A Comic Masterpiece At The Walter Reade

Even for a broadly-defined blog, this doesn't really fit into it, but so what. Monday the 5th of January the Walter Reade Theater in Lincoln Center is screening Play Time, Jacques Tati's stunning comedy about the sleek, modern world of Paris and the crazy humanity that lived in it. Everyone who reads this blog should go see it. I've found one review here. The Criterion Collection synopsis is here:

Jacques Tati’s gloriously choreographed, nearly wordless comedies about confusion in the age of technology reached their creative apex with Playtime. For this monumental achievement, a nearly three-year-long, bank-breaking production, Tati again thrust the endearingly clumsy, resolutely old-fashioned Monsieur Hulot, along with a host of other lost souls, into a bafflingly modernist Paris. With every inch of its superwide frame crammed with hilarity and inventiveness, Playtime is a lasting testament to a modern age tiptoeing on the edge of oblivion.

The Rick Warren Controversy

I thought I’d say something about the Rick Warren-Obama inauguration flap. Obama has assigned the invocation at the ceremony to Reverend Rick Warren, pastor at the Saddleback church in California. This has gotten a lot of criticism because Warren was one of the main supporters of Prop. 8 in California. Warren is completely opposed to gay marriage and has equated it with incest and polygamy. (Melissa Etheridge claims he told her he regretted that choice of words and it's not the way he thinks. I’m a bit skeptical. Has he publicly disavowed these statements?)

I find the selection upsetting. To choose this man as the primary pastor presiding over the inauguration feels like a slap in the face not just to homosexuals, but to the principles of basic equality under the law. Obama has said that selecting Warren is about unity, about including people in a national conversation that others might disagree with. I get his point. True unity for the country means engaging people with whom you passionately disagree with and Rick Warren is a such a person. Unity, and real change, Obama is saying, is wrenching. I think, to have included Rick Warren among other pastors would have been exactly the right thing to do. He is an important member of the evangelical community and represents beliefs held by a sizeable percentage in this country. But giving him such a prime position is to associate him too closely with Obama’s vision for the entire country. I acknowledge that for Obama unity is an extremely important value. But I think that for me, basic rights are a bit more weighty on the scale. The decision feels against the spirit of inclusion and basic civil equality.

That said, I reserve final judgement on Obama. Symbols matter, but they are still only symbols. Obama’s ultimate test will be what substantive changes for gay rights he will achieve. If he were to get rid of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and even legalize civil unions, then none of this would matter.

I want to say something else about Rich Warren. In that video that I linked to above, Warren is also asked this:

Q: Which do you think is a greater threat to the American family? Divorce or gay marriage?

Warren: That’s a no brainer. Divorce. There’s no doubt about it.

Q: …So why do we hear so much more, especially from religious conservatives, about gay marriage than about divorce?

Warren: Oh, we always love to talk about other sins more than ours.

“A no brainer”! “We always love to talk about other sins more than ours”! I know he's still being intolerant of gay marriage, he still considers it a sin, but still, these are not statements I expect to hear from a figure on the religious right. Rick Warren is an interesting figure in American evangelical movement. I remember reading a New Yorker article on him a few years ago and he seemed like someone who was trying to move past the issues normally associated with the religious right. He focuses on poverty, HIV. He truly practices what he preaches: he reverse tithes, giving away 90% of what he makes. He seems much more reasonable, and positive, than someone like James Dobson or Jerry Falwell. He is not pathologically, and creepily, obsessed with issues of sexuality like others seem to be. Warren represents a more hopeful future for religious conservatism in this country. He is someone who needs to be engaged, not pushed away.

Physics for Presidents (And Citizens, Too)

I recently found an interesting video called Physics 101: What Our Next President Needs to Know. It’s a lecture at UC Berkley given by Robert Muller. It’s a good primer for the science behind some of the most important issues of our time: nuclear terrorism, global warming, etc. The guy is a good lecturer, it’s not too technical, I don’t think, and it also addresses some of the misinformation regarding this stuff. You’ll learn things like:

- Radiological terrorism – a “dirty nuke” – is extremely hard to do and the fear is overblown. The most likely impact of a radiological bomb is to slightly increase the rate of cancer death rather than massive death at the scene.

- A straightforward explanation of why the World Trade Center fell.

- Spy satellites are increasingly useless at spying.

- The global warming that has occurred over the past 200 years until 1957 is actually not attributable to humans. It is only since 1957 that human activity has contributed to global warming.

- NYC does not have to worry about flooding due to rising sea levels. (Phew!)

- No matter how green our economy becomes, it will never be enough to solve global warming. The only way to really fix the problem is to pay developing countries to use green technology.

The professor starts talking at 7:20 and the video lasts about an hour. I know it’s a lot, but if you have some time I recommend it.

Machine In The Ghost, Ctd.

Before my little hiatus I posted this video:



I called it entrancing, fascinating and prophetic and was disturbed by the way, from what I saw, it depicts a human body under the control of external electronic signals. But a few commentors have taken me to task, and added some interesting nuances.

According to one commentor, we’ve even been able to induce emotional states in animals through electrical stimulation -- the kind of human/technological integration in this video is nothing new. That's true, of course. For a long time we have had heart pacemakers, brain pacemakers, cochlear implants, and more recently brain implants that allow for control of things such as robotic arms and computer interfaces. (Here is an interesting 60 Minutes report that shows some of the state of the art)

But I do maintain that the fact that, to me, it looks like his face is seemingly taken over by the music is a bit creepy. (I should say here that some people on YouTube have wondered if the effect is even real. I think it is. Watch some of his other videos, here, and here. It doesn’t seem possible for someone to control his face to this degree.) Pacemakers, cochlear implants, these affect involuntary systems inside the body. People that are able to control a robotic chair by thinking (as in the 60 Minutes video) are still in control of what they are doing. My point here is that this artist has voluntarily given up control over his muscles and lets them do what they will in response to the music. The feeling is one of willing surrender to overwhelming forces. One way that I look at it is as a metaphor for a future where humanity starts giving in to technological forces that it doesn't fully understand.

Commentor Invisible Man, however, does make an interesting and more hopeful point: the artist composed the very music that is being used to drive the electrodes that contract his muscles. So, in this sense, the artist is still in ultimate control over everything and his face becomes his instrument. Conceptually it isn’t that different than a singer or a dancer. In this case the control is just roundabout and indirect, but he is still in ultimate control. What this artist is doing is, I think, both a disconcerting and a reassuringly human use of technology. It points in brand new directions of how we can express ourselves, directions in which our own biology is plastic and malleable. I can imagine lots of very weird, freaky variations on this example. What if someone were playing this music live and had someone else hooked up by electrodes. Imagine a music and dance troupe: Four people make up the band, and play music normally. But then there are two other people, one of whom is the instrument for the other. One person plays the other like a puppet, interpreting the music that the regular band plays! A completely new kind of human performance!

I think I just blew my own mind.

Caroline Kennedy... Worse Than Palin

Back to politics. The more I read about Caroline Kennedy running... I'm sorry, presenting herself, for Clinton's soon to be vacated senate seat, the more pissed off I get. She's never run before for anything, claims she isn't running a campaign, claims that raising a family is a qualification for the office (these are mostly from this New York Times article) , and then says something like this today in an interview with NY1:

Dominic Carter: Okay. If [Governor Patterson] doesn't select you, will you run, right around the corner in 2010?

Caroline Kennedy: Well, if he doesn't select me, I would support the person that he does select. You know, I would love to do this, I feel like I have a lot to bring, and I would love to deliver for the people of New York. But, there's, you know, many ways that I can serve, and I can, and as I have been doing.

