What Obama Should Say in Berlin

After the American Century

Tonight Obama will address a large outdoor crowd in Berlin. No one seems to know how many will come to hear him, but estimates range as high as one million. If the weather is good, that is distinctly possible. So far on this journey Obama has done exceedingly well, apparently making a particularly positive impression in Iraq and Jordan, yet solidifying his support for Israel at the same time. The most difficult part of his trip might seem to be over, since Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel are all troubled nations that present severe foreign policy problems.

By comparison, Germany, France, and Great Britain might look easy. But they are not necessary a doddle. Some of the Germans are prickly about becoming a backdrop to the American campaign, including Angela Merkel. It is thus essential that Obama not appear to be campaigning, that he address his German audience first, and deliver only a good sound bite for the Americans. Who remembers what else John F. Kennedy said in Berlin besides "Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is Ich bin ein Berliner"? (An uncharitable and perhaps slightly inaccurate translation of this remark into Danish would read ... the proudest boast is that "I am a donut.") So for the Americans, all he needs is a pithy one-liner, preferably followed by a roar of cheering and applause. For the Europeans, in contrast, there needs to be some substance.

What might Obama say? He has 300 foreign policy advisors and a clever staff, so they have assuredly thought of more things than I can this morning, but here is a short list of possibilities, other than the obvious need to say thank you for the opportunity to come and a few words about the strong ties between the two nations, etc etc. In any case, this is what I think Obama ought to say. It is a bit tricky for him, because he must seem to speak as a powerful Senator, representing the Democratic Party, and not as a presidential candidate.

(1) The EU has been a tremendous economic success. It is a tribute to earlier American foreign policy, of the sort that needs to be recovered. That foreign policy promoted dialogue, peaceful economic development, and the dismantaling of militaristic nationalism. A region plagued by major wars for hundreds of years until 1945 has now been at peace for more than 60 years. in another generation, no one will be alive that personally remembers World War II. The EU is therefore a model for the rest of the world, and the proudest boast of a Berliner today is that he or she is a citizen of the EU. [He did say much of this, in fact.]

(2) The US needs to listen more to its allies. It should have listened to Germany on Iraq. It needs to be a partner, not an overbearing leader. [Of these three sentences, he said one and three, more or less, but did not specifically mention German opposition to the Iraq invasion.]

(3) The base in Guantanamo should be closed. Five previous secretaries of state, Republicans and Democrats, have called for it to be shut down, and John McCain, as a former prisoner of war, is no fan of the Cuban base either. This would also be popular with the German audience. [He did call for an end to torture, but did not specifcally mention Gauntanamo.]

(4) The US needs to work with the EU to deal with global warming, where the Bush Administration has obstructed progress. Germany is an inspiring example of what can be done with alternative energy, as it has some of the world's largest wind farms and solar arrays. If a northern nation with often cloudy weather can do so much, clearly the US can do even more in the arid but sunny West and the windy Great Plains. (He might mention Al Gore's 10 year plan, but probably he will not do so explicitly.) [He did say much of this.]

(5) The educational exchanges between Europe and America are important and need to be strengthened. Under the Bush Administration the landmark Fulbright Program has been cut back. It should be given far more funding and added scope. Educational exchanges not only strengthen the cultural bonds between our continents, they lead to the synergies of innovation. [He said nothing about this.]

(6) The EU and the US must stand firmly together in confronting global terrorism. At the same time, they must use economic assistance and cultural programs to create a better context for dialogue. The common goal must be to allow a multicultural world to live in peace. [These ideas were central to his speech.]

I am not predicting he will say any of these things, but he ought to. We will see. [Many of the themes mentioned here were in the speech, but of course I did not attempt to imagine the metaphors he might use. The dominant image was that of breaking down walls, which made German historical experience a symbol of hope. This is not always the lesson drawn from German history, and it made the crowd feel good.]

If the Election Were Tomorrow...

After the American Century



It has been about eight weeks since Obama clinched his nomination and the American public could focus on just two candidates. Fears that his battle with Hillary Clinton would sap his appeal have so far not been justified. If the election were held tomorrow, Obama would win easily. Nationally, a combination of all recent polls tells us that Obama is leading by 4.8%. But candidates are not elected nationally, but state by state. If one looks at all the opinion polls for individual states and puts them together, however, the picture is even more positive. Obama would get far more than the 270 electoral votes necessary to enter the White House: 322 to be exact. Tomorrow, John McCain would get 216.

The key to this and every American election remains the swing states. Right now Obama is leading in most of these, including (from east to west) New Hampshire, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. McCain is leading in only North Carolina, Florida, and Missouri, and all of these are narrow leads - indeed, they fall within the margin of error for polls.

Another way to look at these polls is to divide the electoral votes into three categories: likely to go to Obama (255), likely to go to McCain (163), and close races (120). The close contests are, at the moment, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. Obama only needs to win 15 votes in these undecided races. In contrast, McCain needs 107. If they split the 120, Obama wins with c. 315 electoral votes to 223.

Obama is probably doing even better than these figures suggest. Since these polls were conducted, he has been receiving overwhelming and positive media attention during his trip to the Middle East and Europe. That ought to translate into even better numbers for him, especially if the outdoor speech in Berlin this evening is a success.

Were the election held tomorrow, Obama would win in a walk. But being the front runner means the press has little mercy, and it means John McCain may resort to negative campaigning, to try to bring Obama down. He has hired new people (call them Rovians) who know how to do this. When the campaign really heats up in the fall, don't be surprised if McCain has found an attack dog as a Vice-Presidential candidate - a new Dick Cheney who is well suited to win more of those swing states.

Racism's Masquerade: Black Men Must Be Funny?

After the American Century

The New Yorker prides itself on being a bastion of the fine arts and good taste, and its covers are often a delight. So it comes as a surprise that the usually artful, often subtle, and almost never crude cover of that magazine now displays Barack Obama and his wife Michelle as Arab Revolutionaries in the Oval Office. Those who question the magazine's intent are told that this is a satire. Correction, it is racism masquerading as satire. I do not recall anything similar directed at any other presidential candidate. [Since posting this, I checked all the New Yorker covers from 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004, and there is nothing even remotely like it for any of those presidential campaigns.]

Yes, I know, my comment makes it obvious that I am a humorless person who cannot appreciate a joke. But this is not a joke. For those who may have forgotten, during most of American history Black men have been told that they are humorous figures of fun. No caricature was too grotesque. Even after 1900 it was common to draw black men as awkward, thick-lipped cretins slobbering over watermelon. The New Yorker is too smart to revert to such well-known racist stereotypes. Instead, why not depict a Christian, Harvard-educated lawyer as an Arab revolutionary who admires Osama bin Laden? It is sooo funny -- too them apparently.

Well, how would The New Yorker like it if someone drew a picture of their editorial room and plastered it all over the world - a picture that drew on every negative association one could think of with regard to Jewish intellectuals, New York snobs, etc. etc. It would all be in good fun, of course, satire, get it?

