The Elections, Contributions, and Me

One story that upset me deeply--I saw it on TV, but couldn't tell you where anymore--was an interview with a woman who runs a food bank, a nonprofit that provides free food to the poorest of Americans. She complained that every four years, contributions to her organization drop sharply, and that this year was the worst yet, to the point where she was in danger of having to cease operations.

She attributed it to the problem that her contributors' limited discretionary dollars were being sucked into the gaping maw of this year's election campaigns  (my wording), and I have no doubt that she is right.  This overload of campaign spending is a development that is bad for all--even Mitt Romney would say that private contributions to charity are a public benefit and need to continue. As for me, I know that her point applies to me--my contributions to private charities have dropped off sharply, that being partly a function of my deficient cash flow, but also that I am channeling my benevolent impulses in these months into (probably fruitless) campaign contributions.

I sometimes see articles by Democratic-leaning individuals patting themselves and their chosen party on the back for the party's platform stance and the inclination of many of its candidates to support a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling, and then drawing distinctions with the Republicans who are fueling their campaigns with well-hidden, big-money Super PAC donors.  I don't like those articles, whether true or not:  This is not a partisan issue.  Even a moment's consideration would reveal that a constitutional amendment in the US can not be passed on a partisan basis--it needs two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-fourths of state legislatures (or a constitutionl convention, if you want to get technical).  There is no way that the Democrats, or Democrats plus Independents plus minor-party backers, are ever going to get close to that kind of dominance nationally--if they did,  there would be such a power monopoly that they wouldn't even need to spend on campaigns.  This is not a talking point to try to get more Democrats elected; it is critical to the future of our democracy that we change this system, and that it begin immediately after this election ends.  Unfortunately, it can't really begin any sooner.

It is absolutely essential that Republicans, too, see the futility of continuing to have campaigns funded in this excessive, wasteful, regressive fashion.  One way they could see it, I will admit, would be if the Republicans put their faith in huge TV spending and it fails, and they figure out that there has to be a better, more effective way.  Another, better, way is if the winning Republican candidates realize that what they just went through was something that a) they never want to do again; and b) they don't want their opponents or successors to go through, either.

It's false that no one benefits from the current system, though.  A few groups that probably gain:  the TV channel owners, ad agencies willing to produce sleazy campaign ads, the telemarketing companies that can put people on the phones dialing for dollars.  Maybe some others:  there have been some interesting articles to the effect that Sheldon Adelson's expected value for his $100 million or so contributions would be positive if his candidate has better than 20-1 odds of winning the election (he did, but now I'm not so sure).

The rest of us, though, are losers, and I'm particularly thinking of the small-time contributors, like me, who are conned into giving because of some media-report deadline, or scare tactics about a poll that shows their candidate about to lose, or about a poll that shows that their underdog candidate has a chance, after all, or even the one-in-a-Lotto chance that if I give money I'll get chosen to have dinner with the President and the First Lady.   Or the equivalent for the Nominated Suit and his Trophy Babymaker. I'm pretty sick of all of it, and I imagine my counterpart on the other side is, too.

Spending My Hard Earned Contribution Buck Wisely...
That would be a change, as I realize looking at my "act blue" contribution history.  Mostly I have given to false-hopers and easy winners.  Can I change my ways?

My record-keeping is pretty bad; I can see some contributions, but not what prompted them.  It suggests to me that my pattern is the equivalent of impulse-buying, and probably the results are no better.

I have given two or three times to the President's campaign  ("ofay",  I call "Obama for America";  I wonder if his team has absorbed the irony of that monicker); again, I can't really tell you what moved me to respond in those cases out of the hundreds of appeals I have received.  One was for a bumper sticker that said  "Obama!" (with an upside-down exclamation point before it--I have no idea how to produce that character on this keyboard) ; I don't think any of them saved the world, or any lives, or even his campaign.

Here are a few more I've been able to dig up:
 - One contribution to the national Democratic party; I was moved to do it by Debbie Wasserman Schultz's name-drop of Gabby Gifford (the former Arizona Congresswoman nearly assassinated by Jared Loughner).  Debbie actually has the right to drop Giffords' name, and I knew that:  she just had better not overuse the privilege.
- The contribution I made to Claire McCaskill's campaign for re-election as Missouri Senator, the day after Todd Akin got the nomination.  I still feel pretty good about that one.
- $25 for Emily's List; I can't remember why anymore.  I'm not crazy about E.L., as they only provide support to (pro-choice) women, but I could do worse, I guess.
- $5 to Ilya Sheyman, Congressional candidate around here.  Loser.
- $10 for the Gov. Walker recall campaign.  Loser.
- $25 for Ann McLane Kuster, Congressional candidate in New Hampshire.  We'll see;  I think she's favored to win now, but hopefully not so easily that my contribution was meaningless.  I believe one of my fairly-distant relatives (father's cousin) is one of her key political backers.
 - $50 to the DSCC.  That was last year, probably a reasonable move in that I knew there would be tough sledding for the Democrats to keep control of the Senate, but WAY TOO EARLY--what was I thinking?
- $20 to the DCCC (Congressional Campaign Committee).  This is a good idea, if you trust them to make good strategic decisions about which campaigns to support.  I would argue that it's much too complicated to try and assess all the Congressional races and which deserve a contribution, so picking one's spots wisely would mean just contributing to races that have a particular personal interest.  Sort of like the difference between buying an Exchange-traded fund and a specific stock.
 - My Act Blue records also reveal the following, most of which I have no memory of whatsoever:

• Eric Griego (New Mexico congressional primary candidate).  Loser.  It's really bad strategy to give to primary candidates, I've decided, unless it's to prevent the Devil himself from getting a nomination.
• Colleen Hanabusa (Hawaii Congresswoman).  She should win easily--bad investment.
• Martin Heinrich (New Mexico Senate candidate).  He's pulling away from his opponent--not such a great one.
• $20 to Joe Donnelly (Indiana Senate candidate)--Donnelly has been sending out emails lately pointing out that Nate Silver (of 538.com) has said that a contribution to Donnelly has eight times better chance of affecting the future control of the Senate than one to Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts Senate candidate)--this, although both are in extremely tight races.  It must have to do with the amount of money being spent in the two races, not the price per vote bought, or the amount of Senate votes each would get if elected (=1).  It's pretty snarky of Donnelly, but I'll grant that he's measurably better than his opponent (an extremist Tea-bagger, Richard Mourdock) and in a close race that he can win.

So far, Elizabeth Warren has gotten nothing from me.  I admit some conflict in my thinkings/feelings about this one.  Scott Brown isn't great, but there are far worse.  Both have sworn off PAC money, and held to the promise--I think he deserves some credit for that.  Then, of course, there's the huge money involved, on both sides:  giving just encourages them, right?  Also, I think that Warren has opened some daylight from her opponent recently, as a result of some of the more outrageous Romney gaffes, like the "47%" one that Brown disowned, but from which he can't fully hide--not in Massachusetts.

Unless things change dramatically, I'm not giving any more to the President's campaign.  I have changed my mind a bit about it, in a positive way--they are promising to use the money to build grassroots support and turnout, instead of throwing it down the TV hole, and I do believe them, but that is one campaign that will have enough support (even if outspent) to win.  That strategy also means that I should not give money to Tim Kaine in Virginia (even though he's in a close race), Sherrod Brown in Ohio (though he's one of the best out there, and in a competitive race), or Bill Nelson in Florida:  Let's just assume that Obama's campaign is going to be spending like crazy in those three states for turnout, and that these Democratic Senate candidates' boats will be fully floated by it.

The one specific race I'm thinking I may blow a few bucks yet is the Congressional challenger for Paul Ryan's seat in Wisconsin (name to be added later--I heard him speak once, and I thought he was pretty good, a viable opponent in a swing district).   I declared Ryan my enemy a year ago when he targeted people my age to lose their Medicare benefits (though there was some ambiguity about exactly which birthdate and younger would get the raw end of the deal); although I am a year older now, and his proposal still promises full benefits to people "55 and over" (so I would, hypothetically, be safe), I am not ready to forgive and forget.

CPS vs. CTU

As a relative newcomer to the Chicago area, I've been reluctant to wade into the minefield of local politics, which are intensely complex and more than a little vicious.  Not to mention corruption, which is the norm here--not to mention it, just accept that it exists.  Things are very deep here--how deep, I don't know, because they are unfathomable.

