I am taking a well-earned vacation (at least in my opinion!) so blogging will be pretty light. I'll try to post from where I'll be staying and I will follow the political news, so look for a few things.
Any questions, or anything I can answer, let me know!
Thanks!
I'll be thinking of you....:-)
June 20, 2008
June 18, 2008
The Political Environment
The issues in Election 2008 are changing almost weekly.
But it is becoming clear that the economy has overtaken Iraq (at least this week!) as the central issue in the campaign.
However, there are several aspects to the "economy" issue-the drop in the value of housing in the United States, which is related to the mortgage mess; globalization and its effect on jobs, particularly manufacturing jobs; but the most salient issue right now in the "economy" is the prince of energy.
Suddenly, it's energy policy that is being batted back and forth. With gasoline prices over $4 a gallon in the United States, the candidates are discussing how best to increase the U.S. supply of fuel and lower the cost. There are several alternatives but the current debate is focusing on offshore drilling, that is drilling off the coast of U.S. states where oil deposits are said to be.
Up to now, this has been an environmental no-no. But the high cost of gas has people-including at least one presidential candidate, John McCain-reversing field somewhat. Senator McCain, the Republican nominee in waiting, has been opposed to offshore drilling. But I think he and his campaign advisers sense an opportunity here to go one up on the Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama.
Senator Obama opposes offshore drilling and hews to the traditional Democratic Party position that it is harmful to the environment and lines the pockets of big oil companies. He is joined in that view by the major environmental groups, like the Sierra Club, that usually back Democrats.
Most Americans favor environmental policies and the political power of voters who say they want to protect the environment is a potent force. This force has usually favored Democrats; ironically, Senator McCain is one of the few Republicans who even address the environment issue, so it is somewhat of a switch for him to be supporting offshore drilling.
He wouldn't make it a national policy; he would leave states to decide whether or not they want to do it. One of his principal backers, and a man who has been named as a possible running mate for the Arizona senator, is Governor Charlie Crist of Florida, a Republican who strongly opposes offshore drilling. If he indeed is nominated as VP, that could make for an interesting press conference if the energy question is asked.
But a recent poll by the Rasmussen organization showed that 67% of voters say drilling should be allowed off the coasts of states like California and Florida. Some 18% disagree with 15% are undecided. While conservative and moderate voters support this approach in strong numbers, what is interesting is that self-identified liberal voters approve, although by a plurality (46% in favor, 37% against).
Is this an issue that could work to Senator McCain's advantage? Or will the environment trump the price of gas?
One thing I have always thought about environmental supporters is that it's easy to be "in favor of the environment" when it doesn't cost anybody anything. I wonder how strong that "support" would be if, if Americans were forced to drive down their use of energy by 20 percent or so a year. What would they willingly give up? How much would they agree to sacrifice? A couple of hours of electricity a day? Driving on just a few days of the week? No microwaves or computers on weekends?
Who would have to do this? Would schools, hospitals, government, seniors be exempted? Could more affluent families buy a "carbon offset" that would allow them to use as much power as they wish (like Hollywood stars who pant over their environmental advocacy) and let somebody else bear the pain? Just asking… This election could prove to be an interesting test case to see just how far Americans' love of the environment goes.
Environmentalists will point out that there are ways to lower the price of gas without sacrificing the environment-through driving less, through the encouragement of renewable resources, through the development of more hybrids, etc.
And maybe that's true and achievable through more directed research.
But there's no place like a presidential campaign for these theories to be tested when there is actually something on the line. You want offshore drilling and the possibility of lower gas prices (though Democrats say it won't happen), vote for Senator McCain. You don't want offshore drilling because it ruins the environment (Republicans say offshore drilling can, thanks to newer technologies, have less of an impact on offshore ecosystem) and you're willing to gamble that green development and policies can lower gas prices? Vote for Senator Obama.
That should be an interesting debate this year unless a new issue emerges next week that sends the environment back to the end of the line and an entirely new debate breaks out!
But it is becoming clear that the economy has overtaken Iraq (at least this week!) as the central issue in the campaign.
However, there are several aspects to the "economy" issue-the drop in the value of housing in the United States, which is related to the mortgage mess; globalization and its effect on jobs, particularly manufacturing jobs; but the most salient issue right now in the "economy" is the prince of energy.
Suddenly, it's energy policy that is being batted back and forth. With gasoline prices over $4 a gallon in the United States, the candidates are discussing how best to increase the U.S. supply of fuel and lower the cost. There are several alternatives but the current debate is focusing on offshore drilling, that is drilling off the coast of U.S. states where oil deposits are said to be.
Up to now, this has been an environmental no-no. But the high cost of gas has people-including at least one presidential candidate, John McCain-reversing field somewhat. Senator McCain, the Republican nominee in waiting, has been opposed to offshore drilling. But I think he and his campaign advisers sense an opportunity here to go one up on the Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama.
Senator Obama opposes offshore drilling and hews to the traditional Democratic Party position that it is harmful to the environment and lines the pockets of big oil companies. He is joined in that view by the major environmental groups, like the Sierra Club, that usually back Democrats.
Most Americans favor environmental policies and the political power of voters who say they want to protect the environment is a potent force. This force has usually favored Democrats; ironically, Senator McCain is one of the few Republicans who even address the environment issue, so it is somewhat of a switch for him to be supporting offshore drilling.
He wouldn't make it a national policy; he would leave states to decide whether or not they want to do it. One of his principal backers, and a man who has been named as a possible running mate for the Arizona senator, is Governor Charlie Crist of Florida, a Republican who strongly opposes offshore drilling. If he indeed is nominated as VP, that could make for an interesting press conference if the energy question is asked.
But a recent poll by the Rasmussen organization showed that 67% of voters say drilling should be allowed off the coasts of states like California and Florida. Some 18% disagree with 15% are undecided. While conservative and moderate voters support this approach in strong numbers, what is interesting is that self-identified liberal voters approve, although by a plurality (46% in favor, 37% against).
Is this an issue that could work to Senator McCain's advantage? Or will the environment trump the price of gas?
One thing I have always thought about environmental supporters is that it's easy to be "in favor of the environment" when it doesn't cost anybody anything. I wonder how strong that "support" would be if, if Americans were forced to drive down their use of energy by 20 percent or so a year. What would they willingly give up? How much would they agree to sacrifice? A couple of hours of electricity a day? Driving on just a few days of the week? No microwaves or computers on weekends?
Who would have to do this? Would schools, hospitals, government, seniors be exempted? Could more affluent families buy a "carbon offset" that would allow them to use as much power as they wish (like Hollywood stars who pant over their environmental advocacy) and let somebody else bear the pain? Just asking… This election could prove to be an interesting test case to see just how far Americans' love of the environment goes.
Environmentalists will point out that there are ways to lower the price of gas without sacrificing the environment-through driving less, through the encouragement of renewable resources, through the development of more hybrids, etc.
And maybe that's true and achievable through more directed research.
But there's no place like a presidential campaign for these theories to be tested when there is actually something on the line. You want offshore drilling and the possibility of lower gas prices (though Democrats say it won't happen), vote for Senator McCain. You don't want offshore drilling because it ruins the environment (Republicans say offshore drilling can, thanks to newer technologies, have less of an impact on offshore ecosystem) and you're willing to gamble that green development and policies can lower gas prices? Vote for Senator Obama.
That should be an interesting debate this year unless a new issue emerges next week that sends the environment back to the end of the line and an entirely new debate breaks out!
June 16, 2008
Obama to Visit Iraq and Afghanistan
Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic Party's presidential nominee, now plans to visit Iraq and Afghanistan. An idea for a joint visit with Republican Party nominee Senator John McCain was promoted by the Arizona senator (as were joint town hall meetings and other venues) but it looks as if Senator Obama will go it alone.
Just a couple of days ago, his foreign policy adviser, Susan Rice, said charges that Senator Obama didn't know much about Iraq because he had not been there since the surge, was, in her words, "complete garbage."
Now, he's going. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say about the surge. Previously, he said it wouldn't work, but in announcing his plans to go, he said he, "...was encouraged by a recent reduction in violence in Iraq." But the second part of his statement reiterated his intention to withdraw U.S. troops: "..it is important for us to begin the process of withdrawing U.S. troops, making it clear that we have no interest in permanent bases in Iraq."
No doubt Senator McCain will disagree with him on that point, and with Iraq not quite the campaign issue it was previously, this might become the object of the debate: bases or no bases? Presence or no presence?
