Giuliani

Before it gets too old, I have one comment on Giuliani's attempt to win the Republican nomination. A friend of mine in New York had this comment:

Rudy's loss and blow out = proof that God exists.

It's Almost Over

So Obama won Nebraska, Washington State, Louisiana, and Maine. That's a pretty broad cross-section of the country. And he won by large margins. 68% in Nebraska.

I think it's just about over. I think we will look back at this weekend when it became clear that Obama was on his way to winning the Democratic nomination for President.

The revolution that was started in the '60's was kept alive in the '90's by Bill Clinton. And it will be finished by Barack Obama in the 21st century.

Inspiration into Action

Andrew Sullivan picks up on a theme that has been floating around for a couple of days: that support for Obama has become a self-reinforcing orgy of wish fulfillment, all hype and wonderful feelings. His response is to note that Obama is no dreamer, but a "coolly rational" pragmatist. I agree, would add that Obama doesn't just give a great speech; he knows how to turn the inspiration into action. The great oratory is the icing on the cake, but there's a solid foundation underneath it. Obama didn't win Iowa because he can get a crowd fired up; he won Iowa because, once he got the crowd fired up, he had an organization in place to focus the energy of the people. This was very much my experience in California. We had a huge grassroots operation that made hundreds of thousands of phone calls. The man did extremely well on Super Tuesday in places like Idaho and Alaska. Why? Because he had people there months ago. This is the benefit of being a community organizer: you understand the importance of building an organization. It's not just enough to energize people; you have to have a structure to channel that energy. And it becomes a self-referential experience: you generate some energy, which gets harnessed by your organization. That makes the organization stronger, which allows it to harness and focus ever more energy. The energy from the reaction creates the vessel that contains it.

Thus is the world changed.

Ruth Stafford Peale

Sometimes I like to read obituaries, because the people profiled are invariably interesting, and I usually learn something about history. Today, there was a profile of Ruth Stafford Peale in the LA Times. She was the widow of Norman Vincent Peale (who died in 1993), who wrote The Power of Positive Thinking. Apparently he had some frustration when he tried to get it published. However, she wouldn't give up:

"She encouraged her husband when his manuscript for "The Power of Positive Thinking" was rejected by publishers, and once pulled it out of the garbage can when he had given up on it. It went on to sell more than 21 million copies."

Wow, there's a chunk of irony for ya. The author of The Power of Positive Thinking didn't believe his own message, but his wife did! I guess the message got through to her! Reminds me of my grandmother.

Post Super Tuesday

So Super Tuesday has come and gone. It was strangely anticlimatic - a day that was supposed to decide everything only clouded things up even more. This confirms something that I have been suspecting - moving primaries up in the calendar is not necessarily such a good idea. We had Super Tuesday because so many states wanted to be part of the process of deciding early on who the nominees would be. They wanted to be in that position because they wanted to get attention from the nominees. They saw politicians pandering to Iowa and New Hampshire, and they wanted a piece of that. But now the states that come later will be the ones that decide the nominee. As I've always said, irony is 9/10 of the law.

But I think this is reason to celebrate, because democracy is working. The process of nominating a candidate for president has changed in the past, and will change in the future. This is not because the process was flawed in the past or is flawed in the present, but because society is changing. Some states hold caucuses for reasons that I personally don't understand, but probably made sense way back when. But, as we saw in Nevada and Iowa, there are problems with those procedures now that we are in the 21st century. Some states holds caucuses on Saturdays presumably because, for many years, most people didn't work on Saturdays. But now many people do. Will those states change their procedures? Possibly. As I wrote about in my last post, there were problems for independent voters in California, and particularly in LA County. But we are now very aware of those problems - the LA Times had an article and an Op-Ed piece about that issue. People are not going to forget not being able to vote, or voting and then realizing that their votes won't count. They will demand change. My brother called me from Colorado to tell me that the lines to vote in their caucus were incredibly long. I'm guessing that whether or not to hold caucuses or primaries is now a topic of many discussions in Colorado.

One of the contradictions of democracy is that chaos is not fun. At least not this kind of chaos. But we should remember that we can notice these problems because they contrast with so much success. Millions of people did vote for their candidate for their party's nomination with no problems. I am aware of my precinct captain's problems with voting because she called me on my cell phone immediately after she voted, and she realized fairly quickly that there was a problem. We have the technology to allow millions of people to vote across the country, and be aware of the results very quickly. We also have the technology to solve the problems that we have encountered. But we must also have the will and the resolve to follow through and actually solve them. And then be prepared to solve the problems that show up next time. Because they will show up. Not because our democracy is flawed, but because we are human.

Troubles with bubbles

One lesson that I have learned from this campaign so far is that democracy is very much a work in progress. Maybe I should say that I relearned it all over again. We all learned in 2000, from the debacle in Florida, that actually casting a vote can be a complicated process, potentially fraught with error. We have now seen this in California. The LA Times reports today that there were substantial problems with independent voters casting votes in the Democratic primary. This was true across California, but particularly true in LA County, where "non-partisan," i.e. "independent" voters, had to mark a special bubble to indicate that they were voting in the Democratic primary. This was confusing, and NOT at all clear. Nor was it explained by poll workers.
Even people who were involved in campaigns didn't know what was going on. I got a phone call from a precinct captain who had been completely on top of everything for weeks, but who didn't realize that she had to mark this bubble. That meant that her vote didn't count. According to the article in the Times, the LA County Registrar is going to look into this issue and see if those uncounted votes would make a difference. If so, he's going to try to solve the problem. That's a good sign.
Still, it would have been nice not to have the problem at all. Just make ballots that are perfectly clear! Or post big signs at the voting booths explaining exactly how to cast a ballot. How hard would that be? I agree with this column in the Times today: "Running elections is a tough business, but it is not rocket science."

