The Ignored Costs of the Iraq War
By Jerome Grossman
Five years into the war in Iraq, the nation awaits the day of reckoning for the enormous cost of this misbegotten adventure, conceived in ignorance, conducted in arrogance and staining our democracy. The saddest costs are suffered by American soldiers, 4000 deaths and 40,000 wounded; the millions of Iraqis killed or wounded or displaced; and the monetary cost to the U.S. taxpayer now estimated at $3 trillion.
But there are many other hidden costs damaging to our nation that President Bush ignores when he describes this cruel war as "noble, necessary, and just", contrary to world opinion, contrary to friend and foe.
The Costs Ignored:
• U.S. intelligence has been discredited as inaccurate and politicized
• U.S. Is known worldwide as a nation that uses torture as an instrument of policy
• The war has increased the military power and political influence of Iran
• The war has put internal and external pressure on key U.S. allies, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan
• The war has affected Israel by weakening the governments of Egypt and Jordan which have peace treaties with Israel
• The war has diminished the reputation of the U.S. in every country and dramatically increased hostility to the U.S. in the Muslim world, affecting the sales of American products
• The war has driven up the cost of oil
• The war has indicated the vulnerability of the U.S. military to guerrilla strategy and tactics
• The war cost is curtailing our country's ability to solve urgent domestic problems of infrastructure, healthcare, education, etc...
The war in Iraq is a costly failure at every level. It must be ended at the earliest possible time to save lives and money in order to establish a sane and sensible foreign policy that will truly protect our country and rebuild U.S. relationships and reputation.
It won’t be easy for the U.S. to leave Iraq. Resistance will come from imperial ambition, domestic political advantage, and oil business interests.. The argument will be made that withdrawal from Iraq without victory might stimulate similar demands in the 130 countries where the U.S. has a total of 737 bases.
And finally, we should remember the experience of other great powers. From 1882 until 1922, the British promised the international community 66 times that they would leave Egypt, but they never did until they were forced out.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
The Obama Style
The Obama Style
By Jerome Grossman
The Almanac of American Politics writes about Barack Obama, “Politics always seems to have been on his mind. In 1992 he worked on voter registration for the Democratic ticket. In 1996 he ran for the state Senate and was unopposed in the decisive Democratic primary. Next came a political misstep: in 2000 he ran in the primary against First District Democratic Congressman Bobby Rush...... Rush was endorsed by Bill Clinton and won 61% to 30%......... In October 2002 he made a public statement opposing the Iraq war resolution. ' I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. “I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I am opposed to dumb wars.............. “Perfect. Obama clearly understood the dangerous situation. He was absolutely correct in resisting the drive to war.
Obama was not a native of Chicago but his wife was. Given his political ambitions, it was easy to understand why he joined the largest African - American church in the city; a church led by the most charismatic pastor, Jeremiah Wright. For twenty years Obama attended, grew close to Wright, absorbed his sermons, and asked him to officiate at his marriage and the baptisms of his daughters. Whether or not Obama agreed with Wright in his attacks on racism in America that also included AIDS as an American conspiracy, class warfare rants, awards to anti-Semite Farrakhan, and "God damn America" diatribes, Obama did not object or even try to modify the pastor's actions and rhetoric. And he did not leave the church and the associations that have helped his political career. Was that the political compromise?
Obama has proven repeatedly by his actions and his rhetoric that he is a natural conciliator so his failure to try to modify the explosive situation in his church is unsettling. There is a parallel in the way he acted out his undiluted opposition to the Iraq war. Once elected to the U.S. Senate, one would have expected that he would have used his position to advance his deeply held views on this matter of life and death for so many Americans and Iraqis, the way freshman Senator James Webb of Virginia did, as Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and African-American Congressman John Conyers of Michigan do, day by day, bill by bill. Obama did nothing wrong. His votes on Iraq were fine, no complaints there, but he did not seize the initiative, there for the asking, to insist, to dramatize, to demand, to be a center of dissent on Iraq. Was that a political decision to stay with the party consensus while exploring a run for the presidency? Is this the pattern of Obama's political style: political safety in a swirl of brilliant rhetoric and analysis but avoiding decisive action? Is politics always on his mind? At the church in Chicago, at the Senate in Washington, it was and is a question of leadership.
By Jerome Grossman
The Almanac of American Politics writes about Barack Obama, “Politics always seems to have been on his mind. In 1992 he worked on voter registration for the Democratic ticket. In 1996 he ran for the state Senate and was unopposed in the decisive Democratic primary. Next came a political misstep: in 2000 he ran in the primary against First District Democratic Congressman Bobby Rush...... Rush was endorsed by Bill Clinton and won 61% to 30%......... In October 2002 he made a public statement opposing the Iraq war resolution. ' I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. “I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I am opposed to dumb wars.............. “Perfect. Obama clearly understood the dangerous situation. He was absolutely correct in resisting the drive to war.
Obama was not a native of Chicago but his wife was. Given his political ambitions, it was easy to understand why he joined the largest African - American church in the city; a church led by the most charismatic pastor, Jeremiah Wright. For twenty years Obama attended, grew close to Wright, absorbed his sermons, and asked him to officiate at his marriage and the baptisms of his daughters. Whether or not Obama agreed with Wright in his attacks on racism in America that also included AIDS as an American conspiracy, class warfare rants, awards to anti-Semite Farrakhan, and "God damn America" diatribes, Obama did not object or even try to modify the pastor's actions and rhetoric. And he did not leave the church and the associations that have helped his political career. Was that the political compromise?
Obama has proven repeatedly by his actions and his rhetoric that he is a natural conciliator so his failure to try to modify the explosive situation in his church is unsettling. There is a parallel in the way he acted out his undiluted opposition to the Iraq war. Once elected to the U.S. Senate, one would have expected that he would have used his position to advance his deeply held views on this matter of life and death for so many Americans and Iraqis, the way freshman Senator James Webb of Virginia did, as Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and African-American Congressman John Conyers of Michigan do, day by day, bill by bill. Obama did nothing wrong. His votes on Iraq were fine, no complaints there, but he did not seize the initiative, there for the asking, to insist, to dramatize, to demand, to be a center of dissent on Iraq. Was that a political decision to stay with the party consensus while exploring a run for the presidency? Is this the pattern of Obama's political style: political safety in a swirl of brilliant rhetoric and analysis but avoiding decisive action? Is politics always on his mind? At the church in Chicago, at the Senate in Washington, it was and is a question of leadership.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Heads I Win, Tails You Lose
Heads I Win, Tails You Lose
By Jerome Grossman
In a key scene in a famous movie, "The Graduate", the young Dustin Hoffman is cornered at the graduation party by an older man who whispers enigmatically, “plastics", a hot business of that decade. Ten years ago the same bore would have whispered "Real Estate." Welcome to our world of capitalism, where boom and bust often alternate, where the quickest make a killing and the slower have trouble sleeping.
