Category Archives: Hillary Clinton

Blinded By the Light

Posted on February 26, 2008 | 5 comments

An Open Letter to the Obama “Rally People”

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

The Clinton campaign has been making the argument that Senator Obama is all talk and no substance, that the hysteria of his rallies is impressive, but irrelevant to the job for which he is running.  The clear implication is that it’s only a matter of time before voters come to their senses, put aside their initial infatuation with the man, and focus on what should be the meat of the election, experience and program design.  Needless to say, Senator Clinton is doing her best to slap Senator Obama’s supporters back to reality.  What else can she do?  She’s running against a phenomenon.

Unfortunately, Senator Obama’s counterpunch proved her point.  Using a textbook, but still effective tactic, he denounced her argument by telling his audience that Senator Clinton was talking down to them, telling them that they were shallow, mindless lemmings for supporting his candidacy.  And the crowd went nuts with approval.

Give me a break.  “Rally People,” as I like to call you – It was either that or “Obidiots” or “Obincompoops.” – listen up.  If you don’t recognize a manipulative pitch when you see one, you deserve the criticism your candidate claims his opponent has leveled at you.

Rally People, you get what you pay for.  The problem is, you’re electing the President of my country, too.

5 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Election, Hillary Clinton, Politics

Tagged , , ,

Plenty of Time for Second Thoughts

Posted on February 25, 2008 | Leave a comment

Why Senator Clinton needs to stay in the race until the last delegate sings.

Monday, February 25, 2008

As of the today, Senator Obama has 1,374 delegates of which 181 are so called “Super Delegates.”  Senator Clinton has 1,275 delegates of which 241 are Super Delegates.  The allocation of Super Delegates varies somewhat from source to source, which is to say these people are still making up their minds.  A candidate needs 2,025 delegates to be nominated.

Further complicating the race for the nomination, Edwards has 26 pledged delegates.  Clinton won 50% of the Florida primary vote to Obama’s 33%, but Florida’s 210 delegates have been ruled ineligible to vote for their nominee due to a dispute over the scheduling of their primaries.  The same is true for Michigan’s 156 delegates.  Senator Clinton won 55% of that state’s primary votes, to 40% which were “Uncommitted.”  Senator Obama was not on the Michigan primary ballot.

There are 14 states and Puerto Rico which will be awarding a total of 977 delegates, through primaries and caucuses, between now and the convention.  Let’s be optimistic on Senator Obama’s behalf and assume that he wins two thirds of all the remaining delegates, including in larger states such as Texas (193 delegates), Ohio (141 delegates) and Pennsylvania (158 delegates) where the races will likely be much more even.  Two thirds of 977 is 651.  Add these 651 to the Senator’s 1,374, brings him to precisely the 2,025 he needs to win.  Allow a good number of the Super Delegates to migrate his way, and he’s home free with room to spare.

Suppose, on the other hand, the Senators basically split the vote in the three largest states where there are a total of 492 delegates at stake.  Let’s assume they win 246 each, and that Senator Obama gets two thirds (323) of the other 485 delegates to be elected.  Senator Clinton picks up the other 162.  These gains bring their delegate totals to 1,943 for Obama, and 1,683 for Clinton.

There are many other possible scenarios, but this one as reasonable as the next, so let’s stay with it.  Senator Obama is close, but no cigar, not yet, not unless there is mass migration of Super Delegates his way.  Why wouldn’t there be?  For that matter, why wouldn’t the Clinton campaign just cave, graciously of course, in the interest of party unity?  In fact, this might be exactly what happens, but then there is a reason why it might not – and why Senator Clinton should stay in the race.  Today’s February 25th.  The Democratic convention isn’t until August 25th, 6 months from now.

There are some of us who believe the Obama candidacy is mostly hype sparked by Senator Obama’s oratory, driven by a widespread exuberance for any alternative to the last 8 years of the Bush Administration in particular, and to the Washington establishment in general.  The problem is, so some of us believe, Senator Obama is inexperienced and naïve, that he will waste valuable time we can’t afford to lose learning how to relate to Congress, and could misstep badly given his lack of foreign affairs experience.  We’re also concerned that he can’t beat Senator McCain regardless of what some current polls are saying, 8 months in advance of the general election in November which, in Presidential politics, is a lifetime.

