I Never Understood a Single Word He Said
Posted: May 27, 2012 Filed under: Mitt Romney, Obama Leave a comment »But I helped him drink his wine. He always had some mighty fine wine.
I hear you, Scott. In trying to figure out why this is such a bore, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s because there’s nothing either one of them can say or do that’ll make much difference. It’ll either be reasonably close or very close, yes, but the result is preordained. A third of the country despises Obama, a third is okay with him, a third will back him no matter what; a third of the country despises Romney, a third shrug their shoulders, a third will back him no matter what (because they despise Obama). Obama’s approval bounces between 45% and 50%; he can’t get any higher, but he probably won’t go any lower. So:
1) Obama wins if gas prices remain where they are, unemployment inches below 8.0%, and he avoids a jobs report under +100,000.
or
2) Obama loses if any one of those goes the other way. Bain won’t save him, any more than Jeremiah II: The Trial Ballooning will sink him.

Evolving Door
Posted: May 9, 2012 Filed under: Mitt Romney, Obama 3 Comments »The din—as in CNN, the message board, and Sullivan; I don’t go anywhere near Tweeterville—was in full force today, so I’ll keep this relatively brief. I’ll be listening and skim-reading a lot in the next few days, more than at any time since the halcyon days of Newt Surge #1.
Obama’s proclamation was political, of course. If you’re someone who doesn’t believe it lives up to the purity of Kennedy’s and Johnson’s push for Civil Rights legislation, a timeline might be instructive. They (and Eisenhower) dithered when it was convenient, moved forward when they had to, or when they could. Not sure there’s much difference—if anything, I’d say Kennedy and Johnson were even less justified in stalling.
So politically, I’d say Obama goes two for three:
1) On the downside, demographics and the electoral map. According to CNN, every single swing state (as defined by whomever defines such things) has struck down gay marriage already; those that are already wobbly for Obama will presumably move in Romney’s direction now. And Catholic Hispanics are supposedly very unhappy. Maybe Obama’s side feels that reinvigorated young voters will neutralize all of that. I doubt it.
2) The substance: it’s always, I believe, politically smart at some level to do the right thing, regardless of motives. So that’s a plus.
3) Romney wants to keep the focus almost solely on the economy, with a little bit of sabre-rattling mixed in, but now, for the next few weeks at least and maybe all through the summer, he’ll have to contend with an endless procession of people like the guy Piers Morgan had on tonight yelling, “Should we allow brothers and sisters to marry? Should we, huh?” For Santorum or Gingrich, this would have been a prayer answered. For Romney, I’ve got to believe he’s mortified by today’s events.

When the Lights Go Down (the Cameras Stay On)
Posted: March 16, 2012 Filed under: Obama 2 Comments »It’s good to acknowledge reality, but not sure how I feel about this. It reminds me of something Kael once wrote about Ryan O’Neal in What’s Up, Doc?:
“It’s one thing for outsiders like me to call Love Story a boobish movie, but when O’Neal, who starred in it (and gave it all the conviction it had), turns around and dumps on it, and, implicitly, on the people who loved him in it, all he does is expose his own cheap, cute cynicism.”
It’s not as bad as all that, but Obama’s political instincts at fundraisers and such (thinking, of course, of San Francisco in 2008) are not always at their sharpest.
Lull
Posted: March 4, 2012 Filed under: Mitt Romney, Obama 1 Comment »Your weariness is my weariness. I am you as you are me as Mitt is us and we are all Newt Gingrich. See how they run, like Rick Santorum, see how they fly. I’m crying.
It’s silly to get worked up about Romney’s imminent demise anymore, so even when Santorum was way up in Michigan with a week to go, it felt hollow. And again, like in Florida, so much advance voting had already taken place, Michigan was probably already more or less won weeks ago. Romney says stupid things like every single day (with Kid Rock on board, I feel hip-hop parlance is now the way to go with Romney), but it doesn’t really matter in terms of the nomination, because Santorum’s a veritable saying-stupid-things machine. Meanwhile, Gingrich and Paul barely exist at the moment, although Gingrich managed to turn up on all four Sunday shows this morning, and I guess he’ll win Georgia on Tuesday.
I still think it’ll be a close election. No matter how much goes wrong on the Republican side, Obama’s approval rating continues to stay around 45% on Gallup. (Higher today, as it sometimes is, then it goes down again.) For many months you’d hear that that didn’t matter, because Clinton (in ’96) and Reagan (’84) and Nixon (’72) also had approval ratings in the 40s a year out, and they all won big. But it’s not a year out anymore. If you look at Gallup’s comparative graph, Clinton was at 53% right now, Reagan at 54%, and Nixon at 56%—they were already in the clear. And it still feels to me like Obama’s current good fortune is about as sturdy as a house of cards. Romney’s awful right now; I assume he’ll get better. (That one’s iffy.) The economy is improving, but one bad month and you know there’ll be a pile-on. Gas prices have a life of their own. The myriad problems on the other side of the world are not going away—they never do. I feel much better about Obama’s chances today than I did a year ago, but the idea—expressed by some on the message board, both happily and with disgust—that it’s over strikes me as crazy.