Subprime lending on mortgages with little or no money down followed by securitization of debt in derivatives was born out of the illusion of permanent high demand. The housing industry was overbought and oversold and of course would never collapse - until it did.
The banks and financial institutions that invested in this "sure thing" were gambling with OPM, Other People's Money. They couldn't lose: if the market turned they were too big to fail, they would be bailed out by the government, then after a few years the gambling would begin again. Not protected were the consumers who signed the mortgages, nor the small businesses affected by the decline in trade. Only the big boys: heads they win, tails, the taxpayers lose.
Now the White House offers a plan to resolve the growing credit crisis made worse by eroding home prices. The plan relies on the same banks and mortgage brokers and Wall Street firms that are to blame for the current crisis. Yet there is no plan to prevent a recurrence in the future. No significant regulation is provided and the federal government has only a limited role in the regulation. The plan is to leave regulation to the states. We know how that has worked out on other issues such as taxation: the states compete with each other awarding breaks to the businesses in order to attract or keep them.
There is a larger question. If banks and financial institutions are so important to economic life that they need to be rescued repeatedly from their own mistakes, they become virtually a public utility that ought to receive a certain guaranteed profit but be barred from speculative investments. That was once the law under the Glass-Steagall Act enacted under the New Deal in 1933 after the stock market crash of 1929 but repealed in 1980. If we want to keep the bankers conservative and protect the depositors, perhaps Glass-Steagall should be reenacted to limit our worries and our losses.
By Jerome Grossman
In a key scene in a famous movie, "The Graduate", the young Dustin Hoffman is cornered at the graduation party by an older man who whispers enigmatically, “plastics", a hot business of that decade. Ten years ago the same bore would have whispered "Real Estate." Welcome to our world of capitalism, where boom and bust often alternate, where the quickest make a killing and the slower have trouble sleeping.
Subprime lending on mortgages with little or no money down followed by securitization of debt in derivatives was born out of the illusion of permanent high demand. The housing industry was overbought and oversold and of course would never collapse - until it did.
The banks and financial institutions that invested in this "sure thing" were gambling with OPM, Other People's Money. They couldn't lose: if the market turned they were too big to fail, they would be bailed out by the government, then after a few years the gambling would begin again. Not protected were the consumers who signed the mortgages, nor the small businesses affected by the decline in trade. Only the big boys: heads they win, tails, the taxpayers lose.
Now the White House offers a plan to resolve the growing credit crisis made worse by eroding home prices. The plan relies on the same banks and mortgage brokers and Wall Street firms that are to blame for the current crisis. Yet there is no plan to prevent a recurrence in the future. No significant regulation is provided and the federal government has only a limited role in the regulation. The plan is to leave regulation to the states. We know how that has worked out on other issues such as taxation: the states compete with each other awarding breaks to the businesses in order to attract or keep them.
There is a larger question. If banks and financial institutions are so important to economic life that they need to be rescued repeatedly from their own mistakes, they become virtually a public utility that ought to receive a certain guaranteed profit but be barred from speculative investments. That was once the law under the Glass-Steagall Act enacted under the New Deal in 1933 after the stock market crash of 1929 but repealed in 1980. If we want to keep the bankers conservative and protect the depositors, perhaps Glass-Steagall should be reenacted to limit our worries and our losses.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Flip a Coin For President
Flip a Coin For President
By Jerome Grossman
Barack Obama was on a "roll" as they stay in the clubhouse of the Boston Red Sox. He had won 11 straight primaries, all but one in smaller states as the Hillary Clinton campaign reserved its money and energies for the biggest states. And indeed Hillary won California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan and Florida.
The Obama campaign looked like the New England Patriots as they approached the Super Bowl with a record of 18 straight victories. Defeat was unthinkable. The Obama organization, like the Patriots, was justifiably touted as the best in the business. The candidate was tall, handsome, and brilliant with a remarkable gift for oratory. Moreover, it had political smarts and powerful political momentum.
But on March 5 in the super duper primaries for Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont, the underdog rose up and defeated the big dog in every state but tiny Vermont, just as the New England Patriots lost to the under dog New York Giants in the Super Bowl. In that one event, much of the air went out of the Obama campaign. It was no longer a perfect instrument; it had failed and lost momentum. Even the candidate seemed diminished as he repeated his mantra of hope, change and inspiration. But not diminished enough to call for Tom Brady as substitute candidate, for Tom Brady, the Patriots inspiration had also been seriously diminished by losing.
Nothing succeeds like success. Even Hillary's negatives have gone down. Her campaign now has momentum as the contest moves into the final quarter. When Hillary wins Pennsylvania on April 22, neither candidate will have enough delegates for nomination at the convention. It will be up to the super delegates to break the virtual tie. Remarkably, Hillary has revived her relatively inefficient campaign three times: after Iowa, South Carolina and the eleven defeats, while the media constantly shows their distaste for her.
Right now, it appears that the super delegates will decide the nomination. The super delegates are appointed, not elected, from the ranks of political big shots who think they own the party: Senators, Representatives, Governors, bureaucrats past and present, donors and professional politicians. They can vote for whomever they please. They don't have to run for delegate and perhaps be defeated. They can play it safe and wait until they see the likely winner. Predictably, the Obama and Clinton campaigns are putting maximum pressure on the super delegates, including making serious financial donations to their political committees.
Some super delegates are in embarrassing situations. Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator John Kerry, and Governor Deval Patrick endorsed Obama before the Massachusetts primary. But the state voted heavily for Hillary Clinton. Caroline Kennedy's endorsement did not prevent a big Clinton win in New York, nor did Patrick Kennedy save Rhode Island, nor Maria Shriver Schwarzenegger save California. US Representative John Lewis switched from Clinton to Obama partly because a rival candidate made it an issue and filed to oppose him for reelection.
