-
The USGA takes a lot of criticism for holding an 18-hole Monday playoff to break ties. All the majors once used it, but since shifted to more TV-friendly formats: four-hole aggregate playoffs in the Open Championship and PGA, sudden death at the Masters. The last three playoffs had been won by good golfers (Payne Stewart, Ernie Els, Retief Goosen) playing OK golf and their pursuers playing poor golf. None had been particularly dramatic.
"Anticlimactic," some said. "Anachronistic," said others.
For 11 holes, that seemed the case. After lunch with Uncle Larry in Dearborn, I tuned in and found Woods and Mediate on the 12th tee. Rocco was struggling at 3 over par. Tiger had just bogeyed the 11th hole and shaved his lead from three strokes to two. The 12th hole was the longest par-4, at 504 yards, in U.S. Open history.
Tiger sprayed his tee shot askew. Rocco, after an accurate but short drive, had 240 yards to the hole. He took out a fairway metal. He made his characteristic half-waggle and foot shuffle, pulled the club back, and struck the ball onto the green, hole high.
"Oh, boy!" I shouted at the TV screen. "Now we've got ourselves a playoff!"
The rest is history.
-
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Father's Day Finish
-
Benign conditions prevailed at Torrey Pines on Sunday. Low scores were there to be had. Retief Goosen, two-time U.S. Open champion, shot 67. Heath Slocum shot a bogey-free 65, the low round of the tournament. The final groups, though, felt the heat most intensely. The best score out of any of the last four pairings was Rocco Mediate's what-me-worry round of par 71.
Tiger and Lee Westwood weren't at their best. Woods, again, double-bogeyed the first hole to give away his miraculously earned lead. Westwood missed makeable birdie putts inside ten feet. At the 18th tee, both Woods and Westwood stood at even par for the tournament. Rocco was in the scorer's trailer at 1 under. A birdie by either player would set up a Monday playoff.
Woods drove it in the left fairway bunker. Westwood drove it in the right fairway bunker.
Westwood blasted out to a safe position on the short grass. Woods missed right and threw his club down in disgust. Both golfers had to get up and down from 100 yards to force a playoff. Westwood played 15 feet above the hole. Woods played a brilliant shot that landed hole high, 12 feet from the cup.
Lee Westwood didn't hit his putt hard enough. It curled left to right too early and stopped just short and right of the cup. He tapped in for par.
Tiger stalked his putt, looking deliberately from every angle. The stroke was true. The green in that area was bumpy. His ball shook, rattled, rolled, rimmed the cup - and curled in. "He rimmed it in," I said. Woods let out a primal roar. The crowd erupted. Westwood walked forlornly off the green.
The best was yet to come.
-
Benign conditions prevailed at Torrey Pines on Sunday. Low scores were there to be had. Retief Goosen, two-time U.S. Open champion, shot 67. Heath Slocum shot a bogey-free 65, the low round of the tournament. The final groups, though, felt the heat most intensely. The best score out of any of the last four pairings was Rocco Mediate's what-me-worry round of par 71.
Tiger and Lee Westwood weren't at their best. Woods, again, double-bogeyed the first hole to give away his miraculously earned lead. Westwood missed makeable birdie putts inside ten feet. At the 18th tee, both Woods and Westwood stood at even par for the tournament. Rocco was in the scorer's trailer at 1 under. A birdie by either player would set up a Monday playoff.
Woods drove it in the left fairway bunker. Westwood drove it in the right fairway bunker.
Westwood blasted out to a safe position on the short grass. Woods missed right and threw his club down in disgust. Both golfers had to get up and down from 100 yards to force a playoff. Westwood played 15 feet above the hole. Woods played a brilliant shot that landed hole high, 12 feet from the cup.
Lee Westwood didn't hit his putt hard enough. It curled left to right too early and stopped just short and right of the cup. He tapped in for par.
Tiger stalked his putt, looking deliberately from every angle. The stroke was true. The green in that area was bumpy. His ball shook, rattled, rolled, rimmed the cup - and curled in. "He rimmed it in," I said. Woods let out a primal roar. The crowd erupted. Westwood walked forlornly off the green.
The best was yet to come.
-
Tiger's Saturday Night Special
-
Somehow, when I got to Lucky's, an odd melange of an arcade, sports bar, martini bar, surprisingly good restaurant, dance club, and bowling alley under one roof, on Saturday night, Tiger Woods had rolled in a 60-foot bomb for eagle at the par-5 13th hole and got back to even par on the 17th tee.
I walked up to the bar, ordered an Arnold Palmer (half iced tea, half lemonade), and sat down for Woods's final two holes.
He hit an awful drive well right into the tall, gnarly U.S. Open rough. He tried a heroic second shot and found more tall, gnarly rough beside the green. The ball was on a severe slope at least a foot above his feet. The green ran away from him. I distinctly thought, "If he can somehow get up and down, and birdie 18, then he's only one stroke behind (Lee) Westwood." Westwood looked like the 54-hole leader at two under par.
Woods hacked at his ball. It hit the green, took one high hop, and fell directly into the cup. My jaw fell to the floor. "He put it in the hole!" I screamed. The bar patrons took a collective "Ohh", astonished. Woods shared a laugh with Steve Williams and shook his head in wonderment, as if thanking God for all He had entrusted to Woods.
If Woods hadn't made the chip-in at 17, I strongly doubt he would have eagled 18. He needed the crowd's energy, the realization of just how good he was, just to finish the round. And he did, with a flourish.
Two strong shots gave Woods a 25-footer for eagle and a tricky downhill putt that, it seemed, half the field had tried and not come close to holing. He started it on a line well left of any previous try. "Uh-oh", I thought, "he knows something we don't." Indeed, he rolled it true, and the ball broke right, then a little left, straight into the cup.
Looking back at the entire U.S. Open, the chip shot on 17 was one of the great greenside shots of all time. The gold standard, Tom Watson's chip-in on the par-3 17th at Pebble Beach in 1982, was from a level position, not from the cartoonish uphill lie that Woods overcame.
Woods, after his 3-3 finish, walked off the 18th green one stroke ahead of Westwood.
-
Somehow, when I got to Lucky's, an odd melange of an arcade, sports bar, martini bar, surprisingly good restaurant, dance club, and bowling alley under one roof, on Saturday night, Tiger Woods had rolled in a 60-foot bomb for eagle at the par-5 13th hole and got back to even par on the 17th tee.
I walked up to the bar, ordered an Arnold Palmer (half iced tea, half lemonade), and sat down for Woods's final two holes.
He hit an awful drive well right into the tall, gnarly U.S. Open rough. He tried a heroic second shot and found more tall, gnarly rough beside the green. The ball was on a severe slope at least a foot above his feet. The green ran away from him. I distinctly thought, "If he can somehow get up and down, and birdie 18, then he's only one stroke behind (Lee) Westwood." Westwood looked like the 54-hole leader at two under par.
Woods hacked at his ball. It hit the green, took one high hop, and fell directly into the cup. My jaw fell to the floor. "He put it in the hole!" I screamed. The bar patrons took a collective "Ohh", astonished. Woods shared a laugh with Steve Williams and shook his head in wonderment, as if thanking God for all He had entrusted to Woods.
If Woods hadn't made the chip-in at 17, I strongly doubt he would have eagled 18. He needed the crowd's energy, the realization of just how good he was, just to finish the round. And he did, with a flourish.
Two strong shots gave Woods a 25-footer for eagle and a tricky downhill putt that, it seemed, half the field had tried and not come close to holing. He started it on a line well left of any previous try. "Uh-oh", I thought, "he knows something we don't." Indeed, he rolled it true, and the ball broke right, then a little left, straight into the cup.
Looking back at the entire U.S. Open, the chip shot on 17 was one of the great greenside shots of all time. The gold standard, Tom Watson's chip-in on the par-3 17th at Pebble Beach in 1982, was from a level position, not from the cartoonish uphill lie that Woods overcame.
Woods, after his 3-3 finish, walked off the 18th green one stroke ahead of Westwood.
-
Tiger and Rocco, in Four Parts
-
If Shakespeare lived, instead of recording the military exploits of medieval kings and noble Romans for posterity, he would dramatize the story of Tiger and Rocco for generations to come.
Just the names call forth the Muses. Tiger and Rocco. Rocco and Tiger. Those names aren't golfers' names. They sound like the combatants in a UFC title bout or a mixed-martial-arts exhibition. Somehow, a playoff between Lee (Westwood) and Geoff (Ogilvy), which came close to happening, wouldn't have had the same euphony.
Fittingly, the contest between Tiger and Rocco became a brawl. It had a visceral feeling of man on man, golf ball against golf ball, as if one could stymie the other. The atmosphere matched that of one of Sampras and Agassi's famous duels, or the Thrilla in Manila. The raucous patrons grasped the space-time singularity that made the 108th U.S. Open the greatest of them all.
Tiger the Gimp
Woods played the Masters in pain, couldn't hole a putt, yet finished second when the entire field, save champion Trevor Immelman, crumbled under the brutal Sunday conditions at Augusta. He then had knee surgery. The recovery took longer than most expected. He missed the Memorial, Jack's tournament, when he hoped to return. He hadn't played a competitive round in over two months.
Woods double-bogeyed his first hole on Thursday. Playing in pain, he managed 1-under for the first two rounds. On Saturday it got worse. Coming out of a bunker, he hoisted himself up with two golf clubs, like a pair of crutches. The winces and grimaces grew more pronounced. Lesser golfers would have withdrawn.
Rocco's Modern Life
Rocco Mediate grew up in the steel-driving towns of West Pennsylvania, the area best known as the cradle of quarterbacks: Unitas, Namath, Montana, Marino. Arnold Palmer was his hero, and the national championship, the U.S. Open, was his tournament. An affable, fast-talking, nearly hyperactive, thoroughly frank man, he wore his heart on his clothing - literally. He festooned his hat with pins from previous U.S. Opens. On Sunday, he sported a giant peace symbol for his belt buckle.
And his shot! Renowed swing gurus shook their heads. He hit every full shot with a pronounced right-to-left draw. He couldn't fade the ball to save his life. Yet the big hook was big-time under crushing pressure for the whole tournament.
-
If Shakespeare lived, instead of recording the military exploits of medieval kings and noble Romans for posterity, he would dramatize the story of Tiger and Rocco for generations to come.
Just the names call forth the Muses. Tiger and Rocco. Rocco and Tiger. Those names aren't golfers' names. They sound like the combatants in a UFC title bout or a mixed-martial-arts exhibition. Somehow, a playoff between Lee (Westwood) and Geoff (Ogilvy), which came close to happening, wouldn't have had the same euphony.
Fittingly, the contest between Tiger and Rocco became a brawl. It had a visceral feeling of man on man, golf ball against golf ball, as if one could stymie the other. The atmosphere matched that of one of Sampras and Agassi's famous duels, or the Thrilla in Manila. The raucous patrons grasped the space-time singularity that made the 108th U.S. Open the greatest of them all.
Tiger the Gimp
Woods played the Masters in pain, couldn't hole a putt, yet finished second when the entire field, save champion Trevor Immelman, crumbled under the brutal Sunday conditions at Augusta. He then had knee surgery. The recovery took longer than most expected. He missed the Memorial, Jack's tournament, when he hoped to return. He hadn't played a competitive round in over two months.
Woods double-bogeyed his first hole on Thursday. Playing in pain, he managed 1-under for the first two rounds. On Saturday it got worse. Coming out of a bunker, he hoisted himself up with two golf clubs, like a pair of crutches. The winces and grimaces grew more pronounced. Lesser golfers would have withdrawn.
Rocco's Modern Life
Rocco Mediate grew up in the steel-driving towns of West Pennsylvania, the area best known as the cradle of quarterbacks: Unitas, Namath, Montana, Marino. Arnold Palmer was his hero, and the national championship, the U.S. Open, was his tournament. An affable, fast-talking, nearly hyperactive, thoroughly frank man, he wore his heart on his clothing - literally. He festooned his hat with pins from previous U.S. Opens. On Sunday, he sported a giant peace symbol for his belt buckle.
And his shot! Renowed swing gurus shook their heads. He hit every full shot with a pronounced right-to-left draw. He couldn't fade the ball to save his life. Yet the big hook was big-time under crushing pressure for the whole tournament.
-
There it goes...
-
Well, the political crystal ball got a bit cloudy. One of my VP picks, Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio, is no more: he issued a Shermanesque statement last week.
Obama still has many attractive options. He can choose Evan Bayh or Sherrod Brown if he wants to shore up the Midwest. Jim Webb is raring to go. However, my best hunch is a selection from the Mountain West, which he would really like to carry (and has to carry for 271 electoral votes, if he can't win Ohio or Florida). This puts forward Bill Ritter, Brian Schweitzer, and Bill Richardson as the most likely candidates.
McCain, from the little that I've heard, seems to be leaning more towards Tim Pawlenty. That would be a mistake; McCain needs more liveliness out of his running mate.
-
Well, the political crystal ball got a bit cloudy. One of my VP picks, Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio, is no more: he issued a Shermanesque statement last week.
Obama still has many attractive options. He can choose Evan Bayh or Sherrod Brown if he wants to shore up the Midwest. Jim Webb is raring to go. However, my best hunch is a selection from the Mountain West, which he would really like to carry (and has to carry for 271 electoral votes, if he can't win Ohio or Florida). This puts forward Bill Ritter, Brian Schweitzer, and Bill Richardson as the most likely candidates.
McCain, from the little that I've heard, seems to be leaning more towards Tim Pawlenty. That would be a mistake; McCain needs more liveliness out of his running mate.
-
Monday, June 9, 2008
Eclipse game post (3)
-
Venue: Eastpointe, MI
Opponent: Mt. Clemens Regulars
Score: L (4-6)
Batting: 1-3
-
Mt. Clemens has improved as a team over the past year. They scored four of their runs on a pair of tremendous clouts over our outfielders' heads, which turned into two-run home runs. Their fielding was crisp and allowed us few chances on the bases.
The club also has a rule that you must keep one foot on the stride line (a horizontal line across the middle of home plate). This was common in early baseball, before some wise man thought of the batter's box. However, it hurt our striking. Most of us keep our back foot on the line and step forward with our front foot. This means that the pitches come in a little faster, and a little higher, than usual - just enough to throw a batter off.
First time up, I popped up. I realized what happened, adjusted, and got unlucky on a foul tip straight back, then hit a ground single to the right side. However, my teammates kept popping up and making the Regulars' job easy for their fielders. I was on deck in the ninth when Dutch, who had pitched very well, hit into an unlucky double play on a hard one-hopper to end the match.
At least we weren't embarrased, as we were in Romeo (a game I missed) when the Regulars won 16-2. My season batting record stands at 6-15 (.400), with 1 tally and 3 runs driven in.
-
Venue: Eastpointe, MI
Opponent: Mt. Clemens Regulars
Score: L (4-6)
Batting: 1-3
-
Mt. Clemens has improved as a team over the past year. They scored four of their runs on a pair of tremendous clouts over our outfielders' heads, which turned into two-run home runs. Their fielding was crisp and allowed us few chances on the bases.
The club also has a rule that you must keep one foot on the stride line (a horizontal line across the middle of home plate). This was common in early baseball, before some wise man thought of the batter's box. However, it hurt our striking. Most of us keep our back foot on the line and step forward with our front foot. This means that the pitches come in a little faster, and a little higher, than usual - just enough to throw a batter off.
First time up, I popped up. I realized what happened, adjusted, and got unlucky on a foul tip straight back, then hit a ground single to the right side. However, my teammates kept popping up and making the Regulars' job easy for their fielders. I was on deck in the ninth when Dutch, who had pitched very well, hit into an unlucky double play on a hard one-hopper to end the match.
At least we weren't embarrased, as we were in Romeo (a game I missed) when the Regulars won 16-2. My season batting record stands at 6-15 (.400), with 1 tally and 3 runs driven in.
-
Ultra-Secret V.P. Picks!
-
While I am not privy to internal campaign rumors, I have a good sense of whom McCain and Obama ought to choose as their vice-presidential nominees.
Republican: Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana. There's speculation that McCain will choose Tim Pawlenty, the young Governor of Minnesota and one of McCain's early supporters in the dark days of his candidacy, or his buddy, Charlie Crist, the Governor of Florida. Both of these selections would be mistakes.
Running a ticket of two white men against Barack Obama would not be visually appealing - even more so if the Democratic V.P. nominee is female. It might appeal to the 20% of the electorate that won't vote for a black man, but it would marginalize the Republican ticket in the eyes of independent voters in key swing states.
Jindal is young, rising, and savvy, and he heralds a new role for Indian-Americans in U.S. politics. If McCain wins, he's in pole position to succeed him. If McCain loses, it's no skin off his back; Jindal can go back to being an effective governor and burnishing his credentials. Franklin D. Roosevelt wasn't hurt by running with James Cox (and losing badly) in 1920 when his turn came twelve years later.
Democratic: Ted Strickland, Governor of Ohio. Barack Obama won't, and shouldn't, choose Hillary Clinton. There's too much water under the bridge. When Senator Obama thanked Senator Clinton for making him a stronger candidate, he really meant, "Thanks for digging up all the dirt on me in the primaries, so that voters forget about it come November." Privately, he doesn't want the Clintons anywhere near the ticket. He has enough to worry about.
