OK, I'm tired of this. Someone--who shall remain nameless--just asked me if I was "nervous" about Obama. FTDS. I don't believe in black cats. I don't toss salt over my shoulder. I step under ladders whenever the mood strikes me. I break mirrors in my spare time. I've made a hobby out of splitting poles. Thirteen is my favorite number. So fuck it, I'm gonna say it--Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States.
Here is the thing. I believe in competition. John Kerry wasn't swift-boated--he was beaten by a superior campaign. I guess Al Gore lost because of Nader and the Supreme Court. But why was it ever even that close? What is the use of being a Southern senator when you can't carry a single state in the South? I mean no disrespect to any of those guys, I really don't. But this notion that mystical and nefarious forces deprived them from claiming what was rightly theirs is odious and self-serving.
No one has conspired to deprive us of power over the past few decades. The American people aren't stupid. We've sucked at articulating our message. If you have any interest in a more progressive country, we need to be honest. At the presidential level, at least, conservatives have hammered us. Give them their due. Don't blame Rush. Don't blame Kristol. Don't denigrate states you've never visited. Give them their due. Give them their respect. Study them, and then get better.
Denial is bad for two reasons. First, if you can't accept that you lost, you don't have a prayer of getting better. If you think Kerry and Gore lost because they were too "high-minded," then you miss the basic fundamentals at work, and spend your days congratulating yourself for being up on the latest Paul Krugman. This is a war, and you don't lose wars because of abstract principles, but because of hard immovable facts. Is your army bigger than theirs? Are you attracting more recruits? Are you deploying in the right places? Who has more resources? Who has the technology edge? These are the reasons I voted Obama in the primary. I didn't think he was "more principled" than Clinton, nor did I really care. I thought she was tough, but I knew he was tougher. I thought her campaign was smart, but I thought his was smarter. I thought one person was talking about being a fighter, and another was out there actually being a fighter. The general is bearing all of this out, because right now, Barack Hussein Obama is beating John McCain like he stole something--from Toot, no less.
[MORE]
Second, if you can't accept that you lost, if you don't truly understand what happend to liberals over the past few decades, then can't fully appreciate what the Obama campaign is doing right now. If you can't admit that we've sucked in the South for the lionshare of three decades, then you can't really feel what it means to see a black man competing in Florida, Georgia, Virginia and North Carolina. If you believe that Reagan Democrats were simply deluded, than you can't get what it means to see a black man polling at 52 percent among white blue collar folks in Ohio. If you think that black voters have forgotten the sacrifices of the Civil Rights movement, than you're likely to miss the beauty of the storm brewing right outside your door. Noting this isn't an invite to sit on your ass and not vote, it isn't evidence of complacency. To the contrary, it's evidence that the voters are not complacent.
Liberals are the wimp at the end of the bar. There is a gorgeous red-head, just down the way, working on her third vodka gimlet. Some herb-ass dude is blustering in her ear, but she's winking at you. She walks over and buys you a drink. She's waiting on you to ask for the math. But you want to talk her head off about how things like this never happen to you. About how you always spill your drink, or trip and fall trying to get off your bar-stool. It makes her want to go back and talk to the blustery herb just on GP. And she would--if the herb had any GP to speak of.
Folks, we are watching a revoloution. I'm talking about the technology, the GOTV effort, the historic numbers for black voters, a sick, sick edge among young voters. Are we going to spend the next days trying to concoct exotic scenarios in which the dastardly Republicans steal this one? Are black folks going to sit around wondering if white people will revert back to their Yacubic nature? Or are we going to start thinking about the change taking place right before our eyes, and what it means for our agenda? What will we do? I'm not asking for self-congratulation--just some self-confidence.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Well said. We all need to quit worrying and just finish this thing. And I don't want to settle for the win. I want the landslide. Now let's go effin' vote.
"John Kerry wasn't swift-boated--he was beaten by a superior campaign."
You might want to reconsider this assertion after reading Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s rather powerful article on just how Ohio ended up going for Bush in 2004.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/
Just sayin'.
THANK YOU.
NOOOOOO! Predictions make me nervous! lol. Ok, now I'm going to read past the first paragraph...
You are on fiya lately dude...props
I'm sorry, but I hate this. Part of the press corps' worship of winners for winning. Kerry was swift-boated AND beaten by a tactically superior campaign. The tactic that worked was telling blatant lies about Kerry. It does no good complaining about it or patting ourselves on the back for high mindedness, but that does NOT require winner-worship and pretending we didn't see what just happened. Same goes quadruple for 2000.
Awesome, TNC.
morzer: did you read anything more than the line you quoted?
(I mean, for one thing, if illegitimate court decisions and voter suppression are part of their tactics and smear campaigns are GOP tactics--if we're going to beat them, we actually need to know how to deal with those things, which requires clear recognition of what happened rather than this "gee, I guess Karl Rove is just better at this than us" winner-worshipping nonsense. Of course, one potential remedy is just having a better message so it's not close enough for that to make a difference, but so is having a bunch of lawyers at your disposal, and a focus on early voting to prevent votes being lost due to overlong lines on election day, and having Democratic secretaries of state instead of Ken Blackwells and Katherine Harrises. Fortunately the Obama campaign seems to have its eye on the ball about this.
That beautiful and spot-on accurate. We lost because we sucked--now we don't suck and we're going to win, period. I'm someone who supported Hillary Clinton because I thought she would be the toughest one to beat, but the primaries proved I was wrong--if you can't win those, how are you going to win the general? Like the team that wins 10 in a row, Obama will keep winning until proven otherwise--the burden's on the other guys, and they don't look like credible opponents to me.
Great post and great comment from Katherine. OH 2004 pisses me off, but you learn from your losses. Shit ain't beanbag.
Can we get an AAAA-MEN?!
Kerry had his chance to debunk the swift boaters, and he did not take it. That was his campaign's decision (to play it safe, rather than confronting his history as a Vietnam war protester). Looking at it now, why didn't Kerry just say, "Hey, I fought in Vietnam, AND I took a principled stand against it. These swift boat clowns are full of shit." He didn't. Bush lied with impunity because he was allowed to.
">OBAMA BUMAYE!
Punahou Lightning Bomaye!
I guess what makes me nervous is the point about "is your army bigger than theirs."
At its core, progressivism is the idea that those out with less power ought not to be trampled by those with more power. It's the idea of justice. The problem is that this means those with the greater power have to be convinced to give some of it up.
