Linktastic Voyage

Loads of stories that have caught my eye have begun to pile up on my tabs. My intent was to give each a full post, but with my pace of late, let's face it -- that wasn't gonna happen. So here are some links with commentary as apt:

You know what? President Obama has accomplished a hell of a lot, especially given the political context within which he has had to operate.

The Miller Center at UVA has started a blog, Riding The Tiger, that promises to look at the presidential election in historical context.

Cliopatria, the first among equals of the History News Network Blogs is closing its doors. Ralph Luker, paterfamilias of Cliopatria, did yeoman's work herding cats over there for more than 8 years. When he started blogging at HNN Ralph was one of a precious few professional historians who saw the potential for blogging as a medium of blending historical, political, social and cultural questions. In large part due to his nurturing thousands of historians now blog.

Ruy Teixeira thinks much of the hullaballoo about Independent voters is nonsense and he recently found himself reviewing an especially nonsensical book about Independent voters. Negative reviews are fun.

This about sums up my feelings.

Voter ID laws, created to create a solution to a problem that doesn't exist (but really simply created to make it harder for Democrats to vote), might just end up having unintended consequences.

Students in one history class at my alma mater are making campaign ads rather than writing final papers. I love this idea:

There’s a catch, though. The students can only use images, quotes, documents, and music from the era. They cannot use anything that came afterwards. An image of the White House burning in 1812 would not work for the election of 1808. They cannot use images of Leutze’s famous Washington Crossing the Delaware, a product more reflective of the 1840s than the 1770s. Their assignment is to capture the spirit of the age – not the spirit of our historical memory.

I might have to appropriate this idea and adjust it for my students.

At the Chronicle Leonard Cassuto argues that the comprehensive exam needs to be changes because it does not seamlessly fuel the way toward writing a dissertation. The problem with this solution is that it assumes rather than proves the seamlessness. The fact is that the comprehensive exams are rather different from the dissertation -- and frankly I've always argued that in many ways the comprehensive exams are what separates history PhD's from laymen -- learning to respect both the history and the historiography is vital. There is a lot of material out there. I am of the belief that before one does original work one should immerse oneself in the books and articles that have come before. And in so doing get to really know the history as well.

In which I say some stuff about the new UT system post-tenure review policy.

Monday Linkiness

While I recover, you should check out:

AO Scott of The New York Times writes about the greatest movie moments of the past decade.

At The Boston Globe Renee Loth argues, rightly, I think, that Democrats should "call the filibuster bluff." Reconciliation seems smart to me -- assuming they have the 51 votes, ram that bill through. Let the Republicans whine about a democratic majority prevailing.

At Newsweek Niall Ferguson makes the provocative but dumb argument that 1979 was a more significant year than 1989. Hint: The Cold War was kind of a big deal.

To Steamroll Or Not To Steamroll

I like EJ Dionne's point in this Washington Post op-ed, in which he makes a more sophisticated version of the argument: Hey conservatives, the Democrats won, get over it. Dionne instead wants Democrats to get over the 2003 mentality in which they were the flustered minority party. But he also wants them to maximize the leverage their newfound power brings them.

At the same time I think it is smart politically but also for the enactment of policy if Obama's and the Dems' first step is always to try to reassure the Republicans that they are not going to be steamrolled even if the Democrats have to know that in their arsenal is a big-assed steamroller. The big stick is usually best when it goes unwielded.

Bill Clinton for Senate?

At The Washington Post Karl E. Meyer and Shareen Blair Brysac present an intriguing proposal:

Amid the blizzard of résumés blanketing Washington as the Obama era dawns, there is a superbly qualified candidate for full employment whose name has been overlooked. We refer, of course, to William Jefferson Clinton, America's 42nd chief executive and commander in chief. Yet now, by a wonderful combination of circumstances, comes an opportunity to harness his unquestioned political talents to benefit his country, the Democratic Party, New York state and his spouse. If, as is expected, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes secretary of state, New York Gov. David Paterson could send her husband to the U.S. Senate.

It strikes me, however, that getting Hillary to State is a brilliant coup for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that it will be more difficult for her to pursue an independent political agenda or undermine the Obama administration from Foggy Bottom than from the Senate. Bill Clinton in the Senate might prove to be the sot of sideshow the Democrats would as soon avoid. Then again, the Clintons are still a powerful political force, and it seems possible that Bill Clinton in the Senate would mark the sort of changing of the guard that keeps the Clintons heavily involved in politics while maximizing their utility to an Obama administration.

Praising Dean

In the aftermath to the 2006 midterm elections I noted that whatever his failings, Howard Dean deserved credit for helping shape a 50-state strategy that enhanced Democratic competitiveness in a short span of time. With the announcement that Dean is stepping down as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, it is worth recognizing Dean's vision again, as Adam Nagourney does at The Caucus, the politics blog of The New York Times:

As chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Mr. Dean pressed the party to expand its efforts and set up offices in all 50 states, arguing that the party was making a mistake in effectively ceding states to the Republican Party. That position led him into some famously pointed clashes with Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, who at the time headed the Democratic Congressional Campaign, and who was angry that Mr. Dean was not sending money he had raised to help in Democratic efforts to take back Congress.

Dean, who was never as much a man of the left as either his supporters or detractors let themselves believe -- he was a centrist-turned-opportunist -- proved to be a pretty savvy and successful party chair. The Democrats are a legitimate national party again, indeed, are the majority national party again, and while no individual deserves the full credit for the party's reemergence as the dominant political force in the country, Dean deserves a significant amount of the credit.

Whither Joe Lieberman

One of the little dramas that will play out among Democrats in the days, weeks, and months to come will revolve around a simple question: what to do with Joe Lieberman? Early indications are that Barack Obama is far more gracious than I, as he has indicated that he still wants the Connecticut turncoat to remain in the Democratic caucus even as many, myself included, advocate stripping Lieberman of his chair of the Homeland Security and Government Reform committee and his seniority on other committees, a move that Lieberman has promised would lead him to leave the party caucus. To which I respond: Good fucking riddance you traitorous weasel.

To my mind, the only thing that should save Lieberman would be a situation in which he is needed to invoke cloture. Since the Democrats are not going to have 59 or 60 seats, I say so long, Joe. Enjoy life in the minority party. Have fun filibustering for the next two years. But Obama is going to use Lieberman's case as an example of his new politics, even though Lieberman stabbed him square in the back throughout the campaign, including in his whorish little gig at the GOP convention. Lieberman is going to owe his status to the graciousness of Obama, who owes Lieberman nothing. I hope his colleagues remind him of that every single day in the Senate by shunning him as the pariah he deserves to be.

Sleeper 1 Brooks 0

Over at Talking Points Memo Cafe Jim Sleeper puts the smack down on David Brooks. A sample:

He pirouettes like this constantly to maintain some intellectual self-respect, on the one hand, and to hold onto his market niche as a conservative Republican apologist, on the other. He has tried to square this circle with forced geniality throughout Republicans' Iraq War lying, torture and warrantless surveillance, borrow-and-borrow, spend-and-spend fiscal policy, bottomless corruption, and, lately, national socialism. But John McCain is stopping Brooks' game.

Ever since it has become clear that McCain is unstable and incompetent as commander-in-chief of his own campaign, not least by choosing his horror show of a running mate, Brooks has been squirming and stumbling furiously toward a reckoning that should be of some interest to every Times reader and would-be public intellectual.

This time, the choice facing Brooks is too stark and time-bound for his usual gyrations. He can maintain his intellectual self-respect only by breaking openly with McCain/Palin in the next couple of weeks.

It comes as no shock that David Brooks has little intellectual core. But as we watch him and other conservative columnists squirm as they wrestle with their intellectual barrenness, let us keep in mind that there are three weeks left in this campaign.

I would thus encourage my fellow Democrats not to be too effusive yet and not to start the touchdown celebration before we reach the goal line. Our party has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory before. The polling data looks good for Obama supporters, but I would be willing to bet that those numbers tighten, that the gap closes, in the next three weeks.

Were the election to be held tomorrow, Obama would win handily, quite possibly in a landslide. But election cycles have their own nearly-organic development, and when hubris begins to build I try to remind myself of the 1948 election, when all polling data indicated that New York Governor Thomas Dewey was bound to win handily, a sentiment that prevailed until election night, when the pollsters were humiliated. Polling is methodologically better today and we have much more data to work with, especially for those of us who like to look at aggregates rather than place our faith in any single poll. But now is not the time to be planning victory dances for an endzone we have not yet reached and it certainly is not the time for complacency to prevail.

The Dems Bring It

I had found the Democratic National Convention up to last night to be something of a desultory affair. Ted Kennedy and Michelle Obama were great the first night but the rest of the day seemed to lack much in terms of either buzz or substance. The second night was the same, though Hillary did what she needed to do. Any of her so-called supporters (there is growing speculation that a number of the PUMAs may well be McCain plants) who still won't line up, and who honestly claim to care about women's issues but support McCain are idiots and the party does not need them.

