The finalists for the Ninth Annual Weblog Awards were announced yesterday, and we're honored to be considered with outstanding company in three categories.
Best Political Blog (Wonkette, DailyKos, Huffington Post, Politico)
Best New Blog (Cake Wrecks, Joy the Baker, Simple Mom, Blog Nosh Magazine)
Weblog of the Year (Dlisted, PerezHilton.com, Confessions of a Pioneer Woman, Huffington Post, PostSecret)
To vote in the Bloggies, here's the link.
1.23.2009
Is Kennedy's Loss Conservatives' Gain?
@ 9:28 AM
More on this later on, but if as is widely anticipated, Kristin Gillibrand is named today as the junior senator from New York, this is not a terrific outcome for progressive Democrats. Gillibrand, statistically speaking, has been one of the more conservative Democrats in the House. Moreover, she is a somewhat proud conservative, being a member of the Blue Dog caucus. In a state like New York, which is capable of electing and re-electing a very liberal senator, that's a somewhat underachieving result for the Democrats.
And I know the objection/counterargument: Gillibrand was representing a relatively conservative district in upstate New York; perhaps she will change her stripes and become more liberal upon representing the entire state. I don't doubt that's true to an extent. But Gillibrand's R+3 district wasn't that conservative by any means, especially since an upstate New York sort of conservative is different from an Alabama sort of conservative. I think, in other words, that her conservativism (or moderateness, really), is in substantial part a matter of her personal philosophy rather than merely an attempt to position herself politically.
I also don't doubt that she'll be effective, compelling and popular, and may turn out to be a very good senator for New York. I just don't know that she'll be an especially good senator for Democrats.
And I know the objection/counterargument: Gillibrand was representing a relatively conservative district in upstate New York; perhaps she will change her stripes and become more liberal upon representing the entire state. I don't doubt that's true to an extent. But Gillibrand's R+3 district wasn't that conservative by any means, especially since an upstate New York sort of conservative is different from an Alabama sort of conservative. I think, in other words, that her conservativism (or moderateness, really), is in substantial part a matter of her personal philosophy rather than merely an attempt to position herself politically.
I also don't doubt that she'll be effective, compelling and popular, and may turn out to be a very good senator for New York. I just don't know that she'll be an especially good senator for Democrats.
1.22.2009
The End of the Beginning
@ 8:23 PM
It’s hard to say who had the line of the night, Joe Biden or Jay-Z. At the DC Armory’s Obama Staff Ball last night in Washington, Joe Biden laughingly told the assembled thousands of snazzily-dressed campaign vets, “If I’d known how good you guys were, I’d have never gone to Iowa.”
The celebration capped off a week of spectacle not witnessed before in our nation’s history. Both Obamas, both Bidens, David Plouffe, Kal Penn, Arcade Fire and Jay-Z headlined the event, meant as a reward for the men and women, mostly in their twenties, who dedicated their lives toward the common purpose of electing Barack Obama President of the United States.
Young people generally perform paid campaign work, because the hours are absurd and the pay is marginal. For the vast majority, no job sits waiting at the end of the rainbow. Only the few make it through multiple “cycles,” the term for a campaign period. It is grueling on the body. Other areas of life are suspended or simply dropped. A campaign becomes all-encompassing. From the day you start until at least Election Day, it’s an all-day, every-day job. The sacrifices are sometimes hidden and private, little things you did that only you or maybe one or two who were right there will ever know or appreciate. And it all happens with the possibility that you won’t ultimately win.
What sustains most who elect this work is two things – the intense bonds of friendship one develops, and the connection to a larger sense of meaning. For the Obama staff who danced and reunited this week, culminating at the Armory last night, there was a kind of rare and unadulterated pleasure in a monumental mission accomplished.
No part of the evening was as special to this group as the heartfelt expression of appreciation from the President himself, who spoke for longer and more personally than he had at the Youth Ball the previous evening. The President, who is a community organizer at heart, knows personally and precisely what this group did to reach this moment.
“There’s one guy I get choked up whenever I see him and that’s David Plouffe,” Obama said. Citing Plouffe’s extraordinary focus on the task at the expense of personal drama, Obama again connected the twin themes of service and meaning – reminding everyone that working and striving for “something bigger than yourself” is how the campaign’s culture remained so strong and uniform. Moreover, Obama argued, that connection to serving a bigger goal would carry the “kids” arrayed before him throughout their lives.