That being said, I have to weigh in a little on the teachers' strike, because it is threatening to become an issue on the national stage and because it is so close.  Not as close as it could be, as there is no direct personal stake for me or my family members, but it is close in the sense of being not far away, close enough I can almost hear the noise.

The background story is fairly easy to describe quickly.  New Mayor Rahm Emanuel made a longer school day one of his promises when inaugurated, something very popular with most observers.  As for those most closely involved, the teachers could hardly object:  the school days were unusually short, the need of the students for more and better education blatantly obvious; I doubt the opinions of the students themselves were considered.  Anyhow, this major change in the terms of employment was absorbed fairly readily:  the Chicago Public Schools' authorities were willing to pay more, the teachers willing to work more.

After that adjustment, things should have gone smoothly.  The initial reason for the strike had to do mostly with job security, initially in the form of resistance to a change in the terms under which teachers and schools would be evaluated.  Essentially, the extremely low odds of a Chicago Public Schools teacher ever being dismissed due to ineffectiveness had to change, and evaluations based on the students' performance on standardized tests were going to be the vector of change.

Now, I have heard the objections from those who back the teachers in this dispute.  Most of them center around the fact that the teachers have many factors which are beyond their control, and to make their jobs depend on overcoming those difficulties would be unfair.  This is tough, but the facts are that students must be educated better, and there needs to be an objective standard of measurement of that progress.  It is entirely appropriate to take into account the starting point for students each year, and to make targets realistic based on those circumstances, but it will not do to say that there are no expectations.  

Somehow, there was something like a tentative agreement on the subject by the end of last week between the negotiators for the school system and the Chicago Teachers Union.  There was hope that school would start back on Monday.  But no--the Union insisted that they have time to consider the proposed deal and said they would vote on Tuesday (Monday being Rosh Hashanah).  Not too auspicious, but not a disaster.

It is at this point that Mayor Emanuel seemed to lose his bearings, seeking an injunction from the courts against the strike which would force the teachers back to work.  The argument was that state law specifically prohibits the CTU from striking on non-economic issues, and teachers' pay was not the issue. 

I don't want to argue the merits of the suit; the city has a point, but it appears the real issue is one that is at least partly economic:  a hidden agenda to close some of the schools--either the poorer-performing ones or ones that are under-attended.  Teachers would lose jobs, and then the question of the evaluations of the laid-off teachers would come into play as to whether they would ever be rehired. The CPS denies there is such an agenda, but it hardly seems improbable, and the CTU is reluctant to agree to go back to work and then get the shiv in the back.

My point is that Emanuel's move, and its timing, will undoubtedly antagonize the union, and I would be surprised if they vote to accept the agreement in the newly re-charged atmosphere.  The question now is whether the union had negotiated in good faith, and whether the city had done so.

The broader issues are whether public unions like the teachers' are something states and municipalities should tolerate--do they provide value to education or harm it, and is it appropriate to limit the right of these employees to organize?  This is an issue that is coming up time and again--recently, in Wisconsin, in Ohio, and elsewhere.  The Democrats have fairly consistently backed the right of public employees to organize, and the Republicans have looked to limit that right.  In Chicago, the pragmatic Emanuel is breaking with that stereotype, taking on the teachers; he doesn't challenge their right to organize, but is challenging the scope of what they can effectively bargain about with their employers.

There is another angle that affects the national election:  Emanuel is one of President Obama's key people, his former Chief of Staff, and a very public backer and fundraiser (up until the strike), and this is Obama's city.  It's not just that Obama is answerable for the settlement of the strike; it's that it seems that in the public eye he's responsible for everything that happens in the country (in fact, in the world, as last week's strife in the Middle East showed), in particular for that involving his people, his party, his city. 

If the strike drags on, it has the potential of upsetting the positive momentum he and the Democrats have been enjoying since the conventions.  So, I expect some discreet calls to Emanuel to cool it and settle it.  Emanuel will have to swallow the bile he apparently felt when union agreement to the settlement was not assured, and he will either drop his suit in a show of goodwill, or, if his suit should succeed Wednesday, be magnanimous in victory and offer the same terms in victory that his people negotiated last week in the bargaining stage.  If he should lose the suit, though, there will be enormous pressure on him to concede something to the CTU to get them back to the table, and then back to work.

Fall 2012 Movie Preview

I've been seeing this storyline from critics, over and over, of how TV has displaced the movies as the top dog in our visual kennel.  Generally, I don't buy it--there is more crap than ever on TV, and a higher percentage of it, too, though I will admit that there are more interesting dramatic series than previously (but less good situation comedy, variety, or live performance).  And don't even get me started about "reality" TV or the surfeit of forensic crime shows!

 I see this fall as being an extremely exciting season for film, as the good stuff comes out.   We start with a couple of supergroup-type productions with superb stories to tell.

Five Films I'm Eager to See

1)  Lincoln, (release date 11/9)- Steven Spielberg directing Daniel Day-Lewis, in the story of America's greatest President, screenplay by Doris Kearns Goodwin.  Over-under on the Academy Awards is seven. Not just that, though:  Something like this has the potential to do more than just entertain us for a couple of hours (the most one could've hoped from last year's Best Picture, The Artist).  The last days of President Lincoln is a story for the ages (ours included), one that few, if any,  have dared to dramatize.

Gala looking at the Mediterranean Sea which at a distance of 20 meters is transformed into the portrait of Abraham Lincoln (Homage to Rothko) by Salvador Dali (in the Dali Museum, St. Petersburg, Fla.) courtesy of a money bomb email from Alan Grayson.

Step back from your screen a few meters and try it.

2) Cloud Atlas - (10/26) - based on one of my absolute favorite novels of the last 20 years (and one of the pillars of this blog) by David Mitchell, starring Tom Hanks (in about six roles), Halle Berry, directed by Tom Twyker (of Run Lola Run fame) .  Produced by the Wachowskis (of Matrix fame).

To be honest, this is one that might be done better as a miniseries on TV (six-part); the stories span  hundreds of years of history, something resembling the present, and the near and distant future.  It could be a big mess, confusing even to those who already know the stories.  At least the Wachowskis won't skimp on the budget.

On the other hand, this movie may animate something along the lines of the novel's aspiration--nothing less than a change in human nature and in the way the world operates, bringing understanding to the causes, the nature, and the ultimately self-destructive result of the exploitation of others. 

3) Argo - (10/12) - A story so outrageous, it couldn't be invented, but it's one I'd never heard until word of this movie started getting out.  Six US staff and family members escaped the Iranian Embassy that day in 1979 when the militants "took America hostage".  The six were sheltered by the Canadian mission in Tehran  (note:  recently closed) ; this is the story, directed and starring Ben Affleck, of their rescue.  Lots of amazing late-'70's hair.

4)  Anna Karenina - (11/16) - OK, I saw a terrible review of it (from the previews being given for many of these movies in the Toronto Film Festival) , but I don't care--I like the idea of a remake, done as a stage treatment for film, with Keira Knightley and Jude Law.  Like Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, I'm drawn to it even if I'm not thinking I will like it, and it will be a much more efficient use of my time to watch it then reading it could ever be. 

5) The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - (12/14)  - Some returning favorites from Lord of the Rings, like Ian McKellern as Gandalf and Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, Peter Jackson driving the bus, and the return of the spectacular New Zealand fantasy landscapes.  What I don't like much is that Jackson is going to take three movies to tell the story (with some incidents from other Tolkien work thrown in somehow). 

....And Ten More That I'm at Least Curious About

Hyde Park on the Hudson - (10/7) - Bill Murray dares to take on the role of FDR, with the return of the stuttering English king from The King's Speech.  Might not be great, but I want to see it; I saw the preview, and Murray's FDR-like appearance is startlingly good.

Life of Pi - (11/21) - Ang Lee dares to take on the best-selling story of a young man, a boat, and a Bengal tiger.

Django Unchained - (12/25) -  I'm not as enchanted with everything Quentin Tarantino does as some are, but Jamie Foxx in a genre-busting Western does appeal--in theory.

The Master (12/21) - There is a lot of buzz about this one; someone in Hollywood (Paul Thomas Anderson, no less) dares to bring forth a story of a Scientology-like mind-controller (someone like L.Ron Hubbard, played by the incomparable Philip Seymour Hoffman) in the post-WWII milieu in which Hubbard first made his mark.

