The Debatable Land

Elitist Greens

Matt Yglesias reconsiders his position on arugula. Of course, in Britain we call "arugula" "rocket" - a much more homely, substantial, salt-of-the-earth kind of name, you will agree. A ploughman might have rocket in his sandwich, he'd never have "arugula" would he? Names matter!

I can't recall for certain, but I'm pretty sure arugula used to be called rocket in the United States too, but that the name was changed because someone - growers? Supermarkets? - wanted a poncier, more exotic, upscale name for the stuff. If Obama loses in Novemeber this shift will doubtless be seen by historians as a key moment in American political history...

What Hillary couldn't quite bring herself to say...

Hillary Clinton is, on the whole, enjoying rave reviews for her speech at the Democratic convention last night. Well, it wasn't terrible, I suppose. But she wasn't exactly fulsome in her praise either. I mean, she could have said something like:

You know, as I look at all of you here tonight, and I think of all the people watching at home, I don't see Clinton supporters or Obama supporters, I see Democrats. I see a party that recognises the importance of this election, that appreciates that this country faces a choice between the change we need and four more years of the same old Republican policies that have done enormous damage to this country.

We enjoyed - perhaps I should say endured -  a campaign that was long and arduous. It was an old-fashioned American epic in a new political age. The age of Youtube and the blogosphere and a voracious media that hypes even the tiniest difference of emphasis while ignoring the common ground and principles that make us all proud to be part of the Democratic family.

But in a long campaign, sometimes you say things in the heat of the moment that you regret when the battle is won and lost. I know and you know that John McCain is a good man who has done this country great service in the past, but his ideas for the future cannot meet the needs or aspirations of the American people. You cannot vote with George W Bush 90% of the time and be the change our country needs. No biography, however heroic, can compensate for reckless misjudgment and a blithe indifference to the struggles of ordinary Americans.

This election isn't about biography or celebrity; it's about judgement and policy. We need a President who can inspire and lead the American people. We need a President who can make up for eight years of squandered promise and missed opportunities. We need to make up for lost time. We need a Democratic president.

Barack Obama is a good man who will serve - and lead -  his country with distinction. He won't just be time-serving President wrapping the failed politics of the past in a shiny new wrapper, he will be a great President, offering the hope and the real change our country desperately needs. I know that; you know that. This is his moment; this is his time. His presidency is our future. And I will do everything in my power to secure that future; for Barack, for you, for all of us. He is ready; we are ready. And together we will change this country for the better.

That took me about 15 minutes to write (and perhaps that shows!), but there you have it. For other takes, see the reactions from Crowley, Chait and Welch who were, on the whole, more impressed than I was. Also worth reading is David Kusnet, Bill Clinton's chief speechwriter from 1992-94.

Sarko and Carla vs Barack and Michelle

Art Goldhammer looks at the Democratic convention in Denver and lets loose his imagination...

I got to thinking about what would have happened had a comparable scene been staged in France. Just try to imagine Carla Bruni rattling on about her first meeting with Sarkozy at a posh Parisian dinner party. And the family vetting? Would she have brought "Nick" home to meet her sister Valeria, an actress rather than a basketball coach like Michelle's brother, and would Valeria have offered an opinion on Nick's prowess as a persuasive public speaker? And how about the kids? Might Jean Sarkozy have motored on stage aboard his scooter, patted Carla on the rump, and asked an image of "daddy" on the television screen what city he was in? "Pontivy, fiston, Pontivy, et qu'est-ce que tu penses de belle-maman? Canon, hein?"

As he says, thank heavens America and France, being so similar, remain so different. Then again, perhaps this talk of how Michelle Obama "affirmed" her husband's promise while "humanising" him is sufficiently pretentious for any cliched left-bank coversation...

Democratic Mix

Megan asks for suggestions for a tribute tape to the late and lamented Democratic primary race. A quick glance at my iPod suggests these tunes...

