election 2008 » Undiplomatic

26 August 2009 Charles J. Brown
08:05 pm

Ted Kennedy’s Other Legacy: The 1980 Election

I, like everyone else, am saddened at the passing of Sen. Ted Kennedy, and very appreciative of his long and distinguished service to his country and his state. And like other liberals, I hope that his death will help inspire Democrats to quit wetting their pants and pass health care reform.

But I can’t help finding it ironic that many commentators are pointing to his 1980 speech to the Democratic National Convention as the finest of his career:

It is an excellent speech, particularly its closing passage.

But there’s one very small problem, one that I have not seen noted elsewhere: the speech was widely regarded as having damaged Jimmy Carter’s bid for reelection. Over the course of a fairly long address, Kennedy makes only a passing reference to the man who defeated him:

I congratulate President Carter on his victory here.

I am — I am confident that the Democratic Party will reunite on the basis of Democratic principles, and that together we will march towards a Democratic victory in 1980.

That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement. In fact, Kennedy’s tepid embrace of his opponent long ago became the gold standard of political bad sportsmanship.

It’s forgotten now, but during the 2008 Democratic National Convention, pundits of every stripe wondered whether Hillary Clinton would pull a Kennedy by failing to offer a strong endorsement of Obama (speculation which turned out to be completely unfounded — Hillary offered a resounding endorsement of Obama, ending all predictions of a divided party). Here is but one of many examples:

When Hillary Clinton strikes her first podium pose Tuesday night at the Democratic National Convention, she’ll do so knowing that almost half of the people staring at her wanted her to be the party’s presidential nominee. And somewhat more than half preferred Barack Obama.

How she speaks to both groups will set a tone for unity, or disunity, as the party points toward the November election. . . .

Her protracted concession brings to mind a similar primary battle in 1980 between incumbent President Jimmy Carter and Sen. Ted Kennedy. Carter got more delegates, but Kennedy ignored the inevitable right up until the convention. He finally conceded several days before they appeared together at New York’s Madison Square Garden. Kennedy was visibly ambivalent about the nominee.

The Republicans capitalized on the divided Democrats, and Ronald Reagan easily won the election.

That’s the story you won’t see in today’s obituaries: Kennedy’s failure to champion Carter badly hurt the incumbent. The John Anderson insurgency was largely driven by disaffected Kennedy supporters (including me — I volunteered for Anderson in what was my first opportunity to vote for President).

It would be an exaggeration to suggest that Reagan won solely because of Democratic disuinion — the sad state of the economy had a far more significant impact, as did Carter’s failure to resolve the Iranian hostage crisis. But I do not think it is an exaggeration to suggest that the decision of many disaffected liberal Democrats to vote for Anderson (or sit out the election) didn’t help.

Ted Kennedy was a great, great man. But in 1980, his failure to be a good soldier pretty much put an end to his party’s hopes for retaining the White House.

Hotness, Sexism, and Politics

I learn via Ezra Klein, who got it from Dana Goldstein, that there’s a new study arguing that Sarah Palin’s (alleged) hotness hurt the Republican ticket:

A new study found that after male college students were asked to write about Sarah Palin’s physical attributes, they judged her as less professionally competent than those asked to simply write about Palin as a “person.” If the subjects were swing voters or Republicans, thinking about Palin’s appearance actually seemed to decrease their likelihood of voting for the GOP ticket.

Here’s what Ezra has to say about it:

[I]t’s hard to know how seriously to take this study because Palin was so relentlessly sexualized amidst the campaign. The McCain team sold her as “a gun-toting Alaskan frontier sex symbol” and the conservative movement picked up the message. . . . That’s not to say I think Palin got a bum rap on policy matters. Those were some sorry interviews. But it makes sense that a study examining reactions to appearance would return particularly strong results for a national figures whose appearance was such an aggressive part of her persona.

What I find interesting here is not the fact that liberals and conservatives alike objectified Palin, but the impact of that objectification on her candidacy. After all, almost every hetero woman (and gay man) I know thought Barack Obama was incredibly hot. But as Megan over at Jezebel notes, that helped Obama, not hurt him.

So what we’re really talking about here is not the relationship between politicians and sex appeal, but rather between sex appeal and gender. Male politicians (Kennedy, Obama, Edwards, even Clinton and Romney) gain traction from looking good, while female politicians (Palin is the most obvious choice, but I’m sure there are others) lose support.

That’s not because they’re hot. It’s because men tend to associate hotness with a lack of intelligence or competence while women do the opposite.

To be clear, I think Sarah Palin damaged the GOP because she was a bumbling incurious naif unprepared for the national stage. But it would be a mistake not to acknowledge that Palin’s gaffes hurt her not only because they exposed her lack of preparation for the job, but also because they reinforced the existing cultural meme that beautiful women are vapid.

Outrage

I want to be careful here. I don’t want to tar the entire conservative movement (or Republican Party) with a broad brush. There are plenty of thoughtful, decent conservatives who are worthy opponents in the debate over the future direction of this country and the world. At the same time, there are some on the left whose rhetoric and attitudes are beyond the pale. So please do not regard this as a wholesale attack on the right.

That said, WTF? WHAT ARE YOU GUYS THINKING? HAVE YOU LOST YOUR FREAKING MINDS?

First we had this from Rush Limbaugh (h/t Media Matters):

So apparently George Soros staged the economic collapse to get Barack Obama elected. And it goes on “below the surface” — it’s a conspiracy you see, and we don’t know what’s really going on.

Then we had this from former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (h/t TPM):

Clearly Hayworth got his talking points from Limbaugh, but he takes it one step further: it’s Schumer and Soros! You know — and don’t say this out loud — it’s the Jews. Because they control everything.

And then, if this wasn’t bad enough, The New York Post decides to take it a step further. Here is an editorial cartoon that appeared in yesterday’s edition:

Ostensibly, the cartoon refers to the fact that zoo workers in Connecticut had to shoot a violent chimpanzee. But hey — monkey, stimulus, get it? Get it? And the Post isn’t even trying to deny a link:

The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington’s efforts to revive the economy.

