Making Iowa Cool

Smash

For example

39 Channels

Less is more.

Finally having TV again, I'm constantly surprised how little is on.

Fortunately with DISH satellite, you can delete channels, so they don't show up any more. So as of 8pm, I have 39 channels.

Your job? Tell me what's the best channel I'm missing, to make a nice round 40.

(No extra costs allowed, so Showtime, HBO etc are out.)

• Locals - 2,8,11HD,13HD,20,26HD,39HD
• TNT, TBS, USA HD, WGN HD, SPIKE, Bravo HD
• Comedy Central, FX, SciFi HD
• Food Network HD, Home & Garden TV HD, Discovery HD
• Learning Channel HD, Animal Planet HD
• A&E HD, History HD, Smithsonian HD
• Discovery Health, Documentary
• IFC, HD Theatre, HD Movie, Ovation
• MTV, G4, PLDIA (some concert channel)
• ESPN HD, ESPN2 HD
• CNN HD, MSNBC, Weather Channel HD
• True Stories

What other channel has the most programs actually worth watching?

Election night 2008

It's November 4. You're watching the election results come in. What should you expect?


==============
7:00pm Eastern

First polls close. McCain is out to an early lead with wins in Kentucky, South Carolina, and Georgia (which will take a little longer to call). Kentucky's McConnell and Georgia's Saxby Chambliss will be talked about, how if either loses (unlikely) the Democrats have a shot at a fillibuster-proof 60 Senate seats. Indiana is too close to call. Obama wins tiny Vermont. And Virginia ... Virginia is what you should really care about. If Obama wins Virginia, he will force McCain to win Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri, North Carolina, and any one of New Hampshire/Colorado/New Mexico/(most likely) Nevada. Since Virginia is such a critical state, networks may be slow to call it.

McCain 31, Obama 3, Too Close 24 (Indiana, Virginia)

==============
7:30pm Eastern

Polls close in Ohio and West Virginia. West Virginia is called for McCain, with Ohio too close to call. Ohio is absolutely critical to McCain; an unexpected call for Obama means you can go to sleep. The longer it takes to call West Virginia, the better for Obama, as it means McCain will have trouble in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

McCain 36, Obama 3, Too Close 44 (Ohio, Indiana, Virginia)

==============
8:00pm Eastern

Now it gets busy. Obama evens it up as northeast polls close . Immediate calls in Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and probably Maine. McCain gets easy calls in Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Oklahoma. Missouri and Florida will be too close to call. Obama would love a quick call in New Hampshire, which he'll need if the night goes badly. But the most important call all night will be Pennsylvania. Like Virginia, this may be an early call for Obama. If it is, the election is essentially over. Pennsylvania is McCain's Alamo, the toughest state for him that he absolutely must have. For this reason, analysts will be very careful not to call this one too soon (see Florida, 2000).

One of the Mississippi senate races, Wicker-Musgrove, may be close, though the Republican is favored. The Democratic challenger Shaheen is favored slightly in the New Hampshire senate race.

McCain 69, Obama 78, Too Close 107 (Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia)

==============
8:30pm Eastern

Republicans grit their teeth. The only new state called is Arkansas, for McCain. But Republican North Carolina is too close to call. And with 2 hours' votes and little news, Virginia is probably called for Obama. Indiana, though, may be called for McCain. If not, bad news for McCain. An Obama win in Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri or North Carolina effectively ends it. (Some attention for NC senate race, with incumbent Elizabeth Dole the underdog.)

McCain 86, Obama 91, Too Close 98 (North Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio)

==============
9:00pm Eastern

The beginning of the end. Easy calls for McCain in Arizona, Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, Wyoming, Nebraska, and South Dakota. Slow South Dakota call is bad news for McCain, as it means neighboring Montana or North Dakota may slip away. Democratic New York and Rhode Island are called for Obama, followed soon after by former battleground states of Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Obama backup-plan New Mexico and Colorado may start out too close to call, ditto the Senate race between favored Democrat Udall and Republican Shaffer. Minnesota's senate race between Republican incumbent Coleman and Democrat Franken may be the closest of the night. A close race for Cornyn in Texas would be the sign of a terrible night for Republicans.

With few new tossups, and only 4 states reporting in the next two hours, the attention turns to calling existing states. New Hampshire should have enough votes in to be called for Obama. There will be pressure to make a call in Pennsylvania or Ohio, since a close call in one means the other's likely not so close. If Pennsylvania is still uncalled, Nevada talk begins.

McCain 156, Obama 167, Too Close 108 (Colorado, New Mexico, North Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Ohio)

==============
10:00pm Eastern

Utah rivals Wyoming for McCain's biggest margins of the night. McCain also hopes for sparsely populated Montana to be called his way after 30-45 minutes. Much is made of Iowa's vote for Obama, how it voted Bush last time, but was the start of Obama's surprise win of the Democratic nomination. Filler stories about Obama's ground game, how the long primary allowed him to expand his Iowa-style organization across the country.

The real story may be Nevada. New Mexico and Colorado may be called for Obama by now. Assuming Obama has won Virginia and New Hampshire, a win in Nevada pretty much seals the deal; Obama could lose Florida, Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina and even Pennsylvania and still win the presidency. Since no remaining state but North Dakota will even be close, it will all be about returns in the toss-ups.

McCain 164, Obama 187, Too Close 99 (Nevada, North Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Ohio)

==============
11:00pm Eastern

Except for Alaska (with Ted Steven's close re-election bid), all state polls are now closed. Idaho is called for McCain, but North Dakota takes longer. Meanwhile, the West Coast comes in big for Obama. California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii all go big for Obama (though Washington and Oregon may take 15-30 minutes to call). Obama's 77 additional electoral votes bring him to 264, assuming he hasn't won Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina, or Nevada. The night ends when one of these goes Obama, or all go McCain.

In the Senate, Oregon Republican incumbent Smith is in for a nail-biter against Merkley. If Obama has an early win, suppressed turnout may help the Democrat.

McCain 171, Obama 264, Too Close 103 (Nevada, North Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Ohio)

Polls at Oct 22:
NV = barely Obama
NC = tie
FL = tie
PA = lean Obama
MO = barely Obama
OH = barely Obama

Other possibilities: Obama is a slight underdog to take Montana, North Dakota, and Indiana. The last of these would also end things early.

Powell Endorsement

And Sarah Palin iz ur new Michael Scott

Someone needs to do this YouTube Mashup. Really.

FailBlog iz ur new cheezburger

FailBlog.org

Don't Vote

Oh, that's it...

Intolerant Chic

Couldn't (didn't) say it better myself.

Out of Touch

I used to take pride in the fact that I understood the "man on the street." When talking with friends about politics, I could instinctively get what a typical voter would think about whatever was being said.

