Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Hillary Clinton Should Win the Democratic Nomination

The SC pre-primary events really showed the true colors of the Clintons. It is the kind of politics that drove the dislike of the Clintons my most Americans when they were in the White House (Bill Clinton never won more than 50% of the popular vote in both elections).

But that is the type of dislike that will bring out the Republicans in droves. Think about what happened in 2004, George Bush & his campaign was able to bring out a record turn out of republicans given that the the democrats and their backers put in way more effort to bring out their side (in fact they also had a record turn out).

The sewage politics of the Clintons will also win primaries. They have the right connections, 'persuasive muscle' (think goons) and the opposition research led by that icky, Harold Ickes.

Here is a excerpt from Joe Kline at Time-Blog:

'It may well be true that any Democrat is going to have to handle that sort of sewage in the general election, but I've now--belatedly!--figured out that the real audacity in Barack Obama's campaign--far more than his positions on the issues, which almost seem an afterthought--is his outrageous belief that the entire country, not just Democrats, wants to see a straight up election; that the entire country is tired of the pestilence of tactical tricks that the Clintons learned from their co-dynasts, the Bushes. (The latest example being their sudden, sociopathic emphasis on the importance of the Florida primary, a contest all three candidates had agreed to eschew at the behest of the Democatic National Committee.)

It is a hell of a bet Obama has made. And nearly 40 years of political, uhm, experience tells me that it isn't a very wise one...but I must also say that it is truly sad to see Bill and Hillary Clinton on the wrong side of it.'

So Hillary will be a worthy opponent because she will bring out all the Republicans, the independents that did not like her and her husband and might force some previous supporters to stay home.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

A Kennedy Endorses Obama

Caroline Kennedy evokes the memory of JFK in her Op-Ed piece in the New York Times.

To be Frank, I am not one of those who is enamored by JFK. The media and the hippie generation has white washed his accomplishments. I am still waiting for comprehensive critical look at his life. From the snippets I have read and seen; how his father was influential in his senatorial election, how Bobby Kennedy was a down right thug in the 1960 democratic convention (arm twisting votes away from Lyndon Johnson) and of course his infidelity and womanizing lifestyle. That is another story.

Caroline opens her piece with the following:

'OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president.'

That is an interesting opinion. Kennedy did not have any sort of mandate from the voting public in 1960. The 1960 race was a close race between Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

'The electoral vote was the closest in any presidential election dating to 1916, and Kennedy's margin of victory in the popular vote is among the closest ever in American history. The 1960 election also remains a source of debate among some historians as to whether vote theft in selected states aided Kennedy's victory.'

She has obviously drank the cool aid and has a strong bias for reading history. She exhibits the same type of bias in supporting Barak Obama. In her piece she says:

'Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning.'

I am not an Obama fan and the coverage of him by the press have been shallow and not critical.

Obama is no Kennedy.

Sure...it was not about race in SC!

Yea, yea. That's it. That's the ticket!

From the New York Times:

'Turnout on Saturday was estimated at a record 530,000 people, nearly 100,000 more than in the Republican primary a week ago. More than half of the Democratic voters were African-American, and surveys of voters leaving the polls suggested that their heavy turnout helped propel Mr. Obama to victory.

Mr. Obama, who built an extensive grass-roots network across the state over the last year, received the support of about 80 percent of black voters, the exit polls showed. He also received about one-quarter of the white vote, with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards splitting the remainder.

In particular, Mr. Obama was helped by strong support from black women, who made up 35 percent of the voters. Mrs. Clinton, with the help of her husband, had competed vigorously for black women voters, but Mr. Obama received about 80 percent of their support, according to the exit polls, conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for the National Election Pool of television networks and The Associated Press.'

'White voters under the age of 40 divided their support, with almost 40 percent for Mr. Obama, and about 3 in 10 each for Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton. Almost 80 percent of blacks under the age of 40 voted for Mr. Obama.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards divided white voters age 40 and older equally, with about 40 percent each, according to exit polls. Among older blacks, 80 percent supported Mr. Obama.

The South Carolina primary was the first contest of the year in which race rose to the forefront. While Mr. Obama seldom directly mentioned the historic nature of his candidacy, it was not lost on the thousands of voters who turned out to see him in all regions of the state.'

Friday, January 25, 2008

Amazing Race

It continues to astound me how much race is a factor, in this day and age, in a Democratic primary.