On the Road (12/21) -  The Jack Kerouac novel, beatniks in the US in the '50's.  You can't tell me that this has never been covered before!

This Must Be the Place (11/2) - A major Sean Penn dramatic role, a retired Irish rocker coming to America on a voyage of discovery.  It's been too long since we've seen Sean challenged by a role (Milk, I'd say).

Lay the Favorite (12/7) - this is one that could be great or awful.  It's about sports betting--an excellent subject for drama--and apparently from the point of view of some women (Catherine Zeta-Jones being one, Rebecca Hall another) who meet up with a team of obsessed gamblers (Bruce Willis being one of them).  I may wait and look for more buzz before deciding to invest in a cinema ticket (as opposed to waiting and seeing it for free, which I will definitely want to do at some point, no matter how bad it may be).

West of Memphis (12/25) - I am a little reluctant to wade into this documentary, sponsored by Peter Jackson (of Lord of the Rings fame), which analyzes a notorious case of apparent injustice in a murder trial of three individuals in Arkansas.  The case is controversial, also the movie, which has a backstory of some feuding with another series of documentaries on the subject called Paradise Lost, and I don't want to go there, but I do want to understand the case and have it presented in an interesting way--which is what I hear of this film.

Looper (9/28) -  I think the premise is ridiculous (time traveler who must go in the future to kill his future self):  theoretically impossible (to go into the future and come back), and why would you do it (kill your future self)?  But (from the preview I saw), it seems to introduce a rather profound theme:  what our older self would advise our younger self, if only we could. 

Silver Linings Playbook (11/21) - An offbeat comedy by David O. Russell (I Heart Huckabees, the underrated Three Kings) and starring Jennifer Lawrence.  I will give it a try, no matter what others may say.

The Benghazi Affair

The news of the assault on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, by armed militants, which destroyed the building and killed the US ambassador and three others, hit close to home for me.  I was fairly close to joining the Foreign Service at one point, and my thoughts were along the lines of "There but for the grace..."

The militants exploited the opportunity of protests by Islamists against the Internet release of a trailer for a low-budget film called "The Innocence of Muslims" by an anti-Muslim (apparently an Egyptian Coptic Christian--the Coptics have had recent strife with Islamists there).  It appears to be a thoroughly disgusting film, for which the actors have reported that all the dialogue they had filmed had been dubbed out and replaced with inflammatory language added by the filmmaker.  Apparently the film suggests the prophet Muhammad was a homosexual, a child molester, some other stuff--thoroughly scurrilous.

The first protests had been in Cairo, Egypt, with the ones in Benghazi soon afterward (since then, there was another dangerous protest in Yemen, and other protests elsewhere).  The besieged embassy in Cairo released a statement aimed at calming the riotous crowd apologizing for any offense and disassociating the US from the film.

Mitt Romney wasted no time at all in politicizing the affair, releasing a statement in the middle of the night in response to the Cairo release, to the effect that the Obama Administration was appeasing Islamic radicals. Romney's clumsy attack missed the mark and violated rules of responsibile US Presidential politics, which require serious candidates to avoid bringing active national security issues into political debate.  He has been heavily criticized by a variety of folks, including most of the press and even some Republicans.  Some have said this was a tipping point for his candidacy, which is slipping rapidly away from any status as a credible challenge to Obama.

I would disagree in a couple of regards.  First, his clumsiness, ignorance, and inadequacy to deal with delicate diplomatic issues is already well established, so this is nothing new.  I am not one who supports suppression of all partisan political discussion of foreign affairs, especially for Presidential candidates, though Romney's take on the incident was deficient. His challenge is slipping, but it's not because of this: I don't think most Americans will even take note of this brouhaha. 

The Real Issues
Putting the campaign considerations on the side, I think there are two legitimate topics for discussion raised by these incidents. 

The first is the status of those countries in the Middle East which have had their governments disrupted or overthrown by the Arab Spring.  The fact that the worst incidents occurred in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen, all countries whose leadership has been forced out by upheavals in the past two years, is no coincidence at all.  The militants' attack on Benghazi was coordinated and heavily armed; it shows every sign of being conducted by al-Qaeda, or some similar extremist group.  The weakness of the central governments and the tenuous state of security in these countries has provided an opening for extremists to operate. 

