Pancake City

Some people have jumped on Hillary Clinton’s latest electability argument (essentially, that white people will vote for her, but not Obama) as an example of race-baiting. It’s not, although the real dynamic behind what she said, and has been saying about Obama for the past few months, isn’t much prettier.

Eugene Robinson nails it on the head in his latest column. The money quote:

Clinton’s sin isn’t racism, it’s arrogance. From the beginning, the Clinton campaign has refused to consider the possibility that Obama’s success was more than a fad. This was supposed to be Clinton’s year, and if Obama was winning primaries, there had to be some reason that had nothing to do with merit. It was because he was black, or because he had better slogans, or because he was a better public speaker, or because he was the media’s darling. This new business about white voters is just the latest story the Clinton campaign is telling itself about the usurper named Obama.

“It’s still early,” Clinton said Wednesday, vowing to fight on. At some level, she seems to believe the nomination is hers. Somebody had better tell her the truth before she burns the house down.

It’s sore loser syndrome writ large. Romney, Huckabee, Edwards, and everyone else found a way to exit gracefully when the handwriting was on the wall. I don’t see Clinton doing the same. I’d love to be proven wrong.

Mike brought up in the comments the latest development in Panderthon 2008: the proposed gas tax holiday by McCain (and a few days later, by Clinton) for the summer.

The idea of a gas tax holiday will resonate with some voters.  Voters who:

1. Have no idea what the current federal gas tax is (18 cents for gas, 24 cents for diesel).

2. Are horrible at math (18 cents x 20 gallon tank =$3.60 saved per fill up. An average of $30 for the summer by a CBO estimate.)

3. Don’t understand that it will delete the transportation fund of $10 billion dollars, which maintains our highways, roads, and bridges…and provides jobs to transportation workers.

4. Don’t understand Economics 101. If you lower the tax, demand will increase. Which decreases supply. Which…makes prices go up. It’s unlikely people will even get back the entire dime, nickel, and three pennies.

5. Don’t understand the environmental benefits of higher gas prices. I live paycheck to paycheck and have been hurt by the sharp rise in gas prices, but I can see the upside. High gas prices is probably the only thing that will force people to change their driving habits, their car buying habits, and their lifestyles, including pressing employers for telecommuting, living closer to work, demanding politicians invest in public transportation and alternate energy research, and so on.

6. Think that economists against this idea, which is almost every single economist, and I say almost just to cover by bases in case one turns up later on, is an idiot who dag nab it just don’t understand trucking.

In other words, this is directed to about 25% of the public, and may well decide the Democratic primary in Indiana. And guess who is taking a political hit by standing against the idea?

Why doesn’t McCain and McClinton just promise voters a pocketful of fairies?

MCCAIN: “My fairies will help you do your laundry, and watch over your kids.”
CLINTON: “My fairy proposal isn’t irresponsible. I’ll pay it with a windfall tax on bridge trolls.”
NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN AD: “Barack Obama. Doesn’t believe in fairies. Doesn’t believe in America.”

You know what’s audacious about Obama? He believes enough Americans are able to move beyond being pandered to and guilt-by-association politics and go in a different direction because of the great challenges facing our country. We’ll see.

When it comes to national security, tough talk and demagoguery aren’t foreign by any means to politicians. The fear of being attacked and unknown dangers lurking in the shadows makes some people responsive to fear mongering and machismo-laden threats. Many a politician feel a need to show his or her toughness through inflammatory rhetoric and by uttering things that are likely a gross exaggeration of the politician’s true thoughts.

I’m half-Iranian though, so even with this in mind I was taken aback by something Hillary Clinton said recently:

Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on “Good Morning America” Tuesday. ABC News’ Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” Clinton said. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

I don’t know what to highlight: “obliterate” or “them”.  Can we at least acknowledge that there is a difference between a country’s government and its people? Unless all 66 million Iranian men, women, and children all press the red button to launch a nuclear attack, do we really want to destroy the people along with the Iranian government in this scenario?

Using the word “them” instead of “the Iranian government” isn’t a slip of the tongue or a random word choice. It’s reflective of a dehumanizing, us-vs-them view of the world that is bereft of nuance and lumps people and governments into “the enemy.” We had seven years of this, and to disastrous consequence. I don’t want to hear any Presidential candidate even pay lip service to this type of thinking, regardless if his or her true views are probably more nuanced.

He gets outraged about the right things. The Clinton campaign’s response to Geraldine Ferraro’s dive off the deep end was so tepid and disappointing that I am seriously going to consider voting for John McCain if she wins the Democratic nomination.

Ferraro’s statements are more than the rantings of one angry supporter. Surrogates don’t do interviews on network TV for three days without the tacit approval of the campaign they support. The Clintons’ Machiavellian, use-any-tactic-that-works style of politics is short-sighted and carries a long-term cost.  If Hillary Clinton can’t win Pennsylvania without using racial polarization, she doesn’t deserve the Presidency. What does it say when Sen. McCain appears to be doing more to run a dignified campaign than she is?

It’s not too often I agree with Robert Novak. In fact, this may be the first time that I have. But this is a sound overview of the Democratic nomination race at this point.

I need a new tag: “yeah, politics, again”. At least I can tuck this under the fold that isn’t a fold for those not interested in politics. Read the rest of this entry »

Well, my resistance to blogging about it lasted all of one minute.

