Bill Clinton, Bruce Springsteen, and Hollywood stars may give Obama the edge over Romney

After the American Century

In the final days of the campaign, President Obama has some high profile surrogate campaigners. The most effective is surely former President Bill Clinton, who has the gift of gab - making sense of complex issues for ordinary people. He is immensely popular, and filled a fieldhouse with 3000+ students in Ohio yesterday. Clinton was not the only draw for that crowd, who also came to see Bruce Springsteen. The singer has been on the sidelines for 2012, until now, after being a vocal presence for Obama in 2008. You can see/hear Clinton and Springsteen here. Springsteen will also be playing in Virginia, another hotly contested swing state.

Obama can count on support from many other stars, notably Beyonce, Jay-Z, Jon Bon Jovi, Jennifer Lopez, James Taylor, Will.i.am, Stevie Wonder, Alicia Keys, Mariah Carey, and many more, including some sports stars such as Magic Johnson and LeBron James. They can help motivate the public, especially the younger voters, who are strongly in favor of Obama.

When there are only 20 days left, having so many extra headliners to help out may make quite a difference. Compare Romney's situation. He has not asked the vastly unpopular George W. Bush to appear anywhere. He was not at the Republican National Convention, and his name was scarcely even mentioned. Nor has the senior Bush been out on the hustings for Romney. All the previous Republican presidents are dead.

Romney does have some famous musical performers to help him. There is country music star Lee Greenwood, but he is only famous to a niche audience, who mostly support Romney already. Otherwise, his supporters include Ted Nugent, Donny and Marie Osmond, Charlie Daniels, Lee Greenwood, John Rich, John Ondrasik, Joe Perry, Hank Williams Jr., Gretchen Wilson, and Randy Owen from Alabama.

Hollywood actors are also getting into the act, as it were. Romney has the backing of Clint Eastwood (talking to a chair), Robert Duval, Chuck Norris, Andy Garcia, Jon Voight, Patricia Heaton, James Caan, Sylvester Stallone, Tom Selleck, and, to my surprise, Kelsey Grammer.

From Hollywood, Obama's supporters include: Al Pacino, Gwyneth Paltrow, Robert De Nero, Demi Moore, Sean Penn, Sharon Stone, Samuel Jackson,  Sarah Jessica Parker, Matt Damon, Scarlet Johansson, George Clooney, and Meryl Streep, to name but a fraction of a very large total.

If I had to listen to musicians and to watch  films coming only from those who supported one candidate, Obama would certainly get my vote. I would, however, miss the Frasier re-runs.

Hillary's Hubris

After the American Century

One of the ancient Greek playrights might have worked up the events of the Democratic Party primaries into a dramatic production: "Hillary's Hubris" - a brilliant politician's unsuccessful drive for power threatens to tear her world apart . . . . a new work by the author of Oedipus Rex.

Shakespere might have rolled out "Hillary Hamlet," - being the tale of a princess who expected to inherit the throne and became convinced that only a foul conspiracy against her person could explain the sudden rise of a handsome young prince.

But seriously, there is a curious idea, or proto-narrative, floating around that goes something like this: Hillary Clinton is losing to Barack Obama because discrimination against women is stronger and more pernicious than discrimination against African-Americans. Such talk is deeply unfair to both candidates. It assumes that race and gender are more important than anything else. It overlooks the rather obvious fact that an attractive, experienced, and well-spoken white man, John Edwards, lost to both Clinton and Obama. In fact, so did every other white man in the race. So, the idea that voters are deeply preoccupied with gender and race, and that they are particularly prejudiced against women, is not a convincing position to begin with. But when the argument is raised by the Clinton camp, it is self-serving nonsense. Trying to make Hillary look like a victim just doesn't fly. She was the front-runner until early February, and when you are in front, the journalists go after you. The same thing happened to Obama when he took the lead.

For Hillary's supportrs to claim she is a victim of sexism does not fly for other reasons that are also obvious. Recall that she was leading in the polls for months during 2007. Recall that the press annointed her as the virtual candidate. Recall that she had the enormous advantage of drawing on Bill Clinton's political network. During all this time one did not hear many complaints from her camp about her treatment in the press, because she was getting good press.

Why did she fall behind Obama? Because she ran a lousy campaign in January and especially in February, when she had prepared almost nothing for the primaries after "Super Tuesday." Instead, she had to fire her campaign manager and reorganize. Despite her huge early advantage, Hillary lost in the trenches. She did it too herself. Obama won because he managed his campaign more effectively in those crucial first two months. She has been trying, and failing, to catch up ever since.

