How the New Healthcare Law Changes the Dynamics of 2010

Summary: the Democrats’ legislative success means an electoral challenge for Republicans.

President Obama finally signed healthcare reform into law this morning. Soon, millions of uninsured Americans will have access to healthcare, sick Americans will be at lesser risk of losing coverage, and insurance prices will stop skyrocketing.


Over the past year, the healthcare debate has changed the political landscape entirely. It has led to the growth of the Tea Party movement, made members of Congress like Bart Stupak and Joe Wilson household names, and seriously depleted Obama’s approval ratings.

By the end of 2009, we warned that a failure to pass healthcare would mean more trouble than security for the Democratic caucuses in Congress.

Now that it’s passed, the tables have turned. Republicans warn that a “yes” vote on healthcare will mean trouble for Democrats come November, but it is the GOP that needs to start worrying.

They’ve been pursuing a strategy of “no” for the past year. Even now, they’re only suggestion is to repeal the law.

Except most of the legislation is quite popular. Measures that most voters would generally approve will be in place before July, including the end of pre-existing conditions. Young Americans could stay on their parents’ plans until they’re 26, and insurance companies would be unable to drop someone from coverage when they get sick.

One of the demographics most afraid of the overhaul - the elderly - will see huge benefits very soon, such as free preventive care and the closing of the Medicare Part D donut hole.

Republicans won’t actually want to repeal all that, will they?

Democrats, meanwhile, saved themselves a lot of trouble by proving to their base they could accomplish something. Things were looking pretty dismal here and there throughout the debate, and Democrats around the country were becoming less and less confident in Congressional leaders.

They won’t be feeling quite so disaffected come November, knowing that near-universal healthcare was achieved as promised.

Watch the President's remarks here:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Aftermath of the Healthcare Summit

Summary: What the summit means for a healthcare reform bill and the 2010 midterm elections.

As promised yesterday, we need to give our wrap-up opinions on yesterday’s healthcare summit in Washington, DC.


First of all, the media have not been impressed by what was accomplished yesterday. I’m not quite sure what they were expecting, but evidently they seemed to assume that the bill would have been ready to go after the summit.

In fact, the new deadline for passing a bill is before Easter. That gives Congress over a month to continue hashing out the details - and even that’s under the unlikely scenario that they’ll meet the deadline - before there’s a final vote.

In part, it’s because the GOP still seems unwilling to cooperate.

From Politico:

Heading into the summit, Democrats were preparing to start the steps to get the bill through the Senate with reconciliation — needing only 51 votes to pass a bill — as early as next week. They didn’t expect Republican cooperation Thursday and they didn’t get any. Republicans walked out of the session saying the same thing they said going in — unless you start over, we can’t get on board.

Yet watching the summit, they seemed to be a lot more engaged in reaching a pragmatic compromise than usual. With the exception of John Boehner - who gave a speech loaded with conservative rhetoric about killing the bill - most Republicans (even the super-conservative Sen. Tom Coburn) appeared more focused on working with Democrats than we’ve seen so far.

This is in no small part thanks to President Obama, who took a very serious tone yesterday about bipartisan efforts, which I feel encouraged some Republicans to drop the talking points - especially because the one who did were called out on it.

So we come to two questions. 1) Will this lead to a bill being passed? 2) What implications will it have for the 2010 elections?

It seems to me like a bill was going to be passed regardless of the summit, but I feel that this helped the GOP get over their minority-complex. The attention President Obama showed them (and has been showing them) contrasts - in their minds - with the way the Democratic Congressional leadership has treated them.

And some bridges were built yesterday. Senators Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) made some progress together regarding prescription drug coordination, while Democrats and Republicans in general came to some broad agreements regarding the healthcare-deficit connection.

Of course, there will be plenty of time for Tea Party special interest groups to disrupt this progress, but I feel that the summit probably did help bringing Republicans to the table, making it a little less likely that the inevitable filibuster efforts will succeed.

But in order for a bill to pass by Easter, it is entirely clear that President Obama and the Democratic leadership will have to continue to engage Republicans.

In the 2010 midterms, Democrats will be between a rock and a hard place, but there is a growing agreement among pundits that passing a bill will be more beneficial to them than failing on a key issue they were elected to address. This is something we’ve been saying for months.

Yet if a bill doesn’t pass, pointing to the summit will be a good way for Democrats to defend themselves. “Hey, we had a summit,” they can say, “the Republicans still refused to work with us. They care more about these elections than about the American families who are struggling with healthcare costs.” It’s not a great defense, but it helps solidify the idea that the GOP is nothing more than a “Party of No” these days.

Anyone who watched the summit - there weren’t many who did, albeit, though web traffic for it tripled that of the State of the Union Address - could see how Democrats were more willing to work with Republicans on the bill than vice versa.

Yet even a lot of Republicans were less aggressive than normal yesterday.

Ultimately, a lot of people may be disappointed with the outcomes of the healthcare summit. I, for one, think it could prove to be rather successful.

Healthcare Summit and Getting the Job Done

Sorry this post is so late, as it’s been tough to avert my eyes from the healthcare summit going on today.

Watching it reminded me yet again why President Obama was such a wise choice in 2008. Throughout the day he’s been doing such a great job trying to put politics aside and hash out policy.

Perhaps nowhere was it more obvious then during an exchange that’s making headlines right now with his former rival, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ):


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Indeed, he seems to be taking this summit much more seriously than a lot of the attendees. This demeanor reminds me a lot about what Eric and I said yesterday about getting the job done.

Anyway, be sure to come back tomorrow as we give our wrap-up on the healthcare summit, and what it means for 2010.

In the meantime, you can watch the healthcare summit at www.WhiteHouse.gov.

We’ll also start live tweeting the summit at @HSGWAYLABlog.

Did the SOTU Address Bump Obama’s Approval Rating?

Summary: The State of the Union Address did help President Obama - but by how much, and will it last?

A week ago today President Obama delivered his first State of the Union Address. Earlier that day we asked “could it bump his approval rating?”

We looked at Gallup data from previous SOTU speeches and determined it was unlikely. Presidents rarely get a significant bump following their annual address. But after seeing the speech, we determined that if any address could help his approval rating, it was that one.

