Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Furl
Google
Reddit
Stumbleupon
Y! MyWebCOMMENTARY
Martin Gottlieb: Biden's 'Bosniaks' line befuddles the 'Roseniaks'
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
In the vice presidential debate, Sen. Joe Biden, in talking about Bosnia, referred to the "Bosniaks." He was immediately and widely criticized for mis-speaking, given that he obviously should have said "Bosnians."
The criticism came on the Internet and elsewhere, often from advocates for Gov. Sarah Palin who loved the idea of him goofing up (to use words Palin might like), rather than her.
But not all the pouncers were partisans. On the Charlie Rose show that night on PBS, a gaggle of distinguished people gathered. When the subject turned to gaffes, veteran journalist Cokie Roberts said, "He talked about the 'Bosniaks.' "
There was general laughter and some inaudible commentary.
Whoever put together the transcript heard Roberts then say, "If she said Bosniak, everybody would be making a big deal of it."
Apparently some distinguished students of the American political scene never got much into Bosnia when it was in the news. In fact, "Bosniaks" (or "Bosniacs") is the correct term. It refers to the Bosnian Muslims, the religious group that identifies most strongly with the idea of a Bosnia. (Serbs and Croats in Bosnia have some emotional ties to neighboring Serbia and Croatia.)
Beyond not knowing the word, the Charlie Rose crew — including two veteran Washington reporters — also apparently didn't know that Biden really does know Bosnia. He's seen in Bosnia as one of the American politicians who gets the subject. He was once the keynote speaker at the annual Bosnia event in Dayton, putting forth a speech that was unmistakably expert (and right-headed).
Ohio focus intensifies as Michigan fades
The news that the McCain campaign has pulled out of Michigan is important for Ohio, because it will intensify the focus of the campaigns here even beyond the intense level that already prevailed.
For the last few months, Ohio hasn't always stood alone as the battleground. Rather, the campaigns have focused on a bunch of states, including the likes of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida. When the list diminishes, it's precisely because the strategists have decided to narrow the number of states they put their limited resources into.
But Michigan was always dubious as a battleground, close early polls there notwithstanding. It has gone Democratic in recent presidential elections that the Republicans have won. And economic trends there since 2004 favor the Democrats. If the Democrats can't count on Michigan, they are in deep trouble.
Meanwhile, it should be noted that all this talk about Ohio being crucial is based upon the assumption of a very close election. That assumption should not be made.
Seems like an obvious point, but, in fact, the assumption has prevailed, at least until recently. When the experts don't know how an election will turn out, they assume the reason they don't know is that it will be close. Sometimes the reason is just that they're not getting something.
Obama lead isn't just
a Wall Street thing
Pardon me while I gnash some teeth.
OK, so Sen. Barack Obama comes from behind to take this lead in the polls, and everybody — but everybody — says this is about the meltdown on Wall Street and the implicit admission of the Republican administration that its time in office has led to a national crisis so dire that the party's anti-big-government dogma must be put aside.
Well, yes, of course, that explains a lot about the polls.
But what's that line from Camelot: "Don't let it be forgot"?
Don't let it be forgot that some people were saying all along that — Palin bounce or no Palin bounce — ultimately Obama was going to win. (Some alert readers might know where I'm going with this.) Allan Lichtman's system for predicting the outcome of presidential elections said months ago that this is simply the Democrats' year and they will win, at least, the popular vote.
That prediction was reported and embraced in this space more than once, even before both the presidential nominees were known.
You can look at the meltdown and say that Lichtman got lucky. But this could make seven presidential elections in a row in which he got lucky. In some of those cases, he was cutting directly against the conventional grain with his prediction or making early calls when everybody else was in a too-close-to-call mode.
But what are they
really saying here?
A lot of Republican politicos — politicians, strategists, media henchmen — have two opinions about Sarah Palin: (1) her qualifications for the presidency are lacking, and (2) she has performed the extraordinarily useful task of "energizing the base" of the Republican Party.
Doesn't that combination of views imply a pretty low opinion of the base?
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News. He may be reached at 225-2288 or by e-mail at mgottlieb@DaytonDailyNews.com.
