Matt Schiavenza From the Dragon to the Apple- A Sinophile in New York

29Jun/085

Election Trends

Even though the election is still four months away, even though neither candidate has chosen a running mate, even though neither convention has been held, it's still difficult not to be excited about this November, especially if (like me) you're a Democrat. According to electoral-vote.com (an indispensable site, by the way), Barack Obama is poised for a solid if somewhat narrow victory over John McCain, while the Democrats are predicted to gain five or so seats in the Senate and a half-dozen or so in the House. Latest polling suggests that Obama will retain every state that John Kerry won in 2004 while adding Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Ohio, and Virginia to the blue column. Florida, of course, is still in a dead heat.

Recently, Obama decided to opt out of public financing, which will allow him to amass an enormous warchest through private donations. He plans to use this largesse to finance a 50-state operation, working in states that Democrats have feebly conceded in the past. Why is he doing this?

-Several southern states, such as Mississippi, have large black populations that reliably vote Democratic. Unfortunately, only a relatively small percentage of the black population is registered to vote, so the Obama campaign hopes that by adding tens of thousands of new voters, he'll be able to force John McCain to pay attention to a state that he'd ordinarily count on.

-Former Congressman Bob Barr (R-Georgia) is the Libertarian Party nominee for President. While Barr won't get more than a few percent in the general election, his presence on the ballot in certain states might attract disaffected Republicans and thus help Obama.

- Recent special House elections in traditional Republican strongholds such as Louisiana, Mississippi, and the Chicago suburbs have been captured by Democratic candidates, leading Obama to believe he can capitalize on the general national unpopularity of the Republican Party.

Will it work? Certainly, most signs are favorable for Obama. He's an appealing, attractive candidate running against an aging opponent whose base supporters are somewhat less than enthusiastic. Then again, the electoral college is a fickle friend. Losing Mississippi or Georgia by three points will be of small comfort if he cannot take key swing states such as Ohio, Missouri, and Florida. A landslide victory and political realignment in the Democrats' favor would be nice, but after eight years of Bush, Obama would be wise to follow Al Davis' advice: "Just win baby".

Share
Filed under: US Politics Leave a comment
Comments (5) Trackbacks (0)
  1. Matt Carnes
    June 30th, 2008 - 00:33

    Oh yeah GO OBAMA… YES WE CAN!!!!

  2. FOB
    July 1st, 2008 - 10:25

    Matt,

    I enjoyed reading your election posts. But I feel your take on Obama is dead wrong. Obama is a disgrace to the Democrat Party. I share this Chinese American’s observation on Obama, who is calculating, timid, and all talks but no actions. I will return later to translate some keypoints. This is the entire column in Chinese, which is currently posted on Chinese DWNews.com.

    - FOB (Friend of Bill)

    选择周刊龚小夏／自从希拉里退出竞选之后，最近两个星期，我每天都会接到好几个奥巴马的竞选班子打来的电话或者是电子邮件，敦促我去参加助选。他们指出，既然民主党内初选已经有了结果，往下党内的人就应该团结一致，共同对付共和党。

    这本来是各个党支持者们惯常的做法。在2004年，我支持的两位候选人威斯利?克拉克和约翰?爱德华兹在初选中失败。虽然我非常不喜欢入选的约翰?克里，但还是加入了克里的助选队伍，并且将我的选票投了给他。在这个选择里面，体现的是我对民主制度的一些基本价值观的认同。

    在这次的大选中，经过再三犹豫之后，我决定不选择奥巴马。目前已经有超过百分之十的民主党选民和我作出了同样的决定。对于许多长期的民主党人来说，这并非是一个容易的举动。这个选择，同样是基于我对民主制度的基本价值观的认识，以及我个人的生活体验。

    我心目中选择总统的标准，首先是这个人对善恶有分明的标准。固然，政治家们会出于各种利益上的考虑而作出种种妥协，但是在一些原则性的问题上是否能够站得稳，并且不惜为坚持立场而付出政治代价，这是一个好的政治领袖的基本素质。其次，政治领袖不一定需要有非常丰富的经验（那对于年轻的领袖来过于苛求），但是他们的工作记录必须显示他们为纳税人工作不畏辛苦、任劳任怨。那反映了一种价值取向。

    第三，政治领袖身边的亲密的朋友圈子反映了他们内心深处真正的情感和道德取向。特别是那些在他们未发迹的时候便交下、后来又长期保持着紧密关系的人，更加是反映这些领袖的人格与信念的镜子。

