Entries Tagged 'Barack Obama' ↓

Paul Maslin has a nice analysis of the electoral map up. There is one situation that he goes over briefly that is particularly intriguing.
<p><strong>><a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/'>Electoral College Prediction Map</a></strong> - Predict the winner of the general election. Use the map to experiment with winning combinations of states. Save your prediction and send it to friends.</p> <p>
Which, of course, would give Obama a win in the House.

The venerable news organization we all know as Fox News has scuffed its reputation for the first time in recent memory. Right. But this is a little further than they normally go.

Taken from BarackObama.com’s blog, they have represented a user-created page on the Obama community space as something official from the campaign. Including a picture with no caption noting that the ‘Obama’ header does not mean the views are official campaign content, the story is pretty pathetic.

We don’t expect much of you Fox, but come on now!

First Read has a piece up noting the Clinton campaign’s approach to the possible convention fight. Some choice excerpts below:

Ickes argued the “superdelegates” should be called “automatic delegates” instead, because the former makes it sound like they have “superpowers.” The DNC itself refers to them as “superdelegates” and as “unpledged” delegates.

On Florida and Michigan, the campaign again said voters in those states should not be “disenfranchised” and that the states were important to the Democratic Party’s fortunes. Ickes also said Clinton didn’t vote on the DNC rules.

Ickes repeated earlier contentions that there was no reason to “re do” the votes in Florida and Michigan and didn’t directly answer if they would participate in a re-vote in Michigan. Ickes also acknowledged that it would be possible for Clinton to lose pledged delegates but control a majority of the credentials committee, which ultimately decides if and how Florida’s and Michigan’s disputed delegations would be dealt with.

This leaves me wondering whether or not the Clinton campaign is actually willing to do this. If the convention comes down to them being able to seat Florida and Michigan (which is more ridiculous, in my mind), through a rules coincidence giving them control of the credentials committee, would they go through with it? It would widely be seen as stealing the nomination infairly, and would no doubt lead many democrats to lose respect for her.

After a huge number of people have come out to vote in every primary/caucus, is she willing to offend so many of these new voters, who will probably then be more reluctant to vote in November? If she does do this, expect her to get blamed for giving John McCain the presidency.

Yes, I am an Obama man!

There are a few reasons, starting with issues:

1. Health Care
   Both of their plans are almost exactly the same, with one key difference. Clinton’s requires everyone to acquire health care (after having made it cheap) and Obama’s simply makes it cheap and leaves it up to people. I think there are issues with both approaches. With a mandate, it has to be enforced somehow, which probably means fines for those unwilling to buy health care, probably the poorest people around. Without one, people have a chance at not paying for health care until they get hurt and really need help, which could cost more in the long run. In the end, I value my freedom over the order that this might install, and prefer not to have a mandate.
2. Special Interests
   This is one of their biggest differences. Clinton has no issues with taking money from special interests and lobbyists. Obama hasn’t taken any money from either for his Presidential campaign. While I harbor no fantasies that laws will be able to be created without special interests pulling for their own way, I prefer as much detachment as possible. I should probably note this is only talking about federal lobbyists. This also goes along with Clinton’s refusal to release her tax returns, like most every Presidential candidate in recent history. She said she would after getting the nomination, so why not now? At the least its a bonehead campaign move.
3. Foreign Policy
   This one probably gets more news play than it should, as it is a pretty small difference. Obama has said he will meet with foreign leaders, even if they aren’t “good” ones. Clinton has said that she might. I like openness, and think that refusing to talk to other leaders is part of the Bush 43 mentality that has caused such trouble in Iraq…
4. Iraq
   Their plans for the future are almost identical. What is very different is their past. Obama spoke out against the war before it began, while it was very unpopular to do so and almost every other politician was promoting it. I think this serves as a nice example of his judgement, something I think has been lacking in the Bush 43 White House.

That covers most of their policy differences. They are remarkably similar in their views on the world, which leaves a bit less to sift through to make a decision based on the issues alone. This MSNBC article covers a lot of their records relatively well.

