Friday, July 18, 2008
Barack Obama's strategic coup on public finance http://www.thenextright.com/patrick-ruffini/barack-obamas-strategic-miscalculation-on-public-finance
Just one week ago, Patrick Ruffini at The Next Right was declaring the Obama campaign's decision to forgo public financing a "strategic miscalculation". This analysis, made before the Obama campaign had actually released any actual numbers for June, was widely quoted and seized upon in almost desperate fashion by the increasingly panicked right-wing blogsphere. Ruffini made a case that the (predicted) poor fundraising numbers for June, rumored to be under $30 million, suggested that the 2008 general election was lacking in intensity relative to the primary or the 2004 general.
It should be noted that the Obama campaign just released its numbers for June - and it was a doozy. $52 million, well above (reasonable) expectations. In fact, Jerome Armstrong argued it could have been higher:
It's likely that the concern trolling about Obama's fundraising will continue, but thats as much a sign of desperation as anything else.
It should be noted that the Obama campaign just released its numbers for June - and it was a doozy. $52 million, well above (reasonable) expectations. In fact, Jerome Armstrong argued it could have been higher:
I believe that Obama could have raised $100M in June if that's what they wanted to do. In fact, there may have been plans to do just that too, but they changed. Notice that just $2M was raised for the GE by Obama, they certainly could have raised a ton more money there if they had wanted, for the GE, at least $20-30M, and combined with the $74M that was raised between Obama and DNC, over $100M.
So, either the Obama camp isn't as committed to self-funding for the GE, and might still go the route of taking the $84M in public financing (unlikely); or they are holding off their donors to give for the GE later (there are accounts of projecting a $100M month in Sept); or the Obama camp will use July and August to raise big numbers for the GE, as the decision to opt-out was made on June 19th, late in the month for fundraising plans. It could be either of these last two it seems.
It's likely that the concern trolling about Obama's fundraising will continue, but thats as much a sign of desperation as anything else.
Labels: fundraising, Obama
Monday, July 14, 2008
in defense of the New Yorker cover http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/new-ironic-new.html
Many liberal bloggers are up in arms about the cover of the New Yorker, which succinctly replicates every right-wing frame, stereotype, and smear against Barack Obama that has been trotted out to date:
However, I have to disagree with the critiques - i think it’s brilliant satire. The rightwing pundits will try to argue that their critiques of Obama are “on the merits” but if you take their attacks literally (he's a crypto muslim, an extremist, a marxist, etc.) then the cartoon on the cover is in fact the logical portrait that results. Its a mirror reflecting all the ugliness about Obama in the right wing media at once.
I think that the right cant be given a pass on the implications of their rhetoric. This is what they are describing on talk radio and The Washington Times and Fox News. Lets hang this around their neck.
I think if we are too unforgiving of the risk that the New Yorker took in runnin this cover, we are part of the problem of diluting political discourse into “safe” channels and thereby leaching all serious analysis out of it. This cover is tame by 19th century and early 20th century political cartoon standards. We need to be - yes, I am aware that teh word is a bit ironic - post-racial, exactly as Obama argued in his famed post-Wright speech on race. Taking offense at the caricature shuts down critique of the very speech that leads to it in the minds of those for whom this is not satire.
Satire, and Irony, are the two most dangerous tools in the free speech toolbox. When wielded properly, they are devastating. But it takes practice to do so, so we should be more tolerant of good-faith attempts to do so.
I am of course going against the grain here. Two bloggers i respect highly, Kevin Drum and Daniel Larison, both took issue with the cover for more sophisticated reasons than merely "it's racist!" - both see the attempt at satire and attempt to explain why it fails rather than react in knee-jerk fashion to the content without considering intent.
Larison argues that the cartoon was intended for a specific audience, and once it escapes that high-information pool, the ironic edge will be lost:
Ironically, this is a high-information argument. For one thing, it is precisely the left-leaning supporters of Obama who are the most outraged by the photo, and those are the ones who are most informed about the attacks on Obama by the right-wing. As far as the ordinary average voter goes, if they are low-information then I doubt they will ever even see the cover at all. Suppose a low-information undecided voter does see the image, however. Will they really be inclined to suddenly believe in the muslim smear, merely because of a cartoon from a magazine that they (who are postulated to be low-information, remember) have probably barely heard of anyway? It's a circular argument of sorts and in all likelihood the cover will have no role apart from validating what people already are inclined to believe.
