Tuesday, February 12, 2008

10 minutes on whether Hillary can win (Lessig Blog)

10 minutes on whether Hillary can win (Lessig Blog) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq7VCQO5siU

Monday, February 11, 2008

The Content of Their Character

Forty years ago the opportunity to transform America fell under the unexpected impact of bullets, the rifle bullet that took the life of Dr. King, the pistol round that slaughtered Robert Kennedy.

For forty years we've been recalling the dream of judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

Dr. Kings last major speech was not about his dream, but his assurance to us that he'd been to the mountain top and had seen the promised land. Assurance that, though he might not get there with us, we would make it to the promised land.

Moses didn't get to the promised land. He too, had to glimpse it from the mountain top. The children of Israel wandered forty years in the wilderness before they got there. Yet it was such a short distance. You'd think they would have made it there much sooner, but they didn't until they were ready as a people.

America has been wandering for forty years now. The people seem, not just ready but, determined to select their candidates for the content of their character.

That isn't sitting well with some. It doesn't seem fair to them. It feels like all their accomplishments are being ignored, while their character is questioned.

They don't understand what character has to do with politics. Their reaction has been countless attempts to muddy their opponent's character, while complaining that scrutiny of theirs is unfair.

They've even begun to complain that the opponent is responsible for a campaign of hate against them. At the same time, they claim their opponent is naive, unprepared to fight evil with its own weapons. They've forgotten how not to swiftboat. They don't seem to know how not to distort. When they play the race card, somehow it's their opponents fault.

Well, whining is a character trait. Dishonesty is a character trait. Cynicism is a character trait. Inability to admit mistakes is a character trait. Like it or not, americans are making their judgments, and day by day, more and more of them are judging character.

When the people look at proposed policy on opposing web sites, they see that claims of no substance just aren't true. They aren't inclined to condemn a candidate for things he never said. They look for evidence backing claims of experience, only to find that they're not allowed to see it until 2012.

They know exactly where one candidate's money came from. The other won't release that information, but, instead tries to tie their opponent to contributers in ways they can't bear any scrutiny at all. (If the Hsu fits, they should stop trying to make others wear it.)

Americans are ready to stop wandering in this wilderness. Americans are tired.

They're tired of being separated, by tribe or race, by faith or politics.

We will choose a President with character, who calls us to express our best character, as one America, united, and after forty uncertain years, finally whole.

A Video on McCains 100 Years - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog

A Video on McCains 100 Years - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Next Up for the Democrats: Civil War - New York Times

Next Up for the Democrats: Civil War - New York Times:

"For a campaign that began with tightly monitored Web “chats” and then planted questions at its earlier town-hall meetings, a Bush-style pseudo-event like the Hallmark special is nothing new, of course. What’s remarkable is that instead of learning from these mistakes, Mrs. Clinton’s handlers keep doubling down.

Less than two weeks ago she was airlifted into her own, less effective version of “Mission Accomplished.” Instead of declaring faux victory in Iraq, she starred in a made-for-television rally declaring faux victory in a Florida primary that was held in defiance of party rules, involved no campaigning and awarded no delegates. As Andrea Mitchell of NBC News said, it was “the Potemkin village of victory celebrations.”

The Hallmark show, enacted on an anachronistic studio set that looked like a deliberate throwback to the good old days of 1992, was equally desperate. If the point was to generate donations or excitement, the effect was the reverse. A campaign operative, speaking on MSNBC, claimed that 250,000 viewers had seen an online incarnation of the event in addition to “who knows how many” Hallmark channel viewers. Who knows, indeed? What we do know is that by then the “Yes We Can” Obama video fronted by the hip-hop vocalist will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas had been averaging roughly a million YouTube views a day. (Cost to the Obama campaign: zero.)

Scattered black faces could be seen in the audience. But in the entire televised hour, there was not a single African-American questioner, whether to toss a softball or ask about the Clintons’ own recent misadventures in racial politics.

Two days after her town-hall extravaganza, Mrs. Clinton revealed the $5 million loan she had made to her own campaign to survive a month in which the Obama operation had raised $32 million to her $13.5 million. That poignant confession led to a spike in contributions that Mr. Obama also topped. Though Tuesday was largely a draw in popular votes and delegates, every other indicator, from the candidates’ real and virtual crowds to hard cash, points to a steadily widening Obama-Clinton gap. The Clinton campaign might be an imploding Potemkin village itself were it not for the fungible profits from Bill Clinton’s murky post-presidency business deals. (The Clintons, unlike Mr. Obama, have not released their income-tax returns.)