There are also personal preference items that have shaped my choice for who I should support. As much as such things get ridiculed by many, they are extremely important in governing effectively, since if the public doesn’t follow, you aren’t really a leader.

1. Speaking Skills
   I know a lot of people who cringe every time Bush 43 steps up to a microphone, in preparation for whatever torture he will do to the english language on that particular day. I think that this lack of eloquence has turned a lot of people away from politics, as it becomes a chore to even try to comprehend what the President is saying. Obama is an amazing orator, and he is drawing a lot of new people into being interested in government. Clinton is also miles better than Bush 43, but not nearly as good at capturing a crowd as Obama is.
2. Background
   Obama has had a very unique life up to this point. I think having seen the world from a lot of different places, from the slums of Chicago to the beaches of Hawaii to whatever it is they have in Indonesia, it all serves to give him a background for knowledge. He understands other cultures and won’t anger the rest of the world the way Bush 43 has. I think an Obama presidency could go a long way toward making the world admire America again, instead of despise it.

All of which I think creates a very inspiring candidate, perfect to actually be able to win in November. That idea takes me to my next category.

I am very much a political pragmatist, and want to see the Democrats beat the Republicans this fall. Measuring electability is scorned by a lot of pundits, who favor a more idealistic approach, but I think its important to support one’s goals, not simply a single candidate.

1. Polarization
   Clinton’s negatives are sky high. Last time I checked them out, which was right before Iowa, I believe, they were at almost 50%. It’s hard to run a campaign with so much of the country already having their minds made up against you. Obama is a newer force, and his negatives aren’t nearly as high, and are concentrated almost entirely within the Republican base, who would never vote for a Democrat anyway. If Clinton wins the nomination, she will be hoping to win a close election over McCain. That’s what both Gore and Kerry tried to do for themselves. I think its time to try something else. Obama has a real chance to put some red states back in play, which could throw a wrench into the Republican electoral math and create a landslide.
2. Scandal
   Clinton touts this as a positive about her, but I’m not so sure. Her reasoning is that she already has gone through the Republican wash cycle, and came out the other side fine. (Although Al Gore would probably argue that all wasn’t fine.) I think that as soon as some little new tidbit is dug up about an old scandal, or even just the very beginnings of a new one showing up, the public will all remember the final years of Bill’s Presidency and want to distance themselves from it once again.
3. Political Firsts
   The nomination of either of them will be a huge political first. While African-American and woman have about equal weight for the white male I am, I would really prefer if the first woman isn’t someone who is only there because of who she married. I think it sets a dangerous precedent, and in a way reinforces old thoughts—that a woman can’t do well on her own.
4. Convention Politics
   Clinton wants to seat the delegations from Michigan and Florida. Even some of her Congressional endorsers are seeing the idiocy in this. In Michigan, no other candidates were on the ballot, after the state defied the DNC. In Florida, none of them campaigned there for the same reason. If she does succeed in having them seated, which could happen due to wacky convention protocol, they could be enough to swing the nomination to her. She also favors a situation where superdelegates overturn the decision of the pledged delegates. If either of these does come to fruition, expect a huge backlash from a large part of the Democratic party, which will almost guarantee a November loss to McCain.
5. Campaign
   Clinton came into the primary season with a 20+ point lead, and looked to be headed to an easy nomination. Her campaign has repeatedly screwed up and become almost pathetic at various points since then. First, they dumped too much money into Iowa and New Hampshire. Then they went to Nevada and had Bill bring up voter fraud just so they could later refer to “reports of voter fraud”. Then off to South Carolina and some pretty horrible race-baiting by Bill. (Don’t forget, they used to LIKE black people!) Just recently, they pretty well screwed up by thinking that Super Tuesday would decide everything. After pretty much tying on February 5th, they didn’t have organizations set up in the following states, and ended up having to pretty much skip them. A lot of it reverts back to old politics that Bill once cried out against (The Man from Hope!). Some of it is just stupid tactical errors.
   Obama, on the other hand, has run a much tighter ship. After a surprise win in Iowa, he acted a bit too much like a front-runner in New Hampshire (and made a stupid quip about Clinton’s likability), causing that loss. Since then, it has been pretty much flawless. They saw much earlier than the Clinton campaign that it would become all about delegates and started targeting specific districts to try to win more. Now he has a near-insurmountable lead in pledged delegates.
   The Republicans nominated did well this year for themselves, and nominated the guy who can most likely win the election. With that in mind, such campaign errors could have huge effect if they happen during the general election, and I don’t want to see the White House slip away from the Democrats’ grasp.

