Analysis: What elitism?

Of course Barack Obama is part of an elite class. He's wealthy, educated and famous. Having gone to a prestigious college and Harvard Law school in the 1980s, his superiority is clear. While losers like us were doing low-quality blow off of moderately attractive hookers, he was getting complimentary pure Columbian from the same co-ed doctoral candidates he snorted it off of. It is through this charge of "elitism" that the GOP hopes to undermine Obama's support with moderates and independents. Karl Rove's comments about Obama form the attack machine's blueprints: "He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by." First of all, that guy is cool. The irony is that it was Rove who trained a dull socialite in Texas and took him to the White House.

But the charge against Obama just isn't sticking. It's not that the ploy won't work; it sank John Kerry in 2004. It's also not that people don't think Obama is part of the elite. But they are not so concerned about elitism in and of itself -- after all, they are used to rich and powerful politicians. "Elite" is meant to be code for "out of touch." An example of "bad" elitism was on Feb. 28, when President Bush had no idea that gas was expected to rise above $4 a gallon later in the summer.

The attempts to make hay off Obama's elitism have either failed or backfired. The RNC have lost several special elections in which they linked the (eventually) victorious Democrat to Senator Obama. These were in deep-red districts that Bush won in 2004 by double digits, yet the link between the candidate and Obama may have actually helped the Democrats. And now, as a further insult, Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon is promoting his own ties to Obama in his bid for reelection. That's right, a Republican senator is touting his ties with Obama to get reelected.


In a televised ad, Sen. Smith included praise he received from Obama, earned when the two reached across party lines to cooperate. "Who says Gordon Smith helped lead the fight for better gas mileage and a cleaner environment?" the add asks. The female narrator answers simply "Barack Obama." The ad then cuts to a picture of the Illinois senator's face.

The move is smart for Smith, who represents a state far more moderate than his party's leadership. He fears getting caught up in the tide of anger at Republicans, and his opponents are dedicated to painting him as a typical Republican. Even many of Oregon's actual Republican voters are fed-up with Bush, the war and the economy. They are tired of the Far Right's perceived stranglehold on their party; independents are frustrated as well. This is how Smith hopes to convince these moderate and independent voters to vote for him, even if a good number of them will not be voting for John McCain.

If Obama can can help Democratic candidates in the Deep South, and if some Republicans are looking to ride his coattails, is there any hope of painting Obama as lacking the common touch? Johnathan Weisman reports in The Washington Post that a "senior Republican strategist involved in House races said that strategy is now largely dead." The source added, "except in rare instances and I'm not sure it was a good idea in the first place."

It's not that Obama has played a perfect game. He's made mistakes. When he commiserated with Midwestern voters about the cost of "arugula at the Whole Foods," there was concern that Jerry Bown and George McGovern had possessed Obama's body. The Bittergate comments -- which, by the way, are absolutely true-- were really stupid things to say out loud. Yet, perhaps because of Obama's personality, the elite smear just isn't translating into real damage.

This is no doubt a big disappointment to the Republican National Committee, which thought they could use the same playbook against Kerry all over again. Grover Norquist, showing his customary wit, took this belief far too literally when he called Obama "Kerry with a tan." Maybe this was a test balloon to see how much coded racism could be injected into the campaign. But still, given how close 2004 was and the immediate disaster of Bush's second term, it is a stupid thing to say. When the President's poll numbers are around 25%, does Norquist really think there are still a lot of swing voters out there saying "Phew, at least we're still safe from that Kerry guy!"

In one way, the Republicans have done a great service to Obama. The GOP really did succeed into painting John Kerry as an effete, wish-washy liberal. He was "haughty," "French-looking," and above all, an elitist. He was not the guy you invited to a BBQ, but Bush, the rich kid, the cowboy from Connecticut, was the one you invited. And so, Kerry was defeated for his elitism while Bush desperately twang-ed away from his. A year later, Bush found his poll numbers so low that the country clearly regretted its decision to pick a president on superficial issues. Talk about buyer's remorse.

Maybe through such incompetent governance since that election, the Republicans have actually taught voters to care more about ideas than labels, more about competence than congeniality. Maybe voters this year will see if the accused is actually out of touch with their values on real issues like the war, healthcare and the economy.

And if you believe that, I've got one hell of a bridge to sell you.

Read more!

Counter Scold: Public financing overblown

No one cares about public financing. Let me repeat: no one cares about public financing. The GOP may think they can score points off Barack Obama's decision to opt out of public financing, but hardly anyone outside the beltway is listening. True, the Scold's own Horace Johnson was so peeved he blasted Obama in a Daily Scold, but it is also true that public campaign funding is one of the un-sexiest issues to holler about. Try to make the case to someone who does not sleep and breathe politics-- the story is not a barn burner. Really, try: "Obama said he would take federal matching funds, but instead he is opting out and using just his own donations. Plus he said he would sit down with John McCain and work out and deal but instead..." Too late, they fell asleep. Even if the merits of the case were truly damning of Obama (and they certainly are not) no one is going to pay attention. Is this the best they can do? If the Right wants any juice in this race, they might as well return to screaming about Obama's "terrorist fist jab".

On Sunday's Meet the Press, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the American public will not soon forget Obama's reversal. Well, of course not, they do not know what the hell he is talking about. Campaign financing has never really resonated with the public. As recently as 2006, California voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposition aimed at near total transparency in fundraising. People just do not care that much.