Because when you look at dead monkeys, the first thing you should think of is the economy! Of course! It’s just a coincidence that the “someone(s)” who “wrote” the current stimulus bill happen to work for the President, who happens to be well, uh, black or something. And you should just put it out of your silly heads that the cartoonist forgot about the history in this country of African Americans being portrayed as chimpanzees.

Look, I’m not trying to suggest a conspiracy here — other than Rush Limbaugh, I don’t think there’s a coordinated plan to paint the Democrats as the party of blacks and Jews and terrorists and Commies and east coast cosmopolitan elites.

But I don’t doubt that there are a large number of people who call themselves conservatives and/or Republicans who already believe just that. And they’re not Rush’s dittoheads. Lest we forget:

Here’s what I wrote back in October about this trend :

Contrary to expectations, we once again are having a referendum on the 1960s. Except this time it’s not about Vietnam, it’s about civil rights. And it’s not the Democrats who are wallowing in hippie wish-fulfillment but rather Republicans wallowing in what can only be called reactionary nostalgia.

The fundamental problem with the Republicans fighting the 1960s over again is that most Americans don’t give a rat’s ass anymore, especially given the current economic crisis. And those that do — those that remain unhappy about the triumphs of Parks, King, Abernathy, Lewis, Young, and other heroes of the civil rights movement — decided not to vote for Obama a long time ago.

Serious and thoughtful Republicans know that reactionary nostalgia cannot be the future of their party. They realize that they must move beyond a narrow, predominantly white base and reach out to minorities. Even Michael Steele, the new GOP Party Chair gets this, even if some of his phraseology –

New GOP party chief Michael Steele is promising an “off the hook” public relations blitz into “urban-suburban hip-hop settings” in hopes of wooing Latinos and African-Americans.

– makes him sound like, well, a middle-aged father trying to be hip with his kids.

If Steele and others want to be serious about such outreach, they need to distance themselves from their own nutjob fringe. Otherwise, their already narrow base is going to start looking like the head of a pin — with a massive pinhead named Rush sitting on top of it.

Final Score of the Real Super Bowl: 21 - 19

If you believe what you read, the dawn of the Obama Administration heralds a return to “evidence-based” scientific thinking — often overdramatically portrayed as rational thought itself. Although I don’t disagree that some sort of change is coming (and that much of it will be for the better), I think this theme ignores something crucial.

I don’t know anyone personally, but I would doubt that every member of the Bush administration was completely illogical or irrational in how they approached scientific issues. The difference between then, and what Obama supporters are hoping for now, is more likely the underlying values, worldviews, and what constitutes the “facts” or “evidence” on which the different groups make decisions. The best analogy I can think of is crime: while surely some of it results from poor decision-making, another large portion of it unfortunately derives from rational thinking in the context of a very different set of values with respect to society.

This matters because I get the impression that many people who voted for President Obama feel like the tide has turned, that a huge shift has occurred in the American populace, and that the future will be quite different.

I don’t think the first part of this equation is true. President Obama won pretty decisively, and polls consistently show most Americans unhappy with the Bush years as they drew to a close. But Obama’s margin of victory over John McCain can be statistically represented as a room randomly populated with 40 Americans, 21 of whom chose Obama and 19 of whom chose McCain. So don’t focus on how many more millions of votes Obama received than did McCain. Focus on the final score: Obama 21-Bush 19. It was a close game, even if Obama, as he said to Congressional Republians, won.

This matters when considering how to achieve certain science and technology (and, for that matter, other) objectives. When the Cardinals lost the Super Bowl, they lost — in the end it did not matter how close the score was. But when Republicans lost the Presidency (and both houses of Congress), the margin of victory does matter — if you doubt that, just look at the House Republicans’ vote on the stimulus package. Because in politics, the game never ends.

My advice to President Obama, and to Democratic opinion makers in general, is NOT to focus on clearly partisan issues where Democrats and Republicans have divided into opposing camps along clear party lines. Pushing through legislative and executive action in those cases will be a simple power play, and in light of the 21-19 final score will lack the broad social support needed to enact true social change.

Instead, they should focus on making those changes that most Americans — not merely most Democrats and progressives — would like to see, and execute them well. President Bush was routinely criticized for governing from the hard right even though the final score, in his last game, was Bush 20.5-Kerry 19.5 (and before that Bush 19.9-Gore 20.1!), and rightly so.

The Obama Administration should start with those science policy issues on which then-candidates Obama and McCain mostly agreed (and on which bost disagreed with then-President Bush):

establishing a cap-and-trade program that sets a national limit on carbon emissions;
supporting the development of more nuclear power;
fostering biodefense research, expanding autism research and screening;
developing a national HIV/AIDS strategy;
extending international space station operations beyond 2016;
providing greater federal support for stem cell research, including expanding the number of federally approved stem cell lines; and
altering immigration guidelines to make it easier for foreigh Ph.D’s to stay in the US.

Issues to avoid for now would be those on which candidate McCain lined up with President Bush and against then-candidate Obama:

ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty:
attempting any sort of federal intervention in state-level questions regarding the teaching of intelligent design in school;
halting the storage of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, Nevada; and
allowing research cloning.

The trickiest road to navigate leads to those issues that should be addressed now even though they might prove controversial. My suggestion would be to pick one or two issues where the “controversial” choice is actually consistent with another issue on which there is much broader agreement. An environmental example would be tightening air pollution standards to what experts recommend, which would most likely be part of setting a national limit on carbon emissions anyway.

A new approach to policies that reflects an evidence-based understanding of how much broad support there truly is for certain course alterations will be a welcome change indeed.

The Panic over Political Appointments

So the hot topic around Washington these days, at least in the foreign policy community is. . .

Israel/Gaza? Uh-uh.

Russia/Ukraine pipeline issues? Nope.

Hillary’s confirmation? Well, that’s getting a lot of attention, but even that isn’t at the top of the list.