Meanwhile, Drum says that the cartoon isn't ballsy enough!
Good satire should indeed be ballsy, but it also needs to be deft. Would a giant thought bubble emanating from McCain's head containing the image above really be an improvement? Or would it look heavy-handed and clumsy? Especially since Kevin knows full well (as do we all) that it is highly unlikely that McCain believes any of this about Obama, but instead cynically exploits those stereotypes to attack Obama. Of course McCain doesn't get his own hands dirty either. Why tie this around McCain's neck when it really is an indictment of the entire right-wing?
At any rate, my specific disagreements aside, I think my argument above about the perils of censoring ourselves also holds in reply to Daniel and Kevin. I want more of this kind of thing, not less, in our political discourse.
If anything, the brouhaha over the cover cartoon threatens to eclipse the solid journalism of the cover story by Ryan Lizza, which is a tough but fair look at Obama's rise to power and one that should be read by every supporter so that future gnashing of teeth over supposed betrayals of the progressive wing can be minimized.
UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan also found the cover to be good satire, and argues "the notion that most Americans are incapable of seeing that strikes me as excessively paranoid and a little condescending." Agreed.
UPDATE: from an earlier dkos diary by dcdanny:
However, I have to disagree with the critiques - i think it’s brilliant satire. The rightwing pundits will try to argue that their critiques of Obama are “on the merits” but if you take their attacks literally (he's a crypto muslim, an extremist, a marxist, etc.) then the cartoon on the cover is in fact the logical portrait that results. Its a mirror reflecting all the ugliness about Obama in the right wing media at once.
I think that the right cant be given a pass on the implications of their rhetoric. This is what they are describing on talk radio and The Washington Times and Fox News. Lets hang this around their neck.
I think if we are too unforgiving of the risk that the New Yorker took in runnin this cover, we are part of the problem of diluting political discourse into “safe” channels and thereby leaching all serious analysis out of it. This cover is tame by 19th century and early 20th century political cartoon standards. We need to be - yes, I am aware that teh word is a bit ironic - post-racial, exactly as Obama argued in his famed post-Wright speech on race. Taking offense at the caricature shuts down critique of the very speech that leads to it in the minds of those for whom this is not satire.
Satire, and Irony, are the two most dangerous tools in the free speech toolbox. When wielded properly, they are devastating. But it takes practice to do so, so we should be more tolerant of good-faith attempts to do so.
I am of course going against the grain here. Two bloggers i respect highly, Kevin Drum and Daniel Larison, both took issue with the cover for more sophisticated reasons than merely "it's racist!" - both see the attempt at satire and attempt to explain why it fails rather than react in knee-jerk fashion to the content without considering intent.
Larison argues that the cartoon was intended for a specific audience, and once it escapes that high-information pool, the ironic edge will be lost:
In an era of instant, mass communication, the image will be, indeed already has been, circulated widely and will gradually lose whatever “ironic” edge it once had. That the image derived from a New Yorker cover and was intended for an audience of high-information, predominantly left-leaning voters who already support Obama will be irrelevant or will add to the “credibility” of what the image conveys. Then the word will go forth in forwarded emails everywhere: “Even The New Yorker thinks Obama is a secret Muslim, etc…"
Ironically, this is a high-information argument. For one thing, it is precisely the left-leaning supporters of Obama who are the most outraged by the photo, and those are the ones who are most informed about the attacks on Obama by the right-wing. As far as the ordinary average voter goes, if they are low-information then I doubt they will ever even see the cover at all. Suppose a low-information undecided voter does see the image, however. Will they really be inclined to suddenly believe in the muslim smear, merely because of a cartoon from a magazine that they (who are postulated to be low-information, remember) have probably barely heard of anyway? It's a circular argument of sorts and in all likelihood the cover will have no role apart from validating what people already are inclined to believe.
Meanwhile, Drum says that the cartoon isn't ballsy enough!
If artist Barry Blitt had some real cojones, he would have drawn the same cover but shown it as a gigantic word bubble coming out of John McCain's mouth — implying, you see, that this is how McCain wants the world to view Obama. But he didn't.