Except, of course, when they sense wrongdoing. Sure, things like the Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay scandals pissed off Americans-- because there was a real sense that corruption had stained the very way our leaders did business. There was subversion of the law; it was a clear-cut case of right and wrong to ordinary Americans. This is why, in the end, the Republicans will not be able to paint Obama with his decision. They can huff and puff "Obama broke his word!" all they want, but there is no sense of underlying corruption. The public will not be shocked by the revelation that a politician reversed himself to make a winning play. Without a tangible "wrong" to hit Obama on, the charges will not stick. His money is coming from small donors and working Americans, the issue makes Obama look good.

The statement Obama signed stated that he would either take federal money or work out an arrangement with John McCain. Sure, he did not do either one. But the document also said something else: he was doing this to limit the influence of special interests. Obama is doing that without public financing; he cannot find himself beholden to the hidden agendas of so many people without special political influence.

Senator Graham made another comment on that Meet the Press. Essentially, he said that this reversal proved Obama was ruthless. Obama, according to the South Carolina senator "wants to win; will do anything to win". Good! This is why Obama could be president to begin with.

Obama is not the messiah of Starbucks baristas that the Left wants him to be. He is a smart, centrist, hard-nosed politician that knows how to make people love him. Yes, he is less willing to compromise his standards than the Clintons, but he can count to 270 just as good as the Republicans. He is too good of a politician to turn down a nearly endless supply of money on his mission to save this country from John McCain.

Oh, one last thing: Forgoing public financing means Obama is not costing the taxpayers money. How is that for spin?

Read more!

My last post

It's all gone by far too quickly. While I've enjoyed posting on this blog about the multi-faceted nature of current events, my duties require me to step aside. I am about to go active-duty in the United States Army for a time (to answer anyone's question, no I am not deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan, I'll be finishing my officer training in Oklahoma and then Georgia). Here's a few final thoughts before I go.

1.) Despite the promise that is Barack Obama, I believe that McCain offers better solutions to the pressing issues of the day.
- On Iraq: Before anyone was in favor of the highly-successful surge, McCain was advocating it. This shows a clarity in thought which is so desperately needed and one in which Senator Obama is unwilling to show.
- On the proper role of the Federal Government in the economy: McCain favors making the tax cuts permanent which would continue to allow citizens to keep more of their paycheck. Obama favors repealing the tax cuts and raising taxes on the investor class. Meanwhile, McCain has consistently argued for elimination of earmarks and unnecessary government spending, Obama has proposed billions of dollars more in government spending
- On the judiciary: McCain wants judges who will interpret the law to the Constitution, not allow the tyranny of the judiciary to make new laws from the bench.

2.) The United States is center-right nation despite the Bush administration

3.) Partisanship should continue and serve people through the exchange of different ideas and ideologies

4.) As the United States moves to post-racial society, it should reverse race-centered laws and focus on merit as the basis of promotion at the workplace, acceptance into college and contractual agreements

5.) the United States should be determined to project its power militarily when its people interests are threatened by foreign powers, groups and individuals. We should not wait for an attack to respond, we should have the right to preemption.

6.) The government that governs least governs best. The role of the Federal Government is limited and should be restrained.

It has been a real pleasure writing for this blog and reading the posts of others. Keep up the good work and I shall try when able to read this blog. Godspeed to you all.

-- Jeff Hartline

Read more!

Analysis: The right way to attack McCain

It may be early, but the Democrats are making a crucial mistake: they are allowing John McCain to define himself. If McCain is given breathing space, he will be able to write a story that can drown out the transparent rightward pander-plunge he took to win the nomination. Obama's camp was right to avoid all-out war in the primary, but it is a possibly fatal error to allow McCain to get a general election footing. How can the Dems keep the Old Man off-kilter? It's simple -- paint him as a partisan, flip-flopping terrorist enabler.

Don't think those charges could stick to the principled maverick war hero? Think again- why accept your opponent's autobiography? The GOP does not give that luxury to Democrats. Indeed, Team Obama needs to employ the Karl Rove philosophy- attack your opponent's strengths. The strategy worked in 2004 against John Kerry. He earned a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, Kerry was a war hero, but Bush won reelection by calling him a pussy. The Republicans simply did not accept the premise that Kerry was a physically brave man with proven leadership. In the same way, Obama should not simply concede the strengths McCain has claimed for himself.

McCain is making his national security cred the centerpiece of his candidacy. He will continue to paint Obama as weak and make our safety the issue. It is imperative that Obama reverse this dynamic. Hitting McCain on Iraq, while a winning issue, does not fundamentally alter said dynamic. It still places McCain as a hawk and Obama as a dove, and leaves Obama open to the argument that he is unwilling to protect the country.

The key is to change the story. This saves you from having to argue shades and subtleties. Rather than 90s-style triangulation, which sacrificed policy for polls, Obama simply needs to find moderate and conservative arguments for his policies. This will allow him to speak boldly on new rhetorical ground and resonate with larger slices of the electorate.

Go for the throat of GOP strength: 9/11. Obama can make a Republican argument for a Democratic idea and win the issue. Take what he's good at talking about and apply it to national security. For example: When Democrats talk about ending our addiction to foreign oil, they typically stress that our oil money goes to dictators. This comes across as humanitarian; most Americans would agree in principle but would not actually care.

Instead, say "John McCain does not understand that America has to change the way we do business in the wake of 9/11. His gas tax fiasco will send more dollars to the Middle East. On September 11, 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. McCain and the Republicans want to keep giving oil money to people who give money to terrorists. That is a September 10th mindset." Then pivot to alternative energy.

