Have you ever been experienced?

I watched "Bush's War" last night on my DVR and for the first time in a long while it made me pause and reconsider my support for Obama. If you haven't seen it, the show essentially re-lives the internal battles among administration insiders in the run up to the war. It also lays bare the fact that personal politics - as opposed to policy politics - determined our strategy and execution in Iraq. Cheney and Rumsfeld used their experience with personal politics to cut out, subvert and disenfranchise anyone who they felt was an obstacle to their success, regardless of the costs to the country, our soldiers or our security. This seems especially odd, since that during the 2000 election the experience of Bush's advisers- Cheney especially- was widely cited as an asset that would help the relatively inexperienced Governor mitigate his own inexperience. Bush could rely on these men, it was claimed, to help him navigate difficult situations when they arose. In reality these advisers - Cheney especially - used their experience advantage to circumvent policy analysis and discussion that threatened the tactics they supported. And we know how the story goes from there.

So back to Obama. I have never bought the "experience" argument that Clinton has been pushing. To be blunt, I think her 35 years of experience is a) an exaggeration and b) mostly irrelevant. However, one area where she clearly does have more experience than Obama is in this arena of political in-fighting. She has lived through decades of it in both her professional and personal lives. Judging by her current campaign, Clinton has certainly learned these lessons well.

The question is, does this make her less likely to fall prey to the machinations of less-than-altruistic advisers? Or does the fact that Obama is generally better prepared to analyze complex issues than Bush make this a red herring?

A new year begins

For me at least

...in which I completely contradict my previous post

Despite the fact I think the Super Delegate system is structurally flawed, I have decided that it will not play a role in deciding the Democratic nominee. I happened upon this realization last night, just before dinner. Here's my thinking on this:

There are essentially three potential outcomes at the end of the primaries.
1) Obama wins the popular vote AND has the most pledged delegates
2) Clinton wins the popular vote AND has the most pledged delegates
3) The two candidates split, with one winning the popular vote and the other winning the most pledged delegates.

The reality the outcome number three will not occur seems to becoming more and more clear all the time. For example see here and here . I suppose it is still possible, but this seems like an extreme corner case.

That leaves outcomes one and two. In either of those instances the result is the same. As long as one person takes both the popular and pledged delegate victories than the Super Delegates will give that candidate the nomination. Irrespective of who the winner is, it seems fair to say that the loser and their supporters will be told to accept the results. This makes sense in many ways. Most importantly, it makes sense emotionally. At the end of the day, after all the votes are counted and your side lost, then you can come to grips with it. Call it the "We did our best, but our best wasn't good enough" syndrome. Eventually, most of these people would come around to support the official nominee.

The reverse, however, would not be possible. If the Super Delegates go against the popular vote and pledged delegates it would lead to the untenable position of the party leaders going against the rank and file. The Super Delegates may be self-important, but they are not delusional. They realize that neither they, nor their chosen candidate would survive the mutiny that this would engender. It would mean sure defeat at the polls in November and most likely cost the Super Delegates in their individual political endeavors.

This of course assumes that Florida and Michigan are counted in some way that satisfies everyone's concerns about the primaries there. I realize that this is a big if, but I am confident that in the end the Super Delegates will not have the influence that the media is currently assigning to them.

The super delegate problem

The problem with the Super Delegates is not that they are elitist or biased or even too prone to support the "status quo". While I am certain that at the individual level some or all of these criticisms do apply, the truth is that much the same could be said of any voter. In this sense, the Super Delegate are identical to the regular delegates and to those average citizens whose votes pledged these delegates to one or another candidate. On the whole I do not see this as an inherent failure in the nominating system.

A system that relies on Super Delegates, however, is structurally flawed. By and large Super Delegates are politicians. As such their primary concern is the continued growth of their own individual power and importance. Political success trumps policy objectives. This added layer of personal self-interest is the core problem with Super Delegates.