Good satire should indeed be ballsy, but it also needs to be deft. Would a giant thought bubble emanating from McCain's head containing the image above really be an improvement? Or would it look heavy-handed and clumsy? Especially since Kevin knows full well (as do we all) that it is highly unlikely that McCain believes any of this about Obama, but instead cynically exploits those stereotypes to attack Obama. Of course McCain doesn't get his own hands dirty either. Why tie this around McCain's neck when it really is an indictment of the entire right-wing?
At any rate, my specific disagreements aside, I think my argument above about the perils of censoring ourselves also holds in reply to Daniel and Kevin. I want more of this kind of thing, not less, in our political discourse.
If anything, the brouhaha over the cover cartoon threatens to eclipse the solid journalism of the cover story by Ryan Lizza, which is a tough but fair look at Obama's rise to power and one that should be read by every supporter so that future gnashing of teeth over supposed betrayals of the progressive wing can be minimized.
UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan also found the cover to be good satire, and argues "the notion that most Americans are incapable of seeing that strikes me as excessively paranoid and a little condescending." Agreed.
UPDATE: from an earlier dkos diary by dcdanny:
Look again at the New Yorker cover. An American flag burns in the fireplace of the Oval Office. A portrait of Osama Bin Laden has replaced George Washington. The first lady wears combat boots. That, my friends, is how Rush Limbaugh and Brit Hume want you to imagine the White House if one of the most promising candidates in our nation’s history wins the office. Funny, in an awful, thought-provoking kind of way.
This New Yorker cover, if it is indeed discussed on the cable shows and over the water cooler, will not stoke the prejudices of swing voters, nor rally more racists to go to the polls. It’s much more likely to help bring the toxic discourse out in the open, where it loses its force. Like the controlled virus in a vaccine, the cover may just inoculate some voters from the poisons in our politics.
Labels: Obama
Saturday, July 12, 2008
The wonderful flip-flops of John McCain
Originally uploaded by Stuck in Customs
Daily Kos diarist DaveFromQueens has compiled a list of 50 flip flops of John McCain, on the topics:
Privatizing Social Security, Iraq Troop Withdrawal, Tax Cuts, Judges, Torture, Negotiating With Hamas, Bush Third Term, Agents Of Intolerance, 527s, Gramm's Whiner Comments, Economic Expertise, Illegal Wiretapping, Habeas Corpus, Everglades Restoration, Gay Couple Legal Contracts, GI Bill, Military Service Exploitation, Roe v. Wade, States Rights On Abortion, ANWR, Offshore Drilling, Role of States in Drilling, MLK Holiday, Windfall Profits Tax, Filibustering of Judges, Confederate Flag, Civil Unions, Constitutional Ban On Gay Marriage, Yucca Mountain, Undue Lobbyist Influence, Abortion Exceptions, Defense Cuts, Waterboarding Mandatory Caps, Citizenship for Immigrants, Flying the Confederate Flag, Bush Tax Policies, South African Divestment, Alternative Minimum Tax, Estate Tax Repeal, NOrth Korea Negotiations, Iraq + Stay The Course, Creationism, Time of Offshore Drilling, Campaign Finance Reform, Immigration Act, Fidel Castro, Pakistan, Bush's Pioneers, Occupying Muslim Lands.
(more details on each at the diary). One gripe with his list that I have is that there aren't any supporting links, however. The evidence is out there but what would make this a great resource would be to add direct source material on each topic - for example some of the great videos on You Tube of late, such as:
and
Fortunately, Steve Benen also offers a list of 61 flip-flops, and this one is heavily documented with links. Benen notes that there's a new meme in the media that (only John McCain's) flip-flops don't matter, and refutes it pretty thoroughly. The vast majority of McCain's flip-flops are political calculations rather than genuine changes of heart:
Most of the flip-flops, though, show McCain dropping his centrist/moderate credentials in order to be more in line with today’s Republican mainstream. Tax cuts, foreign policy, immigration, abortion, the religious right, the environment, detainee policy, campaign finance reform. In every instance, McCain was a “maverick,” willing to break with his party. Now, he isn’t. The perception people have of McCain is outdated, reflective of a man who no longer has any use for his previous persona.
What’s wrong with a politician who changes his or her views? Nothing in particular, but when a politician changes his views so much that he has an entirely different worldview, and that new worldview is conveniently necessary to win his party’s presidential nomination, is it unreasonable to wonder whether it’s entirely sincere? Especially when there’s no other apparent explanation for four dozen significant reversals?
