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.

Danish Embassy Bombed

After the American Century

Last week, I heard a seminar lecture given by Harvard Professor and foreign policy expert Mark Kramer on the Cold War. During the question and discussion period, he also discussed the current world situation. He said that the greatest danger to world security was to be found not in North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or Palestine, but most definitely in Pakistan. The nation has whole provinces dominated by terrorists. It also has an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Yesterday, the Danish Embassy in Pakistan was car-bombed by an as yet unknown group. The attack killed at least six persons and wounded 23. None of the victims were Danish citizens working at the Embassy. As is so often the case, people who just are in the wrong place at the time of an explosion, and who have nothing whatsoever to do with the matter, are the victims.

Press speculation, probably correct, is that the bombings are related at least in part to cartoons published by one of the Danish newspapers, a right-of-center rag that takes an intemperate view of most things Muslim called Jyllands Posten. For those who have not seen these cartoons, one can say that they depict Moslems and their prophet in an unflattering light. They were not published as commentary on current events, but rather were intended as a provocation and as a declaration of freedom of the press. I should say that I have no respect for that newspaper, because it attacked me inaccurately by name on a quite another matter. I refuse to give interviews to its journalists, and I must hold my nose as I declare that of course they have the right to free speech. I also have the right to say that I no longer respect and certainly will never purchase that newspaper, which deserves to go out of business because other readers also stop buying it. Yet while I have been insulted, I have no desire for bloody revenge, and I think it madness to declare a fatwa on its cartoonists, some of whom now must hide in "safe houses."

For many Danes, Jyllands-Posten and its cartoons are all about freedom of speech and not giving in to intimidation. For many Moslems, they are about being gratuitously insulted, about respect for their religion and about defending the prophet Mohammed. It is one of those confrontations that may last a long time, because neither side has any intention of backing down. And so, a small country of 5.2 million people, the size of Massachusetts, has become the focus of international terror. A country that has only a small military and that has instead used its money to contribute a great deal to foreign aid programs, a country that has defined itself as a mediator, a listener and a champion of human rights, finds itself an object of hatred. A Danish expert on the Middle East whom I have spoken with worries that a terrorist attack on a target inside Denmark is only a matter of time. I hope he is wrong, though fear he is right.

Has the Danish government understood the dangers and the consequences? Perhaps not. The embassy in Pakistan was not particularly well-located. Yesterday, the Danish radio news repeatedly emphasized how secure the building was, with video cameras and only one entrance. Located on a dead-end street, it was reportedly hard to approach. But the BBC stated that "the Danish embassy was an easy target because it is located in a residential area outside of the high-security diplomatic enclave." Danes were mislead by their own news media into thinking their embassy was particularly safe. Perhaps it is, when compared to other Dansh embassies around the world. [Update: the Danish newspaper Politiken reports today (4.6.08) that many Danish embassies in the Moslem world are potentially easy targets, notably that in Egypt. The right-wing Danish government simply has not understood that having such a high profile in the war on terror entails far more security and has real economic costs.]

The security problem, and the perception of high-security, is inseparable from the major shift in Danish foreign policy that occurred when the current right-wing government came into power in late 2001. During the last century, although a member of NATO, Denmark had generally not been a belligerent. Rather, it often was part of UN peacekeeping forces. The nation was known for its willingness to take on the difficult job of patrolling boundaries and dampening regional tensions. It did such a good job of it that the Danish national flag at times was confused with the Red Cross flag. Until 2001.

Once the foreign policy changed, however, the government clearly should have moved its embassy in Pakistan to a highly secured area inside the diplomatic enclave. Now that a car bomb has exploded, it is time to move into the safest area. The time when Denmark could put its embassy in any nice residential area is over.

Denmark is no longer seen as a peacekeeper, but as part of the American-led effort to drive the Talliban out of Afghanistan. Danish troops are fighting every day there. They were also part of the occupation of Iraq until last year. The happy days when a Danish passport was one of the best ones to have if taken hostage also are well and truly over.

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?"

Energy Efficiency and Better Transportation

After the American Century

Energy should be a key issue of this presidential campaign. The US has had a failed energy policy under Bush. Consumption of all forms of energy has risen. Imports of oil, in particular, have burdened the economy and made the nation increasingly dependent on uncertain suppliers. Undemocratic regimes control much of the world's oil, notably in Venezuela, Nigeria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, while one could discuss whether there really is democracy in Russia or Iraq. Americans are pumping billions of dollars into these economies every time they tank up.

