U.S.A! U.S.A! -- A Great Party and a Great Speech

What an amazing night. The first results here in Germany came in at about midnight, but the festivities kicked off much earlier at the law school.

In collaboration with the U.S. Consulate in Hamburg, Bucerius Law School hosted a massive election party that Vanity Fair listed as one of the best places in Germany to watch the election.

Starting at about 7:00 p.m. there were videos, lectures on American politics, bands, and several television stations broadcasting various panel discussions live. Attendees were offered a selection of fine American cuisine: hot dogs, hamburgers, freedom fries, and Jack Daniels. American flags were EVERYWHERE.

It was kind of a big deal.

The crowd of around 2000 even had to pass through metal detectors to get in. (You know, because whenever you get to many Americans together, guns can’t be too far behind. . .).

The Germans loved Obama. I had heard recently that about 80% of Germans supported Obama. After last night I feel that number may be closer to 98%. Signs, t-shirts, buttons-- everyone was completely outfitted with the latest Obama fashion. It was almost creepily uniform for what was ostensibly a bipartisan event.

Earlier that evening, one of the news reporters bouncing around the halls of the school had asked me (in considerately slow German) if I had spoken to anyone who was voting for McCain.

“Nein,” I replied. She moved down the line with the same question and the others replied that they hadn’t either.

“No McCain supporters?” I thought. That was a bit much. I actually began to feel a bit sorry for him.

So I ended up wearing both an Obama button and a McCain button (Obama button slightly higher) in an attempt to be diplomatic and inclusive.

When people asked me what the hell I was doing, which happened incredibly frequently, I responded that I was an Obama supporter, but that I was practicing a “new kind” of politics.

Ha!

This was half joke and half real. Half joke because I’d love a filibuster proof Senate as much as anyone, and half real because I really was trying to give a polite nod to bipartisanship and cooperation.

We were getting dangerously close to becoming hundreds of group-thinkers, congratulating ourselves endlessly on our superior judgment and gloating about the utter domination that was about to take place. That tends to be a little alienating.

That’s why I loved the tone of Obama’s victory speech.

Howard Dean “Yee Haw!” it was not.

I thought about the worst thing that Obama could have done was to frame this election as the climactic end of a long struggle. Thankfully, he did the exact opposite.

Though his supporters were ecstatic and crying and drinking, he was sober (both meanings I think) and restrained and purposeful. While we were off giving high fives to this awesomely magical future paradise, he was reminding us that this kick-ass future we are imagining has yet to be created. George Bush might talk a lot about resolve, but last night Obama seemed to be the personification of it.

Plus he gave his daughters a puppy, which I thought that was a pretty cool and touching moment.

So here’s to a great speech that reminded us of the work that lies ahead. And here’s to a great night of American Democracy in action. And Here’s to gift-puppies, and to Obama, and most importantly, here’s to us—the engaged and committed electorate that will INSIST upon a better future. What the hell, why don't we just go ahead and start with health care?

As a wise man once said really, really recently:

"This victory alone is not the change we seek -- it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you."

--Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States of America

A Poet and Don't Even Know It

This article is awesome.

Hart Seely from Slate went through three Sarah Palin interviews, pulled a few statements verbatim from them, lumped them into stanzas and then called them poetry.

The concept seems pretty straight-forward, but the results are beautiful.

Keep in mind, this isn't just a cheap shot at Palin for not being the most informed or clear candidate. I think this same process could probably produce amazing results for any politician (or any person for that matter). But I do think that Sarah Palin has the ability to be a really prolific poet if she keeps at it.

Here is one of my favorites. Especially note the deft use of repetition in the first stanza and the intentional ambiguity of the last line.

Absolutely brilliant.

"Outside"

I am a Washington outsider.
I mean,
Look at where you are.
I'm a Washington outsider.

I do not have those allegiances
To the power brokers,
To the lobbyists.
We need someone like that.

(To C. Gibson, ABC News, Sept. 11, 2008)

Check out the article for more great hits like "On Good and Evil" and "Befoulers of the Verbiage."

The Presidential Debates: A Modest Proposal

Here’s a little secret:

I’ve never been a huge fan of watching the Presidential debates.

I do it, but I'm not always happy about it. I find them to be, by and large, unsatisfying. A bit like eating empty calories or staying at the bar too long.

I wasn’t always this way. When I was younger I kind of romanticized them as some super important civic duty that all intelligent adults participated in. All the adults would watch the debates, judiciously weigh the merits of the arguments, and then cast their ballots for the candidate most fit for the job.

What a bunch of mature, democratic participants they all were. I couldn’t wait.

But now that I’m all grown-up, I know (like most people) that the debates are mostly bullshit. They’re two candidates bandying about worn-down-to-the-nub talking points for a bunch of people who have already made up their minds who they’re voting for. If all goes well, the candidate you are cheering against will make some sort of horribly embarrassing linguistic misstep and the candidate that you are cheering for will make the audience laugh.

Don’t get me wrong, the debates aren’t all bad. In fact, some of the weaknesses of the whole production also produce some of its strengths.

You know how we always have a graph to see if the audience is reacting positively or negatively to a candidate? That’s great. I love that kind of stuff. We find out all sorts of sociological stuff about how an audience reacts to speeches. Or at least how they say they react. Or, at the very least, how they think the should be reacting.

