The Case for Obama

Exactly.

Healthcare Reform Jujitsu

The Obama Administration has found renewed momentum, you might say found their first real momentum, with some help from their GOP friends.

Sure, maybe if they don't paint a Hitler mustache on the President or fake out with "death panel" and "kill granny" talk so maybe they're out of touch with the modern Republican Party, or RINOs anyway, but with the moral support (if not fine detail agreement) of ex-office holders like Bill Frist (who, incidentally, I thought was great on Real Time with Bill Maher Friday night, knocking down the host's ridiculous long-spouted beliefs against flu vaccination and other science-based facts like using pharmaceutical drugs to control hypertension), Bob Dole, Jim Baker, Tommy Thompson, Chuck Hagel and others, Obama's looking more and more like the eventual winner...once again:



In fairly obvious coordination, the DNC hits with a viral ad reiterating the point, albeit less artistically:



While I've had plenty of disagreements with the old guard represented in the list, they sure do look like adults compared to the clowns -- Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, Kyl, Grassley, etc., etc. -- at the Federal level for that Party right now.

Combined with the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office findings this week that the Baucus bill would actually reduce the deficit over time, we're seeing the now classic Obama strong finish. Nobody currently does better in the endgame (or scares their supporters more in the lull along the way) than Obama, and I expect that's what's happening now.

And, once again, I expect that our terrorist enemies will be learning this lesson eventually as well.

The Big One

I don't think it's going too far to say that the biggest reason Obama was elected was to repair our situation with the Muslim nations of the world, both diplomatically and militarily.

If there was no other reason to vote for this brilliant yet reasonable man starting back in the primaries when the economy wasn't the issue, it was because as someone with half his ancestry in that world and a few years logged living in an Islamic country as a child, he was going to present a different face to the world than ever in American history. Ever since the oil barons of this world fully exercised their power for the first time with gas shortages in the mid-1970's, simultaneously as Israeli-Palestinian violence reached unheard of levels, as the U.S. installed Shah fled revolutionary Iran and the religious militants took U.S. hostages, we've had to grapple with the region disproportionately more than in our nation's past. And none of it has been successful thus far.

Now you fix those problems, multi-culti college man.

As I've often written, Obama's greatest asset is his strategic capacities. If rescuing the U.S. banking and credit system wasn't difficult enough, there's all the moving parts in the Middle East. So I'm looking forward to his speech tomorrow. Of all his big speeches thus far, this is the biggest. This one is about forging a new course in World History.

Word is the speech is very candid. Which is his strategy for his whole Administration:

“We have a joke around the White House,” the president said. “We’re just going to keep on telling the truth until it stops working — and nowhere is truth-telling more important than the Middle East.”

I'll be concerned if it stops working.

So far from a Fox News branded apology tour, Obama is seeking to do the job we hired him to do:

CAIRO — President Obama arrived in Egypt on Thursday aiming to repair America’s relationship with the Muslim world through a speech at Cairo University, a carefully planned address that aides said would challenge Muslim perceptions about the United States.

He's had a good first news cycle over in that part of the world. If he's setting up partnerships within the region linked out to the Western world, then this will be the Islamic World equivalent of Nixon goes to China. The history train is taking a turn through what was once called The Orient.

Watch this space.

Drive

It looks like Obama has a plan for GM and it's shifting into gear:

The chairman and chief executive of General Motors, Rick Wagoner, resigned Sunday as part of a broad agreement with the Obama administration to funnel more government aid to the ailing auto giant, according to people close to the decision.Mr. Wagoner, who has served as G.M.’s top executive since 2000, agreed to step down after it was requested by the president’s auto task force, these people said.

I'll be interested to see how the President's plan unfolds, expecting the same level of strategic intelligence that has been his trademark since the campaign.

And how about how he treated the CEOs he summoned to the White House last week?

Will the ever learn, maybe with a generational turnover?

Bonus Post: Debate Prediction

Here you go -- if I'm wrong, there's always post deletion:

I don't really care what McCain does tonight, except in that scientific interest sort of way. Or maybe circus sideshow/auto accident way. And maybe he'll acquit himself well, but I'd be surprised if there's a gamechanger here, as even playing nice will be seen as more evidence of erraticism now.