The bottom line is that Barack Obama has the best chance of beating John McCain in November. With that win, he would take to the White House a unique background, which he has learned from to craft a mindset that could fundamentally alter America, and point it in a new direction for this 21st Century.

*** UPDATE ***
I probably should have covered experience initially, it totally slipped my mind. There are two separate ways to look at this. The first is the more traditional way, simply comparing their experience records. The second is a bit further removed, and pays more attention to whether or not experience is something that is very important.

1. Experience
   First, the discussion of their experience in comparison to each other. There is no denying that Clinton has more years in the public eye. Her 8 years as First Lady undoubtedly have helped her understand how everything works. She has also taken credit for a lot of the good things that happened during Bill’s presidency. The problem with this, is that it is very easy for her opponents to hang the failures of his presidency on her neck. The current example of this is the set of NAFTA mailers going out in Ohio. Clinton has been in the Senate for 7 years now, which is her only legislative experience. Barack Obama has been in the Senate for 3 years now, and before that he was an Illinois State Senator for 7 years. So while Clinton has spent more time in the public eye, it isn’t as big a gap as a lot of people think, and not all of it is positive, as will be discussed next.As I said above, there is the possibility that her opponents will use the failures of Bill’s presidency to hurt her in the general election. There is also the possibility that old scandals will come up again, from those years. Putting aside these issues of electability, however, there are also issues of judgment. If someone has been repeating the same mistakes for years on end, there isn’t any reason to credit them with all those years. I think Obama has shown that he can judge situations well and react accordingly, which to me is much more important than having a long record behind him.
2. Race and Gender
   Race has been brought up a few times. The most striking example of it was right around the time of the South Carolina primary, when Bill Clinton temporarily turned into the attack dog for the Clinton campaign, and said some pretty ridiculous things. This included comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson, since both won South Carolina, basically saying that he only won the state because he was black. Since that got a lot of media and a lot of voters had a negative reaction, his role in the campaign has been severely limited. Some lower-level Clinton surrogates have also said some stupid things, gotten slapped on the wrist by the campaign, and then gone back to being best friends. If you ask me, they were just doing it quietly for the Clinton campaign, but I don’t have facts to back that up. News pundits talk about the demographics a lot, but haven’t done anything too surprising.Clinton’s campaign has also tried to play the gender card a few times, only truly succeeding once. That was in New Hampshire, when she cried shortly before the primaries, got made fun of for it, and then used it as a sympathy tool. She tried it again right before Super Tuesday, but it didn’t get as much media. Most recently, they tried to make a large issue out of an MSNBC host referring to the campaign’s use of Chelsea as her being “pimped” out. No polls have shown that approach to have gotten much traction, and they stopped complaining about it. Her outfits do get made fun of a lot, which probably wouldn’t happen if she were male since men don’t have much choice in how they dress (I’m sure if one of them showed up in all yellow there would be some stories written!).