Please. The next thing we will see New York's intellectuals demand that Obama show he can dance, because that is supposed to be part of being Black. Be funny and dance and act stupid, right out of the Minstrel Show tradition.

If this is what The New Yorker is up (or down) to, one can only imagine how foul this campaign may become and how low it may sink before it is over. In the meantime, the nation is facing a financial crisis in the housing sector, it is doing little to change its high-oil consumption habits, the budget is way out of balance, the dollar has sunk to new lows, and there is rampant corruption in the awarding of contracts to oil companies and other American firms in Iraq. Why, then, must this magazine foul the air with this stereotype of the leading contender for the presidency instead of some pointed criticism of the nation's real problems? That is where satire is needed. This is not humor but a fart in the face of the public.

The Summer Campaign

After the American Century

The political campaign is in low gear as far as the public is concerned, but the candidates are hardly relaxing. Not only do McCain and Obama need to select their vice presidents, but they have a huge agenda to deal with. I can see at least these five major items:

(1) Organize a National Convention. This is far more that just providing hotels and meeting spaces for thousands of delegates and thousands more reporters, though that would be task enough. The whole multi-day event ideally should present a coherent message. An exciting line-up of speakers and inspirational short films need to be orchestrated, and the whole event should build up to a climactic speech by the candidate. That speech also has to be written, of course, and it needs to be new, not the primary stump speech on steroids.

(2) Prepare political commercials that are in harmony with that major speech - requires a decision about what should be the major themes of the campaign. Obama surely will choose to focus on the faltering economy and Iraq, a one-two punch that will be hard for McCain to beat. But McCain presumably will seek to make Iraq and national security his first issue. To a considerable degree, however, candidates need to feel the public pulse, to catch the mood of the electorate, and move from there toward the policy positions. Candidates usually cannot dictate to the electorate what the central issues ought to be, and while it may be easy to see what the central issues are, particular groups have other main concerns. Each side is surely polling frantically and trying out various ideas on focus groups. How much, and to whom, should each talk about Guantanamo? Abortion? Faith-based initiatives? Off-shore oil drilling? Gun control? Terrorism and National Security? NAFTA? Affirmative Action? The Supreme Court? Crime? Drugs?

(3) Each candidate must decide on an overall strategy, notably by choosing which states to focus on and which ones will be given up in advance. McCain is running more than 15 points behind in California polls, for example, so he will probably spend little time or money there. Obama is not as far behind in Texas, but he might decide to cede it McCain and focus on Florida, where the two are only a few points apart. Arguably, the choice of where to put the campaign time and money is the most important decision each has to make. Obviously, both will focus on Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Missouri, and Nevada. But in additional to such clear battleground states, should Obama make a major effort in North Carolina? Should McCain try to win New Jersey or Washington?

(4) Each campaign must also "brand" itself in a variety of ways, which include how the candidate dresses, what its buttons look like, how the home page is designed, what slogan is adopted, and even what the campaign song ought to be. FDR used "Happy Days Are Here Again" in the depths of the Depression. Bill Clinton selected the rock n roll song, "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow." By themselves, each of these matters might seem trivial, but in a well-organized campaign all the parts cohere to provide a penumbra of images and associations with a candidate. As an advertising or public relations executive knows, defining and implementing such a campaign takes talent and more time than either candidate really has to spend on it. Based on how they have done so far, one suspects rather strongly that Obama's team will do better at this than McCain's newly reorganized group.

(5) In the midst of all these things, both candidates need to keep appearing in the public eye, and continue to raise money for the fall campaign. Either of these, alone, could be a full-time job.

With all these things to do in only a few months, McCain and Obama must be grateful that they will fall completely out of the public limelight during the Olympic Games. No doubt each will pretend to go on vacation, but real time off is unlikely with all these tasks to complete. How well they prepare this work now will become clear immediately after the conventions. With little more than two months for the fall campaign, there will be little time to correct any miscalculations.

Obama, The Cold War, Brandenburg Gate

After the American Century

At the end of this month Senator Obama will make a brief trip to Europe. No doubt the purpose of the journey is to bolster his international credentials, by standing in historic places and making historic looking handshakes. During the fall he can casually refer to his "good friends" Gorden and Angela. All outsider candidates do something similar, and apparently it does have some political value to the candidates.

The Germans have become a bit prickly about Obama's giving a speech at the Brandenburg Gate on July 24. Some rather prominent politicians there have said that the young Senator from Illinois did not do anything in particular for Germany during the Cold War. This will likely be true for all future US presidential candidates, however, because time is moving on. A candidate who is 50 in the next election (2012), for example, was born in 1962, and so was under 30 when the Berlin Wall came down. Candidates who were in power during the Cold War are going to disappear. Put another way, the Cold War is fading away, and the Germans might consider how to keep the memory of that confrontation alive. By asking to speak at the Brandenburg Gate, Obama is not only positioning himself in the current campaign, he is also proclaiming a valued historical relationship.

It may be that Angela Merkel's origins in former East Germany are inseparable from her reluctance to see Obama stand where Kennedy and Reagan stood before him. But for Obama, who wants Americans to find ways to reunite, to stop being Red States and Blue States, it is hard to think of a better symbol for transcending differences and for the power of dialogue instead of bullets. Merket might find it "odd", to use her word, that Obama speaks there, but what would be a more appropriate place?

The Cold War ended without a shot being fired as the Wall came down. Quite a contrast with the Bush strategy in Iraq. Senator Obama wants to emphasize that he has a different approach to foreign affairs. The German Government refused to support Bush's invasion of Iraq, as did Senator Obama.

Obama appears to be popular among the German people, moreover, and if this event comes off, it might not just look historic, it might become so.

Both McCain and Obama Move to the Right

After the American Century

Both Obama and McCain have been shifting their public stands on many issues, staking out the positions they will take during the fall campaign. They are doing so with quite different goals. McCain is moving to the right, Obama toward the center.

McCain's move toward the conservative Republican base is being orchestrated and supervised by a cadre of Karl Rove's apprentices. Their well-known philosophy is that elections are won by energizing core supporters, not by trying to appeal to the center. This strategy has not really been proven a success, in my view, as George Bush did not win a majority of the votes cast in 2000 and only barely was reelected in 2004. In each case, one could argue that he won as much due to the poor campaigns of his opponent as he did because galvanizing the base is a sure winner. Note, too, that the "Rove philosophy" is to attack one's opponent where they appear strongest. The "swift-boating" of John Kerry is the prime example.

Obama's move toward more mainstream positions means that he has embraced more traditional political philosophy, seeking to be the unifying candidate who can appeal to moderates and independents, and reach across party lines. The danger of this approach is that the core supporters become somewhat disillusioned, taking some of the energy out of the campaign, as they realize that Obama is (surprise?) a shrewd politician more than he is ideologically driven. As noted several blogs ago, his stands on Israel, gun control, and other issues have shifted, to appeal to moderates.