I'm much more interested in the Obama strategy and execution. My guess is that he'll skillfully "close the deal" by closing the loop. And I predict he will do that by tying together the recent themes that have grown tall in his campaign -- economic rescue via jobs, shared responsibility and revived American spirit -- with his 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote speech, the one that catapaulted him to the national stage, "The Audacity of Hope" speech, albeit tempered with the stark realities of this moment.

Back then a friend (who actually ended up a Hillary supporter) told me it was the most impressive convention speech she had ever seen, and to watch this guy as a potential Presidential candidate. I thought it was a pretty rousing speech, but my thoughts ended there. Whoops.

However, I believe we will hear a reprise in Obama's unity message tonight, which had this key passage:

The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an "awesome God" in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

Listen for echoes of this. If he does do such a callback (in comedian parlance) it will be an epic four-year callback, with the same storytelling power of the climax to a brilliantly written movie, as well as proving he's the candidate with the most cohesive and compelling vision in years.

If I'm wrong, I'm voting for McCain.

Just kidding!!

Mc39%

O.k., maybe it isn't yet time to stop McNaming John. Kind of like McDonalds. Does that make Sarah Palin the Hamburgler?

While the 4+/- margin of error may make this CBS/NY Times poll more like Obama 49% and McCain 41%, but the fact that the morning of the final Presidential debate has the candidates at 53%-39% must be troubling for the McCain camp. It's a threshold you don't want to cross, even in an outlier. It's something you don't want bolstered with most post-debate polls. Crossing below the 40% mark, that's Bush Country.

But what if the dam really is bursting.

While the 100% negative as spend this past week polls as one reason for the drop in McCain support, clearly the biggest political mistake of this political cycle was his selection of running mate. Sarah Palin has single-handedly flipped Florida for Obama. She scares old people, especially elderly Jews.

Per Adam Nagourney, Obama eased voter doubt past the tipping point in the two debates. McCain isn't going to beat him by being nice or feisty or aggressive tonight. The die is cast. Even if he comes in jovial it'll read as erratic.

But we're also seeing the beginning of the organizational tsunami. Obama has an amazing early voting effort, which has him ahead in the pre-election day vote in New Mexico by 23 points and in Ohio by 18 points -- votes already cast.

My own experience: I volunteered for phone banking yesterday at the well-situated Democratic HQ here on Wilshire and 9th in Santa Monica. So well-organized, with some key people (mainly young women) making things work, while volunteers of all ages put in time.

The 13-year-old girl next to me got called a "dumbass" on one call, and I got one 80-year-old McCain supporter but he was respectful, and a few enthused Obama supporters. One guy told me he's voting for Obama because "McCain's too old and Palin's a dipshit!" Right on.

Mostly it was marking down "NH" for not home, but they have these call sheets with UPC's for each of the 18 targets on the list, along with age and registration. When you finish the sheets they go right to the data entry team. I used a landline, but there was one guy just trafficking cellphones (leave your driver's license) and swapping batteries. The core focus of these calls to Nevada is early voting, I'm assuming for the next few weeks. I'm guessing there's a horizon (maybe not this election) where a campaign wins before Election Day even begins. I'm betting the momentum of cast votes will almost always help whoever is ahead -- winners are magnetic, not so much perceived losers.

I got one mom on the phone who was happy to get the early voting info for her and her husband -- that's a phone number that reaches the Nevada campaign to tell you early voting places and even provides a ride(!) -- as well as absentee ballot info for her son in college back in Boston. The old (like, 78) woman next to me (and her 80+ year-old husband) was hilarious. She was a Hillary supporter who thought she'd vote Obama but not volunteer -- she and her husband both phonebanked for Kerry and were unhappy with the result -- until Sarah Palin came along! She started going to websites debunking the anti-Obama emails her friends were sending her and has grown to really like the guy.

At the other end of the age spectrum, the organizers told me that one of their very best callers is just 10-years-old.

