Have Message, Will Win

I didn't want a "Fighter" back in the primaries, why would I want one now?
Few hysterical Democrats have recognized in Barack Obama's strategy to counter the McCain campaign's Gothic distractions the sage composure of another of America's favorite, vaguely foreign gurus:


Did you notice how they're dancing in the end? That could be the American people...

The American American Americans have been Americanized for so that they can America America America America

I watched Obama's speech in Berlin today. Three things kind of stood out in my mind.

First, I cringed at the knowledge that the McCain campaign and Republican media would use this speech to prey upon the worst demons of our citizenry, among them rampant and unashamed xenophobia. The Corner provides an excellent example of this: In response to the address, "People of Berlin, People of the World," K-Lo, as more savant bloggers apparently call her writes:

"Apparently this is a moment that Obama doesn't really need Americans for."

One has to be alarmed when the United States is transported to a separate planet by right-wing pundits.

But, on a more positive note, I couldn't help but delight in the rhetoric of uplift that appeared to strike a chord with the diverse assembly gathered in Berlin. Acutely sensitive to the political and social arrangements that stereotype, marginalize and physically threaten people of color, immigrants, and Muslims in Europe, Obama was able to connect with the struggles of these communities in his speech while also reminding his US audience of the road we ourselves must travel:

"The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."

For some reason, MSNBC's Chuck Todd commented that the content of the speech would be something with which McCain would be equally comfortable -- and yet, it doesn't seem to me that McCain can look at foreign countries and see them for their populations as opposed to for their targets.

Finally, I couldn't help but thinking, not just upon seeing the 200,000 people assembled for the speech but seeing them waving American flags, that we really can't afford not to elect Obama. To fritter away that goodwill and return to the days when the only time we see American flags burnished overseas is when they are being burned would pretty much signal our decline into irrelevance and the victory of the deepest misanthropy that a nation of free citizens can express.

Yes We Can!

Through the Looking Glass meets Toxic Avenger

Na na na na na we're not listening!



How can a speech be resilient? That's what Chris Matthews just said. Was it that despite mangling the truth, words still managed to come out of Clinton's mouth? Or is "resilient" just the only acceptable word now to describe anything Clinton does that is destructive and irrational.

Howard Fineman mentioned that Hillary's camp is demanding that Obama not offer the VP spot to another woman. I had my doubts for a while, but I have now come to realize that -- far from being a movement defined by obtaining power to fight for equal rights and equal status -- feminism really is just Hillary Clinton's one-woman cult of personality. My only question, then, is why not choose someone with a better personality?

Tom Brokaw mentioned that Obama's speech moved from "Yes We Can" to "Here's How." He says that that's what we've been waiting for all this time.

Actually, Tom. No. We haven't been waiting, because we've actually been listening to Barack Obama. While I feel good about Obama's chances for winning in November, something tells me that even by January 20 2009, we'll still be hearing from the Russerts and Brokaws of the world: "Gee, he sure can talk about hope, but Obama is still a cipher in terms of the policies he plans to enact..."


Can we drop the Klinton Krazies and still win in November? Yes we can!
My assumption is that the Appalachian voters who voted for Clinton did not actually and would not actually vote Democratic in most of the last election cycles. They do not belong, then, to the vote total of reality-challenged Clinton supporters who plan to defect in November. No, these are more likely to be of the sort who, as the Clintons themselves pointed out: "Don't need a president, they need a feeling."

By a crude estimate, then, my sense is that these voters will have the most effect on Obama's margin in Arizona, California, New York, New Jersey, and Florida. While Arizona is probably safely in McCain's hands already, the only states where defections may make a difference are New Jersey and Florida. With the political climate as it is, though -- and, by the way, Thank G_d for Bob Barr! -- it seems fair to give Obama the benefit of the doubt in the Mountain West and Virginia such that an unfavorable turn in the two pivotal "angry states" would be offset. I am, in fact, predicting here and now, a Reagan-esque landslide in the Fall.

