Something for Obama supporters to be concerned about

So I recently read this article in CommonWealth Inc magazine (registration required to read it but it's free). This article is about Deval Patrick but I think parallels can be drawn to Obama because he and Deval ran similar campaigns on similar issues. A few things to note.

It was an outsider’s campaign, and I think that predisposed [him] to having an
outsider’s government, which is a very different proposition

Patrick has been slow to grasp the difference between campaigning and governing,
or, if he has been reluctant to accept that the executive branch doesn’t
necessarily trump the House Speaker and Senate president

I think these two issues go hand in hand for Patrick although Obama may be
immune to this in the sense that, even though he's running as an outsider, Obama
is a senator and knows how the system operates. Patrick's only experience was as
Assisstant Attorney General in the Clinton administration. So at least Obama
knows how these relations currently work.

What Patrick was reveling in that night, it seemed to me, was the way his
judgment, his instincts, had proved to be right...Would he become a believer in
his own inerrancy?...Then, a year later, I kept running into people who wanted
to tell me about the “arrogance” of the Patrick administration, how he seemed to
be filling the executive branch with “the smartest guy in the room” types

I think this is what really needs to be watched. Obama stresses judgement and it can make him seem elitist. And while not agreeing with people is fine, I think not listening to people (especially democrats who may not agree with his stances or methods) will earn him a lot of enemies. I'm not suggesting Obama will be like this but
1) It's something that needs to be watched and
2) It's something Republicans can use against him

That being said I think the quality of Deval Patrick's governing is still up for debate. I feel like he has not focused on specific issues and has many things that he is working on still 'pending.' So, as of right now, it looks like he has accomplished less that he 'should' whereas if things continue to progress he may have a shotgun of policies go through in the next year or two that makes him look like a very effective governor. Only time will tell.

Feingold votes for Obama

This is probably one of the most meaningful things that has happened in the campaign. Russ Feingold is one of the most principled senators and his support for a candidate means a lot to me and many bloggers.

More blacks than Hispanics might turn out in Texas

If this happens Hillary is done. In Texas, in the election, done.

Biggest threats to national security: terrorism and paperwork?

So the House dems stood their ground and didn't listen to Bush's warnings that we're all going to die if the Protect America Act wasn't renewed. Well, apparently the sky isn't falling (which is always good to hear). The real tragedy is that now the Bush administration will have to, oh I don't know, obtain warrants to spy on people and...provide reasons for suspicion to a court. You know...the legal process that is so tedious and uneccessary. Not to mention there are still stipulations that permit a period of surveillance before securing a warrant. Apparently that's not enough. We need to be able to spy for an infinite period of time on whoever we please for our own reasons that we won't share with you because...paperwork sucks. Wow.

Really, Hillary? Really?

So the Hillary camp (in this particular case it's Hillary's Michigan campaign co-chair Joel Ferguson) continues to support super delegates while attacking other delegates (caucuses, red states, anyone who doesn't vote for her). So this is Joel Ferguson's response to super delegates being 'second class delegates':

Superdelegates are not second-class delegates. The real second-class
delegates are the delegates that are picked in red-state caucuses that are never
going to vote Democratic.

Wow! Well done, Joel Ferguson. That's two for one! Red states AND caucuses. Well we couldn't just say red states because then we'd have to question Hillary's wins in Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Arkansas (and they'd be slapping Texans in the face). While you're being ridiculous why don't you say you think states that start with the letter "I" are undemocratic and that their delegates shouldn't count?

So does that mean that Hillary's general election strategy will be to campaign in states she knows she'll win cause it'll make her feel better? You need to campaign in every state. You need to win the swing states and the red states and any state you can. Ronald Reagan won 44 and 49 states in his elections and George H.W. won 40. Neither Bill Clinton nor George W. has won more than 32 states. Why have we grown to accept that you can't win states? Why have we agreed that people can't do that anymore?

I don't know why Hillary keeps trying to temper expectations and kill hope. I want the democrats to win 40 states this year.

