Is it just me, or is the Democratic primary contest starting to resemble a Peanuts comic strip? As I think about the election I find myself reminded of Charlie Brown's perpetually futile attempts to kick the football held tantalizingly within grasp by Lucy Van Pelt.
Barack Obama has the unenviable role of Charlie Brown in the process as he runs headlong at the football over and over again (New Hampshire, California, Texas) and has it snatched away at the last moment. While Obama tends to land a little more gracefully than Charlie Brown the fundamental disappointment remains. The football is always just out of reach.
The question then becomes, who is playing the Lucy role?
It's tempting to say Hillary. After all, she's the obvious opponent and the biggest impediment to winning. Her recent trend of going negative before the election also fits the image.
But what about the media? They set the football out there within tantalizing grasp in the first place. Media-driven polls show Obama has a chance, which in this metaphor is liking holding the football.
Is it some sort of Bradley effect? Do voters decide at the last minute that they can't vote for a black candidate after all, regardless of what they told pollsters? I find this less convincing
because it's not like voting for a women is that much more conventional of a choice.
Maybe it's that Obama just doesn't have the support in these big states. He comes in with a burst of thrilling oratory and gains support. But when faced with the actual voting lever, they decide he's too new.
To be honest, I don't know the answer and neither does anyone else, regardless of who opines to the contrary. Just keep that in mind if the football continues getting snatched away.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Thursday, March 6, 2008
News from Home
As a native of the proud state of Arizona, there's nothing that does my heart prouder to see that the nut jobs who run state politics haven't changed much since I left. Never mind that in their Congressional Power Rankings, Congress.org ranks Rep. Rick Renzi of Arizona dead last in both chambers. That's just kind of piling on to a long-standing embarrassment that is no surprise or stranger to Arizona political watchers.
No, the latest example of good old politics as usual in the state comes from a bill introduced by State Senator Karen Johnson (and explained here) that allows permitted individuals to carry concealed weapons at public colleges and universities. You know, so if another shooter comes along, the proud students of Arizona can gun them down before things get out of hand. Because nothing breeds peace and harmony like more firearms. While I strongly disagree, this isn't even where the real lunacy comes. For that, I have to quote the New York Times story on the bill. "[Senator Johnson] initially wanted her bill to cover all public schools, kindergarten and up, but other lawmakers convinced her it stood a better chance of passing if it were limited to higher education."
That's right. The idea wasn't shot down (get it?) because it's stupid to have concealed, loaded firearms around kindergarteners; it was shot down because it might be easier to pass if it's limited to high education. You know, to get the wimpy moderates to agree.
Of course, this isn't the first time that Senator Johnson has gone out on a limb on the crazy tree. In 2000, she introduced a resolution that called for "abolition of the federal government and allowing individual states to assume their sovereign rights if the president, Congress, or any other federal agent were to declare martial law and suspend the Constitution. These states then would be free to form a new nation."
Seriously.
Did I mention that this is where John McCain is from? Just something to think about.
No, the latest example of good old politics as usual in the state comes from a bill introduced by State Senator Karen Johnson (and explained here) that allows permitted individuals to carry concealed weapons at public colleges and universities. You know, so if another shooter comes along, the proud students of Arizona can gun them down before things get out of hand. Because nothing breeds peace and harmony like more firearms. While I strongly disagree, this isn't even where the real lunacy comes. For that, I have to quote the New York Times story on the bill. "[Senator Johnson] initially wanted her bill to cover all public schools, kindergarten and up, but other lawmakers convinced her it stood a better chance of passing if it were limited to higher education."
That's right. The idea wasn't shot down (get it?) because it's stupid to have concealed, loaded firearms around kindergarteners; it was shot down because it might be easier to pass if it's limited to high education. You know, to get the wimpy moderates to agree.
Of course, this isn't the first time that Senator Johnson has gone out on a limb on the crazy tree. In 2000, she introduced a resolution that called for "abolition of the federal government and allowing individual states to assume their sovereign rights if the president, Congress, or any other federal agent were to declare martial law and suspend the Constitution. These states then would be free to form a new nation."