The only solution seriously advanced by the Bush Administration has been that of substituting alcohol for some of that gasoline. This has pleased farmers, as they can grow more corn that before and get higher prices for it, too. But the diversion of agricultural production to providing oil substitutes is not a wise choice, for world agricultural prices are rising so fast that millions of people are now on the brink of starvation.

Fortunately, there are other solutions. Unfortunately, Americans have been slow to embrace them. Least glamorous, but most effecive, is conservation. I drive a car that gets about 43 miles to the gallon, double the US average. (I should have bought one that is even more efficient.) If all Americans purchased such automobiles, their vast consumption of oil would drop by 50%. Furthermore, I have chosen to live relatively near to my place of work, so my round trip is less than 10 miles. Few Americans live that close. Better yet, the Danish government has built a comprehensive system of cycle trails, including traffic lights, that makes it safe and convenient to bike to work. It takes me no more than 20 minutes each way, while driving is only 5 to 8 minutes faster. Few places in the US have provided such an infrastructure, so Americans drive even short distances because that is often the only safe alternative when going to buy milk or a newspaper. By my rough estimate, compared to Europeans, Americans drive twice as far using cars that are only half as efficient. In short, if Americans switched to more efficient cars they would import much less oil. By reducing demand, they might also push down the price at the pump.

But buying the right kinds of cars is only the beginning. Let me be blunt. My fellow Americans, you have been squandering billions of dollars driving cars that are larger than you need. You have devoted half the land in your cities to roads, driveways, and parking lots. You have imprisoned yourselves in an inefficient and individualistic transportation system that is now choking the nation almost to death. You once had a comprehensive system of mass transit, in the form of light-rail, that existed in every major city and most towns until c. 1930. You have abandoned that system in most places and almost destroyed the passenger railroad network as well. You should be demanding its reconstruction.

In 2008 it is long past time for a change. It is time to demand from presidential candidates the construction of high-speed railroads, of the sort long used successfully in Japan and France. These trains routinely go 200 miles an hour - or faster. It is 190 miles from Boston to New York, 225 miles from New York to Washington. Each trip would be about an hour on such a train. It could be possible to go from Chicago to Minneapolis in about two hours, or from St. Louis to Chicago even less. Flying should be for distances of at least 500 miles. It is idiotic to drive or to fly shorter distances, because the time and hassle needed to go to the airport, get through all the security arrangements, board, fly, disembark, collect bags and then travel to the city center, is hours longer than the time needed to take a good train for the same distance. Likewise, it is foolish to drive several hundred miles because it is tiring, expensive, and environmentally damaging. On the train (in Europe) you can sleep, relax, read a book, or surf the net.

In 2008 it is time to wake up to the pleasures of not driving and to discover the relief of not standing in lines at airports. Instead of bankrolling autocratic regimes that happen to have oil supplies, instead of pumping out exhaust and causing global warming, instead of spending billions of dollars in Iraq, ostensibly to build democracy, but also to protect access to oil, it is time to rebuild the US into a more efficient and competitive nation that does not need so much oil in the first place.

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.

Why Hillary Keeps Running

After the American Century

Hillary Clinton has persisted as a candidate beyond the point most people expected. She is spending millions of dollars of her own money at this point, seeking a nomination that almost no one else thinks she has any chance of winning. Yet this is not a quixotic quest. There are a number of reasons why she might continue, which I will list in a moment. I do not claim that these reasons are a coherent explanation, and it is quite possible that only one or two come close to the mark.

1. Hillary continues because, like Mike Huckabee, she wants to get her message across and to position herself as a certain kind of candidate. The goal is not actually to win the nomination in 2008, but to imprint one's image on the electorate for the future. The goal is to become an icon for at least part of the electorate.

2. Hillary keeps running because she genuinely believes what she is saying, that she can be the nominee this year. Often candidates are so surrounded by admirers who encourage them, that they just don't give credence to any nay-sayers. The "truth" is the crowds of well-wishers at every campagin stop. The "truth" is the victories in West Virginia and Kentucky. Just keep at it until the media buys into the gritty determination and the dream.

3. Hillary keeps running because she believes that Obama cannot beat McCain, regardless of what she does. She wants the voters to remember her as the lost alternative, as the one who could have taken back the White House, so she can come roaring back in 2012.

4. Hillary keeps running because psychologically she cannot give it up, because the excitement and the competition are just too much a part of her identity. She keeps going because as long as she is a candidate she is the center of attention, a phenomena, like a marathon dancer who should have collapsed hours ago but keeps on regardless. There may also be a dynamic here with her husband, who must play second fiddle to her as long as she has not given up.

