Memo to Mitt: Politics is tougher than business

Mitt Romney is making two mistakes in this presidential race. His first mistake is that he thinks that he's tougher than Barack Obama because he's a businessman, and Barack Obama is a politician, and business people are tougher than politicians. His second mistake is that he expects the American people to automatically give him greater respect and deference because of that. He expects that when he says that something is true, or he gives his perspective on how events unfolded in his life, his explanation will be accepted at face value. 

My favorite example of people in business making this mistake of thinking that they are tougher than people in government is a tech company (I think it was Microsoft) that was being sued by the US Department of Justice. The Microsoft folks assumed that they were much tougher than the dweeby government lawyers, because they operate in the hypercompetitive environment of the computer industry, whereas government lawyers are bureaucrats who spend their hours trying to figure out how to interfere with businesses making money. What the Microsofties forgot was that prosecutors at the DoJ deal with foreign intelligence agencies (remember the KGB?), Mafia kingpins, drug lords, and other people who will lie, cheat, steal, and kill to achieve their goals. On a toughness scale, Microsoft's competitors - geeks with fast calculators who drink too much coffee - do not compare well to spies, assassins, and gangsters. Steve Jobs was a tough competitor. Unless you compare him to, say, Saddam Hussein, John Gotti, or the Soviet Union.

What people in business fail to appreciate is that they spend most of their time with people who agree with them, whereas politicians spend a lot of their time with people disagree with them. Most people in business do not have daily, direct contact with their competitors. They spend most of their time with people in their own company, with whom they have common goals. Or they spend time with their customers or vendors, people with whom they are trying to reach a mutually satisfactory accommodation. It's not necessarily easy negotiating with your co-workers, customers, or vendors. But those people generally are not doing everything in their power to stop you from achieving your goals. They may disagree with you, or even dislike you. But they're not out to destroy you. Your competitors may be trying to do that. But you don't have to deal with them literally face-to-face every day. And they rarely make it personal. In business, it's perfectly legitimate to question a competitor's product or strategy, but it's off-limits to attack their character.

The Democrats are going to attack every facet of Mitt Romney's experience, in the public and private sectors, in a way that none of his competitors in the private sector ever did. They're going to raise as many questions about his character as they possibly can. It's a nasty, unpleasant business, but anyone who thinks that the practice of democracy is all about the grandiose articulation of principles has done a very selective reading of history.

This is where Romney's second mistake is potentially fatal. The Democrats are going to raise questions in the minds of voters, and a fair number of voters are going to consider those questions legitimate. Mitt Romney is having trouble answering questions like when did he actually, officially, really, truly, honest-to-God-cross-my-heart leave Bain Capital, because he has never had to face those questions before. He has lived his life according to these precepts: the explanations of him and his lawyers will always be sufficient to answer questions about whether or not his actions were proper. If he signs a piece of paper, he and his associates have cleared it with the lawyers, so it's OK. Period, end of story. He simply has no experience with people who do not automatically accept his ability to explain fine legalistic details of his professional life. He assumes his own credibility, so he has no idea how to establish that credibility. His lawyers have both assumed that credibility as well, and worked hard to prevent anyone from even raising any questions about it. Mitt Romney has always had people around him who ran interference for him on questions of legality. It's been a closed loop; he hired people who assumed that what he was doing was legal and proper, and they then kept him in a bubble of legality and propriety. He's never had to question his own assumptions. So the Democrats are doing that for him.

Professional politicians, however, operate on the assumption that they will be questioned on those details, and they will have to explain them. They know they will be expected to release their tax returns. They know that their personal credibility is something that they have to establish very carefully, and then work very hard to maintain. They deal on a day-to-day basis with people who questions their assumptions and their legitimacy. 

Mitt Romney thinks that he, the son of a wealthy father, who had every possible advantage in life and who has spent most of his life surrounded by people who are very much like him, and who think like him, is tougher than the son of a single mother who had to use his own personal discipline and focus to rise to the highest levels of a society that, not so long ago, erected substantial barriers to success for people like him. Mitt Romney's formative experiences were in offices and boardrooms. Barack Obama's formative experiences were on the streets of Chicago. Mitt Romney may never realize that he has substantially underestimated how tough Barack Obama can be. But even if he realizes it tomorrow, it will probably be too late.


One of the toughest jobs in the world is selling yourself to someone who doesn't necessarily trust you, particularly when they can choose an alternative with one simple push of a button. Welcome to American politics on the national stage, Mr. Romney.

One Question for Ron Paul

So Ron Paul published some newsletters, but doesn't want to talk about them. I find this odd, because I thot that the whole reason a person would publish newsletters - particularly if said person named them after himself - they would want to talk about them. Not Mr. Paul! This may be because the content of said newsletters is proving to be somewhat toxic and controversial. I've seen enough quotes from them that I have serious questions about his ideas on racial equality. He doesn't seem like he is overtly racist, and I'm willing to grant - at least for the sake of argument in this blog post - that he isn't. But he also doesn't seem to really care that much about working towards healing the wounds of the past, and he doesn't seem to care that much about taking strong moral stands against racism. That's putting it very mildly, but that's also not my concern here.