For those of us who watch and read way too much news, there’s clear evidence that the media (and perhaps some prospective voters and party professionals as well?) is beginning to turn, to reconsider its infatuation with Senator Obama in favor of a more studied, more realistic understanding of his programs and experience.  They are beginning to wonder what “The Rally People” will be the last to figure out on their own:  Can he beat McCain and, even if he does, will he make a good President.  Not that he wouldn’t eventually, maybe in 2017, but what about now?

Could be, if we get to the Democratic convention on August 25th without a done deal, the Super Delegates that were moving to Obama find themselves re-examining their party’s prospects – particularly if polls begin to show Senator Obama running even or, heaven forbid, behind Senator McCain who will have been campaigning against him for 6 months by then.  Elected Democratic delegates will vote for their designated candidate on the first ballot.  Two or three ballots later, who knows?  The convention may just decide that the primary votes which made sense during the initial hysteria of the Obama campaign months earlier will no longer assure them of a victory in the Fall, or a solid, dependable Presidency beginning in January.

Leave a comment

Posted in Barack Obama, Convention, Election, Hillary Clinton, Politics

Tagged , , , ,

Betting the Farm

Posted on February 24, 2008 | Leave a comment

Sunday, February 24, 2008

This piece is about the polls the media and the Obama campaign keep using to argue that the Senator is the better bet to beat McCain in the Fall.  Rest assured, the Clinton campaign would be pointing to these same polls if their indications were in her favor.  The question is whether or not we should pay any attention.  Are these polls a reasonable basis for Democratic primary voters to support the candidacy of Barack Obama?  …or Hillary Clinton were the results the other way around?

Take, for example, the Fox News/Opinion Dynamis poll taken February 19th and 20th.  The question asked was, “Thinking ahead to the next presidential election, if the 2008 general election were held today for whom would you vote if the candidates were…”  Only two candidates were presented at a time, Democrat and Republican, and the order of the names was reversed from respondent to respondent.  According to that poll, McCain beats Clinton 47% to 44%, while Obama beats McCain, 47% to 43%.  Good for Senator Obama, so it would appear, but consider the following:

1.          Obviously, the general election is not going to be held today.  A lot is going to happen in the next 8 months during which McCain, the poster boy for experience in general, and national security and foreign affairs in particular, and his entire Republican party will be coming right at Barack Obama.  Do you really believe that voter opinion will not be affected, one way or another, between now and then?

2.          The “margin of error” was plus or minus 3%.  What you think that means is that the results could be off, either way, by no more than 3%.  And it does mean that, sort of, but not exactly.  What the pollsters are saying is that they are 97% certain that their sample is representative of the total population of likely voters.  The problem is, the 97% is a guess on their part, an intelligent, scientifically based guess, but still a guess nonetheless.  If their assumptions about who’s going to vote are correct, and nothing happens between the date of the poll and the election to change the opinions of those likely voters, then the margin of error will only be 3%.  If they’re wrong, it could more, affecting not only the spread, but the direction of the victory they were predicting.  Witness, for example, the inaccuracy of polls take recently, prior to the New Hampshire primary which Senator Obama should have won, but didn’t.  The polls were probably wrong for two reasons:  voter opinion was highly fluid, and their sample of “likely voters” was not, in fact, representative of the total population of actual voters within the 3% margin the pollsters were claiming.

3.          In the two comparisons – McCain/Clinton and McCain/Obama – there were 9% and 10% undecided.  These percentages of undecided voters are 3 or more times the margin of error.  These people may be undecided now, but they’re going to vote for someone on election day.  When they do, the outcome of that election could be completely different than what the pollsters are predicting now, 8 months in advance of the real thing.

4.          More than 121 million of us voted in the last Presidential election.  That’s over 60% of the electorate.  The Fox News/Opinion Dynamics polls interviewed 900 respondents over the phone.  Round numbers, that’s a sample size of .00000743 which, in English, is about ¾ of 1 one thousandth of 1 percent of the voting population – scientifically selected, of course.  (A friend of mine, who studied statistics in graduate school on the way to getting her degree in Sociology, argues vehemently that the sample may be tiny, but, if intelligently selected, still meaningful.  She is a true believer.  I’m not, but pay her respect by including her point of view.  It’s the “if intelligently selected” caveat that concerns me, and the undeniable fact that polls are sometimes wrong, more so the farther in advance of what they are predicting.  The pollsters are sophisticated professional social scientists doing their best, but they’re neither perfect or psychic.)