When a politician falls behind, or an athelete or anyone else for that matter, one possibility is to gain some respect for the opponent, admit mistakes, exhibit some grace under pressure, and try to win back the lost ground. To some extent, Clinton has done that. But she has also whined, complained of discrimination, played the race card and most unpleasantly of all, hinted that she remains available just in case her opponent gets shot. It was a disgrace when she said that she was the candidate of white people, of "hard-working white people." As a white person, I am angry that she spoke that way. It is especially offensive if you happen not to be white.

Is she a victim, as some of her supporters claim? She beat every white male opponent, and every male opponent but one. She is a powerful US Senator. She has accumulated a large personal fortune. For such a person to complain about gender discrimination is deeply dishonest. The Clinton camp should have learned from Obama that most voters are not looking to elect a victim as president. They do not want that sort of self-dramatization combined with a sense of entitlement. What voters want is a positive message. Bill Clinton knew that in 1992, but she seems to have forgotten.

Worst of all, she and Bill Clinton have to some extent succeeded in making the primary race into a contest where race and gender are central, rather than the very serious issues. The African-American voters in New York are angry at her pattern of behavior. History may not forgive the Clintons, but in the meantime get ready for an exciting fall production, "Who's Afraid of Hillary's Hubris?"

Taking Stock After the PA Primary

After the American Century

It is time to take stock and get the bigger picture in focus after yesterday's primary. The results are in, and Hillary Clinton has won Pennsylvania by roughly 9.5% over Barack Obama. This was a bit more convincing victory than some polls had predicted, but by no means a surprise. It tells us that voters over who are over 45, women, or working class, cannot easily be won over to Obama's side. Clinton successfully portrayed herself as a local girl, whose father came from Scanton. Its citizens responded by voting for her by a margin of 3 to 1.

This means Hillary will continue to run, and that, in her words, she "won't quit" because "the American people don't quit." For the Democratic Party, however, this is the nightmare scenario, in which the primary campaign does not choose a candidate and the convention risks becoming a free-for-all. Since February 5, the campaign has lost its lofty tone and become increasingly negative. All close observers can see that Clinton is primarily responsible for the change. Today the New York Times, which endorsed her, nevertheless editorialized against her tactics, citing in particular an "advertisement" (if one can call it that) that depicted all the worst crises in twentieth century US history, including the Stock Market Crash of 1929, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Cold War, 9/11, and even a cameo role for Osama bin Laden. The powerful imagery has nothing to do with the differences between the candidates, but was marshalled so Hillary could once again suggest that she had more experience. (However, McCain will beat "McClinton" on experience, particularly military experience.)

Meanwhile, what is happening outside the bubble of Democratic Party politics? President Bush has fallen even further in the polls. Now just 28% approve of the job he is doing. But Congress is even less popular, with some polls giving it just 20%, although the average of all polls is 22%. The electorate is not happy because the economy is in recession and hundreds of thousands of home buyers teeter on the edge of foreclosure. Because food prices are rising while incomes are stagnant. Because the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue. Moreover, many are now making the link between the billions of dollars spent on the war and the weakening economy. Normally, with such dissatisfied voters and such an economy, the Republicans would have no chance in November. But the unresolved race between Obama and Clinton has given them a chance, and McCain is the ideal candidate to make the most of it.

Now step back further, away from the clamor of the election. The dollar has just sunk to a historic low against the Euro. It now costs $1.60 to buy the same Euro that was worth 99 cents on January 1, 2000. This difference will almost certainly get worse, because the US continues to buy more than it sells and because European interest rates are considerably higher than those in the US. America may be in recession, but in much of Europe the problem remains inflation. (Indeed, in Denmark the unemployment rate is less than 2%, foreign workers are streaming in to meet demand, and home loan interest rates are over 5%.) While the downturn in the States will slow growth elsewhere somewhat, the realization is growing that China and India have become large enough to keep the world economy steaming ahead. If the US is only stagnating and not collapsing, the Europeans may have little to worry about. In economics, it's called "decoupling."

The candidates have not talked about this, or what to do about it. While the election preoccupies the US, the nation's economic centrality is fading. The dollar can fall drastically, and the nation can go into recession while the rest of the world as a whole grows at an average annual rate of 3-4% or more. In Pennsylvania, the voters look at their shuttered factories and can sense the problem, but the candidates blame NAFTA. Unfortunately, the reasons for the economic weakening of the US are far more complex and risk becoming more permanent than the next administration. That is why this blog is called After the American Century. The US needs to wake up to the severity of its economic problems.