What bothers me far more is his reluctance to take any kind of responsibility for these newsletters. When some incendiary rhetoric from his pastor surfaced during the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama took responsibility for addressing the concerns raised by that rhetoric. He didn't give the sermons, but he understood that, as the first African-American presidential candidate for a major party, he was expected to addresses issues of racial inequality in America. Which he did. When Obama made the decision to run for president, he knew he was simultaneously taking on a certain responsibility for addressing moral issues. That's the deal. That's sort of the point of being president - or any kind of leader - in a democracy. You're asking for an opportunity to present your ideas to the public, and, ideally, shape the public debate, and thereby determine the policies of the country.

I would just like to ask Ron Paul one question: you claim that you did not read these newsletters before they were published. Then why did you publish them? Presumably it cost you a certain amount of money to do so. There's the basic costs for incorporating, registering trademarks, etc. Then there's the cost of paying the writers, paying whoever did the layout, and, of course, the actual printing and mailing. All of those things require money, and some of them - like, say, actually hiring the writers - take time. I'm going to assume, Mr. Paul, that you are the person who hired the writers to write these newsletters. If that is not the case - if you outsourced that rather fundamental management decision - then this conversation is over, and the remaining shreds of my respect for you are gone.

So that's the question: if you did not intend to exercise editorial control over newsletter that went out under your name, presumably designed to publicize your political views, then why did you publish them in the first place?

Obama, Israel, and the Arab Spring

So I watched Obama's speech on the Middle East. Many commentators seem to have focused on his comments on Israel, bluntly making it clear that the US favors a two-state solution. Nothing terribly unusual there; it's been clear for a while that will be required for a solution to this problem. He also spoke at length about the Arab Spring, and the hopes for democratic change. Again, doesn't seem very far out of the norm for a speech by an American president. Republicans, of course, attacked him for allegedly bailing on Israel. Part of this is appealing to hardline Israelis, hard of this is appealing to conservative Christians, and part of this is just a need on their part to attack Obama. More of the same.

But I haven't seen any commentary (although it's entirely possible that I missed it) on how the Arab Spring has completely changed the calculus in the Mideast, and how Obama grasps the importance of that. The Israeli-Palestinian issue has seemed intractable; both sides are dug in, neither trusts the other, and neither seems willing to compromise. But the Arab Spring has changed the debate, because it relieves a great deal of pressure on the Arab side of the equation. Corrupt Arab dictators have used Israel as a distraction; they've demagogued about Jews as a way of distracting their people from their own failings as leaders. The fact that many of them have access to oil wealth as a means of bribing their populations into complacency has, of course, been a big help.

But, as Lincoln said, you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Some of the countries undergoing transformation in the Mideast will become stable, secure democracies. Some won't. Some may very well see one dictatorship replaced with another. The best historical precedent that I can think of is what happened in with the dissolution of the Soviet empire in 1989. East Germany was absorbed into West Germany, and the Central European states are free, while some in the Caucasus are not. The same will probably be the case in the Arab world; some countries will make a successful transition to democracy, some won't.

But those that do, it can be reasonably hoped, will flourish. And with that flourishing will come, again it is to be reasonably hoped, a lessening of the pressure to blame Israel and the Jews for the problems of Arabs. It won't be easy, but it's been done before.

Netanyahu and his Republicans allies don't see things this way. Hardline Israelis, at this point, just don't have a lot of faith in the ability of Arabs to become peace-loving neighbors. It's not hard to understand why they think that. But it's also not hard to understand that they can not afford to think that very much longer. Likud will be very reluctant to negotiate. And, of course, there are more than a few Jews in Israel who believe that the land is there by divine right. There are also a fair number of fundamentalist Christians and Jews in this country who agree with that. In this respect, the interests of conservative Israelis and conservatives Republicans are aligned.

Their interests are also aligned in the sense that they want to see Obama fail. In Netanyahu's ideal world, a Republican wins in 2012, and he gets to spend another few years resisting pressure from around the world to compromise on a two-state solution.

But a key difference between Netanyahu and Republicans is that Bibi isn't stupid, and he doesn't have a fallback option. If Mitt Romney doesn't become president, he'll still be a rich, comfortable American. What is at stake for Netanyahu is the survival of the state of Israel. Republicans don't mind a state of permanent war; it keeps the defense contractors happy. Israelis know that, ultimately, it is not sustainable. But right now, they are also scared that, if they give an inch, the Arabs, like Hamas, will take full advantage of their weaknesses, and destroy them. This is why the Arab Spring is so important: it provides a glimmer of hope that peace may, in fact, be a viable option. Hardline Israelis are still very skeptical of this, for very good reason. But the whole point of Obama's speech was to take that tiny flowering of hope, that smidgen of optimism, and make it grow. That is, after all, his specialty.