Well, the new Gallup data is in, and - though it was small - there was a notable increase.


In just a day or two, the gap between his approval and disapproval ratings increased from 2% to 6%. As of this morning it is currently at 9% (note: the approval rating data will be updated later today).

As Gallup notes though, most of that increase came because Obama was able to re-inspire confidence in the Democratic base - not among Independents and Republicans.

Support for Obama among Democrats on a week-by-week basis has held steady in the mid-80s during January, although with some minor shifts among segments of the Democratic Party. His approval rating dipped mid-month among liberal Democrats before rebounding a bit last week. His support increased slightly in mid-January among conservative Democrats and has held at the higher level.

Support for Obama is now a bit lower among moderate/liberal Republicans than it was at the start of the month (27% vs. 33%). It is also slightly lower among conservative Republicans and pure independents (those who don't lean to either party), but neither of those changes is statistically significant.

Of course, the impact of single political events - even as high-profile as a State of the Union Address - fade quickly. A small bump in his approval rating this week means virtually nothing when looking forward to the 2010 elections. President Obama needs to continue what he started during that speech.

And he appears to be doing so. His tone has become more populist, more inspiring, and more reasonable. His recent address and Q&A with House Republicans was a very good event for him. If he manages to keep this up he could easily recapture a lot of the ground he lost over 2009 in terms of popularity.

Obviously he is not up for election this year - members of Congress are. But as a Democratic president during a year Democrats are expected to see big losses, he certainly has his role to play. And for now, he appears to be playing it well.

Thoughts on Wednesday’s SOTU Address

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama gave his first State of the Union Address. To put it mildly, he delivered one of his best speeches to date.

Watch the full speech here:



It was folksy, compassionate, and at times humorous. Most importantly, it was moving.

Some in the blogosphere - from both left and right - have been quick to criticize the feeling of the speech, if not the substance. Arianna Huffington yesterday described it as the “State of the Focus Group Address”.

From her piece:

“while most State of the Union speeches have a bit of a kitchen-sink feel to them, this one seemed particularly so with its blink-and-you-missed-it mentions of "earmark reform" and cracking "down on violations of equal pay laws -- so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work." It felt less like an overriding vision for the country, and more like an attempt to deliver at least one applause line for every constituency in the country.

That's not political leadership. Obama clearly understands this. It's why he ended his speech by mocking politicians who "do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation." And he just as clearly has the ability to articulate a bold vision for the nation and lead it where it desperately needs to go.

But he didn't do it tonight.”

Huffington is right insofar as the message-testing reality of the speech. Obama is changing his tone to what the American people want to hear.

But to say its not political leadership is flat-out wrong. Americans have a deep mistrust in government right now, not because they disagree with any particular policy agenda, but because they haven’t been feeling a connection to the man they believe is responsible for the direction of such legislation. As a result, healthcare, energy, and financial reform bills have been slow to pass through Congress, and vital work is not being done.

Now, it’s not clear yet if Obama achieved that trust with the SOTU Address. We’ll be watching his approval rating in the days to come as pollsters report their data. But if any speech could rouse broader public support for his presidency, it was the one Wednesday night.


Other thoughts…

• Luckily for Obama, few liberals seem to have picked up on certain number of inferred policy objectives he mentioned, including corn-based ethanol, “clean” coal, offshore drilling, and No Child Left Behind. If they had, the skepticism of the current Democratic government among progressives would have been jolted, a concern given the prospects they may stay home come election time. Yet Obama’s rousing message of America seemed to trump the minor details.

• If Congress was a class room and Obama was the teacher, the Republicans were the brats who don’t pay attention and get bad grades. They’ve been obstructive to the legislative process over the past year the way some kids are disruptive to the rest of class. Last night I saw a few of them tweeting and generally not paying attention. Sure, this isn’t new, but it’s certainly concerning. When the President of the United State is addressing your body, you should really listen up.

Can SOTU Address Bump Obama’s Approval Ratings?

Summary: Tonight's address will set the stage for 2010 -- but how will if affect Obama's ratings?

Tonight President Obama will deliver his first State of the Union Address, although he has already addressed Congress twice before. According to pundit Howard Fineman, Obama’s test tonight will be whether or not he can win back America’s confidence.

His approval ratings could be worse, but they do suggest he is a polarizing president who has already spent the entirety of his political capital. According to Gallup, his approval rating is about 48% while his disapproval rating is about 47%.


Fineman also notes that there are “volumes of analysis written about the president are rife with the cliché that the guy’s career is made up of career-making or career-saving speeches.”

So can Obama give such a speech tonight?

If you pay attention to Gallup reports, you’ll agree the answer is “unlikely.” Hardly any presidents have managed to get significant bumps in the polls following their SOTU Address.


The only exception - really - was Bill Clinton’s 1998 SOTU Address, in which he announced one of the nation’s first surpluses in years just days after news broke about his affair with Monica Lewinski. The speech bumped his approval 10 points - up from 59% to 69%.

Most SOTU Addresses, however, don’t do that. In fact, the majority of presidents lose support after the speech, if anything.

Part of the reason approval is not expected to go up is because of who watches a SOTU Address - it’s almost always composed of more Americans who already support the president giving it.


In the two addresses Obama has made before Congress, his approval rating saw some upturn. The first - about a year ago - bumped him up 8%. But that was early in his presidency, before many Americans could get a firm opinion about him as a Commander-in-Chief. A lot has changed since then. His second - a healthcare focused speech - only gave him a 2% bump.

One interesting thing to watch will be how viewers react to the way he plans to take responsibility for the government’s shortcomings tonight. According to the New York Times (and probably other news outlets) the president is prepared to admit that his administration has made missteps.

Perhaps Americans will find it refreshing - the Bush Administration was usually reluctant to own up to mistakes - or perhaps it will confirm their skepticism about the new president.

We’ll have to wait and see.

Editorial: Why Brown’s Victory is Not the End of the World

Summary: Dave and Eric at WAYLA ponder the impact of the special election in Massachusetts.

Tuesday’s election in the Bay State sent a Republican to fill Ted Kennedy’s former seat. Needless to say, it’s been considered a devastating blow to President Obama and the Democratic Party.

To be sure, things would certainly be easier for the Democrats if they had a filibuster-proof Senate, capable of passing critical legislation in spite of an obstructionist minority party. But even with the GOP holding 41 seats, it does not mean the end of the world for Democrats.

In fact, it might prove beneficial for them, and for Obama’s legacy.

Following Scott Brown’s victory, Obama signaled that he would not move on healthcare legislation - a key factor in the Massachusetts race and the primary issue behind the slow pace of Congress - until the senator-elect was seated. The president also said he would meet with Brown to discuss the bill before it reappears in the Senate.

Can such meaningful legislation be passed when Democrats have to work with Republicans?

Skeptics readily say “no” to that question. In a Washington Post op-ed today, columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. claims the election demonstrated an inherent contradiction in what he calls “Obamaism”:

"As a candidate, Obama pledged to change the tone in Washington and restore amicable relations between the parties. But he also promised to accomplish large things, including a substantial reform of the health-care system, major action to ease global warming, and a reshaped and more responsible financial system.

At some point, Obama's ambitions were destined to collide with the views of a Republican Party fundamentally opposed to almost everything he wants to do. Obama could try to get big things done or he could work easily with Republicans, but he could not do both."

During his campaign, Obama often spoke about skeptics, critics, and nay-sayers as well.

In 1982, President Reagan was confronted with big losses in Congress to the Democratic Party. In 1994, President Clinton saw Republicans take control of the House for the first time in a generation. These presidents regrouped, shook it off, and worked with the opposition.

Under Reagan, the country saw a defense build-up that scared the Soviet Union, all the while not neglecting domestic priorities. Under Clinton the country pulled out of record deficits and created record surpluses, all the while keeping the economy strong. Plus they both got re-elected the very next cycle.

These were their legacies, and it could be Obama’s too.

There is no shortage of study on why Americans prefer divided government. They do not like the idea of one party being drunk on power.

Well, 2008 was one hell of a wild party, and on Tuesday Democrats began to sober up.

This is important if the Democrats want to hold on to power. For six years the GOP controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House, passing remarkably poor policy with their dominance. The way they saw it, if voters approved of what you said, they’ll automatically approve of what you’ll do. Karl Rove added the fuel to the fire, claiming the Republican Party would have an unmitigated era of electoral dominance.

Democrats need to steer clear of this sort of arrogance.

Now, we’ll never cheer for a Republican to win. Nor can we be certain that Scott Brown’s place in the Senate will make anything better for anyone. But Brown’s victory is not the worst thing that could happen to the Democratic Party. We should be grateful it happened now, giving us time to learn our lessons before November.

Don’t think of his upset as the end, think of it as a new beginning.

Weekend Political Roundup

Summary: This weekend was full of brash comments from politicians--read who's getting into trouble.

This past weekend was somewhat unusual for me insofar as I was not keeping track of the news. Instead I was mostly watching the NFL playoffs, which I’ll briefly talk about later in the post. Needless to say, when I checked the news this morning, I was surprised by just how much happened in the world of campaign politics in the course of two days.

Blago's Back...

First there were the outlandish comments from ousted Governor Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) who said - among other eccentric things - that he was “blacker” than Barack Obama. The more I think about this I can’t help but think Blagojevich might just be a genius.

Let me explain: he knows his political career is over and there’s no way to bring it back. If he can beat the legal charges against him, however (which I’ll admit, is unlikely) he’ll want to maintain a media presence that can land him a job in, say, television or something. What better way to do that than to constantly act like a lunatic?

Massachusetts Senate Race...

Second was an interesting variation in the polls coming out of Massachusetts. In the race for Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat, it seems that Democrat Martha Coakley could either be ahead of Republican Scott Brown by 15 points, behind by 1 point, or at various intervals in between.

How can this be explained? Nate Silver suggests several reasons but ultimately can’t decide why the polls could be so varied. My guess is it has to do with whether or not the poll included an option for Libertarian Party candidate Joe Kennedy. Silver points out that the polls that do include a third party option are probably inflating what kind of support he’ll see on Election Day. While I agree that would usually be the case, his name is Kennedy, and that could help him out in this election. Thus, I would suggest looking at those polls (from The Boston Globe and Rasmussen) for the best estimates.

Game Change...

Next were a number of reports that came out about the 2008 presidential election. The first story was yet another Palin criticism from McCain campaign strategist Steve Schmidt, who bashed the former Alaska governor on last night’s “60 Minutes”.

From the story in Politico:

“There were numerous instances that she said things that were — that were not accurate that ultimately, the campaign had to deal with,” said Steve Schmidt in an interview broadcast on CBS’s “60 Minutes.” “And that opened the door to criticism that she was being untruthful and inaccurate. And I think that is something that continues to this day.”

Schmidt cited an ethics report on the then-Alaska governor from her home state on an investigation into whether she had improperly used her government position.

“She went out and said, you know, ‘This report completely exonerates me,’” Schmidt said. “And in fact, it — it didn’t. You know it’s the equivalent of saying down is up and up is down. It was provably, demonstrably untrue.”

Even more interesting reports, however, come from the same book the cites a lot of the Schmidt-Palin feud - Game Change by journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann - which examines a great number of unknown (and politically damaging) situations during the race, including a strained Obama-Biden relationship over the course of the campaign. Apparently the Obama staff kept Biden off important conference calls and put him on his own in order to “keep a tight rein on him.”

And Biden, in an off-the-record remark, apparently told reporters that he was more qualified to be president than his running mate.

Other reports from the book are also quite juicy:

–Before the 2004 Democratic presidential primary, party strategists Mark Penn and Mandy Grunwald, both then working for Sen. Joe Lieberman’s presidential candidacy, met secretly with then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and a group of her closest confidantes to consider a last-minute entry into the race – and even polled New Hampshire voters about the idea. Ultimately, though, Chelsea Clinton persuaded her mother to opt out of a run, arguing that voters wouldn’t forgive her for breaking a pledge to serve a full Senate term.

–Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and a group of other senators who would back Hillary Clinton’s candidacy encouraged Obama to run for the White House as early as 2006. The concern over Clinton was that she would be a weak Democratic standard-bearer while Obama could energize the party. In late summer 2007, Schumer – using an Obama ally, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), as a back channel – pushed the candidate to “take a two-by-four to Hillary,” as the authors put it.

–In lobbying the late Sen. Edward Kennedy to endorse his wife, former President Clinton angered the liberal icon by belittling Obama. Telling a friend about the conversation, Kennedy recalled Clinton had said “a few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,” the authors paraphrase. A spokesman for the former president declined to comment on the claim.

–Frustrated over the campaign following her disastrous interview with Katie Couric, Sarah Palin said she regretted accepting the Republican vice presidential nomination. “If I’d known everything I know now, I would not have done this,” she said. McCain’s high command, already worried about her lack of eating and drinking and fearing that she was suffering from post-partum depression, convened a conference call and discussed whether she was mentally unstable.

Palin spokeswoman Meg Stapleton issued a statement in response to "Game Change" touting the former governor's own insider account.

"The Governor's descriptions of these events are found in her book, 'Going Rogue,'” said Stapleton. “Her descriptions are accurate. She was there. These reporters were not.”

–There were apparently "two Americas" within the marriage between John and Elizabeth Edwards. The former North Carolina senator's wife viewed herself as a worldly intellectual and publicly called her husband "a hick" and his parents "rednecks," according to the authors.

"She was forever letting John know she regarded him as her intellectual inferior," they write, mocking her husband, the presidential hopeful, as somebody who "doesn't read books."

–Before she was tapped as the vice presidential nominee, McCain’s campaign team devoted only five days to vetting Palin and her seventy-four-part questionnaire. But Palin herself only spent a few hours filling it out – an act which had “consumed weeks for other short-listers.” Ultimately, a forty-two-page vetting report of Palin was crashed by McCain’s team in a matter of 40 hours.

–McCain never held a single practice session before the first debate of the general election, in September of 2008. Now-RNC Chairman Michael Steele had spent the entire summer preparing to play Obama in the practice sessions, but McCain wouldn’t spar with Steele out of fear that the sessions would leak and he’d be accused of racial insensitivity.

–Upon finding out that McCain had tapped Palin as his running mate, Vice President Dick Cheney called it a “reckless choice,” believing the Alaska governor was unprepared for high office.

–Members of what the authors call Clinton’s “war room within a war room” became convinced in 2006 that Bill Clinton was having a serious extramarital affair, prompting Hillary Clinton to instruct her aides to be prepared to combat the story.

–After Billy Shaheen, Clinton's New Hew Hampshire campaign chairmen and the husband of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, told the Washington Post that Obama's youthful drug use made him unelectable, Clinton initially cheered him on and encouraged her staff to draw attention to the comment. "Good for him!" she told aides. "Let's push it out." Clinton subsequently personally apologized to Obama over the matter and Shaheen quit the campaign.

–Following the 2008 campaign, Hillary Clinton was shocked to have been offered the Secretary of State job and decided to reject the offer. She prepared a statement explaining why she would turn the new president down and remain in the Senate. But in an after-midnight call between Clinton and Obama, he persuaded her – only after Clinton expressed concerns about the problems posed by her husband, the former president.

“You know I can’t control him, and at some point he’ll be a problem” the authors paraphrase Clinton as saying. Obama indicated that he was willing to take that risk…

…–Before formally deciding to enter the 2008 presidential race, Obama met secretly with former Secretary of State Colin Powell and Vice-President Al Gore, the latter of whom the authors report had privately consulted with Obama adviser David Axelrod on a potential 2004 presidential run of his own.

Clearly this book doesn’t make anyone look good.

My take is that few people will take any notice of the embarrassing stories in the book except for some Washington insiders who very well might have known a lot of these details anyway.

Well, except for one story…

It was also revealed in the book that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had said that Barack Obama was “light skinned” and lacks “Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

That proved to be explosive. Republicans, including the black RNC Chair Michael Steele, have called for Reid to lose his Senate leadership position. Their argument is that there is a double standard for Trent Lott to have lost his GOP leadership position for similar reasons while Reid can keep his.

Democrats, loyal to their leader, defended him vehemently on Sunday with a variety of arguments. Of the good ones: Reid has a record of standing up for civil rights and his comments on Obama were taken out of context. In fact, the book does seem to suggest that Reid was praising Obama’s political skills, albeit in an eyebrow-raising manner.

My guess is this won’t do anything to his role as Majority Leader. However, it will most definitely be a strain to his re-election this year. Reid is already facing bad number in the polls, so he wants as much Democratic turnout as he can get. While many voters who would be especially offended by this may not support a GOP candidate, they may just decide to stay home on Election Day - which is still pretty bad news.

Playoff Season...

Oh, and of course, the NFL playoffs. Now, don’t make too much of this, but I did see an interesting trend this weekend. In the AFC, more-liberal area located teams tended to do better than more-conservative area teams (with New York beating Cincinnati) while in the NFC, the red states beat out the blue ones (Dallas crushing Philadelphia and Arizona edging out Green Bay). A little ironic, perhaps, given that the AFC color is red and the NFC color is blue.

So, if you’re the kind of sports fan who likes to make predictions based on bizarre trends like political tendencies, you might want to put your money on Dallas beating Minnesota, New Orleans clobbering Arizona (Louisiana is much more conservative than the Grand Canyon State), and Baltimore upsetting Indianapolis.

Or you could play it in any number of safer ways, which I would have to suggest.

More on the Democratic Base Discontent

There was a good discussion on “Morning Joe” today that provides some food-for-thought regarding our recent post on the unrest in the Democratic base.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Don’t forget, tomorrow is our final segment of “Hollywood Does Politics!” We’ll be bringing you our Top 5 Political Campaign Movies, but we want to hear from you too.

Email us some of you favorite movies about political campaigns at Dave@HogensenStrategies.com and we’ll mention them in our post!

When Playing to the Middle Pleases Nobody

Summary: Is Obama trying to appease both sides - or is the Afghanistan policy something other than a political decision?

In his address to the cadets of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, and to the nation, President Obama outlined his new strategy for the war in Afghanistan.

Along with announcing the deployment of an additional 30,000 troops to that country (75% of what General Stanley McCrystal asked for) he explained how the war would not be an open-ended commitment - the U.S. would start withdrawing troops starting in 2011.