5.          Roughly 30% of estimated registered voters have been voting in the primaries this election season.  That’s only half of the total that will vote in November.  What does the other half think?  Clearly, most of them don’t care enough to have voted so far.  What does exactly does that portend for the general election?  I haven’t the slightest idea.

6.          In another poll, this one conducted by Financial Dynamics, February 14th through the 17th, of 803 registered voters, the question was different:  “If the election for U.S. President were held today, would you be voting for the Democratic or the Republican candidate?”  Simpler question, without the mention of any candidate names.  Democrats win 46% to 35%, an 11 point spread, but with 5% voting “Neither,” and 14% more “Unsure.”

Confused?  Uncertain about what to think?  My point exactly.  Do you really want to allow these polls to influence who you nominate for President?

Leave a comment

Posted in Barack Obama, Election, Hillary Clinton, Media, Polls

Tagged , , , ,

Reckless Endangerment

Posted on February 23, 2008 | 1 comment

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Enough already.

Senator Obama makes a big deal about how his early opposition to the war in Iraq is proof positive of his judgment and readiness to be President – in sharp contrast to Senator Clinton who, at the same time, voted to endorse the use of military force.  Never missing an opportunity to remind us of this point, Senator Obama made the following statement during Thursday’s Democratic debate in Austin:

But [being Commander-in-Chief] also means using our military wisely.  And on what I believe was the single most important foreign policy decision of this generation, whether or not to go to war in Iraq, I believe I showed the judgment of a commander-in-chief.  And I think that Senator Clinton was wrong in her judgment on that.

Let’s overlook the excessively dramatic and technically meaningless reference to the “single most important foreign policy decision of this generation.”  (Precisely what generation would that be, and are those people done making history?)  Forget about the fact that he didn’t demonstrate his judgment back then by voting for anything.  What he “showed” us was a speech of perhaps two typewritten pages.  Let’s focus instead upon the meat of the decision to which the Senator is referring.

On October 2, 2002, now US Senator, then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama delivered a brief speech entitled “Against Going to War with Iraq.”  The speech was presented at an anti-Iraq war rally in Chicago.  It was short, and to the point.  My apologies for including such an extensive quote, but I want both to do the Senator justice as well as make my point with his own words.

I don’t oppose all wars.  …[What I oppose is a] dumb war.  A rash war.  A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein.  He is a brutal man.  A ruthless man.  A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.  He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad buy.  The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.  I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars.  I’m opposed to dumb wars.

As always, his oratory is impressive, but is it meaningful?  It’s prophetic, to say the least, but was it wise, or lucky?  Is it indicative of responsible judgment befitting a President of the United States, or does it just sound good?

Eight days later, on October 10, 2002, Senator Clinton stood on the floor of the US Senate and delivered her speech in favor of Senate Joint Resolution 45, “A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.”  It was a much longer speech which described the history of events which led to the resolution, and which explained the basis for her support.  “Today,” she began, “we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.”  As it turned out, this Senate resolution was tabled in favor of House Joint Resolution 114 (“Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq”).  HJ Resolution 114 passed the House 296-133, and the Senate 77-23 on October 11, 2002, with Senator Clinton voting, “Yes.”  This was the vote she refuses to admit was a mistake.  I don’t think it was, nor do I believe that State Senator Obama, had he been US Senator Obama at the time, would have voted differently.  To believe otherwise is to suggest that Senator Obama lacks the maturity and judgment to be President.

It’s all about the famously non-existent “Weapons of Mass Destruction.”  The point is, they weren’t known to be non-existent at the time.  Take another look the second paragraph in my excerpt from Senator Obama’s speech.  In his own words, he acknowledges these weapons, believing, as did Senator Clinton, that they were real.  The difference is that, just a few words later in the same speech, he asserts “But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States.”  On that basis, all attempts to negotiate having failed, Senator Obama believed then and still argues that the use of military force to protect the United States against these weapons, via their direct use and/or dissemination among those elsewhere who would use them against us, is “dumb” and unwarranted.

How is it that State Senator Obama had better information about Iraq and other people threatening our country than the majority of US Senators and Representatives who supported HJ Resolution 114?  Or was he just winging it?  In the absence of information unknown to either of them at the time, the fact that he didn’t agree with Senator Clinton doesn’t make him right, it makes him dangerously, recklessly presumptuous, and offers proof of his lack of preparedness and poor judgment.

Don’t trust my opinion?  Of course not, what do I know?  Why should you?  So ask yourself.  To everyone of you who might read this, especially those of you considering voting for Senator Obama in the upcoming primaries in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, if you believed as did Senators Obama and Clinton that there were weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological and nuclear, in the hands of, or being developed by the likes of Saddam Hussein, how would you have voted?  Do you really want to nominate a candidate for President who would have voted differently?  A candidate who would have voted not to use military force as a last resort, but who would have chosen instead to hope for the best until Saddam Hussein “falls into the dustbin of history”?

Don’t like this line of questioning?  Get used to it.  I’m fairly certain it’s Chapter 1 in John McCain’s campaign strategy notebook, the one with the cover title:  “How to Defeat Barack Obama in the Fall.”

Did things turn out pretty much the way Senator Obama predicted?  Absolutely, but what happened after HJ Resolution 114 was passed, the way our current President abused and botched the limited authority given to him by Congress, isn’t the issue.  It’s hindsight.

Focus on the speeches by Senator Obama on October 2, 2002, and by Senator Clinton, just 8 days later.  Forget about the excitement of the rallies, and the passion of your favorite candidate’s rhetoric.  It’s just you.  Ask yourself, given that both candidates, as well as everyone else, believed in the existence of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a despot which Senator Obama himself described as a “brutal,” “ruthless man,” how would you have voted?  Do you really want to risk the country, the lives of your family and friends, not to mention your own, on a candidate for President who would have voted differently?

1 Comment

Posted in Barack Obama, Election, Hillary Clinton, Iraq, Politics

Tagged , , , ,

Audacity

Posted on February 19, 2008 | 3 comments

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

This blog is about words.  It’s about using words to express my ideas, to encourage other people to think about them, and share their own points of view.

A lot of what I write about is political and, nowadays, often critical of this or that candidate.  I comment, based on my life experience, whatever that’s worth, but I make no pretense that I have ever run for office, which I have not, or that, if I did and won, I would be good at it.  I’m in the bleachers, far from the field of play.  My words, however eloquent, clever or moving – which is not to say they are any of those things – do not, simply by virtue of my having written them, make me what I describe.  I may be a writer, and critic.  My ideas may have merit and may be worth pursuing, but I have, at best, accomplished nothing more than the immediate impact of my saying them.

Senator Obama has recently been accused of having copped a speech which was made by Deval Patrick, now Governor of Massachusetts.  Whether or not he plagiarized Mr. Patrick isn’t the point.  What troubles me is what he said in that speech, and at other times, when he has responded to Senator Clinton’s comment that talk is cheap – or, in the parlance of the upcoming Texas primary, “big hat, no cattle.”

Instead of responding to her criticism by describing his accomplishments, he chooses instead to talk about the power of words, evoking the memories of no less than Thomas Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt and Martin Luther King.  These are people whose extraordinary accomplishments, over years of public service, have, in retrospect, made their words so impressive, so memorable.  It is not the other way around.  Their words were expressions of who they were, and important tools in accomplishing their objectives, but little more than condiments to the substance of their many achievements.

“We the People” is not equivalent to “Yes we can,” nor does saying those words make you on a par with any of our founding fathers, Jefferson among them.  Senator Obama may have a dream or two, but it doesn’t make him Reverend King, nor is the reference relevant given that Dr. King wasn’t running for President, wasn’t claiming that he could more effectively manage our federal government bureaucracy than his opponents.

I favor the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, but I have some advice for Senator Obama lest he win now, only to lose to Senator McCain in the Fall.  And this is a topic I know more than a little something about.  It is the temptation and cardinal sin of all great salesmen that, at some point, they begin to believe their own hype.  Sooner or later, the people will catch on, if not before the primaries, certainly by November when the other half of the people who will be voting in the general election get up and go to the polls.

3 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Election, Hillary Clinton, Politics

Tagged , , ,

Voter Advice for Women From a Male Feminist

Posted on February 17, 2008 | 2 comments

Sunday, February 17, 2008

A few days ago, I wrote a piece (“Endorsement,” 2/13/08) in which I made the argument that, if a white woman and a black man were perceived as equally qualified to be President, it was incumbent upon black voters to vote for the black man, and women to vote for the woman.  (I didn’t address the quandary of black women.  For the sake this particular piece, I’m going to assume that race trumps gender.)  I said, without the least hesitation, and still believe that to do otherwise, would be “illogical and irresponsible.”  Since then, a friend, whose opinions I respect, has commented that my argument is, basically, prejudiced.  Even if the two candidates were equally capable, which he argues they can’t be because two people never are, a voter’s choice should be random.  At the time, I gave him the last word, and moved on.  Now that my candidate (Senator Clinton) is struggling, I feel the need to get back into the game, and make my point clear and more emphatic.

The objective of any decision is to maximize the benefit derived by the entity making it.  Which entity is that?  Could be Congress, a PTA, or Board of Directors, superficially at least, but it all comes down to the individual, to you and me.  If, for example, we are a Senator highly motivated to promote the common good, then that will be our personal objective when we vote – even if it is against our own, personal best interests.  Senator McCain actually campaigns on precisely that point, that he puts his country first, himself a distant second.  Impressive in an emotional way, but it’s all semantics.  His spin notwithstanding, Senator McCain is still maximizing his personal benefit.  As my father once taught me, all decisions are selfish.  The focus of the decision may be the public good, but only because, in the mind and heart of the decision-maker, maximizing the public good was the most important objectlive.

Alright, I am a black or white woman voter.  There are differences between the candidates.  One is a more experienced government policy “wonk,” admittedly with baggage, the other is an inspirational newbie.  All things considered, you say to yourself, the country will be in pretty good shape whichever one wins, as long as the Republicans are out of The White House.  (I happen to think Senator Clinton’s experience and policy development skills make her the superior candidate, and that I can always vote for Senator Obama 8 years from now when he’s more seasoned, but my personal opinion isn’t what I’m arguing here.)

So, you rationalize, Senator Clinton will make a good President.  What she lacks in oratory, she’ll make up in productivity.  We’ll be okay, and not appreciably worse off than if you elected Senator Obama, your feel good candidate.  Well, ask yourself, which decision maximizes your personal benefit?  Vote for Obama, or vote for Clinton and shatter, once and for all, any notion that women can’t manage, can’t do anything to which they aspire?  It depends, doesn’t it, upon how much you care about the common good, about the half of our society that still commands less respect, in business and in government, that the other half.

As I argued in “Endorsement,” it could be a while before another woman, as qualified as Senator Clinton, is this close to being President.  To those of you women out there who are undecided, and especially to those of you who were planning on sitting out the Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries because you didn’t think it made that much difference, think again.  It’s perfectly logical and responsible for black voters to support Senator Obama.  What are you waiting for?

2 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Election, Feminism, Hillary Clinton, Politics

Tagged , , , ,

Unlikely Voters

Posted on February 16, 2008 | Leave a comment

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Turnout for this year’s Presidential primaries has been higher than usual, but still nothing to write home to Mom about.  Among the non-caucus primaries to date, New Hampshire was the standout with an estimated 52.48% of eligible voters going to the polls.  (That’s based on a statistic called “VEP” which stands for estimated “Voting Eligible Population.”)  The closest other state primary was Massachusetts with 38.71%.  New York was the worst performer at 18.83%.  In the other 20 states, voter turnout ranged from 19.25% in Louisiana to 32.57% in Illinois.  Of the total 23 non-caucus primaries held so far, 13 didn’t even manage to turnout 30% of eligible voters.  Six didn’t even make 25%.  How pathetic.  We are a nation where the minority rules.

