(I just can’t help myself.)
So hey, good speech. After three days locked away with the best speechwriting talent that Republican money can buy, with a crowd primed and ready to cheer her on, Sarah Palin succeeded … maybe not surprisingly, but admirably.
I didn’t watch the whole speech, I’ll admit. My wife and I have been watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer on DVD lately, so we switched between butt-kickin’ heroines. And I don’t have a problem with saying Palin kicked a little butt last night. She had a great line about Obama’s foolish “bitter” comment. She had a slightly less great line about community organizers—actually pretty snide and unfair, but the crowd Luuuved it. And she got in a dig at Michelle Obama by saying how small town Americans “always” are proud of their country.
OK, so we know from this speech that she can attack the Obamas and media. And we know that John McCain is a great man. What else ya got?
At some point the R ticket really has to answer with something beside “Obama stinks.” They have to talk about the economy, about health care, about home foreclosures. They have to address education and energy—something beyond “we’ve got plenty of oil and gas on the North Range”—which, environmental concerns aside, simply isn’t true.
As they noted last night, great speeches aren’t enough. Vision is also required. And Sarah Palin’s Christianist, anti-choice, social Darwinist, anti-science vision of America is not a vision of this country’s future. It’s a vision of the past.
Speaking of a vision of the past, it was hard not to notice the Unbearable Whiteness of Being Republican last night when the cameras panned around the convention center. I mean, I expect to see fewer minorities at the RNC, but come on. I could count the number of African Americans I saw on one hand.
Now, how should the Obama camp respond to Palin’s speech? I’m thinking: the less said, the better. Let the R’s have their moment. Don’t come down like a ton of bricks on Palin and make her an even more sympathetic figure. Let McCain’s public nap, I mean, speech tonight pop the balloon all by itself. Or, if by chance he actually can match Palin (pretty unlikely, don’t you think?), give a lot of attention to the media’s fact checking.
For Palin,
it wasn’t pretty:
PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."
THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."
PALIN: "There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate."
THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. To demean that accomplishment would be to also demean the work of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected foreign policy voice in the Senate. In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation.
PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.
(see the AP story for much more.)
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Behind the Veil
A conservative friend just emailed me with some fairly boilerplate comments from Peggy Noonan (legendary conservative speechwriter for those of you unfamiliar). In those comments, she says the Left is going to attack Palin for being a strong conservative woman, it will get brutal, they're going to try to "kill her," etc.
The message, much as Fred Thompson (FRED! Good to see you again!) suggested last night, is that the Liberals and the Big Bad Media are in a panic over the virtuousness of Sarah Palin and her cause.
Riiiiiiight.
The truth is, this is just a lot of faux outrage. The McCain campaign is desperate. I know I use that word a lot, but time after time, it's the most appropriate for what McCain is doing. They're trying to whip up the conservative base and whatever women they can peel off, and they think they can do it by telling you the Liberal Media is Out To Get Sarah.
But behind the scenes, there's another story. Here's Peggy Noonan caught on an open mic saying "It's over," in reference to the McCain campaign, and calling the Palin-as-victim narrative "political bullshit."
And here's Joe Klein talking about how the McCain campaign is trying to bully the media into going easy on Palin.
Don't fall for the spin.
The message, much as Fred Thompson (FRED! Good to see you again!) suggested last night, is that the Liberals and the Big Bad Media are in a panic over the virtuousness of Sarah Palin and her cause.
Riiiiiiight.
The truth is, this is just a lot of faux outrage. The McCain campaign is desperate. I know I use that word a lot, but time after time, it's the most appropriate for what McCain is doing. They're trying to whip up the conservative base and whatever women they can peel off, and they think they can do it by telling you the Liberal Media is Out To Get Sarah.
But behind the scenes, there's another story. Here's Peggy Noonan caught on an open mic saying "It's over," in reference to the McCain campaign, and calling the Palin-as-victim narrative "political bullshit."
And here's Joe Klein talking about how the McCain campaign is trying to bully the media into going easy on Palin.
Don't fall for the spin.
No Accountability
This is depressing.
I think Gov. Sarah Palin is a bright and likable politician. She has a lovely family, and they are due privacy and respect. Her resume doesn’t have nearly enough meat to it to qualify her for vice president, in my opinion, but I know there are plenty of people who say the same about Barack Obama’s qualifications.
It just is kind of painful to see a promising career being trashed by the Republican Party.
That’s not a typo. The McCain campaign is lashing out at the media, as they’ve been lashing out at liberal bloggers and the Obama camp, trying to whip up a backlash against legitimate questions surround Palin and the McCain vetting process.
But it’s not the media or political opponents who are really doing the damage here.
By any standard, McCain botched his selection. Even if you accept the premise that Palin is qualified and her various issues are not serious enough to disqualify her, can anyone argue that McCain shouldn’t have handled this better? Made the decision earlier so that some of these issues wouldn’t be a huge distraction during the convention, maybe? Huddled with Palin more than one brief meeting in February so she’d be prepared for the media onslaught? Float a trial balloon, as he did with a possible Lieberman pick?
Instead, we’ve had a media circus entirely created by the McCain campaign’s incompetence. And what has that campaign done to address the questions that have come up? Have they had Palin sit down with select reporters to answer questions? Have they had a press conference? Have they even let her speak?
No. They’ve hidden her away, started stonewalling, hired the lawyers, and unleashed the GOP surrogates to attack the media and try to muddy the issues.
It’s really kind of disgusting. And it’s exactly the same Rovian, deflect-accountability-at-all-cost mindset that we’ve seen so often from the Bush Administration.
Do we really want another administration like that?
Palin will most likely give a good speech tonight. And the Republican faithful will continue to do their admirable mental gymnastics in embracing a political neophyte as the possible next President of the United States, an abstinence-promoting Family Values candidate with her own personal issues, a straight-talkin’ reformer who hides from the press and the American people.
It’s quite a spectacle.
Whatever Sarah Palin’s done, she doesn’t deserve this. And she has Sen. McCain, and the Bush GOP, to thank.
I think Gov. Sarah Palin is a bright and likable politician. She has a lovely family, and they are due privacy and respect. Her resume doesn’t have nearly enough meat to it to qualify her for vice president, in my opinion, but I know there are plenty of people who say the same about Barack Obama’s qualifications.
It just is kind of painful to see a promising career being trashed by the Republican Party.
That’s not a typo. The McCain campaign is lashing out at the media, as they’ve been lashing out at liberal bloggers and the Obama camp, trying to whip up a backlash against legitimate questions surround Palin and the McCain vetting process.
But it’s not the media or political opponents who are really doing the damage here.
By any standard, McCain botched his selection. Even if you accept the premise that Palin is qualified and her various issues are not serious enough to disqualify her, can anyone argue that McCain shouldn’t have handled this better? Made the decision earlier so that some of these issues wouldn’t be a huge distraction during the convention, maybe? Huddled with Palin more than one brief meeting in February so she’d be prepared for the media onslaught? Float a trial balloon, as he did with a possible Lieberman pick?
Instead, we’ve had a media circus entirely created by the McCain campaign’s incompetence. And what has that campaign done to address the questions that have come up? Have they had Palin sit down with select reporters to answer questions? Have they had a press conference? Have they even let her speak?
No. They’ve hidden her away, started stonewalling, hired the lawyers, and unleashed the GOP surrogates to attack the media and try to muddy the issues.
It’s really kind of disgusting. And it’s exactly the same Rovian, deflect-accountability-at-all-cost mindset that we’ve seen so often from the Bush Administration.
Do we really want another administration like that?
Palin will most likely give a good speech tonight. And the Republican faithful will continue to do their admirable mental gymnastics in embracing a political neophyte as the possible next President of the United States, an abstinence-promoting Family Values candidate with her own personal issues, a straight-talkin’ reformer who hides from the press and the American people.
It’s quite a spectacle.
Whatever Sarah Palin’s done, she doesn’t deserve this. And she has Sen. McCain, and the Bush GOP, to thank.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Country First - A Case Study
“ST. PAUL — A series of disclosures about Gov. Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain’s choice as running mate, called into question on Monday how thoroughly Mr. McCain had examined her background before putting her on the Republican presidential ticket.
On Monday morning, Ms. Palin and her husband, Todd, issued a statement saying that their 17-year-old unmarried daughter, Bristol, was five months pregnant and that she intended to marry the father.
Among other less attention-grabbing news of the day: it was learned that Ms. Palin now has a private lawyer in a legislative ethics investigation in Alaska into whether she abused her power in dismissing the state’s public safety commissioner; that she was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede; and that Mr. Palin was arrested 22 years ago on a drunken-driving charge.
Aides to Mr. McCain said they had a team on the ground in Alaska now to look more thoroughly into Ms. Palin’s background. A Republican with ties to the campaign said the team assigned to vet Ms. Palin in Alaska had not arrived there until Thursday, a day before Mr. McCain stunned the political world with his vice-presidential choice. The campaign was still calling Republican operatives as late as Sunday night asking them to go to Alaska to deal with the unexpected candidacy of Ms. Palin.
Although the McCain campaign said that Mr. McCain had known about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy before he asked her mother to join him on the ticket and that he did not consider it disqualifying, top aides were vague on Monday about how and when he had learned of the pregnancy, and from whom.”
New York Times, Elisabeth Bumiller, 9-2-08
The question is not about Sarah Palin’s experience or lack thereof, it is not about her daughter, it is not about 22-year-old drunken-driving charges. It is about the judgment and decision-making process of Sen. John McCain. The conventional wisdom was that the VP pick says a lot about how a candidate would approach his duties as President of the United States.
McCain had met Palin once before calling her to come to Arizona and do the final interview for the VP slot.
Is there any other case in memory of a candidate for President acting so hastily, so rashly, in a decision of this magnitude?
This is putting country first?
update: It appears that Sarah Palin was not a member of the AIP, but her husband was, and they both attended one of the group's conferences. The McCain campaign is pushing back hard against some of these issues, but both McCain and Palin have canceled interviews and appearances. Hiding won't help.
On Monday morning, Ms. Palin and her husband, Todd, issued a statement saying that their 17-year-old unmarried daughter, Bristol, was five months pregnant and that she intended to marry the father.
Among other less attention-grabbing news of the day: it was learned that Ms. Palin now has a private lawyer in a legislative ethics investigation in Alaska into whether she abused her power in dismissing the state’s public safety commissioner; that she was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede; and that Mr. Palin was arrested 22 years ago on a drunken-driving charge.
Aides to Mr. McCain said they had a team on the ground in Alaska now to look more thoroughly into Ms. Palin’s background. A Republican with ties to the campaign said the team assigned to vet Ms. Palin in Alaska had not arrived there until Thursday, a day before Mr. McCain stunned the political world with his vice-presidential choice. The campaign was still calling Republican operatives as late as Sunday night asking them to go to Alaska to deal with the unexpected candidacy of Ms. Palin.
Although the McCain campaign said that Mr. McCain had known about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy before he asked her mother to join him on the ticket and that he did not consider it disqualifying, top aides were vague on Monday about how and when he had learned of the pregnancy, and from whom.”
New York Times, Elisabeth Bumiller, 9-2-08
The question is not about Sarah Palin’s experience or lack thereof, it is not about her daughter, it is not about 22-year-old drunken-driving charges. It is about the judgment and decision-making process of Sen. John McCain. The conventional wisdom was that the VP pick says a lot about how a candidate would approach his duties as President of the United States.
McCain had met Palin once before calling her to come to Arizona and do the final interview for the VP slot.
Is there any other case in memory of a candidate for President acting so hastily, so rashly, in a decision of this magnitude?
This is putting country first?
update: It appears that Sarah Palin was not a member of the AIP, but her husband was, and they both attended one of the group's conferences. The McCain campaign is pushing back hard against some of these issues, but both McCain and Palin have canceled interviews and appearances. Hiding won't help.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Palin by comparison
Well, I’m two for two in picking VPs …
Of course, I never actually predicted Gov. Sarah Palin would be McCain’s pick, just said I wondered if he would go that direction.
Ah, what the heck, close enough. I rule!!!
To use a tired cliché, what we have here is two candidates swinging for the fences. The reviews suggest that Obama hit a home run Thursday night, and judging from the conservative blogs, the Palin pick seems like a solid hit at least. But I wonder about the long-term effect.
As I noted before, Palin has some upside. And she might be a better matchup than some others in a VP debate with Biden. Despite her being inexperienced in foreign policy, Biden will have to tread carefully in the debate. It won’t be a repeat of the Bentsen-Quayle debate.
However, over time, I can’t help but believe that people are going to start thinking about that big “what if?” What if Sarah Palin becomes President of the United States due to something unfortunate happening to McCain? He’s not a young guy, he’s had health problems. People should and will ask that question. How will that prospect sit with people?
Obviously, McCain’s camp has decided to double down on “maverick” and double-fault on “inexperienced” as campaign themes. It’s a risky and bold move. Or desperate. Probably depends on your point of view.
There's a lot of discussion on how the Obama campaign should "attack" the pick. My thought is that they shouldn't spend too much time on it at all. People aren't voting for the VPs. They're voting for the top of the ticket. And this pick is significant not for what it says about Palin's experience, but for what it says about McCain's judgment and decision-making.
Other random thoughts:
Funny that the Republican candidates for president and vice president can’t stop talking about how great Hillary Clinton is.
Gotta feel for Tim Pawlenty. He worked very, very hard for McCain. Not much of a payoff.
Of course, I never actually predicted Gov. Sarah Palin would be McCain’s pick, just said I wondered if he would go that direction.
Ah, what the heck, close enough. I rule!!!
To use a tired cliché, what we have here is two candidates swinging for the fences. The reviews suggest that Obama hit a home run Thursday night, and judging from the conservative blogs, the Palin pick seems like a solid hit at least. But I wonder about the long-term effect.
As I noted before, Palin has some upside. And she might be a better matchup than some others in a VP debate with Biden. Despite her being inexperienced in foreign policy, Biden will have to tread carefully in the debate. It won’t be a repeat of the Bentsen-Quayle debate.
However, over time, I can’t help but believe that people are going to start thinking about that big “what if?” What if Sarah Palin becomes President of the United States due to something unfortunate happening to McCain? He’s not a young guy, he’s had health problems. People should and will ask that question. How will that prospect sit with people?
Obviously, McCain’s camp has decided to double down on “maverick” and double-fault on “inexperienced” as campaign themes. It’s a risky and bold move. Or desperate. Probably depends on your point of view.
There's a lot of discussion on how the Obama campaign should "attack" the pick. My thought is that they shouldn't spend too much time on it at all. People aren't voting for the VPs. They're voting for the top of the ticket. And this pick is significant not for what it says about Palin's experience, but for what it says about McCain's judgment and decision-making.
Other random thoughts:
Funny that the Republican candidates for president and vice president can’t stop talking about how great Hillary Clinton is.
Gotta feel for Tim Pawlenty. He worked very, very hard for McCain. Not much of a payoff.
Friday, August 29, 2008
5 Reasons Why My Head is Exploding
1. Who are you, and what have done with Pat Buchanan???
2. Most serious case of political whiplash in the last 50 years:
Last night: McCain camp slams “meager record” of Obama. “Barack Obama is still not ready to be President.”
Today: McCain names his VP pick: 44-year-old Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska for two whole years. Before that: Mayor of Wasilla. Ready on day one, right?
3. Great speech aside, Barack Obama sums up a winning rationale for his candidacy in one word:
“ENOUGH!”
4. Thanks to TPM, a potatoe-worthy moment from the McCain Store. (image taken from McCain Web site, spelling since corrected.)
5. Gaffe Riots: They’ve been waaay overshadowed by everything else, but a couple of R bigwigs have said some monumentally dumb things in the past two days. Karl Rove says that because of things like inconvenient hurricanes, Republicans can’t catch a break. (The people of New Orleans feel for you, Karl.) And a guy that helped write the McCain health care policy (there’s some dispute about his exact relationship to the campaign) says that we can solve the health care problem of 45 million uninsured people by simply not calling them uninsured anymore. After all, he says, they can always go the emergency room.
2. Most serious case of political whiplash in the last 50 years:
Last night: McCain camp slams “meager record” of Obama. “Barack Obama is still not ready to be President.”
Today: McCain names his VP pick: 44-year-old Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska for two whole years. Before that: Mayor of Wasilla. Ready on day one, right?
3. Great speech aside, Barack Obama sums up a winning rationale for his candidacy in one word:
“ENOUGH!”
4. Thanks to TPM, a potatoe-worthy moment from the McCain Store. (image taken from McCain Web site, spelling since corrected.)
5. Gaffe Riots: They’ve been waaay overshadowed by everything else, but a couple of R bigwigs have said some monumentally dumb things in the past two days. Karl Rove says that because of things like inconvenient hurricanes, Republicans can’t catch a break. (The people of New Orleans feel for you, Karl.) And a guy that helped write the McCain health care policy (there’s some dispute about his exact relationship to the campaign) says that we can solve the health care problem of 45 million uninsured people by simply not calling them uninsured anymore. After all, he says, they can always go the emergency room.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
History
Remember when we were wishing for the primary season to be over and that the Dems would finally, finally settle on a candidate?