Seriously.
Did I mention that this is where John McCain is from? Just something to think about.
Save Public Education
If I try to write about the election today it's only going to make me sad or angry for the rest of the day. So with that in mind, it's back to the old standby: education reform.
Let me start by saying that even with it's problems (and they are numerous) I am still a 100% believer in free public education. In addition to the obvious economic advantages of having a well educated society, public schools act as an Americanizing, socializing influence that create a common culture in a way that little else can. Free public education is one of the great democratizing forces in our country today.
That being said, reforms are obviously necessary. One reform track that's gaining more and more steam in places as far flung as Arizona and New York City is the charter school movement. A charter school is a tax payer funded school run by a private and/or non-profit group rather than the government. The idea is that this will both create more market incentives for a failing system and that different charter schools will be more free to experiment and try new approaches to teaching than would be allowed in the regular, government-operated public schools.
It all sounds very attractive in theory. However, I view the charters with great suspicion. First, it strikes me as a plan to essentially have tax payers pay for private schools that have a fair amount of say over who gets in to the school and who gets to stay in the school. Second, because of those differences in enrollment, it's nearly impossible to have a true apples to apples comparison between charter and public schools. Even charters that select based on a lottery of all parents who submit an application are still drawing from a group of parents that care enough to fill out an application. Such cannot necessarily be said for a public school. If we assume that parental involvement influences student learning (and I think we can) then the "random" kids at the charter school are going to have a leg up. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
With all that in mind, I present for your viewing pleasure this video from Reason TV. If you can get past the fact that Drew Carey is the host and that the representative from the teacher's union looks a lot like Tom Hanks' character from the Ladykillers then it tells a pretty interesting story about a failing public school in L.A. trying to become a charter school.
The video hinges on the idea that powerful interest groups (the Department of Education, teacher's union, etc.) are what's holding back education in America and that if we could get past those groups the schools would be better. In this case, the way to move on is to create charter schools.
Frankly, I'm not sure if this is really the answer. As I said earlier, I'm already suspicious of charter schools as inroads to doing away with public education in favor of a privatized system. I also think it's naive to think that there will be no institutional hurdles to educating children in a private/charter school model. Also, it overlooks the obvious point that public schools can be reformed.
Assuming that the charter school representative can be taken at his word that the charter school will take everyone and keep everyone (which I would want to see to believe), then he's basically operating a public school in a different way. So why not operate a public school that way? Yes, it would take a school board willing to institute reforms and a teacher's union who remembers that unionism is a means, not an end in itself. But it can be done. And I think we should give it a try before we start dismantling the system.
Let me start by saying that even with it's problems (and they are numerous) I am still a 100% believer in free public education. In addition to the obvious economic advantages of having a well educated society, public schools act as an Americanizing, socializing influence that create a common culture in a way that little else can. Free public education is one of the great democratizing forces in our country today.
That being said, reforms are obviously necessary. One reform track that's gaining more and more steam in places as far flung as Arizona and New York City is the charter school movement. A charter school is a tax payer funded school run by a private and/or non-profit group rather than the government. The idea is that this will both create more market incentives for a failing system and that different charter schools will be more free to experiment and try new approaches to teaching than would be allowed in the regular, government-operated public schools.
It all sounds very attractive in theory. However, I view the charters with great suspicion. First, it strikes me as a plan to essentially have tax payers pay for private schools that have a fair amount of say over who gets in to the school and who gets to stay in the school. Second, because of those differences in enrollment, it's nearly impossible to have a true apples to apples comparison between charter and public schools. Even charters that select based on a lottery of all parents who submit an application are still drawing from a group of parents that care enough to fill out an application. Such cannot necessarily be said for a public school. If we assume that parental involvement influences student learning (and I think we can) then the "random" kids at the charter school are going to have a leg up. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
With all that in mind, I present for your viewing pleasure this video from Reason TV. If you can get past the fact that Drew Carey is the host and that the representative from the teacher's union looks a lot like Tom Hanks' character from the Ladykillers then it tells a pretty interesting story about a failing public school in L.A. trying to become a charter school.