The result of these two contrasting campaign models is that both candidates are moving to the right - with Obama seeking the center, while the supposedly "straight-talking" McCain is making himself over to suit the evangelicals. The man who once opposed Guantanamo torture now seems to accept it. The man who once publically worried about global warming is saying little about it. The man who once wanted to give illegal immigrants a "path to citizenship" is now a hard-liner on securing the borders. The man who once called Jerry Falwell an "agent of intolerance" now meets privately with his ilk, seeking support.

Will the selection of vice-presidential candidates reinforce these campaign strategies, or will they be drive by other imperatives, such as geographical appeal? One suspects that Obama will find a VP who is moderate, who holds his new positions, almost certainly a white person (but possibly Hispanic), and one with solid military experience to shore up his candidacy at its weakest point.

The Republican ticket is harder to anticipate. Will McCain choose a "born again" evangelical from the right-wing of the Republican Party, like Mike Huckabee? Might we expect a moderate non-military person under 60 who comes from the Middle West and who can appeal to the swing states? A church-going woman? A clone of Dick Cheney? Or most horrifying of all, the actual Dick Cheney? McCain's choice will signal how thoroughly he is willing to revamp his campaign to resemble Bush's 2004 campaign. Whatever the new Rove-inspired McCain team decides could be a surprise, because he continues to run behind Obama in the polls, and he needs to find a way to regain the initiative.

Obama Takes the Center, Perhaps Florida

After the American Century

In the last few weeks Senator Obama has performed the classic manouevre required of successful presidential candidates. He has moved toward the center. During the primaries the voters are all in the same party, but to win the general election, a candidate usually shifts policy positions a bit. In 2000 George Bush managed to convince some Democrats and many Indepndents that he was a "compassionate conservative." In 1992 Bill Clinton likewise danced a bit toward the middle.

When candidates do this, ideologues become upset, because the candidate no longer seems a person of principles, but an opportunist. However, I have become somewhat more tolerant of these policy position changes, which also suggest pragmatism and flexibility. Candidates thereby suggest to the public that they listen to the popular will. Obama has recently endorsed private gun ownership, for example. Personally, I wish he had not taken that position, but if he wants to win in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, and many western states, this is a good idea. In any case, the president will not likely be able to change the liberal laws on gun ownership., which have just been supported by the Supreme Court. It overturned a Washington DC law to control carrying handguns. There was little point in Obama attacking the Court, and he will focus on the battles he can win.

Obama likewise made clear his support for Israel, which is important to carry certain key states, notably Florida. This support should be balanced, however, by his repeated declaration that he would seek an open dialogue with many groups and governments that the Bush Administration has refused to talk to, including many in the Arab world.

Less predictably, and far more interestingly, Obama has made a sharp break with the hard-liners on Cuba. For fifty years the US has enforced an economic embargo against Castro's regime. Support for that policy is weakening, however, due to several factors. First, Fidel Castro is now too ill to run that country, and his more pragmatic and reform-minded brother has made many small steps in the direction Americans would like to see, giving a modicum of democracy to the country. Second, the hard-liners themselves are dying off, and the second and third generation Cuban-Americans can see the potential economic and personal benefits in re-engaging with Cuba. Third, the EU does not have an embargo against Cuba, and the US is cutting itself out of a market. When Obama spoke to Cuban-Americans in Florida last week, they applauded his call for dialogue and economic engagement. Since the Bush White House apparently has little historical memory, it is worth emphasizing that the Cold War was "won" without a shot being fired, because of constructive engagement.

In short, while Obama is moving to the center, he is not simply repeating old policy positions. His approach to Cuba seems far more sensible than McCain's, who has embraced the old hard-line view. Obama is going after the younger Cuban voters, making himself the candidate of the future and of change. Coupled with his more moderate views on immigration, this should play well with the Hispanic voters generally, who are less prone to be hard-liners on Cuba in any case.

If Obama can successfully hold Jewish voters and pull some of the Cubans away from the Republicans, he will have a much better chance to win Florida, and with it, the White House. He is being adventuresome where it can pay off, but not on gun control, an issue where the Supreme Court has spoken, and one that will drive the white working class into the arms of McCain.

Will it work? During April and May every poll on Florida put McCain ahead, often by as much as 15%. But in the middle of June, even before Obama announced his new Cuban policy and support for Israel, two polls put him ahead of McCain. Even if Obama ultimately loses the state, if he can force McCain to use time and money to defend it, he will have fewer resources to put elsewhere.

Shakespeare, Hemingway, Dylan, and the 2008 Election

After the American Century

Thanks to Rolling Stone, we now know that Barack Obama's literary taste runs to Shakespeare and Hemingway. The big news, of course, is that he admits to reading books, perhaps a dangerous admission in these media-saturated days.

These are pretty safe choices. Shakespeare was the most popular author in the United States during the entire 19th century. People from all walks of life really knew the Bard's works, and could quote large portions from memory. As Lawrence Levine revealed in a classic article, small traveling troupes of actors never had a problem filling the small parts with local thespians. Shakespeare was so well-known that Mark Twain knew his readers of Huckleberry Finn would laugh at the garbled lines delivered by "the King" and "the Duke." Obama's choice is more than mainstream; he's traditional in naming Shakespeare. But compared to the public of Twain's day, the average American almost certainly has a less detailed knowledge of the plays. File away this literary connection for future reference. We may one day have to decide which play most closely resembles Obama's first term as president. Presumably not King Lear or Macbeth, both of which seem more suited to McCain. Perhaps All's Well that Ends Well?

Hemingway gives Obama a bit of a modernist edge, though it depends on which works (and passages) he finds speak most powerfully to him. Given his views on Iraq, one assumes that he likes A Farewell to Arms. In contrast, John McCain is on record as very much liking For Whom the Bell Tolls. Does McCain see Iraq in terms of the Spanish Civil War? Does either candidate like the most uncompromising Hemingway short stories, such as "A Clean Well-Lighted Place"? Or the more experimental work that only came out after he died? I suspect we have pretty mainstream Hemingway, in either case.

Rolling Stone further reports that Obama has an ipod, and that he has a lot of Stevie Wonder and also Bob Dylan songs on it, including most of "Blood on the Tracks." The "Oldies" for him are from the 1970s. In contrast, Senator McCain admitted to a Politco reporter that he loves the movie American Graffiti and that his musical tastes are rooted in the 1950s and 1960s, up to the moment when he was shot down in Vietnam. Despite the generational difference, there is some overlap. I doubt that Senator McCain can listen to Dylan with the same enthusiasm as Obama can, particularly the early songs like "World War III Blues," and "It's a Hard Rain Gonna Fall." And how many Republicans can enjoy the searing irony of "With God on Our Side"?

If I could give the same oral examination to both candidates, we might know what they really think about Hemingway. This being unlikely, at least we know that they are representative of their musical generations.

