Unconventional Denver

Something to keep an eye on, maybe:

"We don't want history to remember the Democratic National Convention in Denver as something that went smoothly," said Tim Simons with the self-described anarchist group, Unconventional Denver.

I say "maybe" because the word anarchist always sounds so scary, but the truth of the matter may be much more, er, conventional. The group is in Denver this weekend to hold a "secret action camp to learn about medical training and legal rights and to practice nonviolent tactics," according to the Denver Post.

Sounds pretty warm and rootsy, actually. Which may not be far off the mark.

"The streets will be a wild and creative place," said Simons, a 25-year-old graphic artist who grew up in Boulder and lives in San Francisco. "We don't want to see a dark, evil atmosphere descending on Denver . . . . We want a festive atmosphere that celebrates grassroots movements."

From his mouth to Sonny Jackson's ears. The Denver police spokesperson says "We respect everyone's First Amendment rights . . . . We hope that the citizens will come in and conduct themselves in a law-abiding and responsible manner."

The newspaper further reported that local and federal law enforcement for the convention will be subsidized in part by a $50 million federal grant. Protest groups, I suspect, will not be so well funded, but could wreak havoc none the less by blocking intersections and staging protests outside of convention venues and popular Denver businesses. Should be an exciting time through and through.

Shaking the (Family) Tree

This is why I love the information age:

This could make for one odd family reunion: Barack Obama is a distant cousin of actor Brad Pitt, and Hillary Rodham Clinton is related to Pitt's girlfriend, Angelina Jolie.

Kudos to the AP for digging up one of the least consequential, yet more interesting, tidbits to come out of this year's historic Democratic primary. More good stuff to come, I hope.

Upcoming Democratic Primaries

Here's a pretty good run down of what to expect in the upcoming Democratic primaries. Clear, concise, and absolutely honest about the unreliability of prediction making this election cycle.

Making Statements, and Having Statements Made For You

From the AP (via Yahoo):

Sen. Barack Obama predicted Wednesday that Republicans will have a dump truck full of dirt to unload on Hillary Rodham Clinton if the former first lady wins the Democratic presidential nomination, and said he offers the party its best hope of winning the White House this fall.

Now, when I read that, the way it's phrased made me wonder if what Obama didn't say is that the GOP won't have a truckful of dirt on him. Pretty bold, if that's the way things went down.

As it turns out, that's not the way things went down. Read to the bottom and you get Obama's actual words:

And you know I think what is absolutely true is whoever the Democratic nominee is the Republicans will go after them. The notion that somehow Senator Clinton is going to be immune from attack or there's not a whole dump truck they can't back up in a match between her and John McCain is just not true.

That's a whole lot different than the opening paragraph of the article. The trick is that Obama didn't specifically say, in some knowing way, that the GOP will have dirt on Clinton (which doubtless they will). What he said is that the GOP attack machine will go after whoever the Dem candidate is, and that any "notion" that Clinton will be "immune" from this is hogwash. Which of course it is. If anything, Clinton stands to get the worst of it, because she's got a longer political career behind her and the Clinton name alone generates hatred among the so-called Fever Swamp like nobody's business.

I'm not too interested in parsing why the reporter framed the article the way she did. There are too many unknowns to come to any substantive conclusion (though that sort of argument rarely stops me). I am actually much more interested in something else Obama said this morning, which also made it into the article:

"I have no doubt that I can get the people who vote for Senator Clinton. ... It's not clear that Senator Clinton can get all the people I'm getting," he said.

Whoa. I haven't found a transcript of his full remarks, but if this is really how this one went then look out. That's a huge claim, straight up and quite direct. And I'd love to see some numbers to go with it.

What seems plenty likely, to my ear right now, is that there may have been some discussion about the general election that we just aren't privy to in this snippet. In that context, I think Obama's right. Come November, if he's the one, then I suspect he will get almost all those would-be Clinton votes. Does it work the other way, then? Would Clinton be able to get as many of the same folks out to the polls as Obama appears poised to motivate? That seems like a pretty valid question to ask as the country took another step closer last night to the possibility of a brokered convention.

What Comes After Super Tuesday? Wednesday Morning Speculation, Of Course

Everybody agrees: Super Tuesday was a draw for the Democrats. The Washington Post declares "Clinton, Obama Split Super Tuesday Contests." The New York Times: "Clinton and Obama Trade Victories." Los Angeles Times: "With No Losers, the Fight Goes On." The Wall Street Journal: "Obama, Clinton, Split Dems' Super Tuesday." Accordingly, Obama didn't "grab" any major upsets, though I think Connecticut counts as a significant one, and Clinton didn't "blow" any of her expected gimmes. All of which means what, exactly?

As The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen wrote yesterday:

I suspect tonight will be similar. Clinton, I cautiously assume, will win most of the Democratic contests. But how the results are perceived will make all the difference — if the headline reads, “Clinton cruises to victory in most Super Tuesday states,” she’ll have momentum going into the next round of contests and solidify her position as the frontrunner. If it reads, “Clinton, Obama split delegates on Super Tuesday,” it’ll be a wash.

