The media is desperate to find and exploit any rift in the Obama-Clinton relationship, wherein they see endless drama, but in reality it seems there is none. Obama goes to Russia without Hillary. Joe Biden takes point on the Iraq withdrawal. Hillary cancels her trip to Italy for the G-8.
First of all, let's not forget she shattered her elbow. Shattered it. Ouch. I don't know how many people have ever broken a bone or messed up a messy area like a knee or elbow, but let me tell you first hand it hurts like hell. And you'd take a few days off work if you did it, too. I was down with a wrenched knee for a month. Hillary Clinton was back at work three days later. Granted, she doesn't have to walk on her elbow, so it is probably a little easier, but please, give me a break. Excuse the pun.
I think more than likely, what spurred this fresh round of media gossip is Iran. It is well documented at this point that Obama's sharper stance on the post-election turmoil in Iran came at the urging of Secretary Clinton. Then, someone decided that the President did so "without telling her first." Of course these stories all come from "confidential sources," and I just don't believe it. And moreover, so what? If I asked someone to agree with me, and they did it, I'd be happy, not mad that they didn't send me a memo announcing they did. And the likelihood that any public statement made by the President of the United States concerning a major foreign policy issue came as a surprise to the State Department (who apparently originated the sentiment) is nearly unbelievable. Particularly considering the equally well-documented closeness between Obama and Clinton: weekly private meetings, daily phone contact, and admissions by the Vice President that Secretary Clinton frequently trumps him in high-level meetings, that Hillary is Obama's "go to" person on "almost everything."
Let's address the Russia thing. So, did we all already forget that Secretary Clinton was in Russia in March, concluding a major diplomatic tour where she met with just about every key leader in Europe and Asia, where her star power and international reputation at least at that time greatly exceeded the President's. Now, the President has made his trip to Russia to work out the details, and it is reported that the US-Russian commission that was agreed to this week will be overseen and conducted by... drum roll, please... none other than Secretary of State Clinton. Let's also not forget that if Secretary Clinton had to cancel her trip to Russia with the President this week, obviously it was planned for her to go. I don't see where it would be appropriate for Clinton to be in Russia making major policy agreements; that is still the president's job, right? And Russia is certainly important enough in the scheme of things to get Obama in person.
On Iraq. Nothing new is taking place in Iraq. We are concluding a policy-driven withdrawal that was negotiated by the former administration. Secretary Clinton was in Iraq on April 25th, following suicide bombings in Baghdad, and coinciding with the arrival of US ambassador to Iraq, Christopher Hill, and was there to assess the situation, and the readiness of US troops to conduct their scheduled pull-out. Iraq, for all its politicization, is a military operation, and primarily needs to be conducted through military channels, with the advisement of the State Department, not the other way around. Giving Vice President Biden the lead on Iraq is a natural choice, as vice-Commander-In-Chief, and a foreign policy expert. Biden was Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for 4 years after all, and on the committee for more than 20. And, this portfolio pass off between Biden and Clinton is becoming par for the course, as well. It's a sign of trust and cooperation in the administration, not of "rifts." Giving the Iraq portfolio to anyone less than the VP would be an insult to Secretary Gates, who in reality should likely be the point person for Iraq policy. Gates and Clinton have also shown a much greater cooperation and mutual respect for one another than has been seen between the Pentagon and the State Department in recent memory, and Gates has handed back a good deal of the responsibilities that should rightfully belong to the State Department, and it seems he did so with a sign of relief.
Today, VP Biden and Secretary Clinton had a private meeting just prior to Biden's swearing in of Al Franken. Secretary Clinton then took off for Foggybottom to prepare for her meeting with ousted Hounduran President Zelaya. Not to mention she has been on the phone and at the press podium for days talking about China, and slowly mounting international pressure on continued human rights abuses that broke out again this week in Urumqi. Not to mention working in concert with the UK to put as much pressure on Iran as possible to release detained UK Embassy staff and to respect democracy without undermining our desire to engage with them directly. (Note also this is a direct departure from her stance in the 2008 presidential campaign, and a complete adoption of Obama's point of view.) Oh yeah, and working the diplomatic grape vine to ensure India as a partner in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And, working overtime to mend fences with Muslim interests in the Middle East, without marginalizing Israel. And pretty much single-handedly ironing out the peace process in Norther Ireland. Arguably, the bureaucracy at State is at least as large and complex as the bureaucracy in the White House, yet when the Secretary of State flushes it out with well-empowered and experienced envoys, she gets criticized, but when the president does it, it's expected.
As I have said, and will continue to say most likely, the Obama-Biden-Clinton global triumvirate is going just fine.
Showing posts with label joe biden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label joe biden. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
Joe Biden, Bigmouth Strikes Again
Check this out: Vice President Joe Biden revealed the location of the secret bunker used to protect the vice president in emergency situations. This isn't just a "gaffe." It's a national security crisis. Good job, Joe.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Arlen Specter Does Benedict Arnold
Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, longtime GOP heavyweight, announced today that he has become a Democrat. The former Republican said in a press conference, "I have found myself increasingly more at odds with the Republican philosophy." 
In a separate statement he also said, "I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania." The Washington Post describes Specter's final meeting with Senate Republicans yesterday to have consisted of, "stony silence."
Yes, he is making a political survival move. I'm not sure that's wrong however. He seems genuine when he says he is following the will of his state, which has had a nearly unprecedented shift toward the Democratic party, and toward liberal ideals. President Obama is said to have given Specter his full blessing. I say, "bravo!" to Arlen Specter for having the balls to do something like this. It is a huge risk. The GOP is mad as hell, and Democrats are suspicious.
Specter will retain his seniority in the Democratic party as though he were elected Dem in 1980. Specter was one of a wave of Republican officials who rode Ronald Reagan's impressive coat tails. He will become chairman of an influential subcommittee on the Appropriations Committee.
He also brings the Democratic caucus to 59 votes, one short of a filibuster-proof 60. If Al Franken (MN) is ever seated, Dems will have a controlling majority of Congress, the first since the first half of Jimmy Carter's presidency in '77-'79. Vice President Biden is reported to have played a key role in smoothing the transition and keeping peace while Specter made the decision. The two are said to be long time friends. The Huffington Post of all places, is giving Hillary Clinton credit, citing the fierce voter registration war waged between Clinton and Obama during the Pennsylvania Democratic primary last year as the major cause of Pennsylvania's massive shift to Blue.
Specter is the 4th most bipartisan-moderate member of the GOP caucus, according to the Congressional Database, and 4th overall in both Houses of Congress. He ranks behind Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE). According to the Washington Post both Senators Snowe and Collins have also been lobbied by the Democrats. Ironically, Olympia Snowe, who is the most centrist member of Congress (between both Houses) by a wide margin, only voting with her party 54.4% of the time, says joining the Democrat party is, "Something I would never do."
Specter's announcement came on the eve of President Obama's 100th day in office. Specter criticized ultra-conservative factions of the GOP for taking control of the caucus, and showed a little anger toward Republican politics and politicians since 2000. If there was ever a clearer slap in the face to the GOP, I've never seen it.
In a separate statement he also said, "I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania." The Washington Post describes Specter's final meeting with Senate Republicans yesterday to have consisted of, "stony silence."Yes, he is making a political survival move. I'm not sure that's wrong however. He seems genuine when he says he is following the will of his state, which has had a nearly unprecedented shift toward the Democratic party, and toward liberal ideals. President Obama is said to have given Specter his full blessing. I say, "bravo!" to Arlen Specter for having the balls to do something like this. It is a huge risk. The GOP is mad as hell, and Democrats are suspicious.
Specter will retain his seniority in the Democratic party as though he were elected Dem in 1980. Specter was one of a wave of Republican officials who rode Ronald Reagan's impressive coat tails. He will become chairman of an influential subcommittee on the Appropriations Committee.
He also brings the Democratic caucus to 59 votes, one short of a filibuster-proof 60. If Al Franken (MN) is ever seated, Dems will have a controlling majority of Congress, the first since the first half of Jimmy Carter's presidency in '77-'79. Vice President Biden is reported to have played a key role in smoothing the transition and keeping peace while Specter made the decision. The two are said to be long time friends. The Huffington Post of all places, is giving Hillary Clinton credit, citing the fierce voter registration war waged between Clinton and Obama during the Pennsylvania Democratic primary last year as the major cause of Pennsylvania's massive shift to Blue.Specter is the 4th most bipartisan-moderate member of the GOP caucus, according to the Congressional Database, and 4th overall in both Houses of Congress. He ranks behind Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE). According to the Washington Post both Senators Snowe and Collins have also been lobbied by the Democrats. Ironically, Olympia Snowe, who is the most centrist member of Congress (between both Houses) by a wide margin, only voting with her party 54.4% of the time, says joining the Democrat party is, "Something I would never do."
Specter's announcement came on the eve of President Obama's 100th day in office. Specter criticized ultra-conservative factions of the GOP for taking control of the caucus, and showed a little anger toward Republican politics and politicians since 2000. If there was ever a clearer slap in the face to the GOP, I've never seen it.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Opening the Door To Iran
I have to say, I'm pretty impressed with the smooth way the Obama-Biden-Clinton global triumvirate is working out. First, I think it puts a little teeth into Hillary Clinton's claim that she and then-Senator Obama agree on more things than they disagree on. Second, Joe Biden's foreign policy expertise is shining more and more every day, coupled with an easy relationship with both the President and the Secretary of State. And the President, having laid out high-level policy goals (most of which do still conform closely to his campaign promises) has stepped back and let Biden and Clinton have close to free reign with carrying out the details. Economic woes, gaffes, botched Cabinet nominations, and D.C. infighting may besiege the President at home, but "Foreign Policy," which Obama consistently took hits for not knowing enough about during his campaign, is going swimmingly.
Today, President Obama came very close to keeping an early campaign promise which was to meet with Iranian leadership "with no preconditions." By releasing a video message directly to the Iranian people which was open, congratulatory, and inclusive, Obama has begun the process of reversing a generation-long silence between our nations. I'm certain it is not pure philanthropy. Obviously, the President is smart enough to understand that if we are going to simultaneously get out of Iraq, deeper into Afghanistan, root out al-Qeada, decide if the Taliban is our friend or foe and act accordingly, get Russia back on board and realign our relationship with China.... hm, we better get Iran on board, too.
And, that would require un-demonizing them first. If Barack Obama is good at anything, it's making moving speeches. I think this video message to Iran is as much about American people and their perceptions as it is about Iran. What was once Persia is an industrialized First World country in the cradle of civilization, rich with culture, art, history, and money. They are viewed as an isolationist state sponsor of terror. I'm sure that's what they say about us, too. But, Kim Kardashian is a far cry from the turban-headed pipe bomber we all fear. She's "Persian," not Iranian. President Obama has done a brilliant thing with this video message, celebrating an Iranian holiday, and praising their culture, opening the door. As long as it is followed by action, we are on the right road.
I believe a Cabinet-level official will set foot in Iran, and soon. If it is Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton hardly matters, although I would bet on Biden first. He has the gravity of having the word "President" in his job title. Hillary Clinton has a lot of star power, but her real punch is packed by already-existing US ties. She is appointing well versed envoys to hot spots all over the globe, which frees her to work on high-level policy crafting and to show up to cut ribbons and shake hands. Critics say this makes her little more than a new incarnation of her former role as First Lady; I won't go into a long refuting of that here, but it should be obvious this is not the case. Again, the Obama-Biden-Clinton triumvirate is working out to be a well-oiled machine, a 1-2-3 punch, if you will.
While the State Department has used very careful language, it should be clear by now that the US is open to meeting with Iran. In the Hague on March 31st an international conference on Afghanistan will be held, and while no plans have been made for a distinct US-Iranian meeting, Secretary Clinton has been receptive and open toward including them. Iran's Vice President last week got the ball rolling on that. And, Vice President Biden has been very vocal about the need for bringing both Iran and Syria to the table for Middle East talks in general. Naturally, Russia will be a key ally in this, as one of the few global powers with unshakable ties to Iran. Note that Biden and Clinton together in tandem have already been working the "Russia Rope Line" so to speak, hard. I predict that by the end of August 2010, when we should be leaving Iraq in total, there will be at the very least, an Iranian delegation on the ground in Tehran. If this works out, it could be one of the greatest achievements of the Obama administration, comparable to Richard Nixon's achievements with China.