Obama has made some smart moves on national security; he has emphasized Afghanistan and the need to transfer troops there from Iraq. This breaks the standard dynamic. It is still vital, however, to make your issues reinforce a centerpiece of two or three themes. Energy independence as a national security issue immunizes Obama against cries of "tree-hugger." Make McCain waste time explaining that he is not a terrorist enabler.

"But," you argue, "McCain has a record of conservation and openness to alternative energy." So? Let McCain waste his time clarifying his position, let him spend energy climbing back up to where he was. Just by making McCain play defense here, you have changed the dynamics of the debate; now it would be about who is really for new energy sources. Obama and the Democrats can always win that argument. Inconveniently for the GOP, they have Al Gore on their side.

McCain is also getting a nearly free ride on his "man of principle" persona. Blow this out of the water. Saying he is a Bush clone is not enough. As I have argued before, it is imperative that McCain's persona is exposed as a fraud. McCain is running on his record not from the Senate, but from his 2000 primary race. Show how the two contradict. Say that McCain flip-flopped (and yes, it is important to use that word) on torture, tax cuts for the wealthy, immigration and coastal drilling.

Point out the flip-flops and then lay in with both barrels: "Somewhere on the road to the nomination, John McCain lost his way." The Obama camp has very cautiously gone down this road, but they have a habit of being a notch too subtle for the press and the voters. Obama can afford to be blunt.

One could call it "bait and switch." McCain is promising post-partisan, common-sense solutions, yet this is merely obscuring his Senate votes. Again, borrow established Republican phrases; McCain's rhetoric does not match his record. When one candidate is explaining himself, and one is explaining his ideas, the latter wins.

The Democrats play catch up every year. In politics, the best defense is a good offense; this means not giving McCain room to breathe. The more Obama makes McCain pay for his primary campaign, the less he can focus on the general or attacking Obama. Political mistakes are usually made while playing defense. Do not be fooled by the vaunted "Straight Talk Express"; McCain is very capable of being flustered. Obama needs to give McCain many opportunities to lose the election for himself. Just ask John Kerry.

Read more!

Daily Scold: Obama's public financing fiasco

Back in the day, say about 8 months ago, before his campaign became a "movement" and his candidacy became inevitable, Barack Obama said he would accept public financing if his opponent did.

He didn't count on his opponent, John McCain, to do the same. Nor did Obama expect his Internet fundraising operation to be as wildly successful as it was. He's got millions of supporters who can each donate up to $2,300 for the primary, followed by another $2,300 for the general election. By his own campaign's estimates, the number of donors shot skyward and has held steady at around 1.5 million. You can do the math yourself and see how easily Obama snagged the $265 million or so he has chilling in the bank right now. Public financing would offer him a much smaller sum of around $84 million.

Not only will Obama become the first presidential candidate to turn down public financing since the system became available, he has clearly gone back on his word. I'd love to see the Obamamites try and rationalize their way out of this one. In fact, I can anticipate the excuses that are homing in, even now, on this post. But I've got a few rebuttals ready...

When asked by the late, great Tim Russert, Obama said he would personally sit down with John McCain to try and work out a fair system to finance their general election campaigns. Only if this effort failed, Obama said, would he opt out of public financing.

Well, by all accounts, not only was there no personal meeting, there wasn't even the "aggressive" effort to work this out that was promised by the Obama campaign. In fact, there was hardly any effort at all, according to McCain's campaign staffers. I certainly wouldn't put it past John McCain or any Republican to twist the facts a little, especially given how juicy the opportunity was here -- to paint Obama as a common politician who went back on his word. But it seems very clear that Obama has been planning to opt out long before the Democratic primary was settled. Just read what he said here, in April.

Anyway, the Obamamites are already rushing to their messiah's defense. The leftists of the liberal blogosphere are stumbling over themselves to deflect attention from Obama's treachery with a torrential downpour of excuses.

Poor, helpless underdog Obama NEEDS this massive stash of cash purely for self-defense, and never mind that his $265 million far eclipses any presidential war chest ever seen in American history. After all, they say, a ton of money will be required to defend Obama against any scurrilous Swiftboat-style attacks, particularly the outrageous ones that accuse him of being a Muslim Manchurian candidate that was sworn in on a copy of the Qu'ran and turned his back on the flag during the pledge of allegiance.

Of course, this neglects the fact that while rabid liberal 527 groups like MoveOn.org have been dumping hundreds of thousands of advertising dollars on the airwaves to lionize Obama and attack McCain, virtually NO right-wing 527 of any prominence (or with any large amount of cash) has stepped it up on behalf of McCain.

Well, sputter the Obamamites, what their savior is doing isn't unethical, because he's getting his money from millions of ordinary Americans. I mean, even if a lot of these Obama supporters gave $500 or $1,000, they are hardly going to expect personal favors from a President Obama, right? After all, public financing was created so that massive corporations wouldn't be able to give millions to a candidate and expect their money's worth of favors once that candidate was elected. Obama won't have to repay any favors for his $265 million, his supporters say.

This is true. But it also sidesteps the real problem: Obama BROKE HIS WORD. He said he would take public financing or he would push for it aggressively and he did neither. I thought this was the guy who would bring transparency back to government and restore the public's trust in their president. Right?

If there is anything I have a problem with, it's dishonest politicians who get caught being dishonest, redhanded. It was stupid, anyway. Everyone knows Obama has an absolute load of cash, it would've been an awfully gutsy and meaningful gesture for him to nobly return the money to the donors and then face McCain on equal terms.

But no, Obama has chosen the most ruthless, Machievellian political maneuver possible -- forcing John McCain to either scramble for large amounts of corporate, big-donor cash, or face being outspent 3 to 1 by Obama. Talk about change. Chump change, that is.