I still have some of it, when I wince at the idea of impeaching Bush, or whatever Michael Moore has most recently come up with.

But as I've increasingly spent time surrounded by highly educated economic conservatives, I feel myself losing touch with the concerns of normal families.

I mention this because there is a debate tomorrow night between Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin. Columnist David Brooks has (insightfully) described her as a product of the populist wing of the Republican Party. While I understood why people would vote for Bush over Gore (pompous) or Kerry (effete and patrician), I don't get Palin. Or maybe I half do, but I can't nail it down.

Katherine told me once that Bush was a disaster, when she was living in Texas. Palin seems to be a reincarnation of Bush, in the form of a WWE wrestling teen's wet dream.

I just watched a video on the NYTimes web site that showed Palin's past debates. She avoided detailed questions and mouthed banalities (an accusation made not unfairly about Obama at times). Her Republican primary opponents called her directly on talking utter nonsense. And she trounced them.

I find myself wondering how much of modern American culture is not about economics, or social/religious views, but rather about class. Class is both surprisingly absent and unmentionable in the US, compared to other countries. It has not been a defining element of politics (or named as such). But I think we may be seeing it come to the fore.

I suspect "Southerner" has been a code for "working class". Clinton ran as the McDonald's candidate against yuppie Bush. Intellectual Gore vs Cowboy Bush Jr went the other way.

This is rambling (and I have food in the oven), but the point is, everyone is saying Palin will be an embarrassment to McCain. Some intellectual conservatives have already called for her to resign.

But what if, the average American is so angry at the "Masters of the Universe" -- Wall St brokers, politicians, lawyers, etc -- as a result of decades of not getting ahead, as a symptom of the increasing gap between the haves and have nots... even if I believe that this is a result of conservative politics ... but if the party of wall street decides (as the House Republicans did) that the revolt of mad as hell (not to say "bitter") voters is something to align with...

What if the Republican working class formerly Dixiecrat base is so pissed at rich educated people who screw the country up (Bush was the first MBA president) that they want to vote for someone who is blithely ignorant about the world? Can Palin stroke class resentment *on behalf of Republicans*, against Professor Obama and Oracle Biden, in a kind of double-down on the original Bush strategy?

Far too long-winded this, but my point is, if Palin gets up and does a George Bush "gee shucks these smarty-pants in Washington need some of my down-home wisdom to shake them up", surely the people won't fall for that. Surely. Right?

I wish my working class gut could be more sure.

Heartbeat Away?

Wow. You owe it to yourself (and the country) to watch these at least once. There's some laughs at least in the last one.



I mean, seriously? Seriously?

There's more...









And finally, this commentary from conservative (but straight-shooting) columnist David Brooks.

Regurgitating The Atlantic

There's a debate on Friday between Senators McCain and Obama. It's going to be on foreign policy, not the economy (which is the topic du jour).

The article "The Petraeus Doctrine" in this month's Atlantic provides an interesting, and I think important, subtext for this debate.

Put simply, does America's future hold more Iraqs or not?

If the world is a place where failed and rogue states will attempt to attack the US or its allies and interests, and we intend to defend ourselves, then we may end up trying to establish stability (the Petraeus Doctrine) to win hearts and minds in foreign countries. This worldview holds that Iraq is winnable and we are winning, and that perhaps even Vietnam was winnable. You just need enough force going in and enough subtlety (cultural and language training, etc) and patience to see it through. You can't bomb your way to security, but you can occupy and stabilize your way to security. In fact, you have to if you want to fight terrorism.

The other worldview holds that these kinds of fights cannot be won by the military, at least for an acceptable cost. Iraq's current stability should not be viewed as evidence of a repeatable strategy for successfully occupying conquered states. Rather, it is a result of a complex series of political calculations, including expected American withdrawal. The ability to successfully extract the America military without leaving a raging civil war, while to be welcomed, is not a blueprint for future military actions. In short, this is not a "win" we should look to repeat.

My sense is that John McCain takes the first view... you can win these things if you are patient and smart enough. It may require enormous sacrifice, but he has made enormous sacrifice and can marshal the country to do so. He sees a violent world where "there will be more wars", and you have to be smarter and more willing to fight than the other guy to win. If you're lucky, you may not have to fight. But you have to be willing to, and in an unstable world, the US's responsibility (with other countries) is to fight those fights.

A soldier's view.

My sense is that Barack Obama takes the latter view. That the military can tip the scales between two opposing power structures, but cannot nurture a power structure up from scratch. Or perhaps, that if such things can be done, the military is not the right arm of government to do so. And further, that with limited resources, the military should be used sparingly, and only when the objectives are more simply and conventionally defined. (In that sense, Obama is conservative while McCain is neoconserative.) The downside of this is, you have to both be willing to not fight some fights you could win (because they are too expensive) ... such as Iran or North Korea getting nukes, or more precisely you have to empower some bad guys (buying them off rather than fighting). Also, you have to believe that enough fights can be avoided.

This is where I suspect the worldview comes in. McCain has seen a world of conflict, was 3rd generation Navy with an Admiral father. His frame of reference has been conflict. He has seen cruelty up close. He knows sometimes you have to be willing to fight.

Obama has seen a world of diversity. He has preached understanding. He's never been in the military, and has based his campaign on overcoming traditional political infighting ("games" he calls them) to reach a common purpose.

In Obama's worldview, the Iraqs and Vietnams of the world can and must be avoided, and the military cannot fundamentally alter the reality on the ground. In McCain's worldview, the Iraqs and Vietnams of the world can't be avoided, only ignored as the cost grows, and a willingness to fight and persevere is required.

On the foreign policy side, that's the debate. The inital vote against Iraq is Obama's proxy for saying, "you have to be wise enough to see these things never go as well as you think and are a waste of precious resources." The success of the surge is McCain's proxy for saying "you have to be willing to have faith and persevere, and I have those traits."

What do you think?

Oh hell

Those library books? That I was going to return? That weekend? When the storm was going to hit? Before I got moved to Dallas? Like two weeks ago?

The books that were already overdue?

Oh hell.

The Financial Crisis, Pt 1

Quote

Although I agree broadly with Hatzius, I quibble with his idea that the goal is to avoid a sharp contraction in lending. The US needs to wean itself of unsustainable overconsumption, and since consumption has come to depend on growth in indebtedness, a reversal, however painful, is necessary. Our excesses have been so great that there is no way out of this that does not lead to a general fall in living standards (note that the officialdom in the UK is willing to say that, but since perpetual prosperity is a God-given right in America, admitting we will be getting poorer is verboten). Thus, a sharp contraction in lending seems inevitable; the trick is to prevent it from crossing the tipping point into a vicious, accelerating downward spiral.