Well, they have.
"DENVER — Sen. Barack Obama was nominated by his party on Wednesday to be the 44th president of the United States, becoming the first African-American to receive a major party nomination.
With a unanimous vote, the freshman senator from Illinois defeated the first family of Democratic Party politics with a call for a fundamentally new course in politics.
It brought to an end an often-bitter two-year political struggle for the nomination with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who, standing on a packed convention floor electric with anticipation, moved to halt the roll call in progress so that the convention could nominate Obama by acclamation."
Adam Nagouney, NYT
I spent the evening cooking dinner, trying to get my kids to eat, cleaning up dinner, getting their DVD started, taking out the garbage, and putting them to bed. My wife was working her second job until after the kids were in bed. Just an average day for us, but a very significant day in American history.
I didn't see any of the speeches, but heard a little today on NPR. In order to keep from clogging the blog with video boxes, I'll just put one up. Bill Clinton was very good, from what I heard. John Kerry got rave reviews from the left, don't know how he sounded to others. And if you get a chance to see Beau Biden's short intro to his dad's speech, that's good too. But the one I was most interested in was Joe Biden's. Here it is.
Well, they have.
"DENVER — Sen. Barack Obama was nominated by his party on Wednesday to be the 44th president of the United States, becoming the first African-American to receive a major party nomination.
With a unanimous vote, the freshman senator from Illinois defeated the first family of Democratic Party politics with a call for a fundamentally new course in politics.
It brought to an end an often-bitter two-year political struggle for the nomination with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who, standing on a packed convention floor electric with anticipation, moved to halt the roll call in progress so that the convention could nominate Obama by acclamation."
Adam Nagouney, NYT
I spent the evening cooking dinner, trying to get my kids to eat, cleaning up dinner, getting their DVD started, taking out the garbage, and putting them to bed. My wife was working her second job until after the kids were in bed. Just an average day for us, but a very significant day in American history.
I didn't see any of the speeches, but heard a little today on NPR. In order to keep from clogging the blog with video boxes, I'll just put one up. Bill Clinton was very good, from what I heard. John Kerry got rave reviews from the left, don't know how he sounded to others. And if you get a chance to see Beau Biden's short intro to his dad's speech, that's good too. But the one I was most interested in was Joe Biden's. Here it is.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
“Let’s never forget, we’re the real story, not them.”
“What do you think the Devil is going to look like if he's around? Nobody is going to be taken in if he has a long, red, pointy tail. No. I'm semi-serious here. He will look attractive and he will be nice and helpful and he will get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation and he will never do an evil thing... he will just bit by little bit lower standards where they are important. Just coax along flash over substance... Just a tiny bit.” – Aaron Altman, Broadcast News
I was thinking of Broadcast News last night, because I was more or less fuming at the empty suits the major networks are using to cover the DNC.
Now, I’ve gone out of my way in the past to defend the media. It’s an easy target that everyone likes to pick on. When you feel strongly about a party or a candidate you’re bound to see bias in the way that the media covers elections. It’s pretty much human nature. So I don’t buy the “the media has a political axe to grind” conspiracy theories for the most part.
But last night was a shining example of how it’s not the bias, it’s the stupidity that is the real problem with television news coverage of politics.
I was trying to watch the gosh-darned convention, and I couldn’t because these plastic people were talking nonstop, telling me what I should think about the convention. On six out of the seven channels, the pundits were blathering on over the speakers. At one point, one of them was saying, “The Democrats should be attacking McCain more!” I then turned to PBS (the one channel that seemed to actually allow us to see the convention speakers not named Clinton) and the guy at the podium was bashing McCain! At the very same time! If the pundit had turned around and listened for one minute, he’d have seen the very thing he claimed was missing!
And then there was the reaction to Clinton’s speech. I turned to Fox News and they were somberly saying how she didn’t seem to “really” praise Obama and support his candidacy. I then turned to CNN and they were saying what a great job she did in praising Obama and supporting his candidacy.
It just goes to show how useless these pundits are. Let’s be honest, most of them are paid to look good in a suit and speak clearly. They’re not great thinkers. They don’t even have to be well-informed, obviously.
So why are they on my television??
If you missed it, here’s Sen. Clinton and Mark Warner. Warner’s speech was more low-key, but a good message for Democrats, I think. “This election is not about liberal versus conservative. It’s not about left versus right. It’s about the future versus the past.”
I was thinking of Broadcast News last night, because I was more or less fuming at the empty suits the major networks are using to cover the DNC.
Now, I’ve gone out of my way in the past to defend the media. It’s an easy target that everyone likes to pick on. When you feel strongly about a party or a candidate you’re bound to see bias in the way that the media covers elections. It’s pretty much human nature. So I don’t buy the “the media has a political axe to grind” conspiracy theories for the most part.
But last night was a shining example of how it’s not the bias, it’s the stupidity that is the real problem with television news coverage of politics.
I was trying to watch the gosh-darned convention, and I couldn’t because these plastic people were talking nonstop, telling me what I should think about the convention. On six out of the seven channels, the pundits were blathering on over the speakers. At one point, one of them was saying, “The Democrats should be attacking McCain more!” I then turned to PBS (the one channel that seemed to actually allow us to see the convention speakers not named Clinton) and the guy at the podium was bashing McCain! At the very same time! If the pundit had turned around and listened for one minute, he’d have seen the very thing he claimed was missing!
And then there was the reaction to Clinton’s speech. I turned to Fox News and they were somberly saying how she didn’t seem to “really” praise Obama and support his candidacy. I then turned to CNN and they were saying what a great job she did in praising Obama and supporting his candidacy.
It just goes to show how useless these pundits are. Let’s be honest, most of them are paid to look good in a suit and speak clearly. They’re not great thinkers. They don’t even have to be well-informed, obviously.
So why are they on my television??
If you missed it, here’s Sen. Clinton and Mark Warner. Warner’s speech was more low-key, but a good message for Democrats, I think. “This election is not about liberal versus conservative. It’s not about left versus right. It’s about the future versus the past.”
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Monday, August 25, 2008
Morning, Joe
So, we just got back from a few days on the North Shore, far from the city, jobs, internet connections, etc.
Did anything happen over the weekend?
Oh, that. Well, I can now crow about how I correctly picked Biden as Obama's VP choice. Me and about 4 billion other people.
I think it's a good choice; every candidate would've had strengths and weaknesses, but I like Biden's working-class background and lengthy foreign policy resume. All indications are that Biden will make an effective attack dog--and there seems to be some consensus around the idea that Obama needs one.
As I mentioned below, I also think the selection of Biden complicates things for McCain in picking a VP. Going with Pawlenty, who I think was a top contender, seems a little more dicey now because Biden might really take him apart in the VP debate, and might seem more "vice-presidential" in general. I'm kind of a fan of Pawlenty, but I really don't see that comparison working too well for the R's.
But then who does McCain go with? Romney was the other strong contender, but this whole "housing confusion" issue has got to make the McCain camp skittish about picking another ultra-wealthy guy. So now what? The Lieberman/Ridge trial balloon has not gone well for McCain, the R base is just not going to go for a pro-choice VP pick. Who does that leave?
You got me. I wonder if McCain might pick Sarah Palin or Carly Fiorina. One of the big problems demographically for McCain is that women break strongly for Obama (and in general for D candidates). However, with the Hillary issue, McCain seems to think he has an opening to pull in a few more women voters who are dissatisfied with how the Dem. primary came out. I personally doubt that the Hillary issue is that big of a deal, but McCain has been pushing that button pretty hard. So maybe go with a woman VP? That would also make it harder for Biden to dominate the VP debate--he would have to worry about coming on too strong against a female candidate and generating a backlash.
The problem for McCain is that most of the likely women contenders have their own downsides (lack of experience, for one). Hey, maybe he'll pick Michelle Bachmann. She's about as pro-life as you can get, a very gung-ho supporter of the military, and a poster girl for the religious right. She's also a little crazy, but in a pleasant, photogenic way.
Come on, John. Shake things up a little! McCain/Bachmann 08!
Did anything happen over the weekend?
Oh, that. Well, I can now crow about how I correctly picked Biden as Obama's VP choice. Me and about 4 billion other people.
I think it's a good choice; every candidate would've had strengths and weaknesses, but I like Biden's working-class background and lengthy foreign policy resume. All indications are that Biden will make an effective attack dog--and there seems to be some consensus around the idea that Obama needs one.
As I mentioned below, I also think the selection of Biden complicates things for McCain in picking a VP. Going with Pawlenty, who I think was a top contender, seems a little more dicey now because Biden might really take him apart in the VP debate, and might seem more "vice-presidential" in general. I'm kind of a fan of Pawlenty, but I really don't see that comparison working too well for the R's.
But then who does McCain go with? Romney was the other strong contender, but this whole "housing confusion" issue has got to make the McCain camp skittish about picking another ultra-wealthy guy. So now what? The Lieberman/Ridge trial balloon has not gone well for McCain, the R base is just not going to go for a pro-choice VP pick. Who does that leave?
You got me. I wonder if McCain might pick Sarah Palin or Carly Fiorina. One of the big problems demographically for McCain is that women break strongly for Obama (and in general for D candidates). However, with the Hillary issue, McCain seems to think he has an opening to pull in a few more women voters who are dissatisfied with how the Dem. primary came out. I personally doubt that the Hillary issue is that big of a deal, but McCain has been pushing that button pretty hard. So maybe go with a woman VP? That would also make it harder for Biden to dominate the VP debate--he would have to worry about coming on too strong against a female candidate and generating a backlash.
The problem for McCain is that most of the likely women contenders have their own downsides (lack of experience, for one). Hey, maybe he'll pick Michelle Bachmann. She's about as pro-life as you can get, a very gung-ho supporter of the military, and a poster girl for the religious right. She's also a little crazy, but in a pleasant, photogenic way.
Come on, John. Shake things up a little! McCain/Bachmann 08!
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Always a Risky Tactic
"In one sense, the grand experiment at the heart of the Obama campaign is an effort to win the election by speaking to the voters like adults."
From a post at TPM.
From a post at TPM.
Recipe for a Landslide: Let Obama be Obama
People on the Obama side of this year’s election are little stressed right now. The polls are starting to look better for McCain (he’s up five points in one poll today), and there’s the whole slimy “Obama is a celebrity” attack ad phenomenon—which reminds people of Swiftboating and seems to be working, unfortunately. Plus the Georgian crisis plays into McCain’s strengths. And now that “Saddleback” forum, where McCain got good-to-glowing reviews, has a lot of people worried. Shocking, isn’t it, that a conservative evangelical forum, where McCain tells the audience what it wants to hear and Obama doesn’t, turns out to work better for McCain?
I understand the anxiety. But the campaign really has barely gotten out of the starting gate at this point. We have VPs to pick, conventions to get through, debates, and any number of new, unforeseen developments ahead of us as the race progresses.
To me, the odds are still strongly in Obama’s favor. In fact, if I were to bet, I would bet that Obama will win decisively in the fall. Keep in mind, I’ve been very wrong before. But just looking at the challenges before both candidates, I like Obama’s chances much better. And I think the key to his chances is to let him be himself.
Town hall meetings are fine, and Obama should keep doing them. But he also needs to do rallies, speeches, and big events to fire up his base and get the attention of independent voters. Let the McCain campaign call him a “celebrity.” Ronald Reagan was a celebrity. John F. Kennedy was a celebrity. Obama should stand up in front of 50,000 people and say, “Are you here to see a celebrity, or are you here because you want to see a better tomorrow for this country?” And put the response in every TV ad he broadcasts.
People in this country want change. They need to be reminded that John McCain, despite his maverick image, has come to embrace Bush Republicanism. That is a tragedy for McCain, and it will be a tragedy for our country if we vote for four more years of it.
The polls at this point are not meaningless, but they are not at all a good guide for the outcome in November. Barring torrential rain or a Clinton meltdown, Obama should get a good bounce out of the Democratic convention. I think the debates will also be better for Obama than some might suspect. And Obama’s ground game, the enthusiasm gap, the number of new voters, all of this gives him advantages that no other Democratic candidate has had in recent memory.
There’s a long way to go. McCain’s doing better than expected. But things really are just getting started. And Obama is a proven winner.
I understand the anxiety. But the campaign really has barely gotten out of the starting gate at this point. We have VPs to pick, conventions to get through, debates, and any number of new, unforeseen developments ahead of us as the race progresses.
To me, the odds are still strongly in Obama’s favor. In fact, if I were to bet, I would bet that Obama will win decisively in the fall. Keep in mind, I’ve been very wrong before. But just looking at the challenges before both candidates, I like Obama’s chances much better. And I think the key to his chances is to let him be himself.
Town hall meetings are fine, and Obama should keep doing them. But he also needs to do rallies, speeches, and big events to fire up his base and get the attention of independent voters. Let the McCain campaign call him a “celebrity.” Ronald Reagan was a celebrity. John F. Kennedy was a celebrity. Obama should stand up in front of 50,000 people and say, “Are you here to see a celebrity, or are you here because you want to see a better tomorrow for this country?” And put the response in every TV ad he broadcasts.
People in this country want change. They need to be reminded that John McCain, despite his maverick image, has come to embrace Bush Republicanism. That is a tragedy for McCain, and it will be a tragedy for our country if we vote for four more years of it.
The polls at this point are not meaningless, but they are not at all a good guide for the outcome in November. Barring torrential rain or a Clinton meltdown, Obama should get a good bounce out of the Democratic convention. I think the debates will also be better for Obama than some might suspect. And Obama’s ground game, the enthusiasm gap, the number of new voters, all of this gives him advantages that no other Democratic candidate has had in recent memory.
There’s a long way to go. McCain’s doing better than expected. But things really are just getting started. And Obama is a proven winner.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Biden, His Time
I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I could not resist...
OK, so it's looking more and more like Obama's pick for VP is going to be Sen. Joe Biden. Of course, nothing's for certain. Bayh is a possibility, as are a couple of other people. But just looking at the way things are going right now, I'm thinking Obama wants to send a signal that he's going to have an experienced, well-respected foreign policy guy at his side. Biden's the best fit for that.
So what's interesting to me is: what McCain does do in response, assuming that Joe B. is the guy? Obviously, he doesn't need to shore up his foreign policy credentials (oh, we could get into that, but I'm not gonna). So does he pick the Pride of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty?
He could do a lot worse. Pawlenty is a very likable and smart politician. He doesn't come across as extreme or inflexible. He could appeal to younger voters while not alienating older voters. People say his lack of a national profile is a minus, but as someone who's been following his career, I've seen him on the national stage in various capacities, and he does allright in the spotlight.
But how does picking Pawlenty look if Biden is the VP candidate on the other side? I’m wondering if memories of Dan Quayle will scare off the McCain team. Now, Pawlenty is no Dan Quayle, far from it. But will they give him a chance to prove it?
Obviously, McCain doesn’t need an older, experienced hand as No. 2; he’s got the old, experienced thing down pretty cold. Still, when the VP debate rolls around in the fall, are they gonna want the relatively inexperienced Pawlenty to go up against Biden? Or will they see such a matchup as a plus?
OK, so it's looking more and more like Obama's pick for VP is going to be Sen. Joe Biden. Of course, nothing's for certain. Bayh is a possibility, as are a couple of other people. But just looking at the way things are going right now, I'm thinking Obama wants to send a signal that he's going to have an experienced, well-respected foreign policy guy at his side. Biden's the best fit for that.
So what's interesting to me is: what McCain does do in response, assuming that Joe B. is the guy? Obviously, he doesn't need to shore up his foreign policy credentials (oh, we could get into that, but I'm not gonna). So does he pick the Pride of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty?
He could do a lot worse. Pawlenty is a very likable and smart politician. He doesn't come across as extreme or inflexible. He could appeal to younger voters while not alienating older voters. People say his lack of a national profile is a minus, but as someone who's been following his career, I've seen him on the national stage in various capacities, and he does allright in the spotlight.
But how does picking Pawlenty look if Biden is the VP candidate on the other side? I’m wondering if memories of Dan Quayle will scare off the McCain team. Now, Pawlenty is no Dan Quayle, far from it. But will they give him a chance to prove it?
Obviously, McCain doesn’t need an older, experienced hand as No. 2; he’s got the old, experienced thing down pretty cold. Still, when the VP debate rolls around in the fall, are they gonna want the relatively inexperienced Pawlenty to go up against Biden? Or will they see such a matchup as a plus?
Thursday, August 14, 2008
EFT on the Turnabout post
EFT has commented on the Turnabout post below, but Blogger apparently is having issues ... so I'm just reprinting it as a new post. I'll probably have a response in the comments section. Thanks for the feedback!
from EFT:
That video is a partisan, one-sided case of fear-mongering. And its hypothetical pro-Republican/anti-Democrat counterpart would be as well. That's not to say that it doesn't leave us some points to ponder.