Financing Obama and McCain

After the American Century

From abroad, the cost of American elections is unbelievable, appalling. In 2008 more than $1 billion will be spent just on the presidential primaries and general election. But I will spare readers a sermon on this matter. The media world has been actively discussing Senator Obama's decision not to accept public financing, established back in the 1970s to eliminate fund-raising and create a level playing-field. It has never worked well, but it seemed a step in the right direction. All along Obama has refused to accept any money from lobbyists (in contrast to McCain), but he apparently accepted the idea that campaigns should be financed by the government. Taking public money means accepting a cap on spending, however, and Obama has found that he can raise vast sums from private donors. He does not need public financing, which would cap his spending.

Obama is the first candidate who has understood how to use the Internet to reach potential donors, and to involve them in his campaign as partners. Anyone who gives begins to receive a regular stream of emails with information about campaign events, opportunities to join others in raising money, and chances to meet fellow supporters (both on-line or in person). So while Obama himself seldom needs to eat a rubber chicken and make a speech in person, the virtual Obama has been prodigiously successful at eliciting donations. By comparison, McCain is computer illiterate. For more on how Obama raises money, see Joshua Green, "The Amazing Money Machine" The Atlantic.com Alternately, give Obama $10 or more and you can experience it first-hand.

Obama presented his campaign funding decision not as a change of heart about campaign reform, nor as a proof of his on-line wizardry, but as a recognition that the public financing of campaigns has not worked. It has not worked because it is too easy for an "independent" group to raise money and spend it lavishly to help a candidate, who thereby can get both the public financing and the benefits of private funds. Anyone who looks at how John Kerry was "swift-boated" in 2004 knows that this is true, yet a surprising number of commentators, such as John Brooks in the New York Times, are taking Obama to task. They want him to play by the Washington rule book. But he has decided not to work with an ill-conceived, broken system.

Fortunately for Obama, most voters seem to agree with him. Indeed, his fellow Democrats are most likely to be upset that he has abandoned public support, while Republicans have never supported it much. So the decision might even help him with swing voters. In any case, subsequent polls have not detected any loss of support since he decided not to take public money. In fact, most voters are not that interested in the issue. Americans generally do not mind if a candidate says he is independent, can stand on his own, needs no assistance, or is individualistic.

The irony is that for decades the Republicans have always been better at fund-raising that the Democrats. McCain is the first GOP presidential candidate I can remember that has had trouble getting contributors. That is what derailed him last year, when it looked like his campaign was over, due to near bankruptcy. Even now that he has been the nominee for months, he has raised less money than either Obama or Clinton. As of May 31, McCain had raised $121 million, only a little more than Mitt Romney, who dropped out of the race long ago. By comparison, Hillary Clinton barnstormed for $221 million by the same date, and yet had run out of funds even as she lost the nomination to Obama.

By the end of May the Senator from Illinois had put together contributions of $295 million, all of it from small donors. He has also shown good financial management, keeping costs under control. He has a rather tidy surplus, too, with $43 million in cash at the end of the primary cycle. McCain was almost as well off, however, because he sewed up his nomination much sooner and could use far less of his money against fellow Republicans. At the end of May he therefore had $31 million - less than Obama, but not so much less.

So no one should be surprised that Obama has decided not to subject himself to the restrictions of public financing, when he does not need it. That leaves the Internet-challenged John McCain to take the government handout, like a charity recipient, because he has not been able to motivate his base.

Bush Dusts off Reagan's Energy Script, for McCain

After the American Century

In my last Blog I recalled the rhetoric of Ronald Reagan on energy in the 1980 campaign. No sooner had I published it than the Republicans began to talk just like Reagan did at that time. Back then the oil crisis apparently made it necessary to drill for Alaskan oil. The hue and cry was that the whole energy crisis was caused by over-zealous bureaucrats cheered on by environmentalists. It worked for the Republicans then. The public preferred to hear not that the shortages were real but that the US had lots of its own oil.

So the Republicans will try to blame the Democrats for the oil shortage! Not Detroit automakers who made inefficient cars and fought every attempt to raise the mandated minimum mpg (miles per gallon) for their fleets. Not campaign donors who run the oil corporations, who are reporting obscenely large profits. Not the Saudis and OPEC! Not rising demand in Asia. NO! Blame the Democrats.

Ronald Reagan, 1980: "The truth is America has an abundance of energy. But the policies of this administration [President Carter] consistently discouraged its discovery and production."

Until yesterday, McCain opposed off-shore drilling on environmental grounds. Now he is singing from the oil corporation song book. He said yesterday: "We must take control over our own energy future and become once again the master of our fate." Where? In Houston, Texas, the oil capital of the United States. He was talking to oil executives at Bush Family Central. This is the same McCain who last week wanted everyone to believe that he cares about global warming and is much different from G W Bush.

Meanwhile, Obama - correctly - told the press that off shore oil, even if found, drilled for and extracted, would not be available for more than ten years. "Much like his gas tax gimmick that would leave consumers with pennies in savings, opening our coastlines to offshore drilling would take at least a decade to produce any oil at all, and the effect on gasoline prices would be negligible at best, since America only has 3% of the world's oil. . . .It's another example of short-term political posturing from Washington, not the long-term leadership we need to solve our dependence on oil."

Drilling for off-shore oil will not solve the current problem of higher gas prices, but it will continue the US fixation on oil, and it will make corporate Republicans billions of dollars. Interestingly, a few Republicans from tidewater states, notably California's Arnold Schwartznegger, openly rejected the joint McCain-Bush call for off-shore drilling. Oil spills are bad for tourism, destroy wildlife, and threaten fishing. Oh, and burning oil creates greenhouse gases. But please don't tell Mr. McBush, as he thinks drilling for oil that will not be available for a decade is better than using less oil immediately or leading a determined drive to find alternatives.

Obama and McCain on Energy

After the American Century

John McCain and Barack Obama have both announced energy programs. McCain says that he is more "green" than Bush on the issue of global warming, but is this proclaimed difference really visible? To the casual observer, McCain and Obama might look similar on this issue. Both want to reduce US emissions of methane and CO2. By 2050 McCain says he will bring them down to just 40% of the 1990 level; Obama expects to reduce them ever further, to a mere 20%. These promises deal with the situation 42 years from now. Conceivably Obama might still be alive at that time, but such projections are not too meaningful by themselves.

A bit more concretely, both candidates like the idea of trading CO2 credits. This is not a new idea, and has been pushed by American representatives at climate meetings for years. The idea of turning pollution into a market, where the "right" to pollute is bought and sold appeals to US politicians because it makes the environment a part of business. Rather than set limits and then fine people for exceeding them, the notion is that corporations and cities will cut back on pollution if they get paid to do it. However, McCain wants to give away the initial quotas, at least the first time. Obama wants to sell pollution quotas and used the 150 billion dollars generated that way to support research into alternative energies and the like.

In line with this, Obama's goal is, by 2025, to produce 25% of all US electricity from wind, solar, biomass, and other sustainable sources. McCain has not set any definite goal, but claims that he supports alternative energies. In fact, he has a poor voting record in this regard.