• "Waiting for the Great Leap Forwards" - Billy Bragg
• "A Century of Fakers" - Belle & Sebastien
• "Let's Get Out of This Country" - Camera Obscura
• "The Queen is Dead" - The Smiths
• "We'll Sweep out the Ashes in the Morning" - Gram Parsons
• "Love will Tear Us Apart" - Joy Division
• "I Wanna Be Adored" - The Stone Roses
• "Should I Stay Or Should I Go" - The Clash
• "The Song is Over" - The Who
• "God Knows I'm Good" - David Bowie
• "Double Crossin Time" - John Mayall and The Bluesbreakers
• "You Get What You Deserve" - Big Star
• "The Light At the End of the Tunnel (Is the Light of an Oncoming Train) - Half Man Half Biscuit
• "Yesterday's News Just Hit Home Today" - Johnny Paycheck
• "Are the Good Times Really Over (I Wish a Buck was Still Silver)" - Merle Haggard (also good for Ron Paul fans...)

And, of course, George Jones' "I've Aged Twenty Years in Five"...

Webb 3.0

Ezra Klein leaps into the great Jim Webb discussion to make the important point that we've little idea what a Webb presidency would actually be like. True enough and that's another useful caveat. It's also the case that Obama's Veep may end up being a candidate for the Presidency themselves, either in 2012 or 2016. Do Democrats want to see Webb in that position? Can they envisage such an outcome?

Ezra also observes that Webb has only, officially, been a Democrat for half an hour. That's a matter of some concern to some Democrats. But for those of us who ain't much concerned with the health of the party, that's a good thing. I doubt that this election is going to be won by the side which can turn-out a greater proportion of its core vote (certainly McCain can't win using Rove's 2004 strategy); rather it's a battle for the centre-ground. McCain's strength and appeal is to moderate conservatives and independents.

Now, Obama obviously appeals to many of these voters too, but the point of a Webb Veepship would be to expand the range and type of voters to whom Obama could plausibly appeal, while minimising the dangers he faces amongst white working-class men. Webb is also, it should be said, the sort of anti-politician politician that indepedent voters love. If Obama-Webb defeated McCain in the centre, McCain would be left with nowhere to turn. Once you lose command of your stronghold, the game is up. And that means appealling to people who aren't Democrats.

The Kennedy Empire

Remember: it's a Republic, not a Democracy. From the New York Daily News:

Ted Kennedy has made clear to confidants that when his time is up, he wants his Senate seat to stay in the family - with his wife, Vicki.

Multiple sources in Massachusetts with close ties to the liberal lion say his wife of 16 years has long been his choice to continue carrying the family flame in the Senate. Kennedy won the seat in 1962; his brother John held it from 1953 to 1960.

[Hat-tip, Eve Fairbanks.]

A Democratic Plan Colombia

Hillary Clinton on the proposed US-Colombia trade deal:

I am disappointed that President Bush has decided to send the Colombia Free Trade Agreement to Congress. As I have said consistently for several months, I oppose signing any trade deal with Colombia while violence against trade unionists continues and the perpetrators are not brought to justice. The United States should be pursuing trade agreements that promote human rights and worker rights, not overlook egregious abuses.  I will vote against the President's Colombia trade agreement, and will urge my Senate colleagues to do the same.

No surprise there. No surprise either that Barack Obama is bound to vote against the deal himself. Well, that's the way the wind is blowing: in favour of economic nationalism and state-run racketeering. So be it. Theoretically this might just be campaign posturing but it seems as though it might be hard for a Democratic president to abandon this sort of rhetoric once in office. So there we have it: Democrats will rebuild links with the rest of the world by slapping friends and allies in the face. How brilliant.

And the fig-leaf given to justify this (relatively modest) trade deal? Ah yes, dead trade unionists. Well, I don't approve of murdering trade unionists and it would be grand if more of those responsible for killing union organisers were brought to trial. But all sorts of people are liable to be whacked in Colombia and many of those responsible are never brought to trial either.

Of course, much of Colombia's violence is exacerbated by the United States' lunatic and criminal drug policies, but last time I checked I didn't see any Democratic presidential candidate calling for the abandonment of Plan Colombia.