The video hinges on the idea that powerful interest groups (the Department of Education, teacher's union, etc.) are what's holding back education in America and that if we could get past those groups the schools would be better. In this case, the way to move on is to create charter schools.
Frankly, I'm not sure if this is really the answer. As I said earlier, I'm already suspicious of charter schools as inroads to doing away with public education in favor of a privatized system. I also think it's naive to think that there will be no institutional hurdles to educating children in a private/charter school model. Also, it overlooks the obvious point that public schools can be reformed.
Assuming that the charter school representative can be taken at his word that the charter school will take everyone and keep everyone (which I would want to see to believe), then he's basically operating a public school in a different way. So why not operate a public school that way? Yes, it would take a school board willing to institute reforms and a teacher's union who remembers that unionism is a means, not an end in itself. But it can be done. And I think we should give it a try before we start dismantling the system.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The Song Remains the Same
Another Tuesday has come and gone and the situation stands pretty much as it did on Monday. Clinton won the big states (and a small one) to keep her campaign alive through the next two months until Pennsylvania. (See CNN delegate counts here.) Clinton showed yet again what a fighter she is and Obama maintained the delegate lead, but yet again missed the opportunity to end the campaign in one swoop. So things grind on as they have been without any real change.
Of course, that's just the Democratic side. On the other end of things, John McCain just became the presumptive Republican nominee having won the requisite number of delegates to clinch the nomination. Not that that will come as a surprise to too many people (other than those who thought he already had won the nomination). However, the contrast between the two parties is interesting to note here. In some senses, I think it's the real story about what's happening right now.
Once McCain took a commanding delegate lead, most of the rest of the Republican candidates dropped out and voters united behind the front runner. Sure Huckabee stayed in, but that shows his own tolerance for electoral humiliation more than any true divide in the Republican party.
On the Democratic side, though, Obama has a virtually insurmountable lead in the delegates. This isn't a secret as it's been written about in pretty much every publication in the country. By rights, he's the front runner and you'd think that Democrats would start to unite behind him the way that Republicans united behind McCain. But it's not happening. That majorities in Texas in Ohio would vote for someone who doesn't really have a realistic chance of clinching the nomination is a sign of major trouble for Obama and for the Democratic party. It reflects a deep split and raises questions about Obama's ability to unite all sorts of people when he can't quite seem to get his own party in line.
This situation now leaves both Democrats fighting a two-front war. They have to scrape with each other plus respond to whatever fire John McCain sends their way. As anyone who's read about the world wars or played Risk can tell you, they're not in a good place right now.
Of course, that's just the Democratic side. On the other end of things, John McCain just became the presumptive Republican nominee having won the requisite number of delegates to clinch the nomination. Not that that will come as a surprise to too many people (other than those who thought he already had won the nomination). However, the contrast between the two parties is interesting to note here. In some senses, I think it's the real story about what's happening right now.
Once McCain took a commanding delegate lead, most of the rest of the Republican candidates dropped out and voters united behind the front runner. Sure Huckabee stayed in, but that shows his own tolerance for electoral humiliation more than any true divide in the Republican party.
On the Democratic side, though, Obama has a virtually insurmountable lead in the delegates. This isn't a secret as it's been written about in pretty much every publication in the country. By rights, he's the front runner and you'd think that Democrats would start to unite behind him the way that Republicans united behind McCain. But it's not happening. That majorities in Texas in Ohio would vote for someone who doesn't really have a realistic chance of clinching the nomination is a sign of major trouble for Obama and for the Democratic party. It reflects a deep split and raises questions about Obama's ability to unite all sorts of people when he can't quite seem to get his own party in line.
This situation now leaves both Democrats fighting a two-front war. They have to scrape with each other plus respond to whatever fire John McCain sends their way. As anyone who's read about the world wars or played Risk can tell you, they're not in a good place right now.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Today's the Day
Well, it's upon us. The superest Tuesday since Super Tuesday itself. It's make or break day for the Clinton campaign. To a lesser extent, I think it's make or break for the Obama campaign as well.