So the first two nights played a like a warmup act that went on a bit too long. But last night more than made up for it. Though it was a bit overwrought and byzantine, the Hillary appearance to call for the nomination by acclimation actually was a great touch. It further solidified Hillary's bona fides both as a major player and as an Obama supporter. The big three speakers did what they needed to do and more. In baseball terms Cinton and Kerry hit home runs into the upper deck while Biden hit a solid double. In grading terms we had two A's and a B+. Two nines and a seven. Three thumbs up. Etc. And the Obama appearance at the end, the second night in which he has slid into the proceedings, seemed to go over well. there are those who will gripe about tradition or overexposure, but that's a silly argument. The idea that the candidate should appear as if conjured for the cameras on Thursday night is a silly remnant of the days when parties did not necessarily know going into the convention who would win. As for overexposure, well, that trolley left the stop for both parties sometime back in the middle of 2007 and the start of the interminable election cycle.

I've no idea what sort of bounce to expect. The weirdly truncated VP naming/convention season makes little sense to me, so my guess is that neither party may get the boost that traditionally has come from such an affair. McCain is expected to announce his VP pick tomorrow, a savvy move that will draw him much more attention than a candidate would normally get the day after the other party's convention folds its tent. Then the GOP kicks in to its love fest next week. I would not eb at all surprised to see status quo ante reign in the polls, with each party's bounce canceling out the other's and a virtual dead heat ruling the day in the national polls with a reversion to last week's polling data or thereabouts come the second week of September.

Finally! A Democratic Convention Drinking Game

At The New Republic Jeremy Bronson and Daniel Chun introduce the DNC Drinking Game. As they introduce the game, "Want to watch the Democratic National Convention, but afraid it'll distract from your alcoholism? The DNC Drinking Game can help. Pour yourself a cocktail (or a latte) and prepare to get drunk on booze and hope."

The majority of these conventions, GOP and Democrat alike, are best viewed through a drunken haze, though the highlights can be great. For the democrats the speeches by Ted Kennedy and Michelle Obama were world beaters last night. The rest: Eh. Expect the convention to crescendo as the days pass. They always do.

From the Primaries to the Veepstakes

He has a bit of a temper. He is inclined to say what he thinks, irrespective of the consequences (and to the chagrin of his handlers). He entered the primary season as a respected lion of the Senate. He had some integrity issues earlier in his political career, in the 80s, but those seem to be by-and-large behind him. He once ran unsuccessfully for his party's nomination prior to 2008. He began the primary season almost an afterthought in his party. And now everyone seems to be talking about him.

I am referring, of course, to Senator Joe Biden.

I liked Biden when the primary season started and felt that he ought to have been considered more seriously than he was, especially given his legitimate gravitas on issues such as foreign relations and the judiciary. Nonetheless, the voters spoke. But as soon as he dropped out I hoped his name would reemerge, whether as a possible Vice Presidential pick or else as a high-level cabinet (or cabinet-type) nominee, such as Secretary of State, for head of the National Security Council, or possibly SecDef.

Indeed I think he might serve the administration better in one of those positions, but the Veepstakes are as much about serving the ticket now as about serving the administration later. I am not convinced just how much the choice for VP actually influences the way voters act, but as a symbolic gesture it is vitally important. Biden would represent a fine choice and, to my mind, more of a dream ticket (especially in terms of winning) than one involving Hillary as Veep.

Hillary's Choice

I'd like to think that my asessments of yesterday's North Carolina and Indiana primaries were pretty reasonable. Obama took North Carolina comfortably, and Indiana was tighter than expected. And so we are left with the ubiquitous question of this election season: What's next?

In particular, what now for Hillary Clinton? Yes, she won Indiana, but that seems pretty clear to me to represent a Pyrrhic victory. Her margin was razor-thin, and her delegate take relative to Obama's negligible. Yes, she is likely to win West Virginia, and Kentucky after that, but then she is likely to lose Oregon and the remaining western states. And if Obama contests in Appalachia and if Democrats in those states get the sense that Clinton is a lost cause, the margins might not be as great as some suspect.

Reality is likely to set in if she is willing to face that reality. Superdelegates are beginning to shift toward Obama with some Hillary supporters beginning to back away from their support for her. Clinton cannot win, but she can harm the party in her zeal not to lose, and presumably enough people will need to pull her aside to reinforce these points if this race is going to be wrapped up by June. The colossal Clinton ego -- hers and his -- will need placating. She will likely need to get first shot at the Veepstakes, even if only to say no, and she will get a prominent place on the lectern in Denver. But it is time to think of November.

Clinton can, if she chooses, almost certainly play some sort of role in an Obama administration, whether as the Vice Presidential nominee or in the cabinet we do not yet know. Or she may choose to continue to grow as a lioness in the Senate, where if anything her record has been underrated. In other words, her career is far from over. At this point she can do incalculable damage not only to her party but also to herself in a Washington world where reputation is, if not everything, at least the one thing that might matter most. Most everyone in DC has lost in politics. There is no shame in that. But the District is not a place where desperation is looked upon especially favorably. It is time for Clinton to face the facts. It is time for her to drop out of the race.