Report from UCLA

This is a couple of days old, and a tad outdated, now that California has had its primary, but I am still inspired by this.

I went to UCLA on Sunday to hear Michelle Obama speak. The first thing I would like to point out is that this is an example of the power of Barack Obama's message of unity: he doesn't just bring people of different races, classes and backgrounds together. He brings USC people to UCLA. That's powerful.

But about Michelle. Very impressive. You can see why they're married - she's just about as good of a speaker as he is. The other speakers were Caroline Kennedy, who was solid, and Elena Maria Druza, head of the LA County Federation of Labor, who was good, and then Oprah, was superb. No wonder that woman is a billionaire because of her ability to talk. I have seen few people as comfortable with a microphone as that woman - it's like the black plastic becomes an extension of her arm. Turn the thing on, and boom! she's off.

But as good as Oprah was, Michelle was even better. Tough, competent, and yet classy. A man married to this woman is a man who is not afraid of powerful women. A man married to this woman is a man who enjoys being in the presence of a powerful, brilliant woman. You can see why, when they met, she was his boss. In a close race to the Democratic nomination, Michelle Obama will make a difference. I can almost imagine her following Hillary's example and, in 2016, running as the Senator from Illinois (or whenever that opens up).

And then, as a surprise, Maria Shriver showed up. I've never heard her speak, but damn if she wasn't impressive too. She had decided to come to this event, she told us, just that morning. So she hadn't spent any time preparing. She hadn't, she also told us, even brushed her hair or put any makeup on (you could've fooled me, I thot she looked great). But, speaking without any preparation or any notes, she spoke as if she had been preparing for weeks. As if she had been on the campaign trail for months. She knew exactly what she wanted to say. She had the applause lines down. She didn't pause. And, interestingly, she had a good personal relationship with all of the other women: she is Caroline Kennedy's cousin, and she started out her work life at the same station as Oprah, so they have known each other for something like 30 years. And she knows Maria Elena Druza from being in politics in California. And she knows Michelle Obama from being involved in Democratic politics. It was one big party.

LA Times endorses Obama

For the first time since 1972, the LA Times has endorsed a Presidential candidate. Good for them!

I particularly like this line:

In the language of metaphor, Clinton is an essay, solid and reasoned; Obama is a poem, lyric and filled with possibility.

There's also a great essay by a thirtysomething Latina about the Obama-Clinton divide between her and her mother. Very topical. I'm happy when the LA Times gets something right, particularly in the editorials or the Op-Ed page. This is a great piece for this moment in history. Of course, the fact that I agree with it doesn't hurt.

The LA Times is getting better all the time. In the last couple of years, they have drastically changed their Op-Ed page, almost entirely for the good. I particularly like Joel Stein and Meghan Daum. Joel Stein is one of the funniest writers in America, easily the funniest Op-Ed columnist, and Meghan Daum writes about stuff that is always timely, but that no one else is writing about on an Op-Ed page. Also, she occasionally responds to my emails, which is really cool of her. I'm also happy to see Tim Rutten newly added to the Op-Ed page.

One of the best things about the LA Times is Dan Neil's weekly column Rumble Seat, where he reviews cars with some of the best writing this side of The New Yorker.

Lakers get Gasol

This sounds like good news: the Lakers made a deal for Pau Gasol. I had never heard of him before, but Kobe seems to be happy, which is good. It's been entirely too long since the Lakers have won a championship.

Reaction to the debate

I was at the debate last night, watching from outside the Kodak Theater. There was a rally outside, in the central courtyard of Hollywood and Highland (the mall where the Kodak is located).

There were Obama and Hillary people. I'm obviously biased, but I thot there were a lot more Obama people than Hillary people. It really felt like a movement, which was great. And there was one lonely woman with an Edwards sign. She had painted on it, "Thank You." I'm glad Edwards ran, I think he raised some great issues.

I have to say that I think Hillary did very well. She didn't come across as cold or calculating. I remembered why I was a Clinton fan way back when. When all is said and done, I am very glad that she is running. One thing that has been refreshingly absent from the campaign is any question of whether or not she is capable of actually doing the job of President. No one has questioned whether or not a woman can be President. For me, there's no question that she could handle the job. She's one of those rare people who is competent as she is smart, and compassionate.

Her problem, unfortunately, is that Barack Obama is one of those even rarer people who is as competent as he is smart, deeply compassionate, and a brilliant orator. Watching Obama last night, I was struck by how carefully he listened to her when she was talking. He made a real effort to hear her and understand where she was coming from, even though he has been doing exactly that - trying to understand where she is coming from - for months.

Hillary inspires by virtue of her status as the first woman to have a serious chance of being President. But watching last night, I finally understood why she has some devoted fans - she clearly communicates the sense, at least to some people, that she can, by virtue of sheer competence, take care of them. That is a fine quality for a politician to have. But I don't think enough people feel that. And lots of people feel the opposite.

There were a couple of shots of Chelsea watching her Mom on stage, and the pride that Chelsea felt in her mother was inspiring.