Planet Abell

I can't help but think that many of my liked-minded friends have completely missed the point of last night's debates. It doesn't matter how much dissembling Romney might have done, or how preposterous the internal logic of his statements may add up to. The moderator's role is a sideshow — moderators are a stupid modern convention that clever politicians know how to play. Debates are not about policy discovery. They are theater. That is all. It's all about heart. The day before, and the day after — that's the time to score the head. On stage it's all about your media training. What makes so many Obama supporters angry is that the distance between head and heart were so wide. But there is nobody to blame for that, and for the appearance — the performance — that conveyed. I saw Felix Salmon today (thanks again for RT'ing, even if, as you explained, it must have been a mistake / the result or boredom or all you have left to do when your own Twitter...

One of the most important modern advances in journalism — courtesy, mind you, of the ethics of blogging -- is the opportunity for writers and publisher to own up to mistakes in the same place, time and fashion where the mistakes were made. Journalists have always had an obligation to correct their errors, of course. Not all have, of course. And the truth can be elusive, even a matter of opinion sometimes. But what isn't up for debate is requirement to tell the same audience you deluded that a) you were wrong and b) here's the truth. Not to pile on, but newspapers haven't always been too good at this. Even when they have grudgingly acknowledged error, they did so in an error section that only the curious few bothered to check, often exposing themselves to the story in question for the first time. Once the paper was out it was out, and gone. Fish wrap. No sane publisher was going to spend valuable paper and ink to re-print old news, just so an error could be acknow...

In this age of moral equivalence, your inner bad guy is relentlessly held against you — until I do the same thing. And then I get to say a) I am no worse than you, and b) You did it first. It's a push. So it is that GOP VP candidate Paul Ryan's fact-challenged convention speech is judged on one set of criteria, and his malapropisms on another. On the former, well, he's Romney's running mate, these are the campaign's talking points, and he's just doing his job — reinforcing the message sanctioned by the top half of the ticket. On the latter, well, those are just "Bidenisms." But then in what seemed like a relaxed moment Ryan inexplicably exaggerated his performance in a marathon some 20 years ago. Yes, one's memory does play tricks, but as these things go (especially for a P90X boot camp guy) claiming you ran a sub three-hour marathon when in fact it took you more than four hours (worse than Sarah Palin's PB, but I digress) takes a little...

Bernd Debusmann raises an interesting point in his latest Reuters column : Does the VP selection of Paul Ryan mean that GOP presidential candidate Romney has conceded the so-called Latino vote? Put aside the usual caveats — that voting blocs are usually more complicated than we assume, that they are motivated by single interests and swayed by personality and tribalism — and Debusmann makes a convincing case Ryan is perhaps the least likely to help with Latinos "Of all the potential running mates Romney could have picked from." There has been plenty said about the importance of the Hispanic vote independent of the veepstakes during this endless campaign, but very little analysis about Ryan in this context since his VP candidacy was announced Saturday morning. The "Hispanic vote" looms large in electoral analysis. Bush garnered  more than 40%  of the Hispanic vote in his 2004 win, but John  McCain only 31%  in his 2008 loss. Both showings were conside...

Lost in the Shocked Shocked outrage over the outsourced order for US Olympic opening ceremonies uniforms (Really? THIS is what animates bi-partisanship in Congress?) is the fact that these garments were made in China even though an American company got the order. Nobody thought to ask Calvin Klein where the clothing would be made, probably because it occurred to nobody that "Made in the USA" was more important than price. Or because virtually none of the clothing Americans wear is made in America, or has been for a long, long time. And this is why the attack on capitalism, as the Romney folks put it, will redound to Obama's benefit. Capitalism is not patriotism. Capitalism is not social engineering. Capitalism is not about national boundaries. Capitalism is about making money by providing goods and services for which there is a demand. If you are good at it, lots of people get jobs. If you are bad at it, lots of people lose their jobs and you (and perhaps lots of ...

President-elect Barack Obama is announcing his economic team, and taking questions, as I write. He is doing his very best to maintain the fiction that there is only one President of the United States at one time, and that he is not it. It is difficult not to see the night-and-day difference in this appearance and those in similar situations by many past and current holders of the office. It's easy to still be wowed by the man; he will be handled with kid gloves for a while, especially until he is actually president in fact. When Keith Olbermann and especially Chris Matthews lose their youthful crushes on Obama then we'll see the sparks that are necessary to keep everyone honest and working hard. But, watching Obama's first press conference as whatever he is, I had a thought: As well as he worked the room to get elected, and to achieve all the pre-conditional things that positioned him to vie for that office, Obama has been the recipent of some incredibly good luck. When he...