[and later]

Carter: ...There is also some people who perhaps may have not known Caroline Kennedy if her last name was not Kennedy we would not been having this conversation.

Caroline Kennedy: Well if my last name was not Kennedy maybe I would have run for office a long time ago. I don’t know.

As long as one person is selecting me then I'd be happy to serve. If the whole state selects me, then I'm not really interested. It seems like she wants to become a senator without going through the actual process of running. A once in a lifetime opportunity came up for someone with a famous name to bypass the democratic process and she took it. Wow, she must be so qualified she can't take the chance of mucking about in the tawdry world of electoral politics!

Sara Palin ran for city council, mayor and governor before running for... shudder... the vice-presidency. This is worse than Palin.

Of All the Charlie Browns In The World, You're The Charlie Browniest

My other Christmas related post (this was the first) is about my favorite Christmas music ever. It probably won’t be too surprising that it’s the soundtrack to the Charlie Brown Christmas Special. Not only is it intensely nostalgic, reminding me of so many winters watching the show as a kid, but it, alone among all the Christmas music I can think of, captures the grey, mixed feelings that is an unavoidable part of the holiday and of winter in general.

On a first pass, Christmas is a time of seeing family and giving gifts, of “holiday cheer” (I think it’s clear by now that what I’m talking about is the secular celebration of Christmas). And yet, there’s a flip side to that: the extreme commercialism and consumerism, the feeling of loneliness, the feeling of being out of place, of not getting invited to Christmas parties, that sense of forced cheer. The fact that it happens during the cold and short days of winter only intensifies everything. This is what the Charlie Brown Christmas soundtrack says in spades. To listen to it is to become Charlie Brown trudging through the snow, wondering why no one has sent him a Christmas card and yearning for something deeper from the season than pink, plastic trees. Now, my attitude doesn’t descend to his level of despair. Yes, I go to parties and get and give gifts and feel authentically cheerful. But, not all the time. The bitter cold, the disappointment when you get a gift you don’t really want, the sense, when it’s all over: “is that all there is?” It's all inevitable. A Charlie Brown Christmas is about reflecting on this. It reminds me that the holiday can sometimes get you feeling a bit down precisely when it’s supposed to pick you up. It expresses that sentiment back to you and becomes your companion in melancholy.

(NPR has done a few reports on the soundtrack over the years. They're good and they are here and here.)

It’s a Gap Christmas Flashback

I’ve always loved the Christmas season. I love the nostalgia it makes me feel for my childhood. I love the communal experience of it, how everyone shares in it in one way or another, the general feeling of warmth and community with my family and friends. And, I love how this feeling is extended when it’s incorporated into pop culture at-large. (If this post makes some people throw up for my shameless sentimentality, I’m sorry, but I’m sentimental about this) If it’s well done (that is, tasteful, not like a recent commercial where Santa Claus tries to buy sleigh, I’m sorry, car insurance. Groan!). One of my favorite examples of this is a series of commercials that Michel Gondry (director of the very good Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) created for the Gap in 1999.







Like the best Gap commercials, they are 30 second expressions of pure pop fun done in the most elegant way. They never stoop so low as to mention what is actually being sold (though, of course, the instant association of the brand with a broad cultural feeling is the point). They bring together a big-sounding version of the song Sleigh Ride (conducted by John Williams, I think) with, unexpectedly, yet wonderfully, Ice Ice Baby by Vanilla Ice. To top it off, the kaleidoscopic images of people dancing and skating is so playful, and done with such freedom, that, to me, they feel joyful. These commercials are quintessentially modern without sacrificing a genuine Christmas feeling. I watch them every year.

Where Have I Been For Two Weeks?

I think if there is one iron rule of blogging it’s probably this: you have to keep writing! Unfortunately, I have violated that rule in a big way, not posting anything since December 10th (and even then, it was a pretty lame post: Joe The Plumber?? Ugh!). Well, I am back. Hopefully, there are still one or two loyal readers left. I use Google-Analytics to track how many people read the site and I’ve been dreading checking the latest numbers. For a blog that is just the personal opinions of a political layperson, I’m frequently surprised that it’s more than just a few good friends who seem to read it -- for the last month it’s averaged about 18 visitors per week, peaking at 28 one week (who are these people?!) So much has happened in the last few weeks – Madoff, Blagojevich, the final Obama cabinet picks, the auto bailout, the Mumbai fallout, the shoe thrower – and I haven’t commented on any of it. I just hope that this time away hasn’t permanently lost me my “base”.

To quickly mention why I’ve been away: First, I’ve been working a lot on the other main occupier of my time: a film script, which I’ve been working on for a year. Secondly, it’s the season of Christmas parties, and this year I’ve gone to more than in any other. Christmas parties mean a fair amount of drinking, and that, alas, does not go well with the focus that I like to bring to the blog. But now, that’s all done with. My head is clear and the posts will start to flow. But, I want to just dip my toe in first. Two Christmas-related, non-political and media-laden posts are in order.

Joe The Plumber, Class Act

Joe Wurzelbacher says that he was "appalled" by McCain on the campaign trail. He almost left the campaign bus at one point, but he thought Obama would be a lot worse. Palin, however, was the "real deal." God help us.

Shiv-seki

On Monday morning Obama announced that he has chosen retired General Eric Shinseki to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs. I don't know what the Secretary of Veterans Affairs does exactly, but as far as the symbolism goes it is an impeccable pick. Shinseki was the guy who told the country that the Bush administration was living in a fantasyland when it came to preparing for Iraq. He is the one who went before Congress and said that it would take, "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" to occupy Iraq successfully. He is the one who, as Obama said on Meet the Press on Sunday, "was right."

Also, I think it's great to know that Shinseki was able to speak truth to power and eventually have his dignity restored. I would like to think that he been chuckling to himself a lot lately.

Morever, the pick illustrates Obama's deft political ability or, as James Fallows writes so well, his, "extremely refined aspect of sticking in the shiv." Obama can keep his rhetoric bipartisan and classy, his demeanor lofty and presidential, while still grinding the faces of all those responsible for the awful pre-war planning in the dirt. He doesn't need to say anything about what the previous administration did. He doesn't need to list and go off on their massive failures. The pick says it all.

"Revenge is a dish best served cold." (An Old Klingon proverb, I believe.)

What The Hell Is This??

So I just googled my name, something I haven't done in a long time, and this site comes up: http://www.axuve.com! What the hell is going on here? It's a very strange site that claims to be about foreign currency calculators, though, in reality, I think it's just some hacking site: other than explaining the different types of calculators out there it doesn't do anything; it has one sub-page -- axuve.com/axuve.html -- that I clicked on and took so long to load I stopped it for fear the site was doing something to my Mac. It also has space for you to sign up for a newsletter at the top, but it doesn't mention the newsletter at all in the body of the text. I would think that if it was designed to get you to enter in your email and name then the page would actually ask you to fill in your name and email. Weird. But weirdest of all... why is there a site out there with my name as its domain?? And it's the first thing that comes up in a Google search! Is this some ploy to get people who are looking for trapped in an internet scheme? Is this a trap for me somehow?? Any of the people who visit this site know a way to find out more about this site? It's very disconcerting.

Machine In The Ghost, Ctd.

A few commentors have wondered what is so "prophetic" about my previous post. Well, what I'm thinking is that the video points to the way in which human biology and technology are coming together. We are all familiar with prosthetic limbs, pacemakers, artificial hearts, etc. But within my lifetime, I think I will see a much deeper level of integration between the two, particularly involving digital information technology. We may one day augment our own mental abilities with computer chips. At that point, where the boundary is between man and machine becomes blurred, it seems to me. For those people who choose to incorporate this kind of technology into themselves, will it be accurate to describe them as human beings? Will their technology be dictating their actions to some degree? At least, will the fact that they incorporate so much technology into themselves make their behavior unrecognizable to non-technological humans? It's a huge question, and a huge subject, but it seems to me that the fact that technology will change our behavior so much that it becomes a major determining factor in that behavior is inevitable. We will be subject to technology in ways we can't yet imagine.