We're also able, luckily, to find out all sorts of things about the candidates themselves. Like if they’re attractive or sweat a lot on stage or speak with a funny voice.

Which is fine. We’re not really there to break down a wide range of complex policy issues in a couple hours. If that's what you’re about then roll up your sleeves, go to the internet and start doing your research.

But debates aren’t for that. Debates are, for better or worse, all about rhetorical ability, eloquence, stage presence, facility with language, likeability, tone, and, most importantly, the ability to make quasi-factual policy arguments that most of us have already heard a number of times before in past presidential debates.

Let me reiterate. I’m not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. Given the relatively negligible policy differences between the Democrats, it’s for exactly some of these reasons (attractiveness, eloquence, je ne sais quoi, etc.) that I supported Barack Obama in the caucuses. Since the American people eat this stuff up, I felt like he was probably the best positioned of the lot to implement a left-of-center platform.

And, of course, the pageantry part of the race is actually quite fun to hash and re-hash. Who looked more presidential? Who seemed overly aggressive? Overly-passive? Who shouldn’t have answered question #1 so quickly but should have definitely taken a respectful little pause before launching so quickly into #2? Who got more laughs from the crowd? Who was more comfortable?

If you don’t have answers to any of these questions yet, don’t worry. You’ll have them formed for you as you watch the next two days coverage of every national news outlet in the country.

Although some of the qualities listed above may be important for evaluating such things as consensus building and diplomacy, many of them are not of critical importance for evaluating the merits of the different policy positions of a specific candidate.

So, as we arrive at the day of the first presidential debate of the year -- one that may or may not take place-- I’ve been thinking: is there a way we can evaluate all of these qualities in a more creative and viewer friendly way?

Which leads me to my idea.

If the debates really are all about things like quick-wittedness and poise (they are), why not strip the whole charade of its faux-gravitas and make it more transparent. Let’s make them debate something completely inconsequential.

Like a favorite color.

Here’s how this would work:

Jim Lehrer:

“Colors are a very important part of American History. They bring life to our films, make our surroundings more livable, and allow for ambiguity in a political environment which, as we are learning more every year, is not so black and white. Which brings me to the first question of the night. . .(dramatic pause)

Which color do you prefer: green or orange? And why?

Senator Obama, you have one minute to respond.

Obama:

Jim, first of all thank you for moderating this historic debate and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to the American people about the important issues that we’ll have to face in the future (audience experiences first feelings of self-importance. Audience poll approval up 2%).

Now let me begin by saying this: I understand that there are many, many supporters of orange out there in the audience tonight and also across our great country. Orange has played a vital role in how we understand ourselves. It is the sun in our sky that brings warmth to this earth, the basketball on the court where our children play, the citrus crop that grow in fields across our great nation. . . especially Florida (mild laughter).

That being said, I choose green. And no, it’s not because I want you to vote green (more mild laughter from audience). That gave us the last 8 years (wild clapping at Bush-slam, audience approval up 2%). And it’s not because, as my opponent wants you to believe, that I myself am a little green (cocksure grin, laughter). Because, as I’ve said before, I’ll have the experience debate with anyone.

It’s because green is the color of growth. Green is money. It’s using that money to build an economy that works for everyone. Green is sustainable growth and an energy policy that doesn’t rely on archaic, fossil fuel technology.

Jim: Mr. Obama, you’re time is. . .

Obama: Just a second Jim, it’s an important point I’m making here about colors. And I think it’s important for the American people too. The American people know that I respect orange and realize that orange has many contributions to make. Orange certainly gets a seat at the table, no doubt about that. But green is my choice. And I ask you this to conclude: have you ever seen any growth without a little bit of green at the root? (Audience approval up 2% for confusing, money-growth-environment tie-in on the fly).

Jim: Senator McCain, you have 30 seconds.

McCain:

Frankly Jim, I was raised thinking the most important colors in this country are red, white, and blue (pause for audience laughter, wild applause, admiration, and an 8% increase in audience poll approval). And while I appreciate the question, I’m just not willing to believe that green and orange are the only two options.

And that might not be what the people want to hear, but, I’m sorry to break it to everyone, the President of the United States isn’t always going to be able to tell the people what they want to hear (audience approval rating plunges 12%).

Jim: Mr. Obama, a 15 second rebuttal.

Obama:

I’m sorry Jim, but this is politics as usual, implying that because I didn’t mention red, white and blue that I’m somehow not as patriotic. Enough is enough. Mr. McCain’s refusal to answer the question outright I think exhibits a sheer unwillingness to face the real problems that our country is facing. We don’t always get to answer the questions we WANT to; sometimes, we have to answer the questions that we HAVE to. (Audience appreciation and corresponding 4% rise in audience approval rating, all of whom are fickle idiots).

So that’s how it would work. Pretty cool right?

And you know what’s so great about this type of format?

We'd still discover all sorts of things about the candidates’ attractiveness, poise, sense of humor, public speaking ability, and ability to form arguments. We could evaluate it all. And at least we’d be honest to ourselves about the bullshit that we’re evaluating.

Of course, variations of this format could go on ad infinitum. The next debate could be the “Would you rather debate?” (E.g. --Senator McCain, would you rather be Spiderman or Superman? And Why?)

And the one after that could be the Rorschach inkblot debate (“Right-side-up it kind of looks like Hope, but upside-down it looks more like Change”).

But I’ll let CNN work out the details.

Unless they think this whole idea is just a bunch of bullshit.