With regard to ethanol, it is much the same story. Obama has a definite goal, while McCain "supports" the idea, but has no quota and in fact wants to stop subsidizing ethanol production. In other words, he says one thing but will do another.

Both candidates are realists, and can see that it is impossible to do away with coal-burning plants any time soon, but each wants to see "clean coal technology." Both also accept that atomic power can be an important source of electricity, but Obama is distinctly less enthusiastic about it. McCain sees atomic power as a good way to halt global warming, and admires the French for setting up such a comprehensive atomic power system, which supplies more than 75% of the nation needs.

The greatest differences between them lie in the area of curbing demand and conservation. Obama wants to convert all federal buildings to zero emission facilities and to give homeowners incentives for better insulation. McCain has no plans in this area at all. Likewise, Obama would give credits to utilities that managed to reduce customer demand, so they could profit not form growing the market but from shrinking it. McCain has no such plans.

Overall, Obama has made a greater commitment to alternative energy and to reducing demand. McCain sees nuclear plants as alternative energy, and seems not to understand that the most effective way to reduce oil dependency and CO2 emissions is to reduce energy use itself.

Overall, Obama has the more ambitious plan. McCain apparently thinks the market will solve the problem of global warming with the right incentives and leadership. Obama wants the government to invest directly in alternative energy R&D and set definite goals for conversion from the old system to a new, less polluting one. Where the Bush Administration at first questioned the reality of global warming and never made many efforts to change US energy use, McCain would at least rhetorically change the party line.

The basic McCain program looks quite a bit like that of Gerald Ford in 1975 . He claimed that if the US only would build a lot more nuclear plants and burn more coal, the nation could achieve energy independence by 1986. Obama's plan is more like that of Jimmy Carter, who also stressed alternative energies and greater conservation. Note that the public did not like Carter's plans, as they called for self-sacrifice and "the moral equivalent of war."

In 1980 Ronald Reagan proved far more popular with his energy plans, which basically denied that there was any real shortage. As he put it then: "Those who preside over the worst energy shortage in our history tell us to use less, so that we will run out of oil, gasoline, and natural gas a little more slowly. . . .But conservation is not the sole answer to our energy needs. America must get to work producing more energy. The Republican program for solving economic problems is based on growth and productivity. Large amounts of oil, coal, and natural gas lie beneath our land and off our shores, untouched because the present Administration seems to believe the American people would rather see more regulation, more taxes, and more controls, than more energy." This was irresponsible nonsense, and yet the public embraced this message. Under Reagan the country denied that there ever had been an energy crisis or that it could ever come again. As he declared during a speech in Cleveland, "The truth is America has an abundance of energy. But the policies of this administration consistently discouraged its discovery and production." He promised to "get America producing again" and concluded, "Every available resource we have must be used to free us from OPEC's domination." 28 years later, the Reagan promises of energy abundance ring rather hollow. But don't be too surprised if McCain's rhetoric begins to shift toward the winning Reagan formula. [In fact, McCain and Bush both began to do this two days after this Blog was published. See my posting for 18 June.]

Obama's Victory Train is Leaving the Station; Will Hillary Get on Board?

After the American Century

Its finally over. The person with the most pledged and "super" delegates is Senator Obama, with 2154. Senator Clinton has 1919. He gave a powerful speech in Minneapolis to a packed hall., not incidentally the same hall that the Republicans will be using to nominate McCain at the end of the summer. She spoke to a smaller crowd of supporters, close to her adopted home, in New York, and refused to concede. Can she swallow her pride and do what is best for the Party? Or will she become one of the bitter, defeated figures of history? She has lost, but will she choose to make losing part of her identity? Will she, in effect, help John McCain?

The New York Times estimated several hours before the polls closed that Obama only needed 12 votes to clinch his victory. Thus, on paper at least, the primaries in Montana and South Dakota put him over the top. The turnout was reported to be heavy. However, there were only 31 delegates at stake in these two physically large but sparsely populated states, and in fact that was not enough to make much of a difference. If Hillary had won them all, she would still be more than 200 behind. In any case, it was not possible to win them all, given the proportional system in use. While final delegate results are not yet in, apparently Obama won by a slight majority in these two states (taken together) on the last day of the primaries.

Obama needed so few of the last primary votes because he successfully won over the super delegates. Clinton once had the advantage with that constituency, but in the last month almost none of these political professionals have opted for her candidacy, and Obama now has about 107 more of them than she does. Indeed, a parade of new supporters appeared in the last few days, pushing him to the brink of success. Furthermore, as soon as the polls closed, a number of super delegates announced for him, most notably former president, Jimmy Carter, and the majority whip in the House of Representatives, James Clayburn. If the superdelegates put him over the top, in other words, they were careful to wait until the end of the voting, so that it coincided with it.

Clinton not only lost among both delegates and super delegates. She also lost financially- Hillary Clinton has lent millions of dollars to her own campaign, joining Mitt Romney as a rich candidate who failed, despite having deep pockets. It seems that a rich person cannot (yet?) buy the office of president. On the other side, Obama who has no personal fortune, out-fundraised Clinton. This is the real measure of popular support, as millions of Americans gave him relatively small amounts. In contrast, Clinton long relied on large donors and did accept money from lobbyists, which Obama did not.

Yet even with all the warning signs flashing, Hillary Clinton refused to admit that defeat was coming, as she kept on campaigning vigorously in South Dakota, where polls suggested that the race was close. and where she indeed won. She virtually conceded Montana to Obama. Afterwards, she refused to make a concession speech, denying the party closure and cementing her image as a defiant fighter. But now she is not fighting against the odds, because it is statistically over. Hillary can either help unite the Democratic Party or she can increase the divisions in it. She has to decide how much she wants to get the Republicans out of the White House.

The longer she waits, the more unrealistic and petty she looks. Obama has been gracious, he has praised her a good deal of late, and he has offered to sit down privately with her to talk. But he will not give her the power to decide anything for him. Clinton needs to realize that she has a small window in time before the campaign train leaves the station. History will move on, and she can either board the train as a passenger or stay on the platform. She must abandon the fantasy that she will be the engineer driving the train. If she cannot concede defeat and begin to support the party's choice, then she may quickly become a minor figure shrinking in the distance.

The Forgotten Issues

After the American Century

The endless Obama-Clinton duel has now devolved into a contest of errors. Hillary made a huge one recently, by talking about the assassination of Robert Kennedy in 1968 as an example of how campaigns may be decided in June. Was she saying, stay in the race, because your opponent might get whacked? Surely not, everyone agreed, after she apologized, saying she "misspoke." Perhaps the worst part of such episodes is that they take attention away from the issues. Why talk about the people dying in Iraq or the soaring price of gasoline or the thousands of foreclosures, when you can discuss pratfalls and stupid remarks?

There are real issues in this campaign, however, even if the media often reduce it to a popularity contest that focuses on who is the best bowler or who said something idiotic last week.

