Inaugurated

It was a bit of an adventure to watch the inauguration yesterday. I had planned to meet with Greg at Harry's New York Bar, a moderately famous little place about 25 minutes from our house. Greg was bringing some friends from UNESCO and it was supposed to be a jolly old time. However, Harry's was a bit crowded:


So we made the split decision to run back to our house to watch it there. The deciding factors were the presence of CNN (not guaranteed at other bars) and beer (not guaranteed at UNESCO). This ended up being a really great time as we all watched the inauguration together:


It was a great mix of people and I can't help but feel that the new millennium is only now getting under way. Oh, and to top it all off, we had really good pizza later:

Esther liked it.

Obama Inauguration 2009

Pro-Palestine Protest in Paris

Last Saturday there was a sizable (twenty to twenty-five thousand people according to various counts) protest in support of Palestine and, often, against Israel. Esther and I decided to go to see what there was to see. Thankfully I brought my camera as the situation, tense throughout, degraded considerably at the end.

The march started at Place de la République and progressed down the Grands Boulevards to Place St. Augustin.


This was a surprising route for any protest march as it passes directly in front of the "Grands Magasins", major banks, and plenty of very expensive real estate. Normally, protests (of which there are many) are routed towards more modest districts.

The anger towards Israel was evident in the crowd.

The chant "Israel, Assassin!" was popular, as was the swastika/Star of David equivalence.

Protesters carried pictures of dead and injured Palestinian children and adults, as well as at least one mock dead child.


I was surprised to see several Hezbollah flags on display. Paris has a large Lebanese population and apparently a certain number of supporters of the paramilitary organization.

The advertisement in the background for the Tribune Juive (Jewish Tribune, a magazine for the French Jewish commonity) featured Carla Bruni, the wife of President Sarkozy, and was not particularly popular with the protesters.

Further down the route, slogans began to be spray-painted on many different surfaces.


There was an interesting conflation of causes as the flag of Hezbollah (literally, "the party of God") came into close proximity with the flag and secretary general of the PCF (Parti Communiste Français, not exactly the party of God).


As we got closer to the Grands Magasins and some larger bank branches, the police presence visibly increased.


Eventually we arrived at Place St. Augustin, the scheduled end of the march.


A young man carried the flag of Hamas as others prayed. Things started off rather peacefully.


Unfortunately, trouble-makers in the crowd had other ideas for how to end things. They started by climbing scaffolding attached to a building.


This led to tear gas.


Which, in turn, led to fire set by the protesters.


Smoke rose over the square.


Riot police began to advance, passing in front of the Saint Augustine Church, confining the protesters and forcing them out of the square.




We learned that the fuel for the fire was the French classic: a car that had the bad luck of being parked in the wrong place at the wrong time.


More police arrived in full riot gear. They needed to clear the area to allow the firefighters to arrive safely.


Ultimately the firefighters made it through...


...though it was a bit late for the car.


Meanwhile, other cars were overturned and burned.


The square was left strewn with banners and ashes.


Full album:

Palestine Protest in Paris

Election Night in Paris

Esther and I decided to go to the "official" (which we learned means 'expensive') election night party at CinéAqua, an aquarium/movie theater just across from the Eiffel tower. It wasn't worth the money, but it was a great night nonetheless.

Enjoy the pictures:

Obama Elected

Just in case...

...there are any conservatives reading this blog who are in need of convincing, here are Andrew Sullivan's ten reasons for a conservative to vote Obama on November 4th(Sullivan is, of course, himself a British, Thatcherite conservative):

10. A body blow to racial identity politics. An end to the era of Jesse Jackson in black America.

9. Less debt. Yes, Obama will raise taxes on those earning over a quarter of a million. And he will spend on healthcare, Iraq, Afghanistan and the environment. But so will McCain. He plans more spending on health, the environment and won't touch defense of entitlements. And his refusal to touch taxes means an extra $4 trillion in debt over the massive increase presided over by Bush. And the CBO estimates that McCain's plans will add more to the debt over four years than Obama's. Fiscal conservatives have a clear choice.

8. A return to realism and prudence in foreign policy. Obama has consistently cited the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush as his inspiration. McCain's knee-jerk reaction to the Georgian conflict, his commitment to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and his brinksmanship over Iran's nuclear ambitions make him a far riskier choice for conservatives. The choice between Obama and McCain is like the choice between George H.W. Bush's first term and George W.'s.

7. An ability to understand the difference between listening to generals and delegating foreign policy to them.

6. Temperament. Obama has the coolest, calmest demeanor of any president since Eisenhower. Conservatism values that kind of constancy, especially compared with the hot-headed, irrational impulsiveness of McCain.

5. Faith. Obama's fusion of Christianity and reason, his non-fundamentalist faith, is a critical bridge between the new atheism and the new Christianism.

4. A truce in the culture war. Obama takes us past the debilitating boomer warfare that has raged since the 1960s. Nothing has distorted our politics so gravely; nothing has made a rational politics more elusive.

3. Two words: President Palin.

2. Conservative reform. Until conservatism can get a distance from the big-spending, privacy-busting, debt-ridden, crony-laden, fundamentalist, intolerant, incompetent and arrogant faux conservatism of the Bush-Cheney years, it will never regain a coherent message to actually govern this country again. The survival of conservatism requires a temporary eclipse of today's Republicanism. Losing would be the best thing to happen to conservatism since 1964. Back then, conservatives lost in a landslide for the right reasons. Now, Republicans are losing in a landslide for the wrong reasons.

1. The War Against Islamist terror. The strategy deployed by Bush and Cheney has failed. It has failed to destroy al Qaeda, except in a country, Iraq, where their presence was minimal before the US invasion. It has failed to bring any of the terrorists to justice, instead creating the excrescence of Gitmo, torture, secret sites, and the collapse of America's reputation abroad. It has empowered Iran, allowed al Qaeda to regroup in Pakistan, made the next vast generation of Muslims loathe America, and imperiled our alliances. We need smarter leadership of the war: balancing force with diplomacy, hard power with better p.r., deploying strategy rather than mere tactics, and self-confidence rather than a bunker mentality.

Those conservatives who remain convinced, as I do, that Islamist terror remains the greatest threat to the West cannot risk a perpetuation of the failed Manichean worldview of the past eight years, and cannot risk the possibility of McCain making rash decisions in the middle of a potentially catastrophic global conflict. If you are serious about the war on terror and believe it is a war we have to win, the only serious candidate is Barack Obama.

Why I'm an Optimist

Call me a naïf for trusting the man at his word but I'm tired of cynicism. Hope feels good.

Three Ashleys and the Transformation of a Nation

As if the comparison needs to be clearer, Sean Quinn from fivethirtyeight.com traces the story of three Ashleys from three Presidential campaigns. There is Ashley Faulkner who said of Bush in 2004, "He's the most powerful man in the world, and all he wants to do is make sure I'm safe, that I'm OK." Then there is Ashley Todd, the source of the B-carving Obama supporter hoax. Finally, there is Ashley Baia whom Obama talked about in his More Perfect Union speech on race in early 2008. Quoting directly from the speech, via the 538 post (I encourage you to read it in its entirety):

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."

"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

This historic moment, this watershed in American history is perhaps difficult to comprehend while living it. We're distracted by out daily routines and the disruptions to them. It is worthwhile, however, to step back and attempt to appreciate the moment that we are all living.

I'm proud to have been a supporter of this campaign for the past two years. I consider my small contributions to be an investment in that more perfect union. Perhaps I've passed a few too many hours following the twist and turns of the campaign in obsessive detail but I cannot help but be fascinated by our present reality.

The deal remains to be closed by I have nothing but confidence in the cool professionalism of the Obama campaign's ability to do so. Eight more days, only eight more days until we begin the trasformation away from the past eight years.

Redistribution!

More than just sounding like threadbare conservative ideology, the McCain-Palin campaign's focus on Obama's purported desire to redistribute wealth seems way off pitch. Given the current economic situation, the millions of Americans who've lost their homes, the millions who fear for their job, etc. doesn't it seem like a large swath of the United States (maybe even a majority) would be in favor of a little bit of wealth redistribution right now? I assume that this has something to do with why the Obama-Biden camp isn't coming out with some mealy-mouthed rebuttal. Let them dig their own hole, it's easier that way!

The View from France

It shouldn't come as any surprise, bu the French are following the American election very closely. Every night there are updates on the evening news and several times per week there are in-depth analysis pieces. Compare that to how many times you heard the names Ségolène Royal and Nicolas Sarkozy in 2007.

It should also not be any surprise that, like the rest of the world, the French vastly favor Obama. Where I and the average French person disagree, however, is in the the likelihood that Obama will actually be elected. Some of this skepticism is based on the national reporting that implies that the race is far closer than it actually is. Earlier this week, the anchor on one of the major national evening news broadcasts did an overview of the state of the race (Obama way ahead in the polls, massive turnout for early voting, etc...) and then reminded the viewers that "at this point in 2004, Kerry was said to be winning." First, look at this data and you will see that they must have been a bit too optimistic in their poll reporting to have given the lead to Kerry. Second, and more importantly, the equivalence that he is drawing between 2004 is absurd. Compare the 2004 data set to this year's (and this is coming from RealClearPolitics, a site with a Republican bias) and it's obvious from the numbers alone that any equivalence, even any comparison, between the two years is totally off base.

In addition to this inaccurate reporting on the state of the race, you have certain stereotypes and misconceptions held by many French people about the United States that cloud their vision of reality. (I should put two disclaimers here; first, American have plenty of inaccurate stereotypes of the French and, second, many Americans hold similar stereotypes about other Americans.) The most commonly reported concern is that the polls are overstating the average American's willingness to vote for a black man, the famous "Bradley effect". The second is a more generic belief that has been learned over the past eight years that the United States can't possibly elect a decent President. Bush's reelection in 2004 really drove this point home when much of the French had their hopes dashed on November 3rd (the French media misrepresenting the polling certainly had something to do with this).

Looking at this, I realize that the French position is not that far off from many of the Americans that I've spoken with. I routinely find myself being the only person in a group to be confident that Obama will win, the common response is this very French skepticism of, "Well, I certainly hope he will, but I just don't know..." I wrote about my confidence way back before the conventions and perhaps it's time to revisit. Suffice it to say, that nothing has really changed, I take the lead from fivethirtyeight and am more than 90% confident that Obama will win (based on current polling).

Cogent Commentary

Andrew Sullivan and Marc Ambinder from The Atlantic say it like it is:



I can't hold back, I feel some political posting coming in the near future...

Palin

I can't not post on this, even if I'm in Israel. As is often the case, Andrew Sullivan nicely summarizes my thoughts:

We have had two big presidential decisions from both candidates - the first time we can clearly judge their decision-making skills. Obama's was prudent, cautious, thoroughly vetted, and serious about governing. McCain's was impulsive, rash, barely vetted and decided at the last minute by a small coterie that left everyone else gasping.
We are at war. Another 9/11 is possible. Israel may attack Iran. Pakistan may go up in smoke. Putin may invade another country. Who would you rather have as president?

And:

Sarah Palin seems to have been invented by Stephen Colbert - true believer, gun-lover, relentless foe of polar bears, sister with nine kids and no father in the house, caribou killer...

That's all.

Mythology and Victimhood

Ta-Nehisi Coates has written an excellent reflection on "the false nobility of victimhood". It's a concept that I've long thought about, often in the context of Israel/Palestine, and he puts it to words extremely well.

Key point:

All of us need some sort of mythology and no group is immune to nationalism, to the need to believe that we are special.

The consequences of this aspect of human nature are difficult to overstate. Read the whole post, it's worth the time.

Relativity

I told Esther yesterday about the Edward's affair and it's implications for his future political career (in short, there's not much left). I was met with a certain incomprehension on her part, aren't politicians supposed to have mistresses? Isn't it just part of the job?

Right, of course, things are different over here.

From Whence My Confidence Cometh

Zac's comment to a previous post has prompted my to do what I've been meaning to do for a long time and lay out the reasons that I'm confident for an Obama win in November. Here's the relevant part of Zac's comment:

Obama's lead has apparently vanished as a result of these inane attacks. I think it could go either way at this point (including a massive landslide for McCain).

Zac sees the possibility for things going either way or even a McCain landslide, I see that as highly improbable. Here's why:

First, why does current polling show the race to be "so" close? According to our assumptions, any Democratic candidate should be clobbering any Republican candidate and, indeed, polls have shown a 10 to 15 point lead for "Generic Democrat" against "Generic Republican". This is normal; after all we're mired in an unpopular (but potentially improving) war, the Republican President is rocking a 30% approval rating and, if I can engage in a little understatement, the economy is not doing so hot these days. So why is Obama under-performing his store-brand party mate? I would say that the fact that he is a new-to-the-stage, 46 year-old black guy named Barack Hussein Obama is likely to have something to do with it. Compare that to his opponent, a familiar, moderate (maverick!) war-hero with what Unidentified Male in Copperhill, TN might call an "Anglo-Saxon sounding name." To hear a McCain pollster endorse this line of thinking, you can read this IHT article.

This, of course, doesn't guarantee that Obama will win in November. In fact, it simply says that the polling is accurate given the candidates and that Obama has a 3.5% lead. One point that should be made, with qualifications, is that a 3.5% popular vote (PV) lead is actually a very large electoral vote (EV) win. Historically, a 3.5% win in the PV correlates to a 100 vote (18.5%) win in the EV. Not a landslide, but certainly a comfortable margin. The obvious qualification is that we're still several months out from the election and that, historically, there is a lot of movement during this time, especially around the conventions and debates. Here is the current election compared to that of 2000 and 2004:
Political Arithmetik


To briefly recap, let's look at the argument up to this point:

1. Polling shows Obama with a narrow lead.
2. This is probably pretty accurate.
3. This could easily change

Therefore:

4. Kurt is Confident that Obama will win
QED QED w00t w00t QED!!!1

Now, you don't need to have read The Complete Works of Aristotle to see that that doesn't follow. The missing piece is what we can reasonably expect to happen between now and November and what that means for the election.

Barring major, unexpected events (terrorist attack, resurgent economy, etc...) the two main contributing factors to the November outcome are major public events (namely the conventions and the debates) followed by campaign organization and the "get out the vote" drives of the two campaigns. Both factors are largely in favor of Obama.

First, the conventions. What will be a better image; McCain playing the "cottage cheese in the lime jello" or the first black candidate giving his acceptance speech on the 45th anniversary of King's "I Have a Dream" speech. Certainly, there is a very fine line to be walked when giving a speech so rich in historical allusion and pretext before 75,000 people but I think that Obama has proved himself quite capable in walking fine lines.

Second, the debates. Admittedly, Obama proved himself to be one of the weaker debaters among the other pretenders to the Democratic throne but, up against McCain, there will be a very strong advantage to Obama. To put it quite bluntly, McCain seems to have a very hard time recalling facts, getting his words out, and staying on message, all of which are vital in a debate format. Sure, Obama may be better with a teleprompter than he is off the cuff, but compared to McCain, there's no contest.

Third, and most importantly, organization and get out the vote. First, recall the correlation between popular vote and electoral votes and remember that a few percentage points in the PV makes for a much larger advantage in the EV. If you can get more people interested and involved in your campaign and then get them to the polls on Nov. 4, you can reap a considerable advantage. One way to get people motivated is to have a charismatic and popular candidate (do I need to specify that this is advantage Obama?). Another, often complimentary way, is to have people make phone calls and go door to door talking up your candidate. How do the campaigns match up. To quote Sean at fivethirtyeight.com, "One is an NFL team and the other is now a high school JV team." In terms of numbers, what does that mean? From the same post at fivethirtyeight.com:

Let’s do some quick math. Martin’s reporting suggests to us based on that ratio that nationwide, in one week, the McCain campaign talked to approximately 81,000 voters. The Obama campaign talked to about 27,000 in one state in one night. If we make a reasonable guess that Ohio has something like one-fifteenth of Obama organizers and volunteers, that’d be 405,000 voters contacted in one night nationwide. In 7 days, that’s 2,835,000 voters contacted, compared to the McCain 81,000, a thirty-five-fold edge.

That's a big advantage, if Obama can walk into election day knowing that he has a built in 1-3% advantage, that is quite literally game changing.

That's why I'm confident that Obama will win. How confident? As of today I would buy Obama contracts at Intrade up until 70 which means, I give him a 70% chance of winning if the election were today. Assuming things go as I expect them to over the next few months that will go up considerably.

That said, I'm not expecting an Obama landslide and I agree with Matt Yglesias in thinking that elections should tend to be close. An election is a market like any other and an efficient market will tend towards equilibrium. This is one of the few possible elections where a traditionally liberal black guy named Barack Hussein Obama could be a legitimate nominee. In that respect, the Democrats did well in nominating him as he represents the closest they could get to the "market clearing" nominee, that is, the most extreme nominee that can still win (just as the market clearing price is the highest price where you can sell all or enough of your merchandise). Similarly, the Republicans did well to nominate McCain, the moderate, trusted war hero. He is their best chance at victory. Close elections are a sign of a healthy democracy and, as such, are a good thing.

To close with a video, here's Nate from fivethirtyeight.com talking about their methods and his take on the election. It's a very solid method that they use in their predictions and has been a favorite source of information for me.

Obama: The Anti-Fun Candidate?

From his remarks in Cedar Rapids, Iowa today,

But the time for game-playing is over. That's why I'm running for President.

Hmmn... Not sure how that's going to play in Marvin Gardens, to say nothing of St. James Place.

I must admit that I derive a certain pleasure from watching the McCain camp continue to spin in circles, throwing incoherent, inconsistent, and frequently dishonest messages into the media "chatter" in the hopes that some of it sticks. Since the beginning of my political consciousness (ca. 2000) it is a practice that I had assumed belonged in its entirety to Democrats.

I think that Obama's full response, from which I extracted the quote above, is a solid response to it all. (Via Marc Ambinder.)

We want to have a serious debate. But so far, we've been hearing about Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. I do have to ask my opponent: is that the best you can come up with? Is that really what the election is about? Is that worthy of the American people? Even the media has pointed out...that McCain has fallen back into ... predictable political attacks and demonstratively false statements... Spending all this time talking about me instead of talking about what he's going to do. That's not going to lower your gas prices. That's's not going...to help you find a job if it's been shipped overseas. It doesn't do a single thing to help the American people. It's the politics of the game. But the time for game-playing is over. That's why I'm running for President.....

Given the media response that I've seen in reaction to McCain's lowbrow antics, I think that the message will get through.

IHT: the French have not been this excited about America since they shipped over the Statue of Liberty in 1885

From the International Herald Tribune, an article about Obamania in France with a mention of the panel discussion from last week.

The IHT quoting Le Figaro, a major French daily:

"You can't welcome it enough, especially in this era of rampant anti-Americanism," Le Figaro, the French daily, said Thursday.

"With Obama, a certain idea of America is back: that of a generous society where equality of opportunity is not an empty promise. Hope and change, key words of his campaign, reinforce this rediscovered ideal, which resonates as much inside the country as beyond."

Also:

Kama Des-Gachons, a 28-year-old Frenchwoman, was one of about 600 young men and women flocking to a panel discussion in Paris on Tuesday about the "Obama Effect in France." Her eyes lit up when she spoke about Obama. Not because he is a Democrat or because he opposed to the war in Iraq. But because his father was an African immigrant, like hers.

"He makes me dream," said Des-Gachons, whose parents came to France from Mali. "I even bought a T-shirt with the American flag. America is the country where you can make it."

American flag T-shirts for French folk? It's the craziness!

Watching History

There’s very little that I can add to the commentary surrounding the dramatically historic events of this past week but at the same time I feel compelled to say something. First, I’d like to share some of what I’ve read that I found particularly insightful or humorous and, second, I’ll add a bit of analysis of the French perspective on the happenings; perhaps one of the few aspects to which I can make a worthwhile contribution.

First, a post from hilzoy at Obsidian Wings commenting on the transformative effect that this nomination holds for a large swath of Americans. (Pointer coming from Ta-Nehisi Coates)

On a much lighter note, I second Andrew Sullivan seconding the Italian.

Finally, the little bit that I can add. I attended a panel discussion at Esther's alma mater, Sciences Po, titled The Obama Effect in France. The panelists were mainly professors of the school including a former European Union deputy (like a congressional representative), a couple of specialists in American history, as well as a real, live super-delegate (Constance Borde, the Vice President of the Democratic Party in France). What was most striking during the discussion was the level of desire among the French to respect the United States once again and how far an Obama presidency would go for achieving that goal. It's not that there is some sort of dislike of the United States that is fundamental to French identity, it's just a rather complicated relationship.

The panelists were also quite astute in noticing the essential differences and the inherent value contained therein between the politics of Bush and those of Obama. Wherein Bush there was a politics of fear cultivated, they rightly noted the politics of hope and change inherent to Obama's message. One went so far as to describe Obama as the answer to the international search for an icon of change.