*** UPDATE 2***
Comparison of their education plans, as was requested of me elsewhere:

1. Early Childhood
   Obama has a “zero to five” plan to cover children before kindergarden starts. He wants to grow Head Start and have a program for affordable child care for working families.
   Clinton does much of the same. She also wants to grow the Head Start program, and wants to have preschool available to everyone. A new idea of her’s is to have nurses be available to visit homes to teach parenting. She does not discuss child care.
2. K-12
   Obama wants to reform No Child Left Behind, and fund it. This includes changing it to a carrot program instead of a stick one, so it isn’t punishing so many schools. He will increase the importance of math and science, and promote the teaching of english-learners. He also places a lot of importance in decreasing drop-out rates, starting with planning programs in middle school. There are also plans for after-school and summer programs.
   Clinton wants to end No Child Left Behind all together. She emphasizes quality education for disabled students, and the need to cut the minority drop-out rate. She also wants to start early-planning programs and other help to promote finishing high school and going on to college. Unique parts of her plan include building green schools to cut down on energy use, a summer internship program, and a drive to educate “disconnected youth” for high-tech jobs.
3. Teachers
   Obama has a plan to provide college scholarships for those willing to teach in high-need areas for at least four years. Along with this program will be accountability checks to make sure current teachers are accredited. To keep teachers in their jobs, he wants mentoring programs to have teachers help each other. He ends with the desire to have teacher reward programs, so there are financial reasons to be a better teacher.
   Clinton’s only thought is to, “Recruit and retain thousands more outstanding teachers and principals, especially in urban and rural areas.”
4. College
   Obama will create a $4,000 tax credit for students wanting to go to college. This may be paired with a volunteer program requirement. It will be available when the first payments are needed, by basing it off the previous year’s financials. The application for federal financial aid will be deleted, replaced instead by a simple checkbox on the family’s tax return.
   Clinton will create a $3,500 tax credit. She will increase the Pell Grant maximum and invest half a billion dollars in community colleges. She will increase the AmeriCorps 1-year scholarship to $10,000. She also wants to remove red tape from the financial aid process, and encourage selective universities to give more access to low-income students.

There aren’t very many real differences. Obama wants to keep the “No Child Left Behind” name while Clinton wants a new program. Obama focuses more on getting new and educated teachers, while she focuses more on high-school aid for disadvantaged students.

Not long after AP did, CNN has agreed with them. Obama now speaking.

With only 9 hours to go until the first polling places in New Hampshire open, the leaders in both the Democratic and Republican races are beginning to pull away.

Obama has been siphoning votes off of Clinton since he won Iowa, but has been leaving Edwards’ voters pretty much alone. While this is a good thing for Edwards, it won’t have too much impact tomorrow, as he is going to get third place unless something changes dramatically overnight. Clinton has a small shot at reversing her slide, but I don’t think it will happen. Her crying today might help the thought that she’s cold and calculating, but it’s likely too little too late. Combine that with an alienation of some voters who no longer see her as strong enough to be President, and it won’t have much effect on anything. Obama has just been riding his “wave” (his words) and making sure not to mess up. His debate performance succeeded in that, and he will win the primary because of it. My predictions:

Obama: 38%
Clinton: 31%
Edwards: 24%

Romney’s attempt to paint McCain as the Washington insider isn’t going to work for him in New Hampshire. The voters just know him too well for it to have an impact. This is where his campaigning there in 2000 is helping him solidify support and prevent any last minute slide to Romney. Huckabee won’t see any ending fireworks like he did in Iowa. New Hampshire’s conscious rejection of the uber-religious hurts him, and third place is about the best he can hope for. If Romney does lose, it’s going to be hard to turn around a campaign that the media is going to paint as a two-man race between McCain and Huckabee. This also hurts Giuliani, as he will be getting more ignored by the media than he has been (especially if he loses to Ron Paul again). Predictions:

McCain: 32
Romney: 27
Huckabee: 13
Paul: 10
Giuliani: 9
Thompson: 9

This Suffolk poll is starting to get play in the media. It’s a useless poll at this point in the game, as it was taken before the Iowa Caucuses. The dump and dips for the winners and losers (hopefully respectively) aren’t taken into account, so it’s pretty misleading data.

This newer Suffolk poll gives Obama a 5 point swing from the last one, but still has a fatal flaw. It straddles the Iowa caucuses, so half the data it’s using is irrelevant.