Unquote

Another letter to Congress

This email is regarding the proposed legislation to bail out the financial markets. I appreciate that there may be no good options, and that avoiding moral hazard here may lead to unacceptable impact on "Main St."

But with this administration's poor record of following the rules (Justice Dept for example), and with news of bankrupt Lehman keeping $2.5B for their best and brightest, the Congress should NOT be issuing blank checks and retroactive pardons to those raiding the taxpayers' pockets (however necessary the raiding).

There has been too much unaccountability already.

Please insist on the Congress and courts' proper role of oversight and review.

Obama Ad

My Boy Biden

You Go Joe

Hubris - Part 2

On July 26 I wrote:

My prediction is that it will take two weeks tops for this to be in the headlines.

Two weeks later

Wish I were happier about it.

Why I should write documentation for SAP

Quote

If an error return code of the DBMS for which a database reconnect is useful is not contained in the reconnect, a database reconnect is not executed.

Unquote

Surely, surely, there is a better way to say that.

Surely.

The wasted hours...

iPhone 3G - Contrarian View

I've reviewed some features of the new iPhone previously, and I've even come around a little on some things (the shape is nicer as time goes by, the black plastic not so bad).

But in reading the following, I couldn't help but mostly agree. If you're going to get a phone, the iPhone is the one to get. And if you are going to get an iPhone, there's no good reason not to get the 3G. But, unless you have specific needs, the benefit of upgrading from the previous model consists mostly of what you sometimes get to do, what might be coming in the future. After the expectation-trouncing success of the first generation iPhone, this one can't help but leave you underwhelmed. So merely very good, so almost great.

http://www.iphoneatlas.com/2008/07/28/columnted-iphone-3g-and-mobileme-new-features-add-little-value

Hubris

In 2006 Democrats delighted at the scandal-ridden Republicans. Pedophilia, restroom solicitation, lobbying corruption, DoJ politicization. Gone were the days of House post office scandals, of Gary Hart and Bill Clinton. Democrats would clean things up.

With word that Senate Majority leader Harry Reid is engaging in Tom Delay-style K Street lobbying shakedowns, I suppose I also shouldn't be surprised that John Edwards (yes, that John Edwards) is keeping a low profile after being confronted by National Enquirer reporters in the wee hours of the morning in a hotel where the the woman the Enquirer called the mother of his "love child" was staying (with child).

The required caveat is that there may be an explanation, and Edwards may have a legitimate reason for not wanting to talk about it, and for giving non-denial denials. Thus, what follows may be unfair. If so, my apologies.

But really.

No, Really.

I too first dismissed this as tabloid trash. But let's remember this is the same tabloid that produced a photo of Donna Rice on Gary Hart's lap (in front the boat "Monkey Business"). Who surfaced the story of Jesse Jackson's love child, silencing the once-family-values preacher (who later went after Obama for criticizing absent fathers). Who managed to find THAT blue dress that nearly brought down the Clinton White House and probably cost Al Gore the White House.

The Enquirer had already set its sights on the Golden Boy from North Carolina last Fall. When they seemed close to pinning something on Edwards (who was then a candidate for President), the Edwards campaign produce the married-with-kids-campaign-staffer Andrew Young, who then claimed to be the father. Of the kid whose mother later came over for dinner with the whole family. Sure.

But fishy as it all sounded, there was no proof of anything. With Edwards out of the race, there was no real story.

Now the blogosphere is positively abuzz with whether the mainstream press should talk about this. My prediction is that it will take two weeks tops for this to be in the headlines. Like the much-predicted bird flu, no matter how carefully the borders are guarded, there are too many ways in and the material is too contagious to keep out.

Earlier this week, Barack Obama's written prayer deposited in the Wailing Wall in Israel was stolen and broadcast on international websites, despite its insignificant contents. Many conservative bloggers decried this, even while saying they did not support Obama.

In that spirit, though I support John Edwards' campaign to help alleviate poverty in America, I can't offer any defense for him. With sympathy to his wife Elizabeth, who is battling terminal cancer, I have to say Edwards (like Clinton before him) is looking more like the caricature conservatives always claimed him to be: a pious phony who calls others to sacrifice but isn't willing to sacrifice his own libido.

A word of warning to other Democratic politicians: when you tap into a powerful truth about the world, and hold it up to the world, it will attract others. They will often confuse the idea and the person. Their youth and inspiration can also attract you, and remind you of your youth. That idea can also be confused with a person. But trying to grab hold of inspiration or youth gets you neither. It gets you National Enquirer reporters chasing you into restrooms.

So for Eliot Spitzer, and that governor from New Jersey or wherever, and Hart and Jackson and Clinton and Edwards, do us a favor and find another line of work. Kennedy doesn't get Marilyn anymore. I know the family-values conservative crowd have their share of hypocrites, too. They can police their own.

I'm tired of making excuses.

Asshole.

(Oh, and to the liberal bloggers: cut out that "well at least they were women" bullshit. I mean, are you serious? Only two years back into power, a useless Congress, "Bros Before Hos" Obama voters and "Party Unity My Ass" PUMA Democrats who want to vote McCain, and now we're trying to out-gay-bash Republicans? Isn't anybody motivated by the issues any more?)

Election Puzzle

Reflections

Controls Meetings

Aaarrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhh!

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: Tuner

$6

Nullriver Tuner has quickly become a killer app for me. Tuner is a streaming Internet radio client. What this means is, you either select one of the 500 or so pre-loaded stations (URLs) or you enter your own. The player then loads up the station.

Why pay $6 for this when AOL radio is free on iPhone, as is Pandora? It's all about selection. Pandora is great for music, but doesn't do news. AOL radio has all of 4 stations in Houston. Not knocking that, glad to have them. The point is unless you want those (mainstream radio) stations, no local radio for you.

Me, I like Houston's KUHF NPR station. KUHF plays news at rush hour (and a bit on weekends), but is classical the rest of the time. They actually have an HD radio signal that broadcasts news 24/7 (ditto classical and Spanish language). But unless you want to pay $200 for an HD tuner, no 24/7 news. Thankfully, they also stream the HD channel online, and using Tuner I can listen to it.

Tuner has some shortcomings though. Signals drop too often, and I'm not sure if Edge is fast enough to stream all channels (the bit rate - quality and bandwidth required - is shown next to each station). But the core functionality -- streaming customizable Internet radio -- is a winner, and well worth $6.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: Units

$1

$1 for an application that just does conversions. I had my doubts. First, it seems a bit like that kitchen gizmo that you take out only once a year. That's part of what I like about the iPhone: it doesn't have a gazillion barely-used apps.

Or it didn't until the App Store.

But I digress. I like Units. When you open it, you see what looks like a Calculator. Three customizable buttons on the right let you choose measurement categories: currency, energy, temperature, time, length, weight, speed, volume, area. Each have icons. You also choose what "to" and "from" units it starts with.

You click the category button (say Temperature) and then put in one value, and the converted value appears above it. There's a handy switch button that reverses the to/from units so you can enter data the other way round. You can also cycle through other units (e.g. degrees Kelvin) and each of the categories.

Most people won't need most categories, but dollars to British pounds and Celsius to Fahrenheit (when overseas with no network connection) are worth $1. Automatic currency rate update option would be nice though (have to do 2 clicks to update).

Recommended for those with the need.


Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

Big Long Test Post

So supposedly some people have seen long post issues and some not,with LifeCast. So I'm trying another long one.

Maybe it will work, maybe not. Bug to do the test I need to write stuff. Anything really. In fact, arguably it would be better to just start writing stuff, whatever comes to mind, rather than sitting around trying to figure out what to say.

And perhaps that would be a better way to blog. Especially with the onscreen keyboard on the iPhone, which I have to say seems to have even better corrective text than before. I almost have to work to get typos.

Anyhow, the folks at LifeCast have been very helpful in following up on this long post issue, so I thought the least I could do is to try another long post.

Sure, you might argue, do a long post, but why not post *about* something. Something, like, important. (I know you'd say "like" too; you're like that).

So why blog about nothing at all?

Well, first, since I don't actually expect this to post, I'll be much less annoyed if it doesn't than I would if I spent real time (and thought) on it. Heck, if this posts, I may even have to go back and make that last sentence grammatical.

Two iPhone screens long, this, if you're counting.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: LifeCast

Free.

This blog post, like all the others today, are written on the iPhone in LifeCast. You give Lifecast your Blogger or Tumblr (only) blog login, and then type your 1 page of text and click submit. Longer then 1 screen of data hasn't worked for me; it hangs submitting.

On Tumblr, you can also submit photos, and photos plus text (and other blog sites) are expected in future.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: Urbanspoon

Free.

Restaurant guide as slot machine. Detects your location, then random spins location (actually picks this one but can select others), cuisine and cost, then picks a random matching restaurant. Don't like the pick? Lock in what you do like. Oh, did I mention you shake the phone to spin the tumblers?

Fun, useful app.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: vSNAX

Free.

A video application that streams CBS news and entertainment clips. Slightly sluggish navigation but beautiful video on iPhone.

Content isn't terribly compelling but has fair variety (news, game trailers, celebrity gossip, etc). Probably good to pass some boredom if trapped and not in the mood to web browse.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: Bloomberg

Free.

An upgrade to the delivered Stocks application. You can see markets around the world, both indexes and individual stocks. For each stock, you get news and charts. Touching the news (not obvious) gives a list of articles. Turning phone to landscape gives a few charts, going back 5 years. (Basic Stocks app has a 2 year view missing here, but that's as far back as it goes.)

Totally different look, less friendly than Stocks, but more info.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone App: BoxOffice

Free.

Like Movies.app, BoxOffice asks for Zip or GPS location, then shows movies by title or cinema.

BoxOffice's strength is that it shows movie ratings from RottenTomatos, by high score or title. You can also set the radius you want to search, and it will show those within radius first. Another big plus is that you can see the showtimes across multiple cinemas all on one screen. This plus the ratings make BoxOffice the better app to find a movie to go to today.

Movie.app is better for planning ahead, but takes longer to use.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: Movies.app

Free.

I've tried two movie finders (Movies.app, BoxOffice), each with their own strengths.

Both apps ask for your ZIP code (or use GPS) and then show you local movies, both by movie or by location.

What's good about Movies.app is that it lets you look a couple days ahead, tells you how much money each movie has made, shows you coming attractions, and has links to movie trailers and IMDB.

Movies.app is worth downloading for when you want to look ahead and find out more about movies.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: Currency

Free.

Fast and simple. Single page of current exchange rates. You choose the currency it's based on (defaults to dollars), but can't tell it to invert. For example it shows .50 pounds to the dollar, not 2 dollars to the pound.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: AOL Radio

Free.

Dozens (hundreds?) of CBS radio stations sorted by genre and location. Quality is good, but there are no NPR or BBC radio stations, which is all I'm usually interested in.

Still, if you do like normal music or talk radio, this is worth a download. Like Pandora, this app has to be the open one to play, no switching to browser.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: Enigmo

$10

This is an excellent puzzle game. You try to direct different color bouncing water drops from faucets into recepticles, using a limited number of springs, slides, sponges and guns to navigate an obstacle course.

Each level takes several minutes, and the game is addictive. You save automatically after each level, and can pause at any time.

1 player

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: Pandora Radio

Free.

Pandora is a music streaming "Internet radio" application. You sign up (free), enter some music you like, and it starts playing similar music. You can click the info button to find out why Pandora thinks you will like the tune. If you don't like it, hit the thumbs down icon and/or click next. If you do like it, hit thumbs up. You can tag the artist or song as favorite. You can also tag the song to buy in iTunes.

Or you can also just sit back and enjoy the music. However, if you change to another app, the music stops.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: MPG (Green)

$1

There were two apps called MPG. This is the green one. You put in the date, # of miles on tripometer (not odometer), # of gallons and cost. It charts MPG for you, tells you average, last tank, etc.

You'll want to delete the example car first and add yours.

Works well.

The black MPG app (renamed FuelGage) didn't work as well for me (forget why), and was same price.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: PhoneSaber

Free.

A gimmick app, but the most popular at work. Launch it and you see a Star Wars light saber handle. Five colors are on the left.

Touch the handle (or a desired color), and the light saber blade appears. So far do boring. But the sound effects... A perfect capture of the sounds from the movies: a low hum, a groaning whirr when moved, a crashing sound of contact when direction suddenly changes.

Perfect to take out and express your frustration with the office, the phone conference, the traffic (from the passenger seat, of course).

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: Remote

Free.

This is the first app to download. You need to be on your home wireless network. Open the app and you get a 4 digit number. Go to iTunes and type it in (you may need iTunes open first).

Now when you open Remote, it will connect to iTunes and show you the currently playing song (if playing) or your library (if not). You can browse the library, not just the songs on your iPhone. The iTunes volume on the PC is adjusted by the volume slider in the Remote app.

This is easily the best free app, and has gotten universal acclaim.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone Apps: App Store

Well technically this isn't an app.

App Store is available in iTunes and on the phone. Apps are a few MB max; you don't need to be on wireless to download, like you do with iTunes store on the phone.