In an effort to scare off white voters, Mr. Obama was ghettoized as a cocaine user (by the chief Clinton strategist, Mark Penn, among others), “the black candidate” (as Clinton strategists told the Associated Press) and Jesse Jackson redux (by Mr. Clinton himself).

The campaign’s other most potent form of currency remains its thick deck of race cards. This was all too apparent in the Hallmark show. In its carefully calibrated cross section of geographically and demographically diverse cast members — young, old, one gay man, one vet, two union members — African-Americans were reduced to also-rans. One black woman, the former TV correspondent Carole Simpson, was given the servile role of the meeting’s nominal moderator, Ed McMahon to Mrs. Clinton’s top banana. Scattered black faces could be seen in the audience. But in the entire televised hour, there was not a single African-American questioner, whether to toss a softball or ask about the Clintons’ own recent misadventures in racial politics.

The Clinton camp does not leave such matters to chance. This decision was a cold, political cost-benefit calculus. In October, seven months after the two candidates’ dueling church perorations in Selma, USA Today found Hillary Clinton leading Mr. Obama among African-American Democrats by a margin of 62 percent to 34 percent. But once black voters met Mr. Obama and started to gravitate toward him, Bill Clinton and the campaign’s other surrogates stopped caring about what African-Americans thought. In an effort to scare off white voters, Mr. Obama was ghettoized as a cocaine user (by the chief Clinton strategist, Mark Penn, among others), “the black candidate” (as Clinton strategists told the Associated Press) and Jesse Jackson redux (by Mr. Clinton himself).

The result? Black America has largely deserted the Clintons. In her California primary victory, Mrs. Clinton drew only 19 percent of the black vote. The campaign saw this coming and so saw no percentage in bestowing precious minutes of prime-time television on African-American queries.

Last month a Hispanic pollster employed by the Clinton campaign pitted the two groups against each other by telling The New Yorker that Hispanic voters have “not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.”

That time went instead to the Hispanic population that was still in play in Super Tuesday’s voting in the West. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles had a cameo, and one of the satellite meetings was held in the National Hispanic Cultural Center in Albuquerque. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s smart politics, especially since Mr. Obama has been behind the curve in wooing this constituency.

But the wholesale substitution of Hispanics for blacks on the Hallmark show is tainted by a creepy racial back story. Last month a Hispanic pollster employed by the Clinton campaign pitted the two groups against each other by telling The New Yorker that Hispanic voters have “not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.” Mrs. Clinton then seconded the motion by telling Tim Russert in a debate that her pollster was “making a historical statement.”

It wasn’t an accurate statement, historical or otherwise. It was a lie, and a bigoted lie at that, given that it branded Hispanics, a group as heterogeneous as any other, as monolithic racists. As the columnist Gregory Rodriguez pointed out in The Los Angeles Times, all three black members of Congress in that city won in heavily Latino districts; black mayors as various as David Dinkins in New York in the 1980s and Ron Kirk in Dallas in the 1990s received more than 70 percent of the Hispanic vote. The real point of the Clinton campaign’s decision to sow misinformation and racial division, Mr. Rodriguez concluded, was to “undermine one of Obama’s central selling points, that he can build bridges and unite Americans of all types.”

If that was the intent, it didn’t work. Mrs. Clinton did pile up her expected large margin among Latino voters in California. But her tight grip on that electorate is loosening. Mr. Obama, who captured only 26 percent of Hispanic voters in Nevada last month, did better than that in every state on Tuesday, reaching 41 percent in Arizona and 53 percent in Connecticut. Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign’s attempt to drive white voters away from Mr. Obama by playing the race card has backfired. His white vote tally rises every week. Though Mrs. Clinton won California by almost 10 percentage points, among whites she beat Mr. Obama by only 3 points.

The question now is how much more racial friction the Clinton campaign will gin up if its Hispanic support starts to erode in Texas, whose March 4 vote it sees as its latest firewall. Clearly it will stop at little. That’s why you now hear Clinton operatives talk ever more brazenly about trying to reverse party rulings so that they can hijack 366 ghost delegates from Florida and the other rogue primary, Michigan, where Mr. Obama wasn’t even on the ballot. So much for Mrs. Clinton’s assurance on New Hampshire Public Radio last fall that it didn’t matter if she alone kept her name on the Michigan ballot because the vote “is not going to count for anything.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10rich.html?ex=1360299600&en=4a1e322f1d507813&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink