Blogcritics Author: seatoshiningsea

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

Can Obama Translate His Juggernaut into Campaign Victories?

seatoshiningsea — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:28:29 EST

Just a week after declaring he would form an exploratory committee, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois faces the litmus test of his presidential hopes. Long before the first primary vote is cast in the snowy towns and hamlets of New Hampshire next year, Obama needs to stay competitive in a primary possibly more important than the one for electoral votes: The "media, momentum and money" primary, or in short, "the M3 primary". All three are intertwined, as Senator John Kerry's sudden string of victories in the 2004 Democratic primaries proved. So, where does Senator Obama stand? It does not seem too bad, but there is work to be done before his juggernaut translates into primary victories. ABC, as part of the positive coverage of Hillary Clinton's entry, published the figures of a national poll in which Hillary Clinton leads Obama 41-17, a 24 percent margin. So far, so good. However, it is important to mention that (contrary to conventional wisdom), national polls at this stage are, frankly, worthless. Why? Because, in perfectly simple terms, we have state primaries, rather than one national primary. If there is one poll that one can trust, it’s the numbers coming out of Iowa and New Hampshire. In Iowa, he currently places second behind John Edwards, with Hillary Clinton merely fourth behind Iowa's former Governor Tom Vilsack. In New Hampshire, Obama had a lead over Clinton of four percentage points. Hence, the stratospheric national numbers must be taken with a big pinch of salt. Also, Obama has the ability to capitalize on the electorate being tired of "politics as usual", Republican and Democrat. His best shot at winning the nomination would be to portray himself as the harbinger of real change, an approach that was visible in his announcement that he would form an exploratory committee. He could also attempt to contrast himself with Hillary, affirming that she has been a good Senator for New York and a valuable force for change, but that a President also needs to be more than a policy wonk. He or she needs to lead with strength and vision. Especially after eight years of a divisive presidency (and no Republican, Democrat or Independent will deny this, unless they are driven by deep ideology, rather than common sense), this message may resonate quite well with voters. But the media primary currently focuses on Obama's ability to connect with African-American voters. His will be a balancing act between affirming his African-American identity, and asserting his independence from old cultural wars of the past. In essence, he needs to show that he would be a President who could truly be "a uniter, not a divider". Unlike the 1980s campaign of Jesse Jackson, Obama cannot expect to have an automatic lock on the African-American primary voters. He will need to define himself and challenge John Edwards on urban poverty. Only then may we see a shift in those numbers. It is interesting (and somewhat concerning) to see how the national media are actually fomenting questions on whether Obama is "black" enough. The dark side of the campaign emerged when Fox News jumped on an ill-researched smear that Obama was educated in an Islamic madrassa in Indonesia, implying he was a latter-day version of Raymond Shaw in the Manchurian Candidate. CNN issued a clear refutation of the rumor, while Fox News still has not issued an apology to the Senator and his family. Surely, freedom of speech is all well and good, but it comes with a civic responsibility - not to distort the truth, skew the facts and frighten the public. And the same is valid for anyone who would want to defame Senator McCain for having adopted a child from Bangladesh (he too has been the victim of false rumors and character-assassinating campaigns during the South Carolina campaign). But that's a different discussion altogether. Barack Obama has had an interesting week, the wind of the campaign is changing...and in the next few weeks, he needs to start his conversation with America, to make those winds of change work for himself.

One of the authors of "Politics Now" (http://www.politics-now.info/wordpress), seatoshiningsea focuses on politics and current affairs in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Australia and Canada. Analysis and comment are amongst the prime activities of Politics Now

Obama's Choice: Vice President Lincoln?