Read more!

Analysis: Drilling presents stark choices

We're running low on cheap oil. In fact, it looks like we're OUT of cheap oil. Oil, and all petroleum products that come of it (computer chips, agricultural fertilizer, insecticides, plastics, car fuel, truck diesel, jet fuel, etc.), will probably go up and not down in the future.

And so the offshore drilling debate arrives at a unique time. It presents us with two choices that symbolize dramatically different philosophies on how humans should relate to the environment. The first choice is to go ahead with offshore drilling. In this view of the world, we should exploit all the oil there is, and the hell with any environmental concerns. We'll keep moving toward green alternatives, we'll keep pushing conservation, but we've got oil on U.S. soil and it ain't doing anyone any good sitting at the bottom of the ocean.

The second choice is to continue abiding by the moratorium on offshore drilling. This will preserve local economies (as I will later argue, industrializing miles and miles of coastline will definitely kill off tourism), preserve local wildlife and most importantly, KEEP GAS PRICES HIGH.

It is absolutely crucial to keep gas prices high, as there exists no better tool to modify our behavior. Just look at the sweep of history. It's taken $4 gas to get a majority of Americans to take alternative energy seriously, to push lawmakers from talk to action. I'm prepared to be flamed by everyone on this, but just hear me out.

The first choice is pretty much a continuation of the reckless behavior that brought us to this precipice. It's not that Americans have been unique in their recklessness; after all the Indians and Chinese are rapidly following suit. But evidence shows that high gas prices change societal norms about energy consumption and lead to far greater efficiency in terms of transportation infrastructure and even lifestyle.

Just look at Europe. At the risk of gross generalization, or perhaps to encourage it, I will say this: great big fat people in massive SUVs are a rarity over there. Instead everyone is used to walking, bicycling, taking buses, trams and trains.

Gas is about $7 a gallon over there, with some prices even higher. Cars tend to be smaller and fuel efficiency standards make American cars look like dinosaurs. Are Europeans somehow inherently smarter and more visionary or environmentally sensitive than Americans? Hell no. Not inherently, anyway. It's the result of supply and demand taking its course.

Americans have always chosen the latter option, symbolized here by killing the moratorium and sending out ships to build offshore platforms. As a result our energy consumption patterns have remained largely unchecked until recently.

In any case there's a more tangible argument than this one, which really focuses on the big picture. Sure, sure, John McCain is right when he says oil drilling technology has advanced since major oil disasters of the 70s and 80s. But let's just weigh the pros and cons here.

Most experts estimate it'll be a minimum of 10 years before any oil platform can be built and begin production. Remember the whole business is highly complicated, extremely expensive and very time-consuming. After a decade,

Rest of story. Nothing after this tag.

Read more!

Reaction: Russert made politics contagious

Tim Russert died this afternoon, the victim of a sudden heart attack that seized him as he was doing what he loved: covering politics. There is probably no more heroic a place for a journalist to die than in the newsroom. Americans will miss this pugnacious reporter, and he truly deserves the title, for as H.L. Mencken famously said, "a journalist is just a dead reporter." Russert's charm was a subtle one, as he had neither the dashing leading-man presence of a Brian Williams or Anderson Cooper, nor the colorful antics of a Chris Matthews or Bill O'Reilly. Instead he was an even-handed commentator and a dogged interviewer whose questions made top politicians almost as nervous as the knowledge that they couldn't hope to pass muster with voters without stopping on "Meet the Press." The one thing all Americans will take away from this man is his incredible passion for politics; it is humanly impossible to watch that smile sneak up on Russert's face when some huge political news event is breaking, without feeling excited yourself.

While journalists, politicians and MSNBC viewers will miss Russert's fairness and contagious passion for the wild, rollicking game that is American politics, most Americans will miss Russert for his humble on-screen personality. He never forgot his blue-collar beginnings, nor the tireless spirit of his father, a World War II veteran who came home and worked two jobs to feed his family.

The American public will remember Russert the same way, as a devoted family man. Russert's first autobiography, Big Russ and Me, painted a moving portrait of his love for his father and it changed the way I looked at my relationship with my own father, who bought me the book for Christmas 2006. Your father will always be a part of you. Learning about him teaches you about yourself, I realized.

It seems both tragic and fitting that Russert should die a mere two days before Father's Day, 2008.

I will end this tribute by quoting Russert himself, from Big Russ and Me: "When somebody near us loses a loved one, we have a duty to show up, to be there, and to help them remember; to offer a hand and a shoulder, and yes, to celebrate a life."

Today, all of America showed up to celebrate the life of a man who kept the rainy windshield of politics clear enough for all to glimpse truth.

Read more!

Analysis: Barack Obama and the end of racism

I do not support Barack Obama in the 2008 Election, but this shouldn't come as a surprise to any folks who take a gander at reading this blog. However, I can't help but feel bit of pride in a country that can overcome its history of race discrimination and nominate a black man for the Presidency of the United States. Think about it - 150 years ago, half of the country permitted slavery and 50 years ago, permitted the segregation of races. Today, the issues that dominate the Presidential race are not race-based, but rather policy based (Iraq, Health Care, the Economy). Americans aren't talking about whether we should elect a black man to the Presidency but issues which have dominated the American political landscape. Despite my pride, I do feel that Americans have to confront the last few issues that divide us in terms of race. These include:

1. Race-based admissions in job and college applications

2. Racial disparities found in income, education and crime levels

3. Social unrest due to illegitimacy and single-parent familes

Speaking as a white male and a conservative might be uncomfortable to some, but this does not diminish the importance or relevance that these issues have to true racial reconciliation that this country both craves and needs if it is to advance into the annals of history as a nation of merit, not one of bitter racial acrimony.

