to show people why I’ve got to be president, and people are smart enough to draw their own conclusions about the differences between us. It’s not that I mind bringing out contrasts, but to relentlessly attack an opponent—I’m not sure that’s what people are looking for. I think they’re looking for someone who can manage the government, not necessarily disable their opponents.

Slate: The pro-life movement has always welcomed converts—Norma McCorvey being the most famous. Why isn’t Mitt Romney’s conversion on abortion a part of that tradition?

Huckabee: I welcome him to the fold. I think that’s great. I also think it’s great he’s had an epiphany on the Second Amendment and the Bush tax cuts and the Reagan-Bush legacy, as well as on traditional marriage and farm subsidies. All of those are wonderful conversions, but anyone who doesn’t think the Democrats won’t use that video must have been out of the country and out of touch during the 2004 presidential campaign during the Swift Boat efforts on John Kerry.

There is definitely something to say for the momentum Huckabee has right now, and he’s doing well to stick to a pitch aimed at social conservatives: “I’ve got a chance now, electability is not an issue, you can come out of the closet…” And I’m not so sure the far right lacks faith in a Huckabee v. Clinton showdown, specifically because he would be able to further demonize her. Then again, betting on the party that  has had to dwell the most on issues of electability in the last few elections probably hasn’t been very lucrative.

No Comments » | Republicans | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

Tom Tancredo Added the Superpoke Application…

October 25, 2007

Thanks to Eightfor08 blogger emeritus Megkibee for the heads up on Right Wing Facebook, where   person icon Fred Thompson is loving playing the low-expectations game. Just be marginally awake, and you win!

No Comments » | Republicans | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

Obama Sticks to Iran guns

October 24, 2007

Obama is persisting in his call for diplomatic engagement with Iran rather than bellicose rhetoric. The first time he made this innocous statement in the July debate–rendered controversial only because of the militarist rhetoric of the last few years–Clinton pounced, declaring him “irresponsible and frankly naive.” This time, the specific focus of his criticism is the resolution that designed the Revolutionary Guards a foreign terrorist organization. As the campaign notes, the language of the resolution could be used to justify an attack on Iran under a number of pretexts.

 The sharpening of his stance on this issue against Clinton is a good thing. It shows in a crucial respect that Obama is diametrically opposed to the Bush policy, much more so than Clinton, and that this is a policy difference worth keeping in mind for primary voters. Of course, Clinton in power may very well not follow the Bush script, but her rhetoric shows that she is presenting herself as similary hawkish on foreign policy, and wants to be perceived as such.

 Unfortunately, this approach to Iran really seems divorced from reality. Iran is not threatening the United States. It of course has the misfortune of extraordinarily bad leadership in the clerics and in Ahmadinejad, even if the latter doesn’t by a stretch hold the real power in the country. But despite this bad leadership, Iran isn’t bent on a suicidal desire to take on the United States. And in fact it has made efforts in the last few years to ameliorate tensions. So all the ferment stoked by Bush & co. against Iran seems, like the Iraq war, based not on a common sense view of the geopolitical situation at hand, but rather on an unceasing itch to use military force to make other states do exactly what this administration wants. And if Clinton is going to adopt a similar approach, even if only in rhetoric, then that may bode poorly for a future Democratic foreign policy.

No Comments » | Clinton, Foreign Policy, Obama | Permalink
Posted by AAH4

Hillary the Harpie

October 23, 2007

There are interesting dynamics at play with Clinton, as AH notes.

But first, take this. *hands over salt shaker*

Tasty? OK. We’ve always gotta keep grounded that for even the political junkie part of the world few are paying attention - Ugly Betty had half again as many viewers as the last GOP debate did - and the numbers are highly volatile.

Four years ago almost to the day, Zogby had Dean crushing Kerry by even more than Hillary is brutalizing Obama today. In the end, of course, it was Kerry over Dean by almost the inverse.

My point is that for the typically ill-informed voter, they will be costing on their prejudices, but are happy to have them affirmed against others, too. I would be surprised, for example, if these conservative upstate New York people anecdotally cited didn’t have equally negative views of Kerry come election day as they did of Hillary, or would have of any with the scarlet (D) after their name.

Hillary has the blessing and the curse of these primeval prejudices. Her face has had an almost totemic role in direct-mail fundraising since her days in the White House, but apart from card-carrying members of the V.R.W.C. the 90s seem like a long time ago.

*Grabs big stick* I also relish any opportunity to beat my dead horse about how calculating political mobilization is veeery difficult - if you know that there are people out there that will work hard to defeat your guy/gal, that also provides motivation to the other side. There’s an element of almost Newtonian physics in politics, and every add you run can mobilize the supporters of your rivals.

