My intent for this weeks post was a kind of warm, fuzzy, gee... isn't it nice that it's Thanksgiving message. My memories of the Thanksgiving tradition, learned in a Chicago public elementary school, had made this my favorite holiday. But first, I wanted to delve more deeply into Thanksgiving, and learn more. I'm almost sorry I did.
Thanksgiving Day commemorates the communal sharing of food and friendship between Pilgrims and Native Americans in the Plymouth Bay Colony in 1621, right? The Pilgrims invited their new friends to a feast of celebration. One wonders how this peaceful relationship between two peoples could have turned so horribly sour in such a short time thereafter.
Let's examine some facts and fallacies:
- When the Mayflower landed in the New World, the passengers were virtually all Pilgrims. Wrong. There were 102 colonists aboard the Mayflower. Only 35 were what we today call Pilgrims.
- The 'Pilgrims' actually referred to themselves as 'Saints' (humble types, eh?), while others referred to them as 'Separatists'. A few of the other Mayflower settlers referred to themselves as 'Puritans', in that they wanted to purify the Church. It wasn't until after the Revolution that the term 'Pilgrims' was applied to the Saints, and they became what the spin doctors of the time painted as the image of the new country's morality and Christian ideals.
- The date and location of the first communal feast was not 1621 and was in the Plymouth Colony. According to the History News Network, "Texans claim the first Thanksgiving in America actually took place in little San Elizario, a community near El Paso, in 1598 -- twenty-three years before the Pilgrims' festival." "Then again, you may want to go to Virginia.. At the Berkeley Plantation on the James River they claim the first Thanksgiving in America was held there on December 4th, 1619....two years before the Pilgrims' festival... " A certain U.S. President from Massachusetts officially recognized Virginia's claim in 1963.
- The weary settlers from the Mayflower were supposed to join up with Virginian tobacco plantations. However, due to either heavy storms, or errors using their charts, they landed in what was to become Massachusetts.
- They did not heroically carve a civilization out of the wilderness. They settled on land that had been occupied by an Indian tribe that had either departed the region, or had died. Our intrepid colonists appropriated the Indian belongings they found there. A Native American survivor, Squanto, showed them the corn fields, and explained how to survive in their new environment.
- The colonists did not originate the idea of a fall festival. Native American tribes had been celebrating harvest time for centuries.
- Thanksgiving did not become a national holiday until President Lincoln, looking for a way to fire up patriotic spirit during the dismal days of the War Between the States, made it one. His decree was on the same day that he ordered Union troops to march against the Sioux tribe in what now is Minnesota.
- The Pilgrims' clothing was black and white with buckles on their hats and shoes. Wrong. Buckles did not come to be worn until the late years of the 17th century, and black and white clothing was worn only on Sundays. Their clothes would have been more earth tones like green and brown, with the occasional blue and beige.
The concept of a day set aside for a special meal to share with friends and family is a wonderful thing. But let's delete the phony public relations aspects of what we pretend was the first Thanksgiving. A little honesty would be just the right spice for the fourth Thursday in November.
Next Friday: Music keeps us young.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
Adam Smith and Karl Marx on the 2008 Economy
Hello. My name is Adam. No, not that Adam... Adam Smith, the influential economist best known for my book, The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, considered by many to be the foundation of modern capitalism. In it, I explained how rational self-interest in a free-market economy leads to economic well-being for all. I was born in Scotland in 1723, and just read on the Internet (yes, we have access up there) that I 'died' in 1790. I lived a pleasant life. Never married. Coincidence?
I'm here today, channelled (against my will, I'll have you know) through this annoying blogger (to what a pitiful level the English language has sunk... 'blogger'?), known rather boastfully as 'the thinker' (my belief is that he left a leading 's' off his moniker), to analyze the current financial maladies you bloody colonists are having.