No, story number one with a bullet is Laura Rozen’s post that many Obamanistas in the foreign policy community are not happy with the transition:

[S]ome Obama campaign foreign policy volunteer advisors – many of whom put in long hours for no pay, taking career risks no doubt in part with the hope that should the long-shot junior Senator win, their hard work might eventually be rewarded – are finding themselves on the outside looking in, and not sure where they should knock.

In conversations over the past couple weeks, sources have told The Cable that something has definitely changed about their relationship to Obamaland since the campaign ended. The transition’s inner circle has become excessively secretive, closed, and far from transparent with them about the process for appointing people to jobs.

I’m not surprised — after all, this is what I wrote two months ago:

[I]t’s already pretty clear that Obama foreign policy types, particularly those who chose to support him back when he was far from a sure thing, are not at all happy with [the choice of Hillary as SecState]. . . .

They are wondering why they stuck their neck out twenty months ago only to see Hillary’s supporters get the plum foreign policy jobs. At the time, they supported Obama not to get a job (after all, Hillary looked like a near-lock then) but because they sincerely believed that Obama represented a new and fresh approach. Most knew that they were taking a big chance — after all, they had been warned of the consequences were they not to support Hillary. (And again, I believe that most of those who supported Hillary did so because they thought she was the best person for the job.)

My friends would be less than human if they did not want some reward for the chance they took. Now, they feel, their payoff is to see the key jobs at State go to those who played it safe. Although it’s true that Hillary might appoint some Obama loyalists to her team, most of my friends don’t think that’s going to happen.

So at least to me, Rozen’s report is not that surprising. That said, I’m sympathetic with those of my colleagues who feel like they’re not being heard or “rewarded.” I was on one of the foreign policy teams and I haven’t heard anything back either. And I think there is some truth to the suggestion in Rozen’s story that the nature of email communication has limited the type of networking that in the past has given those advising the campaign a leg up.

But come on, people. It’s not even the middle of January. No transition in history has started appointing positions below Undersecretary in January. And unlike past transitions, this one has focused not just on personnel, but also on fixing what everyone regards as a broken system. Since those recommendations just went to Secretary-Designate Clinton in the past week or two, it’s awfully hard for people to get appointments for positions that may be eliminated in a reorganization.

In addition, I’m guessing that the foreign policy transition process probably wasn’t helped by the fact that two of those managing it — Mona Sutphen and Susan Rice — received early appointments that may have had an impact on personnel review. In particular, Sutphen’s appointment to one of the Deputy White House Chief of Staff jobs may really have created a bottleneck. As the email quoted in full by Rozen notes, she originally was going to coordinate personnel side of the foreign policy transition:

Please also feel free to copy Mona Sutphen who will be tracking your applications at: [redacted], with any resumes and materials you submit in the official channel.

Furthermore, while the process has not been transparent, that’s typical, not unusual — both the Clinton and the Bush process were just as opaque. There are good reasons for that: you don’t want people to know who the other candidates for a given job are, and you want to make sure that the process is designed in a way to limit favortism, not reward it.

To be clear, I would love it if my friends and contacts on the transition teams were to tell me I was a lock for a job. But then they not only would be disingenuous, they also would exceed their authority.

And the notion that Hillary and Biden loyalists are getting all the good jobs simply isn’t true. Most of the rumors reported by both Rozen and WaPo’s Al Kamen include Obama loyalists, Hillary supporters, and those who did not take sides in the primary.

The very idea of a scorecard is nothing more than the latest media version of the supposed Hillary-Barack throwdown. Folks seem to forget that in the general, everybody worked for Obama. For example, I know several people who were part of team whose members got up each morning at 4:00 am to put together a summary of that day’s big foreign policy stories. Some were Obama supporters and some were Hillary supporters. Do the former now think the latter somehow worked less or got up later?

This story is in some ways an extension of the media’s obsession with the NYT’s story this summer about Obam’s supposedly huge foreign policy team (more than 300!). The problem is that the original piece was predicated on the belief that Obama had created something new and different. Here’s what I said at the time (apologies in advance for quoting at length):

I have absolutely no illusions about this. We are not Barack Obama’s “mini State Department,” as the Times claims. In fact, one of the main purposes of these teams is… to keep us out of the way of the people actually making the decisions.

You see, every four years, every presidential campaign is inundated with officeseekerwannabes, some idealistic, some not so much. There are newbies who have never before been involved in a campaign, worker bees who have served in mid-level policy positions in previous administrations, and Prominent People who don’t have much time but want to help where they can. All of them have some sort of expertise on a given issue. All of them want the candidate to win. And almost all of them know that if you want a job in the next administration, you have to put in your time.

So what is a campaign to do? You can’t have three hundred people advising a candidate, no matter what the Times may think. If a campaign is smart (and that certainly is true of the Obama campaign) they do what any sensible organization does: they form committees. Except they call them “foreign policy advisory teams,” invite all the officeseekerwannabes to join, and then (for the most part)… ignore them.

Am I being cynical here? A little. But my disdain is for the Times’s breathless reporting, not the process.

Here’s the thing. Four years ago, I co-coordinated one of these groups for the Kerry campaign. I was one of two people who designated roles, set deadlines, assigned responsibility for drafting, and held conference calls. Lots and lots of conference calls. It was our job to get stuff done when the campaign needed it. I wrote two of the five “core” position papers as well as a few smaller ones and the relevant sections of the platform and the debate prep book.

I’m not trying to brag — I just want to give you a feel for what was (and is) involved. There were plenty of other people who did even more.

Did we have any influence on the Kerry campaign? I have no idea. I know that the people managing foreign policy for Kerry — Rand Beers, Dan Feldman, and Susan Rice, among others — did a good job of making us feel like we were being heard — just like I was trying to do with the people on my team. But I never actually heard a talking point I wrote come out of Kerry’s mouth.

Our team had 50 people on it. There were 20 teams. Now think about that for a moment. Do the math.

So why weren’t there reporters covering the number of people on the Kerry team four years ago?

