It appears that the initial reported vote total for Barack Obama in New York City were substantially too low and "a swing of even a couple of hundred votes in New York might help Mr. Obama gain a few additional delegates."
« Spreading Democracy | Main | Senator Hothead »
Obama NYC
16 Feb 2008 12:47 pm
Comments (65)
I live in the adjoining 93rd district, and there were Obama voters in droves. Hard to believe nobody voted for Obama just next door here in Harlem.
Er, Jake, there's a number of different election districts in Harlem. There were problems in 80 out of 6106 precincts.
Bye bye Hillary! ding dong the witch is dead! LOL.
Er, John, there were 0 votes for Obama in 80 out of 6,106 precincts. That doesn't, on the face of it, mean that there were only problems in 80 precincts, just that the problems were so pronounced in those precincts as to be glaringly obvious.
Frankly, any candidate that can't manage to steal votes subtly won't get my vote. I demand more competence in vote rigging.
This was a bit too obvious to be intentional, unless whoever tried to rig the vote is a complete moron. If you want to steal an election, you shave off a small, but vital, portion of every counties totals. You do not pick a few counties and have them report no votes. People will notice that too quickly, as they did.
Y'know, for all the yapping about how "undemocratic" caucuses are, they may me the one time that any of us knows that our vote was actually counted. Why is it impossible to give voters a receipt for their vote showing how they voted, and then putting all individual votes in an online database so they can see their vote was tallied? (Not by name, obviously, but with a unique identifier.)
Am I missing something, or is it that no one cares about fixing this?
Coincidentally - and fortunately for Hillary - these votes will be changed in the parts of New York that don't count.
Have Obama supporters become so fanatical that they have to claim voter fraud every time their candidate loses? (ie: New Hampshire, Nevada, now NYC apparently).
Yet another sign of the creepiness of the Obama phenom.
Y'know, for all the yapping about how "undemocratic" caucuses are, they may me the one time that any of us knows that our vote was actually counted. Why is it impossible to give voters a receipt for their vote showing how they voted, and then putting all individual votes in an online database so they can see their vote was tallied? (Not by name, obviously, but with a unique identifier.)
Am I missing something, or is it that no one cares about fixing this?
The purpose of not having a recipt is so that you can't have some local 'boss' check who you voted for. This was a big problem in england until the created the secret ballot. I don't know if this would still be a problem, but that's the reason.
Tim,
Considering what happened in 2000, we want to make sure that whomever is the Democratic nominee is seen as legitimate. It's not about some paranoid conspiracy theory- the article is pretty clear about that. If Hillary is the nominee the Repubs don't need any more fuel against her in the fall.
And Obama supporters aren't creepy, that's just wrong, man.
Disingenuous much, Tim? I don't know of any Obama supporters who are claiming voter fraud in New York simply on the basis of Obama's losing in that state. Perhaps I'm wrong, and you could point me to places where people have made such claims over the almost two weeks that have passed since that primary.
Whatever claims of voter fraud have been made here aren't based on the loss per se, but on the highly incongruous results from certain precincts cited in the Times article above. I tend to think this is a matter of error rather than fraud, but for those who disagree, it's fairly clear they're crying fraud over indisputably suspicious results, not over the mere fact of losing. It'd be dishonest to ignore the distinction.
"Am I missing something, or is it that no one cares about fixing this?"
The problem, many times, seems to be that the very people with the power to fix the problem are the same people with an interest in keeping it broken.
Foxes are watching the henhouses. We keep electing them. We're stupid, I guess.
I've been trying to get this story linked to on a number of blogs and Matt is the only one seems to think this important -- or maybe he is the only blogger working this Saturday morning! Its no coincidence that these damning stories are published in the Saturday NYT.
Not enough time to gain traction before the Tuesday primaries and then it gets buried by the election news. Same thing happened with the Bill Khazakstan Uranium story. These things are important for people to know about BEFORE casting their votes.
What's the big deal? The newspaper article says the initial tallies were unofficial.
Actually the Messianic fervor that accompanies Senator Obama's campaign is more reminiscent of Benny Hinn than JFK.
It's creepy, it's misguided and deeply naive.