When you sync to iTunes, apps bought on phone go to iTunes, and vice-versa.

On wireless/3G, apps take about a minute to download and install. In iTunes downloads are almost instantaneous.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone 2.0 Software Review

There's a new Contacts icon, like the contacts tab under Phone, except it has search. Eh.

The calculator turns into a scientific calculator in landscape.

Support is added for stuff that most people don't use: foreign language, Exchange and MobileMe, PowerPoint viewing.

Google Maps now has GPS, so you get a blue pulsing dot when you move. Very cool to play with. Nice for finding places, rather than having to look for street signs and house numbers.

Then there's the App Store. This IS iPhone 2.0.


Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone 3G Review II

9. Volume rocker is noticeably less "clicky". Preferred the old one, could feel it through trouser pockets and could tell when it was pushed. This one you can't much tell without listening.

10. Headphone jack is flush, meaning any standard headphones can fit without adapters. Last "click" is very firm, meaning the fit is as tight as the first generation. This is a very good thing; 2/3rds of my drops have been bungee-corded by the headphones. Improvement.

11. Maybe it's just me, but both screen and home button seem a little less sensitive. Maybe it's a case of "breaking in", and some may like it more this way. Home button more seamless, which is nice. Sensitivity takes some getting used to.

12. Stereo speakers noticeably (~30%) louder on new iPhone. More depth as well, richer.

Review of iPhone 2.0 software coming.

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

iPhone 3G Review

Day 2 with the new iPhone 3G. First impressions:

1. 90% the same as first generation.

2. Feels sleeker, less durable than original iPhone. Fits the palm more smoothly, due to more rounded edges. Not fragile, but without the metal I'm not as inclined to bang it on a desk or duel with it.

3. Black seems to be more popular than white, though the white is only available on the more expensive 16Gb model.

4. 3G call quality much better. More like landline.

5. The 3G was $325 including tax, and $15 a month more than the 1st gen iPhone. 8GB model is $100 less. Existing non-iPhone AT&T customers not due for upgrade pay $200 more. 2 year contract, 900 rollover minutes, 200 domestic SMS texts and unlimited data for $95/month. 450 minutes is $20 less, unlimited SMS $15 more.

6. Battery life meant to be longer, but only if you turn off the new features: 3G, GPS, etc. And don't play those new games. In practice, battery life is noticeably shorter, enough that I'll probably need to start being aware of it (old phone never ran out during the day; recharge overnight).

7. Charger is a tiny block that goes onto the USB cable. Fits standard socket, unlike old oversized block that took up 3 spaces and had annoying blue light. Nice improvement, Apple.

8. No charger dock included; don't know if old one fits.

To be continued...

Geolocate this post

Posted with LifeCast

Father's Day

Super Tuesday Revisited

Back on Super Tuesday, I said that Barack Obama had shown he was a stronger general election candidate than Hillary Clinton. He proceeded to reel off a string of 11 wins in a row, followed by a occasional big state losses in Ohio, Texas*, and Pennsylvania.

So the chattering classes now ask, is he really the stronger candidate?

To answer the question, I ask some of my own: which states are likely to be "in play" in 2008? Do Obama or Clinton play notably better?

States in Play

Game Changers
(Toss ups now and in the past)

• Colorado 9 (Obama+3, Clinton-14, Kerry-5, Gore-9) - OBAMA ADD


• New Mexico 5 (Obama-1, Clinton-3, Kerry-1, Gore+1) - WASH


• Michigan 17 (Obama+2, Clinton-9, Kerry+3, Gore+5) - CLINTON DROP


• Ohio 20 (Obama-4, Clinton+3, Kerry-2, Gore-4) - CLINTON ADD


• New Hampshire 4 (Obama-3, Clinton-6, Kerry+1, Gore-1) - WASH


• Washington 11 (Obama+13, Clinton+3, Kerry+7, Gore+5) - CLINTON DROP


• Oregon 7 (Obama+9, Clinton+1, Kerry+4, Gore+1) - CLINTON DROP


• Wisconsin 10 (Obama+5, Clinton+0, Kerry+1, Gore+0) - CLINTON DROP


• Minnesota 10 (Obama+6, Clinton+1, Kerry+3, Gore+2) - CLINTON DROP


• Missouri 11 (Obama-8, Clinton+1, Kerry-7, Gore-3) - CLINTON ADD


• Florida 27 (Obama-15, Clinton+1, Kerry-5, Gore-1) - CLINTON ADD


• Iowa 7 (Obama+7, Clinton-6, Kerry-1, Gore+1) - OBAMA ADD

Observations: There are 3 close states where Clinton plays notably better Obama: Ohio, Missouri and Florida (58 electoral votes). These are states Democrats have come close to winning in 2000 and 2004, but lost both each time. Clinton can claim putting these states in play much more than Obama. If the Democrats are to win Ohio or Florida, Clinton is much more likely to do so. Note however she leads McCain by 3,1 and 1 points respectively - none are guaranteed or even likely wins. They are just in play.

At the same time, there are 7 close states where Obama plays notably better than Clinton. Five of these are states where Democrats have won the last two elections, but Clinton polls badly (Michigan 17) or polls almost even with McCain (Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota 38). Obama also plays much better in perenial toss-up state Iowa. He meanwhile uniquely puts Colorado 9 into play, a state that has gone Republican in recent history. In 4 of these 6 Obama has a big lead and the risk is Clinton losing a Democratic state. Meanwhile, Obama's Michigan lead is only 3, not a guarantee.

Essentially, each candidate may put about 60-70 different electoral votes in play, Clinton via the traditional Democratic strategy of big states where Obama does poorly, and Obama through Western and Midwestern states, many Democratic, where Clinton plays poorly.

On to the long shots...

Hopes and Fears
(Close now but not in the past)

• Texas 34 (Obama-1, Clinton-9, Kerry-23, Gore-21) - OBAMA ADD?


• Nebraska 5 (Obama-3, Clinton-27, Kerry-29, Gore-35) - OBAMA ADD?


• New Jersey 15(Obama+2, Clinton+1, Kerry+6, Gore+16) - WASH


• Massachusetts 12(Obama+2, Clinton+15, Kerry+22, Gore+27) - OBAMA DROP?


• North Carolina 15(Obama+0, Clinton-11, Kerry-13, Gore-12) - OBAMA ADD?


• South Carolina 8 (Obama-3, Clinton-6, Kerry-17, Gore-16) - WASH


• West Virginia 5 (Obama-18, Clinton+5, Kerry-13, Gore-6) - CLINTON ADD?


• Connecticut 7 (Obama+17, Clinton+3, Kerry+10, Gore+18) - CLINTON DROP?


• Kentucky 8 (Obama-34, Clinton-2, Kerry-20, Gore-15) - CLINTON DROP?

Obama looks to put Republican Texas, North Carolina and Nebraska into play, while risking Democratic Massachusetts, but none of these seem likely given their history. Obama may get 3 electoral votes from Nebraska, though. Clinton also appears to risk Democratic Connecticut while having a shot at Republican Kentucky, but this too seems unlikely. Clinton does get credit for putting West Virginia 5 into play.

Thus each candidate again puts a few more electoral votes in play, Clinton in the east and Obama in the west.


Conclusion

Both candidates seem equally strong in the general election. Obama secures much of the traditional Democratic states, while putting some western and midwestern toss up states in play. Clinton has more upside and downside potential, with weakness in some base Democratic states, but the only real shot at some big swing states that have trended Republican.

Obama would pick the Republicans apart with many little states, Clinton a few big.

Green Lantern

What a good idea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/science/25tier.html?8dpc

Crayon Physics Deluxe

oh yes.

Energy Markets

These aren't my words, but are from an old article I clipped. Safer to keep it here, and rarely were truer words spoken.

"Fundamentally, the energy market isn't really a market -- it is rigged by nationally run oil monopolies that dictate the supply and prices of crude oil, individually within their own borders and globally through the OPEC cartel. In that system, private firms such as Exxon Mobil and Chevron are mere price-takers. But they are also willing free-riders who benefit handsomely from the price-fixing of others.

Obama's speech on race (37 min)

I know it's a long speech. Get a drink and have a seat. But listen to it.

What I posted to CNN

The idea that being a black man is an advantage in American politics (even Democratic politics) is laughable. Senator Obama is not the first African-American man (or woman) to run for president. He started the campaign running against a well-liked frontrunner who enjoyed the support of the majority of African-Americans. It is not Senator Obama's race that is the secret to his success. It is his powerful vision for what the country and its politics can be, which has attracted so many people.

It is perfectly fair to question this vision, and whether it is realistic.

It is also perfectly fair to "throw the kitchen sink", praise the Republican, offer the 2nd job, for when you are behind you want to start a fight to change the dynamic.

But listening to the conspicuous non-denouncements ('people are entitled to their opinions') of supporters, I now see a more disturbing pattern.

* Attempting to define Obama by his race (Mr. Clinton: doesn't he remind you of Jesse Jackson?)

* Encouraging racial division (Texas Latino leader Adelfa Callejo: blacks didn't support us... we're not going to get over it soon)

* Stoking resentment to affirmative action (Ferraro: the black man is getting the job the white person should be getting)

* Reminding superdelegates that there are a lot of racists out there (PA governor Ed Rendell: lots of people here won't vote for a black man).


Even if I give Hillary the benefit of the doubt on the "as far as I know" religion comment, I can't help but see a campaign strategy at work.

* Attack Obama until he responds angrily on something.
* Portray Obama as the big angry scary black man who attacks the white women, takes the white people's jobs, and is on the other side of a racial struggle against Hispanics.
* Stir up enough racial animosity that superdelegates fear a racial backlash against Obama in November and give the nomination to Clinton "for the greater good"


I hope I am wrong. As a former Clinton supporter (met her and liked her, encouraged people to vote for her last year), I am deeply ashamed of this campaign's behavior.

She seems willing to "cut the child in two"; I wish the superdelegates the wisdom of Solomon.

Michelle

I heard she was pretty smart, but this was the first extended interview I've seen. It also reinforces a lot of what I am thinking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyBc33UjvDU

Obamacycling

Check this out:

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/barack-obama-supporters-learn-to-obamacycle/161582213

And see it in action:

http://www.obamacycle.com/forum/topic/show?id=1997397%3ATopic%3A1935&page=1&commentId=1997397%3AComment%3A5058&x=1

Oh what the heck, one more here:

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/video-interviewer-picks-the-wrong-obama-supporter-to-try-to-railroad/

How conspiracy theories are born

Dateline: Houston, Texas

Approximately 1:05 pm, February 14

Office phone rings. My phone is 713-4xx-xxxx... this is important.

It's a recording. Male voice says, this is a short 4 question political survey done on behalf of the American Research Group (a legit polling company, by the way).

Press (1) for Democratic Primary, (2) for Republican Primary. [1]

First Question: Hillary Clinton: (1) only person you'd vote for (2) preferred candidate, (3) acceptable but not preferred, (4) haven't heard of her, ... [3]

Second Question: Barack Obama: (1) only person you'd vote for (2) preferred candidate, (3) acceptable but not preferred, ... [2]

Third Question: Are you definitely planning to vote in the Primary on February 12? Press...

then the phone cuts out.

Now.

First of all, it is 100% possible the phone just cut off. We use wireless phones and they can be spotty. Now I've never had a line drop out during a call, but there was interference I could hear. So I'm willing to accept that the poll just happened to abort after I selected my preferred candidate.

But.

It cut off right on the words "February 12". Leaving them lingering in my mind.

Because the Texas primary is March 4.

Two coincidences?

Actually, it probably is. If you wanted to turn off someone's voters, you'd tell them the primary was *later* than it is, because believe me everyone will hear about the primary over the next 3 weeks. And there were elections in Virginia on Feb 12, and we have offices in Virginia, and though a Texas number was called...

See, it doesn't make sense either way. But, I tell you, that's how conspiracy theories are born.

And if anyone knows the phone # or email for American Research Group, I'd love to hear it.

[Edit #1: Found the number and left them a message.]

[Edit #2: Got a call from American Research Group. Their mistake, poll was being worked on and wasn't supposed to be running yet. They apologized and said it was fixed, thanks to my call. Totally true story. And why, perhaps, I'm not a conspiracy theorist at heart.]

[Edit #3: and the results]

The kind of things you don't read blogs for

Who said a blog can't be an electronic notepad?

Who said you can't use it to write up all the tedious things you've learned in one evening about home networking, such as:

• You can't string wireless routers together. Those are bridges.


• AT&T customer support doesn't care if the tech already told you it was the line coming into the apartment. They will make you get the modem off the carpet and remove the router.


• AT&T customer support doesn't care if you've told them that the problem is intermittent, they will still ask you after each test "is it working now?"


• AT&T customer support are very patient and polite, but have little sense of humor when you respond to their instruction to "now wait until the connection stabilizes" with a pithy "I've been waiting for two weeks now."


• AT&T's DSL technicians are the kind of folks you want as a neighbor to help you with projects. The kind that give you their phone number to call them directly next time. And they laugh. Now where was that number?


