On September 17th, 2011, a group of frustrated citizens from all stripes of life took over a park on Wall Street, launching a protest that has now spread around the world, a call against the grotesque excesses of modern capitalism.

–

The civil rights movement, in my opinion, the greatest grassroots movement in American history. But it is amazingly, little understood by most Americans. Over the past several years, I’ve taken upon myself to read about the fascinating history. It at one makes me incredibly proud to be an American, and disgusted. The intense bravery, self-discipline, and determination of those of all colors, against the cruelties of segregation. The horrors they faced perpetuated by people in power, who used despicable tactics against fellow humans beings.

Yes, we all know about Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, but how many Americans, especially of my generation, can name another civil rights hero? Two week ago we lost a great man when Reverand Fred Shuttleworth passed away – one of countless heroes of that generation. MLK didn’t do it alone, and it what amazes me the most – how so many people stood up against injustice, and how so many did it peacefully. It was a true movement. Not a perfect movement, by any means, but a true one.

The demands then were not for an excise task, but for a fundamental shift in how society treated a whole classes and races, a rethinking of human dignity. That movement, though it has accomplished a lot, is not over. It didn’t end with the Voting Rights Act.

We all like to think that we’d be on the right side of justice if put in those situations. But I truly wonder if I could match their bravery. Americans as a whole have a lot to learn from the civil rights movement, about both our potential for good, and our potential for evil.

–

One myth that has sustained is that of Rosa Parks. The story goes that she, one a spontaneous day, refused to give her seat, and the movement launched in response. The reality is that Rosa Parks was a leader, and that the campaign was planned well in advance, and she was the catalyst who choose to take action.

Movements don’t happen by chance – they take planning, preparation, and leadership. That is one thing we forget about the civil rights movement, which worked incredibly hard to organize in segregated communities throughout the South, where people had almost no access to information. By letting this myth survive, we diminish the hard work of thousands in this movement.

I first heard about Occupy Wall Street back in July. Adbusters, a magazine that I’ve been subscribed to, whenever I have a home, for nearly eighty years, has been posting articles on their blogs, and in the magazines, for months. Within particular circles were deep discussions about what form the movement should take – the chief inspiration being Tahrir Square in Egypt. Incremental change, the purview of President Obama’s 2008 election, wasn’t doing nearly enough when looking at the immediate problems facing humanity – climate change, inequality, and rampant capitalism. But how should such a movement be structured?

There were articles on protest tactics.

Civil disobedience vs. Violence

What does revolution mean in Canada?

I was skeptical, but hopeful. In 2006, I’d joined when Adbusters had organized local action groups, in Los Angeles, only to be dissolutioned by the lack of action by the group – we could never agree on a single tactic, and most people didn’t do their fair share of the work. Why would this movement be any different, I thought? So I read the articles – in-depth, and thoughtful – but did not head down to Wall Street on September 17th.

–

What makes a movement? When do social factors reach a point where action is inevitable, as it was in Birmingham that day in 1955. Have we reached a tipping point today? Is change near? I’m hopeful – a realistic idealist. Occupy Wall Street has made me realize that movements can still happen in today’s world. It has also made me realize how difficult the challenge will be.

The organizers knew exactly where to take their inspiration from. The final Adbusters blog post before the protest began – “Some inspiration from Martin Luther King, Jr. for this Saturday“. There is another lesson from the civil rights movement – setbacks will happen. You’ll lose patience, and want to turn to more radical tactics. There will be discord. People will infiltrate and try to divide you. The media will ignore you when you do good, and shower you with attention when you do bad, even if just for a moment.

But the odds we are facing, while great, pale in comparison to what southern blacks faced in the 1960′s. In their resolve, we can find strength. They faced down an entire unjust system, and brought about change.

Yes we can.

This is important. This will matter this fall.

So, today, the Clinton campaign stooped to, perhaps, its lowest level of the campaign, releasing a sleazy, disgusting, fear mongering ad. Take a look.

For comparison, here is one of the most despicable ads from the Rove-Bush team, the “wolves ad”

John Kerry never effectively responded to the unfair, fear mongering attacks on his patriotism, his character, and his campaign, and it cost him the campaign.

Today, Barack Obama showed that he has learned the lesson of 2004.

His War room released, in less than 12 hours, a brilliant rebuttal ad. Watch below, is it, in my opinion, one of the best ads of the campaign. It fights back, is positive, and, most importantly, direct.