Even more irritating than the over-promising and exaggerations, is the holier-than-thou attitude him and his supporters have (yes I'm including 80% of these comment threads).
What's the big deal? The newspaper article says the initial tallies were unofficial.
Obama might get a few more delegates. I don't think anyone is hyperventilating about it.
"Actually the Messianic fervor that accompanies Senator Obama's campaign is more reminiscent of Benny Hinn than JFK."
Again, it's encouraging that the most potent attacks against Obama are (a) he's relatively young, (b) he's a talented speaker, and (c) he has ardent supporters. In the primary and the general, I'll wager that beats old, dull, and uninspiring.
It's not that he's young, it's that he's inexperienced.
It's not that he's a talented speaker, it's that that he deals in platitudes.
It's not that his supporters are ardent, it's that they are entranced.
I'll take tested, substantive and plain-spoken over that any day of the week.
I love when Clinton fans like Tim K come out of the woodwork to insult Obama supporters as cultists, and then they methodically repeat the same tired, old talking points...as if in a trance...
I'll take tested, substantive and plain-spoken over that any day of the week.
It's true that Sen. Clinton has been tested. Her most important test came in 2002. Unfortunately, she failed that test.
But I guess she only had 30 years of experience then.
I'll take tested, substantive and plain-spoken over that any day of the week.
so, you're sitting this election out ?
Tim K, we are not entranced. We just see him as a man who is not working on the same plane as other politicians. If you look into his eyes a little, I think you will see the same thing too. Go Obama!
It's not that he's young, it's that he's inexperienced.
Except he has more legislative experience than Senator Clinton . . .
It's not that he's a talented speaker, it's that that he deals in platitudes.
Adopt Republican talking points much? This is a platitude:
He gives speeches, I offer solutions.
It's not that his supporters are ardent, it's that they are entranced.
Go ahead and attack millions of Americans all you want; see where it gets you.
Tim, do you have a moment to point out what exactly is misguided and deeply naive (I'm not so interested in "creepy", as that strikes me as a much more subjective interpretation.)? I think I know what you mean, but I'd like some clarity.
Also, what "over-promising and exaggerations" are you referring to? And, while we're at it, I'm curious as to what you see as "holier-than-thou".
From my perspective, I think that politics is often a dirty business but that there are degrees of dirtiness, and these degrees are not always negligible or irrelevant. For example, there is a difference between lying about your opposition's positions and stuffing the ballot boxes. Another example would be that, while I think it's outrageously dishonest for Senator Clinton to argue that the Michigan delegates should be apportioned based on the straw poll (b/c the other candidates were not on the ballot), I'm somewhat less offended by her arguments re FL because at least there was decent turnout and all the relevant candidates were on the ballot. By the way, though I guess there's no way at the moment to prove this counterfactual, if Obama was making Clinton's argument re MI it would greatly reduce, if not eliminate, the likelihood of my voting for him.
To assume that the worst political dirty tricks are done by everyone and, therefore, not to be mentioned may be a true factual statement(though I think it's not). However, that viewpoint, once it becomes pervasive, creates a market for lemons in the political world and I think we should be able to aim for something slightly better than that.
I'm not sure Obama is above the worst of these political games (though I've yet to be shown evidence that his campaign has done anything particularly terrible on these scores), but he may be to at least a measurable degree. And, with much else being equal between the two candidates, that give a push(in addition to the facts that I believe he would have larger coattails and be less likely to govern using Bush's patented 50+1 style than Senator Clinton would) for me to support him. This may very well be naive, misguided, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, etc. ad infinitum, but then again I think the opposite perspective is cynical, bitter, defeatist, etc.
And by the way, if you think this post represents some form of "Messianic fervor", I'm not sure you know what either of those two words mean.
This non-story is on the front page of Kos too.
Too bad the lefty blogs won't be nearly as effective against McCain as they are against Hillary.
Why can't pro-HRC supporters just be pro-HRC?
I'm a staunch Obama supporter, but there's obviously lots of good reasons to support HRC, she's a damn fine candidate.
I don't have the slightest impulse to convince HRC supporters of anything, I certainly don't have the initial impulse to insult them.
