Month: July 2008

Nate Silver notes the irony of yesterday’s news cycle.

Steve Clemons infers on who the Chinese would vote for:

If we could vote, we would vote for Barack Obama’s foreign policy and John McCain’s economic policy. Can we merge them?

Actually, of course, I’d be more fiscally responsible than the new McCain.

"I think Sen. Gramm would be in serious consideration for Ambassard to Belarus. Though I’m not sure the citizens of Minsk would welcome that," – John McCain, distancing himself from Gramm’s statement that the economy was in fine shape.

Despite a lot of the bad news coming out of the small Afghan blogosphere, the good news is that, well, there is an Afghan blogosphere. And thanks to some practical advice from western bloggers, it’s growing.

Andoni takes things into his own hands and talks to Obama:

“I have to choose between the love of my life and my country because I am gay. Please support immigration rights for gay and lesbian families.”

I practiced this line over and over. However, when my moment came, I flubbed my lines. I don’t know exactly what I said, but I did manage to get out gay and immigration — and then I choked up. It was a real emotional choke up, not an act, and not the script. However, I said enough for Obama to know what I was talking about.  He put his arm around me and in a very comforting way said, “I know, I know.”

It was apparent that he knew this issue well.

He took some time to explain that same sex immigration is going to be a very difficult one because it combines two of the most controversial issues Congress faces, gay rights and immigration. (I heard this from Barney Frank two years ago as well.) Obama also said that to tackle it we were going to have to establish a vehicle to recognize gay couples. I think we both said “civil unions” simultaneously — me as a question, he as a statement.

Civil unions could be a possible vehicle. Then a stand-alone bill limited to same sex immigration rights, similar to the Uniting Americans Family Act could work. He seemed to imply that without that vehicle, it wouldn’t work. More broadly, if DOMA is repealed, then granting federal benefits to couples who are civil unioned (or married, although he didn’t say married) would realize immigration rights. Immigration is one of those 1200 federal benefits he so often says he wants to grant gay couples in civil unions.

And a sudden shower wipes it all away …

"I do think that, frankly, Barack Obama looks toward Europe for a lot of his inspiration. I think John McCain is going to make sure that America stays America," – Mitt Romney.

"Well this is why [Obama] is a popular candidate in Europe, because there is such an anti-American feeling and he is sort of capturing that," – Rudy Giuliani. Not anti-American; anti-Bush. Last time I checked, Obama was very much an American.

Yes, I know that interview with the girls was an oversight:

A reader writes:

I think Obama immediately recognized several of the missteps that you mention: the seal (taken down right away), the interview including his kids (he decided and announced immediately after it that it would not be repeated).  But I disagree with you about the use of Invesco stadium for the acceptance speech.

This decision, along with the decision to be active in seeking the thoughts of many who are not party activists about the platform, is entirely in keeping with his desire to open up the process.  I, a 67-year-old woman, not politically active in decades (except locally, or for modest contributions to presidential and senate candidates) immediately sent a contribution, not only to enter the lottery for a trip that weekend, but to show continuing support as I see the comments about FISA, etc.  Then I learned that my two closest friends, both Obama contributors, both 60+-year-old women, also really want to be there that night.  This is unusual, since we all have little interest in the usual every-four-years Party party.  It is inclusive in a way that attracts many who are active for the first time, or the first time in a long time.

Matt Stoller wonders:

It’s interesting to consider how Clinton would have voted were she the nominee, and there’s no way to know now. Why did she vote properly this time? She doesn’t have a strong incentive to vote either way this time. She’s going to be a very powerful Senator going forward with a substantial PAC and web operation regardless. I wonder why she did this. It’s possible she voted this way to embarrass Obama, though it’s more likely she just believes that this is a bad bill. Maybe it’s heralding a new Clinton who is less cautious and more willing to fight for liberal principles.

Uh-huh. Stephen Spruiell counters:

Or maybe it’s the same Clinton who still has her eye on the White House and wouldn’t think twice about undermining her party’s nominee if it helps her.