And how many trade unionists were murdered last year anyway? Fewer than 40. This chart shows you how, happily, it's safer to be a trade unionist in Colombia than to used to be. In 2002, by contrast, there were more than 30,000 murders in Colombia - or 78 per 100,000 Colombians. Many, perhaps even most, of those murders weren't solved either.

Hillary's Mugabe Problem

Jon Chait is in good form in The New Republic this week, arguing that Hillary Clinton ought to drop out now since, barring cataclysm, she can't win the Democratic party's presidential nomination. This is true.

Still, I liked Toby Harnden's take best:

It seems that Hillary Clinton is pondering three options: seeking an amnesty deal and fleeing the country; going for an immediate run-off (on April 1st, she suggesting a bowling match with Barack Obama) or declaring a 90-day state of emergency and taking the whole thing into July. But she’s been ignoring pleas from across the civilised world to call it quits, insisting that the people have a right to vote again and again until they get the right answer.

Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's beleagured president, finds himself in a similar plight.

Splitters!

Highly entertaining developments from our old pals at Daily Kos. Seems the Clintonites are taking their ball home and boycotting the site. What larks!

DailyKos is not the site it once was thanks to the abusive nature of certain members of our community.

I’ve decided to go on "strike" and will refrain from posting here as long as the administrators allow the more disruptive members of our community to trash Hillary Clinton and distort her record without any fear of consequence or retribution.  I will not be posting at DailyKos effective immediately.  I will not help drive up traffic or page-hits as long as my candidate – a good and fine DEMOCRAT - is attacked in such a horrid and sexist manner not only by other diarists, but by several of those posting to the front page...

The double standards, the distortions, the hateful, irrational, personal attacks, and the lies about Hillary and her long and distinguished record of public service stop here – and they stop now.

So I hereby announce the formation of a new labor union...

The American Federation of Concerned Bloggers (AFCB). 

This is a writer’s strike - who’ll join me on the picket line?

Who indeed? Has there been a more plangent question this year?

I also, obviously, look forward to the formation of the Federation of Concerned American Bloggers (FCAB).

Remember the definition of a Washington "Gaffe"?

Mike Kinsley famously defined a "gaffe" in Washington as an accidental, inadvertent moment of truth-telling. Well by that standard Geraldine Ferraro, Mondale's 1984 Vice-Presidential pick who is supporting Hillary Clinton, has committed a gaffe. She seems to have caused a minor-rumpus with these comments:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position... And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Dana Goldstein despairs, while Toby Harnden is merely incredulous:

What? So being black, with the middle name Hussein and a Muslim-born father is just a walk in the park compared to the sexism faced by a white, upper-middle-class woman who just happens to be married to a former president and can claim every accomplishment of his as her own (apart from the inconvenient ones)? The bitter – perhaps racist - comments got lost in the media avalanche following Eliot Spitzer's shenanigans but they may well have legs tomorrow.

Er, Obama's "very lucky to be" a black man? All you black guys out there take note – you're so fortunate to be able to have an inbuilt advantage that'll guarantee you kid-glove treatment throughout your life.

Well, hang on a minute. Ferraro's comments may have been unwise but that doesn't make them untrue. You doubt this? ask ourself if you think of any other circumstances in which a first-term Senator would have been in a position to  challenge Hillary Clinton seriously, let alone defeat her. Or, to put it another way, look at the number of white men she defeated. Then recall how easily she defeated them.

A white Obama might be as intelligent and as eloquent as the real BHO is, but he'd be deprived of Obama's greatest advantage: his being black trumps her being female. If Obama were white, don't you think the Clinton campaign would have talked even more than it has about the need to "smash" the "highest, toughest glass ceiling of them all?" As a young, white first-term Senator there'd have been a sense that his candidacy was unduly presumptious (a consideration that did some damage John Edwards in 2004) - what, after all, would be the rush? Better, in those circumstances, to make history by nominating and then electing the woman. (We might also note that, besides being a buffoon, Bill Richardson's status as a potential "first Latino" president never gained any traction since it was crowded out by the history-making potential of the Clinton and Obama candidacies).

