Obama '08?

Here's something to worry about if you like Obama. McCain is going to start focusing his attacks more and more on the democrats, now that he's basically got his nomination locked up. The republicans are rightfully worried about a matchup against Obama, so watch for McCain to go after him in a big way.

Very soon Obama will be fighting against both Hillary AND the the Republicans. Can he withstand that much firepower coming at him?

You may be right, but I think it is a double-edged sword, and it could end up being his undoing if he doesn't play it right.

First, he will have to defend himself against two camps smearing his good name instead of just one. This takes away from his ability to keep pounding out his message of change. If he has to spend too much time doing this, it could be just enough to slow down the momentum that he's got going for him at the moment.

Plus, if he ends up having to respond too much to attacks by McCain and the Republicans, Hillary's people may be able to spin it in a way that makes it look as if he's arrogantly looking past her prematurely, which will definitely not be a good thing for him. You mentioned this, but I don't think you really see how tough its going to be for him.

I think he's going to have to tread very carefully in the coming weeks.

L.A. to count primary votes left out of tally
Joe Garofoli, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Los Angeles County election officials will attempt to tally the ballots of tens of thousands of nonpartisan voters whose choice for president wasn't included in California's Feb. 5 primary result, as county officials vowed Tuesday to change the confusing ballot in the nation's largest voting jurisdiction to prevent such a mishap from reoccurring.

Tuesday's move is unlikely to take last week's California primary victory from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton or significantly shift the state's delegate distribution, conceded campaign officials representing Sen. Barack Obama, who finished second. Clinton won 55 percent of the vote in Los Angeles and 52 percent statewide in the latest figures from the California secretary of state.

But campaign officials and voter advocates hoped that Tuesday's move will send a larger message to thousands of new voters who are casting ballots for the first time in this presidential campaign: Your vote does count.

"In a political sense, will it likely change the outcome in the Democratic primary or in the delegate count? Probably not," said Tony West, a top official in Obama's California campaign operation. "But that doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

"We've seen that turnout has nearly doubled (in Democratic primaries) in every single contest from what it was four years ago," West said. "To tell those people who are new to the process that their vote doesn't count sends them a very bad message."

The challenge now for Los Angeles election officials is trying almost forensically to determine whom some nonpartisan voters were supporting for president.

Last Tuesday's confusion was experienced mostly by California voters who registered as "decline to state" instead of affiliating with a political party.

The state's Democratic Party allowed these unaffiliated voters to cast Democratic ballots in the Feb. 5 primary, as did the American Independent party. The Republican Party allowed only registered party voters to participate in its primary.

Elsewhere in California, a decline-to-state voter only had to request a Democratic ballot at the poll on election day or in advance by mail. However, Los Angeles County required unaffiliated voters to fill in a bubble at the top of their ballot indicating that they would be participating in either the Democratic or the Independent primary. If they didn't fill in it, their presidential vote wouldn't be counted, but the rest of their state and local choices would.

Los Angeles leaders agree that the ballot's design presents a challenge to election officials trying to determine whom a voter was trying to support. The ballots don't contain the names of the candidates, so some of the candidate spots are used both for the Democratic and American Independent candidates.

The whole process is so confusing, county acting Registrar-Recorder/County Clear Dean Logan said in an election post-mortem report Monday, that "poll worker comprehension of the process is also a concern."

After surveying 1 percent of nonpartisan ballots in 48 Los Angeles precincts, Logan estimated that approximately 49,500 voters included a mark for president, but not one indicating the voter's cross-over party selection.

Logan's next step after consulting with his staff and legal officials is creating a process to determine how many ballots to review and then figure whom those voters were supporting. His deadline is March 4, when the California vote must be certified.

The good news for nonpartisan voters: "From my standpoint," Logan said Tuesday, "we would not be presenting that (bubble) ballot to the voters in June." The board agreed.