It was interesting to listen to, not only because it contrasted with the streak of pessimism that I've encountered when talking with many other French people about the prospect of Obama actually being elected. The standard line is, "I would love to see him as the president, but I just don't think it's likely." Often a remark about the power of the Republican Party or the ingrained racism of the county follows. A non-negligible reason for me wanting to see Obama elected would be the refutation of these ideas. One panelist remarked that he would like to see Obama elected because that would mean that the same thing could be possible in France (though they unanimously agreed that it would be quite a long way in the future).

Finally, one more post from Andrew Sullivan that suggests that there is nothing uniquely French to this response.

Obama Conference Call

Continuing with the multimedia Obama day...

Democrats Abroad organized a conference call with the man himself. I fired up Skype and Audacity to share a copy with the masses, here's what you missed:



About what you'd expect, a focus on foreign policy issues over domestic, with a little "I'm one of you" thrown in for good measure. Nothing too shocking, but it was fun to be "on the phone" with Barack.

If I could have said it so well myself...

Coming from John Hodgman (you know, the "resident expert" from The Daily Show and the "PC guy" from the Mac commercials),

"...enjoy this if you like watching pointless confrontation become meaningful conversation."


If only I could imagine myself responding so well to such an aggressive line of questioning. I feel like the interviewer's intention at the outset is to show how little Obama supporters know about the realities of politics, that they're all emotion and no substance. Thankfully he talks to Derrick who says it like it is. Good job Derrick!

More substantively about the health care differences between Clinton and Obama, check out this post from Marginal Revolution. Prof. Cowen is a wickedly smart guy and, according to his Wikipedia entry, a "libertarian bargainer" meaning that he is "someone of libertarian ideals who is not so radical that he cannot influence the 'currently powerful'". The basic conclusion of the post is that, given the goal of cheaper health insurance and, insofar as mandates are competition-stifling, mandates do not achieve the primary goal. Don't forget the social cost of removing personal choice from the equation!

The MR post also goes to show the stable of intellectuals that have gravitated to Obama, here's the opening line, "Cutler is very smart, tenured at Harvard, arguably the leading health care economist, and yes he is an advisor to Barack Obama." What do I see as the main value in an Obama presidency? An analytical chief executive to weigh unpredictable issues as they arise, backed by an army of advisors representing the best in their respective fields, not political cronies from the 90's. In short, a return of intellectualism to the White House, not the bizarre fundamentalism of the past seven years nor the political gaming of the preceding eight.

I voted!

In person, on a paper ballot, surrounded by Americans. Democrats Abroad organized a polling station at the American Cathedral in Paris for all of us overseas folk to take part in the democracy-fest of February 5th. That means that my vote counts, even though I'm from Michigan (whose delegates won't be counted at the Democratic National Convention). That said, there are only 3 delegates at stake for the expatriates but I am still (irrationally) content to be part of the process.

The New York Times was looking for pictures from polling stations so I naturally took it upon myself to take some. The results are up on the NYT page. Esther took the fifth in the series, it's my hand in the bottom right.

I'm going to sleep, there's no way can I wait for the results from California come in over here. Intrade has Obama and Clinton at a 50/50 tie and I about agree with that. My prediction is that this will continue well into March.

Everything else is going along well, I've been rather sick lately and busy with work, hence the thin posting. I've got some things to say, just not the time and motivation to get around to saying them. Hope you all are well.

Reframing

Here is Matthew Yglesias talking about how the question of success in Iraq is being reframed in light of recent successes and failures (all of which is in the context of this NYT article):

...[the surge has] created a situation where it now once again looks -- as it did in 2003 and 2004 -- that we might be able to stay in Iraq forever. And, of course, if you don't consider financial costs to be costs, and don't consider small numbers of casualties to be costs, and don't believe in opportunity costs, and try not to worry to much about the risk of war with Iran, and don't mind the lack of benefits except to the egos of the war's supporters, then this looks like a pretty smart policy.

Certainly, this will continue to look like a smart policy until at least January 20th, 2009, it's just a real question of whether it will continue to look so smart of January 21st. That, of course, depends on who is shacking up in the White House on that point. Given my biases, I fear that for any Republican candidate, particularly Mr. 9/11 Giuliani, it will continue to be the smart policy. Even under Clinton who is constantly afraid of appearing soft on defense, that could appear as a reasonably smart policy. Under Obama, Edwards, or several of the second-tier Democratic candidates, I'm confident that it would be clear that ignoring all of these relevant variables is not smart policy.

Given the irrationality of the American electorate (any electorate, really), it's interesting to wonder how this will turn out.