Not A Landslide.

Going back to my bad prediction, if the financial crisis hadn’t taken place at the moment that it did, if it had been delayed a couple of months, I suspect that prediction would have been correct. But not speculating, one thing surprising about the election was that it wasn’t a landslide. By the usual criteria, you would expect the opposition party to win in a landslide under conditions like the ones that exist today. The incumbent president for eight years was so unpopular that his own party couldn’t mention his name and had to pretend to be opposing his policies. He presided over the worst record for ordinary people in post-war history, in terms of job growth, real wealth and so on. Just about everything the administration was touched just turned into a disaster. [The] country has reached the lowest level of standing in the world that it’s ever had. The economy was tanking. Several recessions are going on. Not just the ones on the front pages, the financial recession. There’s also a recession in the real economy. The productive economy, under circumstances and people know it. So 80% of the population say that the country’s going in the wrong direction. About 80% say the government doesn’t work to the benefit of the people, it works for the few and the special interests. A startling 94% complain that the government doesn’t pay any attention to the public will, and on like that. Under conditions like that, you would expect a landslide to a opposition almost whoever they are. And there wasn’t one.

At the risk of placing this blog to the extreme progressive end of the political spectrum, this speech by Noam Chomsky is worth a read for some dissenting views, a rare thing these days.  In addition to the point above (which I think is an angle that has not been explored enough; somewhat understandably there may not be much popular interest in that), also provides an interesting perspective on the notion that "this could only happen in America", something I (or rather the article I linked to) explored in this entry.

The response for the election was interesting and instructive. It kept pretty much to the soaring rhetoric, to borrow the cliché, that was the major theme of the election. The election was described as an extraordinary display of democracy, a miracle that could only happen in America and on and on. Much more extreme than Europe even than here. There’s some accuracy in that if we keep to the West. So if we keep to the West, yes, it’s probably true. That couldn’t have happened anywhere else. Europe was much more racist than the United States and you wouldn’t expect anything like that to happen.  On the other hand, if you look at the world, it’s not that remarkable.

Go read what he's talking about, including some thoughts on the first Obama appointments.

Voting Your Pocketbook.. And Other Election Myths.

Having some fun with the CNN exit polls.  

If anyone tells you that:

Rich people vote Republican - tell them that 52% of those earnings over $200K/yr voted for Obama, versus 46% for McCain.  To put this in perspective, for someone earning $250K/yr, this is a difference of $10K in after-tax income.  Turns out, above some income level, people are quite fine with spreading the wealth around.  

Gays vote Democrat - they do but not as overwhlemingly as one would expect: 27% of them voted for McCain.  I can only guess this was because neither one of the candidates had a strong vocal position on the gays either way.

Clinton would not have done as well as Obama did - quite the opposite.  52% of those polled would have voted for her and 5% wouldn't have voted at all, effectively giving her 56% of the vote, or a 12% lead over McCain.  I am guessing this stat is duly noted by Hillary.

Autopsy.

The argument I was making about McCain's loss implicitly in this chart and more explicitly in this entry is echoed by WaPo's Krauthammer today:   

In my previous life, I witnessed far more difficult postmortems. This one is easy. The patient was fatally stricken on Sept. 15 -- caught in the rubble when the roof fell in (at Lehman Brothers, according to the police report) -- although he did linger until his final, rather quiet demise on Nov. 4.  In the excitement and decisiveness of Barack Obama's victory, we forget that in the first weeks of September, John McCain was actually ahead. Then Lehman collapsed, and the financial system went off a cliff.

The column proceeds to point out the non-exogenous factors, ie the mistakes that McCain made:  suspending the campaign and the Palin pick.  Indeed, the chart supports that - note the uptick in Obama "shares" on September 26th.

Just something to consider as we are making conclusions about what Obama's victory says about the American spirit, American democracy, American dream or any other noble power people seem to be invoking these days.

A Fall to Remember

Click to see legibly:

How it all happened:  Intrade prediction market for odds of Obama's presidency, overlayed with key economic and campaign events.  

Everyone can make their own conclusions, but one thing is for sure: what an eventful 2 month period!

ps.  Please comment if you can think of major events I am missing on the chart.

Bittersweet.

Congrats America, well done.  

I really did not think it was possible.  During the primaries I was rooting for Hillary, among other reasons because I thought a black candidate would be fighting a tough battle against racial prejudice in the national election.  Thankfully, I was wrong.  

Like many, I am so relieved and excited.  But unlike many commentators, I do not believe the outcome shows race is no longer an issue in America.  Had the election taken place in September, before the financial meltdown and a broad set of McCain missteps, it would have probably gone the other way and the current discourse would have been the exact opposite.  However, it is comforting, that faced with rather gloomy circumstances, many people were able to, at least temporarily, overcome their prejudice.  In the end, it may not matter how it happened; beliefs often follow actions, the outcome is what matters.  

Unfortunately, those positive feelings are largely eclipsed by bitterness over the outcome of Proposition 8.  It's so insanely depressing that even in California there isn't enough popular support for it.  It's one thing not to allow gay marriage.  It's another thing to actually take it away.  That really hurts.  The sheer craziness of it hits me when I think of how the couples who have already wedded must feel - what a brutal intrusion of their very private, family life.  And it really makes me think:  democracy is a wonderful thing, but where do we draw the line?  Where can't we have a simple majority dictate and enforce their rules on us?  That argument, it turns out, has some basis in the legal system, thank God, and it is on that basis that some groups are challenging Prop 8 in courts.  See this Sullivan entry for some background.  

Unlike Sullivan, I am enthusiastic about the prospect of litigating this like there is no tomorrow.  I want to sue up to the highest levels of the judicial system. I want this to make news as much as possible.  I want people everywhere to be constantly reminded of this grave ridiculousness.  Why should we be educating people about our rights?  Why should we be begging for someone's acceptance?  As I said earlier in this entry, sometimes beliefs follow actions; other times beliefs follow law.  We did not wait for slave owners to start appreciating the slaves' human rights.  We did not wait for popular support to legalize miscegenation.  And we are not going to wait for the majority to accept that we deserve the right to marry.  We're just fucking not.  A line has to be drawn somewhere.

READ: Russia Endorses Obama

An interesting piece of news that is making its way around European press and will probably hit the US media with a splash (only to be turned into a new fear-mongering clip by the McCain campaign): certain Russian officials expressing preference for Obama.

In the words of Konstantin Kosachyov, Russian Duma's foreign affairs committee:

"McCain got his political formation during the Cold War, he dedicated most of his life to the fight against communism. It's clear that to this day he still thrashes along that front without seeing any real difference between the Soviet Union and modern Russia."

"Obama doesn't differ particularly in his beliefs about Russia from the Republican candidate, but he is a young politician, without prejudices and so, more ready to take on a new proposals and approaches."

He couldn't have said it better, though a small part of me wishes he didn't, for Obama's sake.

READ: Oh, the Euros.

Gotta love the coverage of the US election in Europe.  Perhaps not surprisingly, every major European paper has a dedicated section on their website. 

On the right, a picture from the series at Le Figaro called "Cliches of the Campaign".  

A bit more serious - and written in a language I can read and understand - is this forwarding looking article from the UK Telegraph.  

READ: The Halloween Mask Poll

Forget the Gallup Poll - if you want to see who will snatch the White House on Nov 4th, you have to look at halloween mask sales!

Or so this site claims.

Something tells me, the real winner this halloween will be Sarah Palin.  

[Hat tip: Chicago Sun Times]

READ: If The World Could Vote

From The Economist .. the overall result not terribly surprising, though there are a few head scratchers:  Cuba - Leaning McCain?  Iraq - Strong McCain?  Slovakia - only "Leaning Obama" country in the EU (as opposed to "Strong Obama")?  Huh?

READ: Here's One from the Left

During my daily check in to the über liberal universe of Democracy Now! I came accross this interview, in which two chaps expressed concern over the implications of Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama

..what disturbs me most is, is this idea that not only is Powell endorsing Obama—Obama can’t prevent that—but that Obama has responded by saying that Powell might play a key role in an Obama administration. And we should ask ourselves, what does that say about Barack Obama’s promises to end this war quickly? I don’t think it necessarily says something good if he’s putting someone around him who helped get us into this war, who helped lie us into this war and has been basically unrepentant about that.

It's almost refreshing to hear a criticism of Obama that comes not from the right side of the political spectrum but from the left.  As a reminder, the left in the US is an approximation of where the much of the rest of the world is philosophically, so it is kind of useful to consider this as I am pondering about the US foreign policy post-election.     

READ: Is This Relevant?

Just because Obama is not a Muslim, does not mean he's not a dancing socialist.  OK, maybe not a socialist, say actual socialists.  But definitely dancing and supposedly better than McCain.  Tonight, Larry King asks: "is this relevant?" For bloggers?  Definitely.  Larry King Life?  Not so much. 

READ: It's in the bag.. Or is it?

You'd think I can finally sleep well at night, given Obama's expanding lead.  Alas, no such luck.   My worries are twofold:  even if nothing changes between now and November 4th, and even if the poll numbers are correct, I hope that people do not get too confident or lazy and still get out to vote.  I would, if I could, even in New York.  

My more serious fear, however, is that anything can happen in 13 days and the closer we get to election day the less time Obama would have to contain the fallout from new information.  What new information am I so worried about?  Days before the '04 election, a new Bin Laden tape came out and I am sure that it tipped a few people over the edge towards Bush.. Yes, times are different today but one never knows how people would react to something like that, especially the marginal voter.  This article does a much better job exploring both the '04 tape and the possibility of another one.

Call me paranoid, but like Ezra Klein, I think it's good to be prepared for the alternative and I hope that somewhere someone in the campaign is ready for it.

READ: And The Winners of This Election Are..

.. the writers of Obama's and McCain's speech at the Alfred E. Smith Charity Dinner.  Either my comedic threshold has sunk really low from obsessing about the election and the market or these speeches are actually pretty funny.

And speaking of comedy, CNN broke the news last night that Sarah Palin will be appearing on Saturday Night Live.  Is she smart enough to use it to her advantage, like Clinton did during the primaries?  Or will it be like the car crash that McCain's stint on that show was?  At any rate, she is probably the first politician to make it on SNL before hosting a press conference.  I am guessing Andrew Sullivan must be close to losing it.

READ: You Say Blah, I Say Blah

Perhaps the most frustrating element of the last debate (apart from watching John McCain twitch, smirk and roll his eyes) was how little the substance mattered since all the commentary before and after revolved around the candidate's demeanor. So much so that few people even noticed that McCain seems to confuse autism with Down's syndrome. I didn't either, at first.

So last night, instead of dissecting the debate right away, I played a little game with myself and I recommend that you play it, too. It's called "close your eyes and imagine." It's actually quite simple yet quite powerful. After the longest campaign in the history of the world, the 2 candidates are omnipresent; you can hardly go a minute without either hearing about them, reading about them or seeing them. However, we still think of them as candidates. So last night, I tried to forget about my biases, and my substantive policy views and tried to imagine what they would each look like as the President of the United States. How will they look addressing the American people especially in the time of crisis? How will they connect with world leaders especially those they don't like - and those they have offended in the past? How will they interact with those that disagree with them in the Congress - especially if both chambers end up being majority ruled by the other party? How will they deal with complex issues that transcend the simplistic dichotomy of left and right and that go beyond war and spending? After watching the candidates side by side in three debates, I cannot guarantee you who will do a better job with the economy or who will do a better job in Iraq. I do, however, have a fairly definitive answer who made me feel better during the "close your eyes and imagine" game. What was yours?

That said, why not have some fun with some highlights from the debate?

When asked about their VPs:

McCain: .. And, by the way, she [Palin] also understands special-needs families. She understands that autism is on the rise, that we've got to find out what's causing it, and we've got to reach out to these families, and help them, and give them the help they need as they raise these very special needs children.

Obama: .. I do want to just point out that autism, for example, or other special needs will require some additional funding, if we're going to get serious in terms of research. That is something that every family that advocates on behalf of disabled children talk about. And if we have an across-the-board spending freeze, we're not going to be able to do it. That's an example of, I think, the kind of use of the scalpel that we want to make sure that we're funding some of those programs.

McCain: .. But again, I want to come back to, notice every time Sen. Obama says, "We need to spend more, we need to spend more, that's the answer" -- why do we always have to spend more? Why can't we have transparency, accountability, reform of these agencies of government?

This exchange, apart from showing McCain's confusion of various special needs, revealed the internal lack of logic in McCain's disdain for government spending as a concept and Obama jumped on it perfectly. You can't promise to invest in certain initiatives and promise not to raise spending at the same time. Also, I wonder how much self control it took for Obama not to criticize Palin even a little bit.