But even if some tell-tale combination of racists and the Klinton Krazies (these are distinct constituencies, right Geraldine Ferraro?) does signal an Obama defeat in the November, I believe that it is far more important to rebuild the soul of the Democratic Party around the assumption that we can assemble a majority progressive coalition and re-mold the political rhetoric of foreign policy and national security to the Democrats' advantage, than to cater to the demagogues and power brokers within the party who would insist on turning virulent Bush-hatred and the bitter memory of the Clinton impeachment into the only coherent and sound form of Democratic discourse for the foreseeable future.



Finally, is it okay to refer to Clinton's now defunct campaign for the nomination as the Ronaldo candidacy? It seems that many women thought they were voting for the first woman to ever run for president. Oddly enough though, the Clinton campaign conveyed the message that a woman would only be fit for the job if she knew how to act like a man, thus increasing the degree of difficulty for any future women politician seeking the office. If anyone has run a sexist campaign, then, it has been the Clintons. It is they and their surrogates who have persistently challenged Obama's masculinity and, thus, fitness for the job, and suggested to her voters that... um... at least anatomically speaking... Clinton is a man. (And a Latino one, at that.)

Perplexing Information

Eugene Robinson delivers some startling news with his latest Washington Post column:

Clinton has poured more than $11 million of her own money into the campaign, with no guarantee of ever getting it back. She has changed slogans and themes the way Obama changes his ties. She has been the first major-party presidential candidate in memory to tout her appeal to white voters. She has abandoned any pretense of consistency, inventing new rationales for continuing her candidacy and new yardsticks for measuring its success whenever the old rationales and yardsticks begin to favor Obama. [Emphasis added]

I am a bit at a loss here. I did not realize that Senator Obama changed his ties with such frequency. First of all, I thought that Obama did not wear neckties. As a "wear the tie until I spill my ramen on it" kind of guy, I am a bit troubled to learn that Obama does not stick with only one necktie until it becomes stained. For the first time since this campaign started, I am wondering if that thing about the Kool-Aid might be true...

The Appalachian Trail: Blame it on Apu

Some folks have been floating the idea of Bobby Jindal for McCain's Veep candidate. I say, bring it ON!

So, I was watching the boob tube the other night, and there was one of those typical, caviar-eating, latte-sipping, fey movie stars making fun of hard-working Americans by putting on the usual dumb hick accent. And it dawned on me: No wonder those folks are so bitter.
You can no longer make racist jokes on national television -- except during the Superbowl -- and yet, as far as backwoods whites are concerned, we're all still living the Simple Life. So a bunch of people who used to be able to openly indulge in racist jokes (That means you, barber in Prescott Valley), now find themselves the butt of crass stereotypes voiced in front of millions by some hoity, toity, holier-than-thou gay doctor types and millionaire heiresses. Meanwhile, even Arab Americans have their own show...

In fact, the only other ethnic group which is still fair play for public, light-hearted, inoffensive merriment are South-Asian Americans. I mean, just look at the lovable, hilarious Simpsons character Apu! As former colleagues have so aptly and often demonstrated to me, just say something in one of those melodic, Indian guy accents and I am rolling on the floor laughing. Use the same accent and say something about computers, and the milkshake will be bubbling out of my nose.

This realization gave me an idea for how Barack Obama could finally win over the coveted Hard-Working American demographic that's been so elusive -- G_d knows why -- during the primary campaign. Indeed, I believe that the only way that Senator Obama can channel white-working-class resentment into votes is by bashing South-Asian Americans.

First of all, everybody knows that Obama has an image of not being white, which is compounded by his being an elitist smarty pants. But just like the only way to win the war against the Iraqis is to fight the war against the even bigger assholes in Iran, all Obama needs to do to shake off his image problem is to bash the biggest non-white, elitist smarty pants in the country: Fareed Zakaria. It certainly helps that, in his writings, he has taken a clear stand against both Democracy and America. But who reads books anyway...

In addition, a lot of these hard-working Americans somehow lost all those jobs that the Clintons gave them during the 90s. Where did those jobs go? South-Asian Americans. Not only have I seen South-Asian Americans in every textile mill in South Carolina, but they are also stealing jobs in medicine, literature and right-wing punditry, that used to belong to hard-working white people. I mean, they're even smoking their pot and stealing their women. By pointing out this fact, Obama also opens up an opportunity to win back Latino voters by relieving them of the role of universal scapegoats.