Today, President Obama came very close to keeping an early campaign promise which was to meet with Iranian leadership "with no preconditions." By releasing a video message directly to the Iranian people which was open, congratulatory, and inclusive, Obama has begun the process of reversing a generation-long silence between our nations. I'm certain it is not pure philanthropy. Obviously, the President is smart enough to understand that if we are going to simultaneously get out of Iraq, deeper into Afghanistan, root out al-Qeada, decide if the Taliban is our friend or foe and act accordingly, get Russia back on board and realign our relationship with China.... hm, we better get Iran on board, too.
And, that would require un-demonizing them first. If Barack Obama is good at anything, it's making moving speeches. I think this video message to Iran is as much about American people and their perceptions as it is about Iran. What was once Persia is an industrialized First World country in the cradle of civilization, rich with culture, art, history, and money. They are viewed as an isolationist state sponsor of terror. I'm sure that's what they say about us, too. But, Kim Kardashian is a far cry from the turban-headed pipe bomber we all fear. She's "Persian," not Iranian. President Obama has done a brilliant thing with this video message, celebrating an Iranian holiday, and praising their culture, opening the door. As long as it is followed by action, we are on the right road.
I believe a Cabinet-level official will set foot in Iran, and soon. If it is Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton hardly matters, although I would bet on Biden first. He has the gravity of having the word "President" in his job title. Hillary Clinton has a lot of star power, but her real punch is packed by already-existing US ties. She is appointing well versed envoys to hot spots all over the globe, which frees her to work on high-level policy crafting and to show up to cut ribbons and shake hands. Critics say this makes her little more than a new incarnation of her former role as First Lady; I won't go into a long refuting of that here, but it should be obvious this is not the case. Again, the Obama-Biden-Clinton triumvirate is working out to be a well-oiled machine, a 1-2-3 punch, if you will.
While the State Department has used very careful language, it should be clear by now that the US is open to meeting with Iran. In the Hague on March 31st an international conference on Afghanistan will be held, and while no plans have been made for a distinct US-Iranian meeting, Secretary Clinton has been receptive and open toward including them. Iran's Vice President last week got the ball rolling on that. And, Vice President Biden has been very vocal about the need for bringing both Iran and Syria to the table for Middle East talks in general. Naturally, Russia will be a key ally in this, as one of the few global powers with unshakable ties to Iran. Note that Biden and Clinton together in tandem have already been working the "Russia Rope Line" so to speak, hard. I predict that by the end of August 2010, when we should be leaving Iraq in total, there will be at the very least, an Iranian delegation on the ground in Tehran. If this works out, it could be one of the greatest achievements of the Obama administration, comparable to Richard Nixon's achievements with China.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Team of Rivals Getting Along Just Fine
Anyone who reads this column regularly knows that I love irony. I saw irony as a major undercurrent-theme in the 2008 presidential election cycle, particularly for Democrats. One major irony was over foreign policy. Barack Obama was criticized by just about everyone as inexperienced, and incapable of handling the crushing obligations of foreign policy. And one of the loudest voices was Hillary Clinton, whose challenge to Obama in this area probably peaked with the "3 AM" ad, asking "Who do you want answering that call?" As I have already said, ironically it is Hillary Clinton who will be answering it, but she will be saying, "Obama Administration, this is Hillary, how may I help you?"
Just over 3 weeks into the new administration, it appears that Obama's major problem is dealing with his former Congressional colleagues, who all seem to have turned against him in one way or another. The amen chorus of the Democratic Convention seems a long time passed. Partisan rancor seems just as rank as it was under Bush. In fact, now that the Democrats don't have a president to hate any more, they seem to have lost their cohesion and are now spatting with each other, too. Politics surrounding the stimulus bill have become a quagmire of political landmines. Getting the President's Cabinet full has transformed into a reality show. And the president himself has retreated to what he seems best at: campaigning. Barely three months after election day, President Obama is already back on the campaign trail trying to resuscitate his image.
What is going well seems to be foreign policy. And the two people who seem to most responsible for this are Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. While both are being overtly careful to make sure and use the words President Obama every other sentence or so when they talk about it, these two are shaping up to be quite the dynamic duo. As I have also said previously, I believe that Clinton and Biden genuinely like each other. I don't know how much this may have to do with it, but it can't hurt to have the two highest ranking Cabinet officers be buddies. Biden and Clinton over the last two weeks have coordinated a very slick partnership on the foreign policy portfolio, and seem to have folded Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and fresh-minted CIA Chief Leon Panetta neatly into the mix. The Team of Rivals looks less rivalsome than the rest of the government. Obama will -- and should -- get credit for this, but I'd say the personalities involved also deserve praise (so far) for a job well done.
Naturally, as incoming Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton did the phone bank day, officially introducing herself to foreign leaders around the world. Since, the State Department has made timely and measured announcements about its' and the Administration's positions and the direction forward. Clinton has done little grandstanding, all her public statements have been substantive, and she has stayed on task, kept out of the Obama Drama(s) now that hers is over. Joe Biden has been Joe Biden for the most part, presiding over the slowly unfolding Cabinet installations, getting the ball rolling on his middle class task force, and hitting a few photo ops that demonstrate his promise to "be in the room for every decision." Biden has also, very smartly, resisted what must be a burning itch to wade into the Congressional melodrama.
Leading up to the Munich security conference last weekend where Biden, as I predicted, was fully in his element, the Biden-Clinton portfolio pass-offs started. Secretary Clinton started with high profile meetings with the British and German foreign ministers, who obviously have strong input at the Munich conference. While US-Russo relations are taking the front row in the media right now, Biden also talked extensively about the Middle East and Afghanistan in Munich, while State was deploying Special Envoys to those places at the same time. Biden and Clinton also seem to be putting full court press on reopening US-Iranian relations, and both are taking a very positive tack on it. Clinton started substantive diplomatic overtures toward Iran this week in saying that the US and European allies need to engage Iran directly to stop nuclear proliferation in Iran, and Biden said in Munich that Iran would be offered "meaningful incentives" for the same. Biden also smoothed the road for Clinton to take over the "China file" by making public statements indicating the US would not press China on currency manipulations, marking a departure from the Bush era US-Sino relations. Clinton immediately had a "working lunch" with Secretary Geithner followed by the official announcement of her Asian tour. Now, more details are coming out from State about an extended leg of the trip with stops at a Gaza conference in Cairo, the next day to Israel, and Geneva three days later where she will meet with the Russia foreign minister. Biden spent a good deal of his time in Munich making kissy faces toward Russia, echoing Clinton's open-armed approach.
Critics are saying that Clinton has been rendered powerless by virtue of being upstaged by high profile special envoys like Mitchell, crowded out of the White House by the National Security Adviser (an ancient battle) and shut out of policy crafting by resigning from the Senate. The first thing that should be noted is that with only a few exceptions, high level appointments at State were Clinton's picks, endorsed by the President, not the other way around. If Secretary Clinton didn't want George Mitchell on the Middle East, he wouldn't be. Clinton, with the support of Secretary Gates, has made it clear that State will be expanding both in scope and in staff, and transitioning all diplomatic duties away from Defense and back to State. That takes people, and something as important as, say, Afghanistan, probably warrants a special envoy, thus freeing the Secretary to take a broader view of foreign policy. That Clinton is being passed actual diplomatic missions like getting the doors open in Iran and confronting China's Asian hegemony, and reengaging Russia is a sign of confidence from the President. Biden and Clinton are doing exactly what they should, developing a seamless template for globe wrangling. Things at home are heading south for the President, but his Team of Rivals is working very well so far.
Just over 3 weeks into the new administration, it appears that Obama's major problem is dealing with his former Congressional colleagues, who all seem to have turned against him in one way or another. The amen chorus of the Democratic Convention seems a long time passed. Partisan rancor seems just as rank as it was under Bush. In fact, now that the Democrats don't have a president to hate any more, they seem to have lost their cohesion and are now spatting with each other, too. Politics surrounding the stimulus bill have become a quagmire of political landmines. Getting the President's Cabinet full has transformed into a reality show. And the president himself has retreated to what he seems best at: campaigning. Barely three months after election day, President Obama is already back on the campaign trail trying to resuscitate his image.
What is going well seems to be foreign policy. And the two people who seem to most responsible for this are Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. While both are being overtly careful to make sure and use the words President Obama every other sentence or so when they talk about it, these two are shaping up to be quite the dynamic duo. As I have also said previously, I believe that Clinton and Biden genuinely like each other. I don't know how much this may have to do with it, but it can't hurt to have the two highest ranking Cabinet officers be buddies. Biden and Clinton over the last two weeks have coordinated a very slick partnership on the foreign policy portfolio, and seem to have folded Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and fresh-minted CIA Chief Leon Panetta neatly into the mix. The Team of Rivals looks less rivalsome than the rest of the government. Obama will -- and should -- get credit for this, but I'd say the personalities involved also deserve praise (so far) for a job well done.
Naturally, as incoming Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton did the phone bank day, officially introducing herself to foreign leaders around the world. Since, the State Department has made timely and measured announcements about its' and the Administration's positions and the direction forward. Clinton has done little grandstanding, all her public statements have been substantive, and she has stayed on task, kept out of the Obama Drama(s) now that hers is over. Joe Biden has been Joe Biden for the most part, presiding over the slowly unfolding Cabinet installations, getting the ball rolling on his middle class task force, and hitting a few photo ops that demonstrate his promise to "be in the room for every decision." Biden has also, very smartly, resisted what must be a burning itch to wade into the Congressional melodrama.
Leading up to the Munich security conference last weekend where Biden, as I predicted, was fully in his element, the Biden-Clinton portfolio pass-offs started. Secretary Clinton started with high profile meetings with the British and German foreign ministers, who obviously have strong input at the Munich conference. While US-Russo relations are taking the front row in the media right now, Biden also talked extensively about the Middle East and Afghanistan in Munich, while State was deploying Special Envoys to those places at the same time. Biden and Clinton also seem to be putting full court press on reopening US-Iranian relations, and both are taking a very positive tack on it. Clinton started substantive diplomatic overtures toward Iran this week in saying that the US and European allies need to engage Iran directly to stop nuclear proliferation in Iran, and Biden said in Munich that Iran would be offered "meaningful incentives" for the same. Biden also smoothed the road for Clinton to take over the "China file" by making public statements indicating the US would not press China on currency manipulations, marking a departure from the Bush era US-Sino relations. Clinton immediately had a "working lunch" with Secretary Geithner followed by the official announcement of her Asian tour. Now, more details are coming out from State about an extended leg of the trip with stops at a Gaza conference in Cairo, the next day to Israel, and Geneva three days later where she will meet with the Russia foreign minister. Biden spent a good deal of his time in Munich making kissy faces toward Russia, echoing Clinton's open-armed approach.
Critics are saying that Clinton has been rendered powerless by virtue of being upstaged by high profile special envoys like Mitchell, crowded out of the White House by the National Security Adviser (an ancient battle) and shut out of policy crafting by resigning from the Senate. The first thing that should be noted is that with only a few exceptions, high level appointments at State were Clinton's picks, endorsed by the President, not the other way around. If Secretary Clinton didn't want George Mitchell on the Middle East, he wouldn't be. Clinton, with the support of Secretary Gates, has made it clear that State will be expanding both in scope and in staff, and transitioning all diplomatic duties away from Defense and back to State. That takes people, and something as important as, say, Afghanistan, probably warrants a special envoy, thus freeing the Secretary to take a broader view of foreign policy. That Clinton is being passed actual diplomatic missions like getting the doors open in Iran and confronting China's Asian hegemony, and reengaging Russia is a sign of confidence from the President. Biden and Clinton are doing exactly what they should, developing a seamless template for globe wrangling. Things at home are heading south for the President, but his Team of Rivals is working very well so far.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Biden offered SecState? Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
The LA Times is reporting that Jill Biden made a slip on Oprah and said that Vice President (then -elect) Biden was offered a choice to be either Secretary of State or VP, which apparently prompted Biden to shush his wife on-set, in front of Oprah. Biden's staff are stalwartly denying that any such offer was made, and asserting that the only offer made was VP. The LA Times implies this is a direct insult to Hillary Clinton, which I doubt. They further claim this means Obama may have to deal with competing interests in his Cabinet (duh) because of having "two Secretaries of State."
First of all, let me give an opinion: If it were the other way around -- which it easily could have been -- with Hillary as VP and Joe as SecState, Obama would have to deal with the problem of having two presidents, a problem Joe Biden does not really pose. Hillary Clinton had an herculean campaign and political image surrounding her during the election cycle, something Joe Biden did not, although he was a powerful and respected Senator. 2nd fiddle needs to go to a 2nd fiddle player.
As I have said many times, I am certain in my bones that Obama and Hillary made a very definite deal back in June, it was Obama who initiated it, and Hillary who dictated the terms. Until the Democratic Convention in August, pudits be damned, Hillary Clinton had ample political clout in the Democratic party to get just about any concession she wanted. She had both cause and clout to challenge Obama all the way to the floor vote, and possibly could have walked away the nominee, although a divisive and contentious one if it had played that way, which obviously is why she chose another path. Regardless, Clinton had the power to make or break Obama -- ironically, after she lost the delegate battle in June. Joe Biden had no such capital, dropped out of the 2008 contest very early, and held his endorsement very late in the process; in fact, the general buzz seemed to be that Biden would endorse Clinton as the two were seen together quite frequently over the course of the Democratic primaries. In retrospect, it seems to me that Biden endorsed whoever offered him a spot in the new administration. As late as early May, Biden was still seen traveling with Clinton, and had not endorsed anyone.
Second, let's look at a brief timeline. The press corps went wild on June 5th when they were shut out of a private meeting between Obama and Clinton on June 5th. Sen. Dianne Feinstein hosted the meeting in her D.C. home, and the details of this meeting have never been revealed. However, the next day, June 6th, Obama ditched his entourage again and is rumored to have attended the 56th Bilderberg meeting with Sen. Clinton. (For anyone who does not know, the Bilderberg Group is one of the main organizations considered by conspiracy theorists to be one of the main "Illuminati" groups, or the "secret masters" of the modern world. They inspired Chris Carter's popular show The X-Files.) So, Hillary cut a deal for herself with Obama, and sealed the deal by introducing him to the "secret masters." Think I'm crazy? Bill Clinton is a Mason and a known Bilderberger. Hillary is also a Bilberberger and a Mason (Order of the Eastern Star.) It is rumored that Obama is 32nd degree Prince Hall Mason, of the black Masonic caucus in the US, but which is a splinter group, and not fully integrated into Masonry. Looks like Bill & Hillary took care of that hurdle, too.
June 7th, the next day, is the day Clinton gave her concession speech and endorsed Obama. Obama and Clinton had another private meeting in June 25th, the day before the "Unity Rally," in Unity, NH. This meeting was not cloaked in the same secrecy and covered in blinds to the media like the early June meetings, and was probably simply a strategic meeting to prepare for the rally. Obama and Clinton had another "secret" meeting on November 12th, where it is now known Obama offered her the Secretary of State post, which was officially announced on December 1st, a traditional date for Cabinet announcements.
Biden and Obama had no known meetings until late July. He was announced as obama's running mate on July 23rd, and promptly slipped back into obscurity, preparing to become a footnote of history. It was well known that John Kerry, Howard Dean and Bill Richardson were all interested in Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton remained mum on the entire subject of her involvement with Obama's administration, and Biden was considered a dark horse even for VP, until the announcement. It should be clear, even to the casual observer, the Obama and Clinton together orchestrated the assembly of Obama's Cabinet, and the procedures by which the Democratic nomination and general election campaign would be conducted. By the end of the Democratic Convention, Obama, Biden and Clinton together formed a potent triumvirate that ultimately delivered the White House to Obama and Democrats, and everyone got their just desserts. I would opine that Biden and Clinton were both in consideration for both positions, but it was more likely Hillary who turned down the VP slot in favor of Secretary of State, automatically narrowing the choices for Biden. Thus, the Biden shush on Oprah. "No, no, let's not open that can of worms."
First of all, let me give an opinion: If it were the other way around -- which it easily could have been -- with Hillary as VP and Joe as SecState, Obama would have to deal with the problem of having two presidents, a problem Joe Biden does not really pose. Hillary Clinton had an herculean campaign and political image surrounding her during the election cycle, something Joe Biden did not, although he was a powerful and respected Senator. 2nd fiddle needs to go to a 2nd fiddle player.
As I have said many times, I am certain in my bones that Obama and Hillary made a very definite deal back in June, it was Obama who initiated it, and Hillary who dictated the terms. Until the Democratic Convention in August, pudits be damned, Hillary Clinton had ample political clout in the Democratic party to get just about any concession she wanted. She had both cause and clout to challenge Obama all the way to the floor vote, and possibly could have walked away the nominee, although a divisive and contentious one if it had played that way, which obviously is why she chose another path. Regardless, Clinton had the power to make or break Obama -- ironically, after she lost the delegate battle in June. Joe Biden had no such capital, dropped out of the 2008 contest very early, and held his endorsement very late in the process; in fact, the general buzz seemed to be that Biden would endorse Clinton as the two were seen together quite frequently over the course of the Democratic primaries. In retrospect, it seems to me that Biden endorsed whoever offered him a spot in the new administration. As late as early May, Biden was still seen traveling with Clinton, and had not endorsed anyone.
Second, let's look at a brief timeline. The press corps went wild on June 5th when they were shut out of a private meeting between Obama and Clinton on June 5th. Sen. Dianne Feinstein hosted the meeting in her D.C. home, and the details of this meeting have never been revealed. However, the next day, June 6th, Obama ditched his entourage again and is rumored to have attended the 56th Bilderberg meeting with Sen. Clinton. (For anyone who does not know, the Bilderberg Group is one of the main organizations considered by conspiracy theorists to be one of the main "Illuminati" groups, or the "secret masters" of the modern world. They inspired Chris Carter's popular show The X-Files.) So, Hillary cut a deal for herself with Obama, and sealed the deal by introducing him to the "secret masters." Think I'm crazy? Bill Clinton is a Mason and a known Bilderberger. Hillary is also a Bilberberger and a Mason (Order of the Eastern Star.) It is rumored that Obama is 32nd degree Prince Hall Mason, of the black Masonic caucus in the US, but which is a splinter group, and not fully integrated into Masonry. Looks like Bill & Hillary took care of that hurdle, too.
June 7th, the next day, is the day Clinton gave her concession speech and endorsed Obama. Obama and Clinton had another private meeting in June 25th, the day before the "Unity Rally," in Unity, NH. This meeting was not cloaked in the same secrecy and covered in blinds to the media like the early June meetings, and was probably simply a strategic meeting to prepare for the rally. Obama and Clinton had another "secret" meeting on November 12th, where it is now known Obama offered her the Secretary of State post, which was officially announced on December 1st, a traditional date for Cabinet announcements.
Biden and Obama had no known meetings until late July. He was announced as obama's running mate on July 23rd, and promptly slipped back into obscurity, preparing to become a footnote of history. It was well known that John Kerry, Howard Dean and Bill Richardson were all interested in Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton remained mum on the entire subject of her involvement with Obama's administration, and Biden was considered a dark horse even for VP, until the announcement. It should be clear, even to the casual observer, the Obama and Clinton together orchestrated the assembly of Obama's Cabinet, and the procedures by which the Democratic nomination and general election campaign would be conducted. By the end of the Democratic Convention, Obama, Biden and Clinton together formed a potent triumvirate that ultimately delivered the White House to Obama and Democrats, and everyone got their just desserts. I would opine that Biden and Clinton were both in consideration for both positions, but it was more likely Hillary who turned down the VP slot in favor of Secretary of State, automatically narrowing the choices for Biden. Thus, the Biden shush on Oprah. "No, no, let's not open that can of worms."
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Excitement in the Senate
Reuters as well as the Associated Press are reporting that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Sen. Hillary Clinton today as incoming Secretary of State, in a 16-1 vote. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) was the lone member of the committee to cast a dissenting vote, not surprising considering Vitter is the poster boy for hard-right conservatives. Vitter is most notable for his involvement in a prostitution ring, and for the gross hypocrisy of the GOP in forgiving his indiscretions. The full Senate is expected to vote on the nomination next week, shortly after President-elect Obama is inaugurated.
MSNBC is also reporting that Joe Biden will resign his senate seat today, effective 5pm and Sen. Clinton will address the Senate at 11am to say goodbye. Roland Burris will also be sworn in today by Vice President Dick Cheney. Roll Call is also profiling Biden's replacement, Ted Kaufman, calling him Biden's "alter ego." And lastly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled a vote for today on releasing the remaining $350 Billion dollars in TARP funds.
MSNBC is also reporting that Joe Biden will resign his senate seat today, effective 5pm and Sen. Clinton will address the Senate at 11am to say goodbye. Roland Burris will also be sworn in today by Vice President Dick Cheney. Roll Call is also profiling Biden's replacement, Ted Kaufman, calling him Biden's "alter ego." And lastly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled a vote for today on releasing the remaining $350 Billion dollars in TARP funds.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Electoral Musings
Today I decided it was time to look at the electoral map and see what I thought about McCain's seemingly dismal chances at a win. I agree with Richard Baehr from the American Thinker who says he believes Obama is the heavy favorite to win next Tuesday, but there are still a few scenarios where McCain could pull it off. With the radical variances in national polls this week, which are eloquently illuminated by Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics.com, and the sudden outpouring of negative press for Obama, I think McCain may have found an opening. I also still support my argument that Sarah Palin is a major positive for the Republican ticket. She evokes McCain's semi-abandoned campaign theme, the "Straight Talk Express," even with her gaffes; The Express was a much more effective campaign tactic than "Country First" has been, and Palin is peddling both with folksy charm and tight suits.
There is much adieu in the media about McCain's "desperate" efforts in Pennsylvania, and while I put the chance of the Arizona senator winning the Keystone State at around 20%, I think there is a greater benefit: validation. If McCain does win Pennsylvania it will have earned it's "swing state" status for sure, as solid Blue as it has been for quite some time. However, the fact that McCain and Palin are both campaigning hard in Pennsylvania is sending a message that they are taking the race seriously. Moreover, it makes McCain appear competitive. He could easily retreat to a more typical last-week Red stump state like Indiana or a "must have" state like Ohio. Note that Obama has been at breakneck speed all over Ohio, Joe Biden is in Florida and Hillary Clinton has headed north to New Hampshire, which has seen Obama's numbers soften this week. Contrast that to the GOP running mates, McCain and Palin who are both full-time in PA and have ramped up their rhetoric to fever pitch. McCain did not rise to the bait of losing a "dependable" Red state like Florida or Virginia, instead he put his nose to the grindstone and said, in a rally today, "We will win Pennsylvania." McCain has latched onto Obama's redistribution of wealth comments, which have gained validity due to the emergence of a very socialist-sounding interview he gave in 2001 arguing very strongly for redistribution. Michael Graham wrote an opinion column today in the Boston Herald condemning the media as a whole for completely losing its objectivity, and openly campaigning for and favoring Obama. He makes an accusation, that if it gets noticed, could prove troublesome for Obama. Graham claims:
Here is how RealClearPolitics.com calls the election if it were today.