Oh great. Now I got somebody telling me to look into Obama's eyes!
That's not "entranced"?
Oh great. Now I got somebody telling me to look into Obama's eyes!That's not "entranced"?
Posted by Still Undecided | February 16, 2008 3:00 PM
That's funny, but you don't sound undecided.
I was a poll watcher for Obama in Bed-Stuy, and over 13 percent of all voters were missing from the rolls and were required to cast paper affidavit ballots. These voters were disproportionately young and male in an overwhelmingly black district.
The Obama campaign has stated that they don't think this was the result of anything sinister, but the voters who claimed to have never skipped an election yet suddenly found their names missing from the rolls believe otherwise.
I'm leaning Hillary but I'm not locked in. The Pennsylvania primary isn't for another couple months so I have time. Won't even matter if Obama wins in Ohio. I'll vote for him against McCain but unless McCain is total disaster (which he may well be) I think Obama will have trouble in Pennsylvania in November.
Wait. Obama's not a talented speaker?
So whence Chris Matthews' thigh-shiver?
Joe:
There is a lot there to unpack, but you took the time to reply so I'll take the time to respond to your concerns.
Misguided and naive goes along with Senator Obama's over-promising and exaggerations. The legislative achievements (lobbying reform, working across the aisle) are of minor significance. His examples of telling truth to power (like talking about global warming in Motown) are underwhelming. He promises a "different kind of politics" ... he promises to curtail the power of lobbyists and "special interests"... he, in effect, is promising to fundamentally change the way US political institutions function. As I have pointed out in previous posts, Washington was designed purposely to to be resistant to change. Obama is a very smart individual, so I don't think he really believes he's going to do what he is saying. It's naive for his supporters to think he's going to be able to accomplish what no one before has ever accomplished. Is it possible? Anything is possible. But the stakes are pretty high at this point in time to pin everything on hope and faith.
Now, to the 'holier than thou' question. What I mean by that is the idea that everything Hillary Clinton and President Clinton do in the context of this campaign is somehow cynical, negative,dishonest and (sometimes even) racist. While everything Obama does is inspirational, high-minded, positive, and above board. The truth is that Obama campaign has been just as negative as the Clinton campaign has been, just in a different way. How many times has Obama called the Clintons dishonest? Not telling the truth? Old? Part of the past? The wrong kind of experience? Lacking in judgment? Senator from Punjab? Beholden to lobbyists and special interests? Whenever he does so most of the press corps cheers.
As a Clinton supporter I accept his decision to go on the attack, what I don't accept is the double-standard. What I don't accept is Clinton being called out every time she or her campaign draws a contrast with Obama, but never the other way around. Obama has been distorting Clinton's position and statements on NAFTA, for example. Distortions go both ways.
Obama is a politician, not anyone's saviour.
"But that's what happens when you've been in Washington a long time -- your attitude becomes, I'll just say whatever might work to win an election"
Barack Obama, February 16th, 2008
That's an example of his holier-than-thou attitude. As if he's not saying whatever he has to in order to win this election. Give me a break.
Tim K, it is the epitome of crass to go into a thread citing a NYT article about how Obama got totally screwed on the vote count in NYC, pretend it is meaningless, and then harangue about your hatred of the man.
First of all, you sound like a total Clinton hack, and if her campaign wasn't broke, we'd think you were in their employ. Maybe you were just promised something if they win. Sorry pal - good luck collecting on that.
Funniest thing is that your defense of Clinton isn't that she's good or does things the right way but rather - they do it too!
Pathetic.
Like your wounds, little doggie, and go home.
This one is over all but the counting.
Unless the Clintons have party hacks doing the counting for them in Texas the way they apparently did in NYC...
Dear Fool,
Obama way well win. But if he does he's not going to succeed in doing what he has promised you he is going to do, and you have been foolish enough to believe. Your gullibility is not my problem.
Tim K, it seems like you're blaming Obama for the press coverage he gets. The anti-Washington remarks are just that. Nothing holy about it.
What are the NAFTA distortions?
Tim's spin sandwich tastes kind of bland.