Another subtle but memorable moment of the night was Joe Biden telling the crowd that during his entire public career and lifetime he’d never seen any sight as amazing as the one when he looked back across the Mall on Tuesday. As he spoke, it was clear both Bidens were moved by that memory from their unique vantage, as Joe’s voice became temporarily uneven and Jill nodded, mouth quivering.
There was humor in the speeches too, with Obama suggesting that he’d won against the daunting odds in part because his many young members of the campaign team simply didn’t know any better. Biden used the word “literally” and chuckled with self-awareness.
Still, this was the Gene Hackman-in-Hoosiers “I love you guys” night. Even Jay-Z made a point of expressing his personal gratitude to the staff on a capstone party that was all heart and hugs and dancing.
The official celebrations are now over. The tuxes, gowns, dresses and suits are back on their hangers. Bitter cold that began the week has given way to relative warmth. The overwhelming mass of humanity that descended on the capital has mostly migrated home to the near and distant corners of the country.
Already, the new administration has set its jaw soberly into the wind. The country voted for significant changes in public policy both foreign and domestic, and the urgency to get moving is palpable.
But for a final moment last night, the people that organized and strategized Obama’s win shared each other’s company and those sealed, lifetime bonds of friendship. Not to be forgotten.
And oh, yes. Jay-Z’s line. A rousing chorus, shouted triumphantly by the greatest political campaign staff the country has ever seen, summed up exactly where the country finds itself as the new President assumes office.
“99 Problems But a Bush Ain’t One.”
*-*
A Personal Note
One of the great privileges of my life is partnering with Nate over the past year at FiveThirtyEight and getting the front seat to history, from Big Stone Gap to Reno to Miami, from Denver to St. Paul to Grant Park. Nate hasn’t mentioned it, but we won the annual Weblog Award for 2008 Best Political Coverage last week. Ours is a great story of simply doing something you love with not just brains but heart and hard work, with no guarantee of outcome or reward. Finding success with that approach is the most satisfying aspect, and it certainly helps us stay grounded in gratitude. Nobody travels alone.
A special mention to Brett Marty, whose photography deserves wide acclaim. Along the road we were treated with hospitality and kindnesses from too many people to mention individually. We needed all of it.
This week in Washington was incredible. For a political moment, it had a quality that transcended normal descriptive categories tethered to partisan politics – rarely is an era’s end and one’s beginning so dramatically obvious in real time. As Nate said, it was a proud moment for America.
For us, 2008 was the beginning. I’m settling into DC and we’re ambitious, plotting more coverage in the coming year and years. Let’s face it, as Americans increasingly consume information online, new media has a critical role to play in reporting and analysis. We’ll be feeling our way and certainly asking for help.
The celebration capped off a week of spectacle not witnessed before in our nation’s history. Both Obamas, both Bidens, David Plouffe, Kal Penn, Arcade Fire and Jay-Z headlined the event, meant as a reward for the men and women, mostly in their twenties, who dedicated their lives toward the common purpose of electing Barack Obama President of the United States.
Young people generally perform paid campaign work, because the hours are absurd and the pay is marginal. For the vast majority, no job sits waiting at the end of the rainbow. Only the few make it through multiple “cycles,” the term for a campaign period. It is grueling on the body. Other areas of life are suspended or simply dropped. A campaign becomes all-encompassing. From the day you start until at least Election Day, it’s an all-day, every-day job. The sacrifices are sometimes hidden and private, little things you did that only you or maybe one or two who were right there will ever know or appreciate. And it all happens with the possibility that you won’t ultimately win.
What sustains most who elect this work is two things – the intense bonds of friendship one develops, and the connection to a larger sense of meaning. For the Obama staff who danced and reunited this week, culminating at the Armory last night, there was a kind of rare and unadulterated pleasure in a monumental mission accomplished.
No part of the evening was as special to this group as the heartfelt expression of appreciation from the President himself, who spoke for longer and more personally than he had at the Youth Ball the previous evening. The President, who is a community organizer at heart, knows personally and precisely what this group did to reach this moment.
“There’s one guy I get choked up whenever I see him and that’s David Plouffe,” Obama said. Citing Plouffe’s extraordinary focus on the task at the expense of personal drama, Obama again connected the twin themes of service and meaning – reminding everyone that working and striving for “something bigger than yourself” is how the campaign’s culture remained so strong and uniform. Moreover, Obama argued, that connection to serving a bigger goal would carry the “kids” arrayed before him throughout their lives.
Another subtle but memorable moment of the night was Joe Biden telling the crowd that during his entire public career and lifetime he’d never seen any sight as amazing as the one when he looked back across the Mall on Tuesday. As he spoke, it was clear both Bidens were moved by that memory from their unique vantage, as Joe’s voice became temporarily uneven and Jill nodded, mouth quivering.
There was humor in the speeches too, with Obama suggesting that he’d won against the daunting odds in part because his many young members of the campaign team simply didn’t know any better. Biden used the word “literally” and chuckled with self-awareness.
Still, this was the Gene Hackman-in-Hoosiers “I love you guys” night. Even Jay-Z made a point of expressing his personal gratitude to the staff on a capstone party that was all heart and hugs and dancing.
The official celebrations are now over. The tuxes, gowns, dresses and suits are back on their hangers. Bitter cold that began the week has given way to relative warmth. The overwhelming mass of humanity that descended on the capital has mostly migrated home to the near and distant corners of the country.
Already, the new administration has set its jaw soberly into the wind. The country voted for significant changes in public policy both foreign and domestic, and the urgency to get moving is palpable.
But for a final moment last night, the people that organized and strategized Obama’s win shared each other’s company and those sealed, lifetime bonds of friendship. Not to be forgotten.
And oh, yes. Jay-Z’s line. A rousing chorus, shouted triumphantly by the greatest political campaign staff the country has ever seen, summed up exactly where the country finds itself as the new President assumes office.
“99 Problems But a Bush Ain’t One.”
*-*
A Personal Note
One of the great privileges of my life is partnering with Nate over the past year at FiveThirtyEight and getting the front seat to history, from Big Stone Gap to Reno to Miami, from Denver to St. Paul to Grant Park. Nate hasn’t mentioned it, but we won the annual Weblog Award for 2008 Best Political Coverage last week. Ours is a great story of simply doing something you love with not just brains but heart and hard work, with no guarantee of outcome or reward. Finding success with that approach is the most satisfying aspect, and it certainly helps us stay grounded in gratitude. Nobody travels alone.
A special mention to Brett Marty, whose photography deserves wide acclaim. Along the road we were treated with hospitality and kindnesses from too many people to mention individually. We needed all of it.
This week in Washington was incredible. For a political moment, it had a quality that transcended normal descriptive categories tethered to partisan politics – rarely is an era’s end and one’s beginning so dramatically obvious in real time. As Nate said, it was a proud moment for America.
For us, 2008 was the beginning. I’m settling into DC and we’re ambitious, plotting more coverage in the coming year and years. Let’s face it, as Americans increasingly consume information online, new media has a critical role to play in reporting and analysis. We’ll be feeling our way and certainly asking for help.
Progressive Democrats Vote for Bailout; Blue Dogs Don't
@ 4:35 PM
The House today held an entirely symbolic vote on whether to extend to the Obama administration the second half of the $700 billion authorized for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), better known as the financial sector bailout. By a 270-155 majority, the House voted to block the second half of the bailout funds from being released. As I mentioned, however, this was entirely a symbolic gestures: both chambers of Congress would have had to vote to block the bailout to prevent its continuance, and with the Senate already having voted to extend the bailout, whatever the House did was irrelevant.
Nevertheless, the vote may be interesting from the standpoint of figuring out where the different coalitions in the Congress stood. There is a notion, which I think is a misguided notion, that the proper "progressive" stance is to oppose the bailout. Occasionally, you'll come across an issue that splits the political spectrum literally down the middle, with the most progressive members and the most conservative members of the House uniting on one direction on a measure, and moderates in both parties taking the other stance. Is the bailout one such issue?
No, it isn't. On the contrary, this was a fairly conventional vote in which the more a Congressman tends to define themselves as liberal or progressive, the more likely they were to vote to extend the bailout. The Congressional Progressive Caucus voted in favor of continuing the bailout by a 49-15 margin; by contrast, the more conservative Blue Dog Democratic Caucus voted 27-17 to block the bailout. And nearly every Republican voted against the bailout.
Now, clearly there is room for some difference of opinion here; some progressive Democrats voted to block the bailout, and some conservative ones voted to extend it. Fundamentally, however, the bailout represents a decision to use taxpayer dollars to reinforce infrastructure -- and that is generally speaking the "progressive" position. In this case, the infrastructure was financial rather than physical, and private rather than public. There is, nevertheless, a strong case that the bailout was and remains a necessary evil, and credit markets are one of the few economic indicators that have actually improved. That is not to suggest that there isn't an economic case to be made against the bailout; but beware ideologues (be they Democrats or Republicans) willing to cut off the economy's nose to spite its face.
Nevertheless, the vote may be interesting from the standpoint of figuring out where the different coalitions in the Congress stood. There is a notion, which I think is a misguided notion, that the proper "progressive" stance is to oppose the bailout. Occasionally, you'll come across an issue that splits the political spectrum literally down the middle, with the most progressive members and the most conservative members of the House uniting on one direction on a measure, and moderates in both parties taking the other stance. Is the bailout one such issue?
No, it isn't. On the contrary, this was a fairly conventional vote in which the more a Congressman tends to define themselves as liberal or progressive, the more likely they were to vote to extend the bailout. The Congressional Progressive Caucus voted in favor of continuing the bailout by a 49-15 margin; by contrast, the more conservative Blue Dog Democratic Caucus voted 27-17 to block the bailout. And nearly every Republican voted against the bailout.
Now, clearly there is room for some difference of opinion here; some progressive Democrats voted to block the bailout, and some conservative ones voted to extend it. Fundamentally, however, the bailout represents a decision to use taxpayer dollars to reinforce infrastructure -- and that is generally speaking the "progressive" position. In this case, the infrastructure was financial rather than physical, and private rather than public. There is, nevertheless, a strong case that the bailout was and remains a necessary evil, and credit markets are one of the few economic indicators that have actually improved. That is not to suggest that there isn't an economic case to be made against the bailout; but beware ideologues (be they Democrats or Republicans) willing to cut off the economy's nose to spite its face.
What is Coleman Fighting For?
@ 12:55 PM
Norm Coleman, rather oddly, has decided to take a day job:
But what is Coleman's angle here? Increasingly, I think this is being driven by John Cornyn and the RSCC, and that they've given up on beating Franken but merely want to bloody him, casting doubt over the legitimacy of his election in order to make him a focal point for Republican angst. If this were a generic Democrat instead of Franken, in other words, I think the Republicans might already have given up. But because Franken has the potential to be a polarizing figure, there is more incentive for them to fan the flames a little bit; the recount merely provides the pretense for them to do so.
Norm Coleman (R) has taken a job with the Republican Jewish Coalition while contesting Democrat Al Franken’s lead in the Minnesota Senate race, his campaign confirmed Thursday.This makes little sense if you (i) are at all concerned about public sentiment, or (ii) think you have any chance whatsoever of actually prevailing in the recount. It reminds me a little bit of Mike Huckabee, already mathematically eliminated from the Republican nomination, went on a speaking junket to the Caribbean while ostensibly still seeking the presidency, a clear sign that he was staying in the race merely for the free media that would help him to build his brand for 2012 and beyond.
In what could be seen as a sign that Coleman thinks his bid to return to the Senate may be lost, he has signed on to do consulting work for the group, which is comprised of a number GOP leaders.
“The senator needs to earn a living while the contest is going on,” said Coleman spokesman Mark Drake, who said the job does not at all affect Coleman’s bid to win reelection.
But what is Coleman's angle here? Increasingly, I think this is being driven by John Cornyn and the RSCC, and that they've given up on beating Franken but merely want to bloody him, casting doubt over the legitimacy of his election in order to make him a focal point for Republican angst. If this were a generic Democrat instead of Franken, in other words, I think the Republicans might already have given up. But because Franken has the potential to be a polarizing figure, there is more incentive for them to fan the flames a little bit; the recount merely provides the pretense for them to do so.
1.21.2009
Did Caroline Ever Really Want It?
@ 8:55 PM
If the news is true that Caroline Kennedy has withdrawn her bid for the Senate, then one of two things has happened. The first possibility is that David Paterson decided some days ago to go with another candidate, and gave Kennedy the opportunity to save face by withdrawing her name from consideration. You know: the old "You Can't Fire Me! I Quit!" shtick.
The second possibility, not entirely mutually exclusive with the first, is that Kennedy was just not all that into being a senator in the first place.
The sequence of events is fairly easy to imagine:
1. Barack Obama, somewhat unexpectedly, taps Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State, creating a Senate vacancy in your home state.
2. Having gained some notoriety because of your role on Barack Obama's campaign -- not that you needed much notoriety, since you're a Kennedy -- you start to hear your name tossed about by the press and by some of your associates, all of whom are behaving with the best of intentions.
2a. Also, your uncle, one of the most famous senators in history but also someone who is gravely ill, encourages/hints/urges you to take the seat.
2b. Deep down, however, you're conflicted. Your relatively public role on behalf of the Obama campaign went better than you thought -- maybe you don't mind the limelight so much, being so overtly involved in electoral politics. But you're also fundamentally a fairly private person, a free spirit, and the idea of becoming a senator feels constricting. Everyone seems to want this for you more than you want it for yourself.
3. Well, maybe not everyone. New York is a very big state with a lot of very famous Democrats, and some of them want the seat instead. So if you want the seat, you're certainly going to have to look like you want it, whether you actually want it or not.
4. And so, you embark on a media campaign and "officially" declare your interest, finding your powerful family and their powerful friends all too eager to help out. But when you're actually put on the spot, you come across as nervous, indifferent, and underprepared -- perhaps because you are nervous, indifferent, and underprepared. Your public image takes a hit. Some powerful figures in the media begin to criticize you, mocking everything from your resume to your speech patterns. You have even less privacy than you're used to. This is exactly what you were afraid of in the first place.
5. But you're also kind of stuck. A lot of people -- the Mayor, maybe the Clintons, and certainly your uncle -- have gone out on a limb for you. You could probably have the seat if you really wanted it. But you've never been entirely sure that you really want it. In fact, you're not sure that you want it at all.
5a. You sort of schlep your way through your remaining media hits. Deep down, perhaps, you're trying to sabotage your candidacy.
6. Finally, something breaks. Paterson lets you know that he's leaning in a different direction. Or, one of your best friends sits down and has a real heart-to-heart with you. Or, you summon the courage to let your uncle know that you don't really want the position. In any event, you withdraw your name from consideration. And you haven't felt better in months.
The second possibility, not entirely mutually exclusive with the first, is that Kennedy was just not all that into being a senator in the first place.
The sequence of events is fairly easy to imagine:
1. Barack Obama, somewhat unexpectedly, taps Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State, creating a Senate vacancy in your home state.
2. Having gained some notoriety because of your role on Barack Obama's campaign -- not that you needed much notoriety, since you're a Kennedy -- you start to hear your name tossed about by the press and by some of your associates, all of whom are behaving with the best of intentions.
2a. Also, your uncle, one of the most famous senators in history but also someone who is gravely ill, encourages/hints/urges you to take the seat.
2b. Deep down, however, you're conflicted. Your relatively public role on behalf of the Obama campaign went better than you thought -- maybe you don't mind the limelight so much, being so overtly involved in electoral politics. But you're also fundamentally a fairly private person, a free spirit, and the idea of becoming a senator feels constricting. Everyone seems to want this for you more than you want it for yourself.
3. Well, maybe not everyone. New York is a very big state with a lot of very famous Democrats, and some of them want the seat instead. So if you want the seat, you're certainly going to have to look like you want it, whether you actually want it or not.
4. And so, you embark on a media campaign and "officially" declare your interest, finding your powerful family and their powerful friends all too eager to help out. But when you're actually put on the spot, you come across as nervous, indifferent, and underprepared -- perhaps because you are nervous, indifferent, and underprepared. Your public image takes a hit. Some powerful figures in the media begin to criticize you, mocking everything from your resume to your speech patterns. You have even less privacy than you're used to. This is exactly what you were afraid of in the first place.
5. But you're also kind of stuck. A lot of people -- the Mayor, maybe the Clintons, and certainly your uncle -- have gone out on a limb for you. You could probably have the seat if you really wanted it. But you've never been entirely sure that you really want it. In fact, you're not sure that you want it at all.
5a. You sort of schlep your way through your remaining media hits. Deep down, perhaps, you're trying to sabotage your candidacy.
6. Finally, something breaks. Paterson lets you know that he's leaning in a different direction. Or, one of your best friends sits down and has a real heart-to-heart with you. Or, you summon the courage to let your uncle know that you don't really want the position. In any event, you withdraw your name from consideration. And you haven't felt better in months.
A Brief Comment on the 50-State Strategy
@ 3:00 PM
I'm not sure that the discussion surrounding the Democrats' 50-state strategy couldn't stand to be a bit more sophisticated. A party's resources are finite, and those resources are always going to be allocated unequally between different states and different congressional districts depending on the probability of the party winning office there and other factors. Under Howard Dean, that allocation was significantly flatter than it had been under previous DNC administrations. That turned out to work out very well for the Democrats, as they won office in numerous states and districts that were once assumed not to be competitive.
It sounds like, under Tim Kaine, the Democrats will be moving to a somewhat more top-heavy resource allocation. The allocation is still likely to be broader than it had been in the pre-Dean years, however, and the Democrats are still likely to field viable candidates in a higher proportion of states and districts than the Republicans do. The key intraparty battles will not be those to determine if, say, a congressional candidate in Arizona gets more resources than one in New Jersey. Those sorts of things can be settled "scientifically" on a return-on-investment basis: how much does a marginal dollar spent in AZ-6 go toward strengthening the Democratic majority in Congress than one spent in NJ-11?
Rather, the real battle will be the one that Chris Bowers highlights:
It sounds like, under Tim Kaine, the Democrats will be moving to a somewhat more top-heavy resource allocation. The allocation is still likely to be broader than it had been in the pre-Dean years, however, and the Democrats are still likely to field viable candidates in a higher proportion of states and districts than the Republicans do. The key intraparty battles will not be those to determine if, say, a congressional candidate in Arizona gets more resources than one in New Jersey. Those sorts of things can be settled "scientifically" on a return-on-investment basis: how much does a marginal dollar spent in AZ-6 go toward strengthening the Democratic majority in Congress than one spent in NJ-11?
Rather, the real battle will be the one that Chris Bowers highlights:
In short, the DNC will be moving away from the long-term, decentralized, fifty-state strategy of Howard Dean's tenure, and toward serving as a short-term, centralized re-election effort for President Obama in 2012.Emphasis added. One can imagine a lot of scenarios in which there is a potential trade-off between enhancing Barack Obama's election chances (and/or his political capital) and those of a downballot candidate for Congress or some other office. In the special election in Georgia, for instance, Barack Obama did not want to visit the state because he evidently felt that stumping for Jim Martin would be a poor use of his political capital. That might or might not have been the "correct" decision (in retrospect, since Martin got beaten badly, it looks wise). But the point is, there is a trade-off there: Obama's interests versus those of a congressional Democrat. And with Obama largely taking over the DNC, such trade-offs are liable to be resolved more often than not in Obama's favor.
Shades of Roosevelt in Obama's Address
@ 11:53 AM
Having slept on it, I'm still not terribly fond of Barack Obama's speech yesterday, which I thought could have been more joyous and celebratory. The nation knows that our economy is in trouble and that the next year or so (at least) is liable to be a fairly difficult one, but I'm not sure that we needed so many reminders of that on the day of Obama's inauguration itself.
Then again, it's not the President's job to make us feel good. Since the NBER began dating recessions in 1854, quite a few of the 44 Presidents have been sworn in during one, including Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Hayes, Cleveland (both times), McKinley, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Roosevelt and Truman. Obama is the first President since Truman, however, to deliver an inaugural address during a recession. And Truman's case requires an asterisk, since he did not deliver an inaugural address after taking over for Roosevelt (although, the United States was also in recession when Truman was inaugurated to his first fullterm in 1949). So in some senses, Roosevelt offers the most recent parallel.
And there are certainly a lot of echoes of Roosevelt's speech in Obama's. Consider Roosevelt's opening:
Or consider this moment from Obama about 10 minutes into the speech:
Closing thought: imagine if we looked at Roosevelt's first inaugural address now and it had been cheerily optimistic, seemingly unaware of the problems of the moment. Wouldn't that seem strange? Keep in mind that these things are written for history as well as for the present day.