Looking at history, it's difficult to find a well-known president who isn't associated with a war or tough guy image: Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt(s), Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, etc. Sometimes a president's military training is the source and sometimes it's circumstances, but either way it seems that strong, memorable presidents are linked to war and it certainly shaped their policies and politics. I don't know if that's necessarily good, but it's a fact that those are the leaders that stand out in the history books. BTW, those same history books usually fail to point out that even after a victory, the US maintains a military presence in the country-sort of an occupying force though that's not the term used. We have bases in Vietnam, Korea, Germany, and now Iraq. Apparently, it's easier to keep an eye on your former enemy if you're closer to them--and there's over 60 years of evidence to show that, despite changes in administration.
Being a Cold War kid, I have always been suspicious of Russia-regardless of how many times that country is classed as our friend or ally. As a nation, they have allowed their nuclear arsenal to be distributed to their former republics and rogue nations...seemingly without any concern for passing along the knowledge, restraint, and guidance needed to handle those weapons responsibly.
It's kind of like having a gun in the house. If the owner isn't responsible and fails to make sure that everyone with access has been properly trained, then it's just a tragedy waiting to happen.
But, to answer your last question, I do feel lucky. The election this fall pits a former POW against a candidate who is truly free of military influence. Either way we'll win. If McCain is in, then we'll have a president who understands deeply what can happen when things go awry in a war. If it's Obama, we'll have, for the very first time, a president untouched by war as a veteran or a draft dodger...a clean slate if you will. Both bring a fresh perspective to the questions surrounding the Iraq, Afghanistan, and Middle East situations.
from EFT:
That video is a partisan, one-sided case of fear-mongering. And its hypothetical pro-Republican/anti-Democrat counterpart would be as well. That's not to say that it doesn't leave us some points to ponder.
Looking at history, it's difficult to find a well-known president who isn't associated with a war or tough guy image: Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt(s), Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, etc. Sometimes a president's military training is the source and sometimes it's circumstances, but either way it seems that strong, memorable presidents are linked to war and it certainly shaped their policies and politics. I don't know if that's necessarily good, but it's a fact that those are the leaders that stand out in the history books. BTW, those same history books usually fail to point out that even after a victory, the US maintains a military presence in the country-sort of an occupying force though that's not the term used. We have bases in Vietnam, Korea, Germany, and now Iraq. Apparently, it's easier to keep an eye on your former enemy if you're closer to them--and there's over 60 years of evidence to show that, despite changes in administration.
Being a Cold War kid, I have always been suspicious of Russia-regardless of how many times that country is classed as our friend or ally. As a nation, they have allowed their nuclear arsenal to be distributed to their former republics and rogue nations...seemingly without any concern for passing along the knowledge, restraint, and guidance needed to handle those weapons responsibly.
It's kind of like having a gun in the house. If the owner isn't responsible and fails to make sure that everyone with access has been properly trained, then it's just a tragedy waiting to happen.
But, to answer your last question, I do feel lucky. The election this fall pits a former POW against a candidate who is truly free of military influence. Either way we'll win. If McCain is in, then we'll have a president who understands deeply what can happen when things go awry in a war. If it's Obama, we'll have, for the very first time, a president untouched by war as a veteran or a draft dodger...a clean slate if you will. Both bring a fresh perspective to the questions surrounding the Iraq, Afghanistan, and Middle East situations.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Biden for VP?
There's some talk of it amongst Obama watchers. I think that would be great. He has experience, plenty of cred in the foreign policy field, is old, and is really pretty down to earth. I don't think you can hit him with the "elitist" tag (he rides the subway to and from work every day, according to WaPo), and yet he's smart and talks to people like grownups, something the current prez and Sen. McCain don't always do.
I think it's fair to say that people want change with this election, but they are still needing some reassurance about Obama. Biden helps him with that, more than a lot of the names that have been thrown about. Maybe more than anyone. Oh, and he's Catholic, too, so there's another voting bloc checked off the list. (I realize the D's won't get all the Catholics. But Biden could help.)
What else is going on? Republicans are supporting Obama.
Also, there's a campaign, to put the Obama logo on barns in Ohio, which I think is cool. Who knows how it will affect votes, probably not much, but it's good to see the Dem candidate's campaign trying to appeal to rural voters and being creative about it.
I think it's fair to say that people want change with this election, but they are still needing some reassurance about Obama. Biden helps him with that, more than a lot of the names that have been thrown about. Maybe more than anyone. Oh, and he's Catholic, too, so there's another voting bloc checked off the list. (I realize the D's won't get all the Catholics. But Biden could help.)
What else is going on? Republicans are supporting Obama.
Also, there's a campaign, to put the Obama logo on barns in Ohio, which I think is cool. Who knows how it will affect votes, probably not much, but it's good to see the Dem candidate's campaign trying to appeal to rural voters and being creative about it.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Turnabout: Fair Play?
Republican candidates in recent years have been pretty straightforward with the equation--A Vote for a Democrat Endangers America. I mean, they don’t always come out and say it just like that. But that’s pretty clearly the message at times. At other times they do come out and say it just like that.
Well, here’s a twist on that approach.
At first, I felt this video could be dismissed as a partisan, one-sided case of fear-mongering. One can make the case that the McCain statements quoted here are just typical Republican tough-guy posturing that’s necessary to win the nomination.
But hold on a minute. Isn’t typical Republican tough-guy posturing kind of the point here? Hasn’t that been, at root, a large part of the problem that has led us to disaster in Iraq and impotence elsewhere?
It ‘s pretty clear that McCain is surrounding himself with Rove and Cheney apostles, who believe that saber-rattlin’ and war-presidentin’ is both good policy AND good politics. A frightening combination, in my opinion.
One thing is beyond doubt: the threat posed by what might happen if someone like Bin Laden somehow someday gets ahold of nuclear materials is drawfed by the threat posed if a nation with thousands of nuclear weapons and high-tech delivery systems is suddenly back in an antagonistic posture with the United States.
And here is McCain, talking very belligerently about Russia. I guess the question that remains is: do you feel lucky, nation?
Well, do ya?
Well, here’s a twist on that approach.
At first, I felt this video could be dismissed as a partisan, one-sided case of fear-mongering. One can make the case that the McCain statements quoted here are just typical Republican tough-guy posturing that’s necessary to win the nomination.
But hold on a minute. Isn’t typical Republican tough-guy posturing kind of the point here? Hasn’t that been, at root, a large part of the problem that has led us to disaster in Iraq and impotence elsewhere?
It ‘s pretty clear that McCain is surrounding himself with Rove and Cheney apostles, who believe that saber-rattlin’ and war-presidentin’ is both good policy AND good politics. A frightening combination, in my opinion.
One thing is beyond doubt: the threat posed by what might happen if someone like Bin Laden somehow someday gets ahold of nuclear materials is drawfed by the threat posed if a nation with thousands of nuclear weapons and high-tech delivery systems is suddenly back in an antagonistic posture with the United States.
And here is McCain, talking very belligerently about Russia. I guess the question that remains is: do you feel lucky, nation?
Well, do ya?
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Deja Vu All Over Again
I recognize that it’s not only possible to get too caught up in McCain’s attack ads from last week, it’s probably exactly what the McCain campaign wants us to do. But I do think it’s worth a little further comment, since last week was really pretty remarkable both in what happened and what it suggests for the campaign to come.
What we seem to be seeing is the McCain embrace of Rovian, Atwater-esque, good-old fashioned GOP attack politics.
We’ve seen it clearly in the past few presidential elections. In the mid-summer of 2000, the “Al Gore is an exaggerator/liar” theme was introduced and became the conventional wisdom of that fall, even though it was based on very little of substance. In mid-summer 2006, we saw the Swift Boat smear get its start, and the “Kerry is a flip-flopper” theme take hold. The Swift Boat stuff was despicable and dishonest, the flip-flopper theme, unfortunately, was not entirely without substance. One can argue that anyone in the Senate could be hit with that tag (and McCain is a great example of this), but Kerry’s difficulties in communicating well and acting decisively was a gift to his political opponents.
So now the GOP candidate is once again seeking an angle to attack. And so here in mid-summer, the “Obama is an elitist/celebrity” theme has been unveiled. And really, for the McCain camp, you have to say, so far, so good. Obama’s poll numbers seem to be going down a bit, the media is jumping all over itself to examine the signficance of what kind of tea and salad Obama prefers, and as an added bonus, Sen. McCain was able to grasp the thin reed of “I don’t look like the presidents on the currency” remark and turn it into The Race Card, thereby claiming victimhood. It was a solid week for him.
Of course, it was also Exhibit A of why we should all be embarrassed and angry over what our electoral politics have become.
So what should we expect in the coming weeks? Well, it would be easy to say “more of the same.” And I expect there will be more of the character attacks on Obama. But will it be effective in the long run? It could backfire on McCain; he’s obviously taking a bit of a beating over this strategy from at least some pundits.
Say what you want about celebrity, it was John McCain’s celebrity with the media that allowed him to build his image as a bi-partisan, reasonable, fair-minded politician for all these years. This strategy puts all that at risk.
Obama has a very fine line to walk between responding in a strong, effective way, and sounding angry, bitter, etc. But based on how he’s handled stuff so far, and on his performance against HRC, I’d say he’s better equipped to deal with this than any Dem presidential candidate since at least 1996.
Note for comparison Obama’s hard-hitting ads released this week, which do criticize McCain, but over a legitimate policy difference with real implications for voters.
Maybe Americans would rather talk about Paris Hilton and arugula than the issues. I hope not.
What we seem to be seeing is the McCain embrace of Rovian, Atwater-esque, good-old fashioned GOP attack politics.
We’ve seen it clearly in the past few presidential elections. In the mid-summer of 2000, the “Al Gore is an exaggerator/liar” theme was introduced and became the conventional wisdom of that fall, even though it was based on very little of substance. In mid-summer 2006, we saw the Swift Boat smear get its start, and the “Kerry is a flip-flopper” theme take hold. The Swift Boat stuff was despicable and dishonest, the flip-flopper theme, unfortunately, was not entirely without substance. One can argue that anyone in the Senate could be hit with that tag (and McCain is a great example of this), but Kerry’s difficulties in communicating well and acting decisively was a gift to his political opponents.
So now the GOP candidate is once again seeking an angle to attack. And so here in mid-summer, the “Obama is an elitist/celebrity” theme has been unveiled. And really, for the McCain camp, you have to say, so far, so good. Obama’s poll numbers seem to be going down a bit, the media is jumping all over itself to examine the signficance of what kind of tea and salad Obama prefers, and as an added bonus, Sen. McCain was able to grasp the thin reed of “I don’t look like the presidents on the currency” remark and turn it into The Race Card, thereby claiming victimhood. It was a solid week for him.
Of course, it was also Exhibit A of why we should all be embarrassed and angry over what our electoral politics have become.
So what should we expect in the coming weeks? Well, it would be easy to say “more of the same.” And I expect there will be more of the character attacks on Obama. But will it be effective in the long run? It could backfire on McCain; he’s obviously taking a bit of a beating over this strategy from at least some pundits.
Say what you want about celebrity, it was John McCain’s celebrity with the media that allowed him to build his image as a bi-partisan, reasonable, fair-minded politician for all these years. This strategy puts all that at risk.
Obama has a very fine line to walk between responding in a strong, effective way, and sounding angry, bitter, etc. But based on how he’s handled stuff so far, and on his performance against HRC, I’d say he’s better equipped to deal with this than any Dem presidential candidate since at least 1996.
Note for comparison Obama’s hard-hitting ads released this week, which do criticize McCain, but over a legitimate policy difference with real implications for voters.
Maybe Americans would rather talk about Paris Hilton and arugula than the issues. I hope not.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
The Race Card. Really?
“McCain Camp accuses Obama of playing the race card”— AP
Let me get this straight, McCain campaign. You run an ad attacking Obama for being a “celebrity,” and you show pictures of him, Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton in the ad. And then you accuse him of taking the low road? Really?
You put an African American man in an ad with two young white girls, and then you act shocked that someone draws a racial inference? Really? That surprises you? Huh.
When Obama says of himself: “He’s new, he doesn’t look like other presidents on the currency. He’s got a funny name,” you say that he’s playing the race card from the bottom of the deck? Really? That seems out of line to you? Really?
You criticize Obama for not going to Iraq, for not having international experience, and then when he has a successful trip to the Middle East and Europe, you criticize and mock him for doing so? Really? That seem consistent to you? Really?
You say he won’t make time to visit with US troops because he’d rather go the gym, and then the shot of him at the “gym” is actually a shot of him visiting with US troops? Really? That makes sense to you? Seriously?
But my question to you is, really, what happened to John McCain? Really. Is this slimy rope-a-dope, taunt your opponent and then use his mild response to attack him some more really what McCain thinks is going to win the election for him? Really? You think Obama is going to fall for this stuff like Kerry did? Really? Seriously?
You think that being popular, being a “celebrity” is really a bad thing? Really? You sure? ‘Cause it seems like when you’re whining about not getting enough press coverage that you kind of want to be more of a celebrity yourself. Really, it does.
You think the American people are stupid enough to fall for this bullshit again? Really?
(I don’t know if I have a lot of conservative readers, but I’m pretty sure I have some Independent ones. I’d be interested in hearing how they see this tactic that the McCain team has embraced. This stuff working for you?)
Let me get this straight, McCain campaign. You run an ad attacking Obama for being a “celebrity,” and you show pictures of him, Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton in the ad. And then you accuse him of taking the low road? Really?
You put an African American man in an ad with two young white girls, and then you act shocked that someone draws a racial inference? Really? That surprises you? Huh.
When Obama says of himself: “He’s new, he doesn’t look like other presidents on the currency. He’s got a funny name,” you say that he’s playing the race card from the bottom of the deck? Really? That seems out of line to you? Really?
You criticize Obama for not going to Iraq, for not having international experience, and then when he has a successful trip to the Middle East and Europe, you criticize and mock him for doing so? Really? That seem consistent to you? Really?
You say he won’t make time to visit with US troops because he’d rather go the gym, and then the shot of him at the “gym” is actually a shot of him visiting with US troops? Really? That makes sense to you? Seriously?
But my question to you is, really, what happened to John McCain? Really. Is this slimy rope-a-dope, taunt your opponent and then use his mild response to attack him some more really what McCain thinks is going to win the election for him? Really? You think Obama is going to fall for this stuff like Kerry did? Really? Seriously?
You think that being popular, being a “celebrity” is really a bad thing? Really? You sure? ‘Cause it seems like when you’re whining about not getting enough press coverage that you kind of want to be more of a celebrity yourself. Really, it does.
You think the American people are stupid enough to fall for this bullshit again? Really?
(I don’t know if I have a lot of conservative readers, but I’m pretty sure I have some Independent ones. I’d be interested in hearing how they see this tactic that the McCain team has embraced. This stuff working for you?)
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
More Documentation that Sen. McCain's Pants are on Fire
"McCain Charge Against Obama Lacks Evidence" - Washington Post
"McCain's advisers said they do not intend to back down from the charge, believing it an effective way to create a "narrative" about what they say is Obama's indifference toward the military."
That's their story and they're sticking to it. Even though they made it up. Karl Rove is smiling. Hey, it worked for the Swiftboaters.
"McCain's advisers said they do not intend to back down from the charge, believing it an effective way to create a "narrative" about what they say is Obama's indifference toward the military."
That's their story and they're sticking to it. Even though they made it up. Karl Rove is smiling. Hey, it worked for the Swiftboaters.
Monday, July 28, 2008
McCain: Into the Mud
Today I saw two items that nicely sum up my mixed feelings about Sen. John McCain. One was how he has to be very vigilant about skin cancer, due to his time as a POW, where he was apparently in the sun an unhealthy amount (added to all the other unhealthy things that happened). It reminded me of how much he sacrificed for this country, and how much I respect that.
But on the other hand, he is now running a campaign that regularly resorts to outright lies and smears in its political ads. The latest is the TV ad that claims Obama canceled a trip to visit wounded US service members because he couldn't take along TV cameras. As Andrea Mitchell (a journalist who has well-known conservative links) points out, this is simply not true.
There's more on this here
McCain vowed to run an honorable and dignified campaign. That is a broken promise. And we're only in July.
But on the other hand, he is now running a campaign that regularly resorts to outright lies and smears in its political ads. The latest is the TV ad that claims Obama canceled a trip to visit wounded US service members because he couldn't take along TV cameras. As Andrea Mitchell (a journalist who has well-known conservative links) points out, this is simply not true.
There's more on this here
McCain vowed to run an honorable and dignified campaign. That is a broken promise. And we're only in July.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Not-So-Quiet Desperation
John McCain wants you to know the Surge is working. No, scratch that, it is succeeding. Actually, it already has succeeded. We’re not only winning, we’ve won, and we’ll continue to keep winning, for however long it takes. Maybe a hundred years?
This incoherent line of thought is, believe it or not, McCain’s strongest argument at the moment. It is a relatively strong point to note that Obama said the Surge would fail, when as it turns out, the Surge seems to be a factor in the improving security situation in Iraq. This success can be overstated—Americans, being human, tend to oversimplify and see their own actions as being the most important. The reasons for the improving situation in Iraq are many, and they include the Surge. Be that as it may, Obama’s call was wrong on this one. So he’s batting 800 instead of a 1,000 on Iraq. That’s still a better average than McCain or most Republicans can claim.
