The News From Virginia Nick Benton's Corner
Submitted by: carol white on Tue, 02/19/2008 - 10:46
tags:
Set Up Buzz!
Posted with permission of Nicholas Benton
In his first of two editorials, Nick Benton's, owner/editor of the Falls Church News Press enthusiastically recognizes the implications of the recent Obama victory. He reflects the optimism of Democrats and Independents through Virginia who are looking forward to victory next November. However in his opinion piece he also raises his fears that Obama is "Wall Street's" choice and is contention that Clinton is the more progressive candidate.
Editorial Number I:Obama Landslide, Divided GOP Vote: Blue Virginia in
Sen. Barack Obama’s landslide victory over Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Virginia Democratic primary Tuesday didn’t only contribute to the “Chesapeake primaries” sweep that gave Obama a net lead in total delegates to date. It also confirmed that Virginia stands a solid chance of turning out a majority for the Democratic presidential nominee this November for the first time since 1964.Almost twice as many voters turned out to vote in the Democratic primary as in the Republican, and the Republican vote was sharply split.
“I believe more than ever that Barack is the best candidate to unite our country and transform our politics in the cause of progress,” Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine said in a statement issued yesterday, after Obama carried the primary by a lopsided 63.7% to 35.3% margin.
Kaine was one of the first prominent elected officials to formally endorse Obama, doing so days after his campaign was announced a year ago. Speaking before a record turnout at the Democratic Party of Virginia’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Richmond Saturday night, Kaine said it was “just a year ago tonight” that he endorsed Obama.
The momentum from earlier Obama primary victories on “Super Tuesday” Feb. 5 swept into Virginia like a tidal wave last week. In Northern Virginia, two offices opened up, with streams of young volunteers piling onto the phone banks at the office in Falls Church, and picking up piles of literature to go door-to-door into neighborhoods.
In Falls Church, residents reported multiple visits to their door by young Obama campaigners and at its largest polling place at the Thomas Jefferson Elementary School Tuesday, there were four volunteers handing out literature for Obama, and none for any other candidate, Democrat or Republican.
Falls Church’s margin for Obama matched the statewide tally. Forty percent of active voters in the City turned out 62.2% for Obama and 37% for Clinton. The margin in neighboring Arlington County was 62.2% for Obama and 36% for Clinton, and in Fairfax County it was 60% for Obama and 38% for Clinton.
On the Republican side, the margin for the victorious Sen. John McCain was far higher in Falls Church than in the rest of Virginia. With 24% of the City’s active voters casting ballots in the Republican primary, McCain carried 68.9% of the total in Falls Church, compared to Gov. Mike Huckabee’s 16.4%. Statewide, the margin was far closer, with McCain accounting for 50.1% of the votes and Huckabee for 39.7%.
The tally for Ron Paul, the only other active GOP candidate, was better in Falls Church than statewide. He pulled 8.2% of the total votes cast in Falls Church, compared to 4.8% statewide.
Overall in Virginia, 924,000 voters turned out to cast ballots in the Democratic primary, compared to 475,000 who voted in the Republican primary. That margin of almost two-to-one may be the best news of all for the Democrats, suggesting that Virginia could “go blue” in November.
It at least suggests the commonwealth will now be considered a “battleground state” on the level of Florida or Ohio. In addition, with the nominees of both parties now almost assuredly to be U.S. Senators, the proximity of Virginia to their “place of work” in Washington, D.C., insures there will be a bonanza of campaign action and candidate appearances in the state moving toward November.
For the Democrats, the chances of their presidential nominee winning in November are greater than at any point since 1964.
Not only will the Democratic campaign be strengthened by the simultaneous campaign for the U.S. Senate of popular Former Governor Mark Warner, but the Republican ranks in the state are sharply divided, as the McCain-Huckabee primary results this week show.
As the GOP’s Senatorial nominee in Virginia will likely represent the conservative wing of the party, that candidate will probably not campaign enthusiastically for McCain, if he becomes the GOP presidential nominee.
The current wisdom is that the most likely GOP Senatorial nominee in Virginia will be another former governor, Jim Gilmore.
Still, while McCain has an overwhelming lead in the run for the Republican presidential nomination, it remains far too close to call on the Democratic side. While Obama has a slight edge in delegate tallies to date, Clinton is counting on victories in upcoming primaries in the large states of Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania to pull back out to the front.