Please pass the Dave's Insanity Sauce.
Chester:
I'm not blaming Obama for the press coverage he gets. I blame the press for the press coverage he gets. I blame Obama for being arrogant and pretentious and clearly full of himself.
As for NAFTA distortions, Obama has a mailer in Ohio claiming that Hillary Clinton called NAFTA a "boon." Which is a distortion.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/The_boon_quote.html
"I'll vote for him against McCain but unless McCain is total disaster (which he may well be) I think Obama will have trouble in Pennsylvania in November."
I've admired McCain over the years, but right now he's a bug looking for a windshield. I think he's actually got a better shot at winning Pennsylvania than most of the deep red states in the South.
Ever since Mike Huckabee said in one of the debates that the Republicans sometimes seem like they expect evangelicals to shut up and support the candidate, he's developed a strong support base throughout the south, and McCain has done nothing to convince anyone that this isn't true. Washington state may not only have cost him the election, it may have cost him the chance to look respectable in defeat.
There still seem to be a lot of independents and "right-leaning" Democrats who like McCain, but hard-core Republicans seem to loathe the guy more and more with each passing day.
The best Democrat to beat him is the one who talks about uniting the country with a common purpose, not the one who says that the red states don't matter and they'll go crawling back to McCain anyway. That will be a self-fulfilling prophecy, and McCain will be just as likely to take Pennsylvania regardless.
I blame Obama for being arrogant and pretentious and clearly full of himself.
He sure is uppity.
Splitting Image:
Key phrase: "... the one who talks about uniting the country with a common purpose..."
It's just TALK. It's easy to talk about bringing people together. Actually doing it is altogether a different story.
Wasn't it Bush who called himself a "United, not a Divider"?
Tim K, she has made many speeches praising NAFTA.
Did she correct Newsday on the "boon" quote if it wasn't an accurate representation of her position?
Tim K
Big Fat Idiot and Lucy are only hurting Obama. I like to see them at an Obama rally spouting this garbage.
Tim,
Thanks for your response. I agree that Obama is just a politician, and I don't expect him (nor want/need him) to be my personal savior, or, in fact, the savior of us all. I do think, however, (and this is where my discussion of degrees is relevant) that as-to-date the Clinton's have been running a less savory, more typically cynical, political trickery-type of campaign (the MI delegate stuff is probably the worst in my mind) and would be more likely to govern in the 50+1 style of the current president. It's, of course, possible that I'm wrong here and that Obama is just as bad, but I've yet to see evidence of it. This could be b/c he's gotten the breaks so far in the votes, and so doesn't need to descend to these things, or it could be that he won't.
I'm willing, until convinced otherwise, to believe that he will be more of a big-tent leader than Senator Clinton and, as I mentioned before, that's worth something real to me. This does not mean that I think he is going to create a revolution in the way power and politics works in DC. But all change doesn't have to be revolutionary change, and any positive change is worth a shot.
Here in DC, many people simply feel that the game is the game, and any means to win are justifiable. I don't like that approach, I think it lowers the discourse and further fractures an already reasonably fractious country. It may very well be naive, but I'm willing to postpone my total disillusionment until faced with no better choice.
I'd like to add that if in fact it turns out that Obama eats babies, or that he wants his supporters to drink some cold, tasty Kool-Aid or something, his claimed new approach wouldn't be enough for me.
Dear Tim K, regarding your derision of Barack Obama's skills, talents and leadership:
This is an old prejudice. I think I wrote to you before about it, but it is ancient, heightened during the Rennaissance and Enlightment, to the point where it is ordinary bias to presume that one perfects style at the expense of substance. Teaching rhetoric, I hear this sort of idea expressed by students, noted in the press, and stated in conversation regularly. It is easy for people to fall into this sort of thing even though conceptually it is bunk and Obama is a contemporary exhibit A as to why it is bunk.
I dare say, no matter how many times you point it out, until Obama drones on about policy specifics to the point where no one can ignore the fact that he has specifics (and knows them), many will still assume that one who soars in language is not staying focused on issues.
Obama is quite Ciceronian in his enactment of leadership. He balances a wide culture with eloquence. Yet many often assume Cicero was principally a stylist, which is sheer nonsense.
