Wednesday, November 19, 2008
A Sad Correction
It would seem that the Summer of the Thousand Fires has not truly ended, at least for the good people of Southern California. I do wish I had been right that it was over. The Northstate may not be out of the woods yet either. For all our sakes, I do hope it ends soon.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Yes, apparently we can!
Well, look at what we just did!
I was really too engrossed in the news to liveblog last night, but here's about how my thoughts went:
It did not look particularly good for Obama at first. No one had any illusions about Kentucky, but the speed at which they called it for McCain (along with Vermont, no surprise) was a little unsettling to me.
Then it became abundantly clear that McCain would carry Georgia. The first of the states Obama had outside hopes for, and where stories of massive turnout and African-American enthusiasm were abounding, to be called for McCain (well it is not officially called even now because of masses of absentee and early vote ballots....but it pretty well stated that McCain would take it by a decent margin, though that margin has narrowed a bit since).
The most worrying sign was that for the first couple of hours McCain was leading the count by a wide margin in Virginia. Yes...it's because NoVa and the Tidewater came in last...but it was still worrying to see McCain up 10% in the Old Dominion for the first hour or more. Even Olbermann started commenting on how the expansion of the map Obama had promised was not materializing. Pundits on CNN and Fox were similarly skeptical.
For the next hour there were no surprises....Massachusetts, Connecticut, South Carolina.
But it was immediately apparent this was a different sort of year, as no one was calling Indiana, or North Carolina, or New Hampshire.
Then the nets called Pennsylvania. McCain has practically lived in Pennsylvania for the last three months. The speed at which it was called was as striking as Kentucky had been.
I watched the returns with my father, who was unnecessarily confident at this point. I remained a study in caution...carefully eyeing the numbers in still unfavorable Virginia. Several pundits and pollsters had suggested Virginia (or Indiana) would be the state that would let us all know how this was going to shape up. After all, Obama was supposed to be up 10% there, it should be easy.
Instead.....
The moment the networks called Ohio, I knew it was over. I was so startled by the call, I actually shut the TV off for a second to collect myself. I fully expected it to be close like in 2004, and not be called for some time (it was the next day last time). I had to check Fox just to make sure. But there it was. We now reversed positions as my confidence surged past my father's. I had to walk him through the numbers, to demonstrate that nothing short of McCain taking California would save him.
The rest was icing on the cake. And some icing it was...
By the end of the night the symbolic victories I wanted most had occurred. Indiana rejoined the Union (they've voted with the South long enough). And then my dear Nevada. And finally the old capital of the Confederacy itself, Virginia.
Of all the things I hoped for, the biggest would be that Obama would carry one or more of the infamous 1964 states, the dozen or more states that haven't voted Democratic since LBJ (other than Minnesota and DC, the Democrats have never been able to inspire such loyalty...even Massachusetts went for Reagan). By George, he got two of them. All night I was calling out to the TV, "Flip Indiana....flip! Restore the Union!" and "Come on Virginia! You can do it". No wonder they call campaigns a horse race. Gradually Obama's deficit in Virginia vanished, with Fairfax County and Newport News putting him well over the top. Just before I went to bed, the Hoosiers followed suit.
And in the end, they didn't call it until the West Coast had closed, until our Pacific states had made it official. Florida, once the keystone, was now almost an afterthought. As were hard fought Colorado and New Mexico.
There were minor disappointments. As someone who loves the Great Plains, I had thought North Dakota would be incredibly symbolic (another 1964 holdout). I also had high hopes for Montana. I respect McCain too much to want to see him humiliated, so I was actually pleased that Arizona remained loyal.
Other interesting things:
- California has gotten irritatingly used to being written off. In several of the past elections the thing was called before our polls were even closed. For all of our might as the largest state with the most votes, we are pretty soundly ignored most of the time (Yes I know...it's because we're solid Democratic, so count your blessings). This time, with 2000 in mind, the networks waited until the Pacific closed to announce. CNN was particularly cautious, not calling states for up to half an hour after Fox and MSNBC. I actually think that was good of them. Makes us feel like our votes count.
- Looks like Missouri is going to break its streak. Except for 1956 (when they went for Adlai), Missouri has voted with the winner in every election in since 1908. 100 years. 1908 and 2008, I suppose, are good bookends, with 1956 almost half-way.