Why don’t more people vote in the primaries?  For one thing, in some states registered independents, like me, can’t vote in the primaries, but that effect has got to be minor.  The fact that there is no national law requiring employers to give employees time off with pay to vote is a big deal, probably affecting the lower half of the economy, and hourly workers in particular, to a greater extent.  (If we believe the media analysts, more of the people not showing up are more likely Clinton than Obama supporters.)

Understandably, the polls that the candidates use to understand the electorate, and which the media show us with reckless disregard for their impact on voter opinion, these polls are of “likely voters.”  Results identify the percentage of people who say they are going to vote who currently favor this or that candidate, or who admit to being undecided.  There’s so much room for error.  Even if the polls are valid today, the election isn’t, today that is.  Precisely how likely are these people to vote?  And how sure of your preference do you need to be for your response to classified for any specific candidate, or still up for grabs?  Naturally, the campaigns focus their pitch on the undecided, because they’re easier to convince than someone who has already decided, who actually has to change his or her mind to vote for you.

I’m wondering, if by focusing on the undecided, if the campaigns are missing the boat.  You’ve probably heard the term “GOTV,” Get Out The Vote.  Political party regulars have long known the importance of getting their party’s voters to the polls, although crossover voting has become increasingly common.  The trick, obviously, is making sure the voters you get to the polls are actually voting for your candidate, which is easier said than done.  Even during the general election, like the one we’re about to have, when it’s one party against the other, and the contrast between the Republican and Democrat candidates is great, getting out the vote is a process requiring considerable finesse.

In the Bush-Kerry Presidential election of 2004, national turnout was 60.7%, which I understand was higher than it had been since 1968 when Nixon narrowly defeated Humphrey against the backdrop of the Kennedy and King assassinations, and the war in Viet Nam.  60.7%.  Round numbers, that’s twice that, or better, than the voter turnout this primary election season.  Forget about “likely voters” and the “undecided” among them, what about the approximately 30% of eligible voters who are going to vote in November, but not now?

What does a candidate have to do to get these people who would have voted for her or him in the Fall, off their tushes now?  With the Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries coming up, you’d think Senator Clinton’s campaign management would be asking itself that very question.  The answer has got to be contrast.  I’ve thought about it, and it’s got to be that November voters just don’t perceive the difference between the Democratic (or Republican) candidates to be all that great.  As long as one of them – Senator Clinton or Senator Obama – wins in the fall, they’re okay.  Other than that, these one-time-only voters can’t be bothered.

I don’t know, Senator Clinton if you’re listening, if I were trying hard to stop the rock star momentum of my opponent, and no one seemed to care that I was more qualified to be President, I think I’d spend some quality time pitching the differences between me and Senator Obama directly and explicitly, not just to the undecided among the likely voters, but to the voters who haven’t cared enough to participate in the primaries.  Call them on it, in no uncertain terms.

Leave a comment

Posted in Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Politics, Polls, Primaries

Tagged , , , ,

Endorsement

Posted on February 13, 2008 | 4 comments

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Pursuant to minimum forethought and deliberation befitting the obvious, I am breaking with no particular tradition whatsoever to enthusiastically endorse the nomination of

Barack Obama for President of the United States, 2016.

My feeling is that he should actually be ready by then.

In the meantime, we’ll just have to do with the much more qualified, extremely intelligent, and thoroughly tested Hillary Clinton, her lack of comparable oratory skills notwithstanding. I’d compare their records to make my point, but, for all intents and purposes, Senator Obama doesn’t have one.  As for his argument that he’s been opposed to the war from the very beginning, while Senator Clinton has not, please refer to my piece entitled “Whoops” (February 9, 2008). If you’re thinking about voting for Senator Obama because some poll shows him a few points ahead of Senator McCain, “were the election held today,” ask yourself if you would bet your life, or your country, on the accuracy of that poll.  Polls are often incorrect.  More to the point, the election isn’t going to be held today, but over eight grueling campaign months from now.  Compare the candidates’ records.  Ask yourself what skills and experience a President needs to be effective.  Make up your own mind, no matter what the polls may suggest.One last thing…  I’d like to assume that black American voters might prefer Senator Obama because they sincerely believe he’d make a comparable, if not better President.  I’d like to assume that, but will forgive some of them for just plain wanting some of their same color in The White House – to which, I’ve got to say, it’s about time.  Thing is, I’d like to make the same argument for all those women out there who would like, once and for all, to put an end to any lingering sentiment to the effect that there are some things they just can’t do because they’re women.  If you believe Senator Obama is more qualified, vote for him, absolutely.  But if you think Hillary Clinton is at least as qualified as Barack Obama to be President, well, vote for her and put an end, once and for all, to any doubt about the abilities of your gender.  Senator Obama will run again in 2016.  Could be a while before another woman, as qualified as Senator Clinton, is this close to being President.