Clinton obviously needs to do well tonight. She's invested the last hopes of her campaign in the idea that the Giuliana strategy will work if it's done out of desperation in the middle of the race. Bill has said she needs to win Texas and Ohio in order to stay competitive. While the latest polls show her with a marginal lead in Ohio and a slim lead in Texas, it's not looking terribly optimistic. (And let's be honest. Rhode Island and Vermont don't really count.) If Hillary doesn't win both states tonight look for her to be gone by the end of the week. The pressure among Democrats to have a nominee already will continue to build and resentment toward her will continue to build if she's seen as hanging on to a hopeless campaign.
For Obama, the stakes are also pretty high tonight. As I've written before, he has yet to show that he can really put Clinton away. He's had his opportunities (I'm thinking New Hampshire), but hasn't been able to get the job done. If he falls short yet again, the questions about his killer campaign instinct will get much louder. While I don't buy the argument that not winning one of the big states in the primary means he won't be able to win them in the general election (do we really think that California might go Republican?), Obama does need to eventually win a battleground state just to show that he can. If he falls short again, it adds credence to the idea that Hillary is the fighter we want in the general election and it gives her a reason to stick around for another two months.
P.S. For an adictive good time, check out CNN's Delegate Counter Game. Run through the various election night scenarios and see what happens to your favorite candidate's delegate count. It's very enjoyable in an OCD politics junkie kind of way.
Clinton obviously needs to do well tonight. She's invested the last hopes of her campaign in the idea that the Giuliana strategy will work if it's done out of desperation in the middle of the race. Bill has said she needs to win Texas and Ohio in order to stay competitive. While the latest polls show her with a marginal lead in Ohio and a slim lead in Texas, it's not looking terribly optimistic. (And let's be honest. Rhode Island and Vermont don't really count.) If Hillary doesn't win both states tonight look for her to be gone by the end of the week. The pressure among Democrats to have a nominee already will continue to build and resentment toward her will continue to build if she's seen as hanging on to a hopeless campaign.
For Obama, the stakes are also pretty high tonight. As I've written before, he has yet to show that he can really put Clinton away. He's had his opportunities (I'm thinking New Hampshire), but hasn't been able to get the job done. If he falls short yet again, the questions about his killer campaign instinct will get much louder. While I don't buy the argument that not winning one of the big states in the primary means he won't be able to win them in the general election (do we really think that California might go Republican?), Obama does need to eventually win a battleground state just to show that he can. If he falls short again, it adds credence to the idea that Hillary is the fighter we want in the general election and it gives her a reason to stick around for another two months.
P.S. For an adictive good time, check out CNN's Delegate Counter Game. Run through the various election night scenarios and see what happens to your favorite candidate's delegate count. It's very enjoyable in an OCD politics junkie kind of way.
Monday, March 3, 2008
More Post-Racial Nonsense
Oops. Turns out the pundits were wrong. Now we're getting reports that far from being the first and greatest post-racial politician, Barak Obama may actually be setting back the post-racial movement in America. At least, that's what Shelby Steele says, as explained in a recent article in Prospect Magazine.
I have to admit that I don't think I entirely understand the logic of what Steele is saying. However, the parts I do understand don't really hang together. The gist seems to be that whites see Obama as someone who will leave all talk of race behind and just happen to be black. Meanwhile, blacks see Obama as someone who will act as a new kind of civil rights leader and advance the black cause for equality. As these necessarily conflict, Obama can't achieve both. Thus, his presidency would disappoint one group or the other on racial grounds. Thus he is not post-racial and may even set back the movement for his having tried.
This is exactly why I hate the phrase post-racial so much. It doesn't reall mean anything and just gets people's heads twisted up in knots.
First of all, I'm not sure if the choice is as stark between pleasing black America and pleasing white America. As Obama himself might say, There's only the United States of America. But even from there, I'm not sure if this argument makes sense. First, it assumes that whites wouldn't see their own interests represented in efforts to bring all people equality. I think this is false. Steele also seems to assume that blacks only want massive programs of enforced equality, which I also think is false.