As Obama’s overseas tour continues, though, it seems to me that McCain has made a significant mistake. His campaign was obviously worried that Obama’s trip would suck up a huge amount of oxygen, and that people would forget about McCain. That’s a legitimate worry; the media are treating this as a Very Big Deal.
But in his efforts to remind people that this is a two-person campaign, McCain has resorted to shouting, jumping up and down, and waving his arms. It’s not a good tactic for him. It might have been better to concede the national media to Obama for a week, and continue to campaign on a more regional basis.
Instead, we’ve had McCain on TV, blasting Obama for being wrong, wrong, wrong on the surge. “How’s the weather there in New Hampshire, Senator?” “Well, we’ve had some rain—it reminds me of how Sent. Obama’s claims about the Surge have turned out to be all wet. He was wrong on that, you know. And I was right!”
This kind of peevish, single-minded focus is hardly the stuff of great leadership.
What’s worse is that the McCain campaign has really started to sound a little unhinged. They put out an ad blaming Obama for the high price of gas. I am not kidding. I am not exaggerating. They blame Obama for the high price of gas. Desperate, much?
They also put out a three-minute YouTube video purporting to show how the media is fawning over Obama. You know, McCain has been a favorite of the media for a long time. One of the reasons he is the presumptive nominee is that his years of positive media coverage gave him the name recognition and good reputation to win primaries. It seems little silly for him to be complaining now about not getting enough media coverage.
Patently false ads, bitter denunciations, whining about the media. Not a great way to get people excited about your campaign, in my opinion.
This race is a long way from over. Heck, Obama’s trip is still not over. Things could happen to swing opinion one way or the other, but it appears to me the McCain campaign has made the worst of a bad situation.
Oh, and here’s a pertinent quote from Joe Klein of Time Magazine.
“John McCain said this today in Rochester, New Hampshire:
‘This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.’
This is the ninth presidential campaign I've covered. I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad.”
This incoherent line of thought is, believe it or not, McCain’s strongest argument at the moment. It is a relatively strong point to note that Obama said the Surge would fail, when as it turns out, the Surge seems to be a factor in the improving security situation in Iraq. This success can be overstated—Americans, being human, tend to oversimplify and see their own actions as being the most important. The reasons for the improving situation in Iraq are many, and they include the Surge. Be that as it may, Obama’s call was wrong on this one. So he’s batting 800 instead of a 1,000 on Iraq. That’s still a better average than McCain or most Republicans can claim.
As Obama’s overseas tour continues, though, it seems to me that McCain has made a significant mistake. His campaign was obviously worried that Obama’s trip would suck up a huge amount of oxygen, and that people would forget about McCain. That’s a legitimate worry; the media are treating this as a Very Big Deal.
But in his efforts to remind people that this is a two-person campaign, McCain has resorted to shouting, jumping up and down, and waving his arms. It’s not a good tactic for him. It might have been better to concede the national media to Obama for a week, and continue to campaign on a more regional basis.
Instead, we’ve had McCain on TV, blasting Obama for being wrong, wrong, wrong on the surge. “How’s the weather there in New Hampshire, Senator?” “Well, we’ve had some rain—it reminds me of how Sent. Obama’s claims about the Surge have turned out to be all wet. He was wrong on that, you know. And I was right!”
This kind of peevish, single-minded focus is hardly the stuff of great leadership.
What’s worse is that the McCain campaign has really started to sound a little unhinged. They put out an ad blaming Obama for the high price of gas. I am not kidding. I am not exaggerating. They blame Obama for the high price of gas. Desperate, much?
They also put out a three-minute YouTube video purporting to show how the media is fawning over Obama. You know, McCain has been a favorite of the media for a long time. One of the reasons he is the presumptive nominee is that his years of positive media coverage gave him the name recognition and good reputation to win primaries. It seems little silly for him to be complaining now about not getting enough media coverage.
Patently false ads, bitter denunciations, whining about the media. Not a great way to get people excited about your campaign, in my opinion.
This race is a long way from over. Heck, Obama’s trip is still not over. Things could happen to swing opinion one way or the other, but it appears to me the McCain campaign has made the worst of a bad situation.
Oh, and here’s a pertinent quote from Joe Klein of Time Magazine.
“John McCain said this today in Rochester, New Hampshire:
‘This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.’
This is the ninth presidential campaign I've covered. I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad.”
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Obama and the Evangelicals
Headline from US News and World Report:
Obama Campaign is Making Progress With Evangelical Voters
"They've researched where the votes are, and they've thrown away the old Democratic playbooks," says Brinson, who is among the evangelical leaders the Obama camp has reached out to. "Instead of just relying on a large number of urban votes, they're going to suburban areas and reaching out to a large number of conservatives."
I think this is great. It's about time someone on the Democratic side of politics went right after the church-going vote. Those folks tend to be more conservative, sure, but they're not all exactly the same. Despite what some on the left like to believe, evangelicals are not all marching in lock step. Some are going to be open to a centrist like Obama.
I like this approach that says, "We're not going to just try to win with 7 East Coast States and three West Coast states and try to pick up a few in the middle." If the Dems want to really lead this country, they are going to have to be a national party. They are going to have to have support outside the traditional strongholds. And Obama seems to get that.
The article ends by asking whether there are risks: whether Obama's outreach to the evangelicals will alienate traditional Dem voters. We've already seen some backlash over his supposed "change" in positions, which have been largely cases of media hype and selective memory. But let me put the question to my readers:
What do you think of Obama's efforts to win evangelical votes?
Obama Campaign is Making Progress With Evangelical Voters
"They've researched where the votes are, and they've thrown away the old Democratic playbooks," says Brinson, who is among the evangelical leaders the Obama camp has reached out to. "Instead of just relying on a large number of urban votes, they're going to suburban areas and reaching out to a large number of conservatives."
I think this is great. It's about time someone on the Democratic side of politics went right after the church-going vote. Those folks tend to be more conservative, sure, but they're not all exactly the same. Despite what some on the left like to believe, evangelicals are not all marching in lock step. Some are going to be open to a centrist like Obama.
I like this approach that says, "We're not going to just try to win with 7 East Coast States and three West Coast states and try to pick up a few in the middle." If the Dems want to really lead this country, they are going to have to be a national party. They are going to have to have support outside the traditional strongholds. And Obama seems to get that.
The article ends by asking whether there are risks: whether Obama's outreach to the evangelicals will alienate traditional Dem voters. We've already seen some backlash over his supposed "change" in positions, which have been largely cases of media hype and selective memory. But let me put the question to my readers:
What do you think of Obama's efforts to win evangelical votes?
Monday, July 07, 2008
Wall-E
"While the real-life grown-ups on TV were again rebooting Vietnam, the kids at “Wall-E” were in deep contemplation of a world in peril — and of the future that is theirs to make what they will of it. Compare any 10 minutes of the movie with 10 minutes of any cable-news channel, and you’ll soon be asking: Exactly who are the adults in our country and who are the cartoon characters?"
Frank Rich pretty much hits it out of the park with his column that skillfully uses an animated children's movie to illustrate what's wrong with our political process.
By the way, I saw Wall-E a few days ago and enjoyed it a lot. I'm not sure it's quite as spectacularly good as some of the reviews suggest, but it is very enjoyable, and the social/environmental commentary is on target and not heavy handed at all. It's hard to focus sometimes when your 2-year old is complaining of being "caird" and your five-year old is consuming a bag of popcorn nearly as big as he is, so I think I'll need to watch it again to really catch everything. But I recommend it.
Frank Rich pretty much hits it out of the park with his column that skillfully uses an animated children's movie to illustrate what's wrong with our political process.
By the way, I saw Wall-E a few days ago and enjoyed it a lot. I'm not sure it's quite as spectacularly good as some of the reviews suggest, but it is very enjoyable, and the social/environmental commentary is on target and not heavy handed at all. It's hard to focus sometimes when your 2-year old is complaining of being "caird" and your five-year old is consuming a bag of popcorn nearly as big as he is, so I think I'll need to watch it again to really catch everything. But I recommend it.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Change You Can Be Comfortable With
Doesn’t have much zip to it, does it?
But that could well be the unofficial theme of the Obama campaign these days.
Since become the presumptive nominee, Sen. Obama has carefully been moving back to the middle, making statements and policy proposals that are aimed to appeal to—and perhaps reassure—independents and more-conservative Democrats. This is nothing new at all, we see it pretty much every four years. And Sen. McCain made a similar move after he wrapped up his nomination; going on a poverty tour with a “Message: I Care” flavor to show Americans that compassionate conservatism was not dead. (Message: nice try.)
But while McCain is still exhibiting some minor symptoms of schizophrenia with his efforts to win over both independents AND the Republican base, Obama has morphed into Mr. Moderate, with a healthy helping of Bipartisan to go.
Obama has weighed in on the recent Supreme Court ruling on gun control by more or less agreeing that citizens have an individual right to bear arms. It’s not going to save him from the $40 million “Obama’s coming for your guns” attack ad campaign that the NRA has planned, but it might help him convince a few independents that he’s not as big a liberal as the NRA fanatics say he is. (My apologies to NRA members. But let’s be honest. The NRA is pretty out there at times.)
Obama has also recently changed his position on the FISA crimes that the current administration and telecom companies want immunity for. He’s taking a very middle-of-the-road stance here, and he’s right in step with most congressional Democrats at this point. But as far as I can tell from this rather complicated issue, the Dems are kind of caving on this one. We probably won’t know for sure how illegal the Bush Administration’s actions were until they’re out of office, but they really seemed to bend the laws here past the breaking point. “Bygones!” says Obama and the Dem leadership. Big of them.
And it’s been kind of sad watching Obama try to convince people that he doesn’t hate America. God knows he’s in a tough position there. I’ve seen some of the emails, and it is not pretty. So if he feels the need to wear a flag pin and make a speech on patriotism, all I can do is wish him luck. Some people are determined to find fault no matter what, and the patriotism issue gives them an excuse because it can be so subjective. “He didn’t say the Pledge LOUD enough!”
And then there’s the Wes Clark thing. I think Clark’s comments were unfortunate, but not scandalous. Yes, in fact, being a POW is not in itself a qualification for being Commander in Chief, but why even make that statement? Why give the McCain an excuse to act outraged and more patriotic-than-thou on the same day Obama is giving his speech dealing with that subject? It was a boneheaded move. And though many bloggers are mad at Obama for condemning Clark’s statement, the fact is it’s a huge mistake to start having arguments about Vietnam AGAIN, after we are all so sick of anything that remotely resembles Swiftboating.
If anything, Obama’s condemnation of Clark fits with his pledge to run a different kind of campaign and avoid the personal attacks and distractions. I honestly don’t think Clark was trying to make a personal attack on McCain, but it sounded petty.
Obama’s embrace of faith-based programs is also interesting, although I need to hear more details to comment on that at any length.
But all in all, Obama’s not looking like an agent of radical change as we enter the national stage of this campaign, and I think that’s both to be expected and appropriate. The county is hungry for change, but too much change is scary. Obama’s trying to find a balance. It’s a bit of a tightrope walk, but that’s what all presidential candidates do to some extent.
But that could well be the unofficial theme of the Obama campaign these days.
Since become the presumptive nominee, Sen. Obama has carefully been moving back to the middle, making statements and policy proposals that are aimed to appeal to—and perhaps reassure—independents and more-conservative Democrats. This is nothing new at all, we see it pretty much every four years. And Sen. McCain made a similar move after he wrapped up his nomination; going on a poverty tour with a “Message: I Care” flavor to show Americans that compassionate conservatism was not dead. (Message: nice try.)
But while McCain is still exhibiting some minor symptoms of schizophrenia with his efforts to win over both independents AND the Republican base, Obama has morphed into Mr. Moderate, with a healthy helping of Bipartisan to go.
Obama has weighed in on the recent Supreme Court ruling on gun control by more or less agreeing that citizens have an individual right to bear arms. It’s not going to save him from the $40 million “Obama’s coming for your guns” attack ad campaign that the NRA has planned, but it might help him convince a few independents that he’s not as big a liberal as the NRA fanatics say he is. (My apologies to NRA members. But let’s be honest. The NRA is pretty out there at times.)
Obama has also recently changed his position on the FISA crimes that the current administration and telecom companies want immunity for. He’s taking a very middle-of-the-road stance here, and he’s right in step with most congressional Democrats at this point. But as far as I can tell from this rather complicated issue, the Dems are kind of caving on this one. We probably won’t know for sure how illegal the Bush Administration’s actions were until they’re out of office, but they really seemed to bend the laws here past the breaking point. “Bygones!” says Obama and the Dem leadership. Big of them.
And it’s been kind of sad watching Obama try to convince people that he doesn’t hate America. God knows he’s in a tough position there. I’ve seen some of the emails, and it is not pretty. So if he feels the need to wear a flag pin and make a speech on patriotism, all I can do is wish him luck. Some people are determined to find fault no matter what, and the patriotism issue gives them an excuse because it can be so subjective. “He didn’t say the Pledge LOUD enough!”
And then there’s the Wes Clark thing. I think Clark’s comments were unfortunate, but not scandalous. Yes, in fact, being a POW is not in itself a qualification for being Commander in Chief, but why even make that statement? Why give the McCain an excuse to act outraged and more patriotic-than-thou on the same day Obama is giving his speech dealing with that subject? It was a boneheaded move. And though many bloggers are mad at Obama for condemning Clark’s statement, the fact is it’s a huge mistake to start having arguments about Vietnam AGAIN, after we are all so sick of anything that remotely resembles Swiftboating.
If anything, Obama’s condemnation of Clark fits with his pledge to run a different kind of campaign and avoid the personal attacks and distractions. I honestly don’t think Clark was trying to make a personal attack on McCain, but it sounded petty.
Obama’s embrace of faith-based programs is also interesting, although I need to hear more details to comment on that at any length.
But all in all, Obama’s not looking like an agent of radical change as we enter the national stage of this campaign, and I think that’s both to be expected and appropriate. The county is hungry for change, but too much change is scary. Obama’s trying to find a balance. It’s a bit of a tightrope walk, but that’s what all presidential candidates do to some extent.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Pundit Heaven
The announcement that Sen. Hillary Clinton will end her campaign Saturday, along with Sen. Obama's wrapping up the needed delegates for the nomination, has produced a deluge of "how he won"/"how she lost" post mortems.
Two that gave me a lot of good information were Chris Cillizza's blog and Sabato's Crystal Ball blog. The Cillizza [horrible misspelling corrected, sorry!] piece is a good rundown of the strategies and philosophical approach of Obama's campaign, while the Sabato piece (written by Justin Sizemore) is full of crunchy goodness such as charts, graphs and plenty of numbers. Both are good reads and very informative.
There's been some talk in the comments about the likelihood of Obama picking Clinton as a running mate. I would say the chances are extremely slim. Obama just named a three-person team to manage the selection process, which I take as a sign he's going to be very deliberative about this and let the "Dream Ticket" talk die down a bit. Hopefully it will, because it's hard to imagine Sen. Clinton being a good fit. The Clintons of course come as a matched set, and they tend to overshadow anyone else in the room. Obama doesn't need that. I see the appeal of the Obama/Clinton ticket, but I also see the risks, and they really look overwhelming to me. Just my 2¢.
Two that gave me a lot of good information were Chris Cillizza's blog and Sabato's Crystal Ball blog. The Cillizza [horrible misspelling corrected, sorry!] piece is a good rundown of the strategies and philosophical approach of Obama's campaign, while the Sabato piece (written by Justin Sizemore) is full of crunchy goodness such as charts, graphs and plenty of numbers. Both are good reads and very informative.
There's been some talk in the comments about the likelihood of Obama picking Clinton as a running mate. I would say the chances are extremely slim. Obama just named a three-person team to manage the selection process, which I take as a sign he's going to be very deliberative about this and let the "Dream Ticket" talk die down a bit. Hopefully it will, because it's hard to imagine Sen. Clinton being a good fit. The Clintons of course come as a matched set, and they tend to overshadow anyone else in the room. Obama doesn't need that. I see the appeal of the Obama/Clinton ticket, but I also see the risks, and they really look overwhelming to me. Just my 2¢.
Garbage Time and Trash Talking
I hesitate to raise this point. Supporters of Sen. Clinton have taken her loss very hard, and they have every right to feel that she deserves respect and credit for the incredible race she ran. I was very impressed by how she finished so strong in the last month or so.
But I do think this talk of "winning the popular vote" is a bit disingenuous. By the most fair count (including all caucus state estimates and excluding Michigan, which was not a fair election by any stretch of the imagination), Obama won the popular vote, albeit narrowly. Still, there's nothing wrong with Clinton supporters being proud of her big wins at the very end--IF they also acknowledge the reality that Obama had this thing wrapped up some time ago. That reality seems a little hard to grasp for some.
There's an expression in sports which I think applies here. "Garbage Time" is often referred to in basketball games and football games as a time in the game where the outcome is not in doubt, but the winning team is just running out the clock, while the losing team is doing everything they can to make the score respectable, or pull off a miracle win.
Sound familiar?