The Power Brokers

Are you left wondering when John Edwards or, perhaps especially Al Gore, are going to announce their endorsement of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? After all, high-profile endorsements serve many masters: the elevate the person being endorsed, but they do every bit as much for the profile of the one doing the endorsing.

Just about everything about this election cycle seems to defy tradition and history, however, and the endorsement game is no different. Because this race is likely to go down to the wire, perhaps in the Democrats' case remaining unresolved until the superdelegates commit in Denver, the power of endorsements is heightened even beyond what it otherwise would be. Why would Edwards want to expend political capital on an endorsement before Texas votes when Texas may well not decide anything? Why would Al Gore, clearly the party's biggest endorsement prize (and still the dream candidate for some in a brokered convention), not wait until he can maximize not only the impact of his endorsement but his larger political leverage? Remaining neutral for the time being has the added benefit of appearing to want to help keep the party united.

Just because there is a great deal of self-interest involved does not make this approach a bad strategy. Gore in particular might prove to be the power broker many envisioned that he would become in the 2008 election, albeit not in the manner -- as the reluctantly drafted candidate heroically come to save the party -- they expected. Then again, stranger things have happened than an 11th-hour Gore candidacy. The Democrats did not choose Woodrow Wilson as their nominee in 1912 until the 46th ballot at the Democratic convention, and only then as a compromise candidate, after all.

Estrich Gets it Wrong on Obama

In an otherwise interesting piece for Fox News, I think Susan Estrich misses the mark on Obama's performance. Here is the money excerpt (and it is the point of her argument, so I'm not sure why it is buried so deep):

Asked about America's best friends in the world, Obama waxed on about NATO and our European allies before looking east to Japan. I'm not a foreign policy expert, but I've been around debates for decades and it was clear that Obama didn't get that this was the Israel question.

He didn't get that people like me, voters and donors, were waiting to hear the word "Israel" in a way that Japanese Americans were not. Japan doesn't live under constant threats; Israel does. Japanese Americans don't worry about Japan's survival in the way Jewish Americans worry about Israel. Obama's answer, in my book, was the biggest mistake of the debate.

I see a number of flaws in this argument. I agree with the general sentiment -- Israel is, if not our most important ally, at least one of them. But in an early Democratic primary debate, if Brian Williams' query was "The Israel question" then eliding Israel may have been one of Obama's wisest choices. Now don't get me wrong -- Obama's approach to Israel makes me a bit wary. But at the same time, had the red meat crowd on the Democratic left, which will have dispproportionate impact on the nomination process, heard "Israel," they would not have heard it in the way that Estrich suggests would have been good for Obama. They could do more harm to him, in other words, than "people like Estrich" can do him good. This assessment of the way primaries work seems so obvious that if it is not a truism it at least rings true: Better to have folks like Estrich waiting for satisfaction than to raise the ire of the Daily Kos crowd.

If anything, Estrich's assertion shows a certain amount of interest group solipsism -- a sense that the political world rotates around the axis of her concerns -- that certainly has not thus far been reflected in Obama's fundraising, in his popularity in the polls, however flawed those polls are, or in the post-debate support Obama has held and garnered. In other words, Estrich's argument is one put forth without much evidence. She so wants Obama to be hurt by not answering what she perceived as "the Israel question" in the correct way that she is asserting that such harm has been done without any foundation.

Biden Comes Out Swinging

Biden's in, and he's come out lobbing bombs at his Democratic rivals. According to the New York Observer,

To hear him tell it, Hillary Clinton’s position is calibrated, confusing and “a very bad idea.” John Edwards doesn’t know what he’s talking about and is pushing a recipe for Armageddon in the Middle East. Barack Obama is offering charming but insubstantial fluff. And all of them are playing politics.

I don't mind someone coming out and being the aggressor. It was bound to happen. And I have always liked Biden. He certainly has the foreign policy gravitas and will be hard to depict as unserious on security issues. It will be interesting to see if his candidacy can inspire any buzz, however, and while he is smart, Biden can also be a ponderous speaker, which is going to lend itself to mockery and what, especially in a sound-bite culture, might sound like gaffes. Traction will be a problem inasmuch as it is difficult to discern Biden's natural constituency. He will likely be pilloried by the noisome but powerful netroots. He lacks Obama's charisma and polish. He lacks Hillary's name recognition and money and buzz and last name. He lacks Edwards' populist appeal and southern accent and blowdryer. Nonetheless, taken in toto, Biden could be a strong candidate if he can garner some early support in the form of endorsements and fundraising, and if he can maximize his credibility and minimize his tendency to strike the wrong chord.