What does this mean? It means that this fall, we could have a candidate that will not let the Republicans throw any answered punches. That will fight back with all the resources at his disposal to counter, to respond, and to win the election. But first, we need to nominate Barack Obama as our nominee.

Make Phone Call to March 4th States and let’s stand up against fear mongering, attack style politics.

What is a wedge issue? It’s simple. It’s an social or cultural issue that is meant to galvanize those voters who, based solely on economic factors, would vote Democratic. The wedge issues peels off these voters to the Republican side, scraping and collecting the most vulnerable voters from the working class, traditional Democratic base.

In my opinion, it all started in 1968 with the man who invented modern Republican campaigning (yes, campaigning, not ideology), Richard Millhouse Nixon, in his second attempt to win the White House against Vice President Hubert H Humphrey. In what many consider to be the most important election of the second half of the 20th century, Richard Nixon was able to eek out a small margin of victory and change the course of American history. That is where I’ll begin.

1968 Former VP Richard Nixon (R) vs. VP Hubert H. Humphrey (D) vs. Gov. George Wallace (I)

Wedge Issue(s): Crime and Fear, Busing

Effective: Yes. It was close in the popular vote (.5% difference) but not in the electoral college (301-191). Using the images of the chaos at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Nixon’s campaigned to prove that Democrats could not keep America safe, whether at home, or abroad with the growing chaos in Vietnam. Nixon siphoned off many disgruntled, Democratic voters especially in suburban area, and kept Humphrey on the defense. Of course, this isn’t the only reason he won, numerous other factors played into this race. But Crime and Fear, and to a lesser extend, the growing controversy over busing, helped Nixon throughout America to win a decisive Electoral College victory.

1972 President Richard Nixon (D) vs. Senator George McGovern

Wedge Issue(s): Busing

Effective: Moderate. Busing didn’t win the election for Nixon (McGovern’s incompetent campaign and Nixon’s foreign policy trickery were more decisive), but the Supreme Court’s 1971 Decision mandated that schools must work to desegregate. To many suburbans Americans, in the south but more importantly, also in the north, having their children bussed to inner city schools, or having inner city student in their suburban, white school was a terrifying concept. Nixon played on these fears, including using television ads. Even though it was a foregone conclusion that Nixon would win, the margin of victory, a 49 states to one blowout including a 10 point victory in McGovern’s home state of South Dakota.

1976 President Gerald Ford (R) vs. Governor Jimmy Carter (D)

Wedge Issue(s): None. Minor ones – “Lust in my heart”, Draft-dodgers pardons.

Effective: No. In the post-Watergate climate, and with Gerald Ford trying to distance himself from Nixon, this election was Carter’s to lose, not Ford’s to win. A series of blunders by Carter (the aforementioned quasi-wedge issues) caused his 30 points post-Convention lead to evaporate. Carter still became only the second Democrat since WWII (after Johnson) to win a majority of the America vote, with a razer thin 2% popular vote, 36 electoral vote victory.

Ford was not a Nixonite Republican, nor was he from the Goldwater wing of the party, the wing that would soon takeover control of the party, hence his inability to effectively use Wedge Issues.

1980 President Jimmy Carter (D) vs. Governor Ronald Reagan (R)

Wedge Issue(s): States Rights (Racial Issues)

Effective: Yes. 1980 marked a huge shift in the use of wedge issues. Whereas before, they had been apparent, aired in television ads and evident to all voters. In 1980, Republicans began to run mirror campaigns, where the candidates would say one thing, but surrogates and ground organizers would say something else.

Reagan ran this campaign perfectly. While he focused on economic issues to a larger audience, to smaller audiences, especially in the South (as 1980 would be the year that Republicans took over the south) under the mantle of “state’s rights”, race was used to pull white Southern Democrats into the Republican fold in States such as Mississippi and Alabama both of which voted for Jimmy Carter.

This also started another trend – Republican inaction regarding the wedge issue. And it made sense electorally, if you eliminated the wedge issue as an issue, then how would you continue to pry those voters away from the Democrats?

1984 President Ronald Reagan (R) vs. Former VP Walter Mondale (D)

Wedge Issue(s): None that were new.

Effective: Inconclusive. In the biggest landslide in history (according to popular vote margin), Reagan ran a campaign that ignored his opponent and allowed him to self destruct with lines such as “I will raise taxes”, along with Mondale’s ill-advised attempt to make the issue about age. No real wedge issues here, this election was too much of a landslide to analyze the use of wedge issues. Almost all swing voters voted for Reagan.

1988 VP George H. W. Bush (R) vs. Governor Michael Dukakis (D)

Wedge Issue(s): Furloughs/Crime: Willie Horton

Effective: VERY. I believe that the Willie Horton ads are still the most famous political ads in TV history. The effect was devastating, the crime issue mixed in with some implicit race baiting (including darkening Horton’s photos and turning the first name “William” into the more raciallly tinged “Willie”) It worked perfectly as a wedge issue – it took economic issues of the table, including the potential recession, neutralized the fallout from Iran Contra, and put Dukakis on the defensive. Moreover, it allowed Bush to win many potential Dukakis voters, becoming the 5th time in 6 tries that the Republicans had beat the Democrats.

This was the peak of wedge issues, giving Republicans victory in a year that Democrats should have won.

1992 President George H. W. Bush (R) vs. Governor Bill Clinton (D) vs. Ross Perot (I)

Wedge Issue(s): None – Ross Perot

Effective: Nope. Ross Perot’s campaign and his focus on economic issues, along with Clinton’s famous slogan, “It’s the economy, stupid”, doomed Republicans. Bush also shot himself in the foot with his oath “Read my Lips, no new taxes”, and then raising taxes, anathema to Republicans. The end of the cold war also made this election unique in the absense of foreign policy issues, severely hurting Bush’s experience message.

However, with Clinton winning with a plurality of 43%,

1996 President Bill Clinton (D) vs. Senator Bob Dole (R)

Wedge Issue(s): Affirmative Action, Hollywood Indecency

Effective: No. Bob Dole tried to make Affirmative Action an issue in this campaign, playing to the anger of mostly white voters who felt that they were not getting jobs or getting into school because of racial preferences. But Bill Clinton responded with one the greatest lines in campaign history, “Mend it, don’t end it.” This played to both sides, voters who did think their was justification for Affirmative Action, and to those who wanted it gone. It also hurt that Dole was the wrong messenger, with his genuine sincerely regarding civil rights, and his refusal to use race to make Affirmative Action a larger issue.

On the other, more minor issue of Hollywood indecency, Bob Dole was once again not the effective messenger for a weak wedge issue. Voters did not see too much sex and violence on TV as a major issue (judging by TV ratings, it was actually the opposite), nor did they see Bob Dole as the vehiclefor this issue. Clinton’s advocacy of the “V” chip, and arguing for parental control rather than Government control, destroyed any traction that this had as a wedge issue.

2000 VP Al Gore (D) vs. Governor George W. Bush

Wedge Issue(s): Morality, Moral Decay

Effective: VERY. In the aftermath of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, George W. Bush ran on a platform of restoring dignity to the White House and put Al Gore in a bind – either support Clinton and be seen supporting his immorality, or avoid Clinton and his economic record. Bush implicitly implied that the moral decay he saw in America was due to the President’s deftness with a cigar. He repeatedly called for a restoration of dignity, a message that appealed to swing voters, especially in an election where the two candidates were, as Ralph Nader put it “two sides of the same coin.”

In retrospect, there was little Gore could have done to combat this except have a more forceful, Progressive message that differentiated himself from Bush and gave voters another reason to vote for him besides morality.

2004 President George W. Bush vs. Senator John Kerry

Wedge Issue(s): Terrorism, Gay Marriage

Effective: VERY. Republicans opened two fronts against John Kerry. Gay Marriage was done at the local level, put on as ballet initiatives meant to drive out the social conservative vote. People have argued that Gay Marriage was not a Wedge Issue because it was more geared towards bringing out the base. I argue that it was a Wedge Issue, because it politicized a rural electorate to vote on social issues rather than on economic issues, where Kerry probably would have done much better.

But the most effective, overt Wedge Issue was Terrorism. The famous Wolves ad portrays this dynamic perfectly. By playing on the fears of swing voters, Bush was able to siphon of those who might otherwise have voted for Kerry, especially as the economy was doing so badly and the War in Iraq was becoming more and more of a quagmire.

2008: What can we expect?

Potential Wedge Issues: Illegal Immigration, Iran, Gay Adoption

Why Wedge Issues may not be Effective: Wedge issues are meant to distract voters from other, less favorable issues. This year, the issues least favorable to Republicans would be 1) The War in Iraq and 2) The economy. Poll after poll has showed that both Republicans and Democrats seem those two issues as the most important issues facing America. A majority believe that the country is going in the wrong direction. Republican attempts to change the narrative have failed thus far. If voters vote and choose candidates on these issues, Democrats will undoubtadly win the Presidency.

So far, Immigration has failed to work for Mitt Romney in New Hampshire, and for Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter anywhere. The current media frontrunner (John McCain) will be unable to demonize immigrants due to his own support for last year’s failed immigration reform plan. Iraq had made America too war weary for Iran, and Gay Adoption has failed to create the same sort of disproportionate hysteria that Gay Marriage did in 2004.

Why Wedge Issues may be Effective: Will Immigration = National security? Will Terrorism rear its ugly ahead and scare voters away from Democrats? In 1988, with a weak economy and the fallout from Iran Contra still fresh, Republicans were able to effectively shift the narrative onto crime and Willie Horton, forcing Democrats to fight on issues that were unfavorable to them. What is to say that the same thing won’t happen again?

Iraq is fading as a concern with voters, and the violence seems to diminishing. Democrats have yet to fully take control of the economic message. Immigration is still a fierce topic among Republicans and Border State independents. Though I doubt it, I would never count the Republicans out when it comes to wedge issues.

My Opinion
Immigration will not be the terrorism of 2008. George W. Bush’s Presidency is so unpopular, Republicans will not have the political capital to change the national narrative. Even if they try, Bush’s failures will provide effective ammunition for Democrats to fight back. Democrats can only lose by shooting themselves in the foot, ala George Bush 1992, or Jimmy Carter 1980. Except much, much worse. This is our race to lose.

FYI – Sources (not all sources, but most of them):
1) The Making of the President, 1960 and 1968, Theodore White
2) Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, Hunter S. Thompson
3) Wikipedia – Presidential Elections
4) Republicans and Race, Paul Krugman, New York Times
5) History and Calumny, David Brooks, New York Times
6) The Living Room Candidate, American Museum of the Moving Image
7) How the Wedge Issues Cut, Times Magazine
8) Washington Post, “Morality #1 Issue Among Republicans”

Crossposted at Dailykos

What is a wedge issue? It’s simple. It’s an social or cultural issue that is meant to galvanize those voters who, based solely on economic factors, would vote Democratic. The wedge issues peels off these voters to the Republican side, scraping and collecting the most vulnerable voters from the working class, traditional Democratic base.

In my opinion, it all started in 1968 with the man who invented modern Republican campaigning (yes, campaigning, not ideology), Richard Millhouse Nixon, in his second attempt to win the White House against Vice President Hubert H Humphrey. In what many consider to be the most important election of the second half of the 20th century, Richard Nixon was able to eek out a small margin of victory and change the course of American history. That is where I’ll begin.

1968 Former VP Richard Nixon (R) vs. VP Hubert H. Humphrey (D) vs. Gov. George Wallace (I)

Wedge Issue(s): Crime and Fear, Busing

Effective: Yes. It was close in the popular vote (.5% difference) but not in the electoral college (301-191). Using the images of the chaos at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Nixon’s campaigned to prove that Democrats could not keep America safe, whether at home, or abroad with the growing chaos in Vietnam. Nixon siphoned off many disgruntled, Democratic voters especially in suburban area, and kept Humphrey on the defense. Of course, this isn’t the only reason he won, numerous other factors played into this race. But Crime and Fear, and to a lesser extend, the growing controversy over busing, helped Nixon throughout America to win a decisive Electoral College victory.

1972 President Richard Nixon (D) vs. Senator George McGovern

Wedge Issue(s): Busing

Effective: Moderate. Busing didn’t win the election for Nixon (McGovern’s incompetent campaign and Nixon’s foreign policy trickery were more decisive), but the Supreme Court’s 1971 Decision mandated that schools must work to desegregate. To many suburbans Americans, in the south but more importantly, also in the north, having their children bussed to inner city schools, or having inner city student in their suburban, white school was a terrifying concept. Nixon played on these fears, including using television ads. Even though it was a foregone conclusion that Nixon would win, the margin of victory, a 49 states to one blowout including a 10 point victory in McGovern’s home state of South Dakota.

1976 President Gerald Ford (R) vs. Governor Jimmy Carter (D)

Wedge Issue(s): None. Minor ones – “Lust in my heart”, Draft-dodgers pardons.