McCain: Joe wants to buy the business that he has been in for all of these years, worked 10, 12 hours a day. And he wanted to buy the business but he looked at your tax plan and he saw that he was going to pay much higher taxes. You were going to put him in a higher tax bracket which was going to increase his taxes, which was going to cause him not to be able to employ people, which Joe was trying to realize the American dream.

Since when does being in a higher tax bracket cause people to not be able to employ people and since when is buying a business the American dream? McCain again fails to make a concise, logical and compelling argument about why higher relative taxes in US motivate companies to look for cheaper places to do business which, in turn, reduces employment in the US. This alone could be his key economic motto. No need to mention class warfare non-sense, fairness of taxes and redistribution of income. Just stick to jobs and people will get it.

McCain: I admire so much Sen. Obama's eloquence. And you really have to pay attention to words. He said, we will look at offshore drilling. Did you get that? Look at.

McCain's arrogance in this one is only trumped by his silliness. "Look at" is about as good a guarantee as either one of you can give us about anything at this point. If he is truly so concerned about words, this is one of the lesser offenses in the debate.

McCain: I would have, first of all, across-the-board spending freeze, OK? Some
people say that's a hatchet. That's a hatchet, and then I would get out a scalpel, OK?

Actually, no. A "hatchet" would be if you instituted an across-the-board cut. A spending freeze followed by a scalpel has the same end result as using a scalpel. Once again, it's just words, but he himself said we need to pay attention to them.

McCain: I know how to save billions of dollars in defense spending. I know how
to eliminate programs.

I think I also know how to eliminate programs. You write a law that cuts a program, pass it in the house and the senate, sign it and voila! Ignoring for a moment him being unlikely to pass anything in a democratic house and senate, dare I ask what programs?

McCain: Sen. Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago. I'm going to give a new direction to this economy in this country.

The commentators applauded this (He really needed to say that! was the line) as if (a) he said something novel (b) it mattered at this point. Hillary Clinton said it best "He's obviously not the same person" and I prayed to Gods of satire that she would just leave it at that; alas, she continued with "but he has voted with President Bush about 90 percent of the time."

Obama: .. the fact of the matter is that if I occasionally have mistaken your policies for George Bush's policies, it's because on the core economic issues that matter to the American people, on tax policy, on energy policy, on spending priorities, you have been a vigorous supporter of President Bush. Now, you've shown independence -- commendable independence, on some key issues like torture, for example, and I give you enormous credit for that. But when it comes to economic policies, essentially what you're proposing is eight more years of the same thing. And it hasn't worked.

Here Obama gets points not for stating why McCain is like Bush v 3.0 but because through all the antagonistic back and forth he manages to acknowledge something good in his opponent. He's tough yet graceful and gracious. He gives credit where credit is due.

McCain: And, Sen. Obama, when he said -- and he signed a piece of paper that said he would take public financing for his campaign if I did -- that was back when he was a long-shot candidate -- you didn't keep your word. And when you looked into the camera in a debate with Sen. Clinton and said, "I will sit down and negotiate with John McCain about public financing before I make a decision," you didn't tell the American people the truth because you didn't.

A reminder that is it possible for McCain to have a truthful and substantive criticism of Obama. Like one.

Obama: I think the American people are less interested in our hurt feelings during the course of the campaign than addressing the issues that matter to them so deeply.

Well put and a sharp contrast to McCain's insistence on Obama's repudiation of statements made by someone unassociated with his campaign.

McCain: By the way, when Sen. Obama said he would unilaterally renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Canadians said, "Yes, and we'll sell our oil to China." You don't tell countries you're going to unilaterally renegotiate agreements with them.

Maybe right on substance but the condescending tone is hard to swallow.

McCain: Free trade with Colombia is something that's a no-brainer. But maybe you ought to travel down there and visit them and maybe you could understand it a lot better.

There are ways to look smart and more experienced than your opponent. This is not one of them. Again, when I close my eyes, how would this guy work with his opponents in the Congress?

McCain: .. as he said, his object is a single payer system. If you like that, you'll love Canada and England. So the point is...
Schieffer: So that's your objective?
Obama: It is not and I didn't describe it...
McCain: No, you stated it.
Obama: I just...
McCain: Excuse me.

Simply stated, that's a lie and huge embarrasment for McCain. And repeating a lie doesn't make it a truth or a smaller lie. It's still a lie. Done.

Obama: I just described what my plan is. And I'm happy to talk to you, Joe, too, if you're out there. Here's your fine -- zero. You won't pay a fine, because...
McCain: Zero?
Obama: Zero, because as I said in our last debate and I'll repeat, John, I exempt small businesses from the requirement for large businesses that can afford to provide health care to their employees, but are not doing it.

Obama makes a strong substantive point and McCain's "Zero?" which starts out as another sarkastic jab, quickly transforms to disbelief. As in, he can't believe that he fucked that one up so badly.

McCain: Hey, Joe, you're rich, congratulations, because what Joe wanted to do was buy the business that he's been working for 10-12 hours a day, seven days a
week, and you said that you wanted to spread the wealth, but -- in other words, take Joe's money and then you decide what to do with it. Now, Joe, you're rich, congratulations, and you will then fall into the category where you'll have to pay a fine if you don't provide health insurance that Sen. Obama mandates, not the kind that you think is best for your family, your children, your employees, but the kind that he mandates for you.

Here I just gave up. McCain was either having a mental breakdown or he was trying to make a point that was so complex that I just didn't get it. Perhaps avoiding tripple sarcastic negatives would help clear that one up for all of us.

McCain: I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications.

Quite simple: McCain would not pick a supreme court judge based on their views. He would look at their qualifications. And someone of the view that Roe v. Wade was right is unfortunately just not qualified! Well done, John. It turns out you can have your cake and eat it too.

McCain: Just again, the example of the eloquence of Sen. Obama. He's health for the mother. You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything. That's the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, "health."

Yes, women, you and your, quote, health. It's about time you dropped it!

Obama: Well, we have a tradition of local control of the schools and that's a tradition that has served us well.

Finally Obama trips. If it has serves us well, why are talking about changing it?

McCain: We have to stop the spending.

Another one where words are just pure semantics. We have to stop the spending. Huh? Stop what spending and why? Is there any reason to say this other than that it sounds good?

READ: The Debate Hitlist

Here's my hit list from tonight's debate:

1.  In a rather unexpected and surprising turn, McCain will instruct the treasury secretary to buy up the bad mortgages.  Apart from being drastically removed from the fiscal conservatism that McCain is supposed to represent (whatever happened to small government?), it is yet another demonstration of his scattered unfocused risk-taking personality. For an idea of that magnitude (it would probably dwarf the $700 billion bailout), it is quite shocking to hear about it for the first time in the middle of a debate. Maybe McCain will also throw in a car, the fiscal conservative he is.  YAY!  Don't worry, it will be a hybrid!  Because today..

2. McCain is in favor of alternative fuels: wind, solar, "all of the above", which is the McCain speak for "bla bla bla".  Or simply [insert whatever sounds good, right now].  Sadly, his record speaks differently.

3. Medicare will not be easy to fix.  Which is why McCain wants to set up a commission on Medicare comprised of experts who will study it and come up with recommendations to solve the fiscal Armageddon that no one talks about.  A commission that studies Medicare payments?  Maybe something like MedPAC?  Well, it already exists.  Incidentially, McCain failed to mention a little detailed reveled by his campaign 2 days before the debate - that he is planning to cut Medicare by $1.3 trillion.  While that, in and of itself, is not necessarily bad, I have to ask - is McCain even aware of this plan?

4. "You know who voted for it?  That one!" will be remembered as this election's equivalent of Gore's loud sighs in 2000 and Bush senior's looking at his watch in 1992.

5. "American workers are the best in the world."  And that is why employers are tripping over themselves exporting jobs to China and India.  Americans are just too good for them.  

Obama's hitlist will be posted tomorrow.

PS. My projection - Obama won and will strengthen his lead.