Then again, it's not the President's job to make us feel good. Since the NBER began dating recessions in 1854, quite a few of the 44 Presidents have been sworn in during one, including Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Hayes, Cleveland (both times), McKinley, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Roosevelt and Truman. Obama is the first President since Truman, however, to deliver an inaugural address during a recession. And Truman's case requires an asterisk, since he did not deliver an inaugural address after taking over for Roosevelt (although, the United States was also in recession when Truman was inaugurated to his first fullterm in 1949). So in some senses, Roosevelt offers the most recent parallel.
And there are certainly a lot of echoes of Roosevelt's speech in Obama's. Consider Roosevelt's opening:
I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our Nation impels. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.Now consider Obama's:
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.Stylistically, a bit different, but the sentiment expressed is the same.
Or consider this moment from Obama about 10 minutes into the speech:
This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.And compare it to this phrasing from Roosevelt:
Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.The parallels are striking enough that I'm sure they're intentional. Whether or not you think Obama's address "worked", we can see where he's coming from.
Closing thought: imagine if we looked at Roosevelt's first inaugural address now and it had been cheerily optimistic, seemingly unaware of the problems of the moment. Wouldn't that seem strange? Keep in mind that these things are written for history as well as for the present day.
1.20.2009
Flavor of the Day
@ 7:01 PM
I apologize that we haven't been able to write somewhat more regularly during the past couple of days. In contrast to something like, say, the conventions, which are more or less contained in one place, the events in DC are spread out all over the city, and significant amounts of one time are spent traveling and queuing.
To give you some sense for what we're dealing with, I was on the yellow line on the Metro this morning headed to L'Enfant Plaza, where I had to pick up an inauguration ticket at my friend's place. All of the sudden, as we're just meters away from the station, the conductor announces cheerily: "Sorry, L'Enfant Plaza is now closed. The next stop is Pentagon". So this train full of people, thinking they are heading to L'Efant Plaza so that they can walk over to the Mall, are instead hurtling at 60 MPH toward Virginia, where they very much don't want to be going.
When the train arrives at the Pentagon station, there are huge lines to get up the escalators toward the shuttle buses they have waiting outside. So someone gets the bright idea to begin walking up the down escalator ... and dozens of people start following him. Before long, there are two think columns of people -- black, white, the young, the old, the healthy, the frail -- marching up the down escalator, as couple a police officer looks on haplessly and helplessly. And the people are chanting, quite naturally, "Yes we can!".
To give you some sense for what we're dealing with, I was on the yellow line on the Metro this morning headed to L'Enfant Plaza, where I had to pick up an inauguration ticket at my friend's place. All of the sudden, as we're just meters away from the station, the conductor announces cheerily: "Sorry, L'Enfant Plaza is now closed. The next stop is Pentagon". So this train full of people, thinking they are heading to L'Efant Plaza so that they can walk over to the Mall, are instead hurtling at 60 MPH toward Virginia, where they very much don't want to be going.
When the train arrives at the Pentagon station, there are huge lines to get up the escalators toward the shuttle buses they have waiting outside. So someone gets the bright idea to begin walking up the down escalator ... and dozens of people start following him. Before long, there are two think columns of people -- black, white, the young, the old, the healthy, the frail -- marching up the down escalator, as couple a police officer looks on haplessly and helplessly. And the people are chanting, quite naturally, "Yes we can!".
A Proud Moment for America
@ 1:38 PM
It was not a perfect inauguration. Barack Obama and John Roberts mutually stumbled over the Oath of Office. Obama's speech was powerful, moving in places, but somber, serious, and not entirely elegant. There was a nervous air to some of the proceedings, particularly Rick Warren's invocation. The crowd -- well more than a million people -- was respectful of one another, and reverential of the ceremony. But Washington has been essentially impossible to navigate for the past 12 hours or so, a disorienting labyrinth of road and subway closures, crowds and frigid temperatures; I literally got lost in the crowd.
