That didn’t take long.

The intrepid Dan Jones has taken the bait.

 

Brian Urlacher rushes the President. A Remix by Dan Jones.

 

campaign as soap opera

I’m slogging my way through Newsweek’s lengthy seven-part series on the presidential campaigns.

Lots of little tidbits and illustrative quotes make these pieces an entertaining read, but the most striking thing is the editors’ attempt to cast the candidates into made-for-TV character molds.

Spontaneous Celebrations Mark Obama Victory

The experience of Barack Obama’s victory last night was emotionally overwhelming and I still haven’t quite sorted out what to write about it yet.

In the meantime, something caught my attention as I got out of a taxi to walk through Harvard Square on my way home at about 1am last night:

Mass Ave and JFK St., Cambridge, MA, Election Day, 2008 (cc-by, alexandralee)

The honking and shouting could be heard for several miles. Now, I know perfectly well that Cambridge and Harvard are not proxies for anything (approximately 90% of the city voted for Obama), but it was still exceptional to see people literally dancing in the streets over the outcome of the presidential election.

The scene was repeated elsewhere in Boston as well as in other cities: in Washington, D.C. in front of the White House; in New York in Times Square; in Philadelphia, Tulsa, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Detroit; and even in Sydney, Australia. Everywhere, jubilant crowds took to the streets to express their excitement.

Such repossessions of urban public space provide a fitting metaphor for Obama’s win. Citizenship has its etymological roots in the Ancient Roman notion of “a right to the city.”  For many of us who have longed for new leadership in this country, casting a vote for a victorious Obama was an affirmative form of political self-expression that had been inaccessible for over a decade. For a single day, many millions of people engaged in an immense public ritual of electoral democracy through which we momentarily gained access to a renewed sensation of ownership over the collective fate of the nation.

In this sense, the occupation of urban streets is as a literal manifestation of the President-elect’s symbolic appeal and his ability to embody the aspirations of his supporters. This appeal is not unique to Obama, but the extent to which he has elicited passionate commitment on the part of so many American citizens is something I have not seen in my lifetime. When consistent with your personal views, such collective passion is awe inspiring. In contrast, the fervent beliefs of your oponents cannot help but ring hollow.

It is inherently difficult to pinpoint the source or cause of the emotional connection some many people feel to Obama the public figure. I suspect that it has a little bit to do with his biography, a little bit to do with his public persona, and a lot to do with the radical form of hope he has come to represent in the wake of the Bush administration.

No matter where it comes from, I am grateful to have experienced a small piece of it last night.

Strategy vs. Tactics (again)

Also in today’s NYT: A revealing comparison of the candidates’ respective endgames.

Just like Al Giordano said, Obama’s coming full-circle on a long-term effort to persuade voters of his vision for a more perfect union. The closing argument will echo his national debut at the Democratic Convention in 2004:

From here on out, Mr. Obama’s aides said, attacks on Mr. McCain will be joined by an emphasis on broader and less partisan themes, like the need to unify the country after a difficult election.

Go back and watch the video from the debates. Obama does this every. single. time. and the little squigglies go off the charts as he builds towards his conclusion. I can only imagine that this approach will prove even more effective on a massive scale, when the concerted media spotlight amplifies the effect.

Meanwhile in Mavericktown:

Mr. McCain will stick with the message he has embraced over the last week, presenting Mr. Obama as an advocate of big government and raising taxes. His advisers say they will limit the numbers of rallies where he and Ms. Palin appear together, to cover more ground in the final days.

What part of “these attacks aren’t sticking” does the McCain crew not understand? This didn’t work during the debates, it hasn’t worked during the past two weeks, and it’s reinforcing the perception that McCain, Palin, and co. are simply out of touch with the substantive concerns of the electorate.

Everybody’s favorite corrupt D.C. has-been has a pitch-perfect soundbyte summary of the situation:

“Any serious Republican has to ask, ‘How did we get into this mess?’ ” Newt Gingrich, the former Republican house speaker, said in an interview. “It’s not where we should be, and it’s not where we had to be. This was not bad luck.”

Newt’s transparently trying to sell the commentariat on the (misleading) idea that he could have done better, but the man has a point…

Another E-day Disaster Brewing in Ohio

Ian Urbina of the NYT reports on a very troubling decision handed down by the Sixth Circuit Federal appeals court:

More than 200,000 registered Ohio voters may be blocked from casting regular ballots on Election Day because of a federal appeals court decision on Tuesday requiring the disclosure of lists of voters whose names did not match those on government databases, state election officials and voting experts said.