[snip]

I suspect Obama may very well lose [NY, NJ, CA, CT, MA,] but if it’s perceived as one rough day — a rough day in which Obama still wins a lot of delegates from each of the states — it’s easier to bounce back.

I think Benen makes a lot of sense, and he cites Adam Nagourney and Markos Moulitsas on his way to reaching the conclusion that Obama "has to lose just well enough." That is, hang in, keep it close, and continue to position himself as the next great hope. Obama, of course, is running on the platform of change. To this end I believe his campaign wants to continue to generate momentum, chip away at Clinton's top dog status, continue to inspire and exhilarate supporters, thus attracting new ones, and continue to generate preposterous sums of cash. (It's no doubt more complicated than all that, but the point is that a close night for Obama is actually a victory; he was never supposed to come this far against the first family of Democratic politics.)

Now Obama must simply keep doing what he's been doing--it seems to have worked so far--and reap the next handful of primaries where he's positioned to do well. The perceived draw last night, and a number of "Victory" headlines for the Obama camp, even little ones like South Dakota that may trickle in through May and June (eons from now, on the political futures markets), could just put him into the #1 slot as the hype mounts in Denver in anticipation of the August convention.

I'll just repeat that little note, that Obama took Connecticut, albeit the least consequential, in terms of delegates, of the 5 presumed wins Clinton was seeking. Obama's performance also made for dramatic news in Missouri when the AP called the state for Clinton and then reversed the announcement in Obama's favor. That had to feel good.

Contrary to Steve's "rough day" comment, I don't think it looks that way at all for Obama. The Obama camp would have loved a big coup in a state like New Jersey or California, but I think he'll take what he's got and keep working. Clinton, at the same time, is likely chagrined about the 26 delegates she didn't get from Connecticut, as well as the now-you-see-it-now-you-don't turn of events in Missouri. Remember, she's still fighting to keep everything she's got. Obama, for whom nothing is assumed, is fighting for everything he's going to get. Just from the outset, that plays in nicely to him looking hopeful and her looking embattled.

Another for Obama

"The master of artfulness confronts the mistress of embattlement." Todd Gitlin on why, tomorrow, he'll vote with the Obama crowd.

The Ideal Primary Ad, and Thoughts on Election 2008

Slate writer and CBS News correspondent Jeff Greenfield narrates the ad he'd like to see this primary season:

—I'm Janet Napolitano, Democratic governor of Arizona—a state Bush won twice. —I'm Kathleen Sebelius, Democratic governor of Kansas—a state Bush won twice. —I'm Claire McKaskill, Democratic Senator from Missouri—a state Bush won twice. If Al Gore had won any of our states in 2000, there never would have been a Bush presidency. Instead, Democrats lost the last two presidential elections because our candidates couldn't compete in our states, and too many others. Any Democrat can win in your deep blue state. But to win the White House, we need someone who can win our states, too. We believe that candidate is Barack Obama. —We think so, too. I'm Tim Kaine, governor of Virgnia, where Bush won twice. And I'm Ben Nelson, Democratic senator from Nebraska, where Bush won twice. Please: Give us a Democratic candidate who can win the states that will decide who wins the White House. Give us Barack Obama.

By this time in the primary season I've gone hot and cold on a number of candidates. Last Christmas (and I'm Jewish, for crying out loud) I bought my in-laws Obama's book. Then I published a post about why I wanted to like Hillary. Then, though I loathe to say so now, I published a post about why I thought Mike Huckabee might not be a bad pick for the Republicans. (I'm currently dragging my feet on a much, much less flattering follow-up. Maybe if I wait a little longer, I won't even have to write it.)

So the question I'm struggling to evaluate is who will make the stronger candidate in the general election? Because here's the thing: watching the Democrats through the past couple election cycles has been like watching my home team the Detroit Lions. They just seem to have a way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Now, neither Clinton nor Obama are a Howard Dean, subject to passionate, if guttural, howls of victory. Neither one is a John Kerry, so easy--and somehow so satisfying--to malign (I hate to say it but it's true: Politics aside, I sort of enjoyed watching the guy flail. It wasn't what he said, but how he said it. Just a little too imperious, in the end). And, in the end, I sincerely hope that having two good Dem candidates--and I think there were at least 3 or 4, earlier on--gives us all kinds of advantages, like elevated dialogue and substantive debate. As we've seen already, however, the Clinton and Obama camps could easily lead this thing into the sort of lowbrow Washington theater we can't stand to watch. I'm glad to see this sort of thing checking itself, because a nuclear war between the two most promising Democratic candidates since Bill Clinton would be disastrous for the party.