Obama and Netanyahu do not like each other, and they don't really trust each other. But they do respect each other. Each is a very smart man, and each is a brilliant politician. The key difference between Netanyahu and his Republican allies is that Netanyahu, in the long run, doesn't care whether or not Obama is reelected. But he does care a great deal the survival of the state of Israel, and he knows that peace is required for that. Republicans also want the survival of the state of Israel, but they also prefer a mindset that encourages Americans to be afraid of terrorists, so the Pentagon budget stays at its absurd levels. But what is most important to Republicans is delegitimizing Obama. If Obama can convince Netanyahu that he can at least make progress towards peace, he can split Likud and the Republicans. It won't be a wide split, but Obama can make it clear that their interests are not as solidly aligned as it seems they are today. Besides, Obama also knows that there are lots of American Jews - most, actually - who are liberal Democrats, and therefore agree with him. Part of the purpose of his speech was to mobilize them to be on his side. Obama has a chance of convincing Netanyahu to work with him, because Netanyahu respects Obama's political abilities. Obama's chief of staff was a Jew from Chicago. Rahm Emanuel is one of the toughest politicians in America, and he worked for Obama. Many Republicans look at Obama and see an effete liberal intellectual. Netanyahu does not make that mistake.

The possibility of achieving peace between Israelis and Palestinians seems almost impossible to achieve. But a year ago, if you had said to anyone in the world that Hosni Mubarak would be overthrown by mobs in the streets of Cairo, you would have been laughed at. And if, in 2003 you had said that a black guy with a Muslim name who was an obscure state senator in Illinois would become president of the United States in 2008, every single person in the world would have thought you were crazy.

Every single person in the world except for two: Barack Obama. And Michelle Obama.

Obama: The Anti-Reagan

I haven't posted here in a long, long time, but a friend texted me that Obama is losing him. Time to get back on it.

Obama is the anti-Reagan. The superficial contrasts are obvious, apart from the skin color; Obama is a young president; Reagan was our oldest. Reagan came from the heartland, Obama literally from the geographical fringe of the country. Reagan was a movie star; Obama is a policy wonk. Reagan had a long history with both America and the conservative movement long before he became president; Obama sprang into Democrat consciousness literally overnight with one speech. They had similar family backgrounds, both from dysfunctional or non-traditional families of modest means. But where Reagan was divorced and a famously distant father, Obama is a devoted family man, with zero skeletons in his closet.

It is on policy political strategies where the differences are, of course, most important. The policy differences are obvious, although the argument could be made that Obama shifted closer to Reagan after he was elected. On the other hand, just about any president could be accused of changing in ways that make their constituencies uncomfortable.

But what was gone unnoticed and unremarked - probably because it's very difficult to tell - are the stylistic and strategic differences. Both, of course, are excellent public speakers, but the similarity basically ends there. Reagan had three basic beliefs: lower taxes, smaller government, and a strong defense. He believed in capitalism and the basic goodness of the American people. That was pretty much it.

Obama's political philosophy cannot, on the other hand, be reduced to a slogan, and he's barely tried to do so. He believes in the broad spectrum of liberal ideas; feminism, civil rights, gay rights, empowering the poor, protecting the environment, etc. The closest he's come to a tag line of late is "Winning The Future," which translates into a very poor choice of acronym, and which seems to be fading quickly. In 2008, he was all about hope and change, the epitome of nebulous campaign promises. It's hard to pin Obama down to specifics, either in terms of policy or even tenets of his ideology. Many of his supporters are uncomfortable with this, because it looks like he's waffling, or not making a commitment, or compromising too early or too often.

The other great contrast between Reagan and Obama is in terms of political strategy. Reagan would outline a basic goal, give uplifting but vague speeches, challenge his opponents directly, and refuse to compromise. But then he would compromise at the last minute, declare victory, and move on, so it looked like he won. This is one reason conservatives idolize him. They buy into the myth that he was a rigid ideologue, when he was also very much a realistic, pragmatic politician.

Obama is famously willing to compromise, and constantly reaching out to his political opponents, trying hard to reach consensus, broker deals, make sure everyone is involved in the process. Again, many of his supporters are uncomfortable with this approach, because it looks like he's compromising when he doesn't have to, or he's letting his opponents dictate parts of the agenda.

But the most important difference between Reagan and Obama - and this is where Obama beats Reagan, hands down - is that Obama is an absolutely masterful political tactician. Obama is very good at seeing the big picture politically, and defining a successful strategy. Hillary Clinton learned this too late - the 2008 campaign was a great strategic success. Obama and his team mapped out how they were going to win, followed the plan, and won.