Hillary has a chance to pick up 366 delegates in Michigan and Florida where she won primaries that were disqualified for breaking party rules but there will be intense opposition. It seems inconceivable that the millions of voters in those two big states can be effectively disenfranchised. Especially in Florida, where the violation was made by the Republican Governor and legislature. This battle on the convention floor could harm party unity and jeopardize victory in November.
An ideal solution for this dangerous rivalry would be to nominate both Obama and Clinton, one for President, the other for Vice President. Which one on top? Flip a coin. They are both superb candidates who would represent the party with distinction.
By Jerome Grossman
Barack Obama was on a "roll" as they stay in the clubhouse of the Boston Red Sox. He had won 11 straight primaries, all but one in smaller states as the Hillary Clinton campaign reserved its money and energies for the biggest states. And indeed Hillary won California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan and Florida.
The Obama campaign looked like the New England Patriots as they approached the Super Bowl with a record of 18 straight victories. Defeat was unthinkable. The Obama organization, like the Patriots, was justifiably touted as the best in the business. The candidate was tall, handsome, and brilliant with a remarkable gift for oratory. Moreover, it had political smarts and powerful political momentum.
But on March 5 in the super duper primaries for Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont, the underdog rose up and defeated the big dog in every state but tiny Vermont, just as the New England Patriots lost to the under dog New York Giants in the Super Bowl. In that one event, much of the air went out of the Obama campaign. It was no longer a perfect instrument; it had failed and lost momentum. Even the candidate seemed diminished as he repeated his mantra of hope, change and inspiration. But not diminished enough to call for Tom Brady as substitute candidate, for Tom Brady, the Patriots inspiration had also been seriously diminished by losing.
Nothing succeeds like success. Even Hillary's negatives have gone down. Her campaign now has momentum as the contest moves into the final quarter. When Hillary wins Pennsylvania on April 22, neither candidate will have enough delegates for nomination at the convention. It will be up to the super delegates to break the virtual tie. Remarkably, Hillary has revived her relatively inefficient campaign three times: after Iowa, South Carolina and the eleven defeats, while the media constantly shows their distaste for her.
Right now, it appears that the super delegates will decide the nomination. The super delegates are appointed, not elected, from the ranks of political big shots who think they own the party: Senators, Representatives, Governors, bureaucrats past and present, donors and professional politicians. They can vote for whomever they please. They don't have to run for delegate and perhaps be defeated. They can play it safe and wait until they see the likely winner. Predictably, the Obama and Clinton campaigns are putting maximum pressure on the super delegates, including making serious financial donations to their political committees.
Some super delegates are in embarrassing situations. Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator John Kerry, and Governor Deval Patrick endorsed Obama before the Massachusetts primary. But the state voted heavily for Hillary Clinton. Caroline Kennedy's endorsement did not prevent a big Clinton win in New York, nor did Patrick Kennedy save Rhode Island, nor Maria Shriver Schwarzenegger save California. US Representative John Lewis switched from Clinton to Obama partly because a rival candidate made it an issue and filed to oppose him for reelection.
Hillary has a chance to pick up 366 delegates in Michigan and Florida where she won primaries that were disqualified for breaking party rules but there will be intense opposition. It seems inconceivable that the millions of voters in those two big states can be effectively disenfranchised. Especially in Florida, where the violation was made by the Republican Governor and legislature. This battle on the convention floor could harm party unity and jeopardize victory in November.
An ideal solution for this dangerous rivalry would be to nominate both Obama and Clinton, one for President, the other for Vice President. Which one on top? Flip a coin. They are both superb candidates who would represent the party with distinction.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Ralph Nader, Please Don't Run
Ralph Nader, Please Don't Run
By Jerome Grossman
Ralph Nader told Tim Russert of NBC on "Meet the Press" that he was running again for President of the United States. Why is he running? Certainly not to win or even to influence the result. Nader runs because he wants to talk about issues, to educate the voters about the problems the United States faces, problems that are virtually ignored in contemporary politics.
He wants to talk about a single-payer health plan, "full Medicare for all," about a national commitment to abolish poverty, about corporate crime, the bloated military budget, and the waste, fraud and corruption in government operations.
Nader has a track record for progressive change he has brought to American society: seat belts and air bags and safer automobiles; battles against tainted meat, air and water pollution and food additives; initiating and building agencies that protect the worker, the environment, and the consumer. And lots more over the last fifty years. In fact, a case could be made that he has improved the lives of more Americans than any other member of his generation including the presidents who led the nation.
But Nader should not run for president if his aim is to raise his issues with American voters. He should know that not many ballots are cast on issues. At the presidential level certainly, and perhaps at all levels, little attention is paid to detailed solutions of problems. Faced with complicated details requiring close study, faced with a shortage of time in our helter-skelter lifestyle, American voters put their trust in winning personalities who seduce them with their handsome appearance, attractive styles and lofty rhetoric. Promises of solutions are more easily accepted than the details of specific plans. And besides, who has the time to pay attention.
Barack Obama is the latest example of the personally attractive leader. But the phenomenon has appeared often in the history of the republic. After the emotion fades, it is difficult to remember the love and enthusiasm. In 2000, George W. Bush was the popular candidate with whom to have a beer. Bill Clinton was young and handsome. Ronald Reagan had the moves and looks of a movie star. Jimmy Carter presented himself as a saint who would never tell a lie. John F. Kennedy was a prince of the Round Table, young and handsome and dashing. Dwight Eisenhower was the war hero of the century; both parties wanted him to be their president. FDR charmed with his conversational style and aristocratic mannerisms. And remember Ulysses Grant, Gary Hart, Howard Dean and so many other heroes who made our hearts flutter.
Cynics may cry, if cynics cry, that the people are not supposed to get into the details. Leave that to the specialists, the experts hired by the lobbyists who are hired by corporate America who really run the country anyway. Presidential politics may be a form of entertainment, supplied by the management every four years as an emotional catharsis to the masses. And it is fun.