There has been much discussion about how the Super Delegates should pledge their support to one of the candidates and in so doing end the current fratricide that many people think is damaging the Democrats' chances in November. Why hasn't this happened? Quite simply because each Super Delegate is seeking to maximize the value of their endorsement and to get as much in return as possible. Endorsements from politicians always - ALWAYS- have a price attached to them. This price may be financial - promises of funding for home district projects, for instance - or it may be personal - appointment to a key position that will further the career of the person lending their endorsement. The price extracted by the endorser is based on the perceived value that this person brings to a candidate. This value can wax and wane over time, depending on the electoral circumstances.

It is clear that neither Obama nor Clinton will have enough pledged regular delegates to secure the nomination. So we find ourselves in a situation where with each passing day, the value of a Super Delegates endorsement and the price that they can extract for these endorsements grows. This is a complicated calculus that has to take in to account a variety of factors to a) insure that you end up on the winning side and b)time the endorsement perfectly. Right now, the longer a Super Delegate waits, the more leverage they have. Until this equation changes, don't expect to see any rush of Super Delegates pledging their votes.

The dissent of man

My mother forwarded me this opinion piece from Jeff Jacoby at The Boston Globe. It's a complete hit job. My response (in part) was:

Whether you support Obama, Clinton or McCain is really not issue here. More importantly, is our country’s increasing efforts to try and silence dissent. Ask yourself what would have been the result had we been more willing to listen to the hundreds of thousands of people who spoke up against invading Iraq BEFORE the war started? How many hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved? Yet instead, those very same people were called un-American, jailed and told by the administration, the public and the media that they had better “watch what they say.” But I ask you what could be more patriotic than risking the ire of your friends, the anger of society and the risk of jail because you feel that you must speak out in order to IMPROVE your country?

I challenge you to go watch the full 6 minutes of the sermon that Rev Wright gave. You are free to disagree with every last bit of it. Reverend Wright may be completely wrong. Regardless, Reverend Wright’s speech is precisely the reason why the founding fathers included the right to free speech in the Bill of Rights. In a country where the people are endowed with the power to elect the government, it is not only allowable, but also essential for the populace to speak out when they believe the government is in error. Articles like this, like this serve only to weaken our country and their purveyors are the ones who are truly unpatriotic.

Connecting the dots...

Something that I have not yet seen brought to light. Perhaps it is just too obvious, but here goes:

This entire Obama Wright flap provides tremendous insight into the method by which politicians, primarily Republicans, seed and spread misleading memes and how they gain traction with the public and the media. First, the issue of Obama ‘s middle name is brought up, using the fringe right to generate some noise. This is really the only place that something like this can gain traction of course because it is completely irrational, but nonetheless the story line is not out there. Next, the issue of not wearing an American flag lapel pin is raised. It gets a little more notice, but not much. Really just more red meat for the right wing echo chamber. Next comes the picture of the trip to Africa where Obama is in Somali dress. Then comes Jack Kingston on the Bill Maher show with the pledge of allegiance claim. Now we have a story that has legs and has multiple “proof” points to it. The mainstream media now looks at this and says, “Hey maybe there is a story here” and a few of them cover it. Even if they merely cover it as a political story highlighting the campaign tactics, it begins to find its way into the general population. Now comes Jeremiah Wright and “God Damn America!” This is a story that by itself probably would generate little coverage. It would simply be seen for what it is – a political hit job. However, if there is a long trail of “evidence” than the major media outlets say to themselves, “By golly this is a real story here and we had better cover it and cover it big.”


Think back, and connect the dots. These seemingly random events were painstakingly plotted. The timing and order of these “revelations” was intentional and premeditated. The purveyors of this story had the Wright video in hand on day one. The final design was not apparent at the outset – hell we still may not have seen the entire composition - but each piece was intricately laid like a mosaic. It is a lesson in how these things take root, a playbook for how to play the media and a case study in what is wrong with our system.