And this brings me back to the video. What is so interesting and disturbing and prophetic about it is that, in it, computer technology controls human muscles, not the other way around. The human being is subordinate here, the medium by which the music and the technology expresses itself. When the music really gets going, the expression on the guys face is almost one of being overwhelmed by the electronic pulses making his face spasm, like a swimmer out at sea giving in to the constant barrage of waves that bat him around.

Machine In The Ghost

This has go to be one of the most entrancing, fascinating, prophetic, and disturbing videos I've ever seen on the internet.

The National Security Team

So we now have Obama's national security team, and for the most part, I like it. Gates staying at Defense is a strong choice, from what I've read. He has started to turn the department around, he actually respects and listens to the military more than Rumsfeld ever did, and seems able to work with people instead of maneuvering around them. I believe he comes from the classic realist school of foreign policy, so the Iraq War is something that he would probably have been skeptical about from the beginning. And yet he has also come to understand the inescapable reality of the 21st century where America will need to be deeply involved in the world for the foreseeable future. Retreating inside fortress America and worrying about narrow economic and military interests is not an option.

Eric Holder seems like perhaps an excellent choice. Here is someone capable, and more importantly, someone who might actually care about the law, the constitution and executive power, someone who has pointed out that the Justice Department must stand with some distance from the rest of the White House, and who said today that Justice plays a, "unique role," in the administration and that, "it is incumbent those of us who lead the department to ensure not only that the nation is safe but also that our laws and traditions are respected." I'll take it with a grain of salt until I see actual results, but he feels like a clean break from Bush enablers like Gonzalez and Mukaskey.

Of James Jones I have read little except that he's opinionated and another foreign policy realist who's come around to seeing things a little differently, like Gates. He should not be the failure that Rice was. He will hopefully have the strength to wrangle the heavyweights Obama has chosen.

Lastly, of course, is Clinton. My feelings about her as Secretary of State are mixed. She has star power and intelligence and toughness, all of which help her new job. But she was a terrible manager of her campaign and is a... Clinton, which always means ego and potential for distracting, high drama (and it always means Bill!). On that tack I hope Obama knows what he's doing. I really, really do. And, on substance, while I initially wondered why he chose her, I'm starting to see that it fits with Obama's foreign policy beliefs and general character. During the campaign, they were never that far apart on policy, but there were some interesting, and telling issues where they differed, and where I agreed with him more: on Cuba, where he was for greater openness and rapproachment, on nuclear proliferation, where he was more clearly for significant change (I think), and on the initial vote to go to war, of course. These are not major differences, at least not now (though they disagreed on the vote for war, that's not a barrier to them agreeing on getting out), but still they made me wonder if the two saw eye-to-eye on that as much as they should.

After listening to Obama today, it occurs to me that to focus on these issues is to miss the forest for the trees and ignore who Obama is. He and she may have differences on some things, but as he said today, on the overall course U.S. foreign policy should take, they are in, "almost complete agreement." The point here is that what he really cares about is the overall shape of his foreign policy. The other, individual issues are simply not that important to him. He's focusing on grand strategy, as is his tendency: Obama has always tended to "go big" on issues and ignore or compromise or postpone dealing with smaller issues. Even if he would like to, say, have a closer relationship with Cuba, he has too many other problmes of global scope on his plate to have his main goals disturbed by a regional issue. On the broad strokes, I bet Clinton really does agree with him and that is why he chose her and she accepted. She has always been a bit of a hawk, but he has also made somewhat aggressive, or just plain agressive, comments: on killing jihadists inside Pakistan, on Russia invadeing South Ossetia, on the issue of Jerusalem in any Israeli/Palestinian agreement. When it comes to overall foreign policy I think he's actually a pretty pragmatic realist who wants diplomacy to work, but has no problem using physical force when necessary. (Obama has been known to admire George Bush, Sr.'s foreign policy, and has received advice from Brent Scocroft.)

Finally, part of the reason for agreement I think might also be that, because things are in such a bad place right now for the U.S. in the world, the different branches of U.S. foreign policy (minus the crazies -- isolationists or neoconservatives) have come into closer agreement on what that policy should be. Both progressives, liberal hawks and realists all feel that we must: pull out of Iraq, repair our international relationships, shift more of our resources away from military spending and more towards aid and diplomacy, and take greater action on issues such as climate change, energy security and nuclear proliferation. The previous eight years have just made these issues very clear and a rough consensus has emerged. At least for now. If Obama is successful and a good part of these issues is taken care of, then, ironically, I wonder if more cracks will start to show as everyone's differences become magnified. It's entirely possible that this team works precisely because the U.S. is in such a bad place that what we have to do to get out of it is obvious to everybody. What happens later is a different story.

Mumbai Motivation

At Counterterrorism blog there is an interview discussing the motivations behind Mumbai. I don't know this guy's reputation, so, just skimming it I don't know how authoratative he is, but his analysis is very plausible. I should have seen it, knowing what I know from my class: First, this is about sparking a war between Pakistan and India. Second, this is about sparking such a war so that pressure is relieved from Pakistan's Western front, where Pakistani soldiers are fighting jihadists. Third, Al-Qaeda is probably involved in this at some level -- if not at the operational, planning level, then at the inspirational, global strategy level. This kind of attack, whether directed by Al Qaeda or not helps its overall mission, and, as I mentioned, helps its current state of health in Pakistan by potentially making the Pakistani forces that are fighting it withdraw to go fight along Pakistan's Eastern border in a conflict with India. The whole point of terrorism is to create an overreaction from the countries involved.

Oui Nous Pouvons!

Sheesh! Sarkozy is just shameless! A reader of Andrew Sullivan's blog sent this in to him from Paris.

My Italian Twin

Apparently, I haven't been living my life in New York City. I've actually been living in Florence. Click on this picture to get a better view:

I'm No Terrorism Expert But..., Ctd.

A column in today's Times is a great place to start understanding what happened in Mumbai. It seems that it is about Indian issues, about the clash between traditional religious ideology and the new, business-oriented, cosmopolitan India that it opposes. Mumbai is the commercial center of India, the center of Bollywood filmmaking, a place that attracts international travellers and Indians with dreams of making it big: "Just as cinema is a mass dream of the audience, Mumbai is a mass dream of the peoples of South Asia."

And all this worldliness is anathema to the fundamentalist religious traditions in India, both Muslim and Hindu:

In today's Mumbai... Hindu and Muslim demagogues want the mobs to come out again in the streets, and slaughter one another in the name of God. They want India and Pakistan to go to war. They want Indian Muslims to be expelled. They want India to get out of Kashmir. They want mosques torn down. They want temples bombed.

And now it looks as if the latest terrorists were our neighbors, young men dressed not in Afghan tunics but in blue jeans and designer T-shirts. Being South Asian, they would have grown up watching the painted lady that is Mumbai in the movies: a city of flashy cars and flashier women. A pleasure-loving city, a sensual city. Everything that preachers of every religion thunder against. It is, as a monk of the pacifist Jain religion explained to me, “paap-ni-bhoomi”: the sinful land.

I'm No Terrorism Expert But...