I think this is a very liberal estimate, based on poll of poll averages. While I do think Obama is the likely winner, I am not so sure he will carry Florida once it is all said and done, and I also question Indiana, Missouri and North Carolina. In those three states (as well as Florida) neither candidate is polling above 50%. Obama would still win if McCain won all of those states. Again, Obama is coming into the final stretch of the election with a heavy advantage, in money, in the polls, in favorable ratings, and in electoral projections. But, here is a scenario whereby McCain wins:
None of these states are out of the realm of possibility for Republicans. The only one that even seems like a stretch is Pennsylvania and, Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr. all carried Pennsylvania. The biggest electoral sweeps in history are by Reagan (525 electoral votes in 1984) and Nixon (520 electoral votes in 1972), although both accomplished those landslides as the incumbent. McCain frequently calls out Ronald Reagan as his greatest hero, and I believe the media has predicted an Obama win to be the "end of Reaganism." Interestingly, Reagan was the "Democrat's Republican," and McCain does have some appeal in the Democratic base, as little as anyone wants to admit it now. McCain consistently polls 15-20% of registered Democrats supporting him, and while Obama tends to pull 20-25% of Republican voters, there are more Democratic voters. If McCain can make his case and win Pennsylvania, retain Florida, Virginia and and North Carolina and break the ties in Indiana and Ohio, we will see a very different November 5th than anyone is expecting: a President-elect McCain.
Here is something we want to avoid, but I see as a possible scenario, too:
This one is even more likely than an all-out win for McCain, and it would be bad, bad news. No one wants to see 2000 play out all over again, and rest assured the Bush-Cheney-Rove cabal would be all over an electoral tie. It seems that a Democratic-dominated House would "naturally" select Obama, but that is bukake. Many large states vote predominantly Republican but go Blue because the major metropolitan areas vote Democrat: Maine, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, California, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin and Michigan to name a few hundred votes. The House that would resolve an electoral tie has a 36 vote majority for the Democrats, and and only 218 votes would be required to win, meaning McCain would only have to pull 19 Democrats to his side of the aisle. Like it or not, McCain does have a reputation for reaching across the aisle, and believe me, he would. Not to mention re-counts and appeals. The road has already been paved for those by the ACORN mess.
As I have noted, Obama is the most likely winner a week from today. But, McCain is not down, and he is certainly not out. The media is so anxious to call the race at this point, it is alarming. In a few days the tone of the election has changed. Obama may have made his "closing argument" last night, but watch for the fighting to reach a fever pitch no later than Friday. I'm not ready to retract my pro-Obama prediction, but I am feeling hesitant about it. If you haven't voted yet, get out there and vote now, or make sure you go to the polls on Tuesday.
There is much adieu in the media about McCain's "desperate" efforts in Pennsylvania, and while I put the chance of the Arizona senator winning the Keystone State at around 20%, I think there is a greater benefit: validation. If McCain does win Pennsylvania it will have earned it's "swing state" status for sure, as solid Blue as it has been for quite some time. However, the fact that McCain and Palin are both campaigning hard in Pennsylvania is sending a message that they are taking the race seriously. Moreover, it makes McCain appear competitive. He could easily retreat to a more typical last-week Red stump state like Indiana or a "must have" state like Ohio. Note that Obama has been at breakneck speed all over Ohio, Joe Biden is in Florida and Hillary Clinton has headed north to New Hampshire, which has seen Obama's numbers soften this week. Contrast that to the GOP running mates, McCain and Palin who are both full-time in PA and have ramped up their rhetoric to fever pitch. McCain did not rise to the bait of losing a "dependable" Red state like Florida or Virginia, instead he put his nose to the grindstone and said, in a rally today, "We will win Pennsylvania." McCain has latched onto Obama's redistribution of wealth comments, which have gained validity due to the emergence of a very socialist-sounding interview he gave in 2001 arguing very strongly for redistribution. Michael Graham wrote an opinion column today in the Boston Herald condemning the media as a whole for completely losing its objectivity, and openly campaigning for and favoring Obama. He makes an accusation, that if it gets noticed, could prove troublesome for Obama. Graham claims:
Did you see that amazing video obtained by the Los Angeles Times of Sen. Barack Obama toasting a prominent former PLO member at an Arab American Action Network meeting in 2003? The video in which Obama gives Yasser Arafat’s frontman a warm embrace, as Bill Ayers look on? You haven’t seen it? Me, neither. The Los Angeles Times refuses to release it. And so an incriminating video of Obama literally “palling around” with PLO supporters becomes one more nail in the coffin of “objective journalism.[SOURCE]If it is true, and the LA Times is intentionally withholding this video, it looks really bad for everyone. I have been cautioned by more than one of my friends not to "drink the GOP Kool-Aid" and believe the extremist rumors about Obama. I don't. But how many dubious associations does it take to cast serious doubts on the character of a politician? Apparently it has to be a prostitute or a mistress to have any validity. Being an avowed anti-white preacher, an unrepentant terrorist or a PLO member obviously has nothing to do with politics, whereas late night trysts at the Motel 6 does. If these "smears" on Obama do pay off, and McCain does win, they will praise him for sticking to his message. If he loses, it doesn't matter. McCain will go back to the Senate, maybe even pick up a Cabinet post as consolation prize, and end his days an American hero. But, the point of all this is, I do see some inroads to a win opening for McCain in the end game.
Here is how RealClearPolitics.com calls the election if it were today.
I think this is a very liberal estimate, based on poll of poll averages. While I do think Obama is the likely winner, I am not so sure he will carry Florida once it is all said and done, and I also question Indiana, Missouri and North Carolina. In those three states (as well as Florida) neither candidate is polling above 50%. Obama would still win if McCain won all of those states. Again, Obama is coming into the final stretch of the election with a heavy advantage, in money, in the polls, in favorable ratings, and in electoral projections. But, here is a scenario whereby McCain wins:
None of these states are out of the realm of possibility for Republicans. The only one that even seems like a stretch is Pennsylvania and, Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr. all carried Pennsylvania. The biggest electoral sweeps in history are by Reagan (525 electoral votes in 1984) and Nixon (520 electoral votes in 1972), although both accomplished those landslides as the incumbent. McCain frequently calls out Ronald Reagan as his greatest hero, and I believe the media has predicted an Obama win to be the "end of Reaganism." Interestingly, Reagan was the "Democrat's Republican," and McCain does have some appeal in the Democratic base, as little as anyone wants to admit it now. McCain consistently polls 15-20% of registered Democrats supporting him, and while Obama tends to pull 20-25% of Republican voters, there are more Democratic voters. If McCain can make his case and win Pennsylvania, retain Florida, Virginia and and North Carolina and break the ties in Indiana and Ohio, we will see a very different November 5th than anyone is expecting: a President-elect McCain.
Here is something we want to avoid, but I see as a possible scenario, too:
This one is even more likely than an all-out win for McCain, and it would be bad, bad news. No one wants to see 2000 play out all over again, and rest assured the Bush-Cheney-Rove cabal would be all over an electoral tie. It seems that a Democratic-dominated House would "naturally" select Obama, but that is bukake. Many large states vote predominantly Republican but go Blue because the major metropolitan areas vote Democrat: Maine, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, California, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin and Michigan to name a few hundred votes. The House that would resolve an electoral tie has a 36 vote majority for the Democrats, and and only 218 votes would be required to win, meaning McCain would only have to pull 19 Democrats to his side of the aisle. Like it or not, McCain does have a reputation for reaching across the aisle, and believe me, he would. Not to mention re-counts and appeals. The road has already been paved for those by the ACORN mess.
As I have noted, Obama is the most likely winner a week from today. But, McCain is not down, and he is certainly not out. The media is so anxious to call the race at this point, it is alarming. In a few days the tone of the election has changed. Obama may have made his "closing argument" last night, but watch for the fighting to reach a fever pitch no later than Friday. I'm not ready to retract my pro-Obama prediction, but I am feeling hesitant about it. If you haven't voted yet, get out there and vote now, or make sure you go to the polls on Tuesday.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Biden Right On Schedule
There are persistent rumors that Hillary Clinton will be called to replace Joe Biden as the vice-presidential candidate. Probably sparked in part by John McCain's announcement of Sarah Palin, and in part by what I would now call Hillary-leaning buyer's remorse. Regardless, the rumor gained new life when, throughout September an anonymous email titled, "Rumor Has It," circulated the Internet claiming that on or about October 5th, Biden would bow out, citing health concerns. Two days ago, Oct 2nd, a spin-off of the rumor hit the Wall Street Journal in the form of an article discussing what happens if a vice-presidential candidate drops out. The Hillary-replaces-Biden rumor is so pervasive, it can be found in every corner of the blogshere. Right on schedule, Joe Biden today, October 4th, canceled his campaign events due to a "serious illness in the family." His mother-in-law is ill, and while my sympathies go to him and his family, isn't that a little coincidental?
I won't try to conceal my excitement. While I wager the chances of this rumor coming true about 10%, I still find it interesting. This is in a way a whole new level of vice-presidential vetting. Palin faced her own challenges, even from the Conservative base, that she should step aside. Her well-received debate performance Thursday, Oct 2nd seems to have bolstered her internal numbers again, however. Confidence in the bottom of the ticket seems to have taken on a much greater importance than usual in this election. So, we'll see if, in the next few days, Biden cancels more events, or even announces his withdrawal from the race.
My own take on this conspiracy / rumor is all of the above, plus: Does anyone think it's a coincidence that Hillary Clinton has been campaigning hard in Florida, which is now swinging toward Obama 3 points or more? I said as early as December 2007 that Clinton could carry Florida in the General Election. She is currently in California, mining the Democratic homeland for money, fundraising for Obama. Clinton is a heavyweight fundraiser, way above Biden's league. And, since Biden himself already endorsed her as a better pick than him, the stage is set quite well. Also, do you think it's a coincidence that Hillary was also on the stump all last week in Michigan? The electoral-heavy state went so Blue after her tour that McCain yesterday announced it's withdrawal from MI, effectively conceding to Obama in the state. And, as I said in a comment the other day, Hillary Clinton could, with impunity, "rip into Sarah Palin like a bag of Cheetos," something Biden certainly does not have the leisure of doing, fair or not.
We'll see.
I won't try to conceal my excitement. While I wager the chances of this rumor coming true about 10%, I still find it interesting. This is in a way a whole new level of vice-presidential vetting. Palin faced her own challenges, even from the Conservative base, that she should step aside. Her well-received debate performance Thursday, Oct 2nd seems to have bolstered her internal numbers again, however. Confidence in the bottom of the ticket seems to have taken on a much greater importance than usual in this election. So, we'll see if, in the next few days, Biden cancels more events, or even announces his withdrawal from the race.
My own take on this conspiracy / rumor is all of the above, plus: Does anyone think it's a coincidence that Hillary Clinton has been campaigning hard in Florida, which is now swinging toward Obama 3 points or more? I said as early as December 2007 that Clinton could carry Florida in the General Election. She is currently in California, mining the Democratic homeland for money, fundraising for Obama. Clinton is a heavyweight fundraiser, way above Biden's league. And, since Biden himself already endorsed her as a better pick than him, the stage is set quite well. Also, do you think it's a coincidence that Hillary was also on the stump all last week in Michigan? The electoral-heavy state went so Blue after her tour that McCain yesterday announced it's withdrawal from MI, effectively conceding to Obama in the state. And, as I said in a comment the other day, Hillary Clinton could, with impunity, "rip into Sarah Palin like a bag of Cheetos," something Biden certainly does not have the leisure of doing, fair or not.
We'll see.
Friday, October 3, 2008
An Ideological Coup In The Making
Watching the Vice Presidential debate between Sen. Joe Biden and Gov. Sarah Palin, I was struck by what I would consider alarming responses from both candidates on the topic of the Vice Presidency itself. Both gave technically accurate answers on the nature of the office. I also believe there was a very subtle exchange between the two where Palin offered up a blind for Biden, handed him a pass.
I believe the following exchange was an ad lib by Palin, and a very calculated one intended to protect them both. Biden almost missed the memo, and Palin reigned him back in with some very uncomfortable laughter and distinct body language, Follow along! I watched the live debate on C-SPAN and I have reviewed the Vice Presidential questions segment over a dozen times now, and there is no mistaking the non-vocal conversation between both of them. It shows Palin can think on her feet, and it showed an intuitive ability on both of their parts.
Here is the exchange I am referring to:
Watching it, I asked myself, "First, why is Palin defending Biden? She's attacked him on every flip-flop she could memorize. Second, why is Biden taking a pass on the huge opening to make her look unqualified?"