Now granted, in the long run, it's not a zero-sum game. I do believe that greater justice benefits everyone in the end, and not just in an abstract feel-good way. A more just society is generally more prosperous and secure.
In the short run, though, those with power are definitely losing something, and some with a great deal of power stand to lose a lot. If the blacks, jews, catholics, and gays get to have more of a say in running the country, that means that the white majority has less of a say.
It is, in a sense, tribal arithmetic. For progressivism to succeed, it needs to convince all the tribes that we're actually part of the same tribe. It's a difficult task.
Katherine, I see what you're saying. And I might point out that I don't think Gore really lost, and maybe Kerry didn't: even more than the lies, the vote-stealing really did them in.
But TNC's point, I think, is that you play the game you're in, not the one you want to be in. Obama and his campaign have obviously taken the lessons of 2000 and 2004 and put together a campaign that is doing incredible things. It seems they saw early there was no room for hand-wringing over what might have been. Instead they scouted the competition and are doing what it takes to win.
I generally agree, though I think you're putting way too much weight on the importance of campaigns to how elections turn out. Gore should've won in 2000, and he lost it. But in '04, it would've been tough for anyone to beat an incumbent President who had the advantages of 9/11 and a decent economy. Granted, Iraq wasn't going so well, but the fundamentals were still in his favor. And this election, a beanbag could've beaten McCain. Kerry, Gore, or Hillary would've all won pretty easily. There was just no way McCain could've overcome the unpopularity of the Republican brand. So I only give Obama so much credit.
Word. The main problem with liberals is that we would rather be right than win. Because if you play to win, when you lose you have to go lick your wounds. When you play for idealism, you can always fall back on your moral superiority when you lose.
John McCain and his campaign have been barnstorming across the country talking about how this election could result in the most Leftward swing in American political history. Instead of fretting and pulling a Clinton by denying that this is the case, why can't we just stand up and say: "Damn right, this country needs to get a little more liberal. Not long ago, ideas like everyone having a vote or equal property rights were pretty damn liberal too."
Obama gets it. I just wish his supporters did as well.
Kerry ran a crappier campaign than he should have AND got cheated out of his victory in Ohio. The two are not mutually exclusive.
He waited far too long to reply to the Swift Boat Lies.
He won Ohio, the votes were flipped to Bush & Co. and he "lost" the votes he needed to win.
TNC - so there's no misunderstanding - my comment was meant as in the chant in Zaire in favor of Ali...
Best blog post ever written.
In an effort to entrench myself as the resident perv commenter at this blog, I will substitute Scarlett Johannsen for your red-head in my mind's eye (not an unreasonable substitution, I think it enhances the scenario without changing it at all), and I will then proceed to imagine that I "son" the herb at the other end. (I've been in situations like this before, btw.. tho not with Scarlett of course. Loved her ever since she reminded me of basically a white version of my first girl).
-fap!
Nate Silver knows numbers. (Who else thought the Devil Rays would be in the World Series back in the spring?) And he still has McCain's chances at less than 4%.
If anyone is fed up with either the doomsayers or the nastier base elements, here via Andrew is what's happening in the country: Alaskans for Obama. These people are able to form multiple symbols using only their bodies and rain ponchos!! And stay until the end for opera divas for Obama.
O.K. Very well said. The Obama campaign is nothing if not a 21st century movement progressives can and should be proud of. But what worries me, as a progressive rooting for Obama, is not that the dastardly republicans are at it again, but the uncharted nature of the terrain upon which we now find ourselves. We've never had a candidate like Barack, so we just don't know whether or not he will actually be able to close the deal on Nov. 4th
He's black. He's "the most" liberal senator. He's being increasingly successfully labeled as a tax and spender (worse: "Redistributor!"). And he's been very easily cast as "not one of us." (xenophobia, as we know, is incredibly powerful). I don't think you can underestimate the impact that any one of those things can have on election day, and taken together they make an unprecedented cocktail.
Add to that the fact that polls always must be taken with a side of salt, plus the reality of voter fraud and suppression which are already happening. I myself had to cast a "provisional ballot" after being purged from my county voter rolls.
If I sound like an old-fashioned pessimistic progressive, forgive me. But there's simply no way we can know how this will pan out. We've never been here before.
Mine too Jose!
I suggested on my own blog that "Obama Bumaye!" could go viral...but maybe it's a good thing it didn't, seeing as how it might be misinterpreted and would probably just end up scaring my fellow white people. :)
Anyone hear a fat lady singing? Cause I don't.
Yogi Berra just called. He says it ain't over.
Folks, we have still have to sprint to the finish line. There's too much voter suppression, shakey machines, and assorted Republican institutional bulljive to overcome. We have to flood the zone.
Volunteer.
Canvass door to door.
Make some phone calls.
Stuff envelopes.
Enter data.
Bake a hot dish for volunteers.
Give rides on Election Day.
And what have you.
It ain't over, people. Eye of the tiger. Stay on target. And what have you.
Look, I live in Ohio. Robert Kennedy Jr.'s article has been completely discredited. Like it or not, Bush won in Ohio in 2004. Nothing was "flipped." Get over it, people. Let Obama's victory be that much more enjoyable.
Or maybe instead, we can argue about Nixon and Kennedy in 1960. That wasn't fair. Wah wah.
Is someone going to tell me what "yacubic" means?
TNC, Obama deserves the praise you've heaped on him, but I think that you have to acknowledge the big assist that the Democrats have gotten this time from the Republicans having completely and utterly discredited themselves for the last eight years. In the last century, we've had three long runs of dominance of presidential elections by a single party: 1896-1928 (Republican), 1932-1964 (Democrat) and 1968-2004 (Republican). If you take Jimmy Carter's term out of the equation (an anomaly resulting from Watergate), each of those were 32-year runs interrupted only by one 2-term president of the other party (Wilson, Eisenhower, Clinton) who was more of a pause than a reversal of the trend. Each of the ended with something that busted up their governing coalition: 1932 - the Great Depression; 1968 - Viet Nam and the revolt of southern Democrats over civil rights; 2008 -- GWB's litany of failures. It's easy to blame Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry for failing to make the case, but it could just be that people weren't going to listen until the Republicans proved beyond doubt that their philosophy was bankrupt. It may be that this is just the year that things have to turn.
This post is Brilliant. Just what I needed to read. Tired of liberals already crying foul before the game ends.
I guess Al Gore lost because of Nader and the Supreme Court. But why was it ever even that close? What is the use of being a Southern senator when you can't carry a single state in the South?