But he does have to worry about the Electoral College. McCain will win Florida - older voters tend to care more about Obama's race than younger voters. Obama has an uphill climb in Ohio, which Kerry narrowly lost in 2004, and Pennsylvania, where Hillary decisively beat him. Even if he can turn Virginia, Colorado, and New Mexico, he needs one of those two states.
Strickland is his best bet to carry Ohio and appeal to Appalachia in general - he studied at Kentucky's well-reputed Asbury Theological Seminary, earning an M. Div., and has a doctorate from the University of Kentucky. He would be a potent ally for Obama, and has the advantage of starting the primary season as a Hillary supporter.
-
While I am not privy to internal campaign rumors, I have a good sense of whom McCain and Obama ought to choose as their vice-presidential nominees.
Republican: Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana. There's speculation that McCain will choose Tim Pawlenty, the young Governor of Minnesota and one of McCain's early supporters in the dark days of his candidacy, or his buddy, Charlie Crist, the Governor of Florida. Both of these selections would be mistakes.
Running a ticket of two white men against Barack Obama would not be visually appealing - even more so if the Democratic V.P. nominee is female. It might appeal to the 20% of the electorate that won't vote for a black man, but it would marginalize the Republican ticket in the eyes of independent voters in key swing states.
Jindal is young, rising, and savvy, and he heralds a new role for Indian-Americans in U.S. politics. If McCain wins, he's in pole position to succeed him. If McCain loses, it's no skin off his back; Jindal can go back to being an effective governor and burnishing his credentials. Franklin D. Roosevelt wasn't hurt by running with James Cox (and losing badly) in 1920 when his turn came twelve years later.
Democratic: Ted Strickland, Governor of Ohio. Barack Obama won't, and shouldn't, choose Hillary Clinton. There's too much water under the bridge. When Senator Obama thanked Senator Clinton for making him a stronger candidate, he really meant, "Thanks for digging up all the dirt on me in the primaries, so that voters forget about it come November." Privately, he doesn't want the Clintons anywhere near the ticket. He has enough to worry about.
But he does have to worry about the Electoral College. McCain will win Florida - older voters tend to care more about Obama's race than younger voters. Obama has an uphill climb in Ohio, which Kerry narrowly lost in 2004, and Pennsylvania, where Hillary decisively beat him. Even if he can turn Virginia, Colorado, and New Mexico, he needs one of those two states.
Strickland is his best bet to carry Ohio and appeal to Appalachia in general - he studied at Kentucky's well-reputed Asbury Theological Seminary, earning an M. Div., and has a doctorate from the University of Kentucky. He would be a potent ally for Obama, and has the advantage of starting the primary season as a Hillary supporter.
-
June 3: Montana and South Dakota
-
Montana:
Obama 57
Clinton 41
South Dakota:
Clinton 55
Obama 45
-
This, of course, was the end. With all 50 states, plus 4 more contests (Guam, Puerto Rico, D.C., and Democrats Abroad), having voted, Obama claimed victory and Clinton, after a final rally to buck up her bewildered supporters, quickly conceded the nomination. South Dakota was, ironically, Hillary's only win in the Mountain West states.
-
Montana:
Obama 57
Clinton 41
South Dakota:
Clinton 55
Obama 45
-
This, of course, was the end. With all 50 states, plus 4 more contests (Guam, Puerto Rico, D.C., and Democrats Abroad), having voted, Obama claimed victory and Clinton, after a final rally to buck up her bewildered supporters, quickly conceded the nomination. South Dakota was, ironically, Hillary's only win in the Mountain West states.
-
June 1: Puerto Rico
-
Clinton 68
Obama 32
-
It's interesting to think about how vigorously Obama might have contested Puerto Rico if the race had been closer. With his lead, he barely bothered with the island territory, which Clinton claimed by a wide margin. However, turnout was low (only 400,000 islanders voted), dashing Hillary's last faint hope of claiming an edge over Obama in the total popular vote.
-
Clinton 68
Obama 32
-
It's interesting to think about how vigorously Obama might have contested Puerto Rico if the race had been closer. With his lead, he barely bothered with the island territory, which Clinton claimed by a wide margin. However, turnout was low (only 400,000 islanders voted), dashing Hillary's last faint hope of claiming an edge over Obama in the total popular vote.
-
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Remembrance of things past...
-
In homage to Proust, let me quote from a January 4 blog post:
O me of little faith; I never imagined that we would see an Obama/McCain general election. Now, the respective candidacies of America's two best men for the job is not only possible, but probable.
At last, my hopes are being vindicated.
-
In homage to Proust, let me quote from a January 4 blog post:
O me of little faith; I never imagined that we would see an Obama/McCain general election. Now, the respective candidacies of America's two best men for the job is not only possible, but probable.
At last, my hopes are being vindicated.
-
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Eclipse game post (2)
-
Venue: Home game
Opponent: Royal Oak Wahoos
Score: W (24-1)
Batting: 3 for 6, 1 tally, 2 runs batted in
-
Vintage base ball is all about fielding, particularly in the infield. If you can't record outs on batted balls topped at home plate, or hit directly towards a fielder, then the opposing team will tally a lot of runs. This is what happened in Saturday's game. We scored four runs in the first, and seven more in the second, with relatively few hard line drives for such a prodigious total.
Both of my first two times at bat were with the bases loaded. The first time, I hacked the ball straight down between home and the pitcher's plate. Both the pitcher and catcher chased the ball, and no one covered home; everyone was safe. The second time, I grounded into a short-to-second force play, easily beating the throw to first and scoring the man from third.
On my fifth try at the plate, I borrowed Barrister's maple bat, the shortest (almost comically so) and lightest of all the team's bats. It helped a lot: I lined a single over the shortstop's head into left-center, eventually tallying a run, and hit a hard but high drive to center field that was well-caught on the fly.
Our next game is Sunday, June 1st, at 1:00. Please come!
-
Venue: Home game
Opponent: Royal Oak Wahoos
Score: W (24-1)
Batting: 3 for 6, 1 tally, 2 runs batted in
-
Vintage base ball is all about fielding, particularly in the infield. If you can't record outs on batted balls topped at home plate, or hit directly towards a fielder, then the opposing team will tally a lot of runs. This is what happened in Saturday's game. We scored four runs in the first, and seven more in the second, with relatively few hard line drives for such a prodigious total.
Both of my first two times at bat were with the bases loaded. The first time, I hacked the ball straight down between home and the pitcher's plate. Both the pitcher and catcher chased the ball, and no one covered home; everyone was safe. The second time, I grounded into a short-to-second force play, easily beating the throw to first and scoring the man from third.
On my fifth try at the plate, I borrowed Barrister's maple bat, the shortest (almost comically so) and lightest of all the team's bats. It helped a lot: I lined a single over the shortstop's head into left-center, eventually tallying a run, and hit a hard but high drive to center field that was well-caught on the fly.
Our next game is Sunday, June 1st, at 1:00. Please come!
-
May 20: Kentucky and Oregon (Democratic)
-
Kentucky:
Clinton 65
Obama 30
Oregon:
Obama 59
Clinton 41
-
This was an almost exact redux of the Indiana-North Carolina outcome from two weeks ago. Senator Obama won the more populous state, and Senator Clinton took the less populous state. Obama's delegate lead remains comfortable. In Kentucky, a state with only Louisville as a major urban area, rural white voters broke for Clinton, as they did in West Virginia. Oregon, a dynamic state with plenty of young people and high technology, broke for Obama.
Obama's cachet is still there: he drew a crowd of 70,000 to the banks of the Willamette River to hear him speak, to which Jay Leno quipped, "And then he fed all of them with five loaves of bread and two fish."
-
Kentucky:
Clinton 65
Obama 30
Oregon:
Obama 59
Clinton 41
-
This was an almost exact redux of the Indiana-North Carolina outcome from two weeks ago. Senator Obama won the more populous state, and Senator Clinton took the less populous state. Obama's delegate lead remains comfortable. In Kentucky, a state with only Louisville as a major urban area, rural white voters broke for Clinton, as they did in West Virginia. Oregon, a dynamic state with plenty of young people and high technology, broke for Obama.
Obama's cachet is still there: he drew a crowd of 70,000 to the banks of the Willamette River to hear him speak, to which Jay Leno quipped, "And then he fed all of them with five loaves of bread and two fish."
-
Eclipse game post (1)
-
Venue: Sylvania, Ohio
Opponent: Great Black Swamp Frogs
Score: L (1-5)
Batting: 1 for 3
-
Many of you know that I play vintage base ball (yes, two words) for the Northville Eclipse. We strive to make an accurate representation of base ball as it was played in the 1860's. The most obvious sign is the semi-formal dress in which we play. Some of the rules are different, too. The pitching delivery must be underhand, gloves are not worn (they were considered dandified and effeminate, though a few players experimented with flesh-colored gloves not unlike a modern golf glove), and a batted ball caught on one bounce is an out for the striker.
The team's first game, on Saturday in Romeo, was an embarrassing 16-2 defeat. Today, we were far better in the field, allowing three runs in the first inning and only two thereafter. The bats, though, were silent. I hit two ground balls to second base, beating one out for an infield hit, and popped up to the pitcher. Better luck next time, I suppose.
Note: In the picture, I am in the back row, third from left.
-
Venue: Sylvania, Ohio
Opponent: Great Black Swamp Frogs
Score: L (1-5)
Batting: 1 for 3
-
Many of you know that I play vintage base ball (yes, two words) for the Northville Eclipse. We strive to make an accurate representation of base ball as it was played in the 1860's. The most obvious sign is the semi-formal dress in which we play. Some of the rules are different, too. The pitching delivery must be underhand, gloves are not worn (they were considered dandified and effeminate, though a few players experimented with flesh-colored gloves not unlike a modern golf glove), and a batted ball caught on one bounce is an out for the striker.
The team's first game, on Saturday in Romeo, was an embarrassing 16-2 defeat. Today, we were far better in the field, allowing three runs in the first inning and only two thereafter. The bats, though, were silent. I hit two ground balls to second base, beating one out for an infield hit, and popped up to the pitcher. Better luck next time, I suppose.
Note: In the picture, I am in the back row, third from left.
-
May 13: West Virginia (Democratic)
-
Clinton 67
Obama 26
-
It's easy to dismiss the West Virginia result as being due to racism alone, and it is astounding that a full 20% of West Virginia voters, in exit polling, publicly identified themselves as racial bigots. Forty years after Spencer Tracy's last film, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, it's sad that his memorable line, "How long will it take? Fifty, a hundred years?" (before Americans would freely accept Dr. Prentiss's and Joey's mixed-race children) has not yet been fulfilled across the whole country.
West Virginians didn't just vote for Mrs. Clinton on race alone; the wide spread indicates how issues of race, class, and urban culture work together to artificially divide Americans. One West Virginian left a comment that is flat wrong in its implications: "West Virginians are disinclined to vote for a liberal politician from Chicago, especially one who disrespects the culture of small-town America."
Is there nothing that Senator Obama can teach West Virginians? Is small-town culture so sacrosanct, so inherently optimal and ideal, that Chicagoans have to bend over backwards to accomodate themselves to the culture? Small-town culture, as a whole, in the United States is characterized by poverty, low educational attainment, high rates of drug use, and widespread belief in Biblical literalism. Doesn't this sound like the neighborhoods where the young Barack Obama was a community organizer on the South Side? Doesn't every small town have its own Jeremiah Wright, a minister who blames everybody else and refuses to look to their church's own shortcomings?
The two-thirds of West Virginians who voted for Senator Clinton are perpetuating a myth at the expense of their own lives and their children's. Kudos to Senator Obama for refusing to take the bait and for wanting what is authentically good for West Virginia, unlike his opponent.
-
Clinton 67
Obama 26
-
It's easy to dismiss the West Virginia result as being due to racism alone, and it is astounding that a full 20% of West Virginia voters, in exit polling, publicly identified themselves as racial bigots. Forty years after Spencer Tracy's last film, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, it's sad that his memorable line, "How long will it take? Fifty, a hundred years?" (before Americans would freely accept Dr. Prentiss's and Joey's mixed-race children) has not yet been fulfilled across the whole country.
West Virginians didn't just vote for Mrs. Clinton on race alone; the wide spread indicates how issues of race, class, and urban culture work together to artificially divide Americans. One West Virginian left a comment that is flat wrong in its implications: "West Virginians are disinclined to vote for a liberal politician from Chicago, especially one who disrespects the culture of small-town America."
Is there nothing that Senator Obama can teach West Virginians? Is small-town culture so sacrosanct, so inherently optimal and ideal, that Chicagoans have to bend over backwards to accomodate themselves to the culture? Small-town culture, as a whole, in the United States is characterized by poverty, low educational attainment, high rates of drug use, and widespread belief in Biblical literalism. Doesn't this sound like the neighborhoods where the young Barack Obama was a community organizer on the South Side? Doesn't every small town have its own Jeremiah Wright, a minister who blames everybody else and refuses to look to their church's own shortcomings?
The two-thirds of West Virginians who voted for Senator Clinton are perpetuating a myth at the expense of their own lives and their children's. Kudos to Senator Obama for refusing to take the bait and for wanting what is authentically good for West Virginia, unlike his opponent.
-
May 6: Indiana and North Carolina (Democratic)
-
Indiana:
Clinton 51
Obama 49
North Carolina:
Obama 56
Clinton 42
-
Obama exceeded expectations and ended his damaging streak of lost primaries. He came within 14,000 votes of Mrs. Clinton in Indiana, much closer than most polls and pundits had expected, and he won North Carolina by a decisive margin. Senator Clinton is not quite knocked out - after all, she did win Indiana - but she is running short of delegates. I don't blame her for refusing to withdraw or concede, but she is highly unlikely to be nominated after these results.
John McCain won 77% in Indiana and 74% in North Carolina, with the balance going to protest votes for Huckabee and Paul.
-
Indiana:
Clinton 51
Obama 49
North Carolina:
Obama 56
Clinton 42
-
Obama exceeded expectations and ended his damaging streak of lost primaries. He came within 14,000 votes of Mrs. Clinton in Indiana, much closer than most polls and pundits had expected, and he won North Carolina by a decisive margin. Senator Clinton is not quite knocked out - after all, she did win Indiana - but she is running short of delegates. I don't blame her for refusing to withdraw or concede, but she is highly unlikely to be nominated after these results.
John McCain won 77% in Indiana and 74% in North Carolina, with the balance going to protest votes for Huckabee and Paul.
-
Pardon me...
-
Dear regular readers, please excuse the lack of recent posts. I have been preoccupied with final exams and seminar papers in Milwaukee, plus the logistics of moving back to Livonia for the summer.
This summer, expect changes to this blog, including a hit counter, pictures, and links to other sites of interest. If you have any comments, suggestions, or input, leave a comment!
-
Dear regular readers, please excuse the lack of recent posts. I have been preoccupied with final exams and seminar papers in Milwaukee, plus the logistics of moving back to Livonia for the summer.
This summer, expect changes to this blog, including a hit counter, pictures, and links to other sites of interest. If you have any comments, suggestions, or input, leave a comment!
-
Monday, April 28, 2008
You Can't Make This Stuff Up (#2)
-
Apparently, French Socialist parliamentary deputies denounced President Nicolas Sarkozy's consistent policy of Franco-American rapproachment, criticizing France's "global strategic alignment" with the United States. NATO officials might be surprised to hear this, no? At the way that the U.S. security guarantee over France morphs, according to the Socialists, into a nefarious Orwellian alliance?
-
Apparently, French Socialist parliamentary deputies denounced President Nicolas Sarkozy's consistent policy of Franco-American rapproachment, criticizing France's "global strategic alignment" with the United States. NATO officials might be surprised to hear this, no? At the way that the U.S. security guarantee over France morphs, according to the Socialists, into a nefarious Orwellian alliance?
-
April 22: Pennsylvania (both parties)
-
Democrats
Clinton 55
Obama 45
Republicans
McCain 73
Paul 16
Huckabee 11
-
Pennsylvania's Catholic voters split seven to three for Hillary Clinton. I couldn't believe this. In Wisconsin, Obama had captured just shy of half the Catholic vote. At a time when I find myself returning to my Catholic roots, what on earth went on in Pennsylvania?
A big part of the answer came this morning as I flipped channels. EWTN, the Catholic channel, was airing a rerun of the news from a week ago, when Obama made his unfortunate comments about "bitter" rural Americans "clinging to guns and religion". Like many others, I thought Obama's comments were oversimplified, but not far off the mark: a lot of Americans don't understand globalization. They don't realize how to adapt to it or how to intelligently resist it.
The three male anchors at the EWTN news desk tore into Obama. One of them even said, "People with high school diplomas are more educated than people with higher education." I nearly fell out of my chair and muttered, "Only in the United States."