It is superficial decision making, what social scientists might call peripheral processing. I would wager that many of those who reiterate Obama is all hat and no cattle, as Hillary is encouraging, actually don't know much about her policy positions either.
professor:
Listen, I think it's great that Obama can give a good speech... I'm sure Hillary admires that ability as well. It's the content of his speeches I have a problem with. I think they are misleading people into thinking he can do things I see no reason to believe he can do. I think they run the risk of raising the expectations of people (especially young people) to the point where hopes will be dashed and cynicism will reach new heights.
Joe:
I appreciate your point of view, and I understand the desire to want to see a President govern with a wider coalition, as opposed to 50%+1. That's a completely legitimate desire in my view.
Here's the rub, however. The divisions that exist in American society are real and they are based on disagreements over the role of government, the definition of family, civil rights and civil liberties, women's rights, and the list goes on. These are not conflicts that stem just from people being "disagreeable" or somehow ornery. The Clinton's came to Washington in 1993 with an agenda of positive change. Once they tried to implement that agenda they were opposed at every turn by the Republicans and interest groups. Not only that, but they were subject to a multi-year, well-funded, orchestrated campaign to destroy them politically and personally. They were accused of everything from murder and embezzlement to political corruption. The Clintons are far from perfect and they made plenty of mistakes, but they also did a lot of good and they've paid the price for bringing change.
What was the price? How about almost half the country thinking they are terrible excuses for human beings. Because Hillary Clinton worked and fought hard to bring about change means Barack Obama can go around calling her divisive and polarizing. And because he doesn't have much of a record of implementing change - and therefore hasn't made too many entrenched interests angry - he's less offensive to many people. And this is the point... if he is elected and tries to bring change like he makes speeches about, that will change. And then he will know what it's like to be "polarizing" and "divisive."
Hillary Clinton is considered polarizing and divisive because of the success of the right's character assassination campaign against her. It's grotesque, but the fact that there's no justice doesn't explode the reality that half the country is, shall we say, ambivalent about her.
So, your argument is: Obama promises more than he can deliver. Or is your argument more along the lines of: "I blame Obama for being arrogant and pretentious and clearly full of himself."
How 'bout them 80 precincts.
Tim,
I agree with much of what you wrote. Particularly about the Clintons. I have much respect for what the President did/tried to do, and agree that much of the divisiveness that occurred in the 90s was brought about by the forces opposed to the President.
I disagree, however, on a few points. While you are right to point out that there are many, real differences on a whole host of significant issues, I don't believe that each of these breaks down on 50.1 v. 49.9 lines. I believe that there are coalitions representing much larger swathes of the electorate that can be built, and that it is worth trying. I believe that an attempt to forge a big tent on some of these issues is possible (it certainly was in the 80s) if the next President is willing to listen to all sides, speak to all sides, and show respect for all sides. (I know this is now actually starting to sound naive, by the way, but I'm not sure it is.) This isn't to say it will always work, or even often work, but I believe it can work.
By the way, if I truly believed that Senator Clinton has worked hard (and intelligently) and will work hard (and intelligently) to bring about real change, I'd feel much better about her. What I see, though, is her capitulations to fear and the perceived popular will on Iraq and Iran (and, for a recent example, not voting on FISA) while she's been in the Senate, and the most important policy she has ever been in charge of at an administrative level was the health care fiasco. It is not enough to say that was just the fault of the interests lined up against her, as she made it easy as she tried to engineer the change in the dark, without giving the other side so much as a fair hearing.
As I see it, she has no better a legislative record than Obama (if you include his time in IL), she has as little executive experience as Obama (if you ignore the health care fiasco), and she tends to use pugilism as a negotiating tactic even while ending up with the wrong results. Her main benefit, to my mind, is that she truly understands what it was like to be in the WH, though I think that the Clinton experience may have been sui generis.
Given the above, the possibility that Obama will take a different tact, that it is still possible (not to stack the deck, I'll only cite his perceived weaknesses) through exceptional rhetoric, good media coverage and charisma (and the assumption of good faith)to forge a broader coalition on some issues of import.