Affirmative action had its foundation in the Kennedy administration when President Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925 with the stated intention of ending, "discrimination because of race, creed, color, or national origin is contrary to the Constitutional principles and policies of the United States." While the stated intentions were good, the program evolved over time to reverse its earlier non-discriminatory goals and embrace racial preferences. Presidents Johnson and Nixon greatly expanded the program, creating a system which created an environment for quotas and other fun government programs.

The ugly truth behind affirmative action is that beyond it being an active arm of racial discrimination, it disenfranchises the very people who are supposed to benefit from such a program. Thomas Sowell writes, "Affirmative action is great for black millionaires but it has done little or nothing for most people in the ghetto." Sowell's point is that even if you accept that affirmative action is a good program, its benefits are not reaching those who would need them the most. Furthermore, is there any liberality within a program that confronts a past history of racial discrimination with a more subtle reverse-discrimination?

Moreover, inflating the standing of minority students in colleges has had a negative effect upon their graduation rates. So a program which embraces racial discrimination, does not benefit the vast majority of lower-income minorities and worsens graduation rates is a highly ineffective way to combat racism.

Obama, to his credit, seems to agree with this. When asked whether his daughters should receive affirmative action benefits, he responded that they (and I'll quote in detail), "should probably be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged” and there is nothing wrong with that. “I think that we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and been brought up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed,” he added. “There are a lot of African-American kids who are still struggling.”

Obama said that “if we have done what needs to be done to ensure that kids who are qualified to go to college can afford it, that affirmative action becomes a diminishing tool for us to achieve racial equality in this society.” To offset and replace affirmative action, I propose either a meritocratic-based system whereby all preferences regarding race or alumni should be dropped or a socio-economic system whereby lower-income applicants, irregardless of race, would be given a slight advantage in application.

Of these two proposals, I favor a class-based system. Jonathan Chait, a writer for the New Republic concurs by saying, "It's good substantive policy--it's clear that the transmission of poverty or wealth across generations, through school quality and parental values, is a serious problem and one that effects whites as well as blacks."

When folks normally talk about racial disparities in income, education and crime levels, they are either about to launch into a racist diatribe or a sociological discussion that emphasizes why capitalism and a racist judiciary system have failed inner-city blacks. Both of these are wrong, but the second proposition should incur more wrath than the first one due to the traction that it has on our politicians and the general electorate. Capitalism is seen in some quarters as the primary reason why we have minorities in urban settings have consistently lived under the poverty line.

David Simon, creator of The Wire said, "You are looking at somebody who doesn’t believe that Capitalism [can work] absent a social framework that accepts that it is relatively easy to marginalize more and more people in this economy."

Forgive me for saying so Mr. Simon, but capitalism isn't working in the vast majority of our cities, because it hasn't even been applied. Most cities, including our beloved Baltimore, are crippled due to the crime problem and the changing nature of the economy. Baltimore specifically has yet to fully transition from a labor-economy to a service-based economy. This has had a highly negative impact on minority communities in Baltimore. Moreover, cities run primarily by Democrats have turned to big government solutions which have run their course and run it badly. A solution proposed which has a lot of merit is known as the Urban Enterprise Zone. An Urban Enterprise Zone is a part of a major city in which businesses are encouraged to move back into the city. The encouragement comes primarily through the reduction of regulations and taxes in a certain zone.

The Cato Institute noted, "The basic concept behind enterprise zones is to create an open, free-market environment in the nation’s depressed inner cities and rural towns through the removal of taxes, regulations, and other government burdens on economic activity."

Crime and the ensuing sociological counterparts remain a vital problem for blacks in cities across the United States. The Department of Justice has shown that blacks are more disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and offenders. Another study has shown that blacks are the victim of much higher rates of violent crime than any other race. Much of the violent crime has swirled around the drug trade and its impact on urban centers. Indeed, the drug war has seen its fruition in the misery and illiberality is has caused.

Drug use should be decriminalized without exception. One of the reasons why drug violence is so high is because the drug trade goes unprotected by the police. In the book Cop in the Hood by Peter Moskos, he makes the point that drug traffickers are not protected by law and resort to violence to settle disputes which would be settled by the legal process. Moskos states in his blog, "Drugs shouldn’t be in the hands of the North Avenue Boys, or any other group of criminals. As with alcohol, tobacco or prescription medication, selling drugs should be the combined responsibility of doctors, the government and the legal free market." He's right. The government's efforts to fight the drug war have failed and have perpetuated endemic violence on minority communities in the inner city.

The lack of good education and illegitimacy rates found in urban poor communities are worthy subjects for future blog posts. In brief, the public education system has failed to bring any meaningful change. While teachers do labor hard, they are not subjected to the very thing that keeps our economy on the cutting edge: namely competition. Private and charter schools do a better job at educating children than the public education system, because they are in competition with each other and public schools for students. However, the public school system does not need to compete for the urban poor as many of them are unable to afford private or charter education. Vouchers are an answer which I think can truly change the course for many students. People worry about how vouchers will affect the public education system or whether this violates the First Amendment (it doesn't). The bigger question should be whether this has a positive impact on the lives of children and teens who will be stuck in failing government schools.