    基于这样的三个标准，我无法将选票投给奥巴马。在他十多年的政治生涯中，奥巴马从来没有为坚持某种政治原则而付出过代价。他的每一个决定，都经过仔细的算计，最后的选择无一例外都有利于促成他的个人政治前途。在需要作出困难选择的时候，奥巴马首先采取的办法是躲避。在伊利诺州当参议员的期间，奥巴马在130次需要作出困难决定的投票中投下了”Present”（有点像清朝皇帝的批示”知道了”）。

    在联邦参议院中，奥巴马从来没有试图去与政治对手合作，而是完全按照自由派的路线去投票，这保证了他在民主党内的地位。相形之下，共和党的候选人麦凯恩有过许许多多按照自己的良心和原则而不是本党政治利益去投票的记录，以至于到今日还有大批保守的共和党人坚决不肯将选票投给他。(chin第二，奥巴马缺乏经验是人所共知的。但更重要的是，在他有限的公共服务期间，他并没有将主要精力放在公众事务上，而是到处去给自己拉政治关系，为日后的竞选作铺垫。2004年进入参议院之后，作为新参议员，按照常规他应该努力学习如何推动立法。但是经过一番利益衡量之后，他撇下了本职的工作不做，而是逐个去为政客们竞选拉票，从而换取了党内的大批支持。因此，奥巴马是参议院中成绩最少的议员之一。

    比较一下，希拉里和麦凯恩在立法上都有非常显著的贡献。人们都知道，希拉里和奥巴马的差别，并不是政策上的而是作风上的€”€”希拉里工作非常努力，而奥巴马却成天在外讲演。很多蓝领工人之所以不愿意将选票投给奥巴马，这是一个重要的原因。机械工会的工人曾经告诉我一个例子。

    2007年，印第安纳州有一家1600人的工厂要关门，工会需要政府拨款来进行职业培训。工会分别给希拉里和奥巴马写信。奥巴马一方根本没有回信，希拉里不但派人前往，自己本人也去了一趟，到州政府为这些工人争取到了一笔拨款。在希拉里退选之后，这中间的许多工人公开表示，坚决不肯支持奥巴马。这两种截然不同的工作作风，有本质上的意识形态根源，也就是对领袖与纳税人之间孰主孰次的看法。

    最后，培养奥巴马出道的芝加哥三一教堂实在令我感到不寒而栗。这个教堂里面充满了各种各样疯狂的信念与举动，种族主义和黑人至上论在那里大行其道。能够在这个教堂中呆上二十年，奥巴马内心深处是否也认同那些极端的信条，实在令人生疑。起码，他听着那些话并不反感。将心比心，我在那里面连两分钟也呆不下去。要知道，领袖们内心深处的情感不仅会左右而且会推动他们的政策决定。奥巴马虽然会作激动人心的讲演，但他实际上是个基本不流露内心真情的人。他的感情，只能通过他愿意与什么样的人交朋友来判断。

    在这次竞选中，奥巴马很巧妙地将他自己做成了一个意识形态的空壳，外面非常漂亮，但是里面却没有什么内容。正因为如此，支持他的人可以将自己的想法放到这个空壳里面。在奥巴马身上，自由派知识分子看见了推行各种各样改革计划的机会，外交政策的鸽派看到了世界和平的曙光，黑人看到了自己种族地位的上升，年轻人看到了好玩的政治集会。可是，奥巴马这个看上去是空壳的葫芦里到底卖的是什么药？我想他的支持者们并不怎么清楚。至于我自己，看到狂热的年轻人和高高在上的知识分子结合在一起的群众运动，我本能是要躲开的。

  3. FOB
    July 1st, 2008 - 11:03

    Here are some key points this guy opined.

    I am a life-long Democrat. In this election, after much thinking, I have decided not to support Obama. As of this writing, over 10% Democratic voters have decided not to support Obama. This isn’t an easy decision for many life-long Democrats like me. My decision is based on my understanding of the Democratic Party values as well as my life experience.

    First and foremost, the basic standard of a good president is that he must have the clear stand on the good vs. evil issues. Granted, politicians may choose not to disclose his stand on certain controversial issues or may even choose to compromise on some non-essential issues for the greater cause of his Party. As for Senator Obama, he has consistently wavered between some basic good vs. evil issues. (Translator’s note – - – the author didn’t give any specific examples to support his argument.)