In spite of all of that, I found myself almost overcome with pride, and read the same emotion on the faces of nearly everyone that I passed in the crowd. For as much as some parts of the world have developed a habit of looking down on America, it's highly unlikely that any nation in Europe or most of the rest of the world would have elected someone like Barack Hussein Obama as their leader. Here's hoping that Obama will prove to be a president worthy of our great nation.
In spite of all of that, I found myself almost overcome with pride, and read the same emotion on the faces of nearly everyone that I passed in the crowd. For as much as some parts of the world have developed a habit of looking down on America, it's highly unlikely that any nation in Europe or most of the rest of the world would have elected someone like Barack Hussein Obama as their leader. Here's hoping that Obama will prove to be a president worthy of our great nation.
1.19.2009
FiveThirtyEight Hits Washington
@ 9:30 AM
The three of us (Brett, Sean, Nate) are all here in the District, looking forward to providing you with some inauguration-related coverage over the next couple of days. In fact, one of us is staying here, and we also hope to be providing you with some continual DC-based coverage after the inauguration ends (more on that in a bit). In the meantime, check out these backstage photos of yesterday's inauguration concert.
Obama: Highest Initial Approval For Elected President?
@ 2:38 AM
Barack Obama's favorability ratings have continued to improve as we approach Tuesday's inauguration. But how do they compare to those of his predecessors?
The two highest initial, post-inauguration approval ratings as measured by Gallup belong to presidents who took over for others whose terms ended prematurely. About 86 percent of Americans approved of Harry Truman when he took over for FDR. And 77 percent approved Lyndon Johnson when he took over for JFK. The highest initial approval rating for a newly elected president, on the other hand, appears to belong to Kennedy, whom Gallup pegged at 72 percent approval shortly after his inauguration in 1961.
Barack Obama has an excellent chance to exceed Kennedy's numbers. The Pollster.com averages show that 70 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of Obama versus 16 percent unfavorable. Although favorability ratings aren't the same thing as approval ratings, they tend to closely track one another. Also, it appears that there may typically be something of a bounce in an incoming president's approval scores immediately after his inauguration, so Obama's numbers may (temporarily) get even better.
My guess is that when Gallup comes out with its first post-inauguration approval ratings for Obama later this week, it will show him with about 76 percent approval, 11 percent disapproval and 13 percent uncertain, which would indeed be the best numbers on record for a newly-elected president. At the very least, Obama is virtually assured of starting out on better footing than his two immediate predecessors in the White House, as Bill Clinton had emerged victorious in a three-way race in which he got just 43 percent of the popular vote, and George W. Bush's disputed victory in 2000 had come only after weeks of uncertainty and litigation.
The two highest initial, post-inauguration approval ratings as measured by Gallup belong to presidents who took over for others whose terms ended prematurely. About 86 percent of Americans approved of Harry Truman when he took over for FDR. And 77 percent approved Lyndon Johnson when he took over for JFK. The highest initial approval rating for a newly elected president, on the other hand, appears to belong to Kennedy, whom Gallup pegged at 72 percent approval shortly after his inauguration in 1961.
Barack Obama has an excellent chance to exceed Kennedy's numbers. The Pollster.com averages show that 70 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of Obama versus 16 percent unfavorable. Although favorability ratings aren't the same thing as approval ratings, they tend to closely track one another. Also, it appears that there may typically be something of a bounce in an incoming president's approval scores immediately after his inauguration, so Obama's numbers may (temporarily) get even better.
My guess is that when Gallup comes out with its first post-inauguration approval ratings for Obama later this week, it will show him with about 76 percent approval, 11 percent disapproval and 13 percent uncertain, which would indeed be the best numbers on record for a newly-elected president. At the very least, Obama is virtually assured of starting out on better footing than his two immediate predecessors in the White House, as Bill Clinton had emerged victorious in a three-way race in which he got just 43 percent of the popular vote, and George W. Bush's disputed victory in 2000 had come only after weeks of uncertainty and litigation.
1.18.2009
Barack Obama: The First Urban President?
@ 11:11 AM
Such is the case I make in a new feature at Esquire:
If Bill Clinton was the first black president, then Barack Obama might be the first urban one. He is the only American president in recent history to seem unembarrassed about claiming a personal residence in a major American city. Instead, presidents have tended to hail from homes called ranches or groves or manors or plantations, in places called Kennebunkport or Santa Barbara or Oyster Bay or Northampton.The full article is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
