Obama, Clinton and why Democrats lose so often

One of my favorite sites is Electoral-vote.com (on my sidebar). In addition to keeping up with the various polls, the “votemaster” also adds some interesting commentary.

Today, he pointed us toward this interesting Michael Kinsley article. This gist of the article is this: yes, the left can hate stuff with the same passion as the right wing does (e. g., Bush). But, whereas the right wing has the discipline to rally around their very imperfect (in their eyes) nominee, the left doesn’t, even when the Democratic nominee is close (in terms of policy) to their first choice.

Consider the Republican Party. Many Republicans dislike John McCain with a passion that has lasted for years. Asked to explain, they refer to the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance-reform law (which they thought, incorrectly as it turns out, would bite Republicans more than Democrats), or his opposition (since rescinded) to the Bush tax cuts, or what they regard as his tiresome and preening routine as a maverick. They resent his mutual love affair with the press (which he jokingly refers to as “my base”). They remember a lot of foolish talk a while back about how McCain might switch parties and become a Democrat. And yet almost all of these McCain haters will vote for him in November.

Now consider the Democratic Party. The one-on-one rivalry between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama lasted only about three months from beginning to end. Their policy disagreements are negligible. For many Clinton supporters, the chance to elect an African-American President represents the culmination of a cause they have been fighting for all their lives. Yet almost half of Clinton supporters tell pollsters that they will not vote for Obama. And Clinton’s big-money backers are deflecting money and energy away from their party’s presumptive nominee. [...]

If you listen to a lot of right-wing talk radio (as I do), you can hear the troops being rallied. O.K., so maybe McCain isn’t really our type. But he’s our nominee. And consider the alternative! Obama is the most radical left-winger since the French Revolution. He is a fanatical leveler who hates rich people and despises success. Plus, he’s an élitist snob…[...].

Democrats aren’t like that. It’s not that they’re too nice or too principled, or too unwilling to be ruthless. The hatred of George W. Bush on the left–and the eagerness to see him gone–is at this point as extreme as anything the right has to offer. (I know this because I share it.) The desire to win for winning’s sake is pretty deep, too. Furthermore, as I suggested in this space a few weeks ago, it is at least an open question as to whether Democrats this year will attempt to match the Republicans in their willingness to “swift-boat”–that is, to play dirty in what they regard as a noble cause.

But true, professional unscrupulousness–the kind of do-anything-to-win pragmatism that Democrats envy in Republicans–requires more than just working yourself up into a lather of dislike. Sometimes, in fact, it requires the opposite: putting aside your dislike, your disappointments, your anger, your feelings of betrayal. In the case of Hillary Clinton’s erstwhile supporters, all of these feelings seem overwrought to me. But there is no point in arguing about this, or at least not now. Now is the time to just get over it.

But there is some good news (in my eyes): the possibility of a “dream ticket” (which I was once cool to) is very much alive.

I made a post about this some time ago. Since then Webb has taken himself out, so I’d replace him with Joe Biden.

So my picks (in order): Clinton, Sebelius, Richardson, Clark, Edwards, Biden.
I’d be very happy with any of these.

I also know that Kaine (Virginia governor) is in the mix as is Bayh.
Bayh bothers me mostly because that means that we would lose a Senate seat.

Post Swamp Dog Remarks (no athletic content)

Social: I went to Barns and Noble with my wife; I escaped with light damage: $2.91 (including tax) for a book on triathlon training.

I skimmed the religion section and noticed one of the titles: Believing in an Age of Skepticism I then noticed that there were two complete rows of Christian books, two of Christian fiction and one of Christian Inspiration. Then there was one, count them, one atheist title in the philosophy section (Christopher Hitchens).

Ok, there was one book that had a very interesting title: it was something to the effect that religious people should continue to be religious but shouldn’t “believe” any certain thing (a spiritual agnosticism?)

Still, you get my drift: we see books that talk about believers being isolated along with hundreds of books for those believers, with the other side barely mentioned at all. I suppose there is entertainment value in “being a victim?”

Politics Kind of a cutesy song (hat tip to Science Avenger)

Who will Obama’s Vice President be? Democrats are divided on who they would most like to see. One straw poll shows either Biden or Hillary Clinton (they are in a “play-off”). Another poll shows Clark, and still another picks Sebelius. I’ve seen one that favored Bill Richardson.
See a round up here.

Sweet poll between Obama and McCain? Here the polling is by which candy (Obama or McCain) is selected more often.