READ: Democrat with a Paycheck

There's a joke that goes something like "A democrat is a republican before his first paycheck."  In all it simplifaction and derisiveness it's obviously a republican joke predicated on the idea that democrats are naive liberals full of lofty ideals about the government until they see how much of their hard-earned dollars is taken out of their income every month and sent to the treasury.  When I first heard it, I immediately reacted that apart from reducing everything to money, the statement is simply untrue because republicans have shown themselves to be anything but fiscally conservative.   However, the statement keeps coming back to me as I watch the debates and hear some of the democratic rhetoric on economic issues.  Case in point:  taxes for oil companies - good thing or bad thing?  Sounds good enough - these companies are, after all, making money from selling an environmentally damaging and unsustainable source of energy which typically originates in some dictatorship in the Middle East.  Why not take some of those profits and use them for, say, healthcare or education?  Makes sense, except one little problem:  oil companies are publically traded companies which are, quite literally, owned by the public.  See the ad in this video:

So what do I feel when I hear Joe Biden accuse John McCain of supporting tax breaks for oil companies?  Anywhere between cognitive dissonance  and nausea.  I want Obama/Biden to win this election and I consider myself a democrat for many reasons.  But some of their statements on economic issues make me want to hold my ears and scream.  Another funny example from the same debate:   Biden warning that McCain's $5,000 tax credit to help families buy health insurance "will go straight to the insurance company" as if that meant the insurance company CEO  will take that money and go buy a yacht with it.  Except, duh, if you're buying healh insurance with the money, it obviously goes to the insurance company to, um, insure you.  

Fine, I can accept that Democrats need to do some populist pandering if it helps counter similar tactics from the other side.  I just pray that when confronted by a more formidable debate opponent - not Palin - the democratic ticket can defend these non-sensical views.  Perhaps, during the Tuesday debate?  Until then, I will hold my ears and scream.

READ: Expectations Game

In the post-debate discussions the conventional wisdom among the pundits was that Palin exceeded expectations (CNN even had a poll showing that something like 80% of viewers thought she did better than they expected) but to me the bigger surprise of the evening was Biden.

Sure Palin didn't fall apart quite as much as she did during the Couric interviews.  She didn't make any major gaffes and she did that thing she does so well, namely appealing to Joe Six Pack with her "ya" and her charms.  So yes, she exceeded those extremely lowered expectations.  However, I would argue that on many levels her performance was a disaster once you got over the fact that she can be relentless and "hold her own".  First, the woman doesn't speak proper English.  Maybe some people don't care about that but I'm an elitist snob, so I do.  Second, answering the questions you want to answer instead of the questions you are being asked may enable you to go back to your talking points, but it doesn't make you look smart.  Third, appealing to hockey moms and Joe Six Packs is transaparent and cheap and I hereby give up on trying to understand what that even means or what moves that demographic.  Again, I'm just an elitist snob.  

Palin's supposed expectation defying performance aside, the true surprise of the evening was Biden who frankly made me nervous going into the debate.  He was firm without being arrogant, intelligent without being too philosophical and, most curiously, emotional, in an authentic non-scripted way.  As my friend Brian put it, "he was the only human being on the stage.  She was a robot with a 486 processor."  To that I would only add, a 486 processor-run robot would at least have a grip of the mysterious intricacies of English grammar and syntax.  She doesn't.

READ: Debating the Debate

OK so Obama is officially my candidate.  Issues aside (which I also think Obama dominated on on the domestic side and was all least tied on the foreign front), here's why:  (1) throughout the debate McCain was so incredibly condescending to Obama that I can't seriously envision him facing a foreign leader he doesn't like.. he's seemingly physically incapable of diplomacy; (2) the entire debate he didn't look at Obama once, whereas Obama addressed him directly and looked at him throughout the debate.. once again McCain either has a physical impediment or he's so arrogant.. either one makes it unfit, in my opinion; (3) McCain's vision and knowledge of the world is incredibly narrow (albeit deep in the 2 areas he seems to want to always talk about - war and earmarks).

McCain can drop a ton of names and that's cool.  He is knowledgable about other countries and military strategy - which makes him a great candidate - for a general.  Presidency? Not quite.. consider this:  "I looked into Mr. Putin's eyes and I saw three letters: K, G and B".  That is just incredibly irresponsible.  And the attitude of not talking to people because that would somehow validate and justify them belongs to kindergarden  - and it's so W's first term!

