In light of this unbelievably stupid non-story, I would nevertheless like to inform my colleagues and LGM readers that on more than one occasion, I have devoted valuable classroom time to ridiculing the defensive skills of Derek Jeter and warning my students about the menace of robots. On those former occasions, it is quite probable that I used words like “clutchiosity” and “leadertude” without crediting Scott. In the latter instances, I may have offered dire, Farleyvian predictions based upon “elementary chaos theory,” and I may also have alluded briefly to Battlestar Galactica, a show that I have in fact never seen. I may also have worn a tie once or twice without mentioning that Rob apparently wears ties on teaching days.
I have not yet pilfered catch phrases or wardrobe ideas from Bean or DJW, but I assure them both that when this happens, I will probably not credit them either.
I offer my sincerest near-apologies for all of this.
I recently said that one shouldn’t be too harsh on the Clinton campaign, but this may have been premature:
Good lord, let’s see if I have this right. The Clinton campaign decides to cede every post-Super Tuesday state to Obama under the theory that Texas and Ohio will be strong firewalls. After – after – implementing this Rudy-esque strategy, they “discovered” that the archaic Texas rules will almost certainly result in a split delegate count (at best).
While they were busy “discovering” the rules, however, the Obama campaign had people on the ground in Texas explaining the system, organizing precincts, and making Powerpoints. I know because I went to one of these meetings a week ago. I should have invited Mark Penn I suppose. (ed. Maybe foresight is an obsolete macrotrend.)
I dunno, if I were paying someone upwards of $2 million for consulting I might expect them to, say, know the basic delegate allocation rules of states that might determine the nomination. Maybe they think that the “states that Mark Penn considers insignificant don’t count” rule will be applied ex post facto right after they count the delegates from the Michigan and Florida straw polls.
These errors are particularly problematic given the extent to which cases for Clinton depend on her allegedly greater political savvy, something that is more often asserted than demonstrated (which is pretty much inevitable when Mark Penn, Union Buster (TM) is running your campaign.) It’s true that the campaign can be seem as “tough,” but not in ways that are effective; leaving delegates on the table while you focus on futile strategies like trying to steal votes in Michigan or expect superdelegates to reverse a clear victory really wasn’t a good idea. But this is one good thing about a competitive primary: the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
If assertions about Clinton’s allegedly brilliant strategic skillz continue to prove false, she won’t be the nominee.
To step back a bit from the radical uncertainty espoused in my last post, let me say that I strongly agree with Hilzoy, Peter, and Matt on this point; the fact that the Clinton campaign apparently didn’t understand the first thing about the Texas primary until a month ago does not speak well of Hillary’s reputation as a cunning political knife fighter. I wrote a bit a couple of weeks ago on the difficulty of assessing the difference between a good campaign and a bad one, but in this case it really seems like either Hillary is a bad don or Mark Penn is a bad consigliari, because the Clinton campaign has made at least a couple identifiable bad steps (devoting no attention to the caucus states really stands out) that have turned this into a real race.
… and Scott; clearly great minds think alike.
Prediction 1: If Obama wins the nomination and loses to McCain, Clinton supporters will angrily claim vindication, saying that it was obvious all along that Obama couldn’t win.
Prediction 2: If Clinton wins the nomination and loses to McCain, Obama supporters will angrily claim vindication, saying that it was obvious all along that Clinton couldn’t win.
Prediction 3: Whichever of prediction 1 or 2 comes to pass, the analysis therein will quickly take on the appearance of settled fact, such that two years down the line everyone will remember that it was obvious all along that Clinton/Obama couldn’t win.
I am incredibly confident that, if McCain wins the Presidency, two of these predictions will come true.
In the thread below, commenter Dr. Zen suggests that Obama’s apparent level of appeal to self-identified Republicans is a reason to be suspicious of him. This is becoming something a regular theme in case against Obama, followed by a suggestion that his rhetoric about bipartisanship and coming together is troubling in a moment when the other party is so clearly disastrously evil.
