Posts
Friday, August 29, 2008
Sarah Palin - Updates
From around the web.
Politico: Sarah Palin dissed the VP job, saying it didn't seem "productive" and Palin admits NOT KNOWING WHAT THE VICE PRESIDENT DOES.
Sullivan: Emails from Alaska
Daily Kos: "Sarah Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools alongside evolution."
TheZoo: Governor Palin is under ethics investigation?
Opinion from Newsminer.com in Alaska: Palin is unqualified to serve, as her successes in Alaska are predicated on enormous oil wealth and a weak contender in the election.
And, for fun...
Sarah Palin is Tina Fey's big chance
Michael Ian Black on McCain/Palin
Sarah Palin: the biggest vice presidential gamble in recent history.
I woke up this morning to this text message:
"What do you think of the new VP Palin?"
Given that I have the day off today, I didn't wake up early to watch the news. So I assumed my friendly text message had been mistaken, and that Palin actually was supposed to be Pawlenty. So imagine my surprise to pull up my computer and find that John McCain selected Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate.
Some quick facts on Sarah Palin: she's 44, she's a staunch social conservative that has a reformist image, and she has been in office for under two years. Prior to that, she served as the mayor of a 5,469 resident Alaskan city called Wasilla, where about one third of residents commute to Anchorage every day for work. Wasilla was founded in 1917, largely as a staging site for gold mining that was occurring at the Kantishna Gold Mining area near Mount McKinley. Incorporated in 1973, the city continues in its long mining history with Wasilla's current role in the Alaskan oil industry.
Palin's stance on ethics reform - notably, with her vocal critiques of the "Bridge to Nowhere" and indicted Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens - earned her a position as somebody outside the party status quo, but her staunch social conservatism has helped her rise to the governorship. Ethics reform was the centerpiece of her electoral campaign, but she took on the oil industry, raising taxes on oil company profits that led to large budget surpluses statewide. She's popular, beautiful, and young - and apparently pretty tough.
So on the surface, some of the elements of this choice are fairly brilliant. Like I mentioned yesterday, a surprise pick was the only way to detract from Obama's speech last night (which, by the by, I'll have a post on later. I'm going to have to think about how I want to attack it though). People will spend all weekend figuring out everything there is to know about Sarah Palin - and all of that distracts from the policy proscriptions Obama laid out.
It appears as though McCain has staked his election on energy. Palin is a huge addition to the ticket if McCain can control the narrative to focus on drilling and energy planning - but the question remains as to whether he can successfully steal it away from the Democrats. They coopted energy policy earlier this summer, but I'm not sure they'll be able to hold the issue.
Palin is a pro-life, life long member of the NRA. She's already started to energize the base on some of the issues - just check out the response at National Review. Her oldest son is about to go to Iraq. She has another child with downs syndrome. Conservatives will love her.
I don't think Palin locks up the female vote, however, as much as she is going to try. She noted Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton in her first speech in Dayton. Initially, I think a lot of women will be entranced by Palin - she's a good speaker and a charming person. People will want to know about her story, and I think a lot of women will admire Palin's background. She's a mother of five and a professionally accomplished, intelligent woman.
But I hope most Clinton Democrats will likely see this for what it is - electioneering. Pandering to the Clinton vote in perhaps the most obvious way yet. And Palin's big downside for those voters is that the crux of her qualifications are her social conservative credentials. All we're going to hear for a few days is her pro-life, pro-guns, pro-drilling platform - which SHOULD, if people have any good sense, completely negate any pickup she would get among former Clinton voters. They just simply won't agree with her, and Palin is going to have to talk A LOT about what she stands for in order to introduce herself to voters.
And some thoughts here - the most vocal critique of this pick will be that she undercuts John McCain's experience argument. I think there is a lot of truth to this. But at the same time, the Obama camp cannot really take her to task on this without risking their own candidate. If Obama or his surrogates come out swinging on her inexperience, McCain will flip that issue on them faster than you can imagine. They'll point to her executive experience as a more important indicator of her ability to lead as POTUS, and they'll slam Barack Obama for his lack of executive experience. And frankly, that is a weaker stance for Obama as he resides at the top of the ticket.
* * *
But beyond that - come on. She's a 44 year old woman from ALASKA. No offense to Alaska, but Alaskans live a bit differently than everybody else in the country. They get oil revenues paid to them by the state government. They live an entirely different socio-economic situation, with an entirely different populace, than the vast, vast majority of the country.
Are we really ready to put a 44 year old governor from Alaska a breath away from the presidency? If - heaven forbid - there was something that prevented a 72 year old John McCain from serving, are we okay with Sarah Palin going toe to toe with Vladimir Putin? Does Sarah Palin know anything about foreign policy? Does Sarah Palin know anything about what it is like to live in a city like Los Angeles, New York, Atlanta or Miami? What does Sarah Palin know about immigration and the economy?
I applaud McCain for his gall. But her biggest downsides are exactly the problems that Barack Obama has needed 18 months or more to try and overcome - and essentially is still trying to overcome. Who is she, what does she believe, where does she come from, how can she represent us on the national stage?