Say Hello to Vivian
Posted: January 25, 2012 Filed under: Obama 3 Comments »I mentioned on ILX the other day that one thing Obama will have working against him in the general is something I expect to become more and more an inescapable fact of presidential elections from now till the end of time: incumbent fatigue. I think “Clinton fatigue” was the first time I ever heard the phrase, although it was probably around before that. But it’s growing exponentially at the moment for a bunch of obvious reasons: social media, cable news, talk radio, etc., etc. The problem seems that much worse because the historical nature of Obama’s presidency collided with all of this head-on; his ascension was so unexpected and so meteoric in 2008 that there would have been a degree of saturation coverage at any time the past half-century, but nothing like what became possible these last four years. And even if the next president were to be only half as interesting, the news cycle will probably be twice as accelerated, and the sheer amount of stuff out there five times as mountainous.
I’m making an obvious point, but it explains why I nodded off for five or ten minutes during last night’s speech. It wasn’t terrible or anything—Sullivan’s screed was almost funny on the heels of all his rah-rahing earlier in the day—and there were a few effective moments. The milk joke was bizarre enough to provide what we used to call in Radio On lots of “puzzlement value.” Mostly, though, it was, heard that, heard that, heard that, that bit’s kind of interesting, heard that, heard that, right—good luck. I’m not commenting on strategy or policy or anything except what it felt like to sit there and listen. If enough people were experiencing something similar—i.e., actual Americans who’ll be voting—that will be a problem in November.
The clip has nothing to do with anything. I was just really happy to stumble over it today.
You Can Call Me Al
Posted: January 20, 2012 Filed under: Obama, Pop Music 1 Comment »Nice. Shame he didn’t keep going.
Much better than Clinton’s Arsenio moment, no?
All the Critics Love You in Newsweek
Posted: January 16, 2012 Filed under: Media, Obama 3 Comments »My guess is that this will not end well — for any of the parties involved. It is going to be used as a stick by by both sides with which to beat the three principle players involved: Obama, Sullivan, and Newsweek (Governor Palin and Alexander Cockburn are working on their responses now). It will — with some justification — be dismissed as elitist claptrap on the right, blind subservience on the left. A part of me thinks it’s hilarious. The Onion could reprint the headline as is, and you wouldn’t forget that you are reading The Onion.
I read the piece, and it’s fine. A little too forgiving of some of Obama’s policy punts. And the failures of what I will call mass communication and response — to my mind, the core weakness of the last few years — are almost entirely glossed over. Still, for all its championing of the strategy and the policy-making of the Obama presidency, to me the piece feels devoid of any real emotional connection between writer and subject. Which is appropriate enough. Positive ambivalence seems much more realistic and in tune with reality than wide-eyed zeal. Drives home, however, just how relatively uninspiring this whole process may be; exactly what Phil’s been saying all along, I think. (That is, if you believe that the next several months are going to be about who is the next president of the United States. About which I remain undecided, if not ambivalently positive.)
a·void·ance (\ə-ˈvȯi-dən(t)s\)
Posted: January 15, 2012 Filed under: Obama Leave a comment »I posted that Nixon link on an ILX thread called “What Are Barack Obama’s Flaws?” It dates back to April of 2008, when I guess it was an act of caution and sobriety to discuss Obama’s flaws. Anyway, when I started scrolling through the thread, I noticed that I was still engaging in earnest discussion of Obama as recently as this past June, and, going back to November of 2010, trying to sway critics through reasoned defense of him. I wouldn’t even dream of trying to defend him on the message board anymore. It’s not that my own feelings have changed all that much—without venturing too far into a question I still don’t feel like wading into, I’ll say that they’ve deteriorated some, and that I find stuff like this vaguely disheartening (not the political reality of having to do so, but that there are journalists who still write about such with as much awe as they did four years ago)—but that, between then and now, I gave up such back-and-forth. I pretty much confine myself to the Republican thread now, where Obama appears only intermittently. That’s one reason I was hoping for the extended Republican contest that looks all but impossible at this point: as soon as Romney locks it up, we’ll have to start talking about Obama.

Can’t Afford to Pass it By
Posted: January 8, 2012 Filed under: Obama Leave a comment »Barack Obama book signing at Barnes & Noble.
New York Magazine, August 7, 1995


Comments