Obama: turning the tide in the war on brains?

Nicholas Kristof opines on the impact of having an "out of the closet, practicing intellectual" as our president-elect. 

An intellectual is a person interested in ideas and comfortable with complexity. Intellectuals read the classics, even when no one is looking, because they appreciate the lessons of Sophocles and Shakespeare that the world abounds in uncertainties and contradictions, and — President Bush, lend me your ears — that leaders self-destruct when they become too rigid and too intoxicated with the fumes of moral clarity.

...as Mr. Obama goes to Washington, I’m hopeful that his fertile mind will set a new tone for our country. Maybe someday soon our leaders no longer will have to shuffle in shame when they’re caught with brains in their heads.

Amen

Obama and America's standing

A great piece on the potential for a President Obama to significantly increase America's standing in the world and why it's important (as opposed to just being a military power).

Best line:

you can’t fire cruise missiles at the global financial crisis

Foreign policy: can experience temper belligerence?

Times columnists Nicholas Kristof frequently writes on international issues and rarely on politics, but he breaks from that tradition to warn how Sen. McCain may be a return to the foreign policy of the first Bush term.

Although he is frantically trying to distance himself from President Bush, Mr. McCain, by his own accounting, would be more Bushian in foreign policy than even Mr. Bush is now.

Let's start with Iran, with its theocratic regime, hatred of Israel, and interest in nuclear armaments. 

Iran seems determined to continue its uranium enrichment and will be vexing for any president. But Mr. Bush, under the influence of Bob Gates and Condoleezza Rice, has realized that the best hope is diplomacy and negotiation. In contrast, Mr. McCain denounces Barack Obama’s call for direct talks with Iranian leaders and speaks openly about the possibility of bombing Iranian nuclear sites. 

“There’s only one thing worse than military action against Iran, and that is a nuclear-armed Iran,” Mr. McCain has told me and others, repeating the line regularly. That’s a nice sound bite, but it suggests that if Iran continues to enrich uranium he would feel obliged to launch airstrikes...

So if Iran continues its policies as most expect, we might well find ourselves under a McCain presidency headed toward our third war with a Muslim country.

And then there's the newly belligerent Russia.

Russia underscores Mr. McCain’s penchant for risk-taking, theatrics and fulmination. Most striking, he wants to kick Russia out of the Group of 8.

Mr. McCain’s lead-with-the-chin approach to Russia reflects the same pugnacity that resulted in obscenity-laced dust-ups with fellow Republican senators, but it’s less endearing when the risk is nuclear war. Do we really want to risk an exchange of nuclear warheads over Abkhazia or South Ossetia? The Spanish prime minister, José Zapatero, told me a few days ago that what he fears most under a McCain administration is a revival of the cold war with Russia.

Anyone recall the ad, Daisy?

The presidential debate schedule

This is where a lot of Americans end up making their voting decision - the debates.  A chance to see candidates speaking unfiltered by the media and unvarnished by advertising polish.  Mark your calendars!

First presidential debate:
Friday, September 26
University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS

Vice presidential debate:
Thursday, October 2
Washington University in St. Louis, MO

Second presidential debate:
Tuesday, October 7
Belmont University, Nashville, TN

Third presidential debate:
Wednesday, October 15
Hofstra University, Hempstead, N

Things you probably (don't) know

It's a new era in presidential campaigns: lie until you get caught...then lie some more. What might you believe if they stopped lying?

• Gov. Palin did support the bridge to nowhere, before the feds cut the funds.
• Barack Obama's economic plan will cut taxes for 95% of Americans. If you read are reading this blog, that's you.
• McCain's economic plan will not take money from public schools.
• McCain no longer says the economy is sound.

This takes me back to a FactCheck.org story I meant to blog about ages ago: when we hear lies about the candidates, they tend to stick, even after they've been debunked. Not only that, we may even attribute the falsehood to the debunker (e.g. I heard that on FactCheck.org!). Crazy.

Charting health care

Paul Krugman provides an illustration of the presidential candidates' health care plans versus "busienss as usual."  While no one covers everyone, Obama's plan is the only one that shrinks the number of uninsured.

Obama's Energy Speech

From Time Magazine

The short term:

• Offshore drilling, requiring oil companies to use existing leases first
• Tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (boo!)
• Grants and loans to help automakers retool for fuel efficient cars

The longer term:

• $150 billion over 10 years to get
• 1 million plug-in hybrids on the road by 2014
• $7000 tax credit per car
  
• 4% increase in mileage standards each year
• Better battery technology
• 10% of energy from renewables by 2012
• Extend renewable tax credits for 5 years
• 6 billion gallons from next generation biofuels by 2022 (actually less than the current goal, as far as I can tell)
  
• Reduce electricity demand by 15% by 2020
• New buildings 50% more efficient by 2012

The not-insignificant individual contribution: inflate your tires properly.  If everyone in the U.S. had properly inflated tires, we'd save 4% of our oil consumption, more than we'll ever get from offshore drilling.   Mocking this means you love giving terrorists our oil money.

It is time for some campaignin'

Courtesy of JibJab

The power to declare war

An interesting look at the Constitutional authority to declare war, including a letter written by Abraham Lincoln on why it's important for Congress to retain it.

the GOP has a magic inequality spell that it chants while in office

Krugman has been examining the impact of party control of the executive (e.g. which party has the presidency) on economic inequality in the United States. He's skeptical that the executive could have so much to do with it, but the data are pretty robust: Republican presidents seem to have a magical inequality spell.

Democrats - a party of prosperity for everyone (data)

I'm lifting this chart straight from Paul Krugman's blog. Read his caveats. And marvel at this graphic:

Chart summary: Everyone is more prosperous (in terms of average annual income growth) under Democratic presidents. The rate of growth is also more equitable than under Republicans, who heavily skew income gains to the rich.

And that's why rich folks mostly vote for Republicans.

Are we really still debating experience?

Apparently the Clinton campaign is asserting that John McCain is more experienced than Obama, with the conclusion that Democrats would be better off voting for the Republican Senator than Mr Obama(?). I already covered the inanity of the experience argument, but here's another taste.

From the Votemaster, a table of presidents ranked by greatness (a consensus among many different surveys) with their respective experience. An analysis freebie: the top ten presidents averaged 10 years experience; the bottom ten had 14 years. So much for learning from your mistakes. And then there's this anecdote:

Suppose you had to choose between two Presidential candidates, one of whom had spent 20 years in Congress plus had considerable other relevant experience and the other of whom had about half a dozen years in the Illinois state legislature and 2 years in Congress. Which one do you think would make a better President? If you chose #1, congratulations, you picked James Buchanan over Abraham Lincoln. Your pick disagrees with that of most historians, who see Lincoln as the greatest President ever and Buchanan as the second worst ever...

Romney the latest Republican to surrender to terror

Mitt Romney's concession speech lobbed a fecal shot at the Democrats vis-a-vis the War on Terror. For those of you who missed it, he basically accused Democrats of being surrender monkeys and so democracy had to stand aside. Skemono at the Dead Racists Society has the best analysis I've seen:

Of course, Mitt's party already has surrendered to terror. They are so bowel-liquifyingly scared that they would give up their sovereign rights to be shielded from it; they would flush our national dignity and esteem down the toilet by engaging in, and legitimizing, torture; they would dismiss the Constitution--the very soul of our country--as a "suicide pact" if they deem it provides insufficient protection from their night terrors; they would turn their backs on legal traditions that date back centuries before the founding of our nation; they would allow the president to violate the law he swore to uphold whenever he fucking feels like it, if only he promises to protect them from their Muslim phantoms. And all because they are terrified of the terrorists under their beds.

Sleep tight, Mitt.

My Obama spin

I'm for Obama and it was a great night for him on Super Duper Tuesday. He overcame all the polls of the past couple weeks and is now effectively neck and neck with Hillary. The only disappointment of the night was California, where Hillary maintained a fairly solid lead with 90% reporting (52-42%) this morning.

But here's a couple things to think about from the California exit polls:

• Many Californians voted early via absentee ballot. Of those who decided their vote in the last three days, it was Clinton by 49-46%. Of those who decided earlier, it was Clinton 56-39%. In other words, Obama was surging, but many people may have already voted.
• Racism still has a grip. Of those who said race of the candidate was important, 62% went for Clinton. Of those who didn't, only 51% did.
  

At any rate, what a fantastic election. It's going to be contested far into the primary season!

From Edwards to who: two female Democrats pick their second choice

The story introduces the conversation as two John Edwards supporters looking for their second choice, but it's a powerful essay on why Barack Obama should be the Democratic nominee and our next president.