Effective: No. In the post-Watergate climate, and with Gerald Ford trying to distance himself from Nixon, this election was Carter’s to lose, not Ford’s to win. A series of blunders by Carter (the aforementioned quasi-wedge issues) caused his 30 points post-Convention lead to evaporate. Carter still became only the second Democrat since WWII (after Johnson) to win a majority of the America vote, with a razer thin 2% popular vote, 36 electoral vote victory.

Ford was not a Nixonite Republican, nor was he from the Goldwater wing of the party, the wing that would soon takeover control of the party, hence his inability to effectively use Wedge Issues.

1980 President Jimmy Carter (D) vs. Governor Ronald Reagan (R)

Wedge Issue(s): States Rights (Racial Issues)

Effective: Yes. 1980 marked a huge shift in the use of wedge issues. Whereas before, they had been apparent, aired in television ads and evident to all voters. In 1980, Republicans began to run mirror campaigns, where the candidates would say one thing, but surrogates and ground organizers would say something else.

Reagan ran this campaign perfectly. While he focused on economic issues to a larger audience, to smaller audiences, especially in the South (as 1980 would be the year that Republicans took over the south) under the mantle of “state’s rights”, race was used to pull white Southern Democrats into the Republican fold in States such as Mississippi and Alabama both of which voted for Jimmy Carter.

This also started another trend – Republican inaction regarding the wedge issue. And it made sense electorally, if you eliminated the wedge issue as an issue, then how would you continue to pry those voters away from the Democrats?

1984 President Ronald Reagan (R) vs. Former VP Walter Mondale (D)

Wedge Issue(s): None that were new.

Effective: Inconclusive. In the biggest landslide in history (according to popular vote margin), Reagan ran a campaign that ignored his opponent and allowed him to self destruct with lines such as “I will raise taxes”, along with Mondale’s ill-advised attempt to make the issue about age. No real wedge issues here, this election was too much of a landslide to analyze the use of wedge issues. Almost all swing voters voted for Reagan.

1988 VP George H. W. Bush (R) vs. Governor Michael Dukakis (D)

Wedge Issue(s): Furloughs/Crime: Willie Horton

Effective: VERY. I believe that the Willie Horton ads are still the most famous political ads in TV history. The effect was devastating, the crime issue mixed in with some implicit race baiting (including darkening Horton’s photos and turning the first name “William” into the more raciallly tinged “Willie”) It worked perfectly as a wedge issue – it took economic issues of the table, including the potential recession, neutralized the fallout from Iran Contra, and put Dukakis on the defensive. Moreover, it allowed Bush to win many potential Dukakis voters, becoming the 5th time in 6 tries that the Republicans had beat the Democrats.

This was the peak of wedge issues, giving Republicans victory in a year that Democrats should have won.

1992 President George H. W. Bush (R) vs. Governor Bill Clinton (D) vs. Ross Perot (I)

Wedge Issue(s): None – Ross Perot

Effective: Nope. Ross Perot’s campaign and his focus on economic issues, along with Clinton’s famous slogan, “It’s the economy, stupid”, doomed Republicans. Bush also shot himself in the foot with his oath “Read my Lips, no new taxes”, and then raising taxes, anathema to Republicans. The end of the cold war also made this election unique in the absense of foreign policy issues, severely hurting Bush’s experience message.

However, with Clinton winning with a plurality of 43%,

1996 President Bill Clinton (D) vs. Senator Bob Dole (R)

Wedge Issue(s): Affirmative Action, Hollywood Indecency

Effective: No. Bob Dole tried to make Affirmative Action an issue in this campaign, playing to the anger of mostly white voters who felt that they were not getting jobs or getting into school because of racial preferences. But Bill Clinton responded with one the greatest lines in campaign history, “Mend it, don’t end it.” This played to both sides, voters who did think their was justification for Affirmative Action, and to those who wanted it gone. It also hurt that Dole was the wrong messenger, with his genuine sincerely regarding civil rights, and his refusal to use race to make Affirmative Action a larger issue.

On the other, more minor issue of Hollywood indecency, Bob Dole was once again not the effective messenger for a weak wedge issue. Voters did not see too much sex and violence on TV as a major issue (judging by TV ratings, it was actually the opposite), nor did they see Bob Dole as the vehiclefor this issue. Clinton’s advocacy of the “V” chip, and arguing for parental control rather than Government control, destroyed any traction that this had as a wedge issue.

2000 VP Al Gore (D) vs. Governor George W. Bush

Wedge Issue(s): Morality, Moral Decay

Effective: VERY. In the aftermath of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, George W. Bush ran on a platform of restoring dignity to the White House and put Al Gore in a bind – either support Clinton and be seen supporting his immorality, or avoid Clinton and his economic record. Bush implicitly implied that the moral decay he saw in America was due to the President’s deftness with a cigar. He repeatedly called for a restoration of dignity, a message that appealed to swing voters, especially in an election where the two candidates were, as Ralph Nader put it “two sides of the same coin.”

In retrospect, there was little Gore could have done to combat this except have a more forceful, Progressive message that differentiated himself from Bush and gave voters another reason to vote for him besides morality.

2004 President George W. Bush vs. Senator John Kerry

Wedge Issue(s): Terrorism, Gay Marriage

Effective: VERY. Republicans opened two fronts against John Kerry. Gay Marriage was done at the local level, put on as ballet initiatives meant to drive out the social conservative vote. People have argued that Gay Marriage was not a Wedge Issue because it was more geared towards bringing out the base. I argue that it was a Wedge Issue, because it politicized a rural electorate to vote on social issues rather than on economic issues, where Kerry probably would have done much better.

But the most effective, overt Wedge Issue was Terrorism. The famous Wolves ad portrays this dynamic perfectly. By playing on the fears of swing voters, Bush was able to siphon of those who might otherwise have voted for Kerry, especially as the economy was doing so badly and the War in Iraq was becoming more and more of a quagmire.

2008: What can we expect?

Potential Wedge Issues: Illegal Immigration, Iran, Gay Adoption

Why Wedge Issues may not be Effective: Wedge issues are meant to distract voters from other, less favorable issues. This year, the issues least favorable to Republicans would be 1) The War in Iraq and 2) The economy. Poll after poll has showed that both Republicans and Democrats seem those two issues as the most important issues facing America. A majority believe that the country is going in the wrong direction. Republican attempts to change the narrative have failed thus far. If voters vote and choose candidates on these issues, Democrats will undoubtadly win the Presidency.

So far, Immigration has failed to work for Mitt Romney in New Hampshire, and for Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter anywhere. The current media frontrunner (John McCain) will be unable to demonize immigrants due to his own support for last year’s failed immigration reform plan. Iraq had made America too war weary for Iran, and Gay Adoption has failed to create the same sort of disproportionate hysteria that Gay Marriage did in 2004.

Why Wedge Issues may be Effective: Will Immigration = National security? Will Terrorism rear its ugly ahead and scare voters away from Democrats? In 1988, with a weak economy and the fallout from Iran Contra still fresh, Republicans were able to effectively shift the narrative onto crime and Willie Horton, forcing Democrats to fight on issues that were unfavorable to them. What is to say that the same thing won’t happen again?

Iraq is fading as a concern with voters, and the violence seems to diminishing. Democrats have yet to fully take control of the economic message. Immigration is still a fierce topic among Republicans and Border State independents. Though I doubt it, I would never count the Republicans out when it comes to wedge issues.

My Opinion
Immigration will not be the terrorism of 2008. George W. Bush’s Presidency is so unpopular, Republicans will not have the political capital to change the national narrative. Even if they try, Bush’s failures will provide effective ammunition for Democrats to fight back. Democrats can only lose by shooting themselves in the foot, ala George Bush 1992, or Jimmy Carter 1980. Except much, much worse. This is our race to lose.

FYI – Sources (not all sources, but most of them):
1) The Making of the President, 1960 and 1968, Theodore White
2) Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, Hunter S. Thompson
3) Wikipedia – Presidential Elections
4) Republicans and Race, Paul Krugman, New York Times
5) History and Calumny, David Brooks, New York Times
6) The Living Room Candidate, American Museum of the Moving Image
7) How the Wedge Issues Cut, Times Magazine
8) Washington Post, “Morality #1 Issue Among Republicans”

Crossposted at Dailykos

On the other side, its all about Michigan. Kos and a few other prominent bloggers have started the “Democrats for Mitt.” Since Democrats have no one to vote for in Michigan (except Hillary) the idea is to get Democrats to crossover and “save” the Romney campaign, breathing life and helping further throw the GOP race in chaos. Sounds good to me, does that mean next, we aim for a Fred Thompson comeback in South Carolina?

On our side, its off to Nevada. New polls show a close race, but how reliable are polls these days? Exactly.

