Politics

Seeing Barack in Houston

On Tuesday, I went to see Barack Obama speak at the Toyota Center, along with 18,500 other people. As you can imagine, it was pretty intense.

We arrived at 4:30, discovering that the lines were already HUGE. Lines were snaking around corners. The majority of people there were on standby, meaning they had no tickets and no guarantee of getting in. The mix of people was pretty diverse, from yuppies to thugs, children and college students to old people and everything in between. The crowd was predominantly black, although there were alot of white people too. There were not many Hispanics, which is somewhat discouraging.

They started letting people in at 6. Entrance to the building was orderly and rather swift. Once inside, however, it was a mad house. They had no way of controlling the flows of people, and there was no sense of order whatsoever. We must have walked around for 45 minutes trying to find seats. We eventually got into an area they had just decided to open up. We had to pass through metal detectors (presumably because of our proximity to Barack), and show the security guards that all of our electronics were functioning. Some people, including Sarah, were wanded as well. Once we were inside, we managed to find seats near the back of the section. The seats were very good though. They probably cost hundreds at a Rockets game. They were the first level, behind and to the left of the podium for Barack.

We were there at about 7, fired up and ready to go. First, a band with sequin encrusted shirts played a bunch of soul music, which was quite good. Then, three different speakers, all of whom were women, showed up and spoke about voting and Barack and how the crowd should be excited because the entrance of Barack was imminent. They also led the crowd in some cheers like Yes We Can.

At about 8:30 (as I had predicted), Barack came out to speak. The crowd went absolutely nuts. The only time I have every experienced the intensity I did for Barack’s entrance was at an Astros NLCS game and at an Incubus concert, 30 feet from the stage in the mashpit.

Here’s video:

…and pictures hosted by flickr.

His speech was his standard stump. Apparently it was very long, but it certainly didn’t bother me. He added a few new things, like some stories he had recently been told. Much to my personal joy, Barack proclaimed that he believed in the market, saying:

If you are ready for change, if you’re really ready, then we can start restoring some balance to our economy. I believe in the free market. I know Texans believe in entrepreneurship. We are an independent and a self-reliant people. We don’t believe in government doing what we can do for ourselves.

But when we’ve got CEOs making more in 10 minutes than ordinary workers are making in a year and it’s the CEOs who are getting a tax break and workers are left with nothing, then something is wrong, and something has to change.

I was stunned when nobody clapped for the part about “I believe in the free market.” I clapped and yelled as loud as I could. However, during the “CEOs making more in 10 minutes than ordinary workers are making in a year” part, he got extremely loud cheers. I think it is interesting which bits of his rhetoric really resonated with the crowd. I’m not surprised, but I am disappointed.

Anyway, you can read the speech at the New York Times, as well as some analysis. Also, Obama’s website has a short clip of the actual speech.

Suckabee

Mike Huckabee stands no chance of winning the Republican nomination. He may be mathematically eliminated. He stands no chance in most regions of the country of winning a general election, let alone delegates to the RNC. He believes gayness is on par with necrophilia, doesn’t believe in evolution, and supports the Confederate flag flying atop the South Carolina statehouse.

But, hey, I like the guy.

On Colbert’s show last night, he made another appearance, and although not as funny as the last time, he managed to hold his own again with the riotously funny Colbert. He is obviously smart and affable. I also think if people understood the FairTax, he would have a much larger number of supporters, even though it seems unlikely that the FairTax would actually be ratified. Most conservatives would love it: it taxes spending rather than income.

Too bad he thinks the earth was created six thousand years ago.

Obama v. Clinton : Health Care

In terms of policy, there are so few differences between Obama and Clinton that there is often no debate. They haggle over who will bring the troops out of Iraq, but their answers are essentially the same: they both will, ASAP. There are some other differences, notably Clinton’s proposal to freeze interest rates for 5 years (which is a terrible, terrible, market distorting idea). However, must pundits have zoned in on the idea that the differences in ObamaCare and HillaryCare are the greatest ideological divide in this primary race. (I don’t really think so, but whatever)

Essentially, Hillary’s plan ‘mandates’ that all Americans have health insurance. If they don’t already get it from somewhere (their job, personal purchase), this means they would need to buy it. She has not discussed any provisions for enforcing this, and her website is silent on the issue. Thus her policy, as stated, is “If you don’t have health insurance, buy it! And if you don’t buy it, …”

Alternatively, Obama’s plan focuses more on reducing costs to make health insurance more affordable. In Obama’s plan, no one will try to force you to buy anything. He makes an exception for children, because children do not have the ability to choose for themselves. In essence, Obama believes that most people who don’t have insurance want it, but can’t afford it. He says this often. But what he doesn’t say, and I believe is implied, is that for the minority of people who don’t want health insurance, you shall have the freedom to choose.

This is essentially about freedom. This is about the government telling you what to do. This is about another federal requirement being imposed. Timothy Noah of Slate Magaize writes:

If you want to drive a car, it’s accepted that you have to buy private auto insurance. But that’s conditional on enjoying the societal privilege of driving a car; you can avoid the requirement by choosing not to drive one. A mandate to buy private health insurance, however, would be conditional on … being alive. I can’t think of another instance in which the government says outright, “You must buy this or that,” independent of any special privilege or subsidy it may bestow on you. Even if such a requirement could pass muster in the courts—and I have my doubts—it seems to me that politically it would give the inevitable conservative opposition a nice fat target to rally around. Big Brother will steal your wages if you don’t buy a health insurance policy!

The point about facing conservative opposition is a good one. There will be opposition to this plan. It is a large shift in policy, and a major new government expenditure. However, billions of dollars are abstract to the general populace (and, I fear, in Washington as well). The prospect of the government adding another imposition, another restriction, another abridgment of freedom, on the other hand, is a very tangible fear to many. Most people don’t like to be told what to do.

As Barack often says, this is a philosophical difference. And Barack stands on the same side as most Americans: the side of freedom, choice, and personal responsibility.

Update: The Wall Street Journal has expressed a similar viewpoint.

Well, well. In other words, HillaryCare II isn’t all about “choice,” but would require financial penalties for people to pay attention, including garnishing wages. To put it more accurately, the individual mandate is really a government mandate that requires brute force plus huge subsidies to get anywhere near its goal of universal coverage.

Primary Politics

I watched the Democratic debate in California tonight, after watching some of the Republican debate last night. I was somewhat struck by the vastly different tones of the two debates. The Republican debate featured McCain and Romney clearly hating each other, Huckabee hating gays and evolution, Ron Paul hating monetary policy, and everybody hating Ron Paul. The Democratic debate, however, was downright chummy. Sure, Clinton and Obama poked and jabbed each other, but the gloves most certainly stayed on.

Now, the pundits were saying that the tone of the Democratic debate was a result of the strategy of both candidates: neither one wanted too look like the desperate attacker, with Obama trying to ride his surge and Clinton trying to run out the clock. This certainly seems likely; I don’t dispute it. However, beyond that, I think it really speaks to a different feeling in the Democratic party, certainly a different feeling from any I have experienced in my short political life. Since I was little, the Republicans have been the party united around a core of ideas, without dissension (except, notably, McCain and a few others), while the Democrats have been weak and in disarray. It seems finally that the tables are turning. McCain is a strong candidate, but a great many Republicans have issues with him. To use Republican terminology, he is no Ronald Reagan. The Democrats are united, and I fully expect ‘regime change’ come November. It seems one of the most important factors is cohesion, and the Democrats seem to perhaps have finally rediscovered it, refashioning Reagan’s ’11th commandment’ for their own usage.

Maybe I’m wrong, but we’ll find out soon enough.

Update: Some people agree with me.

The Republicans last night looked like men competing for a chance to lose an election. Tonight, Hillary and Obama looked like they were competing to be President of the United States.