That's for sure -- and I've been saying this forever: Gore would have won in 2000 if he could have carried his home state. Frickin' MONDALE had his home state in 1984 when Reagan won everything else except for DC.
Being a Yakubic Mud-man myself, I am unable to completely comprehend your genius, TNC, but I salute you none the less.
Yeah, of course you play the game you're in, and dwelling on how the Dems were done wrong or showing contempt for the voters is not going to win elections, but why does that require one to pretend that the game is crappy? Kerry ran a worse campaign AND he got swiftboated. Gore ran a lousy campaign AND what happened in Florida was a damn, damn, damn shame. To deny the reality of what happened to Kerry & Gore is lying; to deny that they might've changed the outcome by running better campaigns is whiny defeatism. The two are not mutually exclusive, and there is no reason or justification for pretending that they are. This same exact attitude got Bush, Rove, et. al sycophantic, press for years: the press didn't challenge him because he was popular so he remained popular so the press didn't challenge him--Josh Marshall has talked about how he lost the "mandate of heaven" once his poll numbers tanked & the GOP lost big in the 2006 midterms. But, you know, he couldn't govern even before that--in fact, he did more harm when the press was sucking up to him because he & Rove were such tactical geniuses. Look, I like my politicians to win, Obama's campaign is a joy to watch, but worshipping winners for winning amounts to sucking up to the powerful.
Kev,
Elijah Muhammad taught his followers, the Nation of Islam, that whites were a race of devils created by the evil, big-headed scientist. The scientist's name was Yacub.
pretend that the game ISN'T crappy, that is.
joeyt, in brief, yes. Now, did you have a real question? And have you read the Kennedy piece and done the math? I assure you, the probability that Bush actually won Ohio fairly in 2004 is remote at best. So, if you want to be really precise, you can put me down as saying that Bush didn't win because of either swift-boating or a better campaign - he won by stealing Ohio.
wickerman : "Robert Kennedy Jr.'s article has been completely discredited."
Proof of that statement, please? And no, your geographical location ain't relevant, so sorry.
AMEN!!! Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen.
THANK YOU. I'm going to go send everyone I know to read this post, Ta-Nehisi. Thank you.
Completely and totally brilliant. Amen TNC and also to commenter who said liberals would rather be right than win. Can we have both? Yes we can. It is rare that you know when history will be made, but November 4th 2008 will be one such day.
I remembered something yesterday and this seems as good a place to post it as any:
Hillary Clinton's opening slogan was(pause for dramatic effect)
"Let the conversation begin!"
Huh? If that alone is not evidence of a ridiculously poorly run campaign, topped with Mark Penn shenanigans and everything else that happened to blow a huge lead based on name recognition, entrenched power and a bigger traditional donor base, well...it proves what TNC is saying is all. BHO had run a superior campaign, top to bottom. And the slogan is just so DUMB. If she had been the nominee, what would the slogan have been at this point? "Let the conversation end"?
Good post. I would only add that when you've lost and you've continued to lose, the prospect of success can be a hard thing to accept.
Liberals have gotten so used to disappointment that we're almost afraid to hope that this time we're not only going to win, but that we're going to win big. The fear of how we'll feel if this, too, ends in defeat is crippling.
One becomes conditioned to defeat and that conditioning can take the form of a self-reinforcing mindset that's very hard to break out of. One reason that I've wanted an Obama presidency is that I think that it will go a long way towards reestablishing a sense of liberal accomplishment and success.
"Proof of that statement, please? And no, your geographical location ain't relevant, so sorry." - morzar
It sure as hell is relevant. I am an Ohio state employee, and was directly involved in that election. I can't say more without getting in trouble. So go "so sorry" your ass.
Here is one very balanced take on the Kennedy piece:
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/2006/06/back-to-ohio-rolling-stone-piece.html
I dig the intensity of this piece quite a bit. And I don't entirely disagree. But I would be wary of constructing false choices:
I believe Barry got this. But I also wouldn't be surprised if there are attempts to "steal" the election by contesting the results of whichever state is close enough to make it a "reasonable" tactic.
I frankly have WAY less faith in polling than you do, man. I firmly believe you can't poll race. Mostly because we talk about race in America all wrong all day long.
As a brotha, I'll relax on January 21. Shit - if B gets through his first year managing outrageous expectations and huge problems, then I will celebrate.
November 4 is just the beginning.
Some serious hilarity here just noticed -- TPM has just posted news that McCain is robocalling in ARIZONA. Are they that desperate?
George: Excellent analysis. The one thing that I think you've missed is that Wilson, Eisenhower were all Centrists that managed to get their mass appeal by ticking off a large chunk of their bases. And mad shouts to TNC. Even though I have some fundamental disagreements with the progressive experiment (and conservative foolishness for that matter), you are at least honest and open about your beliefs. If only everyone else were the same...
It’s not over yet. The electoral apparatus is largely controlled by Rove Repubs and Reagan Dems, and voting tabulation has been significantly privatized.
The old guard hopes that long lines produced by Diebold snafus and bad-faith voter challenges will cause people to go home without voting.
Volunteer to poll watch, particularly in the battleground states. Encourage people to vote by paper ballot** if their registration is challenged. Get the challenged voters’ contact info for subsequent litigation, but don’t waste too much time arguing. Inaccurate registration rolls can’t be fixed on 11/4. The remedy is the paper ballot. (I saw Tim Robbins on Bill Maher the other night urging people to reject paper ballots, but I respectfully disagree. Paper ballots will be counted.) Keep the lines moving!
If there are lines, organize water, refreshments, and bathroom breaks. Encourage people to stick it out, and keep the lines moving!
(** From the current NYS Obama Voter Protection Guide: “If the voter’s address is in that Election District but the voter is not in the Voter Registration Book, the Inspectors are required to give the voter an Affidavit [i.e. paper] Ballot.” http://www.nydlc.org/live/VoterProtectionGuide.pdf)
Thanks TNC. I needed to hear this. I agree with you in all particulars, especially how we need to take from this lessons in how to run future campaigns.
Well said. I really want Obama to win, so I've been donating money. And I'm scheduled this upcoming weekend to make phone calls for his campaign (this is the 1st time I've been engaged in grassroots political activity). I think some people have no idea how deeply Black people are feeling about the opportunity to vote for a brilliant presidential candidate of African descent. Black folks are going to turn this election out! And I can't wait to hear the announcement that Obama is the next president of the U.S.A. and fall to my knees, cry, and contemplate how far this country has come. I also think it is interesting that the presidential inaugration ceremony is the day after Dr. M.L. King holiday.