And a shout out to Chargers fans everywhere…bring on the Patriots!

So let me take a few of the media narratives and throw in some facts. You know, the basic elements of TRUTH and Reporting?

Crossposted at Dailykos

1) The Pollsters Messed Up Completely

LiveScience.com has a great article on what actually happened with the polls. The mainstream media (MSM) wants to show a different narrative, though, that Clinton came back from impossible odds. That Obama lost his support at the last minute. But let’s look at the pre-Iowa and post-Iowa numbers from Real Clear Politics.

Pre-Iowa (Jan 1-2)
Clinton: 34.4
Obama: 26.3
Edwards: 19.2

Post Iowa (Jan 4-5)
Obama: 38.3
Clinton: 30.0
Edwards: 18.3

The Pollsters got two of the three right – Obama’s total, and Edwards total. They failed miserably in getting Clinton’s total correct, understating her support by a large 9%, far outside the MOE. It looks as if most of the undecideds turned to her in the last day, and exit polls agree.

2) Post-Iowa: Clinton Surged, Obama Didn’t

Obama DID surge. Look above at his pre-Iowa poll numbers. He finished with 37%, a healthy 11 point bump from Iowa. The story is Clinton ALSO getting a bump, moving up 5 points after Iowa, and Edwards receiving absolutely no bump from his 2nd place finish. I turn to fladem’s great analysis of post-Iowa bumps. Clinton recieved the typical second place bump of about 5 points, and Obama got a slightly below average first place bump of 11 points. If you notice, Fladem’s projected NH results based on if Obama came in first in Iowa, Clinton 2nd, and Edwards 3rd closely matches what actually occurred.

Clinton refused to concede second place to Edwards, and with the media acquiscence, stole the mantle of second place from Edwards. Edwards attempts to built momentum and make it a two person race failed, and he faltered into third far behind the top two finishers.

3) Edwards is Toast

It is true that Edwards recieved almost no momentum from Iowa, and as a result, he’s getting almost no media coverage now. But we’ve heard this story before. New Hampshire has a history of voting against Southerners. Look at Clinton in 1992, or just across the ballet, at Huckabee and Thompson. Yet Huckabee isn’t considered dead after finished WORSE than Edwards. I expect Edwards to regroup and come back strong in South Carolina, which he won in 2004, perhaps once again upending Clinton for second place.

Conclusion

All day yesterday, I had a bad feeling about New Hampshire. And I was right. However, I think this is a good think for Barack Obama. I think we became complacent, not working hard to beat Clinton’s field operation as we worked hard and throughly in Iowa. Now, we won’t take anything for granted, you can guarantee that, and our volunteers, field staff, and political team will be relentless until we wrap up the nomination. An interesting side effect of this is that now, Nevada matters. And that is a good thing for the Democratic Party, that a Western state with a large Latino population will matter, and I for one cannot wait to see if we can Barack the Caucus one more time.

From right to left, according to PBS’s stage placements. Do you think they purposely put Barack and Hillary on opposite sides?

Hillary Clinton: Mediocre. Hasn’t said anything that stands out, hasn’t rebutted anything that Edwards or Obama have said, and I honestly can’t remember anything that was much of a soundbite. On the plus side, not attacking Obama does hep her put some distance on the disgraceful drugs comment from her NH Co-chair yesterday.

John Edwards: He has been creating some mighty rhetoric, creating a sense of urgency. He has been speaking about battling the Corporations, the special interests. He has spent a lifetime winning these fights? What about that fight against George W. Bush when you were Kerry’s VP nominee? And, as someone who watches these things a lot, Edwards repeats himself more than anyone else, except perhaps Richardson.

Chris Dodd: The dud. Even on the 30 second personal statement he didn’t look rehearsed. He looks tired, and like he is balding (anyone else notice that?). Joe Biden has certainly taken the rug from underneath him, he can’t even make the experience argument anymore, and he doesn’t answer the question – why am I running for President? What happened to the Constitution?

Joe Biden: He had the answer of the night when the moderator accused him, basically, of being racially insensitive. He’s having a great performance, especially towards to the end of the debate, but he does at times sound like a policy work, and tends to get into Senate-speak.

Barack Obama: He sounds prepared. Less “umm”‘s, and less hesitation than in previous experiences. One of his best performances because he looks and sounds Presidential, up to par with Biden and Clinton, but his rhetoric isn’t as fiery as Edwards.