There's a buzz going on coast-to-coast now, and Zack Exley lays it all out on HuffPo:

The "New Organizers" have succeeded in building what many netroots-oriented campaigners have been dreaming about for a decade. Other recent attempts have failed because they were either so "top-down" and/or poorly-managed that they choked volunteer leadership and enthusiasm; or because they were so dogmatically fixated on pure peer-to-peer or "bottom-up" organizing that they rejected basic management, accountability and planning. The architects and builders of the Obama field campaign, on the other hand, have undogmatically mixed timeless traditions and discipline of good organizing with new technologies of decentralization and self-organization.

Win or lose, "The New Organizers" have already transformed thousands of communities—and revolutionized the way organizing itself will be understood and practiced for at least the next generation...This article focuses on the field program's innovative "neighborhood team" structure and the philosophy of volunteer management underlying it that is best summarized by the field campaign's ubiquitous motto: "Respect. Empower. Include."

I expect the Obama 2008 Campaign, from the first strategic plan Barack presented to Michelle in order to get her approval to run two years ago through the groundbreaking GOTV effort on Election Day, will be taught not only in political science classes but also business schools for the next 25-50 years.

And I recommend participating -- less than three weeks left to volunteer to be a part of making history.

Matinee Idols

Neal Gabler has a great piece in Saturday's Los Angeles Times on how the McCain campaign and others have mistyped Obama as a rock star -- we're actually relating to him as a movie star:

All campaigns are movies now, consisting of competing narratives with competing stars. Part of Obama's appeal, as it was for the Kennedys, is that he has what all rising stars have. He has youth. He has good looks. He has charisma. He has an ability to spellbind. He has had a rapid ascent that makes him new and unfamiliar. He has, in this McLuhanesque age, unflappability that plays especially well on television. And as the biracial son of a single mother, he has a great personal story that provides a terrific vehicle for his role.

But, above all, Obama has something else that all great stars have -- he embodies a theme. Every great star is a walking idea. James Cagney demonstrated the power of sheer energy early in his career, and the way that energy could curdle later in his career. Cary Grant demonstrated the force of charm and quick-wittedness. Paul Newman demonstrated the limitations of self-interest and the redemption that comes with engagement outside oneself. Robert Redford demonstrated the deception of appearances. Barbra Streisand, in the immortal words of critic Pauline Kael, demonstrated that talent was beauty. That is what made these individuals stars. They incorporated ideas that mattered to us, that resonated with us.

Obama is a star in this sense too. As he reiterates endlessly, Obama brings idealism at a time when many Americans are despairing of making any headway against the problems the nation faces. Drawing on his own personal story of disadvantage that led to Columbia University, Harvard Law School and now to the Democratic nomination, Obama in his every gesture and utterance suggests that "Yes We Can." This idealism isn't inspiring adulation because Obama is already a star. Obama is a star precisely because he is inspiring. He is the anti-Bush, and what he's selling is hope.

Meanwhile, McCain's campaign with it's lobbyist for Georgia, now at war with Russia, is calling Obama, "bizarrely in sync with Moscow." Yep, same old red smear. Using this horrific humanitarian crisis as a tool for tactical gain. Immediately.

And what's happening inside the McCain campaign itself?

Out of his hearing, Mr. McCain is called the White Tornado by some people who have worked for him over the years. Throughout his presidential campaign, he has been the overseer of a kingdom of dissenting camps, unclear lines of command and an unsettled atmosphere that keeps aides constantly on edge.

Even now, after a shake-up that aides said had brought an unusual degree of order to Mr. McCain’s disorderly world in the last month, two of his pollsters are at odds over parts of the campaign’s message, while past and current aides have been trading snippy exchanges debating the wisdom of attack advertisements he has aimed at Mr. Obama.

Think how he runs his campaign might be a clue as to what kinds of Presidency a McCain Administration might be?

Unity Time

Two big jumps this past day: unemployment goes up suddenly 1/2 a percentage point to 5.5% and the price of oil posts a record one-day leap $11/barrel to $138/barrel.

So much for the Bush and Republican Party legacy.

Saturday is the day that Hillary Clinton will formally concede the Democratic Presidential race to Barack Obama. Now the Party must unify against flip-floppin', now wiretap lovin' John McSame, McInsane, McTired, McYawn.