Oh. Wait. There. Were. Took me five minutes on the Google to find the stories. Except back then, we were called a “mini-NSC” instead of a “mini-State:”

“I’ve put together for Kerry a small group of mostly younger foreign policy advisers, a sort of mini-NSC,” says [Dan] Feldman, 36. Feldman says he helped pick the group by the expertise of its members to mirror the various directorates within the National Security Council, including experts on areas like the Middle East or Africa and on topics such as counter-terrorism or weapons of mass destruction. “We have a weekly conference call, write position papers, and do opposition research on the Bush administration,” says Feldman.

Nice going Times. You just ran a front-page story that is virtually the same as one reported by you and others four years ago.

Yet despite all of this, some folks continue to think that the sheer number of Obama’s foreign policy advisors is the problem. Take Jason Zengerle over at TNR, for example:

I think there’s one explanation for their being left out in the cold that Laura Rozen–who recorded their discontent–ignores: Obama may have had more foreign policy advisors during the campaign than he now has foreign policy jobs to fill. . . .Now, obviously, the real State Department–not to mention the Pentagon and the NSC–employ more than 300 people. (Here’s the ‘Plum Book’ list of State Department jobs that can be filled via political appointments.) But I don’t know how many of Obama’s foreign policy advisors would want to leave their tenured professorships to be, say, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans.

There are several problems here. To begin with, there are more than 300 jobs on the Plum Book list Zengerle cites (11 pages, roughly 50-60 jobs listed per page). Some are designated for “career incumbents” (meaning foreign service officers) and others, such as most of the ambassadorships, will go to senior FSOs even though they technically are political appointees. But even if you take out those, there are at least 350 to 400 jobs there. And that doesn’t even include the jobs in NSC, Defense and DHS, not to mention the fact that Obama has pledged that Ambassadorships will go to talented experts rather than wealthy donors — and not all of those are going to be career FSOs.

Perhaps most importantly, there are a lot more political jobs at State today than there were sixteen years ago when Clinton had just as large (if not larger) team. And I don’t remember any of those folks going wanting. Think I’m wrong? Here’s my list of some of State Department political appointments that are new since Clinton first took office (some created under Clinton and some under Bush):

Deputy Secretary for Administration;
Undersecretary for Global Affairs;
Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs;
Undersecretary for Arms Control;
A handful of Assistant Secretaries and Deputy Assistant Secretaries (some of which have gone and will continue to go to senior foreign service officers);
Numerous Ambassadors at Large, Special Representatives, and Coordinators (for example, Religious Freedom, War Crimes Issues, and Afghanistan);
All the new Iraq and Afghanistan positions (the Iraq “desk” now takes up a huge chunk of the second floor at Foggy Bottom);
New positions mandated by the White House, Secretary of State, or Congress (for example, trafficking in persons, PEPFAR, conflict response and stabililty).

It’s likely that any reorganization will lead to the elimination of some of these jobs, as well as a few that predate the Clinton Administration. But it’s equally likely that any such effort also will create new positions. For example, one rumor going around the building is that the various undersecretaries will have more resources and responsibilities, which probably means more staff positions. In fact, if you listen to the foreign service gossip, those positions are being created in order to find more jobs for those aspiring to a political appointment.

There’s one other thing Zengerle gets wrong: almost every single one of the people who volunteered for the Obama campaign would be delighted to be Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans — because that would mean they got offered a job in the Obama Administration.

The bottom line? It’s way, way, way too early to panic. I suggest everyone take a deep breath and stop worrying about whether they’re going to get the job they want — or, in their more frantic moments, whether they’re going to get any job at all.

At least that’s what I’m telling myself.

P.S. Thanks for your patience while I coped with life. It’s good to be back.

Schadenfreude of the Day, er, Night

Ding dong, Uncle Ted is dead defeated! AP:

Sen. Ted Stevens, the longest serving Republican in Senate history, narrowly lost his re-election bid Tuesday, marking the downfall of a Washington political power and Alaska icon who couldn’t survive a conviction on federal corruption charges. His defeat by Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich moves Senate Democrats within two seats of a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority. . . .

Tuesday’s tally of just over 24,000 absentee and other ballots gave Begich 146,286, or 47.56 percent, to 143,912, or 46.76 percent, for Stevens. A recount is possible. . . .

Stevens’ campaign didn’t immediately respond to phone calls seeking comment.

I wish I had been in the room when Uncle Ted found out. Maybe he helped calm himself by sitting in that lovely vibrating chair he doesn’t think he owns.

This may not necessarily be the end, however — we still may see a recount.

There is one thing about the story that made me sad, though. Turns out that today is Ted Stevens’ birthday. No, I’m not sad he got the boot on his birthday. I’m sad that it turns out that he has the same birthday as my beautiful daughter.

(Happy Birthday Greta! Don’t mind that scary mean old man sitting in the vibrating barcalounger over in the corner.)

Guest Post: Almost Equal?

Today, at 1:30 pm EST, folks all across the country will gather to protest the passage of Prop 8 in California. To find out about the event closest to you, go here.

I’ve written before about why I opposed Prop 8, and why I’m outraged that it did pass. Rather than do it again, I’ve asked my sister, Vickey, and sister-in-law, Erin, to share their reaction:

We are heartsick. While it is me [Erin] writing this down, I wanted to say the following sums up both of our post-election feelings and experiences, and I am speaking for both of us.

We are stunned by the victory of the forces of hatred. We are stunned at the enormous effort that went into passing Proposition 8, which legalizes discrimination in our state Constitution. Just the money — $70 million — spent by the pro-Prop 8 forces sets me reeling.

We’ve each experienced quite a few responses to Prop 8’s passage. Most feel blasé to me. Many responses were somewhere on the shocked-and-pained continuum, ranging from “Oh wow, bummer.” (sincere pause, followed by well-meaning platitude) “Have you tried that new Thai restaurant?” to a straight friend throwing herself in my arms sobbing, unable to speak. People tell us solemnly that it’s so sad and wrong, so totally out of the blue, but (sock on the arm) we really should keep this in perspective. After all, it’s getting better, isn’t it? More people believe in gay marriage, the numbers prove it. You should be grateful you’ve come so far. You’re almost there. You’re almost equal.