(Of course I don't mean to imply that any candidate or state or voting group is garbage. Let's make that clear.)
But In the last month of the campaign, Obama was transitioning to the general election, engaging the McCain team on a series of issues and going to swing states to address voter concerns there. Sen. Clinton, on the other hand, was still campaigning full bore in the final states. Obama could have decided to continue to fully contest the primaries and leave the national stuff 'till later, but I think he was right to move on. If Obama had really contested every state, those popular vote totals would be different. Not that it matters much. But it's a little annoying that even at the end, Clinton was making that "we won the popular vote" claim. It's not true, and even if you accept the Clinton campaign's fuzzy math, it would only be true because of garbage time.
Now that I've offended the few (any?) Clinton supporters who read this blog, I'll move on to John McCain's speech Tuesday night.
Hooo boy, that did not look good. Forget the comparison with the dynamic Obama or the impassioned Clinton, just watch the thing for what it is. An extremely uncomfortable man giving a leaden, awkward speech. The weird thing is, I don't believe the speech was badly written. McCain just seemed incapable of delivering it in a convincing manner. The refrain "That's not change we can believe in," should have been a rallying cry, a phrase with some anger or at least determination behind it. McCain treated it like a punch line in a weak joke, plastering on fake smile every time he repeated the line. I thought maybe he was trying to go for a Reagan-esque, "there you go again," genial feel; but it totally didn't fit the material.
McCain has been trying to talk tough in the early part of this national campaign, trying to make Obama look young and naive, trying to raise fears of appeasement or weakness. But if you're going to trash talk, you better sound like your heart is in it. Because it wasn't Obama who looked weak Tuesday night.
But I do think this talk of "winning the popular vote" is a bit disingenuous. By the most fair count (including all caucus state estimates and excluding Michigan, which was not a fair election by any stretch of the imagination), Obama won the popular vote, albeit narrowly. Still, there's nothing wrong with Clinton supporters being proud of her big wins at the very end--IF they also acknowledge the reality that Obama had this thing wrapped up some time ago. That reality seems a little hard to grasp for some.
There's an expression in sports which I think applies here. "Garbage Time" is often referred to in basketball games and football games as a time in the game where the outcome is not in doubt, but the winning team is just running out the clock, while the losing team is doing everything they can to make the score respectable, or pull off a miracle win.
Sound familiar?
(Of course I don't mean to imply that any candidate or state or voting group is garbage. Let's make that clear.)
But In the last month of the campaign, Obama was transitioning to the general election, engaging the McCain team on a series of issues and going to swing states to address voter concerns there. Sen. Clinton, on the other hand, was still campaigning full bore in the final states. Obama could have decided to continue to fully contest the primaries and leave the national stuff 'till later, but I think he was right to move on. If Obama had really contested every state, those popular vote totals would be different. Not that it matters much. But it's a little annoying that even at the end, Clinton was making that "we won the popular vote" claim. It's not true, and even if you accept the Clinton campaign's fuzzy math, it would only be true because of garbage time.
Now that I've offended the few (any?) Clinton supporters who read this blog, I'll move on to John McCain's speech Tuesday night.
Hooo boy, that did not look good. Forget the comparison with the dynamic Obama or the impassioned Clinton, just watch the thing for what it is. An extremely uncomfortable man giving a leaden, awkward speech. The weird thing is, I don't believe the speech was badly written. McCain just seemed incapable of delivering it in a convincing manner. The refrain "That's not change we can believe in," should have been a rallying cry, a phrase with some anger or at least determination behind it. McCain treated it like a punch line in a weak joke, plastering on fake smile every time he repeated the line. I thought maybe he was trying to go for a Reagan-esque, "there you go again," genial feel; but it totally didn't fit the material.
McCain has been trying to talk tough in the early part of this national campaign, trying to make Obama look young and naive, trying to raise fears of appeasement or weakness. But if you're going to trash talk, you better sound like your heart is in it. Because it wasn't Obama who looked weak Tuesday night.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
The End of the Road
Remarkable. Extraordinary. Unprecedented.
Those are the words that come to mind when I think of the primary campaigns of Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. This has been a riveting, hard-fought race from the first caucuses in Iowa to the moment the final polls close tonight in Montana.
The Republican side was interesting in its own way, with a very colorful cast of characters and plenty of interesting issues to work out. I agree with the conventional wisdom that almost despite itself, the Republican party is nominating the candidate with the best chance of winning. Whether the base can really get behind McCain remains to be seen. I was visiting some conservative relatives recently and there was very little enthusiasm for McCain. I sense they will vote for him, but they are not excited.
But the D side is excited. Maybe a little too much so in some cases. I’ve been checking out some of the pro-Clinton blogs lately and boy, talk about some raw nerves. They are not happy with the media, with Obama supporters, and in some cases, with Obama himself. I keep hearing him say nice things about Clinton, but many of these HRC supporters are having none of it. They are, to borrow a word, bitter. I believe that will change.
But overall, this has been an historic primary on the Dem side, and both candidates have run admirable campaigns. Both have stumbled at times, but they both showed real resilience and strength of character. That’s just my take, but I don’t think anyone can disagree that this has been one for the history books.
I’ve felt for some time that Clinton simply was not going to win; that it was a case of too little too late. And I think that’s playing out about as expected. But give her credit for fighting to the last. We can argue about whether it’s good for the party or divisive, but the fact is she ended up coming very close, which is a credit to her. And she almost certainly will concede in the next few days, which gives Obama plenty of time to unite the party.
An African American is going to be the nominee for President from the Democratic party in 2008. And I would say he has at least an even shot of winning the general election in the fall. This is a good day for our country.
Prediction:
South Dakota: Obama 52, Clinton 48
Montana: Obama 58, Clinton 42
(Sorry I missed Puerto Rico — I was traveling and just couldn’t get something written.)
Those are the words that come to mind when I think of the primary campaigns of Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. This has been a riveting, hard-fought race from the first caucuses in Iowa to the moment the final polls close tonight in Montana.
The Republican side was interesting in its own way, with a very colorful cast of characters and plenty of interesting issues to work out. I agree with the conventional wisdom that almost despite itself, the Republican party is nominating the candidate with the best chance of winning. Whether the base can really get behind McCain remains to be seen. I was visiting some conservative relatives recently and there was very little enthusiasm for McCain. I sense they will vote for him, but they are not excited.
But the D side is excited. Maybe a little too much so in some cases. I’ve been checking out some of the pro-Clinton blogs lately and boy, talk about some raw nerves. They are not happy with the media, with Obama supporters, and in some cases, with Obama himself. I keep hearing him say nice things about Clinton, but many of these HRC supporters are having none of it. They are, to borrow a word, bitter. I believe that will change.
But overall, this has been an historic primary on the Dem side, and both candidates have run admirable campaigns. Both have stumbled at times, but they both showed real resilience and strength of character. That’s just my take, but I don’t think anyone can disagree that this has been one for the history books.
I’ve felt for some time that Clinton simply was not going to win; that it was a case of too little too late. And I think that’s playing out about as expected. But give her credit for fighting to the last. We can argue about whether it’s good for the party or divisive, but the fact is she ended up coming very close, which is a credit to her. And she almost certainly will concede in the next few days, which gives Obama plenty of time to unite the party.
An African American is going to be the nominee for President from the Democratic party in 2008. And I would say he has at least an even shot of winning the general election in the fall. This is a good day for our country.
Prediction:
South Dakota: Obama 52, Clinton 48
Montana: Obama 58, Clinton 42
(Sorry I missed Puerto Rico — I was traveling and just couldn’t get something written.)
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Confession: I Only Watch CNN for the Maps
That, and Donna Brazile. Donna rocks.
So I'll probably be up late tonight, watching John King working the maps; pinching, squeezing, pushing ... ugh, I just totally grossed myself out.
I propose a drinking game for tonight's primary results: every time King stumbles over the name of a county in Oregon, take a drink. And if you don't think that will give you enough chances, here's a partial list: Clackamas, Multnomah, Wallowa, Deschutes (bless you!), Yamhill, Tillamook, and ... Clatsop!
("My friends they come around, say Clatsop Clatsop Clatsop Clatsop...")
But what to do about Kentucky? If we take a drink every time they mention working class white voters, we'll all be unconscious before the Oregon polls even close. Or whatever they do up there in their elitist, vote-by-mail state. What's with you, Oregon? Why can't you have messed-up voting machines and ballot shortages like all the other states?
I suggest a drink every time the phrase "Florida and Michigan" comes up during the Kentucky returns. We'll hear that a lot, but not so much that we'll wake up thinking Larry King carried 64 percent of the suspender vote in Malheur County.
prediction:
Kentucky - Clinton 62, Obama 30, Edwards 5, Bill Monroe 3
Oregon - Obama 60, Clinton 39
So I'll probably be up late tonight, watching John King working the maps; pinching, squeezing, pushing ... ugh, I just totally grossed myself out.
I propose a drinking game for tonight's primary results: every time King stumbles over the name of a county in Oregon, take a drink. And if you don't think that will give you enough chances, here's a partial list: Clackamas, Multnomah, Wallowa, Deschutes (bless you!), Yamhill, Tillamook, and ... Clatsop!
("My friends they come around, say Clatsop Clatsop Clatsop Clatsop...")
But what to do about Kentucky? If we take a drink every time they mention working class white voters, we'll all be unconscious before the Oregon polls even close. Or whatever they do up there in their elitist, vote-by-mail state. What's with you, Oregon? Why can't you have messed-up voting machines and ballot shortages like all the other states?
I suggest a drink every time the phrase "Florida and Michigan" comes up during the Kentucky returns. We'll hear that a lot, but not so much that we'll wake up thinking Larry King carried 64 percent of the suspender vote in Malheur County.
prediction:
Kentucky - Clinton 62, Obama 30, Edwards 5, Bill Monroe 3
Oregon - Obama 60, Clinton 39
Monday, May 19, 2008
Obama's terrible problem with white voters
Sorry for the snark. One of my pet peeves has been the tendency for media to overplay the supposed "white-voter-gap" for Obama. Here in Minnesota, Obama won decisively. Some states he's done better with whites, some worse, but it is much more complicated than "Obama does/does not appeal to white voters." It has a lot to do with geography and culture, and sure, racial attitudes play a role, but Obama has shown he can appeal across a very broad spectrum of voters.
Anyhow, the pics from the Portland rally (75,000 people) are impressive no matter how you look at them.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
VEEP VEEP!
Some intriguing chatter about vice presidential picks lately. I saw a story that says Mike Huckabee is now at the top of McCain’s short list. One thing about McCain, he is not dumb. Huckabee may not be from a swing state (I think Arkansas will be in the R column in any election not featuring a Clinton on the ticket), but he can deliver the very key evangelical vote, especially in states like Florida and Ohio.
Huckabee has some truly nutty ideas and will turn some off with his very religious politics, but those voters are likely not to vote R anyhow. What he does bring is a lot of star power and likeability to the ticket. And he is not, as McCain has said about himself, “old as dirt.”
I just remember when Huck said the Wal Mart voters were the wind beneath his wings. Brilliant! That guy can connect with those voters, and bring them out, in a way that a Pawlenty or a Romney never would. Huckabee would be a great choice for VP.
And then there is the much-talked-about Obama/Clinton ticket. Some are now saying that if Sen. Clinton wants it, Obama will have to give her the job because she has so many delegates and so much support. But I can really see strong arguments both ways. Obama has been criticizing Clinton as part of the problem in Washington; it’s going to be tough to turn around and pick her as VP. And who wants Bill Clinton roaming the White House, bored, looking for trouble?? Not BO, I would bet.
But still. Hillary Clinton, like Huckabee, has proven to be a formidable campaigner who appeals to working class people (and not just whites; Latinos are also a very strong group for her). IF the two could get along, and IF their staffs didn’t start sniping at each other and IF they could ship Bill off to Tahiti or something, this matchup could really generate some excitement. But those are big ifs, don’t you think?
So what's your opinion? Any favorites for VP?
Oh, and I found this; The Hill went to every senator and asked if they’d be interested in the VP slot. Some of the replies are pretty funny: Joe Lieberman said, “I already have the T-shirt.” Larry Craig (of all people) also had a good response: “I would say, ‘No, Hillary.’”
Huckabee has some truly nutty ideas and will turn some off with his very religious politics, but those voters are likely not to vote R anyhow. What he does bring is a lot of star power and likeability to the ticket. And he is not, as McCain has said about himself, “old as dirt.”
I just remember when Huck said the Wal Mart voters were the wind beneath his wings. Brilliant! That guy can connect with those voters, and bring them out, in a way that a Pawlenty or a Romney never would. Huckabee would be a great choice for VP.
And then there is the much-talked-about Obama/Clinton ticket. Some are now saying that if Sen. Clinton wants it, Obama will have to give her the job because she has so many delegates and so much support. But I can really see strong arguments both ways. Obama has been criticizing Clinton as part of the problem in Washington; it’s going to be tough to turn around and pick her as VP. And who wants Bill Clinton roaming the White House, bored, looking for trouble?? Not BO, I would bet.
But still. Hillary Clinton, like Huckabee, has proven to be a formidable campaigner who appeals to working class people (and not just whites; Latinos are also a very strong group for her). IF the two could get along, and IF their staffs didn’t start sniping at each other and IF they could ship Bill off to Tahiti or something, this matchup could really generate some excitement. But those are big ifs, don’t you think?
So what's your opinion? Any favorites for VP?
Oh, and I found this; The Hill went to every senator and asked if they’d be interested in the VP slot. Some of the replies are pretty funny: Joe Lieberman said, “I already have the T-shirt.” Larry Craig (of all people) also had a good response: “I would say, ‘No, Hillary.’”
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Please, no more "Country Roads" references...
Ok, West Virginia is the site of a primary today. Sen. Clinton will win it by a very large margin, and I am so looking forward to the ensuing discussion of What It All Means.
Look, Clinton clearly wrote some states off, and Obama is writing this one off. So the big win will not mean much. It won't make a big dent in the delegate lead and probably not in the popular vote totals.
Some are talking about the possibility of racism hurting Obama in states like West Virginia. I suppose it's possible that in the fall election this could shave a couple of points off of Obama's totals in some states. But I just don't think it's going to have a big impact overall. Time will tell.
Prediction: Clinton 60, Obama 40.
Look, Clinton clearly wrote some states off, and Obama is writing this one off. So the big win will not mean much. It won't make a big dent in the delegate lead and probably not in the popular vote totals.
Some are talking about the possibility of racism hurting Obama in states like West Virginia. I suppose it's possible that in the fall election this could shave a couple of points off of Obama's totals in some states. But I just don't think it's going to have a big impact overall. Time will tell.
Prediction: Clinton 60, Obama 40.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
The End in Sight
Well, that was fun.
A memorable night in American politics; we went to bed not knowing the winner of the Indiana primary. But the overall outcome was clear: Sen. Obama had regained the momentum toward the nomination and Sen. Clinton is running on fumes ... to use a gasoline reference, which seems timely.
Congratulations to all who participated in these two primaries, regardless of what candidate they voted for. They have a right to feel proud of their contributions to our democratic process.
Lots of interesting things on the CNN interactive map.
Much has been made of the so-called racial divide amongst voters, but look how Obama did in nearly all-white counties like Tipton, Carroll, Vanderburgh (where Evansville is): scoring in the 40s, even the high 40s is not bad at all. It's counties like these that kept the totals close enough to give Obama an opportunity to win with results from the big urban counties like Marion and Lake. In the end, he fell just short, but it was much closer than almost anyone predicted (especially me.) And 61-39 Obama in Hamilton County?? That's a surprise.
Another thing that jumped out at me were the numbers on the Republican side. Huckabee won 10 percent of the vote. Ron Paul won 8 percent. Mitt Romney (remember him? The hair guy! No, not Edwards, the REPUBLICAN hair guy!) won 5 percent.
Are you kidding me? A guy that has been out of the race for months, who has already endorsed McCain and is fishing for a VP nod, still pulls in 5 percent? The total Republican vote opposing the anointed candidate who has the entire R establishment behind him and no one campaigning against him is * over * 20 * percent?!?
Something's not right with that picture. But please, go on and talk about how the Democrats are divided.
A memorable night in American politics; we went to bed not knowing the winner of the Indiana primary. But the overall outcome was clear: Sen. Obama had regained the momentum toward the nomination and Sen. Clinton is running on fumes ... to use a gasoline reference, which seems timely.
Congratulations to all who participated in these two primaries, regardless of what candidate they voted for. They have a right to feel proud of their contributions to our democratic process.
Lots of interesting things on the CNN interactive map.
Much has been made of the so-called racial divide amongst voters, but look how Obama did in nearly all-white counties like Tipton, Carroll, Vanderburgh (where Evansville is): scoring in the 40s, even the high 40s is not bad at all. It's counties like these that kept the totals close enough to give Obama an opportunity to win with results from the big urban counties like Marion and Lake. In the end, he fell just short, but it was much closer than almost anyone predicted (especially me.) And 61-39 Obama in Hamilton County?? That's a surprise.