But what is almost impossible for the public to see is how good Obama is with political tactics. His work on gay rights is the best illustration of this. He campaigned on ending the ban on gays serving in the military. For a long time, it looked like he wasn't doing much to advance that cause, and his supporters were grumbling. He had set up a commission to look into it, and the commission was set to issue its report in early December, 2010. That would be after the election, but before the new Congress took office. The results of the commission's study therefore would not be released in time to be an issue in the election, but they would be released in time for Congress to act on them.

I don't remember exactly how repealing the ban went down. It happened between Christmas and New Year's, when the American public is not paying much attention to politics. There was some kind of parliamentary maneuvering going on, but the Democrats got enough Republicans on board to make it happen. I think some of the Republicans who voted for it were about to retire, so they could "vote their conscience." I seem to recall Joe Lieberman being a strong advocate of it.

I have roughly the same perspective on his actions on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). There isn't much Obama can do on this. It's not going to be repealed by Congress any time soon. Obama's position on gay marriage is "evolving," which is a very politically convenient way of not making a commitment for it, but not rejecting it either. That may even be true. But it's a classic politician's finesse - he doesn't want to piss of his gay supporters by coming out (sorry, couldn't resist) against gay marriage, but he's also aware that there are many independents and conservatives who are strongly against it. So he had his Attorney General come out with a hair-splitting position - the Dept. of Justice will not defend part of it in court, but they will continue to enforce it. I'm not quite sure how it works, and I work for a law firm.

It's all very confusing.

Which is exactly the point.

The fact that these processes - of repealing the ban on gays in the military, and challenging DOMA - were confusing is part of Obama's political strategy. Republicans had a hard time finding a point to challenge repealing the ban on gays in the military, other than the vote itself - which took place at the end of a lame duck session. Who would argue against a commission set up to study the issue? Now that the law has been passed, the Pentagon still has to draw up plans for implementation. Once it's official, most gay members of the military will probably come out slowly. The whole process is long, drawn out, and involved lots of people besides Obama himself - Bob Gates at the Pentagon, Harry Reid in the Senate. It's an incendiary issue, but Obama's process - long, bureaucratic, mostly behind the scenes - obscured the opportunities for heated rhetoric, and therefore diffused the anger. There is time between when the debate happened, when the law passed, and when it's implemented, giving the American people time to adjust to the issue.

But homosexuals in the military will be a fact of life by November 2012, and Barack Obama will take the lion's share of the credit. He'll tell his gay supporters that he delivered on a key campaign promise.

We see the same thing in DOMA. Obama's DOJ is not defending it, but is enforcing it. The DOJ informed Congress that it could DOMA in court if it wanted to, but that, of courses, puts the pressure to do so on John Boehner. I can barely follow it, and I work for a law firm. But it's a win-win for Obama. If DOMA is partially overturned, he will declare victory, but claim that it was a decision by a court. If he doesn't win, he can claim that he tried, but that it's either the fault of Republicans, or a court. Tactically, it's great. But it's very difficult to understand unless you are a hardcore political geek.

One problem with this approach is that while it confuses his opponents, it also confuses his supporters, even those who are smart and fairly politically savvy, like Matt Damon and other celebrities. This article explains why he and other celebrities are disillusioned. Unfortunately for both Obama and his supporters, it's in the media's best interest to play up how disappointed Obama fans are. But this particular article is both incredibly sloppy and clearly intent on playing up the disappointment. The picture of Matt Damon shows him scowling, to accentuate the point that he's unhappy. But the wall on the background reads "TIFF," or Toronto International Film Festival. That takes place in September. Since then, Matt Damon has been nominated for an Oscar, and photographed dozens, if not hundreds, of times. He's generally a very upbeat guy. But they somehow managed to find a picture of him looking unhappy.

Barbra Streisand is quoted as being unhappy that Obama didn't use executive privilege to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. The quote is from some time "in December," i.e. before Congress repealed it. I think we can safely assume that Barbra Streisand is now happy with Obama's strategy to repeal DADT given that THE STRATEGY ACTUALLY FRICKIN' WORKED. Matt Damon is not happy about testing kids in schools. Neither am I, but that's a product of the Bush administration, and Obama has not been able to undo it. Jane Lynch is disappointed that Obama has not been able to do anything about gay marriage. The quote from her is from early January, again, well before Obama ACTUALLY DID SOMETHING ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE.

Other celebrities who are unhappy with Obama about a particular issue include Hugh Hefner, Spike Lee, and Robert Redford. You know what? Give me 10 minutes, and I can find a whole bunch of celebrities who are unhappy with Obama. There were lots of liberals unhappy with Clinton. Lots of conservatives grumbled about Reagan. That's the nature of politics. As someone (I think Maria Cuomo) said, you campaign in poetry, and you govern in prose. The nuts and bolts of actually governing are always less exciting, and infinitely more frustrating, than the campaign. Obama waits a long time to move before he does so. But in the process, he's refining his plans and laying the groundwork. Which is difficult, if not impossible to see. But absolutely necessary.

What's the best possible evidence that Obama moves quickly? This is a man who went from being an Illinois state senator to being president of the United States in four years.