Ralph Nader, you are making a mistake. Stay with your successful act: hire lawyers, encourage the whistleblowers, sue the corporations, monitor the government, and make change, real change, not just in words but by demanding more improvements like those you made that have so enriched our lives. You and your painstaking work are the true hope and inspiration of our days.
By Jerome Grossman
Ralph Nader told Tim Russert of NBC on "Meet the Press" that he was running again for President of the United States. Why is he running? Certainly not to win or even to influence the result. Nader runs because he wants to talk about issues, to educate the voters about the problems the United States faces, problems that are virtually ignored in contemporary politics.
He wants to talk about a single-payer health plan, "full Medicare for all," about a national commitment to abolish poverty, about corporate crime, the bloated military budget, and the waste, fraud and corruption in government operations.
Nader has a track record for progressive change he has brought to American society: seat belts and air bags and safer automobiles; battles against tainted meat, air and water pollution and food additives; initiating and building agencies that protect the worker, the environment, and the consumer. And lots more over the last fifty years. In fact, a case could be made that he has improved the lives of more Americans than any other member of his generation including the presidents who led the nation.
But Nader should not run for president if his aim is to raise his issues with American voters. He should know that not many ballots are cast on issues. At the presidential level certainly, and perhaps at all levels, little attention is paid to detailed solutions of problems. Faced with complicated details requiring close study, faced with a shortage of time in our helter-skelter lifestyle, American voters put their trust in winning personalities who seduce them with their handsome appearance, attractive styles and lofty rhetoric. Promises of solutions are more easily accepted than the details of specific plans. And besides, who has the time to pay attention.
Barack Obama is the latest example of the personally attractive leader. But the phenomenon has appeared often in the history of the republic. After the emotion fades, it is difficult to remember the love and enthusiasm. In 2000, George W. Bush was the popular candidate with whom to have a beer. Bill Clinton was young and handsome. Ronald Reagan had the moves and looks of a movie star. Jimmy Carter presented himself as a saint who would never tell a lie. John F. Kennedy was a prince of the Round Table, young and handsome and dashing. Dwight Eisenhower was the war hero of the century; both parties wanted him to be their president. FDR charmed with his conversational style and aristocratic mannerisms. And remember Ulysses Grant, Gary Hart, Howard Dean and so many other heroes who made our hearts flutter.
Cynics may cry, if cynics cry, that the people are not supposed to get into the details. Leave that to the specialists, the experts hired by the lobbyists who are hired by corporate America who really run the country anyway. Presidential politics may be a form of entertainment, supplied by the management every four years as an emotional catharsis to the masses. And it is fun.
Ralph Nader, you are making a mistake. Stay with your successful act: hire lawyers, encourage the whistleblowers, sue the corporations, monitor the government, and make change, real change, not just in words but by demanding more improvements like those you made that have so enriched our lives. You and your painstaking work are the true hope and inspiration of our days.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Will the U.S. ever Leave Iraq?
Will the U.S. ever Leave Iraq?
By Jerome Grossman
Since achieving majority control of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Democrats in Congress have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush's war policy. Only one bill was passed by both bodies and that was vetoed by Bush.
However, every one of the 40 bills contained a special section providing for a residual U.S. military force to remain in Iraq with no time limit to perform the military tasks U.S. forces are now doing. This week, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced Senate Bill 2633 to redeploy U.S. combat troops from Iraq. It requires that after 120 days, funding in Iraq be limited to the following: conducting targeted military operations against Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, providing security for U.S. personnel and infrastructure, training Iraq security forces, providing equipment and training to U.S. troops, and continuing to redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq.
The activities listed in Senate Bill 2633 essentially cover the current programs of the U.S. military in Iraq. These programs are now carried out by 162,000 troops. A continuation as specified in the bill would require approximately the same number of troops. Any reductions are likely to be token in size and cosmetic in purpose.
While calling for the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq, the Democrats in Congress, including Senators Clinton and Obama, are actually providing for an American residual military force in Iraq that will have responsibilities there for many years to come. Is that what the American people want?
By Jerome Grossman
Since achieving majority control of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Democrats in Congress have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush's war policy. Only one bill was passed by both bodies and that was vetoed by Bush.
However, every one of the 40 bills contained a special section providing for a residual U.S. military force to remain in Iraq with no time limit to perform the military tasks U.S. forces are now doing. This week, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced Senate Bill 2633 to redeploy U.S. combat troops from Iraq. It requires that after 120 days, funding in Iraq be limited to the following: conducting targeted military operations against Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, providing security for U.S. personnel and infrastructure, training Iraq security forces, providing equipment and training to U.S. troops, and continuing to redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq.
The activities listed in Senate Bill 2633 essentially cover the current programs of the U.S. military in Iraq. These programs are now carried out by 162,000 troops. A continuation as specified in the bill would require approximately the same number of troops. Any reductions are likely to be token in size and cosmetic in purpose.
While calling for the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq, the Democrats in Congress, including Senators Clinton and Obama, are actually providing for an American residual military force in Iraq that will have responsibilities there for many years to come. Is that what the American people want?
Friday, February 22, 2008
The Democrats are in the Red Zone
The Democrats are in the Red Zone
By Jerome Grossman
When this remarkable election campaign began, Senator Hillary Clinton was clearly the class of the field, her main rivals present or past senators who could not come close to matching her in name recognition, national organization, and financial resources. In addition, she had the moral advantage of being the very first woman with a serious chance of attaining the presidency, the highest office in this constitutional republic.
Hillary was a sure thing, inevitable, just like the New England Patriots were to win the Super Bowl and to achieve an unprecedented 19 - 0 season. With the Democratic nomination seemingly assured, Hillary’s strategy was to prepare for the Republican onslaught in November that will surely feature national security, war on terrorists and increased military might combined with accusations of Democratic softness. Hence her maneuvering for assignment to the Senate Armed Services Committee, hence her vote to authorize President Bush to invade Iraq.
Hillary's vote gave Barack Obama the political opening that catapulted him into contention as the only major candidate to have opposed the war from the start, even though he did it in relative obscurity in Illinois before he was elected to the U.S. Senate. It was the primary reason for his candidacy and brought the passionate antiwar constituency of the Democratic Party solidly into his camp, a constituency that kept his campaign alive when it looked like he was going nowhere.