We can (and do) demand better security for our embassies from the host countries, but really it falls to us to provide adequate security--which clearly was not present in Benghazi.  Al-Qaeda wouldn't try something like this in Baghdad:  We have enough troops stationed at our embassy to counterattack and destroy the attackers, while the instigators in Benghazi apparently ceased their assault when US reinforcements showed up and blended back into the (chaotic) scenery. 

There is also legitimate ground to debate, or criticize, the US role in the overthrow of the Egyptian and Libyan governments; to argue against the result, though, is implicitly to prefer the previous rule of the tyrants Mubarak and Qadhafi--something that few would suggest. Still, one could argue that, having contributed to the current instability, we should be doing more to prevent the infiltration into these countries of armed extremists.  Libya, in particular, remains overly well-armed in the aftermath of a civil war, and its fragile (but generally friendly) government needs our support.

The second point for discussion is whether the US really wants to provide safe haven for blasphemers, something we have clearly done in this case.  This guy who made the film would never dare do it in Egypt; he's taking advantage of our safety and the uncensored media here to produce inflammatory, foul filth.  OK, we have plenty of obscenity produced legally here all the time, and that's a different question, but we must consider whether we want to be the source of more stuff like this.

The answer, I think, is that we do have to say (after Voltaire) to our citizens who would do this sort of thing--"We  disapprove this 'art', but we will defend to the death your right to produce it."  If the producer of this particular piece of garbage is here on some sort of visa, though, he should be deported back to Egypt, where he will receive his due.  If our laws don't provide for any distinction between citizens' free expression and that of those whose visits we are tolerating, then they should. (There is clearly a difference between this thing and the work of, say, Salman Rushdie, who was also condemned as a blasphemer in some parts, and whom we have also hosted some of the time.  We need to find a way to make the distinction, as it pertains to cultural refugees.) And, we should recognize there will be more "blasphemy" coming out of our fertile culture, and we should expect and plan for more strong reactions.  With increased, armed American military defending our embassies and consulates in vulnerable locations.

Conventions in the Rear-View Mirror

To put it briefly, the Democratic and Republican conventions were not a game-changer in the Presidential race.  President Obama had favorable momentum going into them, and should have it coming out of them.  His narrow popular vote edge in national polls (among likely voters) conceals a more substantial lead in electoral votes.

Is There a Story Here?
The news value of the national conventions has dropped in recent electoral cycles:  There are few surprises, the messages are managed.  Not even much new information, really.  I saw three storylines which dominated much of the discussion during the conventions themselves:
1) Paul Ryan as serial liar?  His speech's effect was severely undercut by several factually-challenged statements.  Ryan's job as VP candidate for the challengers will be as attack dog; he will have to be more selective, though, in the charges he accepts into his speeches.  More generally, Ryan's status as a leading light in John Boehner's House of Orange was not something the Republicans cared to celebrate.
2) the Democrats' second thoughts on their platform:  The original draft had two "mistakes"--removal of the Deist reference to American workers' "God-given potential" and to Jerusalem as the real capital of Israel.  These were errors of political formulaic expression, not of policy:  the international community has not recognized Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, because it is the subject of (theoretically) ongoing negotiations on the permanent status of the West Bank and Palestinians, and neither has the U.S. government--through both Republican and Democratic administrations.  As for where our "potential" comes from, the delegates (and Obama behind them) decided to offend the atheists instead of failing to nod to the believers--a traditional stance, and not very controversial.  The tempest in the teapot was that some delegates booed the amendments' adoption by voice vote; the platform is a very moderate, inoffensive document and these changes--hypocritical though they may be--fit right in.
3) The Battle of the Spouses' Speeches:  The argument was over who was better, but I think that was misplaced:  They aren't running against each other, and both came across very well. Ann Romney had a more difficult task, to humanize her husband, but expectations were lower for her.  Michelle Obama is a practiced, skilled speaker with a fairly simple theme--he's still the same guy as ever.  And, of course, she nailed it.