Hillary's foreign policy: insults

So Hillary had criticized Obama for saying that he would sit down and talk with our enemies citing "we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate." Hillary claimed this was naive.

Well apparently her form of foreign policy is name calling and insults. Hillary claimed that Putin "doesn't have a soul." Call me naive but I think I'd prefer Obama's take on foreign relations. This just seems childish.

Putin responds by saying "At a minimum, a head of state should have a head." If this counts as experience on Hillary's part I don't think I want it. I don't want our president, or even our democratic nominee, to have personal problems with a leader of another country (especially a G8 country).

McCain's standpoints on advanced interrogation techniques change

So I will not claim that McCain flat out supports torture but McCain had talked with an army general who said "techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively, and he (the general) didn’t think they need to do anything else." According to McCain, "this is what America is all about." Does anyone else read that as 'I agree with the general that we don't need to use interrogation methods outside of those laid out in the Army Field Manual because they work'?

Well, apparently that's not what he meant because McCain just voted against a bill that would limit the CIA's interrogation abilities to those in the Army Field Manual and apparently McCain has "always supported allowing the C.I.A. to use extra measures." Really? You could have fooled me. McCain is either being deliberately misleading or flat out lying. Either way I can already hear the cries of 'flip flopper' coming from the democrats regardless of who is the nominee.

This can just be thrown in with McCain voting against the Bush tax cuts which he now supports. I think the tag of flip-flopper would mean more coming from Obama just because Hillary has already been accused of being a flip-flopper (drivers licenses for illegal imigrants, war in Iraq).

Hillary and the super delegate saga

So Hillary is knee deep in super delegate drama in the past few days. Let me pick apart the major points as I see them.

1. Hillary wants to use the term 'automatic delegates' instead of 'super delegates' because super delegate makes it sound like they have "super influence when they don't". Hmmm, actually they do. Consider this: California had 370 pledged delegates up for grabs and more than 4 million people voted. That's over 10,000 people per delegate. California senator not only can vote in that primary but is a super delegate so her vote has the influence of more than 10,000 voters. That's pretty super influence.

2. Hillary has no moral problem with the idea of winning the nomination while losing the popular vote and pledged delegates. Pledged delegates...sure, but she would be fine even if she didn't win the popular vote (she is currently losing it even with Michigan and Florida)? That seems, oh I don't know, like something Bush would do. Somewhere Al Gore is seething with rage.

3. And in other news, the super delegates who support Clinton are already starting to switch to Obama. Even though this is only one I thought that this would happen if/when Hillary loses Ohio, Texas, or Pennsylvania. If she loses Ohio or Texas I think the avalanche begins and she will be pressured to drop out.

Oh, and if the first two points didn't make you think Hillary doesn't really care much about voters at all Mark Penn said "Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois?" Of the top delegate states that have voted so far Hillary has won 4 of the top 5 (California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts) but Obama has won 6 of the top 10 (Illinois, Georgia, Virginia, Washington, Minnesota, Missouri). Isn't it nice to know that you're 'not significant'?

Why isn't net neutrality even mentioned?

I am surprised that broadband access and net neutrality aren't bigger issues in the election. At least the democratic elections. This seems like it would be a very important issue to young voters and at least somewhat important to voters who currently do not have broadband access.

Also, in a race where everyone is claiming there are no substanitive differences between Obama and Hillary this issue is a very definitive difference. I also think that Clinton's telecom plans could be used as proof of her extremely suspect lobbyist relations.

Obama's telecom policies not only support net neutrality but do progressive things like

• Creates a Chief Technology Officer position to oversee implementation of more efficient technology
• Create web tools to give citizens better access to information about their government and increase governmental transparency
• Allowing the public to review and comment on the White House website for five days before signing any non-emergency legislation
• Requiring Cabinet officials to have periodic national online town hall meetings to answer questions and discuss issues before their agencies

This is a remarkably progressive policy and contrasts remarkably to Hillary's and I'm surprised this isn't getting more media attention (or at least that Barack isn't bringing it up more).