Right now McCain leads 791-549. I’m not sure as to what that means other than Republicans have more of a sweet tooth?

I’d be tempted to snark about Republicans being fat, but that isn’t always that case, and as these photos of Mike Huckabee show, they don’t always stay that way:

Governor Huckabee ran the Little Rock Marathon in a respectable 4:38 and has finished 3 others. He also wrote a book on weight loss.

You can get the book here (though I haven’t read it as yet)

Presidential races: The national polls are tightening a bit but Obama continues to do well in the electoral college; in fact he now has the lead in Missouri (and an “inside the margin of error” “lead” in Arizona!)

My guess: Obama’s lead in the blue states has shrunk a bit, and perhaps McCain has opened some margins in the red states.

But it is way too early to tell.

Stirring the pot: point, counter point on Jesse Jackson’s remarks about Obama.

Point: Jesse Jackson was not artful but had a valid point.

Now, everybody who’s anybody is coming down on Mr. Jackson and his hate of Mr. Obama. One black pundit made the comment that Mr. Obama’s sermon on black fathers must have hit a little close to Mr. Jackson’s home since he has his own child born out of wedlock. Somebody else made the comment that Mr. Jackson is simply jealous of Mr. Obama’s popularity or his ability to actually become the nation’s first black president when Jesse Jackson’s campaign fell insignificantly short. Other people made the comment that this is just more evidence of the dysfunctional nature of the black community and/or the Democratic Party. Even Mr. Jackson’s son has distanced himself from his father’s comments. But is anybody thinking that this is just the latest off the cuff opinion of a black man who happened to have been offended by another black man who made disparaging remarks about the black community? [...]

Ever since Mr. Obama made his infamous statements about the irresponsibility of black men and their lack of a commitment to their children, I have made it a point to notice all the black men in my black neighborhood who have taken responsibility for children in their lives. There was the black man who was walking through the alley holding a toddler’s hand. There was the black man carrying a bag of groceries in his left hand, holding a little girl’s hand with his right hand, while another slightly older girl skipped along behind them. There was the brother sitting at the bus stop with a baby in a stroller. In all these examples, it was a black man with a child or with children. But instead of these men being used to define the black experience, instead of the role of the black father being acknowledged, we prefer to focus our attention on the malfeasant.

It angers me to see the malfeasant that is the definition of black fathers on Father’s Day. It angers me that a former community organizer who happens to be black and should have an idea of the diversity of the black experience, is focused on the politically popular negative stereotypes of the black community while he panders to the wholesome image of the white community. And if it angers me, a black man who takes his responsibility to his black children, family, neighborhood, community, etcetera, it should not be too hard to imagine that it angers other black people as well. It should not be hard to imagine that it angers other black men such as Mr. Jackson.

Personally, I’m glad to see Mr. Jackson react strongly enough to make a suggestion, when he thought he was off camera, that he wanted to castrate Mr. Obama. Honestly, sometimes I feel like I would like to castrate him as well. But whether or not we agree with Mr. Jackson or not, instead of the black community supporting another black man caught on tape reacting to the negative image of black people promoted by the dominant community, we again turn away and utterly condemn another man who demonstrates a sincere concern of the black community. Mr. Jackson may have been vulgar and the vast majority of us would like to take him out back to the political tool shed.

Counter Point: Jackson is a disgrace.

Jackson has apologized and Obama has accepted his apology. So, it’s all behind us, and we can go merrily on our way. But, I, for one, am not ready to put it behind me. Jessie Jackson is a disgrace. He is a disgrace as a preacher. He is a disgrace as a husband. He is a disgrace as an American. He is a disgrace as a black man. This latest escapade simply accentuates what a disgrace he has always been.

As a Christian, how can he justify the things he has done over the past 3 decades? He has blackmailed multiple corporations for money based on his threats of legal action. He has made an idiot of himself with his racial slurs over the years. He has defended at least two black women who alleged they were attacked by white men only to be proven to be liars. But he never admitted any wrong doing. He is no more Christian than Joe Lieberman.

As a husband, he is still paying $3000 permonth in child support for the bastard child he fathered with an associated half his age. As an American, he has sided with every enemy of our country since Fidel Castro. As a nationally recognized leader of the black community, he has repeatedly set back MLK’s Dream of unity between the races with his racist rhetoric.