Obama's candidacy also destroyed much of Clinton's attractiveness. Yes, selecting a woman would be a historic moment. But selecting a black politician would be even more significant. The idea of a symbolic reconciliation or of some imagined historical make-up call acknowledging America's original sin even as it sought to move, at long last, beyond it etc etc... all that makes choosing a woman pretty small beer. For the Clinton's it must have been as though they went all-in pre-flop holding a pair of Kings only to find a call from the last player to speak who, shockingly, happened to be holding Aces. (Of course, the analogy breaks down a little in as much as Hillary was still the front-runner. But in the Sex vs Colour stakes, she trails.)

A black man was the only candidate who could make a stronger argument for "Change"  - and for embodying change - than Clinton. (A black woman would, I think, have been seen as just, well, going too far). I think it's reasonable to suppose that a white Obama would not have been able to make a case for "the fierce urgency of now" but, as we've seen, the real Obama can and has.

Think too of the voters from whom Obama has won support. His initial support came from highly educated and wealthy Democrats and from younger voters in the 18-30 age group. Suffice it to say that these are the two demographics most likely to be most acutely aware of the symbolic power and appeal of Obama's candidacy. The kids these days, after all, are raised and taught in school that Malcolm Luther King and Rosa Parks are the greatest Americans of all, while upscale voters are more likely than other liberals to be attracted to the idea of a black man as President.

Of course Obama has expanded his electoral appeal beyond these voters, but that's where he began and where, I think, he had certain advantages that would have been denied a white, first-term Senator. No-one can feel good about themselves for supporting a wealthy white man, but backing the man who might be the first black President allows folk to praise themselves for their own broad-minded generosity and sense of historical significance.

There are, to be sure, plenty of less cynical reasons to support Obama but Obama's been more successful than Jesse Jackson at least partly because a) he doesn't terrify upscale whites and b) they can imagine having dinner with him. It may sound cynical to say this, but Obama's black enough to be different and significant while also being white enough to be reassuring. For all that the United States has, as they say, "moved on", this is still part of the reason for Obama's rise. He offers just the right blend of exoticism and familiarity.

In other words, Geraldine Ferraro is correct. Obama's campaign represents a near perfect alliance between man, moment and, last but not least, opponent. The stars have aligned for him and I don't really see what's so terrible about pointing that out. Good luck to him.

UPDATE: Of course, skin colour isn't the only reason for Obama's success. Far from it. There is, after all, as commenter Gabriel suggests, more to him than just that. After all, a less gifted politician would not have been able to overhaul Clinton, regardless of their colour. Nonetheless, his blackness has certainly - in some respects at least -  made Hillary Clinton's task more difficult.

More Canadian Bacon

The Canadians say the Clinton campaign has also told them that her abysmal campaign rhetoric should not be taken too literally. One hopes that is the case. This leads Noam to add, tongue in cheek (I hope):

What is it with these Canadians? Are they running some sort of entrapment operation up there? Why do they keep trying to torpedo Democratic candidates?

But why shouldn't the Canadians respond to threats made against them? NAFTA isn't all about the USA after all, Canada and Mexico have interests too.

Or, to put it this way, imagine if a British would-be Prime Minister ran on a platform that called for opting out of NATO. Don't you think the Americans might point out that this was a bad idea and one that would have consequences for all areas of the US-UK relationship? I rather suspect they would, don't you?

And of course the Americans aren't always known for their restraint when it comes to interfering in other people's elections. At a (very) minor level, recall Ronald Reagan's refusal to meet poor old Neil Kinnock, leaving him to kick his heels in a White House ante-room. Mrs Thatcher was going to win the 1987 election anyway, but Kinnock's humiliation dealt a pretty severe blow to his pretences to statesmanship.

UPDATE: Dan Drezner gives you his indispensable Rules to Understanding Canadian-American Relations.