Let me examine today the state of your automotive industry, which employs, either directly or indirectly in support or supply functions, approximately 10% of your work force. For many years it was a profitable sector, for both its managers and workers. Although it would have been even more profitable, had all the employees been compensated on an individual basis - judged on their personal productivity, instead of salaries and raises determined primarily by what job title a person was in. That applied mainly to the production workers. But I am similarly dismayed that managers, and especially those in the upper executive ranks, manipulated their compensation through whom they knew on the board of directors, and how many times they purposely lost to them on the golf course. As a Scotsman, that venue for perverting my theory of "rational self-interest" is particularly vexing.
Many in your news industry bemoan the staggering losses of market share and profits that the North Central American Colonial (I cannot bring myself to utter 'United States of America" or that even cruder and less descriptive word 'American' - as if there are no other countries in North, Central, and South America deserving of inclusion in that title!... but I digress) automotive industry has been absorbing lately. Haven't they read my philosophy that any successful business enterprise must, at the very least, produce something others value?
Lowering my standards to use your local vernacular, the Asian automakers are eating your lunch! So I object, most vociferously, to your government even thinking about a loan to your GM, Chrysler, and Ford. Those companies should redirect their efforts and retool their plants in order to make something of value that people will buy. If they cannot accomplish this basic tenet of business, then let those enterprises fail. It might help if successful automotive companies are examined, and emulated. Efficiencies can also be gleaned from those who know the work the best - the people who are doing it. Seems simple, but it's often overlooked. Ask your employees periodically for ideas on streamlining operations and cutting corners. You may discard ten bad suggestions before finding one good one. But that is definitely a profitable ratio.
I see that my time is just about up, and some unkempt (both physically and intellectually) vagabond is next to be brought forth through the narrow confines of this blogger's alleged mind. Bear this in mind... this 'Karl' person claims to be the voice of the poor, exploited, downtrodden working class. But if you see a picture of him, it is obvious that he never missed a meal in his life. Take that, Karl the Commie!
Good-bye, and good luck.
Hello. My name is Karl Marx, and my economic ideas have fomented revolutions. I was born in Prussia in 1818. But first, I need to air a grievance. A complete overhaul of this 'channeling' business is past due. The stories I could tell about the sad and angry faces on the wealthy, lazy, lay abouts calling for some member of a slapstick comedy family who shares my surname, and finding me in their midst instead, would turn your stomach! Note to self: contact Frederick and Vladimir when I get back. Then you people will see one heck of a union organizing drive. New members must have gone through this channelling humiliation at least twice in order to join. I'll even steal the word "Bitter" from this... well, whatever this is, and use it in the new union's title: Bitter Union of Re-channelled Persons. Our slogan: B.U.R.P. - It'll Make You Feel Better.
Now, I see that a certain evil capitalist named Adam Smith (I'll bet his middle initial is S. Get it? He's a real A.S.S.) has analyzed (with the emphasis on 'anal') America's automotive industry. The astute observer will note that I used 'America' here because I know it's one of Smith's pet peeves. His rude and crude comment about my weight showed his lack of understanding and compassion (typical for those of his ilk). You see, I have a metabolic problem... But that's not important here. Sit down, fellow members of the international working class, and I will raise your (class) consciousness even further, using the automotive industry, and its current travails, as an example.
The economic ups and downs of all facets of the economy, and especially the automotive sector, are due almost exclusively to the fact that there is no long term planning under capitalism. Your auto company executives are not rewarded for any results beyond the current fiscal quarter. Stock prices plunge at the very hint of underperforming Wall Street projections. Therefore, efforts are confined exclusively to meeting those expectations. If there is a likelihood of failure to make the requisite profit margins, then immediate short term steps must be taken, regardless of the long term effects on the company, its employees, or the industry as a whole. And what is the most expensive cog in the company's corporate wheel? Workers. So first, managers issue speed up orders on the production lines, even though the additional units are not yet needed. Why? In order to stockpile cars and parts, in preparation for the layoffs necessary to keep profits in line with projections. The effects on the workers? Who cares? This is unrestrained capitalism.
Even labor unions these days cannot adequately protect their members during times of extreme economic crisis in your economy. Most have become as stilted and bureaucratic as both the corporate fat cats in their corner offices, and the governmental henchmen who fleece the paychecks of the working men and women they are charged with representing.
The solution? Ownership transfer of the major means of production to proletariat owned and run councils. It applies even more in 2008 than during the rise of the Industrial Age circa 1848. This would stabilize production for both short and long term projected needs and use, and eliminate immediate, destabilizing profiteering. Would bureaucrats take over such a system? Not to worry! My philosophy should actually endear me to your 'smaller government' Republican Party. I believe in the eventual withering away of the government. Once a just, balanced, global society has been attained, the need for government oversight will cease. Hasta la vista, politicians.
Will you look at the time? This damned blogger boss made me miss my lunch break. I'm putting in for time-and-a-half AND talking to my union steward! Don't mourn my departure... workers of the world unite!
Good-bye, and good luck.
Next Friday: Subject undetermined at this time.
I'm here today, channelled (against my will, I'll have you know) through this annoying blogger (to what a pitiful level the English language has sunk... 'blogger'?), known rather boastfully as 'the thinker' (my belief is that he left a leading 's' off his moniker), to analyze the current financial maladies you bloody colonists are having.
Let me examine today the state of your automotive industry, which employs, either directly or indirectly in support or supply functions, approximately 10% of your work force. For many years it was a profitable sector, for both its managers and workers. Although it would have been even more profitable, had all the employees been compensated on an individual basis - judged on their personal productivity, instead of salaries and raises determined primarily by what job title a person was in. That applied mainly to the production workers. But I am similarly dismayed that managers, and especially those in the upper executive ranks, manipulated their compensation through whom they knew on the board of directors, and how many times they purposely lost to them on the golf course. As a Scotsman, that venue for perverting my theory of "rational self-interest" is particularly vexing.
Many in your news industry bemoan the staggering losses of market share and profits that the North Central American Colonial (I cannot bring myself to utter 'United States of America" or that even cruder and less descriptive word 'American' - as if there are no other countries in North, Central, and South America deserving of inclusion in that title!... but I digress) automotive industry has been absorbing lately. Haven't they read my philosophy that any successful business enterprise must, at the very least, produce something others value?
Lowering my standards to use your local vernacular, the Asian automakers are eating your lunch! So I object, most vociferously, to your government even thinking about a loan to your GM, Chrysler, and Ford. Those companies should redirect their efforts and retool their plants in order to make something of value that people will buy. If they cannot accomplish this basic tenet of business, then let those enterprises fail. It might help if successful automotive companies are examined, and emulated. Efficiencies can also be gleaned from those who know the work the best - the people who are doing it. Seems simple, but it's often overlooked. Ask your employees periodically for ideas on streamlining operations and cutting corners. You may discard ten bad suggestions before finding one good one. But that is definitely a profitable ratio.
I see that my time is just about up, and some unkempt (both physically and intellectually) vagabond is next to be brought forth through the narrow confines of this blogger's alleged mind. Bear this in mind... this 'Karl' person claims to be the voice of the poor, exploited, downtrodden working class. But if you see a picture of him, it is obvious that he never missed a meal in his life. Take that, Karl the Commie!
Good-bye, and good luck.
Hello. My name is Karl Marx, and my economic ideas have fomented revolutions. I was born in Prussia in 1818. But first, I need to air a grievance. A complete overhaul of this 'channeling' business is past due. The stories I could tell about the sad and angry faces on the wealthy, lazy, lay abouts calling for some member of a slapstick comedy family who shares my surname, and finding me in their midst instead, would turn your stomach! Note to self: contact Frederick and Vladimir when I get back. Then you people will see one heck of a union organizing drive. New members must have gone through this channelling humiliation at least twice in order to join. I'll even steal the word "Bitter" from this... well, whatever this is, and use it in the new union's title: Bitter Union of Re-channelled Persons. Our slogan: B.U.R.P. - It'll Make You Feel Better.
Now, I see that a certain evil capitalist named Adam Smith (I'll bet his middle initial is S. Get it? He's a real A.S.S.) has analyzed (with the emphasis on 'anal') America's automotive industry. The astute observer will note that I used 'America' here because I know it's one of Smith's pet peeves. His rude and crude comment about my weight showed his lack of understanding and compassion (typical for those of his ilk). You see, I have a metabolic problem... But that's not important here. Sit down, fellow members of the international working class, and I will raise your (class) consciousness even further, using the automotive industry, and its current travails, as an example.
The economic ups and downs of all facets of the economy, and especially the automotive sector, are due almost exclusively to the fact that there is no long term planning under capitalism. Your auto company executives are not rewarded for any results beyond the current fiscal quarter. Stock prices plunge at the very hint of underperforming Wall Street projections. Therefore, efforts are confined exclusively to meeting those expectations. If there is a likelihood of failure to make the requisite profit margins, then immediate short term steps must be taken, regardless of the long term effects on the company, its employees, or the industry as a whole. And what is the most expensive cog in the company's corporate wheel? Workers. So first, managers issue speed up orders on the production lines, even though the additional units are not yet needed. Why? In order to stockpile cars and parts, in preparation for the layoffs necessary to keep profits in line with projections. The effects on the workers? Who cares? This is unrestrained capitalism.
Even labor unions these days cannot adequately protect their members during times of extreme economic crisis in your economy. Most have become as stilted and bureaucratic as both the corporate fat cats in their corner offices, and the governmental henchmen who fleece the paychecks of the working men and women they are charged with representing.
The solution? Ownership transfer of the major means of production to proletariat owned and run councils. It applies even more in 2008 than during the rise of the Industrial Age circa 1848. This would stabilize production for both short and long term projected needs and use, and eliminate immediate, destabilizing profiteering. Would bureaucrats take over such a system? Not to worry! My philosophy should actually endear me to your 'smaller government' Republican Party. I believe in the eventual withering away of the government. Once a just, balanced, global society has been attained, the need for government oversight will cease. Hasta la vista, politicians.
Will you look at the time? This damned blogger boss made me miss my lunch break. I'm putting in for time-and-a-half AND talking to my union steward! Don't mourn my departure... workers of the world unite!
Good-bye, and good luck.
Next Friday: Subject undetermined at this time.
Friday, November 14, 2008
London Times Column on Obama Bitterly Analyzed
Today's London Times carried a column by Gerald Baker entitled "Only a great president could cope with all this". I took issue with several statements:
- "Much - way too much - has already been written about Senator Obama's capabilities. The one thing we can say with certainty is this: if he can somehow navigate the US safely and prosperously through the swirling currents of the next four years he will really have a claim to greatness."
In reading more than my fair share about the presidential candidates, I cannot recall ever thinking that I had read too much about their capabilities. I had read too much of vague accusations about character flaws, distortions of policy positions, wardrobe costs, flag pins, and that nefarious McCarthyite era bugaboo about whether you had ever dared to exercise your right of freedom of association. I halfway expected to hear, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member, or fellow-traveler, of (fill in your favorite fearsome organization). But too much about "capabilities"? I say, I wanted to read more!
If President Obama is able to only "... navigate the US safely and prosperously through the swirling currents of the next four years... " his claim will be far less than "greatness." A claim to a modicum of success would certainly fit. Maybe even a claim to having been very good at his job in a time of multiple crises. But to achieve greatness, in only a four year span, will require that he persuade the Congress to make substantial specific strides in the areas of economic stabilization and reform, environmental initiatives, and tax reform. Add to that his personal tasks of repairing the USA's image abroad, and re-establishing trust with both our traditional allies, and listening to the views of those not yet our friends, but with whom a dialogue might just ease tensions and increase understanding. A daunting task indeed, but "greatness" is a description not easily achieved, nor should it be.
- "So Washington is agog with anticipation about the arrival of the new president. But Washington being what it is, the immediate focus of frenzied concern doesn't involve tax cuts or bailouts or sit-downs with foreign leaders. It is the critical decision that will bring euphoria to some and break the hearts of others: where the Obama daughters will go to school."
"I've long thought that there's a certain type of parent in Washington that rears children solely for the same reason they do everything else: to move upward in society. They would literally kill to get Nelson Jr into a particular school in the hope that it might be an entrée to some important contact. True happiness for many in this city is the possibility that little Meredith will play on the same soccer team as the daughter of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administrative Affairs, or if fortune is really smiling, some glamorous White House correspondent for one of the networks."
Baker begins his first paragraph with the sweeping generalization "So Washington is agog...", thereby insinuating that all its residents are "agog". In so doing, he implies that they are all basically social butterflies, flitting from party to social to debutant ball to enduring the heartbreaking angst over whether their children will get into the 'right' elementary school, oblivious to both the real world and the nation's business upon which they were either elected, or hired, to work.
Then he perhaps reconsidered his statement. Note the first sentence of the second paragraph: "I've long thought that there's a certain type of parent in Washington... " I can agree with that statement. Singling out certain members of a group not united by ideology for criticism, as individuals, is ethically and logically preferable to a blanket condemnation of the entire group. You may say that is 'political correctness'. If so, I hereby plead guilty. But back to these two Baker paragraphs, the second undercuts the first. Debate points have been lost for less.
-"The times and circumstances of (Obama's) election call not for a sharp ideological turn but for pragmatism. We trust you to do what works, was the message from the voters."
Wrong. The message from the voters was a strong majority in favor of ideological change, not pragmatism; hope and faith in a leader who will not provide more-of-the-same, but one who will address the mountain of problems left by Bush II from new perspectives, trying new approaches, not merely trusting him "... to do what works."
I must now acknowledge Baker's humor. In his description of the frenzy-to-be surrounding what school Obama's children, Sasha and Malia, will attend, he says that social climbing parents will:
"... flood the lucky academy next year with admission applications. The city's proudest lawyers will plead with administrative assistants for reconsideration. There will be attempts at bribery. There will be blood."
My favorite, though, is his portrayal of Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel:
"His managerial style is famous. He is to the courtesies of polite society what Sweeney Todd was to the short back and sides. He is known for using a familiar Anglo-Saxon expletive in conversation as a convenient all-purpose verbal utility vehicle: noun, verb, adjective, adverb, participle, gerund, whatever."
Wow, when was the last time you saw the word "gerund" used outside of a textbook? Is it even suitable for polite social intercourse? (oops).
Next Friday: Adam Smith and Karl Marx analyze the 2008 economy
- "Much - way too much - has already been written about Senator Obama's capabilities. The one thing we can say with certainty is this: if he can somehow navigate the US safely and prosperously through the swirling currents of the next four years he will really have a claim to greatness."
In reading more than my fair share about the presidential candidates, I cannot recall ever thinking that I had read too much about their capabilities. I had read too much of vague accusations about character flaws, distortions of policy positions, wardrobe costs, flag pins, and that nefarious McCarthyite era bugaboo about whether you had ever dared to exercise your right of freedom of association. I halfway expected to hear, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member, or fellow-traveler, of (fill in your favorite fearsome organization). But too much about "capabilities"? I say, I wanted to read more!
If President Obama is able to only "... navigate the US safely and prosperously through the swirling currents of the next four years... " his claim will be far less than "greatness." A claim to a modicum of success would certainly fit. Maybe even a claim to having been very good at his job in a time of multiple crises. But to achieve greatness, in only a four year span, will require that he persuade the Congress to make substantial specific strides in the areas of economic stabilization and reform, environmental initiatives, and tax reform. Add to that his personal tasks of repairing the USA's image abroad, and re-establishing trust with both our traditional allies, and listening to the views of those not yet our friends, but with whom a dialogue might just ease tensions and increase understanding. A daunting task indeed, but "greatness" is a description not easily achieved, nor should it be.
- "So Washington is agog with anticipation about the arrival of the new president. But Washington being what it is, the immediate focus of frenzied concern doesn't involve tax cuts or bailouts or sit-downs with foreign leaders. It is the critical decision that will bring euphoria to some and break the hearts of others: where the Obama daughters will go to school."
"I've long thought that there's a certain type of parent in Washington that rears children solely for the same reason they do everything else: to move upward in society. They would literally kill to get Nelson Jr into a particular school in the hope that it might be an entrée to some important contact. True happiness for many in this city is the possibility that little Meredith will play on the same soccer team as the daughter of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administrative Affairs, or if fortune is really smiling, some glamorous White House correspondent for one of the networks."
Baker begins his first paragraph with the sweeping generalization "So Washington is agog...", thereby insinuating that all its residents are "agog". In so doing, he implies that they are all basically social butterflies, flitting from party to social to debutant ball to enduring the heartbreaking angst over whether their children will get into the 'right' elementary school, oblivious to both the real world and the nation's business upon which they were either elected, or hired, to work.
Then he perhaps reconsidered his statement. Note the first sentence of the second paragraph: "I've long thought that there's a certain type of parent in Washington... " I can agree with that statement. Singling out certain members of a group not united by ideology for criticism, as individuals, is ethically and logically preferable to a blanket condemnation of the entire group. You may say that is 'political correctness'. If so, I hereby plead guilty. But back to these two Baker paragraphs, the second undercuts the first. Debate points have been lost for less.
-"The times and circumstances of (Obama's) election call not for a sharp ideological turn but for pragmatism. We trust you to do what works, was the message from the voters."
Wrong. The message from the voters was a strong majority in favor of ideological change, not pragmatism; hope and faith in a leader who will not provide more-of-the-same, but one who will address the mountain of problems left by Bush II from new perspectives, trying new approaches, not merely trusting him "... to do what works."
I must now acknowledge Baker's humor. In his description of the frenzy-to-be surrounding what school Obama's children, Sasha and Malia, will attend, he says that social climbing parents will:
"... flood the lucky academy next year with admission applications. The city's proudest lawyers will plead with administrative assistants for reconsideration. There will be attempts at bribery. There will be blood."
My favorite, though, is his portrayal of Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel:
"His managerial style is famous. He is to the courtesies of polite society what Sweeney Todd was to the short back and sides. He is known for using a familiar Anglo-Saxon expletive in conversation as a convenient all-purpose verbal utility vehicle: noun, verb, adjective, adverb, participle, gerund, whatever."
Wow, when was the last time you saw the word "gerund" used outside of a textbook? Is it even suitable for polite social intercourse? (oops).
Next Friday: Adam Smith and Karl Marx analyze the 2008 economy
Friday, November 7, 2008
Why Obama Won: Presidential Election Analysis
The numbers are, as of this date, unofficial. Here are the latest figures:
Popular Vote:
Barack Obama-------64,904,451------52.5%
John McCain---------57,063,155------46.2%
Ralph Nader--------------671,182------00.5%
Bob Barr------------------496,153------00.4%
Cynthia McKinney-------145,442------00.1%
Other candidates--not tabulated yet---00.3%
Electoral College Vote:
Barack Obama-------------364---------69%
John McCain---------------162---------31%
Note: With 100% of precincts reported, Missouri's 11 electoral votes have not yet been assigned. McCain has 1,442,673 votes and Obama has 1,436,814 votes. A recount is pending.
What were the main reasons for Obama's victory?
- Iowa. Had Obama not won a surprise victory in the first primary/caucus state, he would have faced a daunting, uphill battle. Had Edwards not come in a surprise second place, knocking front-runner Hillary Clinton into a stunning third place, it is quite likely that she would have quickly and easily regrouped for the rest of the primaries. Her victory in New Hampshire was not as big of a boost as some thought. New Hampshire residents are very displeased with Iowa usurping media attention every Presidential primary season. So even though polls showed Obama ahead of Clinton in New Hampshire, it was the chance for some New Hampshire voters to thumb their noses at Iowa's choice that resulted in the margin necessary to put Hillary over the top. Hillary, referred to by most media analysts before the primaries as the presumptive Democratic nominee, and ahead of Obama by as much as 25% before Iowa, never fully recovered.
