Things I am tired of seeing on my blog feed

On Monday morning, after a twelve-hour work-induced period of isolation from the World Outside of Harvard (TM), I turned my RSS feeds back on this morning to find about eighteen blog posts about two stories: the response to Barack Obama's comments that voters in middle America are "bitter" about their economic circumstances, and coverage of Hillary Clinton doing a shot. Novey gets a pass for blogging it, of course - and I have to admit, that is a pretty awesome photo. As is the image of Barack Obama bowling, and taking advice about it from a ten-year-old who outscored him. Conclusion: politicians look funny when they're acting like normal people.

But I am substantially less amused by the wave of commentary that resulted from these incidents. Obama bowling in Pennsylvania "earned him membership in the faux bubba club and put the italics in cringe" (Kathleen Parker, National Review), was "dainty" and "prissy" (Joe Scarborough, MSNBC, in OVER FIVE MINUTES OF COVERAGE, which included a legitimate debate with David Axelrod about how many frames Obama bowled for his score of 37), and "cuts to, 'Is this person real?'" (Jon Decker on MSNBC, whoever the hell that is). Hillary taking a shot of Crown Royal and chasing it with a beer "transcends snort-worthiness" (Michelle Malkin), "shows how 'she' will handle all problems in the Oval Office" (Free Republic), and even merited a question to John McCain from a Villanova student who turned out to be the son of Steve Doocy, the host of "Fox and Friends." (Why Fox has friends, I'll never know.) And, of course, "Bittergate" (full transcript here; I'm sure you've read more than you need to about it already) drew strong criticism from both the Clinton and McCain campaigns: Hillary herself called Obama's statements "elitist and divisive" and claimed that they revealed that Obama "looks down on" average Pennsylvanians, and spokesmen for John McCain called Obama "out of touch" and "arrogant."

Out of touch? Really? Let's get something straight. Obama and Clinton have both released several years' worth of their tax returns, which TaxProf Blog kindly compiles here. The Obamas earned an adjusted gross income of $4.1 million in 2007, just under $1 million in 2006, over $1.6 million in 2005, and something in the $200,000 range, give or take a few semesters' Harvard tuition, in the years before that. The Clintons earned $20 million in 2007, a bit less than $16 million in 2006, and a range of large numbers (from about $8 million to about $18 million) in the prior years dating back to 2001. In 2000, when Bill was still in the White House and not writing or speaking, they earned a paltry $350K. McCain has promised to make his tax returns available to the public after April 15, but that hasn't happened yet. CNN Money says that the McCain's net worth is $40.4 million and their 2006 income was $3.9 million, mostly from his wife Cindy's position as the chair of one of the biggest Anheuser-Busch distributors in the US. (Friday update: McCain just released his 2006 and 2007 returns, which show that he earned $740,000 in the two-year period - however, he and his wife file separately, so he's sitting on lots more money than his individual tax return lists.)

There are a few different ways one could go with that data. One could argue that Barack Obama was 94% less out of touch than Hillary Clinton in 2006, who was also 75% more elitist than John McCain, plus bonus fat-cat points for how difficult it is to spell Chappaqua. One could make arguments about the effects of being new money, old money, or beer money on a particular candidate's tax policy. Or one could conclude that if you really want to do well in life, you should be elected to the presidency and write a book about it. And while, on another day, I might make one of those arguments, instead I will make this one: if your standard of being "in touch" is living like most Americans do, stretching at least a little bit to pay your mortgage and your utilities and your cell phone bills and your kids' tuition, and bowling better than a 37 in seven frames, you are absolutely dreaming if you think that the United States will, in your lifetime, have a president who is "in touch."

I suppose that this argument will be disagreeable to a few of the more optimistic types among us, not to mention any hopemongers who might be reading. But it's true. All of these people have seven-figure incomes and are worth well over a million dollars. All of these people live in really sweet houses and drive really sweet cars, or used to before the Secret Service started shuttling them around. All of them now spend all of their time crisscrossing the country, financed by multimillion dollar campaign organizations. And there's something fundamental about that - not so much about being rich, but about being in the Senate and about having spent the last year and a half campaigning for the presidency - that makes a presidential candidate a very, very far cry from a normal person.