Sarah Palin WILL NOT be able to do this in just over 60 days. The former mayor of a town of 5,500 people will now have to give speeches and debate on a national stage, on international questions that she has not been forced to address at any time in her career. She'll have to debate the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia, the Iraeli-Palestinian conflict and more with one of the foremost foreign policy experts in the Democratic party. Questions will linger about her readiness when everybody goes into the ballot box.
Yes, McCain is on the top of that ticket - but JOHN MCCAIN IS 72 YEARS OLD. Maybe without knowing it, McCain just injected his age into the debate in the biggest possible way. Voters are now forced to think about what would happen if something were to prevent John McCain from serving. This is not a vice presidential candidate that has a lock on the ability to lead as POTUS - and that was not a narrative that John McCain wanted.
Ultimately - this rests on Sarah Palin. If, somehow, Sarah Palin can pull this off - she will be one of the most important political figures in the history of the country. The first female vice president, a change agent with a pedigree firmly outside of the Washington establishment - and a woman that took on and bested one of the best Democratic tickets in memory.
And if she can't, she'll become the mistake that sank the McCain campaign.
Some quick facts on Sarah Palin: she's 44, she's a staunch social conservative that has a reformist image, and she has been in office for under two years. Prior to that, she served as the mayor of a 5,469 resident Alaskan city called Wasilla, where about one third of residents commute to Anchorage every day for work. Wasilla was founded in 1917, largely as a staging site for gold mining that was occurring at the Kantishna Gold Mining area near Mount McKinley. Incorporated in 1973, the city continues in its long mining history with Wasilla's current role in the Alaskan oil industry.
Palin's stance on ethics reform - notably, with her vocal critiques of the "Bridge to Nowhere" and indicted Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens - earned her a position as somebody outside the party status quo, but her staunch social conservatism has helped her rise to the governorship. Ethics reform was the centerpiece of her electoral campaign, but she took on the oil industry, raising taxes on oil company profits that led to large budget surpluses statewide. She's popular, beautiful, and young - and apparently pretty tough.
So on the surface, some of the elements of this choice are fairly brilliant. Like I mentioned yesterday, a surprise pick was the only way to detract from Obama's speech last night (which, by the by, I'll have a post on later. I'm going to have to think about how I want to attack it though). People will spend all weekend figuring out everything there is to know about Sarah Palin - and all of that distracts from the policy proscriptions Obama laid out.
It appears as though McCain has staked his election on energy. Palin is a huge addition to the ticket if McCain can control the narrative to focus on drilling and energy planning - but the question remains as to whether he can successfully steal it away from the Democrats. They coopted energy policy earlier this summer, but I'm not sure they'll be able to hold the issue.
Palin is a pro-life, life long member of the NRA. She's already started to energize the base on some of the issues - just check out the response at National Review. Her oldest son is about to go to Iraq. She has another child with downs syndrome. Conservatives will love her.
I don't think Palin locks up the female vote, however, as much as she is going to try. She noted Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton in her first speech in Dayton. Initially, I think a lot of women will be entranced by Palin - she's a good speaker and a charming person. People will want to know about her story, and I think a lot of women will admire Palin's background. She's a mother of five and a professionally accomplished, intelligent woman.
But I hope most Clinton Democrats will likely see this for what it is - electioneering. Pandering to the Clinton vote in perhaps the most obvious way yet. And Palin's big downside for those voters is that the crux of her qualifications are her social conservative credentials. All we're going to hear for a few days is her pro-life, pro-guns, pro-drilling platform - which SHOULD, if people have any good sense, completely negate any pickup she would get among former Clinton voters. They just simply won't agree with her, and Palin is going to have to talk A LOT about what she stands for in order to introduce herself to voters.
And some thoughts here - the most vocal critique of this pick will be that she undercuts John McCain's experience argument. I think there is a lot of truth to this. But at the same time, the Obama camp cannot really take her to task on this without risking their own candidate. If Obama or his surrogates come out swinging on her inexperience, McCain will flip that issue on them faster than you can imagine. They'll point to her executive experience as a more important indicator of her ability to lead as POTUS, and they'll slam Barack Obama for his lack of executive experience. And frankly, that is a weaker stance for Obama as he resides at the top of the ticket.
* * *
But beyond that - come on. She's a 44 year old woman from ALASKA. No offense to Alaska, but Alaskans live a bit differently than everybody else in the country. They get oil revenues paid to them by the state government. They live an entirely different socio-economic situation, with an entirely different populace, than the vast, vast majority of the country.
Are we really ready to put a 44 year old governor from Alaska a breath away from the presidency? If - heaven forbid - there was something that prevented a 72 year old John McCain from serving, are we okay with Sarah Palin going toe to toe with Vladimir Putin? Does Sarah Palin know anything about foreign policy? Does Sarah Palin know anything about what it is like to live in a city like Los Angeles, New York, Atlanta or Miami? What does Sarah Palin know about immigration and the economy?
I applaud McCain for his gall. But her biggest downsides are exactly the problems that Barack Obama has needed 18 months or more to try and overcome - and essentially is still trying to overcome. Who is she, what does she believe, where does she come from, how can she represent us on the national stage?