- Ohio didn't break its. It remains that a Republican cannot seem to win without it (though they can lose with it).
- Some margins were larger than I expected: Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, North Dakota. Some were closer: Virginia was closer than the polls predicted, though I thought it would be close. Some were razor close: Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina.
- McCain campaign bluster about Iowa and Pennsylvania proved to be as bogus as most people thought.
- Congress was a different story. The predicted Democratic wave never really materialized, as evidenced by Ms. Bachmann, the Diaz-Balart brothers, Mr. Souder, as well as Senators McConnell, Chambliss, Coleman, and Stevens. Coleman does face a recount. Chambliss faces a runoff he should easily win. And Stevens may yet end up in jail. But it was nowhere near the filibuster ending sweep that many predicted. Personally I think that may end up being good. There is less chance for excess, more need for bipartisanship, and slightly less opportunity for the Republicans to blame everything in the next two years on a runaway Dem Senate. Besides, with the aid of moderates like Lugar, the ladies from Maine, and, dare I say, McCain, the Democrats are going to be able to get a lot done. The wild card is Leiberman. Reid is still going to want his vote in the caucus, and the Republicans are going to woo him like nothin' doin', but no one likes a Benedict Arnold. He may have acted quite bravely, but I suspect he will still end up persona non grata in the Democratic Party. And I suspect he'll need to make some retirement plans in four years.
I have other thoughts as well, but I'll close with this. The Conventional Wisdom has been wrong about everything this election with one massive exception. About the primaries, who was "inevitable", how the conventions were run, and the debates, the ways the electorate would split, and what states would be safe or in play....the CW was wrong on it all. But there has been one overarching assumption that served as a backdrop for all....that this was bound to be a Democratic year.
Still when one thinks about it, its really quite incredible.
President Barack Obama....good heavens what a sound. Who would ever have thought it.
A historic day.
I was really too engrossed in the news to liveblog last night, but here's about how my thoughts went:
It did not look particularly good for Obama at first. No one had any illusions about Kentucky, but the speed at which they called it for McCain (along with Vermont, no surprise) was a little unsettling to me.
Then it became abundantly clear that McCain would carry Georgia. The first of the states Obama had outside hopes for, and where stories of massive turnout and African-American enthusiasm were abounding, to be called for McCain (well it is not officially called even now because of masses of absentee and early vote ballots....but it pretty well stated that McCain would take it by a decent margin, though that margin has narrowed a bit since).
The most worrying sign was that for the first couple of hours McCain was leading the count by a wide margin in Virginia. Yes...it's because NoVa and the Tidewater came in last...but it was still worrying to see McCain up 10% in the Old Dominion for the first hour or more. Even Olbermann started commenting on how the expansion of the map Obama had promised was not materializing. Pundits on CNN and Fox were similarly skeptical.
For the next hour there were no surprises....Massachusetts, Connecticut, South Carolina.
But it was immediately apparent this was a different sort of year, as no one was calling Indiana, or North Carolina, or New Hampshire.
Then the nets called Pennsylvania. McCain has practically lived in Pennsylvania for the last three months. The speed at which it was called was as striking as Kentucky had been.
I watched the returns with my father, who was unnecessarily confident at this point. I remained a study in caution...carefully eyeing the numbers in still unfavorable Virginia. Several pundits and pollsters had suggested Virginia (or Indiana) would be the state that would let us all know how this was going to shape up. After all, Obama was supposed to be up 10% there, it should be easy.
Instead.....
The moment the networks called Ohio, I knew it was over. I was so startled by the call, I actually shut the TV off for a second to collect myself. I fully expected it to be close like in 2004, and not be called for some time (it was the next day last time). I had to check Fox just to make sure. But there it was. We now reversed positions as my confidence surged past my father's. I had to walk him through the numbers, to demonstrate that nothing short of McCain taking California would save him.
The rest was icing on the cake. And some icing it was...
By the end of the night the symbolic victories I wanted most had occurred. Indiana rejoined the Union (they've voted with the South long enough). And then my dear Nevada. And finally the old capital of the Confederacy itself, Virginia.