The New York Times has a video which seems to me the fairest recap of Senator Clinton's campaign, the highs and lows. While the Iraq War vote may have been the critical misstep at the heart of Obama's victory, I really think the moment when she lost the race was when her husband, the former President, made the comment about Jesse Jackson winning South Carolina. When I watched the video, it just stood out, the shark jump if there ever was one.

As I've said in the past, I've been looking forward to this nomination battle to end so I could start liking the Clinton's again. Tomorrow is a one-time only opportunity to show her unquestionable support of Senator Obama against Senator McCain. One wonders what she will do, what combination of rhetoric, stagecraft and sincerity, will she deploy if she truly wants to seal the deal.

Here's one suggestion, and if they take it you can call me prescient: invite the Obama daughters onstage at the end of her speech.

Imagine that -- Obama and his family with Clinton and her family. Chelsea and Malia and Natasha gathered 'round Hillary, the very image of female nurturing, the setting up of generations of women who won't have to worry about the ceiling Sen. Clinton cracked.

Pure power, female style, a statement for the ages, and the image Democrats need to bring Hillary's most hardcore supporters aboard.

Now, supposedly it's family time this weekend for the Obama's, a slumber party for 8 girls and a date for mom and dad, so maybe I'm just dreaming. Or maybe it's a moment at the Convention. But it would work

And scare the pants off the McCain campaign.

Change

Already at the Democratic National Committee, thanks to change agent and Presumptive Nominee, Barack Obama:

Obama imposed on the DNC the same ban on money from federal lobbyists and political action committees that he has placed on his campaign.

It may be hubris that the small donor machine will continue to dwarf the traditional, influence-oriented election fundraising apparati. But it is a breath of fresh air.

Obama has Howard Dean staying on to run the DNC, which makes perfect sense since Dean's 50-state strategy was how Obama won the nomination -- he dissed no states for size or caucus. These comers are ready to redraw the stale old partisan map:

As Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, told The Huffington Post: "I think that we are going to have a larger battlefield in 2008... I think we are going to stretch the Republicans. I don't think they can take for granted nearly as many states as they have in the past. And I think we are going to add several to the Democratic column this year and so our coalition is going to be broader."

The whole article is worth reading, as it really lays the groundwork for the strategy and both how far Dean has come in making it a reality these past four years, and how Obama opened lots of offices in states Dem Presidential candidates previous would write off.

Beyond the desire for victory for the candidate or party that I favor, the core reason why I believe the 50-state strategy is so crucial -- for either party -- is that we so desperately need to be the United States of America again, as we were during World War II, as we maybe have never achieved before.

There's a reason the Civil War was fought 150 years ago. America was not united enough, not by the Revolution or the War of 1812. If we truly believe, as a nation, that there is something special about us, a nation of immigrants (and Indians), a nation unlike all others not based on a sitting single race or religion that predated actual nationhood, a nation that can be a beacon to the world by dint of freedom and equality, then every state needs to be accounted for, every state deserves attention and due.

I don't think this election is a given for either candidate. The final decision-making is just beginning.

By the way, Obama now carries a big stick:



Bam bam.

Closer

They always said to watch out, that Obama is a brilliant closer. And in business as well as government, if you're on a good strategy, it's the only thing that really matters.

She had her moments, but he was just brilliant tonight. I can't predict the final vote but certainly hope it goes his way if for only one reason: I want to be in a civic dialogue with President Barack Obama for the next four to eight years. I want to hear his voice coming out of rooms with TVs, computers, car radios. I don't want to hear Hillary Clinton as often, although per his brilliant closing tonight, she deserves her high position in the public discourse. Maybe even (especially if she were to separate from Bill) Vice President.

She so knowledgeable, she's so good on so many issues, but Obama has beaten her in the topmost leadership issue: strategy. He's just brilliant (that word again) on strategy, like a smart smart war gamer, so sober even with his far-reaching mind. It's a word he keeps returning to. It's the secret word, waiting there right behind change and hope, giving them substance. And it all wouldn't matter if he hadn't delivered a strategically successful campaign.