    Second, even though experience may not the most important element of a good president (some young leaders are just as good), his record should nevertheless prove that he has worked laboriously for the taxpayers. That is not the case with Senator Obama. Sadly, that just shows Obama’s lack of work ethic. For this point, the author cited an example of some worker’s union in Indiana who sent a letter to both Hillary and Obama campaigns. Obama’s campaign never got back to them while Hillary campaign sent a person to listen and talk with them. Hillary has shown to be in charge and would work hard for taxpayers if elected. Obama, on the other hand, has shown to be a slacker. He also cited other examples where Obama has consistently followed the trend as a state senator. Hence, Obama is not a fighter, but a lazy trend follower. He even went as far as to suggest that McCain has worked much harder and has taken a more consistent stand on key issues that are important to him, which actually has alienated McCain from his Republican base because of his differing yet unwavering stand. (Translator’s note: I would simply point out that Obama has accomplished nothing important as a state and U.S. senator so far. Can you name one thing that he has accomplished as a public servant?)

    Third, by his friends, we should know him. For this point, the author references Obama’s former pastor Rev. Wright and his other communist associates.

    Well, this election is definitely going to be very interesting.

  4. matt_schiavenza
    July 1st, 2008 - 17:00

    FOB,
    A few points that I would like you to address:

    1. As a Clinton supporter, do you feel that the policies she endorsed in respect to the economy, the war in Iraq, the environment, and other issues are more similar to those expressed by John McCain or by Barack Obama?

    2. Clinton recently said that her supporters who are flirting with voting for John McCain to strongly reconsider, and that she fully supports Barack Obama. As a Clinton supporter, do you feel compelled to honor her request or do you still feel McCain will better carry out Clinton’s vision?

    3. As you noted in your translation, the author makes a fairly broad claim (Obama doesn’t know the difference between good and evil) yet gives no examples to illustrate his point. Doesn’t this invalidate the entire argument? Secondly, he gives an example of Obama’s supposed laziness despite the general media consensus that Obama’s campaign generally outhustled Clinton’s. Remember, Clinton began the primary campaign as the overwhelming favorite and yet was defeated by Obama. Does the latter’s victory strike you as a result of his laziness?

    4. Your earlier point- that Obama is a disgrace to the Democratic Party- comes without any support. Obama’s policy positions are more-or-less in line with any mainstream Democrat. The only current Senator to whom it could be fairly said is a “disgrace” to the party is Senator Lieberman, and as we know he is now an independent and is campaigning for McCain.

    Here are my final thoughts on this matter. Democrats had a choice between Clinton and Obama. The campaign was hard-fought, even bitter, leading to a great deal of animosity among supporters of both sides. In the end, Obama won, and Clinton conceded and endorsed him. They are now campaigning together.

    Yet, for the most part, there are no substantive policy differences between them. None. Either, if elected, would have similar cabinets, would propose similar initiatives, and would have similar plans for Iraq.

    More importantly, for any true Democrat, both would be substantially better than John McCain. Forget the maverick reputation, the media adulation, the “straight-talk express”. McCain is a garden-variety Republican who will govern, effectively, in the same manner of George W. Bush.

    So, if you supported Clinton because you felt she was the best candidate in the fall, then it’s only logical to support a candidate who a) resembles Clinton politically or b) Clinton herself endorses. If you were pleased with the Bush Administration, you wouldn’t have supported Clinton in the first place, and thus your support for McCain would have made sense.

    One more thing: I’ve heard before from some bitter Clinton supporters that they’re confident that should McCain win, Clinton can run against him and win in 2012. This is deeply irresponsible and frankly childish.

    So, with all due respect, I just don’t understand why some Clinton supporters have such an animus about Obama. And if so, isn’t it time to bite the bullet and support the candidate who resesmbles Clinton the most?

  5. FOB
    July 1st, 2008 - 21:23

    Matt, I am not going to argue with you. You have some valid points in theory only. However, in practice Obama isn’t going to be Hillary. So to answer your question, no. I don’t see how Obama is going to govern as effectively as Hillary would. The Clintons know what it’s like to take responsibility of being the highest office holder on earth. They have been there, done that. Obama, on the hand, is arrogant. He doesn’t allow anyone to criticize him. His handlers have been crying racism whenever people (both Democrats and Republicans) try to criticize him. Sheer arrogance is a big turn off for voters. Many Democrats will be voting for McCain this November. Lieberman isn’t alone. Check out these web sites.

    http://www.dems4mccain.info/
    http://www.dems4mccain.org/
    http://hillaryorbust.com/
    http://www.nobamanetwork.com/


Leave a comment

(required)

No trackbacks yet.

» «

Latest Comments

Archives

Meta