Rasmussen’s is the first poll taken completely after the Iowa caucuses and shows the first true numbers being taken from New Hampshire. It has Obama up by 10 over Clinton. American Research Group’s is also out now, and was taken solely after Iowa. They give a 12 point lead to Obama. I haven’t had a chance to look through the make-up of the polled constituencies of each of these, but with them coming out so close to each other they are probably at least somewhat accurate. In the most extreme scenario this means a 24 point swing for Obama, from 12 down to 12 up on Clinton. That’s what I call a bump!

The Concord Monitor has Obama up by a point, which is the same as their Dec 14th poll. CNN/WMUR’s has it all tied up between Obama and Clinton, both with 33%. In their end of December poll, Clinton was up by 4.

On the Republican side, things are less interesting. By almost all accounts, McCain is still in the lead, with Romney having dropped off somewhat. Huckabee looks to have gained a couple points, but nothing that should cause McCain or Romney to lose any sleep.

In light of this polling data, I’m sure Clinton’s camp will be contemplating going very negative in the debate tonight, doing anything to throw off Obama’s momentum. If he exits New Hampshire with a win, especially a convincing one like the current polls, no one will be able to stop him.

Politico also has a piece worth reading up about why none of these polls should have too much trust placed in them. Here’s to waiting for Tuesday night.

The votes have been counted and delegates have been doled out. As the ramifications of the Iowa caucuses become apparent, some candidates are well on their way to new heights, while others are falling to previously unimagined lows. Should be a fun ride!

Democrats:

Source: CNN.com

Barack Obama - I think it’s fair to say that he passed most expectations of him in winning by 8 points. The only poll that had him remotely close to that margin was the widely criticized Des Moines Register. It’s got to feel good for them to end up right after taking so much ridicule.

Source: RealClearPolitics.com
As of now, Obama is down 7 in New Hampshire. While Clinton’s lead is sure to take a hit after her third-place Iowa finish, it remains to be seen whether or not Edwards will take those newly freed voters instead of Obama. If Obama does scrape by Clinton in New Hampshire, (and remember that 5 days is not long for Clinton to regain any momentum), it would be a strong lead toward Obama being the nominee, especially heading into South Carolina, a promising environment for the Illinois senator.

John Edwards - His second place finish in Iowa, not long after being an after-thought in the race, could garner a lot of free media in New Hampshire, possibly dulling Obama’s bump from his Iowa win. While it doesn’t look likely, if he somehow comes away from New Hampshire with a win, it will be a very interesting Super Tuesday, as it won’t be decided until then. He has the potential to do well in South Carolina, having been born there, and have been exposed to the media a lot next door, spilling over into South Carolina media.

Hillary Clinton - Her inevitability argument took a hit today, but not one that is impossible to recover from. For her, it’s unfortunate that she has spent so much time in Iowa to end up with a mere third place finish, had she taken a more-Giuliani tack early on, this would be written off as an expected loss. With only 5 short days to change the tone and momentum present in the political world, holding on to her 7% lead in New Hampshire could prove challenging. Her strategy for the coming week was apparent in her post-caucus remarks (hard to call it a concession speech—maybe they didn’t write a real one?), as she reminded everyone of foreign threats and the experience she says is necessary to handle them. If she does lose New Hampshire to Obama, I don’t see her coming back, no matter how resilient her family is.

Bill Richardson - No big surprises with his performance on caucus night. Just waiting until he’s through Nevada’s caucus on the 19th to drop out. Reports place him as an ally of Obama, turning his back on the Clinton family he once served as a member of 42’s cabinet.

Joe Biden & Chris Dodd - No surprises in their caucus performances either, and both will reportedly drop out soon. Biden has 3% in New Hampshire, and his endorsement could boost one of the front running campaigns.

Republicans:

Source: CNN.com

Mike Huckabee - No one had a Huckabee win of a full 9 points as the expected result Thursday night. That being said, his astounding rise to the top won’t be enough to do him too much good in New Hampshire. He’s currently down to McCain (surprise!) by over 20 points.