Another thing that jumped out at me were the numbers on the Republican side. Huckabee won 10 percent of the vote. Ron Paul won 8 percent. Mitt Romney (remember him? The hair guy! No, not Edwards, the REPUBLICAN hair guy!) won 5 percent.
Are you kidding me? A guy that has been out of the race for months, who has already endorsed McCain and is fishing for a VP nod, still pulls in 5 percent? The total Republican vote opposing the anointed candidate who has the entire R establishment behind him and no one campaigning against him is * over * 20 * percent?!?
Something's not right with that picture. But please, go on and talk about how the Democrats are divided.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
A Primary That Matters
For both NC and IN, this is the biggest political event in recent memory, perhaps the biggest primary election ever for two states that vote so late in the season. And there are a lot of blogs and media sites covering it, so we all can share the excitement at least a little.
Here's something from the Indianapolis Star's political blog; a Top Ten Moments of the 08 Primary. My favorite entries:
"3. Obama playing a game of three-on-three basketball in Kokomo, erasing any doubts about his playing ability.
2. Clinton drinking a shot of whiskey at a pizza pub in Crown Point, erasing any doubts about her drinking ability."
If you haven't already, get out and vote!*
http://blogs.indystar.com/politics/
(*applicable to IN and NC residents only. For IN residents,
some restrictions apply.
Here's something from the Indianapolis Star's political blog; a Top Ten Moments of the 08 Primary. My favorite entries:
"3. Obama playing a game of three-on-three basketball in Kokomo, erasing any doubts about his playing ability.
2. Clinton drinking a shot of whiskey at a pizza pub in Crown Point, erasing any doubts about her drinking ability."
If you haven't already, get out and vote!*
http://blogs.indystar.com/politics/
(*applicable to IN and NC residents only. For IN residents,
some restrictions apply.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Indiana and North Carolina
The consensus is that Sen. Clinton will win Indiana and Sen. Obama will win North Carolina.
My feeling is that it's a relief to see the candidates discussing something other than Rev. Wright. Even thought the main topic for the last week has been Clinton's ill-advised gas tax holiday, at least it's legitimate policy disagreement, rather than guilt-by-association and overhyped controversy.
One of the blogs I've read says my old stomping grounds of Kokomo and Howard County will be a "bellweather" region, so whoever wins there will win the state, by that reasoning. And I see Obama visited an old farmstead near Tipton, where some ancestors of his lived--also within spitting distance of some of my relatives.
I think the Wright thing damaged Obama a little too much for him to come back from in Indiana, but this was always a state in which I would've expected him to have a tough time. If anything, I am surprised by how receptive Hoosiers have been to Obama. Some are saying it will be close in IN, but I'm expecting a respectable double digit win for Clinton that will nonetheless not be a blowout and not give her a big delegate advantage.
In North Carolina, I expect an Obama win of anywhere from 5 to 20 points. Where he ends up in that range will have a big impact on how the race proceeds. A big win would mean a significant delegate and popular vote advantage, that would make Clinton's road a lot tougher. A close win for Obama and Clinton can claim momementum, blah blah blah. She still can't win, probably, but we'll certainly be in for some furious campaigning for the last few states.
A Clinton win in NC would be, in her words, a game-changer.
Predictions
Indiana: 56 Clinton, 44 Obama
North Carolina: 54 Obama, 46 Clinton
My feeling is that it's a relief to see the candidates discussing something other than Rev. Wright. Even thought the main topic for the last week has been Clinton's ill-advised gas tax holiday, at least it's legitimate policy disagreement, rather than guilt-by-association and overhyped controversy.
One of the blogs I've read says my old stomping grounds of Kokomo and Howard County will be a "bellweather" region, so whoever wins there will win the state, by that reasoning. And I see Obama visited an old farmstead near Tipton, where some ancestors of his lived--also within spitting distance of some of my relatives.
I think the Wright thing damaged Obama a little too much for him to come back from in Indiana, but this was always a state in which I would've expected him to have a tough time. If anything, I am surprised by how receptive Hoosiers have been to Obama. Some are saying it will be close in IN, but I'm expecting a respectable double digit win for Clinton that will nonetheless not be a blowout and not give her a big delegate advantage.
In North Carolina, I expect an Obama win of anywhere from 5 to 20 points. Where he ends up in that range will have a big impact on how the race proceeds. A big win would mean a significant delegate and popular vote advantage, that would make Clinton's road a lot tougher. A close win for Obama and Clinton can claim momementum, blah blah blah. She still can't win, probably, but we'll certainly be in for some furious campaigning for the last few states.
A Clinton win in NC would be, in her words, a game-changer.
Predictions
Indiana: 56 Clinton, 44 Obama
North Carolina: 54 Obama, 46 Clinton
Friday, May 02, 2008
Email From Indiana
Got an email recently from an Indiana voter with some questions on the two Dem candidates. This voter was trying to make a decision and asked questions about where the candidates stood on 1) alternate fuel sources, 2) mortgage crisis, and 3) the Iraq war.
With some minor modifications, I’m pasting my reply below. I am very interested in the IN primary and have been following it closely. With the tough time that Obama has had recently, I expect Clinton to be the choice for Hoosiers (that seems so weird to say!!) but there is still a chance Obama could surprise there, or that it could at least be close.
Anyhow, I would be VERY interested to hear from other Hoosiers or North Carolina residents on what the primary campaigns have been like there and any thoughts they may have on the candidates. Most of you have my email address, or you can leave comments here…
So, what follows is my reply:
I'll start by saying both candidates are, in my opinion, very well qualified and will probably bring some good people in to work on these problems. Sen. Clinton is very smart and I think she would do a great job. I just like Obama better, I think he can do a better job of bringing people together, creating consensus, improving our standing in the world, etc. He's had to endure a lot of attacks and controversies in the past month from the media and his loose-cannon ex-pastor, but he's continued to keep his cool and keep pushing forward, and I think that's a good sign.
Clinton, in my opinion, is kind of an old-school Democratic who is not as likely to be innovative and not as likely to build consensus. I could be wrong. But that's how I see it.
Specifically on the questions you raised:
The energy question is not an area I'm an expert in. However, I do know Obama went to Detroit and told the automakers point-blank that they needed to make more efficient cars with higher mileage standards. I'm sure Clinton supports that in principle too. If we look at Bill Clinton's term, we see a President who was OK on the environment, did some good things as far as designating national parks, etc., but didn't really make the environment a top issue. He also didn't do anything too memorable in the area of energy policy. (At least not that I remember.)
I think the next president is going to have to make the environment and energy (the two are closely linked of course) a top priority. That means fighting some very powerful interests. I believe Obama is better positioned to do that. He makes the claim that he doesn't take money from lobbyists, which is true, with a caveat—he has taken individual contributions from people with who work for oil companies--as opposed to the firms that lobby for oil companies. But he is in general not as beholden to special interests as Clinton and McCain would be.
In the area of financial issues/home mortgage crisis, I think both candidates have good ideas on some possible solutions and would be a lot more proactive than the current administration, or McCain. The whole issue is an example of why free markets are not a panacea. People are losing their homes and their savings; it's not enough to stand back and "let the market work." Because sometimes it doesn't. My guess is that Obama, as a former community organizer, would have a much better feel for how these problems affect working people. But that's just a guess.
On the war in Iraq. Both Dem. Senators now oppose it, both are committed to bringing troops home as quickly as possible while still doing it in an orderly fashion, both say they want to emphasize diplomacy and minimize any upheaval caused by a US withdrawal. Both may be underplaying the difficulty of doing that. That war is a horrific mess, and anything we do to end our involvement is going to come with some very big risks. The only worse thing than doing something, though, is doing nothing and letting the anti-American hatred continue to fester there and in other parts of the Middle East. That's just my opinion, of course.
So both have pledged similar strategies. But they come from different backgrounds and will likely have different approaches overall in the foreign policy area. Clinton has shown herself to be a mainstream, maybe even slightly conservative Democrat when it comes to foreign policy. In my opinion, she has made a classic Clintonian calculation that voters see Dems as "weak" on military and foreign policy matters, so she has to appear more conservative to counter that. In a way, that's smart. And I don't think it's even as calculating as it sounds—many old-school Dems are pretty conservative when it comes to foreign policy. Bill Clinton's foreign policy was not really significantly different than that of previous administrations.
Obama, I believe, is charting a slightly different course, with a big emphasis on diplomacy and multi-lateral cooperation. I think we do need to improve our image overseas, and nothing would send a stronger signal that we are going to re-connect with the world than to elect an African American with a funny name. Now, some voters are not particularly interested in the idea that America has to get along with other countries; they prefer being the superpower and throwing our weight around. I don't think that's possible anymore, and it certainly hasn't worked out well for us in the past 7 years.
Who will do a better job of getting us out of Iraq? I don't know. I think Obama will do more to improve our image and bring other nations to the table to work on the problem, but can he be tough, I think is the question that skeptics will ask. Aside from the point that "being tough" may be part of our problem, I can't answer the question. We all have to take our own measure of the man.
I hope that helps. I believe either candidate is deserving of your vote.
With some minor modifications, I’m pasting my reply below. I am very interested in the IN primary and have been following it closely. With the tough time that Obama has had recently, I expect Clinton to be the choice for Hoosiers (that seems so weird to say!!) but there is still a chance Obama could surprise there, or that it could at least be close.
Anyhow, I would be VERY interested to hear from other Hoosiers or North Carolina residents on what the primary campaigns have been like there and any thoughts they may have on the candidates. Most of you have my email address, or you can leave comments here…
So, what follows is my reply:
I'll start by saying both candidates are, in my opinion, very well qualified and will probably bring some good people in to work on these problems. Sen. Clinton is very smart and I think she would do a great job. I just like Obama better, I think he can do a better job of bringing people together, creating consensus, improving our standing in the world, etc. He's had to endure a lot of attacks and controversies in the past month from the media and his loose-cannon ex-pastor, but he's continued to keep his cool and keep pushing forward, and I think that's a good sign.
Clinton, in my opinion, is kind of an old-school Democratic who is not as likely to be innovative and not as likely to build consensus. I could be wrong. But that's how I see it.
Specifically on the questions you raised:
The energy question is not an area I'm an expert in. However, I do know Obama went to Detroit and told the automakers point-blank that they needed to make more efficient cars with higher mileage standards. I'm sure Clinton supports that in principle too. If we look at Bill Clinton's term, we see a President who was OK on the environment, did some good things as far as designating national parks, etc., but didn't really make the environment a top issue. He also didn't do anything too memorable in the area of energy policy. (At least not that I remember.)
I think the next president is going to have to make the environment and energy (the two are closely linked of course) a top priority. That means fighting some very powerful interests. I believe Obama is better positioned to do that. He makes the claim that he doesn't take money from lobbyists, which is true, with a caveat—he has taken individual contributions from people with who work for oil companies--as opposed to the firms that lobby for oil companies. But he is in general not as beholden to special interests as Clinton and McCain would be.
In the area of financial issues/home mortgage crisis, I think both candidates have good ideas on some possible solutions and would be a lot more proactive than the current administration, or McCain. The whole issue is an example of why free markets are not a panacea. People are losing their homes and their savings; it's not enough to stand back and "let the market work." Because sometimes it doesn't. My guess is that Obama, as a former community organizer, would have a much better feel for how these problems affect working people. But that's just a guess.
On the war in Iraq. Both Dem. Senators now oppose it, both are committed to bringing troops home as quickly as possible while still doing it in an orderly fashion, both say they want to emphasize diplomacy and minimize any upheaval caused by a US withdrawal. Both may be underplaying the difficulty of doing that. That war is a horrific mess, and anything we do to end our involvement is going to come with some very big risks. The only worse thing than doing something, though, is doing nothing and letting the anti-American hatred continue to fester there and in other parts of the Middle East. That's just my opinion, of course.
So both have pledged similar strategies. But they come from different backgrounds and will likely have different approaches overall in the foreign policy area. Clinton has shown herself to be a mainstream, maybe even slightly conservative Democrat when it comes to foreign policy. In my opinion, she has made a classic Clintonian calculation that voters see Dems as "weak" on military and foreign policy matters, so she has to appear more conservative to counter that. In a way, that's smart. And I don't think it's even as calculating as it sounds—many old-school Dems are pretty conservative when it comes to foreign policy. Bill Clinton's foreign policy was not really significantly different than that of previous administrations.
Obama, I believe, is charting a slightly different course, with a big emphasis on diplomacy and multi-lateral cooperation. I think we do need to improve our image overseas, and nothing would send a stronger signal that we are going to re-connect with the world than to elect an African American with a funny name. Now, some voters are not particularly interested in the idea that America has to get along with other countries; they prefer being the superpower and throwing our weight around. I don't think that's possible anymore, and it certainly hasn't worked out well for us in the past 7 years.
Who will do a better job of getting us out of Iraq? I don't know. I think Obama will do more to improve our image and bring other nations to the table to work on the problem, but can he be tough, I think is the question that skeptics will ask. Aside from the point that "being tough" may be part of our problem, I can't answer the question. We all have to take our own measure of the man.
I hope that helps. I believe either candidate is deserving of your vote.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Gas Tax Holiday: Bad Idea
This Reuters story says it all:
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A gas tax holiday proposed by U.S. presidential hopefuls John McCain and Hillary Clinton is viewed as a bad idea by many economists and has drawn unexpected support for Clinton rival Barack Obama, who also is opposed.
'Score one for Obama,' wrote Greg Mankiw, a former chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. 'In light of the side effects associated with driving ... gasoline taxes should be higher than they are, not lower.'
Republican McCain and Democrat Clinton, who is battling Obama for their party's nomination, both want to suspend the 18.4-cents-per-gallon federal gas tax during the peak summer driving months to ease the pain of soaring gas prices. The tax is used to fund the Highway Trust Fund that builds and maintains roads and bridges.
Economists said that since refineries cannot increase their supply of gasoline in the space of a few summer months, lower prices will just boost demand and the benefits will flow to oil companies, not consumers.
'You are just going to push up the price of gas by almost the size of the tax cut,' said Eric Toder, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center in Washington.
Obama criticized the plan as pure politics and said the only way to lower the price of gas is to use less oil.
'It would last for three months and it would save you on average half a tank of gas, $25 to $30. That's what Senator Clinton and Senator McCain are proposing to deal with the gas crisis,' he said on Tuesday in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
'This isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer, it's an idea designed to get them through an election.'
...
Many economists implicitly agreed with Obama and said the McCain-Clinton gas tax plan sent the wrong signal on energy efficiency and was at odds with their pledges to combat climate change by encouraging lower U.S. carbon emissions.
'I think it is a very bad idea,' said Gilbert Metclaf, a economics professor at Tufts University currently working with the National Bureau of Economic Research.
'If we want people to invest in energy-saving cars, we need some assurance that the higher price paid for these cars is going to pay off through fuel savings,' he said. 'It is a very short-sighted, counterproductive proposal.'
Economists also saw it is a poor way of getting money to the households that need it most and warned that it might end up in the cash tills of the oil companies.
'If you want to provide households tax relief, a direct rebate ... is more effective. Not all of the tax relief from a gas tax holiday will be passed on to consumers. Some will likely be kept by refiners,' Mankiw said in an e-mail response.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was similarly underwhelmed: 'It's Econ 101: the tax cut really goes to the oil companies,' he wrote on his blog on Tuesday.
Here's the link.
Now someone will come along and accuse Obama of being an elitist for listening to economists.
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A gas tax holiday proposed by U.S. presidential hopefuls John McCain and Hillary Clinton is viewed as a bad idea by many economists and has drawn unexpected support for Clinton rival Barack Obama, who also is opposed.
'Score one for Obama,' wrote Greg Mankiw, a former chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. 'In light of the side effects associated with driving ... gasoline taxes should be higher than they are, not lower.'
Republican McCain and Democrat Clinton, who is battling Obama for their party's nomination, both want to suspend the 18.4-cents-per-gallon federal gas tax during the peak summer driving months to ease the pain of soaring gas prices. The tax is used to fund the Highway Trust Fund that builds and maintains roads and bridges.
Economists said that since refineries cannot increase their supply of gasoline in the space of a few summer months, lower prices will just boost demand and the benefits will flow to oil companies, not consumers.
'You are just going to push up the price of gas by almost the size of the tax cut,' said Eric Toder, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center in Washington.
Obama criticized the plan as pure politics and said the only way to lower the price of gas is to use less oil.
'It would last for three months and it would save you on average half a tank of gas, $25 to $30. That's what Senator Clinton and Senator McCain are proposing to deal with the gas crisis,' he said on Tuesday in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
'This isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer, it's an idea designed to get them through an election.'
...
Many economists implicitly agreed with Obama and said the McCain-Clinton gas tax plan sent the wrong signal on energy efficiency and was at odds with their pledges to combat climate change by encouraging lower U.S. carbon emissions.
'I think it is a very bad idea,' said Gilbert Metclaf, a economics professor at Tufts University currently working with the National Bureau of Economic Research.
'If we want people to invest in energy-saving cars, we need some assurance that the higher price paid for these cars is going to pay off through fuel savings,' he said. 'It is a very short-sighted, counterproductive proposal.'
Economists also saw it is a poor way of getting money to the households that need it most and warned that it might end up in the cash tills of the oil companies.