Palin threw a blind for Biden, dominated the whole question and moved the debate in a direction that allowed for him to never have to address his own comments. Ifill even gave a potential pass by prefacing the question with, "Now maybe this was just what was going on at the time." Biden's main dereliction in the debate overall was the few times he seemed to still be running for President, upstaging the top of the ticket occasionally. Underscoring his comment about never wanting to be Vice-President would have hung a star on those moments. One of them was harshly underscored in Biden's answer about what his role was VP would be. More on that later.
I think Palin is smarter than Liberal spin paints her. I believe she knows that her thin resume is her weakest point (a question she never answered, when asked directly) and decided that she was willing to pass on the obvious opening of Biden's "not interested" stance on the VP slot, as long as she could keep him from attacking her, either. She jumped all over their collective gaffes, dismissed them both as a failed joke, and moved on immediately.
Palin gave what is technically an ultra-conservative view of the Vice Presidency, and all but completely endorsed Dick Cheney's modus operandi if not his ideological stance as well. No doubt she knows what it is, as the same Neo-Conservative cabal that orchestrated the Bush win of 2000 are her handlers. In this manner, Palin is already filling the traditional role of the Vice President, or one of them: to be a partisan enforcer for the President, to draw criticism away from the President. McCain's main problem overall may not be Democrats, but Republicans who are as eager to shed the Bush skin as anyone. I believe Palin "energizing the Conservative base" is code for Palin offering the Bush-continuity McCain needs to distance himself from.
Palin indicated she would take a much more active role in the Senate, and in policing McCain's agenda in Congress. I believe she also made it clear that her agenda in Congress would be to take control of Energy issues, and the "reform of government overall." That little bit was the most alarming of all her comments on the matter. It evoked an image of Palin more as a vice-principal than president, a subtle slap Biden offered up later when he said, "With regard to the role of vice president, I had a long talk, as I'm sure the governor did with her principal, in my case with Barack." No doubt, given McCain's now coined, "We will make them famous" stance on corrupt politicians, Palin would have to be very heavy handed with the Senate. No group wants to be reformed, and least of all Senators. Obama, or Biden as his surrogate, would face the same stonewalling.
Biden gave an equally alarming view of the Vice Presidency, or at least at his. Biden said, "I have a history of getting things done in the United States Senate. John McCain would acknowledge that. My record shows that on controversial issues. I would be the point person for the legislative initiatives in the United States Congress for our administration." First of all, our administration. Obviously Biden was prepared for questions about Dick Cheney, and his stance that the Vice President is actually a member of the Legislative branch. I have to agree with Biden who calls this belief a, "...bizarre notion invented by Cheney," but will equally disagree when he asserts, "The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress." While this is technically correct, it is untrue. The Constitution, Palin points out correctly if unpopularly, is quite flexible in terms of what authority is vested in the Vice President. It is explicit that the VP only votes in the case of a tie, but also clearly designated the Vice President as the President of the Senate, and seems to imply a much greater presence by the vice-president than is common in modern practice.
Biden said something else that might have gone under most people's radar, but it stuck in my head, "I would also, when asked if I wanted a portfolio, my response was, no." What's this "portfolio" he mentioned then jumped away from it? Stock options? Do we really need to hear about his benefit package? A "portfolio" is democracy-speak for a ministry or a cabinet, the same way "territory" is democracy-speak for "colony." What he said was Obama asked him if he wanted his own cabinet and he said no. First of all, I doubt Obama would offer such a thing, and I even more doubt Biden would say no.
Biden very quickly moved on to what I have already mentioned as an upstaging of Obama, the most blatant one, where Biden said, "But Barack Obama indicated to me he wanted me with him to help him govern. So every major decision he'll be making, I'll be sitting in the room to give my best advice. He's president, not me, I'll give my best advice." I would bet it was an ad lib by Biden when he quickly inserted, "He's president, not me." Very few Vice Presidents have been "in the room" when any major decision has been made, and some have been openly barred from top-level cabinet meetings by express will of the President. The first vice-president to even have an office in the West Wing of the White House was Walter Mondale. The tradition of vice-presidents making depreciating comments about themselves, and their office itself is indicative of how active a role in governing the VP really has. Biden came out strong on the role of VP as an active Executive Branch officer, and I'd say equally as aggressive as Palin, only in a different direction. Or was it? Biden also seems to have indicated quite clearly that he would be the "point person" in Congress for legislation the administration has a vested interest in, and made a point to say he "gets things done in the Senate."
One of the callers I listened to on C-SPAN last night, endorsing a third party, called both Biden and Palin, "Neo-Conservative hacks," and while I'm not ready to give that harsh a judgment, they did both come on very strong in their own corners. While Dick Cheney's approach to the vice-presidency may be bizarrely off the mark, he may go down in history as the Vice President who defined the office. As soon as he cast the majority-granting vote to Republicans in 2001, he began a subversive campaign to take full control of government, again, drawing a good deal of the blame and criticism off Bush and onto himself, traditional VP style. But more importantly, he reopened the debate about just what the vice-president does, and what the true limits of the office are. The very nature of the current presidential campaign emphasizes the potential importance of the vice-president, and even the popular detraction to Cheney underscores the issue. I believe an unspoken issue in the campaign was touched on in this segment of the debate: both candidates are promising to clean up government, and that is going to include the Senate. And the Vice President is the Constitutionally appointed President of the Senate, and would be the President's voice therein, the advocate and referee of "change."
I believe the following exchange was an ad lib by Palin, and a very calculated one intended to protect them both. Biden almost missed the memo, and Palin reigned him back in with some very uncomfortable laughter and distinct body language, Follow along! I watched the live debate on C-SPAN and I have reviewed the Vice Presidential questions segment over a dozen times now, and there is no mistaking the non-vocal conversation between both of them. It shows Palin can think on her feet, and it showed an intuitive ability on both of their parts.
Here is the exchange I am referring to:
IFILL: Everybody gets extra credit tonight. We're going to move on to the next question. Governor, you said in July that someone would have to explain to you exactly what it is the vice president does every day. You, senator, said, you would not be vice president under any circumstances. Now maybe this was just what was going on at the time. But tell us now, looking forward, what it is you think the vice presidency is worth now.
PALIN: In my comment there, it was a lame attempt at a joke and yours was a lame attempt at a joke, too, I guess, because nobody got it. Of course we know what a vice president does.
BIDEN: They didn't get yours or mine? Which one didn't they get?
PALIN: No, no. Of course, we know what a vice president does...[SOURCE]
Watching it, I asked myself, "First, why is Palin defending Biden? She's attacked him on every flip-flop she could memorize. Second, why is Biden taking a pass on the huge opening to make her look unqualified?"
Palin threw a blind for Biden, dominated the whole question and moved the debate in a direction that allowed for him to never have to address his own comments. Ifill even gave a potential pass by prefacing the question with, "Now maybe this was just what was going on at the time." Biden's main dereliction in the debate overall was the few times he seemed to still be running for President, upstaging the top of the ticket occasionally. Underscoring his comment about never wanting to be Vice-President would have hung a star on those moments. One of them was harshly underscored in Biden's answer about what his role was VP would be. More on that later.
I think Palin is smarter than Liberal spin paints her. I believe she knows that her thin resume is her weakest point (a question she never answered, when asked directly) and decided that she was willing to pass on the obvious opening of Biden's "not interested" stance on the VP slot, as long as she could keep him from attacking her, either. She jumped all over their collective gaffes, dismissed them both as a failed joke, and moved on immediately.
Palin gave what is technically an ultra-conservative view of the Vice Presidency, and all but completely endorsed Dick Cheney's modus operandi if not his ideological stance as well. No doubt she knows what it is, as the same Neo-Conservative cabal that orchestrated the Bush win of 2000 are her handlers. In this manner, Palin is already filling the traditional role of the Vice President, or one of them: to be a partisan enforcer for the President, to draw criticism away from the President. McCain's main problem overall may not be Democrats, but Republicans who are as eager to shed the Bush skin as anyone. I believe Palin "energizing the Conservative base" is code for Palin offering the Bush-continuity McCain needs to distance himself from.
Palin indicated she would take a much more active role in the Senate, and in policing McCain's agenda in Congress. I believe she also made it clear that her agenda in Congress would be to take control of Energy issues, and the "reform of government overall." That little bit was the most alarming of all her comments on the matter. It evoked an image of Palin more as a vice-principal than president, a subtle slap Biden offered up later when he said, "With regard to the role of vice president, I had a long talk, as I'm sure the governor did with her principal, in my case with Barack." No doubt, given McCain's now coined, "We will make them famous" stance on corrupt politicians, Palin would have to be very heavy handed with the Senate. No group wants to be reformed, and least of all Senators. Obama, or Biden as his surrogate, would face the same stonewalling.
Biden gave an equally alarming view of the Vice Presidency, or at least at his. Biden said, "I have a history of getting things done in the United States Senate. John McCain would acknowledge that. My record shows that on controversial issues. I would be the point person for the legislative initiatives in the United States Congress for our administration." First of all, our administration. Obviously Biden was prepared for questions about Dick Cheney, and his stance that the Vice President is actually a member of the Legislative branch. I have to agree with Biden who calls this belief a, "...bizarre notion invented by Cheney," but will equally disagree when he asserts, "The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress." While this is technically correct, it is untrue. The Constitution, Palin points out correctly if unpopularly, is quite flexible in terms of what authority is vested in the Vice President. It is explicit that the VP only votes in the case of a tie, but also clearly designated the Vice President as the President of the Senate, and seems to imply a much greater presence by the vice-president than is common in modern practice.
Biden said something else that might have gone under most people's radar, but it stuck in my head, "I would also, when asked if I wanted a portfolio, my response was, no." What's this "portfolio" he mentioned then jumped away from it? Stock options? Do we really need to hear about his benefit package? A "portfolio" is democracy-speak for a ministry or a cabinet, the same way "territory" is democracy-speak for "colony." What he said was Obama asked him if he wanted his own cabinet and he said no. First of all, I doubt Obama would offer such a thing, and I even more doubt Biden would say no.
Biden very quickly moved on to what I have already mentioned as an upstaging of Obama, the most blatant one, where Biden said, "But Barack Obama indicated to me he wanted me with him to help him govern. So every major decision he'll be making, I'll be sitting in the room to give my best advice. He's president, not me, I'll give my best advice." I would bet it was an ad lib by Biden when he quickly inserted, "He's president, not me." Very few Vice Presidents have been "in the room" when any major decision has been made, and some have been openly barred from top-level cabinet meetings by express will of the President. The first vice-president to even have an office in the West Wing of the White House was Walter Mondale. The tradition of vice-presidents making depreciating comments about themselves, and their office itself is indicative of how active a role in governing the VP really has. Biden came out strong on the role of VP as an active Executive Branch officer, and I'd say equally as aggressive as Palin, only in a different direction. Or was it? Biden also seems to have indicated quite clearly that he would be the "point person" in Congress for legislation the administration has a vested interest in, and made a point to say he "gets things done in the Senate."
One of the callers I listened to on C-SPAN last night, endorsing a third party, called both Biden and Palin, "Neo-Conservative hacks," and while I'm not ready to give that harsh a judgment, they did both come on very strong in their own corners. While Dick Cheney's approach to the vice-presidency may be bizarrely off the mark, he may go down in history as the Vice President who defined the office. As soon as he cast the majority-granting vote to Republicans in 2001, he began a subversive campaign to take full control of government, again, drawing a good deal of the blame and criticism off Bush and onto himself, traditional VP style. But more importantly, he reopened the debate about just what the vice-president does, and what the true limits of the office are. The very nature of the current presidential campaign emphasizes the potential importance of the vice-president, and even the popular detraction to Cheney underscores the issue. I believe an unspoken issue in the campaign was touched on in this segment of the debate: both candidates are promising to clean up government, and that is going to include the Senate. And the Vice President is the Constitutionally appointed President of the Senate, and would be the President's voice therein, the advocate and referee of "change."
