The Technocrat

by bk

Social Security isn’t the third rail of American politics, race is and frankly we can tighten that up even more. “Race is the third rail of America.” With a short national history that includes, codifying blacks as 3/5th of a person, the Civil War and 100 years of Jim Crow, and the decimation of the Native American peoples, it is a solid line that runs thru our national psyche. And it’s pumping high voltage. In this decade in politics alone, it’s taken down Trent Lott and George Allen and Bill and Hillary got a mighty nice jolt from it in South Carolina last week.

When Bill Clinton brought up Jesse Jackson’s previous victories in SC, it was at worst awkward but I can see where people took it the way they did. That is simply the state of racial politics in America and you need to be ready for it. But if anyone has earned the benefit of the doubt on racial issues, isn’t it Bill Clinton? He has spent a lifetime in civil service on the side actually concerned with minorities rights. He didn’t get nostalgic for better days before Brown vs Board of Edu. and he didn’t let slip an obscure racial slur. He brought up that Jesse Jackson had won SC (albeit under different system and very different circumstances) twice and that he ran a good campaign and Barack has run a good campaign here and everywhere. That was all he said. The subtext, however, is wide open to interpretation.

Because race is a such a high voltage issue (and frankly so are the Clintons,) people bring tons of baggage to the subtext. If you’re especially sensitive to racial undertones, you see the effort to inject race. If you hate the Clintons, great chance to tee off on them. If you think Bill was the master, it’s very hard to believe he didn’t know exactly what he was doing. And if you’re the media, you are apparently still ready to continue peddling any anti-Clinton story you can. Maybe it’s because they hate them but it’s probably just ’cause it’s good for ratings. Either way, once the race card has been invoked it is not easily put away.

Personally, I’ve always held a generally favorable view of Jesse Jackson so 1) I don’t see that as a negative comparison and 2) it doesn’t remind me that Barack is black, I knew that by now. South Carolina democrats are over 50% black and polling was already showing a solid win for Obama so how could it benefit Hillary’s campaign in SC or afterwards? Did Bill think there were enough closet racists in SC to swing it to Hillary? It was too late to launch the “closet SC racist strategy” and actually impact the vote… if it would have even worked on the Dem side in SC. Or was he thinking it would work in Florida or beyond in NY, CA, NJ? Racist Dems in heavily multicultural states, not what I would call a swing demographic. No, he was playing the expectations game as he always does before a primary, he put on his professorial hat for the reporters and went with historical footnotes relevant to that state. Should he have compared Obama to JFK? Sure, Obama would love that but it doesn’t so much work for Bill, that’s his idol. We’ve only had one serious black presidential candidate in the entire history of our country and SC was one of the states he won twice so, yeah, his name came up.

The hardest part for anyone to believe is that Bill says anything by accident. He’s the master politician of his age he knows exactly what he is saying and doing at all times. But if he is, why would he inject race where there would be little benefit to doing so and tons of risk? And is discipline the word we really associate with Bill? I would suggest he’s masterful enough to know he can’t control race but needed a lesson in discipline and the explosion of the echo chamber since his last real race in 1992. He was attempting to lower expectations, and compared Obama to Jesse Jackson, the natural historical comparison. It was kinda awkward but not inaccurate or unflattering unless you choose to interpret it that way. Is it really offensive to compare a successful black politician with the only previous black candidate to achieved success in the presidential primaries?

It reminds me of a conversation I had with my in-laws in WI. They may be in a rural area but they are well educated, well read, and very open minded. And yet, I had to explain that simply calling someone a jew is not anti-semitic or insulting. But with the right tone, and a little bit of context, it can get there pretty quick. Comparing Barack Obama to Jesse Jackson is not in itself insulting but with the right tone and context it’s a short trip. I don’t think Bill went so far as to cross the line but I know we don’t all draw the line at exactly the same spot either. Which is why Bill might want to consider prepared and pre-approved remarks for the next few months because even the littlest asides can cause a helluva jolt if they are thought to touch the 3rd rail, race.