4 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Election, Hillary Clinton, Politics, Women Voters

Tagged , , , ,

Whoops

Posted on February 9, 2008 | Leave a comment

Saturday, February 9, 2008

A mistake, according to Dictionary.com, is “an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.”

In retrospect, when Senator Clinton cast her famous vote to allow the use of military force in Iraq, she made a mistake.  The question is, was it a mistake based on poor judgment as Senator Obama would have us believe, or insufficient information, which is her counter argument?  Should she, or any of the others who voted for the resolution, have anticipated exactly what President Bush and his cohorts intended to do with that authority – or that the Administration had misunderstood, to put it politely, the extent of the threat to our national security?  I don’t know.  Certainly the first kind of mistake is more relevant for the prospect of a Hillary Clinton Presidency than the latter.

What I do know is that nothing is as simple as Senator Obama would like us to believe.  I don’t know what Senator Clinton was thinking, but I do know that Senator Obama had the luxury of offering simple platitudes on foreign policy from his vantage point on the sidelines.  (Senator Obama was an Illinois state Senator on October 10, 2002 when Senator Clinton delivered her speech on the floor of the US Senate to explain her support of the President’s request.)  Is he the psychic candidate?  Did he really foresee where this Iraq mess would end up, or did he just get lucky?  Under what circumstances would he expect the same vote from Senator Clinton where he, Barack Obama, the one in The White House asking for Senate approval?

Senator Clinton’s October speech began with the words, “Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.”  At the time, lots of people – perhaps state Senator Obama, as well – were convinced that the threat of weapons of mass destruction was real.  Just how big a mistake was she making?  Why shouldn’t she have believed President Bush?

I understand that Senator Obama believes in negotiating and compromise as a preferable alternative to military action.  Who doesn’t?  In fact, the resolution authorized force only if negotiations were to fail.  Wouldn’t Senator Obama have made basically the same speech had he been in Senator Clinton’s position?

Barack Obama likes to question Hillary Clinton’s judgment.  The question for Maryland Democrats on Tuesday is do they want to nominate an armchair, Monday morning quarterback, or the real deal?

Leave a comment

Posted in Barack Obama, Election, Hillary Clinton, Iraq, Politics

Tagged , , , ,

Margin of Error

Posted on February 9, 2008 | Leave a comment

Saturday, February 9, 2008

It’s Saturday, less than a week after Super Tuesday.  There are Democratic caucuses this weekend which haven’t happened yet, three primaries next week, and two really major ones, in Texas and Ohio, in the first week of March.  The race for the Democratic nominee for President is razor close and far from over.  MSNBC, the cable news channel, is reporting a poll that shows Senator Obama several points ahead of Senator McCain, were they to run against each other, but Senator Clinton even with McCain.  Is there anyone reading this who believes the news of this poll won’t influence some undecided Democratic voters to support Barack Obama, fearing loss of the Presidency to the Republican candidate?  Well, suppose this poll is wrong?  Suppose it doesn’t accurately represent the mindset of the electorate today, let alone ten months from now which in politics is forever.  What we’ve done, to no small extent, is turn over the election of the Democratic nominee to the news media which report these polls.

It’s election season, and polls are everywhere on the regular television and cable news, and in the papers and magazines.  I’m used to it, but I’ve been wondering lately:  What’s the media doing in the business of reporting voter preferences?  Brace yourself.  This is going to be more of an academic piece than I usually write.)