This argument also ties in nicely with Democratic talking points about companies shipping jobs overseas. The proliferation of out-sourcing of call center jobs and, increasingly, white collar jobs to the Indian sub-continent reinforces the argument against Corporate America selling out US workers for lower wages. But, highlighting the South-Asian role in this perfidy touches on a visceral note that, I believe, will ring true with a certain universality. I envision a moment, where Obama takes the podium in Rustville, Ohio, and says:

"You know, I was trying to send an e-mail to my supporters the other day, and my Mac [BHO is totally not a PC guy] kept shutting down. So, Ohio, I got on the phone and called Mac support. This guy answered the phone with a funny accent. He was like 'Good day sir, I like cricket and Aishwarya Rai, my name is Craig, what can I help you with today?' And I think to myself, 'this is the same old game of calling yourself Craig, when your name is probably Rajesh.' This is the game John McCain plays when he calls tax cuts for the wealthy an economic recovery plan. America is tired of these games. Let's bring these jobs back to the real, hard-working Craigs of our heartland!"

OMFG, I can totally see Obama doing a perfect Indian accent (what else did he spend all that time in Indonesia for?) that will have the crowd just teary-eyed laughing in rueful recognition. And, I mean, we can all pretty much universally connect with having the tech support guy condescending to us with his technical advice. I mean who else besides me has just wanted to burst out like "I've already tried Ctrl+Alt+Delete like two times, and can you stop talking down to me just because Naveen Andrews plays an Iraqi on TV instead of a real Iraqi-American actor!"

Finally, Obama can do this with very little cost in popular vote totals. According to Census figures and growth projections, there are roughly 2 million South-Asian Americans. Their largest populations are concentrated in California, New York, New Jersey, Texas and Illinois. Four out of five of these states are already a lock to vote Democratic in November. Among the states with the fastest growth rate among South Asians -- Nevada, Georgia, Colorado, Washington, and Oregon -- what are 20,000 votes here and there? Hardly likely to be game-changing, right?

If Obama is shrewd, he can in fact play Indian Americans against Pakistani Americans, of whom 56 percent voted for Bush in 2000. He can talk about Hindu values corrupting heartland values, and assimilate Indian Americans with East Coast elites. If he wins back Pakistani voters, he can offset losses of Indian voters in Georgia, Texas and Washington, make gains in Minnesota and North Carolina, and get the Hard-Working American voters needed to win West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Of course, some of Obama's low level aides began hinting at this strategy in the early days of the campaign, when they called Hillary Clinton the Democratic Senator from Punjab. Still, Mr. "Holier than thou" reprimanded his aides and trashed the strategy. Well, Senator, I think it's time to reconsider...

Naturally, there are immediate consequences for the campaign that would be hard to tolerate. For example, Obama could potentially lose the endorsement of one of his most attractive and intelligent celebrity supporters. But, frankly, I only have room for one man-crush per campaign. And, in that case, I'd rather reserve it for the top of the ticket.

Others might say that this strategy risks forging a long-term, broad-based coalition for a governing progressive majority, that it sacrifices a rapidly growing segment of an increasingly multicultural society, all for the sake of pandering to a declining proportion of voters whose adherence to the Democratic Party's core values and progressive message is suspect. If this primary season has taught us anything, though, it is that it is far nobler to go down to defeat with the overwhelming support of white racists than to win elections and build a stronger party.

Georgia on my mind

Wow, this really does raise some serious concerns about Obama's candidacy... I can't even think of any primary races where he has run up the kind of margin we're seeing Hillary tally today!

16 tons

You know, I'd be happy to concede these votes, too...



Meanwhile, all this time and so much to blog... we (or I, rather, since G_d only knows what ASM has been up to) haven't been neglecting our duties. Instead, we have been working -- rather contra-medium -- on a couple of long-form entries which should be ready for your perusal in the next couple of days. So stay tune for:

LIJs relationship advice for guys: How to drive her crazy!