Commentor "Frank" asked me what I thought about the Mumbai attacks because he, " heard you hold some expert knowledge in the field of terrorism.' Right off the bat, let me correct you. I have NO expert knowledge in terrorism. I took one course in the subject at Columbia over the summer. I can tell you what I think, but it's really only half a degree above a lay-person.

First, from the reports I've read, here and here, it's not yet clear who did this. What I think we do know so far is that the attackers were young men, that the targets were the Indian elite and U.S. and British foreigners, that the attacks were dramatic and involved direct action by terrorists rather than timed explosives as in previous attacks, that they were fairly sophisticated in their planning, that a little known group, Deccan Mujahadeen, has claimed responsibility, though this group may not exist. The Indian Prime Minister has implied that Pakistan is linked to the attack and this may be true. The issue of Kashmir is a big one for India and Pakistan -- apparently Pakistani intelligence runs an organization named Lashkar-e-Taiba associated with Kashmir and maybe they helped plan this attack, though this group has denied it.

This is what occurs to me: Making the target the commercial capital of India, elites and foreigners, and making it such a big and sophisticated attack, using a direct attack instead of bombs, these are all strategic choices aimed at escalating the degree of notoriety and getting international media attention. Modern terrorism is pretty much defined by the use of modern media, which multiplies the effects of limited actual violence to make a small event into a really big one. Why do these militants want the attention? Maybe it's a show of force and makes militants get taken more seriously; maybe it ups the profile of the issues involved like India's growing economic power, it's elite classes, India perhaps becoming "owned" by foreigners (I'm just guessing here); maybe it is really about internal politics -- just anger filled Muslims saying, "no one is safe, not even the elites; maybe it's an attempt to globalize a local grievance by Indian Islamic militants playing to a global Muslim audience. The fact that U.S. and British citizens were taken hostage is interesting since these are the two main countries involved in Iraq. Maybe this is a way for Indian Muslims to exploit the Iraq War, getting their local situation noticed by a global Muslim community angry over Iraq.

Also, commentor Frank seems confused by the fact that the attacks were not suicide attacks. Well, yes, many attacks throughout the world are suicide attacks, but many are not -- the Madrid and London train bombings weren't, for example. There could be many reasons why they're not: greater possible damage; a longer event -- and longer media coverage -- as hostages are taken and held for days; the particular character of a group which rejects suicide terrorism, perhaps. There are many possible reasons.

Transformational Change

In my previous post I mentioned some of the big, ambitious changes I thought Obama might make. Here is a little information on what I think these new policies might look like. It's late, so for now I'm just going to put up the quotes without commentary.

First, I said he would re-orient our national security towards global issues. In a New Yorker from October, Obama and McCain's foreign policies were contrasted. It discusses a group of foreign-policy Democrats who call themselves The Phoenix Initiative. Among them was Susan Rice, being considered for a top spot in the new administration. They wrote a report about a new vision for U.S. foreign policy:

“This report,” Rice writes in her preface, “breaks away from such traditional concepts as containment, engagement, and enlargement and rejects standard dichotomies of realist power politics versus liberal idealism.” It “offers bold and genuinely new thinking about America’s role.” The report lists five top “strategic priorities” for the United States. The first three are issues that governments, or even international organizations, can’t handle on their own: counterterrorism, nuclear proliferation, and, taken together, climate change and oil dependence. The other two are regional: the Middle East and East Asia. The report barely mentions great-power diplomacy, the traditional core concept of statecraft. It is not just post-Cold War but post-war on terror and, arguably, post-American hegemony. (It makes a point of describing the war in Iraq as a bad idea, rather than as a good idea poorly executed.) It speaks of “interconnectedness” and “diffuse power.” It isn’t dovish or sanguine, exactly—those top three strategic priorities are all threats—but it definitely does not envision American military power, or even power combined with diplomacy, as the only effective tool of foreign-policymaking.

Well before the Phoenix Initiative’s report came out, Obama was using similar themes in his speeches.

I also mentioned that Obama would put energy policy at the center of everything. I got this by reading an interview he gave to Joe Klein at Time Magazine. It's long and very interesting, but the key part (or "money quote" in blog terminology) is here:

The biggest problem with our energy policy has been to lurch from crisis to trance. And what we need is a sustained, serious effort. Now, I actually think the biggest opportunity right now is not just gas prices at the pump but the fact that the engine for economic growth for the last 20 years is not going to be there for the next 20, and that was consumer spending. I mean, basically, we turbo-charged this economy based on cheap credit. Whatever else we think is going to happen over the next certainly 5 years, one thing we know, the days of easy credit are going to be over because there is just too much de-leveraging taking place, too much debt both at the government level, corporate level and consumer level. And what that means is that just from a purely economic perspective, finding the new driver of our economy is going to be critical. There is no better potential driver that pervades all aspects of our economy than a new energy economy.

I was just reading an article in the New York Times by Michael Pollen about food and the fact that our entire agricultural system is built on cheap oil. As a consequence, our agriculture sector actually is contributing more greenhouse gases than our transportation sector. And in the mean time, it's creating monocultures that are vulnerable to national security threats, are now vulnerable to sky-high food prices or crashes in food prices, huge swings in commodity prices, and are partly responsible for the explosion in our healthcare costs because they're contributing to type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart disease, obesity, all the things that are driving our huge explosion in healthcare costs. That's just one sector of the economy. You think about the same thing is true on transportation. The same thing is true on how we construct our buildings. The same is true across the board.

For us to say we are just going to completely revamp how we use energy in a way that deals with climate change, deals with national security and drives our economy, that's going to be my number one priority when I get into office, assuming, obviously, that we have done enough to just stabilize the immediate economic situation.

What Does "Change" Mean?

So last night I was talking with a friend about the Obama transition. He was surprised when I told him that I liked the pragmatism and results-oriented nature of his appointments so far. We started talking about Obama's campaign slogan of "change" and I talked about how it was always over-blown and even called it "propaganda". But, I wasn't thinking at all when I said that and since then I've been thinking about what that slogan actually meant. So here goes.

I think the slogan is accurate. First, on a basic level, the simple act of electing a Democrat, any Democrat, after eight years of Bush constitutes "change": practically any Democrat would enact a least a few policies which would be significantly different from what Bush did. Obama definitely fits that bill even if he were to do a few simple things he promised, like getting us out of Iraq and a middle-class tax cut. So "change" can simply mean, "not Bush" and, to many people, perhaps independents and Republicans that voted for him, it did.

I would say that during the campaign sometimes "change" did come to mean more than what he acutally believed, and people thought that he basically wouldn't act like a politician. The simplistic quality of campaigning did make some people think it was going to be COMPLETELY different if he was president. That we would pull out of Iraq immediately no matter what, that would keep his promise to take public financing, that he would talk only of unity and "post-partisanship", that he would do the town-hall debates with McCain over the summer (I hoped for that). Obama should be faulted for that, but to expect otherwise was always unrealistic. Obama is still a politician, and one known for his caution and pragmatic nature.

As a pragmatist who is not an idealogue he seeks out people who are similar, and who care about getting things done. H wants people who have the ability and experience to navigate the very difficult Washington bureaucracy to enact policy. Yes, these are not fresh faces. But that's a plus. The Obama transition is very aware of not falling into the same pitfalls as the Clinton transition, where fresh faces were installed who ended up causing significant chaos and ineffectiveness at the beginning of the Clinton administration. From as far back as May of 2007, when I read this New Yorker article, I've always believed that Obama believes in evolutionary, not revolutionary, change. So, to me that means he is cautious in his campaign and doesn't take unnecessary risks, and for his administration picks very smart, capable pragmatists. This won't please everyone and doesn't always mean Change: he might move slower on Iraq than some people would like, or not try to enact some big policy goals right away; his possible appointment of John Brennan as head of the CIA is an example of a moderate choice that doesn't represent significant "change" -- John Brennan has been an apologist for torture, rendition and illegal domestic surveillance. It disturbs me very much.

