Political Blogging - Fallout

As if waking after a blizzard to the new fallen snow this morning Americans are awaking to a new political landscape.

Of course this is a surprise. And just like snowfall, it is either a joy or for others a fallout. Not to overburden the analogy, but last nights outcome was if every meteorologist in the country had forecast sunny-skies and highs in low 50's only to find 3' feet of snow on the ground.

So what happened? Why did a 98% Intrade certainty begin to fire-sale around 10p.m. and close at 0% in remaining hours of the night. How did the Real Clear Politics tracking polls show Obama ahead by 8pts (-/+ 1% sampling error) and then come out down 3pts?

A few possibilities, and they fall into two camps: emotive and empirical.

Jonathan Alter at Newsweek has an article that traces the possible emotive reasons why Hillary won.

And though something stirred voters yesterday there is also a need to look at the numbers. Larry Ganger over at ABC News questions why the polls were wrong. The Republican polls were on target, but the Democratic race is unconventional. Ganger links two very interesting articles, one concerning name placement on ballots and the other on bi-racial contests. Both of the reasons don’t give a clear sense as to what happened last night.

Some hopeful news if the unexpected snowfall didn't bring you joy. Los Angeles Times
staff writer Peter Wallsten mentioned two reasons not to rule out Obama. One, he writes, "No longer was Clinton viewed as the most likely candidate to beat a Republican. In the [exit] poll, 44% percent said Obama was more likely to win the November election, compared to 35% who said that of Clinton." Second, last night a large Nevada union endorsed Obama, and there is speculation the culinary union will endorse Obama later today.

So where do we go from here?

Nevada and South Carolina: (our nation turns its lonely eyes toward you). Nevada will be a tough win for Obama, and South Carolina would be a very tough win for Clinton. Super Tuesday now becomes a fiasco for both the Republican and Democratic contenders. Watch to see if any of the candidates turn negative (The New York Times' Editorial Board is worried of this).

Update:
Steven Greenhouse just reported from the New York Times's The Caucus page that Obama will receive the Unite Here union endorsement. The union represents around 60,000 culinary casion workers in the much coveted state of Nevada.

Political Blogging - New Hampshire

Already Barack Obama has opened a lead in New Hampshire. A little after midnight, Dixville Notch residents voted, which can be about read at CNN. The tally: Obama 7, Edwards 2, Richardson 1, Clinton 0.

Obama has not only sustained the momentum by winning Iowa's caucus five days ago, but has continued to increase the fervor. Since Iowa Obama overtook the Club 100 dinner where it became more rock concert than fundraiser, was endorsed by Bill Bradley, and was pitch-perfect during the Saturday nationally-televised debate. There is no Obama bandwagon, its more like a train.

The corresponding surge in the polls suggests only one outcome for Tuesday night; another victory speech by Obama. Intrade has Obama winning New Hampshire with 92% certainty. Money in the bank.

The question now is not if he'll win, but by how much. Let me wager. Real Clear Politics shows Obama ahead of Clinton by an average of almost 8 points. Since two days after Iowa, Obama has lead in every poll. Let me suggest that tomorrow Obama runs away with 40% of the vote. Clinton will come in second with 28%, Edward with 27% and 5% for Richardson. The independents are more interested in the Democratic race and will vie for Obama, (and even Edwards). Richardson's vote will dissipate.

Also:
The new (and very conservative) Op-ed writer for the New York Times, William Kristol, wrote against Obama, which is worth a laugh.

The always charming, but still neurotic and unbalanced fruitbakset of man, Christopher Hitchens, writing for the Slate, also wrote an anthema for Obama. He wanted to remind us that Obama was black, and discouragingly admonish us for all this white-guily driven non-sense. We can now add him to the growing list of pundits who still don't get what's going on.

Update: It doesn't seem to be only the right that doesn't get why Obama is pulling ahead. Gloria Steinem wrote an Op-ed for the New York Times arguing this election is just another example of sex being a bigger barrier than race in this country (think voting rights). She writes, "But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex." But Obama's race isn't what is unifying. Clinton's sex isn't what makes her divisive. What makes Obama a unifying figure is becuase he talks about partisan reconciliation and the end of primary-color politics (red, blue and swing-state-yellow). Clinton is divisive because she tows the party agenda, in her speech after Iowa all she could talk about was getting a Democrat into the White House.

So to recap: New Hampshire (predictions):
Obama - 40%
Clinton - 28%
Edwards - 27%
Richardson - 5%

Political Blogging - "Anti-Hillary" Runs Deep

Until the Democratic National Committee has pledged a presidential nominee I will probably be writing few posts that pertain to theology.

So, while reading articles yesterday I came across a wildly errant statistic. A Blue Mass Group writer argued that youth support could be conveyed by the facebook groups that both laud and demonize the candidates.

The writer, you can read the article here, stated that the largest anti-Hillary facebook group was around 64,000. I wrote him to explain that the largest was actually almost 700,000 members. He revised his report soon after my notifying him:

"UPDATE: An alert reader corrects my report that the largest anti-Clinton group has 58,982 members. The largest anti-Clinton group, "Stop Hillary Clinton: (One Million Strong AGAINST Hillary)," has 673,511 members -- the vast majority of them well under 44, based on their pictures."

Political Blogging - "West Wing" be Bested

I am a West Wing junkie. I’ve seen every episode, at least twice. Love every character. Cherish every Bartlett speech. But much, much more than the liberal idealism it purports, West Wing is contagious because it promotes hopeful patriotism. After watching West Wing I am proud to be an American. And what a sentiment to truly hold to in such a day and age.

There is indelible speech in the second season that I thought would never be surpassed in real politics. In the scene President Bartlett begins to lament to a room of school teachers that a recent suicide bombing by a number of young American students. He explains that, “They were not born wanting to do this.” Below is the video.

President Bartlett's Speech

The message is of progress, of bettering education; it was of hope. As I said, I never thought I would ever hear a more stirring speech, until last night.

Last night Barack Obama won over women, won over young people, and won over independents; and in doing so won over Iowa. Last night Obama gave a victory speech that superseded any West Wing speech. It was a speech for a new generation, a new era in American politic. My political life has been defined by candidates who champion mediocrity and defend the status-quo. West Wing was the only supplement for what I and so many wanted in a President, in a government, and in a country. West Wing be bested; we now have a real American President: Barack Obama.

Barak Obama's Victory Speech

Gratus as an Ontological Proof - Part II

Here is lengthy response from a reader (whom I always appreciate) concerning the November blog, "Gratus as an Ontological Proof." I have made rejoinders as necessary.

Hi, I found your blog through Emily's blog. I thought I'd jump in and stir the pot a bit.

First, there's no point in pretending I am an unbiased vacuum. So, to give you context of my reply, I am a Buddhist woman. As a Buddhist, I'm a non-theist, meaning that while I find the debate over God's existence a philosophically challenging and fascinating one, I hold that the existence or non-existence of God holds no relevance for the practice, definition and validity of a moral code. So for me, the existence of God boils down to a belief in an ultimate reality versus a nominal/relative one. All very fun, but not really a moral question.

Thanks for the response. Its always exciting to know that someone out their reads my blog, even if they categorical reject the ideas contained within it. Let me retort your response in order.

First, you state, “So for me, the existence of God boils down to a belief in an ultimately reality versus a nominal/relative one. All very fun, but not really a moral question.” It seems obvious in the rest of your response that you are central concerned with a moral code. Whence does the sense of gender equality come from; if simply a modern social more (and while also living in a nominal existence) what ought to direct someone to care about the sensibilities of women? Perhaps you do not want to be saddled with an epistemological locus for your morality, but there is a genesis. If this genesis is situated in culture, which is in flux, it seems that morality is nothing more than a way to get along or more ‘cruelly’ (as you say) a way for women to co-opt the control that has been historically annexed by patriarchy. If it is the latter, then feminism isn’t so much an ideology for women, but simply another socially constructed palliative for a more amiable society (nothing more meaningful than law stipulating that all must wear seat-belts). If it is the former then feminism is socially and inherently antagonistic, and men should not only not heed such an ideology, but explicitly reject and react against feminism. All of this is to suggest that your moral code is betrayed by your feminism. None of this is in chastisement, but simply to illustrate that this is indeed about morality; but we have placed the horse, before the cart. Let us continue.

The most important thing is how you are defining "God". Do you mean a moral arbiter of the Judeo-Christian/Muslim variety? Or the representation of ultimate reality, of an Ultimate Cause (Mr. Big Bang himself!), of the Aristotleian variety? By this one post, you seem to be advancing a more Aristotleian concept: God is the receiver of my gratitude/humility, he is the Cause of what I am grateful for. If I am feeling grateful for something, there must be a God. (Correct me if I'm wrong!)

Second, we must understand what we mean by God. But this too is premature. This discourse was not to describe God, but to posit God. Yet, your question should be answered, nonetheless. You ask; is the God I posit that of the Judeo-Christian/Muslim persuasion or more of the Aristotelian variety. Yet problems here abound. To begin, Judaism and Christianity differ in how God has dispensated how believers are to understand the law – or, how God is the moral arbiter. Further, many Christians theologians have appropriated the Aristotelian construction of God as the first mover. One ought read Aquinas’ Summa Theologica’s questions 1-13, which construct God as the fullness of the Aristotelian concepts of accidental categories. So, back to your question, the God of Christianity or Aristotle? The answer, Yes.

Let me advance my own interpretation of the priest's father, an interpretation shaped by my Buddhism and my feminism. To put it cruelly, I think the father's gratitude "for" his wife is more revealing of old-fashioned gender politics than any spiritual awakening (though, of course, the father took it as the latter - and one could argue that subjectivity and self-identification is the basis of most genuine spirituality anyway!). Yet as nice as a subjective "awakening to faith" is, it is naive to pretend that a man's culture, his internalized perceptions of gender and race and the Other, do not play a significant role in how he interprets reality. It is revealing that he jumps to the conclusion that he must be feeling gratitude to God, rather than, at least for a moment, questioning why he does not feel grateful to his wife (which would be more logical and certainly less self-centered).

Third, you miss the subtle points of the argument. He appreciated his wife, and thus was grateful for his wife. But you cannot be both grateful for an to the same thing, simultaneously for the same thing.

So, he was grateful for many things his wife did for him (companionship, fidelity, etc.), and thus grateful to his wife.

But he was also grateful for his wife. But then to whom could he credit for his faithful and loving wife?

To put it cruelly, it rings almost misogynistic to be thankful "for" your wife, as if she was a "gift from on high" and not just another person, an equal, just like you. It implies a sense of possession. The father certainly didn't consider his thoughts sexist and he probably thought he considered his wife an equal, yet there is such a thing as "color-blind racism" and no doubt "gender-blind sexism". There is something subtly offensive about his inability to feel gratitude "towards" the woman who chose to spend her life with him, who behaved in ways which were agreeable to him, etc. In my opinion, a more reasonable, more generous behavior would have been ultimate gratitude to his late wife. His refuge in the idea of a (no doubt gendered masculine) God "giving" him his wife seems to ring too much of oppressive gender politics rather than any philosophically sound awakening. It is also a bit selfish to be concerned about your own spiritual awakening rather than the passing of a loved one. It's psychologically predictable, it happens all the time when strong emotions are provoked, but it is, in the end, only about you - your new faith, your new religion, your God giving and taking things away from you. (I'm sorry for how callous this sounds.)

Your next paragraph has two larger issues to address: First, you suggest misogyny, and ‘sense of possession’ and charitably offer that it may have been a case of ‘gender-blind sexism.’ This must be rejected. I no nothing of the man and the relationship with his wife save this: it was Christian marriage. For that I must say that they were in possession of one another. Paul says that spouses ought to be subject to one another. This is the essence of the vow, the act of subjecting one another to one another. And it must said, that his wife was a good Catholic woman, and most certainly saw her husband as a ‘gift from on high,’ as she must have seen all humanity, which came from the goodness of God.

Secondly, I agree your argument sounds callous. How ought one be concerned with a passing loved one? You are concerned the husband was too selfish, (also, whence does your concern for selfishness come from, as morality is nothing but a passing fancy) but what could be less selfish than to reflect and realize the death of your wife has made clear the reality of true existence? What good can come to the dead from the wailing and gnashing of teeth? More accurately, he was being incredible other-centered. He was focused on his wife, her life, and his appreciation for her, and only then realizing his feelings, and in a moment of mindful acumen sees that his feelings point to a benevolent God. Who wouldn’t want their death to be such an epiphany for those they love?

After all that, I will admit that I'm nitpicking. The man probably did not consider himself sexist, was not sexist in any drastic way apart from the internalization of a patriarchal culture. Also, I understand that your point is that the ability to feel gratitude - that is, God is the Ultimate Cause of good in the world, the reality which we find pleasurable we can call "God" and feel grateful towards. A valid argument, but the example you chose was less than convincing.

P.S. Also revealing is the father's immediate assumption that he must be feeling gratitude to the gendered masculine, Christian God. I don't trust religion based purely on emotion, and I don't trust religious decisions taken in a moment of high emotion (such as after a trauma). Because then it is more often than not a retreat into the comforts of the normalized superstition. It is limited in its expression, it is driven by anxiety and fear, rather than a genuine probe into reality and morality.

The father did not suddenly exclaim, "Allah be praised!" He did not suddenly realize that God was in his wife, just like the Hassidism (or Philip Pullman) believes. Are these interpretations of God less valid? They certainly imply different things. The father was simply behaving within the confines of his culture. He believed that a Christian God had "given" him his wife - he jumped to the normative conclusion. How valid is a confined, ignorant faith driven by emotion?

I suppose you could say I'm playing the Devil's advocate now. (Nyuk nyuk nyuk.)

Finally, it was not immediately reveling at all what the father meant when he said there must be a God. Certainly, he probably was drawn to a Christian notion of God, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Yet, even then this is not evidently (and certainly not Orthodox) a ‘gendered masculine’ God.

He may even in the future find Islam an appropriate religion, even Judaism. But Pullman’s conscious panentheism (which is by happenstance the next item for my blog) could not support the type of ontological theism argument that my post posits.

Yet, what must be finally retorted is your final contention, specifically the interrogative, “How valid is a confined, ignorant faith driven by emotion?” How valid indeed it must be asked. But first, how much more valid is an austere rationalism that makes a calculated analyses and parses every phrase? I doesn’t seem that the sober Enlightenment did anything but dissipated the natural passions to such an extent that faith was not only stifled, but snuffed out completely. Certainly, faith – at its best – seeks reason (Augustine), but reason, but emotion is not some perversion or pure absence of reason. Yet, more concretely emotional experiences often lead us to recognize who we love immanently, why would it surprise us that emotional experience could likewise lead us to recognize God? How often do others realize the importance of someone in their life after some emotional instance such as a birth, wedding, or funeral? Now, are these necessary? No, and need not be for religious conversion; Augustine’s conversion happened in solitude, while quietly sitting under a pear tree.

Ultimately, the thrust of my original argument was that gratitude is an almost surprising emotion that can make one pause to wonder how such a feeling arises. One answer is that it is the feeling for God, and the realization that we all are participating in the goodness of God. Such appreciation from gratitude may behoove one to consider how to behave – to live rightly - not out of a legalism, but out of appreciation for the goodness of creation and also salvation.