That could be an interesting dialog. No exact word on when this trip will be or take place, only it would be before the November elections. It would be a very well-covered trip and one which would allow Senator Obama to express at least some degree of support for the surge while still advocating troop withdrawal. There could be some interesting exchanges with the troops over that.
BTW, former Vice President, presidential candidate, and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore endorsed Senator Obama.
If energy becomes an issue, Senator McCain is staking out a claim on opening up offshore drilling, saying states should be the ones which decide if they want to drill or not. With energy prices a major concern, public attitudes on offshore drilling (they are usually against it) may be changing. Senator McCain has fairly good environmental credentials and is one of the few Republicans who has pursued the issue. While he doesn't receive the same accolades from environmental groups as Democrats do, he nevertheless is far out in front of the environment in the Republican Party. His task now is to sell this drilling idea as not retreating on the environment. Hopefully, new technology which says it can extract oil in an environmentally acceptable way could help him make the case.
Just a couple of days ago, his foreign policy adviser, Susan Rice, said charges that Senator Obama didn't know much about Iraq because he had not been there since the surge, was, in her words, "complete garbage."
Now, he's going. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say about the surge. Previously, he said it wouldn't work, but in announcing his plans to go, he said he, "...was encouraged by a recent reduction in violence in Iraq." But the second part of his statement reiterated his intention to withdraw U.S. troops: "..it is important for us to begin the process of withdrawing U.S. troops, making it clear that we have no interest in permanent bases in Iraq."
No doubt Senator McCain will disagree with him on that point, and with Iraq not quite the campaign issue it was previously, this might become the object of the debate: bases or no bases? Presence or no presence?
That could be an interesting dialog. No exact word on when this trip will be or take place, only it would be before the November elections. It would be a very well-covered trip and one which would allow Senator Obama to express at least some degree of support for the surge while still advocating troop withdrawal. There could be some interesting exchanges with the troops over that.
BTW, former Vice President, presidential candidate, and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore endorsed Senator Obama.
If energy becomes an issue, Senator McCain is staking out a claim on opening up offshore drilling, saying states should be the ones which decide if they want to drill or not. With energy prices a major concern, public attitudes on offshore drilling (they are usually against it) may be changing. Senator McCain has fairly good environmental credentials and is one of the few Republicans who has pursued the issue. While he doesn't receive the same accolades from environmental groups as Democrats do, he nevertheless is far out in front of the environment in the Republican Party. His task now is to sell this drilling idea as not retreating on the environment. Hopefully, new technology which says it can extract oil in an environmentally acceptable way could help him make the case.
June 14, 2008
Tim Russert and Network Journalism
My sympathies to the family of NBC newsman Tim Russert who died unexpectedly on June 13. It was unusual and somewhat poignant for me as that is my birthday and I turned 61. Tim Russert was three years younger than me and he died of a heart attack. It always gives one pause. Why him, not me?
I can't answer that except to say the older I get, the more health-conscious and weight-conscious I have become. Maybe that has nothing to do with anything but it is something I always keep in the back of my mind. Health. Age. Diet. Weight. Exercise.
Getting to politics, which is the subject of this blog, Tim Russert had an enormous impact on American politics. As moderator of one of the nation's top interview programs, "Meet the Press," and overall analyst for NBC, my lasting memory of him is that he was one of the last "old school" political reporters in the business. He was fair to both liberals and conservatives and often made both feel uncomfortable. At a time when the broadcast networks (particularly Russert's sister network, MSNBC) are viewed as increasingly partisan--Fox for conservatives, MSNBC for Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic Party nominee--Russert was refreshing in that he would play it straight down the middle and not get caught up in the rush to take sides.
In fact, it was Tim Russert who asked the one question that began the implosion of Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. I detailed this in an earlier post but he asked plain outright if she supported then-New York Governor Elliot Spitzer's plan to issue drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants.
Senator Clinton hemmed and hawed and tried to turn the question into a critique of the Bush Administration but Russert would have none of it. He kept pressing, asking whether yes or no she supported the policy. The more he asked, the more she dithered. Russert seemed incredulous before moving on. So did viewers and the pencil press who picked up on this key moment.
That was the first chink in the Clinton armor and it was then--the date was October 30, 2007--that Barack Obama began a little uptick in the polls and was seen as a credible alternative to Sen. Clinton.
Maybe another journalist wouldn't have pressed the matter as much. Maybe other journalists wouldn't have even asked. But he did. And knowingly or not, he paved the way for Barack Obama to make his case to Democratic voters.
It was said in Washington circles that potential presidential candidates had to pass the Russert test which was a public grilling on national television defending choices, positions, beliefs. It was often not pretty but necessary and everyone in the political world understood--if you couldn't pass the Russert test, why would anyone trust you to negotiate with world leaders, who would be much rougher than Tim Russert.
I will always remember him on the fateful election night of 2000. While other analysts were armed with computers, word processors, spreadsheets, and graphic representations of miniscule slices of the vote, he had a white board on which he wrote with a dry marker pen. He accurately predicted, long before the digital geniuses, that Florida would be the key to the election and he scribbled down the name of the state plus its electoral votes.
Like John Henry in the famous folk song who beat down the steam drill by using his strength with a sledge hammer, Tim Russert was there before the computers were using his own knowledge and intuition. Score one for the old school guys.
Russert's passing also points out what I think is a trend that is plunging headlong into the past. In America's political history, especially in the nineteenth century, the press--such as it was--was highly partisan. Political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats--had their own newspapers. Others were highly identified with a party. For instance, the New York Tribune's editor Horace Greeley, was strongly identified with the Republican Party and even ran for president.
Eventually, newspapers moved away from direct ownership by political parties and became independent. But papers always maintained strong editorial support for one party or another. In the internet age, newspapers and television networks have returned to the model of the 19th century.
The New York Times, the L.A. Times and many other newspapers have become much more liberal and supportive of the Democratic Party and make no bones about it. The Wall Street Journal tends to favor Republicans; Fox News is for conservatives (although it has mellowed over the years IMHO); and MSNBC has become an anti-Republican, pro-Obama network, according to many critics, including those without an ax to grind.
The internet blogs have replaced the pamphleteers of the 19th century with their unique takes--Daily Kos, MyDD, NationalReview Online, michellemalkin.com--so in a way, we are returning to an earlier model. There are some in the journalistic world who think this is a good thing as at least now the reader is well aware of the beliefs and views of the writer with no attempt made at phony objectivity or sneaking in opinion between the lines.
But getting back to Tim Russert, it appeared to me as if he really felt that he needed to be a journalist who didn't come down on one side or the other. And that is becoming more and more rare each day.
He will be missed particularly in the 2008 election season. Rest in peace, Mr. Russert.
I can't answer that except to say the older I get, the more health-conscious and weight-conscious I have become. Maybe that has nothing to do with anything but it is something I always keep in the back of my mind. Health. Age. Diet. Weight. Exercise.
Getting to politics, which is the subject of this blog, Tim Russert had an enormous impact on American politics. As moderator of one of the nation's top interview programs, "Meet the Press," and overall analyst for NBC, my lasting memory of him is that he was one of the last "old school" political reporters in the business. He was fair to both liberals and conservatives and often made both feel uncomfortable. At a time when the broadcast networks (particularly Russert's sister network, MSNBC) are viewed as increasingly partisan--Fox for conservatives, MSNBC for Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic Party nominee--Russert was refreshing in that he would play it straight down the middle and not get caught up in the rush to take sides.
In fact, it was Tim Russert who asked the one question that began the implosion of Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. I detailed this in an earlier post but he asked plain outright if she supported then-New York Governor Elliot Spitzer's plan to issue drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants.
Senator Clinton hemmed and hawed and tried to turn the question into a critique of the Bush Administration but Russert would have none of it. He kept pressing, asking whether yes or no she supported the policy. The more he asked, the more she dithered. Russert seemed incredulous before moving on. So did viewers and the pencil press who picked up on this key moment.
That was the first chink in the Clinton armor and it was then--the date was October 30, 2007--that Barack Obama began a little uptick in the polls and was seen as a credible alternative to Sen. Clinton.
Maybe another journalist wouldn't have pressed the matter as much. Maybe other journalists wouldn't have even asked. But he did. And knowingly or not, he paved the way for Barack Obama to make his case to Democratic voters.
It was said in Washington circles that potential presidential candidates had to pass the Russert test which was a public grilling on national television defending choices, positions, beliefs. It was often not pretty but necessary and everyone in the political world understood--if you couldn't pass the Russert test, why would anyone trust you to negotiate with world leaders, who would be much rougher than Tim Russert.
I will always remember him on the fateful election night of 2000. While other analysts were armed with computers, word processors, spreadsheets, and graphic representations of miniscule slices of the vote, he had a white board on which he wrote with a dry marker pen. He accurately predicted, long before the digital geniuses, that Florida would be the key to the election and he scribbled down the name of the state plus its electoral votes.
Like John Henry in the famous folk song who beat down the steam drill by using his strength with a sledge hammer, Tim Russert was there before the computers were using his own knowledge and intuition. Score one for the old school guys.
Russert's passing also points out what I think is a trend that is plunging headlong into the past. In America's political history, especially in the nineteenth century, the press--such as it was--was highly partisan. Political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats--had their own newspapers. Others were highly identified with a party. For instance, the New York Tribune's editor Horace Greeley, was strongly identified with the Republican Party and even ran for president.
Eventually, newspapers moved away from direct ownership by political parties and became independent. But papers always maintained strong editorial support for one party or another. In the internet age, newspapers and television networks have returned to the model of the 19th century.
The New York Times, the L.A. Times and many other newspapers have become much more liberal and supportive of the Democratic Party and make no bones about it. The Wall Street Journal tends to favor Republicans; Fox News is for conservatives (although it has mellowed over the years IMHO); and MSNBC has become an anti-Republican, pro-Obama network, according to many critics, including those without an ax to grind.
The internet blogs have replaced the pamphleteers of the 19th century with their unique takes--Daily Kos, MyDD, NationalReview Online, michellemalkin.com--so in a way, we are returning to an earlier model. There are some in the journalistic world who think this is a good thing as at least now the reader is well aware of the beliefs and views of the writer with no attempt made at phony objectivity or sneaking in opinion between the lines.
But getting back to Tim Russert, it appeared to me as if he really felt that he needed to be a journalist who didn't come down on one side or the other. And that is becoming more and more rare each day.
He will be missed particularly in the 2008 election season. Rest in peace, Mr. Russert.
June 11, 2008
Update on Veepstakes
Well, one day after my last post on the trials and travails of Democratic Party presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama's choice of a vice presidential vetter (see the whole post below), that choice left.
Jim Johnson, former CEO of Fannie Mae, a US government lender to mortgage bankers and former CEO of former Countrywide Financial,a mortgage lender caught up in the controversy over foreclosed loans, was revealed to have gotten mortgage loans on very favorable terms from Countrywide.
This was a major line of attack from Senator Obama against his rival, Senator Hillary Clinton as several of her aides had ties to Countrywide. Senator Obama even specifically mentioned Countrywide as the poster child for what was wrong the mortgage banking system as many subprime loans and homes have been foreclosed.
There was no way that he could keep Mr. Johnson on staff with what he had said earlier. But worse, he said that Mr. Johnson was not one of those "folks who worked for me." That didn't wash either and on Wednesday, Mr. Johnson left the campaign to no one's great surprise. So, ironically, the first victim to vetting in the Obama vice presidential vetting campaign was a vetter, not a candidate.
Meanwhile, what of Republican nominee John McCain's ideas for a vice president? So far, he's shown inclinations towards his former primary rivals, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, and also in there is Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.
Messrs. Romney and Huckabee are obvious candidates for consideration, it's Bobby Jindal who is the interesting candidate. He's young; he just turned 37; he's been a member of Congress and perennial candidate in Louisiana. He has an impressive resume; he is the first elected Indian-American governor in U.S. history (not that the press would ever mention that because Jindal is a Republican), and the second Asian-American governor in the country. He attended prestigious Brown University in Rhode Island and later received a master's degree in political science from New College, Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar.
He entered state government in Louisiana, served in various medical roles and eventually was tapped as an Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services. He left to run for governor.
Political analysts say he would bring a dash of diversity and pizazz (he's often called the Republican Barack Obama)to the ticket and conservatives who are supportive but cool towards McCain, would love him.
But Jindal's youth, which has pluses, also has minuses. It would point up McCain's advanced age--71--and also rob McCain of any political points gained at the expense of Barack Obama's young age, 46.
How can you criticize Obama for being young if the man you chose to be a heartbeat away from the presidency is ten years younger?
Again, such are the pitfalls of vice presidential choices; but keep your eye on Bobby Jindal. He could be going places and bringing a growing and vibrant constituency, Indian-Americans, from the Democratic Party to the Republican.
You heard it here first.
Jim Johnson, former CEO of Fannie Mae, a US government lender to mortgage bankers and former CEO of former Countrywide Financial,a mortgage lender caught up in the controversy over foreclosed loans, was revealed to have gotten mortgage loans on very favorable terms from Countrywide.
This was a major line of attack from Senator Obama against his rival, Senator Hillary Clinton as several of her aides had ties to Countrywide. Senator Obama even specifically mentioned Countrywide as the poster child for what was wrong the mortgage banking system as many subprime loans and homes have been foreclosed.
There was no way that he could keep Mr. Johnson on staff with what he had said earlier. But worse, he said that Mr. Johnson was not one of those "folks who worked for me." That didn't wash either and on Wednesday, Mr. Johnson left the campaign to no one's great surprise. So, ironically, the first victim to vetting in the Obama vice presidential vetting campaign was a vetter, not a candidate.
Meanwhile, what of Republican nominee John McCain's ideas for a vice president? So far, he's shown inclinations towards his former primary rivals, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, and also in there is Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.
Messrs. Romney and Huckabee are obvious candidates for consideration, it's Bobby Jindal who is the interesting candidate. He's young; he just turned 37; he's been a member of Congress and perennial candidate in Louisiana. He has an impressive resume; he is the first elected Indian-American governor in U.S. history (not that the press would ever mention that because Jindal is a Republican), and the second Asian-American governor in the country. He attended prestigious Brown University in Rhode Island and later received a master's degree in political science from New College, Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar.
He entered state government in Louisiana, served in various medical roles and eventually was tapped as an Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services. He left to run for governor.
Political analysts say he would bring a dash of diversity and pizazz (he's often called the Republican Barack Obama)to the ticket and conservatives who are supportive but cool towards McCain, would love him.
But Jindal's youth, which has pluses, also has minuses. It would point up McCain's advanced age--71--and also rob McCain of any political points gained at the expense of Barack Obama's young age, 46.
How can you criticize Obama for being young if the man you chose to be a heartbeat away from the presidency is ten years younger?
Again, such are the pitfalls of vice presidential choices; but keep your eye on Bobby Jindal. He could be going places and bringing a growing and vibrant constituency, Indian-Americans, from the Democratic Party to the Republican.
You heard it here first.
June 10, 2008
Veepstakes
[One of the most important decisions a freshly minted presidential presumptive nominee [did I touch all the bases :-)] makes is who the vice presidential choice is going to be. It is often referred to as the “first” such decision of a candidate to which voters pay attention.
And if voters don't, the press will.
Such was the case for Barack Obama this week when it turned out that controversy erupted not over his vice presidential choice, but for his choice of who would look into the various possibilities. These people, usually called “vetters,” because they “vet” the potential nominee, looking for scandals, controversies, hidden issues or problems that will no doubt emerge during the long campaign. Most times, the candidate assembles a team of two or three people who perform this chore. Sometimes they do a good job, sometimes not. And sometimes, it's impossible to do the job because somewhere, there is always going to be some stone that is left unturned.
The vetters are usually party elders or people close to the candidate who have the nominee's trust. In Barack Obama's instance, he chose a panel of three people—Caroline Kennedy, former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, and Jim Johnson, the former CEO of mortgage lender Fannie Mae.
Jim Johnson, during his tenure at Fannie Mae, a government chartered company that lends money to mortgage institutions, apparently received loans on very good terms from a company called Countrywide Financial Corporation. Not usually a big thing but...
During the campaign, Senator Obama bitterly assailed Countrywide by name saying, “this is a company that is as responsible as any firm in the country for the housing crisis we're facing today.” And he also criticized an aide of Senator Hillary Clinton, whom he defeated for the nomination, strategist Mark Penn, for leading a company that did work for Countrywide.
Well, now the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak, and it's Barack Obama's chief vice presidential vetter who has ties to Countrywide. So what did Senator Obama have to say?
He defended his choice, calling critical reports of his vetter, “a game,” and that the committee were “folks who didn't work for him.”
Well if not for him, who?