But, while he's cautious, Obama is also a strategic thinker. He sees the big picture and I think is aware of the historical moment we're in. The financial and economic crisis, the success of the surge and new agreement with Iraq to pull out all troops by 2011 have come together to create an opportunity -- a big opportunity, I think. If these things hadn't happened his administration might be less ambitious. But as of now -- and I strenuously want to point out that not much has happened yet, besides appointing people and some policy proposals -- I think he is hoping to make BIG change happen. Rahm Emanuel has indicated that they plan to "throw long and deep" on policy and that "you never want a serious crisis go to waste":



Obama I think is planning to, indeed, "throw long" and...
- Not just pull out of Iraq, but change our foreign policy orientation away from individual states and towards global issues: climate-change, globalization, terrorism.
- Put energy policy at the center of U.S. policy as it relates to the economy, national security and climate change.
- Enact some form of universal health care. simply achieving this would be a dramatic change from what we've always known (and one step closer to.... socialism!!)
- Change the tax code to improve middle class incomes, which have stagnated this decade, and , I think, even since 1975.

While Obama is a pragmatist and is skeptical of revolutions, it doesn't mean that he thinks BIG change is impossible. It's just that he is cautious and careful about how he goes about it. Two examples from his own life are instructive here. First, the decision to run for president. His election is one of the most improbable political events in our history. For him to decide to run was a huge risk in many ways. But he read the winds of history right and he won. Second, his response to the Reverend Wright controversy. He decided to tackle the issue with a nuanced, landmark speech on race instead of something more conventional, something that said this is no big deal, or didn't really get into the issue of race. He gambled and it payed off. Obama is capable of being something other than cautious. He represents change, but also potentialy Change. He can take risks. He takes them when they are a good, strategic decision. I think that kind of moment may have arrived, and I think he is going to take it.

Holder Reassures

Though I am troubled by the more and more certain appointment of John Brennan as head of the CIA I am reassured by the fact that Eric Holder will probably become the Attorney General. Holder seems to have a great record speaking out against executive power, torture, renditions, warrantless eavesdropping and Guantanamo.

Cosmo Brown Changes My Mind

Commenter Cosmo Brown makes some sharp points about my last post and the Team of Rivals concept that's been floating around regarding Obama's cabinet. The concept is being thoughtlessly and uncritically talked about. As Brown notes, the point should be, how will dissent be dealt with between Obama and the cabinet members as well as among the cabinet. Lincoln has been hailed as a political genius for setting up his administration this way, but an op-ed in the Times today calls that seriously into question: what Lincoln did was neither new nor effective. It shows the big pitfalls of having rivals hanging around who have grievances and don't trust their relationships with the president or the rest of the cabinet. On this last point, Thomas Friedman has a great column on how, when it comes to a secretary of state, trust is essential. "When it comes to appointing a secretary of state, you do not want a team of rivals." He points out that the best, most powerful secretaries of the past few decades have been Baker and Kissinger. Any foreign leader who talked to them knew that by talking to them they were talking to the president. Thinking in this light, Clinton as secretary of state seems problematic: It's hard to imagine Obama and Clinton having a trusting relationship. They don't seem to be close, they had a sometimes bitter primary fight, Hillary might let her resentment get the best of her, and then, as always, there's Bill (that man is NEVER going away!)

In addition, she has revealed herself to be, with her health care plan in the early 90s and with her Presidential campaign, to be a terrible manager, breeding mistrust between her and Congress in her health plan and mistrust among her staff in her campaign. It doesn't bode well for her ability to manage an effective government bureaucracy and inspire loyalty among State Department staff.

So far it should be said that they seem to be behaving somewhat, at least in the fact that Bill has fairly readily given the Obama transition team all the information that it has asked for (and apparently would give more without much hesitation). Still, I'm a little worried. Clinton has abilities, and star power, which could be important -- I can imagine a world-famous person like herself would have greater status and pull with foreign leaders than a Madeleine Albright or Warren Christopher. (She is also very knowledgeable about the Middle East, at least according to Jeffrey Goldberg). Still, it remains to be seen whether she can really work under Obama and keep her ego in check. Will she undermine him? That may be a little extreme (she wants to succeed for herself as much as him), but will she really work as a loyal team player? Does she even see the issues in basically the same way as he does?

Lastly, Steve Clemons has a more positive view of this whole thing here. It makes some decent and some mediocre points, and I'm still skeptical.

Teams, Of Transitions And Rivals

From everything I've read so far, I just have to say that I have been very happy, even excited by Obama's transition process: He is focusing first on the White House staff, not the Cabinet (a mistake Bill Clinton made); he has appointed a total player, wonk and loyalist as Chief of Staff who seems to be about getting things done and knowing how to do it in a place like Washington; he has already begun to signal or outright state what his first priorities will be (the economy and energy); and, by the fact that he is considering having Gates and Clinton in his Cabinet he is assembling a "team of rivals" Linclon-style, which I love. This is a man who is not afraid of having a lot of strong and differing advice around him. Though it just occurred to me that Bush's cabinet looked this way at first -- remember that Rumsfeld the heavyweight was brought in to counter Powell the heavyweight -- it feels like Obama's choices, if they are Gates and Clinton, go much farther. First, Gates is a Republican, so this is a true oppositional voice. Also, he is a holdover from the Bush administration. Obama wants the whatever wisdom the Bush administration has accumulated inside his administration (unlike the Bushies who seemed to do everything the opposite of Clinton). Second, Clinton is a mega-star, known the world over. Her reputation and level of fame rivals his. To have someone who he ran against in a harsh campaign in his cabinet is a sign of real maturity. In this context the pick of Emanuel also looks good: such strong personalities need a strong hand to control them. In the first four Bush years Condi Rice got steamrolled as National Security Advisor (of course, it didn't help to have Cheney doing whatever he wanted). A strong chief of staff seems to signal a strong desire for centralized decision-making.

"America Doesn't Torture", Ctd.

Yesterday I wrote about how I was relieved to hear on 60 minutes that Obama plans to end torture as U.S. policy. It was clear and unequivocal and it is still heartening. But, I also noted that John Brennan, former head of the National Counter Terrorism Center is in possibly in line for Director of the C.I.A. and has supported torture in the past. This morning I thought it would be enough if Obama were to make himself clear. Maybe it will be, but Andrew Sullivan reminds me that this is such a key issue, and such an issue rife with potential for equivocation, that appointing a person associated with the Bush administration on this, even if the extent of the association and support is probably not the way to go. I say probably because I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Obama -- he seems to be assembling a "team of rivals" cabinate, a team that will allow for diverse opinions, so perhaps he wants someone to challange him even on controversial intelligence and torture.

But, still, I am a little queasy: torture is a bright line for me. It's not something to be debated. It can only be rejected completely and in crytal clear ways. Some of Brennan's interviews (like this one with CBS's Harry Smith, which can be found on Glenn Greenwald's site) don't give me hope:

Mr. BRENNAN: Well, the CIA has acknowledged that it has detained about 100 terrorists since 9/11, and about a third of them have been subjected to what the CIA refers to as enhanced interrogation tactics, and only a small proportion of those have in fact been subjected to the most serious types of enhanced procedures.

SMITH: Right. And you say some of this has born fruit.

Mr. BRENNAN: There have been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the agency has in fact used against the real hard-core terrorists. It has saved lives. And let's not forget, these are hardened terrorists who have been responsible for 9/11, who have shown no remorse at all for the deaths of 3,000 innocents.