Source: RealClearPolitics.com
While his win will definitely give him a bump, it won’t be an extraordinary one. He’ll catapult past Giuliani, but fall short of Romney, even after his dip in the polls after the disappointment in Iowa. A strong third, along with McCain holding off Romney, could be plenty to keep him in it through Michigan (where he’s only one point down already) and to a wide-open Nevada caucus.

Mitt Romney - By far the camp with the most disappointment tonight. Less than a month ago, Romney and his well-oiled machine were running high above the Republican throng below them in Iowa, looking like nothing could stop them. To go from that to a 9 point loss to a previously unknown small-state governor has probably left the entire campaign with whiplash. Even while Iowa was slipping away, McCain resurrected himself from the grave to take the lead in New Hampshire. If Romney doesn’t find a way to win New Hampshire (and he won’t), he’s going to have a tough time holding off Huckabee in the mid-January states, and then will run into Giuliani before he knows it.

Fred Thompson - No doubt the candidate people are least excited about. Rumors were abound that a fourth or lower finish in Iowa would mean the end of his campaign. Right now, he’s hanging on to third by a few hundred votes. He’s not polling in double digits in any January state besides Nevada, and even there it is only barely. The only scenario I can see that would lead to his nomination is an unprecedented split of states among four or more candidates that leads to a convention full of wheeling and dealing. He embodies the ideals of the Republican base, so in that case it could turn to him. Not likely though. If he does drop out, he’ll likely support John McCain.

John McCain - Before the Iowa caucuses, the consensus seemed to be that a third place finish would be better than expected, and would give him a lot of free media to propel him even further ahead of a slipping Romney in New Hampshire. Right now he’s in fourth by only a few hundred votes, so he could end up in third and still get that positive media. The only problem with that is if it takes too long to develop, it won’t come together in time to make any difference in New Hampshire, a mere 5 days away. After New Hampshire, he’s got an outside shot at Michigan, and maybe California if Giuliani slips as far as some think he will. Not looking too great for the man from Arizona, however.

Ron Paul - This is a pretty amazing finish for an outside candidate that has been receiving a minimum of free media. This will make a nice story about the increasing effect of the internet on politics, but won’t lead to much in the Republican process. If he does go independent, it will be interesting to see whether or not he will be able to turn out the youth vote in the general, and if he does who it will hurt. Hard to say before the nominees are chosen, as there are such divides on the Republican side.

Rudy Giuliani - While his strategy was obviously to forgo Iowa completely and focus on Florida, a loss this bad could hurt his chances more than he was counting on. When the dust settles, he will have lost to both John McCain (who also didn’t campaign much in Iowa) and Ron Paul (mostly regarded as a political joke). His fundraising won’t be great for the next month, as the media focuses on the other candidates and their successes. January 29th is a long way away, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a new leader in the national Republican polls by then, which will be another blow to his electability argument.

The most exciting fact on the Republican side is that there are still four (maybe five) viable candidates. Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, and maybe Thompson all have a chance at the nomination still. New Hampshire could remove Thompson from the equation, but will only serve to muddy the waters between the other four.

A couple of quotes that piqued my interest while I was watching:
“They said this day would never come. They said our sights were set to high. They set this country was too divided, too disillusioned, to come together around a common purpose.”
“Years from now you’ll look back and say this is the moment, this is the place, where America remembered what it means to hope.”

He ended with what sounded like a quote from his 2004 Convention keynote, referencing red states, blue states, and them coming together to be the United States. Overall heavy on the inspiration and broad statements, not policy distinctions. Not too different from Edwards’ speech, either.

Updated: Now with video:

Obama has wrapped up his impressive win, but the battle for second place is still in full swing. While the few delegates left will make no technical difference, the momentum gained or lost based on whether the candidate finishes second or third will be huge. If Edwards can hold off Clinton, it will be a large blow to her campaign, and will hurt her in New Hampshire (in addition to Obama being helped).