Their subsequent comments seemed straight out of the 1950's. Obama had insulted ethnic working-class communities. Obama exemplified of the groupthink that highly educated people inevitably succumb to (false at best, insulting at worst), and so forth. It hit me why so many Pennsylvania Catholics broke for Hillary: vestigal European ethnics-vs-blacks racism (which the Church is now bravely transcending) and equally vestigal Catholic contempt for the WASP intellectual elite. Ugh. That's cultural Catholicism at its worst.
Obama is in no danger of losing his pledged delegate lead: of the 10 or so delegates he lost here, he'll gain back in North Carolina and then some. Yet he needs to actually win a primary. Hillary, justifiably so, has a mini-argument that mirrors Obama's "ten in a row" run before March 4: she keeps winning (in the states most demographically favorable to her). Harold Ford of Tennessee was spot-on when he said, "Obama must win Indiana."
-
The folks at Daily Kos were atwitter about 30% of the Republican vote not going to John McCain. But, as John McAdams, author of the provocative and principled blog Marquette Warrior, said, protest votes are most theoretically worthwhile in elections where the outcome doesn't matter (implying free choice at the polls, of course). Thus, I backed off.
-
Democrats
Clinton 55
Obama 45
Republicans
McCain 73
Paul 16
Huckabee 11
-
Pennsylvania's Catholic voters split seven to three for Hillary Clinton. I couldn't believe this. In Wisconsin, Obama had captured just shy of half the Catholic vote. At a time when I find myself returning to my Catholic roots, what on earth went on in Pennsylvania?
A big part of the answer came this morning as I flipped channels. EWTN, the Catholic channel, was airing a rerun of the news from a week ago, when Obama made his unfortunate comments about "bitter" rural Americans "clinging to guns and religion". Like many others, I thought Obama's comments were oversimplified, but not far off the mark: a lot of Americans don't understand globalization. They don't realize how to adapt to it or how to intelligently resist it.
The three male anchors at the EWTN news desk tore into Obama. One of them even said, "People with high school diplomas are more educated than people with higher education." I nearly fell out of my chair and muttered, "Only in the United States."
Their subsequent comments seemed straight out of the 1950's. Obama had insulted ethnic working-class communities. Obama exemplified of the groupthink that highly educated people inevitably succumb to (false at best, insulting at worst), and so forth. It hit me why so many Pennsylvania Catholics broke for Hillary: vestigal European ethnics-vs-blacks racism (which the Church is now bravely transcending) and equally vestigal Catholic contempt for the WASP intellectual elite. Ugh. That's cultural Catholicism at its worst.
Obama is in no danger of losing his pledged delegate lead: of the 10 or so delegates he lost here, he'll gain back in North Carolina and then some. Yet he needs to actually win a primary. Hillary, justifiably so, has a mini-argument that mirrors Obama's "ten in a row" run before March 4: she keeps winning (in the states most demographically favorable to her). Harold Ford of Tennessee was spot-on when he said, "Obama must win Indiana."
-
The folks at Daily Kos were atwitter about 30% of the Republican vote not going to John McCain. But, as John McAdams, author of the provocative and principled blog Marquette Warrior, said, protest votes are most theoretically worthwhile in elections where the outcome doesn't matter (implying free choice at the polls, of course). Thus, I backed off.
-
Monday, April 21, 2008
Peggy Noonan on the campaigns
-
Dear readers, in case you feared I had lost interest in the presidential race, fear not. Peggy Noonan has said it, far better than I could, in Friday's Wall Street Journal. Enjoy!
-
Dear readers, in case you feared I had lost interest in the presidential race, fear not. Peggy Noonan has said it, far better than I could, in Friday's Wall Street Journal. Enjoy!
-
On hunger of various sorts
-
For most of this academic year, I have fought my calling to a kind of monastic life in Milwaukee. The most visible manifestation of this calling is living and eating alone. I've never done either for a prolonged span; I lived at home, where either Mom or Dad was present for nearly every meal. Then I moved to Michigan State, where I lived in the dorms and took my meals with friends in the Case Hall cafeteria. For a long time, I felt lonely and resisted the loneliness in many ways, not all of them edifying. I complained to Sally when she had plenty enough to do in Ukraine, went out alone at night (never a wise idea), and felt wounded when my new friends paid attention to lifelong, local attachments ahead of me.
I've now embraced the calling to interior reflection, sober living, and habitual prayer. Thomas Merton and Henri Nouwen are my best friends; their books point me towards a Christian life that is obedient but not uncritical. I'm happier than I have been in a long time. The essential question of my vocation, though, remains open.
Often, I sense a calling to live in the way of Merton and Nouwen - pastoral care, counseling, study and lecture on God's Word and spiritual topics, menial labor, service to the poor, and healing. The name Jason means "healer", so perhaps I am on to something.
Other times, I feel an inner conviction to keep on the path I have chosen so far - the study of international relations. In this field, I have the ability to do something about world hunger, whether it is feeding the malnourished directly (as a representative of an aid agency or a UN body), lobbying for domestic public policies and better global governance to ensure that the malnourished are fed, or someday helping to draft and implement those policies myself. Nouwen, because he wisely (for him) chose to devote his life to personal ministry, could only write how frustrated he was at the problem; in contrast, I have the opportunity to be God's hands to the hungry.
So the dialogue continues - though I am consciously letting it become less of an inner dialogue and more of a prayer-dialogue between Jesus and I. Readers, I welcome your prayers.
-
For most of this academic year, I have fought my calling to a kind of monastic life in Milwaukee. The most visible manifestation of this calling is living and eating alone. I've never done either for a prolonged span; I lived at home, where either Mom or Dad was present for nearly every meal. Then I moved to Michigan State, where I lived in the dorms and took my meals with friends in the Case Hall cafeteria. For a long time, I felt lonely and resisted the loneliness in many ways, not all of them edifying. I complained to Sally when she had plenty enough to do in Ukraine, went out alone at night (never a wise idea), and felt wounded when my new friends paid attention to lifelong, local attachments ahead of me.
I've now embraced the calling to interior reflection, sober living, and habitual prayer. Thomas Merton and Henri Nouwen are my best friends; their books point me towards a Christian life that is obedient but not uncritical. I'm happier than I have been in a long time. The essential question of my vocation, though, remains open.
Often, I sense a calling to live in the way of Merton and Nouwen - pastoral care, counseling, study and lecture on God's Word and spiritual topics, menial labor, service to the poor, and healing. The name Jason means "healer", so perhaps I am on to something.
Other times, I feel an inner conviction to keep on the path I have chosen so far - the study of international relations. In this field, I have the ability to do something about world hunger, whether it is feeding the malnourished directly (as a representative of an aid agency or a UN body), lobbying for domestic public policies and better global governance to ensure that the malnourished are fed, or someday helping to draft and implement those policies myself. Nouwen, because he wisely (for him) chose to devote his life to personal ministry, could only write how frustrated he was at the problem; in contrast, I have the opportunity to be God's hands to the hungry.
So the dialogue continues - though I am consciously letting it become less of an inner dialogue and more of a prayer-dialogue between Jesus and I. Readers, I welcome your prayers.
-
On the hunger crisis
-
Henri Nouwen writes on November 25, 1974:
"More and more, the hunger in the world is entering our consciousness. I have heard and read about it for years, but now it is the dominating issue... at the end of the '60s the Vietnam War was the central issue. Now it is hunger, starvation, famine, death. It is an issue that is so enormous and so overwhelming that it is nearly impossible to grasp in all its implications. Millions of people are faced with death; every day thousands of people die from lack of food. It makes it all the more frustrating to think about this in a monastery where three days a week about 15,000 loaves of bread come out of the oven and where the wheat and corn harvest was better than in many previous years."
(From The Genesee Diary, p. 186)
-
Henri Nouwen writes on November 25, 1974:
"More and more, the hunger in the world is entering our consciousness. I have heard and read about it for years, but now it is the dominating issue... at the end of the '60s the Vietnam War was the central issue. Now it is hunger, starvation, famine, death. It is an issue that is so enormous and so overwhelming that it is nearly impossible to grasp in all its implications. Millions of people are faced with death; every day thousands of people die from lack of food. It makes it all the more frustrating to think about this in a monastery where three days a week about 15,000 loaves of bread come out of the oven and where the wheat and corn harvest was better than in many previous years."
(From The Genesee Diary, p. 186)
-
Friday, April 18, 2008
You Can't Make This Stuff Up (#1)
-
In honor of my weekly subscription to The Economist, I'd like to share with my readers the news items that I find side-splitting. World politics is full of unintentional humor - one of the reasons studying it is so enjoyable. The best example came from an article on the rising price of pork in China last year.
The U.S. government maintains strategic reserves for a variety of commodities. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is best-known, but we also maintain reserves of essential metals like titanium, iron, and gold (hence, Fort Knox is perhaps our oldest "strategic reserve"). Well, the People's Republic of China keeps strategic reserves of - you guessed it - pork. This Chinese strategic reserve, according to The Economist, consists of both frozen pork and live pigs.
Imagine the call from the PRC's Politburo: "Mr. Zhou, this is Mr. Liu. Go to the deep freeze! We need 5 tons of frozen pork NOW!"
The best one from this week comes from Egypt. Hosni Mubarak, faced with riots over the rising price of bread, ordered the Egyptian armed forces to bake bread and distribute it to the people. Way to increase your national debt and maintain your dictatorship all at once!
-
In honor of my weekly subscription to The Economist, I'd like to share with my readers the news items that I find side-splitting. World politics is full of unintentional humor - one of the reasons studying it is so enjoyable. The best example came from an article on the rising price of pork in China last year.
The U.S. government maintains strategic reserves for a variety of commodities. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is best-known, but we also maintain reserves of essential metals like titanium, iron, and gold (hence, Fort Knox is perhaps our oldest "strategic reserve"). Well, the People's Republic of China keeps strategic reserves of - you guessed it - pork. This Chinese strategic reserve, according to The Economist, consists of both frozen pork and live pigs.
Imagine the call from the PRC's Politburo: "Mr. Zhou, this is Mr. Liu. Go to the deep freeze! We need 5 tons of frozen pork NOW!"
The best one from this week comes from Egypt. Hosni Mubarak, faced with riots over the rising price of bread, ordered the Egyptian armed forces to bake bread and distribute it to the people. Way to increase your national debt and maintain your dictatorship all at once!
-
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Jay Leno is spot-on
-
After the Ohio primary, I blogged on the essential differences between the (younger) supporters of Senator Obama and the (older) supporters of Senator Clinton. Last night, Jay Leno revealed another distinction:
Jay: "So now Hillary Clinton has called Barack Obama an 'elitist' who 'thinks he's smarter than most people'. Isn't it about time we had a President who's smarter than most people?"
(General laughter.)
Jay: "Haven't we already tried the other way 'round?"
(Loud laughter.)
Jay: "How has our political system got so messed up that being smarter than most people disqualifies you from being President?
(Hysterical laughter.)
Heh. It may be worth noting that at the Midwest Political Science Association conference in Chicago, one of my neighboring poster presenters had done a survey on favorability ratings of leading media personalities based on one's position on the left-right political spectrum (divided into quadrants). Oprah, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Anderson Cooper, Letterman, Leno, and Bill O'Reilly were the media personalities. Leno was the only one to garner a net favorable rating from all four quadrants.
-
After the Ohio primary, I blogged on the essential differences between the (younger) supporters of Senator Obama and the (older) supporters of Senator Clinton. Last night, Jay Leno revealed another distinction:
Jay: "So now Hillary Clinton has called Barack Obama an 'elitist' who 'thinks he's smarter than most people'. Isn't it about time we had a President who's smarter than most people?"
(General laughter.)
Jay: "Haven't we already tried the other way 'round?"
(Loud laughter.)
Jay: "How has our political system got so messed up that being smarter than most people disqualifies you from being President?
(Hysterical laughter.)
Heh. It may be worth noting that at the Midwest Political Science Association conference in Chicago, one of my neighboring poster presenters had done a survey on favorability ratings of leading media personalities based on one's position on the left-right political spectrum (divided into quadrants). Oprah, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Anderson Cooper, Letterman, Leno, and Bill O'Reilly were the media personalities. Leno was the only one to garner a net favorable rating from all four quadrants.
-
Saturday, March 29, 2008
KGB at the Varsity Theater, Part 3
-
Part 3: On Spiritual Things
KGB's confrontation with Gill Byrd ended with a summons to Byrd's office the next day at 9 a.m. Gbaja-Biamila was afraid he had blown it and would be cut. Instead, at the chosen hour, a white man - the pastor of a local church - was in Byrd's office. Kabeer waited outside, but Byrd said, "Come in." Byrd - who was a Nation of Islam member before his conversion - invited KGB to share his Islamic-derived criticisms of Christianity with the pastor. Kabeer found, to his surprise, that either Byrd or the pastor were able to answer his questions as no one had before.
His actions began to match his growing faith. Later that day, KGB cut off a friends-with-benefits relationship with a local woman. On September 26, 2000, Gbaja-Biamila was baptized.
Gbaja-Biamila was forthright in his testimony. He said, "Jesus is my Lord because he is my master, and he is my Savior because he rescued me from hell." He exhorted his audience: "I go fishing quite a bit. When you go fishing, do you gut and clean the fish before you catch it, or after it?" After we replied, he said, "You don't have to be clean before you come to Jesus Christ - in fact, you'll be unclean. If you let Jesus catch you, he'll clean you - you don't have to worry over it. Just let Him transform you."
He warned the young men in the audience, "I trust that most of you hope to be married one day, so I'll let you know: the standards you set now will persist into your marriage and color it." He shared an example from his own marriage: just after he married his wife, his sex drive waned and he found it difficult to make love to her. He puzzled over this for a while. One day, walking in the local mall, he found his eyes drawn to a girl across the aisle. He stopped and realized that he was so used to seeking the "forbidden", joining the "thrill of the chase", that married life seemed boring. That evening, he prayed with his wife for God to renew their love, and the problem went away.
I went mostly to hear a pro athlete speak and came away pleased at KGB's candor and obvious growth as a Christian. Hearing his talk was an unexpected bonus in my week.
Part 3: On Spiritual Things
KGB's confrontation with Gill Byrd ended with a summons to Byrd's office the next day at 9 a.m. Gbaja-Biamila was afraid he had blown it and would be cut. Instead, at the chosen hour, a white man - the pastor of a local church - was in Byrd's office. Kabeer waited outside, but Byrd said, "Come in." Byrd - who was a Nation of Islam member before his conversion - invited KGB to share his Islamic-derived criticisms of Christianity with the pastor. Kabeer found, to his surprise, that either Byrd or the pastor were able to answer his questions as no one had before.
His actions began to match his growing faith. Later that day, KGB cut off a friends-with-benefits relationship with a local woman. On September 26, 2000, Gbaja-Biamila was baptized.
Gbaja-Biamila was forthright in his testimony. He said, "Jesus is my Lord because he is my master, and he is my Savior because he rescued me from hell." He exhorted his audience: "I go fishing quite a bit. When you go fishing, do you gut and clean the fish before you catch it, or after it?" After we replied, he said, "You don't have to be clean before you come to Jesus Christ - in fact, you'll be unclean. If you let Jesus catch you, he'll clean you - you don't have to worry over it. Just let Him transform you."
He warned the young men in the audience, "I trust that most of you hope to be married one day, so I'll let you know: the standards you set now will persist into your marriage and color it." He shared an example from his own marriage: just after he married his wife, his sex drive waned and he found it difficult to make love to her. He puzzled over this for a while. One day, walking in the local mall, he found his eyes drawn to a girl across the aisle. He stopped and realized that he was so used to seeking the "forbidden", joining the "thrill of the chase", that married life seemed boring. That evening, he prayed with his wife for God to renew their love, and the problem went away.
I went mostly to hear a pro athlete speak and came away pleased at KGB's candor and obvious growth as a Christian. Hearing his talk was an unexpected bonus in my week.
KGB at the Varsity Theater, Part 2
-
Part 2: A Transformed Life
Gill Byrd played cornerback for the San Diego Chargers from 1983-93. He is the franchise's all-time leader in interceptions with 43; also, according to Gbaja-Biamila, he was fantastic in the iconic video game Tecmo Super Bowl. Byrd became a Christian in 1983, in his rookie season. He kept spreading the Gospel in retirement: he had ties to the Athletes in Action chapter at San Diego State, and he sent KGB a text message during Gbaja-Biamila's brief stint with the group. At the time, Kabeer felt awed to get a text from a "NFL player".
When Kabeer was drafted by the Packers and flew to Green Bay, who was there to meet him at the airport? None other then Byrd, hired in 1999 as the Packers' executive director/player programs. In that job, Byrd was primarily responsible for managing the Packer rookies' transition into the NFL. The two men became fast friends: KGB soon leased an apartment, but he felt lonely in Green Bay and visited Byrd's house nearly every evening that summer of 2000.
Kabeer said, "When I stepped into the Byrd home, it was like stepping into another planet." He noticed how Byrd treated his wife, Marilyn, with love and respect, and how Byrd cared about the media his then-teenage sons, Gill II and Jarius, watched and listened to. Kabeer told us, "I just wanted to live like him. I was not open to Christianity at the time, but I saw the peace and joy in his house, and I wanted to have what he had."