Now Obama is riding a wave of popularity and political success. His team is moving down the field in Texas and Ohio needing only one more touchdown to end the game - and they are moving relentlessly into the red zone to score. Obama is the quarterback, a triple threat, throwing inspiration, hope and change at the opposition with speed and accuracy. Can they hold off this offense? Is victory for the Obama Giants inevitable over the champion Clinton Patriots?
Hillary doesn't think so. She has a defensive strategy even in the dreaded Red Zone. From the.Belichick playbook, she has three lines of defense. Up front are three massive linemen from Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania who must dig in and stop the Obama advance. If they fail, the second line of defense, the linebackers, will be the delegates of Michigan and Florida, now off the field, who must be allowed to play to fulfill the Democratic obligation for a full team of fifty players on the field. And if the first two defenses don't stop the Obama Giants, the third line would be the safeties who would handle the 796 superdelegates at the convention.
So don’t count out the Hillary Patriots. One of their triple defenses might work. That is why their quarterback comes out of the locker room every day with a blonde helmet and a forced smile, full of hope and energy.
Even if her triple defense strategy doesn't work and the Obama Giants score and take the lead, the Hillary Patriots can use the remaining seconds on a traditional Hail Mary. Throw away the centrist playbook and adopt the relentless liberal program: 1.immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq, 2.expansion of Medicare to cover every American regardless of age, 3.reform of the tax code to eliminate the tax breaks for Wall Street barons, 4. raise the minimum wage so that every family of four would be above the poverty line, 5.reduce the military budget and spend the savings on repairing roads and bridges etc. all over the country
Maybe the Hail Mary pass would be intercepted and fail - but what a way to go!
By Jerome Grossman
When this remarkable election campaign began, Senator Hillary Clinton was clearly the class of the field, her main rivals present or past senators who could not come close to matching her in name recognition, national organization, and financial resources. In addition, she had the moral advantage of being the very first woman with a serious chance of attaining the presidency, the highest office in this constitutional republic.
Hillary was a sure thing, inevitable, just like the New England Patriots were to win the Super Bowl and to achieve an unprecedented 19 - 0 season. With the Democratic nomination seemingly assured, Hillary’s strategy was to prepare for the Republican onslaught in November that will surely feature national security, war on terrorists and increased military might combined with accusations of Democratic softness. Hence her maneuvering for assignment to the Senate Armed Services Committee, hence her vote to authorize President Bush to invade Iraq.
Hillary's vote gave Barack Obama the political opening that catapulted him into contention as the only major candidate to have opposed the war from the start, even though he did it in relative obscurity in Illinois before he was elected to the U.S. Senate. It was the primary reason for his candidacy and brought the passionate antiwar constituency of the Democratic Party solidly into his camp, a constituency that kept his campaign alive when it looked like he was going nowhere.
Now Obama is riding a wave of popularity and political success. His team is moving down the field in Texas and Ohio needing only one more touchdown to end the game - and they are moving relentlessly into the red zone to score. Obama is the quarterback, a triple threat, throwing inspiration, hope and change at the opposition with speed and accuracy. Can they hold off this offense? Is victory for the Obama Giants inevitable over the champion Clinton Patriots?
Hillary doesn't think so. She has a defensive strategy even in the dreaded Red Zone. From the.Belichick playbook, she has three lines of defense. Up front are three massive linemen from Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania who must dig in and stop the Obama advance. If they fail, the second line of defense, the linebackers, will be the delegates of Michigan and Florida, now off the field, who must be allowed to play to fulfill the Democratic obligation for a full team of fifty players on the field. And if the first two defenses don't stop the Obama Giants, the third line would be the safeties who would handle the 796 superdelegates at the convention.
So don’t count out the Hillary Patriots. One of their triple defenses might work. That is why their quarterback comes out of the locker room every day with a blonde helmet and a forced smile, full of hope and energy.
Even if her triple defense strategy doesn't work and the Obama Giants score and take the lead, the Hillary Patriots can use the remaining seconds on a traditional Hail Mary. Throw away the centrist playbook and adopt the relentless liberal program: 1.immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq, 2.expansion of Medicare to cover every American regardless of age, 3.reform of the tax code to eliminate the tax breaks for Wall Street barons, 4. raise the minimum wage so that every family of four would be above the poverty line, 5.reduce the military budget and spend the savings on repairing roads and bridges etc. all over the country
Maybe the Hail Mary pass would be intercepted and fail - but what a way to go!
Monday, February 18, 2008
The Origin of SuperDelegates
The Origin of SuperDelegates
The peace movement in Massachusetts was determined to have a role in the 1972 presidential election by getting behind a single antiwar candidate early, as we had done in the Drinan race. We decided to let the activists choose the candidate and unite behind him.
The preparations were easy, since we already had rules and methods. For this caucus, unlike Drinan’s, we didn't care if the candidates made their pitches in person. We thought it might actually be better if they didn't show up and work their charisma on the participants. We were selecting the candidate behind whom we could unite. It was our party, not theirs. We added two more objectives: we wanted to persuade similar groups around the country to imitate our course of action, and we wanted to be the first such mini-convention, so our result would influence any others. If other groups shared our objective of choosing only one, there would be great pressure on liberals in other states to echo our choice.
We succeeded. We were first on line, in January 1972, and six other states held similar meetings.
Senator George McGovern had been extremely active since the 1968 election, reforming the delegate selection rules of the Democratic Party so the rank-and-file had greater power, leading the debates in the Senate on Vietnam and other war and peace issues, and speaking around the country as he did to the Massachusetts Moratorium Rally. McGovern overcame the suspicion generated at the 1968 Democratic convention when he allowed Robert Kennedy delegates to nominate him while the McCarthy delegates were trying to combine the two groups.
When the Massachusetts Liberal Caucus selected McGovern, he had less than 1% voter support in the public opinion polls. That evening, McGovern called to thank the group through me as one of the prime organizers. He said that Ted Kennedy had phoned him and told him, “You're on your way now. That group is hard-working and effective. They will kill themselves for you.”