There is one more similarity between Obama and Reagan: both of them were seriously underestimated by their opponents. And, occasionally, their supporters.

Oprah v. Sarah

So Sarah Palin, on her book tour, stopped by Oprah Winfrey's show the other day. I didn't watch it, partially because I was at work, but mostly because I really didn't think I could take watching Sarah Palin for an hour. But one of the loyal readers of this blog told me I should watch some of it on YouTube, so I did.

I only saw a few minutes, but I think that was enough. I like Oprah, I respect her, she's obviously very good at her job, but I can't say I'm a fan. That's mostly because I am not in the target demographic. Talk shows like hers have a purpose, but not for me.

Part of that purpose is to have the conversation that many people are having, but on a national scale, and with a great deal of preparation. What exactly is the purpose of this whole book tour by a failed vice-presidential candidate? Is she running for president? Does she just want to make some money?

Probably both. She's clearly making money, and she's quite probably running for president. Why go on Oprah? She endorsed Obama last year. She has a huge constituency, sure, but she is also very much a card-carrying member of the "media elite."

Watching Sarah Palin on Oprah's show, even for a couple of minutes, I realized something about the ex-governor of Alaska. At one point, Oprah looked highly skeptical, like she was looking at a dead slug. Oprah is, we can assume, not a big fan of Palin. But that's a key part of the appeal for Palin and her base. I could see the slightest hint of fear in Sarah Palin's eyes. She might never admit it, but she's very insecure. She's terrified of Oprah, for the same reason that she's terrified of those "media elites" - they're smarter than her, and much more well-informed than her. They are much more intellectually curious. That's why Charlie Gibson was able to sandbag her with what should have been a simple question - what do you think of the Bush Doctrine? It's why Katie Couric was able to expose her as an intellectual lightweight by asking the even simpler question, What newspapers do you read?

But the fact that Sarah Palin is afraid of someone like Oprah ironically gives her all the more motivation to be on her show. Sarah Palin is incredibly competitive, and the greater the challenge, the more she wants it. You have to respect that. You don't have to like it, but you have to respect someone who takes on that kind of challenge, who is willing to overcome her own personal insecurities and fears on a national stage. Constantly.

This is a big part of her appeal to her base: she's willing to confront people who look down on her. Just the fact that she is willing to do so gives her a certain degree of credibility. It's a self-reinforcing phenomenon. She writes a book because she and her publisher know there will be a market for it. It's already a "New York Times bestseller," which means that someone like Oprah has to take her seriously, at least to some extent. So her base gives her a certain respectability, which she uses to convince Oprah to invite her onto her talk show. Once she's on stage with Oprah, she doesn't have to do much. All she has to do is hold her own. She doesn't have to prove that she's got the solution to global warming or the Israeli-Palestinian problem. All she has to do is maintain her dignity. She has to be enthusiastic, charming, and fearless. She doesn't have to be the smartest person in the room; she has to not be an idiot. She just has to prove that she is worthy of Oprah's attention. Again, a self-reinforcing phenom: her base will show up in enough numbers to demonstrate what they already believe about her: that she deserves not just their attention, but the attention of the entire country.

I don't have a problem with Sarah Palin's lifestyle, although I'm not a fan of the idea of shooting wolves from airplanes. If she wants to eat caribou meat that Todd shot for her, more power to them. But I expect my leaders to be capable of asking difficult questions, not just of their advisors and their opponents, but of themselves. Sarah Palin is very sure of herself. So is Barack Obama; his calmness in the face of challenges and crises is a big part of his appeal for me. But Obama's confidence comes from asking questions, searching for answers, and finding them. In that respect, I think his confidence is earned. I have respect for Sarah Palin's ability to charge ahead, and I think she deserves some of her confidence. But not enough to be president.

Happy Birthday!

A number of years ago, I was hanging out with grandfather, when he said that he was finally ready to admit that he was "over the hill." He was finally admitting that he was an old man.

He was 89.

Why am I telling that story? Because that is the age that Helen Thomas, famous denizen of the White House press room, turned today. She shares her birthday with a more recent occupant of the White House press room, President Obama, who turned 48 today. They both had cupcakes:

One very nice birthday present came from the spouse of the President's Secretary of State. That would be ex-President Clinton, who negotiated the release of two American women reporters who were imprisoned in North Korea. This accomplished several good things: it gave Bill Clinton a bit of the spotlight, reminding the world that his North Korea policy was more successful than that of Bush's, and it made Obama look good, without doing much himself. Always nice to have those minor diplomatic victories.

No word on what Michelle got for the president, but I bet it was something very nice.

Obama supports high-speed rail

Good news for fans efficiency in transportation. President Obama endorsed high-speed rail for large chunks of the country.

Money quote:

“Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination,” Mr. Obama said. “It is happening right now; it’s been happening for decades. The problem is, it’s been happening elsewhere, not here.”