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Hillary Clinton Is Obama's Ace Smith
I'm still very interested in Clinton. Not only because I personally believe she will run for President again, but because I like and respect her. I actively campaigned for her in the primaries, but I am also hoping she will play a role in an Obama Presidency in a meaningful way. I'm not convinced Clinton herself was ever interested in the Vice Presidency, although she must have been conscious that she could not say no had it been offered, and now it may be true that the much-maligned "Dream Ticket" just may have been. Regardless, Clinton is hard on the trail for Obama, and she may be the Swing Factor. She represents the age group, demographic appeal and gender Obama most needs to sure up. Call me crazy, but it seems to me that every state Hillary Clinton touches goes swing. She's either running a shadow campaign, or she has taken a page from Ace Smith's playbook. Smith is a political operative known for his take-no-prisoners strategies and ability to play hard ball in the ground game. His aggressive leadership during the primaries delivered Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Ohio for Clinton. Smith joined Clinton's campaign at the last minute before California's Democratic primary, and got tacit credit for turning the tide to Clinton.
Other Super Tuesday "big state" victories for Clinton cemented her campaign stance that big state wins were the litmus test for the nomination. While I agree big state wins are critical to the General Election, Clinton was proven wrong in the primaries. Regardless, what remains clear is that Clinton knows how to compete in a national election. She has lived through at least four, up close. While I think there is a risk of Clinton upstaging Biden on the campaign trail, better her than Palin. And, as I have already said, it seems Hillary has the Midas Touch now that she's campaigning for someone else. We might have seen a glimmer of that kind of brilliance along the way, but I think it is fair to say the Clinton Brand was strengthened by her loss, not diminished.
Last week Hillary was all over Florida, campaigning hard for Obama. Since that time, Florida has gone swing. McCain lost somewhere around 5 points in Florida, and his lead is shredded to just about +1, or virtually tied. She was also in Ohio, where McCain lost his comfortable lead directly after her touchdown. This week, Clinton has been campaigning in Michigan, delivering fire-and-brimstone economic speeches. Michigan is an accepted must-have state, and is considered "swing" even though it is dependably Blue for the most part, but has been Red historically. Since Clinton has been in Michigan, Obama's lead has solidified to somewhere around +8, I'd estimate.
Unfortunately, Joe Biden seems to have the opposite effect on just about everything. I don't criticize him lightly, or just for the sake of it. Biden has turned on the Gaffe-O-Matic, and everywhere he goes, the polls flee toward McCain. West Virginia and Ohio have both swung back to McCain after Biden's disastrous comments about the coal industry in those two states over the last 10 days. In the last few days Biden has been in Virginia, which is leaning toward Obama again, but those polls didn't get believable until Obama himself got to Virginia. Obama and Biden are traveling together all week, likely to purge the growing impression that there is dissonance or tension between the ticket-mates.
Ironically, Clinton is delivering the very states that may have cost her own campaign its best shot at the Democratic nomination. If Obama is smart, he'll send her to Nevada, keep her pounding the pavement in Florida and let her make a lap around the rust belt. While the media is saying Clinton is the antidote to Palin, she may in fact be the Obama surrogate Biden is falling short at being. Maybe she's both. Watch for Clinton to be making appearances in West Virgina, a state where she pulverized Obama in the primaries, and New Hampshire which she should be able to deliver easily. Clinton has a unique combination of star power, credibility, political capital and an actual Midas Touch for fund-raising. Hillary Clinton was Obama's worthiest opponent, and came within a breath of beating him, knows intimately how to navigate a tooth-and-nail battle, which this election still is.
Friday, September 26, 2008
If I Could Vote For Both Of Them, I Would
I'm inclined to say that both Sen. Obama (D-Illinois) and Sen. McCain (R-Arizona) should be given a pass for the last week's wrangling. The drama, real and manufactured, surrounding the financial bailout in Congress this week, is a miasma so confusing no one person will ever be able to fully articulate it. Both candidates were so obviously blindsided by the landslide of Wall Street crashing into Main Street, really, let's just give them both a pass.
Lately, I've caught myself saying, "If I could vote for them both, I would." I've become more undecided of late. I so strongly oppose some of McCain's positions but I have an equal distaste for some of Obama's, too. And, I've heard all the arguments about how voting is really about control of Congress and the appointment of Justices, etc. Obama was not even my third choice during the primaries, and I'm having a hard time getting over those disagreements. More than that, I still have a little idealism left in me I suppose; I like to think that not voting for someone, while it implies you voted for someone else, is still not voting for the other person. It's six of one, half dozen of the other once I get to the voting booth, though. If I withhold my vote from Obama, due to opposition to him, and vote for McCain, I still voted for McCain. It would make me feel dirty to be such a bad Democrat. I know at least one Republican I plan to vote for in Maine. Maybe I really am an Independent, stigma and all. Almost as bad as being bisexual.
Call me crazy, but I also don't like Joe Biden very much. He seems like business as usual to me. And, as a friend pointed out the other day, anyone who is likely to be truly angry at an Obama win most likely has a gun. I do not want Biden to be President. It's not racist to imply an assassination attempt. Every President, except Johnson, since 1960 has either been assassinated or suffered an attempt. Bush, Clinton, Ford and Nixon were the victim of multiple attempts. The President is not safe, by the very nature of the job. On the other side, McCain is old. His health has also been the subject of quite a bit of scrutiny, although in truth, other Presidents have had much more serious health issues than him. Regardless, McCain is an old man, would be the oldest first term President to assume office. He would also be the target of any number of potential assassins, and a Palin Presidency would be a terrifying ride beyond imagining. I find the notion of Sarah Palin being President just as distasteful as Biden, for a cornucopia of reasons. So, the VP candidates do me no good, either.
So, I find myself back at the same standstill: If I could vote for both of them, I would. This week, I found myself recalling something I used to believe a long time ago. I've thought before that it would be so much better if the Vice President was directly elected, just like the President. Before anyone jumps all over the "directly elected" thing, I know the President is not directly elected, he or she is elected by the Electoral College. But imagine if you had to vote twice, once for the President and once for the Vice President. The closest we have ever come to that in modern times was in 2000 when, due to an electoral loophole, Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut) almost became George W. Bush's Vice President. I'm not implying the President & Vice-President should be bipartisan, but it would certainly be interesting if there was a possibility. All kinds of scenarios and methods of selection come to mind. Regardless of how exciting that would be, it is a fantasy at least on Nov. 4, 2008.
The likelihood remains that I will vote for Obama come Election Day. But, as I complained during the primaries, I'm just so tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. The last time I got to vote for my first choice in a Presidential election was in 1996. My main objections to McCain-Palin are the dangers they represent to choice issues and to equal rights. Chiefly, both McCain and Palin have directly expressed a desire to see Roe vs. Wade overturned. I'm not convinced of the probability of either of them accomplishing that. The Supreme Court is in practice not answerable to the President, only to themselves and the Constitution. On "equal rights" I more specifically mean McCain-Palin's stated opposition to gay marriage. Still, even on this, both McCain and Palin have stated that they strongly believe it is the right of each State to make their own marriage laws, and that the federal government should have no place in it. And, McCain has expressed support for domestic partnerships. I consider myself a feminist (although not primarily) and as a gay man, I care about my rights. Again, this is why I am still going to put my X next to Obama. But, it could be a lot worse than McCain. Remember Mitt Romney? The creeping poison of fundamentalism that is being peddled as patriotism more openly every day is a lot more frightening to me than most anything else.
While I encourage anyone reading this to vote Democrat, at least vote. Watch the debates, read more than one news source, research the candidates, and make an informed decision. And don't forget your instincts. The greatest mistakes I've made in my life have been because I didn't listen to my gut.
Lately, I've caught myself saying, "If I could vote for them both, I would." I've become more undecided of late. I so strongly oppose some of McCain's positions but I have an equal distaste for some of Obama's, too. And, I've heard all the arguments about how voting is really about control of Congress and the appointment of Justices, etc. Obama was not even my third choice during the primaries, and I'm having a hard time getting over those disagreements. More than that, I still have a little idealism left in me I suppose; I like to think that not voting for someone, while it implies you voted for someone else, is still not voting for the other person. It's six of one, half dozen of the other once I get to the voting booth, though. If I withhold my vote from Obama, due to opposition to him, and vote for McCain, I still voted for McCain. It would make me feel dirty to be such a bad Democrat. I know at least one Republican I plan to vote for in Maine. Maybe I really am an Independent, stigma and all. Almost as bad as being bisexual.
Call me crazy, but I also don't like Joe Biden very much. He seems like business as usual to me. And, as a friend pointed out the other day, anyone who is likely to be truly angry at an Obama win most likely has a gun. I do not want Biden to be President. It's not racist to imply an assassination attempt. Every President, except Johnson, since 1960 has either been assassinated or suffered an attempt. Bush, Clinton, Ford and Nixon were the victim of multiple attempts. The President is not safe, by the very nature of the job. On the other side, McCain is old. His health has also been the subject of quite a bit of scrutiny, although in truth, other Presidents have had much more serious health issues than him. Regardless, McCain is an old man, would be the oldest first term President to assume office. He would also be the target of any number of potential assassins, and a Palin Presidency would be a terrifying ride beyond imagining. I find the notion of Sarah Palin being President just as distasteful as Biden, for a cornucopia of reasons. So, the VP candidates do me no good, either.
So, I find myself back at the same standstill: If I could vote for both of them, I would. This week, I found myself recalling something I used to believe a long time ago. I've thought before that it would be so much better if the Vice President was directly elected, just like the President. Before anyone jumps all over the "directly elected" thing, I know the President is not directly elected, he or she is elected by the Electoral College. But imagine if you had to vote twice, once for the President and once for the Vice President. The closest we have ever come to that in modern times was in 2000 when, due to an electoral loophole, Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut) almost became George W. Bush's Vice President. I'm not implying the President & Vice-President should be bipartisan, but it would certainly be interesting if there was a possibility. All kinds of scenarios and methods of selection come to mind. Regardless of how exciting that would be, it is a fantasy at least on Nov. 4, 2008.
The likelihood remains that I will vote for Obama come Election Day. But, as I complained during the primaries, I'm just so tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. The last time I got to vote for my first choice in a Presidential election was in 1996. My main objections to McCain-Palin are the dangers they represent to choice issues and to equal rights. Chiefly, both McCain and Palin have directly expressed a desire to see Roe vs. Wade overturned. I'm not convinced of the probability of either of them accomplishing that. The Supreme Court is in practice not answerable to the President, only to themselves and the Constitution. On "equal rights" I more specifically mean McCain-Palin's stated opposition to gay marriage. Still, even on this, both McCain and Palin have stated that they strongly believe it is the right of each State to make their own marriage laws, and that the federal government should have no place in it. And, McCain has expressed support for domestic partnerships. I consider myself a feminist (although not primarily) and as a gay man, I care about my rights. Again, this is why I am still going to put my X next to Obama. But, it could be a lot worse than McCain. Remember Mitt Romney? The creeping poison of fundamentalism that is being peddled as patriotism more openly every day is a lot more frightening to me than most anything else.
While I encourage anyone reading this to vote Democrat, at least vote. Watch the debates, read more than one news source, research the candidates, and make an informed decision. And don't forget your instincts. The greatest mistakes I've made in my life have been because I didn't listen to my gut.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Democrats Need To Refocus
Obama overtook Clinton for the first time on February 5th, but within a passable distance. He then capitalized on that momentum and hammered out 13 more consecutive wins. Clinton made an impressive comeback, carved out a unique voting coalition and still managed to seriously challenge Obama, but ultimately lost. I believe Barack Obama's campaign is suffering from what I would now call Super Tuesday Syndrome. Hillary Clinton never quite recovered from it.
I think Obama and his campaign believed the Democratic Convention would be the high point of the election until the actual vote. I think everyone thought that. The "Convention Bump" would cement Obama's lead over an already lagging McCain, and the 60-day race after the GOP Convention closed would be flushed with more grand speeches, paparazzi flooded events and the biggest trouble would be winning over Clinton supporters. Then, John McCain and the GOP did the unthinkable and dared to compete. It is obvious that Obama's campaign has not come up with a strategy to deal with Palin yet.