In the beginning, Kabeer was like another, older son, "a big brother" as he put it. Back then, he dressed in black urban style, with hoodies and baggy pants. He also joined the Byrd sons in youthful hijinks; one day, he told Gill and Jarius how to avoid detection after looking at Internet porn sites (presumably by erasing the 'History' menu). The boys eagerly went along with KGB in the moment, but later turned around and told Dad, earning KGB a severe lecture from Byrd.
As the summer wore on and training camp neared, KGB's veneer cracked. One evening, after breaking down in tears in his apartment, he drove over to the Byrd's and asked Gill what he needed to do to become a Christian. Gill laid a hand on Kabeer's shoulder, prayed over him, and instructed him, "Read the Bible and obey it."
Kabeer opens the Bible
Most Christians whom Gbaja-Biamila had met primarily cited the New Testament. Therefore, Kabeer concluded that the Old Testament contained embarrasing secrets they wished to hide. He began by opening the first book of the Old Testament, Genesis.
KGB read through the Creation and the Fall matter-of-factly, but he was struck by Genesis 6:5, an expression of God's anger towards human rebellion: "Yahweh saw... that every inclination of the thoughts of man's heart was only evil all the time" [NIV]. Kabeer's belief, influenced by his father's practice of Islam, had been that the Bible was a man-made book. But he couldn't believe that a man who wanted to tell an appealing story would write Genesis 6:5. He kept reading through the Flood and came to Genesis 8:21-22: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. Never again will I destroy all living creatures." Again, KGB was deeply moved by the contrast between God's majesty and humanity's baseness.
Gbaja-Biamila said, "I couldn't stop reading. Every free moment I got during training camp, and just about every evening, I read through the entire Old Testament, and I saw how it pointed to the coming of Jesus Christ." All was not rosy, though; KGB started to catch flak in training camp for leaning so heavily on Byrd. One day, for the first time, the two men exchanged strong words at work. KGB accused Byrd of not standing up for him, but Byrd responded that KGB had a long way to go before he could say he walked with Christ.
To be continued...
-
Part 2: A Transformed Life
Gill Byrd played cornerback for the San Diego Chargers from 1983-93. He is the franchise's all-time leader in interceptions with 43; also, according to Gbaja-Biamila, he was fantastic in the iconic video game Tecmo Super Bowl. Byrd became a Christian in 1983, in his rookie season. He kept spreading the Gospel in retirement: he had ties to the Athletes in Action chapter at San Diego State, and he sent KGB a text message during Gbaja-Biamila's brief stint with the group. At the time, Kabeer felt awed to get a text from a "NFL player".
When Kabeer was drafted by the Packers and flew to Green Bay, who was there to meet him at the airport? None other then Byrd, hired in 1999 as the Packers' executive director/player programs. In that job, Byrd was primarily responsible for managing the Packer rookies' transition into the NFL. The two men became fast friends: KGB soon leased an apartment, but he felt lonely in Green Bay and visited Byrd's house nearly every evening that summer of 2000.
Kabeer said, "When I stepped into the Byrd home, it was like stepping into another planet." He noticed how Byrd treated his wife, Marilyn, with love and respect, and how Byrd cared about the media his then-teenage sons, Gill II and Jarius, watched and listened to. Kabeer told us, "I just wanted to live like him. I was not open to Christianity at the time, but I saw the peace and joy in his house, and I wanted to have what he had."
In the beginning, Kabeer was like another, older son, "a big brother" as he put it. Back then, he dressed in black urban style, with hoodies and baggy pants. He also joined the Byrd sons in youthful hijinks; one day, he told Gill and Jarius how to avoid detection after looking at Internet porn sites (presumably by erasing the 'History' menu). The boys eagerly went along with KGB in the moment, but later turned around and told Dad, earning KGB a severe lecture from Byrd.
As the summer wore on and training camp neared, KGB's veneer cracked. One evening, after breaking down in tears in his apartment, he drove over to the Byrd's and asked Gill what he needed to do to become a Christian. Gill laid a hand on Kabeer's shoulder, prayed over him, and instructed him, "Read the Bible and obey it."
Kabeer opens the Bible
Most Christians whom Gbaja-Biamila had met primarily cited the New Testament. Therefore, Kabeer concluded that the Old Testament contained embarrasing secrets they wished to hide. He began by opening the first book of the Old Testament, Genesis.
KGB read through the Creation and the Fall matter-of-factly, but he was struck by Genesis 6:5, an expression of God's anger towards human rebellion: "Yahweh saw... that every inclination of the thoughts of man's heart was only evil all the time" [NIV]. Kabeer's belief, influenced by his father's practice of Islam, had been that the Bible was a man-made book. But he couldn't believe that a man who wanted to tell an appealing story would write Genesis 6:5. He kept reading through the Flood and came to Genesis 8:21-22: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. Never again will I destroy all living creatures." Again, KGB was deeply moved by the contrast between God's majesty and humanity's baseness.
Gbaja-Biamila said, "I couldn't stop reading. Every free moment I got during training camp, and just about every evening, I read through the entire Old Testament, and I saw how it pointed to the coming of Jesus Christ." All was not rosy, though; KGB started to catch flak in training camp for leaning so heavily on Byrd. One day, for the first time, the two men exchanged strong words at work. KGB accused Byrd of not standing up for him, but Byrd responded that KGB had a long way to go before he could say he walked with Christ.
To be continued...
-
Friday, March 28, 2008
KGB at the Varsity Theater, Part 1
-
On Tuesday evening, March 25, Packers defensive end and Pro Bowler Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila spoke at Marquette University's Varsity Theater at the invitation of Campus Crusade for Christ. The title of his entertaining, hour-long testimony was "Fame and Faith".
Part 1: A Complicated Boyhood
Gbaja-Biamila was born in Los Angeles in September 1977. His parents grew up and met in Lagos, Nigeria, but started their family in the United States. Kabeer has four older brothers and one twin sister, Hadijat, who preceded him by ten minutes. Kabeer told us, though, that Nigerians consider him the older twin because he pushed her out first.
He grew up in a mixed-religion home. His father is a Muslim; his mother converted to Christianity in Nigeria and remains so. Growing up, he got mixed messages. His mom was more of the spiritual leader of the house; she would drag Kabeer and his siblings to church most Sundays. In contrast, his dad was outspokenly Muslim and got into apologetic confrontations with Christians. As Kabeer grew, his dad told him all about various contradictions in the Bible.
As a youth, Kabeer identified himself as a "good kid", one who tried to stay within the rules and seek adults' approval. In fact, after the 1992 Rodney King riots tore through his neighborhood, KGB became a founding member of the urban food co-op Food from the 'Hood and made the cover of Newsweek as a 15-year-old. However, Kabeer stressed that behind the veneer of good conduct, he stole small items, had promiscuous sex, and felt that he was morally justified if his good deeds outweighed the bad.
Gbaja-Biamila earned football scholarships to San Diego State and Colorado State, choosing the former because it was closer to home (about two hours) and his parents could easily watch him play. He joined the campus chapter of Athletes in Action, but he was repelled by the two-faced lives of its members. Kabeer spoke of them as people who went to church on Sunday, but didn't live their calling the rest of the week; they drank, partied, and hooked up like anyone else on campus. After some time, KGB parroted his father's Islamic critiques of the Bible. When no one gave him a satisfactory answer, he left the fellowship.
Kabeer became San Diego State's all-time sack leader and seemed likely to be chosen in the 2000 NFL Draft. The day before the draft, San Diego State had a media day for him and one other potential draftee. Asked where he wanted to go, he said, "I'd just be happy for a chance to play in the NFL - heck, anywhere but Green Bay", to general laughter. The next day, the Packers selected him in the fifth round. Kabeer, forgetting his joke in the magnitude of the moment, was overjoyed. He was still on cloud nine when he returned to face the local media, who greeted him with tape of "anywhere but Green Bay."
On stage, Kabeer did his best "D'oh!" impression, telling us that to a black kid who had lived all his life in Southern California, Green Bay seemed like an impossibly remote, white place. Yet our God has His purposes. In Green Bay, he would soon meet a man who would change his life.
To be continued...
-
On Tuesday evening, March 25, Packers defensive end and Pro Bowler Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila spoke at Marquette University's Varsity Theater at the invitation of Campus Crusade for Christ. The title of his entertaining, hour-long testimony was "Fame and Faith".
Part 1: A Complicated Boyhood
Gbaja-Biamila was born in Los Angeles in September 1977. His parents grew up and met in Lagos, Nigeria, but started their family in the United States. Kabeer has four older brothers and one twin sister, Hadijat, who preceded him by ten minutes. Kabeer told us, though, that Nigerians consider him the older twin because he pushed her out first.
He grew up in a mixed-religion home. His father is a Muslim; his mother converted to Christianity in Nigeria and remains so. Growing up, he got mixed messages. His mom was more of the spiritual leader of the house; she would drag Kabeer and his siblings to church most Sundays. In contrast, his dad was outspokenly Muslim and got into apologetic confrontations with Christians. As Kabeer grew, his dad told him all about various contradictions in the Bible.
As a youth, Kabeer identified himself as a "good kid", one who tried to stay within the rules and seek adults' approval. In fact, after the 1992 Rodney King riots tore through his neighborhood, KGB became a founding member of the urban food co-op Food from the 'Hood and made the cover of Newsweek as a 15-year-old. However, Kabeer stressed that behind the veneer of good conduct, he stole small items, had promiscuous sex, and felt that he was morally justified if his good deeds outweighed the bad.
Gbaja-Biamila earned football scholarships to San Diego State and Colorado State, choosing the former because it was closer to home (about two hours) and his parents could easily watch him play. He joined the campus chapter of Athletes in Action, but he was repelled by the two-faced lives of its members. Kabeer spoke of them as people who went to church on Sunday, but didn't live their calling the rest of the week; they drank, partied, and hooked up like anyone else on campus. After some time, KGB parroted his father's Islamic critiques of the Bible. When no one gave him a satisfactory answer, he left the fellowship.
Kabeer became San Diego State's all-time sack leader and seemed likely to be chosen in the 2000 NFL Draft. The day before the draft, San Diego State had a media day for him and one other potential draftee. Asked where he wanted to go, he said, "I'd just be happy for a chance to play in the NFL - heck, anywhere but Green Bay", to general laughter. The next day, the Packers selected him in the fifth round. Kabeer, forgetting his joke in the magnitude of the moment, was overjoyed. He was still on cloud nine when he returned to face the local media, who greeted him with tape of "anywhere but Green Bay."
On stage, Kabeer did his best "D'oh!" impression, telling us that to a black kid who had lived all his life in Southern California, Green Bay seemed like an impossibly remote, white place. Yet our God has His purposes. In Green Bay, he would soon meet a man who would change his life.
To be continued...
-
Thursday, March 13, 2008
March 11: Mississippi
-
Obama 61
Clinton 37
-
Even more than in South Carolina, the Democratic Party of Mississippi is an African-American majority party. Its proximity to Arkansas aside, this was not fertile soil for Clinton, and she did not contest the state vigorously. With the margin of Senator Obama's win, he erased the net delegate loss he incurred on March 4, putting himself in great shape for the remaining contests.
-
Obama 61
Clinton 37
-
Even more than in South Carolina, the Democratic Party of Mississippi is an African-American majority party. Its proximity to Arkansas aside, this was not fertile soil for Clinton, and she did not contest the state vigorously. With the margin of Senator Obama's win, he erased the net delegate loss he incurred on March 4, putting himself in great shape for the remaining contests.
-
March 8: Wyoming caucuses (Democratic)
-
Obama 61
Clinton 38
-
Hillary made a lot of noise after March 4 about her ground game in Wyoming. Turns out it was just noise. Even though only 8,800 people showed up, Obama beat the pants off of Hillary again. If this contest were about the number of states won, Obama would be the landslide winner by now.
-
Obama 61
Clinton 38
-
Hillary made a lot of noise after March 4 about her ground game in Wyoming. Turns out it was just noise. Even though only 8,800 people showed up, Obama beat the pants off of Hillary again. If this contest were about the number of states won, Obama would be the landslide winner by now.
-
March 4: Ohio primary (both parties)
-
Democratic
Clinton 54
Obama 44
Republican
McCain 60
Huckabee 31
Paul 5
-
Hillary Clinton's victory in Ohio means a lot of things. To me, though, it symbolizes the average American's schizophrenic attitude towards globalization.
In a development Harry Truman and Dean Acheson could not have foreseen, the Democratic Party has become the domestic party of resistance to globalization. The Republican Party, traditionally an isolationist party, has been thoroughly permeated by neoconservative thinking. It is now stridently, brazenly pro-globalization, with a flavor for every faction. Republicans are for the universal conversion of the global population to Christianity, for unfettered and unrestricted trade in goods, financial services, and human services (morality be damned) as the surest way to line the pockets of its business supporters, and for an American empire that smites down any state or terrorist band that stands in its way. Robert Ingersoll, Nelson Aldrich, and Robert Taft would scarcely recognize their party anymore.
In a way, neoconservatism has been hoist by its own petard. The earliest neoconservatives - the Irving Kristols and William Buckleys - saw that isolationism was a vote-losing proposition for Republicans and argued that the only way to break Democratic Party dominance was global engagement. They were correct on the narrow political point, but they failed to perceive how the indigenous elements at work in the Republican Party would distort their principles.
So we have an administration in power that is getting globalization wrong. Here's where the Obama v. Clinton tete-a-tete comes in: it is a contest between the Democrats who want to do globalization right and the Democrats who don't want globalization at all, or don't see the need for it. Now the percent of blacks, Hispanics, women, men, whites, etc., who have voted for either candidate have varied from state to state. Yet the age difference - younger voters break for Obama, older voters for Clinton - has proven remarkably significant and durable all campaign long.
Young Democrats of our generation understand what is at stake. We are Democrats by choice; many of us have broken politically from our Reagan-voting, Reagan-minded parents. We have ethnically, geographically, and temperamentally diverse networks of friends. We are leaders of the Internet age, pioneering new uses of the Internet for research, social networking, and telecommunications. We are for the spread of peaceful worship and against hate speech that masquerades as worship. We are for unfettered trade and against trade that demeans human dignity. We are for shrinking the equatorial gap of non-integrated countries and against sending our brave soldiers hither and thither without a clear strategic plan.
Older Democrats, mindful of the courageous exceptions, don't understand what is at stake. Many are Democrats by birth and culture; Democratic Party membership was part of a social milieu of union halls, city commissions, and three-martini lunches, not a carefully considered statement of political principle. They have insular networks of friends. They may use e-mail but are skeptical of the Internet. They tend to be less geographically mobile. The urban wing of older Democrats viscerally identifies with Hillary as "one of them"; Camelot and Woodstock were the twin peaks of their lives, and Hillary was on the barricades with McGovern in '72, for crying out loud! The rural wing of older Democrats responds well to Hillary's subtle message of racism: "I'm not a man, I'll admit. But I've stayed married to a Bubba. Better me than that black guy named Hussein."
Obama's overwhelming support among African-Americans of all crosstabs aside, this explains the Hillary vote versus the Obama vote to a nutshell.
-
Democratic
Clinton 54
Obama 44
Republican
McCain 60
Huckabee 31
Paul 5
-
Hillary Clinton's victory in Ohio means a lot of things. To me, though, it symbolizes the average American's schizophrenic attitude towards globalization.
In a development Harry Truman and Dean Acheson could not have foreseen, the Democratic Party has become the domestic party of resistance to globalization. The Republican Party, traditionally an isolationist party, has been thoroughly permeated by neoconservative thinking. It is now stridently, brazenly pro-globalization, with a flavor for every faction. Republicans are for the universal conversion of the global population to Christianity, for unfettered and unrestricted trade in goods, financial services, and human services (morality be damned) as the surest way to line the pockets of its business supporters, and for an American empire that smites down any state or terrorist band that stands in its way. Robert Ingersoll, Nelson Aldrich, and Robert Taft would scarcely recognize their party anymore.
In a way, neoconservatism has been hoist by its own petard. The earliest neoconservatives - the Irving Kristols and William Buckleys - saw that isolationism was a vote-losing proposition for Republicans and argued that the only way to break Democratic Party dominance was global engagement. They were correct on the narrow political point, but they failed to perceive how the indigenous elements at work in the Republican Party would distort their principles.
So we have an administration in power that is getting globalization wrong. Here's where the Obama v. Clinton tete-a-tete comes in: it is a contest between the Democrats who want to do globalization right and the Democrats who don't want globalization at all, or don't see the need for it. Now the percent of blacks, Hispanics, women, men, whites, etc., who have voted for either candidate have varied from state to state. Yet the age difference - younger voters break for Obama, older voters for Clinton - has proven remarkably significant and durable all campaign long.
Young Democrats of our generation understand what is at stake. We are Democrats by choice; many of us have broken politically from our Reagan-voting, Reagan-minded parents. We have ethnically, geographically, and temperamentally diverse networks of friends. We are leaders of the Internet age, pioneering new uses of the Internet for research, social networking, and telecommunications. We are for the spread of peaceful worship and against hate speech that masquerades as worship. We are for unfettered trade and against trade that demeans human dignity. We are for shrinking the equatorial gap of non-integrated countries and against sending our brave soldiers hither and thither without a clear strategic plan.