- Message. Obama's was consistent and clear in all major areas - from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the economy to appealing to the best in Americans and providing a real promise of change for the better. McCain's focus varied from 'I was right about the surge' to 'Obama associates with a terrorist' and from 'The fundamentals of our economy are strong' to 'I'm suspending my campaign and rushing to Washington, D.C. to help fix our faltering economy'.
- V.P. choice. Obama chose country over campaign by choosing Joe Biden, a seasoned veteran, well-known to many Americans, and fit to assume the presidency at any time. McCain chose campaign over country by choosing Sarah Palin, a political unknown outside of Alaska, someone whom he hoped would capture disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters at the same time as she tilted the ticket farther to the political right to appease the party's conservatives and 'Christian' fundamentalists.
Instead, his choice offended many female voters, since it assumed that they would march in lockstep with any female candidate, regardless of her views. It also angered those Republicans who recognized that Palin did not have the requisite political knowledge to perform even the somewhat limited duties of a Vice President. There was also disaffection with the fact that McCain bypassed more qualified female Republican Senators and Governors, both past and present, who had been Republican loyalists for many years, who had paid their dues, and who would have provided a more electable ticket. Finally, as Palin's inadequacies became more and more apparent, independent and undecided voters looked again at not only Obama, but Biden, and the comparisons did not bode well for the Republicans.
- Organization. My first-hand knowledge of Obama's Nevada organization will forever remain as one of my most cherished memories. Initially, I 'signed up' as a supporter on Obama's web site. Within a week, I received a phone call from an enthusiastic and persuasive Las Vegas local field organizer, who shall remain nameless to protect her privacy, but who will recognize herself should she read this. The closest office was 12 miles away. I arrived, and expected to see a few young 'believers' who might not exactly be thrilled at seeing a 57 year old white guy. Was I wrong. There were at least 35 people, young, old, racially and ethnically diverse. I was warmly welcomed by all. My field organizer taught me my responsibilities as a volunteer (and soon thereafter as a precinct captain): to whom I would report, meeting dates and conference call schedules, email and text message updates system.
There was joy in the air, even in those early days when it seemed to me as much a quixotic quest as a campaign with a legitimate chance of success. Making phone calls, writing postcards, pounding the pavement loaded down with flyers and brochures and voter lists on which to make those important notes about voter preferences - all the basics of other campaigns I'd been involved in since 1968... but this time it felt different. And it was. The tone and mood set by those overworked field organizers, who always found the energy to listen to our successes and woes and who provided encouragement at every turn, as well as others even higher up on the organization chart, who never failed to stop and say hello to me if they walked by - was, I am certain, not unique to the campaign in Nevada. They gave us their best, and we returned the favor.
- The economy. It would be dishonest to deny the impact that the 'perfect storm' of bad economic news throughout October had on the average American voter's psyche. A tumbling stock market, shrinking retirement plans, rising unemployment, bank and mortgage fears and failures, all combined to nudge an as yet unknown number of voters from undecided to Democrat. Presidents and their political parties always get too much credit when the economy is strong and too much blame when the economy weakens. But that's just the way it is.
Next Friday: Something less serious (world events permitting)
Popular Vote:
Barack Obama-------64,904,451------52.5%
John McCain---------57,063,155------46.2%
Ralph Nader--------------671,182------00.5%
Bob Barr------------------496,153------00.4%
Cynthia McKinney-------145,442------00.1%
Other candidates--not tabulated yet---00.3%
Electoral College Vote:
Barack Obama-------------364---------69%
John McCain---------------162---------31%
Note: With 100% of precincts reported, Missouri's 11 electoral votes have not yet been assigned. McCain has 1,442,673 votes and Obama has 1,436,814 votes. A recount is pending.