The Democrats' War on Canada

Megan McArdle suggested last year that one way to choose a candidate was to look at their economic advisers and pick the candidate with the smartest team. That being so, she lauded the University of Chicago's Austan Goolsbee, an advisor to Barack Obama. This week Goolsbee's in trouble for suggesting that the grotesque nonsense on trade being peddled by the Obama campaign was largely political posturing in advance of tomorrow's Ohio primary. Let us trust that he's right.

According to a memo written by a Canadian diplomat at the Chicago Consulate:

"Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

Of course foreign governments know that there are some things that candidates say on the campaign trail that are for purely domestic political consumption. Yet at the same time, when Obama promises to bring "the hammer" down on "unfair" deals* such as  NAFTA and when he joins Clinton in saying it's time to "opt out" of the treaty it's not unreasonable to take note of this. Political sophisticates are supposed to wink at this and remember that each candidate is simply throwing a bone to the poor, deluded rubes who think NAFTA is the source of all America's woes, but this sort of campaign rhetoric stores up trouble for the future. At some point the rubes are going to demand satisfaction and it will be harder

Jay Newton-Small and Noam Scheiber wonder why the Canadians are leaking this (Noam calls it a "shocking" and "egregious" breach of protocol, suggesting, like Bob Shrum, that it's "more like a dirty trick by an operative in a conservative government than anything else"). To which one must say: come off it. If Democratic presidential candidates are threatening Canada, the Canadians have every right to warn that such threats are a) unfriendly and b) have consequences - including on oil supplies (and Canada, not Saudi Arabia, is the largest supplier of energy to the United States).

I'm firmly in the Dan Drezner camp:

Democrats cannot simultaneously talk about improving America's standing abroad while acting like a belligerent unilateralist when it comes to trade policy.

Does it really need to be said that threatening your friends is poor policy? Apparently so.

UPDATE: Noam thinks the Clintons are gaining traction with this and that the stramash is causing Obama problems. Well, they're of his own making.

*Free trade is, of course, a moral good, but happily it's also good economically. Dan Griswold gave a useful summary of NAFTA's successes in 2004.

Nowhere were the predictions about NAFTA more apocalyptic than in regard to manufacturing. H. Ross Perot accused NAFTA of "deindustrializing our country," and Rep. David Bonior, the soon to be ex-congressman and Democratic Whip from Michigan, predicted flatly that NAFTA "will destroy the auto industry."

In the eight years since the implementation of NAFTA, those predictions have become laughable. Between 1993 and 2001, manufacturing output in the United States, as measured by the U.S. Federal Reserve Board, rose by one-third. Output of motor vehicles and parts rose by 30 percent. In fact, in the first eight years of NAFTA, manufacturing output in the United States rose at an annual average rate of 3.7 percent, 50 percent faster than during the eight years before enactment of NAFTA. (See figure.) Of course, this is not an argument that NAFTA was the primary cause of the acceleration in manufacturing output, but it does knock the wind out of the myth that NAFTA has somehow caused the "deindustrialization" of America.

Manufacturing employment has fallen in the past few years, but that cannot in any plausible way be blamed on NAFTA. In fact, the number of Americans employed in manufacturing grew by 706,000 in the first four years of NAFTA, from January 1994 to January 1998. The decline in manufacturing jobs since 1998 has not occurred because those jobs have gone to Mexico; it has occurred because of (1) collapsing demand for our exports due to the East Asian financial meltdown in 1997-98, (2) our own domestic slowdown in demand due to the 2001 recession, and (3) the ongoing dramatic improvement in manufacturing productivity--fueled by information technology and increased global competition--that has allowed American factories to produce more and better widgets with fewer workers.

That was true four years ago and it's still true today.

The heart of Obama's appeal: symbolism

As Jason Zengerle says, this sort of thing trumps anything the "Wife of a Man from Hope" can produce. Even cynics and Kennedy-haters are permitted to smile at this. Speaking at Ted Kennedy's endorsement palooza yesterday Obama told this story:

It’s about whether we’re going to seize this moment to write the next great American story. So someday we can tell our children that this was the time when we healed our nation. This was the time when we repaired our world. And this was the time when we renewed the America that has led generations of weary travelers from all over the world to find opportunity, and liberty, and hope on our doorstep.