Largely left unsaid by many politicians and advocates - for fear of offending voters' intelligence - is that this system has been in place for three previous statewide elections in Los Angeles. Logan's report recounted many public service announcements and other outreach done to alleviate confusion. It didn't work.

Actually, there's rather a lot of good discussion available on Krugman's recent columns and on Rich's recent columns (Matt Yglesias, Greg Sargeant at TPM and more). Sunstein seems to be unaware of these. And he certainly looks like he hasn't read either of Krugman's last two books, particularly the most recent.

1) It certainly looks like that. If he had read the books, he would have known that Krugman doesn't like partisanship. He just thinks it inevitable.

Why Is Paul Krugman So Hostile To Barack Obama?

--Cass R. Sunstein -SLATE

1) It certainly looks like that. If he had read the books, he would have known that Krugman doesn't like partisanship. He just thinks it inevitable. In a country that's split 50:50 between creationists and at least qualified acceptance of evolution, teaching evolution as the sound science that it is is inevitably a very partisan thing to do. It also happens to be the right thing to do. Likewise, in a two party system in which one party vehemently opposes universal heathcare in ignorance of clear evidence that it works, introducing any universal healthcare is inevitably a very partisan thing to do. Krugman and Obama both think it's the right thing to do. So, given that the right thing to do is partisan, Krugman's point is that Obama's desire for bipartisanship will get in the way of getting it done. Krugman writes plain English; the only way to miss his message is to read him second-hand through summaries by people who don't like him.

2) Since you mention Rich's recent columns, which were highly critical of Clinton and at least as numerous as Krugmans -- I don't remember anyone accusing rich of running a personal campaign against Hillary Clinton. The same goes for Maureen Dowd. Therefore, if Krugman's columns grate so much, it seems much more likely that the median Obama supporter is just more hostile to opposition than the median Clinton supporters.

For what it's worth, my own experience confirms this: For several months now, Obama was my second most favorite Democratic candidate, my number one being John Edwards. Now that Edwards is out of the race, Obama has moved up to #1, albeit by a fairly narrow margin. I think both Obama and Clinton would be good presidents, and my preference for Obama is only modest. Given these preferences, I would expect my views to attract about equal amounts of opposition. But that's not the case. I didn't keep notes about it, but I'm definitely getting more heat from Obama supporters. Not complaining, just comparing.

Likewise, in a two party system in which one party vehemently opposes universal heathcare in ignorance of clear evidence that it works, introducing any universal healthcare is inevitably a very partisan thing to do.

Thomas wrote:

1) It certainly looks like that. If he had read the books, he would have known that Krugman doesn't like partisanship. He just thinks it inevitable. In a country that's split 50:50 between creationists and at least qualified acceptance of evolution, teaching evolution as the sound science that it is is inevitably a very partisan thing to do. It also happens to be the right thing to do. Likewise, in a two party system in which one party vehemently opposes universal heathcare in ignorance of clear evidence that it works, introducing any universal healthcare is inevitably a very partisan thing to do. Krugman and Obama both think it's the right thing to do. So, given that the right thing to do is partisan, Krugman's point is that Obama's desire for bipartisanship will get in the way of getting it done. Krugman writes plain English; the only way to miss his message is to read him second-hand through summaries by people who don't like him.

2) Since you mention Rich's recent columns, which were highly critical of Clinton and at least as numerous as Krugmans -- I don't remember anyone accusing rich of running a personal campaign against Hillary Clinton. The same goes for Maureen Dowd. Therefore, if Krugman's columns grate so much, it seems much more likely that the median Obama supporter is just more hostile to opposition than the median Clinton supporters.

For what it's worth, my own experience confirms this: For several months now, Obama was my second most favorite Democratic candidate, my number one being John Edwards. Now that Edwards is out of the race, Obama has moved up to #1, albeit by a fairly narrow margin. I think both Obama and Clinton would be good presidents, and my preference for Obama is only modest. Given these preferences, I would expect my views to attract about equal amounts of opposition. But that's not the case. I didn't keep notes about it, but I'm definitely getting more heat from Obama supporters. Not complaining, just comparing.