"Super Delegates" May Hold Balance of Power in the Democratic Party

After the American Century

This nomination process is not the result of simple voting, where the nominee is selected directly by the voters. Rather, voters select delegates, and they do so by district. In Nevada, for example, Obama got fewer votes than Hillary Clinton but won in more districts and so has more delegates (13-12). The same sort of thing happened in New Hampshire, where Obama may have lost the popular vote but won one more delegate (12-11). In Iowa, Obama got more votes than she did, but both ended up with the same number of delegates (18).  In South Carolina, Obama won both the popular vote and the most delegates (26-14). Based on those four contests, it seems obvious that Obama should be winning the delegate battle, with 69, vs. 55 for Hillary. 

However, only three out of every four delegates are selected in primaries and caucuses. When the 4049 delegates arrive at the Democratic Convention to select their candidate, 796 of them will be "super delegates." That is, they will be there by virtue of their office or past service to the party. For example, former President Bill Clinton is a super delegate, and so are sitting Democratic governors, Senators, mayors of major cities, and party members who hold seats in the House of Representatives, plus various others. These "super delegates" define the party establishment. They tend to favor the known over the unknown. As politicians, they all have debts and obligations, and it is more likely that they owe a favor or two to the candidates who are well-established. In other words, these elected politicians all know the Clintons, and many are in their political debt. 

Super delegates do not necessarily pledge their support to any candidate in advance, and many wait for the race to develop before backing someone. CNN has prepared a list which shows that when pledged super delegates are included, Hillary Clinton is well ahead, with 232 delegates, vs. only 158 for Obama. By my count, that means he has picked up 89 super delegates, while Hillary has gained 177, almost twice as many. No less than 59 of Hillary's super delegates come from just New York State and California. Will Hillary easily win because of her super delegate support? Perhaps not. For there is another way to look at these numbers. More than half of the super delegates are still up for grabs, either sitting on the fence (368) or committed to Edwards (62), who has dropped out. These 430 super delegates may hold the balance of power, should the primaries fail to give either Obama or Clinton 2025 delegates, the minimum necessary for nomination. 

So much has already happened in this campaign that no one would have predicted. Yet, presumably it is certain that the nominee will need at least 2025 delegates. (Though even here, what about Michigan and Florida and their discounted primaries?) To prevail, Obama will need to do more than narrowly win the popular vote. He probably has to defeat Clinton resoundingly at the polls before he can swing those 430 super delegates (insiders all), to his side. He cannot do it without insider support of this own. Ted Kennedy, who knows most super delegates by their first names, can play a crucial role in getting them to ride the Obama wave.

The Bush Economy, Part 2

More than one month ago, on December 12, I put out a blog on the failings of the Bush economy.(See the archive.) In the past week the failures of his economic policies have been driving down the stock market, and have prompted the head of the Federal Reserve to call for an economic stimulus package as quickly as possible.  Bush's immediate response has been to call for an across the board tax cut. Now, recall that the foolish tax cuts of his first year in office helped to over-heat the economy, and recall that these overwhelmingly favored the very rich. The immediate problem is not that these same rich people need yet another tax cut, but that relief is needed specifically by the middle class. More specifically still, people who bought houses recently need help in paying their mortgages. Rather than give a tax cut to everyone, in other words, Bush should be focusing on those families who are on the brink of going under. If they default on mortgages, the ripple effects will further destabilize the entire economy. What to do?

First, Congress should step in and guarantee mortgages, helping banks and borrowers to renegotiate the terms of their debt. Neither banks nor borrowers gain anything if the mortgage market collapse. Rather than just give some money to everyone, including rich people who already have received a terrific tax cut, and then hope that the economy as a whole will be stimulated enough to help people with big mortgages, why not attack the problem directly?

Second, Bush should admit that the US cannot afford to keep spending $1 billion a day in Iraq. There were strong military and strategic arguments against going into that war in the first place, but they made no impression upon the true-believers who directed policy. Perhaps the Republicans will listen to an economic argument, especially in an election year.

Third, the Democrats should seize this opportunity to attack the Republicans for their mistaken foreign policy and their failed economic policy. During the last week in the Nevada Caucuses we have witnessed some rather pitiful in-fighting, especially from the Clinton side. It is time to tell the American people just how bad a President Bush has been. The Democrats have to attack the neo-conservative policies that have weakened the United States financially and hurt its international image. Obama must move beyond "feel good" unity and hope toward a more detailed vision of what will change and how. And Clinton should stop crowing about her vast experience and start to show the American people that she has the courage to confront the Republicans and hold them accountable for their mistakes. 