Nevertheless, everybody who was anybody in Massachusetts remain committed to the “sure” nominee, Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine, who’d been on the Democratic ticket with Humphrey in 1968. Virtually every Democratic officeholder and big contributor was working for Big Ed, from Tip O’Neill to Mike Dukakis to Barney Frank. As McGovern's man in Massachusetts, I put together the delegation to represent him on the Massachusetts primary ballot. It was the broadest delegation the party had ever assembled. It was 50% women and included black neighborhood leaders, Hispanics, radicals, liberals, professors like John Kenneth Galbraith, a few officeholders like Drinan, and people who had been handing out leaflets for years without ever receiving any goodies.
I was tickled at my handiwork, especially when McGovern shocked the party and swept the primary. When the time came for the convention, the idea that the political bosses of Massachusetts were home and a hundred “just folks” were in Miami deciding the fate of the party gave me the greatest kick.. And the “just folks” worked very hard. Every decision was carefully studied and discussed and voted on. When the McGovern whips came to instruct the delegation, sometimes we accepted their instructions and sometimes we didn't. For example, there were two delegations from Illinois competing for seating, one led by Mayor Richard Daley, the other by insurgents who claimed Daley had used unfair tactics. The McGovern organization begged us to seat Daley and his people because we needed him to carry Illinois but there was no way we were going to reward “His Honor” after the police riot at the Chicago convention. The delegation voted for the insurgents, who carried the day. But on the key California challenge that could have cost McGovern the nomination we voted solidly as recommended.
One convention day a rumor swept the delegation that Mayor Kevin white of Boston was about to be offered the nomination for Vice President. At first, nobody took it very seriously, but when we did, Galbraith, Drinan and I got word to McGovern that he should reconsider, reminding him of how White had attacked the moratorium arguing that such a hawk should not be on the ticket. The real damage was done by Ted Kennedy, who is reported to have said that, for other reasons, he would not campaign for the ticket if White was on it.
The professional politicians resented the new kind of delegates. Tip O’Neill, known for his tolerance and good humor and a self-styled liberal, did not contain himself: In his book “Man of the House,” published in 1987, he wrote, “Flying back from the 1972 convention I had a long talk with Bob Strauss the treasurer and future chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and Senator Henry Jackson of Washington. All of us were bitter at what we had just witnessed. The convention was filled with first-time delegates, mostly women and minorities who spent the bulk of their time fighting over the various planks of the party platform.”
I thought the convention was an exhilarating experience. The delegates talked issues virtually 24 hours a day instead of drinking whiskey and buttering up big contributors. It was an authentic peoples convention that pushed aside the pros for a glorious week.
In six months, McGovern had gone from less than 1% in the polls to being a heavy favorite for Democratic nomination. It was a political revolution propelled by dissatisfaction with the Vietnam War abroad and domestic turmoil at home. McGovern's rise to power in the party came against the wishes of the party professionals and the big money givers. The McGovern campaign workers in the field were left- liberal amateurs, but amateurs who learned quickly. And the money poured in in small contributions from all over the country. There were no financial angel's.
But as soon as nomination was assured, McGovern and his advisers began to eye the center to broaden the base of the movement. One day in June, 1972, a friend of mine overheard McGovern and his campaign manager, Frank Mankiewicz, discuss strategy in Massachusetts. The first thing they had to do they decided, was make sure Jerry Grossman didn't get on the DNC. I knew nothing about the DNC. I had to go to the library to learn about its duties and processes. It was certainly outside the range of my ambition. My role has always been to be an organizer for avant-garde ideas. I am a natural contrarian of the left.
However, the story made me angry, and I decided to run for the DNC just for the hell of it. The McGovern people spread the word that David Harrison, former chair of the Massachusetts Democratic State committee and now a lawyer lobbyist, was McGovern's choice. If they had taken up the matter with me and appealed to me on practical political grounds, I probably would have gone along, but they didn't.
For decades, DNC members in Massachusetts, one man and one woman, had been chosen by the convention delegation, a safe process because the delegation had always been dominated by professional officeholders, with a sprinkling of big contributors. In 1972, however, virtually every delegate had been asked on to the slate by me as chief organizer for McGovern and a few who hadn’t knew I was the soul of the McGovern effort in Massachusetts. I easily polished off Harrison on the first ballot, but I had more of a contest with my liberal friends.
Nixon won 49 states in November; McGovern carried Massachusetts. It wasn't long before Nixon resigned the presidency rather than face impeachment and bumper stickers with the message: “Don't blame me,I'm from Massachusetts” appeared on cars throughout the state.
This anecdote is reprinted from Relentless Liberal by Jerome Grossman Vantage Press New York1996
Robert F. Drinan, S.J.was a Roman Catholic priest, Dean of the Boston College Law School, who was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1970 defeating an entrenched incumbent in a campaign organized by grassroots peace activists opposed to the Vietnam War. This election began the political process that transformed Massachusetts into the ultra liberal state. Father Drinan served in Congress for 10 years.
Thomas P. O'Neill (Tip) was a professional politician whose unbroken string of election victories culminated in his terms as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives He was the most powerful politician in Massachusetts with great national influence.
The peace movement in Massachusetts was determined to have a role in the 1972 presidential election by getting behind a single antiwar candidate early, as we had done in the Drinan race. We decided to let the activists choose the candidate and unite behind him.
The preparations were easy, since we already had rules and methods. For this caucus, unlike Drinan’s, we didn't care if the candidates made their pitches in person. We thought it might actually be better if they didn't show up and work their charisma on the participants. We were selecting the candidate behind whom we could unite. It was our party, not theirs. We added two more objectives: we wanted to persuade similar groups around the country to imitate our course of action, and we wanted to be the first such mini-convention, so our result would influence any others. If other groups shared our objective of choosing only one, there would be great pressure on liberals in other states to echo our choice.
We succeeded. We were first on line, in January 1972, and six other states held similar meetings.
Senator George McGovern had been extremely active since the 1968 election, reforming the delegate selection rules of the Democratic Party so the rank-and-file had greater power, leading the debates in the Senate on Vietnam and other war and peace issues, and speaking around the country as he did to the Massachusetts Moratorium Rally. McGovern overcame the suspicion generated at the 1968 Democratic convention when he allowed Robert Kennedy delegates to nominate him while the McCarthy delegates were trying to combine the two groups.