The introduction of Sarah Palin to the GOP ticket deployed the dangerous tactic of contrast. Say what you will about VP candidates having "little effect" on presidential elections. Say what you will about Palin. The fact is, she was the game changer and Obama fell right into her trap. As soon as he first spoke out in protection of her family's privacy and then followed with a direct attack on her, rather than the GOP platform or McCain, Obama has been contrasted to Palin. This did more than render moot the "experience" argument. It made a presidential candidate appear less prepared for the office than the opposing vice-presidential candidate. There is little doubt people remember how condescending Obama was toward Hillary Clinton during the primaries, in spite of the "healing" of the Convention. Now that Obama has engaged Palin in a media crossfire debate he better be careful not to make any women mad. If he was smart, he never would have gone after her directly in the first place. That is supposed to be Joe Biden's job.
In spite of the Democratic conceit that all women are Democrats, and that all women are pro-abortion, it's just not true. Sarah Palin has re-energized female voters. She has perhaps tapped a coalition of female voters who weren't voting for Clinton in the first place. Naysayers begone, Palin hit so many marks for McCain it is likely she will outshine him throughout the campaign. She is already being credited with sparking full-scale culture war by simple virtue of her candidacy. She contrasts McCain in a very obvious way through their age disparity, but she also contrasts Clinton very sharply. She's young, sharp tongued, proud of her middle America accent, and she wears skirts above the knee. She's also given a rise to men. Male voters supporting McCain, that is. She's very likely to put a shine on the Rust Belt, particularly if she shows off her equally handsome union-member husband. Todd Palin is also a commercial fisherman in a very competitive market ripe with politics and coalition building. Add to this superstar image the fact that she has successfully repudiated all attacks against herself so far, and isn't afraid to go for the traditional VP-attack-dog role with gusto... it's poison for Obama unless the make a dramatic shift of strategy.
Palin doesn't have any of the "we're on the same side" levies holding her back like Clinton did. The same strategies that worked against Clinton will not work against Palin. Also, Palin is not the presidential candidate, and Obama and the media would be smart to remember that as well. John McCain is an accomplished obfuscationist. Look how well he concealed the Palin pick, even though his interest in her was plain if anyone had looked. Look how easily he yanked the rug out from under Change We Can Believe In. John McCain is at his best when he is free to act unscrutinized, and he uses his own image and his own detractors to provide cover. I can't stress enough, over and over, that underestimating John McCain has been the hubris of this entire campaign since the early stirrings of the campaigns nearly two years ago.
I think it's fair to say we would not be in this pickle if Hillary Clinton were anywhere on the Democratic ticket. Reports from the Democratic campaign indicate the Clinton donors did not open their wallets as wide as expected, and Obama is now out fund raising in California and other deep blue states where he is not needed. Meanwhile McCain is flush with cash from the influx of public funding, which he chose to stick with in spite of loud claims that Obama would destroy him financially. McCain's campaign currently has more cash on hand, according to CNN, and McCain himself is busily campaigning in critical swing states, drawing Obama-sized crowds of over 10,000. McCain is also enjoying front runner status now, which we all know has its pitfalls, a lesson bitterly learned by Clinton, and which Obama is getting his first true taste of.
For all the chirping about McCain taking a page from the Clinton playbook, McCain did what Obama should have: picked a truly electrifying VP candidate, a word that cannot in anything other than jest be applied to Joe Biden. Failing that, some serious nose to the grindstone needs to be applied to the Democratic strategy. Hillary Clinton and other key Democrats are correct to urge the campaign to focus on McCain and the issue. Bring the debate back to the economy. Get the Democratic Congress (which has a lower approval rating than the current President) on top of a popular energy bill. Get off the defensive. Stop reacting, and stop contributing to the Palin Storm by dignifying it, by validating it. Democrats and the liberal media have fallen into a cult of personality trap with Palin, and unfortunately, Obama has facilitated just that kind of political climate.
Barack Obama has had his Super Tuesday Moment. We'll see how he adapts. He has certainly shown adaptability before, and to much success. Hopefully he can recover from this as well.
I think Obama and his campaign believed the Democratic Convention would be the high point of the election until the actual vote. I think everyone thought that. The "Convention Bump" would cement Obama's lead over an already lagging McCain, and the 60-day race after the GOP Convention closed would be flushed with more grand speeches, paparazzi flooded events and the biggest trouble would be winning over Clinton supporters. Then, John McCain and the GOP did the unthinkable and dared to compete. It is obvious that Obama's campaign has not come up with a strategy to deal with Palin yet.
The introduction of Sarah Palin to the GOP ticket deployed the dangerous tactic of contrast. Say what you will about VP candidates having "little effect" on presidential elections. Say what you will about Palin. The fact is, she was the game changer and Obama fell right into her trap. As soon as he first spoke out in protection of her family's privacy and then followed with a direct attack on her, rather than the GOP platform or McCain, Obama has been contrasted to Palin. This did more than render moot the "experience" argument. It made a presidential candidate appear less prepared for the office than the opposing vice-presidential candidate. There is little doubt people remember how condescending Obama was toward Hillary Clinton during the primaries, in spite of the "healing" of the Convention. Now that Obama has engaged Palin in a media crossfire debate he better be careful not to make any women mad. If he was smart, he never would have gone after her directly in the first place. That is supposed to be Joe Biden's job.
In spite of the Democratic conceit that all women are Democrats, and that all women are pro-abortion, it's just not true. Sarah Palin has re-energized female voters. She has perhaps tapped a coalition of female voters who weren't voting for Clinton in the first place. Naysayers begone, Palin hit so many marks for McCain it is likely she will outshine him throughout the campaign. She is already being credited with sparking full-scale culture war by simple virtue of her candidacy. She contrasts McCain in a very obvious way through their age disparity, but she also contrasts Clinton very sharply. She's young, sharp tongued, proud of her middle America accent, and she wears skirts above the knee. She's also given a rise to men. Male voters supporting McCain, that is. She's very likely to put a shine on the Rust Belt, particularly if she shows off her equally handsome union-member husband. Todd Palin is also a commercial fisherman in a very competitive market ripe with politics and coalition building. Add to this superstar image the fact that she has successfully repudiated all attacks against herself so far, and isn't afraid to go for the traditional VP-attack-dog role with gusto... it's poison for Obama unless the make a dramatic shift of strategy.
Palin doesn't have any of the "we're on the same side" levies holding her back like Clinton did. The same strategies that worked against Clinton will not work against Palin. Also, Palin is not the presidential candidate, and Obama and the media would be smart to remember that as well. John McCain is an accomplished obfuscationist. Look how well he concealed the Palin pick, even though his interest in her was plain if anyone had looked. Look how easily he yanked the rug out from under Change We Can Believe In. John McCain is at his best when he is free to act unscrutinized, and he uses his own image and his own detractors to provide cover. I can't stress enough, over and over, that underestimating John McCain has been the hubris of this entire campaign since the early stirrings of the campaigns nearly two years ago.
I think it's fair to say we would not be in this pickle if Hillary Clinton were anywhere on the Democratic ticket. Reports from the Democratic campaign indicate the Clinton donors did not open their wallets as wide as expected, and Obama is now out fund raising in California and other deep blue states where he is not needed. Meanwhile McCain is flush with cash from the influx of public funding, which he chose to stick with in spite of loud claims that Obama would destroy him financially. McCain's campaign currently has more cash on hand, according to CNN, and McCain himself is busily campaigning in critical swing states, drawing Obama-sized crowds of over 10,000. McCain is also enjoying front runner status now, which we all know has its pitfalls, a lesson bitterly learned by Clinton, and which Obama is getting his first true taste of.
For all the chirping about McCain taking a page from the Clinton playbook, McCain did what Obama should have: picked a truly electrifying VP candidate, a word that cannot in anything other than jest be applied to Joe Biden. Failing that, some serious nose to the grindstone needs to be applied to the Democratic strategy. Hillary Clinton and other key Democrats are correct to urge the campaign to focus on McCain and the issue. Bring the debate back to the economy. Get the Democratic Congress (which has a lower approval rating than the current President) on top of a popular energy bill. Get off the defensive. Stop reacting, and stop contributing to the Palin Storm by dignifying it, by validating it. Democrats and the liberal media have fallen into a cult of personality trap with Palin, and unfortunately, Obama has facilitated just that kind of political climate.
Barack Obama has had his Super Tuesday Moment. We'll see how he adapts. He has certainly shown adaptability before, and to much success. Hopefully he can recover from this as well.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Acts of God And Politics
According to Nancy Pelosi, God has sent us Barack Obama. If that's true, then it may also be true that God sent Hurricane Gustav to John McCain. GOP response to the threat of a Katrina Redux is already apparent; as my friend and liberal blogger, Maxomai says, "...at the very least, they avoided some of the worst aspects of fiddling while Rome burns." The Republican National Convention has been stripped to the bare bones proceedings, and McCain and Palin have directly called all Americans to a united focus on hurricane relief. Senator Obama has echoed the identical sentiment today on C-SPAN, and last night in two press conferences. President Bush is in Texas as we speak, putting a face on direct management of the hurricane efforts, and John McCain toured affected areas this morning. Hurricane Gustav may go down in history as the best-managed natural disaster in America.
Last week in Denver, Democrats made more history. Barack Obama's acceptance speech of the Democratic nomination for president on Thursday was the most watched speech of all time, raking in just about 40 million viewers, and Hillary Clinton's speech Tuesday night netted 26 million. The dynamic duo toppled political coverage ratings records. Obama netted about a 5 point gain, according to Gallup who places him at +6 post-Convention, an impressive and encouraging bump. However, even while this was happening, Hurricane Gustav was already becoming a metaphor for John McCain and the approaching Republican Convention.
McCain was quick to respond. I will quote William Kristol who writes for The New York Times, who says McCain was acutely aware of the dangers in being seen as, "...accepting a role as a bit player in The Barack Obama Story..." - William Kristol, NY Times Op-Ed Column, A Star Is Born?
The Arizona Senator roped in the GOP conservative base, reclaimed his maverick image, and made a bold pitch for reform in one fell swoop with the announcement of Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate. The two wasted no time getting on the campaign trail, and immediately diverting attention to Gustav. McCain's statement to the press after he and Palin were briefed by the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency was clear: focusing on the human needs and the relief efforts is what matters right now.
Palin has dominated the media loops for four days. The only way to hold onto that momentum is to dovetail the Palin Bump into the Gustav bandwidth. House Minority Leader John Boehner carved out that framework in an interview with the Christian Science Monitor Sunday:
If there was ever a more convenient ways and means by which Palin could be tested, Gustav represents it. Gustav is also projected to compromise as much as 25% of domestic oil production. The resultant spike in oil prices opens the GOP to push for emergency resources to lower gas prices just in time for the vote. It also underscores the need for alternative energy resources and reduction of foreign oil dependence. Palin can speak decisively and pertinently about all of these topics, and represents a state that is dead center in the middle of the energy debate. The Alaska governor herself has shown both tenacity and sensibility in this debate already, and has already played a critical role. She was deployed to St. Paul today where she and Cindy McCain are reported to have had breakfast with the Louisiana delegation, symbolic of GOP rallying behind Gustav-hit states. Palin has spent the day in briefings and meetings with delegates and party insiders, and has Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee in tow. She is said to be working on her acceptance speech, which will be a thing to watch, I am sure. If the Democratic controlled Congress fails to co-opt this debate back into their corner, there could be trouble for Democrats. No doubt Palin will underscore energy concerns at the RNC and present herself and John McCain as pro-responsible energy. She is also an on-record combatant of pork spending, and no doubt she will showcase fiscal conservatism as well. Palin won the gubernatorial race against an incumbent and corrupt state dynasty, against the wishes of the party, by a landslide. She knows how to campaign, and Gustav makes a perfect backdrop to pander directly to her strengths.