Here are some excerpts from Jan 25, 2008 New York Times article entitled: Democrats Target Their Appeals in South Carolina

'Race has weighed heavily over the contest here this week, particularly in back-and-forth exchanges between supporters of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. Strategists for Mr. Obama worry that the discussions have driven white voters away from his candidacy, boosting the efforts of Mr. Edwards or Mrs. Clinton.

“You have two white candidates — Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and you’ve got Barack Obama who has a good base of white supporters,” said Inez Tannenbaum, a longtime party official here who is supporting Mr. Obama. “But over 50 percent of the people voting in the Democratic primary are going to be African American and, of course, it’s going to be a racially polarized race. It just is.” '

Let's see how this play out tomorrow in SC:

'Still, strategists and Democratic officials pointed to polls here this week suggesting that Mr. Obama’s support among white voters has fallen off. If the trend materializes in the voting on Saturday, his ability to transcend race could come into question and present complications in the 22 states scheduled to hold the next round of Democratic contests on Feb. 5.'

Thursday, January 24, 2008

On Cue Race Rears Its Ugly Head

In several of my posts I spoke about how race will matter in the democratic primary race and how the Obama camp has been skillfully exploiting it. Sure enough the Clintons are complaining about it. Here are some excerpts from a NY Times piece on Jan 24, 2008 Bill Clinton Accuses Obama Camp of Stirring Race Issue

'Former President Bill Clinton defended himself Wednesday against accusations that he and his wife had injected the issue of race into the Democratic presidential primary in South Carolina, and he accused Senator Barack Obama of Illinois of putting out a “hit job” on him.'

'Scolding a reporter, Mr. Clinton said the Obama campaign was “feeding” the news media to keep issues of race alive, obscuring positive coverage of the presidential campaign here of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

“They know this is what you want to cover,” Mr. Clinton told a CNN reporter in Charleston, in an apparent reference to the Obama campaign.

“Shame on you,” the former president added. '

'Mr. Clinton also suggested in public remarks that his wife might lose here because of race. Referring to her and Mr. Obama, he said, “They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender, and that’s why people tell me that Hillary doesn’t have a chance to win here.” '

'Mr. Clinton said no one in the audience in Charleston had asked him about how race was being used in the campaign. “They are feeding you this because they know this is what you want to cover,” he said. “What you care about is this. And the Obama people know that. So they just spin you up on this and you happily go along.” '

Let's see how low they can go during and after Super Tuesday, Feb 5th.

History Rhymes

From StrategyPage.com - Five Years of Combat

If current trends continue, the U.S. will reach its fifth anniversary in Iraq having suffered about 32,000 casualties (including 3,200 combat deaths). That's about a seventh of the losses suffered by the U.S. in Vietnam during the six years of most intense combat (1966-72). There were 2-3 times as many U.S. troops in Vietnam.

As in Iraq, the U.S. broke the back of the guerilla force (the communist Viet Cong) after five years of effort. But the last gasp 1968 Tet Offensive, launched by the Viet Cong and their North Vietnam allies in a desperate attempt to reverse their slide, ended up destroying the Viet Cong as a viable organization.

But the U.S. media didn't understand what was going on, and declared Tet a communist victory. U.S. public opinion had turned against the Vietnam effort, and wanted the troops out no matter what. Most troops were gone by 1970, and all were out by 1972.

In that year, North Vietnam violated the peace deal it had agreed to, and attempted to conquer South Vietnam with a conventional invasion. That was repulsed. Another was tried in 1975, which succeeded. By then, the U.S. had cut off nearly all military aid to South Vietnam, and the subsequent weapons and ammunition shortages played a large part in the South Vietnamese defeat.

Iraq has no neighbors ready to invade right now. The main problems are internal, mainly corruption and armed factions of various persuasions (religious, ethnic and tribal) that feel they are above the law.

Currently, the Iraqi government is seeking a security deal with the U.S. similar to what NATO, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Japan and South Korea (and many other nations) have. That is, a small number of American troops stationed in the country, as a guarantee that hostile neighbors (especially Iran, but potentially Turkey as well) will not attack. Any such attack would kill some U.S. troops, and likely trigger an American military response.


I love the following from Jan 23, 2008 edition of WSJ:

'One of our favorite Bill Clinton anecdotes involves a confrontation he had with Bob Dole in the Oval Office after the 1996 election. Mr. Dole protested Mr. Clinton's attack ads claiming the Republican wanted to harm Medicare, but the President merely smiled that Bubba grin and said, "You gotta do what you gotta do." '

'This has been the core of the conservative critique of the Clintons for years. So it is illuminating to hear the same critique coming from Mr. Obama and his supporters now that his candidacy poses a threat to the return of the Clinton dynasty. Even Democrats are now admitting the Clintons don't tell the truth -- at least until Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination.'

Political Sausage Making

Tactics used to win votes in SC from Jan 23, 2008 WSJ:

Paying the Power Broker

When Mr. Obama first started trying to organize the state earlier this year, he began in the usual way, seeking endorsements of traditional power brokers. The campaign offered a $5,000-a-month consulting contract to state Sen. Darrell Jackson of Columbia, a longtime legislator and pastor of an 11,000-member church, who also runs an ad agency.

Mr. Jackson's ability to turn out the vote -- or suppress it against rivals -- is the stuff of local legend. In 2004, he helped clinch a primary win for North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, even as Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry was coming off wins in Iowa and New Hampshire. At the time, Mr. Edwards was paying him consulting fees of roughly $15,000 a month, according to federal records.

Mr. Jackson says he seriously considered the offer from Mr. Obama, but instead became a paid consultant to Mrs. Clinton, essentially running her state operation for substantially more than what the Obama camp offered. "A lot of our hearts were torn -- it wasn't an easy choice," Mr. Jackson said. He drew more than $135,000 from the Clinton campaign from February 2007 through September 2007, the latest figures available, according to federal election filings, and remains on the payroll.

"Winning here has a lot to do with who validates you as a candidate," Mr. Jackson says. "I'm comfortable with what Mrs. Clinton has going here."

Yea, as long as you have the cash.

Overlooked Factoid

You don't hear the democrats touting this fact:

'Civil Rights Act took bipartisanship as well, thanks to fierce opposition from Southern Democrats. Republicans of that era are often portrayed as opponents of civil rights. In fact, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the 1964 bill. And when it finally passed, GOP Senator Everett Dirksen, the minority leader who worked closely with the bill's sponsor, Democrat Hubert Humphrey, was honored for his efforts with a NAACP civil rights award.' - Jan 15, 2008 WSJ 'Politics of Pigmentation'

Race Realities

More excerpts from the Jan 22, 2008 edition of Wall Street Journal piece entitled Obama's Bid Turns Focus On Class Split Among Blacks.

'Class has divided American blacks ever since slave owners divided blacks into field slaves and more favored house slaves and interracial relationships left some blacks with lighter skin. Lloyd Kinnitt, a retired cook who grew up in Georgia and now lives in Boston, recalls his mother looking askance at some black neighbors and telling him: "They may be my color but they're not my kind." '
'Mr. Obama himself wrote about this dilemma in his autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," published before he entered politics. Describing a confrontation with some black teenagers in a car in a poor part of Chicago where he was working as a community organizer, Mr. Obama described the fear and alienation he felt: "As much as I might tell myself otherwise, we are breaking apart these boys and me, into different tribes, speaking a different tongue, living by a different code." '

'One of the things that many poor and middle-class blacks say they like best about Mr. Obama is that his wife, Michelle, who attended Princeton and Harvard Law School, is dark-skinned. Color has long been a sensitive subject in the black community, with men and women of lighter skin seen as having higher status. '

'"Many of our male celebrities, sports figures, they marry white women or light-skinned wives," says Darnell Cooper, a laborer in Columbia, S.C. "We all see that on television. But you turn on the TV and you see Michelle Obama and she looks black. I can identify with her." He laughs. "I can tell you this: He would have a lot less votes if his wife were light-skinned or white." '

Race Realities Has A Class of Its Own

A good number of fair minded folks that I know believe that Obama's campaign has skillfully kept race out of this year's political race.

I would respectfully disagree. They have exploited race to their advantage (if your objective is to win I would do the same).

If it is a tight race to the wire then I would see them using the race card even more. Do you really believe there is that much of a difference between Obama & Clinton? Obama's political hacks are Clinton administration veterans and his policy stance is not THAT much different from Hillary's. But race is one vector of differentiation that is easy to exploit.

Here are some excerpts from the Jan 22, 2008 edition of Wall Street Journal piece entitled Obama's Bid Turns Focus On Class Split Among Blacks. Just amazing that in day and age folks think this way!

'Mr. Obama rarely discusses race on the campaign trail though he occasionally talks about seeing teenagers in Chicago hanging out on street corners who "look like me." His policy prescriptions for the inner city are similar to those of former Sen. John Edwards and Mrs. Clinton, including more money for jobs and education and reforming the criminal-justice system to eliminate the discrepancy in sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine, used more by blacks, and powdered cocaine, used more by whites.'

'Even as Mr. Obama is promising to bring America together, his candidacy is casting new light on the mounting class divide in the black community -- and the debate among blacks about how to get ahead. The expanding black middle class -- accounting for about 40% of the black population -- see in Mr. Obama a validation of the choices they have made: attending largely white colleges, working in predominantly white companies and government offices, climbing up the ladder of American success.

For African-Americans living in the inner city -- where most children are being raised by single mothers, male unemployment in some cities tops 50% and 40% of young black men are either in jail, awaiting trial or on probation -- the view of Mr. Obama is much more skeptical. Black teenagers mock Mr. Obama as a "Halfrican" and a "50-percenter" for his biracial background; his mother is white, his Kenyan-born father was black. A recent special on Mr. Obama on Black Entertainment Television, the most popular station among inner-city blacks, was titled, "Obama: What's in It for Us?" '

'Many of the features that whites find most appealing about Mr. Obama -- his mixed-race background, cosmopolitan upbringing, the ease with which he moves among whites -- stir unease among some blacks. The debate among blacks about Mr. Obama has become unusually intimate, including discussions about the color of his wife's skin.'

'Mr. Obama's candidacy comes amid an intensifying argument in the black community about what it means to be black in America and how blacks succeed. A survey this past fall by Pew Research found that 60% of blacks say the values of poor and middle-class blacks have grown more dissimilar over the past decade -- with "values" defined as "things that people view as important or their general way of thinking." Almost 40% of blacks say that the values of poor and middle-class blacks have diverged so much that blacks can no longer be thought of as a single race. Middle class is commonly defined as households making between $40,000 and $100,000 a year'

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Red Pill Vs. Blue Pill

From an economic perspective here is a timeless post, How do the right and left differ? by Greg Mankiw.

  • The right sees large deadweight losses associated with taxation and, therefore, is worried about the growth of government as a share in the economy. The left sees smaller elasticities of supply and demand and, therefore, is less worried about the distortionary effect of taxes.
  • The right sees externalities as an occasional market failure that calls for government intervention, but sees this as relatively rare exception to the general rule that markets lead to efficient allocations. The left sees externalities as more pervasive.
  • The right sees competition as a pervasive feature of the economy and market power as typically limited both in magnitude and duration. The left sees large corporations with substantial degrees of monopoly power that need to be checked by active antitrust policy.
  • The right sees people as largely rational, doing the best the can given the constraints they face. The left sees people making systematic errors and believe that it is the government role’s to protect people from their own mistakes.
  • The right sees government as a terribly inefficient mechanism for allocating resources, subject to special-interest politics at best and rampant corruption at worst. The left sees government as the main institution that can counterbalance the effects of the all-too-powerful marketplace.
  • There is one last issue that divides the right and the left—perhaps the most important one. That concerns the issue of income distribution. Is the market-based distribution of income fair or unfair, and if unfair, what should the government do about it?

Bill Clinton Has a Dream

I hope someone uses this to knock Hillary.

Monday, January 21, 2008

S.C Debate Nuggets

If the following is true then I think Obama is not going to be on the ticket. From The New York Times Political Blog:

"8:50 p.m. | Letting It All Out This has turned into a major confrontation, an unspooling of the months of oppo research done by each campaign, and it is hard to see how Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton ever patch this up.

For those of you who ever thought that one of them would choose the other as his or her V.P., it’s time to recalculate.

One possible lesson: Don’t get into a fight with the Clintons. As Mrs. Clinton said during her back and forth with Mr. Obama, she knows how to take the incoming. She’s taken it for 16 years. For better or worse, Mr. Obama was less comfortable on the attack."

Slipping that race comment:

"Mr. Obama gave (almost) as good as he got, especially in taking on not only Mrs. Clinton but Bill Clinton. Perhaps with an eye on the huge African-American vote here, he said that the attacks on him showed that a black man had become a credible candidate.'

Here is the full transcript of the debate.

Wil SC be a New Hampshire Deja Vu for Obama? Hmmmm.....