Almost and Equal do not go together, folks. And while we’re at it, why is it separated into gay marriage and straight marriage? Marriage is marriage.

I acknowledge that there is a valid point here — that change involving equality is agonizingly slow. I know these comments are well-meant. I certainly don’t want to imply any disrespect or lack of appreciation for all those people who went out and voted for our rights, and who remain here, trying to cheer us on.

And yet, I feel uneasy. What bothers me is the almost total absence of pain and shock among our straight friends. I can only take this omission to be indicative of at least a partial lack of understanding the fundamental issue of how unequal our rights are, exactly.

I find myself wanting to say to my very loving, well-meaning friend who isn’t quite getting why I’m so sad:

Imagine waking up next to your husband this morning. You’ve been married for 26 years. You have children and grandchildren. Suddenly, your marriage is gone, your right ever to be married is gone, and it’s written into the state Constitution that this discrimination is not only legal, but encouraged. People of opposite genders must be stopped from marrying. It threatens the very foundations of marriage.

How would you feel — besides incredulity at how ludicrous it would be to stop people of opposite genders from marrying?

That’s how it feels to me. How in the world does my (same-gender) marriage have any impact on someone else’s (opposite-gender) marriage? It’s just totally ridiculous and insane.

This was my 81 year-old mother’s baffled reaction to the passing of Prop 8:

I don’t see how your marriage or anyone else’s affects our 60-year marriage except for pride in all four of us.

So I ask my straight friends, how would you feel, waking up to find out that your neighbors voted away your legal rights because you’re heterosexual, and then I said it kinda bothers me? Would you feel. . .maybe a little disoriented? Sad? Angry? Disheartened? Afraid? Would you wonder who, exactly, thought your stable family was a personal threat? Was it one of your basketball buddies? Someone from your kids’ carpool?

What would you should tell your children? Good luck.

What if, later that morning on TV, you saw Christians, filmed in their churches, celebrating, with tears of joy, that you now can be legally discriminated against? That it’s now legal to hate you and strip you of your place in our common culture?

What if, in a jolt of shock, you recognize that the church on TV is the one right next to yours, the one your church had the joint potluck with last Thanksgiving? The one you combine choirs and services with to create a more joyful worship-filled Christmas Eve? What if you recognized individuals behind the hateful signs and joyful tears: people from that day you prayed together, before you all went to volunteer at the food bank?

How would you feel then?

Like you were making progress?

Would you feel grateful?

Would you feel the winds of change?

Or would you wonder who else hates you? Would you wonder if some of your neighbors don’t believe that you even have the right to be Christian?

Would you wonder if they helped raise $70 million to prevent you from having the same rights as they take for granted?

What would Jesus have done with $70 million dollars? Would he have helped the lepers, healed the sick, fed the poor, purchased the teachers materials to teach with? Would he have provided health care to children below the poverty line?

Or would he have gone to the government of his time and try to force discrimination against, say, prostitutes, into law. With whom exactly did Jesus hang out? Do you think Jesus would have said, “Oh prostitutes, lepers, and tax collectors are fine, but gays. . . .? Gays? Eewww. Or would He have embraced us as His brothers and sisters, fighting for our right, as people disenfranchised from society, to live freely and follow our common God?

I’m not sure which makes me more depressed and sad: the supposed invalidation of our previously legal marriage, or the fact that Americans - Californians - including many people of faith, actually voted discrimination into our state constitution. How shocking is that? Why are more people not deeply shocked that Americans, so proud of the melting pot and equal rights for all, even considered equality a problem?

Please, all of you, close your eyes and go back to your fourth grade classroom. Put your hand over your heart and finish saying the pledge of allegiance you made to your country every single school day:

. . .with liberty and justice for all.

You pledged allegiance to the United States of America, remember? Our pledge does not end “with liberty and justice for some.”

“Brothers Should Pull Up Their Pants”

Greetings from sunny Florida! Had to share this:

I just love the fact that this man is President of the United States.

Leo, Josh, Toby, C.J., and Sam Seaborn: The Obama Generation

Have you seen the website of the “Office of the President-Elect“? Very cool… neither Jed Bartlett nor Matt Santos had anything like this.
Heh. One of the best things about having Charlie go on vacation is that I can unilaterally suspend his Sorkintorium. And so I have.

We have every reason to believe the Obama Transition (and Administration) will be as smooth, focused, and disciplined as the Obama Campaign. And the people chosen to serve will be competent and knowledgeable about their areas of service. (Yes, the Bush Administration has set a low bar.)

So who will fill the jobs in the White House and elsewhere in the executive branch?

Even before the election, Foreign Policy created a number of nonpartisan cabinet “Dream Teams.” Charlie had these thoughts. And I voted for these.

Robert Longley has this explanation of the presidential transition process. MSNBC and Foreign Policy Passport offer the latest speculation on outcomes. Newsweek is offering 2 to 1 odds on John Kerry as the next secretary of state (Richard Holbrooke is 5 to 1.)

But the truly big list belongs to Politico. Their speculation goes so deep it includes chiefs of staff for the VPOTUS and FLOTUS.

So, now that we know who will be living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, who do you think will fill the key jobs in the new administration? And how do you feel about Rahm Emanuel filling the shoes of Leo McGarry?

Use the comment section.

South Carolina, Rahm Emanuel, and Feed Issues

I’m on the road, heading to Florida for a break (Molly and Greta will join me this weekend). Tonight, I passed through Florence, South Carolina, which was the first place I volunteered for the Obama campaign. So I took time out from the twelve hour driving slog to pass by the house that served as the Obama office during the January primary. It’s now empty and (not surprising given Florence’s economy) for rent.

I find it hard to believe that South Carolina was less than ten months ago, and that when it happened, nobody really knew whether Hillary or Obama would win the nomination, and that Edwards still had a marginal chance. What an amazing run it’s been.