You can watch the full speech here:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

But as NBC White House correspondent and political enthusiast Chuck Todd said this morning, “he did something which is pretty difficult nowadays, which is he came up with a policy and a plan and he gave a speech that made nobody happy.”


And for the most part it’s true. With a few exceptions, most columnists reacted with skepticism to downright disapproval in today’s papers.

Liberals, unhappy about another surge in what to them looks like another Vietnam, embody the feelings of a Huffington Post piece by Robert Borosage - Co-Director of the Campaign for America’s future - entitled “Imperial Blues”:

“Surely this is the way that great imperial powers decline. Their soldiers police the ends of the earth. There is always another enemy, always a threat -- sometimes imagined, often real -- that must be faced. And meanwhile, the productive economy declines, the rich live increasingly off investments abroad, the poor depend on public sustenance, the middle declines. No battle is so costly that it cannot be afforded; no battle so vital that the nation must be mobilized…

…slowly, the great power declines from the inside out. The wars are costly, running up national debts. Vital investments are put off. Schools decline. Sewers leak. For a long time, circuses distract from the spreading ruin. Other societies become productive centers, capturing the new industries. Some begin providing better education for their citizens, better support for their citizens. Their taxes, not drained by the cost of wars past and present, can be devoted to what we used to call "domestic improvements."…

…South Waziristan, Yemen, Somalia, Kosovo, the Taiwan straits, the North Korean border, the seven seas - we can do this. But the result is that we are continually at war. And the wars cost - in money, in lives, in attention. And inevitably, domestic priorities, as well as emerging security threats that have no military answers, get ignored. A rich country, Adam Smith wrote, has a lot of ruin in it. We seem intent on testing the limits of that proposition.”

Meanwhile, many conservatives - though supportive of the troop increase - were dismayed by the inclusion of an exit strategy. Conservative columnist Bill Kristol explained it as such in his Washington Post piece this morning, “A War President”:

“There were unfortunate aspects of Obama’s speech: the foolish eagerness to tell us he’s as eager as can be to get us out of Afghanistan as soon as he can; the laying down of a pseudo-deadline for beginning a process of transitioning our forces out in July 2011, combined with the claim that the pace and duration of the withdrawal is to be conditions-based – a typical example of Obama trying to be too cute by half; the silly harrumphing that “it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people – that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country,” as if we were there to help the Afghans become “responsible for their own country” again, as opposed to fighting for reasons of vital national interest.”

Even independents - who, according to polls, are evenly split on the Afghan War issue - had their own reservations. Thomas Friedman had this to say in his New York Times column, for a piece entitled “This I Believe”:

"What makes me wary about this plan is how many moving parts there are — Afghans, Pakistanis and NATO allies all have to behave forever differently for this to work…

…Iraq was about “the war on terrorism.” The Afghanistan invasion, for me, was about the “war on terrorists.” To me, it was about getting bin Laden and depriving Al Qaeda of a sanctuary — period. I never thought we could make Afghanistan into Norway — and even if we did, it would not resonate beyond its borders the way Iraq might.

To now make Afghanistan part of the “war on terrorism” — i.e., another nation-building project — is not crazy. It is just too expensive, when balanced against our needs for nation-building in America, so that we will have the strength to play our broader global role. Hence, my desire to keep our presence in Afghanistan limited. That is what I believe."

He also explained his opposition on the Daily Show last night:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Thomas Friedman
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

This isn’t the first time a president has tried to play to the middle - trying to appeal to the beliefs of as many Americans as possible - and come out nearly empty-handed. It’s not even the first time we’ve talked about President Obama doing so.

But in the end, this wasn’t a political decision: it was a foreign policy decision that any Commander-in-Chief would have to make. Perhaps that’s why his speech last night focused mostly on the strategic implications of this policy rather than the “usual appeals to American hopes and values” - as Politico’s Ben Smith puts it in his recent article.

Whether it will help him or hurt him politically will take a lot of time to see. More important in the coming weeks will be the slow-pace of Congressional action to fund an unpopular war before the 2010 elections. In the end, however, it seems pretty obvious to me that the new Afghanistan surge and exit strategy were not political moves - they were important decisions about our national security.

The Spending vs. Jobs Dilemma

Summary: How Spending and Jobs have become both economic and political trade-offs.

The Congressional Budget Office released a report last night revealing that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (better known as the stimulus package) has thus far saved as many as 1.6 million jobs.

That should be good news for President Obama, but there are some problems associated with that figure.

The first is that a job saved is very different than a job created. No one knows for sure if they’re job stability over the past year has been the result of an Obama policy – but those who have been laid off without finding new work still have every reason to assume the stimulus isn’t working.

The second problem is much more political – the stimulus has everybody talking about a familiar topic: “out-of-control government spending” – a favorite complaint from the right. In fact, a Gallup poll taken back in September found that the majority of Americans believed about 50% of government spending was wasteful – a figure that has no doubt increased – and the dissatisfaction over the deficit has contributed to a decline in support for Obama and the Democrats.

In fact, the number one thing Obama doesn’t want people saying about him is that “he thinks he’s playing with monopoly money” according to an article in Politico from yesterday.

Spending issues don’t seem to be going away either. On Sunday, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey (D-WI) suggested a war-tax be implemented to pay for the surge in Afghanistan. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), however, is saying that notion may have it’s own negative economic implications.

Meanwhile, the jobs issue is becoming a greater and greater concern to Democrats – and it should. An interesting analysis by Nate Silver finds that if the job situation hasn’t improved by 2012, Obama would be in serious risk of losing Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Indiana in his re-election – dropping his electoral votes to 279. My guess is he’d be at risk of losing Pennsylvania as well, losing him the election.


Of course, if additional resources are put towards job creation, that decision will carry it’s own burden. States upset about spending could drop off as well, such as Virginia, Colorado, and others.

Now, as Silver admits, 2012 is a long way off and probably not worth the worry at this point.

But 2010 is coming fast – so what to do?

According to his column in the New York Times, liberal economist Paul Krugman suggests a job-focused bill that increases state aid, initiates public works programs like the ones seen during the New Deal, and gives tax incentives to employers who increase their payrolls.

“Our best hope now is for a somewhat cheaper program that generates more jobs for the buck. Such a program should shy away from measures, like general tax cuts, that at best lead only indirectly to job creation, with many possible disconnects along the way. Instead, it should consist of measures that more or less directly save or add jobs.”

Otherwise, say some analysts, the unemployment rate could peak as late as next summer, and – according to the Federal Reserve – stay above 8% nationally until 2012.

Again, that costs money. The only way to try to have a win-win situation on both deficit reduction and jobs is to hope that a job-creation bill will increase revenues enough in the future.

Now, currently there are about the same or even more jobs being created as jobs being eliminated – in other words, more people are beginning to get hired these days than being laid-off. And funds from the stimulus bill have not all been spent. In fact, only about a quarter of all money allocated for the stimulus has gone out so far. As that picks up and the non-lagging economic indicators improve, it’s possible that jobs will follow as previously expected.

These issues will be discussed more in the news at the end of the week when President Obama holds his Jobs Summit in Washington. Regardless of whether or not Congress and the president focus on cutting spending, creating jobs, or holding back and waiting to see if current legislation takes care of the problems, each option is essentially a political gamble they’ll have to live with.

How Afghan Opinion Weighs on Obama’s Options

Summary: Three things Obama should know before making strategy decisions for the Afghan War

After Dr. Abdullah Abdullah exited the run-off election for the Afghan presidency, President Barack Obama called on incumbent Afghan President Hamid Karzai to bring a “new chapter” in his country’s history.

Not only is it important for Afghans, but also for American interests as the Obama Administration decides how to proceed with the now eight-year-long involvement in the war in Afghanistan.

Obama had been holding off on a decision over whether to send more troops to Afghanistan until after this year’s elections there. Many in the administration felt it was best to wait until the U.S. knew who they would be working with and what kind of legitimacy their reign would bring. After all, in order to win the war, American and NATO forces need to win over the people of Afghanistan.

Now that the race is over, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says Obama will soon be meeting with his national security team to discuss four strategy options.

Knowing the importance of public opinion in Afghanistan, here are a few things Obama’s advisors should know before making any decisions…


1) Afghan Opinions About a “Surge” are Heavily Divided

According to Gallup polls following Obama’s decision to send the first surge to Afghanistan, citizens there were divided by both region and ethnicity over whether such a strategy would work.




One reason the decision over whether or not to send as many as 40,000 additional troops requested by General Stanley McChystal has not happened yet is because the Administration is still waiting to see what impact the original troop increase will have - many of the soldiers called up by Obama’s previous order have just recently arrived. It is possible that Afghan opinion is slowly changing as the original increase finally starts to make an imprint on the direction of the war.


2) Karzai is Trusted by Afghans…Sort Of

Some old Gallup polls also find that a plurality of Afghans believe Karzai is the most trustable person in the country. However, only 25% see him that way, and the runner-up - at 22% - is “no one”…


Furthermore, the poll found that Afghans would be more confident in foreign forces running the country than the Karzai Administration.


Now, this poll was taken last year, and it is more than likely that opinions have changed - especially following the outcomes of recent elections. However, seeing as Karzai has been a trusted figure in the past, he could be a strong ally for the U.S. if he began to turn the country around.


3) Corruption is Rampant and Growing

After the first rounds of elections in August, the entire world began to see Karzai and his inner-circles as corrupt - but this is a widespread problem in Afghanistan that shows no signs of slowing.

Our last Gallup poll - released today - finds that 81% of Afghans believe corruption is widespread, while 69% say not enough is being done to curb it.




Again, these polls were taken in June - before the marred elections - and a perception of widespread corruption is likely to have increased.

Finally, an increasing number of Afghans say they have personally been asked for bribes by government officials.


No matter what decision the president makes, it will not be popular with all Afghans, and no strategy we chose will be 100% full-proof. Winning over the Afghan people is incredibly important but - because of some very real challenges, including differences of opinion and mistrust in a government which is the political reality the U.S. has to deal with - it will also be incredibly difficult.

What Will Be the Political Impact of Obama’s Nobel?

Summary: Obama's Nobel - will it hurt or help Democrats in the long term?

As you all know by now, President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday. Since then, there has been a conservative firestorm of criticism for awarding it to the man within the first year of his presidency and with no especially major accomplishments.


On his Sunday talk show, former Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee told his audience “I think we ought to universally celebrate the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize for potential deeds, because this gives me hope. Since I’m a musician, I’d like to go ahead and get my Grammy now.” (See the video in this morning’s top stories).

Meanwhile, Liz Cheney - the former Vice President’s daughter - called the Obama win “a farce” in her Fox News debut yesterday.

Even M.I.A. - the musician who produced the catchy song from the Slum Dog Millionaire trailer - said Obama should have turned down his Nobel, tweeting “Obama winning the nobel peace PRIZE? he should give it back like john Lennon sent back his MBE.”

The Nobel victory seems to have caused the president more embarrassment than praise here at home. But there are several reasons why neither Obama nor the Democrats have any reason to worry about the award.

1) Few will actually blame Obama. Everyone who believes he didn’t deserve it (including the president, himself, according to his speech on Friday) will blame the Nobel committee. Furthermore, it’s difficult to expect him to actually turn down the award, as it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to say you’ve won the world’s most prestigious award.

2) No one will care come election time. In 2012, who is honestly going to criticize the Nobel win let alone remember it? The issues of the day change quickly, and while this is what everyone is talking about right now, it’s not going to be what we’re talking about three years from now. In fact, hardly anyone will be talking about it three weeks from now.

3) It will not disrupt what Obama is trying to accomplish. The legislative priorities the president is taking will not be hindered because no one will associate a Nobel Peace Prize with, say, healthcare reform. Furthermore, no Congressional Democrats will feel at risk because of Obama’s Nobel - voters simply aren’t going to tie them to the president’s victory. The only area in which the Nobel could get in the way - or, conversely, assist the president - is foreign policy, and even that seems a little unlikely in the long run.

So congratulations to President Obama for his surprise victory. Perhaps he didn’t fully deserve it (although progressives like myself have valid reasons to believe he did, to an extent) but at least the criticisms will die down relatively soon and the embarrassment will be minimal.

Will Obama Bring the Olympics to Chicago?

Summary: Nothing like a little competition to make things interesting - Obama joins other leaders in the race for the 2016 Olympics. Go Chicago!

It’s been months of competition and International Olympic Committee (IOC) evaluations since we last posted about Chicago’s chances of hosting the 2016 Olympics.

As we found back in March, the Windy City may be at risk of losing the games to one of four competitor cities (Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo, or Madrid) if they could not pull in more community support.

Since then, things began to look even less positive for Chicago’s chances. Support for the games among Chicago residents dropped to just 47% - with 45% opposing - as recently as last month.

Then, just last week, it was announced that President Barack Obama would go to Copenhagen himself to lobby the IOC on behalf of Chicago’s bid. Perhaps it’s not a direct correlation, but since then, a Zogby International poll found that support for the 2016 bid is now at 72% among Chicago residents.


Meanwhile, the main opposition group to the Chicago bid - No Games Chicago - have had trouble organizing opponents of Chicago 2016. A protest they held yesterday only produced about 250 people in opposition to hosting the games in a city of about 3 million.

Nonetheless, the president’s decision came with some political backlash. Republican leaders - including RNC Chairman Michael Steele and House Minority Leader John Boehner - have criticized the Copenhagen trip as a distraction in the midst of the healthcare debate.

And when one really thinks about it, you have to wonder if it could actually hurt Chicago’s chances - it would seem to be a little precocious.

Not exactly.

This is exactly how former British Prime Minister Tony Blair secured the London 2012 games, and how former Russian President (now Prime Minister) Vladimir Putin secured the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. Like Obama is doing now, they worked the phones and traveled across the globe to meet with IOC members before the vote.

In fact, leaders of the other three countries with a city in the race are making similar efforts. Spanish King Juan Carlos and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula de Silva have already landed in Denmark to promote the Madrid and Rio de Janeiro bids, respectively. The new Japanese Prime Minister - Yukio Hatoyama - will be arriving tomorrow on Tokyo’s behalf.

President Obama won’t be there until Friday - the day of the vote - but First Lady Michelle Obama is currently there meeting with IOC officials and American diplomats who have also been honed in to win Chicago’s favor.

And the race is close. From the AP:

IOC votes can be highly unpredictable. Aside from the paramount questions of whether bidding cities' Olympic plans are technically and financially feasible, emotion, sentiment, geography, politics, self-interest and other factors also play a role.

IOC vice president Chiharu Igaya said "many" IOC members are undecided and will choose only after the cities' final presentations Friday. "The four cities are now neck-to-neck," he told the AP.

"That final presentation, yes, it's going to be crucial," said Willi Kaltschmitt, an IOC member since 1988. He said he believes that half or more of his 105 colleagues remain undecided.

Added British IOC member Craig Reedie: "This is really close. The closer it gets the more people will say, let me think about it. We all want to see the presentations. It's what people see that will count. Decided? No, I haven't actually. I'm getting close."

Meanwhile, online betting - which now covers everything from sports to electoral politics to Emmy contests - appears to be swinging towards Chicago. According to the Betting Press, the odds that the Windy City will win its bid are now 10/11, with the next closest rival - Rio - at 6/4.

With just two days until the IOC makes their decision, the contest is still up in the air. That being said, it seems that Obama’s decision to fight for the Olympics in his hometown has made Chicago’s 2016 prospects all the more possible.

The Top 3 Signs That We’ve Returned to Political Equilibrium

Summary: the political landscape has changed a lot over the past year - what we can learn from it.

In the weeks and months leading up to and after the inauguration of President Barack Obama, it seemed like public opinion had dramatically shifted. Presidential job approval was the highest it had been in years, GOP favorability ratings were at - literally - an all time low, and for a while there, almost as many Americans were saying the country was on the “right track” as those who were saying it was on the “wrong track.”

As many noted, it was a “honeymoon period” for the new president.

Now with October around the corner, the tide seems to have turned. Presidential job approval is down about 20 points, the GOP has greatly improved their image, and Americans are beginning to say the country is on the wrong track again.

Call it the American Political Equilibrium.


Presidential Job Approval

Following his inauguration, President Obama had a near 70% job approval rating. Today, Gallup tracks it around 50%.


But don’t assume that it will keep dropping too fast. As Gallup noted in a recent study, Obama’s approval has stayed remarkably stable over the past month.


And RealClearPolitics.com’s presidential approval poll average appears to confirm this new trend.


In fact, this trend seems to be pretty normal for a president’s first year in office for the month of September these days. In the graph below, the only two presidents outside of the trend are the Bush presidents. It’s important to remember, however, that George H.W. Bush was the only president who did not have a recession on his hands at the time, and George W. Bush was assisted here by polls that found his approval rating to be as high as 90% following the attacks of September 11, 2001.


Now anything could happen between now and 2012, but usually the presidential approval rating for an incumbent improves going into an election year.


The Improving GOP Image

Gallup also recently found that public opinion towards the Republican Party has increased considerably since the beginning of the year when it was at an all time low.


Again, don’t assume this trend will continue. Favorability of Republicans will not reach that of Democrats for some time still.

The first reason is pretty simple: this is about the normal equilibrium favorability for the GOP in recent years. In fact, Republican favorability is only back to where it was around the time of last year’s general elections.

The other reason is because of why they’ve surged in popularity recently: it’s because Republicans themselves aren’t as dismayed by their own party as they were in the beginning of the year. Democrats and - more importantly - independents haven’t really jumped on board with them yet.


Democrats actually still lead Republicans among party base as well as independents.


Direction of the Country

For a few months, it actually seemed as though Americans were beginning to think the country was on the right path - so much so that it seemed as though we were returning to some blissful equilibrium.

Hardly.

The truth is, public opinion on the direction of the country is always pessimistic, or at least has been for the past several years.


But now, the polls seem to suggest that Americans are beginning to become less and less hopeful for their nation’s prospects again. Sure it’s sad, but it’s also normalcy.

Top Stories: 9/22/09

Actually, it's more like "top videos" today...

President Obama appeared on Late Night with David Letterman last night:


Watch CBS Videos Online

Funny or Die has a new video about the woes of the health insurance industry:

Protect Insurance Companies PSA from Will Ferrell

Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay - following his involvement in the Jack Abramoff scandal - made his debut on Dancing with the Stars last night:



And a friend of mine sent me this video recently. What's interesting about it is how well Obama and McCain seem to stay on message. It's funny because they're actually doing everything right.