Unfortunately, I doubt that any of these things will occur. In an election year Congress is likely to be distracted, and the Democrats may not want to rescue the Republicans. They may calculate that the worse the economy gets, the less chance there is for McCain or Romney or whoever it turns out to be. Nor should one expect that Bush will retreat from Iraq. He will no doubt stubbornly "stay the course," just as Richard Nixon stubbornly stayed in Vietnam, convinced that a victory and vindication would eventually come. Even if Bush suddenly did change his mind, it will take more than a year to get the troops out in an orderly fashion, and that $1 billion a day will continue to hemorrhage out of the economy. Finally, it seems that the Clintons may lower the tone of the Democratic primaries. Bill Clinton in particular has become more aggressive toward Obama. In contrast, McCain and Huckabee on the whole seemed to be take the high road of civility in South Carolina.  (But note the latter has begun to embrace the Confederate flag!)

In short, while the economic woes of the US continue to worsen, there is no clear sign yet of intelligent policy or good leadership from Bush. Meanwhile, the Democrats may squander the opportunity to lead in an internal war of attrition. 

The Bush Economy

The US mortgage crisis and the falling prices for houses have now been making headlines for months. The stock market is also jittery because consumer spending seems certain to fall, as homeowners react to this news. Even though most people are not selling their homes this Christmas, when the value of a house drops, it has a psychological effect. When Jones hears that Smith, just down the street, had to sell for $75,000 less than he expected, Jones is deeply sympathetic, and worried.

How is this problem related to George Bush's 7 years in office? Before his election, in 2000, the country was economically strong. The economy had created 1 million new jobs a year during Clinton's presidency. The federal budget was in robust surplus, and Americans were rapidly paying off their national debt. After Bush came into office, not by virtue of a clear electoral victory but thanks to a 5-4 decision in the Supreme Court, he chose to lower taxes, especially for the wealthiest people. So those who least needed a tax break got one, and the budget once again went into the red. The national debt started to rise again, and the US government had to borrow more money every year. Ronald Reagan did the same thing, so one can say that Republican presidents since 1980 have a clear track record on the economy. Republicans spend more than they take in. They drive up the deficit. Republicans are tax cut and overspend conservatives, who pass the bill on to the next generation. In other words, they are not conservatives at all, in the classical understanding of the term.

Part of the bill for these economic policies comes due now in the form of a crumbling housing market. Why is that Bush's fault? First, by lowering taxes, Bush gave people, especially wealthy people, more money to spend, and much of it went into houses. This drove up prices, and it encouraged all home owners to borrow on the value of their property. It also drew many to invest in real estate. So, something of a housing bubble developed, thanks in part to Bush's profligate policy.

Second, more than $1 billion a day of Bush's deficit spending has gone into the War in Iraq. Had he gone out in the desert and simply burned $1 billion a day, it would have had almost as negative an impact on the economy, except that some of the huge war expense did come back, not to ordinary people, of course, but into the coffers of US corporations like Bechtel. But overall, considered as an economic program, the Iraq adventure is hardly a money-making activity.

Indeed, think about all the money that has gone into military hardware. Building a tank or a military jet does not do much to stimulate the American economy after it is built. A big piece of military equipment itself does not create jobs, improve transportation, or upgrade education. A tank does not innovate. A missile does not start a new business. There is far more economic payoff if a government invests in human beings. A better educated workforce generates more national income. A more highly trained hospital staff provides better care. Job training programs help workers make the transition to a new position. Investment in innovation more than pays for itself. In short, the huge military expenses of the Bush years have siphoned off more than $1 trillion and blasted most of it to bits in Iraq. Think about how much stronger the economy would be if that $1 trillion had been spent on health, education, rebuilding roads, and developing alternatives to imported energy. And in a stronger economy, the housing market would not weaken.

Third, one of the arguments for going into Iraq was that the nation could not let all that oil be controlled by Saddam Hussein. But the War has hardly stabilized the price of oil. For much of the time since the US "won" the war Iraq has had trouble supplying even its own population. Meanwhile, the war itself angered many of those who control Middle East oil production, and they are not rushing to increase production. For some reason, they like getting over $95 a barrel. The high cost of fuel obviously does not help the American economy in general, or the housing market in particular.

Bush Administration policies encouraged housing prices to soar while undermining the strength of the economy as a whole. A correction is unavoidable. One hopes it will not be too severe. It is happening even as I write, and we can only hope that the hard work and innovative activity of ordinary Americans has been a sufficient counter force to Bush's over-spending.