When the Massachusetts Liberal Caucus selected McGovern, he had less than 1% voter support in the public opinion polls. That evening, McGovern called to thank the group through me as one of the prime organizers. He said that Ted Kennedy had phoned him and told him, “You're on your way now. That group is hard-working and effective. They will kill themselves for you.”
Nevertheless, everybody who was anybody in Massachusetts remain committed to the “sure” nominee, Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine, who’d been on the Democratic ticket with Humphrey in 1968. Virtually every Democratic officeholder and big contributor was working for Big Ed, from Tip O’Neill to Mike Dukakis to Barney Frank. As McGovern's man in Massachusetts, I put together the delegation to represent him on the Massachusetts primary ballot. It was the broadest delegation the party had ever assembled. It was 50% women and included black neighborhood leaders, Hispanics, radicals, liberals, professors like John Kenneth Galbraith, a few officeholders like Drinan, and people who had been handing out leaflets for years without ever receiving any goodies.
I was tickled at my handiwork, especially when McGovern shocked the party and swept the primary. When the time came for the convention, the idea that the political bosses of Massachusetts were home and a hundred “just folks” were in Miami deciding the fate of the party gave me the greatest kick.. And the “just folks” worked very hard. Every decision was carefully studied and discussed and voted on. When the McGovern whips came to instruct the delegation, sometimes we accepted their instructions and sometimes we didn't. For example, there were two delegations from Illinois competing for seating, one led by Mayor Richard Daley, the other by insurgents who claimed Daley had used unfair tactics. The McGovern organization begged us to seat Daley and his people because we needed him to carry Illinois but there was no way we were going to reward “His Honor” after the police riot at the Chicago convention. The delegation voted for the insurgents, who carried the day. But on the key California challenge that could have cost McGovern the nomination we voted solidly as recommended.
One convention day a rumor swept the delegation that Mayor Kevin white of Boston was about to be offered the nomination for Vice President. At first, nobody took it very seriously, but when we did, Galbraith, Drinan and I got word to McGovern that he should reconsider, reminding him of how White had attacked the moratorium arguing that such a hawk should not be on the ticket. The real damage was done by Ted Kennedy, who is reported to have said that, for other reasons, he would not campaign for the ticket if White was on it.
The professional politicians resented the new kind of delegates. Tip O’Neill, known for his tolerance and good humor and a self-styled liberal, did not contain himself: In his book “Man of the House,” published in 1987, he wrote, “Flying back from the 1972 convention I had a long talk with Bob Strauss the treasurer and future chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and Senator Henry Jackson of Washington. All of us were bitter at what we had just witnessed. The convention was filled with first-time delegates, mostly women and minorities who spent the bulk of their time fighting over the various planks of the party platform.”
I thought the convention was an exhilarating experience. The delegates talked issues virtually 24 hours a day instead of drinking whiskey and buttering up big contributors. It was an authentic peoples convention that pushed aside the pros for a glorious week.
In six months, McGovern had gone from less than 1% in the polls to being a heavy favorite for Democratic nomination. It was a political revolution propelled by dissatisfaction with the Vietnam War abroad and domestic turmoil at home. McGovern's rise to power in the party came against the wishes of the party professionals and the big money givers. The McGovern campaign workers in the field were left- liberal amateurs, but amateurs who learned quickly. And the money poured in in small contributions from all over the country. There were no financial angel's.
But as soon as nomination was assured, McGovern and his advisers began to eye the center to broaden the base of the movement. One day in June, 1972, a friend of mine overheard McGovern and his campaign manager, Frank Mankiewicz, discuss strategy in Massachusetts. The first thing they had to do they decided, was make sure Jerry Grossman didn't get on the DNC. I knew nothing about the DNC. I had to go to the library to learn about its duties and processes. It was certainly outside the range of my ambition. My role has always been to be an organizer for avant-garde ideas. I am a natural contrarian of the left.
However, the story made me angry, and I decided to run for the DNC just for the hell of it. The McGovern people spread the word that David Harrison, former chair of the Massachusetts Democratic State committee and now a lawyer lobbyist, was McGovern's choice. If they had taken up the matter with me and appealed to me on practical political grounds, I probably would have gone along, but they didn't.
For decades, DNC members in Massachusetts, one man and one woman, had been chosen by the convention delegation, a safe process because the delegation had always been dominated by professional officeholders, with a sprinkling of big contributors. In 1972, however, virtually every delegate had been asked on to the slate by me as chief organizer for McGovern and a few who hadn’t knew I was the soul of the McGovern effort in Massachusetts. I easily polished off Harrison on the first ballot, but I had more of a contest with my liberal friends.
Nixon won 49 states in November; McGovern carried Massachusetts. It wasn't long before Nixon resigned the presidency rather than face impeachment and bumper stickers with the message: “Don't blame me,I'm from Massachusetts” appeared on cars throughout the state.
This anecdote is reprinted from Relentless Liberal by Jerome Grossman Vantage Press New York1996
Robert F. Drinan, S.J.was a Roman Catholic priest, Dean of the Boston College Law School, who was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1970 defeating an entrenched incumbent in a campaign organized by grassroots peace activists opposed to the Vietnam War. This election began the political process that transformed Massachusetts into the ultra liberal state. Father Drinan served in Congress for 10 years.
Thomas P. O'Neill (Tip) was a professional politician whose unbroken string of election victories culminated in his terms as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives He was the most powerful politician in Massachusetts with great national influence.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Race and Gender Matter
Race and Gender Matter
By Jerome Grossman
The Democrats have a number of core constituencies: women, organized labor, African-Americans, liberals and Hispanics. Ideally, to satisfy all power centers in the party, a Democratic president would like to have five vice-presidents to represent the interests of each group but the Constitution is in the way so they are usually placed in the president's cabinet.
In the talent pool for the current campaign, the Democrats have produced two superior candidates, an African-American and a woman, both trying to break the historic monopoly enjoyed by white men. Their rise to leadership seems to signal a change in American attitudes toward women and people of color. Have we transcended race and gender in America? Is that why the Democrats have brought twice as many voters to the polls as the GOP and raised far more money?
The Republicans will have a problem remaining competitive whether the Democrats nominate Obama or Clinton. They already have a 71-year-old white man, who looks the part, at the top of the ticket. The American fetish with youth and especially with the celebrity culture requires a stunningly original choice to confuse the opposition as well as the voters.