Sarah Palin WILL NOT be able to do this in just over 60 days. The former mayor of a town of 5,500 people will now have to give speeches and debate on a national stage, on international questions that she has not been forced to address at any time in her career. She'll have to debate the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia, the Iraeli-Palestinian conflict and more with one of the foremost foreign policy experts in the Democratic party. Questions will linger about her readiness when everybody goes into the ballot box.
Yes, McCain is on the top of that ticket - but JOHN MCCAIN IS 72 YEARS OLD. Maybe without knowing it, McCain just injected his age into the debate in the biggest possible way. Voters are now forced to think about what would happen if something were to prevent John McCain from serving. This is not a vice presidential candidate that has a lock on the ability to lead as POTUS - and that was not a narrative that John McCain wanted.
Ultimately - this rests on Sarah Palin. If, somehow, Sarah Palin can pull this off - she will be one of the most important political figures in the history of the country. The first female vice president, a change agent with a pedigree firmly outside of the Washington establishment - and a woman that took on and bested one of the best Democratic tickets in memory.
And if she can't, she'll become the mistake that sank the McCain campaign.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
John Kerry's speech last night.
Sullivan notes that cable didn't show John Kerry's speech, and that it was worth watching. I agree:
...I have known and been friends with John McCain for almost 22 years. But every day now I learn something new about candidate McCain. To those who still believe in the myth of a maverick instead of the reality of a politician, I say, let’s compare Senator McCain to candidate McCain.
Candidate McCain now supports the wartime tax cuts that Senator McCain once denounced as immoral. Candidate McCain criticizes Senator McCain’s own climate change bill. Candidate McCain says he would now vote against the immigration bill that Sen. McCain wrote. Are you kidding? Talk about being for it before you’re against it.
Let me tell you, before he ever debates Barack Obama, John McCain should finish the debate with himself. And what’s more, Senator McCain, who once railed against the smears of Karl Rove when he was the target, has morphed into candidate McCain who is using the same “Rove” tactics and the same “Rove” staff to repeat the same old politics of fear and smear. Well, not this year, not this time. The Rove-McCain tactics are old and outworn, and America will reject them in 2008...
McCain surprise tonight?
Via Politico:
"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) will talk directly to his opponents in a television ad his campaign is airing in battleground states tonight around the time Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) accepts the presidential nomination, his campaign said.
Aides would give few details beyond the fact that McCain will speak directly to the camera, addressing Obama...
...Matt Drudge of The Drudge Report, who has high-level McCain contacts, posted this morning: "SOURCE: NAME MAY LEAK AT 6 PM ET... WITH SOME SORT OF CONFIRMATION AT 8 PM."
Obama is scheduled to speak between 10 and 11 p.m. Eastern.
The leak of the name at the same time would cause a news frenzy at a time when the Obama campaign wanted viewers to be focused on Obama's economic and change messages.
McCain campaign communications director Jill Hazelbaker said in an MSNBC appearance that the battleground spot is 'an historic ad — I think this is the first of its kind.'
'Senator McCain is going to have an ad that's going to air in battleground states around the time that Senator Obama is speaking tonight,' Hazelbaker said. 'He's going to be talking directly to his opponent. So, I'm going to leave it there. But it's going be very exciting. I think that a lot of people are going to focus on it.'"
This seems like an odd decision to me from the McCain campaign, if they are indeed going to use the ad tonight to announce the VP choice. Unless he has chosen Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Joe Lieberman, and McCain is going to explicitly go after Hillary Clinton supporters and moderate Democrats, I don't see how an announcement of his VP choice at the same time as Obama's speech makes any sense. Sure, it may distract some of the media swirl around Obama acceptance, but I just don't see any way that he is going to eclipse him with any other choice.
In fact, the more that I think about it - if (and of course, that's a big IF) this is indeed how McCain will announce his VP, I think it points to a dark horse candidate. That is the only way the pick will really distract from Obama's speech. Think about it - most Americans already know something about Romney and Huckabee, and Pawlenty isn't all that exciting - especially not when stacked against a historic speech in front of 75,000 people. The networks would simply delay their coverage of the choice until after Obama's speech, and then talk about them collectively. They wouldn't necessarily need to do a big biographical rundown right away, as McCain might be hoping they would in order to pull attention from Obama. So does this point to Lieberman, Hutchinson, or perhaps, pro-choice Tom Ridge? That certainly would steal airtime away from Obama, and shift the focus of all analysis to the GOP and what McCain's pick means for the party and the election.
The political theater in this election never fails to amaze me. It is fascinating to watch.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
People around the world have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.
I don't have time for a full post, but man, WHAT A LINE from Bill Clinton. And what a speech.
Let's put it in the body of the post too, just for good measure:
People around the world have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.
I'm proud of my friends.
WOXY presents Thao with The Get Down Stay Down from Soft City Lights on Vimeo.
Just wanted to share. Willis and I used to play music together in college. I went out selling merch for his old band, Murphy's Kids, for a couple of shows in the Carolinas. Let me tell you - there is nothing like the looks you get from Waffle House employees when you roll in at 3:00 am with 30 ska kids. I'm very glad that he's gone on to such successes with Thao. I continue to wish them all the best.