A common response is that this is a feature, not a bug, of Obama the candidate; that his political skills and image allow him to defuse partisan rancor, and consequently bring in support for an agenda that would be unappealing if offered by a less impressive and talented politician. There is probably some truth to that response, but I think that misses the basic dynamic at work here. Virtually anyone in Obama’s current position, I expect, would be getting much of this support. The fact that he speaks the boilerplate language of unity well certainly doesn’t hurt but lots of politicians do this perfectly well. His support from self-identified Republicans is, I suspect, more structural than personal.
The simplest and most probable explanation, I suspect, runs something like this: Once upon a time, these people were standard-issue Republicans, with all the attendent views on Democrats in general and the Clintons in particular. This worldview couldn’t survive the onslaught of the Bush years, and some of the scales have fallen from their eyes. They’re prepared to admit they were wrong to vote for/support/believe in Bush and Bushism, and since the GOP standard-bearers seem bizarrely eager to go down with the Bush ship, they’re taking a fresh look at the Democrats. But they’re not prepared to admit to themselves just how wrong they’ve been, and for how long. Obama, while similar to Clinton on a great deal of substance, has the advantage of being someone they can support without any further admissions they were wrong back in the day; they only first heard of Obama around the time. Now, this isn’t the story the Andrew Sullivans of the world are willing to tell themselves, let alone anyone else, so they find some superficial reason to like Obama, which isn’t hard. But in the grand scheme of things, they’d pretty much have to find a reason to like whoever occupied the space Obama currently occupies; fundamentally it’s not about him.
Today is the 65th anniversary of Joseph Goebbels’ notorious Sportpalast speech, in which he called for “total war” against the Bolshevik peril, which had just turned back the German armies in the battle for Stalingrad.
Bolshevism has always proclaimed its goal openly: to bring revolution not only to Europe, but to the entire world, and plunge it into Bolshevist chaos. This goal has been evident from the beginning of the Bolshevist Soviet Union, and has been the ideological and practical goal of the Kremlin’s policies. Clearly, the nearer Stalin and the other Soviet leaders believe they are to realizing their world-destroying objectives, the more they attempt to hide and conceal them. We cannot be fooled. We are not like those timid souls who wait like the hypnotized rabbit until the serpent devours them. We prefer to recognize the danger in good time and take effective action. We see through not only the ideology of Bolshevism, but also its practice, for we had great success with that in our domestic struggles. The Kremlin cannot deceive us. We had fourteen years of our struggle for power, and ten years thereafter, to unmask its intentions and its infamous deceptions.
The goal of Bolshevism is Jewish world revolution. They want to bring chaos to the Reich and Europe, using the resulting hopelessness and desperation to establish their international, Bolshevist-concealed capitalist tyranny.
I do not need to say what that would mean for the German people. A Bolshevization of the Reich would mean the liquidation of our entire intelligentsia and leadership, and the descent of our workers into Bolshevist-Jewish slavery. In Moscow, they find workers for forced labor battalions in the Siberian tundra, as the Führer said in his proclamation on 30 January. The revolt of the steppes is readying itself at the front, and the storm from the East that breaks against our lines daily in increasing strength is nothing other than a repetition of the historical devastation that has so often in the past endangered our part of the world.
That is a direct threat to the existence of every European power. No one should believe that Bolshevism would stop at the borders of the Reich, were it to be victorious. The goal of its aggressive policies and wars is the Bolshevization of every land and people in the world. In the face of such undeniable intentions, we are not impressed by paper declarations from the Kremlin or guarantees from London or Washington. We know that we are dealing in the East with an infernal political devilishness that does not recognize the norms governing relations between people and nations. When for example the English Lord Beaverbrook says that Europe must be given over to the Soviets or when the leading American Jewish journalist Brown cynically adds that a Bolshevization of Europe might solve all of the continent’s problems, we know what they have in mind. The European powers are facing the most critical question. The West is in danger. It makes no difference whether or not their governments and intellectuals realize it or not.