• Number of new networking devices purchased in the past 2 weeks: 4


• Number not actually needed: 2


• Number of additional network devices to be purchased this weekend: 2


• Things that can mess up your DSL line: other unfiltered phones, the test ringer the phone company puts on your line, dimmer switches, TVs, modems on carpet, aged modems, phone cords running parallel to the power cords, thin phone cords, long phone cords, logical network routers you cannot see, and apparently at least one more thing yet to be determined.


• Current Internet Crush: Slate magazine. Articles on "Stop hating on the new compact flourescent bulbs" plus a 30+ minute audio book club discussing Eat Pray Love. These are the people I want to invite over to drink the good stuff.


• Single worst thing your router can do to you: give bogus DHCP addresses. Hardcoded IP, subnet mask, default gateway, and DNS servers Ahoy! Remember to reprogram every time you plug directly into the modem to troubleshoot your DSL. And forget about talking to non-PC devices on your network. You don't even want to see the workaround.


• Why your Belkin Network USB hub won't let you connect to your USB devices: Because when you moved your PC and hub onto a new router daisy-chained to the old router, so your DHCP would work and they'd be on the same subnet, the Windows Firewall would not open up as many ports as the original setup, and your UDP packets would be dropped. Which you would see once you read all about the new Vista advanced firewall, with 3 separate modes and rule-builder interface. It's UDP port 19540 inbound that is being dropped, by the way. And no, it's not in the guide. [edit: okay, so it is in the troublehooting help... but who reads that?]


• Chance of your Voice-over-IP wireless router still giving you a dial tone after you daisy-chain it off the wired router that gives out proper DHCP addresses: Guess.


• Reason the remote iPod will not show up in iTunes while the remote digicam will copy pictures: not a clue


• It's one thing troubleshooting stuff like this for 7.5 hours. It's another to do so when your Internet connection bounces up and down constantly for hours at a time.

Do dentists wander around looking at people's teeth in their spare time? This computer stuff is like Invasion of the Body Snatchers sometimes.

Super Tuesday lessons

Here is what I expect we'll see tomorrow.

McCain has it won, not because he won everything (he won less than I thought), but because Huckabee won the south. Huck won 5 or so states, so he will not drop out. Neither will Romney, though Romney has to keep lending his own campaign money, while Huckabee gets by on free publicity. With both in, McCain builds a lead that is insurmountable.

Why won't one of them (Huck, Mitt) get out? Each thinks the other is a fake conservative, that is, Huck thinks Mitt isn't really a social conservative (those Mormons think Jesus and the Devil are brothers, right Mike?), while Mitt thinks Huck isn't a real economic conservative. Huck loathes the Wall Street crowd, and Mitt can't stand Mike's piousness... neither will back down and each would rather see McCain the nominee. They will both get their wish.

But the point of this blog was to analyze the Democratic results. There are too many easy headlines for the right one to be written, but luckily you came here.

The headline is, with McCain the Republican nominee, Obama has shown that he can compete in the swing states that will decide the election better than Clinton can.

Let's break it down.

Here is how the states will probably come out:

Clinton: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennesee. She previously won New Hampshire and Nevada. (Florida and Michigan were uncontested.)

Obama: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah. Previously: Iowa, South Carolina.

Obama got more states, Clinton got bigger ones, and the easy headline is "Split Decision" and stay tuned to sell more horserace newspapers. And certainly it is a tight race.

But.

In the 2004 election, 12 of the 50 states were decided by 5% or less. Six went Republican, six Democrat. Clinton doing well in Massachusetts or Obama doing well in Utah means little, as everybody knows how those states will vote.

Not everyone knows how these states will vote:
Colorado (+5%R)
Florida (+5%R)
Nevada (+3%R)
Ohio (+2%R)
Iowa (+1%R)
New Mexico (+1%R)

Wisconsin (+1%D)
New Hampshire (+1%D)
Michigan (+3%D)
Minnesota (+3%D)
Pennsylvania (+3%D)
Oregon (+4%D)

To win the 2008 Presidential election, Clinton or Obama needs to do well in these states. Maybe Virginia (+8%R) will be in play after electing its second straight Democratic governor and a Democratic senator. Other states may be up for grabs. Mostly it's about those above.

So let's break them down.

Colorado (+5%R) Obama by +33%
Florida (+5%R) not contested due to party rules
Nevada (+3%R) Clinton by 6%
Ohio (+2%R) not yet held (borders Obama's Illinois)
Iowa (+1%R) Obama by 8%
New Mexico (+1%R) exit polls show Obama by 5-10%
Wisconsin (+1%D) not yet held (borders Obama's Illinois and Minnesota below)
New Hampshire (+1%D) Clinton by 3%
Michigan (+3%D) not contested due to party rules
Minnesota (+3%D) Obama by 33%
Pennsylvania (+3%D) not yet held
Oregon (+4%D) not yet held

So the Clinton has won two contested presidential toss-up states (Nevada and New Hampshire) by an average of 5%, while Obama has won four by an average of 20%, with two more likely wins (Wisconsin, Ohio).

If Clinton has demonstrated an electability advantage, it is not in the midwest battleground states, but in strong support from Latino voters. Latino voters make up a sizable share in Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. Republicans will win Texas, and Democrats California. Republicans will also win Arizona, especially with McCain as their nominee. McCain's moderate and politically brave positions on immigration will make him competitive in Florida and New Mexico. Clinton won both Arizona and California tonight, but neither are tossups. She also won Florida, but as a front-runner with name recognition in an uncontested race. The only relevant Latino-heavy battleground she contested was New Mexico, which it seems she lost (or certainly did not dominate).

The point of all of that is to say, Clinton showed dominance in some Southwestern states, but not the one that mattered (save Nevada). All the other states she won tonight were either her home states, or their neighbors: New York plus Jersey and Massachusetts, and Arkansas plus Oklahoma and Tennessee. Democrats who know her well (home states and neighbors) are loyal to her. And she has a notable advantage over Obama in the Hispanic community, but that doesn't translate (except perhaps in Florida) to an electoral advantage.

Meanwhile, Obama plays well in the western states (Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico) that will be 2008 toss-ups, and has the potential through both increased African-American turnout and religious-inflected oratory worthy of a Southern preacher , to force a non-Southern non-evangelical McCain to play defense in states like Virginia and Louisiana.

Simply put, Obama probably plays better in Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Wisconsin, while Clinton probably only plays better in Florida and Nevada. New Mexico and Nevada are useful but ultimately likely to go to the Arizonan McCain.

To put a further, harsher, light on it, Democratic primary voters have been about 60% women, and the white and Latino women have tended to vote for Clinton. The (fewer) men (all races) have voted more heavily for Obama. In a general election, there will not be a 20% surplus of women voters, so the likely results in a general election in these tossup states would be more strongly for Obama.