No Comments » | Clinton | Permalink
Posted by cdog

Values Voters in Compromising Positions

October 22, 2007

The weekend’s campaign trope: values voters, do they still matter? Of course, the media aren’t ready to say no, but the question should really be of whether values voters are willing to compromise and cast a vote for Giuliani, McCain, or Romney (in descending order of compromise?). If Mike Huckabee manages to survive the first couple weeks of the primaries then I may be eating my words, but I really don’t think 2008’s Republican candidate will be even close to the Bushian ideal for a values voter.

The Christian Science Monitor nicely approaches this more realistic frame of conservative compromise:

The bad news is that the strongest Republican in national polls, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, is not with them on those issues. And if religious conservatives fail to coalesce around one of the “anti-Giulianis,” his chances of getting the nomination rise dramatically – and their issues, they fear, will be off the table. With the next president likely to replace two or more Supreme Court justices, including some who support abortion rights, the opportunity of a generation to overturn the nationwide right to abortion, established in Roe v. Wade, could be lost.

The next dilemma comes if Mr. Giuliani does get the nomination. Do they vote for him or even help his campaign anyway?

And the dilemma for Mr. Giuliani? Perhaps it’s very similar: how much is he willing to compromise his more liberal social views? I think he answered ‘a little here, a little there’ with a surprisingly eloquent and unifying speech at the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit:

And like many of you, I think that we’ve got to find a way to be more inclusive. Christians and Christianity is all about inclusiveness. It’s built around the most profound act of love in human history isn’t it? It grew from a persecuted few people in the Roman Empire to the most widespread religion in the world by spreading a message of love, of hope, of faith, profound optimism, and with its hands out to everyone. They followed Christ’s commandment to administer to the sick and the needy. They reached out to the doubters and the non-believers, to the sinners. It was the love those early Christians displayed that drew first thousands and then millions to Christianity. Non-believers saw the display of love of Christians and said I want to be part of that. It must be a miracle behind that that people can love each other so much and care about each other so much. They can love each other so much that they can even forgive the people who persecuted them. This is a religion of inclusion. They were always looking for people to bring into the fold. They were truly defined by what they were for, not what they were against.

It’s a very good speech. And according to the polls, it better be, because Giuliani is not doing well with these voters. Of course, there’s always the problematic of who values voters are and the fact that white evangelical Christians have a monopoly on American values should be debunked quickly. Giuliani’s speech actually manages to make inroads in these directions as well. He probably won’t make it to the ends of those roads, but that doesn’t really matter, because fortunately the values of those dubbed ‘values voters’ will have to be compromised in this election and for elections to come.

1 Comment | Giuliani, Religion, Republicans | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

Daily Howler on Clinton’s Hurting Upstate

October 22, 2007

Bob Somerby notes similar problems as I did last night–aside from scattered, suspect, anectodal evidence there really isn’t any concrete proof offered about Clinton’s weaknesses in upstate new york–but adds the invaluable context that to the extent there IS widespread antipathy to Clinton, mainstream press reporting during the Clinton years that relentlessly trashed the Clintons has a big deal to do with it.

1 Comment | Clinton, Press | Permalink
Posted by AAH4

Clinton’s Hurting Upstate?

October 21, 2007

An interesting article breaking down the extent and depth of Clinton’s appeal in Upstate New York, and by extension, in conservative areas throughout the country. Read the whole thing. However, there is one important flaw which is worth pointing out because it speaks to endemic problems in the way reporting of the 08 campaign is going on.

At first the Post reporter, MacGillis, makes a reasonable point that success in Upstate New York, even if it is more conservative relative to other areas of the state, does not necessarily translate into success in other areas of the nation that are more conservative. But then he goes on to refer to “anectodal evidence” that Clinton is widely disliked. The criticisms voiced by some members of the Chamber of Commerce in a town of 16,000–containing the usual memes that Clinton shifts on policies, has no values, etc–are duly transcribed.

 Then, after citing Clinton’s overwhelming reelection victory, he regresses again to anectodal evidence of the sort that “this custodian doing backyard work thinks Clinton should not have stayed with her husband, etc.”

 To be fair, all reporters do this sort of anectodal reporting. But it might be better for MacGillis and all concerned to stick to facts if they want to report reality. After indicating that the facts show that Clinton won almost seventy percent of the vote, MacGillis quotes one up state new yorker supportive of Clinton and four that are highly critical. (And two of them were at the same chamber luncheon). This is the problem with anectodal evidence: you can take any selection of people and extrapolate erroenous conclusions such as “even upstate new yorkers who aren’t that conservative don’t like Clinton.” What’s odd is that MacGillis himself reports concrete reelection numbers, and then seeks to undercut them with isolated stories.  

2 Comments | Clinton | Permalink
Posted by AAH4

« Previous Entries