If Race Does Not Matter

Over the course of last few weeks, I have had these intense discussions with good minded folks who claim that that Race is not a factor in the Democratic race. I beg to differ. It is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about until they have to deliver some kind of knockout punch.

Here is an example of the subtle wink (from Illinois Reviews)

Campaigning for her husband today at a historically black college in South Carolina, Michelle Obama told the audience that a Barack Obama win would change the country's image in a big way. "Imagine our family on that inaugural platform," she said. "America will look at itself differently. The world will look at America differently. There is no other candidate who is going to do that for our country. You know that.

This is one big reason why I am not sold on Obama.

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Hillary's Hypocrisy

Here is the opening line from a recent NYTimes Artcile, For Clinton, Government as Economic Prod:

"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said that if she became president, the federal government would take a more active role in the economy, to address what she called the excesses of the market and of the Bush administration"

How hypocritical considering that she was part of the administration that presided over the biggest speculative bubble (the internet bubble 0f 1996 to 2000) and the greatest destruction of wealth.

I sure hope she gets called out on this.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

A Game of Chance Romney-Thomson Ticket

Fred Thomson has a low probability of winning enough delegates to be nominated as the Republican candidate.

He does have a good chance of being #2 on the ticket, especially with Romney heading the ticket. With the economy expected to go into a recession, Romney's economic experience and background will prove to be an asset. It will also allow him to focus on the economy and less on social issues. (Very similar to what George Bush did in 2000).

Being a southerner, with Senate experience, name recognition and someone who appears to be very congenial, Thomson can complement the Republican ticket with Romney.

In order to message this intention he should use his campaign resources to attack McCain & Huckabee when possible. By doing this Thomson can avoid having to explicitly make an agreement with the Romney camp (so that his attacks can be credible and sway voters) helping Romney win, especially, in those southern states where the Romney camp cannot spend their scarce resources.

A Romney-Thomson alliance can effectively battle the McCain-Huckabee forces and produce a ticket that the Republicans can back.

John Yoo - The Legal Brains Behind The War on Terro

The following is an excerpt from John Yoo who was the intellectual power house that crafted the legal framework used by the Bush Administration against the 'War on Terror'. He was instrumental (and rightly) in redefining the rules of dealing with those involved with terror.

Emphasis is mine.

"Both the president and Congress have agreed that the United States is at war, and Congress passed an authorization for using force against any groups, nations or people responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Capturing prisoners has been a permanent feature of war throughout human history; hundreds of thousands were detained during World War II alone. Sometimes, unfortunately, the enemy has included U.S. citizens - in the Civil War, every Confederate soldier was a citizen, and in World War II some Americans fought in the Axis armed forces. They never had a right to sue the soldiers who caught them.

We are in a difficult war against an unprecedented enemy. Its members deliberately disguise themselves as civilians and carry out surprise attacks on innocent civilian targets. They do not have a territory, city or population. They are trained to claim abuse when captured and to appeal to the legal system to tie up democracies in knots.

It is a difficult job for our government and armed forces to adapt the rules for war to such an unconventional, non-state opponent."

John Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of War By Other Means".

He is a supporter of the unitary executive theory and based his arguments for a strong response from the executive branch to terror. Here is an example of this: The War Powers Act.

Most folks wrongly assume that the unitary executive theory is something cooked up the the Bush Administration. It has a long history and has been used by past Presidents. This post, called, What the "Unitary Executive" Debate Is and Is Not About , from the University of Chicago Law School, gives some information on the history of the unitary executive theory.

Why Mitt Romney Can Win

Good summary as to why Mitt Romney can win the Republican nomination.

From http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/01/019554.php

"My guess is that Romney's views on the social issues are similar to my own: he's a social conservative, but doesn't have much appetite for red-meat politics on abortion and gay marriage, and places much higher priority on the economy and national defense. With hindsight, I think there was a better way for Romney to position himself: as a conservative and supremely knowledgeable expert on the economy, as George Bush's heir as a vigorous defender of the U.S. in the war against Islamic terrorism, and as a person who is himself a social conservative--just take one look at his family portrait--but who doesn't talk much about those issues except in the context of the constitutional philosophy which will guide his appointment of judges. I think if he had followed this route, he would have been truer to himself and more credible to voters."

Now that the economy is taking center stage, he is the only candidate with experience and the results to prove it.

Monday, January 14, 2008

Game Theory of Race

Hmm. Could this have been so predictable? Smells like classic Prisoner's Dilema. No? Each candidate goes after what differntiates themselves until there is nothing left but race, the lowest demoninator.