Will the US stay in Iraq until at least 2013 (McCain's plan) or for as short a time as possible (Obama's plan)?

Will the Bush tax cuts for the rich become permanent (McCain's plan), or will the US return to something like the tax arrangements of the 1990s? To put this another way, will the US again start to pay off its national debt, or will it assume it can keep borrowing money from foreign creditors forever? Also indirectly involved in this issue is whether the dollar will be backed by a government that lives within its means and that can protect the dollar from falling further?

Huge balance of payment problems are not a good long-term economic policy, either. Will the US continue its massive oil imports, or will government force automakers to produce more fuel efficient cars? Students have built experimental cars that can run an astonishing 300 kilometers to a single liter, roughly 600 miles to a gallon! But neither the American SUV mad consumer nor Detroit is going to get there without some leadership. The Republicans have had eight years to provide it and failed.

Will the next appointments to the Supreme Court further tip the balance in a conservative direction? McCain is now on record as being a firm opponent of all forms of abortion, and if elected would likely be able to tip the balance on this issue.

Will the US really embrace efforts to curb global warming? McCain is better on this issue that Bush, rhetorically, but the Republican Party is not. The only real chance for the US to take a responsible role on this issue is if there is a Democratic Congress and President.

Will the next president be beholden to lobbyists who have donated to his campaign (McCain) or will he only have received support from ordinary voters (Obama)? This has implications on a host of issues.

Will the next president try to solve world problems by using the military (McCain) or by "soft-power" and diplomacy (Obama)? McCain evidently agrees with Bush that negotiating with an enemy is a bad thing, a sign of weakness. Obama does not want to be another cowboy president.

Finally, McCain now backs the use of some forms of torture, which is quite astonishing in his case, because he was tortured himself while held as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Obama unequivocably rejects the use of torture. This is a serious issue, because recent news reports indicate that the use of waterboarding and other forms of torture have been more widespread that previously disclosed. The American military appears to be infected with this undemocratic practice, which is appropriate for sixtenth century witchhunts but not for any civilized nation today. McCain's treason to his own earlier convictions on this issue makes him a deeply problematic candidate. If he can reverse himself on torture, one can only ask, does he believe in anything?

Of course, none of this is as much fun as hearing about a tactical mistake or silly remark made by a candidate. But these and other issues are what the campaign should be about. Looking at these contrasts between McCain and Obama, I find no reason to support the Senator from Arizona. I am not aware of a single issue where his positions appear to be the wise choice. On the contrary, McCain's election could easily be a disaster even greater than the Bush Presidency. It may be hard to believe that something worse is possible. But it is.

McBush and Appeasement

After the American Century

Senator McCain has endorsed George Bush's attack on the Democrats for "appeasement." I will return to this, but only after looking at the many absurdies in this attack. Bush chose to go after the Democrats while making a state visit to Israel to mark the 60th anniversary of that nation's independence. Partisan attacks are to be expected from now on until the election, but it is poor form to go to another nation and distract attention from their celebrations to engage in electoral politics. However, where Bush made his statement had a special resonance when he chose to compare the Democrats to those who appeased Hitler. The implication was that if Americans elect Obama, they will be responsible for another holocaust. But there is no historical sense to these assertions.

It was the Republicans far, far more than FDR's Democrats, who were in the appeasement camp. In the 1930s many Americans, especially Republicans, wanted the nation to remain neutral. It was Roosevelt and the Democrats who have the more honorable record. Who wanted to negotiate with Hitler? Republican Senator Borah! Yes, that wonderful party leader who also helped to sabotage Wilson's League of Nations. He was from Bush's party.

And another thing. Just which leader or which nation today can realistically be compared to Hitler? Iran's leaders deny the Holocaust. They sponsor terrorist groups. Democrats and Republicans would all agree aboout these things. But Iran simply does not have the geopolitical clout that Germany had in the 1930s. Because we are talking about a nation, not an amorphous group of terrorists, they could conceivably be negotiated with. The Neo-Conservative Republicans seem to have forgotten that the Cold War was won not by arms, but by a much slower process of dialogue, trade, cultural interchange, and, yes, negotiation. The Berlin Wall came down without a shot being fired. Bush's continual refusal to talk to Iran's leaders has pushed them into the willing arms of the Russians, who are happy to help them build oil and gas pipelines and trade with them. Furthermore, many in Washington, even some Republicans, have come to recognize that it will be impossible to forge a peace in Iraq without somehow involving the Iranians.

Leaving aside historical analogies, Bush himself has at times been a negotiator, so that must make him "an appeaser." At almost the very moment the President was declaring one should never negotiate with terrorists, his administration announced that it was sending massive food aid to North Korea. This is part of the complex negotiations that have, with some success, sought to turn that nation away from its nuclear program. Thus Bush's own administration has been doing the very thing for which he criticized the Democrats.

Bush is trying to distract attention from his foreign policy failures. But his shoot-first-preemptive-strike-cowboy approach to the world has not yielded success in Afghanistan or Iraq. His administration arrogantly refused to listen to its allies. France and Germany both tried to dissuade him from invading Iraq, but Bush told the world that US intelligence information was more reliable than theirs and charged ahead. However, the French and the Germans got it right. There was no pressing national security reason to rush into that war. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found. Bush either lied or his intelligence services were incompetent. Either way, it was an expensive mistake that has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and led to the deaths of more than 100,000 people, the vast majority civilians. The Iraq War has increased instability in the Middle East and served as a training ground for terrorists. Bush's interventionism has also indirectly driven up the cost of oil, because the Iraqui oil fields are not producing as much as they might. Anyone who thinks the US is more secure or better off economically than it was before the invasion of Iraq has not been paying attention.

John McCain had an oportunity to show he was not like the President, but he has endorsed Bush's attack on the Democrats. So much for his claims to represent "straight talk." Perhaps the fall ballots should read "McBush" so voters will know what he represents. For McCain's remarks show once again that he is a throwback from another age, living in the mental universe of the Cold War where he was trained as a military man. McCain by temperment and education is not prepared to be a negotiator or to understand the world as a complex place. He is the candidate who thought it was funny to sing "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" to a Beach Boys tune. He is unfit to be President precisely because he has all that Cold War and Vietnam military experience. The world is a different place now.

Finally, suppose we were to evaluate Bush by his own Rambo standards. Seven years after the 9/11 attacks, he has been unable to find Osama bin Laden. By any measure, he has been a miserable failure.

The Democrats Move Toward Closure

After the American Century

Yesterday we had heard only that Hillary Clinton had loaned some money to her campaign. Today it has become clear that she has put $6 million of her own cash into what now appears a lost cause. Generally, American voters do not like to hear that candidates are trying to buy their way to power. Romney also was pumping his own wealth into his bid for the presidency. In hard times, voters cannot help but think that Clinton's wealth puts a barrier between her and the vast majority of Americans. Her claims to emphasize with their hardships ring a little hollow when they realize that she has so much money.  More importantly, potential donors begin to head for the exits. As noted here yesterday and confirmed by more reports since, many of Clinton's donors have maxed out on what they can give her, and it is hard to find true believers in her candidacy now. 