Side notes -
#1 – Bill’s discipline has always been a cause for concern. This and other recent events bring that right to the fore. It’s definitely a point to consider when choosing who to vote for.
#2 Considering the GOP’s stellar record of racial sensitivity, Obama may be a perfect trap candidate. How many Republican machine workers will get caught up with some racially insensitive comment when Bill’s getting it for such an innocuous statement? And will McCain be forced to apologize every time?
#3 I think the real racially insensitivity last week was when Barack was asked whether Bill was the 1st black president. It’s a cute line that been tossed around for awhile now. But to actually pose that in a question to the man who has a real chance of actually being the 1st black president, I was offended by that. Of course, Obama handled it so deftly but I still gotta think inside he was saying “No! He wasn’t! No matter what kind of friend he’s been to blacks, he’s just another link in a chain of old white men”.
#4 As a white guy, I have no doubt I have done or said things sometime somewhere, heck probably in this piece, that were construed as racist or at the very least ignorant by those of other races. I can almost guarantee (who among us is perfect?) I didn’t intend it that way. It’s an incredibly slippery slope for even the best intentioned.

by db

If, as it has been frequently said by both the Clintons and the media, Sen. Obama has to prove his mettle in the primary in order to gain the Democrats’ faith he is ready for the GOP, Sen. Clinton has to prove she can control her husband and reclaim her candidacy if she is to prove she is anything but entirely unelectable.

I found the Clintons’ behavior and comments leading up to their (and I say “their” only because Pres. Clinton said last night in the initial concession speech provided by that campaign following the polls close, “we” lost) 2:1 loss at the hands of the Obama campaign repugnant. There are those that suggest all politics are hardball. There are apparently many in SC who say there is a limit.

As astonishing and disheartening as it might be, surveys have consistently indicated that 40%+ of the voting public will not vote for Sen. Clinton under any circumstance. While I believe general elections can change many minds and polls along with them, there can be no doubt Sen. Clinton will require every last open mind to be made available to her if she is to gain the nomination and win the general election. Putting her husband front and center, under the spurious claim that he is just like any other politician’s spouse, will only give credence to critics that this is, in fact, Bill Clinton’s run for a third term more than her first and sow doubt in that critical slice of undecided voters who could be won over to her side.

And for anyone who doubts that tough primaries create better nominees, I advise a close listen to Sen. Obama’s speech last night. While his message of persistence and optimism was as evident as ever, what was also unmistakable was a message of defiance: If the Clintons plan to continue playing their two-on-one routine, he will push back.

by db

I think I view polls always with an eye toward what I want to happen rather than what will happen. If anything, last night’s results, which were nearly the mirror opposite of what ended up happening, prove that. So, with that, I’m going to hang up the predictions hat for a while… or as long as I can resist.

by db

Alrightee… predictions time, once again.

Barack Obama will win in NV and with some breathing room, a few points, but not more than 4.

Huckabee will win in SC with a similar margin.

by db

Just caught a visual of Sen. Lieberman applauding Sen. McCain at his not-quite-victory party last night.

Joe. Seriously. Switch. Do it. Go all the way.

Please.

by db

Yes, we occasionally talk about technology here at TheTechnocrat. Yesterday was a tough day for me to be on the road, as I not only missed a major primary (albeit a GOP one), an important Democratic debate, and a MacWorld Keynote. A straight flush of excuses to stay home in my book.

So, MacWorld came and went as I was on a plane headed west. Here’s what I like/love/and not so much:
- Love the new MacBook. I’m not currently shopping for a portable, but the amount of time I travel, and haul around a very heavy roller bag with my MacBook Pro and it’s myriad of bits and pieces, makes the MacBook Air the ideal choice the next time I ante up
- Like the new Apple TV, but love the fact they enabled the new movie rental capability for the first gen Apple TVs (like the one I own)
- Not so much on the for pay upgrade for iPod Touch owners. What’s up with that? Are those supposed “enhancements” worth $20? My prediction: That gambit will fail and Apple will run away from similarly silly for-pay mini-upgrades moving forward
- Love and think is brilliant: Apple doubling down on AirPort, which was greying and despite the elegance of its software falling behind it’s Wi-Fi competition, and adding strorage in its AirCapsule. That, frankly, makes the best element of Leopard, Time Machine, sing, and, combined especially with a low-memory portable like MacBook Air, makes it a no-brainer add-on. Nicely done, Apple

All in all, I would give the show’s announcements a solid B. Not every MacWorld can rock the world with a half dozen entirely new products. Sometimes they just innovate to maintain Apple’s lead as the industry’s braintrust. This would be one of those shows.

by db

A little late on clean-up here, but I was traveling last week, as I am this one, so playing a bit of catch-up.

On my NH prediction: Well, missed that one. Quite significantly, in fact, but I wasn’t alone. I think it’s time for the media to stop the self-flagellation, though. The reality is that it is very tough to poll all the way up to the moment folks vote and it appears a very last-minute, by the definition of the term per haps, surge among women helped Hill. As the NYT commented, however, NH is owed a debt of gratitude by allowing the process to continue beyond its borders.

A prediction not posted I will claim credit for, anyway: Mitt and Michigan. I had a feeling it was going to swing his way. Now the pressure is on McCain to close the deal in SC, which was his Waterloo in 2000 and I have a feeling it will be very hard for him this round, given a resurgent Mitt and the significant support Huck will receive from the state’s evangelical voters.

by bk

Had enough of these self-righteous Ron Paul supporters? I made the mistake of getting into a discussion with one the other day. After trying to explain that while there are great kernels of truth in what Ron Paul says, the devil is in the details and the details of libertarian philosophy are problematic to say the least. This was the response I got:

“The ten reasons not to vote for Ron Paul that you cite all have positive sides that you fail to mention. When one is against something, the other side is that that person is for something else.

The something else that you fail to mention involves things that appear to be alien to you – things like freedom, liberty, the right to be left alone, protection of our rights, right to property and to use it in any way you see fit that does not interfere with other’s rights, right of contract, right to keep what you earn without government stealing it from you to give it to someone else that is too lazy to earn for themselves, etc, etc.

I work hard every working day, and would truly like to keep what I earn for support of my family. I believe in our Constitution. I believe government should protect my God-given rights and not steal from me. I believe that government shouldn’t be telling me what I must do at the point of a gun.

Your research was done with a very limited point of view. I suggest that you re-assess.

God bless.”

Well I won’t stand being lectured by a Ron Paul fanatic. It’s like a born again Christian getting into a discussions with a theologian and lecturing him. Not that I am some great political scientist, but I didn’t just find religion. I’ve been interested in politics since I was at least 9 years old and I used to do a Jimmy Carter impression. When I went to college, I declared my major of Political Science on the 1st day and never changed it. In fact, I powered through it and added a second major in Government because it’s what I enjoyed studying.

So let’s just say, I went kinda ballistic on the guy. But the plus side is, it ended the discussion and I haven’t heard another word from him. So if you’re wondering what it takes to shut a Ron Paul fan up, here is what worked for me:

“…I was a political science and government policy and procedures double major in college and a political junkie to this day so I know very well what I am talking about. What’s your base of knowledge?

Ron Paul says some true and enticing things about the “Constitution and freedom” and I’m a big fan of the “Constitution and freedom” but those are broad talking points and not the details. When you break down the policy preferences, libertarianism is not a governing philosophy, it is a non-governing philosophy that believes in a weak to non-existent federal government. That is the last thing we need in this modern day and age. Without a strong federal government, we would still have segregated schools, women would be dying from back-alley abortions in 2/3rds of the states, people in rurual areas would have no mail, the Tennesee Valley Authority would never had been created to bring electricity to little town throughout the south, we wouldn’t have the National Institutes of Health conquering polio and small pox and we never would have had the clean air and water acts of the 60′s and 70′s so we would have waited till “the free market” dictated to companies that they should work on polluting less. These are but a few of the thousands of positive things done by the federal government that would never have occurred with Libertarians.