I'd like to see how Obama's approach stacks up against the GOP smear machine. At the moment, I believe that it has a better than decent chance, and that's enough for me.
"The divisions that exist in American society are real and they are based on disagreements over the role of government, the definition of family, civil rights and civil liberties, women's rights, and the list goes on."
Right, but these divisions aren't 51-49. Go look at this data. There are strong majorities of people who are basically liberals, but who vote against democrats for lots of emotional and cultural reasons. The bet is that Obama can reach a lot of these people and forge them into a coalition for "change." i.e. toward liberal goals. So don't you think your whining about Obama's rhetorical skills and that people like him without understanding his policies is counterproductive?
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312
I do think Obama is arrogant and thinks a little bit too much of himself and his own abilities. I think all this swooning and positive press has gone to his head. So that bias is there and I freely admit to it. I followed him from before he won the 2004 Illinois Democratic primary, before some of you had even heard of him, I am sure. I thought his keynote address to the 2004 Democratic convention was amazing. Since he started running for President, however, I've detected a change. I think it's one thing to deliver an inspirational speech with strong arguments and great lines about there not being a "red or blue America", but it's quite another to think that speech can translate into a whole theory of governing.
The bottom line is I support Hillary because I think she's faced tough challenges and made her mistakes, and therefore not only has ideas but a practical and lucid perspective on how she's going to get things done. I don't expect fundamental change or a new era in American democracy. But I do want to see universal health care achieved, a responsible end to the War in Iraq, new efforts as diplomacy and international cooperation and sensible economic policy. And I have no doubt strides will be made in that direction with her as President. Politics is the art of the possible. It's about steady, steadfast, deliberate progress in the direction of change. For me politics isn't about inspiring people, winning an election, and transforming the whole country. That's the kind of thing that happens in movies, but this isn't Mr Smith Goes to Washington.
I actually like my politicians to be a bit calculating. It gives me confidence they are prepared to do what it takes to win. With Obama, I'm sure sure if he's naive and not up to the task of doing what may need to be done, or whether he's just selling snake-oil and being disingenuous. Either way I'm no longer as impressed as I was was.
Tim,
I think that's generally fair, though I disagree with you as to the merits of these particular individuals.
Fair enough... it's looking increasingly like we're going to be able to see how Obama does first hand.
I'd like to think so, but am not so sure. Anyway, I appreciate having a reasonably even-tempered dialog about this stuff, as it's been hard to have lately, as I think both sides have had their tensions ratcheted up as this goes along.
My main hope is that the nomination is secured without a huge breach in the party leaving too many open wounds for the general election.
Well... I do think the Clinton campaign will play for keeps and will take it all the way to the convention if they have to. But if Obama prevails I have confidence that Clinton's supporters will eventually rally around the nominee. I'm not as sure about the harder core Obama supporters. Given that many of them see this as a "movement" rather than just another political campaign. That in and of itself is not good enough reason to nominate him, however, just because some of his supporters may not be mature enough to accept another outcome.
I agree that some Obama supporters will not vote for Clinton, though I think that's less a maturity issue than the fact that it seems through the primaries that he has brought voters who are not the traditional "likely voters" and who would not necessarily come out to vote for someone else. This may be especially true of African-American voters who may be unhappy with the perceived tactics that the Clinton's employed in S. Car.
On the Clinton side, I have at least one relative who has stated that the rampant sexism stifling Clinton's candidacy is turning her off and may lead her not to vote in the general.
By the way, I'm still having trouble with your "maturity" issue regarding Obama supporters. In the not-at-all-representative-of-the-country blogs I read, I see a pretty even mix of whining and name-calling from supporters of both candidates. If by "maturity" you mean that he has managed to pull in young voters who traditionally haven't voted, but have voted for him, I agree that they may not come out to vote for a candidate who seems to deride the whole "hope" thing and the significance of the states in which they voted. This would be unfortunate, and I think a result not just of a failed Obama candidacy, but the specific claims that the Clinton campaign has made about such supporters (starry-eyed, weak-minded, cult-following, irrelevancies).