Dude, you did your best. Nobody can accuse you of throttling back or showing any hesitation about muscling Hillary into the White House. Hell -- if anything, your occasional over-the-top jabs at Barack are all the evidence anyone could need that you have met your poli-marital obligations. Setting yourself up for "that man crazy!" from time to time is a great way to prove this ain't no half-hearted debate society resolution for you. But now it's time to reveal that secret I think I guessed at last January . You're off to a sloppy start: I know there is thunder not to be stolen from the Hillary & Barack show later this week, but don't do this through a spokesman anymore . Also, don't use words like "obviously," which everybody knows is a way of boasting about not concealing a grudging admission. It's been a tough year. It'll probably get worse before it gets better, before you can continue your dream retirement of going wherever you wa...

T he knee jerk reaction is to see this as anti-populist, sleazy, business-as-usual. Only someone who doesn't need $80 million turns down $80 million. And there is the matter of Obama's agreement to accept public funding (and forgo private money), posited by John McCain. McCain, a genuine campaign-finance reformer (for which he is reviled by many fellow Republicans) pushed that pawn at a time when his fortunes were not good and Obama's were unpredictable. So, the old pol is a man of the people, and the change agent is just another politician who does what suits him, like those Republicans who got elected on a term-limits platform but decided, after their two terms, that their work was not yet done. But as Frank Rich keeps telling us, these are not times in which the old prism works. Obama is a shockingly viable candidate -- his viability is shocking -- to a degree that belies even the recent history of this nation. Among the other things he has already done is this: prove th...

J ay Rosen and many other press critics have long decried (terrible word, but very handy in journalism) reporting about elections as a horse race -- the obsession with numbers and what the numbers mean and what other numbers would mean. Part of the criticism is that it is lazy. And it is. I'm neither proud nor ashamed of admitting that, very often, the stories I enjoyed writing most were based on clear facts from a printed page that I could attempt to explain in prose poetry. And there are no clearer facts than those expressed by numbers. Ask any math teacher. The other criticism is that it squeezes out reporting on "things that matter." We talk about how well candidate Jones has done in the latest poll, so we don't report about candidate Jones's position on health care. Health care is hard. Have pity. I've been modestly sympathetic to the view that horse race coverage ill serves the electorate but, as with anyone who has a mild addiction to politics, I do enj...

N obody has a monopoly on the use of convenient wisdom -- political or biblical -- but it sure seems like everybody has forgotten a very important truism: "[fill in time period here] is an eternity in politics." Yes, it would be nice to have a clear Democratic field, so the nominee can focus fire on John McCain who, for all of his prowess and charm, seems to be a target-indicator machine. Yes, the longer the intramural games wear on the wearier the victor will be for the nationals, and the greater chance that more weaknesses will be exposed for the competitor to exploit in big game. But we are being treated to one of the greatest experiences of this nation's democratic process that anyone alive has ever seen. Books (good ones) will be written about campaign 2008. And we, the people, are the winners. The system is working exactly as it was meant to: it is empowering voters in states that hold primaries and caucuses months after Iowa and New Hampshire and forcing candidates...

I wonder if Geraldine Ferraro thinks she was the most qualified Democratic vice-presidential prospect in 1984 even after, as Maureen Dowd puts it, "she helped Walter Mondale lose 49 states." Or maybe she's right and Black is the new black. Maybe the stars have aligned so much so quickly that running for president as a Black man finally is an advantage. But then ... here's how Ferraro doesn't hedge her bets : She told (Dianne) Sawyer (on GMA) she was trying to say it's a good thing that Obama was where he was. Ferraro said she was saying that "the black community came out with ... pride in [Obama's] candidacy. You would think he would say 'thank you' for doing that, instead, I'm charged with being a racist." Hmmmm ... wouldn't that be the same black community that has given every Democratic presidential candidate the same 90% backing it is giving Obama? His getting it in the primaries before the Democratic nominee gets it in the ...

As a fan of Barack Obama I must say I'm not offended by Hillary Clinton's offer to share a ticket with her rival. It struck me as just plain, old good politics -- and a tactical error Obama should exploit by saying exactly the same thing. Here's why: the backlash to Clinton has been because of previous trash talk about Obama. How can she consider a running mate who lacks even her manly bona fides -- and even worse, she says, those of evil Republican John McCain? But, if Obama holds Clinton to her offer to consider teaming up it makes it virtually impossible for her to go negative. The latest tortured explanation as to how Obama might after all be ready to be commander in chief on day one (as he'd need to be as VP, a heartbeat away from the presidency) came from Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson on Morning Joe: there's a lot of time between now and the nominating convention in August. Joe Scarborough later wondered out loud if that meant they'd be sending Obama to...