Older Democrats, mindful of the courageous exceptions, don't understand what is at stake. Many are Democrats by birth and culture; Democratic Party membership was part of a social milieu of union halls, city commissions, and three-martini lunches, not a carefully considered statement of political principle. They have insular networks of friends. They may use e-mail but are skeptical of the Internet. They tend to be less geographically mobile. The urban wing of older Democrats viscerally identifies with Hillary as "one of them"; Camelot and Woodstock were the twin peaks of their lives, and Hillary was on the barricades with McGovern in '72, for crying out loud! The rural wing of older Democrats responds well to Hillary's subtle message of racism: "I'm not a man, I'll admit. But I've stayed married to a Bubba. Better me than that black guy named Hussein."
Obama's overwhelming support among African-Americans of all crosstabs aside, this explains the Hillary vote versus the Obama vote to a nutshell.
-
March 4: Texas (both parties)
-
Democratic primary
Clinton 51
Obama 47
Democratic caucuses
Obama 56
Clinton 44
Republican primary (no caucus)
McCain 51
Huckabee 38
Paul 5
-
In a vast, varied, and, uh, Texas-sized state as Texas, the Obama vs. Clinton match-up was bound to test who could best rally his core constituency. Obama got blacks, men, and the young to the polls; Clinton got Hispanics, women, and the elderly to do the same. Clinton narrowly won the primary; Obama prevailed by a larger margin in the evening caucuses. Clinton got a "victory" to break her alarming streak of 11 losses; Obama actually won several more delegates. Both contenders were happy with the outcome: Clinton for blunting Obama's surging popularity, and Obama for cutting into Clinton's 20-point lead in early polling.
On the Republican side, John McCain defeated Mike Huckabee and won enough delegates to become the party's presumptive nominee. Huckabee, having done all he wished in this campaign, dropped out. Paul got no bounce at all from his home state.
-
Democratic primary
Clinton 51
Obama 47
Democratic caucuses
Obama 56
Clinton 44
Republican primary (no caucus)
McCain 51
Huckabee 38
Paul 5
-
In a vast, varied, and, uh, Texas-sized state as Texas, the Obama vs. Clinton match-up was bound to test who could best rally his core constituency. Obama got blacks, men, and the young to the polls; Clinton got Hispanics, women, and the elderly to do the same. Clinton narrowly won the primary; Obama prevailed by a larger margin in the evening caucuses. Clinton got a "victory" to break her alarming streak of 11 losses; Obama actually won several more delegates. Both contenders were happy with the outcome: Clinton for blunting Obama's surging popularity, and Obama for cutting into Clinton's 20-point lead in early polling.
On the Republican side, John McCain defeated Mike Huckabee and won enough delegates to become the party's presumptive nominee. Huckabee, having done all he wished in this campaign, dropped out. Paul got no bounce at all from his home state.
-
March 4: Rhode Island (both parties)
-
Democrats
Clinton 58
Obama 40
Republicans
McCain 65
Huckabee 22
Paul 7
-
Not much here. Hillary would be an ideal President of Rhode Island, but that renegade entity decided to ratify the Constitution in 1790 (lest its trade be subject to penal tariffs) and become the 13th state instead. On the Republican side, Ron Paul is learning Howard Dean's bitter lesson that money and Internet fandom alone don't win you votes.
-
Democrats
Clinton 58
Obama 40
Republicans
McCain 65
Huckabee 22
Paul 7
-
Not much here. Hillary would be an ideal President of Rhode Island, but that renegade entity decided to ratify the Constitution in 1790 (lest its trade be subject to penal tariffs) and become the 13th state instead. On the Republican side, Ron Paul is learning Howard Dean's bitter lesson that money and Internet fandom alone don't win you votes.
-
Friday, February 22, 2008
The Prince
-
"I shall be fully convinced... that he [President Polk] is deeply conscious of being in the wrong: that he feels the blood of this war, like the blood of Abel, is crying to Heaven against him."
~ Abraham Lincoln, 12 January 1848
"That's what I'm opposed to - a dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason, but on passion; not on principle, but on politics."
~ Barack Obama, 2 October 2002
It is impossible to hear Barack Obama speak without realizing that he was a legal professor. People say that Obama's rallies are all fluff and no substance; not so. He could turn on the fluff to unprecedented heights if he wished. His supporters have a messianic quality about them; they follow Obama unreservedly and remind me of how blind Bartimaeus felt after Jesus restored his sight. Barack's public speech is much more measured, careful, and precise, even, at times, bordering on pedantic. Yet his grasp on the issues is formidable.
Obama was the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. Lincoln, too, went into the law, at a time when the sons of backwoods, backwards Kentucky farmers were not seen as top-notch legal material. Both men lived and worked close to the people they served, held low-level political offices, and worked with clients from the very richest to the very poorest.
Lincoln and Obama also share deep, resonant, feisty political voices. Contemporaries often spoke of the effect Lincoln's slow, rolling voice could have on a crowd. Obama's raspy baritone, which conveys a hint of his Kenyan ancestry, is his best political instrument.
As the epigraphs show, both men hated war and weren't afraid to risk their political lives to stand against the current and oppose wars of choice. (In the medium term, California could have been purchased from Mexico.) Lincoln, though, raised an army to suppress Southern secession and led the country through the trials of the Civil War. Obama correctly advocates a phased withdrawal from Iraq, but he would be just as steady in the midst of crisis.
We need a president who reminds us of our better angels. Barack Obama is that man.
-
"I shall be fully convinced... that he [President Polk] is deeply conscious of being in the wrong: that he feels the blood of this war, like the blood of Abel, is crying to Heaven against him."
~ Abraham Lincoln, 12 January 1848
"That's what I'm opposed to - a dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason, but on passion; not on principle, but on politics."
~ Barack Obama, 2 October 2002
It is impossible to hear Barack Obama speak without realizing that he was a legal professor. People say that Obama's rallies are all fluff and no substance; not so. He could turn on the fluff to unprecedented heights if he wished. His supporters have a messianic quality about them; they follow Obama unreservedly and remind me of how blind Bartimaeus felt after Jesus restored his sight. Barack's public speech is much more measured, careful, and precise, even, at times, bordering on pedantic. Yet his grasp on the issues is formidable.
Obama was the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. Lincoln, too, went into the law, at a time when the sons of backwoods, backwards Kentucky farmers were not seen as top-notch legal material. Both men lived and worked close to the people they served, held low-level political offices, and worked with clients from the very richest to the very poorest.
Lincoln and Obama also share deep, resonant, feisty political voices. Contemporaries often spoke of the effect Lincoln's slow, rolling voice could have on a crowd. Obama's raspy baritone, which conveys a hint of his Kenyan ancestry, is his best political instrument.
As the epigraphs show, both men hated war and weren't afraid to risk their political lives to stand against the current and oppose wars of choice. (In the medium term, California could have been purchased from Mexico.) Lincoln, though, raised an army to suppress Southern secession and led the country through the trials of the Civil War. Obama correctly advocates a phased withdrawal from Iraq, but he would be just as steady in the midst of crisis.
We need a president who reminds us of our better angels. Barack Obama is that man.
-
February 19: Wisconsin primary; Hawaii caucus (D)
-
Wisconsin primary:
Democrats
Obama 58
Clinton 41
Republicans
McCain 55
Huckabee 37
Paul 5
Hawaii caucus (D):
Obama 76
Clinton 24
-
It's over.
Wisconsin was Hillary's last chance to blunt Obama: Midwestern, industrial, union-heavy, older. I half expected her to win. Then the results came in: 54% Obama... 56% Obama... and ever-widening to 59.5% Obama. When people see Obama and listen to him, they vote for him. Hillary wishes she had the same effect.
At the post-election party at Bar Louie on Water Street (where I met Mayor Tom Barrett and a couple of Wisconsin state representatives), the atmosphere was electric. News cameras crowded the back bar that had been reserved for the Obama party. At its peak, about 200 people filled the room, no doubt in violation of the fire code.
The next morning, the Teamsters endorsed Obama - a critical endorsement for Ohio and Texas, but, symbolically, a sign that Hillary's "base" has irrevocably crumpled.
Obama's big win in Hawaii, where he was born and went to high school, surprised nobody.
Among the Republicans, John McCain kept trudging towards the nomination with another win in Wisconsin. Mike Huckabee, who has chosen option #2 (see my "What's Next" post from Feb. 7), is having a ball running for President on the cheap and gaining national visibility, though he is not likely to become McCain's VP nominee.
-
Wisconsin primary:
Democrats
Obama 58
Clinton 41
Republicans
McCain 55
Huckabee 37
Paul 5
Hawaii caucus (D):
Obama 76
Clinton 24
-
It's over.
Wisconsin was Hillary's last chance to blunt Obama: Midwestern, industrial, union-heavy, older. I half expected her to win. Then the results came in: 54% Obama... 56% Obama... and ever-widening to 59.5% Obama. When people see Obama and listen to him, they vote for him. Hillary wishes she had the same effect.
At the post-election party at Bar Louie on Water Street (where I met Mayor Tom Barrett and a couple of Wisconsin state representatives), the atmosphere was electric. News cameras crowded the back bar that had been reserved for the Obama party. At its peak, about 200 people filled the room, no doubt in violation of the fire code.
The next morning, the Teamsters endorsed Obama - a critical endorsement for Ohio and Texas, but, symbolically, a sign that Hillary's "base" has irrevocably crumpled.
Obama's big win in Hawaii, where he was born and went to high school, surprised nobody.
Among the Republicans, John McCain kept trudging towards the nomination with another win in Wisconsin. Mike Huckabee, who has chosen option #2 (see my "What's Next" post from Feb. 7), is having a ball running for President on the cheap and gaining national visibility, though he is not likely to become McCain's VP nominee.
-
February 12: The "Potomac Primary" (R)
-
Maryland:
McCain 55
Huckabee 29
Romney 7
Paul 6
Virginia:
McCain 50
Huckabee 41
Paul 4
Romney 4
D.C:
McCain 68
Huckabee 17
Paul 8
Romney 6
-
Mike Huckabee's attempt to make John McCain's nomination anything but a formality is no more. Huckabee tried hard to win Virginia, but he couldn't draw votes in the D.C. exurbs or in Richmond; as usual, his support centered on isolated rural counties.
-
Maryland:
McCain 55
Huckabee 29
Romney 7
Paul 6
Virginia:
McCain 50
Huckabee 41
Paul 4
Romney 4
D.C:
McCain 68
Huckabee 17
Paul 8
Romney 6
-
Mike Huckabee's attempt to make John McCain's nomination anything but a formality is no more. Huckabee tried hard to win Virginia, but he couldn't draw votes in the D.C. exurbs or in Richmond; as usual, his support centered on isolated rural counties.
-
February 12: The "Potomac Primary" (D)
-
Maryland:
Obama 60
Clinton 37
Virginia:
Obama 64
Clinton 35
D.C:
Obama 75
Clinton 24
-
The results speak for themselves. With these victories, Obama, by most counts, took over the delegate lead from Clinton.
-
Maryland:
Obama 60
Clinton 37
Virginia:
Obama 64
Clinton 35
D.C:
Obama 75
Clinton 24
-
The results speak for themselves. With these victories, Obama, by most counts, took over the delegate lead from Clinton.
-
Sunday, February 10, 2008
February 9: Kansas, Louisiana, and Washington (R)
-
Kansas caucus:
Huckabee 60
McCain 24
Paul 11
Romney 3
Louisiana primary:
Huckabee 43
McCain 42
Romney 7
Paul 5
Washington caucus: *See below.
-
Rather late for an energetic stop-McCain campaign, isn't it? This reminds me of a failed coup d'etat in minature. It's not going to succeed because the Great Cheney Purge failed to drive out all the sane members from the Republican Party. Mike Huckabee, one of the sane people who stuck it out, has to be smiling right now: he alone is accruing all the benefits from the combined and considerable efforts of the nutty wing of his party. He rolled over McCain in Kansas's caucuses and eked out a narrow 2,000-vote victory in Louisiana.
Then there's Washington. Here's the bizarre published results:
Washington caucus (87% reporting):
McCain 26
Huckabee 24
Paul 21
Romney 16
Uncommitted 13
On the basis of the results listed above, the Washington state Republican Party chair, Luke Esser, declared McCain the "winner". Really, Mr. Esser? You've got 13% of the vote - of a closed Republican caucus, mind you - uncounted! And it's been 36 hours after the fact! Huckabee, while careful not to say anything untoward towards McCain, filed legal suit against Esser and his Washington State charlatans today.
There are peculiarities down the ballot, too. Given that Mitt Romney won 3% in Kansas and 7% in Louisiana, it's not improbable that he won 16% in Washington. (It seems like the best thing Romney could do was to drop out. Pious Mormon that he is, I wonder if he's laying awake at night thinking that if he pandered to Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh even more than he did, without moral scruples, he'd be the prospective nominee right now instead of McCain.) But the 13% for "Uncommitted" makes no sense to me. Leaving aside Michigan's Democratic primary, when both Obama and Edwards instructed their supporters to vote Uncommitted, that line has never earned more than 5%. The fishy smell is overpowering.
-
Kansas caucus:
Huckabee 60
McCain 24
Paul 11
Romney 3
Louisiana primary:
Huckabee 43
McCain 42
Romney 7
Paul 5
Washington caucus: *See below.
-
Rather late for an energetic stop-McCain campaign, isn't it? This reminds me of a failed coup d'etat in minature. It's not going to succeed because the Great Cheney Purge failed to drive out all the sane members from the Republican Party. Mike Huckabee, one of the sane people who stuck it out, has to be smiling right now: he alone is accruing all the benefits from the combined and considerable efforts of the nutty wing of his party. He rolled over McCain in Kansas's caucuses and eked out a narrow 2,000-vote victory in Louisiana.
Then there's Washington. Here's the bizarre published results:
Washington caucus (87% reporting):
McCain 26
Huckabee 24
Paul 21
Romney 16
Uncommitted 13
On the basis of the results listed above, the Washington state Republican Party chair, Luke Esser, declared McCain the "winner". Really, Mr. Esser? You've got 13% of the vote - of a closed Republican caucus, mind you - uncounted! And it's been 36 hours after the fact! Huckabee, while careful not to say anything untoward towards McCain, filed legal suit against Esser and his Washington State charlatans today.
There are peculiarities down the ballot, too. Given that Mitt Romney won 3% in Kansas and 7% in Louisiana, it's not improbable that he won 16% in Washington. (It seems like the best thing Romney could do was to drop out. Pious Mormon that he is, I wonder if he's laying awake at night thinking that if he pandered to Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh even more than he did, without moral scruples, he'd be the prospective nominee right now instead of McCain.) But the 13% for "Uncommitted" makes no sense to me. Leaving aside Michigan's Democratic primary, when both Obama and Edwards instructed their supporters to vote Uncommitted, that line has never earned more than 5%. The fishy smell is overpowering.
-
February 9-10: Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, and Maine (D)
-
Louisiana primary:
Obama 57
Clinton 36
Nebraska caucus:
Obama 68
Clinton 32
Washington caucus:
Obama 68
Clinton 31
Maine caucus:
Obama 59
Clinton 40
-
Oof. Obama won four widely dispersed states by overwhelming margins. Hillary couldn't break the 40% barrier in any one of the contests. Now she's adrift in deep water. Obama is drawing near Clinton in the delegate count (CNN is scoring it 1148-1121 for Hillary), and the "Potomac primary" on Tuesday will enable Obama to take his first lead of the campaign.
Maryland, Virginia, and D.C. all have young, suburban, partly African-American, and highly educated Democratic bases, exactly coinciding with Obama's core constituences. Hillary, once again, will be hard-pressed to touch 40% on Tuesday. Then, on February 19, there is a caucus in Hawaii and the Wisconsin primary. This blogger is going all out on the ground for Obama on that day! More soberly, it might be Hillary's last stand; if she can't win Wisconsin, she won't be likely to win anywhere else. Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan's onetime speechwriter, has speculated that the end is nearer for Hillary that most pundits realize.
-
Louisiana primary:
Obama 57
Clinton 36
Nebraska caucus:
Obama 68
Clinton 32
Washington caucus:
Obama 68
Clinton 31
Maine caucus:
Obama 59
Clinton 40
-
Oof. Obama won four widely dispersed states by overwhelming margins. Hillary couldn't break the 40% barrier in any one of the contests. Now she's adrift in deep water. Obama is drawing near Clinton in the delegate count (CNN is scoring it 1148-1121 for Hillary), and the "Potomac primary" on Tuesday will enable Obama to take his first lead of the campaign.
Maryland, Virginia, and D.C. all have young, suburban, partly African-American, and highly educated Democratic bases, exactly coinciding with Obama's core constituences. Hillary, once again, will be hard-pressed to touch 40% on Tuesday. Then, on February 19, there is a caucus in Hawaii and the Wisconsin primary. This blogger is going all out on the ground for Obama on that day! More soberly, it might be Hillary's last stand; if she can't win Wisconsin, she won't be likely to win anywhere else. Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan's onetime speechwriter, has speculated that the end is nearer for Hillary that most pundits realize.