The entire argument seems to say that there is no one who could ever bridge the racial divide in America because helping blacks upsets whites and ignoring race upsets blacks. Not only is this view overly pessimistic, I think it's as much nonsense as saying phrase post-racial to begin with.
I have to admit that I don't think I entirely understand the logic of what Steele is saying. However, the parts I do understand don't really hang together. The gist seems to be that whites see Obama as someone who will leave all talk of race behind and just happen to be black. Meanwhile, blacks see Obama as someone who will act as a new kind of civil rights leader and advance the black cause for equality. As these necessarily conflict, Obama can't achieve both. Thus, his presidency would disappoint one group or the other on racial grounds. Thus he is not post-racial and may even set back the movement for his having tried.
This is exactly why I hate the phrase post-racial so much. It doesn't reall mean anything and just gets people's heads twisted up in knots.
First of all, I'm not sure if the choice is as stark between pleasing black America and pleasing white America. As Obama himself might say, There's only the United States of America. But even from there, I'm not sure if this argument makes sense. First, it assumes that whites wouldn't see their own interests represented in efforts to bring all people equality. I think this is false. Steele also seems to assume that blacks only want massive programs of enforced equality, which I also think is false.
The entire argument seems to say that there is no one who could ever bridge the racial divide in America because helping blacks upsets whites and ignoring race upsets blacks. Not only is this view overly pessimistic, I think it's as much nonsense as saying phrase post-racial to begin with.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
So It's Come To This
The Hillary campaign sent out a campaign e-mail yesterday that seems to speak pretty clearly to the secret weapon they're relying on in Texas and Ohio next Tuesday: women.
For months, the campaign e-mails have been full of victorious, we're-ready-for-the-Republicans kind of things and about how ready Hillary is to be president. My favorite line was something to the effect of: While my opponents are talking about me, I'm talking about how to make America better.
Then, right after losing Wisconsin, the campaign decided that mentioning the opponents (at this point, just one really) wasn't such a bad idea after all. There was a fundraising appeal basically saying: Don't let Obama keep raising more money than us. Come on! Don't you want us to win?
Now, the opponent is missing again and the tack is to appeal to the base. The e-mail that went out yesterday says, "Women all across the Lone Star State are standing up and making a commitment tovote for Hillary on March 4." Later, the e-mails says, "Women are working together for Hillary because they know she is going to roll up her sleeves and get to work for them in the White House." There's even a link to a video showing women voicing their support for Hillary.
It's interesting as a study of how fall the campaign has fallen. Where once she was the unstoppable juggernaut above the fray of the nomination fight, Hillary is now finding herself scrapping for women in Texas in order to cling to a shred of hope for a campaign that she's becoming increasingly unlikely to win. How the mighty have fallen.
For months, the campaign e-mails have been full of victorious, we're-ready-for-the-Republicans kind of things and about how ready Hillary is to be president. My favorite line was something to the effect of: While my opponents are talking about me, I'm talking about how to make America better.
Then, right after losing Wisconsin, the campaign decided that mentioning the opponents (at this point, just one really) wasn't such a bad idea after all. There was a fundraising appeal basically saying: Don't let Obama keep raising more money than us. Come on! Don't you want us to win?
Now, the opponent is missing again and the tack is to appeal to the base. The e-mail that went out yesterday says, "Women all across the Lone Star State are standing up and making a commitment tovote for Hillary on March 4." Later, the e-mails says, "Women are working together for Hillary because they know she is going to roll up her sleeves and get to work for them in the White House." There's even a link to a video showing women voicing their support for Hillary.
It's interesting as a study of how fall the campaign has fallen. Where once she was the unstoppable juggernaut above the fray of the nomination fight, Hillary is now finding herself scrapping for women in Texas in order to cling to a shred of hope for a campaign that she's becoming increasingly unlikely to win. How the mighty have fallen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
