MHALLVILLE

Updates from January, 2008 Hide threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

• 

  Presidential 

  epigonic 10:09 pm on January 31, 2008 Permalink |
  

  I was nervous as hell tonight.

  I’m an Obama supporter (full disclosure, I’m a precinct captain here in San Francisco). Debates haven’t been his strong suit, let’s be honest. Not that he’s bad at them; he’s fine. He just doesn’t live up to the expectations we set for him based on his abilities and intellect and incredible oratorical skills.

  And given the obsessive nature of the media coverage at this point, the stakes couldn’t have been higher. Any miscue was going to be shown incessantly over the next 72-96 hours leading up to Super Tuesday.

  So it was a relief to see Obama tonight. He looked, well, Presidential.

  I’ve seen some early reports suggesting that Hillary was in command in the early part, Obama in the latter, and called it a draw. The last part — that the debate was a draw — may be fair, I thought both candidates looked good (but Obama has a winning argument if you think judgment matters).

  But I saw something different in the first part. I saw Obama — with the extra time afforded him in a direct one-on-one debate — showing as much command of the details, without the wonkiness. He looked like someone ready to be President. From day one.

  ADDENDUM: I guess what I’m trying to say is this: Hillary has enjoyed an advantage among those who perceive she has more experience. And her debate performances relative to Obama’s have been one of the main emblems of this perceived advantage. Tonight, I would venture most voters saw no difference between the two on that score. And that counts as a big win for Obama given his advantages on so many other fronts (inspiration, judgment, etc).

   
• 

  Update on the “Bradley Effect” in New Hampshire 

  epigonic 1:22 pm on January 10, 2008 Permalink |
  

  Andrew Kohut, who runs the Pew Center, has an interesting take on the "Bradley Effect" today and how the polls coulud have gotten it wrong.

  His main argument: it’s not that people who were polled lied about their intent, but rather that pollsters weren’t able to reach the people for whom race might be a factor:

  Poorer, less well-educated white people refuse surveys more often than
  affluent, better-educated whites. Polls generally adjust their samples
  for this tendency. But here’s the problem: these whites who do not
  respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than
  respondents who do the interviews.

  Kohut notes that Hillary beat Barack by 12 points among those with incomes under $50,000.

  Also: more analysis from pollster Mark Blumenthal here.

   
• 

  Why Obama Led the Polls, But Lost the Vote 

  epigonic 10:09 pm on January 8, 2008 Permalink |
  

  My dad is a former newspaper man, who was based for most of his career in Washington, D.C.

  He covered every Presidential campaign between 1964 and 2004.  A family tradition (that continues by phone every weekend) has been fun fierce debates about politics and elections.

  A week ago, Dad said something that I dismissed out of hand — it just couldn’t be possible, among Democrats, in 2008 in America. He said that Obama could win in Iowa, with it’s public caucus format, but that in later primaries it might be tougher because some voters might not be willing to vote for a black man behind the privacy of a voting curtain.

  And yet, here we are tonight trying to analyze why Hillary won the election when all of the polls — inlcuding her own internal tracking polls — showed her losing the vote by a margin of 10-15%. The panel tonight on MSNBC indeed focused in on the "Bradley Effect" — so named after Tom Bradley, because of similar discrepancies between the pre-election polls (which strongly favored Bradley) and the actual vote (which he lost narrowly) in the California gubernatorial election in 1982.

  Is it possible that some white women, over 40, in New Hampshire (who voted so overwhelmingly for Hillary today) tell pollsters they supported Obama but in fact voted a different way?

  Will be interesting to see how it plays out in the coming days. But it reminds me to listen to my Dad — he has knows more about politics than just about any one I know.

   
• 

  Bill’s Legacy, and the Risk of Swiftboating Obama 

  epigonic 1:54 pm on January 8, 2008 Permalink |
  

  In 1992 and 1996, when Bill Clinton ran for President, he dominated the “under 30″ age group — like Obama appears to be doing this year.

  I was 28 in 1992. Clinton was the first candidate I was rabidly enthusiastic about, and I still think of his presidency as the best by far since I turned 18 (not surprising, I’m a Democrat). I saw Clinton speak a couple of times in small, intimate settings and was each time deeply impressed by his intellect, wide-ranging knowledge, and ability to make a great speech. I hated the incessant, divisive Republican attacks on his presidency and the bogus Ken Starr investigation.

  Obama is the first candidate since Clinton that I’ve been a similar level of enthusiasm and excitement. He is in so many ways the direct heir of the Clinton mantle among the Democrats. And he may have the potential to be an even better President than Clinton.

  So it is with real dismay we’re starting to see Bill Clinton lead the attacks against Obama. If he succeeds, it will be at a cost to his reputation and legacy in the view of so many of us who were once such strong supporters of him.