READ: The "C" Words

Cancer.  When I meet people through work they are typically middle aged overweight white guys exploiting the latest scheme to make money off of government funded healthcare programs.  But today I met someone different.  Her name is Dr. Chang and she is a radiation oncologist - in short, she treats cancer with radiation.  She described her work at the radiation center - patient assessment, care planning and then actual treatment - emphasizing the importance of empathy and making the cancer patients feel well informed, cared for, and.. hopeful.  That, in combination with her intelligent yet humble, sweet voice was so disarming and inspiring.  At some point it hit me - this woman encounters so much suffering and pain - and helps heal much of it - and you could never tell.  

Change.  In another meeting, 2 lobbyists from a prominent DC law firm discussed the legislative outlook for healthcare.  One point they made put the election in a whole new light for me:  every company in healthcare that depends on government funding should pray for McCain to win the election.  Why?  There is no better way to guarantee the status quo - and no disruptive healthcare reform happening - than by having one party control of the Congress and the other one in the White House.  Here's a perfect example of how that pans out in practice.  Conversely, put the democrats in charge and suddenly the prospect of laws being passed without a veto makes everyones stomach contract a little.  Taking that little observation a step further - and this is not an opinion but rather a procedural observation - the only way to achieve "change" - is to elect a democrat into the White House.  Similarly, the best way to accomplish paralysis in these critical times, is to have an expanding Democratic majority in the congress - which seems all but certain come November - presided over by a Republican.  Good luck getting anything done in that mad house.

And so, here I am, constructing a case for veto-proof single party rule.  Ugh, I hope I won't have to regret it.

READ: Why Elections Rock!

As the years that separate me from the glorious days on the high school debate team have accumulated, the frequency of thinking and arguing about fundamental issues has dropped sharply. Ironically, despite being one of the most cultured and diverse melting pots on the planet, the social life in New York is not particularly designed to encourage discourse, at least in my experience. We all work hard and in the little spare time we have we want to have fun, a concept that for a quarter-aged gay male typically favors drinking in a bar full of beautiful strangers in place of discussing the broken healthcare system or the merits and drawbacks of big government. Besides, as one gets increasingly accustomed to - or perhaps comfortable in - the way the world operates, the urge to question is muted as is the perceived ability to do anything with the entrenched status quo. Sometimes I nostalgically look at the pictures of the long-haired Hair-singing Kerouac-reading teenager from Slovakia and wonder: "What happened?" (The answer lies, roughly speaking, here.. and here, here, here and here.)

Which is why it is refreshing to have the elections as a reason (or an excuse) to once again think, discuss and opine - to believe that how we vote can actually change how we live (not that I can vote, but I can certainly discuss and opine enough to more than compensate!). It is all the more frustrating when, given all the great pressing issues of the world we live in, gas prices are the only one that seems to be getting significant attention from the news media and the presidential candidates. Sure, it is an important issue that affects this country in more than one way, and naturally, it gets acute attention from everyone who doesn't live in Manhattan, because it is so present in people's everyday life and the choices they make. However, the attention it draws in the context of the election seems undue for two reasons: (1) Neither candidate can do much about it and it is questionable whether one would do anything dramatically different from the other especially as the grinding machine of the campaigning process is slowly blending their "solutions" via multiple double-sided flip-flops into one big gassy mess. (2) Every other issue seems to be pushed to the side, in particular issues where the candidates could actually take positions that differentiate them from one another. And they are different - and not just in age, race and height; they just don't talk about it a whole lot.

Which brings me to Krugman, the man who made my day by once again highlighting an issue that I think does not hit the radar often enough given how important it is. In his op-ed in NY Times today he talks about the likelihood of healthcare reform. It is, in my opinion, one of the most fundamental questions that this country has to face, for a variety of reasons which I do not want to get into right now. The point is it's not an issue that is sexy, it doesn't affect everyone every day and therefore it needs disciples who will keep it alive and somewhere close to the forefront. And I think the challenge for us, readers, citizens, voters (however pompous that may sound!) is to adopt an orphan issue, one that is important yet neglected and to try to understand it inside out, because when the candidates talk, the only way to know a difference between them and to see who gets it is to get it on your own.

PS: Incidentally, with regards to healthcare, Obama may mean well but Clinton had him dominated on the issue - a point that probably escaped those who do not pay much attention to it or do not care. Ironically, now that the contrast on real issues between the candidates should be ever more vivid, people are seemingly falling back on abstract proxies for success like "experience" and "comfort", or at least that is the conclusion that some draw from the closing gap between the two candidates. Now, if ever, is the time to read the blue print.