Of all the things I hoped for, the biggest would be that Obama would carry one or more of the infamous 1964 states, the dozen or more states that haven't voted Democratic since LBJ (other than Minnesota and DC, the Democrats have never been able to inspire such loyalty...even Massachusetts went for Reagan). By George, he got two of them. All night I was calling out to the TV, "Flip Indiana....flip! Restore the Union!" and "Come on Virginia! You can do it". No wonder they call campaigns a horse race. Gradually Obama's deficit in Virginia vanished, with Fairfax County and Newport News putting him well over the top. Just before I went to bed, the Hoosiers followed suit.
And in the end, they didn't call it until the West Coast had closed, until our Pacific states had made it official. Florida, once the keystone, was now almost an afterthought. As were hard fought Colorado and New Mexico.
There were minor disappointments. As someone who loves the Great Plains, I had thought North Dakota would be incredibly symbolic (another 1964 holdout). I also had high hopes for Montana. I respect McCain too much to want to see him humiliated, so I was actually pleased that Arizona remained loyal.
Other interesting things:
- California has gotten irritatingly used to being written off. In several of the past elections the thing was called before our polls were even closed. For all of our might as the largest state with the most votes, we are pretty soundly ignored most of the time (Yes I know...it's because we're solid Democratic, so count your blessings). This time, with 2000 in mind, the networks waited until the Pacific closed to announce. CNN was particularly cautious, not calling states for up to half an hour after Fox and MSNBC. I actually think that was good of them. Makes us feel like our votes count.
- Looks like Missouri is going to break its streak. Except for 1956 (when they went for Adlai), Missouri has voted with the winner in every election in since 1908. 100 years. 1908 and 2008, I suppose, are good bookends, with 1956 almost half-way.
- Ohio didn't break its. It remains that a Republican cannot seem to win without it (though they can lose with it).
- Some margins were larger than I expected: Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, North Dakota. Some were closer: Virginia was closer than the polls predicted, though I thought it would be close. Some were razor close: Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina.
- McCain campaign bluster about Iowa and Pennsylvania proved to be as bogus as most people thought.
- Congress was a different story. The predicted Democratic wave never really materialized, as evidenced by Ms. Bachmann, the Diaz-Balart brothers, Mr. Souder, as well as Senators McConnell, Chambliss, Coleman, and Stevens. Coleman does face a recount. Chambliss faces a runoff he should easily win. And Stevens may yet end up in jail. But it was nowhere near the filibuster ending sweep that many predicted. Personally I think that may end up being good. There is less chance for excess, more need for bipartisanship, and slightly less opportunity for the Republicans to blame everything in the next two years on a runaway Dem Senate. Besides, with the aid of moderates like Lugar, the ladies from Maine, and, dare I say, McCain, the Democrats are going to be able to get a lot done. The wild card is Leiberman. Reid is still going to want his vote in the caucus, and the Republicans are going to woo him like nothin' doin', but no one likes a Benedict Arnold. He may have acted quite bravely, but I suspect he will still end up persona non grata in the Democratic Party. And I suspect he'll need to make some retirement plans in four years.
I have other thoughts as well, but I'll close with this. The Conventional Wisdom has been wrong about everything this election with one massive exception. About the primaries, who was "inevitable", how the conventions were run, and the debates, the ways the electorate would split, and what states would be safe or in play....the CW was wrong on it all. But there has been one overarching assumption that served as a backdrop for all....that this was bound to be a Democratic year.
Still when one thinks about it, its really quite incredible.
President Barack Obama....good heavens what a sound. Who would ever have thought it.
A historic day.
Monday, November 3, 2008
24 Hours
Well we've come down to it. After two years of endless debates, ads, wrangling it's time. It has been such a fascinating election season. Nearly all of the conventional wisdom has been thrown in disarray at one point or another. I remember reading articles a year or more ago announcing the inevitability of Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani. There was one conservative article that sticks in my mind, where the author confidently asserted that Obama would lose the primary, but would be back in 2016...after 8 years of President Romney. My mind floods with memories of posts entitled "Why Fred Thompson will win!" or "Why Mitt Romney will win!" or "The Audacity of Barack Obama" which excoriated him for daring to think he could take on the Clinton machine.
Now here we are, (barring some recount fiasco) one rotation of the Earth away from Decision 2008. Random thoughts on the whirlwind this has been:
- It will be historic either way, an African-American President or a woman Vice-President. What this says about our country is incredibly heartening.
- The bitter primary probably helped Obama more than anyone thought. The Right has been complaining that McCain didn't bring up Rev. Wright or Tony Rezko, who have been described as some sort of "silver bullet" that would be sure to take Obama down. Why they think this amazes me. Hillary threw all of this and the kitchen sink at Obama. We've heard it. Wright did his damage months ago. Were the Republicans not paying attention? The fight with Hillary also resulted in the massive ground operation that Obama has in several states that a Democrat wouldn't normally contest. Thanks to Hillary, he has offices open and an army of experienced organizers and volunteers in places like North Carolina, Indiana, Virginia, Montana. Even places he lost to her like Pennsylvania are showing the benefits of that operation. CW at the time was that the bitterness of the Dem fight might actually cause Obama and Clinton to knock each other out (I remember a cartoon depicting the two of them as two bilious hares not noticing a McCain tortoise crossing the finish line). If Obama's ground game gets him over the top in some of these states, that bruising fight may turn out to be the best gift Hillary has given Barack.
- It was stunning to see how the candidates I disliked the most fell so quickly. In 2000 the one person running on either side who I least wanted to be President got the job, George W. Bush. In 2008 the two people who I least liked were Giuliani and Romney. Super Tuesday did them both in. The speed of Rudy's fall was actually quite remarkable. Meanwhile the two people who I most liked on the either side, Obama and McCain made it. I have a great deal of respect for Hillary, and I get a real kick out of Huckabee, but my two favorites on each side made it to the top. In that sense I can't lose tomorrow.
- Many things which would usually be gamechangers were not. The debates for example were a complete wash. I actually thought McCain won them, at least the first and last. Obama always held his own, but McCain did quite well, I thought. But it didn't matter, they were equally matched and the viewing public saw it. It was fascinating to watch the dial testers, though I'm not sure how I feel about them. They are addicting, but also distracting and manipulative, and potentially unrepresentative. But they were too interesting to ignore.
- Personally I think the media coverage has also been a wash. Yes, they were certainly enamored with Obama at the start. But they helped to drive several negative stories about him in the ensuing months, like Wright, his failing with blue-collar folks in Appalachia, his slip-ups like Bittergate. To say the "MSM" is "in the tank" is absurd (except perhaps for MSNBC and Fox, but those depend on which programs you watch). One of the great ironies is that the media has taken so much flak for "being easy on Obama" precisely at the moment it was pushing stories like "Why can't Obama close the deal?" and "The Wright Factor" and such. Yes, McCain has taken a lot of pounding in recent days, but much of that has been driven by his own behavior, shutting out reporters he used to pal around with, launching unnecessarily mean-spirited ads, etc... I really don't think the media has a "liberal bias" as much as it has a "media bias". Reporters want to be read, want to be seen, want to be talked about. They want their newspapers bought, they want their shows advertised on. In short, they want ratings. What draws people are good stories, controversial stories, stories that are fun to watch. If Obama's eloquent speeches get people to watch, they'll play 'em. If digging into Palin's past in Wasilla sells papers, they'll do it. But that's just my opinion. It depends on whom you read and watch. Olbermann is over the top liberal. O'Reilly over the top conservative. I must admit I have cheered the rapid rise of Rachel Maddow. She seems sensible, only has one guest on at a time (this is a real plus for me --- if I have to spend one more minute watching "panels" of pundits screaming over each other I'm going to scream myself), she respects the opinions of people who disagree like Pat Buchanan, and she's a hometown girl from Castro Valley, California (very near where I grew up).
- Biden is a gadfly who I wish would muzzle it. He is personable, experienced, connects with blue-collar folks, has excellent foreign policy experience, and I really wish Obama had picked someone else. He is perfectly qualified for the job, and for the presidency, should (God forbid) that need ever arise. But I shudder to think of how many times he will embarrass Obama in the years to come should they win.
- Palin is vibrant, interesting, incredibly likable, and almost totally unqualified for the job. Her answers to even simple questions have been painful. She has good executive experience though her tenure in Alaska seems to be a mixed bag. She has a reformer's record but has been needlessly careless about things like firings and per diems. She seems to know next to nothing about foreign affairs or domestic policy beyond the talking points she's been fed. She is bold and confident, but not very thoughtful (as opposed to Obama, who is often halting and cerebral, but clearly knowledgeable). It is almost inconceivable to me that she could handle the job of President should (God forbid) that need arise, at least not right now. I started off liking her a great deal (see my first post about VP possibilities), but I think this process has harmed her.
- It has been sad for me to watch what I believe to be a disintegration of McCain's integrity. He stood there saying "Country First" and "Experience Counts" then he chose Sarah Palin. He promised clean campaigning, then ran guilt-by-association ad hominem attack ads. He promised straight talk, then told lies about Obama's tax plan (no, Senator, he's not going to raise "my taxes", I'm not that rich thank you very much). They have both been guilty of distortion (Obama has disappointed me greatly with his social security and "100 years in Iraq" attacks), but Obama never made it personal. Rather than sticking to the issues, McCain went for Ayers, Rezko, and Khalidi. For a man who can rightly boast of a long record of bi-partisan work, McCain has resorted to name calling..."socialist", "palling around with terrorists", and a scary intonation of the word "liberal" (the "liberal" positions Lieberman holds on a host of issues apparently not concerning him). A man who worked with the likes of Russ Feingold, he now describes Pelosi and Reid as some sort of diabolical duo. He condemned hateful robo-calls in 2000, now he's running them himself. The Straight Talk express has been slipping away for months now, as he has transformed himself increasingly into the kind of partisan hack I have always loathed. Where is the straight-talker of 2000? Well the conservatives point out that he lost in 2000. To paraphrase one of McCain's finest phrases, I'd rather lose an election than lose my integrity.
- Obama's problem is not Ayers or Wright or Rezko, it is Chicago itself. The clean fact of the matter is that Chicago embraces characters that other places would consider unsavory. Despite his past, Bill Ayers was accepted by respectable Chicago society. He became a respected college professor and served on the board of a world-reknowned educational foundation founded by Republicans. For all his "scary" black liberation theology, Wright was a respected pastor of a well known church. Rezko, Khalidi, it's all the same. These were respectable people in Chicago. Obama had no reason to doubt that. He did not seek these people out because they had like-minded radical ideas. He took Chicago as it came. To condemn Obama is to condemn the whole of Chicago. McCain has been content to do just that. Republicans have never had a problem writing off huge swaths of the American landscape (the "Country" that comes "First" clearly does not include San Francisco...the entire state of Massachusetts...or anything in New York north of Wall Street and Ground Zero...but Wasilla? You betcha).
- The fringe claims about Obama are internally contradictory. Supposedly the most troubling things about him are that he is a Muslim and that he shares the anti-American rantings of Rev. Wright. So...which is it? If he's a Muslim he doesn't share Wright's views. If he shares Wright's views than he is a black liberation theology Christian. You really can't have it both ways. I read an item today claiming he is not a U.S. citizen because he was born in Kenya. He is not a U.S. citizen because he is Indonesian. So...which is it, is he Kenyan or Indonesian?
- All of which is to say that I have been wrong about Obama. Four years ago I watched him speak at the Democratic Convention and I had tears in my eyes. Here was someone who could inspire, who could bring us together and make us proud again. Part of the reason I supported him over Hillary is that half the country hates Mrs. Clinton. She stirred partisan tensions while Obama was the one to unite us. Well, I was wrong, and I think the Democrats who hoped this would be true were wrong. I should have known that the conservatives would end up hating Obama just as much as any Democrat.
I don't know about you, but I am about ready for this to be over. We'll have to see what tomorrow brings.
Now here we are, (barring some recount fiasco) one rotation of the Earth away from Decision 2008. Random thoughts on the whirlwind this has been:
- It will be historic either way, an African-American President or a woman Vice-President. What this says about our country is incredibly heartening.
- The bitter primary probably helped Obama more than anyone thought. The Right has been complaining that McCain didn't bring up Rev. Wright or Tony Rezko, who have been described as some sort of "silver bullet" that would be sure to take Obama down. Why they think this amazes me. Hillary threw all of this and the kitchen sink at Obama. We've heard it. Wright did his damage months ago. Were the Republicans not paying attention? The fight with Hillary also resulted in the massive ground operation that Obama has in several states that a Democrat wouldn't normally contest. Thanks to Hillary, he has offices open and an army of experienced organizers and volunteers in places like North Carolina, Indiana, Virginia, Montana. Even places he lost to her like Pennsylvania are showing the benefits of that operation. CW at the time was that the bitterness of the Dem fight might actually cause Obama and Clinton to knock each other out (I remember a cartoon depicting the two of them as two bilious hares not noticing a McCain tortoise crossing the finish line). If Obama's ground game gets him over the top in some of these states, that bruising fight may turn out to be the best gift Hillary has given Barack.