These are exactly the same types of answers supporters of torture have been giving for years.

Also, there's this article from the AP on how Bush officials who authorized torture are unlikely to see prosecution from an Obama Justice Department. This is completely expected. As a very practical and political person, Obama would not want his administrations energies sucked up by something so controversial as that, especially since it would probably lead to a direct confrontation with some of the most powerful former Bushies. I'm not sure how I feel about this myself: I don't want Obama's administration absrobed by this one issue so much it can't accomplish anything, but I think getting to the bottom of this is part what it means to live under the rule of law, plus it would set a precendent making it harder for future administrations to abuse power. I guess I think it should happen, but I won't cry a lot if it doesn't.

A New New Deal?

Another very good answer from the 60 minutes interview with Obama. This one on his Economic policy:

Kroft: There's been talk on Capitol Hill and a number of Democratic congressmen have proposed programs that are part of sort of a new New Deal. The possibility of reviving agencies like the Home Ownership Loan Corporation.

Mr. Obama: Two points I'd make on this. Number one, although there are some parallels to the problems that we're seeing now and what we say back in the '30s, no period is exactly the same. For us to simply recreate what existed back in the '30s in the 21st century, I think would be missing the boat. We've gotta come up with solutions that are true to our times and true to this moment. And that's gonna be our job. I think the basic principle that government has a role to play in kick starting an economy that has ground to a halt is sound.

I think our basic principle that this is a free market system and that that has worked for us, that it creates innovation and risk taking, I think that's a principle that we've gotta hold to as well. But what I don't wanna do is get bottled up in a lot of ideology and is this conservative or liberal. My interest is finding something that works.

And whether it's coming from FDR or it's coming from Ronald Reagan, if the idea is right for the times then we're gonna apply it. And things that don't work we're gonna get rid of.

He's a pragmatic guy, non-ideological, and I love it.

"America Doesn't Torture"

Watching tonight's episode of 60 Minutes, Obama just said that closing Guantanamo and ending a policy of torture will be one of his top priorities once he's in office. I still hold back judgement until we see some actual results, but it's the most clear and definitive statement I've seen him make. I'm feeling hopeful that this awful, terrible policy might come to an end.

(Countering this is the rumor that the future head of the CIA may be John Brennan, former director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center, has been a supporter of rendition and "coercive interrogation. We shall see where Obama's beliefs really lie.)

Against The Auto Bailout

I think this might be the first thing that Obama does that I will disagree with. It remains to be seen what the deal that he wants looks like -- though, according to the Times, it doesn't look like Congress has the votes -- but even so, I'm very skeptical that saving the auto industry is the right thing to do. My gut reaction is to agree with David Brooks:

This is a different sort of endeavor than the $750 billion bailout of Wall Street. That money was used to save the financial system itself. It was used to save the capital markets on which the process of creative destruction depends.

Granting immortality to Detroit’s Big Three does not enhance creative destruction. It retards it. It crosses a line, a bright line. It is not about saving a system; there will still be cars made and sold in America. It is about saving politically powerful corporations.A Detroit bailout would set a precedent for every single politically connected corporation in America.

While I readily admit that I know next to nothing about the issue, it seems to me that the big U.S. car companies have been slowly dying for decades. This emergency bailout would merely postpone the inevitable. I mean, Honda, Toyota show how you can be a successful, innovative car company. Thomas Friedman wrote yesterday about how the vice-chairman of G.M. said that Prius-like hybrids aren't profitable. But things look differently when demand for oil is increasing and will keep increasing over the long term. I suppose the car companies would have said that high gas prices are a recent, unpredictable phenomena. But my guess is they'd be wrong. It's a no brainer to see that over the decades, as poorer countries industrialize they will demand more energy and oil prices will go up. The Big Three are guilty of short-term tactical business strategies based on things like SUVs and trucks (where the profit margins are higher, I believe) when they should have been preparing for the inevitable.

An argument for the bailout would be the ripple effect of letting a car company go bankrupt in the middle of a recession, and I guess that I'm simply ignorant of the effect of this on the already tough economies of Michigan, Ohio, etc. But it seems to me that the failure of these companies represents something that won't be solved by an emergency bailout. These companies need massive, foundational-level change in order to compete in the 21st century and, as I said, the bailout merely postpones the inevitable.

Google Can Help Keep You Healthy

This is amazing and fascinating. Google has created a site that tracks incidence of the flu across the country based on the number of Google searches. So if a lot of people in Indiana are looking up information on the flu, the site assumes that's a good indication that Indiana has a lot of flu cases. It turns out, at least from the explantory page, that that is a good assumption. That page shows a comparison of Center for Disease Control data and Google flu-related searches and there s a clear similarity. In addition, the Google graph is faster in showing the incidence of flu by about two weeks! Amazing! The aggregate power of the information is looking to transform, just completely transform the way we learn about and live in the world. Though, there are some things to maybe disturb me, like the wiki-ization of human health, along with everything else. Is it so smart for us to be so dependent on a total democratization of all knowledge? I don't think so. Still, I'll certainly be using this site.

Profuse Apologies

For the last two weeks or so I have been posting very infrequently and I just wanted to apologize to all the dedicated fans of My Evolution out there (you know who you are... Cosmo Brown). A combination of work and Obama fatigue really knocked the intellectual and creative wind out of me. But I feel it coming back now. In fact, I hope that tonight I'll be able to post some. So sorry that I haven't contributed much lately, but fear not, My Evolution is still evolving.

A Prop 8 Post

I haven't said anything about Proposition 8 yet, but I thought I'd post this video from Colbert. It's great as usual:

I'm on TV!... In the Netherlands!

This blogging thing hasn't been going so well, but I'm going to try to catch up. I promise. Last week sort of wiped me out and I'm just now recovering. Right now I'm just going to post something really quick. A few weeks ago I was interviewed by a Netherlands journalist doing a report on Obama-mania here in NYC. She had already interviewed African-Americans on Obama and now she needed a nice white boy. I have to admit it was a lot of fun spouting off and telling her what I thought. You can watch the video here. It's in dutch, but you can hear me talk in english. I appear twice, once about 2 minutes in and then about 4 or 5 minutes in. I'm finally a TV pundit. (The video is a little flakey. Just give it 30 seconds or a minute.)

Update: The link should be fixed.

Rahm the Rottweiler?

So Rahm Emmanuel is going to be the new chief of staff. His reputation is that he's a very capable son-of-a-bitch -- not a diplomat. My first instinct is that this is good. Obama needs people who are capable and not afraid of stepping on toes or pissing people off. If there is anything to learn from the Republican party it's that we can't be afraid to be assholes sometimes in order to get the things we want done. I did however, read a critical assesment from Yuval Levin at the Corner that points out that being chief of staff is a people-managing job, which isn't Emmanuel's strong suit. It does seem, I have to admit, to go against the idea that Obama doesn't like drama and would want a administration that reflects his campaign. And then again, there could be a good cop, bad cop thing going on here. So...Well, we'll see, won't we. (I should also point out that from the few times I've read the Corner, it's a far right-wing blog that shouldn't be taken too seriously)

Live Blogging The Election

Ok, I'm starting this late, which means a few things have already happened. Here we go.

11:58 -- Obama is about to speak and I'm running out of power. Good night, and good luck to the entire country!

11:26 -- A very gracious speech by John McCain. Evoking the historic achievement of having an African-American as president was first class.

11:10 -- CNN calls it: Obama will be the next president! (I called it first!)

10:28 -- At this point the networks need to keep the drama going, but there's really no more drama. One thing for me to ponder later (as if I have the time) is some exit polls.

10:08 -- I'm calling it. With Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Mexico, Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States! Also, Chris Shays loses in Connecticut. As my friend points out, he was the last Republican Congressman in New England.

10:02 -- Comedy Central's Indecision 2008 opening graphics are great.

9:30 -- It's really close in Virginia and... North Carolina.

9:23 -- Ohio! Is it possible for Obama to lose with this pickup?

9:15 -- McCain just won Georgia, so far 60 to 39, which is by a much wider margin -- if it holds up -- than I thought was expected.

8:54 -- Elizabeth Dole loses in North Carolina. I wonder if this signals a real Democratic sweep?

8:40 -- CNN calls Pennsylvania. With this and New Hampshire -- already called -- going to Obama, it looks pretty much impossible for McCain. And I'm excited.

8:00 -- FiveThirtyEight predicts Obama: 349, McCain:189, winning 52.3% of the popular vote.

Barack Obama For President

Working a regular job and writing my script has really cut down on my blogging time, but today I'm going to try to post a couple of times, starting with my official endorsement. In a future post I want to write down all my reasons, but for right now I'll just say that I have voted this morning for Barack Obama for president of these United States (seeing Palin on the ballot made me shiver). Incidentally, the lines were longer than I'd ever seen them, by a factor of at least 10. I've never had to wait more than 5-10 minutes, but today I waited about 30-35. It makes me wonder, where have all these people been in previous elections? (As I was coming in to work, the building guard and I started talking about the election and she said, "I think in this election it's important to vote").

Sullivan On An Obama Presidency

Andrew Sullivan writes a column in the UK Times online on the potential possibilities and pitfalls for Obama if he becomes president. I've wanted to write something about what Obama would be like as president, but Sullivan is much smarter than me, so until I come up with something interesting, here is his article:

There is also an enormous liability for Obama in the great hopes he has inspired. The reason for the wave of optimism behind him – just look at the massive crowds across the country this past year – is almost entirely due to the profound national demoralisation of the recent past. Iraq and Afghanistan, Katrina and the financial meltdown, torture and religious extremism: all these have led many Americans to the brink of despair about their own country. A historically unprecedented number of Americans believe their country is on the wrong track and view Obama as the vehicle to repair it.

Among the most enthusiastic Obama supporters, there are tinges of hero worship and aspirations beyond anything any human being can deliver. And the hostility born of dashed expectations is always the worst. People expecting a messiah will at some point be forced to realise they have merely elected a president.

No president will be able to wave the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan away with some kind of magic wand – there are few good options in either conflict, and many potential perils. No president will be able to end a recession with deep roots or alter market confidence in a single speech.

No president can change the Earth’s climate in four or eight years. And when Obama’s limitations emerge, as they will, there is a danger that the powerful expectations of his young base may turn to tears. This is always the risk with political “movements”. They conjure up utopias that can simply never happen.

Between the roiling and increasingly bitter rapids on the right and the left, can Obama maintain a steady course? We cannot know, of course. But the evidence of the past year is encouraging. What has been truly amazing is the preternatural calm and moderation Obama has shown throughout this volatile and emotional campaign. He has managed to get to the brink of the White House by beating some of the most formidable political machines in America – the Clintons and the Roves – without intensifying the conflict or polarising the country himself.

Stewart And Kristol: Mano A Mano

For all you Bill Kristol bashers out there (like me) here's a good interview on John Stewart. It's always a little amazing that Stewart does better interviews and hold peoples more accountable than mainstream news interviews.

Dept. Of Paradoxes

This is how complicated this country, and the issue of race, is (it's hard to see, but there is an Obama sign on the front lawn):

When You Get Questions Like This, All You Can Do Is Laugh

Obama's Narrative Is Coming Into Focus (For Now)

This is something I've wanted to write about for weeks now, only I haven't had the time (stupid work!)

I have criticized Obama in the past for never figuring out an instantly understandable narrative for his campaign. I think it has been his one big flaw from the beginning. A really good candidate is able to connect something about his policies and, even better, something about himself, to a simple, clear message. A candidate needs a story that tells you what he or she represents, how it fits into historical context and gives you a sense of what the future will feel like with this person in office: paint me a picture of what you will do so that all I have to do is look at it and, in an instant, I can say, "yes, I get it now". Obama has never been able to do this. His rhetoric and style has always been unifying and uplifting, but he has never been able to express a view of governance and policy the way Bill Clinton did in '92 when he said he was about, "the end of welfare as we know it." In a flash, that statement said what he wanted to do, tied into the mood of the country at the time, and defined Clinton as no ordinary Democrat. Obama, for all his policy detail, was never able to summarize his campaign in this way.

But, as a result of the financial crisis, I think that this has finally changed. Obama's temperament in reacting to the crisis has defined him in the public eye in the same basic, gut-level way that Clinton's statement did sixteen years ago. During the crisis Obama was steady, smart and reflective. He didn't panic. He wasn't impulsive. The narrative has become this: In tough economic times Obama is the responsible, calm manager of our future. He is the guy that you would give your money to in order to safeguard your retirement. He would take your life savings and invest it well by diversifying it and taking a long term view. He doesn't invest in risky things. He goes for the smart, safe, responsible strategy.

And this clear picture of Obama has been helped, in no small part, by McCain. McCain is the investment manager you want to stay away from. He would bet your life's savings on a hunch. He's the guy with the risky stock tip: "Hey, put all your money in the Iraq War! Invest everything you got in conflict with Iran! I promise blockbuster returns! It's a guaranteed lock!"

All this hasn't been made explicit by the campaign, but I think it's what's going on subconsciously throughout the country. He seems to have finally become solidified in the minds of a lot of people. He has, "closed the deal".

However, is this finally the clear picture of Barack Obama? Well, this is a separate question, and I think the answer is no. I think it's only true for the time being. Though I think this goes a long way to solve his identification problems, it actually is still not a complete fix. (Though maybe this is overstating it. At this point it looks like Obama is going to win, so in a way, he doesn't really need anything fixed) First, it needs to be pointed out that this is a narrative that he has fallen into because of the serendipity of events, both by the economic crisis and by being paired with an opponent who highlights his strengths. He didn't create his own message. The world did it for him.

But more importantly, seeing him as a measured, cautious, responsible person goes against his message of change. A responsible money manager is not a change agent; he just returns things to "normal", to the place the world was before the Bushes and McCains of the world wrecked things.

But the problem is: the world will never return to that place. The next four years will be incredibly tough for this country. Obama is going to have to be a change agent, and a tough one at that, if the changes are to do any good. When he has to propose his tax plan, or health care plan, or his vision for energy that he has brewing (more on this in a future post -- hopefully soon!) will the public say "This isn't the plan we signed up for, this is too radical!"? Will they feel that this wasn't the guy they elected? I think it's still an open question how the country will react to his presidency and whether or not we will ever feel that we fully know him, whether or not he will ever solve the problem of his narrative. It seems that for Barack Obama, there might not ever be one narrative, one identity, one clear picture that we have of him where we can say, "Yes! That's who he is." He might always be at a remove from us and never completely pinned down. He is fluid, multifaceted, multi-racial, multi-identity to the core.

Advice McCain Probably Won't Take.

Nate Silver, who runs my favorite polling site FiveThirtyEight, has come up with a couple of things McCain could do to maximize his chances. As Silver points out, there is no magic pixie dust here, he simply has to concentrate his efforts where he can get the most bang for his buck.

1. Give-Ups. McCain should concede Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa.

2. Offensive Targets. McCain should remain engaged in New Hampshire and New Mexico.

3. Defensive Targets. Some reasonably vigorous defense is required in Viginia, Colorado, Nevada, Ohio and North Carolina.