We know why the candidates take polls.  However questionable, polls help the candidates plan and test the effectiveness of their campaigns.  The candidates know the polls can be flawed and misleading, but they take them anyway because they are an important tool, not the only tool by any means, but an important source of information they are desperate to know.  The better they can understand voter reaction to their candidacy, and to the competition, the more effectively they can craft their message and election strategy.  It’s market research.

Journalists are supposed to bring us the news, to tell us what’s happening, without bias and as thoroughly as their particular medium will allow.  As a free society, we believe that a better informed electorate will make more intelligent choices among the people who aspire to run our government, and the programs we will demand and support.  Unfortunately, while polling is certainly a science – an amalgam of applied math (statistics) and the social sciences – it’s an imperfect one.

Think about it for a moment, about how hard it is to poll any electorate – even about something so apparently straightforward as “If the election were held today, for which candidate would you vote?”  If only it were just that simple.  Are the people you survey likely voters?  How committed are they to whatever opinions they express?  How volatile is their thinking, and what precisely could make them change their minds?  Are they representative of all the people who will be voting, or have you inadvertently overlooked some key element of the electorate?  What questions have you mis-phrased or omitted that might have suggested a different interpretation of your subjects’ intentions?  Are they confused or purposing telling you one thing while they’re thinking another?  “Would I have a problem voting for a woman or African American for President?  Of course not.  Don’t be ridiculous.”  In fact, survey researchers are trained not to believe everything they hear, to use control questions to test the accuracy and veracity of their subjects’ responses.

Electorate polling involves highly subjective questions, the answers to which are understandably open to interpretation.  Even the most skilled pollsters can be mistaken – let alone the journalists whose knowledge of the survey process is limited and second hand, at best.  (When was the last time you saw the actual pollster discussing the results of his surveys on television?)  It’s no secret that polls are inaccurate and sometimes outright incorrect.  The media knows this, but uses them anyway – because they attract viewers?  No wait, maybe that’s unfair.  Polls are, after all, data which purport to describe how a campaign is going, and are arguably newsworthy from that point of view.  The problem is that journalists – not commentators, but the ones who claim to be reporting the news – are supposed to tell us what’s actually happening.  They’re supposed to be giving us facts, the tested validity of which meets some minimum standards.  Reporting the results of pre-election polling, by its very nature and the imperfect science on which it is based, goes too far by blurring the distinction between factual reporting and speculation.  It’s basically fortune telling by men and women in suits.

Accurate reporting is a responsibility which reputable journalists take seriously, which is why they’re so careful to verify what they tell us.  Admirable, to be sure, but would they present other important information based on no more certainty than the reliability of, let’s say, the polling the preceded the recent New Hampshire primary?  Yes, the media were apologetic after the primary, not just for the polls they commissioned and reported, but also for all the interpretation, extrapolation and conclusions they offered ahead of the primary – with what impact on the votes their viewers would cast?  The apology was fleeting, and apparently of no particular consequence.

Some newscasters seem to think it’s okay to show us polls as long as they point out that there is a margin of error, that is, that the findings they are showing us are correct within a handful of percentage points either way.  Even if the people watching are paying attention, and adjust their conclusions accordingly, which I doubt, they’re missing the point.  “Margin of error” simply refers to how representative a sample may be of the population it represents.  It’s only an average concept.  It doesn’t mean that the population from which the sample was selected is the right one, or that the questions asked were well designed, or interpreted properly, or that the findings of the poll today will be relevant tomorrow when the actual polls open.  In many of these cases, the undecided voter block alone is large enough to change the outcome of the election, even if the pre-election polls are dead on, which they’re not.

Warning us about the margin of error is just avoiding the question.  Are the legitimate media applying the same rigorous journalistic standards to the polls they present, as they do when they vet the other information they report?

The polls may tell us what the electorate is currently thinking, but let’s be honest.  The primary reason pollsters ask voters who they support before an election is to predict the results.  Since when are journalists supposed to be in the business of predicting anything?  Their job is to tell us what is happening, what they know for sure, and let us draw our own conclusions.

It wasn’t that long ago that the television networks were reporting exit polls before the precinct doors shut locally, and election returns from one state before the polls closed in other time zones.  Maybe it’s time they reconsidered their policy of reporting polls for the same reasons.

Leave a comment

Posted in Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Media, Politics, Polls

Tagged , , , ,