Which, of course, is exactly what it is.

A Fitting Metaphor for Obama's Candidacy

I have a friend who happens to be very good at basketball. The other day he joined his workplace basketball team and played his first game with them. He shot around 7-8 from three point land and scored around 30 points in the game. He said the next day at work, and every subsequent day, his coworkers were unusually warm and friendly to him. They offered him praise, told him jokes, and showered him in smiles and compliments. Of course, he attributes this to the fact that his coworkers were now aware of his athletic prowess.

We both noted that it was odd that the world worked like this.

This is exactly what I was thinking when I ran into this Obama video over on John Deeth's blog. A lot of people have probably already seen this clip, but it was new to me so I wanted to pass it on. McCain's a good guy, but you almost start feeling sorry for him when you see stuff like this. Obama is scary good.

Especially note the soldiers' unbridled enthusiasm for the man who could be their next commander-in-chief.

Let the Fun Begin: Barack Obama vs. John McCain

With the prelims out of the way, it´s time to get ready for the main event and decide who will lead us into the next decade.

In a superficial sort of way, I really like Obama´s chances.

And Then There Were Two

I'm aware that this story is a little dated, but I thought that it was noteworthy that, after Bruce Braley (UI Law alum) endorsed Obama several days ago, there are now only two Iowa superdelegates left to make a decision.

According to Congresspedia, the score is currently 6-3. Here's the breakdown:

Obama: Congressman Dave Loebsack, Congressman Bruce Braley, Governor Chet Culver, Treasurer Michael Fitzgerald, DNC Member Richard Machacek, Deputy Chair of the Iowa Democratic Party Sarah Swisher

Clinton: Congressman Leonard Boswell, Iowa Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal, DNC member Sandy Opstvedt

Undecided: Senator Tom Harkin, Iowa Democratic Party Chair Scott Brennan.

And Another Fun fact from Congresspedia I stumbled upon:

Obama has contributed $10,000 to Tom Harkin's campaign in an effort to woo him, while Clinton has donated a measly $25.

Twenty five dollars!? Is she Harkin's grandma?

"Hey Tom, here's 16 bucks I collected from some of my staff. A couple of the fives are soggy but if you lay them out to dry they should be all right. Anyway, hope everything's ok. Vote Hillary!"

This is getting embarrassing.

Obama Firewall Resistant

Just sitting at the library studying, but the Mississippi results are rolling in and I wanted to do a quick numbers breakdown.

Here are the numbers from the march 4th Ohio/TX/RI/VT primary night that Hillary won big and got ALL THAT MOMENTUM.

OH--

Hillary 76, Obama 69: Hillary +7

RI--

Hillary 19, Obama 10: Hillary + 9

TX (primary)--

Hillary 77, Obama 71: Hillary + 6

VT

Hillary 7, Obama 14: Hillary - 7

TX (caucus)

Hillary 29, Obama 38: Hillary -9

Final result of Hillary's March 4th Super Tuesday (the sequel) Huge Momentum Shifting Night Where She Won Big: 7 + 9 + 6 -7 -9 = 6 delegates (net).

Tongiht in Mississippi, with 92% of precincts reporting, CNN estimates that Obama will take 20 and Hillary will take 11 delegates to net Obama 9 more delegates. This is a full 3/2 what Hillary received on her "huge" night.

Oh, and throw in the 4 he got from Wyoming the other night and he doubled Clinton's victory with MS and WY alone.

Firewall indeed.

Mitt Romney Makes Me Laugh

Just in case you missed this on the Daily Show last night:

SUCCESS!!

Still waiting on my laptop, so this is pretty dated. Nonetheless, I wanted to sound-off on my caucus experience.

On a macro-level:

Looks like Edwards dominated in the South, winning a block of around 17 counties, including Jasper, where his former Maytag employee ads seemed to have an impact.

Hillary was incredibly successful in North Central Iowa and the West.

Obama dominated in Eastern Iowa and most of Central Iowa, including Polk, Story, Dallas, Marshal, Hardin, Grundy and many others. In Johnson County, where he won by the largest margin, he received over 50% of the vote.

Here's the Register's map for a look.

On a micro-level:

My caucus (IC precinct 3) had 208 people show up, which seemed like a lot, but I have since been informed that it was slightly less than four years ago. Though the majority of precincts saw an increase in turnout, the fact that the caucuses had been moved up to January 3rd prevented a lot of students from turning out in the dorm centered precincts.

After the first alignment, the O-Bomb was the only viable candidate, with both Richardson and Edwards just a few shy of the 32 necessary for viability.

After the reshuffling, both Richardson and Edwards attained viability. For Richardson, it was thanks in large part to the pregame speech and caucus-time wheeling and dealing of law professor Nick Johnson, whose blog is blog-rolled on Cornucopia's homepage. History professor Shelton Stromquist ably represented Edward's interests. He outlined his commitment to labor and universal health coverage, including a shout-out to Kucinich supporters that I believe won Edwards some second choice supporters that night.

As for Obama, the staffers and volunteers were running around madly, hopping on tables and issuing instructions, trying to make sure that their people weren't picked off. Every once in a while you would hear a cheer erupt from the Edwards or Richardson camps when an Obama supporter would have a change of heart. By and large, however, the Obama people stayed strong, ending with around 109 people caucusing for him. The final tally was Obama: 3 delegates, Richardson 2 delegates, Edwards 1 delegate. I'm not sure what the final equation looked like, but I feel like it must have been fairly close to Obama having a fourth delegate.