-
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Why our primary system rules
-
Since my professional desire is to become a university professor, I suppose I will soon be paid to come up with counter-intuitive political observations. In case any tenured faculty read this blog - here's one such observation in advance.
The great benefit of the United States' primary-caucus system, as it now stands, is that it enfranchises and empowers large numbers of citizens who are made into near-permanent electoral minorities in November by the structure of the Electoral College. On Election Day, South Carolina's Democrats could uniformly vote for bell hooks (heh) and it wouldn't matter at all; the Republican nominee would almost certainly prevail. Likewise, New York's Republicans could all vote for Barney Frank, only to watch the Democratic nominee win.
But in a 50-state primary-caucus system, every state's preferences matter (mindful of population, of course) and not just the preferences of a relative handful of swing states. South Carolina's Democrats, or New York's Republicans, become potent political forces who have a meaningful impact on the selection of a nominee. Isn't this good for democracy compared to a national or regional super-primary? To borrow from Robert Dahl, it increases contestation (there are 100 distinct contests), inclusiveness (regional candidates and favorite sons are free to run; most modern contested major-party primaries have had at least a half-dozen candidates), and information (retail politics matters relatively more than mass-media saturation blitzes). Think about it.
-
Since my professional desire is to become a university professor, I suppose I will soon be paid to come up with counter-intuitive political observations. In case any tenured faculty read this blog - here's one such observation in advance.
The great benefit of the United States' primary-caucus system, as it now stands, is that it enfranchises and empowers large numbers of citizens who are made into near-permanent electoral minorities in November by the structure of the Electoral College. On Election Day, South Carolina's Democrats could uniformly vote for bell hooks (heh) and it wouldn't matter at all; the Republican nominee would almost certainly prevail. Likewise, New York's Republicans could all vote for Barney Frank, only to watch the Democratic nominee win.
But in a 50-state primary-caucus system, every state's preferences matter (mindful of population, of course) and not just the preferences of a relative handful of swing states. South Carolina's Democrats, or New York's Republicans, become potent political forces who have a meaningful impact on the selection of a nominee. Isn't this good for democracy compared to a national or regional super-primary? To borrow from Robert Dahl, it increases contestation (there are 100 distinct contests), inclusiveness (regional candidates and favorite sons are free to run; most modern contested major-party primaries have had at least a half-dozen candidates), and information (retail politics matters relatively more than mass-media saturation blitzes). Think about it.
-
What's next (Republicans)
-
What does Mike Huckabee do now?
It's not at all clear. He wants to be John McCain's vice-presidential candidate very badly. However, he's now the only alternative to McCain left standing (Ron Paul doesn't count anymore) in a party with influential factions that despise McCain. If you can't quite believe the raw fervor with which key elements of George W. Bush's winning coalition hate McCain, check out this missive from Dr. James Dobson to his Focus on the Family listserve.
Dobson's statement is unhinged. He has one valid point: if you vote exclusively on life issues, McCain, with his vocal support for stem-cell research, his centrist attitudes on abortion, and his refusal to pander to Christianists, is not your man. Still, how can he say that both Clinton and Obama have "virulently anti-family positions" (which is false) and then not support their opponent!? He is falling off of the applecart, and I, for one, have no interest in helping him hang on.
Superficially, Huckabee looks like an ideal VP for McCain: a younger man who can reconcile the Republican Party's warring factions. Not so fast: Huckabee would appease the religious wing of the Republican coalition, but the tax-cutting, anti-immigration wing despises both McCain and Huckabee with equal fervor. More to the point, Huckabee doesn't help McCain win any swing states. His appeal is strongest in the South, which McCain would win anyway. Also, rightly or wrongly, McCain's VP will get vetted as a president-in-waiting due to McCain's age and gaunt facial visage. "President Huckabee" might be good for a chortle, but it won't be good for votes.
Two names that have been bandied about are Governor Charlie Crist of Florida, Jeb Bush's popular successor and a close friend of McCain, and Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, a young, well-respected governor of a Democratic-leaning state who campaigned for McCain in Iowa and in Michigan. Both men strike me as sounder choices than Mike Huckabee.
As for Huckabee himself, he has three viable options:
1) Turn on McCain and embark on a quixotic (since McCain will be nominated) campaign to define himself as a "real Republican".
2) Continue running to keep himself in the media spotlight, but remain deferential to McCain and keep angling for the VP slot.
3) Drop out, stop running up a debt - he's even worse off than Hillary for cash on hand - and call an end to the campaign grind.
-
What does Mike Huckabee do now?
It's not at all clear. He wants to be John McCain's vice-presidential candidate very badly. However, he's now the only alternative to McCain left standing (Ron Paul doesn't count anymore) in a party with influential factions that despise McCain. If you can't quite believe the raw fervor with which key elements of George W. Bush's winning coalition hate McCain, check out this missive from Dr. James Dobson to his Focus on the Family listserve.
Dobson's statement is unhinged. He has one valid point: if you vote exclusively on life issues, McCain, with his vocal support for stem-cell research, his centrist attitudes on abortion, and his refusal to pander to Christianists, is not your man. Still, how can he say that both Clinton and Obama have "virulently anti-family positions" (which is false) and then not support their opponent!? He is falling off of the applecart, and I, for one, have no interest in helping him hang on.
Superficially, Huckabee looks like an ideal VP for McCain: a younger man who can reconcile the Republican Party's warring factions. Not so fast: Huckabee would appease the religious wing of the Republican coalition, but the tax-cutting, anti-immigration wing despises both McCain and Huckabee with equal fervor. More to the point, Huckabee doesn't help McCain win any swing states. His appeal is strongest in the South, which McCain would win anyway. Also, rightly or wrongly, McCain's VP will get vetted as a president-in-waiting due to McCain's age and gaunt facial visage. "President Huckabee" might be good for a chortle, but it won't be good for votes.
Two names that have been bandied about are Governor Charlie Crist of Florida, Jeb Bush's popular successor and a close friend of McCain, and Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, a young, well-respected governor of a Democratic-leaning state who campaigned for McCain in Iowa and in Michigan. Both men strike me as sounder choices than Mike Huckabee.
As for Huckabee himself, he has three viable options:
1) Turn on McCain and embark on a quixotic (since McCain will be nominated) campaign to define himself as a "real Republican".
2) Continue running to keep himself in the media spotlight, but remain deferential to McCain and keep angling for the VP slot.
3) Drop out, stop running up a debt - he's even worse off than Hillary for cash on hand - and call an end to the campaign grind.
-
What's next (Democrats)
-
In this head-to-head race, money will be the decisive factor. Duh.
In an astounding role reversal, though, Barack Obama is swimming in it and Hillary Clinton is running short of it. Obama has an impressive base of small donors that exceeds any previous level for an American political campaign not run for George W. Bush. He effectively has as much money as he wants to spend through the remaining primaries and caucuses. Hillary, in marked contrast, had to give her campaign a $5 million personal loan just to stay afloat.
This lends itself to an obvious and legitimate question: where did Hillary get $5 million to give to her campaign? After all, the Clintons were nearly broke in 2000, no small thanks to Bill's numerous legal shenanigans while in office. Several conspiracy theories are floating around the Internet, but I'm certain that I have found the culprit: Amazon.com.
-
In this head-to-head race, money will be the decisive factor. Duh.
In an astounding role reversal, though, Barack Obama is swimming in it and Hillary Clinton is running short of it. Obama has an impressive base of small donors that exceeds any previous level for an American political campaign not run for George W. Bush. He effectively has as much money as he wants to spend through the remaining primaries and caucuses. Hillary, in marked contrast, had to give her campaign a $5 million personal loan just to stay afloat.
This lends itself to an obvious and legitimate question: where did Hillary get $5 million to give to her campaign? After all, the Clintons were nearly broke in 2000, no small thanks to Bill's numerous legal shenanigans while in office. Several conspiracy theories are floating around the Internet, but I'm certain that I have found the culprit: Amazon.com.
-
Super Tuesday (Republicans)
-
Won states (50% or more of the total vote):
McCain 3
Romney 3*
Huckabee 2
Won states (less than 50% of the total vote):
McCain 6
Romney 4*
Huckabee 3
California:
McCain 42
Romney 34*
Huckabee 12
New York:
McCain 51
Romney 28*
Huckabee 11
*Romney subsequently dropped out of the race.
-
It's not just that John McCain won more states than his two main opponents; it's where he won. Romney, as expected, won the Snow Belt (Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and Utah; not a warm-weather state among them!) and Huckabee won the South (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, and West Virginia). McCain, though, won the real prizes: the most populous states. California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Missouri, and Arizona, all of which have at least 50 delegates, winner-take-all, went to McCain. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the end of the affair.
Mitt Romney, after two months of trying to be all things for all people, dropped out of the race, leaving Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul as the only remaining candidates. Despite the widespread antipathy towards McCain within the Republican Party, their winner-take-all mode of delegate allocation stands in the way. Even if all of Romney's delegates moved over to Huckabee, McCain would still hold a 2-to-1 lead in the delegate count with the Southern states, Huckabee's natural base of support, largely played out. John McCain, amazingly, can relax and plan for November well before the ice melts.
-
Won states (50% or more of the total vote):
McCain 3
Romney 3*
Huckabee 2
Won states (less than 50% of the total vote):
McCain 6
Romney 4*
Huckabee 3
California:
McCain 42
Romney 34*
Huckabee 12
New York:
McCain 51
Romney 28*
Huckabee 11
*Romney subsequently dropped out of the race.
-
It's not just that John McCain won more states than his two main opponents; it's where he won. Romney, as expected, won the Snow Belt (Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and Utah; not a warm-weather state among them!) and Huckabee won the South (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, and West Virginia). McCain, though, won the real prizes: the most populous states. California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Missouri, and Arizona, all of which have at least 50 delegates, winner-take-all, went to McCain. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the end of the affair.
Mitt Romney, after two months of trying to be all things for all people, dropped out of the race, leaving Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul as the only remaining candidates. Despite the widespread antipathy towards McCain within the Republican Party, their winner-take-all mode of delegate allocation stands in the way. Even if all of Romney's delegates moved over to Huckabee, McCain would still hold a 2-to-1 lead in the delegate count with the Southern states, Huckabee's natural base of support, largely played out. John McCain, amazingly, can relax and plan for November well before the ice melts.
-
Super Tuesday (Democrats)
-
Won states (60% or more of the total vote):
Obama 8
Clinton 1
Won states (less than 60% of the total vote):
Clinton 8
Obama 5
California:
Clinton 52
Obama 42
New York:
Clinton 57
Obama 40
-
Once again, the tsunami for Obama failed to materialize, but he earned a full-blooded tidal wave in his favor on Tuesday night. He won more states than Hillary (13 to 9), and, as the table above shows, won more states by large margins than Hillary. Obama also eked out narrow symbolic pluralities in Connecticut and Missouri. He held serve against Clinton, a significant victory when one considers the residual strength of the Clinton brand name and the national infrastructure he built from scratch to oppose Hillary.
California and New York deserve special emphasis. Pollster John Zogby had predicted an Obama victory; then again, he also predicted a Romney victory, so he has some humble pie to eat. With massive early voting (which also favored Hillary in Florida's non-contest), Obama had too steep a hill to climb. In an open primary this evening, Obama would likely have a slight edge. In New York, her home state, Hillary got 57% - not good: it's the same percentage she got against a blank line and Dennis Kucinich in Michigan.
CNN now counts 1,033 delegates for Clinton against 937 for Obama. The next week shapes up highly favorably for Obama. Over the weekend, there are caucuses in Washington, Maine, and Nebraska and a primary in Louisiana. Obama's support is strongest thus far in the Plains states, the South, and the West, so all but tiny Maine look good for him. Next Tuesday's primaries in Maryland, Virginia, and D.C. bode well for him too, since Beltway Democrats tend to be affluent and activist, the cohorts that lean strongly towards Obama. The race continues without a clear resolution!
-
Won states (60% or more of the total vote):
Obama 8
Clinton 1
Won states (less than 60% of the total vote):
Clinton 8
Obama 5
California:
Clinton 52
Obama 42
New York:
Clinton 57
Obama 40
-
Once again, the tsunami for Obama failed to materialize, but he earned a full-blooded tidal wave in his favor on Tuesday night. He won more states than Hillary (13 to 9), and, as the table above shows, won more states by large margins than Hillary. Obama also eked out narrow symbolic pluralities in Connecticut and Missouri. He held serve against Clinton, a significant victory when one considers the residual strength of the Clinton brand name and the national infrastructure he built from scratch to oppose Hillary.
California and New York deserve special emphasis. Pollster John Zogby had predicted an Obama victory; then again, he also predicted a Romney victory, so he has some humble pie to eat. With massive early voting (which also favored Hillary in Florida's non-contest), Obama had too steep a hill to climb. In an open primary this evening, Obama would likely have a slight edge. In New York, her home state, Hillary got 57% - not good: it's the same percentage she got against a blank line and Dennis Kucinich in Michigan.
CNN now counts 1,033 delegates for Clinton against 937 for Obama. The next week shapes up highly favorably for Obama. Over the weekend, there are caucuses in Washington, Maine, and Nebraska and a primary in Louisiana. Obama's support is strongest thus far in the Plains states, the South, and the West, so all but tiny Maine look good for him. Next Tuesday's primaries in Maryland, Virginia, and D.C. bode well for him too, since Beltway Democrats tend to be affluent and activist, the cohorts that lean strongly towards Obama. The race continues without a clear resolution!
-
Thursday, January 31, 2008
January 29: Florida
-
McCain 36
Romney 31
Giuliani 15*
Huckabee 14
Paul 3
--
Clinton 51
Obama 33
Edwards 14*
*subsequently dropped out of the race.
-
The Republican nomination is John McCain's to lose, a state of affairs that has left a lot of Republicans very unhappy. They do have a point: McCain isn't winning greater percentages of the vote than he did in 2000. In South Carolina, he actually won less! He's winning because the right wing of the Republican Party couldn't decide whether they wanted Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, or Thompson. Even with Thompson out of the race, the split between the three "respectable" candidates allowed McCain to prevail.
For the first time since New Hampshire, McCain prevailed over Mitt Romney in an all-out battle. Romney still has plenty of money, but McCain has even more momentum. Romney needs to make a major dent into McCain's support on Super Tuesday, or else the Republicans will have a nominee before the Democrats (who'da thunk it?)
Rudy Giuliani staked everything on Florida; after finishing well behind both McCain and Romney, he wisely cut his losses. Mike Huckabee is in trouble after finishing second in South Carolina and fourth in Florida, both states he had hoped to win; he is not attracting voters beyond his evangelical Christian base. Ron Paul's supporters are certainly principled, but they are not at all powerful.
-
Just as in Michigan, the Democratic primary in Florida was a beauty contest. The Democratic National Committee stripped Florida of its delegates, and neither of the three contenders did much campaigning there. Hillary still outpolled Barack Obama by a significant margin; given that Florida is full of senior citizens and a lot of votes were cast by mail weeks in advance, Obama ought not to be too worried.
John Edwards, after trailing badly behind Clinton and Obama for the third consecutive primary, decided not to hang on any longer. This clears the field for one of the most intriguing political contests in American history - the wife of a former president against a black man with almost no ties to the current people in power. Obama needs to (at least) win the California primary and scare Hillary in New York for his challenge to remain viable.
McCain 36
Romney 31
Giuliani 15*
Huckabee 14
Paul 3
--
Clinton 51
Obama 33
Edwards 14*
*subsequently dropped out of the race.
-
The Republican nomination is John McCain's to lose, a state of affairs that has left a lot of Republicans very unhappy. They do have a point: McCain isn't winning greater percentages of the vote than he did in 2000. In South Carolina, he actually won less! He's winning because the right wing of the Republican Party couldn't decide whether they wanted Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, or Thompson. Even with Thompson out of the race, the split between the three "respectable" candidates allowed McCain to prevail.
For the first time since New Hampshire, McCain prevailed over Mitt Romney in an all-out battle. Romney still has plenty of money, but McCain has even more momentum. Romney needs to make a major dent into McCain's support on Super Tuesday, or else the Republicans will have a nominee before the Democrats (who'da thunk it?)
Rudy Giuliani staked everything on Florida; after finishing well behind both McCain and Romney, he wisely cut his losses. Mike Huckabee is in trouble after finishing second in South Carolina and fourth in Florida, both states he had hoped to win; he is not attracting voters beyond his evangelical Christian base. Ron Paul's supporters are certainly principled, but they are not at all powerful.
-
Just as in Michigan, the Democratic primary in Florida was a beauty contest. The Democratic National Committee stripped Florida of its delegates, and neither of the three contenders did much campaigning there. Hillary still outpolled Barack Obama by a significant margin; given that Florida is full of senior citizens and a lot of votes were cast by mail weeks in advance, Obama ought not to be too worried.