One of these travelers was my father. I barely knew him, but when, after his death, I finally took my first trip to his tiny village in Kenya and asked my grandmother if there was anything left from him, she opened a trunk and took out a stack of letters, which she handed to me.

There were more than thirty of them, all handwritten by my father, all addressed to colleges and universities across America, all filled with the hope of a young man who dreamed of more for his life. And his prayer was answered when he was brought over to study in this country.

But what I learned much later is that part of what made it possible for him to come here was an effort by the young Senator from Massachusetts at the time, John F. Kennedy, and by a grant from the Kennedy Foundation to help Kenyan students pay for travel. So it is partly because of their generosity that my father came to this country, and because he did, I stand before you today – inspired by America’s past, filled with hope for America’s future, and determined to do my part in writing our next great chapter.

And there you have it: Obama's strongest card is that Americans can feel good about themselves just by voting for him. It's easy and painless and sooooo rewarding.

How can he lose?

The Kennedy Endorsement

Teddy Kennedy endorses Barack Obama and, predictably, it's all kicked off. I'm sure Kennedy gave a fine speech. But as Isaac Chotiner observes:

you should tune into the cable networks, all of which are implying that today's endorsement ranks somewhere between the moon landing and global warming in terms of planetary importance.

And this, of course, is one problem with the American electoral system. The myth of the omnipotent Presidency endures and the office itself is treated as though its holder is some kind of Priest-King.

That being the case, one may say that Hillary Clinton is Ready to Disappoint from Day One. Obama will take a little longer to let everyone down.

It has to be Obama, right?

I don't trust the St Barack stuff either, but there's no point in doubting that Obama has something his rivals don't. There's a clarity that comes to the Democratic race when one views it from a distance (in this instance, the best part of 4,000 miles). Yes Obama is inexperienced, yes a good deal of the talk about how he would unite the country is wishful thinking, yes there are times when he seems a little too keen to bathe in the symbolism of his campaign and yes, god knows how he would actually do as President. But all of these  concerns - perfectly legitimate though they may be - seem dwarfed by a single, simple truth: for the first time in American history there is the prospect of voting for a black candidate who actually has a reasonable chance to win. And we're talking about his healthcare plan? Wood and trees, folk.

One can't - and shouldn't - expect the Clinton and Edwards campaigns to agree with this, but given the circumstances, I'd be tempted to say that the burden of proof lies with them, not Obama. Once Obama demonstrates - as I think he has - that he wouldn't be a vastly worse or more incompetent president than his rivals then, all else being equal, I should have thought that the default position - for Democrats! - ought to be to vote for Obama unless Clinton or Edwards can persuade one otherwise.

But this has not happened. Instead it is Clinton, as the long-time presumed front-runner and establishment candidate, who (mystifyingly) is supposed to enjoy your support as part of your fealty to your party and it's Obama who must persuade you otherwise.

I can understand the enthusiasm for Hillary if you think she'd be a 10/10 president and Obama just a 6/10 commander-in-chief. But if you think they're much of a muchness, I would have thought that Obama merits your support more than she does.

God knows I have no great expectations for either of them. But since the Obama campaign is all about race I'd have thought that American liberals would need a pretty good reason to vote against the first credible, electable black Presidential candidate in American history.

Anyway, as I say, the Obama campaign is moving some surprising people. Take this email I received from a super-smart Democratic friend who swapped the Hill for K Street and mortgage repayments last year:

I actually gave myself a cynicism enema this week and was down in SC working for Obama.  It was great that in some small way, I felt like I was doing something that resembled why I decided to get involved in politics in the first place.  I am now ruined on the Clinton's and I'm not sure that it could be treated by any amount of partisan Stockholm syndrome that could set in after an election. I might vote for McCain out of spite, considering I see very little difference between where Hillary has been for the last fifteen years and McCain- but at least McCain believed it with conviction.