Howard Wolfson loves him some Glasvegas.
This is just too perfect. Howard Wolfson - yes, that Howard Wolfson - has a music and politics blog as well, called Gotham Acme. He gets a bit more press for his than I do; I guess working for Fox News and being Hillary Clinton's former communications director gives him an advantage. But our blogs have very comparable mission statements, and we agreed on the Biden pick. Which makes me happy.
But point being - Howard Wolfson is a huge fan of Glasvegas.
Why is this so exciting to me? Well, apart from following the election and my job, I also play guitar in an indie rock band called Soft Complex, that happens to be playing a show with Glasvegas on October 3 here in Washington DC.
Now, I was never a huge fan of the way the Clinton campaign was run - and I made that very vocally known to a lot of people. I've been an Obama supporter the whole way through, and I make no bones about it. I'm also not a huge fan of Wolfson going to work for Fox News, but hey - something has to pay the bills, and lord knows if Fox News came knocking asking for my opinion (and paying for it), I'd sure as hell give it to them. So whatever.
So, Howard, if you happen to read this - let's let bygones be bygones. Consider this a formal invitation - come hang out with us and Glasvegas at the Rock and Roll Hotel on October 3, and we'll be mend our past differences. I can pick your brain about the campaign, we can chat on gloomy rock music. Hell, I'll even buy you a shot of Crown Royal. What do you say? Honestly, the best path to party unity is a PBR in a dimly lit rock club while listening to thunderous bass lines from a Glasgow foursome. What could be any better than that?
If anybody wants, you can download a Soft Complex track here:
Soft Complex - Barcelona
Dukakis apologizes for George W. Bush's presidency.
I was in kindergarten in 1988, and I remember having a discussion in class about the election. We all got to vote on who we wanted to be president - Michael Dukakis or George Bush. I remember voting for Dukakis. My reasoning? I didn't want somebody with the last name Bush to be president. Hooray for kindergarten logic.
And now, Dukakis speaks!
From Jason Zengerle, via CBS News, this amazing quote from Michael Dukakis:
Look, I owe the American people an apology. If I had beaten the old man you’d of never heard of the kid and you wouldn’t be in this mess. So it’s all my fault and I feel that very, very strongly.
Oh Michael. We forgive you. I think.
Mark Warner delivers one of the best lines of the convention.
To be honest, I was a bit nervous about Warner's keynote address, as I didn't think he would hammer John McCain enough on his record. But Warner reminded me why I'm thrilled he'll be a United States Senator from Virginia, and why I expect we'll see him run for POTUS in the future - great speech, even if the hall didn't seem that enraptured by it. I loved the technology heavy emphasis.
But in particular, this line stood out:
People always ask me, "What's my biggest criticism of President Bush?" I'm sure you all have your own. Here's mine--it's not just the policy differences, it's the fact that this president never tapped into our greatest resource: the character and resolve of the American people. He never asked us to step up.
Think about it: after September 11th, if there was a call from the president to get us off foreign oil to stop funding the very terrorists who had just attacked us, every American would have said, "how can I do my part?" This administration failed to believe in what we can achieve as a nation, when all of us work together.
Wow. In one easily understood example, Warner not only illuminated the crux of the problem with the Bush administration, but also pinpointed a central tenet of Obama's platform - that the American people, when called upon, will act in the best interests of this country. And I think his example is spot on.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Disclaimer
Some of you may have noticed that I changed all of the photos around. I'm new to blogging, so I'm not entirely sure of the etiquette and rules governing the use of photos from the web - and I'm pretty sure the photos I was using before were copyright protected.
For the new shots, I tried to pull all of them from Flickr's Creative Commons section, which I believe means that I'm okay to use them on this site. If I'm in error, I'd greatly appreciate somebody letting me know, as I want to be sure to use photos or outside materials appropriately.
UPDATE: Since I'm reasonably sure I'm still doing something wrong, I'm going to pull them from the blog until I can figure it out. Maybe they'll come back, maybe they won't...
Michelle Obama - Political Future?
Am I the only one who sees a political future for Michelle Obama, regardless of whether or not Barack Obama is elected president? She was outstanding last night.
UPDATE: if you didn't see it, Obama has posted it here.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Blue Collar Biden
While the choice of Joe Biden as Barack Obama's running mate wasn't terribly surprising, the role in which they have placed him is more so. Conventional wisdom pointed to Biden for his foreign policy experience. Biden rose through the ranks of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, eventually becoming ranking Democrat in 1997 in the GOP controlled Senate. He then chaired the committee from 2001-2003, and returned to that role in 2007. He has remained there since. There isn't really another Democrat out there with that kind of foreign policy expertise and credentials, and when you add Biden's willingness and comfort in discussing the issues, he becomes a potent advocate for Obama's foreign policy platform.
Make no mistake, Biden will hit the media circuit hard, appearing wherever he can to hammer John McCain on Iraq, Afghanistan, and most recently, the Russian-Georgia conflict. I expect you may even see another appearance in the editorial pages of the New York Times. Biden's task becomes to speak about John McCain in the harshest, most critical terms possible. It is already clear that Obama's team seeks to link McCain and President Bush, and Biden will become the most potent weapon in the war to remind people about John McCain's record.
But interestingly, this is not the Joe Biden that we were introduced to in Springfield. No, we were introduced to the Blue Collar Biden. The scrappy kid from Scranton who overcame tragedy, who joined the halls of the United States Senate only to see his wife and daughter killed in a car accident. The guy who never moved to Washington, who commutes home on the train to Delaware every night to raise his two sons, both of whom became proud public servants and true success stories. We were introduced to the guy who introduces his wife as "drop dead gorgeous" and manages to sound completely genuine. Joe Biden is not being cast as a foreign policy expert. Joe Biden is being cast as the every man, in a direct appeal on the economy and in an attempt to give Obama more traction in the areas of working class America. Biden policy expertise is almost implicit - they have faith that he'll command the issues well enough in the media and the debates that they can afford to cast him in another role: Blue Collar Biden, working for you.
Some other quick thoughts:
- Halperin did a fantastic article examining whether Barack Obama is overreaching. It is an excellent point, and one that I hadn't thought of completely. Not entirely sure what I think of his analysis, but he gives a good examination of the pros and cons. Worth a read.
- I wonder if John McCain is smart enough to pick Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson as his running mate. Conventional wisdom points to Mitt Romney, and most likely, this will be who John McCain selects. The sputtering about possibly choosing a pro-choice running mate is complete nonsense - if John McCain is foolish enough to pick either Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman, the conservative base would desert him faster than he could imagine. No, this is just some clever political maneuvering to make voters think McCain is further left on abortion than he really is. The only real strike on Romney is that he's even richer than John and Cindy McCain, and if they own more properties between them than Richard Branson, it might deepen the wound that McCain's housing gaffe caused. (UPDATE: Of course, I should add the Mormon thing to cons with Romney - but that also gives him serious upsides in the American West. What it may cost him in the South could be balanced out in Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico) But if McCain really wants to shake up the race, Hutchinson is the pick. McCain has already started to push the fact that Obama inexplicably did not vet Clinton in the same manner as his other choices (this may prove to be a gigantic error in judgment). Why not swing for the fences with female voters and former Clinton supporters by choosing a woman with a long and distinguished political career. It'd be a bold step - and one that could conceivably give McCain a real shot at the White House.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Obama/Biden is a strong ticket and a strong choice.
So Obama picks Biden, and while everybody is really amped today, nobody is all that shocked.
I like the Biden pick, and I always have - my case for Hillary Clinton notwithstanding. But make no mistake - this is a campaign choice and a governance decision. And, unlike Ron Fournier, I think this is a strong pick. It represents Obama's extreme confidence (excessive pride?) in his ability to win, and the first step in the change he seeks to bring to Washington.
Obama is not counting on Biden to be an outstanding campaigner. All you need to do is look at Biden's failed presidential runs to know that he isn't going to deliver supporters in the same masses as a Clinton or Gore would have. He isn't going to drive any current Obama supporters away, and he'll help chip away at some key demographics. But his choice alone won't sway the electorate - they'll still have to work hard at that. That said, it reinforces Obama's image on foreign policy and is implicitly Biden's strongest possible endorsement of Obama's ability to lead. Biden has experience - a lot of it, and people are going to hear all about it. As I mentioned yesterday, this is somewhat of a problem for Obama. The biggest blow that he will take here will be to his image as an outside reformer. The campaign is counting on voters to recognize that Obama will have to work with the Washington establishment if he is going to change it.
That said, Biden may help Obama with older, white working class Democrats that identify with Biden's past and work ethic. Despite the length of time that he has spent in Washington, I don't believe people will perceive Biden as a Washington insider (even though he clearly is) - for one key reason. Biden is a straight talker. He speaks in very direct terms that people understand and identify with, and he avoids the political vernacular that speaks over people instead of to them. That's his biggest asset, and Obama shouldn't hesitate to use it as much as possible. Sure, they want to be careful about Biden saying something regrettable, but he's made it this far without burying himself. I have faith he'll make it to November.
This choice is also about what happens in January if Obama and Biden reach the White House. They work well together, they admire one another, and they're able to discuss issues seriously while respecting their disagreements. And that's the type of White House and government that Obama wants - one with constructive discussion of the problems facing our country, where people can work through problems with civility and good sense. Biden will challenge him to govern better.
Certainly this won't mend all of the problems that remain with Hillary Clinton supporters, but I do think it goes a long way to show that Obama is very, very serious about the job he is pursuing. This is anything but a weak pick. This is Obama making his stand that he can win without a Clinton or a Gore, but still recognizing the need to strengthen his position. And now he needs to get very serious about putting on a fantastic convention.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Pride
Back in July, the Israeli paper Maariv published Barack Obama's prayer that he left in the Western Wall. Whether or not they should have done so (they shouldn't have) is another debate - but given that the text of the prayer is out there, it is worth thinking about:
Lord,
Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins and help me guard against pride and despair.
Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just.
And make me an instrument of your will.
