hadrian's blog

I had put off this post as I was worried about jinxing the race but as it looks like we’re pretty safe I feel good finally posting about this. Perhaps its being a product of Tobacco Row but for some reason my picks seemed to naturally fall into brackets. So here are my thoughts on Obama’s picks for his running mate.

My criteria were to include a combination of traditional regional argument, helps his perceived inexperience, and fits his theme of "Change".

The "brackets" after the fold.

Following the Democratic debate the other night a lot has been made of Sen. Clinton’s “Change you can Xerox” retort: It was a lead balloon, it was too rehearsed, is this really the only line of attack she’s got? And so on.

It seems perfectly clear to me what the true significance of the statement was though. When you combine marketing folks incessant quest to fill every aspect of a consumer’s day with increasing "brand-awareness” with the recent news that Sen. Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million of her own money and it becomes almost self-evident. The Clinton’s have never turned down a chance to make a quick buck, and advertising has pretty well invaded just about everything we do in America, you can’t even go to a public restroom without seeing some brand-awareness promotion while you do your business. So why not extend brand promotion to the people’s business?

You couple increasing participation of the coveted 18-40 demographic with the disproportional participation of upper-income voters that’s been noted in most of these contests and what do you get?

Cha-Ching!

A lot of the story out of the SC primary has focused on demographic analysis and whether or not Senator Obama got enough of the "White vote" to stay competitive beyond SC. First of all, as I noted in an earlier post you can't necessarily compare numbers across states, a point that was borne out once again as the demographics of the race changed dramatically from one state to another, and so did the results. Because Obama won women in Iowa didn't mean he went on to win them in NH. Just because his share of the white vote went down in SC doesn't mean white voters from earlier states have changed their mind, it means less whites voted for him in SC. It's a fallacy to present a change in votes between Iowa to New Hampshire to Nevada to South Carolina to be representative of any national or temporal trend. These aren't shifts in the overall electorate overtime, they are how the electorate in a particular state voted. Despite how media analysts present it, this ain't the same kettle of fish each time.

Yesterday while at a campaign stop in SC, Governor Mitt Romney had a "heated" exchange with AP reporter Glen Johnson. The video can be found here.

Johnson interrupted Governor Romney's pontification on not having lobbyists "running" his campaign. Johnson observed that Ron Kaufman is a lobbyist and is a Senior Adviser to the Romney Campaign. Romney defended his point, not contesting that Kaufman was a lobbyist (he undeniably is) but saying that if Johnson had listened he said that there were no lobbyists "running" his campaign, citing his campaign manager and deputy campaign managers were not lobbyists. Romney later continued the confrontation and his staffers told Johnson that he should "Be Professional".

And they're right, Romney was mid-sentence when he was interrupted saying, "I don't have lobbyists tied to my..." and there are any innumerable ways that sentence could end.

We secretly removed who said each of these statements, let’s see if you notice:

“They [Islamic Terrorists] watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do…”1

"There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence [in Iraq], and we're heading into an election...”2

“When it comes to better securing our homeland and fighting the forces of terror, results matter. And when it comes to choosing a President, results matter.”3

“Let’s not forget you’re hiring a President not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a President to be there when the chips are down.”4

“So, you know, words are not actions. And as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action.”5

“You see, it's not enough to advocate reform. You have to be able to get it done.”6

“My opponent has good intentions, but intentions do not always translate to results.”7

“You know, what we've got to do is translate talk into action and feeling into reality.”8

“The murders in Madrid are a reminder that the civilized world is at war.”9

“I don’t think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new Prime Minister”10

There are a few theories going around this morning as to how all the polling got it SO wrong. Election morning polls showed Obama with anywhere from a 4-12 point lead, the average was around 8. The results came in last night and we see a Clinton squeaker. So how'd she do it?

Senator Clinton has been out of the campaign trail with this gem:

“I don’t think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister,” she said. “They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do…. Let’s not forget you’re hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down.”

Now the thing that first strikes me about this statement is that it sounds like it was crafted by Karl Rove, perhaps there was more to those reports about Bush advising the Senator than we thought.

Today’s press briefing by President George W. Bush has garnered a great deal of attention due to his non-comments on the ongoing investigation of destroyed CIA torture videos. While this is an important issue which warrants our continued vigilance and outrage, what has largely gone unreported is the President’s blatant steps to engage our country in yet another war.

I'm not proud of it but I will admit when I've made a mistake. And a few post ago when I compared Elizabeth Dole to "The Invisible Woman" I was unfair...

Continuing my feature of "What comic character would they be?" (Which conveniently keeps changing its name).

This weeks episode, Mitt Romney.