According to one O-State voting law prof., the judges must have taken a whopping dose of unconstitutional before issuing the ruling:

Daniel P. Tokaji, a law professor and voting expert at Ohio State University, said he thought the appellate decision was wrong. He said the stated purpose of the “matching” requirement in the federal law, the 2002 Help America Vote Act, was to accelerate procedures at the polls, somewhat like an E-Zpass lane at highway toll plazas. It was meant to allow voters to avoid showing identification if they had already been screened using database checks, he said.

The federal matching requirement, Mr. Tokaji said, was not meant to determine eligibility, deter voter fraud or raise added barriers for voters by forcing some to vote provisionally. “The majority judges don’t seem to grasp this point,” he said.

There is a real risk of large-scale challenges of voters on Election Day, said Richard L. Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, but he added that any effort to use the list to purge the rolls before then could violate the federal provision that prohibits systematic voter removal purges within 90 days of a federal election.

This case and the judgment are the direct result of the profoundly inaccurate “voter fraud” narratives swirling out of desperate right wing circles at the moment.

Most egregiously, the ruling has no basis in any empirical evidence that fake registrations actually lead to fraudulent votes. Absent such evidence, any effort to challenge voters at the polls or require provisional ballots is a waste of government money and citizens’ time. It also makes it that much more difficult for vulnerable populations (the folks most likely to be challenged on the basis of poorly maintained federal database information) to exercise their rights and responsibilities on election day.

On a separate note, I’m curious if there’s any research out there that looks at whether the number of legal challenges related to voting laws is significantly higher in swing states/districts.

My untutored suspicion is that courts in sensitive regions are being abused on this issue and are being asked to devote a disproportionate amount of time and resources to refereeing a partisan tug of war.

The True Successor to George W. Bush: Sarah Palin

Anyone who harbored doubts as to the political credentials and personal style of Sarah Palin needs to read the profiles published by the NYT and WaPo over the weekend.

The Washington Post piece focuses on Palin’s brief tenure as Mayor of Wasilla, where she reduced her personal responsibilities by hiring an administrator, bought a new car, lambasted taxes and corruption (at the same time as she used growing city revenues to dish out favors and hockey rinks), ousted experienced professionals from positions in the public administration, and raked in a steady stream of pork from D.C.

The Times, on the other hand, offers a close look at the workings of Palin’s inner circle during her stints as Mayor and Governor respectively. Generally speaking, the authors uncover recurring examples of cronyism, personal aggrandizement, secretive tactics to evade accountability and transparency,  absentee governance , corruption, and personal attacks and intimidation against anyone who disagreed with the “typical hockey mom.”

Remind you of anyone you know?

Let’s see…a lack of executive experience, lack of foreign policy knowledge, allegations of corruption and abuse of power, rhetorical support for fiscal conservatism matched by reckless, spendthrift behavior…

Wait, wait, don’t tell me!

Do we really need to wait for Palin’s palls in the Alaska state house to get promotions before we confirm that she (and her supporters) are not up to the job

Approximately 80% of the country agrees that the Bush administration has mismanaged the country. To me, that suggests that further illumination of Palin’s profound character flaws and irresponsible actions will raise some tough questions for the McCain/Palin campaign.

John McCain has argued that he and Palin are “mavericks” who will change Washington. With a voting record that agrees with Bush 90% of the time and a Vice-Presidential nominee who resembles the former Texas governor in more ways than one, this misleading rhetoric will not stick.

Hockey Moms for Obama

Check it out – thinking I might send one to my (hockey) mom…

Re-reading David Brooks on Joe Biden

Worth a second look now that the news is out.

I am still woefully uneducated on Biden’s record and his politics, but here’s hoping that David Brooks speaks for a broad swath of centrists and accurately depicts the imagination of the rustbelt.

If Biden can appeal to someone like Brooks, I’m tempted to be optimistic about the selection.

White House Office of Administration Immune from FOIA?

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has ruled in agreement with Bush administration lawyers’ claim that the White House Office of Administration (WHOA) is immune from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Barring a successful appeal, this means that the Bush administration won’t need to hand over those conveniently lost emails that somehow managed to disappear from Bush, Rove, Cheney and Co.’s blackberries.

Apparently, Kollar-Kotelly accepted the argument that WHOA serves exclusively administrative functions and therefore is not subject to an act meant to protect political transparency.

The incredible irony is that WHOA has historically been the office in charge of handling all the FOIA requests submitted to the White House. As of right now, the WHOA website notes: ” The OA’s Regulations concerning FOIA are currently being updated.”

Count this one as a big fat loss for transparent government and a big fat win for the unitary executive theory. ugh.