In terms of delegates, the primaries two days ago increased Obama's lead by 13. Many analysts have concluded that Hillary has no mathematical chance of winning the nomination, even if somehow Florida and Michigan delegations are allowed in. Significantly, in the last 24 hours one superdelegate dropped Hillary and announced for Barack, and three more also decided to back him. So she has fallen further behind, with fewer places to make up the difference  She has not had any new superdelegate endorsements. 

Meanwhile, some party figures are asking her to go gracefully. One of the most prominent calls for her to give up the fight came from former Senator George McGovern, the 1972 presidential candidate. It is also an open secret that Jimmy Carter has been leaning toward Obama for some time. He might choose this moment to throw his prestige behind him. 

Meanwhile, Obama has conspicuously taken a day off in Chicago, while Hillary is out stumping in West Virginia. She is presumably doing this mostly to keep getting her picture in the paper and to show that she is fighting on. But everyone expects her to win there anyway. Perhaps she wants  a victory there, and depart from the race as a winner. Presumably Obama wants that scenario too, because it would embarrass him if she dropped out and still won West Virginia. So a possible scenario is that she is given only token opposition this week, has the pleasure of a final face-saving victory, and then drops out for financial reasons.

Of course, Clinton can just keep spending her own money and drag the battle out for another month. But at some point, the loss of all the money will begin to hurt. Her advisors may suggest that to preserve some good will in the party that might be needed to fight for the nomination another day, it might be time to think about an exit strategy.

Significantly, Clinton stopped attacking Obama yesterday, and he has also been careful to say nothing derogatory about her. He asked his supporters to refrain from calling for her to give up. Rhetorically, this was a good move. In effect, he said that it was time for her to depart, and yet he did not say that at all. He stressed that this is her call. But make no mistake, the Democrats are moving toward an earnestly desired closure. 

Candidate Strategies after North Carolina and Indiana

After the American Century

The pre-election predictions I posted on Monday were so accurate that you can go back and read it now as a report of what happened. Obama did win North Carolina by a wide margin, and he did make it quite close in Indiana. Each did well where I predicted they would. The results can be read in several ways.

1. Obama's lead in delegates has increased again, because North Carolina has more of them to give him, and he won it by more than 14 points. He will likely get close to the same number of delegates as Hillary in Indiana. On the whole, he has come out of the election better than many expected after all the media hype about Rev. Wright.

2. Hillary will stay in the race, she announced, even though the New York Times reports that her campaign is broke again. Since there is a ceiling on how much any individual can give a candidate, she will need to find some new donors. This is not easy for her now.

3. While the results in the two states differ, the pattern is the same. Black voters are 90% for Obama. He also wins all the large urban areas, often by margins of 20-30%. But Hillary wins by equal margins in rural areas. She attracts poor whites, the less educated. old people, pensioners, and women. Barack continues to win decisively among the most support from the young, the educated, and those who make higher incomes. It's McDonalds vs. Starbucks.

What does this mean for the immediate future - the West Virginia primary? It will likely be a strong win for Hillary on May 13. Look at the counties that are most like West Virginia in rural North Carolina. She won them by huge margins. The same is true for the Ohio counties just across the Ohio River from West Virginia. There are few Black people in Appalachia, where plantation slavery never existed, and it is not exactly a highly educated state either. I once spent some days in its back country riding around in a jeep with a vet, Doc Weiner. He was very popular up i the hills and hollows as he made his rounds, mostly to treat dogs and horses. I heard several people ask him if he would treat their children as well. (He would not. ) Doc Weiner told me that often a man did not call a physician if one of the (usually many) children got sick, but he always called his office if a hunting dog fell ill. Admittedly this was years ago, and possibly the Internet and globalization has transformed the people I saw then, but I doubt it. These are mountain people in a poor state. This is not Obama-land.

So expect Hillary to proclaim herself the underdog, battling against tremendous odds. She has been comparing herself to Rocky Balboa of late. Expect her to keep on talking about her bogus plan for tax-relief on gasoline (see my earlier blog on this). Expect her to trumpet her poverty - shucks, she's down on her luck just like those mountaineers - and to keep painting Obama (poor family, single mother) as an elitist who is out of touch with the ordinary people like herself. It is astonishing to see how she has managed to bury her own elite education at Wellsley and Yale, not to mention her personal fortune.

What will Obama do? He probably will not campaign too hard in West Virginia, but spend time wooing the super-delegates, make a major speech attacking John McCain, and focus on the two primaries on May 20. As usual, he has been better at raising money and more disciplined in using it than Hillary, so he can afford to go all out for the primaries in Kentucky and Oregon. In short, his best strategy is probably to campaign in West Virginia just enough to pin Hillary down, spending money she does not have, while making sure he wins in the following week. It is not over yet, her chances are dwindling, but anything can happen in American politics.

Standoff in Indiana and North Carolina Primaries

After the American Century

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have just completed two weeks of frantic campaigning in Indiana and North Carolina. The polls suggest they will split these two states, with Clinton the likely winner in Indiana and Obama in North Carolina. It appears that North Carolina, with a large black population voting overwhelmingly for Obama, is likely to give him a much needed victory. The scenario seems to be that he will win the cities, she will take the rural counties (though not in the northeast where there is a rural black majority), and the victory likely will go to whoever carries the suburbs. Average out the polls, and Obama is leading by 7%.

There is a small chance that Obama could make it close in Indiana, where Clinton has a 5% lead. When I was living in that state for half of 2003, I was surprised to find a sizable peace movement there trying to stop President Bush from invading Iraq. However, the Black population is not large in Indiana, whose voters share many characteristics with Ohio, right next door. They are struggling economically more than many states. It depends on how well Obama does with those groups Hillary has been so good at winning over: blue collar voters, Catholics, older women, people without a college education, and pensioners. There are quite a few people that fit into those categories in Indiana, which is a rather conservative state, taking both parties into consideration. Normally, Obama would get some mileage out of being from neighboring Illinois. But Clinton can also claim midwestern roots. The state has many college students, who nationally tend to be pro-Obama. Finally while it may seem trivial, he does play basketball well, and that is Indiana's favorite winter sport. However, he has been hurt by Rev. Wright's public statements, which came at the worst possible time. Overall, expect him to do well in the largest city, Indianapolis, in Bloomington and Brown County, to struggle in the small industrial cities like Ft. Wayne, Muncie, and Anderson, and to have great difficulties with rural voters, with the exception of the Quaker population, who will likely support him. As for the many Mennonites in Indiana, I suspect that not many of them will vote. Taken all around, Hillary should win that one, balancing off an Obama victory in North Carolina.

