Silly Season Is Here

Barack Obama said it. Mark this one on the calendar: I agree with him. The Political Silly Season is here.

In truth, I agree with Obama about quite a few things. There are things I don't like about him. The same is true of Clinton. There are things about her I don't like. I know I have come out very strong for Clinton, but I have drawn my own line: short of a few snarky comments, or discussion of other people's negativity, I have tried not to attack Obama unfairly. I have criticized what I see as arrogance on his part, but have tried to avoid personal attacks. I can support Clinton without slinging mud at another Democrat. I truly despise negative campaigning. I have said before that I understand the uses and justifications, even the logic, of going negative, but I still don't like it. It opens the door for cutting personal attacks on all sides, and puts an ugly smear on the democratic process. Silly Season comes when all campaigns have gone as negative as they can without crossing the line in the public eye beyond repair. They can't cut into each other any deeper, so they all retreat to campaign rhetoric and fine tooth combing. Everything has to have "precedent" and context becomes important, and any event in any candidate's entire life since adulthood is open to investigation.

Silly Season this year features a showdown between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, with box seats for the GOP.

Here's a few of the Silliest Moments so far:

NAFTA Debacle

First, mark this one on the calendar too. I see no substantive evidence that either Democratic campaign misrepresented themselves on NAFTA. I believe there is a more compelling case that if Canada's role in the NAFTA dealings is anything more than a conspiracy theory, it is a campaign play inside the Canadian government to support John McCain and conservative leadership in North America. Another thing I have been worried about since the beginning of the election cycle is the prevalent attitude that the GOP is so shamed and weakened by the Bush Administration that Democrats are overconfident. I have summed that long statement into my mantra: do not underestimate John McCain. NAFTA has been very kind to Canada. The Canadian dollar is stronger than the US dollar now. McCain is in favor of NAFTA. Both Democrats have publicly stated a willingness to at least threaten NAFTA opt-out in order to get US-favoring conditions built in to NAFTA. If I were the conservative and unpopular Prime Minister of Canada, I would be hoping for McCain to win, too. Economic woes seem to dominate Canada's Prime Minister Harper. And, barring McCain, if I were Harper, I'd prefer Clinton, who seems much more likely to be more centrist on NAFTA policies. Evidence and Canadian public opinion seems to agree that Harper probably leaked the Obama story himself, and his increased efforts on the "leak probe" support this. Harper narrowly avoided a legal imperative to hold elections on March 3rd, avoiding what could easily be the end of his tenure, losing to the Liberal party.

Regardless of all this drama and intrigue, I think the whole mess is really more Canadian politics than American. The NAFTA reality as I can see it is: McCain will support NAFTA as is, either Democrat will offer very moderate and expedient NAFTA revisions. The outcome of the US presidential election could easily influence Harper's control of the Canadian government. Harper has to make strategy, too, and regime change in the US always has ripple effects, the biggest waves close to home. US conceits that we are alone on the planet are being challenged by events like this, when it is fairly blatant that a foreign head of state it taking an active role in US elections. Of course, it's been going on forever, and the US is most guilty of it.

Republicans are conspiring to influence the Democratic race

Please. Can we just leave this one alone? Again, I see no substantive evidence that this is really going on. So Rush Limbaugh told them to go vote for Hillary. Big deal. Rush had the best ratings of his lifetime when Bill was President, of course he wants another Clinton to hate. When Obama drew Republican votes they said he was a "uniter." When Hillary draws them it's a sign of a conspiracy? Come on. Also, there is the dramatically overlooked fact that just as many or more Democrats voted Republican this year. Is that a conspiracy? No. The fact is, this election cycle has drawn so much interest and so much attention and so much scrutiny that increasingly more and more people are voting their conscience instead of the party line. There is nothing wrong with that. The right to vote is so much a keystone of this country there is no way it can a bad thing that people are doing it. I think the huge rushes of voter turnout are responsible. The people who never or rarely vote are coming out, and who knows anything about those people's political views? They don't vote so they don't show up in the exit polls or the vote tallies. Now they're voting. I think the reality is right there.

The idea that anyone is messing with the process or intimidating anyone

Again, come on. We've all seen what a tampered campaign does to us. If anyone is tampering it's the GOP, and I'm not convinced they are ballsy enough to try it again in a general election. Delayed vote counts always spur these little playground dramas, which is the biggest fallacy involved. Hyper-sensitivity to fairness and media spin are causing vote tallies to take a long time. Both Obama and Clinton have taken attacks for using inappropriate, illegal or intimidating tactics to influence voters at caucus and primary locations. On that count, I'd say the worst offense goes to Chelsea Clinton for bringing donuts.

Change vs. Experience, Woman vs. Black, Ideas vs. Actions

It's all political balderdash. The real race for the Democrats is Moderates vs. Liberals. I think there is no doubt that Clinton would be a far more moderate President and Obama would be far more liberal. Both pose problems. Clinton would stand the chance of getting bogged down in populist balancing acts. Obama would spend large chunks of his time dodging bitch slaps from conservatives. Clinton would likely be most adept at spreading Democratic dominance of governement. Obama would be more likely to use bipartisan policies to direct US policy. Clinton has framed much of her campaign on response to Bush and GOP bungles in the last 7 years. Obama has challenged the system and said it's time to think outside the box. I think the irony there is that Clinton would be the one to push the envelope on her personal issues, whereas Obama would end up being far more centrist. The ground battle is really being fought between the working class and the white collar democrats. Moderates by and large prefer Clinton, and the working class is largely moderate. Liberals tend to be more affluent because of higher education, which means more earning power, and they prefer Obama. There is a very condescending argument going around under the surface of the campaign that "more educated" people like Obama and "ignorant" people like Clinton. This is a very low octave of the moderate vs. liberal struggle. Working class people are much more directly effected by government than the white collar caste. Money creates an insulating layer around individual liberty and leisure. Also, the "education" argument is a conceit. The working class, which ranks low on the college education scale, is not ignorant or stupid. These are the people you call when your toilet is overflowing, the majority of medical professionals nationwide, skilled factory workers, the people who make our vacations effortless, the people who haul our trash and sort our recycling, most working artists, and teachers. The white collar class has a strong voice too. They are the doctors and lawyers, engineers and scientists who create technology and medicines, respected journalists and elected officials, liberal business owners and philanthropic patrons of liberal charities. The conceit that Democrats are going to win this year created the luxury of a protracted race. The Democratic party has been angling for change since 2000, but they meant change toward Democratic control, not advocating for major institutional shakeup. So, both Clinton and Obama hold an appeal inside the party meta structure. The case for either is not as clear cut as either would have you believe. A real debate is going on in the Democratic primary for what leadership style they want, or which one they can tolerate if it achieves their personal aims. I also think the thing is getting overblown, as broadly there is very little difference between Clinton and Obama. In the details there are plenty of differences, thus: Silly Season.

Let me conclude with another one to mark on the calendar: chalk one up for Obama for calling it Silly Season. It was a very well timed plug that downplayed scrutiny on him and made Clinton look like she was grasping at straws. Without that little quip I think Clinton would have been the clear winner of the Cleveland debate, but with a single sentence Obama swung it back toward himself. Regardless, the Cleveland debate was the opening event of Silly Season.