Hillary playing Giuliani-esque expectations game?

I can appreciate Hillary Clinton playing the game of lowering expectations in all the states voting in February (Obama was trying hard to lower them on Super Tuesday too) but the 'wait till the big states' approach that Hillary is taking lately seems similar to Giuliani's 'wait till Florida' approach. As I remember that didn't work out too well for him.

Granted the big states are more valuable if you win them by a large margin but I think the convincing wins in Maine and Viriginia by significant margins (both states Hillary was supposed to have a shot in) hints at the fact that momentum is still very important and voters (including superdelegates) tend to break for a perceived winner. I think it is/was a major campaign mistake to not campaign strongly in every state. Giving up has, in my opinion, lost a lot delegates and possibly the entire nomination. I realize that Hillary's lack of fundraising ability compared to Obama may play a huge role in this but she didn't even try to hide the fact that she gave up in certain states and I think that may come back to haunt her.

Hillary a no show for FISA vote

So after Hillary made a big deal about Obama's 129 present votes in the Illinois state legislature she does not even show up to vote on the very important FISA bill and its many amendments today. I should also mention that the 'present' votes Obama cast in Illinois were defended by the people who had the most at stake in those votes.

Obama on the other hand voted against retroactive telecom immunity, for substituting the US government in place of telecom companies in lawsuits regarding warrant-less wiretaps. And, while she voted for cloture on January 28th (as did Obama) he was there to vote for cloture today and she was not. To me, this is almost indefensible. If Hillary is going to attack Obama for being all rhetoric and no substance perhaps she should show up for one of the Senate's most important votes since the beginning of the primaries. Heck, even McCain was there (I don't like his votes but at least he was there).

Maine: the politics I love

One thing I am extremely proud of is that the state of Maine has been slightly different (and I might argue ahead of the game) in many aspects of national politics. Here are some of my views and how Maine is making progress in those areas:

I think it is disappointing that there aren't more female members in government positions. There are currently only 16 female senators and Maine is one of only 3 states where both senators are females (California and Washington are the other two). Maine is also one of only two states to have 3 females senators in the course of its history (Louisiana the other)

I think it is valuable to have bipartisan candidates (or at least be a state willing to elect respectable members of any party). Both of Maine's senators are republicans, both representatives are democrats and Angus King (an independent) was one of only two governors during his 8 year tenure who was not affiliated with the democrats or the republicans (link). The other was Jesse Ventura, reform party governor of Minnesota.

Snowe and Collins are also some of the most centrist and influential senators (link). Both were also listed last year as 8 of the top female candidates for the 2008 presidency (link). Snowe was voted one of the top 10 senators in 2006 by Time and is the most popular senator in her own state.

I have particular problems (like many do) with the electoral college system to elect our presidents. This winner take all method can sometimes not reflect the will of the people (see 2000 election). Maine, along with Nebraska, is allowed to split its delegates with the state winner getting 2 and the winner of each congressional district getting its delegate. Its far from perfect but, in my opinion, its better.

In terms of primaries vs. caucuses for party nominations I think they both have their pros and cons. Primaries avoid the outright coercion and voter intimidation that happens in caucuses and also is not as time sensitive (polls can be open all day whereas caucuses happen in a specific one to three hour time frame) and very often there is no option for absentee ballots. I think the caucuses do well in that they allow people to voice support for fringe candidates to make a statement while still having their vote matter among the major candidates if their first choice candidate is not viable. Maine, like several other states, has a caucus WITH absentee ballots. I think this is a step in the right direction. Ideally I think we should go (both in primaries and in general elections) to a run off election by ballot. This means that every person would rank the candidates in the elections they are voting for. If no one receives 50% of the vote we take the bottom candidate and reallocate all of those votes to the second choice candidates on the ballot. We keep eliminating the bottom candidate and reallocating votes until one candidate has at least 50% of the vote and declare that candidate the winner. (Note: I can't take credit for this idea. It was proposed to me by a friend years ago but is such a superb idea I've adopted it).

