February 26th, 2008


I'm voting for Tina Fey

This morning on NPR they had a group of emminent women talking about whether Clinton is losing because she was a woman. Ellen Goodman, Geraldine Ferraro etc.

All of the women talked about how many times Clinton is being attacked in a sexist manner. I have no doubt that happens, but I don't think that's why she is losing.

She is losing because she ran an awful campaign. Frank Rich gives a number of details I wasn't aware of, but I also have some more direct intelligence of this:

My son Sean worked before the Iowa Caucus for Obama. His girlfriend worked for Clinton, for about a week. She left because the paid staff were arrogant and rude. She left after getting yelled at for saying "It wouldn't be so bad if Obama won," and volunteered for Obama thereafter.

Sean talked to the staff at the Cattle Congress in Amana, a venue where both Obama and Clinton appeared. The Cattle Congress people said that the Clinton people had been so awful to them, and the Obama people so pleasant and professional, that they were all supporting Obama in the Caucus.

If you look at the people running Clinton campaigns, they seem to think that the way to win is to be Karl Rove. They're never afraid to cram talking points down everyone's throats, no matter whether they're accurate or true. As has been said repeatedly by many people, they treat the news media like shit, and then whine about not getting more favorable coverage.

And Obama has out-organized Clinton everywhere. And while Obama may have some assholes working for him, but I've never met them or heard about them. Everyone I have met that works for the campaign have been nice people. Obama spent less than Clinton spent before the Iowa Caucuses, and yet Obama beat Clinton. I believe that Obama's win came down to his superior ground organization, which was in every county and nearly every precinct. Clinton's presence was much spottier.

So Clinton might try and blame her loss on the Media, or sexism, or whatever, but I think her problems are closer to home than that. Whatever her skills or convictions, she just plain did a shitful job with her campaign, and at this point her attacks on Obama are so pathetic and transparently desperate that they're not even touching him.

Do you ever look back on what you've written on your LJ?

It seems like only yesterday I wrote this, but until I stumbled onto it, it had completely slipped my mind.

That post was written shortly after the 2004 election in which I talked about who would be an ideal Democratic presidential candidate in 2008. Given the rise of Obama, I got several things wrong -- he's not white, from the south, or a governor.

But I think the things I said about personality and presentation do sound close to who Obama turned out to be.

"He (or she) will belong to a politically moderate, mainline Protestant church, be an active and sincere member of his congregation, and not afraid to use the language of religion where appropriate and proper in his political speech. He will be youngish -- 45 to 55 -- vigorous, and handsome without seeming callow. He will have some gray hair, but still look presentable in jogging shorts."

That sounds like Obama except for the gray.

"In short, he will be Jimmy Carter, without the malaise, Bill Clinton without the bimbos, and John Edwards, without the law practice. He will be George Bush, without Karl Rove. He will be intelligent, but not make a big show of it."

It's obvious that 3 1/2 years ago I couldn't even imagine an African-American being a contender for President.

So if you want to read some more or less substantive political writing:

The New Republic, writing about Obama's Econ and Foreign Policy teams

Obama talking to the Cleveland Jewish Community. In this one you can read Obama's answer to questions that are invariably [inaudible].

The former from my son Sean, the latter from my brother Sean.