N ot that she seems to have any choice in the matter, but Hillary's mantra that she'll show us who's boss March 4 -- wait for it -- is beginning to seem more Giuliani-esque with each passing day. How can she lose here, there and everywhere for a month and not seem like a loser? If Obama does as well in Virginia, Maryland and DC today as it seems he will, has won more states and takes the pledged delegate lead, won't that have a demoralizing effect on Hillary's numbers in Ohio and Texas? If you can win, you try. Rudy didn't make losing, and not competing, sexy in Florida. Hillary won't want to bring that sexy back.

Joust Originally uploaded by _mpd_ L ots of humility today from pundits and pollsters about how wrong the New Hampshire polls were on the Democratic side -- from Chris Matthews soulfully telling Clinton's communications director "I will never underestimate Hillary Clinton again" to John Zogby 's instant analysis that "We seem to have missed the huge turnout of older women that apparently put Clinton over the top." In an interesting little item on the Huffington Post a commenter observes: "No one is talking about how the polls actually nailed Obama's number. Obama didn't lose this election. He stayed steady and Hillary surged ahead." Many narratives will be challenged in the coming days and will be replaced by other convenient narratives. Among the most curious, and none-too-subtle, is that the bulk of spot reporting appears to assert that Clinton's victory was a "surprise." This, even though there is no evidence that Clinton ...

O bama will win convincingly. Hillary will place, pushing Edwards to third, but Obama's margin of victory will exceed his eight points over both in Iowa, and his near cornering of the market of self-described independents will be a dominant general election narrative. Hillary will portray the loss as entirely media/momentum driven, citing the only five days since Iowa (she has already begun to put out the message that the race really beings in California). Edwards, who has declared he is in the race through the convention, just needs to stay in the hunt, and he will. If he remains in the race much past New Hampshire it will only serve to emphasize Obama's claim as the more legitimate agent of change versus Clinton. The Democratic nomination is now Obama's to lose. Still, for the superstitious, consider these facts: One -- and only one -- modern-day candidate has lost both Iowa and New Hampshire and gone on to win the Democratic nomination and the presidency: Bill Clinton ...

N o, this isn't a cheap shot at perhaps the nation's first woman president. Nor is it a cheesy post-holiday attempt at "It's a Wonderful Life" humor. But I do wonder what role Bill Clinton would be playing in this election cycle if his wife wasn't running for president. And what he has in mind for the future. Bill loves to be known as the country's first black president. This is a tribute to his sincerity towards a voting block he doesn't treat like a voting block which turns out in disproportionately-large numbers for Democrats. This warmth is, I reckon, especially savored by a white child of the segregated south; when it came time for the post-presidential potentate to chose a base of operations Clinton landed in Harlem, a brother from another planet. Hillary has many plates she must keep spinning. Some are up there of her own doing, and some are not -- including the gender dish, where her passions are served up as evidence of imbalance in a way they...

David Brooks once again distinguishes himself in the New York Times with a brilliant assessment of both the Republican and Democratic presidential races, making note of how rare it is for an "earthquake" to hit both parties at once as expressed by the Iowa victories of Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama. I’ve been through election nights that brought a political earthquake to the country. I’ve never been through an election night that brought two. Both victors are the youngest in their respective fields (Barack, 46; Mike, 52). Both are the most outsiderly of the viable candidates (with apologies to Kucinich, Paul and Gravel). It is a clear repudiation of the establishment, period. It may not be the final word, only a warning shot to be heeded by the wisely humbled -- witness Hillary's team-player, I-get-it concession speech -- but for now it is a shot heard round the world. Brooks makes great sense in handicapping both races. Huckabee, he says, is likely not the GOP standard...

How much power does it suggest when a black man wins a lilly-white state whose coronating power has been criticized because it is so unrepresentative of the country as a whole? Has it occured to institutional Republicans yet that seducing and then abandoning evangelicals might have created their worst nightmare: a populist they have already demonized but may have to back as the lesser of two evils -- first in their primaries and (heaven forbid) perhaps even beyond? Has either party establishment correctly identified that sound as repudiation, and do they know the color of new blood?

(Disclosure: edited 2/26 for typos) Something has been bothering me about the field of Republican presidential hopefuls, and it isn't the absence of Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich. This is it: Since 2000 (a political eternity) there has been no doubt about an open GOP ticket for '08. Dick Cheney made clear he was not going to run for president after a presumptive two-term Bush administration, leaving no heir presumptive. And yet there is no young, vibrant Republican in the mix or even mentioned as a dark horse. No conservative media darling whose candidacy is so audacious, so presumptuous, it just might work. There is room in the tent -- witness talk of Thompson and Gingrich, who poll better than some announced candidates in some polls, and even whispers of a third-party putsch by Michael Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel . Of the presumed leaders John McCain is a re-tread and, thanks to his support of the of Bush war strategy, a far cry from the "rebel" he was perceived of a...