Clinton Decries Negative Tone in Campaign

Just as Barack Obama wrapped up a press conference to talk about the ugly racial turn the Democratic race has taken in the last several days, Senator Clinton released a statement of her own — saying, “Over this past week, there has been a lot of discussion and back and forth - much of which I know does not reflect what is in our hearts. And at this moment, I believe we must seek common ground.”


Obama strategy seems to be to strut down the primary runway with new fashioned economic policies. But the new is mostly the old Democratic economic garb.

The following information is from Crains Chicago Business.

"For all his rhetoric about moving beyond partisanship, his economic policies hew closely to classic Democratic lines and differ little from those of his primary opponents. Except for a few business-friendly wrinkles, he mostly caters to the party's traditional base."

"Mr. Obama wants to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, close corporate tax loopholes, raise the tax on capital gains and dividends, give unions more organizing power and and make employers pay for health care one way or another. He'd give a big tax break to the middle class while slapping labor and environmental conditions on trade deals."

My old Professor, Austan Goolsbee seems to be helping the spin unfortunately. (This is the same professor who penned the following for the New York Times Irresponsible' Mortgages Have Opened Doors to Many of the Excluded. I wonder if he plans to pen a new article based on more current data?)

"He has a bit of an eclectic approach to economic policy, not an old-style liberal Democratic approach," Mr. Goolsbee says, offering as examples Mr. Obama's support for a market-based method to reverse global warming and for eliminating capital gains taxes on investments in start-up companies.

Mr. Goolsbee, who's known for his columns in the New York Times and his research challenging conventional arguments for tax cuts, claims little credit for the Obama economic platform. He describes his contribution as "separat(ing) bad ideas from good, innovative ideas." One element he added was a proposal to eliminate the need for millions of taxpayers with simple finances to fill out tax returns."

"Mr. Goolsbee says the biggest philosophical difference among the Democratic contenders is that Mr. Obama puts more faith in market-based solutions and incentives than his opponents do."

"From a corporate perspective, that's a distinction without much of a difference. All three would make companies "pay or play," imposing a tax on firms that don't provide health coverage to their employees."

Don't believe the eye candy. Is bad for your economic health!

Friday, January 11, 2008

Democrats are Beatable in 2008

Here are a few thoughts from the January 11th edition of Wall Street Journal.

"Mrs. Clinton is ambitious and clever; if there's a way of winning this race, she'll find it. She also won't be bound by any "hopeful" pledges of bipartisanship, but will skillfully exploit whatever ugliness comes out of the current Republican brawl."

"The Obama upside: Mr. Obama is flying high right now, but he owes some of that altitude to what has been a remarkably polite Democratic race (he has yet to face a negative ad), and a charmed press corps. Don't expect Mrs. Clinton to continue placing party unity above her own shot at the White House. Just yesterday, the press teed up some unflattering Obama stories, one about a curious real-estate deal he'd done with a man now facing federal corruption charges; another about highly controversial abortion votes in the Illinois senate. Even if the Clinton campaign wasn't the inspiration for these pieces, you can trust it'll run with them.

The hope among Republicans rooting for Mr. Obama is that there's more to come, only after the nomination and after his party is stuck with him. They're confident they can get traction out of a liberal Illinois and Washington voting record. And he's a rookie who has already committed some foreign-policy flubs; any future ones, under the intense general-election media glare, could prove campaign-wreckers."

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Delirious Change

Here is the definition of delirium from wikipedia:

Delirium is an acute and relatively sudden (developing over hours to days) decline in attention-focus, perception, and cognition. In medical usage it is not synonymous with drowsiness, and may occur without it. It is commonly associated with a disturbance of consciousness (eg, reduced clarity of awareness of the environment). The change in cognition (memory deficit, disorientation, language disturbance) or the development of a perceptual disturbance, must be one that is not better accounted for by a preexisting, established, or evolving dementia. Usually the rapidly fluctuating time course of delirium is used to help in the latter distinction.[1]

Because it represents a change in cognitive function, the diagnosis cannot be made without knowledge of the affected person's baseline level of cognitive function.

The Obama fan base seem to be full of it. Delirious Change may not be the right change.

Sunday, January 06, 2008

Punch Drunk on Obama

Seems like a good number of folks are punch drunk on Obama. Not me.
Let see what the hang over looks like!