When Hillary's numbers were read and it was evident that she would not be viable, Obama supporters cheered (jeered?) the announcement with what I considered to be just a little too much enthusiasm. I overheard a couple of women say something to the effect of "I'm definitely NOT going to Obama."

So that was probably a bit of misplaced energy, but probably not all that determinative of where her supporters were going to go. If I'm a Hillary supporter, the absolute LAST place I go is to the Obama side, even if the Obamians hadn't taken pleasure in my downfall.

As expected, the caucus was followed by revelry. First at Joe's Place, where I drank heavily, won $15 playing darts, and watched the results roll in. And later at the Picador, where I danced my ass off and wished, like always, that I could break dance.

On to New Hampshire.

Gobama!

Here Come the Reinforcements!

On January 1st, Dennis Kucinich encouraged his supporters to cacucus for Barack Obama as a second choice.

Today, Iowa Independent reports that Bill Richardson's campaign is doing the same thing, and asking their field organizers to direct Richardson supporters to Obama's camp should they fail to reach the 15% viability threshold. Richardson's national campaign has denied this strategy, but it sounds unconvincing. It's well known that such strategies exist, and in this case it also makes sense for the Richardson campaign to support a strong Obama finish.

Why? A Clinton victory ends it for everyone, so he can't direct them to her. However, Richardson can't support 3rd place Edwards either, because strong numbers for Edwards will make him look like a distant fourth. Process of elimination, they've got to go Obama. If Obama wins and Richardson finishes a strong fourth just behind Edwards or Clinton, Richardson's camp will be happy.

On behalf of the Obama campaign we are thankful for the generous charity offered up by both Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kucinich.

The Case for Obama

It is caucus day and I am supporting Barack Obama for President of the United States. The Iowa Caucuses exist so that citizens can stand in front of their fellow voter and explain who they support and why.

In recognition of this spirit of open and informed voting, I humbly present you with exactly 18 reasons why I am supporting Barack Obama.

1. The War

As far as I can tell this represents the largest difference between Senator Obama and, my second choice, John Edwards. Though the two share largely similar views on the issue now, back in 2002, when it was important, they did not.

While Barack Obama stood up and gave an eloquent speech outlining his reservations concerning such a serious undertaking, Edwards bought into the administrations rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. In fact, out of all the candidates from four years ago--Kerry, Kucinich, Dean, Edwards, etc-- Edwards was the one who in 2002 most voiciferously (in relative terms) supported the war. Let's not forget that Edwards was, along with Joseph Lieberman, a co-sponsor of a 2002 war authorization bill.

On the other hand, here is a transcript of the speech that Obama delivered before the war.

Here is a nugget if you're short on time:

“I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of
undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.”

Pretty strong stuff. There are a lot of people out there, not just Democrats, but Independents and yes, even Republicans who are yearning to hear something like that. A lot of them were probably yearning to hear it back in 2002. And it won’t be just the primary voters who will reward him for his spine and foresight, but voters in the general election too.

The voters are going to be showered with all sorts of gruesome casualty statistics throughout the campaign season. There is no question that bringing the troops home and ending the war will be priority number one. The people are jaded and regretful and skeptical of their leaders. Who are they going to trust? A candidate who voted to authorize the war and now rails against it? Didn’t seem to work in 2004. They’re going to trust someone like Obama who was eloquently outlining its dangers months before it was launched and now has the moral authority to criticize without seeming like an opportunistic politician.

2. He’s Young

Hillary and Richardson are both around 60. Edwards, for all his boyish charm, is actually 54, and rounding out the list is Obama, who is a mere 45 years old.

But, you say, youth equals inexperience which equals disaster right? Wrong. Obama’s youth signals something new: vitality, spirit, innovation, and frankly, whatever the hell people want it to signify.

Every year we come out with polls saying that a small percentage of the general population support gay marriage but a comparatively larger percentage of people aged 15-25 do. Or that a small percentage of the general population believes we should reconsider our waging of the war on drugs, but again, a comparatively larger percentage of our youth do. It seems clear to me that the youth of our nation are often more susceptible to rational assessment of our nation’s problems than other segments of our population. A younger candidate is what the youth vote is looking for: a tolerant newcomer who is willing to take a fresh look at the way we manage our country. Finally, will give a population that is notorious for not voting a reason to vote.

3. He’s handsome

This cannot be overstated. Barack Obama is probably the most handsome candidate in the field (somewhere, John Edwards is shedding silent tears). He’s Kennedy handsome. Let’s get real, Kerry’s cragginess was a little bit off-putting, and he always seemed a little bit awkward.

Everyone always cites the famous Nixon-Kennedy debate as incontrovertible proof that being handsome and healthy wins votes. Nixon was haggard and sickly, Kennedy was confident, fresh and tanned. Well, in 2008 Obama is going to be confident, fresh, and much more tanned than Kennedy.

I’m pretty sure one of my best friends just bought a perfume because there was an attractive female selling it. Does anyone seriously think that we’ve gotten less susceptible to sex appeal in advertising since the 60’s?

4. He’s charismatic

A story I came across recently went like this:

National Journal White House reporter Alexis Simendinger recalls the first time Obama visited the White House after his election. He was mingling in the East Room with other members of Congress. As she watched him move through the crowd, a photographer asked, “Who is that guy? He’s certainly got ‘It.’ ”

This is probably the most oft-cited reason for Obama’s rise to prominence in the Democratic Party and easily one of his most powerful attributes.

Remember when everyone was talking about how people thought Kerry was smarter but people would rather have a beer with George Bush? Wouldn’t it be great if we had a presidential candidate who was smarter and you would rather have a beer with him?

Has anyone heard about the speech he gave to an anti-abortion congregation at Rick Warren’s Evangelical Church on Dec. 28, 2006 (WorldAIDS Day)? Though critics bayed loudly at the pro-choice candidate being allowed to speak during their Global Aids Summit, the audience wound up giving him a standing ovation. Let me repeat that: a standing freakin’ ovation. Not only can Barack Obama charm the socks off of an evangelical preacher, but he would beat the pants off of a Mormon flip-flopper (leaving him standing only in his secret underwear). Bring it on Romney.

Which brings us to . . .

5. His Faith

True, all of the candidates are Christians. If they weren’t they wouldn’t be running. (Atheists run just below pedophiles in who Americans wouldn’t vote for president).

But I find that, in contrast to the other candidates, the way in which Obama speaks about his faith is actually quite inspiring. Not only did he get that standing ovation from the folks at Warren’s church, but he had another little speech in Washington on June 28 of 2006 that the Washington Post claimed might be “be the most important pronouncement by a Democrat on faith and politics since John F. Kennedy's Houston speech in 1960 declaring his independence from the Vatican. . .(E.J. Dionne Jr., Washington Post Op-Ed, June 30, 2006)

In the speech, Obama claimed that "Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts. You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it."

A religious politician talking about a concept like doubt. Now that is innovative.

And check out this nice little ditty about the need for separation between church and state:
In a direct challenge to "conservative leaders," he argued that "they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice."

"Folks tend to forget," he continued, "that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment," but "persecuted minorities" such as Baptists "who didn't want the established churches to impose their views."

I love it how Obama ups the ante a little bit. Not only is he, a pro-choice Democrat waltzing brazenly into their most sacred confines, buddying it up with their purposeful-life driven savior Rick Warren, and eliciting standing ovations, but he’s trying to convince the congregations to start lobbying for one of the most important principles of the liberal philosophy.

Some final words from the Senator about his faith: "And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope."

6. He’s Intelligent

He was the first ever minority to take the helm at the Harvard Law Review. Not too shabby.

Renowned constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe called him “the most all-around impressive student I had seen in decades."

Not too shabby again. Right now we have a president who makes jokes at commencement ceremonies about his poor grades. With scores of people now dead in Iraq and an administration marked by incompetence and nepotism, I think America is probably just about ready who takes his own cultivation and enlightenment a little more seriously.

7. He’s A Great Orator

You always got the sense that Kerry was talking at people, not to people. Obama is respectful and friendly, like he’s learning something from you as he answers the questions.
The man’s speech at the Democratic convention was so good the man earned a Grammy. A Grammy. I have friends that were moved to tears by that speech.

8. He’s cool

This might be kind of like charismatic, but I think it’s a little different. Charismatic is a kind of natural quality that makes people like you. Coolness is a quality that makes people want to be like you. Remember when Top Gun came out and the Air Force saw a huge spike in enrollment in the years that followed? That’s Obama. The phrase that I’ve been hearing quite a bit is “cerebrally cool.” Instead of enrolling in the Air Force, today’s kids are going to start following current events and playing fantasy congress online. That’s how cool Obama is. No wonder Hollywood is all over him.

9. He’s a mandate for change

More than any other candidate in the field, Obama will represent a mandate for change. I’ve heard it argued that Hillary would also represent a mandate for change. The argument is that being our first woman president would signal new things to come. I don’t think so. If she wasn’t Hillary Clinton maybe. Clinton takes the stage, that means possibly 28 years of Bush/Clinton dynasty. That’s not change, that’s a regression to monarchy. That’s business as usual.
A smart young man of mixed racial heritage is a symbol of the direction in which we want our country to move.

10. He’s a Symbol of the American dream

For people who love good melting-pot/rags-to-riches/equal opportunity stories about the American experience, you can't get much better than Obama. This man represents the immigrant experience, the black experience, and the white experience. He is a Harvard law graduate and a community organizer. He represents the America that we all know is possible.

11. He wins

A mere four years ago he was a state senator. People counted him out when he tried to run for U.S. Senate. He won with something like 70% of the popular vote. As I understand it, it was the highest return ever for a statewide office in Illinois.

12. He’s International and his middle name is Hussein

Yes, I really am pushing this as a selling point. We’ve alienated about the entire world, insisted that there is an axis of evil, raged against Muslim terrorism (causing even 7% of American muslims to sympathize with the cause of Al-Queda), what better path to reconciliation than putting up a guy who middle name is Hussein. The perfect fit.

If it was his last name, maybe it wouldn't have worked so well, that's the topic for another post. But middle name. . . perfecto. Plus, the American people aren’t stupid. The majority now believe that what we have done in Iraq is wrong. They also hear, every day how our liberties are at risk from Muslim extremists. If they start trying to drag Obama through the mud for his middle name, mark my words. . . it’s going to backfire. The one good thing about wartime is that the electorate does start paying a little more attention to political machinations. I think that we are a more savvy electorate than four years ago. People have heard about the swift boat character torpedoes ad nausem and now they’re ready for them.

As Andrew Sullivan noted: "Electing a half-African president, with Hussein as a middle name, who attended school in a Muslim country: it's almost a p.r. agent's dream for America. It would instantly give this country a fresh start in the world after the disaster of the Bush-Cheney years. "

13. He can raise money

Remember when Hillary raised 26 million, with her fundraising machinery in place and everyone was astounded. Well that was great, until newcomer Barack Obama raised 25 million, with smaller contributions.

14. He’s got endorsements

The Des Moines Register may have seriously dropped the ball with the Hillary endorsement, but other newspapers across the state are proving much more Obama friendly. As of now, Obama leads the newspaper endorsement race 9-4-3-2 (Obama, Clinton, Biden, Edwards). Here is rundown over at John Deeth's page.

Obama also, as of about a week ago, had more Iowa legislators endorsing him (20) than any other candidate. This is amazing for two reasons. One, The Clinton's enlisted the help of Tom Vilsack for exactly this type of thing. Two, Edwards had a preexisiting strucutre here from 4 years ago and has been campaigning in the state for around 5 years now.

Just recently, however, Clinton moved back into the lead of the legislator's race, picking up a couple endorsements over the last week. That leaves Hillary with 21 and Obama with 20. Edwards, for all his work, has only 11. Again, John Deeth with the details (Deethtails?).

He's also got more Hollywood cache than anyone out there and appears to be getting a lot of other support from prominent activists/politicians. Here's a little potpourri o his support which is by no means exhaustive:

Tom Dashcle

Hollywood moguls Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen

Jesse Jackson

Quentin Tarantino

Al Gore film producer Lawrence Bender
Eddie Murphy

Iowa’s Attorney General Tom Miller

State Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald
George Clooney calls him a friend (I don't know if this is an endorsement).

Halle Berry has said she would "collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear". George Soros

Oprah Winfrey

Cornell West

Congressman Dave Loebsack

15. He’s got amazing Political Slogan/bumper sticker potential

Barack the vote.
Barack and roll.
Barack the boat.

16. He’s used Drugs

Yes, once again I think this is an advantageous thing for Barack’s campaign. In his book he claimed that he had smoked marijuana and taken cocaine. "I had learned not to care," he wrote. "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it."

He refers to it as blow. That’s how cool he is. I honestly don’t even know what blow is.
We’ll have had a former pot-smoking president in Clinton, a former drunk-driving president in Bush, and now a former coke-sniffing president in Obama. Hopefully, this will help people understand that our drug laws are a little bit absurd. This goes back to the youth argument.

17. He’s Black

Our first black president. A mandate for change. A new face to the world. A new chapter in our nation's history.

18. He Can Get Voters to Vote

I think that people who don't normally vote in general elections will vote for Barack Obama. This argument is a little suspect because it's the same one that Howard Dean used in 2004. However, I think it's true. The disenfranchised, the cynical, the jaded, are all waiting for some kind of candidate to excite and inspire them. If we're looking for a real sea change in modern American politics, the kind of change that will finally get lazy Americans off their asses and get to the polling booths and start participating in a grassroots kind of way in the creation of new policy and direction for this country, Barack Obama is the man to do it.

Let's get ready to Barack and Roll--

Nick Gregory, a participant in the Iowa Caucuses of 2007.

Michael Jordan Endorses Barack Obama!

First Oprah Winfrey, then Cornell West, and now, finally, Michael "Mike" Jordan from Chicago is officially on board too.

It's true. Insurance agent Mike Jordan from Richton Park, Illinois, has quietly been pounding the pavement every weekend in Cedar Rapids in an effort to drum up support for his friend Barack Obama.

Read about it here in USA Today.

Full Disclosure: The Mike Jordan referred to in the story is the cousin of a faithful reader of Cornucopia, the Horn of Plenty. He is also, now, a friend of this blog. Cornucopia thanks him for all of his selfless efforts in Cedar Rapids and wishes him luck in his future endeavors.

Loebsack Breaks for Obama

It looks like the Iowa delegation in Washington is hedging its bets. Here's the story in the Register about Loebsack's Obama endorsement. Go Eastern Iowa.

Here's how the endorsements break down. In retrospect, it couldn't have happened any other way:

1. Centrist/conservative, experienced, uninspiring Leonard Boswell endorses centrist/conservative, "experienced," uninspiring Hillary Clinton

2. Fresh, inspiring, ballsy, trial lawyer from rural America Bruce Braley endorses fresh, inspiring, ballsy trial lawyer John Edwards from rural North Carolina.

3. Polite, soft-spoken, rookie U.S. Representative and former college professor from the midwest Dave Loebsack endorses polite, soft-spoken rookie U.S. Senator and former college professor from the midwest Barack Obama.

Register Screws Up

Hillary? Really?

Yes, it's true. The Des Moines Register just endorsed Hillary Clinton (and John McCain) for the Iowa Caucus.

What a waste.

Four years ago at least they knew to go with a surging candidate in Edwards. This year they've just boarded a rapidly sinking ship.

Who Does Not NOT Like Mike?

I often find it mildly embarrassing when there are no posts of any interest in between my weekly dart posts. Seeing as tonight is Monday night, I'll need to act fast to avoid this result. That's why I've decided to make a quick post tonight about. . .

Mike Huckabee.