Of course, if McCain can get the evangelicals that he had once called the "agents of intolerance" to vote for him, then anything is possible.
Chris wrote: The purpose of not having a recipt is so that you can't have some local 'boss' check who you voted for. This was a big problem in england until the created the secret ballot. I don't know if this would still be a problem, but that's the reason.
We still need a way for people to know their vote was counted. I think checking your vote should be like checking your bank box -- or like voting. Sign in, show ID, go into a booth alone to see that your vote was counted.
Joe:
Well by maturity I mean the realization that politics is the art of the possible, and not allowing perfection to be the enemy of the good. Anyone who supports Obama and cares about the issues he is promoting should be willing to support Hillary if she becomes the nominee since they are essentially the same issues. If not I question how strongly they really feel about the issues at all, and it becomes more and more a cult of personality.
Tim,
There's truth to what you say (particularly about the need to do the possible, and not just wish for the perfect), although I would say that the Presidency is more than just politics. It's about setting the tone for the policy debates, and helping determine the outline and bring the resolution to those debates. It's about the image that we project to ourselves and to the world. It's about the appreciation that the great power that is held is derived from the whole of the electorate, not just the wealthy, the white and the big states.
Sure, this may be a naive fiction. Sure, the rich and the more populous get a greater say, and to some extent that's inevitable, but the denigration of the importance of certain regions and races as being unnecessary, insignificant or unworthy of a meaningful voice may and should make people unhappy. If the expression of that unhappiness is the withholding of a vote, I find that completely legitimate. If the expression of that unhappiness results in certain issues being resolved in an unsatisfactory manner in the short term, it is unfortunate, but understandable. Politics should not be ends-determinate. The means matter just as much as the policies, if not more.
Well as I've alluded to before I doubt Barack Obama actually believes he's going to be able to deliver on half the things he is promising. I think it's in essence a political strategy to win an election. He has tapped into a real sentiment that it out there to turn a new leaf and move beyond the "old politics." Trust me, it's calculated. And good for him, if he can get away with it.
In terms of what Obama would represent to the world, it would definitely be a great symbol of change. To me, however, electing a women would be an equally (if not more) profound statement. Beyond that I don't really think identity politics should determine who the President should be, only as an added bonus.
As for what Obama represents in domestic politics, let's not kid ourselves to who is he, where he comes from, and where he draws his strength. He isn't some kind of agent of the common folk. Obama is supported by old pros of Chicago politics (I'm not even referencing Rezko here, I mean legitimate political operators like Axlerod and Daly) and is just as much the candidate of the elite as Hillary Clinton. Trading in Clinton for Obama would simply be exchanging one set of party elites and big whigs for another. Instead of Madeleine Albright, you get Zbigniew Brzinski. That's the kind of change we're talking about.
Of course it's a political strategy, but it's not just a political strategy that he came up with in 2006 or whenever he started to run, it's a political strategy based (somewhat authentically) on who he is.
I agree that electing a women would be a profound statement, although throughout the number of women leaders has outnumbered those who were part of a minority racial group. As for what it would represent to African-Americans and other minorities in the US, however, the effect would be enormous. I also agree that identity politics shouldn't determine the outcome of a Presidential election, but it's not irrelevant either.
By the way, I wasn't saying that Obama represents the common folk, or something that Clinton doesn't, simply that the Clinton campaign has gone out of there way to explicitly state that the African-American vote and the votes in many states are insignificant or irrelevant. Obviously she was trying to make a political point as to her likelihood of getting the nomination or her presumed strength in a general election, but in the course of making what are, basically, simple, petty political arguments, she has sent a signal to many Democrats that she doesn't really give a shit about them or their vote, because those votes won't help her get elected. Once again, rhetoric matters.
By the way, Tim. I need to actually leave my computer for the night, so please don't interpret any future lack of response as me taking my ball and going home.
No problem buddy, have good night.
Damn, Tim K and Joe discuss this race in a sober-minded, reality-based manner. Stop the virtual presses. Good job.
Comments closed March 01, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Understatement of the year Matt. He didn't get a single vote in many of the districts, including Harlem's.
Posted by Jake | February 16, 2008 12:46 PM