That's for damn sure. It always boggles my mind that conservatives, who claim to be such ardent supporters of capitalist values, don't appreciate that high-speed rail delivers on the core capitalist value: it increases efficiency. It is vastly more efficient to travel by rail over short to medium distances than it is to travel by any other means.

There is some good coverage of this over at the California High Speed Rail Blog. The big problem, of course, is how do we pay for it. We really have to raise gasoline taxes. The problem there is that many people who drive long distances, particularly in the West, will see spending money on high-speed rail as something that will never benefit them. For many people, the benefits will come in the abstract; lower gas prices, cleaner air, lower greenhouse gas emissions. That's a classic problem with long-term governmental solutions; the cost is immediate and obvious, the benefit is long-term and abstract.

But there is reason to hope. First, there are many, many people in the Northeast who would love to see this. Those people have a disproportionate degree of influence on this, because the states in the Northeast are so small. There are therefore quite a few Senators who can be counted on to support this.

It's also helpful that Obama made it clear that this proposal encompasses many states, not just the ones in the Northeast. High-speed rail is proposed for every state on the East Coast, almost every state in the South (except Tennessee), and several of the states in the West, including Texas. I have a question about Tennessee if anyone can answer it: would high-speed rail benefit FedEx? It seems like high-speed rail could be used to deliver packages from Memphis to several other cities. Of course, FedEx doesn't have a hub just in Memphis any more. Which raises an interesting question: could high-speed rail be used for light freight, like packages? I have no idea, but I think it would be interesting.

In terms of public support, I am encouraged by the fact that more and more Americans are taking public transportation, particularly in response to the recession. I take it every day. Here in LA, we have plans to expand our subway, and voters passed a funding bill for that purpose last November. The more people take public transportation, the more people are likely to support this idea.

It's also fortunate, in a sad way, that the Big Three are in such bad financial straits right now, because there is no way in hell they are going to oppose this. In that respect, we are lucky, because the biggest losers from something like this would be car companies. And oil companies, but they are such villains in the public mind that if they oppose it, it would probably be a good thing.

On the other hand, building a high-speed rail line from Detroit to Chicago would mean lots of jobs for people in Michigan, which would be great.

This is the very beginning of redefining how Americans travel. This will take decades to implement. But at each stage, there will be more support. After a Detroit-Chicago line is built, few people in Michigan, Indiana, or Illinois will oppose expanding it, and their Senators certainly support it.

The one bummer about this announcement is that it is overshadowed, to an extent, by everything else that Obama is doing, like lifting the restrictions on Cuba, going to Mexico, releasing the OLC memos, etc. But the implications of this decision will last for decades, and then centuries. Long after Fidel Castro is dead, long after the US and Cuba have normalized relations, we will still be working on the railroad.

Obama is a socialist: discuss, debate, or ridicule?

Conservatives keep trying to call Obama a socialist. This is, of course, ludicrous. I don't know the precise definition of "socialism." And I'm not going to try to find out what it is, because I seriously doubt that there is one definition of "socialism." For now, let's just say that "socialism" means the government controls at least some of the means of production in a country, and heavily regulates the rest. Right now there is a raging debate about whether or not banks should be nationalized. I don't know.

What I do know is that Obama is not a socialist. He is not interested in the government controlling or owning large companies. Not his cup of tea. Harold Meyerson of the WaPo, and once upon a time of the LA Weekly, has a great and wonderful column about this topic, with some of the history of socialism in this country, and some of the history of socialism used by Republicans as a slander against Democrats. Meyerson argues, quite convincingly, that the villains in this drama are capitalists. Then again, it's easy to be quite convincing when the arguments in your favor consist of most of what's happening in the world.

So, for conservatives searching for the culprits behind this transformation of capitalism: Despite our best efforts, it wasn't Bernie [Sanders] and it wasn't me. It was your own damn system.

But don't worry, he reminds us, Obama, like FDR before him, will save capitalism from itself. After which salvation, of course, conservatives will be just as ungrateful as ever.

One aspect of this attempt to pummel Obama with this vaguely ominous criticism is that they seem to be using it because their standard bogeyman for years - "liberal" - apparently is no longer working. Maybe the fact that Obama is not in the least bit afraid of being called a liberal has something to do with it.

Conservatives have their own definition of "socialist." It is roughly this: a socialist is someone who is going to take things from me - my money, my freedom, my guns, my superior socioeconomic position bestowed upon me by the accident of birth - and give it to someone less deserving. That "less deserving person" is someone who they think don't works as hard as they do, and who whines a lot.

The irony of their own status as whiners is utterly lost on conservatives. As are many instances of irony.

The silver lining of Daschle's tax problems

So Tom Daschle also has tax problems. Oops. From what I can tell, this may be an honest mistake. He had the use of a car from a company he worked for, and mostly used it for personal business. So he had to pay taxes on that. And there was apparently a "clerical error" involved in some other part of it. I'm not going to worry about that much of it. It doesn't look good, but I think he'll make it through.

