-
sponsorship
There are two kinds of insults. The first type doesn’t let the insulter deny that he is, in fact, hurling an insult. When Lloyd Bentsen told Dan Quayle, “You're no Jack Kennedy,” that was a deliberate, nonrefundable dis. When Ann Coulter called John Edwards a “faggot,” there was no mistaking her words—the shock value was the point.
The second kind, however, gives the insult-thrower deniability. It lets you throw up your hands and say, “Who, me?” One example was the way Barack Obama would thank John McCain for his “half-century of service,” to remind people of McCain’s age while guising it as a compliment.
The whole “Barack Hussein Obama” meme falls into the latter category, too. First, talk radio host Bill Cunningham repeatedly called the senator by his full name—a move John McCain quickly criticized. Now, the Tennessee Republican Party is defending its decision to use the same formulation in party literature. According to the Knoxville News Sentinel:
[Tennessee GOP Chairman Robin] Smith said today that McCain's comments do not change the state party's stance and the state GOP will continue to use Obama's middle name. That's no different than saying "Hillary Rodham Clinton" or "Richard Milhouse Nixon," she said.
It wouldn’t be the first time full names have been used for effect. Critics of George Herbert Walker Bush delighted in using his full name to emphasize his WASPiness. Same with enemies of J. Danforth Quayle, whose upper-crust name conjures images of argyle sweaters and croquet matches. (The modern equivalent would have to be 50 Cent, whose rivals took pleasure in calling him by his real name, Curtis, which he later embraced as the title of his third album.)
But “Hussein” is different, for obvious reasons. In the Tennessee GOP case, as with Cunningham, they’re using it to provoke associations with Saddam Hussein or, less explicitly, that whole scary part of the world east of Israel. The What did I do? deniability claim makes it all the more insidious. But it raises a question: Will it become taboo among Democrats to call Obama by his full name? And if so, isn’t that a problem? Among presidents, it’s common practice to use all three names—JFK, LBJ, William Jefferson Clinton. If Obama wins the presidency, would that be suddenly off limits, as if to utter his full name is to demean the man and the office?
Not for long, I imagine. An equal and opposite backlash would probably emerge to keep the PC outrage in check. Can we just please use his name without being called racist? would be the rallying cry. Perhaps Obama would have to give a speech about his name, like Romney addressed his Mormonism. But that’s a long way off and in a hypothetical universe. Until then, Obama could become the first presidential nominee whose name is itself a slur.
-
sponsorship
The night before Super Tuesday Hillary Clinton bought airtime on the Hallmark Channel to have "a national town hall." Emboldened by her mediocre success across the country the next day, she's bought another hour of airtime on Monday night, hours before polls officially open in Texas, except this time she'll be on Fox Sports Net Southwest. On March 5, when we need to understand why Clinton lost the male vote, we'll know where to turn.
-
sponsorship
A comedian has apparently infiltrated Barack Obama's Fact Check page:
Former President Bill Clinton said today: There's a
one-minute ad on in Texas telling you how terrible things were in the 90s. [NBC,
2/27/08 LINK]
FACT: No such ad exists. [reality,
2/27/08] [Emphasis added]
-
sponsorship
It’s fitting that a crazy, mucked-up Democratic primary season like this one comes down to the craziest, muckiest contest of all: Texas. The Lone Star State has never played a large role in a presidential primary—even Bill Clinton himself has said it’s all riding on March 4—so now campaign strategists and pundits alike are scrambling to master the state’s oddball system. (Hillary says the complex rules have “grown men crying” in the campaign.) In case you don’t spend your days and nights immersed in precinct-by-precinct analyses and delegate allocation procedures (PDF), here’s a quick primer on how it will all go down:
The Primary: Texas has 228 delegates in total, but only 126 of them are allocated like a regular primary. These pledged delegates are distributed among the state’s 31 senatorial districts—not, mind you, by congressional district. (This system has been in place for at least 20 years, so don’t think it’s the result of recent gerrymandering.) Each district gets between three and eight delegates, which it allocates proportionally based on the tally within that district.
But here’s the catch: Districts don’t receive delegates based on population or even registered Democrats. Delegates are allocated based on how many Democrats voted in the 2004 presidential election and the 2006 gubernatorial election. (A state party spokesman says the system is designed to “reward” participation.) For example, the state’s 14th District, which includes Austin, receives eight delegates—the most of any district—because of its high turnout in previous races. At the same time, the 27th and 28th Districts, located on the southern border and West Texas, respectively, get only three delegates each because of low past turnout.
So, who does this system benefit? Conventional wisdom says Obama. In previous elections, urban areas with high numbers of African-Americans and college students—Obama’s base—have turned out in droves. By contrast, rural areas with large white and Latino populations—groups that have favored Clinton—have participated less. (Hispanics leaned Republican in 2004, given Bush’s stance on immigration reform.) As a result, Obama’s ballot-happy constituencies start with a built-in advantage—their votes simply weigh more. As party leaders will remind you, however, that means nothing unless he can get them to turn out again. Plus, there’s always:
The Caucus: Starting at 7:15 p.m., right after polls close, Texas voters can show up to a district convention, also known as a caucus. This works a lot like other caucuses: Voters have to show up, stand in the same room, and be counted. (Unlike Iowa, however, there is no 15 percent threshold.) The main difference is that caucus-goers need to have voted in the primary earlier that day. So in a sense, caucus-goers get to vote twice. (And since fewer people turn out for caucuses than for primaries, a caucus vote has significantly more clout than a primary vote.) The state then allocates 67 delegates—one-third of total pledged delegates—based on who wins each district’s caucus.
Again, Obama seems to benefit from the system. He has so far won every caucus state except Nevada (and maybe New Mexico). Theories abound as to why he fares so well in caucuses—possible factors include having a better field organization plus supporters with more free time and energy. If voters want to participate in the Texas caucuses, they’ll have to show up for two separate events, which won’t be easy for working parents. (As a result, many voters will probably show up late in the day—something to keep in mind when analyzing early results.) Both campaigns have strong ground organizations in Texas, but when logistics have been an issue in the past, Obama has typically fared better.
Superdelegates: Texas also has 35 superdelegates, composed of party leaders and elected officials. Among these, Clinton still leads Obama, 13-7, according to Politico’s superdelegate counter. But 14 are still undecided, and Obama has been picking them up at a faster rate recently.
Early voting: Texas voters began casting early ballots on Feb. 19, and the numbers broke records from the start. More than 360,000 people have already voted, with some counties reporting 10 times the participation they had at this time four years ago. Early voting is expected to be a major part of the results—nearly 40 percent of voters in 2006 voted early. So far, turnout seems to be just as high in Clinton-friendly counties (Hidalgo, Galveston) as in those that should favor Obama (Travis, Williamson).
Further reading: The Washington Post and Wall Street Journal on what Texas’ arcane system means for Clinton, the New York Times on how both campaigns are managing it, Slate’s "Election Scorecard" on the latest Texas polls, and Burnt Orange Report with an insanely fine-grained district-by-district analysis.
Trailhead thanks professor Bruce Buchanan of the University of Texas.
-
sponsorship
Take a deep breath—all of the Democratic debates are over; 20 up, 20 down, and assuming there aren't any more debates going forward, that's the last time we'll see Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the same room for a while. Strangely, that’s both a relief and a disappointment. Outside of actual primaries, no other event offered more potential for narrative-changing storylines. But debates also invited us media folk to inject too much punditry into the news cycle about moments the general public doesn’t actually care about.
Important distinctions were voiced at Tuesday’s debate, but not all of them were immediately familiar. With all of the arguing over NAFTA, leaked photographs, and media bias, who has the time to follow the endorsements from the Nation of Islam? Here’s a summary and some recommended reading on a few topics that are likely to carry the post-debate news agenda:
Louis Farrakhan: Earlier this week, the leader of the Nation of Islam all but endorsed Obama. But it’s an endorsement no candidate wanted—Farrakhan has insulted Judaism and crafted CIA conspiracy theories in the past. The endorsement is especially messy for Obama, who has long struggled to convince the Jewish community that he’s a supporter of Israel. That’s not to mention the complications it could bring by furthering rumors that Obama is a Muslim. Obama has long said he does not approve of Farrkhan’s comments and reiterated that he did not solicit his endorsement at the debate. Also of note: Obama’s church leader, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, once said Farrakhan “epitomized greatness.” This gets worse for Obama with every extra second of airtime. He can’t denounce—or reject—Farrakhan enough. Recommended reading: Belief Net, PBS, Southern Poverty Law Center.
Dimitry Medvedev: The 42-year-old Russian deputy prime minister will almost surely become the country’s president this weekend, but it may not mean much. Vladimir Putin is stepping down from the presidency but assuming the role of prime minister, and will probably have the same amount of power as he did when he was president. There are some hints that Medvedev could be friendlier to democracy than Putin, but it’s still unclear how their power-sharing dynamic will operate. Clinton was asked to name Russia’s soon-to-be premier at the debate, and managed a garbled version of Medvedev that sounded like she had taken one too many shots of former-Soviet vodka with John McCain. But we doubt Obama could have done much better—he looked to her as the question was asked, suggesting he wanted her to take the lead. As attention oscillates between Russia and China in foreign policy circles, both candidates’ lack of knowledge was unimpressive, to say the least. Fun fact: Medvedev loves Black Sabbath. Maybe he’ll invite Ozzy to the Kremlin. Recommended reading: Economist, Financial Times, International Herald Tribune, Slate.
Money, money, money: Both candidates got snagged by fiscal transparency during the debate. First, Tim Russert checked in on Obama's original pledge that he'd take public funds if his opponent did. John McCain has suggested he might take public financing, which has forced Obama to show his hand—and it's a different one than it used to be. Obama wouldn't say whether he was willing to commit to public funds at the debate, saying he'd sit down with McCain and hash out something fair to both of them. Russert also returned to another favorite subject—Clinton family transparency. After Hillary Clinton admitted she loaned herself $5 million, there were calls for her to make her and Bill's tax returns public, so voters could see where the money came from. Hillary said she'll do it—just not any time soon. Both candidates wriggled out of Russert's questions, but not before both issues' profiles were raised another notch. Recommended reading: New York Times, Trailhead, Telegraph.