AG,

I guess another way of phrasing my question as to what Obama should do to connect to these folks, is, what do you think a biography for a black candidate that was acceptable to people in Appalachia would look like?

This guy?.

QUOTE:
Obama's "failure to connect" with HRC's supporters could very well be read as a very understandable pro-female gender bias among her supporters.

I am far less worried about his problems among feminists (which I think are highly overblown and sensationalized) than I am about his problems with the less-highly educated. Clinton - despite, as you say, being no more working class than Obama - connected quite well with them. Obama didn't. That was a problem for him throughout the primaries and will continue to be be a challenge for him right through to November.

I'm not sure what Obama can do about it, to be honest. I'm not making a specific argument other than to say he's a much weaker candidate than some people seem to assume. Connecting with some of the groups that form (or should form) the heart of the democratic coalition is really, really urgent if the Dems are going to win the election. Given that, hanging out with Larry the Cable Guy between now and the convention doesn't sound like the worst idea in the world.

Re: Iran and expansionism, I believe there are some people who believe Iran wantrs to turn the Shia-dominated areas of Iraq to become independent and become an Iranain client-state. I would assume this is what he is on about.

Although, come to think of it, Vice-President Springsteen has a ring to it.

QUOTE:
I'm not making a specific argument other than to say he's a much weaker candidate than some people seem to assume.

I completely agree that he is not a particular strong general election candidate, and that his issues will be with the types of people you have mentioned. I think we only disagree as to why this is, and, given that I believe race-based discomfort is at root, I think he will need to press his not-insignificant appeal among other voting groups in states that he can put into play (VA, CO, etc.).

I think Springsteen has too much of a lefty-elitist image to him these days ($100 tickets and all). Maybe Toby Keith, or Reed's suggestion of Dale Jr.?

I don't know if it's as easy as that, but maybe he needs to take a page from Kennedy's playbook in West Virginia in 1960, where he overcame voters' fear of Catholics by coming out and addressing the issue directly.

Also, I have a hard time remembering another mainstream US presidential candidate who has said in front of AIPAC that "The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper."

Maybe not in front of AIPAC but even Bush has been peddling the "contiguous cohesive state" line for some time now (while conspicuously failing to make any meaningful attempt to do anything about it)

Your right, I had forgotten about that.

Obama has apparently backtracked on his AIPAC speech on Jerusalem:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080605/pl_nm/usa_politics_obama_mideast_dc_1

I think it's a great sign that he's willing to nuance his position in front of that powerful lobby.

Indeed. "Speaking to Americans as though they were adults", as somebody said.

No takers for my Leahy suggestion, then? It seems like the ideal choice if Obama wants to set out an uber-liberal stall in the (presumptively) first term, then bring in a brilliant '16 candidate who won't have had his profile dulled by eight years of shaking hands with the Daughters of the American Revolution, or whoever...

Seriously, it's hard to think of a downside to Leahy. Maybe that he's too (for a democrat) reluctant to support abortion measures. But the gains in Repukes who hate McCain could well outweigh the loss in feminist Clintonites there, especially given that Leahy has supported all the substantively important bills regarding that and been on the side of the angels in SCOTUS appointments. I don't think it's at all a sign of negative character traits to restrain your enthusiasm for abortion, however desirable you think it is that anyone who wants one should in principle be able to have one.

"Although, come to think of it, Vice-President Springsteen has a ring to it."

And he was born to run.

Nogoals: Heh.

Short digression: a couple of years ago, I attended an incredibly surreal event in Thailand at which the Minister of Finance (a dull, dull man) was the guest of honor. Accompanied by a dozen TV cameras, he walked up onto the stage. When he got to the podium, two enormous hi-powered funnels shot 12-foot high streams of coloured dry ice from either side of him, which crossed a couple of feet over his head, thus framing him in a kind of demonic arch. This would all have been just kitschy rather than weird were ot not the fact that through the whole thing, they insisted on blaring Born to Run as theme music.

I'm not sure I can quite convey the difficulty of keeping a straight face at the sight of a very small VIP in a dark suit and oversized glasses looking solemn and full of gravitas while framed by pink smoke with a Springsteen soundtrack.

For a conference on student loans, it was a memorable start.

Back to Obama: is it me or does he smile a lot less than most candidates?

I'm not sure he backtracked linus, I saw the interview in one of the airline lounges I have sat in in the last 12 hours, and while did say, "Well, obviously this is for the negotiating table and it's between the two parties" he also made it fairly clear that he thought that Jerusalem ought to be the capital of Israel (with some form of unclear "access" for Palestinians to visit their holy sites).

I know everyone wants to bend over backwards to believe in him, and obviously he's a much better president than McCain, but this whole Jerusalem thing is either ignorant or cuntish. I mean on one level I'm happy that it's happened this early - my expectations have been lowered right down to a much more realistic level than they were. And it's good that the Arab world also don't have any expectations, as some of them might have been tempted to have.

But that's not ever going to be up to him, is it? That will depend on what sort of government Israel elects for themselves and what they're willing to give up for peace in a negotiation, right?

I don't understand the Jerusalem issue very well. Why does it have to be either/or? A capital is just a bunch of office buildings, after all. Why couldn't Israel have their capital there without interfering with everybody's holy sites? If the Palestinians want control over certain wards of the city, then that should be doable too.

It could be a bit like DC, except better. The capital is here, but the city has it's own mayor and its own council of representatives elected by the people in each ward plus some at large members. They could create a system where neither side could ever dominate the the council without consent of at least some of the other side.

A truly divided Jerusalem, old Berlin-style, would seem rather unwieldy and not conducive to peace.

Perhaps I'm just saying "Why can't everyone just get along?"