What’s wrong with political leaders simply saying they’ve had a change of heart? Nothing, just so long as it’s genuine. Given the circumstances, one would have to be hopelessly naive to think McCain, all of a sudden, out of the blue, just happened to reinvent himself and his policy agenda based on nothing more than a simple “change of heart.”
Naturally, McCain's strategy towards Obama is to paint him as a flip-flopper. As Obama might say, "bring it on."
Labels: 2008, flip-flop, McCain, Obama
Friday, July 11, 2008
The audacity of Advani http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/10/AR2008071002716.html?nav=rss_world
L.K. Advani, of India's BJP party, is better known for fiery, nationalist, partisan rhetoric than he is for unity and change. At 80 years old, he's more McCain than Obama. However, as he makes his bid to be India's Prime Minister, he's trying to poach from the Obama playbook:
As the article notes, the default communication medium in India is the cell phone/SMS rather than the web. The Advani campaign will have to genuinely innovate, since while the Obama campaign did make use of text messaging as one of its communication channels, SMS plays nowhere near the same role in US elections as the Internet does. That dynamic is totally inverted for India (and most Asian countries, since for most of them, cell phones were the vanguard of phone access rather than land lines).
If any campaign figures out a way to let a user make a micropayment to their candidate on their cell phone, then that's going to be enormous.
The other thing to be skeptical about is just how well the concept of "grassroots" is understood in the Indian setting. As the article notes, political parties there are very used to top-down, centralized campaigning. Will the Advani campaign be willing to let the grassroots have a genuine voice?
Whether the Advani team understands the principle behind Obama's model, or whether they are just aping Obama in cargo-cult fashion, remains to be seen. But the critique of Obama from the right has been that he is all message and no substance. If that's true, then that's good for Advani, assuming he faithfully reproduces it. If however, the success of Obama is not just the method but the man, then I don't think Advani is going to get much traction at all. Obviously I think the latter case will hold.
For a few months, a small team of political strategists, computer specialists and management graduates in New Delhi has been studying Obama's speeches and slogans, Web site, campus outreach and rhetoric of change.
"About 100 million first-time voters will enter the election landscape next year. That is a staggering number of young people. And the Indian youth is impatient for change," said Sudheendra Kulkarni, who heads up strategy for the campaign.
...
"We want to project the image of Advani around the idea of change the same way that Obama's message resonated with people's hunger for change," Kulkarni said.
More than two-thirds of India's 1 billion-plus people are younger than 35, making it one of the youngest emerging economies in the world. Rising income and aspirations, along with rapid urbanization, are forcing political parties to reimagine their old, top-down style of election campaigning.
...
"Like the Obama brand, we need to create a buzz around Advani-ji," said Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, a BJP member of Parliament and a key campaign official, attaching the Hindi honorific "ji" to the veteran leader's name. Naqvi recently returned from a leadership program at Yale University with a notebook full of observations from the presidential primaries.
As the article notes, the default communication medium in India is the cell phone/SMS rather than the web. The Advani campaign will have to genuinely innovate, since while the Obama campaign did make use of text messaging as one of its communication channels, SMS plays nowhere near the same role in US elections as the Internet does. That dynamic is totally inverted for India (and most Asian countries, since for most of them, cell phones were the vanguard of phone access rather than land lines).
If any campaign figures out a way to let a user make a micropayment to their candidate on their cell phone, then that's going to be enormous.
The other thing to be skeptical about is just how well the concept of "grassroots" is understood in the Indian setting. As the article notes, political parties there are very used to top-down, centralized campaigning. Will the Advani campaign be willing to let the grassroots have a genuine voice?
Whether the Advani team understands the principle behind Obama's model, or whether they are just aping Obama in cargo-cult fashion, remains to be seen. But the critique of Obama from the right has been that he is all message and no substance. If that's true, then that's good for Advani, assuming he faithfully reproduces it. If however, the success of Obama is not just the method but the man, then I don't think Advani is going to get much traction at all. Obviously I think the latter case will hold.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Stop oil speculation now? http://www.stopoilspeculationnow.com
I've been forwarded one variant or another of the following email by several friends:
It certainly sounds very official, and in a sense it is - the email is signed by the CEOs of most of the major domestic airlines and the website is a genuine one, not a hoax.
In reality, Stop Oil Speculation Now is a lobbying group funded by the airlines. They are trying to divert traveler anger at higher ticket prices (bec airlines are passing on higher furl prices to their customers). In a sense they are trying to keep summer travelers on the plane by creating a nebulous scapegoat of "investors" or "speculators" that they can pin the blame on.