Believe it or not, I do plan to spend a lot less time blogging over the next two weeks. So I won’t be offering much commentary on transition issues. I will say this, however: I’m surprised that none of the wingnuts has noted that Obama, who they so derisively call “The One,” chose Emmanuel Emanuel as his chief of staff.

One other note: we seem to be having a problem with the Feedburner feed — at least I am. It’s not showing up in my Google Reader. If you use Reader or another RSS aggregator, please tell us in the comments below whether you’re still getting Undip.

A big thank you (again) to Midwest McGarry for pitching in while I’m gone.

Thought of the Day

All those “1.20.09″ bumper stickers have taken on a whole new meaning since Tuesday.

Obamamania in China

A montage of Chinese newspapers’ front pages, via Danwei:

Here’s one reporter’s story about what he saw in a pub in Beijing:

Barack Obama’s victory seems to mean something special in China. Four years ago I was in a Hong Kong restaurant on election night, and the only responses were tepid nods and pats on the back. In the packed Beijing bar where I watched the election returns this year the mood was celebratory. I saw the first champagne drinker around 11:30 a.m. When Obama’s win was declared by CNN a half hour later, the room erupted in cheers. A few people began crying.

Remember that Chinese nationalism has led many Chinese tor regard the United States as an antagonist. For average citizens to react to Obama’s win may lead to a shift in that perception. Of course, that probably will not result in a similar change in the Chinese government’s perception.

What’s Next on Undip

As regular readers of this blog know, the past two weeks have seen fewer posts as I’ve spent more and more time working to get Barack Obama elected President of the United States. Now that that task is done (woo hoo!), you might wonder what’s next for Undip.

Over the next few months, we’ll focus on the transition, particularly as it relates to foreign policy. Over the long term, I hope to move the main focus away from domestic politics and back toward the intersection of international politics, American foreign policy, and pop culture. That said, I anticipate that when domestic politics deserves attention, commentary, and lots of snark, we’ll be there.

I also hope to bring on several contributors that will help expand the scope of our coverage and reinforce our mission and vision. I’ll have more on that soon.

In the short run, however, I need a break to rest, recharge, and get my voice back (and in the process, reacquaint myself with my lovely wife and darling daughter). So over the next two weeks, I’ll be stepping back a bit while Molly, Greta and I head to Florida. That’s not to say that I won’t post at all, only that I won’t post very much.

The good news is that a good friend and regular commenter not only will be stepping into the breach over the next two weeks, but also will become a permanent contributor over the long run. I’ll have more on that soon.

And as always, thanks for your passionate interest in and support for Undip.

Perfect Ending

A sense of humor and a sense of history. Very nice.

Prop 8

My joy over the election of Barak Obama is tempered only by the troubling news from California that the bigoted Yes on Prop 8 forces currently have roughly a 450,000 vote lead with 90 percent of precincts reporting.

The only consolation is that, according to the NYT, nearly 3 million absentee and provisional ballots remain to be counted. Given the absentee and early voting trends across the country, I continue to hold out hope that it will be enough to make a difference.

To my family and friends in California: do not forget, as Martin Luther King, Jr., once said, the moral arc of the universe bends slowly, but it always bends toward justice. Keep fighting: you will not be denied. I hope that we can all celebrate soon.

Analysis of the Day

The Onion is on the case:

After emerging victorious from one of the most pivotal elections in history, president-elect Barack Obama will assume the role of commander in chief on Jan. 20, shattering a racial barrier the United States is, at long last, shitty enough to overcome. . . .

Carrying a majority of the popular vote, Obama did especially well among women and young voters, who polls showed were particularly sensitive to the current climate of everything being fucked. Another contributing factor to Obama’s victory, political experts said, may have been the growing number of Americans who, faced with the complete collapse of their country, were at last able to abandon their preconceptions and cast their vote for a progressive African-American.

Citizens with eyes, ears, and the ability to wake up and realize what truly matters in the end are also believed to have played a crucial role in Tuesday’s election.

According to a CNN exit poll, 42 percent of voters said that the nation’s financial woes had finally become frightening enough to eclipse such concerns as gay marriage, while 30 percent said that the relentless body count in Iraq was at last harrowing enough to outweigh long ideological debates over abortion. In addition, 28 percent of voters were reportedly too busy paying off medial bills, desperately trying not to lose their homes, or watching their futures disappear to dismiss Obama any longer.

I’m too happy right now to admit the underlying truth that makes this so funny.

The Stakes — 729 Days Later

Here are excerpts from the letter I wrote to friends as well as members of the organization I headed at the time, on the day in 2004 after President Bush defeated Sen. John Kerry. Let us do everything we can to ensure that we do not wake to a similar result tomorrow.

Dear friends,

Today did not dawn the way we either hoped or expected. The initial returns, including a fairly decisive win for President Bush, do not seem to bode well for progressive issues in general and global issues in particular. The challenges we now face are genuine. But they are not overwhelming.

I won’t kid you: the next four years will not be easy. A majority of Americans have decided to travel a path different from the one we seek. But this majority is not a mandate. Those who made this choice did so for what they believed are valid reasons, and not because they are ignorant, evil, reckless, or irrational. We must not demonize those who disagree with us; to do so is to ensure that our message will never be heard by those who most need to hear it and to condemn ourselves to irrelevance.

Instead, we must convince all Americans that a positive vision based on global cooperation can and will trump a philosophy based entirely on fear. The President’s approach may have won support in the short run, but it is not an organizing principle around which he can build a permanent majority. . . .

[I]f we are to succeed, we will have to become passionate advocates and not merely passive defenders. We will have to engage our critics rather than ignore them. We we will have to stand up for what we believe in, and not shy away from opportunities to challenge our opponents’ misleading assertions. We will have to present a compelling case that the United States must reject unilateralism and re-engage the world as a
partner, participant, and leader.