'If you want to provide households tax relief, a direct rebate ... is more effective. Not all of the tax relief from a gas tax holiday will be passed on to consumers. Some will likely be kept by refiners,' Mankiw said in an e-mail response.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was similarly underwhelmed: 'It's Econ 101: the tax cut really goes to the oil companies,' he wrote on his blog on Tuesday.
Here's the link.
Now someone will come along and accuse Obama of being an elitist for listening to economists.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Can Obama Win?
I'm very sad to report that question has entered my mind the past few days, as the Rev. Wright once again has stirred controversy with some pretty outlandish statements.
Sen. Obama should win, based on the math. But if the focus of this race becomes completely centered on Wright and the racial divide in this country, the Clinton campaign will be able to make a much stronger case that Obama is the weaker candidate in the general election. That may result in some stronger-than-anticipated wins for Clinton, and a reversal in the trend of superdelegates away from her and to Obama.
In other words, she could snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
I have come to believe that how the campaign plays out will say a lot about the character of this nation and its people. Whether we can truly overcome some of the racism and divisiveness that so deeply stains our country's history. I grew up in a community of people who were basically good and respectful of others, yet I heard and felt the racial divide constantly. It really brings out the worst in people. And part of why I have been so fascinated by this campaign of Obama's was because it seemed that maybe we could actually start to get past that.
That accomplishment is still very much in doubt. Obama has done nothing wrong, and he has for the most part handled the controversy well. But for whatever reason, people do associate him with *the rantings of* his pastor. It's not fair, it's not the way it should be. But I think it could hurt him in both IN (a lot) and NC (not as much, but still enough).
Given the mess that Wright has created by his recent performances, I think Obama's repudiation of Wright today is a good move, and it might reassure some voters. But Obama has such a high hurdle to clear with certain voters who may agree with him but are just likely to take extreme offense at something like the Wright controversy. Those voters don't need much to push them to Clinton or to stay home. And that could make a huge difference.
(note: I added the three words: *the rantings of* for clarity. I think obviously Obama has had close ties to Wright in the past. But the more extreme comments from his former pastor are clearly a world away from Obama's beliefs and approach. I just don't think you can judge a man for something someone else says. Anyhow, I wanted to make that clear.)
Sen. Obama should win, based on the math. But if the focus of this race becomes completely centered on Wright and the racial divide in this country, the Clinton campaign will be able to make a much stronger case that Obama is the weaker candidate in the general election. That may result in some stronger-than-anticipated wins for Clinton, and a reversal in the trend of superdelegates away from her and to Obama.
In other words, she could snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
I have come to believe that how the campaign plays out will say a lot about the character of this nation and its people. Whether we can truly overcome some of the racism and divisiveness that so deeply stains our country's history. I grew up in a community of people who were basically good and respectful of others, yet I heard and felt the racial divide constantly. It really brings out the worst in people. And part of why I have been so fascinated by this campaign of Obama's was because it seemed that maybe we could actually start to get past that.
That accomplishment is still very much in doubt. Obama has done nothing wrong, and he has for the most part handled the controversy well. But for whatever reason, people do associate him with *the rantings of* his pastor. It's not fair, it's not the way it should be. But I think it could hurt him in both IN (a lot) and NC (not as much, but still enough).
Given the mess that Wright has created by his recent performances, I think Obama's repudiation of Wright today is a good move, and it might reassure some voters. But Obama has such a high hurdle to clear with certain voters who may agree with him but are just likely to take extreme offense at something like the Wright controversy. Those voters don't need much to push them to Clinton or to stay home. And that could make a huge difference.
(note: I added the three words: *the rantings of* for clarity. I think obviously Obama has had close ties to Wright in the past. But the more extreme comments from his former pastor are clearly a world away from Obama's beliefs and approach. I just don't think you can judge a man for something someone else says. Anyhow, I wanted to make that clear.)
Monday, April 28, 2008
Excuse me, have we met?
Why does Sen. John McCain keep calling me his friend? I’ve never even met the guy.
So, McCain (two McCain posts in a row!) is trotting out a health care tour. And much like the “Message: I care” tour of impoverished areas that proceeded it, this one is going to feature a whole lot of talk and little substance.
You know, I don’t mean to be a McCain basher. But even if he insists on being friendly with me, it’s hard not to be critical when a candidate for the President of the United States takes on some of the most pressing political and moral issues of our times and basically says, “I hope something can fix this, but as President I won’t do a whole lot.”
Here’s the quote from an Associated Press story: “‘America can have a health care system that is characterized by better prevention, coordinated care, electronic health records, cutting-edge treatments -- and lower costs,’ McCain will say, according to excerpts of his speech provided by his campaign. ‘We can build a health care system that is more responsive to our needs and is delivered to more people at lower cost. The solution, my friends, isn't a one-size-fits-all big-government takeover of health care.’”
These kinds of “solutions”; electronic medical records, cutting-edge treatments, better prevention, is very thin gruel. It’s like saying you’re going to cut the deficit through eliminating waste and fraud. All of those things are good, but none of them are going to make enough difference to change the health care problems this country faces. And we’re doing all these things already, by the way. How come the problems are getting worse?
And his “big government takeover” cliché is just that. Sir, friends don’t try to scare friends with silly distortions of their opponents’ positions.
I have more than a little familiarity with health care policy. And I remember the last election, when I read several of President Bush’s speeches specifically for his ideas on health care. They were essentially identical to what McCain is proposing.
So, again, here’s your Republican candidate: “More of the Same McCain.”
So, McCain (two McCain posts in a row!) is trotting out a health care tour. And much like the “Message: I care” tour of impoverished areas that proceeded it, this one is going to feature a whole lot of talk and little substance.
You know, I don’t mean to be a McCain basher. But even if he insists on being friendly with me, it’s hard not to be critical when a candidate for the President of the United States takes on some of the most pressing political and moral issues of our times and basically says, “I hope something can fix this, but as President I won’t do a whole lot.”
Here’s the quote from an Associated Press story: “‘America can have a health care system that is characterized by better prevention, coordinated care, electronic health records, cutting-edge treatments -- and lower costs,’ McCain will say, according to excerpts of his speech provided by his campaign. ‘We can build a health care system that is more responsive to our needs and is delivered to more people at lower cost. The solution, my friends, isn't a one-size-fits-all big-government takeover of health care.’”
These kinds of “solutions”; electronic medical records, cutting-edge treatments, better prevention, is very thin gruel. It’s like saying you’re going to cut the deficit through eliminating waste and fraud. All of those things are good, but none of them are going to make enough difference to change the health care problems this country faces. And we’re doing all these things already, by the way. How come the problems are getting worse?
And his “big government takeover” cliché is just that. Sir, friends don’t try to scare friends with silly distortions of their opponents’ positions.
I have more than a little familiarity with health care policy. And I remember the last election, when I read several of President Bush’s speeches specifically for his ideas on health care. They were essentially identical to what McCain is proposing.
So, again, here’s your Republican candidate: “More of the Same McCain.”
Friday, April 25, 2008
Hey, Look Over There by the PawnAmerica store! It’s John McCain!
I feel bad that I haven’t written much about John McCain lately.
Well, not too bad. But mildly regretful.
Sen. McCain is out there, doing some smart campaigning, showing once again that he thinks differently than more traditional conservatives. This week he was doing his “Left Behind” tour, which I don’t think has any Second Coming implications—surely John McCain wouldn’t miss the Rapture!!
McCain was touring places that are often overlooked by politicians, especially politicians of a certain, shall we say, large-land-mammal-with-tusks persuasion. Poor communities, shuttered factories, hurricane-devastated areas around New Orleans, that sort of thing.
McCain was there, showing that he is a conservative with compassion. (Something about that is SO familiar. What am I thinking of? … Can’t quite put my finger on it … )
The problem is, of course, that although McCain is perfectly willing to go speak at these places and talk about how he understands their plight, he’s not going to DO anything about it. That would take, you know, government programs, and God knows those don’t work. Conservatives don’t believe in government (with a few exceptions involving wars and corporate bailouts), so they can’t very well promote government as a solution to our problems!
So hey, poor people, John McCain feels for you. Really. But once he cuts taxes again, I’m sure things will pick up. If not, you can always start up your own business selling junk on eBay (I swear to God this was actually something he suggested in one his speeches.)
But it is smart, not because he’s going to win votes in these blighted photo-op communities, but because it could convince independent voters that he is a caring conservative (DAMN! Why am I having such a case of Déjà vu??).
Fool me once …
Well, not too bad. But mildly regretful.
Sen. McCain is out there, doing some smart campaigning, showing once again that he thinks differently than more traditional conservatives. This week he was doing his “Left Behind” tour, which I don’t think has any Second Coming implications—surely John McCain wouldn’t miss the Rapture!!
McCain was touring places that are often overlooked by politicians, especially politicians of a certain, shall we say, large-land-mammal-with-tusks persuasion. Poor communities, shuttered factories, hurricane-devastated areas around New Orleans, that sort of thing.
McCain was there, showing that he is a conservative with compassion. (Something about that is SO familiar. What am I thinking of? … Can’t quite put my finger on it … )
The problem is, of course, that although McCain is perfectly willing to go speak at these places and talk about how he understands their plight, he’s not going to DO anything about it. That would take, you know, government programs, and God knows those don’t work. Conservatives don’t believe in government (with a few exceptions involving wars and corporate bailouts), so they can’t very well promote government as a solution to our problems!
So hey, poor people, John McCain feels for you. Really. But once he cuts taxes again, I’m sure things will pick up. If not, you can always start up your own business selling junk on eBay (I swear to God this was actually something he suggested in one his speeches.)
But it is smart, not because he’s going to win votes in these blighted photo-op communities, but because it could convince independent voters that he is a caring conservative (DAMN! Why am I having such a case of Déjà vu??).
Fool me once …
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Can Hillary Win?
No.
Nope.
Nahhhh.
Negatory.
Na guh do it.
Sen. Clinton just had her best night of the primary season. She got a 10 point win in a state where both candidates went all-out. But it was a state that was heavily stacked in her favor, demographics-wise. She was 20 points up a month ago.
Sen. Obama cut that in half, during a month when:
1. The Rev. Wright scandal became a huge media event.
2. Just as Obama seemed to recover from that, he made his unfortunate "bitter/cling" comments.
3. The Clinton campaign continued its "kitchen sink" strategy of pounding every negative story line it could find.
4. The debate on ABC seemed totally fixated on magnifying the Wright/Bitter/Elitist angles.
It was overall, a pretty bad month for Obama. Yet he kept moving forward. He defused the Wright controversy effectively enough, although it will certainly continue to be an issue. He handled the "bitter/cling" stuff calmly and minimized the damage there--although again, it hurt him. But I continue to be impressed with his ability to take a punch (to use the Rocky imagery that Clinton appropriated).
Obama should be able to move on to a convincing win in North Carolina, and might win in Indiana. The other contests will be a wash. If he wins in both those state, I believe it will be over. If he only wins big in NC and the rest are close, we might see this thing contested to the convention. I really doubt it will go that far, though.
At some point, the Democratic Party leadership is going to say, "enough is enough." Obama is going to end up with the majority of the popular vote, the majority of the delegates, and will be very close with the superdelegates. He will be the clear choice of African Americans (the Dems' most loyal voting bloc), young voters (the party's future), and will continue to show he can out-fundraise anyone on the planet.
In short, he cannot be denied. Clinton should enjoy this victory. It's all downhill from here.
Nope.
Nahhhh.
Negatory.
Na guh do it.
Sen. Clinton just had her best night of the primary season. She got a 10 point win in a state where both candidates went all-out. But it was a state that was heavily stacked in her favor, demographics-wise. She was 20 points up a month ago.
Sen. Obama cut that in half, during a month when:
1. The Rev. Wright scandal became a huge media event.
2. Just as Obama seemed to recover from that, he made his unfortunate "bitter/cling" comments.
3. The Clinton campaign continued its "kitchen sink" strategy of pounding every negative story line it could find.
4. The debate on ABC seemed totally fixated on magnifying the Wright/Bitter/Elitist angles.
It was overall, a pretty bad month for Obama. Yet he kept moving forward. He defused the Wright controversy effectively enough, although it will certainly continue to be an issue. He handled the "bitter/cling" stuff calmly and minimized the damage there--although again, it hurt him. But I continue to be impressed with his ability to take a punch (to use the Rocky imagery that Clinton appropriated).
Obama should be able to move on to a convincing win in North Carolina, and might win in Indiana. The other contests will be a wash. If he wins in both those state, I believe it will be over. If he only wins big in NC and the rest are close, we might see this thing contested to the convention. I really doubt it will go that far, though.
At some point, the Democratic Party leadership is going to say, "enough is enough." Obama is going to end up with the majority of the popular vote, the majority of the delegates, and will be very close with the superdelegates. He will be the clear choice of African Americans (the Dems' most loyal voting bloc), young voters (the party's future), and will continue to show he can out-fundraise anyone on the planet.
In short, he cannot be denied. Clinton should enjoy this victory. It's all downhill from here.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Can The Candidates Stay Out of the Gutter?
It’s one of the biggest contradictions of politics: voters say they are turned off by negative attacks during an election, but at the same time, the negative approach seems to work. So candidates continue doing it.
Consider the final days of the Pennsylvania primary and the two Democratic candidates. Sen. Clinton has been running a negative campaign for some time, since at least the run-up to the Ohio and Texas primaries, where she began the “kitchen sink” campaign; a desperate effort to drive up doubts about Sen. Obama’s readiness to be President, and present herself as the experienced alternative.
It has worked, to some extent, with the voters Clinton has needed in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Obama, while presenting himself as a different kind of candidate who takes the higher road, has nonetheless also gone negative against Clinton, bringing into question whether he really can transcend the “typical politics” that he says leads to gridlock.
As if taking its cue from the candidates, ABC moderators at the final debate (and I suspect it will be the final one, there really is very little reason for Obama to agree to another one) spent most of their time addressing questions of flag pins and past associations and miscues. Perhaps there is a place in a debate for talking about such things, but even if you concede that (and I’m not sure we should) does it really make sense for these topics to dominate a debate at the expense of more substantive issues?
Yet the ABC debate was the one with the highest ratings of any during the campaign.
So will cynicism win out? Will Obama’s call to change the tone and approach to American politics turn out to be a noble but lost cause?
I think it will be very difficult for candidates to avoid the negative, “politics as usual” as long as the media stands to profit so much, in every sense of the word, from the status quo. Think about how much money media outlets have gained because of this protracted campaign. Both Democratic candidates are raising huge sums of money and forking it right over to pay for TV and radio ads. And money aside, the media gets to continue be stars and star-makers as long as so much heat is being generated by the campaigns. Why should the media want a change in the tenor of this race?
So expect more distractions and manufactured outrage. Until reformers like Obama can really convince the public that this stuff is not worth their time, politicians will continue to have to deal with it, and some will embrace it. The good news is that at least Obama is talking about change, and that's a first step.
As for Pennsylvania, Obama at this point is simply trying to keep the Clinton victory from being a blowout. And then he should win in North Carolina and maybe Indiana. I don’t see Clinton getting the nomination at this point. But she can continue to make things very tough for Obama. And Obama, although he has kept his head and continued to move forward with his campaign, has not been without mistakes.
What does this mean for the fall? Can Obama survive the inevitable attempts at Swiftboating by Republican operatives? There’s a very real chance that Clinton has done him a favor by letting him get pummeled on some of these issues now, when there’s plenty of time to recover. As unpleasant as it all has been, I think it’s a valid argument that it may be better to get this stuff aired out now rather than in the fall. (By this stuff I mean stuff like Rev. Wright, not the flag pin issue, which simply shouldn’t be an issue at all.)
But I think that although we’ll see plenty of negative stuff in the fall, there’s going to be a very different dynamic in a McCain vs. Obama campaign, compared with the Clinton vs. Obama tussle that we’re seeing now. The fact is, there is so little difference in policy when it comes to Clinton and Obama. Clinton has had to embrace these other petty issues because she really can’t attack him much on the more important issues. They agree on those, and where there are differences (health care) the arguments are so technical and wonkish that people just lose interest.
With McCain, Obama is going to be able to really focus on issues and differences of political philosophy, and make his case for change. And McCain will be able to make his case for things staying more or less the same. And here’s what I think. I think the voting public will see the “Obama is a secret Muslim who hates the flag and wants to take your guns and give us socialized medicine and doesn’t drink the same kind of coffee you do” messages as the contemptible lies that they are. And they’re going to vote for what they want. Which is something different.
Prediction: Clinton – 56 percent; Obama – 44 percent.
Consider the final days of the Pennsylvania primary and the two Democratic candidates. Sen. Clinton has been running a negative campaign for some time, since at least the run-up to the Ohio and Texas primaries, where she began the “kitchen sink” campaign; a desperate effort to drive up doubts about Sen. Obama’s readiness to be President, and present herself as the experienced alternative.
It has worked, to some extent, with the voters Clinton has needed in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Obama, while presenting himself as a different kind of candidate who takes the higher road, has nonetheless also gone negative against Clinton, bringing into question whether he really can transcend the “typical politics” that he says leads to gridlock.