Top Stories: 9/21/09

The Family Research Council hosted its annual Values Voters Summit over the weekend. Politico reports that a straw poll taken there finds that Mike Huckabee is the front-runner for President in 2012 among the religious right.

Also from that straw poll, FiveThirtyEight.com explains how passionate opposition to gay marriage is waning among Evangelicals.

Is that why former President George W. Bush refused to talk about it in the end? The Huffington Post reports on more Bush Administration dirt from the new book by Bush speechwriter Matt Latimer.

Meanwhile, the AP reported updates on Rep. Joe Wilson's (R-SC) re-election prospects over the weekend.

And President Obama appeared on all 3 network Sunday morning talk shows. Here are some of the highlights:

Top Stories: 9/16/09

All of this morning's stories are continuations of things we've posted about already!

Rep. Joe "You Lie!" Wilson (R-SC) - as it is now well known - was slapped with a Resolution of Disapproval by the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday.

Jimmy Carter speaks out about conservative protesters, saying race is very much a factor. "Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care," he said. "It's deeper than that."

Renard Sexton at FiveThirtyEight.com updates us on the Afghan Election.

And there's yet another New Media leak in the Obama-Kanye story! The celebrity gossip news source TMZ has obtained an audio clip (below) of what the president said.

Why Obama’s Comment About Kanye is Actually Important

Summary: New media keeps gaining political relevancy! After President Obama commented on hip-hop artist Kanye West's recent interruption of Taylor Swift at the VMAs, WAYLA continues to show how new media sources can affect politics, positively and negatively, every day.


I have to admit, when I first saw the video of Hip Hop artist Kanye West interrupting teen Country star Taylor Swift at the MTV Video Music Awards (see below) I never expected it to find its way to this blog.



But today the blogosphere has been rapidly spreading the news about President Obama’s take on the incident. Apparently he was in an off-the-record discussion with a CNBC reporter when he called Kanye a “jackass” for his actions at the VMAs.

Not knowing the comments were off the record, ABC News reporter Terry Moran tweeted it with his own commentary: “Now THAT’s Presidential.”

After realizing it was off-the-record, Moran deleted the tweet. Yet the news was already out there and spread like an epidemic. ABC has since released a statement apologizing for Moran’s tweet to Politico.

Why on Earth is this important?

It’s hard to imagine that most Americans are actually going to care about Obama’s unofficial comment - after all, it’s a personal feeling that is probably already held (verbatim) by most Americans.

Here’s the take from Newsweek’s blog, “The Gaggle”:

“In a White House that is so very careful about staying on message, Obama’s Kanye commentary was perhaps the most filter-free moment we’ve seen in a while, and let's face it, the slip-up was pretty harmless. Why shouldn’t Obama be able to call out Kanye for acting like a jackass? Is there anyone who actually disagrees?”

But the story is still important - not so much because of what Obama said, but how his thoughts were leaked.

We’ve talked a lot about Twitter over the past few months. We talked about its role in the Iranian elections, how campaigns can use it effectively, and even did a case study on how it has affected this very blog.

We’ve also mentioned some of the more irresponsible and damaging tweets that have come to light in 2009. For example, how one Republican operative tweeted “JUST HEARD THAT OBAMA IS GOING TO IMPOSE A 40% TAX ON ASPIRIN BECAUSE IT’S WHITE AND IT WORKS,” around June.

But the Moran tweet raises a new interesting question about irresponsible tweets: what about journalists who cover politics? What can campaigns or public relations experts do when media professionals abuse (even accidently) new media?

I guess we’ll have to watch how White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs handles this story to find out.

Is Obama Opposition All About Race?

One unexpected result of Rep. Joe Wilson’s (R-SC) outburst during President Obama’s speech last week has been the topic of racial anxiety among Republican - almost entirely white - voters.

Today Politico reports that many Democrats have come to see the opposition to Obama’s presidency as at least somewhat race driven.

This comes not long after the Los Angeles Times reported a growing “problem” Obama had in losing white support. Tom Schaller at FiveThirtyEight.com argued that the “problem” was being overblown for the most part, but it does seem to suggest that the divide over the 44th president’s performance is at least partially racial.

Just as they were infuriated by the Department of Homeland Security’s report that right-wing militia groups could spawn domestic terrorism, conservatives are undoubtedly becoming infuriated by the suggestion that their opposition to President Obama’s policies are due to racism. Conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh will undoubtedly say that Democrats are “playing the race card” now.

Of course, many social psychologists can easily explain what’s happening. Studies show that the image of a black man can evoke subconscious fears, anxieties, etc. in whites. Therefore, it wouldn’t be to far-fetched to assume that the unprecedented intensity of opposition coming from Tea-Baggers, birthers, and other hard-line anti-Obama conservatives is due to a little racial undercurrent.

Joe Wilson served as the perfect example. As a white Southerner (the South has by far the saddest record of race relations) he gave evidence to that theory when he made an unprecedented outburst (screaming “you lie!” of all things) during a presidential address to Congress.

But can Democrats admit it openly?

So far, it’s been liberal pundits and Democratic activists that have been ready to call their conservative counterparts out on the issue of race - politicians have known better.

On Martin Luther King Jr. Day, we relayed an article from the New York Times explaining how then President-Elect Obama had been “an omnipresent icebreaker” for racial anxiety.

But Obama took a bit of a hit in the polls earlier this summer when he said that the Cambridge, MA police had acted “stupidly” in their arrest of an African-American Harvard professor. There was a huge racial divide on that subject - blacks supporting the professor, white’s supporting the arresting officer - and Obama’s mismanaged reaction resulted in a small (even just temporary) drop in the polls.

So far, neither the Obama Administration nor the Democratic Party will speak directly to the question of race in this debate. And that’s exactly what they want to do. Affirming the speculations of race-driven opposition will only hurt Obama among moderate whites while denying the speculations would hurt his position with progressives and minorities.

So the opposition to this president is (very likely) partially driven by racial anxiety. Unfortunately we can’t really admit it.