Who Zoomed Who More?
Like the phony debate over the better spouse speech, there was much phony discussion about who among the Democrats gave the best of the many good speeches:  John Kerry zinged the Republicans' follies, Michelle provided warm and fuzzy feelings, Joe Biden gave an effective pitch.  Most observers gave the edge, though,  to former President Bill Clinton, who provided an extensive, point-by-point argument (not a "brief", by any means) for a second term.  Speaking from the perspective of one who has been there, and using language which spoke directly to voters, neither over their heads nor insulting their intelligence, Clinton went deep, long and convincingly for the man who defeated his wife in the bitter 2008 nomination campaign.  Clinton deserves all the credit he has gotten for his statesmanlike performance; perhaps not all the (bipartisan!) adulation and nostalgically enhanced memory of his administration.

Personally, I always find Clinton too long-winded, and this speech was no exception.  I thought Biden deserved better treatment, and I preferred Elizabeth Warren's combative warmup for Clinton (though programmatically a little out of synch with his centrist policy preferences).   Anyway, those who opt for one performance or another are missing the point:  the convention's main speeches were set up to provide a complete experience, filling in all the background and major details for the finale.

The Tilt of Our Returning Champion Jouster
Which brings us to President Obama's speech.  Reactions have generally tended to two extremes:  either totally unimpressed with the lack of soaring rhetoric, inspiration, or even specific policies, or on the other extreme, a terrific speech worthy of his best performances.  My own opinion is mixed:  He did what he needed to do, what he and his campaign wanted him to do, but I wanted more.  It takes a bit longer to explain my dissatisfactions than my satisfactions with the speech.
Dislikes:
1) His Specifics Limited Him:  I can understand the reasons why Obama should not make great promises at this time, but some of the promises he did make concern me. Obama is well aware of the debt limit and budget negotiations coming up just after his election, but his speech's promises box him into a difficult negotiation strategy.  He promised on the one hand to cut deficits by $4 trillion dollars, but on the other hand he put the mortgage deduction, entitlement benefits, and the middle-class tax break all off limits.  As both he and Clinton said about the Paul Ryan budget, "the arithmetic" doesn't add up for his approach--reducing tax breaks for the wealthy, plus non-entitlement discretionary spending cuts won't get there.  The deal he will have to make, assuming his re-election:  prolong the tax cuts--rich and poor--for just another year or two, substitute targeted defense cuts for the across-the-board ones, and phase in additional payroll taxes to support Medicare/Medicaid in 2-3 years (when, hopefully, the recovery will be stronger).
2) He did not appeal to disaffected Republican moderates:  I guess that was supposed to be Clinton's task, but, just as the Republicans made overt appeal to disappointed Democrats, there are millions of moderate--or even moderately conservative--Republicans who are disenchanted with the extreme tack taken by the national Republican party.  While I buy the argument--one that you rarely hear, but most political operatives would admit--that there are few likely voters who do not have at least some leaning already to one side or the other of our intensely divided politics, Obama's policies and political stance is truly moderate enough that he can make a bid for those who have not drunk the Tea Party Kool-Aid, with its denial of science, false conservative intrusion into our privacy, and voodoo economics. He did not really do so; neither did any other Democratic speaker, with the exception of former Florida Governor Charlie Crist.
3)He made no appeal for the need to win back Congress: I believe strongly that Obama has a small but stable lead that he will most likely retain, but it will avail Obama little in his second term if he lacks control of both houses of Congress.  He says it's not all about him, he may be feeling outspent, and surely those down the ticket will benefit from turnout in support of his re-election, and finally he is likely to support the Congressional candidates more once he's sure he's going to be re-elected, but he needs to get out in front of that objective more:  his message must be, "If you support me, you need also to go out and vote for, work for, and financially support the Senate and House candidates running where you live.  Otherwise, what change can we accomplish together?"

Likes:
1) He showed humility: I was a little worried when he stated, early on, "Things are different. I am the President." (and you're not!) But he built the key theme of his speech about how he needs us--"You give me hope"--and he quoted the greatest of all Americans, Lincoln, in citing his many failings and his need to pray for help. He admitted his shortcomings without showing weakness.
2) He touted his foreign/military policy successes: Not just that--and his administration has a great deal to brag about--he got in a couple of well-aimed digs at the weaknesses of Romney-Ryan in that area.  The Democrats have gained the appearance of the party of responsible governance, the steady hand guiding the ship of state; in large measure they have the Bushites and the Tea Party to thank for that, but also they are starting to build a history of better guidance of state affairs and, for that matter, better performance in the stock markets and in job growth (something Clinton hit upon most effectively).
3) He drew upon his community organizer and religious revival experience:  Obama's campaign leadership is staking their hopes for the endgame not on buying votes with saturation levels of TV ads in the key markets of the swing states, but on a furious get-out-the-vote campaign. The whole tone of his speech aimed at this strategy.