Editorial Number II ‘Hillary Cloud’ Lifting Off Wall Street?
Is theWould it have any impact whatsoever on the incredibly shallow mania currently driving Barack Obama’s campaign if it became better known that he’s the preferred candidate of Wall Street?In the early morning hours following Obama’s Chesapeake primaries sweep over Hillary Clinton Tuesday, Wall Street cronies on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange made poignant remarks in front of CNBC cameras, hailing the outcome.
They agreed that Tuesday’s electoral outcome was very good news to them and that it suggested that “the Hillary cloud has lifted” off the pharmaceutical and health care industries. Those interests are breathing easier how, they said.
So while the general public, including the band wagon Democrats now propelling Obama toward their party’s nomination, knows of or cares little for the difference between Obama’s and Clinton’s respective health care proposals, the distinction is obviously not lost on Wall Street.
As Tuesday morning’s comments suggested, for one reason or another, the “pharma” (in investor shorthand) and health care industries don’t view Obama’s plan as a threat to them, unlike Clinton’s.
We’re talking about some very powerful forces at work here. Do they feel that Obama would not hurt their interests if elected, or do they feel he’d be easier than Clinton to defeat in November? Either way, stopping Clinton appears to be their priority.
Tuesday night, we got the first clue of how John McCain intends to run against Obama. In his victory speech in Virginia, he elaborated on the theme of “nice words about hope and change are one thing, years of experience and accomplishments are another.”
The stampede mentality driving Obama’s momentum currently is feeding off superficial appeals to “change” and “hope,” increasingly frustrating Clinton’s efforts at defining and defending detailed policy differences.
Such “idealism” is the perfect obfuscator. All skepticism is met with “You’ve got to believe!” Been there, done that. If I’m going to support Obama, it will only be when I am convinced his policies are the most sound and that he can fight effectively for them in the trenches, both as a candidate and a president.
Appealing to the young with the trappings of a rock star, generating frenzy at rallies akin to a Hannah Montana concert, getting all sorts of folks caught up in emotion, these are all excellent weapons against the articulation of policies that could otherwise really hurt powers that be.
That’s why Michael Gerson, for example, loves “idealism” and loves Obama. Gerson, whose column appears in the Washington Post, is a former Bush speech writer who continues to insist Bush’s Iraq policy has been the right way to go. He’s a rock-ribbed Republican who, as a religious fundamentalist, prefers “faith” over “skepticism” as a self-professed “idealist,” as he says in his book, “Heroic Conservatism.”
In his column Jan. 9, just after the start of the primaries, entitled “Can Obama Build a Movement?,” Gerson wrote favorably of Obama’s effort to build more of a movement than a campaign. “What’s the movement about? It is, above all, the return of idealism,” he wrote last month, counterposing Obama’s focus on “hope” to Clinton’s charge he’s appealing to “false hope.”
To his own Republican base, Gerson noted, “He (Obama-ed.) has left room open for future outreach to middle-ground voters. His stump speech, in the version I heard, made no mention of abortion…His consistent emphasis on fighting HIV-AIDS globally and promoting development could appeal broadly to religious voters.”
“In terms of raw talent and personal appeal, Obama beats Clinton hands down,” he concluded. “And now we’ll see if Democrats agree.”
Increasingly, as if on cue, they’re appearing to. But since when has personal appeal mattered to being a good president? Wasn’t it personal appeal that gave George W. Bush the edge over Al Gore?
Set Up Buzz!
»
- carol white's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Nick is very astute
He has obviously taken the time to dig deeper into the candidates than most of the press and many campaign supporters.
I respect Nick but I don't agree in this instance.
I do not think he has provided any serious evidence at all that Barack Obama is a creature of Wall Street, which is what he implies. At the time that Roosevelt took office he had enormous support throughout the US because of the enormity of the economic collapse and the failure of Hoover and his supporters to deal with the situation effectively.
Many people including my own parents thought that he would be a creature of Wall Street because of his class background.
Bill Clinton is involved as a consultant with a number of global deals which I believe include Dubai. He has ammassed a sizable fortune in the process. Hillary Clinton was able to lend her campaign %5 million, certainly something I couldn't do. Their "connections," their contributors, and their supporters should certainly raise some eyebrows.
I believe the Clinton "hardball" attacks against Obama will backfire on her campaign. To me they are cheap shots. Let's hope that if Clinton wins, you and Nick are right, and if Obama wins my optimism is not misplaced. We sure as hell do need a change in this country.
Are you really interested?
If you are, I'll put the information together for you. If you happy with the hype and the skillful marketing of a candidate that allows big money, party establishments and the press to once again choose the candidates for us, I won't waste my time.
I have less hope for our country and our future than I have had at any point in the last 7 years. The people just don't learn from history and seem to be satisfied repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
If you research both candidates that would be great
What about the role of Mark Pen in the campaign? What about Bill Clinton's consulting clients?
I believe that Bush is pushing the US ever closer to the brink of war with his policies. I shudder to imagine what might happen between now and the next election. Nothing stacks up against the outrageous abuses while he has been president. How can you lose sight of that no matter how much you fear that Obama is not a true progressive?
I could care less about
Obama being or not being a true progressive other than it shows how little most of his supporters really know about him. Point is they are all politicians and the important thing is to look beyond the image they are trying to sell you. Mark Penn is an idiot. That is an established fact. Bill Clinton has consulting clients are known or at least people are reporting on it which is good. There is a lot about Obama that is overlooked, underreported and most attempts to critically examine him are rejected by supporters which is unwise going into a general election or electing him president.
I am not a registered Democrat or Republican. I vote for the candidate I believe will be the best for the job. I voted for Bill Clinton one time. I have voted for Republicans and I have voted for Democrats.
I am most concerned with our economy at this point. Bush might try to take us to war but I am afraid the likelihood of us having a major economic crisis or collapse is greater than going to war. Where in the hell will he even come up with the troops? We don't even have enough to available for Iraq much less another theatre. Maybe Bush's warmongering is more of a distraction from the economic problems than anything else?
Lincoln was also a politician
I don't have answers really. I voted for Bush in 2000. In retrospect that was a bad decision and I regret it. I am not a Democrat either really. But that is not too important except to a pretty small group of friends and associates.
But what is important
is for the country not to make another mistake as they did with Bush and not looking beyond what a team of consultants are marketing to the voters. Not to say that Obama would govern the same way that Bush has governed but there are some very high expectations being set here with far less to back them up. I just can't believe that we are once again letting the press and consultants pull the wool over our eyes. Maybe the nation has been dumbed down to the point that it's too late.
this statement is chilling.
Our health care system is totally broken -- this quote pretty much says it all for me.
No doubt Big Pharm and Insurance Providers are Geared Up
I think the answer to legitmate worries about what the next Democratic President will actually be prepared to do when he or she gains office are legitimate, although I am not so concerned about the opinion of Wall Street pundits on this. However I believe that the answer to these fears is for every Democrat who can to get involved in the upcoming campaign to ensure that we have an overwhelming number of Democrats in the House and an increased majority in the Senate. Health care is one of the most important issues before the next Administration and we must build a constituency that insists that the House and Senate craft a good Universal Health Bill without loopholes, that will cover everyone at fair prices. Then neither candidate will be in a position to waffle on the issue.
Don't get me started on Health Care. We pay as much for health care as for our mortgage, and their is no ceiling in sight.
I am also very concerned about the pill-popping medical culture in which the routine medical solution to any problem is to prescribe medication. I had a bad fall on my head, because I was misunderstood how to do a particular exercise. As a result I got bad vertigo. As I later learned their are exercises and physical therapy that can help this, but my doctor did not advise me of any of this and instead put me on heavy anti-nausea medication. And to make matters worse she decided I needed to take pills for acid reflux. The side effects from these were synergistic and among other things caused muscle weakness. Naturally I am not taking these pills, just being careful not to stretch out after eating and exercising like mad, and I'm doing OK.
Don't get me started on medical care. But I think there is one hell of a lot that has to be dealt with here, and we definitely need citizen involvement and oversight.
I was truly shocked by Judith Warner's article on anti-depressants et al, in the Opinion page of the NY Times, (ee my yesterday's commentary). As far as I can tell there is one hell of a lot of over medication for psychological problems. Of course there are circumstances where it is badly needed, but then there needs to be careful monitoring of the effects.
Okay
For the purpose of a primer to provide substantiative information that Obama has or is on equal ground with Clinton on Wall Street support.
First, one of the better sources I have found to have consistently take an objective look at Obama is Black Agenda Report. They have been tracking Obama for years and have a good sense of his history as an elected official. They have been taking hits recently for their coverage of Obama and followed with this:
February 14 they published a piece, Holding Barack Obama Accountable, that is an excellent place to begin:
Fast forward:
The rest of the piece covers a good deal more than I can include here. There are also links at the end of the piece to their coverage of Obama in 2003 for more background.
Subprime Obama from Black Agenda Report examines Obama's response to the current subprime lending crisis.
The tightest summation of Black Agenda Report's comparison of Obama and Clinton as candidates was made the day after the Super Tuesday votes:
Black Agenda Report's coverage does extend to other issues that I have not included in this comment. Much more on Obama can be found here.
i certainly can't take on all the issues raised
I listened to all of the presidential debates this cycle and all of the candidates I think, but definitely Edwards, Obama and Clinton agreed on key issues to do with medical care and social security. No privatization of social security and regulation of insurers in order to significantly reduce costs of insurance for the purchaser and subsidize those not in a position to pay.
I have no idea about the two Harvard advisors and what they stand for. Sure we have to hold the feet of the next president to the fire to deliver. No doubt about it.
On sub prime mortgages I think the real problem with the mortgage industry is the way mortgages were packaged and turned into derivatives. In the "good old days" the local Savings and Loan bank offered a worthy buyer a loan. That's how we got our first mortgage on our home. These days all mortgages are traded as financial instruments. I think that is more basic than sub prime mortgages.
When I was a realtor I had many clients refuse to work with me because I pointed out that the teaser rates they were being offered would in all likelihood rise, leading to increases in their mortgages. This is the negative mortage. Your payment is fixed with these loans for a certain period of time but if the interest rate rises your debt increase. My clients insisted that the market was going up and they could only gain. I was an old fogey or worse in their eyes. I said hey this is a bubble, they in effect said shut up.
Most of the people were not poor, not disadvantaged, and did not have poor credit. They just fellow for the housing bubble, just as investors before fell for silicon valley.
Do I think they should be protected from foreclosure? Yes because you don't want families on the street, but they were plenty complicit in allowing themselves to be blinded by the desire to buy above their means and perhaps get richer in the process.
One of the keys to the "sub prime mortgage crisis" is not talked about much all though there has been some mention. That is the corruption involved with the new homes market and the big corporations like Toll brothers etc. They routinely raised prices every couple of months and appraisers accepted the escalated prices because "the market is rising, that is the trend." This was one of the reasons that the entire housing market had such a price escalation. The appraisals were incompetent, and extreme pressure was put on the appraiser to go along with the lender, the client, and the realtor to "make the deal work." If he or she didn't they would be without clients in short order.
Then there was the continued downside in the interest rate, not the sub prime interest rate, but the Fed's interest rate. People could afford to pay for mortgages on more costly homes than they could have afforded at the same wage a year or two before, because their actual payment remained the same. That was Greenspan's bubble financing.
For sure I think we should have regulations and I think we should be loud and clear in demanding this from our elected representatives.
If my choice was to change reelect Bush or Bill Clinton their would be no contest. Clinton would get my vote as will either of the existing candidates. I would like to see us tap into the enthusiasm--perhaps deluded--of those looking for a change and educate them to insist that the next administration does not follow in the footsteps of its predecessors.
I agree that Obama's remarks about Reagan were bad, and I wrote a post on this at the times. Does that mean he is playing politics to get elected or does it mean he is a closet Republican? I also heard Michelle Obama say that for the first time in her life she is proud of this country. Perhaps that is closer to what she feels and maybe they are together on this. We will no doubt find out if he wins the election. If not we will have to light a fire under the Clintons.
Additional sources
Here are a few more sources for information on Obama's support from Wall Street.
Harper's - Barack Obama Inc.
The Hill - Obama's K Street project
The Los Angeles Times - An Asterisk To Obama's Policy on Donations
1st Quarter fundraising:
Obama Top Fundraiser on Wall Street
2nd Quarter fundraising:
Obama Donations Show Strong Wall St. Support
Center for Responsive Politics:
3rd Quarter fundraising:
Center for Responsive Politics:
Open Secrets Race for the White House:
Barack Obama's Top Contributers:
Selected Sector Total to Candidates
Contributions from Selected Industries
I believe this and my previous comment should provide sufficient documentation of Obama's support from Wall Street. The Democrats have two candidates with strong ties to Wall Street but Hillary's has received as much more attention.