- It was stunning to see how the candidates I disliked the most fell so quickly. In 2000 the one person running on either side who I least wanted to be President got the job, George W. Bush. In 2008 the two people who I least liked were Giuliani and Romney. Super Tuesday did them both in. The speed of Rudy's fall was actually quite remarkable. Meanwhile the two people who I most liked on the either side, Obama and McCain made it. I have a great deal of respect for Hillary, and I get a real kick out of Huckabee, but my two favorites on each side made it to the top. In that sense I can't lose tomorrow.
- Many things which would usually be gamechangers were not. The debates for example were a complete wash. I actually thought McCain won them, at least the first and last. Obama always held his own, but McCain did quite well, I thought. But it didn't matter, they were equally matched and the viewing public saw it. It was fascinating to watch the dial testers, though I'm not sure how I feel about them. They are addicting, but also distracting and manipulative, and potentially unrepresentative. But they were too interesting to ignore.
- Personally I think the media coverage has also been a wash. Yes, they were certainly enamored with Obama at the start. But they helped to drive several negative stories about him in the ensuing months, like Wright, his failing with blue-collar folks in Appalachia, his slip-ups like Bittergate. To say the "MSM" is "in the tank" is absurd (except perhaps for MSNBC and Fox, but those depend on which programs you watch). One of the great ironies is that the media has taken so much flak for "being easy on Obama" precisely at the moment it was pushing stories like "Why can't Obama close the deal?" and "The Wright Factor" and such. Yes, McCain has taken a lot of pounding in recent days, but much of that has been driven by his own behavior, shutting out reporters he used to pal around with, launching unnecessarily mean-spirited ads, etc... I really don't think the media has a "liberal bias" as much as it has a "media bias". Reporters want to be read, want to be seen, want to be talked about. They want their newspapers bought, they want their shows advertised on. In short, they want ratings. What draws people are good stories, controversial stories, stories that are fun to watch. If Obama's eloquent speeches get people to watch, they'll play 'em. If digging into Palin's past in Wasilla sells papers, they'll do it. But that's just my opinion. It depends on whom you read and watch. Olbermann is over the top liberal. O'Reilly over the top conservative. I must admit I have cheered the rapid rise of Rachel Maddow. She seems sensible, only has one guest on at a time (this is a real plus for me --- if I have to spend one more minute watching "panels" of pundits screaming over each other I'm going to scream myself), she respects the opinions of people who disagree like Pat Buchanan, and she's a hometown girl from Castro Valley, California (very near where I grew up).
- Biden is a gadfly who I wish would muzzle it. He is personable, experienced, connects with blue-collar folks, has excellent foreign policy experience, and I really wish Obama had picked someone else. He is perfectly qualified for the job, and for the presidency, should (God forbid) that need ever arise. But I shudder to think of how many times he will embarrass Obama in the years to come should they win.
- Palin is vibrant, interesting, incredibly likable, and almost totally unqualified for the job. Her answers to even simple questions have been painful. She has good executive experience though her tenure in Alaska seems to be a mixed bag. She has a reformer's record but has been needlessly careless about things like firings and per diems. She seems to know next to nothing about foreign affairs or domestic policy beyond the talking points she's been fed. She is bold and confident, but not very thoughtful (as opposed to Obama, who is often halting and cerebral, but clearly knowledgeable). It is almost inconceivable to me that she could handle the job of President should (God forbid) that need arise, at least not right now. I started off liking her a great deal (see my first post about VP possibilities), but I think this process has harmed her.
- It has been sad for me to watch what I believe to be a disintegration of McCain's integrity. He stood there saying "Country First" and "Experience Counts" then he chose Sarah Palin. He promised clean campaigning, then ran guilt-by-association ad hominem attack ads. He promised straight talk, then told lies about Obama's tax plan (no, Senator, he's not going to raise "my taxes", I'm not that rich thank you very much). They have both been guilty of distortion (Obama has disappointed me greatly with his social security and "100 years in Iraq" attacks), but Obama never made it personal. Rather than sticking to the issues, McCain went for Ayers, Rezko, and Khalidi. For a man who can rightly boast of a long record of bi-partisan work, McCain has resorted to name calling..."socialist", "palling around with terrorists", and a scary intonation of the word "liberal" (the "liberal" positions Lieberman holds on a host of issues apparently not concerning him). A man who worked with the likes of Russ Feingold, he now describes Pelosi and Reid as some sort of diabolical duo. He condemned hateful robo-calls in 2000, now he's running them himself. The Straight Talk express has been slipping away for months now, as he has transformed himself increasingly into the kind of partisan hack I have always loathed. Where is the straight-talker of 2000? Well the conservatives point out that he lost in 2000. To paraphrase one of McCain's finest phrases, I'd rather lose an election than lose my integrity.
- Obama's problem is not Ayers or Wright or Rezko, it is Chicago itself. The clean fact of the matter is that Chicago embraces characters that other places would consider unsavory. Despite his past, Bill Ayers was accepted by respectable Chicago society. He became a respected college professor and served on the board of a world-reknowned educational foundation founded by Republicans. For all his "scary" black liberation theology, Wright was a respected pastor of a well known church. Rezko, Khalidi, it's all the same. These were respectable people in Chicago. Obama had no reason to doubt that. He did not seek these people out because they had like-minded radical ideas. He took Chicago as it came. To condemn Obama is to condemn the whole of Chicago. McCain has been content to do just that. Republicans have never had a problem writing off huge swaths of the American landscape (the "Country" that comes "First" clearly does not include San Francisco...the entire state of Massachusetts...or anything in New York north of Wall Street and Ground Zero...but Wasilla? You betcha).
- The fringe claims about Obama are internally contradictory. Supposedly the most troubling things about him are that he is a Muslim and that he shares the anti-American rantings of Rev. Wright. So...which is it? If he's a Muslim he doesn't share Wright's views. If he shares Wright's views than he is a black liberation theology Christian. You really can't have it both ways. I read an item today claiming he is not a U.S. citizen because he was born in Kenya. He is not a U.S. citizen because he is Indonesian. So...which is it, is he Kenyan or Indonesian?
- All of which is to say that I have been wrong about Obama. Four years ago I watched him speak at the Democratic Convention and I had tears in my eyes. Here was someone who could inspire, who could bring us together and make us proud again. Part of the reason I supported him over Hillary is that half the country hates Mrs. Clinton. She stirred partisan tensions while Obama was the one to unite us. Well, I was wrong, and I think the Democrats who hoped this would be true were wrong. I should have known that the conservatives would end up hating Obama just as much as any Democrat.
I don't know about you, but I am about ready for this to be over. We'll have to see what tomorrow brings.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
The Summer of the Thousand Fires
All across rural Northern California folks are breathing a bit easier today. As I write heavy rain falls, with God's help putting an end to what for many was a truly disastrous summer. At various points in time hundreds of fires raged across our land, from Trinity County to Butte, from Napa to Mariposa, and just beyond the edge of my world...in Big Sur, the San Fernando Valley, southern Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. There was so much smoke it darkened the sky. For a month or more in June and July the sun burned blood red and shades of orange that make me shudder to think of them. Entire towns fled. Roads closed. Homes burned. At times our state felt like a war zone. I remember seeing small fleets of helicopters racing north, convoys of firetrucks from as far away as Arizona (I even dimly recollect seeing one from El Paso!) streaming through our towns, off duty firemen crowding markets and restaurants. The citizens often waved to them like troops going off to war, which in many ways they were.
Smoke and ash filled the air. Some of us developed breathing problems we had never had before. And for asthmatics and others it was murder. I myself was fine for quite some time before succumbing to the coughs. It was if the soot had gradually built up in my mouth and lungs and trachea, like a film no mouthwash could extinguish. This summer made smokers of us all.
And the source of all was the very geography that we love so. It is such an odd thing, that the beauty around us can be such a peril. The very warm dry weather we love the West for can become our very doom. Our lovely forests are a tinderbox, our rich chapparal and grasslands a powderkeg. At the height of the danger, and occasionally even still, we all eyed our surroundings with caution and dread. I more than once looked out at the grassy fields behind our house with unease. That which is usually a delight this summer was a source of alarm.