The German people, in any event, is unwilling to bow to this danger. Behind the oncoming Soviet divisions we see the Jewish liquidation commandos, and behind them terror, the specter of mass starvation and complete anarchy. International Jewry is the devilish ferment of decomposition that finds cynical satisfaction in plunging the world into the deepest chaos and destroying ancient cultures that it played no role in building.
We also know our historic responsibility. Two thousand years of Western civilization are in danger. One cannot overestimate the danger.
If you’re Jonah Goldberg, this speech — stripped, we assume, of its anti-Semitism — must sound exactly like a speech by Barack Obama and nothing like the dislocated ravings to be found in, say, Powerline’s Book of the Year.
For as much grief as we give the Pantload around these parts, I have to hand it to him for establishing himself as one of the great intellectual-cultural embarrassments of 2008. Let’s assume for a moment that Obama actually does receive the nomination. If Goldberg can hitch his absurd narratives to some of the emerging anti-Obama memes, he will stake out an enduring place among historians as the guy who argued that the nation’s first prospective black president was actually a fascist.
Say what we will about the guy, but those efforts will secure him an immortality of which few pundits can hope to dream.
Apparently, pledged delegates totals are illegitimate, because some states have open primaries. Consequently, it is the responsibility of the superdelegates to overturn the preferred pledged delegate candidate if another candidate wins the national popular vote among “self-identified Democrats.” When caucuses are excluded, Michigan and Florida included, and overall totals determined by evaluating exit poll data rather than counting votes, Clinton wins!
To say this aloud is to refute it, but it is nevertheless generating excitement at TalkLeft. For good measure, Lukasiak throws in the “but can Barack Obama REALLY win California and New York?” meme. Christ, the stench of desperation is sickening.
Clinton partisans are really sounding more desperate than they should; I think Obama is the favorite to win this thing, but Clinton still has a decent shot if she can take Wisconsin, and maybe even if she can’t. There’s no reason at this point to be jury-rigging the data in such an obtuse fashion; this kind of garbage can wait until after March 4.
I wish I was making this up, but:
The inference is that by winning the small red states with caucuses, but not the big blue states like California and New York, Obama is likely to repeat McGovern’s blowout in the general election.
Any thoughts on the validity of this scenario?
It is wholly invalid.
Really, the fallacy here is transparent; indeed, I can’t believe that someone as smart as Merritt believes this is serious. By the same logic, Clinton will go down to a crushing defeat because she can only get a small fraction of the African-American vote. The fact that Obama has lost a couple states that Democrats reliably win by 15 or 20 points in a Democratic primary means absolutely nothing in the general, just as Hillary Clinton would obviously not struggle to win Illinois or Connecticut or Maryland. (Inferences about Obama’s ability to win solid-red states would be similarly invalid, but I think there’s a hack gap here; I don’t recall seeing a prominent Obama supporter talking about how he’s going to carry Alabama and South Carolina — after all, Jimmy Carter won them in 1976! Correct me if I’m wrong.) And to repeat what I’ve said before, to the extent it means anything (which probably isn’t much) Obama’s greater strength in states that aren’t Democratic electoral college locks is clearly a point in his favor in the general election, although one can reasonably argued that this is balanced by Clinton’s apparently greater appeal in a swing state such as Florida. At any rate, one cannot infer from Obama losing California to Clinton that he would do less well against a Republican, and even it was true who cares if the Democrats win the state by 18 or 14 points anyway?
Really, people need to keep some perspective here. Either Clinton or Obama would almost certainly be better candidates than John Kerry, and Kerry won 251 electoral college votes against a wartime incumbent in a decent economy. We can argue about which one is marginally better, but the Dems are in good shape either way, and bringing George McGovern into the discussion is simply absurd.
When I picked up the New York Times last weekend, I thumbed through the sections, skimming the headlines and plotting out my reading plan. That is, until I came upon the magazine and its featured article, “The First Ache,” an exploration of fetal pain. Ick, I thought. Yet another Times article “exploring” the complications in the quote-unquote abortion debate. I didn’t feel much better having read the article — it’s misleading and unbalanced.