It is time for someone in the black community to stand up and publicly reject Jessie Jackson. It is time for him to fade away into the insignificance of obsolescence from an age of racism far past. It is time for new leadership to emerge among the black community. Leadership which promotes hope and optimism rather than racial hate and division.

Hey, no one can accuse me of not reading many different points of view!

Personally, I think that I can understand what is going on. Let me explain: I teach college mathematics. I know (better than most) that a student needs to study hard to learn the material. So, part of my job is to get the pinheads new students to do the work.

Now suppose the government is debating whether to, say, provide some funding for calculus students. During the debate, is it valid to say “hey, they aren’t studying anyway so the heck with providing funding?”

No, not in my opinion. It would be ok to make an individual’s funding contingent on their making a good enough grade to warrant it.

And, so it goes here: it is ok to do checks at the individual level to see if recipients of government programs (e. g. job training benefits) are doing their part, but is it really the job of someone in government to scold a group of people as a whole?

But on the other hand, I actually liked Obama’s speech; to me it was a “guy to guy” thing and it told me “hey YOU, because you are a father, are important in your kid’s life.” Yes, this was widely perceived as being directed at African American men, but I listened to it as if it were meant for me as well.

But I can see some African Americans saying “oh great, he is Sistah Souljah’ing us”.

For an interesting discussion on this, watch this Bill Moyers Journal episode. Here is a bit of the transcript:

Orlando Patterson

Orlando Patterson, a historical and cultural sociologist, is John Cowles Professor of Sociology at Harvard University. His academic interests include the culture and practice of freedom; the comparative study of slavery and ethno-racial relations; the sociology of underdevelopment with special reference to the Caribbean; and the problems of gender and familial relations in the black societies of the Americas. He is especially interested in the ways that cultural processes relate to poverty and other social outcomes. [...]

Glenn C. Loury is the Merton P. Stoltz Professor of the Social Sciences and Professor of Economics at Brown University. Professor Loury is a distinguished academic economist who has contributed to a variety of areas in applied microeconomic theory: welfare economics, game theory, industrial organization, natural resource economics, and the economics of income distribution. [...]

ORLANDO PATTERSON: Well, I agree with all of that. But there’s another side to it. There are two sides to it. black Americans face one enormous internal problem. And that’s the nature of their families. Historically we know the reason why black Americans, I mean are in the situation they’re in. It’s a fact that there are 270 years in which the primary focus of slavery was the destruction of the family. Whatever historians may say. And historians are quite deluded about this.

Then we have a long period in which this persisted. Now what I’m saying, then, is that we have to address not only the schools, but we also have to address and the state has a role here—this is where I differ from the conservatives radically- the state has a role in it. How can we help to fix the fragile state of black American families? And because, you know, I mean, with young kids, especially young boys you know, without growing up without fathers, in which welfare laws have made it essential that their mothers work. Sometimes two jobs.

They’re not being parented. And the streets, then, capture them. Gangs, we know now, every study on gangs have indicated that gangs have become a substitute for families, for parenting. And the gang leader is often a father substitute. We have to, and the state has a big role here, and we’re talking big bucks, in address directly how we can help these mothers who are doing a heroic job, but failing because they just don’t have the time. They’re just human.

In terms of our making provisions available from very early. I’m going back to infancy.

GLENN C. LOURY: When we talk about this- as when Senator Obama spoke about this on Father’s Day recently in his speech in Chicago on the family- when we talk about this we’re kind of doing a two pronged discourse. We’re talking about we, the American people, and we’re also talking about we, or them, the African-American people. We’re talking about what must we do as a polity, what should our laws be, what should our policies be? Nurses that come home with indigent mothers to help them learn how to take care of their children. Preschool programs so that kids, who otherwise aren’t getting the cognitive stimulation, have a chance to develop their young brains.

After school programs so that kids are not wandering the streets aimlessly and all the rest. Public policy. But then we’re also talking about moral judgment. About the sanction of unacceptable behavior. About cajoling. About identifying deadbeat dads and fathers who won’t take care. And then lecturing them that they ought to do better.

Now, I’m not against a lecture. But I don’t want the fact of the lecture to get in the way of the development of the program of public action, which is absolutely necessary to solving the problem. And the difficulty is that people are too satisfied with the lecture. They’re too satisfied to hear Bill Cosby or Barack Obama stand up and say what they’ve been wanting to say all these years about Black Fathers not taking care of their responsibilities. And then they’re done. And they ought not to be. [...]