It does bring up an issue that I expect will become a talking point for Obama; increasing audits on the wealthy. I haven't done any specific research on how the Bush administration treated audits for the upper classes, but I do recall reading that the number of audits for high-income taxpayers went down under Bush. Which would absolutely not surprise me. It would surprise me if tax enforcement on the rich got tougher under Bush.

So the silver lining of this little issue of the missing $128,000 in taxes, along with Geithner forgetfulness, means one thing: if voters/activists/Congresspeople start making noise about upping the enforcement on rich people paying taxes, ain't no way in hell either Mr. Geithner or Mr. Daschle is going to say a word. Which may mean that the American people just might support a higher budget for the IRS. Stranger things have happened.

Welcome back, Samantha Power!

Absolutely unsurprising. Samantha Power has a new job in the Obama administration, as director of multilateral relations or affairs or something at the National Security Council. She will have to be working with Hillary Clinton, who she once called a "monster." Of course, Hillary has been called many things, and she has managed to survive. I always that this was seriously overblown. Now it's over, and life for the brilliant Harvard professor is back to normal. Or as normal as life can be on the NSC these days.

Obama's negotiating style

DailyKos is experimenting with creating their own video content (about time). They came up with this great clip of Obama on his own negotiating style:

Yeah baby!

Let's try this oath one more time

Yesterday, as I was hearing about the mild to-do about how John Roberts slightly botched the oath of office, I was vaguely wondering if he and Obama were going to perform the oath again. Why not, it's easy. Guess what, they actually did it.

It's tomorrow

Barack Obama is President of the United States of America. That's such a great sentence to type.

Right now, this is my favorite Website in the whole world.

Is it tomorrow yet?

I'm writing this Tuesday night, January 19, 2009. Tomorrow Barack Obama will be inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States. I've been waiting days, weeks, months, years for this. As have millions of people. I feel like I can't wait until tomorrow.

By "tomorrow" I don't mean just in the strict chronological sense of the 24 rotation of the earth on its axis, that will mark another day.

By "tomorrow" I mean in the metaphysical, metaphorical sense of another era. Tomorrow we will be putting the Bush Administration behind us, we will be opening up a new world of possibilities. The end of at least one horrible war. The end of an era of irresponsibility and corruption. The beginnng of renewed faith in the idea of what can happen when Americans believe in their government again. High speed rail? Something approaching universal health care? Better broadband policies? Education reform?

I'm writing this partially to give myself permission to dream.

I can't wait til tomorrow.

Obamamania!

There are so many great articles about Obama all over the place that it's impossible to keep track of them, and impossible to read more than a handful.

But here are some of the ones that I liked.

From London, the FT has an article about the history of the White House.

In the LA Times, Meghan Daum writes about the poet who will read a poem at the Inaugural, Elizabeth Alexander. I'm looking forward to that.

Also in the LA Times, Obama is in the house - literally. Many people are putting pictures of Obama in their house. Once upon a time, it was JFK or Martin Luther King, Jr. Now it's Obama.

Barack Obama himself observed Martin Luther King, Jr. day as a day of service. Boy does that take me back. I was part of a "day of service" a couple of days before Clinton's Inaugural. A bunch of people decided to try and renovate a historic old theater in Northeast Washington, the Atlas Theater. I was involved with a group called Public Allies. It was a great day - 400 people showed up to paint and clean. I was supposed to find out what the local community wanted from this place. I walked around the neighborhood with an older African American man named Robert Jackson (I'll never forget him). He explained to me what the neighborhood needed, but I never had a chance to communicate to the other people involved. It was just too crazy of a day. Three US Senators showed - media was there by the truckload. Cypress Hill did a concert in the street.

But at the end of the day, it was boarded up, and everybody went home, to see what tomorrow would bring. Plans were a little unclear.

I went back the next day. I was the only one. I spent the day talking to a homeless guy, and he ended up trusting me. But nothing happened there for months.

That was 16 years ago. It was symbolic of the best and worst of the Clinton administration; a lot of excitement, but not a lot of focus. But the best part was that experiences like that trained a lot of energetic young liberals who are now in a position to take advantage of the lessons they learned. For example, later that year Public Allies opened up an office in Chicago, and hired, as the Executive Director, a woman named Michelle Obama.

She was recommended for the job by a member of the board of Public Allies - her husband.

So now we have come full circle - the enthusiasm of that day did not, in fact, dissipate with the lack of follow through the next day. There was follow-up. It took a while. But wow, what results.

I didn't start out this post planning to write about that day so long ago. But I hope I can be excused for getting carried away.

Slight change in plans for tax breaks in stimulus plan

Obama has changed his stimulus plan slightly, very much for the better, I think. He floated a proposal for $300 billion worth of tax credits for job creation. I wasn't following this very closely, because details will get hammered out after the Inaugural. But this didn't sound right. Tax cuts are not what we need right now, particularly for this kind of thing.