4. Gambles. McCain should limit his activity in Florida, Missouri and Indiana, and hope a national surge of some kind brings those states back into his column.

The reason I think McCain won't take it is because Marc Ambinder, a very good political reporter for the Atlantic Monthly, points out that the McCain campaign is set to make many appearances in Pennsylvania this week.

If you want to go a little more in depth and understand the recommendations a little more, the site has two maps on the right of the page, "Tipping Point States" and "Return on Investment" that show how much any state is likely to respond favorably to an increased attention.

Opie and Richie for Barry

No matter how hard he tries, Ron Howard is always an extremely dull, uninteresting filmmaker. That's a little sad to say, because he really is a very cool guy with a decent sense of humor. Speaking of which:

See more Ron Howard videos at Funny or Die

That's What I Said!

George Packer makes an observation about the change in McCain over the last year and asks questions about his psychological makeup that I also asked on my very first post on this blog. Packer writes:

Back then [in January] he was witty, he was relaxed, he was appealingly combative, he was generous. For sheer talent at engaging with voters he had it all over both Obama and Clinton. The contrast now is so severe that it makes running for President seem like a personal disaster on the scale of a prolonged nervous breakdown leading to physical and psychological ruin. This campaign has done something terrible to McCain.

Compare to what I wrote:

A man that had, or felt that he had, so much personal honor has had to endure wave after wave of soul-eating compromise over the course of the last two years... Politicians break their promises and change positions with the winds all the time, of course. But, this is John McCain with his enormous ego and enormous belief in his personal honor that we’re talking about. What has he had to do, psychologically, to enable him to betray his own personal sense of honor on so basic a level?

Ok, Packer is more eloquent (of course!) but I don't my observation is all that shabby. And the fact that I wrote this on September 7th while Packer wrote his post on October 16th gives me extra points!

Is There Anyone Left On This Ship?

Scott McClellan endorses Obama! Though, it shouldn't be so surprising after his tell all, score-settling book and the subsequent White House reaction. Boy, I am really enjoying this election more and more.

On The Road To The White House

My friend Jordan is currently traveling the country, every day or two making a short documentary for the Guardian. Check it out here. There are a bunch of videos (that I couldn't embed) so I'll point out two that I liked. First, one that is about the town of Hasty, Colorado and the hardship they're going through. There's an interview with an old Obama supporter that doesn't fit any of the stereotypes. And then one about the fence separating Mexico from the U.S. is filled with sadness as well as telling me something very interesting that I didn't know. That the fence is actually increasing our immigration problems in one way: Before the fence there were immigrants that stayed in the U.S. temporarily and then went back to Mexico. But now, since it's much harder to cross, many of those immigrants can't go back. In some ways, the fence actually increases our immigration population.

Will Ferrell Is Back!

Hope Vs. Fear

This audio slideshow of Obama's speech in Richmond made me tear up. Yes, Obama has been much less lofty for many months now, but this speech reminds me of why I was so inspired by him in the first place. I need to firmly remember that Obama is a politician, that he is perfectly capable of lying to us, that he has made promises he won't keep, that he will most likely make less-than-honorable compromises, but this speech reminds me that the inspirational side to a president, and more than that, what he symbolizes, is just as important as the specific policy positions he takes and decisions he makes. A vote for Obama can have less to do with him and be more about what he represents: an America of diversity, of the possibility of anyone rising to do what they want, of bridging divides and an end to seeing certain groups as the "other". The Republican party in the last few weeks has revealed itself to be, for the moment, the party of the "other": a party of division, resentment and fear-mongering. Once it's over, if Obama wins, we... should be on his case all the time, skeptical, calling him out on the bullshit that will surely come. But for right now, it doesn't seem hyperbolic to me to say that this election is a choice between hope and fear. Hope must win.

Auteurs For McCain!

What would McCain's commercials look like if they were made by John Woo, Kevin Smith and Wes Anderson? (The last one, by Anderson, is the only one that's really worth it, to my mind.)

The Palin Oval Office

Click around and see what could happen if Palin became the president.

Supporters McCain Should Be Proud Of

This is unexpected, and great -- something to make me think there is still civility and intelligence on the right. A group of Muslim and Christian McCain supporters take on a few anti-Islamic whack-jobs.

The Empty Vessel

Peggy Noonan, who I never thought I would like, can be very insightful, and she comes through in this column on Sarah Palin:

In the past two weeks she has spent her time throwing out tinny lines to crowds she doesn't, really, understand. This is not a leader, this is a follower, and she follows what she imagines is the base, which is in fact a vast and broken-hearted thing whose pain she cannot, actually, imagine. She could reinspire and reinspirit; she chooses merely to excite. She doesn't seem to understand the implications of her own thoughts.

I do, however, disagree on one point: that we don't know what Palin stands for. I think this is wrong. We know exactly what she stands for: herself. Palin strikes me as a person almost entirely of pure ambition, not grounded in anything that gives her serious cultural or ideological shading. Though she is a conservative, there are many examples that give me the hunch that she is willing to bend her values if it's necessary to achieve power, or that simply makes her look like a pragmatist and not ideological: She has, way before she became the veep nominee, said very positive about Obama and what he represents; she has questioned the Iraq War and whether or not we have an exit strategy; she has not used her position in Alaska to further a hard anti-abortion agenda. And, now that she needs to play to the red-meat base, she gives the base what it wants. She changes into the persona she needs to be for the role she is playing. Her own religious beliefs and conservative values, in political terms, strike me more as a means to an end than anything else. She is really an empty vessel, content to be filled with whatever substance is necessary to achieve power, power that is desired, ultimately, for it's own sake. That's what she stands for.

In This Economy, Racism Is A Luxury

From FiveThirtyEight:

So a canvasser goes to a woman's door in Washington, Pennsylvania. Knocks. Woman answers. Knocker asks who she's planning to vote for. She isn't sure, has to ask her husband who she's voting for. Husband is off in another room watching some game. Canvasser hears him yell back, "We're votin' for the n***er!"

Woman turns back to canvasser, and says brightly and matter of factly: "We're voting for the n***er."

In this economy, racism is officially a luxury.

I've been thinking this myself recently. When their basic livelihood is at stake, racism is less of a force in determining who people will vote for. It is possible to have negative views of African-Americans and still think that Obama will be better for the economy and your own pocketbook. If it does anything, I hope this election puts an end to the idea that racism is an absolutely permanent and monolithic fixture in our society, particularly in the traditional working class and "middle" America. Even if Obama loses, he has already done more than anyone thought possible just one -- ONE -- year ago. That a black man is leading in national polls, in all the blue states and even in some red ones is proof that social values change. Yes, he may lose and racism is not dead in this country. (Just read down on the story I took the above quote from to see something really repellent.) But it is simply not the force it was.

And, if Obama wins, I think it's possible, particularly with the tough economic times ahead -- the kind of event that causes cultural dislocation, but also pushes a society in new directions -- that we may one day look back and talk about these next few years as the beginning of a new social era in this country. This won't be an era where racism doesn't exist, just one where racism, so central to much of the cultural evolution of the country, no longer plays the dominant role that it has for centuries, and where race is finally decoupled from so many other cultural issues.

UPDATE: Though I think the reason racism in society (as expressed by Obama's popularity) is changing is partially because people are simply more open to a black man being president, I have to admit that another reason is money.

McCain = Rush Limbaugh

I forgot that I wanted to mention this, McCain's worst line:

We need to know the full extent of Senator Obama's relationship with ACORN, who is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.

His transition is now complete from straight-talkin', common-sense, bipartisan to extreme Limbaugh-like crank.

McCain Looking REALLY Presidential