07May08. In They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, a film about the marathon dance craze of the 1930s, the MC, Rocky (Gig Young's best ever performance), caught the attention of the audience with the repeated "Yowza" before his latest announcement of the continuing nature of the dance, well beyond the dictates of sense and reason. Like, "Here they are again, folks! These wonderful, wonderful kids! Still struggling! Still hoping! As the clock of fate ticks away, the dance of destiny continues! The marathon goes on, and on, and on! HOW LONG CAN THEY LAST!" The Democratic Party nomination process has been like a marathon dance. The primaries and caucuses go on and on ... Like the fixed marathon dance in They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, the result has been determined for some time and what we are waiting for is for someone to take on Robert's role and escort Gloria Beatty Hillary Clinton out the back for some necessary mercy killing. She should retire now, or immediately after the West Virginia primary on 13 May. But it looks like she intends to extend the marathon for another few weeks, at least until the end of the primaries, if not until the Convention itself. By doing so, she would sacrifice any opportunity to leave the race with her dignity intact. Instead she will go down kicking and screaming.
Even with all the problems caused by his erratic former pastor and his own decision to tell some truth about the battlers turning to guns, religion and fear of the 'other' in tough economic times, Obama has for some months maintained a substantial lead in votes and delegates over Hillary, to the extent that, unless something truly extraordinary happens, and I cannot envisage such an event, Obama will win the nomination. The only people who do not seem to understand this are Hillary and her team - at least based on their public utterances. Her campaign is millions in debt and, despite some wins in big states, none by overwhelming margins, she has made no impact on her rival's delegate lead, and has seen her own lead in publicly committed superdelegates shrink, so that Obama now leads in that category as well. As a result, both Obama and McCain have skewed their campaigns now to focus on each other, and on states likely to be swing states come November, and largely to ignore Hillary's dead-in-the-water push. The confrontation between the old bull and the young turk should be interesting. Obama has to win over those members of the core Democrat vote who have so far supported Hillary, including older, working class and white voters, before he can appeal to the independents and cross-over Republicans. McCain too has cross-over and independents appeal, but he too has problems with the base. His views on many issues that are of most importance to the religious right, who overwhelmingly support the Republicans, are not in accordance with the base's views. He might therefore have trouble getting out the vote. Obama has shown that he can appeal to large numbers of younger and minority Americans who might not normally have voted. The negatives for McCain with his base and the positives for Obama in activating those who did not vote in 2000 and 2004 could make the difference. But the Presidential vote is not decided on the popular vote - if it were Al Gore would have won in 2000 - but on the results of 50 separate contests at the state level. The question remains: which states can Obama win that Gore and Kerrey did not? Hillary beat him in a number of these contests. He may not win sufficient votes to take any of the southern states off the Republicans, nor enough to win any of the swing states. The electoral math is going to be fascinating. 2008 continues to be an incredibly interesting marathon dance. Yowza, yowza, yowza.
A roadrunner: Veep, Veep
Now that it is almost certain that it's McCain v Obama, the next question is who will be their running mates. One popular suggestion for the Republicans in Florida governor Charlie Crist, for the balance he provides. But a name mentioned by Bruce Wolpe at the Herald sounds more reasonable to me, Rob Portman of Ohio. He's a former congressman and was Bush's budget director, providing McCain with experience, a name in a vital swing state and some needed economic credentials. For Obama, I reckon the two names foremost will be James Webb of Virginia and Sherrod Brown of Ohio, both states the Democrats need to take from the Republicans. Other possibilities are New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, whom I've mentioned earlier, and Ohio governor Ted Strickland. I'll bet good money it won't be Hillary.
Eerier and eerier, part 2
Last month I looked at some of the coincidences between the last season of The West Wing and the 2008 presidential election cycle. Another has emerged. In the seventh season there was a White House wedding as 'Jeb' married off his second daughter, Ellie, to her lover. In his final year, GWBush has also hosted a wedding for a daughter, Jenna, although not at the White House but at his 'ranch' in Crawford, Texas. Life seems intent on imitating Aaron Sorkin's art.
The budget bounce
The federal Budget is now tabled in May each year and gets a far bigger reaction in the local media than does the comparable tabling of annual economic thingies in comparable democracies. (Perhaps British, NZ and US correspondents can note how big an impact the publication of their annual national budgets get.) The pundits fall over themselves trying to analyse the thing to death; the interest groups scream long and loud if they think they've been neglected. This year's collection of neglectees include the private health industry, which can apparently no longer function without massive government subsidy; the pensioners, who've go no additional bribe this year, because their vote is not required for another couple of years and they can be bribed later; and those earning over $150k, who have lost access to the baby bonus and some other welfare payments that have now been means tested. Not to mention the luxury car lobby, given the rise in taxes for cars at the Top Gear end of the range. The pollsters ask two questions generally: "Will you be better off?" and "Is the Budget good for the economy?". The contrasting answers to those questions raise some interesting speculation. In this case about 30 per cent thought they'd be better off and a slightly large number thought they'd be worse off, but a clear plurality thought it was going to be good for the country. Which is what you want in a non-election year: get the pain over with well before the vote. Only, perhaps, there was not enough pain. That seems to be the pundits' opinion, for what it is worth. The Tory response was all wrong: Nelson, seeking popular support, says he'll oppose some of the tax increases (like the ones on pre-mixed alcoholic drinks) and the changes to private health fund offsets. He threatens the luxury car tax changes and proposes to cut fuel excise by 5¢ a litre. The last two are wrong because they are counter-intuitive to the threat of catastrophic climate change. The tax threats are jejeune: the Libs just lost an election, they cannot pretend like they are still running the country. Inevitably they will have to back down on the threat, or the Senate will pass them eventually, after 1 July. The net result of the Budget dance has been the restoration of the status quo ante bellum: Morgan and Neilsen show Labor 10 points up on primary votes and leading 57-43 two party preferred; Morgan has the latter figure at 60.5-39.5. So Kruddy has made some actual decisions and a relatively astringent Budget has not ended his political honeymoon. The mid-year Recession predicted by the political Hanrahans in the light of Labor's 2007 election success is as evanescent as ever even though, with higher fuel costs and trouble in the US economy, things are not as rosy as they might be. And the Libs seem even more out of touch ...
First written: May-June 2008
return to Raves/Essays index