So, back to the original intent of the post. The ad Jeff Greenfield would like to see sounds like a pretty good one. I'm prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton in a general election and hope like hell that she could pull one out for the good guys. I'd go a step farther, with Obama, and say that I'd actually be excited for his prospects. This isn't to say which would make the better president. This is simply who I think gets to the Oval Office. I like to think it's a gimme for the Dems, but we've been fooled before.

I think in a head-to-head against McCain, Hillary Clinton looks more extreme and aggressive, traits we Americans don't like in our women, while Barack Obama sounds more inspiring, more authentic, and strangely enough, more seasoned than he actually is. John McCain is running on the war, a drastically unpopular platform. Obama would have an easy time, I think, reminding the country that all the experience of McCain's 72 years isn't worth didley if it means we stay in Iraq for 100 years, make a new Cold War with Iran, watch Afghanistan and Pakistan fall still farther out of step with our western, pro-democracy national ideologies, all while watching our friends and neighbors struggle with foreclosures as the housing bust and the domestic economy actually get worse before they get better, which seems sure to happen before the average American has a chance to wonder where that $600 tax rebate went. Also, Obama looks fit and vigorous, very presidential, against a McCain who will turn 73 this August. You can bet that voters will be constantly reminded that the guy is in a traditionally high risk age group among American males. If he won and was reelected, he'd retire at 81; Reagan, by comparison, was 79 when he left office, if my math is correct.

Here's the other thing, and this is pure speculation, so take it for what it's worth (as with all the rest): America once more wants a president who sounds presidential. I think we can't underestimate this right now. Most Americans sense that our standing on the world stage has fallen. If George W. Bush's dumbing down of executive politics has actually helped in some way, it's that Americans remember now why they want a president who speaks clearly and thoughtfully. McCain's not really that guy. His "My friends I can tell you" schtick comes off, to me, as just as faux-folksy as Bush's Crawford ranch brush shoveling routine. I don't believe McCain's the one who can restore the luster to the Republican party, nor to the Oval Office. Clinton and Obama both will take the American stock up a tick, at face value, though judgment will be withheld until the actual business of the presidency gets underway. In the meantime, I just think Obama can excite more people--to the Democratic advantage--than Clinton can.

Like Greenfield, I believe Obama has a better chance in the general election. Ask me next week and my wisdom could well change. It's been that kind of cycle, not just for me but for some of my favorites writers who have seen a lot more of these things than I have. The thing is that neither of these candidates are perfect. Obama's gonna get worked, hard, exactly because of the charm of his higher political discourse. The country will demand to see more than just rhetoric, and the opposition will remind folks that Bill Clinton had a way with words, too, and look what happened. We got a charismatic liar and philanderer in office.

In addition to getting specific about policy, Obama will have to balance and frame his policy prescriptions in such a way that they resonate across a very broad spectrum, because for some dumb reason it seems a whole lot of Independents and moderate Republicans still seem to think of John McCain as the maverick politico centrist he branded himself as eight years ago to run against the conservative's conservative, George W. Bush. This isn't unique, it's just that it seems more Americans--specifically more Republicans--are poised to calve from the glacier of habit if Obama actually succeeds in walking his fine line. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, doesn't bring that element to the general election.

Obama, I think, will peel off some of these Independents and Republicans that Clinton won't be able to touch. Also, if Obama continues to build momentum without losing his higher message, I think he'll draw out significant numbers of people who aren't inclined to vote, if simply to get involved in the next great hope. While it won't be that many, every bit helps, especially in the states that Greenfield mentions in his article. Between Obama and McCain, though, most of these people still stay home, and that'd be a good thing for the Dems.

Hillary Clinton, of course, will mobilize droves of these people, but not in her favor. The Republican machine is counting on getting the vote out like never before if Clinton wins the nomination, and I think they'll succeed. It won't matter how disenchanted the conservative base might be with McCain, and it won't matter how much Clinton works to soften her tone and deliver sound policy messages. For a lot of people it'll be more fun than swinging a Swiftboat stick at a Kerry pinata. The bottom line, for much of the country, will be Anybody But Clinton.

So I say okay, Jeff Greenfield. Obama doesn't have an easy road ahead, but you keep pushing for your ideal primary campaign ad, and I'll wait to see it on the tv (or on YouTube, more likely, since I'm in Mexico). Probably all this is a little premature, since we've yet to see what surprises may crop up this Super Tuesday, but it sure is fun.

Democrats for NASCAR

It's great fun for me to spend time over at Talking Points Memo again. Today Steve Benen compared the spectacle of the Democratic candidates' debates to a NASCAR race, and I have to say I agree.

I watch all of these debates, in the hopes of catching something newsworthy, and routinely end up disappointed. Not only is the same ground is covered over and over again, but with eight candidates, even thoughtful answers are cut short by time constraints. I end up watching the events a bit like some NASCAR fans watch car races -- waiting for a stunning victory or a spectacular crash. In reality, both are pretty rare.

The important thing is at least one of the candidates seems to feel the same way.