We did not win yesterday¹s battle. But by no means have we lost the war. Our opponents’ margin of victory is not insurmountable, no matter how it may appear in the bleak light of today’s returns. We have only just begun to educate the American people about the need for global solutions. We will succeed. It is only a matter of time before we build a globalist majority in Congress and elect a globalist president to the White House.

So enough about yesterday. Today, our work begins anew. We have 729 days before the next election. Let’s get to work!

Best,

Charlie

The View from the Ground Game

Over the past several weeks, I have devoted most of my time volunteering in the local Obama office in Arlington, Virginia. It’s been an extraordinary experience. Over the course of the past week, I saw hundreds upon hundreds of volunteers come through the door, determined to spend their spare time helping to turn Virginia blue.

Over the past week, the volunteers in this one office made, by my rough count, over 100,000 phone calls. That’s not a typo — we actually hit as many as 20,000 calls in one day, and averaged close to 17,000 calls a day. At one point on Saturday, there were 75 people making calls — in a space made for, at most twenty, and in temperatures that often were warmer than a sauna.

The phone bank was only one small part of the operation: the campaign also ran a full-blown canvassing operation out of about ten homes throughout Arlington. Volunteers went door-to-door, speaking to individuals about Obama and encouraging them to get out to vote. Another team helped put together the literature and then arranged for volunteers to distribute it at metro stations, malls, and other high-traffic areas. Yet another team made sure that everyone was fed, and a smaller group staffed the incoming phones and the front desk.

The end result was extraordinary. In the last few days, the office hummed. Although there were often problems or surprises, the staff and their volunteers handled the challenges and kept the focus on winning.

Tonight was the culmination of that effort. The staff was told to stay in the office until Virginia turned blue. That changed the original celebration plans, which involved going to a volunteer’s house. Instead, we brought the party to the office. Of course, we had no TV there, so everyone gathered around about 4-5 computers to watch the cable feeds, while others checked their blackberries and laptops to get the most up-to-date results.

As we watched, ate, and drank beer, state after state turn blue. Almost simultaneously, the networks called Virginia for Obama and declared Obama the next President of the United States.

And then. . .absolute pandemonium. We cheered, we wept, we drank champagne. We hollered “yes we did” over and over again. Then we hugged and cried some more. It was extraordinary and beautiful — we were in the middle of this completely trashed office, paper strewn everywhere, and nobody cared, because Barack Obama was going to be the next President of the United States.

One more thing: the vast majority of the staff were 25 years old or younger. Most head home next week — to towns across America and all over the world. A few are going to continue their service by joining the Peace Corps and other international relief agencies. First, however, most are going to pass out.

As am I — I’ll be back sometime tomorrow with some details on what comes next.

The Next Two Days: Blogging v. GOTV

As often happens in the real world, I face a conflict over the next two days — my desire to blog the election and my desire to help elect Barack Obama. Since my commitment to the Obama campaign — including my promise to help run the Arlington phone bank — predates the start of Undip, I’m afraid that the blog is going to take a back seat until the election is over.

I think you’ll agree that’s a no-brainer. The last thing I want to do is wake up Wednesday and offer advice to my readers on how they can emigrate to Canada.

But it does means few, if any posts over the next few days as I try to help get out the vote. It also means I won’t be live blogging the results, as I’ll be joining my colleagues in what I continue to hope will be a celebration that includes Virginia going blue.

Since you’ll have more time on your hands (heh), please do what you can to help Barack Obama win. You can find out about volunteer opportunities here. And if you’re on the West Coast — and not planning to go to Nevada, New Mexico, or Colorado to help out there — please consider volunteering to help the No on Prop 8 forces in California. They need 10,000 volunteers on election day to help ensure equality for all.

Nightly Election Open Thread

We did 20,000 phone calls in the Arlington office today (no, that’s not a typo).

Twenty thousand phone calls.

Out of that, we identified over 2,000 Obama supporters we didn’t know about before.

And that’s one office out of many.

Imagine what you could do if you came out tomorrow to help your local office do the same?

Talk amongst yourselves.

Nightly Election Open Thread

Another five hours phonebanking today. Tomorrow, it will be something like twelve.

Instead of talking amongst yourselves, why not go out tomorrow and talk to some undecided voters?

Night of the Living Dead Candidates

It looks like Ralph Nader has hired Mike Gravel as his media consultant:

Rob Zombie meets George Romero? Didn’t Rob Zombie already remake George Romero?

Oh, and has Mike Gravel endorsed anyone? Please, please, please tell me it’s not Obama.

Morning Buzz: Battleground Minnesota

My all-time favorite documentary on politics: hip hop activist Shakademic reports on the 2004 election in Minnesota. Be sure to watch all the way through — he gets Norm Coleman to wear some blinged-out jewelry and teaches Walter Mondale how to scratch.

Really.

Bah Humbug Open Elections Thread

Long day today, the middle part of which was extremely bad. Basically, my Mac Mail program committed suicide, and I spent TWO FREAKING HOURS at the genius bar in my local Apple store trying to get my email back. I eventually did get to work again, but only at the cost of all the email stored on my machine and all the little shortcuts I had set up. I have to say that I’m no longer convinced that only geniuses work at the genius bar, no matter what John Hodgman has to say about it.

Meh. Okay, enough complaining. I did spend the evening phone banking, so not all was lost.

Talk amongst yourselves.

Biden Was Right: Obama Will Face A Crisis (But So Will McCain)

It’s been over a week since Joe Biden said that world events would test Obama in his first six months in office:

“Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama. . . . The world is looking. . . . We’re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. . . . I guarantee you that it’s going to happen.

The McCain campaign has jumped all over this, running an ad with the tag line, “It doesn’t have to happen. Vote McCain.”

When I first heard about this, I dismissed it as a tempest in a teapot — Joe Biden running off his mouth and the McCain campaign using it to make yet another commercial. But then I began to think about it a little more, and I realized that not only is Joe Biden right, John McCain is delusional if he thinks that his election would prevent the world from testing him.