But not only has his campaign had a solid strategy and strong execution, it was a Herculean task to start and, when you think back to maybe July 2007, even ridiculous, impossible. But not only is that success itself, thus far, proof of his strategic soundness. He's succeeding with 20 and 30 point margins, an 11-state streak since eking out his win on Super Tuesday, he's got one million people giving his campaign our money to manage as he sees fit -- it's a wild success.

There's another interesting post (besides the one linked to above) on Kos, "Hillary's Retrograde Problem":

Ask yourself this question: When was the last time America replaced a presidency by choosing a President or Vice President from the preceding administration?

Arguably:

Richard Nixon in 1968 (previously VP to Eisenhower, elected after 8 years of Kennedy/Johnson)

Grover Cleveland, non-consecutive terms in 1884 and 1892

(I'm not counting John Quincy Adams)

Our elections have had a tendency to move forward with new faces rather than reach back to a past administration, even a successful one. Where an administration has been particularly unpopular, the urge to move in an entirely new direction is even more keenly felt. Hillary may have had no real chance in this election from the beginning. Not because of her policies, but because she has been flying into the wind without realizing it.

And we all know how well the Nixon Presidency went.

Callow Gunslinger?

Watching the Red Sox takes apart the previously hot Colorado Rockies is a bit like watching Hillary Clinton take apart Barack Obama. The talented newcomer may get a clever hit or streak, but the experienced warrior doesn't let it last for very long.

On a purely gameplay level and leaving aside any preferences along with possible comeback kid John Edwards, the Obama campaign has been surprising for it's reverse momentum.

Starting by gathering record crowds inspired by his mere entrance into the race, he's hurt himself with long, rambling speeches (I noticed this on C-SPAN awhile back), a message of bipartisanship at a time when the other party has proven itself worthy of only mistrust, ill-defined positions other than hope/change, and being slow to make himself known on contentious legislation (second only to Clinton herself, but she is the establishment candidate in this race).

Rumors circulated this past week that donors are asking why he's not going after Clinton for real, just as he lost a fundraiser to her campaign. So now The New York Times reports that "Obama Promises a Forceful Stand Against Clinton":

The interview came amid growing signs that Mr. Obama was looking for a fresh start for his campaign after nine months in which his aides said they were startled by the effectiveness of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, and worried that her support was not as brittle as they had once believed...

...Mr. Obama said he was not concerned by a repeated spate of national polls showing lopsided support for Mrs. Clinton. “The national press for the last three months has written glowingly about her and not so much about me, so it’s not surprising,” he said. He described himself as an “underdog” running against a campaign that has “a 20-year head start when it comes to managing the spin of the national politics.”

Well, he's nailed the problem, and it's exactly why he shouldn't be going after Clinton, except in contrast by making it crystal clear what he stands for and taking on the front-running Republicans by name instead. He's the one who's supposed to be running the positive, new campaign, but we still don't know what he stands for other than a sea change in Presidential racial preconceptions. John Edwards is promising to be our age's FDR. Obama is claiming he's work across the aisle and reduce partisanship in D.C. Which is the stronger message?

The bigger issue at hand after too many Presidential elections where the Democratic candidate is fatally branded as weak, I'm not really hearing that on the GOP side about Hillary. They're trying to make you scared of her, the opposite of their approach with Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, even Humphrey. More than anything else, the Democrats need a candidate who knows how to fight, per Jim Malone (Sean Connery) in David Mamet's dialogue for The Untouchables:

"You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way! And that's how you get Capone. Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?"

Barack is in no way less likely to get smeared by the GOP in the general election than Hillary, I think it's a myth that any Democrat's Fox-fed negatives will be any less than hers by the time ballots are cast. Her 20 years are two decades spent fighting back against the vast right-wing conspiracy and, with the instructive exception of her national healthcare proposal, winning. On the other hand, Obama has never faced a seriously threatening GOP challenger. Ever.