Perhaps you were wondering how all this would relate back to Senator Obama. Here's how it relates; Senator Obama says he is a different politician who transcends racial issues. I applaud him for at least the sentiment, but the way to truly become a transformer is to embrace the last few notions of racial transformation. So far, the record has been a bit mixed. Many Americans now see Barack Obama through the lenses of his regrettable church and even more regrettable pastor. I honestly doubt that Obama will adopt too many of these positions as they represent conservative to libertarian viewpoints regarding these issues, but if he did, it would make many Americans who are now disinclined to vote for Obama to give him a second look. If not, then the racial issues which will continue to polarize and cause America further headache as Americans will be forced to embrace not the state-sponsored segregation of earlier eras, but rather the "soft-bigotry of low-expectations."

Read more!

Analysis: Mama Drama

Will Barack Obama have difficulty earning the support of Hillary Clinton voters? There are certainly a lot of disappointed, even angry women out there. While Clinton had broader appeal than simply her own gender, her most dedicated backers were white women. Especially those who were middle class, middle-aged and mothers- women just like her. John McCain seems to think Obama will have trouble with this bloc; he has begun a charm offensive by praising Clinton, her effort, and women in general. McCain hopes to steal a few of these votes, but mostly, he hopes he can make a large number of Democrats stay home this November.

No doubt, some will stay home or defect. Take a look at the rabidly pro-Hillary site HillaryIs44.com, which has called Obama "a lead gang-banger in the misogyny parade". The site even asks readers to take this pledge: "I will not vote for Obama nor any person who endorsed Obama before June 3... in NOvember. Obama is NOt qualified to be president. I reject... the Obama race-baiting, gay-bashing, woman-hating campaign". Surely, most Clinton voters are not unhinged, but many think she lost because of sexism. That is not why she lost, but it hardly matters if a substantial number of Democrats believe it to be so.

Obama can shore up his support with women with one important issue however. That issue, of course, is abortion.

How many feminists, the old joke goes, does it take to change a light bulb? You probably know the answer: That's not funny. Clinton's most hardcore supporters take perceived sexism very seriously. They also take their issues very seriously, and abortion is one of feminism's defining issues.

One area where McCain is, and always has been, in lockstep with the right is abortion. Unlike Mitt Romney this year, or George H.W. Bush in 1980, McCain was against abortion rights long before he was seeking to win the GOP nomination. Think about it: McCain is diametrically opposed to the bulk of Clinton's base on possibly the issue most important to them. Despite the threats of many of the HillaryIs44 posters, most of Clinton's people are not going to back John McCain in the fall.

Obama can even use the abortion issue to motivate otherwise disaffected Clinton supporters to the polls. He can get them to the voting booth by letting them know how at risk abortion rights will be with another Republican president. John Paul Stevens is 88, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75, Stephen Breyer is 69 and David Souter is 68. These are the Supreme Court's liberal judges, the ones who would uphold Roe v. Wade and possibly two or more of them will be replaced in the next 4 years. Either McCain or Obama will nominate those new justices.

This line of attack has few drawbacks. Independents and moderates are broadly, if conditionally, pro-choice. Indeed, around 60% of all Americans support the abortion status quo.

If Obama makes women understand the stakes- McCain will appoint justices who will overturn that ruling given the chance- Hillary's women will quickly sour on the so-called "maverick".

This, and being respectful towards Clinton, is about all he can do. While the pundits will argue it to death, there is no use trying to convince Clinton supporters she did not lose because of sexism. This is of course true, but the truth of an argument is not always connected to its acceptance.

This is not to say that there has not been sexism; there certainly has been. The sexism, however, probably was not any worse than the Clintons' race baiting. More importantly, Hillary Clinton's gender was more helpful than harmful. It gave her an instant base, it allowed "First Lady" to, amazingly, actually count as experience, and it gave her an excuse for almost any failure.

Chuck Todd, NBC's political director said on Sunday's Meet the Press that Clinton lost both the outside and inside game. The outside game was the actual votes and fundraising. To the suprise of most pundits, however, Clinton also lost the inside game. She lost on process, she lost in campaign planning and direction, and she lost with the superdelegates. Frankly, institutional support is all Hillary Clinton really brought to the table, but it did not materialize. This is why she lost.

Geraldine Ferraro was crucified for saying that Obama was only where he was because of his race. She was rightfully taken to task for this shameful race-baiting, but there was also an element of truth. Obama's race was part of his story, part of his generational appeal, and made him viable in the South. The flipside of that argument, however, is the equally true observation that Clinton only got to this point because of her sex. This is why the complaints of people like HillaryIs44 posters are so eye-roll inducing.

Nonetheless, this argument is a losing proposition on the stump. Change the subject by talking about abortion, fair pay and Hillary's pet subject, health care. They will come around.

And, if that does not work, remind them how badly McCain treated his first wife.

Read more!

Site update: A few good reporters wanted

Reporters -- and I use the term generously to mean any blogger -- are wanted to write for The National Scold. In keeping with our mission, you would be required to be honest and accurate only occasionally, and to be humorous and outrageous on all other occasions. Of course, no experience is required. It would be to your advantage to have some knowledge of politics, philosophy, geography, economics, journalism and foreign relations -- but only to avoid making yourself look like a fool here and be subject to lampooning. You would be required to write one post a week, at a minimum, on really any political subject of your choosing. You're free to be as partisan as you want. Preference will be given to conservatives, which are sorely underrepresented here. That said, please send a note to me, Grant Huang, by clicking here.

Read more!

In-depth report: If Hillary had her druthers...

Hillary Clinton is adamant; in her eyes, she is a far better candidate than Barack Obama to take on John McCain. Monday, the campaign made this argument once more: "There is no question that she is the strongest Democrat to go toe-to-toe with John McCain in a general election". If Obama loses, she will insist she could have won, if Obama wins, she will say she could have won better. However, we can never know. Or can we?