Republicans, of course, liked it, and Obama was making noises about this being a bipartisan effort. Democrats, of course, didn't like it, and shot it down.

I like the way Obama played this. He made nice with Republicans, which, of course, made them feel good. But then Democrats shot down a bad proposal. So Obama is the good cop, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are the bad cops. Which is a role they are used to. What I particularly like about this is that it sends the message that the Democrats are controlling the agenda. Good message to send. Guess what, Republicans? Tax cuts ain't the name of the game any more. Get those delusions out of your system. Repeat after me: tax cuts do not raise revenue. Supply-side economics is garbage.

Obama should talk to Cuba. Part 1

In today's LA Times is an Op-Ed by William LeGrande and Peter Kornblush about why Obama should engage Cuba. I completely agree. I've read other articles on this topic, and so far they're all saying the same thing. This one has a great history of presidential relations with Cuba since Castro came to power. What I didn't know is that most of those presidents have engaged in some kind of diplomacy with Castro, usually in secret.

This is one of those issues that should have been resolved a long time ago. Whatever intellectual justification there was for the embargo (if there ever was one) evaporated a long time ago. The political justification is in tatters. All we have left is the illusion of fighting communism, an illusion that almost everyone on the planet can see is, in fact, an illusion, and a few militant anti-Castro fanatics left in Miami.

The benefits of lifting the embargo are clear and profound; better lives for the people of Cuba, reunited families, some opportunities for American companies in a new market, not a bad thing in this economy, and signs of relief from around the world. What are the risks? That Castro will be strengthened? That Raul Castro will somehow manage to perpetuate the dictatorship even after he and Fidel are gone? Even if that is the case, what implications does it have for the US? Cuba has not harmed the US since Castro took over, apart from a few threatening moves during the Cuban missile crisis, and has almost no power to do anything to us now. And why would they want to? The Castros paint themselves as Davids versus the US as Goliath, and legitimize themselves thereby.

Cuba hasn't done anything to us, they have no incenctive whatsoever to do anything to us, and they haven't the means to do anything to us. What are they going to do, export revolutionaries?

So the benefits are great, while the risks are all but nonexistent. As soon as Obama starts lifting various restrictions, the demagogues who oppose normalizing relations between the US and Cuba will be exposed for the fearmongers that they are.

I really can't wait for January 20th.

Presidential trivia - not many boys in the White House

When the Obamas move into the White House, they will bring their two daughters, Malia and Sasha. The Bushes also had two daughters, Jenna and Barbara. And of course, the Clintons had Chelsea. Lots of Presidential daughters in the last three administrations.

This got me thinking: when was the last time there was a boy - i.e., a son younger than 18 - in the White House? Turns out that it's been a while. The last male descendant of a president to live in the White House while younger than 18 was John F. Kennedy, Jr., 45 years ago. The Kennedy's had another son after John John, Patrick, who died two days after he was born.

Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon both had two daughters. Gerald Ford had four kids. His youngest son, Steven, turned 18 just two and a half months before his father assumed the presidency. Jimmy Carter had three sons and one daughter; the three sons were all adults when Carter was elected. Amy grew up in the White House.

So it's been a long time since there's been a little boy running around the White House. Not important, really, but sort of interesting.

Grandma in the House - the White House

Marian Robinson, Michelle Obama's mother, Barack Obama's mother-in-law, will be staying with the Obamas in the White House, at least for a little while. I think that's great. She'll generate a certain amount of attention for that generation of older African American women, the generation who had so few role models of their own. This is real live history.

Mr. Obama felt that sense of history on election night when Mrs. Robinson squeezed his hand as the final results came in.

“You had this sense of, well, what’s she thinking?” Mr. Obama said on “60 Minutes.” “For a black woman who grew up in the ’50s, you know, in a segregated Chicago, to watch her daughter become first lady of the United States.”

I also noticed that Martin Luther King Day this year falls on January 19th, the day before the Inaugural. As an African-American woman in my office put it: "The Dream - realized."

Gaza

I've been resisting commenting on the fighting in Gaza, because there doesn't seem to be much new to say. It seems intractable. But I do have some hope for change when Obama comes into office. And today Thomas Friedman provides his perspective. I like reading Friedman columns on the Mideast because he's an American Jew who has a great deal of respect for Arab and Muslim culture. He provides the larger picture, explaining, for example, the role of Iran, and the struggle between Islamists and modernists.

One of the best columns that I ever read was a David Brooks column from several years ago about the role of respect in politics (I'm not even going to try and find it). Beyond the issues of territory, escalating violence, and demands for reciprocity, respect strikes me as a core issue in the Mideast. George Bush had little, if any, respect for Arabs and Muslims, and certainly had none for the Palestinians. If Obama can demonstrate that he respects Arab culture and Islam as a religion, as well as the Palestinians and their demands for a secure state, then I think he might be able to accomplish a great deal.

It may not be much. It may be a slim hope. But right now, it's all I can think of.