Peace, Ms World
wickerman, your location and employment do exactly nothing to prove your point, although it's a nice attempt at distracting attention from the flaws in your case. So play someone else with that particular rhetorical scam, ok?
As for the piece you cite, it addresses some interesting questions about the election in Ohio, but omits a good number of others which are fairly significant. It fails to deal with inter alia, the issues of location of polling machines relative to population, the maneuvres of Kenneth Blackwell, and other fairly significant issues. It offers some cautious criticism of Kennedy's case, but hardly strikes a convincing blow against it. If this is all you can offer as a refutation, you need to try harder and think through the case being presented by Kennedy a little more. Argument, not assertion, please.
Thank you, TNC. The hysterics over at the New Republic's blogs are driving me nuts. I need to stop reading them.
I agree. If you live in a swing state your ass better be dragging people to the polls. If you live in a non-swing state your ass better be on a bus that is going to a swing state.
Katherine (and others): I don't believe TNC means to imply that we should ignore voter irregularities, or other below the belt shenanigans. But it's important to handle them in a way that actually works.
What doesn't work: whining about how the opposition didn't play fair (Florida in 2000), or ignoring slime and thus tacitly admitting it is true (Swift Boaters).
What does work: playing hard ball and being proactive (mobilize to establish a win in the court of public opinion after a close vote in a state and thus get the recounts in the areas you want), or taking the smears head-on (with a big serious speech, or humour).
Obama seems to understand this better than anyone. I'd surprised if his team didn't have people ready to mobilize to a closely contested state. He's also shown he can do damage control against smears by upping the ante (e.g., doing a big speech on race in response to criticisms of his association with Wright).
I worked the f'n 2004 election, morzer. Let me spell it out for you: Kennedy is full of shit.
On the one hand, you're preaching to the choir, Ta-Nehisi. On the other, you're just preaching. It's all well and true to say "if you don't truly understand what happend to liberals over the past few decades, then can't [you] fully appreciate what the Obama campaign is doing right now" to those people who just don't get it.
But to say "No one has conspired to deprive us of power over the past few decades" is a message entirely contradictory to your point, a victim of the depth of your diatribe. The reason the Obama campaign is what it is *is* due to the fact that we know there *are* in fact people out there conspiring to deprive us of power.
Heed your own advice and remember this *is* a revolution and have the confidence yourself to admit that this revolt is entirely about taking back power from the power mongers. From the vote purgers. From the liars. And the fucking liars. From those who've convinced us it's impossible.
Yes We Can.
Here's the thing. Obama can and is beating McCain in McCain's mind, right now. Barry has been under John's skin since June 1. Maybe earlier. And John has watched all his precious advantages just wither away.
Attack their spirit. Take away their "safe" states. Show them your armies of lawyers and poll watchers. Make them want to hide come election day. I can feel that happening already, can't you?
By election day, John McCain will be so beat, he won't want to even try to contest a state. And it would just look stupid, anyway. Since Barry is going to get 400 EVs. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't do everything you planned to do, and more. Be part of it, do your job.
Focus.
wickerman, is there some part of "prove it" or "make an argument" which you don't understand? You were not omnipresent in Ohio, you did not supervise everything that happened that day, and you have offered no evidence whatsoever to back your assertions. Either put up some evidence, or quit abusing people like Robert Kennedy who have.
I don't have anything to add, but that this was a brilliant post. I most certainly look forward to calling you a blog prophet on November 4.
Peace!
QT
"Heed your own advice and remember this *is* a revolution and have the confidence yourself to admit that this revolt is entirely about taking back power from the power mongers. From the vote purgers. From the liars. And the fucking liars. From those who've convinced us it's impossible."
This is where I get off the bus. I just don't see it that way. For me, it's about taking the country in the best direction. I'm defending Rove and co. It's just that I don't really need to believe much more than that to do my part. They don't have to be evil. They just have to be wrong. They may, in fact, actually be evil. But I don't think it matters much to me.
i love this post but don't know what GP is
any help?
Note to Peter Bautista:
You wrote above: "Now granted, in the long run, it's not a zero-sum game. I do believe that greater justice benefits everyone in the end, and not just in an abstract feel-good way. A more just society is generally more prosperous and secure."
"In the short run, though, those with power are definitely losing something, and some with a great deal of power stand to lose a lot. If the blacks, jews, catholics, and gays get to have more of a say in running the country, that means that the white majority has less of a say."
Peter, the long run is now.
A new generation has been born, grown up, and come into strength and power. It's taken a biblical forty years, but it's here.
There are still folks protecting their small tribes and not ready to be one nation.
But here, now, those folks are not a voting majority.
Here, now, the country is ready to go forward to something substantially better.
As the next President told us back in March: "We may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren."
And this time, this year, we get to move in that very direction.
The long run is now.
One more thing for polling places with long lines: rustle up some folding chairs.
Ta-Nehisi, with respect, you're missing the point. You may not want to see their evil ways, but you *need to* in order to win. Obama knows this. We don't have to play the same game as Rove and Co., in fact it's precisely the opposite. It is about taking the country in the right direction, you're right. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I think it's totally absurd to say it doesn't matter to you, or that we shouldn't care, that they lie and cheat to win elections.
It's a little problematic if you try to win a game run by a crooked umpire, and refuse to understand why you keep losing. When the system is rigged, talent and character shiver in the cold. That won't change until you find a way to make the system honest. To do that, you must first acknowledge the truth of the situation.
GP is general principles, surely?
Nice post and all TNC, but c'mon - it simply isn't all about "the game", in this case.
Elections are about -
a. Demographics
b. Events of the time
c. How good the campaign is
I will totally be with you, that as far as things go, Obama is blasting C.
But he gets a HUGE assist - as did Clinton - by B. And then of course, A is pretty important, in that the demographics of things HAVE changed.
Now - what percentages accounts for what? Hard to say. 33/33/33/? Who knows really?
If the economy hadn't arrested mid-September, if the Republicans hadn't proven themselves utterly incompetent the last 8 years - bottom line is, Obama wouldn't be winning the way he is going to win.
Now - credit to Obama - he is a great organizer, supremely disciplined, a great campaigner, inspiring, with incredible judgment. He clearly deserves to win, as does his campaign.
But say, if you transplanted Obama to 1984, he wouldn't have beaten Reagan. Wouldn't have happened. At that point, might not have beat George Bush I for his run.