And Coming Up Fast into Our Windshield...
One thing I'm fairly happy about is that the electoral campaign seems to be going by quickly, without a lot of movement.  The margins--and I am relying here primarily upon 538.com for the detailed analysis of the state-by-state probabilities--are holding, or slightly increasing.  Right now, in Nate's analysis (which looks at current polling margins, historical tendencies in the state, and the likelihood based on electoral history of a margin of the current size being erased), there is exactly one state (North Carolina) in which the probability of one candidate (or the other) winning is less than 60%--and that is now quoted at 58.4% (for Romney).  Between 60-70%, there is one state (Florida, at 65.5% for Obama).  There are four states between 70-80%:  Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, and Ohio (!), all with the odds in Obama's favor; and there are several states between 80-90% probability:  Indiana, Missouri, Arizona, and Montana in Romney's favor, and New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Nevada in Obama's favor.  All the rest are at 90% or more in one candidate's favor, and thus should be considered near to sure things. The electoral vote with these most likely results would be 332-206 Obama, the same as in my post on the subject two months ago. 

Still, the debates could turn the momentum, and I would say that Gov. Romney, who is a strong debater, is likely to "win" one or more of those debates; however, based on what I have seen, Obama seems likely to take advantage of Romney any time the discussion strays from Romney's organizational acumen or a President's alleged capability to manage the economy.  There is little else that could turn things from the rather solidified bases of support--and I discount the likelihood that a Vice-Presidential debate could do it.  Some sort of terrible gaffe by Obama that reveals that he really doesn't care about the middle-class, white people, brown people, or women, maybe.

And now the Democrats' Turn....

The convention will be full of piety to Democratic party values, with some interesting speakers.  You can see the list here; the schedule will eventually be posted there.  I have seen high touting of the merits of the keynote speaker, Mayor Julian Castro of San Antonio, about whom I know very little.  Congressman John Lewis is one of the most emotionally compelling speakers, in the manner of Rev. Martin Luther King, so feel yourself fortunate if you happen to catch his.

It will be interesting to see if Joe Biden puts his foot in it--I doubt he will stray from his script, but there is always an element of risk when Biden speaks. Biden has a bit of an edge in the sense that the other two people I would consider to be early major candidates for 2016, Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are not on the list of announced speakers, so he should do his best to look future-Presidential.  It's not that Madame Secretary's too busy, as far as I know, or that Cabinet secretaries are not allowed: Interior Secretary Salazar and HHS Secretary Sebelius are on the list.  I do expect to see HRC on the dais when her husband wraps up his speech (and I hope he can keep it to the scheduled length).

There is really only one important speech in the week, though, President Obama's.  He is truly a great speaker, and I expect his rhetorical gifts to be fully present in a speech that he will largely compose.  I do have some advice for him (and here I echo the wise suggestions of Donna Brazile and Matthew Dowd--yes, that Matthew Dowd, Republican political adviser, whom I saw agreeing--amazingly--on George Stephanopoulos this week):  Do not dwell on the past failures of the Bushites; you can mention, but do not spend much time, on the shortcomings of this House or Congress more generally, the insanity of the national Republicans, or the Tea Party movement, and how they have hindered the public policy of the last two years (others will do plenty of that).  Instead, do spend a large percentage of the time recounting the successes of the first administration,* then move to the programs left to do, the future, and what you will do.  Obama must give people a handful of good reasons, ones that people will understand, for them to vote to give him another term.

I think Obama and his people know this, and I expect he will do no less.



*Apart from the Affordable Care Act, taking out Osama and a number of other nasty folks, ending "don't ask, don't tell", implementing key provisions of the Dream Act through Executive order, rebuilding America's standing in the world, exiting the Iraq War and setting the plans to exit the one in Afghanistan, he should not be afraid to say that the worst was avoided in our exit from the Great Crater, and that jobs have been added for some 30 months in a row.  That last one will give way to a good transition to what must still be done.