9:01 — I wish MSNBC could understand that a Presidential debate shouldn’t be run like an episode of Meet the Press. They always start off the debate with insider politics, horse race questions. Which is fine…for Meet the Press.

9:03 The video is jerky and almost unwatchable. Not sure I’m disappointed.

9:05  I might as well drop the “mini” from the post title. Who am I kidding? I’m going to blog the whole debate like a big nerd.

9:07 Yikes! Already nasty.

9:10 Seriously, MSNBC. You want to add another 8088 to your server rack so the video doesn’t break up every 5 seconds? You can hold ctrl-alt-dash to put it in turbo mode (4.77 Mhz -> 10 Mhz. I had one growing up, 20 years ago. Fond memories.)

9:14 Part of me likes the mudslinging. I admit it. It’s like how I dislike the idea of boxing, but can’t help watching Ultimate Fighting for a few minutes when it’s on TV.

9:15  Lots of snark, head shaking, and interrupting so far. Clinton is using some misleading but clever arguments (if I weren’t biased towards Obama, maybe they wouldn’t seem misleading.) Obama is holding his own so far.

9:16 MSNBC, don’t act like you are taken aback at how the debate is turning out. This is exactly what they wanted, and why they structured the debate this way (no time limits, a “free for all” to paraphrase them)

9:19 Clinton complains about getting asked questions first all the time, then references a Saturday Night Live skit to back her point up. Seriously. (Hey, it’s cool, Hillary. You gotta work the refs.)

9:21-9:30 The Internet both takes away and giveth. MSNBC streaming is down, but the local Ohio TV station has its own (working) feed.

9:34 I’m guessing what I missed in those 9 minutes was Brian Williams and Tim Russert stabbing Obama and Clinton with cattle prods if they tried to stop attacking each other.

9:38 Clinton’s attack against Obama: he voted the same way on Iraq as I did when he was in the Senate. Okay…. Then she misrepresented his position on Pakistan. I’m pretty sure that one will be on the WaPo fact-checker site. (Update: Yup.)

9:41 They both brought out their A game for this potentially last debate. I’m glad I’m watching it now.

9:42 Russert almost asked a good question on Iraq. Almost. Then it took a turn into inanity.

9:43 This “Iraq is costing us money” argument is going to be get a lot of play in the general election. Guns or butter, bitches!

9:46 Clinton makes a decent attack on Obama not holding a hearing while chairing the subcommittee of something-or-other. Obama: I started chairing the committee in the beginning of 2007. It’s probably a good attack in that there is some truth to it, but it’s so Washingtonian that I think it will elicit a “So what?” response.

9:48 - 9:52 Today’s color bars brought to you by: WKYC-TV #2. When you want color bars, WKYC-TV #2 is your place to be.

9:53 Considering how ferociously Obama and Clinton are attacking each other, the audience has been fairly quiet. Which I like. Adds a little dignity.

9:54 That was a really nice opening response of Obama to the clip of Clinton poking fun at him. He laughed and gave her a compliment on her delivery. Hillary cackled. Guess who’s side I’m on?

10:01 I’m starting to believe that Obama can be a very good debater. Except for his response on Clinton’s subcommittee attack, he has been doing very well.

10:03 Russert is somewhat mendacious and overly aggressive in his framing of McCain’s claim that Obama is ducking out of his public financing agreement, but at the heart it’s a good question and I’m glad it was asked. Obama gave a so-so response.

10:06 Russert asks a question to Clinton I’m also curious about: “Why haven’t you released your tax return yet?” I thought her response was weak, but again <—- me biased.

10:08 “Do you support Louis Farrakhan?”  It’s like an extended version of Meet the Press.

10:09 RUSSERT: See, Hillary? I can ask obnoxious questions to other politicians too!

10:13 CLINTON: Obama hates Jews. She’s dancing on a real fine line here.

10:14 I love Obama. Clinton made what I thought was a sleazy hint that Obama really wouldn’t mind Farrakhan’s support (and secretly doesn’t like the Jewish people as much as she did). He responded with a humorous line that addressed the issue as well. I really think she shot herself in the foot with that one. It would have been much better if he had just flat-out rejected Farrakhan though. The way he worded his response was nowhere near as strong as it could have been.

10:20 Williams: Obama, why you so liberal? He gave a good response on the National Journal rating system, although frankly, the “Most Liberal Voting Record” rating is going to be dragged out again and again, whatever its basis.

10:22: RUSSERT: “Russia! Betcha didn’t see that one coming! You, Clinton: what’s the new Russian President’s middle name? Answer now!”

10:26 Decent final question: are there any votes or things you said that you wish you could take back? Hillary-hating media asked her first, of course. Obama brings up Terry Schiavo. Gave a surprising but (at least to me) a frank response. Ended complimenting Hillary too.

10:30 WILLIAMS: “Just kidding, false ending! One more attack, please!” OBAMA: “No.” CLINTON: “No.” (I wondered what they would have said if Clinton was asked first, and Obama second. I say that because Obama was a little more charitable in his response.)

POST-SCRIPT: I really, really, hate Tim Russert. I think his antagonistic, bombastic style is totally inappropriate for a Presidential debate. I hope this is the last we see of him. Tonight was “mean Clinton.” I like nice Clinton better, when she promotes herself rather than tear Obama down, but that’s just my preference. That was a downer of a debate, as any attack-focused debate is. I’m glad voting isn’t held tonight, or not as many people would show up.