In this case - it's all come together baby. It's all come together. And Obama has seized the moment - and built a movement on top of it, to carry that moment forward into some lasting change. Yes, he can. Yes, WE can.
He executed brilliantly, our man O. He's like watching a combo of the 49's Bill Walsh, Joe Montana, and Jerry Rice, all in one package. Smooth, graceful, but a powerful machine that just wears you down with it's brilliance.
But consider the demographics and the temporal events of the last 4 years, the other 50 players on the team including the defense, and Eddie Debartolo funding the team up the wazoo.
Jeez! All liberals are men and all women are objects to be had! Really, after the Mad Men post, I seriously did not expect this.
Jeez! All liberals are men and all women are objects to be had! Really, after the Mad Men post, I seriously did not expect this.
Posted by poco | October 29, 2008 7:27 PM
Touch of over-reaction to extended metaphor syndrome, I think. Paging Dr Coates for emergency assistance!
Thanks for the post, let's stay involved!
Man, I tell you it's hard! I mean McCain and Palin say the most insane things and treat them as truth. They've spent the past 2 months getting nastier and nastier and I'm just like please PLEASE I can't have another wackjob (Palin) in the white house for 4 years. We had Bush and Cheney in there for 8 and they crapped on the country and pissed on the constitution. They have done nothing right... and the idea of being led by a man who a)has no economic smarts b)bad judgment and c)has sarah palin as a running mate freaks the bejeezus out of me.
I seriously don't understand how mccain has ANY standing in the polls right now.
But, I'll breathe and keep the faith. Go Obama!
Are we going to spend the next days trying to concoct exotic scenarios in which the dastardly Republicans steal this one?
Why not? It could be like a fanfic contest, with links to the craziest diatribes by actual Republicans. (Andrew linked to one at RedState earlier today--McCain-Palin blowout, bitches! The press is evil and in the can and the polls are wrong because tightening in the national polls by a fraction means blowouts in all swing states because state polls don't matter. Also, McCain won the poll after Labor Day.) And we could try our hand at 24-esque, or Mission Impossible-esque, or Chuck-esque, scenarios.
For example, this week Chuck had to get a creepy nerd herder Jeff (who once sported a mullet, and won Slim Jims) to play Atari's Missile Command and retrieve secret missile codes from the fabled burn screen; this could easily be adapted to hacking voting machines.
Remarkably, this post brings to mind the following PE lyric:
"You call em demos, but we ride limos, too
Whatcha gonna do?"...
And I completely agree with the post. Come on people... Quit complaining about 00 and 04. Do something about it. And it certainly looks like a lot of folks are. Finish this.
Ta-Nehisi-Thank you so much for reposting the Chill the F out pic!
I feel you--all day long, I feel you.
Yet, I'm one of those black folks "wondering if (enough) white people will revert back to their Yacubic nature?" Sorry, I can't help it. You got me.
Does it mean that I haven't given money, time, canvassed--locally and up and down the East Coast, called, held events and helped in the local office? Does it mean that I didn't vote absentee 3 weeks ago? Does it mean that I won't be headed down to my hometown in a swing state from Saturday-Tuesday?
I know hope, but still. I believe we are so close. Obama and his campaign have run a damned near flawless campaign. I've been just as annoyed as I'm sure you've been at all the times some nameless but well-placed Dem went blubbering to the NYT or some such because they couldn't calm down, or were salty because Obama is creative, organized and refused to do the same types of things that have typically earned us zilch.
The knots didn't form in my stomach until about a week ago. Can't say why. Maybe it's a "head" and "heart" thing. Maybe it's just to keep me on my toes...who knows? The knots, though, are definitely there.
So I thank you--really--for this post. Just understand that some of us ARE a bundle of nerves, but we have been and will do what we have to do anyway.
Kerry was swift-boated AND beaten by a tactically superior campaign. The tactic that worked was telling blatant lies about Kerry.
A lot of people conveniently forget the under-the-radar tactic that the Republicans used in 2004: they put anti-gay-marriage initiatives on the ballot in 11 states,including (IIRC) Ohio. That enabled them to get their base out in huge numbers so Bush could concentrate on the mushy middle. That's the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that really lost the election for Kerry, not election day shenanigans.
Problem with that, though, is it's a card you can really only play once. This year, there is no equally divisive social issue that can be voted on, so the Republican base isn't motivated to turn out like they were in 2004, PLUS we have an incredibly energized Democratic base. My husband has been a Democrat for 20 years, and this was the very first time he donated a dime to a candidate.
Thanks, I needed that.
I've been suffering from "REFS"
Rapid-Cycling Election Freakout Syndrome
So far, the only cure it phone canvassing every time I can, good good IPA, and now I have this post.
Somebody say AMEN.
If I've been to a red state, am I still allowed to criticize it and call its voters stupid?
"Jeez! All liberals are men and all women are objects to be had! Really, after the Mad Men post, I seriously did not expect this.
Posted by poco | October 29, 2008 7:27 PM"
"Touch of over-reaction to extended metaphor syndrome, I think. Paging Dr Coates for emergency assistance!
Posted by morzer"
I'm gonna prescribe a kilogram of Iron. Call me in the morning.
I'm gonna prescribe a kilogram of Iron. Call me in the morning.
Posted by Ta-Nehisi Coates | October 29, 2008 8:16 PM
Do you offer an undertaking service as well? A kilogram of iron would challenge a couple of elephants, never mind a metaphorically challenged liberal!
Re: You might want to reconsider this assertion after reading Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s rather powerful article on just how Ohio ended up going for Bush in 2004.
I don't care if the article was written by St Paul the Apostle under the inspiration of the Holy spirit. The Left needs to stop the Tin Foil Hat stuff. It's self defeating and just makes them look paranoid and kooky. Yes, by all means, fight vote-suppression tactics by the GOP any way you can. But let's stop turning the Right into some supernatural boogeyman that will always and everywhere win no matter what! They got their butts handed to them in 2006 (where was the Grand Conspiracy then? Do you think they wanted to lose Congress?) They will get an even more thorough drubbing this year.
rE: And I might point out that I don't think Gore really lost
Gore lost-- even without the lamentable SCOTUS decision he would have lost. The votes were just not there-- they were counted and recounted after the whole business and Bush won still in every count. Now, that does not address the issue of vote suppression, which we know did happen that year, but it does put to bed the idea that Gore actually did win in Florida but votes were "stolen" from him somehow by the Supreme Court.