But as Debbie Nathan points out in the New Republic (via), this shouldn’t be surprising coming from the Times. She writes:
What is The New York Times’ problem with abortion? The editorial page consistently supports sex education, birth control, and the right to legally end unwanted pregnancy. The rest of the Times, however, often seems uncomfortable with concrete applications of these principles. Not a season goes by that a news item or magazine feature doesn’t imply that women who get abortions are acting with egotism, unhealthiness, and cruelty.
There’s last week’s article by Annie Murphy Paul; last year, the usually wonderful Emily Bazelon wrote an article for the Magazine about so-called Post Abortion Syndrome. As Nathan points out on TNR, though, Bazelon’s article, while explaining the evidence that “PAS” doesn’t exist, features all these fuzzy profiles of “PAS” sufferers and treads lightly over the “syndrome’s” political uses (and, I would argue, political creation). There’s more (which Nathan is sure to document). And I’ve complained before about other things the Times has published about abortion and other issues related to feminism, gender, and sexuality.
Which all leads to the question: what gives NY Times? By your own admission, your editorial page strongly supports abortion rights. So why all the apologizing for it and the mixed signals? Nathan posits that the Times’s coverage mirrors a societal trend:
Liberals and even feminists have bought into the reasoning that abortion is basically immoral, and if women could just be educated and dosed with birth control, we wouldn’t have to terminate any pregnancies. Bill Clinton’s famous formulation [ed. note - which Hillary Clinton has adopted], that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare,” has become conventional wisdom.
It’s a shame that the paper of record, the Gray Lady herself, is not above such moralizing about an issue on which women face more than enough moralizing as it is.
Congratulations of a sort are in order for Kosovo. As I understand it, a number of Western countries will shortly recognize the independence declaration, to the chagrin of Serbia and Russia. Serbia has a variety of means through which to play the spoiler, but will almost certainly stop short of the use of force. It’s bad news for Georgia, because Russia will feel the need to retaliate in some form and may take advantage of the opportunity to recognize the independence of the two Georgian breakaway regions.
On the general merits, I’m inclined to think that this is the best solution available for Kosovo. Maintaining the union with Serbia wasn’t really in the cards, so the only real option was continued existence in a legal nether region. For Serbian nationalists this really does represent the final humiliation; after years of war to create and maintain a Greater Serbia, the state is now diminished about as far as it can conceivably go (give or take a couple more small ethnic enclaves).
Back in the old days when a new country was created in Europe, the Great Powers would search about for an appropriate monarch to fill the new vacancy. As the old ways are always better, and as I’ve not seen sufficient attention devoted to this problem in the MSM, I’d like to call here for consideration of a monarch appropriate to place on the throne of Kosovo. The last monarch to hold sway over Kosovo was Peter II of Serbia, but it seems that putting Alexander II on the throne would miss the entire point of the independence declaration. A better option would be Leka of House Zogu, who continues active efforts to claim the throne of Albania. A coronation in Pristina might prove a useful stepping stone to an Albanian restoration. Tragically, the House of Wied (which held the Albanian crown prior to the rise of Zog), appears to have become extinct. Victor Emmanuel III of Italy briefly held the crown of Albania, but sadly Victor Emmanuel IV is a poor candidate for anything other than prison.
It’s clear to me that the most compelling remaining option is Ertugrul Osman V of House Osman. While it’s unlikely that the Sultan would be willing to give up his cushy (and cheap) Manhattan apartment for a life in Pristina, I have to hope that something could be worked out, as what Kosovo clearly needs now is the strong hand of the Ottoman Sultan. Moreover, I can’t imagine that the Serbs would complain…
So Grover “Drown the Government in a Bathtub” Norquist looks forward to the possibility of depicting Barack Obama as a “shady Chicago socialist” in the general election.
An impressive and original strategy, but really — why stop there? I suggest trying to cast Obama as a “shady Chicago anarchist.” It would appeal to the authentic glue-huffers who believe the Senator is actually an agent of foreign terror, it would draw in the more moderate types who are merely nervous about the crowds of Obama supporters, and it would force the rest of American to relive the horror of the Haymarket bombing every day of the campaign.