Echoing all of that. Very well said.

nimh wrote:

Thomas wrote:

For what it's worth, my own experience confirms this: For several months now, Obama was my second most favorite Democratic candidate, my number one being John Edwards. Now that Edwards is out of the race, Obama has moved up to #1, albeit by a fairly narrow margin. I think both Obama and Clinton would be good presidents, and my preference for Obama is only modest. Given these preferences, I would expect my views to attract about equal amounts of opposition. But that's not the case. I didn't keep notes about it, but I'm definitely getting more heat from Obama supporters. Not complaining, just comparing.

Echoing all of that. Very well said.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers

Obama Voters Impact McCain, Too

What made the night historic was not so much the margins of Obama's wins - though those were impressive - but the scope and depth of his winning coalition. According to exit poll data, Obama prevailed in Virginia among while males, independents and young voters. In Maryland, he bested Clinton among rural voters, union households and catholic voters. Everywhere, as expected, he won huge margins of African American voters who turned out to vote in numbers far in excess of their proportion of the population. In Maryland, African Americans are 29 of the population but formed 37 of the electorate, while in Virginia the numbers are 20 and 29.

The results also show the ways in which Obama is exerting a huge gravitational pull on both races. Obama is drawing so many moderates and independents to the Democratic race from what would normally be the ranks of the Republican electorate that 1) he's rolling up large margins and stitching together a broader coalition, and 2) he's making the Republican electorate comparatively smaller, and more conservative. Exit polls noted that one half of Virginia's voters were evangelicals; one third were self-described as "very conservative" while only a quarter were independents. As a result, Mike Huckabee was able to take 41% of the state's Republican vote.

Bunch of not-sufficiently-in-love-with-Obama foreigners! Go back to Foreignervania where you came from!

Plain Dealer endorses Obama, McCain

In the edition of Sunday, Feb. 10, The Plain Dealer makes its choices for the Ohio presidential primaries:

Democrats

Obama: An optimistic approach unencumbered by the past

"Ohio Democrats have to ask themselves which candidate is more likely, first, to win the White House, and, then, to persuade a closely divided country to embrace his or her vision of change. Put even more pointedly: Who is more likely to change the world of a child born in 2008?

"The answer, we think, is Barack Obama."

Read the whole editorial

Republicans

McCain: A plain-spoken pragmatist who can build a coalition

"Even before the winnowing of the GOP field began, McCain stood out as the party's most impressive presidential material and its most electable candidate.

"... Republicans here can steer their party away from those who have a death wish and focus it instead on the serious business of holding the White House in November."

Read the whole editorial

The paper's editorial board interviewed three of the candidates by phone (its attempts to arrange an interview with Mike Huckabee were unsuccessful).

Listen what the paper asked them and how they answered in these audio interviews

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Why Is Paul Krugman So Hostile To Barack Obama?

--Cass R. Sunstein -SLATE

It should probably be mentioned that Cass Sunstein is, as he calls it, "an informal, occasional advisor" to Obama. They were colleagues for ten years.

I mean, just in case anyone was taking this as a neutral observer kind of thing.

Personally, anyone who tries to reduce Krugman's substantive problems with Obama to:

"Obama doesn't hate those who disagree with him, and he does not welcome people's hatred. Krugman seems to hate that"

... is not worthy of any serious consideration anymore. I mean, please.

Thomas wrote:

Likewise, in a two party system in which one party vehemently opposes universal heathcare in ignorance of clear evidence that it works, introducing any universal healthcare is inevitably a very partisan thing to do.

So does this justify his countinuing use of incorrect and misleading information when he promotes universial healthcare? The opposing party doesn't like the programs I like so it's ok to lie to readers because "it's the partisan thing to do"??