Whatever happens tomorrow, Obama will still have the lead in total delegates on Wednesday morning. But will he have regained some momentum? Clinton has been on the comeback trail now for well over a month, since her victories in Texas and Ohio, reinforced by her victory in Pennsylvania. If nothing else, she has shown grit and determination. 

Clinton has also called for dropping the federal tax on gasoline for the summer, to help out ordinary Americans. This proposal was surely crafted after looking at a Gallup Poll which showed that of all the problems faced by the US right now, high gas prices are perceived as the worst. It certainly does sound nice to suggest that the federal tax be dropped, and that instead the oil companies ought to be taxed directly. Silly idea, however. It is rather like a card sharp moving the queen of spades around the table. The taxes are still going to be collected on gasoline, just at a different location. Raise the cost of doing business for oil companies and they will shortly pass it on to the consumers. 

Moreover, making gas cheaper will send American consumers the wrong message. It will say: no need to trade down to a smaller, fuel efficient car; no need to cut back on smog and pollution; no need to reduce oil imports; no need for consumers to change their wasteful ways. Clinton no doubt expects to win some needed votes through this irresponsible proposal, and to strengthen her grip on her core constituency. For the Gallup polls show that the poorer an American is, the more gas prices loom as the most important problem the nation faces. (not the war in Iraq.) Were Mrs. Clinton thinking about the long term, she would try to move the electorate toward reduced energy use. That would be good for the environment and good for the economy. Her proposal has been attacked by many economists, and rejected by Mr. Obama. McCain, on the other hand, has put forward a similar proposal. Once again, it would seem that Hillary has adopted the dangerous strategy of becoming McClinton, a female clone of the Republican candidate. As the campaign chugs on toward what may be the bitter end of the primaries in early June, it appears that serious discussion of economic policy has all but disappeared. 

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.

The Dangers of Clinton's Strategy

After the American Century

Many have noted that Hillary Clinton is pursuing a strategy which is potentially destructive not just to Obama but also to the Democratic Party. But polling figures show that the strategy of all out attack on Obama, often using precisely the same arguments as Republicans, is having a destructive effect on Clinton herself. The Rasmussen daily tracking poll shows that Mrs. Clinton has been behind McCain now for more than one month. According to the same polling organization, Obama has been closer to McCain, and on a few occasions ahead of him, during the same period.

In short, Clinton risks being seen as a surrogate McCain, or a second-rate version of the "real McCain." She can talk about learning to shoot a gun as a young girl, and she can sidle up to the bar and have a beer and a shot of whiskey, but she just is not as believable in that role as McCain himself. She was not a fighter pilot, she only mistakenly claimed to come under fire. An undecided voter in the crucial swing states of Ohio or Pennsylvania or Florida just might prefer the new (if old) face, and go for the Republican anti-Bush.

It gets worse. Suppose Hillary's endless attacks on Obama do eventually win her the nomination. The millions who voted for him are not going to be enthusiastic about her. Not now. She will have quite a struggle to unite the Democrats, and will have to start months after McCain has been at the same game in his party. Polls show that back in Februry most Democrats were excited about both their front-running candidates, but today the divisions are far deeper, with the split getting worse every day.

Now imagine that you are one of the remaining super-delegates, who has to decide. Clinton has managed to take some of the gloss off Obama, who nevertheless still leads McCain in national polls, while she is clearly weaker against him. The process of selecting a candidate is weakening the party, which now risks losing the White House, despite President Bush's extremely low popularity ratings that hover around 30%. If this goes on much longer, is it not possible that a new, no doubt impossible, scenario has a certain appeal, the scenario of an entirely new candidate coming to the rescue? Someone with experience. Someone who once received more than 50% of the national vote. Someone the party might unify around - like Al Gore.

Impossible now. But what if the race remains undecided until the end of summer?

OBAMA: Guns and religion in Pennsylvania

After the American Century

Obama has closed the gap between himself and Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, and depending on which poll you believe, he is now behind by 4-5%. This will allow him to suffer an "acceptable loss" on April 22 - by which I mean a small loss compared to his initial weakness in the state, where he trailed by more than 10%. Note, too, that he narrowly leads John McCain in Pennsylvania polling, though Hillary leads by considerably more. 

However, Obama has not been having an easy time of it of late, due to some ill chosen words in San Francisco, when trying to explain why he is not winning in the polls in Pennsylvania. To summarize, he said voters were bitter, and that they were clinging to guns and religion. This was a rare mistake in what has generally been an extremely good campaign, and Clinton is riding it for all it is worth, in every campaign appearance.

Pennsylvania is a state I once knew very well. I grew up in the center of the state, in Boalsburg, which is far enough west to make me a Pittsburgh Pirates fan. The town claimed to be the birthplace of Memorial Day, and it was the sort of small town where lots of farm boys were in the schools, and these boys went hunting with their fathers when they were about 11 or 12 years old. Some would come into school on Monday with tales of killing their first deer. Even if all you know about Pennsylvania is the early scenes from The Deer Hunter, then you know that hunting and gun ownership are not about fear. Whatever else might be wrong with the world, the rural Pennsylvanian can still go hunting. The woods will welcome the hunter each fall, and the man will recall when he was there for the first time with his father. Obama simply got that part wrong. Rural white Pennsylvanians love to hunt, and they connect gun ownership to going into the woods after game. No doubt in Chicago, where Obama lives, gun ownership has another meaning, and gun control has considerable appeal. But hunting and gun ownership are simply not debatable for the sort of people I grew up with. He has lost some votes for that mistake.

Unfortunately, Obama managed to drag religion into his remarks as well, as another thing Pennsylvanians cling to. Remember that the state was founded by Quakers, who were extremely tolerant about religion, allowing any sect to immigrate into the state. As a result, the variety of religions in Pennsylvania is greater than just about anywhere in the country. You can find sizable groups of Mennonites, Amish, Lutherans, Dutch Reformed, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Baptists, and Catholics, to make a short list. These groups do not merely persist, they flourish, and it is not because people cling to them due to bad times. The churches as I knew them, through endless suppers, bingo games, small carnivals, bake sales, coffee hours, markets, and strawberry shortcake specials, were the sinews that held communities together. In the small town you might well go to some of the events at another church, which helped them to raise money. We all knew one another, and the church was not so much a matter of doctrine as a matter of cultural identity. I do not think religious doctrine then was or now is quite as central to church-going in Pennsylvania as it might be in Alabama or Chicago. Rather, people were comfortable with their particular church, without being particularly zealous. Obama should get to the chicken dinners, and then have some apple cobbler and coffee.

When I lived in rural Pennsylvania, there were almost no Black people. There were none in my elementary school and only one fellow in seventh grade, as far as I can recall. Hillary will seem a more familiar figure to them than he will. Obama is definitely my candidate, but I wish he had found better local advisers and had practiced his bowling before heading out into the hinterland.  My guess is that for a decent showing in the primary there, he will have to rely on getting out the vote in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and the other cities. More generally, he will have to use his ability to learn quickly to understand this part of the electorate a bit better, or McCain will win Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the White House.