Redstate Update weights in:

Mud Bath at Swamp Dog “10K” (preliminary report)

This is a preliminary race report; I’ll say more when results are posted.

I’ll put it this way: it took me 1:19 to “run” 10K. Do you want to know what is funny? I wasn’t even in last place!

Here it is another way: Adam White took 4′th place in the Steamboat 15K (hilly course, warm day) in 50:01. Today, it took him over 40 minutes to finish this so-called “10K”.

Note: I am NOT being critical of the race director or their volunteers; not at all. I can heartily recommend this event to people who are thinking about trying it next year. But one of the facts of trail running (or walking) is that distances are, well, at best, approximate. A 10K might be anywhere between 5.5 and 7.5 miles. My guess is that this one was, oh, 6.5-6.8 miles.

Some facts: the race is held at Jubilee State Park near Brimfield, Illinois (about 15-20 minutes west of Peoria on I-74 ) and is run 100% on trails. Most of it is single track; there is some grass and a few gravelly patches.

The fee gets you a nice race shirt, bottled water and a good meal (with salad) afterward.
They offer a 4K “walk or run” which starts on the same course and turns off early; this year the walkers/fun runners had a road course option.

There are awards (overall, Age Group) for the 10K runners.

My race: I started at the back of the pack and was almost all alone for the first 3-4 minutes or so. But we ran on this very muddy stretch; the mud was slick in places and downright shoe sucking in others. But this stretch didn’t last that long; at about 8-10 minutes it turning into a modestly muddy (but reasonable traction) single track.

I followed a group of people that I was soon to say good bye to; to be honest some just wanted to hang back with their buddies. Some when out too fast for the conditions and their conditioning. One ended up saying goodbye to me; we were even at 40 minutes into the run and she ended up finishing 4 minutes ahead of me. But she is a 22 minute 5K runner (roads) so I wasn’t offended.

There were many places where you could run on grass and, really, I enjoyed the first hour of this run. I did powerwalk a couple of the long uphills (and gained places there).

One funny incident: once after walking a hill, I started to run and some young woman yelled “you look like you are running”! Yes, I was attempting to run. People around here actually expect me to walk.

The last “in the woods” stretch seemed to go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on….you get the idea. I was sounding a bit like the soundtrack from The Exorcist here; it wasn’t especially muddy, but just when it appeared that we’d be going out of the woods, we’d loop back into yet another up and down.

My spirits got crushed about 1:03-1:05 into it; then I realized that we had that “muddy stretch from hell” to navigate yet again in order to finish.

People cheered for me when I finally made it out (because they knew that the last finishers must be nearing the end?) but I admit that I was rather dispirited. I was still “running” though, sort of.

The good news I has been along time since I put forth “curse level effort” in a running face, and where my finish time won’t reflect it, I have made progress.

Also, I saw some pretty cool people, including Dave Tapp (handed me some water), Michael Siltman (who is doing the Vermont 100 next weekend), and Bill Holmes.

I have little doubt that I got in a great workout (minimum of 8 miles, given my warm up and cool down) and have made yet more progress.

More rain and mud (and McCain trailing in Arizona? Sort of)

Interestingly enough, it has rained hard before 3 of my 4 trail races, including today. My wife is wimping out (yeah, it is a mess out there) but I’ll pick up shirts and do my own thing.

Time: slow, slow, slow and more slow, provided the electrical storm passes. If it doesn’t, hello: Mr. Treadmill.

I can’t leave without one a few political statements:

1. John McCain: losing Arizona?

PHOENIX — In a sign of continued weakness in his home state, an online poll shows Sen. John McCain trailing Sen. Barack Obama by 3-percentage points in Arizona. The poll also shows the candidacy of Liberterian Bob Barr is having a significant impact on McCain’s campaign by siphoning off conservative voters nationwide.

The Arizona poll was part of nationwide Zogby International poll that put Obama ahead in total electoral votes with 273 to 160 for McCain. The poll found 11 states with 105 electoral votes too close to call — including Arizona. McCain’s campaign in June included Arizona among its list of swing states.

Ok, it is a Zogby poll and the three points is within the statistical margin of error, and frankly this one won’t hold up anyway. But it is sure as heck funny.

2. Local bloggers are noticing that IL-18 is now a race. Ok, this particular blogger told me some time ago that this race was not a done deal.

To be sure, Schock is still the favorite, but Callahan is making things interesting. If nothing else, making the Republicans run hard in what should be a safe district for them will divert their funds from other areas.