The last story I'll leave you with from Maine politics is more about a personal choice by a politician than a state policy but I still believe it shows the character of Maine politics. I find the superdelegate system fairly archaic and undemocratic in many ways because it is possible for democratic officials to outweigh popular votes (ie the will of the people). In times like this I have to admire men like the chair of the maine democratic party who pledged to cast his superdelegate vote for whichever candidate won Maine's caucus.

I know politics and elections have a long way to go to be ideal (or even truly democratic) but I'm proud that my homestate of Maine is bucking trends and leading the way in many ways and I hope it continues to challenge the way that politics work.

It has begun...

Alright, so this is the genesis of my brand new blog. In a very broad sense this blog will be merely my brain dump and dedicated to anything I deem worthy of comment. So first let me give a list of topics that may/will be talked about on this blog in no particular order:

• Politics/current events
• Religion/theology
• My basic armchair philosophy including the ideas of objective truth, justice, right and wrong, civic and social duties, and morality
• Baseball - news, statistics, and opinions
• My thoughts and reflections on what I'm reading/have read

I think that this may evolve into a strictly political blog (especially for the remainder of this year because of the ongoing primaries and upcoming national presidential election). If I determine that this blog can be sustained with politics alone I may start another, more personal, blog and devote this one entirely to politics. We'll cross that bridge when we get there.

Ok, full disclosure time. In the interests of transparency and honesty I will now attempt to lay out my background (basically life story) and current viewpoints so that my biases are well known. I try to stay open minded but if I have any agendas I hope I am honest enough to have them well known.

I was born in Houlton, Maine and lived there (in the same house since I was 1) through high school. My parents still live there. The median household income in Houlton as of the 2000 US census was $26,212 (Houlton). The US median household income in 2005 according to the US census was $44,389 (Household),down from $44,853 in 2000, so let's just say I grew up in a fairly economically depressed area of the country (the median income for the county is just over $28,000).

My family did fairly well for the area and was solidly middle/slightly upper middle class nationally (in the range of $50,000 - $75,000). Look at wikipedia's household income page linked above. For quick reference
$150,000 and above household income in top 5% in America
$250,000 and above household income is top 1.5% in America

I mention this because I went to Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine where tuition and expenses come to about $40,000 a year. Luckily for me Bowdoin's financial aid is need based and I received all but approximately $5,000 a year in financial aid. Needless to say I was on the lower (probably even lowest) rung of the Bowdoin financial ladder and my financial shortcomings were almost painfully obvious to me every day. Add this to the fact neither of my parents had gone to college (an information and cultural disadvantage that only served to heighten my awareness of inferiority). Because of this I'm quite sensitive to issues of wealth and class.

I was raised in a conservative Christian family (at Thanksgiving dinners I remember democrats being referred to as dummy-crats). I wouldn't call my town/area intolerant just insensitive and unaware due to lack of diversity. Until recently it would be almost unthinkable to vote for a democrat.

I still maintain my religious beliefs. I continue to read Calvinist (think predestination) theology and seriously considered going to theological seminary. In most ways I would consider myself a social/moral moderate. Some of my views:

• I support civil unions for homosexual couples but not marriage
• I have no moral problems with the death penalty, only its implementation
• I believe in the idea of just war
• I am pro choice for reasons of womens rights although I still have apprehensions regarding life/viability
• I support American's rights to own handguns and rifles (not assault rifles or automatic weapons) but I believe in fairly strict regulations as far as registration, licensing, and gun dealers security responsibilities

I am very liberal when it comes to economic and governance issues:

• I believe institutionalized racism and sexism is rampant and I believe it is the government's duty to correct for this
• I believe in social programs, big government, universal (preferably single payer) health care
• I believe campaigns should be publicly financed
• I believe our corporate tax (one of the highest in the world) should be higher
• I believe our tax scale should be even steeper near the top

I think you get the point and hopefully my blog will make some of my views more clear.

I am a firm Obama supporter (both for policy and character reasons) and Russ Feingold is my favorite senator and I'm currently reading Sanford Horwitt's book about him.