Re: But in '04, it would've been tough for anyone to beat an incumbent President who had the advantages of 9/11 and a decent economy.
Right. That Bush almost was defeated is a testament to how poor a president he had been, even at that point. Recall that Nixon and Reagan won their second terms by landslides, and Clinton's 96 margin was pretty impressive too.
I agree, except "the American people aren't stupid". Actually, yes, they are. That is the terrifying thing about democracy. Even the 53% (you hear it here first) of voters who vote for Obama, I think a good 50% of those are ignorant in most respects. That we get leadership as good as we do is a testament to the skills of america's professional bureaucrats and the two party system, where the parties really do the heavy lifting of sorting candidates at the entry level, relieving us of the absurd results of many European elections where the fragmented party structures make overall tallies hit at odd angles.
TNH hitting them with Yacub... got me screaming here at home. I feel the post; your energy level was on red and your eloquence gave way to B'more tribal chatter and it made it all the more powerful. Herb them cats, son!
JonF, Kennedy wrote a very thoroughly researched article, which could have appeared in a professional, peer-reviewed polisci journal. That's not remotely tinfoil hat territory, and you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting it. Before you start lazily throwing around GOP talking-points, try coming up with a real argument and some evidence.
It seems strange for me that someone would assume that what Kennedy wrote was "tin foil hat" quality work, without bothering to note the number of solidly backed citations in the piece. There's a huge difference between making a reasonable case for voter fraud/suppression - which we know has happened numerous times in American politics - and making ridiculous claims without evidence about eg UFOs, the Rapture etc. You can disagree with his case on the merits, if you have counter-evidence or a solid argument, but it really is pretty sad to offer neither and then go around making glib claims about a solid piece of work being somehow implausible or extremist. That's how the GOP operates, and it's just what progressives ought to reject.
What a great place to be tonight.Thinking about Arizona,Alaska has its very strong democrate suppor also..I don't thimk it would go blue because of palin and her family and supporters,who she put in positions of power but if you go to mudflats.wordpress.com and google you will see the wonderful people of Alaska supporting Obama .The media did not cover some of this and did not give accurate counts at an anti Palin rally and an Obama Rally later.It was just great to watch.Maybe the robo calls in Arizona will cause people to vote for Obama cause they are sick of the slime going around.One can Hope
Re: JonF, Kennedy wrote a very thoroughly researched article, which could have appeared in a professional, peer-reviewed polisci journal.
Sorry, that cuts no ice with me. I've had people also tell me that how Paul Cameron's anti-gay diatribes have appeared in "peer-reviewed" journals-- and in fact they have. "Peer-reviewed" just means you've found someone with a a PhD (which I regard as no more signficant than a European title of nobility-- both can be bought for enough money) who's broke enough that they'll happily review the thing for some cash. Heck, cold fusion was peer-reviewed-- and it was still a flub.
There is a gorgeous red-head, just down the way,
Let's call her Joan...
Amen, amen, amen. I spent the last four days calling Ohio (from CA) to GOTV. Don't back up an inch now. As kos says, leave it all on the road. We, together, are going to do this.
Just Karl said:
Big girl...built like an 8. Gliding around the bar like some great ship...
TNC-You're right. You're right. Y'all are right. I know you're right. I'm still skeered.
John Kerry wasn't swift-boated--he was beaten by a superior campaign. I guess Al Gore lost because of Nader and the Supreme Court.
Shorter TNC: Viva Rosie Ruiz!
Sorry, that cuts no ice with me. I've had people also tell me that how Paul Cameron's anti-gay diatribes have appeared in "peer-reviewed" journals-- and in fact they have. "Peer-reviewed" just means you've found someone with a a PhD (which I regard as no more signficant than a European title of nobility-- both can be bought for enough money) who's broke enough that they'll happily review the thing for some cash. Heck, cold fusion was peer-reviewed-- and it was still a flub.
Posted by JonF | October 29, 2008 10:26 PM
So you would prefer what? Any fact-free rant? Whatever agrees with your point of view? And you are still not providing any argument to show why Kennedy's piece was wrong. Produce some evidence, or admit that you don't have a case worthy of the name. And yes, I think we all know the old trick of picking extreme examples to make a case look plausible. Nor is babbling about titles and PhDs evidence - but then, I doubt you possess either.
JonF, you aren't Alaskan, are you? Or are you a renegade plumber? Your fear of intellectual discussion is somewhat alarming.
John Kerry wasn't swift-boated--he was beaten by a superior campaign. I guess Al Gore lost because of Nader and the Supreme Court.
More shorter TNC: The [victim] had it coming.
(edited for taste)
Dammit TNC. I've read a lot of your posts I agree with. But this one is so very important and so very spot on.
I too am sick of the ways in which liberals don't get it. Mainly, in our fatalistic loser attitude. Fuck that. It's not who we are. And you're right -- it's too easy to pass the blame and explanation onto something else (i.e. Americans are just stupid), rather than admitting we screwed it up, and doing some soul searching.
And I am really irritated by the hush surrounding the phrase "Barack Obama will be the next President" when said around Democrats. They frown at you for saying it. It's like making a huge social faux pas. I mean, WHAT THE HELL. Do Republicans act like this? Of course not! Even when those guys are losing they pretend they are winning! Jeesus Mary, we're winning and likely going to win based on solid logic. What's so evil about having a bit of confidence? It's like we're scared to be successful.
Nate Silver knows numbers. (Who else thought the Devil Rays would be in the World Series back in the spring?) And he still has McCain's chances at less than 4%.
Seriously. I don't care how many people are citing individual polls showing a McCain with a chance here or a chance there, until I see big movement at 538, this is in the bag, and I suspect that Nate's model actually underestimates black turnout.
I agree with the author. John Kerry was beaten by a tactically superior campaign. He didn't fight back. He did make his argument about why American should have elected him? He over intellectualized the very real attacks against his character and in direct contradiction to his being a military man, he didn't fight back. His opponent was a war dodger who's father pulled strings for him to lounge in the Texas Air National Guard. A man who took no real risk during Vietnam while Kerry and thousands of brave young men risked life and limb, some paying the ultimate price. Where was the "how dare you" argument? Until Obama, Dems allowed Kerry to play the victim card at the hands of the Swiftboat vets. Man please!
If you watched the Democratic National Convention on either C-Span or PBS this year you may have seen the speech that Kerry gave. He knocked the Republicans the hell out. He gave the speech of his life... the "how dare you insult my sacrifice" speech that he should have given in 2004 and an argument that he failed to make.