I found it illuminating to see Obama ask for protection from pride, in particular. Perhaps no other charge has stuck better to Obama in the course of the campaign than McCain's assertion that Obama is nothing more than a celebrity egotist, more absorbed in his own phenomenon than he is concerned about the American electorate. Say what you will about these ads, but they hit on the issue of pride and ego that a lot of people have had with Obama throughout his campaign. It is something you continue to hear from Democrats who are uninterested in the Illinois Senator and Republicans who are repulsed by the support he's received. It is also at the core of why McCain's celebrity and messiah ads have been so effective - a lot of people simply think Obama is in it for himself above all else.
So what of it? Could pride be Obama's downfall? Possibly.
Which brings me to the point of this post, on the day Obama is expected to make his vice presidential announcement. Unquestionably, Hillary Clinton is Obama's best pick - and the only true obstacle that would prevent it is exactly what Obama's prayer asked God to protect him from: his own pride. Let's examine...
Plenty of VP choices have been mentioned in the press. For the sake of brevity, let's quickly take a look at the four choices that have been the subject of "late in the game" focus - Biden, Kaine, Bayh and Sebelius (yes, I'm aware that Chet Edwards is the latest guy to crop up...but I just don't think that's going to happen). For three of these choices, I think there are huge downsides that make them immediate exclusions:
Evan Bayh - Quite simply, I don't believe the Democrats will sacrifice a surefire Senate seat when there is a possibility (if not likelihood) that Republican Governor Mitch Daniels will fill that seat with a Republican.
Tim Kaine - Larry Sabato at the University of Virginia did an outstanding article on Kaine's pros and cons. In particular, I believe the section on how choosing Kaine would impact Virginia's Democrats is the deal breaker. There just is no way that the DNC would sacrifice the inroads that they have made in the Commonwealth. Not to mention the fact that most Americans don't know anything about Tim Kaine...just like many Americans feel they don't know anything about Barack Obama. The same critique can be levied at Bayh and Sebelius, for that matter.
Katherine Sebelius - Are you telling me Barack Obama is going to pick a woman not named Hillary Clinton? Clinton supporters would never forgive him and would flee in masses.
So with those three out using that basic rationale, that leaves....
Joe Biden - Biden is the safe pick. He brings the foreign policy experience, name recognition, attack dog attitude and plain speech that dovetails well with Obama's stance. And in the spirit of full disclosure, Biden was my first favored choice after Obama won Iowa in January. I told more than one person that an Obama/Biden ticket was my own personal dream ticket. But I'm not the average voter.
So what are his downsides that lead me away from him? Biden has plenty of loose-lipped comments that the GOP will happily put back into the spotlight, but that's not really that big of a deal. No - the issue that hurts Biden the most is that he is anything but a Washington outsider. He's as big of an insider as they come - he's been a Senator since he was 29! His personal history is compelling, sure - but HE'S BEEN A SENATOR SINCE HE WAS 29! He's served for the sixth longest period among current Senators. How does that work with a message that "Washington is broken" and that true change is what we need?
And that is perhaps the most important point - Joe Biden's largest downside is one he shares with none other than Hillary Clinton. And even if you add every upside that Biden has together, it doesn't equate with Hillary Clinton's upside of party unification and unheard of excitement that would accompany a surprise announcement that put her on the ticket. Can you imagine the media frenzy that would accompany such a surprise? The energy that would be present at the convention?
So why wouldn't Obama choose Clinton? Plenty of reasons have been floated - none of which I put much stock in. Quick rundown:
It would galvanize the GOP to turn out and vote.
I simply don't buy it. Clinton as Veep isn't any more provocative to the GOP base than Obama as POTUS, and the fact remains that the GOP needs to be excited by their own candidate for this to be true. I don't think Clinton on the ticket really changes the voter turnout for the GOP. If anything, it might LOWER turnout. Why? The media frenzy that would follow the announcement of the "Dream Ticket," and the possibility that the Obama/Clinton ticket would open up an enormous lead in the polling following the convention. The bounce would be immense. That'd only serve to discourage an already unenthusiastic GOP.
Bill Clinton
Again, I don't buy it. If Obama is elected president, he can tell Bill Clinton whatever he wants. And I think Bill Clinton's stature was injured enough in this electoral season that a lot of people simply aren't taking him seriously any more.
What Clinton adds in terms of supporters is negated by what Obama loses by adding her
This is perhaps the most convincing argument - that Obama supporters would be so turned off by the addition of Clinton to the ticket that they would stop supporting him in such numbers that it would negate any supporters Clinton brings to the ticket. While that is possible, I don't think it is likely - and, for that matter, I think adding Biden effectively does the same thing. Why would Obama supporters leave him if Clinton was added? Essentially because she represents business as usual in Washington. As does Joe Biden.
I think this is basically equivalent to the argument that was made with Hillary Clinton supporters when she was about to lose the primary, when the expectation was that huge numbers would never come home for Obama. Most of them ended up doing so. Granted, there is a large faction that never has - but they basically parallel the same groups that Obama has always had problems with: white, working class men and older white women. If Clinton is added to the ticket, the coalition is cemented. Tell me specifically what voters Obama loses if he chooses her, especially if the narrative becomes that they're an unbeatable pair? I can't finger any specific demographic that would flee, despite the polls that indicate they exist. Sure, I think there would be some objections off the bat - but I believe all of these would fade as people got used to seeing them together on the campaign trail.
Obama/Clinton
Which brings me to the point - in my view, the only thing preventing Obama from choosing Clinton is his own pride. He wants to win on his own. He wants to enter the White House as a part of a new era of politics, without any association to past administrations. He may see Clinton as distracting from his message, or taking the spotlight away. He may be nervous about Bill Clinton's vitriol or the potential for him to say something questionable to the press. But these are all relatively unimportant considerations that are focused on Obama's own standing in the public. And Obama has plenty to be proud about - that almost goes without saying. But frankly, Obama's pride is unimportant - before entering the White House, Obama has an obligation to all of us who have supported him, and that obligation is simple: win.
With Hillary Clinton, Obama wins. Plain and simple, and I don't know that you're going to find anybody that can make a strong case otherwise. Without her, this is a very tight election in which John McCain has a fighting shot. And I think there are some telling clues that point to this possibility - Clinton's inclusion in the nominating pool, Bill Clinton's prime speaking role just before the VP nominee, and Clinton's mysterious disappearance from the national political scene for most of the summer (especially when she's massively in debt...shouldn't she be out raising money?).
At this point, the narrative allows Obama to pick Clinton without appearing as though he needs her. He's stood on his own as a candidate throughout the summer, and crafted his own image in the public consciousness. He can choose her and immediately prove to everybody that he is not about celebrity or pride or self-aggrandizement. By picking a woman, Obama's "change" message becomes fuller and more dynamic by representing the "change" that so many women saw in Hillary Clinton. With Clinton as the choice, Obama becomes entirely about the principles and issues he represents, and bucks the most damning critique anybody has stuck to him. He can say to the world, honestly: "This election is not about me. It is about us. It is about the issues we find collectively important, the issues we must have represented in the White House, and the goals that we want realized."
Let us see if Obama's prayers were answered.
So what of it? Could pride be Obama's downfall? Possibly.
Which brings me to the point of this post, on the day Obama is expected to make his vice presidential announcement. Unquestionably, Hillary Clinton is Obama's best pick - and the only true obstacle that would prevent it is exactly what Obama's prayer asked God to protect him from: his own pride. Let's examine...
Plenty of VP choices have been mentioned in the press. For the sake of brevity, let's quickly take a look at the four choices that have been the subject of "late in the game" focus - Biden, Kaine, Bayh and Sebelius (yes, I'm aware that Chet Edwards is the latest guy to crop up...but I just don't think that's going to happen). For three of these choices, I think there are huge downsides that make them immediate exclusions:
Evan Bayh - Quite simply, I don't believe the Democrats will sacrifice a surefire Senate seat when there is a possibility (if not likelihood) that Republican Governor Mitch Daniels will fill that seat with a Republican.
Tim Kaine - Larry Sabato at the University of Virginia did an outstanding article on Kaine's pros and cons. In particular, I believe the section on how choosing Kaine would impact Virginia's Democrats is the deal breaker. There just is no way that the DNC would sacrifice the inroads that they have made in the Commonwealth. Not to mention the fact that most Americans don't know anything about Tim Kaine...just like many Americans feel they don't know anything about Barack Obama. The same critique can be levied at Bayh and Sebelius, for that matter.
Katherine Sebelius - Are you telling me Barack Obama is going to pick a woman not named Hillary Clinton? Clinton supporters would never forgive him and would flee in masses.
So with those three out using that basic rationale, that leaves....
Joe Biden - Biden is the safe pick. He brings the foreign policy experience, name recognition, attack dog attitude and plain speech that dovetails well with Obama's stance. And in the spirit of full disclosure, Biden was my first favored choice after Obama won Iowa in January. I told more than one person that an Obama/Biden ticket was my own personal dream ticket. But I'm not the average voter.
So what are his downsides that lead me away from him? Biden has plenty of loose-lipped comments that the GOP will happily put back into the spotlight, but that's not really that big of a deal. No - the issue that hurts Biden the most is that he is anything but a Washington outsider. He's as big of an insider as they come - he's been a Senator since he was 29! His personal history is compelling, sure - but HE'S BEEN A SENATOR SINCE HE WAS 29! He's served for the sixth longest period among current Senators. How does that work with a message that "Washington is broken" and that true change is what we need?
And that is perhaps the most important point - Joe Biden's largest downside is one he shares with none other than Hillary Clinton. And even if you add every upside that Biden has together, it doesn't equate with Hillary Clinton's upside of party unification and unheard of excitement that would accompany a surprise announcement that put her on the ticket. Can you imagine the media frenzy that would accompany such a surprise? The energy that would be present at the convention?
So why wouldn't Obama choose Clinton? Plenty of reasons have been floated - none of which I put much stock in. Quick rundown:
It would galvanize the GOP to turn out and vote.
I simply don't buy it. Clinton as Veep isn't any more provocative to the GOP base than Obama as POTUS, and the fact remains that the GOP needs to be excited by their own candidate for this to be true. I don't think Clinton on the ticket really changes the voter turnout for the GOP. If anything, it might LOWER turnout. Why? The media frenzy that would follow the announcement of the "Dream Ticket," and the possibility that the Obama/Clinton ticket would open up an enormous lead in the polling following the convention. The bounce would be immense. That'd only serve to discourage an already unenthusiastic GOP.