  UPDATE

  Read this:

  “I understand he’s feeling a little frustrated right now. But I think Tim Russert answered Bill Clinton this morning. Every point that he raised was a question that had been answered — had been asked and answered, not only on ‘Meet the Press’ but repeatedly. It is a little frustrating for the president to — the former president — to continually repeat this notion that somehow I didn’t know where I stood in 2004 about the war. He keeps on giving half the quote. I was always against the war. The quote he keeps on feeding back was an interview on ‘Meet the Press’ at the National Convention when Tim was asking, ‘Given your firm opposition to the war, what do you make of the fact that your nominee for president and vice president didn’t have that same foresight?’ And obviously I didn’t want to criticize them on the eve of their nomination. So I said, ‘Well, I don’t know what — you know, I wasn’t in the Senate. I can’t say for certain what I would have done if I was there. I know that from where I stood, the case was not made.’ He always leaves that out. And you know, I understand why he’s frustrated. But, at some point, since we’ve corrected him repeatedly on this and he keeps on repeating it, you know, it tells me that he’s just more interested in trying to muddy the waters than actually talk fairly about my record.”

  Then watch this.

   
• 

  Why Democrats Don’t Like Hillary’s Attacks on Obama 

  epigonic 12:06 am on January 8, 2008 Permalink |
  

  Jonathan Alter has an excellent piece in Newsweek Online tonight, including this perceptive line why so many Democrats — most of whom adore Bill Clinton and fondly remember his presidency — despise the Clinton campaign’s attacks on Obama:

  Democrats of all stripes now have a psychic interest in Obama’s success. Even if they’re not for him, they’re proud of him and of themselves for being in his party. They will not appreciate efforts to take him out, which puts the Clinton campaign in an excruciating bind. The harder they hit Obama, the more they reinforce the impression that all their campaign is about is a grubby struggle to keep their power in the Democratic Party. Many Obama voters I spoke with in Iowa like Hillary personally but resent this sense of entitlement.

  Bill Clinton’s attack on Obama today, for example, doesn’t sit well:

  “It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years, and never got asked one time–not once, ‘Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn’t know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war. And you took that speech you’re now running on off your Web site in 2004. And there’s no difference in your voting record and Hillary’s ever since.’” Mr. Clinton said at a town-hall style meeting Monday afternoon at Dartmouth College. “Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairytale I’ve ever seen.”

   
• 

  Judgment and Inspiration Trump Experience 

  epigonic 11:14 am on January 7, 2008 Permalink |
  

  Judgement matters.

  Who would you rather have as President:

  1. Someone who has a better and longer resume, but has consistently gotten the big things wrong?

  2. Someone with a shallower resume, but who has shown good judgement on the big issues?

  It’s fair game of course for Hillary to tout her experience. But Obama can rightly point out that she got the two biggest things in her public life dead wrong: her management of the health care initiative in 1993 (something significant could have been passed, it was largely her fault it didn’t happen); and her vote on the Iraq war resolution.

  Inspiration (i.e., "words") matters.

  Who would you rather have as President:

  1. Someone who has a better and longer resume, but who fails to inspire most people to support a progressive agenda, and is actively despised by a significant majority?

  2. Someone who has a shorter resume, but inspires a broad cross-section of the country — not just Democrats, but also many Republicans and Independents — and who could build a durable governing majority to support progressive policies?

  It’s funny, in many ways the campaign Hillary is running against Barack reminds me of George H. W. Bush’s campaign against Bill Clinton, where he railed about Clinton’s relative lack of experience and reliance on his charisma.

   
• 

  Obama’s Retort: “Words do matter” 

  epigonic 2:43 pm on January 6, 2008 Permalink |
  

  Obama makes the argument that moving people with words, to build a governing majority, is the thing that does matter.

  from tpmelectioncentral.c

   
• 

  Hillary’s Argument: Action Matters, Not Words 

  epigonic 2:42 pm on January 6, 2008 Permalink |
  

  Hillary’s central argument last night, as noted in an earlier post, is that “actions” are what matter, not just “pretty words.”

  from tpmelectioncentral.c

   
• 

  Action vs. Words 

  epigonic 11:29 am on January 6, 2008 Permalink |
  

  There was an exchange in last night’s Democratic debates where Hillary claimed she was the candidate of "action" and that Obama was just a candidate of "words."

  She has reprised that line again this morning:

  “There’s a big difference between talking and acting, between promising and performing,” Mrs. Clinton said, noting her efforts to expand child health insurance and ease adoptions as first lady and a senator. “Spread the word that this election is about who can deliver real results for the American people.”

  She is so wrong about this. To really deliver the big things — health care for all, a significant new energy policy — you need someone who can rally and inspire voters, who can create a new and durable governing majority.

  Does anyone really think Hillary can do that? I have no doubt she is competent (but it’s not clear at all she is more competent than, say, Edwards or Obama).  But I haven’t seen anything in this campaign to suggest she could rally a significant majority of Americans to her cause. Obama does hold out that promise — and could be the first President since Kennedy and Johnson to build a strong movement and government majority (when we passed the Civil Rights Acts, went to the moon).

  Hillary seems to think that being a good president means getting elected, and then making smart decisions.

  She’s a manager, not a leader.

   
• 

  Hillary Goes Negative, and It’s Pathetic 

  epigonic 11:17 am on January 6, 2008 Permalink |
  

  If you’re supporting Hillary Clinton, hard to think of how you’d be proud of her this morning with her completely disingenuous attacks on Obama.

  This weekend she has sent a mailer out in New Hampshire, claiming Obama didn’t support the right to choose because he voted "present" on a number of votes involving abortion rights. Turns out Obama was simply voting as instructed by the leader of Planned Parenthood in Illinois.

  Pretty pathetic cheap shot. As were her attempts in the debate last night.