John Edwards, after trailing badly behind Clinton and Obama for the third consecutive primary, decided not to hang on any longer. This clears the field for one of the most intriguing political contests in American history - the wife of a former president against a black man with almost no ties to the current people in power. Obama needs to (at least) win the California primary and scare Hillary in New York for his challenge to remain viable.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
January 26: South Carolina (Democratic)
-
Obama 55
Clinton 27
Edwards 18
-
Huzzah! Now, for some objective political analysis:
Hillary can't be too scared: among white voters (a minority among South Carolina Democrats), the split was Hillary 40/Edwards 35/Obama 25. On second thought, Hillary ought to be really afraid - in South Carolina, the cradle of secession, the home of Strom Thurmond, "Cotton Ed" Smith, and other such undesireables, a black man got one out of every four white votes. The cross-tabs show that Hillary is being isolated to her base among older white women - a base that matters, but not enough to prevail over Obama.
Caroline Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama in today's Sunday New York Times. Her third-to-last paragraph is a tour de force of an attack by velvet scissors:
"Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning."
By omission, Hillary is running an undignified, dishonest campaign, can't articulate what faith means to her, ghostwrites her books for political expediency instead of 'opening a window into her character', and flip-flopped on the Iraq war. Too bad all those charges are true.
John Edwards, who won the South Carolina primary four years ago, finished third yet again. At this stage, Edwards seems likely to stay in the race, hoping to have leverage at the convention if Clinton and Obama finish the primary season in a virtual tie. It's clear that he's not staying in it to win primaries, because he has gone steadily downhill since his strong performance in Iowa.
The campaign trundles on with Obama and Clinton tied at two victories apiece (Michigan excepted). Obama has two impressive victories, and Clinton has two narrow ones. February 5 looms.
Obama 55
Clinton 27
Edwards 18
-
Huzzah! Now, for some objective political analysis:
Hillary can't be too scared: among white voters (a minority among South Carolina Democrats), the split was Hillary 40/Edwards 35/Obama 25. On second thought, Hillary ought to be really afraid - in South Carolina, the cradle of secession, the home of Strom Thurmond, "Cotton Ed" Smith, and other such undesireables, a black man got one out of every four white votes. The cross-tabs show that Hillary is being isolated to her base among older white women - a base that matters, but not enough to prevail over Obama.
Caroline Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama in today's Sunday New York Times. Her third-to-last paragraph is a tour de force of an attack by velvet scissors:
"Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning."
By omission, Hillary is running an undignified, dishonest campaign, can't articulate what faith means to her, ghostwrites her books for political expediency instead of 'opening a window into her character', and flip-flopped on the Iraq war. Too bad all those charges are true.
John Edwards, who won the South Carolina primary four years ago, finished third yet again. At this stage, Edwards seems likely to stay in the race, hoping to have leverage at the convention if Clinton and Obama finish the primary season in a virtual tie. It's clear that he's not staying in it to win primaries, because he has gone steadily downhill since his strong performance in Iowa.
The campaign trundles on with Obama and Clinton tied at two victories apiece (Michigan excepted). Obama has two impressive victories, and Clinton has two narrow ones. February 5 looms.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
January 19: South Carolina (Republican)
-
McCain 33
Huckabee 30
Thompson 16*
Romney 15
Paul 4
Giuliani 2
*subsequently dropped out of the race.
-
John McCain lost Michigan to Mitt Romney, but he has regained his momentum and his front-runner status with his South Carolina win. The Republican contest has boiled down to McCain versus Romney at this juncture. Mike Huckabee not only couldn't pull out the victory, but he has trailed John McCain in every election since Iowa. Fred Thompson did finish third by a whisker over Romney, yet he decided to throw in the towel. Curiously, he did not endorse McCain (which he had said he would do), thereby releasing his supporters to all three of the surviving contenders.
With a two-week hiatus, followed by Florida (on Saturday, February 2) and Super Tuesday on the 5th in quick succession, the Republican contest shifts from a succession of local campaigns to a national campaign. This really hurts Mike Huckabee, who doesn't have the money, campaign team, or all-around national political experience of McCain and Romney. Unless he wins Florida outright, it's easy to see Huckabee buried in third place after Super Tuesday.
Pundits continue to talk about Rudy Giuliani as a threat in Florida and New York. I don't know why - he hasn't outpolled Ron Paul anywhere but New Hampshire or won a 10% vote share in any state. Color me unconvinced.
McCain 33
Huckabee 30
Thompson 16*
Romney 15
Paul 4
Giuliani 2
*subsequently dropped out of the race.
-
John McCain lost Michigan to Mitt Romney, but he has regained his momentum and his front-runner status with his South Carolina win. The Republican contest has boiled down to McCain versus Romney at this juncture. Mike Huckabee not only couldn't pull out the victory, but he has trailed John McCain in every election since Iowa. Fred Thompson did finish third by a whisker over Romney, yet he decided to throw in the towel. Curiously, he did not endorse McCain (which he had said he would do), thereby releasing his supporters to all three of the surviving contenders.
With a two-week hiatus, followed by Florida (on Saturday, February 2) and Super Tuesday on the 5th in quick succession, the Republican contest shifts from a succession of local campaigns to a national campaign. This really hurts Mike Huckabee, who doesn't have the money, campaign team, or all-around national political experience of McCain and Romney. Unless he wins Florida outright, it's easy to see Huckabee buried in third place after Super Tuesday.
Pundits continue to talk about Rudy Giuliani as a threat in Florida and New York. I don't know why - he hasn't outpolled Ron Paul anywhere but New Hampshire or won a 10% vote share in any state. Color me unconvinced.
January 19: Nevada caucuses
-
Clinton 51
Obama 45
Edwards 4
--
Romney 51
Paul 14
McCain 13
Huckabee 8
Thompson 8
Giuliani 4
-
In contrast to Michigan, the Democratic outcome was more important in Nevada. Let's get the Republican results out of the way:
With McCain, Huckabee, and Thompson fighting to win South Carolina, Romney was free to concentrate on Nevada. His wide margin of victory is a small feather in his cap. Ron Paul came in second; he won only 6,000 votes, but few people expected him to come ahead of both McCain and Huckabee. Rudy Giuliani continues not to win votes; only Duncan Hunter did worse.
-
The Democratic primary has evolved into a contest between one candidate with mass appeal and another candidate who is playing Democratic identity politics-as-usual. At least Nevada's caucus-goers did not split the vote for change; Edwards received a paltry 4%, extinguishing the dying embers of his campaign. As it stands, Hillary prevailed by a slight margin, but Obama actually earned one more delegate (Hillary prevailed in and near Las Vegas, but Obama won more regions of the state than Hillary).
Barack Obama must win South Carolina this Saturday to keep himself afloat. If he succeeds, the Democratic outcome is anybody's guess.
Clinton 51
Obama 45
Edwards 4
--
Romney 51
Paul 14
McCain 13
Huckabee 8
Thompson 8
Giuliani 4
-
In contrast to Michigan, the Democratic outcome was more important in Nevada. Let's get the Republican results out of the way:
With McCain, Huckabee, and Thompson fighting to win South Carolina, Romney was free to concentrate on Nevada. His wide margin of victory is a small feather in his cap. Ron Paul came in second; he won only 6,000 votes, but few people expected him to come ahead of both McCain and Huckabee. Rudy Giuliani continues not to win votes; only Duncan Hunter did worse.
-
The Democratic primary has evolved into a contest between one candidate with mass appeal and another candidate who is playing Democratic identity politics-as-usual. At least Nevada's caucus-goers did not split the vote for change; Edwards received a paltry 4%, extinguishing the dying embers of his campaign. As it stands, Hillary prevailed by a slight margin, but Obama actually earned one more delegate (Hillary prevailed in and near Las Vegas, but Obama won more regions of the state than Hillary).
Barack Obama must win South Carolina this Saturday to keep himself afloat. If he succeeds, the Democratic outcome is anybody's guess.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
January 15: Michigan primary
-
Romney 39
McCain 30
Huckabee 16
Paul 7
Thompson 4
Giuliani 3
--
Clinton 55
"Uncommitted" 40
Kucinich 4
-
A brief note on the Democratic side: Hillary got exactly what she wanted by not withdrawing from the Michigan ballot. Political analysts know that a 40% vote for nobody at all is an acute embarrassment to Hillary. (Exit polls indicated a split of roughly 45% Clinton/40% Obama/15% Edwards.) The general TV-watching public doesn't know the minutae of the Michigan primary; it only sees Hillary put up next to Romney as the "winner".
The "Uncommitted" campaign, despite being the butt of jokes (you can read a faux Uncommitted victory speech here), must have been well organized to win such a large share of the Democratic votes. I had mild fantasies about Dennis Kucinich breaking the 10% barrier; alas, it did not come to pass.
-
Romney won the Republican primary by running for governor of Michigan. With his back to the wall (it was win-or-go-home for Romney in his putative home state, just as Clinton and McCain desperately needed to win New Hampshire to stay afloat), he hammered at Michigan's awful economy and promoted himself as a sound manager. That he is - at this stage, even I would prefer Romney to Jennifer Granholm as Michigan's governor - but he is little else.
John McCain, in marked contrast to Romney, wasn't running a Michigan-specific campaign; he was running a national campaign where Michigan happened to be the next stop. McCain would have liked to have won (as did Sally and I, who both voted for him), but he's probably content with having finished a strong second.
As a lifelong Michigander, I reliably believe that Mike Huckabee's 16% share of the vote approximates the percentage of Michigan Republicans who are both sincere evangelical Christians and anti-globalists. Huckabee seemed quite disappointed that he couldn't capture many votes outside of his natural base. South Carolina is a do-or-die proposition for him; anything other than a win there makes the Republican side into a McCain vs. Romney race.
Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Giuliani need to win over actual, live voters (yes, they are, but not many) before I take any of them seriously. Thompson is really pushing for a top-three finish in South Carolina; if he doesn't make it - and I doubt he will - then he's most likely done.
To close, ElectoralVote.com has a hilarious one-paragraph synopsis of the three leading Republicans:
"In a nutshell, Romney is the favorite of the Republican establishment and Wall St. He's a successful multimillionaire and an experienced and competent manager. McCain is the favorite of the national security Republicans. He knows more about military affairs and foreign relations than all the other candidates in both parties combined. Huckabee is the favorite of the evangelicals. He believes in Jesus, but he doesn't believe in abortion, gay marriage, or evolution. It is going to be a wild ride this week."
Romney 39
McCain 30
Huckabee 16
Paul 7
Thompson 4
Giuliani 3
--
Clinton 55
"Uncommitted" 40
Kucinich 4
-
A brief note on the Democratic side: Hillary got exactly what she wanted by not withdrawing from the Michigan ballot. Political analysts know that a 40% vote for nobody at all is an acute embarrassment to Hillary. (Exit polls indicated a split of roughly 45% Clinton/40% Obama/15% Edwards.) The general TV-watching public doesn't know the minutae of the Michigan primary; it only sees Hillary put up next to Romney as the "winner".
The "Uncommitted" campaign, despite being the butt of jokes (you can read a faux Uncommitted victory speech here), must have been well organized to win such a large share of the Democratic votes. I had mild fantasies about Dennis Kucinich breaking the 10% barrier; alas, it did not come to pass.
-
Romney won the Republican primary by running for governor of Michigan. With his back to the wall (it was win-or-go-home for Romney in his putative home state, just as Clinton and McCain desperately needed to win New Hampshire to stay afloat), he hammered at Michigan's awful economy and promoted himself as a sound manager. That he is - at this stage, even I would prefer Romney to Jennifer Granholm as Michigan's governor - but he is little else.
John McCain, in marked contrast to Romney, wasn't running a Michigan-specific campaign; he was running a national campaign where Michigan happened to be the next stop. McCain would have liked to have won (as did Sally and I, who both voted for him), but he's probably content with having finished a strong second.
As a lifelong Michigander, I reliably believe that Mike Huckabee's 16% share of the vote approximates the percentage of Michigan Republicans who are both sincere evangelical Christians and anti-globalists. Huckabee seemed quite disappointed that he couldn't capture many votes outside of his natural base. South Carolina is a do-or-die proposition for him; anything other than a win there makes the Republican side into a McCain vs. Romney race.
Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Giuliani need to win over actual, live voters (yes, they are, but not many) before I take any of them seriously. Thompson is really pushing for a top-three finish in South Carolina; if he doesn't make it - and I doubt he will - then he's most likely done.
To close, ElectoralVote.com has a hilarious one-paragraph synopsis of the three leading Republicans:
"In a nutshell, Romney is the favorite of the Republican establishment and Wall St. He's a successful multimillionaire and an experienced and competent manager. McCain is the favorite of the national security Republicans. He knows more about military affairs and foreign relations than all the other candidates in both parties combined. Huckabee is the favorite of the evangelicals. He believes in Jesus, but he doesn't believe in abortion, gay marriage, or evolution. It is going to be a wild ride this week."
Monday, January 14, 2008
The confusing Michigan primary
-
The best resource on explaining the Michigan primary tomorrow, why Obama and Edwards aren't on the ballot, etc., is at Electoral Vote, a great political junkies' website. I encourage readers to check out the link. The site is frequently updated, often every 24 hours, so look soon!
On the Democratic side, the state Michigan Democratic Party and the mass media are encouraging Obama and Edwards supporters to vote "Uncommitted" (write-in votes are not permitted), but I received a contrary e-mail today from venerable Congressman John Conyers of Detroit. Conyers is for Obama, but is urging Michigan Democrats to vote for Dennis Kucinich instead of "Uncommitted". I can't wait to see the size and contours of the anti-Hillary protest vote.
The best resource on explaining the Michigan primary tomorrow, why Obama and Edwards aren't on the ballot, etc., is at Electoral Vote, a great political junkies' website. I encourage readers to check out the link. The site is frequently updated, often every 24 hours, so look soon!
On the Democratic side, the state Michigan Democratic Party and the mass media are encouraging Obama and Edwards supporters to vote "Uncommitted" (write-in votes are not permitted), but I received a contrary e-mail today from venerable Congressman John Conyers of Detroit. Conyers is for Obama, but is urging Michigan Democrats to vote for Dennis Kucinich instead of "Uncommitted". I can't wait to see the size and contours of the anti-Hillary protest vote.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
January 8: New Hampshire (Democratic)
-
Clinton 39
Obama 37
Edwards 17
Richardson 5
"Field" 2
-
Boy, am I infuriated.
First, I'm angry at John Edwards's supporters on the left. Edwards had a reasonable strategy for New Hampshire: bash Hillary, promote Obama, and hope that Obama knocked out Clinton and turned it into a two-man race. Obviously, that failed - and it failed because Edwards, and his supporters, half believed he could sneak into second place. All Edwards did was split the change vote. 60% of New Hampshire's Democratic voters wanted change, but their divisions allowed the united 40% Hillary bloc to prevail.
Second, I'm appalled at Hillary's woman-centric campaigning and her ability to attract worn-out apologists like Gloria Steinem to her banner. If Barack Obama principally appealed to black voters as a last, desperate expedient, can you imagine the headlines? He'd be called a race candidate, a second Jesse Jackson (unfairly to Jackson, who won a substantial percent of white votes in the 1988 cycle), and worse. Yet Hillary appeals to womenpower and gets away with it. Why is this so? And how can the women who bumped Hillary over the top in New Hampshire think that her presidency would be any more woman-friendly than Obama's?
It's not like Margaret Thatcher or Angela Merkel have done extraordinary things for the women of the UK and Germany - but wait, Americans don't know a monkey's paw about comparative politics. Shame on them.
-
Ironically, Iowa and New Hampshire, far from determining the Democratic nominee far in advance, have decided nothing. With the renegade Michigan primary off of the calendar, Nevada and South Carolina will decide everything. Most precisely, they will decide who has the most money and momentum heading into Super Tuesday. If either Obama or Clinton can win both states, they will be the likely nominee.
I hazard no guesses. But I do know this: now, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton realize that the "other candidate" can beat them. Good luck to both teams - especially to Obama's.
Clinton 39
Obama 37
Edwards 17
Richardson 5
"Field" 2
-
Boy, am I infuriated.
First, I'm angry at John Edwards's supporters on the left. Edwards had a reasonable strategy for New Hampshire: bash Hillary, promote Obama, and hope that Obama knocked out Clinton and turned it into a two-man race. Obviously, that failed - and it failed because Edwards, and his supporters, half believed he could sneak into second place. All Edwards did was split the change vote. 60% of New Hampshire's Democratic voters wanted change, but their divisions allowed the united 40% Hillary bloc to prevail.
Second, I'm appalled at Hillary's woman-centric campaigning and her ability to attract worn-out apologists like Gloria Steinem to her banner. If Barack Obama principally appealed to black voters as a last, desperate expedient, can you imagine the headlines? He'd be called a race candidate, a second Jesse Jackson (unfairly to Jackson, who won a substantial percent of white votes in the 1988 cycle), and worse. Yet Hillary appeals to womenpower and gets away with it. Why is this so? And how can the women who bumped Hillary over the top in New Hampshire think that her presidency would be any more woman-friendly than Obama's?
It's not like Margaret Thatcher or Angela Merkel have done extraordinary things for the women of the UK and Germany - but wait, Americans don't know a monkey's paw about comparative politics. Shame on them.
-
Ironically, Iowa and New Hampshire, far from determining the Democratic nominee far in advance, have decided nothing. With the renegade Michigan primary off of the calendar, Nevada and South Carolina will decide everything. Most precisely, they will decide who has the most money and momentum heading into Super Tuesday. If either Obama or Clinton can win both states, they will be the likely nominee.