What were the main reasons for Obama's victory?
- Iowa. Had Obama not won a surprise victory in the first primary/caucus state, he would have faced a daunting, uphill battle. Had Edwards not come in a surprise second place, knocking front-runner Hillary Clinton into a stunning third place, it is quite likely that she would have quickly and easily regrouped for the rest of the primaries. Her victory in New Hampshire was not as big of a boost as some thought. New Hampshire residents are very displeased with Iowa usurping media attention every Presidential primary season. So even though polls showed Obama ahead of Clinton in New Hampshire, it was the chance for some New Hampshire voters to thumb their noses at Iowa's choice that resulted in the margin necessary to put Hillary over the top. Hillary, referred to by most media analysts before the primaries as the presumptive Democratic nominee, and ahead of Obama by as much as 25% before Iowa, never fully recovered.
- Message. Obama's was consistent and clear in all major areas - from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the economy to appealing to the best in Americans and providing a real promise of change for the better. McCain's focus varied from 'I was right about the surge' to 'Obama associates with a terrorist' and from 'The fundamentals of our economy are strong' to 'I'm suspending my campaign and rushing to Washington, D.C. to help fix our faltering economy'.
- V.P. choice. Obama chose country over campaign by choosing Joe Biden, a seasoned veteran, well-known to many Americans, and fit to assume the presidency at any time. McCain chose campaign over country by choosing Sarah Palin, a political unknown outside of Alaska, someone whom he hoped would capture disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters at the same time as she tilted the ticket farther to the political right to appease the party's conservatives and 'Christian' fundamentalists.
Instead, his choice offended many female voters, since it assumed that they would march in lockstep with any female candidate, regardless of her views. It also angered those Republicans who recognized that Palin did not have the requisite political knowledge to perform even the somewhat limited duties of a Vice President. There was also disaffection with the fact that McCain bypassed more qualified female Republican Senators and Governors, both past and present, who had been Republican loyalists for many years, who had paid their dues, and who would have provided a more electable ticket. Finally, as Palin's inadequacies became more and more apparent, independent and undecided voters looked again at not only Obama, but Biden, and the comparisons did not bode well for the Republicans.
- Organization. My first-hand knowledge of Obama's Nevada organization will forever remain as one of my most cherished memories. Initially, I 'signed up' as a supporter on Obama's web site. Within a week, I received a phone call from an enthusiastic and persuasive Las Vegas local field organizer, who shall remain nameless to protect her privacy, but who will recognize herself should she read this. The closest office was 12 miles away. I arrived, and expected to see a few young 'believers' who might not exactly be thrilled at seeing a 57 year old white guy. Was I wrong. There were at least 35 people, young, old, racially and ethnically diverse. I was warmly welcomed by all. My field organizer taught me my responsibilities as a volunteer (and soon thereafter as a precinct captain): to whom I would report, meeting dates and conference call schedules, email and text message updates system.
There was joy in the air, even in those early days when it seemed to me as much a quixotic quest as a campaign with a legitimate chance of success. Making phone calls, writing postcards, pounding the pavement loaded down with flyers and brochures and voter lists on which to make those important notes about voter preferences - all the basics of other campaigns I'd been involved in since 1968... but this time it felt different. And it was. The tone and mood set by those overworked field organizers, who always found the energy to listen to our successes and woes and who provided encouragement at every turn, as well as others even higher up on the organization chart, who never failed to stop and say hello to me if they walked by - was, I am certain, not unique to the campaign in Nevada. They gave us their best, and we returned the favor.
- The economy. It would be dishonest to deny the impact that the 'perfect storm' of bad economic news throughout October had on the average American voter's psyche. A tumbling stock market, shrinking retirement plans, rising unemployment, bank and mortgage fears and failures, all combined to nudge an as yet unknown number of voters from undecided to Democrat. Presidents and their political parties always get too much credit when the economy is strong and too much blame when the economy weakens. But that's just the way it is.
Next Friday: Something less serious (world events permitting)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