All of the swiftboat stuff was foder that appeared moreso towards the end of the general. He didn't make the case up front and that's the truth as I see it. There are a few differences between Kerry and Obama that make this year's election carry a different complexion. But had Kerry made the case and kept making the case he could have created the atmosphere for a win.
The writer is correct. If you're running for high office, you have to create a narrative. The reason why Obama's narrative has stuck is because he created a narrative and organized around that narrative like his life depended on it. For Kerry, the presidency was icing... he didn't make it urgent.
I agree with most of what you're saying, but I do think there's a big difference between talking about why you lost in self-pity and not changing, and analyzing why you lost and fixing it - which is your main point. There's plenty of BS from the GOP out there. It's not right, and I don't excuse it. But it's naive to think that'll go away or the press will ref well and call foul, because we know that's inconsistent at best. We know it's not enough to have better policies or principles, you have fight smart and tough. So I agree with you, but I'd frame it slightly differently.
And yes, McCain's policies stink, he's run mainly on a persona which is a sham, and his campaign's been awful. He's losing because he deserves to on every measure. To the people who think Obama's not qualified, I have to ask - have you seen how he's run his campaign?
You're also absolutely right about having confidence after the election. I'm already sick of the the MSM "Obama needs to govern as Reagan" crap, and there's no need to take that lying down. Let's make the case...
Not to pile on with the compliments, but this really is a stunning post and in a good way. I am conservative, but Obama has consistently impressed me by ignoring all the excuses that I have read from liberals over the last eight, hell, forty years of my life. These include, the Republicans are mean, voting machines are rigged, Americans are stupid, voters are racist, Diebold controls all the elections, the M$M is run by right wingers like Dan Rather and Michael Eisner, Karl Rove is an evil genius.
It almost seems to me like certain liberals perpetuate this garbage to inflame other liberals so they buy their books, read their blogs and columns, listen to their radio and buy their magazines. They think they are better served by presenting a picture of the country as one full of racists, rednecks, rubes, and uneducated knuckledraggers. It is self serving because they portray two Americas, the ones who "get it"(which is them) and the other are the evil ones, the rednecks, the rubes, ect.
To me, the brilliance of Obama is that he ignores the whining, paranoia, conspiracy and excuses that the left has been peddling for last eight years. There is a confidence to his moves. Like the earlier analogies, he isn't like some second rate team who expects the refs to job his team and is openly looking for an excuse for the loss. Obama is looking for ways to win and is looking to overcome all the possible pitfalls that lay ahead.
Ta-Nehisi, I thank you from bringing hilarious and spot-on metaphors into an area of commentary that is often so very dry.
Thousands of challenged voter registrations and disproportionate ACORN voter fraud allegations, illegal voter roll purging, electronic voting machine vote flipping, false information.
Good post TNC. Really, it is not jinxing Team Obama to say that he is going to lay a smackdown on John McCain and the Republican Party on Nov. 4th. The work really has been put in and the groundwork has been laid for almost 2 years now.
Sometimes you really can look at the stats in a football game or tennis match and tell who's winning. And if you look at this race statistically and not just the polls, but the $$$ raised, GOTV volunteer organization, # of campaign offices, ad, internet searches, # of people at rallies, #of people who've donated to the campaign, volunteer with the campaign etc...If you just look at it scientifically it would be easy to surmise that one team was significantly ahead.
This is not going to be close. Smackdown! That's right Dems, get used to it, we're the better team in every possible way.
And if you listened to Barack on the stump the past couple days, I think he's really starting to have some fun and he's not above running up the score to make a point.
We're up by 15 points in the 4th quarter against the Atlanta Falcons with less than 3 minutes to go...and we've got the ball!
On the other side I think conservative types are ready to do something similar. Like say he won because he had more money and the media was on his side.
I think he did have more money and the media was more on his side, but that's not the reason the liberal side will win. The Bush years were bad for conservative ideas and McCain ran a lousy campaign. Conservatism is going to have to do better on economics and Hispanic voters if it wants to have a chance again soon. Right now it's not doing either one. McCain really had a chance to do okay with the Hispanic vote, I think, but he kind of flushed it away by being weak on the economy and being perceived as wimping out to the nativist crowd. Also not responding forcefully enough to counter that Obama ad in Spanish.
Catholics believe the worst torture of Hell is the knowledge that Heaven is unattainable, and the torment that if you had behaved differently in life, you would be enjoying Heaven.
Kerry and Gore made mistakes, yes. But George Bush won, not one, but two of the closest elections in history. His victory over Gore must be one of the top 3, and his victory over Kerry is definitely top 10, maybe top 5. Bush may never go down in history as a Lucky President, but in one way he was ... or was it all due to skulduggery? How could anyone be that lucky TWICE ...?
The torment for Kerry and Gore is that they should have made sure. Kerry had $14 million in the bank on Election night. Suppose he had put all that into TV ads or GOTV in Ohio? If Gore had been himself, the Al Gore of "An Inconvenient Truth", not the wooden, uncharismatic automaton we saw in 2000.... who knows?
I will always believe Bush either fluked it, or frauded it for at least one of his elections. But there is a lesson there for Democrats ... it should never have come down to that.
Gore lost the recount battle because he assumed that the votes he needed would be found in heavily Democratic counties, and so that is where he asked for the recounts. He thought that the problem was technical and minor.
The real problem was in the more racially polarized counties -- where dominant GOP officials disqualified tens of thousands of Gore "overvotes" -- (ballots for Gore with his name also written in) -- usually in African American areas. Not to count these votes was a clear violation of state law.
The fulcrum of presidential politics continues to be the extent of black voting in the South. Because Obama has been able to focus on this, register people, get them to vote early, he is on a winning path.
By the way, Barack Obama is the fulfillment of the political strategy first laid out by Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988.
Gore ran an awful campaign. Didn't make use of his own best skills and issues. Instead of getting Nader up on his side by integrating some of his ideas that he agrees with, he got frightened of him. Didn't send Clinton to Arkansas. Didn't win Tennessee. Let himself get led to death by his campaign instead of leading the campaign.
Kerry--I saw one interview with Kerry, a man Hamlet would call indecisive--where when asked if he liked one of his daughters better, speent 10 minutes discussing the virtues of one, paused for ten seconds, then with a "but" started listing the virtue of the other, then took another five minutes trying to explain why he couldn't make up his own mind. It wasn't just Swift Boat with no ferocious answer machine out there; it's that here was this old man who could do something really cool--windsurf in a very long marathon competition every year--a serious athlete--and let himself get painted as a girl for doing it.