Out of all of the Republican nominees, I've decided that Mike Huckabee is the one that I fear the most. He's good-natured, he's quick, he's really funny, he's skinny now, he's handsome, he's got executive experience, he's got a rock band, and he's extremely non-threatening when he talks about his radical religious beliefs.

He's also been a governor from a right-leaning state in the South (quasi South?) a fact that has proved helpful in exactly 4 of the last 4 elections.

And that's not all. In every poll that I've seen (one) that asks voters who they would "not NOT vote for," he's number out of all the candidates. That means that nobody really doesn't like him. That's for all the candidates, Democrats and Republicans alike. In politics, what more can you ask for? Somebody like Hillary is at a huge disadvantage because around 49% of the people in the nation say they would never vote for her. This is a statistic (even if I'm embellishing) that Clinton's supporters refuse to acknowledge.

But back to Huckabee. Considering all of these super-great things about Mike Huckabee, I find it not at all surprising that he's streaking to the front of the pack in Iowa. I just saw on Keith Olbermann he was sitting at about 32% in Iowa, well above his closest competitor. I also saw on Keith Olbermann that back about 15 years ago (1992, about the same year that Magic Johnson came out as HIV positive) that Mr. Huckabee seemed to be miffed as to why we weren't "isolating" people who were HIV positive. He used the word plague. When asked about this he claimed he didn't know how the diseases spread back then. Which is odd, because any 12 year old kid knew incredibly well how the disease was transmitted. Ryan White anyone?

So it wasn't to surprising today when I stumbled upon this article from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette (billed as Arkansas' Largest Newspaper!). In case you don't have time to read it all, here are a couple great lines from the speech that Huckabee recently gave to an audience of Baptist pastors:

"The reason we have so much government is because we have so much broken humanity," he said. "And the reason we have so much broken humanity is because sin reigns in the hearts and lives of human beings instead of the Savior."

"Government knows it does not have the answer, but it's arrogant and acts as though it does," Huckabee said. "Church does have the answer but will cowardly deny that it does and wonder when the world will be changed."

Now I'm all for pandering, but this is getting kind of creepy. Government doesn't have the answer but Church does? If we were watching this same speech coming from an Imam in Afghanistan we'd probably find it frightening. We'd wonder why things are so different over there from over here, where the separation of church and state is so firmly established.

So why don't we find it frightening when we hear one of our candidates speaking like this? I think the answer is pretty simple: he's funny, he's quick, he's handsome, and he seems non-threatening.

Which makes me all the more scared.

Grassley Goes After Dodgy Prosperity Preachers

I missed this story when it first came out but was extremely pleased to find it while flipping through a Time magazine tonight. As faithful readers are aware, Cornucopia, The Horn of Plenty has long been both suspicious of and hostile to those unsavory characters known popularly as the "prosperity preachers." The idea that a shady, manipulative preacher can build gold houses, fly a private jet, and by some quirk of the system still qualify for a tax-exempt status strikes me as odd. Now I realize that there's actually a pretty good reason that it seems odd: it's probably illegal.

As of now, Republican Iowa Senator Charles Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Finance, has simply sent out some courteous little letters requesting tax and real estate records. But as the article in Time states, "the Senator has mused that the replies could lead to testimony under oath."

I have never been more proud of Senator Grassley than I am right now. Grassley explains himself below.

Audaciously Hopeful

Just got done reading two separate items. The first, from my property textbook, was long and boring and related to the economics of rent control.

The second, from the Atlantic, was a compelling argument and epic endorsement for Barack Obama written by Andrew Sullivan.

If you've got about 20 minutes, feel free to read the full piece here.

Otherwise, here's the summary:

America is deathly ill. It has been so for quite some time and it's mostly on account of the violently hostile political divide that those oft-bickering baby boomers have left as their most unwelcome legacy. According to Andrew Sullivan, there's really only one possible treatment, and at this stage it's only experimental: Barack Obama. Here's a paragraph that I found particularly illustrative of his point--

"To be black and white, to have belonged to a nonreligious home and a Christian church, to have attended a majority-Muslim school in Indonesia and a black church in urban Chicago, to be more than one thing and sometimes not fully anything—this is an increasingly common experience for Americans, including many racial minorities. Obama expresses such a conflicted but resilient identity before he even utters a word. And this complexity, with its internal tensions, contradictions, and moods, may increasingly be the main thing all Americans have in common."

Sullivan goes on to make the other key arguments for Obama: his credibility (both domestically and internationally) on the Iraq war issue, his electability, his cross-over appeal with Republicans, his ease with religion, his charisma, and yes, even his face. In this little excerpt, Sullivan explains just how a face and a name might radically alter a young man's conception of what America stands for:

"Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can."

Goodbye domestic rancor and suspicion, hello hand-holding and goodwill.

Optimistic? Nope, just audaciously hopeful.

Iowa City Speaker Circuit News: Paul Krugman Endorses John Edwards Kind Of

When I was in Cameroon in my tiny, pink-walled bungalow, I was the lucky beneficiary of a library of books left behind by my volunteer predecessors. Among this treasure trove (you find it, you keep it!) of literature was the book “The Great Unraveling: Losing our Way in the New Century" by New York Times columnist and Princeton economist Paul Krugman. Paging through the book --a collection of his columns--was one of the more effective means I've ever discovered of generating a big, heady dose of political righteous indignation. This was particularly effective sometime around Nov. 3 of 2004, when, whenever necessary, I could select a column and be reminded of all of the fascinating ways in which our electorate had seriously fucked up.