The National Scold has obtained a working prototype of a top-secret device invented by Al Gore. The machine, which is powered by global warming, allows the user to briefly peer into the Mirror Universe. Gore's creation was a product of his desire to see what would have happened had he prevailed in the 2000 recount dispute. Today, however, we will harness this amazing vice-presidential technology for something else. We will discover what is happening in the dimension where Clinton has gotten exactly what she now asks for: the superdelegates are convinced she is the stronger candidate in the general and they have handed her the nomination.

Behold the world of Hillary Clinton: Democratic Nominee.

May 6, 2008: Despite Obama's impressive wins, the superdelegates have reliably broken for Clinton. The Rev. Wright scandal and Obama's loss of Pennsylvania have caused several Obama supporters to reluctantly defect. To prove he is still viable, Obama must beat expectations in today's contests. Despite an (expected) big win in North Carolina, Obama loses in Indiana. It is believed the movement of the superdelegates sent the race from a near tie to a 7-point Clinton win. Some major talking heads declare the race over. Within a week, several major papers will say the race is over and a few Obama aides will step down. The perception is that Clinton has won.

May 13, 2008: The Democratic contender in a special election for a Mississippi congressional race narrowly loses to his Republican opponent. The Dems were hoping to make this their third pickup in a special election, but generally the spin is that they came very close in a very red district. A few note that the in the election, black turnout was less than expected. It may have made the difference.

The same day, Obama is crushed in the West Virginia primary. Clinton picks up 10 more superdelegates a few hours after the polls close. Obama camp insiders are privately saying that the senator is now "looking to go out on a high note".

May 25, 2008: A few days after being smashed in the Kentucky primary, Obama takes to the airwaves. Though deeply resentful of the superdelegates torpedoing his (in his view) winning candidacy, Obama concedes defeat. In his concession speech, he praises Clinton and says he is dropping out so the party can focus on November. Privately, Obama admits that he fears appearing a sore loser. Hillary Clinton is the nominee.

May 31, 2008: The Rules Committee agrees to seat the entire Michigan and Florida delegations. Clinton remarks that the full enfranchisement of those voters is "not unlike the end of Jim Crow, or the poll tax". After several African-American leaders balk, Clinton clarifies her comment.

June 1, 2008: Clinton has canceled her events in Puerto Rico and waved off a few questions about her position on the island's status. She instead goes on the attack, and in an unscripted remark, she accuses McCain of saberrattling with Iran. McCain, in response, quotes a threat to "obliterate" Iran Clinton made during a Democratic debate. Within two weeks, the RNC is running "flip-flop" ads based on the exchange in swing states.

June 9, 2008: Speaking to a veteran's group function, McCain gets laughs by peering into the crowd and asking if anyone has seen "Hillary's sniper". "I guess", McCain adds sarcastically, "both of us have taken enemy fire. What to do you think, is she one of us?"

McCain remarks privately that he was only willing to exploit Rev. Wright subtly as to not appear too negative. The "sniper thing however, Hillary brought on herself", McCain explains.

June 11, 2008: When Clinton complains that the "one of us?" line was too far, McCain retorts "Maybe it's not her fault. Maybe that pharmacuetical convention up in Woodstock has caused some vivid fantasies". McCain later apologizes for this remark.

June 17, 2008:Noting that their support among the African-American community is alarmingly shallow for a Democrat, the Clinton campaign dispatches Bill Clinton to reach out towards blacks. He meets with classic black leaders, plays the sax and even has an impromptu rap session with Sister Souljah.

June 23, 2008: In response to Clinton's repeated accusations that McCain's election would be a third term for Bush, McCain begins a media blitz. They contrast her votes for the Iraq war with her current positions. The final segment features black and white photos of Clinton and Kerry on either side of the screen. The photos begin to spin while text appears: "Hillary and the liberals, Flip-flopping again".

July 7, 2008:Clinton announces that Ed Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania, will be her running mate. It soon leaks, however, that both Clintons had been trying to get Obama to join the ticket for a month. Bill Clinton privately labels Obama's unwillingness to join "a betrayal".

July 25, 2008: Dick Morris, the former Clinton adviser who is now highly critical of both Clintons, becomes a secret strategist for the McCain campaign. Though he is to never meet with McCain or any of the senior staff, he passes damaging stories from the Clinton White House to them. These anecdotes and accusations tend to dominate slow news days.

August 1, 2008: A poll puts Clinton tied in Pennsylvania and leading in Maryland by only 5 points. In 2004, John Kerry won Maryland by 13 points.

August 3, 2008: An independent 527 group, Bosnians For Truth, begin to run ads that blast Clinton's sniper story. One person, who claims to have been on scene during Clinton's visit, nearly cries with rage during an ad. The rather attractive woman notes that she actually lost her father to a sniper during the war, and Clinton's lie deeply offends her. Few notice that her accent seems to be Polish rather than Bosnian.

August 27, 2008: On the second to last night of the Democratic Convention, Obama gives an impassioned speech that heavily praises both Clintons. At one point, Obama notes that tomorrow, when the nominee will speak, will be 40 years to the day since MLK's "I have a dream" speech. Obama declares that he still has a dream, and we can make it a reality in November. During his address, the news cameras often pan to black delegates, many who are moved to tears.

August 29, 2008: Polls reveal the impact of the convention. Clinton's well-received, but unsurprising speech put her within 4 points of McCain. Her approval ratings increased by 5 points. Obama's, however, went up by 11.