I hazard no guesses. But I do know this: now, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton realize that the "other candidate" can beat them. Good luck to both teams - especially to Obama's.
January 8: New Hampshire (Republican)
-
McCain 37
Romney 32
Huckabee 11
Giuliani 9
Paul 8
--
Thompson 1
"Field" 2
-
It was encouraging to see John McCain prevail in New Hampshire; still, the basic calculus of the Republican race stayed the same. McCain still needs to beat Romney in Michigan and Huckabee in South Carolina. Do both, and he wins in a cascade. Do one, and he's the leader of the pack. Do neither, and it's an ugly Romney v. Huckabee cage fight.
With Fred Thompson's collapse and consecutive underwhelming performances by Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani, the race has stratified into three men who are running to win and three others who are running in circles. I know I'm averaging a closed primary and an open caucus, but look at the Iowa/New Hampshire average vote shares:
Romney 28
McCain 25
Huckabee 23
--GAP--
Paul 9
Thompson 7
Giuliani 7
"Field" 1
-
Last night on CNN, I heard Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina gush about McCain's victory. He promoted McCain as the best potential Commander-in-Chief in the field. As I watched the candidates' names from both parties scroll across the bottom of my TV screen, it hit me how massive the advantage McCain holds in national security and foreign policy.
The ten major candidates have incredibly diverse upbringings, strengths, weaknesses, and expertise. Yet, as a whole, their experience in international relations is nearly nil. I asked myself, "Who would be the second-best Commander-in-Chief, after McCain?" It took me twenty minutes to answer the question: probably Bill Richardson. Of course, the gap between McCain and Richardson is massive, and Richardson has no realistic chance of being nominated.
If John McCain can secure the Republican nomination, I am strongly predisposed to vote for him on that competency alone. The Democratic nominee would have to be open-minded and quick to learn; Obama has the edge over Clinton and Edwards in this regard. Still, a series of Democratic foreign policy gaffes, even from Obama, would throw my vote - and the general election - to McCain.
McCain 37
Romney 32
Huckabee 11
Giuliani 9
Paul 8
--
Thompson 1
"Field" 2
-
It was encouraging to see John McCain prevail in New Hampshire; still, the basic calculus of the Republican race stayed the same. McCain still needs to beat Romney in Michigan and Huckabee in South Carolina. Do both, and he wins in a cascade. Do one, and he's the leader of the pack. Do neither, and it's an ugly Romney v. Huckabee cage fight.
With Fred Thompson's collapse and consecutive underwhelming performances by Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani, the race has stratified into three men who are running to win and three others who are running in circles. I know I'm averaging a closed primary and an open caucus, but look at the Iowa/New Hampshire average vote shares:
Romney 28
McCain 25
Huckabee 23
--GAP--
Paul 9
Thompson 7
Giuliani 7
"Field" 1
-
Last night on CNN, I heard Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina gush about McCain's victory. He promoted McCain as the best potential Commander-in-Chief in the field. As I watched the candidates' names from both parties scroll across the bottom of my TV screen, it hit me how massive the advantage McCain holds in national security and foreign policy.
The ten major candidates have incredibly diverse upbringings, strengths, weaknesses, and expertise. Yet, as a whole, their experience in international relations is nearly nil. I asked myself, "Who would be the second-best Commander-in-Chief, after McCain?" It took me twenty minutes to answer the question: probably Bill Richardson. Of course, the gap between McCain and Richardson is massive, and Richardson has no realistic chance of being nominated.
If John McCain can secure the Republican nomination, I am strongly predisposed to vote for him on that competency alone. The Democratic nominee would have to be open-minded and quick to learn; Obama has the edge over Clinton and Edwards in this regard. Still, a series of Democratic foreign policy gaffes, even from Obama, would throw my vote - and the general election - to McCain.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Iowa caucus (continued)
-
In increasing order of likelihood, here are the five stop-Huckabee Republicans.
5) Rudy Giuliani
Rudy has fallen farther and faster than any mainstream media-anointed "front-runner" in memory. It's easy to see why.
First, Giuliani has an abrasive, schoolyard-bully character. It played well in New York; it doesn't play well in middle America. Richard Nixon had a similar persona, but:
A) It was a different time, when abrasive authority figures were the norm.
B) Giuliani is, believe it or not, usually more abrasive than Nixon.
C) Nixon's presidency ended disastrously.
Second, Republican primary voters have learned just how far left he leans on their hot-button social issues (abortion, gay rights, public prayer). He's not just farther left than the Republican field; he's farther left than Obama or Edwards, too.
Third, his inspired post-9/11 leadership is fading away. After all, voters have short memories, and 9/11 was nearly seven years ago. Also, he is more creature than creator of New York City's renaissance. Michael Bloomberg is a less flamboyant, but more effective, mayor than Giuliani ever was.
4) Ron Paul
Paul's support is coming from four extremely heterogenous groups:
1) The 2% of true-blue Libertarian Party members.
2) The 4% of conspiracy theorists. Some are attracted by Paul's old-fashioned isolationism. Others are drawn by his diatribes against paper money and his pledge to return the U.S. to the gold standard.
3) Under-30s (keep in mind that there are many more U30 Democrats than U30 Republicans).
4) A few (not all) fiscal conservatives who are tired of hearing candidates profess their belief in fiscal responsibility and then spend up a storm. Paul is the only one they trust to hold the line.
Given the odd lot under his banner and their small proportion in the electorate, Paul doesn't strike me as a serious contender.
3) Fred Thompson
Fred Thompson, like Ronald Reagan, is an affable actor who once played the President. Unlike Ronald Reagan, who wanted to be President very badly - to the point of nearly toppling a sitting Gerald Ford in the 1976 primaries - Thompson would like to be President, but doesn't want to fight hard for it. It's a shame, because he has some of the best people working for him and some of the best ideas of all the Republicans.
Thompson will hang around until he realizes that his competitors are hungrier than he is.
2) Mitt Romney
Romney has all the characteristics you want in a presidential candidate except sincerity.
Like John Edwards, he badly needed to win Iowa outright, but for different reasons: he needed to knock Huckabee and Paul out of the race. Iowa voters chose sincerity and (relative) poverty over Romney's flip-flopping, vast personal fortune, and Establishment backing. Now he is rapidly losing ground to McCain in New Hampshire. Like Hillary vis-a-vis Obama, if he stays close, he lives to battle on. If he loses big to McCain, he's fatally wounded.
1) John McCain
The Republican hierarchy has a simple, stark choice: swallow the poison pill, back McCain, and watch him - their only electable candidate versus Obama - prevail. In a delicious irony, it would mean backing him in South Carolina to beat Huckabee!
A bit of the old McCain from 2000 is creeping back: the grandfatherliness, the lack of patience with stupid questions, the unmatched devotion to a foreign policy worthy of America's values, the twinkle in his wizened eyes.
After New Hampshire, he needs to beat Romney in Michigan and Huckabee in South Carolina, and he needs the Republican base, who hates his guts, to do it. Either the base comes to its senses and propels McCain to the nomination, or they engage Huckabee and Romney in a drawn-out, dirty cage fight that lasts till summer and leaves the survivor in no shape to prevail against the Democratic nominee.
In increasing order of likelihood, here are the five stop-Huckabee Republicans.
5) Rudy Giuliani
Rudy has fallen farther and faster than any mainstream media-anointed "front-runner" in memory. It's easy to see why.
First, Giuliani has an abrasive, schoolyard-bully character. It played well in New York; it doesn't play well in middle America. Richard Nixon had a similar persona, but:
A) It was a different time, when abrasive authority figures were the norm.
B) Giuliani is, believe it or not, usually more abrasive than Nixon.
C) Nixon's presidency ended disastrously.
Second, Republican primary voters have learned just how far left he leans on their hot-button social issues (abortion, gay rights, public prayer). He's not just farther left than the Republican field; he's farther left than Obama or Edwards, too.
Third, his inspired post-9/11 leadership is fading away. After all, voters have short memories, and 9/11 was nearly seven years ago. Also, he is more creature than creator of New York City's renaissance. Michael Bloomberg is a less flamboyant, but more effective, mayor than Giuliani ever was.
4) Ron Paul
Paul's support is coming from four extremely heterogenous groups:
1) The 2% of true-blue Libertarian Party members.
2) The 4% of conspiracy theorists. Some are attracted by Paul's old-fashioned isolationism. Others are drawn by his diatribes against paper money and his pledge to return the U.S. to the gold standard.
3) Under-30s (keep in mind that there are many more U30 Democrats than U30 Republicans).
4) A few (not all) fiscal conservatives who are tired of hearing candidates profess their belief in fiscal responsibility and then spend up a storm. Paul is the only one they trust to hold the line.
Given the odd lot under his banner and their small proportion in the electorate, Paul doesn't strike me as a serious contender.
3) Fred Thompson
Fred Thompson, like Ronald Reagan, is an affable actor who once played the President. Unlike Ronald Reagan, who wanted to be President very badly - to the point of nearly toppling a sitting Gerald Ford in the 1976 primaries - Thompson would like to be President, but doesn't want to fight hard for it. It's a shame, because he has some of the best people working for him and some of the best ideas of all the Republicans.
Thompson will hang around until he realizes that his competitors are hungrier than he is.
2) Mitt Romney
Romney has all the characteristics you want in a presidential candidate except sincerity.
Like John Edwards, he badly needed to win Iowa outright, but for different reasons: he needed to knock Huckabee and Paul out of the race. Iowa voters chose sincerity and (relative) poverty over Romney's flip-flopping, vast personal fortune, and Establishment backing. Now he is rapidly losing ground to McCain in New Hampshire. Like Hillary vis-a-vis Obama, if he stays close, he lives to battle on. If he loses big to McCain, he's fatally wounded.
1) John McCain
The Republican hierarchy has a simple, stark choice: swallow the poison pill, back McCain, and watch him - their only electable candidate versus Obama - prevail. In a delicious irony, it would mean backing him in South Carolina to beat Huckabee!
A bit of the old McCain from 2000 is creeping back: the grandfatherliness, the lack of patience with stupid questions, the unmatched devotion to a foreign policy worthy of America's values, the twinkle in his wizened eyes.
After New Hampshire, he needs to beat Romney in Michigan and Huckabee in South Carolina, and he needs the Republican base, who hates his guts, to do it. Either the base comes to its senses and propels McCain to the nomination, or they engage Huckabee and Romney in a drawn-out, dirty cage fight that lasts till summer and leaves the survivor in no shape to prevail against the Democratic nominee.
January 3: Iowa caucuses
-
Democratic
Obama 38
Edwards 30
Clinton 29
--
"Field" 3
Republican
Huckabee 34
Romney 26
Thompson 14
McCain 13*
Paul 10
Giuliani 4
*did not campaign
-
O me of little faith; I never imagined that we would see an Obama/McCain general election. Now, the respective candidacies of America's two best men for the job is not only possible, but probable. Neither did I imagine how responsible and mature Iowa voters would be in rejecting the plastic media faces in the race (Clinton, Romney, and Giuliani) and voting for men of principle who say what they believe.
An Obama/McCain race would be one of marked contrasts: extreme age versus extreme youth (in Presidential terms), white versus mixed race, a long Senate record versus a short Senate record, decorated veteran versus non-veteran, pro-Iraq War versus anti-Iraq War, career politician versus community organizer-professor-state senator, etc. Both men embrace the innate feisty elements of their personalities. A debate between the two would be must-see TV.
But how might this come to pass?
The Democrats
Hillary is in a world of hurt for coming in third, but the candidate in most trouble after Iowa is Edwards.
Edwards spent more time in Iowa and staked more on winning Iowa than anyone else, yet Obama won the pro-change, anti-Clinton vote decisively. The activist left of the Democratic Party, which has mostly preferred Edwards's Bryan-ish, tub-thumping populism thus far, is going to split: some will stick with Edwards to the end, but most will trickle over to Obama in order to stop Hillary (whom they regard as scarcely better than the incumbent).
I see a New Hampshire outcome of something like 50% Obama/30% Clinton/20% Edwards. If Obama can break the 50% barrier and win an outright majority, the race could be over quickly, with the Super Tuesday states cascading to his banner. If Clinton can stay with 10-15 percentage points of Obama, then we have a no-holds-barred, two-horse race for the nomination that could last the entire spring.
Regardless, a third-place finish by Edwards in New Hampshire ends him.
The Republicans
Mike Huckabee is not your typical Christian-conservative Republican.
He doesn't talk about hot-button social issues that could alienate the wider electorate - he refers, with a wink and a nod, to his Southern Baptist pastorate and his encyclopedic knowledge of Scripture. He's cool in a campy manner; indeed, he has pulled the biggest coup de theatre of any candidate thus far by convincing Chuck Norris to follow him around. Most astounding, he actually cares about social justice and economic inequity.
Huckabee raised taxes as governor of Arkansas, says he will do the same as President, and says Jesus's mission on earth was serving the poor. He attacked Hillary on the campaign trail, but he saved his most vicious retorts for the putative "leaders" of his party: Rush Limbaugh, the Club for Growth, and (more guardedly) Bush and Cheney. In a way, he out-Edwarded John Edwards. Country-club, Wall Street/K Street Republicans are shaking in their boots. But what recourse do they have?
PS: Could I vote for Huckabee? No, I cannot vote for him because of his woeful, amateurish lack of a foreign policy. Still, he is a man I admire, one who I'd like to meet and drink the beverage of his choice with, and I certainly understand where his supporters are coming from.
To be continued...
Democratic
Obama 38
Edwards 30
Clinton 29
--
"Field" 3
Republican
Huckabee 34
Romney 26
Thompson 14
McCain 13*
Paul 10
Giuliani 4
*did not campaign
-
O me of little faith; I never imagined that we would see an Obama/McCain general election. Now, the respective candidacies of America's two best men for the job is not only possible, but probable. Neither did I imagine how responsible and mature Iowa voters would be in rejecting the plastic media faces in the race (Clinton, Romney, and Giuliani) and voting for men of principle who say what they believe.
An Obama/McCain race would be one of marked contrasts: extreme age versus extreme youth (in Presidential terms), white versus mixed race, a long Senate record versus a short Senate record, decorated veteran versus non-veteran, pro-Iraq War versus anti-Iraq War, career politician versus community organizer-professor-state senator, etc. Both men embrace the innate feisty elements of their personalities. A debate between the two would be must-see TV.
But how might this come to pass?
The Democrats
Hillary is in a world of hurt for coming in third, but the candidate in most trouble after Iowa is Edwards.
Edwards spent more time in Iowa and staked more on winning Iowa than anyone else, yet Obama won the pro-change, anti-Clinton vote decisively. The activist left of the Democratic Party, which has mostly preferred Edwards's Bryan-ish, tub-thumping populism thus far, is going to split: some will stick with Edwards to the end, but most will trickle over to Obama in order to stop Hillary (whom they regard as scarcely better than the incumbent).
I see a New Hampshire outcome of something like 50% Obama/30% Clinton/20% Edwards. If Obama can break the 50% barrier and win an outright majority, the race could be over quickly, with the Super Tuesday states cascading to his banner. If Clinton can stay with 10-15 percentage points of Obama, then we have a no-holds-barred, two-horse race for the nomination that could last the entire spring.
Regardless, a third-place finish by Edwards in New Hampshire ends him.
The Republicans
Mike Huckabee is not your typical Christian-conservative Republican.
He doesn't talk about hot-button social issues that could alienate the wider electorate - he refers, with a wink and a nod, to his Southern Baptist pastorate and his encyclopedic knowledge of Scripture. He's cool in a campy manner; indeed, he has pulled the biggest coup de theatre of any candidate thus far by convincing Chuck Norris to follow him around. Most astounding, he actually cares about social justice and economic inequity.
Huckabee raised taxes as governor of Arkansas, says he will do the same as President, and says Jesus's mission on earth was serving the poor. He attacked Hillary on the campaign trail, but he saved his most vicious retorts for the putative "leaders" of his party: Rush Limbaugh, the Club for Growth, and (more guardedly) Bush and Cheney. In a way, he out-Edwarded John Edwards. Country-club, Wall Street/K Street Republicans are shaking in their boots. But what recourse do they have?
PS: Could I vote for Huckabee? No, I cannot vote for him because of his woeful, amateurish lack of a foreign policy. Still, he is a man I admire, one who I'd like to meet and drink the beverage of his choice with, and I certainly understand where his supporters are coming from.
To be continued...
The Drury Sequence on Hold
-
The Drury Sequence is on hold for the short term as I blog on the 2008 presidential primaries. Thanks for your patience as I went through typing my fall seminar papers and welcoming Sally back to Michigan (the latter being far more pleasurable!) in December.
May all of you enjoy the blessings of Jesus Christ in this new year!
The Drury Sequence is on hold for the short term as I blog on the 2008 presidential primaries. Thanks for your patience as I went through typing my fall seminar papers and welcoming Sally back to Michigan (the latter being far more pleasurable!) in December.
May all of you enjoy the blessings of Jesus Christ in this new year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)