After the current adminstration’s attacks on the Constitution, which I am very concerned about, RonPaul is especially attractive but he’s not the only remedy, he’s just the only one you like.”

by bk

What was that screeching sound? That was the sound of the brakes on the express train to the nomination for Barack Obama. I got caught up with Obamamentum as much as anyone after Iowa thinking if he could us that momentum to win NH then he would likely win the nomination and the White House. If he could repeat what he did in Iowa in New Hampshire, then we may really have a game changer in Obama, someone who can bring new voters out to support progressives politics. And that is something I would find very exciting and can certainly get behind. But then a strange thing happened, people in New Hampshire lined up and voted and Hillary won by three. Obama’s momentum was stopped and now we have a real race and with 2 states reporting, Hillary and Barack are all tied at one.

I think we’re going to see them all knotted up at 2 going into Super Tuesday after Obama takes South Carolina and Clinton takes Nevada. And then it’s about the organization you can muster in 22 states for the primary extravaganza that is Super Tuesday. I believe it will be competitive but ultimately Hillary takes 15 states including the big fish of New York and California. After Super Tuesday, Hillary has the momentum and battle hardened she locks down the nomination with the primaries on Feb. 19.

Well that’s all well and good but why I do believe it’s gonna go down this way? Two reasons, 1) Clintons feed off the negative energy of the media and 2) she’s found her message and it resonates.

It the 90′s it was always amazing to see how negative coverage of the Clintons and translated it into increased popularity with the public. Ultimately, Bill Clinton was a man and he was elected by the people. The media is many headed but faceless hydra which people increasing distrust and didn’t choose. So when forced to deciding who to trust, people choose the person. They did it with Bill Clinton and they did it with George Bush too. I believe the joy the media seemed to take in her defeat in Iowa and the big fuss made over her having ALMOST cried, humanized her and helped her rebound in New Hampshire as people rallied to support her.

The other reason she won was her performance in the debates on Saturday before the primary. She hit hard on the message that she is ready to begin changing things on day 1 because she’s ready for the fight change will require. Enough Democratic voters remember the difficulties experienced by Bill Clinton in his first year and some even remember the difficulties of Carter’s 1st year. They remember the time and momentum lost as the administrations got up to speed on how to work with Congress and get things done in DC. Last week, I saw Hillary getting knocked for a rally because she stayed too long, answered too many questions in too much detail. What I saw was a candidate who knew the issues right now without needing a briefing and had ideas on how to change things. Ideas honed after 15 years in DC so she also has an idea how to accomplish them. She gives the impression of someone who knows exactly what she wants to accomplish on each of her 1st 100 days. Ultimately, I think the promise of change will lose to the ability to make change happen right out of the gate.

So while it will not be the clean sweep I initially predicted, I still think Hillary Clinton wins the nomination.

As for John McCain, well I’m still looking good there so far.

by db

The obvious beneficiary will be Sen. Obama, but it will be Romney who may benefit the most. Here’s the prediction rundown for Tuesday:
- Obama will carry NH, narrowly, over Hill thanks to a disproportionate share (60%+) of the Independents
- McCain will win NH, but by a margin mirroring Obama’s over Hillary, feeling the pain of the independents moving over to the Dem primary and the fusillade of negative ads the Romney camp will let rip over the next few days
~ There’s an alternative scenario that suggests McCain will suffer so much for the loss of Independents that he loses to a resurgent Romney, but after last night’s debate pile-on I have become convinced it’s increasingly unlikely Romney will end up the victor there or, if I was being honest with myself, the nomination as a whole