Senator Obama hopes this will all go away and the press may move on to other things but for now, it's a mini-headache for the candidate that could get worse if it is not addressed more carefully. The "game" could backfire just as he begins to "introduce" himself to the electorate at large
If it was bad for Mark Penn to do work for Countrywide, why is not bad for his aide to have gotten what has been described as preferential loans from the same company?
Certainly, the press may want to know.
I'll have some thoughts on the Republicans' vice presidential vetting tomorrow.
And if voters don't, the press will.
Such was the case for Barack Obama this week when it turned out that controversy erupted not over his vice presidential choice, but for his choice of who would look into the various possibilities. These people, usually called “vetters,” because they “vet” the potential nominee, looking for scandals, controversies, hidden issues or problems that will no doubt emerge during the long campaign. Most times, the candidate assembles a team of two or three people who perform this chore. Sometimes they do a good job, sometimes not. And sometimes, it's impossible to do the job because somewhere, there is always going to be some stone that is left unturned.
The vetters are usually party elders or people close to the candidate who have the nominee's trust. In Barack Obama's instance, he chose a panel of three people—Caroline Kennedy, former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, and Jim Johnson, the former CEO of mortgage lender Fannie Mae.
Jim Johnson, during his tenure at Fannie Mae, a government chartered company that lends money to mortgage institutions, apparently received loans on very good terms from a company called Countrywide Financial Corporation. Not usually a big thing but...
During the campaign, Senator Obama bitterly assailed Countrywide by name saying, “this is a company that is as responsible as any firm in the country for the housing crisis we're facing today.” And he also criticized an aide of Senator Hillary Clinton, whom he defeated for the nomination, strategist Mark Penn, for leading a company that did work for Countrywide.
Well, now the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak, and it's Barack Obama's chief vice presidential vetter who has ties to Countrywide. So what did Senator Obama have to say?
He defended his choice, calling critical reports of his vetter, “a game,” and that the committee were “folks who didn't work for him.”
Well if not for him, who?
Senator Obama hopes this will all go away and the press may move on to other things but for now, it's a mini-headache for the candidate that could get worse if it is not addressed more carefully. The "game" could backfire just as he begins to "introduce" himself to the electorate at large
If it was bad for Mark Penn to do work for Countrywide, why is not bad for his aide to have gotten what has been described as preferential loans from the same company?
Certainly, the press may want to know.
I'll have some thoughts on the Republicans' vice presidential vetting tomorrow.
June 9, 2008
The Day the Campaign Began to End
In Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Cassius, in speaking with Brutus about the role of fate (among other things), tells him:
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”
Such could be said about Senator Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Effectively giving up the ghost on Saturday at a big rally in Washington, Senator Clinton suspended her quest for the presidency. By suspending her campaign, she left herself some wiggle room to raise money and retain her delegates for another such farewell at the Democratic Convention in August.
Countless trees died as print analysts tried to explain why Senator Clinton—who only last year was seen as the “inevitable” candidate—lost the nomination to Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. Her advocates claimed it was sexism, it was unfair treatment by the press, it was the burden of being the sole woman candidate, and several other mêmes of a similar nature.
Yet nowhere did they ever come close to admitting that the fault may not have been in her stars but in herself. In the end, it always comes back to the candidate and something he or she did or didn’t do. And that’s what happened here.
Let me take you back to October 30, 2007, the night of the Democratic Party’s fourteenth presidential debate of the primary season (there would be 12 more). Held on the campus of Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, seven Democratic Party candidates faced questioning from MSNBC anchors Brian Williams and Tim Russert. Going into the debate, Senator Clinton was leading in all the major polls for the Democratic nomination—in both states that were holding early primary elections and caucuses, and nationwide.
Towards the latter half of the wide-ranging debate,Tim Russert posed a question to Senator Clinton about a statement she made concerning then-New York Governor Elliot Spitzer’s plan to give drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants. Senator Clinton had told a newspaper editorial board that the idea “made a lot of sense.” Russert wanted to know why.
At first, Senator Clinton danced around the issue concluding that: “…what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform…There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.”
She was immediately challenged by then-candidate Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut who criticized the plan saying that a driver’s license was a “privilege, not a right.” Senator Clinton countered by pointing out that she didn’t say that it “made a lot of sense,” and that Governor Spitzer’s plan contained three levels of driver’s licenses, so illegal immigrants wouldn’t necessarily have the rights and privileges of a full driver’s license.
But she was sharply challenged by Tim Russert who bluntly asked: “Do you, the New York Senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license? You told the Nashua, New Hampshire, paper it made a lot of sense…Do you support his plan?”
Her reply: “You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem. We have failed, and George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York we want to know who's in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He's making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform.”
When she said it “made a lot of sense,” that, a) contradicted the claim she made thirty seconds earlier that she didn’t say it, and b) she never gave a yes-or-no answer.
This small part of a larger debate on foreign and domestic policy stood out and political analysts leaped on it as an example of Senator Clinton’s inability to give a direct answer, a trait which, along with her other negatives, dogged her throughout the early going of the campaign. She prevaricated on the question for another couple of days, before finally getting to the point where she said that she did not support giving drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants.
But it proved the first major dent in her armor. Immediately, polls showed her dropping in popularity. By the end of the year, when she would be heading into the primary elections, she would even lose her lead.
We all know what happened next—she lost the Iowa caucuses in early January to Senator Obama and the tone was set. With a bounce-back win in New Hampshire the next week, she still was ready to make it a contest—but then Senator Obama reeled off 11 straight wins often by large margins.
Did the October 30 remarks have anything to do with this? It would be a stretch to think that the debate remark was the sole reason, but I believe it opened the door to what voters recalled they didn’t like about Senator Clinton—you couldn’t believe what she said, she would say anything to win, etc.
Remarkably, after a gutsy comeback win in Ohio on March 4, Senator Clinton again armed her critics with another drivers’ license-type episode. Throughout her campaign, she talked about her international experience as First Lady, and illustrated it with an anecdote.
She described what she said was a scene fraught with danger in 1996 when she and her daughter, Chelsea, visited Tuzla in Bosnia. She recalled that she and Chelsea faced considerable risks upon landing and had to run for cover from sniper fire. But video footage of the day, which popped up on YouTube, showed it was a peaceful landing. The First Lady was even greeted by a young girl on the tarmac.
This time, there was no waiting and Senator Clinton had to explain that she “misspoke and was sleep deprived,” and that she made a mistake.
But once again it was like taking out a billboard advertising one of the things that people said they did not like about Senator Clinton and her campaign—the exaggerations and the misstatements. Maybe she did remember it as a dangerous landing, perhaps she really thought that it happened as the way she portrayed it.
But it solidified in the public mind a trait that was not appealing about the candidate.
Even after all this, Senator Clinton ran an incredible campaign, winning most of the primaries down the stretch but it was too little, too late. Voters in the Democratic Party were looking elsewhere at a fresher face, a newer face, someone without the “baggage” and history that Senator Clinton brought with her into the 2008 presidential campaign.
To be sure, this is not the only reason that Senator Clinton won't be accepting the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination on August 28 in Denver. And there was likely a good deal of press bias against her and in favor of Senator Obama. This was particularly true among television network correspondents, one of whom said that hearing Senator Obama speak “sent a tingle” up his leg.
But she didn’t need to help her critics by supplying reasons to remind them what they did not like about her.
What would have happened if on October 30, 2007, she told Tim Russert flat out that she did not support drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants? Would her polling have stayed the same? Would she have gone into 2008 with a political head of steam and would it be Barack Obama now be under consideration for her vice presidential slot?
Maybe, maybe not. But IMHO, the beginning of the end of her campaign came on October 30, 2007, when she opened the door every so slightly to Senator Obama, who as we all know, came roaring through it to capture the nomination.
Whose fault was it? Was it the “stars,” or to paraphrase the immortal bard, “herself”?
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”
Such could be said about Senator Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Effectively giving up the ghost on Saturday at a big rally in Washington, Senator Clinton suspended her quest for the presidency. By suspending her campaign, she left herself some wiggle room to raise money and retain her delegates for another such farewell at the Democratic Convention in August.
Countless trees died as print analysts tried to explain why Senator Clinton—who only last year was seen as the “inevitable” candidate—lost the nomination to Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. Her advocates claimed it was sexism, it was unfair treatment by the press, it was the burden of being the sole woman candidate, and several other mêmes of a similar nature.
Yet nowhere did they ever come close to admitting that the fault may not have been in her stars but in herself. In the end, it always comes back to the candidate and something he or she did or didn’t do. And that’s what happened here.