Also, some states have closed primaries not allowing crucial swing independent voters. Now I think it is an easy mistake to make, to assume that the candidate with most crossover appeal will do the best, because political moderates usually fail to attract the kind of fanatic support needed to fight a general election. Here, though, Obama's crossover support from Independents and Republicans comes in spite of his most-liberal-in-the-senate voting record (Clinton is #16), and Obama no doubt has fanatic followers. So his crossover appeal doesn't come with the usual downside (ref: the attacks on McCain coming from Limbaugh and Co). And in an open contest (as the general election is), his comparative strength vs Clinton in e.g. New Mexico (closed) and California (closed) would be better.

Conclusion

Clinton has shown she can win in the Northeast, in her home states of Arkansas and New York, in their neighbors, and among Latino voter and older women. Obama has been able to win further outside his (smaller) "comfort zone", including important toss-up states and constituencies that will likely decide the 2008 election.

Hillary Clinton could win the 2008 election, but she would likely need to follow Al Gore's and John Kerry's electoral strategy, but either win Florida or Ohio, while defending marginal upper midwestern and rust belt states. Obama has more strategies available, being able to bring southern border states into play, likely having a native son advantage in the swing states of the upper midwest, with the ability to fight McCain for independents while having a comparatively more motivated political base.

Tonight showed (me at least) that Obama has a far greater chance of winning the presidency than Clinton does.

Key dates and questions ahead:

Saturday: Louisiana and Washington State. Can Obama energize enough turnout to potentially bring the Southern state into play? Or does the Arkansas-neighbor factor work in Clinton's favor? The Washington caucus gives a good sense of who is most competitive in the Northwest, ~+3% Democratic territory that must usually be defended in the general election. Chance for either candidate to demonstrate some electability chops.

Sunday: Maine caucus. Clinton won neighboring NH. Mostly a chance for a winner's picture in the Monday paper.

Tuesday: DC, Maryland, Virginia. DC will go huge Obama, not necessarily a great PR thing as it brings up the race issue. Maryland is reliable Democrat. Virginia is a potential swing state. A big win by Clinton or Obama here gets electability points.

Week Tuesday (Feb 19). Wisconsin. Obama should romp here as a setup to Ohio below. If so, great mo. If not, will send wave of second thoughts.

March 4. Texas and Ohio. Beginning of the end. If Obama can win Ohio (a critical swing state with a modified-open primary), while holding his own in Texas (unwinnable for Dems but demonstrating reasonable competitiveness for Latino voters), he will make a strong case for the electability crown and try to get the establishment (especially superdelegates) behind him. Clinton will spin Ohio as home-field advantage for Obama and hold out for April 22 in Pennsylvania. But that is 6 weeks later, and McCain will be running ads for the general election. Dems will want to shut this game down. Besides, Ohio/Texas is a lot of delegates. If either candidate is within shouting distance of the nomination, there will be tremendous pressure for superdelegates to line up and end it. Obama's trump card is hope that the electability scenario peels off Clinton's superdelegates. Clinton's trump is trying to reinstate the Florida and Michigan delegates she won uncontested.

Stay tuned.

quick funny

Today's smile: http://lolinator.com/lol/alittledistracted.blogspot.com/

What New Hampshire tells us about identity politics

I've heard a lot of questions about what happened in New Hampshire. That is, (1) why were the polls for the Democratic primary off by such a large amount, and (2) how did Hillary Clinton recover so much in the last day or so before the vote?

The answer may include the Iowa "bounce" subsiding after polls ended, independents voting McCain due to Obama being a "lock", and of course, the "tears". The last is most commonly cited, but least understood.

I believe the way to understand this is in terms of Clinton successfully awakening older women to their gender identity. An excellent article on this:

http://iht.com/articles/2008/01/10/america/women.php

The end of that article includes the following point:

In interviews, some Democratic women over 40, who said they had experienced stinging sexism, seemed to long for the election of a female president - they said Clinton would fill the role just fine - as a grand moment of validation.

But younger women, who have grown up in a world of greater parity, seemed less likely to allow gender to influence their vote.

In some cases, this split is playing out within families. Myra Dinnerstein, 73, a former professor of women's studies at the University of Arizona, said Clinton's setbacks had saddened and angered her.

"I used to tell my students that I would never live to see a woman president, and now that there has been a golden opportunity, we are letting it slip away," Dinnerstein said.

A few hours later, after hearing about Clinton's victory in the New Hampshire primary, she sent out a celebratory e-mail message: "Hurrah! I think women got as mad as I was, seeing Hillary trashed. I think they realized that 'the gender thing' exists."

But Dinnerstein's daughter, Julie Dinnerstein, 39, who works for a nonprofit feminist organization in New York, said she would vote for Obama in the Feb. 5 primary.

"Senator Clinton's struggles are not my own, and they are not those of my generation of women," the younger Dinnerstein said. "The idea of a woman being president just does not seem to be as powerful or as revolutionary to me as it does to feminists of my mother's generation."

This reminds me of comments I saw after Obama's surge, and that I continue to see, talking about race. For the generation of people in their 40s and older, who grew up in the 60s, there is a great consciousness of race and gender that filters how they see politics and life. This consciousness enabled many to push for important changes. It also led to (or merely flushed out latent) resentment among others at these changes.

The sometimes bitter irony of the struggle for change is that it often obsoletes the reason for its existence. Progress has been made; both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are entirely credible and viable presidential candidates. Part of this, however, is because they are not primarily seen in terms of their gender or race, respectively.

That's not to say that all problems and prejudices are past. Rather, to paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke, it's that folks learn that hating someone based on their gender or race is sloppy, when if you get to know people there are so many better reasons to hate them. The political left and right have both seen Margaret Thatchers and Clarence Thomases. For every sexist who grudgingly admits that a woman can run a good war, there's a progressive dismayed that someone's skin color doesn't make them an ally. As a generation grows up with consumption- and ambition-driven two-income families, as new external enemies are defined and new waves of discomforting immigrants arrive, the old lower social classes (like the Italians, Irish, Poles, non-landowning, etc) earn their stripes, become the upperclassmen.

As a society, we are slowly moving past the identity politics of the 60s. The 21st century identity politics are those of religion and language. Perhaps in 2040 we will make a fuss of the agnostic or Muslim candidate, or the Spanish-speaking nominee whose parents were granted amnesty by Reagan. Her conservative politics will make us voice suspicion or dismay, and our children will wonder what the fuss is.

Today, though, Democratic voters are in a tug of war between the grandparents who aspire to win the battles of their lives through Hillary Clinton, and their children who look to move past both those battles and the identity politics they represent through Barack Obama.