If a woman and a black are capturing all those primary votes in every state and raising so many millions of dollars, the GOP can get into the act by presenting to the nation a candidate for vice- president who is a twofer, both a woman and an African-American - Condoleezza Rice. As Secretary of State, the former national security adviser, professor and concert pianist has the experience and savoir faire to attract the celebrity conscious U.S. public. Her link with unpopular President Bush is a negative she already shares with John McCain. She would bring an unusual combination of youth and experience to the GOP ticket and could become a star if she told us what went wrong with U.S. foreign policy and how she would repair it. And from an insider’s perspective, it might be sensational and irresistible.
By Jerome Grossman
The Democrats have a number of core constituencies: women, organized labor, African-Americans, liberals and Hispanics. Ideally, to satisfy all power centers in the party, a Democratic president would like to have five vice-presidents to represent the interests of each group but the Constitution is in the way so they are usually placed in the president's cabinet.
In the talent pool for the current campaign, the Democrats have produced two superior candidates, an African-American and a woman, both trying to break the historic monopoly enjoyed by white men. Their rise to leadership seems to signal a change in American attitudes toward women and people of color. Have we transcended race and gender in America? Is that why the Democrats have brought twice as many voters to the polls as the GOP and raised far more money?
The Republicans will have a problem remaining competitive whether the Democrats nominate Obama or Clinton. They already have a 71-year-old white man, who looks the part, at the top of the ticket. The American fetish with youth and especially with the celebrity culture requires a stunningly original choice to confuse the opposition as well as the voters.
If a woman and a black are capturing all those primary votes in every state and raising so many millions of dollars, the GOP can get into the act by presenting to the nation a candidate for vice- president who is a twofer, both a woman and an African-American - Condoleezza Rice. As Secretary of State, the former national security adviser, professor and concert pianist has the experience and savoir faire to attract the celebrity conscious U.S. public. Her link with unpopular President Bush is a negative she already shares with John McCain. She would bring an unusual combination of youth and experience to the GOP ticket and could become a star if she told us what went wrong with U.S. foreign policy and how she would repair it. And from an insider’s perspective, it might be sensational and irresistible.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Lessons of Super Tuesday
Lessons of Super Tuesday
By Jerome Grossman
In the presidential primaries on Super Tuesday, February 5, a mass of statistics was produced in the exit polls that weighed heavily on the basic forces colliding in the contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, forces that will also affect the November election.
In California, the Hispanic/Latino vote was Clinton 69, Obama 29; the Black vote was Obama 78, Clinton 19. In Massachusetts, the black vote was Obama 66, Clinton 29; the Hispanic vote was Clinton 56, Obama 36. In New Jersey the black vote was Obama 82, Clinton 14; the Hispanic vote, Clinton 68, Obama 30. Most of the other states had similar voting patterns.
Part of the reason for this pattern of voting can be ascribed to black loyalty to Obama, another part to the long relationship between Clinton and the Hispanic community. However, some believe that another powerful factor is the negative consequence of immigration, particularly Hispanic immigration, on the employment rate and wages of the African- American community, creating a tension between the two constituencies as they compete for jobs, housing, etc.
Another important electoral statistic was gleaned from the following question asked in the exit polls: Which candidate has the right experience to be president? In all states, those won by Obama as well as those won by Clinton, the numbers overwhelmingly favored Clinton by margins of more than nine to one. On the other three questions about who can bring about change, who cares about people like me, who has the best chance in November, both candidates were competitive.
The lessons from the exit polls are clear. Obama is showing great political talent and is gaining popular acceptance. Clinton should invest more energy in the Latino community as the upside potential for her is large. Clinton should emphasize her experience as a prime qualification even more then she already has. That factor appears to be the main Obama political weakness and is likely to be a prime theme for the McCain campaign should Obama win the nomination. Lack of experience joined with concerns about national security and McCain’s military record is likely be the prime Republican theme in the November general election, not only against Obama but also against Hillary for her lack of military experience.
Do these factors translate into victory for McCain in November? Not necessarily, but they make him competitive. President Bush leaves office in a difficult financial year for most Americans. The incumbent party has lost in three of the four elections since 1904 that have coincided with recessions (1920, 1932, and 1960). 2008 is likely to be another.
By Jerome Grossman
In the presidential primaries on Super Tuesday, February 5, a mass of statistics was produced in the exit polls that weighed heavily on the basic forces colliding in the contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, forces that will also affect the November election.
In California, the Hispanic/Latino vote was Clinton 69, Obama 29; the Black vote was Obama 78, Clinton 19. In Massachusetts, the black vote was Obama 66, Clinton 29; the Hispanic vote was Clinton 56, Obama 36. In New Jersey the black vote was Obama 82, Clinton 14; the Hispanic vote, Clinton 68, Obama 30. Most of the other states had similar voting patterns.
Part of the reason for this pattern of voting can be ascribed to black loyalty to Obama, another part to the long relationship between Clinton and the Hispanic community. However, some believe that another powerful factor is the negative consequence of immigration, particularly Hispanic immigration, on the employment rate and wages of the African- American community, creating a tension between the two constituencies as they compete for jobs, housing, etc.
Another important electoral statistic was gleaned from the following question asked in the exit polls: Which candidate has the right experience to be president? In all states, those won by Obama as well as those won by Clinton, the numbers overwhelmingly favored Clinton by margins of more than nine to one. On the other three questions about who can bring about change, who cares about people like me, who has the best chance in November, both candidates were competitive.
The lessons from the exit polls are clear. Obama is showing great political talent and is gaining popular acceptance. Clinton should invest more energy in the Latino community as the upside potential for her is large. Clinton should emphasize her experience as a prime qualification even more then she already has. That factor appears to be the main Obama political weakness and is likely to be a prime theme for the McCain campaign should Obama win the nomination. Lack of experience joined with concerns about national security and McCain’s military record is likely be the prime Republican theme in the November general election, not only against Obama but also against Hillary for her lack of military experience.
Do these factors translate into victory for McCain in November? Not necessarily, but they make him competitive. President Bush leaves office in a difficult financial year for most Americans. The incumbent party has lost in three of the four elections since 1904 that have coincided with recessions (1920, 1932, and 1960). 2008 is likely to be another.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