Let me take you back to October 30, 2007, the night of the Democratic Party’s fourteenth presidential debate of the primary season (there would be 12 more). Held on the campus of Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, seven Democratic Party candidates faced questioning from MSNBC anchors Brian Williams and Tim Russert. Going into the debate, Senator Clinton was leading in all the major polls for the Democratic nomination—in both states that were holding early primary elections and caucuses, and nationwide.
Towards the latter half of the wide-ranging debate,Tim Russert posed a question to Senator Clinton about a statement she made concerning then-New York Governor Elliot Spitzer’s plan to give drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants. Senator Clinton had told a newspaper editorial board that the idea “made a lot of sense.” Russert wanted to know why.
At first, Senator Clinton danced around the issue concluding that: “…what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform…There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.”
She was immediately challenged by then-candidate Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut who criticized the plan saying that a driver’s license was a “privilege, not a right.” Senator Clinton countered by pointing out that she didn’t say that it “made a lot of sense,” and that Governor Spitzer’s plan contained three levels of driver’s licenses, so illegal immigrants wouldn’t necessarily have the rights and privileges of a full driver’s license.
But she was sharply challenged by Tim Russert who bluntly asked: “Do you, the New York Senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license? You told the Nashua, New Hampshire, paper it made a lot of sense…Do you support his plan?”
Her reply: “You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem. We have failed, and George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York we want to know who's in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He's making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform.”
When she said it “made a lot of sense,” that, a) contradicted the claim she made thirty seconds earlier that she didn’t say it, and b) she never gave a yes-or-no answer.
This small part of a larger debate on foreign and domestic policy stood out and political analysts leaped on it as an example of Senator Clinton’s inability to give a direct answer, a trait which, along with her other negatives, dogged her throughout the early going of the campaign. She prevaricated on the question for another couple of days, before finally getting to the point where she said that she did not support giving drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants.
But it proved the first major dent in her armor. Immediately, polls showed her dropping in popularity. By the end of the year, when she would be heading into the primary elections, she would even lose her lead.
We all know what happened next—she lost the Iowa caucuses in early January to Senator Obama and the tone was set. With a bounce-back win in New Hampshire the next week, she still was ready to make it a contest—but then Senator Obama reeled off 11 straight wins often by large margins.
Did the October 30 remarks have anything to do with this? It would be a stretch to think that the debate remark was the sole reason, but I believe it opened the door to what voters recalled they didn’t like about Senator Clinton—you couldn’t believe what she said, she would say anything to win, etc.
Remarkably, after a gutsy comeback win in Ohio on March 4, Senator Clinton again armed her critics with another drivers’ license-type episode. Throughout her campaign, she talked about her international experience as First Lady, and illustrated it with an anecdote.
She described what she said was a scene fraught with danger in 1996 when she and her daughter, Chelsea, visited Tuzla in Bosnia. She recalled that she and Chelsea faced considerable risks upon landing and had to run for cover from sniper fire. But video footage of the day, which popped up on YouTube, showed it was a peaceful landing. The First Lady was even greeted by a young girl on the tarmac.
This time, there was no waiting and Senator Clinton had to explain that she “misspoke and was sleep deprived,” and that she made a mistake.
But once again it was like taking out a billboard advertising one of the things that people said they did not like about Senator Clinton and her campaign—the exaggerations and the misstatements. Maybe she did remember it as a dangerous landing, perhaps she really thought that it happened as the way she portrayed it.
But it solidified in the public mind a trait that was not appealing about the candidate.
Even after all this, Senator Clinton ran an incredible campaign, winning most of the primaries down the stretch but it was too little, too late. Voters in the Democratic Party were looking elsewhere at a fresher face, a newer face, someone without the “baggage” and history that Senator Clinton brought with her into the 2008 presidential campaign.
To be sure, this is not the only reason that Senator Clinton won't be accepting the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination on August 28 in Denver. And there was likely a good deal of press bias against her and in favor of Senator Obama. This was particularly true among television network correspondents, one of whom said that hearing Senator Obama speak “sent a tingle” up his leg.
But she didn’t need to help her critics by supplying reasons to remind them what they did not like about her.
What would have happened if on October 30, 2007, she told Tim Russert flat out that she did not support drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants? Would her polling have stayed the same? Would she have gone into 2008 with a political head of steam and would it be Barack Obama now be under consideration for her vice presidential slot?
Maybe, maybe not. But IMHO, the beginning of the end of her campaign came on October 30, 2007, when she opened the door every so slightly to Senator Obama, who as we all know, came roaring through it to capture the nomination.
Whose fault was it? Was it the “stars,” or to paraphrase the immortal bard, “herself”?
June 7, 2008
Senator Clinton "Suspends" Her Campaign
So today, after 504 days as a presidential candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York suspended her campaign. Notice she didn't end her campaign, she “suspended” it. She did endorse her Democratic Party rival and now the presumptive nominee, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, but she kept some doors open...just in case.
By suspending her campaign rather than ending it, she is retaining her ability to raise money. The campaign is said to be in debt to the tune of 30 million dollars. She also keeps her delegates up to the presidential nominating convention in August. And yes, it means she can “unsuspend” her campaign later in the season if she wants to.
While most analysts believed this was truly the end, some longtime Clinton watchers like former political aide Dick Morris don't believe this is truly the end. They think she is biding her time and ensuring she remains viable if something comes up that could torpedo Senator Obama. So she'll be around...just in case.
But in reality, this is the end of her campaign to seek the presidency. If Senator Obama loses this time around, she would have to wait another four years—maybe eight---to seek the office by which time she would be 69 years old. If she was yesterday's news in 2008, just think what she would be in 2012 or 2016.
Now she is being compared to Al Gore, Bill Clinton's vice president who also failed to gain the presidency. Since he's become Mr. Global Warming and earned a Nobel, he has a life direction; what can Hillary Clinton do?
Some observers are asking whether she would take the role of Senator Edward Kennedy, the liberal lion of the Senate, who was recently diagnosed with cancer. Others raise the possibility of a Supreme Court nomination in a Barack Obama presidency.
Whatever her future holds, it appears (barring some catastrophic event) it won't include the presidency of the United States.
More on her legacy in a future post.
By suspending her campaign rather than ending it, she is retaining her ability to raise money. The campaign is said to be in debt to the tune of 30 million dollars. She also keeps her delegates up to the presidential nominating convention in August. And yes, it means she can “unsuspend” her campaign later in the season if she wants to.
While most analysts believed this was truly the end, some longtime Clinton watchers like former political aide Dick Morris don't believe this is truly the end. They think she is biding her time and ensuring she remains viable if something comes up that could torpedo Senator Obama. So she'll be around...just in case.
But in reality, this is the end of her campaign to seek the presidency. If Senator Obama loses this time around, she would have to wait another four years—maybe eight---to seek the office by which time she would be 69 years old. If she was yesterday's news in 2008, just think what she would be in 2012 or 2016.
Now she is being compared to Al Gore, Bill Clinton's vice president who also failed to gain the presidency. Since he's become Mr. Global Warming and earned a Nobel, he has a life direction; what can Hillary Clinton do?
Some observers are asking whether she would take the role of Senator Edward Kennedy, the liberal lion of the Senate, who was recently diagnosed with cancer. Others raise the possibility of a Supreme Court nomination in a Barack Obama presidency.
Whatever her future holds, it appears (barring some catastrophic event) it won't include the presidency of the United States.
More on her legacy in a future post.
June 6, 2008
The Case That Senator McCain Can Make
So how does John McCain beat Barack Obama given the latter's incredible enthusiasm, momentum, charisma, and let's face it, adulatory media support?
Especially when it is easily viewed as a contest of young versus old, Washington veteran versus Washington rookie, "change" versus "reform," MSNBC versus Fox, and a huge money-raising machine versus a much-lesser money-raising machine?
Well, there are vulnerabilities that Senator Obama have and they were evident in the recently concluded campaign. This is not to say that these liabilities (at least in my view) are hard-wired and cannot be changed (or get worse), but they are there, and the McCain campaign will be taking a look at them.
The first is Senator Obama's willingness to leave Iraq no matter what. This is basically what defined his early campaign-unlike other Democrats in the race, especially Senators John Edwards and Hillary Clinton-he opposed the Iraq war while they initially voted for it in the U.S. Senate. This earned him the support of fervent anti-war activists in the Democratic Party of which there are legions. He became identified with this view and still sticks to it, although apparently with enough qualifiers to leave himself a little wiggle room should he be awarded the keys to the Oval Office.
But events on the ground in Iraq have changed markedly since Barack Obama first spoke out against the war in Iraq back in 2002 and while he continued his campaign in the U.S. Senate to bring American troops home. While people still debate whether the so-called "surge" (a marked increase in U.S. troops to cut down on casualties) has "worked," the fact is casualties have gone down and most analysts have concluded that the surge, at the very least, has improved the situation in Iraq.
While public opinion generally coalesces around the view that getting into the war was wrong or a mistake, there is variance among different polls about the course to take now-stay in, get out, get out immediately, get out later, stay until it's finished-you name it. But few Americans in polls want an immediate pullout; most want the troops out in less than a year, one or two years, or as one poll put it, they want the next president to be "flexible."
If the surge continues to consolidate the position that there is some progress being made in Iraq, then an immediate pullout or setting a hard and fast date may not be as strong a political position as it was a year or two ago. And Senator McCain can argue that Senator Obama would be "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory." That is going to be a difficult argument to make, but if events on the ground in Iraq continue to improve rather than deteriorate, the senator from Arizona can make such a case. Polls show most Americans don't want to surrender unilaterally.
Same for Senator Obama's positions on whether or not he would meet with America's most strident enemies. At first, he said he would do so without preconditions. Later that position was massaged and now he says he would meet with them only after groundwork was laid and certain conditions were met-which was the Hillary Clinton position, if I am not mistaken.
But it's a little muddy as to what he would do exactly, and again, Senator McCain would have an opening to prosecute his case for election based on whatever position Senator Obama has on the issue.
However, where Senator McCain could really make some inroads is with the groups in the Democratic Party who were "left behind" in the wake of the Obama victory. And again, these are based on demographics and exit polling: the base of Senator Obama's support is made up of educated, affluent white, younger liberals-the winners in the information economy-and those African-Americans inspired by the Obama campaign.
The losers in the information economy-laid off factory workers, voters who occupy rungs on the downscale economic ladder, those without higher education-in other words, the groups who made up what was once the bulk of the Democratic Party, have been lukewarm to Obama. In focus groups being held across the country, and in particular, states that Senator Obama lost in the primary campaign, voters are telling pollsters that they are intrigued with Senator Obama, but they don't know him. More importantly, they feel he doesn't know them.
The most obvious manifestation of this view came in April when Senator Obama told a fundraiser in San Francisco, California, "…small-town voters are bitter over the economy and, because of that, they 'cling' to guns and religion." These comments portrayed the senator as a liberal elitist far removed from those voters who live in small towns, go to church, and like to hunt and own guns.
While Senator Obama had belonged to a church for twenty years (and therein lies a whole other problem) and he has made comments about respecting such people, it's clear that when he thought no one was looking, his mask may have dropped a bit and the real liberal aloof Obama came out.
If these voters are truly in play, and Senator McCain can pick off a substantial portion of them, it could be a very close election, indeed.
Lastly, Senator Obama is perhaps the most liberal candidate nominated by the Democrats since 1972 when George McGovern got the nomination. Supporting universal health care with a strong dose of government intervention, repealing various tax cuts, and calling for massive spending programs on social issues, Senator McCain can draw a distinction between himself-a fiscal conservative-and Senator Obama, whom he will label a big spender that will by necessity, raise taxes.
Whether or not this argument works, whether Senator Obama will persuade Americans that the time has come for increased government spending on social programs (the electorate does seem to be more favorable to these kinds of initiatives than in the past) remains to be seen. But again, it is an opening that Senator McCain can use.
The issue may come down in the end, to, in most simple terms, "change" versus "reform," with Senator Obama offering the former, and Senator McCain, the latter. If Americans feel Senator Obama may be going too far, "reform" might be preferable to "change" with Senator McCain leading it.
As we head into the general election campaign, no one underestimates the challenges facing Senator McCain and the Republicans-an unpopular president, an unpopular war, an economy producing anxiety, and a feeling that the country is headed in the wrong direction. Add to that, the word, "Republican" is not a magnet for voters currently, the money advantage that Senator Obama is likely to have, and the excitement and media support that Senator Obama will attract, and the feeling that American voters are generally ready for a change in parties, and you can see, it's going to be tough for Senator McCain to win in November But not impossible; despite all the handicaps he has, he still runs a tight race with Senator Obama and people vote for people-not generic candidates with no name or history.
Many analysts believe that the Republican Party may have nominated the one candidate who actually has a chance to win, even though he is not beloved in his own party the way Ronald Reagan was. Nevertheless, it's not over until it's over, and while there is great excitement about the candidacy of Senator Obama, let's just say his election is not a sure thing; in fact, I think it's going to be a very close race.
And of course, you can follow it all on www.voanews.com!
Especially when it is easily viewed as a contest of young versus old, Washington veteran versus Washington rookie, "change" versus "reform," MSNBC versus Fox, and a huge money-raising machine versus a much-lesser money-raising machine?
Well, there are vulnerabilities that Senator Obama have and they were evident in the recently concluded campaign. This is not to say that these liabilities (at least in my view) are hard-wired and cannot be changed (or get worse), but they are there, and the McCain campaign will be taking a look at them.
The first is Senator Obama's willingness to leave Iraq no matter what. This is basically what defined his early campaign-unlike other Democrats in the race, especially Senators John Edwards and Hillary Clinton-he opposed the Iraq war while they initially voted for it in the U.S. Senate. This earned him the support of fervent anti-war activists in the Democratic Party of which there are legions. He became identified with this view and still sticks to it, although apparently with enough qualifiers to leave himself a little wiggle room should he be awarded the keys to the Oval Office.
But events on the ground in Iraq have changed markedly since Barack Obama first spoke out against the war in Iraq back in 2002 and while he continued his campaign in the U.S. Senate to bring American troops home. While people still debate whether the so-called "surge" (a marked increase in U.S. troops to cut down on casualties) has "worked," the fact is casualties have gone down and most analysts have concluded that the surge, at the very least, has improved the situation in Iraq.
While public opinion generally coalesces around the view that getting into the war was wrong or a mistake, there is variance among different polls about the course to take now-stay in, get out, get out immediately, get out later, stay until it's finished-you name it. But few Americans in polls want an immediate pullout; most want the troops out in less than a year, one or two years, or as one poll put it, they want the next president to be "flexible."
If the surge continues to consolidate the position that there is some progress being made in Iraq, then an immediate pullout or setting a hard and fast date may not be as strong a political position as it was a year or two ago. And Senator McCain can argue that Senator Obama would be "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory." That is going to be a difficult argument to make, but if events on the ground in Iraq continue to improve rather than deteriorate, the senator from Arizona can make such a case. Polls show most Americans don't want to surrender unilaterally.
Same for Senator Obama's positions on whether or not he would meet with America's most strident enemies. At first, he said he would do so without preconditions. Later that position was massaged and now he says he would meet with them only after groundwork was laid and certain conditions were met-which was the Hillary Clinton position, if I am not mistaken.
But it's a little muddy as to what he would do exactly, and again, Senator McCain would have an opening to prosecute his case for election based on whatever position Senator Obama has on the issue.
However, where Senator McCain could really make some inroads is with the groups in the Democratic Party who were "left behind" in the wake of the Obama victory. And again, these are based on demographics and exit polling: the base of Senator Obama's support is made up of educated, affluent white, younger liberals-the winners in the information economy-and those African-Americans inspired by the Obama campaign.
The losers in the information economy-laid off factory workers, voters who occupy rungs on the downscale economic ladder, those without higher education-in other words, the groups who made up what was once the bulk of the Democratic Party, have been lukewarm to Obama. In focus groups being held across the country, and in particular, states that Senator Obama lost in the primary campaign, voters are telling pollsters that they are intrigued with Senator Obama, but they don't know him. More importantly, they feel he doesn't know them.
The most obvious manifestation of this view came in April when Senator Obama told a fundraiser in San Francisco, California, "…small-town voters are bitter over the economy and, because of that, they 'cling' to guns and religion." These comments portrayed the senator as a liberal elitist far removed from those voters who live in small towns, go to church, and like to hunt and own guns.
While Senator Obama had belonged to a church for twenty years (and therein lies a whole other problem) and he has made comments about respecting such people, it's clear that when he thought no one was looking, his mask may have dropped a bit and the real liberal aloof Obama came out.
If these voters are truly in play, and Senator McCain can pick off a substantial portion of them, it could be a very close election, indeed.
Lastly, Senator Obama is perhaps the most liberal candidate nominated by the Democrats since 1972 when George McGovern got the nomination. Supporting universal health care with a strong dose of government intervention, repealing various tax cuts, and calling for massive spending programs on social issues, Senator McCain can draw a distinction between himself-a fiscal conservative-and Senator Obama, whom he will label a big spender that will by necessity, raise taxes.
Whether or not this argument works, whether Senator Obama will persuade Americans that the time has come for increased government spending on social programs (the electorate does seem to be more favorable to these kinds of initiatives than in the past) remains to be seen. But again, it is an opening that Senator McCain can use.
The issue may come down in the end, to, in most simple terms, "change" versus "reform," with Senator Obama offering the former, and Senator McCain, the latter. If Americans feel Senator Obama may be going too far, "reform" might be preferable to "change" with Senator McCain leading it.
As we head into the general election campaign, no one underestimates the challenges facing Senator McCain and the Republicans-an unpopular president, an unpopular war, an economy producing anxiety, and a feeling that the country is headed in the wrong direction. Add to that, the word, "Republican" is not a magnet for voters currently, the money advantage that Senator Obama is likely to have, and the excitement and media support that Senator Obama will attract, and the feeling that American voters are generally ready for a change in parties, and you can see, it's going to be tough for Senator McCain to win in November But not impossible; despite all the handicaps he has, he still runs a tight race with Senator Obama and people vote for people-not generic candidates with no name or history.
Many analysts believe that the Republican Party may have nominated the one candidate who actually has a chance to win, even though he is not beloved in his own party the way Ronald Reagan was. Nevertheless, it's not over until it's over, and while there is great excitement about the candidacy of Senator Obama, let's just say his election is not a sure thing; in fact, I think it's going to be a very close race.
And of course, you can follow it all on www.voanews.com!
June 5, 2008
Veepstakes and More
After a much criticized non-concession speech on Tuesday in Washington, it looks like Senator Hillary Clinton of New York will finally leave the race and endorse the Democratic nominee (let's forget "presumptive," "likely," and the other niceties now that it's over) Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. She is scheduled to do this in a speech either Friday or Saturday.
Then the speculation centers on the vice presidency for the Democrats. The current view is that Senator Clinton is "interested" and that Senator Obama is "willing" to talk with her about it. Those are both probably true. And those statements are about as far as anyone should be willing to go concerning Senator Obama's choice for a veep.
I have said so before in this space and I'll say it again-I would be majorly shocked if Senators Obama and Clinton wound up on the same ticket. While it is a dream of Democrats, it's one that will not come true, IMHO. For one thing, it would be a partnership in this sense: say someone owes you a lot of money that you need for a project. Suddenly you realize, you don't have a debtor, you have a "partner."
Senator Obama cannot be seen as being bullied into accepting Senator Clinton has a running mate. He can ask former Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale about this (see my post yesterday). Secondly, it's not entirely clear that Hillary Clinton wants the vice president's job, which one great American and former veep himself under Franklin Roosevelt, John Nance ("Texas Jack") Garner, called (and this is a paraphrase), "not worth a buck of warm 'spit'." Use your imagination to guess what the actual word was.
Additionally, it would be one of the most dysfunctional White Houses to hit Washington in decades. The two titans would create their own power bases and legions of courtiers who would vie against each other for power and influence. And with Hillary Clinton, you get Bill Clinton. Think Barack wants him anywhere near his Oval Office?
Lastly, I have come to the conclusion (shared by several analysts) that in the end, vice presidential candidates don't matter much (see John Nance Garner above). They don't usually help although they can hurt. In the end, voters will be focusing on the person at the top of the ticket…and with a hale, hearty and healthy 46 year-old leading the Democratic Party, well, you don't think much about the number two person, now do you? So, if Senator Obama feels he needs help with women voters, for instance, there are other candidates who come to mind. One such person's name tossed about is the female governor of Kansas, Katherine Sibelius.
But in the end, I think Senator Obama will go with a male who has strong foreign policy credentials, who is a little older and more experienced, and is widely viewed as a safe centrist. For me, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson fits the bill but there are others. I don't think it will be Hillary Clinton, and if it somehow is, I don't think it will be the first choice of Senator Obama. You read it here first.
While most of the attention is on the Democratic candidate because of the historic nature of his victory, don't forget the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona.
Since he clinched his party's nomination back in March, he's had time to ponder on just how he plans to run against the wunderkind. What's interesting to me is that despite the huge advantage Democrats now enjoy over Republicans in generic party preference (something like 12 points), the Obama-McCain race in presidential polling is fairly tight and has been throughout the primary season.
One reason is that we don't nominate generic candidates-we nominate flesh and blood human beings with their own pasts, foibles, strengths, and character. Right now, I think the American voting public is slightly leaning towards Senator Obama but his election is certainly no slam-dunk.
The latest tracking polls show a slight tilt towards Obama with one showing a slight tilt to McCain. A recent CBS poll shows a six-point Obama lead but that was with a survey of 930 registered voters. The other polls are in the 1200-4400 range so I trust them a little more. It will be interesting to see the Obama "bump" after he clinched the nomination with the adulatory press articles about the historic nature of his triumph. If that bump doesn't go way beyond five points, the McCain campaign should be breathing easier.
Although Obama seems like a strong candidate in the fall, given the current atmosphere of the electorate, there are some flaws and weaknesses, which were apparent in the last months of the primary campaign. I'll describe those in a subsequent post.
But for now, things are finally settling down and, as a result, voters will actually stop paying attention for awhile now that the candidates are set and the summer season has begun ("summer season" actually begins in the United States at the end of May and goes to the first weekend in September). Time to focus on friends, family, food, sun, and vacation. We'll keep an eye on the politics for you, but even I get caught up in the summer season; and we can all use a little breather after the long slog that was the presidential primary process.
Then the speculation centers on the vice presidency for the Democrats. The current view is that Senator Clinton is "interested" and that Senator Obama is "willing" to talk with her about it. Those are both probably true. And those statements are about as far as anyone should be willing to go concerning Senator Obama's choice for a veep.
I have said so before in this space and I'll say it again-I would be majorly shocked if Senators Obama and Clinton wound up on the same ticket. While it is a dream of Democrats, it's one that will not come true, IMHO. For one thing, it would be a partnership in this sense: say someone owes you a lot of money that you need for a project. Suddenly you realize, you don't have a debtor, you have a "partner."
Senator Obama cannot be seen as being bullied into accepting Senator Clinton has a running mate. He can ask former Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale about this (see my post yesterday). Secondly, it's not entirely clear that Hillary Clinton wants the vice president's job, which one great American and former veep himself under Franklin Roosevelt, John Nance ("Texas Jack") Garner, called (and this is a paraphrase), "not worth a buck of warm 'spit'." Use your imagination to guess what the actual word was.
Additionally, it would be one of the most dysfunctional White Houses to hit Washington in decades. The two titans would create their own power bases and legions of courtiers who would vie against each other for power and influence. And with Hillary Clinton, you get Bill Clinton. Think Barack wants him anywhere near his Oval Office?
Lastly, I have come to the conclusion (shared by several analysts) that in the end, vice presidential candidates don't matter much (see John Nance Garner above). They don't usually help although they can hurt. In the end, voters will be focusing on the person at the top of the ticket…and with a hale, hearty and healthy 46 year-old leading the Democratic Party, well, you don't think much about the number two person, now do you? So, if Senator Obama feels he needs help with women voters, for instance, there are other candidates who come to mind. One such person's name tossed about is the female governor of Kansas, Katherine Sibelius.
But in the end, I think Senator Obama will go with a male who has strong foreign policy credentials, who is a little older and more experienced, and is widely viewed as a safe centrist. For me, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson fits the bill but there are others. I don't think it will be Hillary Clinton, and if it somehow is, I don't think it will be the first choice of Senator Obama. You read it here first.
While most of the attention is on the Democratic candidate because of the historic nature of his victory, don't forget the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona.
Since he clinched his party's nomination back in March, he's had time to ponder on just how he plans to run against the wunderkind. What's interesting to me is that despite the huge advantage Democrats now enjoy over Republicans in generic party preference (something like 12 points), the Obama-McCain race in presidential polling is fairly tight and has been throughout the primary season.
One reason is that we don't nominate generic candidates-we nominate flesh and blood human beings with their own pasts, foibles, strengths, and character. Right now, I think the American voting public is slightly leaning towards Senator Obama but his election is certainly no slam-dunk.
The latest tracking polls show a slight tilt towards Obama with one showing a slight tilt to McCain. A recent CBS poll shows a six-point Obama lead but that was with a survey of 930 registered voters. The other polls are in the 1200-4400 range so I trust them a little more. It will be interesting to see the Obama "bump" after he clinched the nomination with the adulatory press articles about the historic nature of his triumph. If that bump doesn't go way beyond five points, the McCain campaign should be breathing easier.
Although Obama seems like a strong candidate in the fall, given the current atmosphere of the electorate, there are some flaws and weaknesses, which were apparent in the last months of the primary campaign. I'll describe those in a subsequent post.
But for now, things are finally settling down and, as a result, voters will actually stop paying attention for awhile now that the candidates are set and the summer season has begun ("summer season" actually begins in the United States at the end of May and goes to the first weekend in September). Time to focus on friends, family, food, sun, and vacation. We'll keep an eye on the politics for you, but even I get caught up in the summer season; and we can all use a little breather after the long slog that was the presidential primary process.
June 4, 2008
The Long Campaign Ends with an Obama Victory
Congratulations to Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois who is the winner of one of the most grueling primary campaigns ever. His triumph is an historic one as well-the first African-American to ever head a national ticket. It is being seen here as a glorious moment for the United States and perhaps it is.
There are several pieces available now looking at exactly why he won over the vastly more experienced and well-known (and well-funded) Senator Hillary Clinton of New York. Having gone through them, and looking into my own reasons, I come up with these two:
1) The Obama team put together a plan that fit the reality of what the Democratic Party nominating process was in 2008. The rules were very quirky, complex, and difficult to master. Yet the Obama team did master them and nullified the normal advantages that a candidate like Senator Clinton would enjoy in the party. By focusing on the small-turnout voting events called caucuses, the Obama campaign was able to leverage small groups of people into significant delegate advantages.
They also knew how to play the delegate game in the bigger primaries. The rules of the Democratic Primary awarded delegate totals unequally-that is, certain areas of a state received more delegates than others, based on previous election results. So the Obama campaign micro-targeted these areas and picked up enough delegates through this process to give them an insurmountable lead that held up week after week.
The Clinton campaign did not do this and effectively ceded the primary to him.
2) Senator Obama himself was the right messenger for these times. The electorate has changed and shifted over the past four years and Senator Obama's message of "change" resonated much more effectively with voters than Senator Clinton's message of "experience." The funny thing is that, of all people, Senator Clinton should have known this: her husband won in 1992 on a "change" platform over that of President George H.W. Bush who stressed his "experience."
"Change" doesn't win all the time but when the message is right, it works. Additionally, Senator Obama's race trumped Senator Clinton's gender with Democratic Party voters. The novelty of the first African-American candidate to contend for the nomination with a chance to win attracted more favorable press and reaction from party members than did Senator Clinton's campaign based on her sex.
I suppose one had to choose which "history" one wanted to be part of-the first African-American to head a national ticket or the first woman and voters in the Democratic Party made their choices.
Now the question shifts to Senator Clinton's plans in the fall campaign. She didn't concede, she didn't quit, she is somewhere in political no-man's land. It seems to me that she really wants Senator Obama to come to her seeking support.
He won't do it. He won't repeat the mistake that former Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale made in 1984 when he offered the vice presidential nomination to Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro under heavy pressure from party feminists. Mondale was seen as weak and buckling under to feminist influence, a charge that really handicapped him during the general election.
In this campaign, Senator Obama won, and Senator Clinton lost. As the victor, it is Senator Obama who gets to set the agenda and terms of what happens next. I still maintain that I would be shocked if he offers her the second spot on the ticket; it would be too forced a partnership and it wouldn't work on the campaign trail and insiders say it certainly wouldn't work as a governing system should they win in November.
I think he is looking elsewhere.
As far as the presumptive Republican Party nominee Senator John McCain of Arizona is concerned, he has been campaigning against Senator Obama for some time, so in a way, nothing much has changed. But he will be trying to make some inroads with frustrated Democratic Party female voters who are still enraged over Senator Clinton's loss to Senator Obama.
He will also be emphasizing Senator Obama's relative inexperience and sometimes muddied responses to answers.
Ironically, a focus group recently discussed Senator Obama and the voters in it said while they were intrigued by his campaign theme of "change" (whatever that means), they didn't really know all that much about him-what he really thought, what he would like to do, where he stands on issues (not policy positions and papers which have a habit of disappearing after the campaigns are over and the winner has to actually do the dirty work of governing) or what he is likely to do in given situations. That's the kind of stuff that voters learn over a politician's long career in public life. Senator Obama has had a short one, so voters really consider him something of a blank slate.
That is going to be a challenge for Senator Obama (among others) which is, strange as this may sound, introducing himself to the electorate at large which is quite different from the electorate that is restricted to the Democratic Party.
There are several pieces available now looking at exactly why he won over the vastly more experienced and well-known (and well-funded) Senator Hillary Clinton of New York. Having gone through them, and looking into my own reasons, I come up with these two:
1) The Obama team put together a plan that fit the reality of what the Democratic Party nominating process was in 2008. The rules were very quirky, complex, and difficult to master. Yet the Obama team did master them and nullified the normal advantages that a candidate like Senator Clinton would enjoy in the party. By focusing on the small-turnout voting events called caucuses, the Obama campaign was able to leverage small groups of people into significant delegate advantages.
They also knew how to play the delegate game in the bigger primaries. The rules of the Democratic Primary awarded delegate totals unequally-that is, certain areas of a state received more delegates than others, based on previous election results. So the Obama campaign micro-targeted these areas and picked up enough delegates through this process to give them an insurmountable lead that held up week after week.
The Clinton campaign did not do this and effectively ceded the primary to him.
2) Senator Obama himself was the right messenger for these times. The electorate has changed and shifted over the past four years and Senator Obama's message of "change" resonated much more effectively with voters than Senator Clinton's message of "experience." The funny thing is that, of all people, Senator Clinton should have known this: her husband won in 1992 on a "change" platform over that of President George H.W. Bush who stressed his "experience."
"Change" doesn't win all the time but when the message is right, it works. Additionally, Senator Obama's race trumped Senator Clinton's gender with Democratic Party voters. The novelty of the first African-American candidate to contend for the nomination with a chance to win attracted more favorable press and reaction from party members than did Senator Clinton's campaign based on her sex.
I suppose one had to choose which "history" one wanted to be part of-the first African-American to head a national ticket or the first woman and voters in the Democratic Party made their choices.
Now the question shifts to Senator Clinton's plans in the fall campaign. She didn't concede, she didn't quit, she is somewhere in political no-man's land. It seems to me that she really wants Senator Obama to come to her seeking support.
He won't do it. He won't repeat the mistake that former Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale made in 1984 when he offered the vice presidential nomination to Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro under heavy pressure from party feminists. Mondale was seen as weak and buckling under to feminist influence, a charge that really handicapped him during the general election.
In this campaign, Senator Obama won, and Senator Clinton lost. As the victor, it is Senator Obama who gets to set the agenda and terms of what happens next. I still maintain that I would be shocked if he offers her the second spot on the ticket; it would be too forced a partnership and it wouldn't work on the campaign trail and insiders say it certainly wouldn't work as a governing system should they win in November.
I think he is looking elsewhere.
As far as the presumptive Republican Party nominee Senator John McCain of Arizona is concerned, he has been campaigning against Senator Obama for some time, so in a way, nothing much has changed. But he will be trying to make some inroads with frustrated Democratic Party female voters who are still enraged over Senator Clinton's loss to Senator Obama.
He will also be emphasizing Senator Obama's relative inexperience and sometimes muddied responses to answers.
Ironically, a focus group recently discussed Senator Obama and the voters in it said while they were intrigued by his campaign theme of "change" (whatever that means), they didn't really know all that much about him-what he really thought, what he would like to do, where he stands on issues (not policy positions and papers which have a habit of disappearing after the campaigns are over and the winner has to actually do the dirty work of governing) or what he is likely to do in given situations. That's the kind of stuff that voters learn over a politician's long career in public life. Senator Obama has had a short one, so voters really consider him something of a blank slate.
That is going to be a challenge for Senator Obama (among others) which is, strange as this may sound, introducing himself to the electorate at large which is quite different from the electorate that is restricted to the Democratic Party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