Over the past fifty years, every newly elected President — with one notable exception — has faced multiple major international incidents in his first year of office (defined as January 20 to the following January 19 for those elected to office, day of swearing in to one year later for Johnson and Ford). Using Wikipedia’s year by year historical calendars, I put together a short list:

John F. Kennedy (January 20, 1961 - January 19, 1962):

Civil war in the Congo
The Bay of Pigs incident
Soviet decision to build the Berlin Wall

Lyndon B. Johnson (November 22, 1963 to November 21, 1964):

Coup in South Vietnam
Gulf of Tonkin incident (and subsequent Congressional incident authorizing war)
China tests its first atomic bomb

Richard M. Nixon (January 20, 1969 to January 19, 1970):

Sino-Soviet border conflict
Secret bombing of Cambodia
Hamburger Hill (major battle in Vietnam)
The “Football War” between Honduras and El Salvador
My Lai massacre

Gerald R. Ford (August 9, 1974 to August 8, 1975):

Cyprus
Mayaguez incident
Fall of South Vietnam
State of Emergency in India

Jimmy Carter (January 20, 1977 to January 19, 1978):

No major crisis

Ronald Reagan (January 20, 1981 to January 19, 1982):

Israel’s attack on Iraqi nuclear facilities
Gulf of Sidra incident (U.S. and Lybian planes clash)
Assasination of Anwar Sadat,
Martial law in Poland

George H. W. Bush (January 20, 1989 to January 19, 1990):

Lockerbie/Pan Am 103 (technically, this happened before Bush was sworn in, but the determination of who was responsible took place during his watch)
Tiananmen Square massacre
Fall of Berlin Wall and collapse of Communist rule in Eastern Europe

Bill Clinton (January 20, 1993 to January 19, 1994):

Somalia
World Trade Center bombing
North Korea withdraws from the NPT,
Attack on Iraq in response to ttempted assassination of G.H.W. Bush by Iraqi agents
Yeltsin uses tanks on Russian Parliament

George W. Bush (January 20, 2001 to January 19, 2002):

U.S.-China dispute over American spy plane
9/11
War in Afghanistan

So it is not uncommon for new Presidents to be tested by world events. In fact, early crises are the rule, not the exception. The only President in the past fifty years not to face multiple crises in his first year was Jimmy Carter — and we all know how well he did with foreign policy.

For argument’s sake, let’s remove relatively minor crises like the Soccer War or self-inflicted ones like the Bay of Pigs. In fact, let’s limit the list to incidents that involve another country or terrorist group “testing” a new President. Here’s what we end up with:

Kennedy: Soviet Union (Berlin Wall)
Johnson: North Vietnam (Vietnam War)
Nixon: North Vietnam (Vietnam War)
Ford: Cambodia (Mayaguez incident)
Reagan: Libya (Gulf of Sidra incident)
Bush I: Libya (Lockerbie), China (post-Tiananmen sanctions)
Clinton: Somalian insurgents (Black Hawk down episode), terrorists (WTC bombing), Iraq (Bush assassination attempt)
Dubya: China (spy plane incident), al Qaeda (9/11), Afghanistan (the Taliban’s refusal to hand over bin Laden and other al-Qaeda members)

In other words, other than Carter, every President has been deliberately provoked by someone over the course of their first year in office. The notion that McCain somehow would be an exception to the rule defies the reality of the past half-century.

Or to put it another way, new Presidents don’t get tested because of their youth or inexperience — they get tested because they’re new. The key question isn’t whether there will be a crisis, but rather how the new President will respond.

Obama’s Closing Argument

Take time to watch Obama’s close. Yes, it’s thirty minutes, but it’s worth your time.

Huckabee Did It Better

One jokey Chuck Norris political commercial is hilarious.

Two jokey Chuck Norris political commercials is just painfully overdone.

You gotta give the NRA credit. They just locked up the 14-year-old World-of-Warcraft-playing Barrens chat trolls for John McCain.

Nightly Politics Open Thread

I can’t decide if I’m a whack job or a diva.

Talk amongst yourselves.

Cheese-Eating, Uh, Champions of Freedom

It looks like a certain French leader has started drinking McKoolaid instead of champagne.

French President Nicolás Sarkozy is very critical of U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama’s positions on Iran, according to reports that have reached Israel’s government. Sarkozy has made his criticisms only in closed forums in France. But according to a senior Israeli government source, the reports reaching Israel indicate that Sarkozy views the Democratic candidate’s stance on Iran as “utterly immature” and comprised of “formulations empty of all content.”

You know that Bush and McCain are desperate when they turn to the French to try to pull off an October surprise.

Memo to Matt Groening: no more cheese-eating surrender monkeys. From now on, they are to be referred to as brie-loving champions of freedom.

Odious. Hateful. Sick.

This is un-freaking-un-FREAKING-believable. And sick. And hateful.

You know what makes it even worse? It’s sung to the freaking Barney song:

I love you,
You love me,
We’re a happy family,
with a great big hug,
and a kiss from me to you,
Won’t you say you love me TOO!

I love you,
You love me,
We’re best friends like friends should be,
With a great big hug,
And a kiss from me to you,
Won’t you say you love me too!

I’m not the biggest Barney fan, but give the big guy credit — this is deliberately ambiguous in order to be as inclusive as possible.

Oh. Wait. Barney is Purple. Just like Tinky-Winky. You know that that means, don’t you? Gay. Gay. Gay. Gay. Gay. Mr. Rogers? He wore a cardigan. And Captain Kangaroo spent all his time with Mr. Green Jeans, who secretly had a red bandanna hanging out of his back pocket. Bert and Ernie? You betcha. Big Bird? Don’t even get me started. Oscar the Grouch? A welfare queen, if you get my drift.

I don’t ever again want to hear Christian fundamentalists tell me that they are concerned for the welfare of their children. This is nothing less than cynical exploitation.

They should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

Stop the hate — vote no on Proposition 8. Help Equality California by voting here.

Hat tip: Open Left

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Contact Me

Blogroll

Polls

Admin

Archive