Why Forgetting Sarah Marshall will ensure the sustainability of the heterosexual lifestyle!

Gossip Girl updates and more...

Break out the raki... I'm about to have a good cry

Meanwhile, the real victim, our foreign policy, and Obama's sterling vision thereof keeps sacrificing itself upon the altar of ludicrous campaign-induced litmus tests.

First, there was super-wonk and human rights community icon, Samantha Power...

Now, Algeria expert and brilliant analyst of the Peace Process, Rob Malley gets thrown overboard by Team Obama apparently due to having spoken with people in occupied Palestine.

It would be nice to, as usual, blame everything on the Jews and the extent to which the US Zionist lobby is the most asinine, self-in-foot-shooting organization that ever existed... but, for reasons that will be explained later, I am indefinitely forswearing any self-hating chic. But it just seems that there is some kind of establishment thinking in DC that requires that people who make foreign policy not talk to anybody who may be affected by our policies, and, more to the point, that they waste everybody's time engaging in blustery national security pissing matches.

Now, Samantha Power and Rob Malley are both pretty unique voices who seem to presage the awesome renewal in Obama's vision... this latest just reveals how painful the process changing the status quo can be. Having met RM, this feels -- of course -- even worse. The thrill of thinking that I was just one degree removed from Obama's foreign policy shop -- gone, baby, gone. Someone, get me some raki, stat!

Things I think about while watching MSNBC

Rachel Maddow: "What does that say about Clinton's electability when her campaign's completely broke?" (or words to that effect...)
Damn straight!

Too much Pat Buchanan (he's a raving lunatic who's just blathering from his face) and not enough Eugene Robinson (Let him speak, goddammit Pat, let him speak -- at least he really does know what he's talking about!)...

Nothing new about Pez dispensers from Chris Matthews, but some other things he's saying don't make a lot of sense.



Oh... And David Gregory finally gets the Rocky analogy right!
It takes people 6 weeks to figure out the plot of a Sly Stallone movie? Maybe he is a genius!

Awesomeness's Awesomest Advent

As many of you have understood, it has been my long held principle to make this forum something other than your usual, ubiquitous boring political blog. After all, I don't really have anything interesting to say about politics and am far too lazy to come up with something to say on the subject on a daily basis.

But, what with ASM AWOL, off still basking under the luminous golden tresses of Heidi and Dagmar in Kitzbuhel -- to return G_d know when, I have been lacking my straight man foil for several weeks, now, and instead, just find myself relegated to sitting at home, gnawing on matzoh bones, occupied at some or the other odd research project and indulging in idle, sophistic musings that end up crushed under foot like so many matzoh bones.

In this context, it is with even greater impact, then, that I have witnessed the flap of the pre-PA-primary season: "Bitter-gate." Now, it has been a source of great civic pride for me to have had the opportunity to attend in person two Obama speeches -- once in 2005 and again just about six months ago -- and, more than the of the brilliant oratory and bright concepts, one is aware of this quite unique characteristic of Senator Obama: He has complete trust in his audience's ability to judge him on his merits.

Now, it would be nice to dismiss this apparent fearlessness or self-confidence as merely a handy political skill. But it seems ever clearer, the more this campaign progresses, that he genuinely does not distinguish between the people whose voices he wishes to represent and his own voice. I have not, in any speech, debate or other venue, seen him condescend to the crowd or try to appeal to a pre-formulated, targeted set of talking points in order to generate some false sense of solidarity. It's not so much that he "says what's on his mind" as much as he appears to be negotiating the space between where he stands and where he thinks you stand. The result is an openness that, in my view, fosters a mutual respect that tends to validate both parties. And it is really this willingness to sincerely and openly negotiate that space that makes Obama an entirely unique, once in a lifetime candidate. (Of course, those of us Illinoisan cannot help but see, in these traits, an incarnation of the Paul Simon ethos but sans bow tie -- thus a twice in a lifetime candidate for the Land of Lincoln.) In any case, all this just to preface showing yet another brilliant parry to the "Bitter-gate" flap: