President Obama elected

I was able to watch part of the inauguration today. One thing I thought was good about the speech was that it attempted to inspire people to start setting goals and trying to unite together. And manage expectations, that's the big thing I got out of it. Excellent speech. There are plenty of sites with the text of Obama's inauguration speech (or here) so I need not repeat any of it here.

I also sort of laughed when he and the chief justice flubbed up the oath. Hey, if anything it shows they make mistakes like anyone else. I think they were both just anxious and nervous, and as one article said, it was "close enough for government work." Embarrassing yes, but what can you do. I thought they played it off well. At least all of these silly suits about his citizenship were immediately mooted as a result, if they are even still around.

Looking over the crowd, I am still amazed how many people the president has inspired and this probably was the most watched event ever. It's a good thing, and probably has larger, long-term effects than any of us realize right now.

Tags: Obama inauguration speech, obama oath of office

Read more!

National polling data sites analyzed

Because I am a news junkee in some respects, but one who tries to find the middle ground in reporting through a series of balancing acts, I am always on the lookout for what could be correct or indicative polling data. For the past few weeks, I have focused much of my attention on the Real Clear Politics poll and Rasmussen's data. Apparently, my reliance on Real Clear Politics is a little misplaced.

Granted, this site has its own biases also, but I thought the post was worth reading. See FiveThirtyEight: Real Credibility Problems (discussing the inclusion and exclusion of certain polling data from the RCP poll) and his follow-up post, RCP Follow-Up. He also pointed me to this Pollster.com polling site, which seems to say what every other poll is saying: the Republican ship is sinking, and this election is not going to turn on one state.

Whether or not any of these polls have any prescient accuracy remains to be seen, but the point, as always, is to look at these things with a grain of salt and a skeptic eye. My prediction remains rather general: Voter turnout will be through the roof, and none of these polls are going to get it exactly right.

This election is going to be over with in a couple of weeks. Whether poll A or B or C puts Obama ahead or behind, or McCain ahead or behind in other states is irrelevant. All of this voter fraud nonsense is the same swan song that is played during every election. See also An Analysis of Voter Fraud in the United States. The system is not perfect. But it's the system we've got and that's the way it is.

The bottom line is that all of these polls have significant margins of error and none purport to give what is required to be scientifically statistically accurate. This has more to do with cost efficiencies more than anything else, and in the end it's just a conversation piece that adds fuel to the fire of 24/7 media, a recurring problem I have discussed many times over the past few months.

I will be curious to see whether my own prediction is going to come true - so far it seems on track, although I certainly miscalculated the breadth and success of Obama's 50-state strategy. We'll see how exactly it plays out in two weeks, and obviously it is going to impact future elections regardless of who wins.

No real point to this entry, just thought the article regarding the RCP polling information was interesting. Why can't all of these polling sites simply disclose their information? I'm more interested in how much money these sort of businesses actually make, but I can't seem to find that anywhere.

Tags: election polls, accuracy of election polling data, rcp poll, real clear politics poll only semi-accurate

Read more!

Why is it so unamerican to have negotiated a good contract for yourself?

What I would really like to write about is Gen. Powell's endorsement of Sen. Obama and why his comments lay out, quite intelligently, at least three specific reasons why his support, despite being a Republican, is behind the distinguished gentleman from Illinois. I would suggest that if you did not see the interview, the transcript speaks for itself.

I do want to mention, briefly, that despite my best intentions, I am still watching, even as I speak, some of cable news. The problem with these talk shows, which purport themselves as news shows, is that they are not: they are opinion commentary shows; there is a significant difference. Whether the general watcher realizes this or not is irrelevant. So long as everyone watching understands that each guest is carefully selected to endorse or rebut the point the show is trying to make, the perception should not be influenced beyond what it would be from one's own decision-making process. What disturbs me is that I doubt this sort of thought-process takes place. I have no solution to this problem at this time. Regardless...

But what prompts this quick reaction and the title of this entry stems from seeing the recent (and continuous) negative news reaction about CEO compensation. From a legal perspective, what rights does a non-stockholder have over what a private entity and its stockholders decides to pay its CEO? Not very much. See, e.g., Bailout's Bid to Limit Executive Pay will be Tough to Realize. Regardless of how far their golden parachute opens, these CEO's are going to come out on top one way or another. See, e.g., BoA Gives Top Job to Merrill Lynch CEO in the Merged Entity.

My limited point is why does it matter that these CEOs are making a lot of money? For the headache they have to go through in running a company, I'm sure a lot of that money is incentive to serve in the first place. Nobody seems to be complaining about how much money these news outlet CEOs and other industry CEOs are making in comparison.

People seem to be mad whenever they hear about how someone else is doing really well. It's rather absurd, actually. Didn't the Yankees pay A-rod about a quarter of a billion dollars to come in and turn the team around? I haven't seen them win a world series since he's been on the team. Should we renegotiate his contract and take away what has already been promised to him? Absolutely not. Should it impact how future contracts are negotiated? Perhaps. But notwithstanding this example, can't people be happy for someone when they are successful? Of course, all of this is facetious.

This is sort of getting circular and I haven't given it any significant amount of thought, but it just infuriates me when I see someone (particularly on cable news) bitch and complain about some ex-or current bank CEO or whoever who has been paid their contract. There are certainly ways, legally, to curb excessive pay, and if the stockholders want to do something about it, they certainly can. Why make this a news issue? It's not news. It's business.

And what exactly is a pro-America area of this country? And where are the anti-American areas? I can't wait until this election is over so the media will finally have something better to report about.

Tags: excessive ceo pay

Read more!

Is Joe the Plumber going to become the catalyst symbol of the average joe? I don't think so

Just a quick thought on this Joe the Plumber story and I will be more consistent in tying legal thoughts to some of these rather juicy legal news bits as of late.

When I heard the Joe the Plumber story break, I thought Obama's choice of phrasing was a little off. People love throwing around "socialism" and "communism" and "robin hood" without really understanding the concepts, so I am giving him a pass on this one.

The concept of fairness and this so-called wealth distribution, in some respects, is quite misleading with those terms. It isn't so much the question of why the richest should pay more taxes, it's a question of why should the richest only pay the social security tax only up to a certain point. Isn't it everyone's burden? I appreciate the idea of social security being more of a flat tax than some sort of regressive tax, and I also appreciate, from a financially greedy perspective, having it cut-off at some point. But if Obama wants to move up the cut-off point for the social security tax to double what it is now as an effort to balance the social security budget, so be it. Now, moving that number up will obviously affect all businesses, so maybe there needs to be some further tweaking, but that can be given in the form of other tax breaks and incentives. I don't know enough about it to speak more about it than this at this point. Now with regular income taxes, that's another story for another time. Flat tax = semi bad.

But not with social security did this phraseology capture the media's attention, but only in the limited respect with a presumed small business owner's concern with why should his taxes be raised because his business is doing better than someone else's. Certainly it's a fair question, and the answer, I agree, was worded quite poorly. Had Obama said, it's to help pay in part programs like this $700 billion+ bailout plan, that may have been more realistic. He just needs a stock response that doesn't sound too distant or political. Regardless...

The fact that it came up in the debate, multiple times, in the way that it came up, was surprising. I can understand McCain attempting to turn "Joe the Plumber" into some sort of icon to turn the larger conversation to tax policy and perspective. The problem with doing this is that you have to make sure your icon actually stands for what you are purporting him to be. I remember thinking as the debate was going on that it would be funny if Joe the Plumber wasn't even a plumber. And, as it turns out, I was semi-right. At least the 24/7 media had something new to report about.

According to the USA Today article, and about every other valid article written on the subject, Joe the Plumber turns out to not be the sad story he purports to be. In many respects, it is totally irrelevant that he isn't really a plumber, but aspires to be one, has not completed his Ohio apprenticeship to be licensed, and has a lien on his house for failing to pay state income taxes. It's no wonder Joe the Plumber doesn't want the government to get involved with the average Joe (or him), he owes them money!

So maybe Joe isn't the best representative of the average Joe or small business owner. Maybe, in some respects, his thoughts are indicative of a greater concern with paying higher taxes. But it's conjecture and speculation. Further, it doesn't even effect him since his taxes will remain the same under either candidate. I appreciate the concern, but the fact he was trying to speak on behalf of a constituency he was not part of merely demonstrates that the media (and this time, the RNC) picked the wrong horse to hang their hat on. Had they done a minimum amount of research before giving their candidate a green light to use him to attempt to martyr the other side's tax plan, the debaters certainly would not have spent as much time as they did glorifying this guy, who turns out to be a tax evader.

So, was Joe the plumber the real winner? If by the fact you mean that the government of the State of Ohio will get their money, then yes. He's certainly getting his 15 minutes of fame, whether he likes it or not. But he shouldn't blame anyone on this unwanted spotlight other than the media (in part) and McCain, for bringing it up in the debate the way he did.

Tags: joe the plumber not a plumber, joe the plumber

Read more!

Some thoughts on big government

For a quick jump at humor, I note that I still am getting humorous comments to my thoughts on this Obama citizenship lawsuit. Today's thoughts, however, turn back to the economy for a moment.

Last week the Congress passed, and the President signed into law a massive "bailout" (or "rescue", depending on how you spin it) plan to save the planet, or economy, if you will. At this point, the problem has become self-perpetuating, and the governments of the world, all of them really, are being forced to react. Whether this is good or bad is beside the question; it's going to happen and the free market is going to have to respond. So far, it doesn't seem to like it very much, or, at the very least, the housing bubble burst a little bigger than anyone thought it was going to. But hey, I'm not an economist, so what do I know.

What I do know is that McCain's suggestion that the government should now buy up people's bad mortgages and allow people to keep their homes is fiscally irresponsible, for several reasons, of which I will explain only one. The question at the town hall meeting was: With the economy on the downturn and retired and older citizens and workers losing their incomes, what's the fastest, most positive solution to bail these people out of the economic ruin?

First, Obama's answer was not very good. So what? It was good enough to show that he has at least given some thought on the issue, and more importantly, McCain's answer was far worse. And if that's McCain's stance on this issue, he deserves to lose. I'll be curious as to whether the exit polls next month have people voting for Obama, not so much for him, but simply against McCain.

The bottom line is that the economy has no realistic chance of recovering over the next 30 days, which essentially means that Obama will win this election. Personally, I think this may be a good thing for the country overall, but I will have to wait to see how good or bad the economy is four years from now before making a final decision on the merits. I rarely use this type of language, but McCain's answer is SCARY. Meaning, it is scary for everybody who makes or wants to make money (that is, everyone). At this point, my time to sit on the fence of this issue is over. Obama will get my vote. (Not that mine will make a difference in the electoral scheme of things).

Here is McCain's scary response, in full:

"Americans are angry, they're upset, and they're a little fearful. It's our job to fix the problem.

Now, I have a plan to fix this problem and it has got to do with energy independence. We've got to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't want us very -- like us very much. We have to keep Americans' taxes low. All Americans' taxes low. Let's not raise taxes on anybody today.

We obviously have to stop this spending spree that's going on in Washington. Do you know that we've laid a $10 trillion debt on these young Americans who are here with us tonight, $500 billion of it we owe to China?

We've got to have a package of reforms and it has got to lead to reform prosperity and peace in the world. And I think that this problem has become so severe, as you know, that we're going to have to do something about home values.

You know that home values of retirees continues to decline and people are no longer able to afford their mortgage payments. As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those -- be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.

Is it expensive? Yes. But we all know, my friends, until we stabilize home values in America, we're never going to start turning around and creating jobs and fixing our economy. And we've got to give some trust and confidence back to America.

I know how the do that, my friends. And it's my proposal, it's not Sen. Obama's proposal, it's not President Bush's proposal. But I know how to get America working again, restore our economy and take care of working Americans. Thank you."

What scares me about this response is the level of government involvement it implies. Government can renegotiate private contracts? What is this, communist China? And where was this idea last week when the Senate was forcing their rescue bill into the House's tied hands? What is scary is that McCain seems to have abandoned all principle and reason to score a political point. This is not good judgment. And I have convinced myself, after living through Clinton's sexual revolution debacles and this Iraq war that still seems to be me based on the premise that the end justifies the means, that we need a leader with good judgment.

What scares me more is the fiscal price tag to such a proposal. Now, this wouldn't be scary too much, except for McCain's other comments that he doesn't want to raise taxes. On that issue, in addition to the italicized portion above, McCain added this insight into his economic prowess:

"So let's not raise anybody's taxes, my friends, and make it be very clear to you I am not in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy. I am in favor of leaving the tax rates alone and reducing the tax burden on middle-income Americans by doubling your tax exemption for every child from $3,500 to $7,000.

To giving every American a $5,000 refundable tax credit and go out and get the health insurance you want rather than mandates and fines for small businesses, as Sen. Obama's plan calls for. And let's create jobs and let's get our economy going again. And let's not raise anybody's taxes."

These positions are irreconcilable. He says to freeze government spending, save defense, Veterans' Affairs, and "some other vital programs", which is Washington wishy washy nonsense for "everything else." At least Obama tells you that taxes are going up for some people, and in reality, for everyone. The government, and the country, cannot function without everyone sacrificing a little bit. Because of the nature of this particular crisis, that sacrifice will have to come from the wallet.

Now, I agree that there are probably a lot of wasteful programs that could be cut and eliminated completely and that may save the deficit a bit. Similarly, if the IRS went after everyone who didn't pay their legal share of taxes, we probably wouldn't be in debt at all. The problem with both candidates is that they are in favor of big government and government rescuing the ordinary people. The last I checked, most everyone is capable of handling these problems with only minimal assistance, be it from their parents or whoever.

The next four years is going to be bad for us all economically. I would hate to throw another terrorist attack or war into the mix and see how that would drag us down further. The leadership our country needs, however, isn't with a bunch of pipe dreams and mud slinging over who voted for what when and why. It's all about the economy and how we can start fixing it. McCain's plan is economically unworkable, even from a liberal Democratic standard. In fact, it's so liberal, I'm surprised the core of his party aren't rolling over in their graves.

When both candidates propose massive government spending and support the type of government interference that is, admittedly, probably necessary at this point, I am unable to distinguish which one is the Republican candidate and which is the Democrat. The fact that the Republican is advocating for the same principles that his party is rooted against only continues to reiterate my belief that we are not a two party system. And if both candidates are really just spinning the same side of one coin to try and get it to land closer to them, I think this really comes down to whose economic plan and persona will better lead our country out of these financial doldrums and back into some sort of good graces. Unfortunately for us Republicans out there, or at least those who somewhat identify more with the principles of that party, this isn't going to be our year.

But, I am more than willing to read or discuss the reasons why or why I am not right or wrong. Next time, if I remember (or when I get back from this next upcoming trip across the country), I will write a commentary regarding why students who are borrowing money better hit the books if they want to get a good loan rate. I know that if I were a lender right now, I would be renegotiating my future interest rates to be dependent on the average graduate income from that school. Business-wise, it makes great sense. Of course, if you're a slacker, you better change those habits quick.

Tags: mccain's economic plan, taxes are going to be raised under mccain's plan, taxes are going to be raised under obama's plan, this election is over

Read more!

Maybe it's time for another New Deal

I do have some thoughts on this Palin email hacking debacle, as well as a growing concern that legislative subpoenas (e.g., Rove, Palin's husband) have absolutely zero power, which seems troubling. In the meantime, however, I will simply comment on the recent financial whiplash experienced by our economy. I wrote this after the second 400-point crash on Wednesday, so it's a little dated at this point given that the SEC has finally stepped up and started to regulate short selling, which I remain convinced is part of this mess. I'm just glad I have a job and hopefully I still will have one in six months.

Two points merit brief discussion. The first is this Wall Street mess. The second is the government's intervention to fix it. Like Ben Stein, I agree that taxes are going to have to be raised (likely against those who make the most money) now is not the time to cut corporate taxes. See Ben Stein, How to Ruin the United States of America. Cf. McCain on Financial Markets (stating at a Sept. 19 press conference that "Business taxes will be cut from the second highest in the world at 35 percent to 25 percent"). I disagree that the economy will be stimulated by tax cuts for 95% of Americans because while 95% may see some sort of tax relief, much less than that will actually notice any difference, assuming it passes. See Fact Check: Obama Wants to Raise Taxes; Obama and Taxes. Cf. ObamaTaxCut.com (unexplained and quick and dirty method of estimating taxable income; not sure I would put any stock in this one, but it's something).

Thus, with a lot of talk and no real substance, we are left with a nearly trillion dollar deficit and nobody wanting to contribute toward it. Wake up. Taxes are going up regardless of who the president is. The only question is how far down the small business chain those tax increases will travel (which I would guess, not very far). Once we cut out the puffery, the question is whether there is any candidate who is simply going to tell the country that things are bad, people are going to have to suck it up for a little while, and together with our economic allies, the federal government (and state governments) are going to turn this economy around, and then explain how they are going to do it. Unlikely, but one can hope.

Really, I would like to see one of the candidates step up and simply say that they are going to hold Wall Street accountable for any criminal actions that may have led to this historic collapse and people are going to go to jail. That's what I want to hear. Whether it happens or not is besides the point. I just want some reassurance that the economy is not going to fold up into a new great depression. The last thing we need is hyperinflation. In the end, it's really President Bush's job to announce via a national address, but that's probably not going to happen. Hopefully one of the candidates will do so instead.

Second, this concept of government bailout of private business is appalling. Granted, perhaps government intervention is the only way that this problem could have been alleviated, and that is a good thing. See Jim Cramer, The AIG Save Puts Us on Better Footing. With our national debt through the roof, how many other business (e.g., auto industry, airline industry) going to turn to the government to bail them out of their failed business strategy? To this, I would like the candidates to address how the federal government plans on restructioning these newly acquired assets in order for them to be successful.

Granted, the government seems to on the verge of resurrecting a parallel to the taxpayer-funded bailout of the savings and loan crisis, and this may help. See Paulson, Bernanke Seek Support for an Agency to Buy Bad Debt. So will help from foreign investors. While the markets may have rebounded, there remains questions of whether this is just temporary or have we actually hit the bottom? Time will tell. If only one of the candidates to step up and say it's time for a New Deal.

Tags: candidate tax plans, financial turmoil

Read more!

Too fit to be president? Has our country become this lazy or has the media through its 24-7 coverage?

This headline makes the article almost worth reading for its ridiculousness. See WSJ's Too Fit to Be President? Facing an overweight electorate, Barack Obama might find low body fat a drawback. Now there have been some poorly marketed commercials coming out of both sides lately, and the only effect it is having is on the mental acuity of the nation. But this article puts the icing on the cake.

Regarding the McCain ad comparing Obama to a celebrity like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. I agree with the majority of pundits that this is a very unfocused commercial and sends out mixed messages. I'll not consult my marketing and advertising notes for the exact reason, but I'll simply make a conclusory statement that it's ineffective.

If anything, it's playing into the undercurrent of this campaign that McCain is cranky since it reminds me of something nonsensical that my grandfather would say when he didn't like something but couldn't quite articulate why. There's nothing wrong with opinion; I just see this one being irrelevant. On the other hand, we have become a gossip hungry society complete with voyeuristic tendencies, so maybe it's more effective than I think. On the other hand, if these celebrities haven't been hurt too monetarily by their shenanigans, I doubt this ad will fare any differently when it's all said and done.

Regarding this WSJ article, is it attempting to argue something along this logical premise? Americans are fat and overweight and have positive associations with being fat and overweight. Obama is not fat and overweight. McCain is fat and overweight. Therefore Amerians prefer McCain over Obama. If this is the case, it makes no sense. Yes, maybe all of us overeat and should be in better shape. Who better to look toward than the president to set an example for the rest of the country. I remember when the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal broke and thought how many children are going to hear this story and how it was going to affect their moral compass over the years to come. I'm beginning to think, even in my own case, it had a deeper psychological impact than I initially thought. But after eight years of having a president who ran on the concept "hey, he's someone I could have a beer with" (not that that was bad), maybe it's time to have a president who is not so buddy buddy and is going to take the business of bringing America back up to speed in this world market a little more seriously.

The true mark of leadership is that people are willing to follow because they want to and are inspired to, not because they are told to. Will either candidate's promises bear fruit? Probably not. But which candidate will inspire the next generation to chase after the American Dream? Right now I think there's only one. And his campaign is a little more focused and slightly less negative.

But maybe I'm overlooking something. I'll think about it as I am working out.

Tags: president is a figurehead and a leader of this country, who will fit that role best

Read more!

Any former basketball player realizes the point when the game is over, so why can't Clinton do the same?

As promised, I have not bothered to spend much time thinking about this election since my numbers suggested that the delegate game and debate over who has a better shot of beating McCain has long been over. (I also note that at least one website has come up with similar projection numbers without any credit to anyone... and I remember seeing something similar on NBC a few weeks ago, which i can't find right now, but didn't give it much thought. I found another blog that seems to have the same prediction though). On that point, I figure it's only a matter of time before someone at CNN or Fox News analyzes why my projection estimates are any better or worse than theirs.

Anyway, the numbers, regardless of how Indiana ends tonight, simply don't favor Sen. Clinton. Although Clinton may have implicitly adopted Yogi Berra's "it ain't over till it's over" mentality, the shot clock has wound down and the likelihood of coming back from such a deficit is beyond arrogance. I liken her chances at this point to be about as good as a 15 seed upsetting a 2 seeds (and if Obama wins Indiana, a 16 seed over a 1 seed).

A basketball coach would tell his team to stop fouling at this point; someone should clue in Sen. Clinton that the time has come to start campaigning for her opponent. Who will it be and who does she want it to be may be two different things.

In a somewhat related piece of political humor, I thought the Limbaugh anecdote about President Clinton hitting on his date was sort of funny. See Limbaugh - Bill Clinton Hit on My Date (recounting when "[Clinton] came over three or four times. He had [entrepreneur and Democratic fundraiser] Ron Burkle with him and the mayor of Los Angeles . . . He [the mayor] was going on and on about how he loved me and had to talk to me and after about a minute of talking to the mayor of Los Angeles I glanced to my left and Bill Clinton’s face is three inches away from my date").

Tags: electoral map projections 2008, will the traditionally apathetic youth actually come out in november

Read more!

A review of news reveals who the news currently favors: Obama v. McCain

A week ago, I said I would keep track of news headlines from the major news organizations and see if there is any sort of pattern which could prove my hypothesis whether the media is in fact biased, and if so, for whom? My answer, at least as it is based on my notes of the headlines (pasted below), is that most of the major news organizations are prone to write with pro-Democrat headlines and, in part because the momentum is on Obama's side right now, are either pro-Obama or against-Hillary. Since McCain is going to get the Republican nomination, most of the Republican news has gathered around whatever he has done lately.

The WSJ is probably the least biased, but its headlines were generally pro-Hillary when it reported. The Times had neutral headlines, sometimes. The BBC, as one would expect, only wrote about Obama this week since he was the major news at the beginning of the week. If you're looking for a relatively unbiased news ticker of general news, Yahoo's front page is probably the best source. How Microsoft/NewsCorp will affect this remains to be seen.

What I found most interesting is how the media shifted against Clinton over the course of the week. Here's how I broke it down by organization.

Drudge Report: Only one top headline all week was news about the Republican party, and that was when Romney endorsed McCain. The rest of the news was either pro-Hillary, although it shifted toward Obama slightly, if also into what I began calling "general Democratic" by the end of the week. General Democratic is an attempt at being unbiased, but it's really just a cop-out because Hillary can't be the news all the time.

CNN: Generally pro-Obama; surprisingly, by the end of the week, most of the headlines (to me) seemed to be against Clinton.

Yahoo: It was fairly split between the candidates, although certainly more heavily democratic. It shifted to a Clinton/anti-Obama tone by the end of the week, however.

Fox News: Most of the headlines were phrased so they could certainly be perceived as "against Clinton." By the end of the week, that tone had shifted "against Obama." The few that were pro anybody were for McCain.

NY Times: Most of the headlines were either "general Democratic" or in favor of Clinton, although I think the scale tips slightly toward Obama.

LA Times: Generally Democratic headlines, pro-Clinton at the beginning of the week and pro-Obama by the end of the week.

Wall Street Journal: Generally Democratic-focused headlines, more pro-Clinton than pro-Obama.

BBC News: Good for general world news and big issues; centered around Obama's primary sweeps last weekend, but otherwise fairly quiet.

My conclusions after forcing myself to go through this exercise? (Besides the fact that it turns out I don't read the news as often as I thought, or at least not at a pre-ordained time as I had attempted to do this week):

If you're looking for a quick update on the news and the market, Yahoo is the best source. If you're looking for 24/7 news, Drudge and CNN keep things fairly up-to-date, but they are pretty Democrat-focused; likewise is the same for FoxNews, which is pretty Republican-focused. The Times and the Journal are both Democrat-focused, but at least their headlines are general enough that you have to read a bit into them to figure out who the piece favors. Is that a better way of doing it? I don't know. Whatever sells newspapers and advertising is probably the correct answer.

Bottom line: Over the last week, the media has recast Clinton as the underdog in what seems to be an almost systematic methodology. Will the tide continue to sweep against her? It strikes me that the Republicans seem to want to go against Clinton more than Obama. It also seems that if you are running for office and want coverage of something, you need to either do something to/with your staff in order to get non-primary day coverage. Is this smart strategy or not? Only time will tell.

The recap of the headlines is below. The information is the spot where the headline placed on the site (1=1st, 2=2nd, 3rd, etc.) and my perception of who the article was for (D/R O/C/M or against O/C/M, as it was, or G(eneral)-D/R).

Headlines:
Sunday, Feb. 10, 2008 (Night):
Drudge Report: "Wake Up Call" (Linking to Clinton Replaces Campaign Manager) (1; D-C)
CNN: Obama Wins Maine Caucuses, CNN Projects (2nd; D-O)
Yahoo: Obama wins Democratic caucuses in Maine (1st; D-O)
Fox News: Maine Warms to Obama (1; D-O)

2/11/08 (morning):
Yahoo: Obama grabs majority of delegates with Maine victory (1; D-O)
NY Times: Maine to Obama; Clinton Replaces Campaign Leader (2; D-O/C)
LA Times: Clinton replaces campaign chief (2; D-C)
WSJ: Clinton Replaces Campaign Manager (2; D-C)
Drudge: Wake Up Call (same article) (1; D-C)
CNN: Obama rolls into Potomac primaries after sweep (1; D-O)
Fox news: Triumph and Turmoil: Obama wins all 5 weekend Democratic contests; Clinton replaces manager amid losses (2; D-O/C)
BBC: Obama takes clear Maine victory (3; D-O)

(Lunch)
Yahoo: Poll: Obama would narrowly defeat McCain (3; D-O)
WSJ: Clinton replaces campaign manager (4; D-C)
NY Times: For McCain, losses signal challenges (3; R-M)
LA Times: (no political headlines)
Drudge: (same Wake Up Call article) (1; D-C)
CNN: Navarette: Right wing can’t contain McCain (4; R-M); Clinton holds narrow delegate lead (5; D-C); Ticker: Angry Hucakabee: Is this Soviet Union? (6; R-H)
Fox News: Conservatives Unite to 'Stop Hillary' (3; R-against C)
BBC: (no political headlines)

Dinnertime:
Yahoo: (none)
Drudge: Hillary Insists Campaign is Strong (1; D-C)
CNN: Without superdelegates, Clinton trails Obama (4; D-G/C)
NYT: Campaign Focus Shifts to Chesapeake Bay Region (4; G)
WSJ: Clinton Replaces Campaign Manager (5; D-C)
LA Times: Numbers tight for Clinton, Obama (3; D-C/O)
Fox News: Conservatives Unite to 'Stop Hillary' (3; D-against C)
BBC: (none)

Night
Yahoo: Obama rides momentum before 'Potomac Primaries' (1; D-O)
Drudge NYT TUESDAY: CLINTON INSIDERS, DONORS FEAR ELECTION 'SLIPPING AWAY' (1; D-C)
CNN: Without superdelegates, Clinton trails Obama (1; D-O);
NYT: For Clinton, Ohio and Texas Emerge as Key States to Win (1; D-C)
WSJ: (none)
LA Times: Obama favored in Potomac races (4; D-O)
Fox News: Conservatives Unite to 'Stop Hillary' (3; R-against C)
BBC: (Americas page): Clinton seeks to slow Obama push (3; D-C/O)

2/12/08 (morning):
Yahoo: Obama hopes to rout Clinton in Potomac primaries (4; D-O)
WSJ: Obama's Wave Fails to Sink Foe (8; D-C)
NY Times: For Clinton, Bid Hinges on Texas and Ohio (2; D-C); Seeking Unity, Obama Feels Pull of Racial Divide (3; D-O)
LA Times: Obama favored in Potomac primaries (7; D-O)
Drudge: (Same NYT Tuesday article): Clinton Insiders Donors Feel Election 'slipping away' (1; D-C)
CNN: What's at stake in the Potomac primaries? (photo of McCain) (R-M)
Fox News: Sink or Swim: Clinton facing crucial test in Potomac races (R-against C)
BBC: Primary test for Obama momentum (3; D-O)

(Lunch)
Yahoo: Powerful superdelegates could decide Democratic nominee (1; D-G)
WSJ: Obama's Wave Fails to Sink Foe (4; D-C)
NY Times: Candidates in Sprint Around Chesapeake (4; G)
LA Times: (none)
Drudge: Scream and tears of delight (linking to an artcle Women 'falling for Obama') (1; D-O)
CNN: Candidates eye Potomac prizes (1; D-G/O)
Fox News: Hill Camp in Frantic Fight To Hold Back Obama Wave (1; R-against C)
BBC: Primary test for Obama momentum (3; D-O)

(Night)
Yahoo: Facing losses, Clinton campaign recasts expectations (1; D-C)
WSJ: Obama, McCain Hope for Sweeps (1; G-O/M)
NYT: Clinton and Obama Face Off in 3 More Races (3; D-G)
LAT: Voters in 3 contests cast ballots (Obama is favored in today's primaries. Clinton looks ahead to bigger prizes, including Texas and Ohio.) (2; D-C/O)
Drudge: VA –xx, MD-XX, DC –XX, EXIT POLLS SHOW 2:1 OBAMA LEAD OVER HILLARY IN VA AND MD, 3:1 IN DC... DEVELOPING... (1; D-G)
CNN: 'Momentum' key word as Potomac votes cast (1; D-O)
Fox News: Does Hillary Have a Prayer? (1; R-against C)
BBC: Primary test for Obama momentum (1; D-O)

2/13/08 (morning):
Yahoo: Next 'super' Tuesday awaits (1; D-G)
NYT: Obama and McCain Sweep 3 Primaries (1; D-G-O/M); NEWS ANALYSIS Obama Makes His Case as His Momentum Surges (2; D-O)
LAT: Debate intensifies over role of super delegates (1)
Drudge: The Frontrunner (In the Chesapeake Rout, according to exit polls in Maryland, Obama won: Latino Voters By Six Points: 53-47; All Religions (Including Catholics); All Age Groups (Including Seniors); All Regions; All Education Levels;
And Women by TWENTY ONE POINTS...)(1; D-O)
CNN: Sweeps give McCain, Obama momentum (1; D-O/M)
Fox News: McCain, Obama Sweep to Victory in Virginia, Maryland, DC: It’s a Win-Win (1; M/O)
BBC: Obama wins three primaries (2; D-O)

(lunch)
Yahoo: Obama blames economy woes on rivals, Washington (2; D-O); McCain sweeps as Huckabee chips away at conservative vote(3; R-M/H)
WSJ: Obama and McCain sweep (2; G-O/M)
NY Times: Obama and McCain Sweep 3 Primaries (7; G-O/M)
LA Times: Debate intensifies over role of super delegates (1; D-C)
Drudge: SHE CAN'T CATCH US (1; D-O); Clinton Ex-Campaign Manager Backs Obama... (2; D-O) & McCain 'Fired Up'... (3; against M)
CNN: Clinton looks to Texas, Ohio to stop Obama (2; D-C/against C)
Fox News: (no headlines)
BBC: (no headlines); Americas page – Obama wins primary clean sweep

2/14/08 (morning):
Yahoo: (none)
WSJ: Obama Unveils Economic Proposal (10; D-O)
NYT: Obama's Lead in Delegates Shifts Focus of Campaign (1; D-O); Michelle Obama Takes to the Trail (2; D-O)
LAT: Big rewards from small donors (Obama) (2; D-O)
Drudge: She Can’t Catch Us (1; D-O)
CNN: Democratic loser could still get nominated (2; D-C)
Fox News: Hillary Clinton — Underdog? (2; R-against C)
BBC: (none)

(night)
Yahoo: Romney endorses McCain for nomination (2; R-M); Clinton wins N.M. vote nine days after Super Tuesday (3; D-C)
WSJ: Romney backs McCain (5; R-M)
NYT: Romney Endorses McCain (3; R-M)
LAT: Romney Gets Behind McCain (2; R-M)
Drudge: Romney Endorses McCain (2; R-M) / McCain could resign senate seat (3; R-M)
CNN: Romney endorses former rival McCain (2; R-M) In must-win situation, Clinton sharpens attacks (3; D-C)
Fox News: Romney Endorses McCain (2; R-M)
BBC: none / Americas: Romney endorses McCain campaign (2; R-M)

2/15/08 (morning):
Yahoo: Clinton declared winner in New Mexico primary (3; D-C)
WSJ: Clinton Bets Big on Ohio and Texas (6; D-C)
NYT: Black Leader, a Clinton Ally, Tilts to Obama (2; D-O)
LAT: The man behind the message (obama) (3; D-O)
Drudge: Superdelegates get campaign cash... (1; D-G); White men hold power balance... (1; D-G)
CNN: In must-win situation, Clinton sharpens attacks (2; D-C); McCain defends '100 years in Iraq' statement(3; R-M); Ticker: Huckabee says no McCain 'coronation' (4; R-M)
Fox News: McCain Calls on Obama to Divulge ‘Pork’ Projects (8; R-against O)
BBC: (none)

Lunch
Yahoo: Former President Bush to endorse McCain (3; R-M)
WSJ: Clinton Bets Big on Ohio and Texas (7; D-C)
NY Times: Black Leader, a Clinton Ally, Tilts to Obama (2; D-O)
LA Times: The man behind the message (obama) (3; D-O)
Drudge: PUTIN RIPS HILLARY: 'At a minimum, a head of state should have a head'... (1; D-C)
POLL: OBAMA TAKES LEAD IN TEXAS... (1; D-O)
Cnn: In must-win situation, Clinton sharpens attacks (2; D-C)
Fox News: Former President Bush to Endorse McCain (5; R-M)
BBC: (none)

Sat 2/16/08 Morning
Yahoo: Obama should take public funding, McCain says (3)
WSJ: (none)
NYT: Democrats Look to Avoid Convention Rift (1st)
LAT: Obama gets jabbed from 2 sides (2nd)
Drudge: DEMS LOOK FOR WAY TO AVOID CONVENTION DEADLOCK (top)
CNN: Ticker: Bill Clinton: Obama ignores my legacy (8)
Fox News: McCain takes on Obama (1st)
BBC: (none)

(afternoon)
Yahoo: Chelsea Clinton now a full-fledged player in campaign (3; D-C)
WSJ: (none)
NYT: Democrats Look for Way to Avoid Convention Rift (3; G-D)
LAT: Obama gets jabbed from 2 sides (2; D-O)
Drudge: DEMS LOOK FOR WAY TO AVOID CONVENTION DEADLOCK (1; G-D)
CNN: Clinton could have edge in swing states (9; D-C)
Fox News: 11th-Hour Bid (Clinton) (1; D-against C)
BBC: none

Tags: biased media coverage

Read more!

All this call for change - aren't the candidates capable of doing this now as senators?

The other night on one of the channels, I heard Former Speaker Newt Gingrich remark that any of the three candidates could walk the walk right now in Congress in their positions as Senators. Of course, since Obama and Clinton are far junior to McCain, he implied that really only McCain could gain from this, and in reality, probably had more to lose by trying. Moral of this snippet? It seems to imply that the Senate has no real power. Perhaps, perhaps not. I couldn't find this transcript, but he makes this same general point here. See generally Gingrich Warns of GOP Catastrophe.

I was speaking to one of my friends in Ohio, who is a minority, who made an interesting argument that Obama could either be the greatest president ever, or run an administration with Carter-esque results. And while fifty years down the road, history may judge both Carter and Bush favorably, the immediate impact if he screws up could deter future minorities from succeeding. He argues that Obama is better off as VP for a few years. I have to give his argument more consideration, but his point was interesting enough. I found a similar argument online (although I can't find it now; I think it was an op-ed piece somewhere).

I do want to write about some interesting legal articles I've come across the past few days; perhaps I will have more time to get to them over the weekend. But, just in case, here's a snippet:

Snipes Trial Offers IRS Perfect Script. I wonder which Court of Appeals clerk is going to get to play with this one?

Recusal-Go-Round Continues at West Virginia Supreme Court. My judge pointed this one out to me the other day as an example of how not to do things if I ever become a judge. Bottom line: What a mess.

And finally. Secrets of the Great Seal Revealed. Despite the conspiracy theorists' beliefs, National Treasure is merely a fiction. I would think that the real truth lies somewhere in the middle, but closer to what the government says. After all, our national bird almost was a turkey.

Tags: senators apparently powerless to do change, national bird of us almost a turkey, obama v. hillary

Read more!

First Pete, then Repeat - Or When the steam of a campaign pot started boiling way earlier than expected

I saw just now that the media tide against Clinton has turned even further as now the Washington Post agrees with my earlier prediction that the Republican machine will fare far better against Hillary than against Obama. See George F. Will, Democrats Living Dangerously: Early Voting Insanity and a GOP Gift. I'll continue to save my real thoughts until the race is down to two, then give my prediction on what type of campaign strategy will win then.

I'm not sure if Clinton has ever run a marathon, or what her physical running experience has been. As a former D-X runner, I'm well aware of the well-worn phrase "it's a marathon, not a sprint" and its applicability beyond the track or course. Here, Clinton may have underestimated the length of this race a bit, or at least should have bet the over on how fast the media would grow tired of waiting for November 2008 to get here and begin spinning the primary process in a way to constantly generate more sales (which, as has been becoming more and more evident, does not help her at all).

Because the media seems to back a different person every day, and for now, my understanding of the press shows significantly more support for Obama, I just wonder whether Clinton will even catch a second wind, and if so, whether it will be too little too late. And, as pointed out by another article, this deadlock only helps the other side, which doesn't help either candidate.

Lastly, what's the deal with the landlords giving away rental property to political parties? Can you really be that surprised that you may be stiffed? See Landlord: Clinton Staff Stiffed Me on Rent. One would think that as a landlord, he has made that mistake before, and apparently has not learned from it. Nevertheless, the fact that the Clinton machine has let this $500 oversight reach national headlines has to be a little embarrassing. Read more!

As predicted, Super Tuesday results in a super disappointment depending on who you talk to

I see that the Washington Times has picked up on a comment that was discussed briefly a few weeks ago in response to my post about a theoretically united Democratic ticket consisting of Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama. See Hillary the Lesser Threat to McCain. With it looking more and more like Hillary and Obama will be duking it out until the bitter end (leaving the Republican machine to begin focusing its efforts behind McCain), it will be a wonder if the media can oversaturate the voting public anymore than it already has. Somehow, I’m sure they will find a way.

The news also reported today that Clinton dipped into $5 million of her own money and that her reported assets are somewhere between $15 and 50 million, and, I would guess, probably even less given the stock shock we have been through the past few weeks. What I am wondering is whether this is a sign of a healthy campaign. I have no idea, but given the red text Drudge used in reporting it, I'm guessing probably not.

In today’s world, I guess you really have to be in the top-top tax bracket with disposable income I can only dream of in order to run for president. That, and having the endorsement of some wealthier deeper pockets or organizations certainly helps as well.

Notwithstanding these comments, at some point soon, one has to start speculating about the VP candidates. CNN’s Jack Cafferty agrees with my earlier point that Clinton & Obama could thrive on the same ticket (which I still think only works and is a possibility if Clinton wins the ticket, and even then I agree that the possibility is diminishing daily). As strong as that ticket might be, and I’m not entirely sure that it would be in either scenario, I just wonder how strong it would be against something like a McCain-Rice ticket (notwithstanding the fact that Rice seems to have stayed silent on the subject). Rendell has some appeal for VP that could counterbalance that particular hypothetical, but I’m not sure if either of the front runners would go for him.

Personally, I wonder whether Obama or Clinton would go for a republican VP candidate in order to bridge the gap. While the party may think that is a ridiculous idea, perhaps the voting public and the independent voters who would otherwise slightly favor McCain may not. Time will tell.

In clerkship news, I have finally caught up on my work after the six month mark. And, I didn't get the prize in the king cake, but I think it's a pretty nifty tradition that I will take to the east coast law firm litigation department next year if they don't already do it. Coming up soon will be a six-month review and my thoughts as to what I expect/hope to accomplish over the next six months. Doesn’t this sound presidential?

Tags: obama wins nomination with labor union backing, rice for vice president, rendell for vice president, republican vice president with democratic president, media oversaturates political news market

Read more!

Some strategery in light of the pending Super Tuesday

Here are some of my thoughts regarding the upcoming "super" primary event, esp. since Sen. Kennedy put the smackdown on Billary over the weekend. Some of my less humorous remarks are repeats from my entry last week; a little is new.

The way I see things playing out at this point is that McCain is going to win the Republican primary. Assuming that is the case, I think that the only Democrat that will be able to beat him will be Sen. Obama. Here is why.

Both McCain and Clinton (to the extent that the previous exit polls support my theory) are targeting the same 65+ market segment. Neither one has done much to woo the young vote. Obama, by contrast (and for whatever reason that is unimportant to this entry), has seemed to be able to rally the typically apathetic youth vote. If Clinton wins the Democratic primary, I don't see her being able to motivate this same youth demographic to bother to come back out in November.

If Clinton does win, we're left with two Washington-centered old-timers courting the same old tired baby boomer vote. Nobody on television (save certain squirrelly pharmaceutical commercials advertising products with questionable side effects, see, e.g., Aaron D. Twerski, Liability for Direct Advertising of Drugs to Consumers: An Idea of Whose Time has not Come) caters to this demographic; why should the presidential candidates be any different?

How much longer will it last before these "old folks" realize that they are past their prime? Retire already and give our economy a boost by spending your hard earned savings. And think how many jobs will be created when this vacuum gets started? There's a platform to rally behind.

The reason why, I think, Obama has been able to rock the youth vote is the same reason I've been saying all along (and in some respects, I would speculate the same reason President Kennedy was able to pull the same stunt in 1960): The younger generation is tired of so-called "old" Washington. Obama has, for better or for worse, been able to stay above that stigma. Assuming he emerges as the victor, I'm not that surprised that Sen. Kennedy has endorsed him. At this point, the Democratic party has to be thinking, who can beat McCain? Certainly they can't say with a straight face that it will be Hillary. Regardless, I submit that neither McCain nor Clinton (old or new) will have the same pull among youth that Obama has shown, and if Obama isn't in it, I see a string of "I told you so" comments emerging from our liberal press because the youth vote will remain at its traditionally low levels of participation.

But that overstates my position somewhat. The youth (meaning 18-34 demographic) will come out in droves if they think someone will come in and champion the cause for change. I think that Obama is the only viable Democrat who can pull this off. And, if he doesn't, well, then it won't really matter who is the Democratic nominee, does it? The true test of whether my hypothesis is correct will be revealed on Election Day.

What I find more interesting at this point, is who McCain would pick for a vice president. Regardless of whether it's Clinton or Obama that he (or whoever) is running against, the red guys are going to have to find someone who can spark or take away votes from the blue guys. I would think that the best person to do that is Condoleeza Rice. I can't say I'm the first person to posit this, nor will I be the last once McCain has his golden ticket. But mark my words, it's only a matter of time before the press picks up and figures out what is good or bad about this idea.

We'll see what happens next.

Tags: Condoleeza Rice for vice president, kennedy endorses obama, election 2008

Read more!

A united democratic ticket?

Just a short thought I was discussing with some other clerks the other day. Given the near even split Senators Clinton and Obama are pulling from the Democratic caucuses, wouldn't it make sense for them to run on a joint ticket? I would think that if Clinton wins the nomination, she would give some thought to appointing Obama as VP (rather than say, her husband). Given the ability for the vice president to stay out of harms way (for the most part) politically, it would allow Obama to continue staying relatively neutral on hot-button issues. Of course, the counter to that is that he implicitly adopts whatever the president would stand for.

On the other hand, I don't think Sen. Clinton would be a vice president if Obama won the ticket for a number of reasons, least of which I am going to say is her age. She's in this to win it, not be second best. Given Senator Obama's positions, however, I think he's in more of a win-win position, and he may be more receptive toward a joint ticket if those circumstances present themselves. I would be shocked if either appointed Edwards to the position, but stranger things have happened.

For the Republicans, I can't imagine any of the current quartet who could theoretically win this (although I suppose it's really down to Huckabee or Romney at this point) against either Clinton or Obama. The real question is how fast the Republicans will unite behind the victor and try and reposition the part against the winds of change that are starting to blow (and will continue to blow harder as November approaches).

So, a couple predictions in advance of Super Tuesday:
Patriots 19-0 (but don't bet the line).
If Clinton emerges as the Democratic nomination, Obama will not decline an offer to be VP. Cries of "Obama 2016" will emerge.
The public will become aware and subsequently leary of having this country run by two families since 1992.
If Obama wins, Clinton will disappear into senatorial obscurity. Bill Clinton will entertain the notion of being vice president.
A young republican will emerge in the next 6 years who will rejuvenate the party in a similar fashion as Senator Obama.

Tags: obama as vice president, bill clinton as vice president, hillary clinton will not be vice president

Read more!