I think the best way to look at this is as a marketing ploy more than anything else. The argument being made, that investors are driving up oil prices, is total nonsense. The reason oil is expensive is because of supply, demand, refinery capacity, and of course political instability (to put it mildly). A bunch of laws that regulate investments isn't really going to do anything one way or the other.
Get used to $4 gasoline for your car and $300 airline tickets - and above - for the forseeable future. One great tool that I use to find a decent fare is Kayak which does an aggregate search over orbitz, hotwire, expedia, etc. and makes it really easy to find the best fare/schedule you need.
Subject: Help Fight America's Oil Crisis
An Open letter to All Airline Customers:
Our country is facing a possible sharp economic downturn because of skyrocketing oil and fuel prices, but by pulling together, we can all do something to help now. Visit www.StopOilSpeculationNow.com.
For airlines, ultra-expensive fuel means thousands of lost jobs and severe reductions in air service to both large and small communities. To the broader economy, oil prices mean slower activity and widespread economic pain. This pain can be alleviated, and that is why we are taking the extraordinary step of writing this joint letter to our customers.
Since high oil prices are partly a response to normal market forces, the nation needs to focus on increased energy supplies and conservation. However, there is another side to this story because normal market forces are being dangerously amplified by poorly regulated market speculation.
Twenty years ago, 21 percent of oil contracts were purchased by speculators who trade oil on paper with no intention of ever taking delivery. Today, oil speculators purchase 66 percent of all oil futures contracts, and that reflects just the transactions that are known. Speculators buy up large amounts of oil and then sell it to each other again and again. A barrel of oil may trade 20-plus times before it is delivered and used; the price goes up with each trade and consumers pick
up the final tab. Some market experts estimate that current prices reflect as much as $30 to $60 per barrel in unnecessary speculative costs.
Over seventy years ago, Congress established regulations to control excessive, largely unchecked market speculation and manipulation. However, over the past two decades, these regulatory limits have been weakened or removed. We believe that restoring and enforcing these limits, along with several other modest measures, will provide more disclosure, transparency and sound market oversight. Together, these reforms will help cool the over-heated oil market and permit the economy to prosper.
The nation needs to pull together to reform the oil markets and solve this growing problem.
We need your help. Get more information and contact Congress by visiting www.StopOilSpeculationNow.com.
It certainly sounds very official, and in a sense it is - the email is signed by the CEOs of most of the major domestic airlines and the website is a genuine one, not a hoax.
In reality, Stop Oil Speculation Now is a lobbying group funded by the airlines. They are trying to divert traveler anger at higher ticket prices (bec airlines are passing on higher furl prices to their customers). In a sense they are trying to keep summer travelers on the plane by creating a nebulous scapegoat of "investors" or "speculators" that they can pin the blame on.
I think the best way to look at this is as a marketing ploy more than anything else. The argument being made, that investors are driving up oil prices, is total nonsense. The reason oil is expensive is because of supply, demand, refinery capacity, and of course political instability (to put it mildly). A bunch of laws that regulate investments isn't really going to do anything one way or the other.
Get used to $4 gasoline for your car and $300 airline tickets - and above - for the forseeable future. One great tool that I use to find a decent fare is Kayak which does an aggregate search over orbitz, hotwire, expedia, etc. and makes it really easy to find the best fare/schedule you need.
Election 2008 feed
Nation-Building feed
Archives
Obama 2008 - I want my country back
About Nation-Building
Nation-Building was founded by Aziz Poonawalla in August 2002 under the name Dean Nation. Dean Nation was the very first weblog devoted to a presidential candidate, Howard Dean, and became the vanguard of the Dean netroot phenomenon, raising over $40,000 for the Dean campaign, pioneering the use of Meetup, and enjoying the attention of the campaign itself, with Joe Trippi a regular reader (and sometime commentor). Howard Dean himself even left a comment once. Dean Nation was a group weblog effort and counts among its alumni many of the progressive blogsphere's leading talent including Jerome Armstrong, Matthew Yglesias, and Ezra Klein. After the election in 2004, the blog refocused onto the theme of "purple politics", formally changing its name to Nation-Building in June 2006. The primary focus of the blog is on articulating purple-state policy at home and pragmatic liberal interventionism abroad.