The next president: Newt says start with a foreign listening tour

Tip to shadoweyes for the story in Foreign Policy referenc Newt Gingrich, former leader of the Republican Contract for America and now political statesman. The former Speaker has a good thought on the first job of the next president:

As soon as the new president is elected, he or she should immediately embark on a series of pre-inauguration visits to capitals around the world: not just London, Paris, and Jerusalem, but Ankara, Amman, Beijing, and Cairo. In the span of several weeks, the president should make dozens of stops in Latin America, the Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Asia. During these visits, not one moment needs to be spent trying to prove or demonstrate American power and dominance. Instead, the president-elect should simply listen. There should be no formal agenda, only questions. How do these other leaders think the United States can be most effective with its economic, military, and cultural might? And in turn, how do they propose to help achieve mutual goals during the next four years?

I was never much for Newt's domestic policy, but that's some very intelligent ideas about helping build American soft power and diffusing some of the sources of foreign terrorism.

The presidency: What value experience?

Nicholas Kristof examines the history of experience in presidential candidates and their resulting presidencies. He concludes that those who put experience first may get what they wish for. A few excerpts:

Consider another presidential candidate who was far more of a novice. He had the gall to run for president even though he had served a single undistinguished term in the House of Representatives, before being hounded back to his district.

That was Abraham Lincoln.

Kristof goes on to conclude that...

It might seem obvious that long service in Washington is the best preparation for the White House, but on the contrary, one lesson of American history is that length of experience in national politics is an extremely poor predictor of presidential success.

Then there's the kicker - what it might mean if we take experience too seriously:

To put it another way, think which politician is most experienced today in the classic sense, and thus — according to the “experience” camp — best qualified to become the next president.

That’s Dick Cheney. And I rest my case.

Huckabee: don't elect him, give him a TV show

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee: good position on global warming. Lousy positions on Iraq and health care. But one damn funny guy.

The election doesn't end in NH either

Acting as a counterweight to the hype of horserace, political writer Eric Black notes the now-defunct presumption that New Hampshire is key to winning the presidential nomination. In fact, New Hampshire has been insignificant almost as often as the reverse.

So enjoy the show tomorrow, and keep in mind that your best vote is one for the best candidate.

Iowa Caucus results: season with salt (a lot of salt)

One of the best political writers you will ever read, should you choose to follow the link, is Eric Black. Bringing valuable context to all things political, he offers a substantial salt appetizer to the Iowa caucus results that will dominate the news tomorrow. A few thoughts for those feeling pressed for time:

In a sense, the pundits will be making a big deal about not very much. Very few national convention delegates are at stake Thursday night (and none will actually be chosen in a binding way until June

In other words, the results being trumpeted on the news Friday morning will be the media-manufactured "momentum." In terms of getting your party's nomination, Iowa's like winning $1.50 on a $1 lotto ticket.

As meaningless as are the results, so are the polls coming out now. No one knows who will actually caucus.

Reading polls as predictions is always hazardous, and for several reasons that you may not be thinking about (details below), it's especially hazardous in the Iowa caucuses... it is harder to identify likely caucus-goers (who must spend an entire evening doing their civic duty). Various polls have "found" that, as a percentage of all the adult Iowans they interviewed, the percentage that could be classified as likely caucus participants ranged from under 10 percent in many polls, to more than 30 percent in some.

And then there's the caucus process itself.

After a few other items of business, the caucus-goers get out of their seats and gather in bunches around the room according to which presidential candidate they support. A first count is taken. In most precincts, any candidate whose gaggle of supporters represents less than 15 percent of the total is declared non-viable, which means that candidate won't be getting any delegates out of that precinct. That candidate's supporters are given a chance to join up with one of the viable candidates' gaggle (presumably reflecting their second preference). The precinct captain for each of the viable candidates gives a speech, imploring the non-viables to come on over.

According to all recent polls, only Clinton, Obama and Edwards are attracting more than 15 percent support among Iowa Democrats statewide.

But, results are based on individual precincts, so there may be caucuses where Richardson, Kucinich or Biden can garner 15 percent to remain viable. And if that wasn't enough, the number you see on TV isn't even a real number:

The percentage reported to the media is a weird statistic that Iowa Democrats call "State Delegate Equivalents." State delegate equivalents project how many delegates to the Iowa State Democratic Convention in June that candidate is likely to have. Here's the next catch. Each county has a preset number of delegates to the next level of conventions. The number does not reflect how many Iowans turned out in that county on caucus night.

Looking at the Iowa caucus for our next president is like asking NFL fans to caucus to select the Superbowl winner. It's not worth a bucket of warm spit.

Let's at least wait until the New Hampshire primary, where people just vote.