5. Hillary keeps running because she is determined to be the vice-presidential nominee if she cannot get the top spot. By dividing the party and keeping it divided as long as possible, she becomes the only one who can put the Democratic party back together again. If the convention is divided at the end of the summer, then Obama will have to select her as his running mate in order to have any chance of victory.

These five explanations are by no means mutually exclusive. She might even believe them all, or some combination of them, or even different explanations at different times. My point is that there are rational grounds to keep going. Or to put this another way, what should she do with her time instead of run for the preisdency? What could be more galvanizing or more historically important for women? By running, she shows she has grit, determination, heart, stamina, staying-power, popular appeal, and guts. By comparison, dropping out of the race has far less to offer.

So, if she is willing to go go go further and further into debt, Hillary might just keep this marathon going as long as there is any statistical possibility that she can win.

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.

American Sonics

After the American Century

Public space in United States does not sound like Scandinavian public space. Take Logan Airport as an example. The passenger waiting in its international terminal is subjected to a soundscape that is quite unlike that one finds in the airports of Oslo, Stockholm, Copenhagen, or Amsterdam. I name these because I travel frequently enough through them to feel certain that I can generalize. Boston's Logan is all about commerce and cacophony. There are frequent loudspeaker announcements about flights, delays, and the like. There are TV stations hanging from the ceiling that all broadcast CNN the last few times I was there. And there is a third sound, a airport radio station bombarding the trapped passengers with music and advertisements.

They have arrived hours early, as required for security, and for several hours they must negotiate waves of sound. In certain locations they can hear CNN fairly well, but move a few steps and the airport "radio" sets up an interference pattern. The three layers of sound – announcements, radio, and television – further compete with the hundreds of cell phone conversations (often annoying loud), plus there is the tintinnabulation of tiny headsets chipping away at the brain cells of younger travelers. Conversation can then only take place at a higher decibel level, producing a roaring cacophony in the departure zone. After several hours in the maelstrom of sound, the already weary passenger climbs into a plane. By then one may have decided to buy one of those special headphones that cancels out background noise.

The comparison between these American soundscapes and those in Scandinavia and Holland could not be more striking. In Copenhagen or Oslo, where I sit as I write this, all three of the sounds amplified in Logan are absent. I hear only human voices, of people who are nearby. If I close my eyes, I can hear the sound of luggage being wheeled past or the laughter of a woman behind me. I can hear myself think because most people speak softly and apparently think that others have what might be called sonic rights.

Is Logan airport an exception or a typical case? Compare it to an American sports stadium, and it seems rather typical. In the stands one hears continual announcements, organ music, the radios of fans who want to hear the sportscaster tell them more about what they are seeing, and most important of all, there is a giant scoreboard, showing instant replays and producing pyrotechnic displays as needed in response to the game. If a fan goes to buy a hotdog down behind the seats, small televisions are positioned so that the game is still visible.

The American public soundscape is multivocal and competitive. It is commercialized, and the sales pitch is seldom far away. It is loud. It demands concentration. And it forces my fellow Americans to speak loudly. Many develop a vocal range from forte to fortissimo. Meanwhile, Scandinavians are sotto voce. They can spot an American without looking, from their sonic voice print. Yesterday I heard every boring word of a conversation between two American men, who were seated at least 20 meters (yards) away in an Oslo restaurant. They were not boors. But they were loud, having been conditioned by tens of thousands of hours in the American soundscape.

In Leaves of Grass Walt Whitman declared he would sound his "barbaric yawp" over the rooftops of the world. That was in 1855. He knew then that Americans as a tribe did not go quietly about. That was before the loudspeaker or the radio, back when a singer or a speaker needed a room with good acoustics, and just as importantly, the audience had to know how to restrain itself or no one would hear. Whitman's audience also could communicate back to the stage far more easily than one canm today in the electrified soundscape. For as sound was electrified and broadcast, the communication changed. But I begin to digress. If the historical background for American sonics might sound like it needs to be researched more fully, the book is already out. Get hold of a copy of Emily Thompson's The Soundscape of Modernity: Architectural Acoustics and the Culture of Listening in America, 1900-1933 (MIT Press, 2002). Please do not try to read it in Logan Airport.

The American today is not only a multitasker, but adept at hearing many things simultaneously and filtering out all of it except a single conversational thread. It is also a kind of skill to block out everything entirely, in order to concentrate on a laptop while sitting in a coffee shop. Or, in my case, sitting on a train, as I am now in Denmark. But train has a "quiet car" where talking and cell phone conversations are banned. American concentration, Scandinavian sonics.

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.