Unlike Obama who is the best damn lemonade maker in town, Gore, who actually is a great man, and Kerry who has done some great things could not find the sugar and spent their campaigns walking up and down the aisles with their bags full of lemons looking for it.
Still I am superstitious. Being from the Bay Area, I can remember when the SF Giants were 3 innings away from their only ever World Series, with a bullpen that had been lights out all year for 7, 8, and 9, and when Dusty Baker pulled the starter, Russ Ortiz, he gave Ortiz the ball to keep as a souveneir. It was the most disappointing sports experience of my long life. It ain't over till it's over--from now to Tuesday however, I will "hold firmly without wavering to the hope that we confess."
TNC:
I just read this at Balloon Juice. Absolutely fucking brilliant. You should be a political strategist. (Are you willing to sell your soul? I suspect not...) But this reminded me why I come here.
Thanks.
Excellent post.
Sporcupine:
I certainly hope so.
Good post. Keep bringing it.
I live in the deep South. I know I don't need to tell you rank racism is alive and well, and that the Southern variety has its own disgusting flavor. You should've heard some of the things I heard at an SEC tailgate Saturday about BHO.
I'm confident we will win but just to be certain, I will be canvassing on Saturday, Sunday and Monday. Also working at the polls on Tuesday. Sorta like "trust, but verify".
It ain't over till it's over, but it's hard to avoid peeing my pants in anticipation of seeing results of our hard work flood in on Tuesday night.
Why didn't you just call liberals homos and save yourself from typing this effluvia?
Word to Tyler's sentiment from early in the thread. But I'll still be partying Wednesday morning, hopefully. And thanks to Ta for the coolest of analogies with the herb at the bar.
It's not over. And moreover the Obama ground game is not what it is cracked up to be. It's very good. But it could be better.
"McCain really had a chance to do okay with the Hispanic vote, I think, but he kind of flushed it away by being weak on the economy and being perceived as wimping out to the nativist crowd."
"Perceived"?
I'm sorry Thomas but he did wimp out. He championed a comprehensive immigration reform bill with Ted Kennedy, didn't he? The nativist right wing went nuts and he then said that if his own bill came up for a vote, he would vote against it. You may disagree with their stances but Hispanics/Latinos in America know the score.
AMEN and AMEN.
Be as confident as you want, but I won't be confident until I see McCain conceding the race.
I can't help it. I'm also a Cubs fan.
A friend and I have put together a site to track issues folks might have at the polls. Ultimately, if patterns exist we will use the information to inform elections officials and representatives so they can investigate.
Hopefully, there is no problem and a few isolated cases have turned into folk-lore. If there is a problem, we want to document it so it can be addressed.
http://www.wheresMyVote.com
Sorry, I still think we will end up screwed. I hope I'm wrong.
And I am really irritated by the hush surrounding the phrase "Barack Obama will be the next President" when said around Democrats. They frown at you for saying it. It's like making a huge social faux pas.
Speaking as someone who survived the 2004 election, you basically did the political equivalent of saying "Good luck!" to an actor getting ready to go on stage. It's superstitious to be worried that talking about an Obama victory will jinx the whole thing, but superstition is a powerful thing.
Very good posting. I don't get what there is to worry about. You are right that Liberals / Progressives / Democrats are not entitled to win.
Al Gore didn't win his home state. He ran a narrow game. Kerry did the same. Kerry (like Gore) left himself with a few precious states he had to win. Both never really focused on competing in "red" states. The votes were close, they should have tried harder.
I feel both men sabotaged themselves early in the GE. They acted like they were entitled to win. People really don't check the issues. They go by gut and decided that both men didn't appear or act very "likable." Politicians are actors, and it's a necessary component of running for office (see B Clinton and Bush II).
For a guy to be President, he can be a ruthless SOB, but act the likable nice guy. Both of them lacked that quality. There weren't likable and they seemed to lack a viable ruthlessness required to be President. Gore couldn't say why he wanted to be President. Kerry seemed gaffe-prone, and unable to fight back.
Early on I had my doubts that Obama had a killer instinct. Now I realize he's got the best kind: he's nice, but he will verbally and strategically disembowel his opponents. Nice.
TNC, many thanks for this amazing post. It IS time to stop relying on--and building up--paranoid fear as our best motivator to make the right things happen. It causes us to see political opponents as all-powerful and makes our own victimhood far too attractive as a storyline. We're not right-thinking victims in an evil universe. Seeing ourselves that way has a pernicious effect both inside us and out in the world. It's not necessary. We can, and we are, getting the job done without it.
Re: JonF, you aren't Alaskan, are you? Or are you a renegade plumber? Your fear of intellectual discussion is somewhat alarming.
Trying to paint me as a Republican flack is quite as absurd as Republican attempts to paint Obama as a Socialist Muslim terrorist. And does anyone here actually read? My comments are strewn all over this site (in Meagan's and Marc's blogs too). There's not a trace of rightwingery in them. In fact, I haven't voted for a Republican above municipal level since 1994. And while Obama was not my first choice this year, I like him well enough now after all I've seen, and I'm debating what brand of champagne to lay in for Tuesday night.
And no, I am not anti-intellectual. However, PhD's (outside math and the hard sciences) do not impress me. They are mainly a sigil for the fact that the bearer came from a certain amount of money, had no life in his/her 20s and maybe not even in his/her 30s, was adept at brown-nosing, and was very good at knowing the limits of whatever orthodoxy rules in his/her field (a problem in the sciences as well). Besides which most "educated" people today are very narrowly educated. We have too many specialists and virtually no one who can see the big picture.
Thank you. You knocked something loose and set me free.
JonF –
I recognize your handle and can attest to you being no GOP shill.
However, you don’t help your case any with that last sentence. What subject are you supposed to study in college in order to see the “big picture”? People who try to educate themselves through formal channel have to specialize; there is just too much stuff to know today.
I was a history major in college, (soft science, BOOOO!), and I heard the saying that the learned men of the Framers era were the best read men who ever lived. This was because they were learned at exact the right time; just the right amount books in print that you could read every important one by the end of a long life.
this is extremely cogent and well stated; thank you. obama is the first candidate since clinton who has done a competent job of articulating the democratic case. he hasn't been perfect --- he could do better. but he's miles ahead of kerry and gore.