seatoshiningsea — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:57:11 EST

There are quite a few interesting choices for the presidential ticket, each of whom need to be considered on merits of geography, policy leanings, and ability to pick up Republican-leaning states from the Democrats. So who would be ideal for which presidential candidate? Let's consider the choices in the event that Barack Obama throws his hat into the ring, inspires Democratic primary voters, and, after a tough battle, wins the nomination.Senator Obama is a thoroughly charismatic politician who would have an excellent ability to inspire the public and win over minorities. African-American turnout would skyrocket, for obvious reasons. However, Obama would be open to the charge of being a greenhorn, having only served in the Senate for around three years by the time he has to pick a running mate -- and also lacking experience in an executive office, for instance by having served as a state governor. Be that as it may, the senator would be able to offset these drawbacks by his choice of running mate. Different priorities require different choices.John Edwards would be the obvious choice if Obama wants to send the message of a "new generation", post-Clinton, so to speak. However, while the Senator would bring some experience to the ticket and anti-poverty credentials (through his work at the University of North Carolina), Edwards would also face questions about his foreign-policy experience. Such questions would obviously be compounded, if two senators with a combined term of office of merely seven years, ran as a ticket. Of course, such a ticket could counter a Republican assault by running the line: "Experience is desirable, but look where an assemblage of experienced national security experts have brought us. It's time for a change." But for aforesaid reasons, it is less likely that Obama/Edwards will run, particularly as John Edwards may decide to sit out the election (especially as an Obama presidency is not a shoo-in, and Edwards probably does not want to take the risk of ending up twice as a failed vice-presidential candidate).Hillary Clinton as a running mate seems like a non-starter. She has spent her life preparing for the presidency, first ensuring Bill Clinton's viability as a candidate in the 1992 Democratic primaries and, later on, supporting him during a messy impeachment trial. After eight years of service in the Senate, and positioning herself as a centrist on foreign affairs, it is not conceivable that the former first lady would merely settle for being Vice President under a first-term senator. Also, geography would complicate matters further: Obama cannot afford to repel Southern states by nominating another fellow northerner as a running mate. Hillary's lack of real executive experience also represents a disadvantage that can be exploited by the Republican ticket. If Obama thinks about changing the dynamics of the race, there are other candidates available.Tom Vilsack, former Iowa governor, ensured the victory of his anointed successor Chet Culver and has been chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council. He would also be very helpful in terms of securing Iowa and, maybe (depending on the course of his own primary campaign) putting the Midwest into the Democratic column. However, there remains the pesky problem of winning at least some southern states. While Obama would most certainly help with turnout in states like Missouri, part of the Democratic strategy for success needs to be to make the Deep South contestable (even if not winnable yet). Vilsack does not have a record conservatives could be proud of. He is not a supporter of gun ownership, he is pro-choice and for civil unions. Vilsack is only a candidate if Obama feels he can run with a "Northern (+) strategy" (The plus standing for California, Florida, Oregon, Nevada and Washington).Wesley Clark would be an unconventional choice for Vice President but an interesting one. Certainly no one could attack him as a "Washington insider". He has a distinguished military record, and after Campaign 2004, the Democrats would certainly discredit anyone attempting to "swift boat" Clark and his war decorations. He made some missteps on the campaign trail in 2004, but has been (apologies for the cliché) a good soldier, supporting many congressional candidates in the 2006 election. He could certainly speak with authority about national security and defense. If Obama was bold, he could make him something of an "Anti-Terrorism Czar", combining the office of Vice President alongside Defense. Furthermore, Clark hails from Arkansas, which could be turned into a swing state by him being on the ticket. The last thing to remark is that Clark is perfectly acceptable to rank-and-file Democrats with his liberal social views. He is something of a "Vilsack plus", with his added military expertise.Should Obama choose to make a fresh start with someone who could win different voter groups and can certainly not be accused of being a "liberal", then Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas seems like the choice for Vice President. Relatively young, she'd merely be 47 years old by the time Obama would have to nominate a running mate. She could appeal to female voters, but (and that is the added twist) to conservatives as well: for gun ownership, initially voted for Bush's tax cuts, supported a ban on partial birth abortions. She supported CAFTA, and was in favour of restricting class-action lawsuits. While Blanche Lincoln might not be a viable presidential candidate just yet, she would be a very powerful addition to the Democratic ticket. In addition, she could always bide her time during an Obama run, and be the frontrunner for the nomination in either 2012 or 2016. With a broad coalition of moderates from North and South, pro-choice women (especially suburban soccer moms), African-Americans, and a substantial number of Latino voters, an Obama/Lincoln ticket might just as well sweep the Electoral College even if a states like Texas and Alabama are likely to remain in the Republican column. It's just too early for these states to become Democratic.

The Clinton Effect

seatoshiningsea — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:23:08 EST

One thing is sure: Hillary Clinton's announcement that she will be forming an exploratory committee, while widely expected, has changed the dynamic of a highly interesting race for the Democratic nomination. Leading media outlets devoted substantial amounts of time to covering this announcement. However, the question remains whether Clinton will actually be able to win an election, especially with the baggage of President Bill Clinton's scandals being squarely attributed to her. Jill Lawrence reports that Hillary Clinton's lead in the Democratic camp is not decisive, by any stretch of the imagination. Time Magazine also asks whether Hillary actually is still the frontrunner. The reasons are clear: For starters, Hillary Clinton, while having a stratospheric name recognition also has the highest negatives amongst the voting public. This stems from a variety of sources: to start with, she is associated by some with the scandals of President Clinton's term: Whitewater, Travelgate, Lewinsky. There are those voters who feel unease at a spouse who did not leave her husband on discovering he had cheated on her with an intern who was young enough to have been his daughter. Those voters suspect a calculated effort at preserving a marriage to protect Hillary's political prospects. Lately, some have criticized her "wooden" delivery of speeches and distinct lack of charm, especially when compared to former President Bill Clinton. The comparisons drawn between her and her husband are not favorable. And bear in mind that neither Obama nor Edwards have shortages in the charisma department, either. In addition, some argue that for the country to experience true renewal, you need someone in office who did not get elected due to their family name.Even so, the former First Lady has dominated the coverage and remains the frontrunner in the polls. However, the question is to what extent Clinton will be able to push her campaign forward. This will depend on the character of the campaign. If it is a repeat of the 2004 campaign, then Hillary Clinton might win on the strength of her financial pledges and high-profile endorsements. In fact, she has already declared that she will forego federal matching funds, in order to be unencumbered by spending limits during the primary and, if she becomes the nominee, the general election campaigns. History teaches that frontrunners in the past (anyone remember Howard Dean?) can easily be felled by freak events, like a bad finish in Iowa, for instance. This is not a statement about the qualities of any Democratic hopeful, but a sober observation on the nature of presidential campaigns in the United States today. The wide field in the Democratic Party (apart from Clinton, six other candidates have already declared, and more are expected) indicates both an expectation that the White House can be retaken in 2008, and doubts about Hillary Clinton's ability to appeal to the centre in the general election. Her centrism also does not sit well with avowed liberals amongst Democratic activist. It's her stance on Iraq in particular that stands out and somewhat distinguishes her from Obama. One thing is certain: One year before the first ballot is cast, a lot of things can happen. And we can look forward to that "battle of the titans".