Of course, this is a pretty difficult criticism for any of us at Harvard to make. It should go without saying that there is a pretty big gap in privilege among the student body, which most of you have probably observed. But by the time we come out of Harvard, there will be an even bigger gap between us and the rest of the United States, not to mention the rest of the world. So I am not going to seize the indignant mantle of populism¹ and claim to represent the authentic voice of the authentic people, at least not today, even though I do bowl an awful lot better than a 37.²

Instead, I will suggest something radical: you don't need to be working-class in order to represent the working class and the middle class, or at least to know which tax policy is in its interest and which is not. As a lesbian, I don't need my president to be queer; I just need him or her to understand why I'd like to live a boring married life someday just like everyone else. As a woman, I don't need my president to have a uterus; I just need him or her to understand why I have a fundamental right to choose what I do with mine. And so it goes with money. None of this is meant to say that there is not something fundamentally unjust about a system in which a woman, or a lesbian, or someone whose income is less than six figures, has significantly diminished chances of becoming the president; there is, and I've complained about that plenty to anyone who will listen. But if we want to remedy those injustices, the solution is to stop talking about who's "out of touch" and to start talking about whose policies are in touch.

But really, the last laugh should always be at a Republican's expense, so here's proof positive that they don't have a bowling class at Andover.

¹ Sometimes I do, and I don't think it's a bad thing - but that's another blog post for another day.

² Even after I was too old to bowl with bumpers!

Even Mike Gravel Thinks Yale Sucks

In case you missed it...

more to come in this series

Obama's February 12 Firewall

All this fall, when polls showed a tight three way race in Iowa and a mammoth Hillary Clinton lead in New Hampshire, the punditry talked up HRC's "firewall" in New Hampshire.  She could afford to lose Iowa because its bounce would not be able to carry Obama or Edwards past New Hampshire.

All the focus is on February 5 right now, but in the event of a draw between Clinton and Obama or even a small Clinton win, a possibility that seems more and more likely by the day, the mid-atlantic primary on February 12 will become crucial.  And Obama should sweep the Maryland, DC, and Virginia primaries.

Rather than become Super Tuesday Afterthoughts, the state parties in the three mid-atlantic states banded together to have a regional primary a week later.  Obama should do well in all three primaries.  African-Americans make up almost half the primary electorate in all three states, and the progressive Democrats that populate DC and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs are constituencies that Obama has done well with.  Although Hillary Clinton does have some establishment support in Maryland, picking up endorsements from Senator Barbara Mikulski, Governor Martin O'Malley, and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, Obama pretty much runs the table elsewhere.  He has consolidated the support of african americans in Maryland  picking up endorsements from Reps Elijah Cummings and Albert Wynn (who represent Maryland's two majority minority districts, Cummmings in Baltimore and Wynn in the DC suburbs).  And he has picked up the top endorsements in both DC and Virginia getting early and enthusiastic support from DC mayor Adrian Fenty and Virginia Governor Tim Kaine.  Fenty's multiracial background and post racial message and Kaine's status as a Democratic governor in purple state (Which was a red state when he got elected) make them very effective surrogates for Obama.   Recent polls show double digit leads for Obama in all three primaries.

Even with a large HRC win on Super Tuesday, I don't envision a situation in which Obama doesn't sweep the mid atlantic primary on February 12.   The only question is if the Super Tuesday results are close enough for it to matter.

Frank Sinatra's Endorsement

Sinatra is probably spinning is his grave right now. I have to hand it to the Paul-tards on this one, that dubbing is pretty impressive.

While I am no fan of the gold standard, Ron Paul definitely has the coolest campaign around. It mostly involves random people with too much time on their hands screwing around on the internet rather than any actual effort to win a majority of votes. Because the exigency of getting votes is not around to distract them from such crucial and tested campaign tasks as launching a blimp and then making video ads to put on YouTube attacking Rudy Giuliani that proclaim "You Just Got Ron Paul Blimped!." Ashton Kutcher would be proud.

Ron Paul would make an absolutely terrible President, but I think the possibility of that actually happening is remote enough that us Democrats should heartily root for him to continue to pile up decent showings and run third party. He gives the Republican Party fits, calling them out from within on their bullshit fiscal conservatism and expansionist foreign policy. If he runs third party, and I think he will (what else do you do with 20 million dollars?), he splits away the small but not insignificant libertarian bloc of the Republican party which might just be enough to put Hillary Clinton over the top (I think Barack Obama would handily win a general election without any help from Ron Paul.) And he would continue to be a thorn in the side for the Republican nominee through November, a constant reminder of the party's lack of direction post-Bush.

But more importantly, I hope he stays in the race so his supporters continue to do cool shit like charter blimps. The entertainment value alone justifies his continued candidacy.