Yet we should be surprised not at all. Ours is a dry climate. Ours a world that in natural course is nourished by fire. The forests will regrow. And those Chico buttes will be covered in wildflowers the likes of which we've never seen. But it will still be dry, and the danger will ever be there. One of the great ironies of the West is that a land so expansive and inviting is really so ill suited to support any great population. Even now drought has drained our lakes, lowered our rivers, and raised our water bills. That is, if it is a drought at all. Here in the West there is no reason to believe that wet is normal and dry is not. If anything it is the wet years that are strange. But we are just not conditioned to think that way. Our ancestors arrived during good years. The mid-19th century was particularly wet and lush, from the Pacific to the Great Plains. All those sodbusters in Oklahoma, ranchers in Montana, gold-miners and settlers in California had every reason to think it was normal, they had never known everything else, at least not here in their newfound home. If anything the dustbowl was the harsh reality...the bounty of the West comes with a price.
But there is something deeper, something more profound at work. For some reason or another we humans always expect geography to be stable. We expect that lake to always be there, that hill to always be in place, that mountain to remain unmoved, that river to keep its banks, those trees to stand tall there forever. And we build our towns and spread out our homesteads by those rivers and on those hills and amid those trees. But geography is never stable. Even the barest most boring desert is not stable. The earth itself moves, the faults shift, the weather changes, the hills slide, the rivers flood, the lakes dry, the trees die and burn. Sadly enough, we often blame God for this, for our inability to see that life changes, that the earth itself shifts under our feet, that all creation pulses with life and that the only stable thing in it is the love of God.
So now the rain falls. The Summer of the Thousand Fires comes to an end. Our land soaks it in, our trees and grasses drink it up, our reservoirs begin to refill. We all sigh with relief...and hope it lasts.
Smoke and ash filled the air. Some of us developed breathing problems we had never had before. And for asthmatics and others it was murder. I myself was fine for quite some time before succumbing to the coughs. It was if the soot had gradually built up in my mouth and lungs and trachea, like a film no mouthwash could extinguish. This summer made smokers of us all.
The buttes of Chico and the forests of the north coast are still scarred by them. Some people bear scars that will not soon heal. At least one friend of our family lost his home. He evacuated just in time, as the flames advanced on his mobile home in the hills above Oroville. He was just far enough away to hear his propane tank explode, completing the ruin of everything he had.
And the source of all was the very geography that we love so. It is such an odd thing, that the beauty around us can be such a peril. The very warm dry weather we love the West for can become our very doom. Our lovely forests are a tinderbox, our rich chapparal and grasslands a powderkeg. At the height of the danger, and occasionally even still, we all eyed our surroundings with caution and dread. I more than once looked out at the grassy fields behind our house with unease. That which is usually a delight this summer was a source of alarm.
Yet we should be surprised not at all. Ours is a dry climate. Ours a world that in natural course is nourished by fire. The forests will regrow. And those Chico buttes will be covered in wildflowers the likes of which we've never seen. But it will still be dry, and the danger will ever be there. One of the great ironies of the West is that a land so expansive and inviting is really so ill suited to support any great population. Even now drought has drained our lakes, lowered our rivers, and raised our water bills. That is, if it is a drought at all. Here in the West there is no reason to believe that wet is normal and dry is not. If anything it is the wet years that are strange. But we are just not conditioned to think that way. Our ancestors arrived during good years. The mid-19th century was particularly wet and lush, from the Pacific to the Great Plains. All those sodbusters in Oklahoma, ranchers in Montana, gold-miners and settlers in California had every reason to think it was normal, they had never known everything else, at least not here in their newfound home. If anything the dustbowl was the harsh reality...the bounty of the West comes with a price.
But there is something deeper, something more profound at work. For some reason or another we humans always expect geography to be stable. We expect that lake to always be there, that hill to always be in place, that mountain to remain unmoved, that river to keep its banks, those trees to stand tall there forever. And we build our towns and spread out our homesteads by those rivers and on those hills and amid those trees. But geography is never stable. Even the barest most boring desert is not stable. The earth itself moves, the faults shift, the weather changes, the hills slide, the rivers flood, the lakes dry, the trees die and burn. Sadly enough, we often blame God for this, for our inability to see that life changes, that the earth itself shifts under our feet, that all creation pulses with life and that the only stable thing in it is the love of God.
So now the rain falls. The Summer of the Thousand Fires comes to an end. Our land soaks it in, our trees and grasses drink it up, our reservoirs begin to refill. We all sigh with relief...and hope it lasts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