As echoed by one of Andrew Sullivan's perceptive readers:

Clinton hasn't been overly specific on policy, either, but during the debates this summer we got to see how she'd handle the Swift Boats next year -- with competence and a spine of steel. As much as I'm emotionally drawn to Obama, his performances in the debates and on the stump have been less than stellar. It's all too easy to imagine him getting his ass kicked by the GOP and losing in a landslide to a thuggish dictator like Giuliani. Clinton may never reach the 52% she'd need to win the election -- but so far, she's the only one who looks like she can give as good as she gets. And whoever wins the Democratic nomination will face a hell of attacks the likes we've never seen.

The way I read it, the Clinton campaign has gone easy on Obama in public, responding as necessary but letting him self-destruct (i.e. the anti-gay minister bobble this past week). In response, it looks like he's going to trot out Social Security, in all likelihood handing the Republicans an issue and (God forbid) opening the door to private accounts. I seriously doubt he'll be able to knock Hillary off her perch with it, as her campaign staff is just too deep, and she's a very, very quick study.

But his staff has got to be sweating with the news that Clinton is no longer just taking a pass on Iowa:

The decision of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign to send 100 or more new staffers into Iowa demonstrates that she and her aides have determined to their own satisfaction that she can cripple Barack Obama in the first-in-the-nation caucus.

Up to now I've liked Obama as a person, a presence, and I've thought from some of the stories told by those who've played on basketball teams with him that he's got leadership and fighting skills. But if he muddies the Social Security waters for vainglorious political gain, I'll never forgive him.

Kevin Drum offers excellent advice for Barack Obama if he wants to set himself apart and recapture the imagination of both Democrats and independents:

(1) Propose that the United States unilaterally offer to reopen its embassy in Tehran. Ditto for Cuba and North Korea (and Bhutan, I suppose, though I don't really know what the deal is with them). Make the point that we live in dangerous times, and diplomatic relations should be used as a way of more effectively dealing with the world, not as a way of making self-righteous statements of approval or disapproval about specific regimes.

(2) Propose a specific list of Bush administration executive orders that he would rescind. No shilly-shallying, just a flat promise to revoke them. Possibilities include the orders governing torture, military commissions, and FISA. If he wanted to be even bolder, he could categorically promise to halt the use of presidential signing statements.

Show us some real fight. Show us some real menschiness. Show us some cajones. Don't just go after some little lady.

Especially when that little lady knows how to pull a gun.

Get It Together

If the Democratic Congressional leadership doesn't get it together soon, they will really have blown their one opportunity to take control of the public discussion on all these major Bush crime issues facing the country, like getting us into the Iraq War and using the war to gut the U.S. Constitution.

But even The New York Times is telling them they should have let the Republicans filibuster on the Webb Amendment to save our soldiers (you know, what they pretend to call "Support Ze Troops"); hell, they should have made them do it:

The current Republican leadership, now in the minority, has organized its entire agenda around the filibuster. In July, the McClatchy newspaper group reported that Republicans were using the threat of filibuster more than at any other time in the nation’s history.

Remember, this is the same batch of Republican senators who denounced Democrats as obstructionist and even un-American and threatened to change the Senate’s rules when Democrats threatened filibusters in 2005 over a few badly chosen judicial nominees. Now Republicans are using it to prevent consideration of an entire war.

Josh Marshall has some similar reactions from smart readers, with this being my favorite:

TPM Reader AC:

Politics is the art of the possible. And when nothing concrete is possible, that leaves theater. I am baffled at Democrats' continual willingness to concede the stage. Veto or no veto, making the GOP filibuster a bill like Webb's is not pointless. It puts vulnerable GOP moderates on the hot seat, it puts the blame for obstruction on the minority where it belongs, and it may force a series of unpopular high-profile vetoes from Bush.

Bag news Notes boils it down to a photograph of Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) after he's been thrashed -- even though his party had a simple majority:

Although I can feel the reflex rolling around in there, I'm decidedly not going to feel Jim's pain. Instead, I'm going to appreciate ... no, relish the fact that Jimmy learned something yesterday -- a hard lesson about what it's like to seek compromise with people who feel nothing.

And Keith Olbermann put the focus back where it belongs -- squarely on the "President", who seems more and more like a poltergeist from a previous century, like maybe the Tenth.