September 4, 2008: Following a perfectly scripted convention in Minneapolis, McCain is up by 8 points.

September 6, 2008: Pushed by Morris, stories appear about seance-like meetings Clinton held in the White House. The meetings, which were first reported in Bob Woodward's The Choice , were lead by a guru who encouraged Hillary to talk to Eleanor Roosevelt, Gandhi and Jesus. Clinton was then encouraged to respond as those figures. Morris tells interviewers that Clinton made decisions with what she learned in those sessions.

September 7, 2008: Responding to the "seance" reports, an obviously flustered Clinton muses that it has "something to do with women and spirituality". Sensing danger, she quickly changes tack, and says that they were mere "thought exercises" and that she "really identifies with Eleanor Roosevelt".

That night, McCain gets laughs with a self-deprecating joke: "I knew Eleanor Roosevelt, and Senator Clinton is no Eleanor Roosevelt".

September 12, 2008: A former female intern claims that she was sexually harassed by Clinton- Hillary Clinton.

That afternoon, during an interview with the Chicago Herald, Michelle Obama is asked what she thought about the accusation. A deeply resentful Mrs. Obama responds that "Hillary isn't a lesbian- as far as I know".

September 16, 2008: An independent group runs ads that feature photos of Rev. Wright meeting both Clintons during Bill's term. One ad has a voice-over that questions: "Rev. Wright, invited to the White House?" The spot ends with the damning "Hillary-Wright. Too close for comfort".

September 19, 2008: A body is found in an Arkansas swamp. It it later revealed to be the late Dick Morris, who committed suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head three times.

September 26, 2008: The first debate is seen as a tie. Commentators note that Clinton probably won on points, but that she is too unlikable.

October 1, 2008: Get-out-the-vote workers for Clinton note that there is not a lot of enthusiasm in the inner cities of Philadelphia, Cleveland and elsewhere. Some believe that black turnout will actually drop from 2004, even 2000, numbers.

October 7, 2008: In the second debate, Clinton complains about the debate format. McCain responds "Gee, I'm just happy to be here".

November 4, 2008: [Ed. Image courtesy www.270towin.com] McCain wins the election with a 4-point margin of victory. Despite the popular vote loss, Hillary Clinton vows to fight on in the electoral college meeting in December "when the President is actually elected." She notes that "electors are a lot like superdelegates, and it is their job to pick the best person for January..."

Read more!

Analysis: Clinton fans, please stop whining

No matter what happens in the three tiny remaining primaries, Hillary Clinton is not going to win. If you think she is, you need to drink some reality juice, stat.

That being said, it now seems clear that Clinton herself is only as hellbent on winning as her most frenzied group of supporters -- women (mainly white) who believe it's more important to break the gender barrier rather than the race barrier, who believe that should their Hillary lose the nomination, sexism will have been the culprit.

This is absurdity itself. Clinton lost because, buoyed by arrogance and a sense of entitlement, she ran a crappy campaign and failed to take Barack Obama seriously until it was far too late. Besides, if sexism was why Clinton lost the Democratic nomination, what possible chance would she have in a general election, where she must also face Republican voters who are statistically far less progressive?

Eleanor Clift of Newsweek made this same exact point last week. I've lost count of the magazines, newspapers and online blogs that have already weighed in on why Clinton lost. From John Judis' Clinton campaign "Autopsy Report" in The New Republic to Time magazine's succinct "The Five Reasons Hillary Lost," the story behind Clinton's imminent defeat is one of soaring arrogance, incredible imbecility and a heroic personal effort by Hillary that will soon prove to have been too little, far too late.

I'll tick off a few of the major points in case you're too lazy to click on the stories I referenced above: Clinton put loyalists and not experts in charge of running the show. She was so confident she would clinch the nomination that her campaign had no plan for everything that happened after Super Tuesday (which was on February 5, if you can believe it -- it seems like years ago). She was totally clueless about how the Internet can be used to raise huge funds from a sea of small-sum donors.

These aren't random, tiny minutiae we're talking about here. These are bigass problems that a candidate as "experienced" as Hillary should never have made. They're problems that should've been anticipated by any serious politician, to say nothing of a politician that's hellbent on victory at any cost ("in it to win it," to quote Hillary herself).

She only got this far because the mainstream media loves to spin the race as being tighter than it is. Imagine a rope with two knots tied in it, with Obama being the first knot and Clinton being the second knot, just a few inches behind. Whichever knot passes the finish line first wins. Well, we all know which knot will end up on top, because two knots on the same f*cking rope don't move.

But rather than point this out, the press instead explored and highlighted every possible, outrageous "path" to victory that Clinton's campaign spin doctors tossed out.

And then Clinton turns on the press! Trust me, the press holds one bias above all others -- the good story. A close race is a GREAT story. Most reporters would love it if Clinton took the race to convention, imagine the breathless coverage!

Clinton should be thanking the press that the Democratic race has been portrayed as a nail-biter the entire time. Even when it became clear that her chances were pretty much nil, the mainstream media continued to use hedging phrases like "Clinton's increasingly slippery path to the nomination" or "Obama's seemingly insurmountable lead" or "Clinton's hard delegate math."

As for Clinton's hardcore female supporters, it's time to get over it. You should support a candidate based on his or her beliefs and stances on the issues. You shouldn't support someone just because she's a woman, or a man, or man-eater, for that matter. If you believed in what Hillary stands for, it's time to get behind Obama, because I assure you, the difference between Clinton and Obama is like a little stream compared to the gaping canyon between Obama and John McCain.

Read more!