Though I was supposed to be glow in the dark bowling tonight with book weary law students, when I learned Krugman was here in Iowa City I had to postpone it. Bowling with me is always pretty predictable anyway: 3 games with an average between 140-160, several strikes, variety of fist pumps, several ball changes, many celebratory dances, and several times where I’m so disgusted with my shot that I walk back to the scoring area without even watching the result. (Note: this is followed by a quick look over my shoulder, EVEN THOUGH I OBVIOUSLY DO NOT CARE, to make sure that the ball that I through down the middle of the lane did not miraculously pick up that 7/10 split).

Those of you who have ever bowled with me are familiar with this routine. I can recreate it any time I want.

What I can’t recreate anytime is a live Q and A at the Englert Theatre with Paul Krugman, one of my favorite columnists of all time. Julie Englander, the regular presenter for the Prarie Lights author sessions, introduced him tonight as the "most important political columnist in America." And then there's bowling.

Krugman was fantastic. He was funny and insightful, and, oddly, despite all of the dire predictions of "The Great Unraveling," extremely optimistic about the direction of the country. People are finally seeming sensible and fed-up, he noted. . .this seems to be the inadvertent gift of George W. Bush.

The talk was basically the distillation of the thesis of his book into about a 40 minute talk, with a special emphasis on the implications of the upcoming presidential race.

His thesis:

America is regressing. We had a gilded age with robber barons and enormous disparities in wealth and privilege and power, then we had the New Deal, then the 40’s, and 50’s gave us a strong middle class with strong labor, and then came movement conservatism that essentially is seeking to put us back into the late 19th century (the return of the barons!).

While countries like Canada, France, and the Scandanavian countries (those same countries that are on the top of every standard of living index in existence) have been tweaking capitalism in an effort to benefit a the common welfare and preserve a strong entrepreneurial spirit, the conservative movement has been attempting to roll back every New Deal program they can get their hands on.

Though NYT policy forbids him from making presidential endorsements, he did speak at length about the kind of president he wanted. He said to be aware of candidates beholden to special interests (read: Hillary Clinton) and beware of overly polite "cross-the-aislers" who are looking for bipartisanship (here's looking at Obama). Since substantive differences between the candidates are negligible, he basically wants someone with some fire in his/her belly who can, above all else, really push through universal health care. Process of elimination, plus the fire in the belly qualification leads me to believe that this was a thinly veiled endorsement of John Edwards.

Interesting. Lately John Edwards has been espousing the most populist message. The other night at Jefferson Jackson he claimed that if congress didn't let him push through a health care plan he would take away government health care for the house, senate, and president. You gotta like that kind of talk.

Krugman then took questions from the audience members, a few of whom were crazy people. He proved himself to be extremely likable and great with his off the cuff analysis.

Fortunately, no one was tased throughout the talk.

Here's a clip of him and Bill O'Reilly having a civil talk with Tim Russert. Sometimes watching Bill O'Reilly makes me sick to my stomach. As Stephen Colbert once noted (paraphrase) "you know Bill, a lot of people criticize you for what you say, but they never give you credit for how loud you say it."

Couldn't agree more. Apparently Bill O'Reilly missed out on that whole "jobless recovery" thing that everyone was talking about when this interview took place.

One More Seat?

If Iowa Democrats are going to capture another seat in the house in 2008, in all likelihood it will be in the 4th district. Though Steve King (5th district) and Tom Latham (4th district) received roughly the same proportion of the popular vote-- King with 58% and Latham with 57%-- there was a lot more support for the Democratic contender in district 4, where Seldon Spencer gathered in about 43% in the 4th district, than in the 5th district, where Joyce Shulte could only find support from 36%. Spencer has made it clear that he's not going to run again, which begs the question-- who is?

Luckily, Century of the Common Iowan has generated a list of potential candidates. Among some notables from the Ames area that made the list are: state rep. and assistant Majority Leader Lisa Heddens and Story Co. Sheriff Paul Fitzgerald.

Yepsen Calls Jefferson Jackson Dinner for Obama

Due to some terribly important commitments this weekend involving movies and sleep, I refrained from heading to Des Moines to attend the Jefferson Jacksons dinner. From what I hear, Obama's people won the "noise war," and Obama made a hell of a speech. David Yepsen recaps the event in this article.

There was also a great article on Slate that asked the legitimate question: "Why isn't Obama killing Hillary in Iowa?" John Dickerson basically talks a little bit about how much the Obama Show brings to the table:

"I knew what to expect Tuesday night at his event at Kirkwood Community College in Cedar Rapids, and yet after it was over I was still impressed. He was funny and passionate, and he connected with his big audience. When he left the stage, the room was on its feet and chanting with him. Nothing like that happened during the two days I followed Hillary Clinton. Her performances were solid and her audiences were enthusiastic, but they didn't interrupt her with applause the way they did with Obama."

This was EXACTLY the kind of candidate that we should have put up on the national stage in 2004, and it's exactly the kind of candidate that we should look for this year. In 2000/2004 the Democratic candidate lost essentially because the American people would rather have a beer with George Bush. The Dems might have had substance and sanity, but the Republicans had a creepy kind of likeability. This year I think Barack Obama tips the scales in a different direction.