As if taking its cue from the candidates, ABC moderators at the final debate (and I suspect it will be the final one, there really is very little reason for Obama to agree to another one) spent most of their time addressing questions of flag pins and past associations and miscues. Perhaps there is a place in a debate for talking about such things, but even if you concede that (and I’m not sure we should) does it really make sense for these topics to dominate a debate at the expense of more substantive issues?
Yet the ABC debate was the one with the highest ratings of any during the campaign.
So will cynicism win out? Will Obama’s call to change the tone and approach to American politics turn out to be a noble but lost cause?
I think it will be very difficult for candidates to avoid the negative, “politics as usual” as long as the media stands to profit so much, in every sense of the word, from the status quo. Think about how much money media outlets have gained because of this protracted campaign. Both Democratic candidates are raising huge sums of money and forking it right over to pay for TV and radio ads. And money aside, the media gets to continue be stars and star-makers as long as so much heat is being generated by the campaigns. Why should the media want a change in the tenor of this race?
So expect more distractions and manufactured outrage. Until reformers like Obama can really convince the public that this stuff is not worth their time, politicians will continue to have to deal with it, and some will embrace it. The good news is that at least Obama is talking about change, and that's a first step.
As for Pennsylvania, Obama at this point is simply trying to keep the Clinton victory from being a blowout. And then he should win in North Carolina and maybe Indiana. I don’t see Clinton getting the nomination at this point. But she can continue to make things very tough for Obama. And Obama, although he has kept his head and continued to move forward with his campaign, has not been without mistakes.
What does this mean for the fall? Can Obama survive the inevitable attempts at Swiftboating by Republican operatives? There’s a very real chance that Clinton has done him a favor by letting him get pummeled on some of these issues now, when there’s plenty of time to recover. As unpleasant as it all has been, I think it’s a valid argument that it may be better to get this stuff aired out now rather than in the fall. (By this stuff I mean stuff like Rev. Wright, not the flag pin issue, which simply shouldn’t be an issue at all.)
But I think that although we’ll see plenty of negative stuff in the fall, there’s going to be a very different dynamic in a McCain vs. Obama campaign, compared with the Clinton vs. Obama tussle that we’re seeing now. The fact is, there is so little difference in policy when it comes to Clinton and Obama. Clinton has had to embrace these other petty issues because she really can’t attack him much on the more important issues. They agree on those, and where there are differences (health care) the arguments are so technical and wonkish that people just lose interest.
With McCain, Obama is going to be able to really focus on issues and differences of political philosophy, and make his case for change. And McCain will be able to make his case for things staying more or less the same. And here’s what I think. I think the voting public will see the “Obama is a secret Muslim who hates the flag and wants to take your guns and give us socialized medicine and doesn’t drink the same kind of coffee you do” messages as the contemptible lies that they are. And they’re going to vote for what they want. Which is something different.
Prediction: Clinton – 56 percent; Obama – 44 percent.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Anything But Constructive
Well, that was a fine mess.
Just watched a good chunk of the Philadelphia debate between Obama and Clinton. As usual, I didn't see all of it; I was sneaking peeks between cleaning up the dinner dishes and keeping an eye on the kids. I got to watch most of the last half hour or so. I actually recorded it on my DVR, but that didn't work so well as the DVR suddenly started making strange noises and I had to unplug it for a while.
That's right; Charlie Gibson broke my TV.
This was the worst of the Dem debates I've seen in this primary season. The ABC panel seemed to really want some kind of confrontation or meltdown, because I saw a long string of "gotcha" and guilt-by-distant-association questions that really seemed designed to cast the candidates in the worst possible light.
And I don't generally go for "oh the media is out to get my candidate" spin, but this was ... curious. It really didn't seem like a regular debate. Few issues such as Iraq, the economy, etc were asked, and when something relevant to most Americans did come up, it was couched in weird terms, like Gibson complaining about the unfairness of raising taxes on a couple making $200,000 a year.
A few of the reviews say that Obama had a bad night, and he certainly didn't have a good one. But with the panel and Clinton piling on about Rev. Wright and flag pins and some tenuous association with a guy who was a dangerous radical 40 years ago, it's hard to see how he could have possibly had a good night. On the whole, I think he would have rather been in Pittsburgh.
I don't think Clinton came off too well either. She seemed to be cautiously trying to walk a tighrope between attacking Obama and still being positive and upbeat, and it was just a dissonant performance.
So I think tonight's debate gives some support to the theory that dragging this process out is not good for the Dems in general. I wasn't much in the mood to vote for either one after this mudbath.
Just watched a good chunk of the Philadelphia debate between Obama and Clinton. As usual, I didn't see all of it; I was sneaking peeks between cleaning up the dinner dishes and keeping an eye on the kids. I got to watch most of the last half hour or so. I actually recorded it on my DVR, but that didn't work so well as the DVR suddenly started making strange noises and I had to unplug it for a while.
That's right; Charlie Gibson broke my TV.
This was the worst of the Dem debates I've seen in this primary season. The ABC panel seemed to really want some kind of confrontation or meltdown, because I saw a long string of "gotcha" and guilt-by-distant-association questions that really seemed designed to cast the candidates in the worst possible light.
And I don't generally go for "oh the media is out to get my candidate" spin, but this was ... curious. It really didn't seem like a regular debate. Few issues such as Iraq, the economy, etc were asked, and when something relevant to most Americans did come up, it was couched in weird terms, like Gibson complaining about the unfairness of raising taxes on a couple making $200,000 a year.
A few of the reviews say that Obama had a bad night, and he certainly didn't have a good one. But with the panel and Clinton piling on about Rev. Wright and flag pins and some tenuous association with a guy who was a dangerous radical 40 years ago, it's hard to see how he could have possibly had a good night. On the whole, I think he would have rather been in Pittsburgh.
I don't think Clinton came off too well either. She seemed to be cautiously trying to walk a tighrope between attacking Obama and still being positive and upbeat, and it was just a dissonant performance.
So I think tonight's debate gives some support to the theory that dragging this process out is not good for the Dems in general. I wasn't much in the mood to vote for either one after this mudbath.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Such an elitist
Barack Obama, addressing an audience of veterans in Pennsylvania today, faced a man who rose and asked -- with an obvious sense of indignation about the current battle over the senator's words about the working class and campaign complaints that Obama is elitist and out-of-touch -- if there isn't some racial element to this controversy.
"I don’t think there are racial overtones to the attacks going on right now,'' Obama replied. "It’s politics.''
Obama, saying that “the American people are looking for politics that are not about tearing each down but lifting the country up,'' said: "These kind of political attacks, they don’t solve the V.A . problem… What we really need to do right now is focus on solving problems.
"It is true,'' Obama added, "I am amused about this notion of eltitist,'' given that he was raised by a single mother who for a time relied on food stamps and married a woman of humble means as well. "We both had to finance our entire law school educations borrowing money, and we paid off our student loans about five years ago, six years ago…
"We lived for the first 13 years in our marriage, up until three years ago, in a one-bedroom condo without a garage,'' Obama said, "which means, if you live in Chicago, you are scraping ice from your windshield'' in the morning.
“That’s when you know we’re in political silly season.’’
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/obama_on_elitism_silly_season.html
"I don’t think there are racial overtones to the attacks going on right now,'' Obama replied. "It’s politics.''
Obama, saying that “the American people are looking for politics that are not about tearing each down but lifting the country up,'' said: "These kind of political attacks, they don’t solve the V.A . problem… What we really need to do right now is focus on solving problems.
"It is true,'' Obama added, "I am amused about this notion of eltitist,'' given that he was raised by a single mother who for a time relied on food stamps and married a woman of humble means as well. "We both had to finance our entire law school educations borrowing money, and we paid off our student loans about five years ago, six years ago…
"We lived for the first 13 years in our marriage, up until three years ago, in a one-bedroom condo without a garage,'' Obama said, "which means, if you live in Chicago, you are scraping ice from your windshield'' in the morning.
“That’s when you know we’re in political silly season.’’
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/obama_on_elitism_silly_season.html
Clinging to my blog
Well, I haven’t been, lately.
Hope you are all having a good early spring. We had snow last Friday here but today it’s sunny and should get up into the 60s. Excellent.
So things have been busy and I’ve not gotten around to updating the blog lately. There’s been lots of things to write about, but not enough time.
However, let’s talk about this latest controversy. Sen. Obama said people were bitter and clinging to guns and religion, and Clinton “saw an opportunity” as the AP put it and has been hammering him hard for being “elitist.” McCain has also taken this line of attack.
Calling a Democrat elitist is one of the most knee-jerk responses in the conservative playbook. It’s a little surprising to see Sen. Clinton pull out that playbook, but given her rather desperate situation, I suppose she feels this may be her last good chance to really change the dynamic.
I doubt it will work in the long run. First of all, let’s just back up and talk about elitism. It’s like the “liberal” bugaboo, it’s an attack that has gotten very tired and predictable. Conservatives call Democrats “elitist” if they: have a college degree; listen to NPR, buy coffee from Starbucks, etc. etc. etc. In other words, at least 50 percent of the population in this country is part of an elite. By stretching the definition of “elitism” so broadly, the word is in danger of losing all meaning in the political context.
Part of Obama’s problem is that he does come off as a little arrogant and over-intellectual sometimes. But the fact is he’s a pretty smart guy—God forbid we get someone like that in the White House!
This comment of his was a poor choice of words, and really if you think about it, not very reflective of his life story. He is after all, a church-goer and has spoken a lot about his beliefs and how they inform his politics. Now, maybe, that’s all a lie and he’s a complete phony. Or maybe the guy just made a poor choice of words. It’s our job as voters to decide for ourselves. Having listened to a quite a few of Obama’s speeches, interviews, and debates, I don’t think he’s a complete phony. In fact, I think, as one person put it, Obama’s big sin—in this and other controversies—is that he tells the truth.
Are voters bitter and angry? In places like Pennsylvania, I think the answer is often yes. Do they tend to “cling to”—or to use a better term, turn to—issues like gun rights and social issues when issues like economic policy seem to consist mostly of smoke and mirrors, no matter who the candidate is? I think that makes some sense, although I would hesitate to stereotype voters—which I think is another mistake Obama makes here.
So Obama probably should have thought this one through a bit more and phrased it differently. But really, his main point rings true, despite the poor way he phrased it.
Now, my question is, are voters in Pennsylvania going to buy into Clinton’s faux outrage and turn on Obama for disrespecting them? Or are they going to recognize this manufactured controversy for what it is?
I think by election day next Tuesday, most voters will have moved on. But there could be enough blowback from this (and Clinton will do everything she can to keep the controversy alive) to cause Obama to lose by more than 10 points instead of losing by less than ten percentage points. That’s an important outcome for Clinton. Obama has always been likely to lose to Clinton in Pennsylvania simply because of the demographics. If he keeps that loss under ten percentage points, Clinton really can’t claim much momentum. If it’s a larger loss, Clinton’s quixotic candidacy gets a big boost. And we’ll drag this thing out a little longer.
There’s another point I’d like to make about this “elitist” charge against Obama. You can bet we’re going to hear a lot of this from the pundits and opponents of Obama. It’s a cheap and easy thing to criticize a candidate for, and with the pundits especially, cheap and easy are their stock in trade. I mean, Obama has been criticized for choosing orange juice over coffee. So is he elitist, or just healthy? (Answer elitist and you are well-qualified for Loud Dobbs’ job.)
But I think it’s going to be very interesting to see the “elitist” attacks on Obama. Maybe they’ll be effective, but I think they will not have the impact we’ve seen in the past. Aside from the fact that Obama’s background is anything but elitist, he is just better equipped to deal with this sort of distraction.
This is no John Kerry we have here. Look at how Obama has handled the Wright controversy, look at how he is handling this current one. This guy knows how to defend himself. At times in past presidential campaigns I’ve felt both sympathy and complete frustration with Kerry or Gore before him for not being able to counter these kinds of ridiculous attacks effectively.
Obama just seems to me to be in a different league. Quick to respond, able to talk to people in simple yet thoughtful terms, not easily rattled, comfortable in his own skin … the guy just seems to roll on unruffled by the screeching circus around him. He’s far from perfect, as this incident shows. But he is extremely adept as a campaigner, and unlike a Kerry or Gore, he seems able to shake off these attacks and move on. In fact, he’s not adverse to going on the offensive at a time when he is under fire, as he did when he noted Sen. Clinton’s ridiculous “shot and a beer chaser” photo op.
Anyhow, it’s all pretty crazy, but if Obama can ride this out, he’ll be in good shape for the inevitable GOP sliming to come.
Hope you are all having a good early spring. We had snow last Friday here but today it’s sunny and should get up into the 60s. Excellent.
So things have been busy and I’ve not gotten around to updating the blog lately. There’s been lots of things to write about, but not enough time.
However, let’s talk about this latest controversy. Sen. Obama said people were bitter and clinging to guns and religion, and Clinton “saw an opportunity” as the AP put it and has been hammering him hard for being “elitist.” McCain has also taken this line of attack.
Calling a Democrat elitist is one of the most knee-jerk responses in the conservative playbook. It’s a little surprising to see Sen. Clinton pull out that playbook, but given her rather desperate situation, I suppose she feels this may be her last good chance to really change the dynamic.
I doubt it will work in the long run. First of all, let’s just back up and talk about elitism. It’s like the “liberal” bugaboo, it’s an attack that has gotten very tired and predictable. Conservatives call Democrats “elitist” if they: have a college degree; listen to NPR, buy coffee from Starbucks, etc. etc. etc. In other words, at least 50 percent of the population in this country is part of an elite. By stretching the definition of “elitism” so broadly, the word is in danger of losing all meaning in the political context.
Part of Obama’s problem is that he does come off as a little arrogant and over-intellectual sometimes. But the fact is he’s a pretty smart guy—God forbid we get someone like that in the White House!
This comment of his was a poor choice of words, and really if you think about it, not very reflective of his life story. He is after all, a church-goer and has spoken a lot about his beliefs and how they inform his politics. Now, maybe, that’s all a lie and he’s a complete phony. Or maybe the guy just made a poor choice of words. It’s our job as voters to decide for ourselves. Having listened to a quite a few of Obama’s speeches, interviews, and debates, I don’t think he’s a complete phony. In fact, I think, as one person put it, Obama’s big sin—in this and other controversies—is that he tells the truth.
Are voters bitter and angry? In places like Pennsylvania, I think the answer is often yes. Do they tend to “cling to”—or to use a better term, turn to—issues like gun rights and social issues when issues like economic policy seem to consist mostly of smoke and mirrors, no matter who the candidate is? I think that makes some sense, although I would hesitate to stereotype voters—which I think is another mistake Obama makes here.
So Obama probably should have thought this one through a bit more and phrased it differently. But really, his main point rings true, despite the poor way he phrased it.
Now, my question is, are voters in Pennsylvania going to buy into Clinton’s faux outrage and turn on Obama for disrespecting them? Or are they going to recognize this manufactured controversy for what it is?
I think by election day next Tuesday, most voters will have moved on. But there could be enough blowback from this (and Clinton will do everything she can to keep the controversy alive) to cause Obama to lose by more than 10 points instead of losing by less than ten percentage points. That’s an important outcome for Clinton. Obama has always been likely to lose to Clinton in Pennsylvania simply because of the demographics. If he keeps that loss under ten percentage points, Clinton really can’t claim much momentum. If it’s a larger loss, Clinton’s quixotic candidacy gets a big boost. And we’ll drag this thing out a little longer.
There’s another point I’d like to make about this “elitist” charge against Obama. You can bet we’re going to hear a lot of this from the pundits and opponents of Obama. It’s a cheap and easy thing to criticize a candidate for, and with the pundits especially, cheap and easy are their stock in trade. I mean, Obama has been criticized for choosing orange juice over coffee. So is he elitist, or just healthy? (Answer elitist and you are well-qualified for Loud Dobbs’ job.)
But I think it’s going to be very interesting to see the “elitist” attacks on Obama. Maybe they’ll be effective, but I think they will not have the impact we’ve seen in the past. Aside from the fact that Obama’s background is anything but elitist, he is just better equipped to deal with this sort of distraction.
This is no John Kerry we have here. Look at how Obama has handled the Wright controversy, look at how he is handling this current one. This guy knows how to defend himself. At times in past presidential campaigns I’ve felt both sympathy and complete frustration with Kerry or Gore before him for not being able to counter these kinds of ridiculous attacks effectively.
Obama just seems to me to be in a different league. Quick to respond, able to talk to people in simple yet thoughtful terms, not easily rattled, comfortable in his own skin … the guy just seems to roll on unruffled by the screeching circus around him. He’s far from perfect, as this incident shows. But he is extremely adept as a campaigner, and unlike a Kerry or Gore, he seems able to shake off these attacks and move on. In fact, he’s not adverse to going on the offensive at a time when he is under fire, as he did when he noted Sen. Clinton’s ridiculous “shot and a beer chaser” photo op.
Anyhow, it’s all pretty crazy, but if Obama can ride this out, he’ll be in good shape for the inevitable GOP sliming to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)