Bill Clinton
Again, I don't buy it. If Obama is elected president, he can tell Bill Clinton whatever he wants. And I think Bill Clinton's stature was injured enough in this electoral season that a lot of people simply aren't taking him seriously any more.
What Clinton adds in terms of supporters is negated by what Obama loses by adding her
This is perhaps the most convincing argument - that Obama supporters would be so turned off by the addition of Clinton to the ticket that they would stop supporting him in such numbers that it would negate any supporters Clinton brings to the ticket. While that is possible, I don't think it is likely - and, for that matter, I think adding Biden effectively does the same thing. Why would Obama supporters leave him if Clinton was added? Essentially because she represents business as usual in Washington. As does Joe Biden.
I think this is basically equivalent to the argument that was made with Hillary Clinton supporters when she was about to lose the primary, when the expectation was that huge numbers would never come home for Obama. Most of them ended up doing so. Granted, there is a large faction that never has - but they basically parallel the same groups that Obama has always had problems with: white, working class men and older white women. If Clinton is added to the ticket, the coalition is cemented. Tell me specifically what voters Obama loses if he chooses her, especially if the narrative becomes that they're an unbeatable pair? I can't finger any specific demographic that would flee, despite the polls that indicate they exist. Sure, I think there would be some objections off the bat - but I believe all of these would fade as people got used to seeing them together on the campaign trail.
Obama/Clinton
Which brings me to the point - in my view, the only thing preventing Obama from choosing Clinton is his own pride. He wants to win on his own. He wants to enter the White House as a part of a new era of politics, without any association to past administrations. He may see Clinton as distracting from his message, or taking the spotlight away. He may be nervous about Bill Clinton's vitriol or the potential for him to say something questionable to the press. But these are all relatively unimportant considerations that are focused on Obama's own standing in the public. And Obama has plenty to be proud about - that almost goes without saying. But frankly, Obama's pride is unimportant - before entering the White House, Obama has an obligation to all of us who have supported him, and that obligation is simple: win.
With Hillary Clinton, Obama wins. Plain and simple, and I don't know that you're going to find anybody that can make a strong case otherwise. Without her, this is a very tight election in which John McCain has a fighting shot. And I think there are some telling clues that point to this possibility - Clinton's inclusion in the nominating pool, Bill Clinton's prime speaking role just before the VP nominee, and Clinton's mysterious disappearance from the national political scene for most of the summer (especially when she's massively in debt...shouldn't she be out raising money?).
At this point, the narrative allows Obama to pick Clinton without appearing as though he needs her. He's stood on his own as a candidate throughout the summer, and crafted his own image in the public consciousness. He can choose her and immediately prove to everybody that he is not about celebrity or pride or self-aggrandizement. By picking a woman, Obama's "change" message becomes fuller and more dynamic by representing the "change" that so many women saw in Hillary Clinton. With Clinton as the choice, Obama becomes entirely about the principles and issues he represents, and bucks the most damning critique anybody has stuck to him. He can say to the world, honestly: "This election is not about me. It is about us. It is about the issues we find collectively important, the issues we must have represented in the White House, and the goals that we want realized."
Let us see if Obama's prayers were answered.
We Are Voting Yes
As the first entry to this blog, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce what this is likely to end up being. My name is Chris - I live in Washington DC where I work in the music industry. In the past, I've done a lot of freelance music journalism, but I also have a background in political science, law and history. I've been out of writing for a few years now, but I see this as an avenue to get back into it. I'm not a Democrat or Republican, and don't intend to use this blog as a vehicle for advancing a particular cause. This is purely meant as an outlet for some thought and commentary.
I should note up front: this blog should be interpreted solely to reflect my personal views and opinions, and not those of my company or any professional associations that I have. It is intended as a hobby and as a forum to clarify my own thoughts and opinions, and to discuss them with any interested party that might be reading.
Admittedly, I'm entering into this world with a lack of certainty as to how much time I have to devote to it. I see this as a forum for speaking my mind on politics, music, culture and current events, with a general bend toward the progressive end of the spectrum. Hence, the title of the blog "We Are Voting Yes" - which beyond the political implication, also references a Death Cab for Cutie album title.
So...welcome, and thanks for reading. Always feel free to drop me a line or post in response to anything here that gets you going.
I should note up front: this blog should be interpreted solely to reflect my personal views and opinions, and not those of my company or any professional associations that I have. It is intended as a hobby and as a forum to clarify my own thoughts and opinions, and to discuss them with any interested party that might be reading.
Admittedly, I'm entering into this world with a lack of certainty as to how much time I have to devote to it. I see this as a forum for speaking my mind on politics, music, culture and current events, with a general bend toward the progressive end of the spectrum. Hence, the title of the blog "We Are Voting Yes" - which beyond the political implication, also references a Death Cab for Cutie album title.
So...welcome, and thanks for reading. Always feel free to drop me a line or post in response to anything here that gets you going.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)