While John McCain can be very engaging, he is boring on television. More than embracing the traditional vice presidential role of attack dog, Palin also brings a very charismatic and forceful presence to the ticket. McCain was badly battered by the Republican primary process, something that was largely unnoticed, overshadowed by the all encompassing drama of the Democratic race. In that way, Palin has filled the Hillary Vacuum. Sending her to St. Paul as his surrogate while McCain stays on the front lines of Gustav both gives gravity to Palin and ethical sure ground to McCain.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden are sitting pretty on top of a 6 point poll surge. Obama has been all over the news organizing his supporters and donors behind Gustav relief. The hurricane politicking has taken on a tone of cooperation and bipartisan concern. Both parties will benefit, but the onus is on the GOP to appear responsive. President Bush more specifically has the true responsibility for Gustav response, which has got to be a relief to McCain. If the government falls down, his reform platform is strengthened, if the government does what it should, it is a sign that McCain's "reform" is already being embraced, that the party base is responsive to the need for change. Senate Minority Leader Boehner also echoed that sentiment yesterday. Another quote from the Christian Science Monitor article:
The GOP has been as fast as McCain in their about-face. With respected Republicans like Jim Leech openly criticizing the party and endorsing Barack Obama, it has to be clear that any other track will lead to failure. FEMA and the Bush administration's bungled response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was the crowning failure in a laundry list of GOP derelictions of duty, and proper management of Gustav is quickly becoming a litmus test for whether or not they have learned their lesson. So far, they are handling it in a timely manner, with appropriate resources, and under a tone of cooperation and benevolence. First Lady Laura Bush and Cindy McCain will serve as surrogates for Bush and McCain at the opening of the Republican National Convention tonight. No doubt their speeches will be hand tailored to appeal to unity, compassion and excitement about John McCain's reform platform. Morbid, but true, the GOP must be saying, "Thank God for Gustav."
Last week in Denver, Democrats made more history. Barack Obama's acceptance speech of the Democratic nomination for president on Thursday was the most watched speech of all time, raking in just about 40 million viewers, and Hillary Clinton's speech Tuesday night netted 26 million. The dynamic duo toppled political coverage ratings records. Obama netted about a 5 point gain, according to Gallup who places him at +6 post-Convention, an impressive and encouraging bump. However, even while this was happening, Hurricane Gustav was already becoming a metaphor for John McCain and the approaching Republican Convention.
McCain was quick to respond. I will quote William Kristol who writes for The New York Times, who says McCain was acutely aware of the dangers in being seen as, "...accepting a role as a bit player in The Barack Obama Story..." - William Kristol, NY Times Op-Ed Column, A Star Is Born?
The Arizona Senator roped in the GOP conservative base, reclaimed his maverick image, and made a bold pitch for reform in one fell swoop with the announcement of Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate. The two wasted no time getting on the campaign trail, and immediately diverting attention to Gustav. McCain's statement to the press after he and Palin were briefed by the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency was clear: focusing on the human needs and the relief efforts is what matters right now.
Palin has dominated the media loops for four days. The only way to hold onto that momentum is to dovetail the Palin Bump into the Gustav bandwidth. House Minority Leader John Boehner carved out that framework in an interview with the Christian Science Monitor Sunday:
In addition to its obvious capacity for human devastation, the hurricane injects a host of political complications into to what was supposed to be a week of celebrations and party-building. The sight of thousands of people fleeing New Orleans three years after hurricane Katrina is a searing reminder of what critics have said was the Bush administration’s failed response to the 2005 disaster.
By toning down the festivities this week, McCain, who has denounced the Katrina response, can further define himself against Bush and define himself as a leader who puts people before politics. But if the hurricane turns into a replay of Katrina, it could refocus national attention on the Republican administration’s shortcomings in 2005.
Boehner said that by driving up oil and gas prices, the hurricane would underscore the strengths of McCain’s so-called “all of the above” energy plan, with its mix of new offshore drilling, nuclear power, and market incentives for alternative fuels. “The energy issue is not going to go away,” he said. [SOURCE: CSM, August 31, 2008]
If there was ever a more convenient ways and means by which Palin could be tested, Gustav represents it. Gustav is also projected to compromise as much as 25% of domestic oil production. The resultant spike in oil prices opens the GOP to push for emergency resources to lower gas prices just in time for the vote. It also underscores the need for alternative energy resources and reduction of foreign oil dependence. Palin can speak decisively and pertinently about all of these topics, and represents a state that is dead center in the middle of the energy debate. The Alaska governor herself has shown both tenacity and sensibility in this debate already, and has already played a critical role. She was deployed to St. Paul today where she and Cindy McCain are reported to have had breakfast with the Louisiana delegation, symbolic of GOP rallying behind Gustav-hit states. Palin has spent the day in briefings and meetings with delegates and party insiders, and has Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee in tow. She is said to be working on her acceptance speech, which will be a thing to watch, I am sure. If the Democratic controlled Congress fails to co-opt this debate back into their corner, there could be trouble for Democrats. No doubt Palin will underscore energy concerns at the RNC and present herself and John McCain as pro-responsible energy. She is also an on-record combatant of pork spending, and no doubt she will showcase fiscal conservatism as well. Palin won the gubernatorial race against an incumbent and corrupt state dynasty, against the wishes of the party, by a landslide. She knows how to campaign, and Gustav makes a perfect backdrop to pander directly to her strengths.
While John McCain can be very engaging, he is boring on television. More than embracing the traditional vice presidential role of attack dog, Palin also brings a very charismatic and forceful presence to the ticket. McCain was badly battered by the Republican primary process, something that was largely unnoticed, overshadowed by the all encompassing drama of the Democratic race. In that way, Palin has filled the Hillary Vacuum. Sending her to St. Paul as his surrogate while McCain stays on the front lines of Gustav both gives gravity to Palin and ethical sure ground to McCain.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden are sitting pretty on top of a 6 point poll surge. Obama has been all over the news organizing his supporters and donors behind Gustav relief. The hurricane politicking has taken on a tone of cooperation and bipartisan concern. Both parties will benefit, but the onus is on the GOP to appear responsive. President Bush more specifically has the true responsibility for Gustav response, which has got to be a relief to McCain. If the government falls down, his reform platform is strengthened, if the government does what it should, it is a sign that McCain's "reform" is already being embraced, that the party base is responsive to the need for change. Senate Minority Leader Boehner also echoed that sentiment yesterday. Another quote from the Christian Science Monitor article:
Asked about the significance of a party now led by its “mavericks,” Boehner said the “reformist streak” is an appropriate response to the party’s recent political troubles.
“You know, they threw us out and frankly, we should have lost,” he said, alluding to the 2006 elections that cost Republicans control of Congress. “And the only way we can get back is if we earn our way back. And that means showing people we’ve learned our lessons.” [SOURCE: CSM, August 31, 2008]
The GOP has been as fast as McCain in their about-face. With respected Republicans like Jim Leech openly criticizing the party and endorsing Barack Obama, it has to be clear that any other track will lead to failure. FEMA and the Bush administration's bungled response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was the crowning failure in a laundry list of GOP derelictions of duty, and proper management of Gustav is quickly becoming a litmus test for whether or not they have learned their lesson. So far, they are handling it in a timely manner, with appropriate resources, and under a tone of cooperation and benevolence. First Lady Laura Bush and Cindy McCain will serve as surrogates for Bush and McCain at the opening of the Republican National Convention tonight. No doubt their speeches will be hand tailored to appeal to unity, compassion and excitement about John McCain's reform platform. Morbid, but true, the GOP must be saying, "Thank God for Gustav."
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Palin Is A Game Changer For Both Parties
I'd like to open with a quote from Lisa Schiffren, who writes for the conservative magazine, The National Journal: No vice-presidential pick is ever perfect. Presidential candidates perforce make tradeoffs among competing considerations of appeal to key constituencies, particular expertise, ability to muster electoral votes, and compensation for perceived weaknesses at the top. But Sarah Palin brings real reform credentials, authentic Reaganite conservatism, small-government values, and the pragmatic ethos of a middle-class mother of five. And she is a natural talent. It couldn’t get much better than that—not even if she were a man. -- Lisa Schiffren
No doubt, John McCain is taking a calculated risk by picking Sarah Palin as his running mate. From my perspective, it was a no-brainer. Democrats had every opportunity to hold on to their monopoly on history. The "kingmaker strategy" orchestrated by the Obama and Clinton camps at the at Democratic National Convention would have been just as effective if it had been used to present another woman as VP. Instead, they allowed McCain's campaign to co-opt the woman factor and put a fresh shine on McCain's "maverick" image. Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton, but she is both interesting and engaging in her own right. She is also no Dick Cheney. She is a game changer. Not just for the GOP, but for the election overall.
Initial reactions were that Palin "neutralized" the inexperience argument. I think she simply makes it more interesting. By chronology, Obama has much more experience than Palin, but by what standard do we judge experience? Palin has two years more experience than Obama as a head of state. Palin also starkly represents the actual working class, where Obama is still struggling to cast a surer net. Palin does help Obama to silence the experience attacks, but she also capitalizes McCain's entire image in a way no other rumored VP-in-consideration could have. She is a hardline Conservative, but isn't afraid to go tough on her own party.
More interestingly, she has been an agent in Alaska and briefly on the national stage of the exact kind of change Obama talks about in his campaign. During his announcement speech for Palin, McCain was quick to underscore that with his nab of a frequent Democratic campaign logo, "more of the same old Washington politics." Palin used her veto power to protect employer benefits for same sex couples, even though she opposes gay marriage. She went after corrupt politicians inside her own party. She has opposed efforts to layer protections on the Alaskan Wildlife refuges, but in practice she stood up to Big Oil, the underlying issue. Palin brings a more realistic view of energy solutions to the ticket than McCain has previously been able to present.
Palin is a social conservative, but this is likely what won her the nomination over other Republican women potentials, who are closer to the middle on issues such as abortion and gun control. As I've said, I believe McCain picking a woman was a no-brainer (I predicted Condoleezza Rice) which became even more obvious when Clinton was "Passed Over," the title of a McCain campaign ad criticizing Obama for not picking Hillary Clinton as his VP. John McCain is a very smart man. I have said this before, many times: do not underestimate John McCain. He knew this election was going to be an image war and planned for it. With a woman on his ticket, he was prepared to counter Hillary Clinton if she won the Democratic nod, and prepared with his own historic element if Barack Obama won. Arguably, Obama made it possible to pick Palin by virtue of his age and relative short tenure, and McCain responded by retiring the experience argument, in a very genius way: co-opt Obama's change message with a VP who embodies Obama's main weakness as a strength, and who has employed Obama's brand of change without compromising her conservative ideals. Who knew it would be so easy?
Our current President, George W. Bush and his administration are as we speak drafting a deal with Iraq to get out and end the war. Very likely they will have it hammered out by January, possibly sooner. It will be Condoleezza Rice's last great accomplishment as Secretary of State and Dubya's swan song. I suspect, McCain took on some Bush policy stances in exchange for this favor. Neutralizing the Iraq argument would be a very hard hit to the Democratic campaign, as Iraq is currently the fall-back zone for their platform, their comfort issue. It narrows the field to the Economy, another area where Palin has boasting rights: one of her first acts as Governor of Alaska was to cut spending and fight (state level) congressional pork barreling, to the tune of $124 million cut from the state budget.
I do not believe large numbers of Clinton supporters will flock to Palin. There will be some, for certain. However, to Clinton's credit (now) she did not run a gender-focussed campaign, and most of her supporters were interested im her, not her gender. Naturally gender was a factor, and could be a winning one in a subsequent Hillary campaign, but it was not in 2008. Women across party lines may well be excited about Palin however. Even Hillary Clinton could not bring herself to condemn Palin too harshly, simply stating that a McCain-Palin presidency would take America in the "wrong direction," and stating that Palin brings an "important voice" to the campaign. Palin is more pertinent to undecided and swing voters than Clinton supporters, who are Democrats, and will be on board with Obama-Biden come November. I believe Palin's main appeal is that she is a flesh-and-blood proof that McCain does have his own image and is not simply a Bush clone. The GOP has been slow to react to the overwhelming slide toward Democrats of late, but I believe Palin represents the budding of a "Grand New Party." We may not agree with them still, but I believe McCain is pitching a major remodel of the Republican party, and that just might be the game changer he needs.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Let's Talk About Sarah Palin
Sen. John McCain announced his vice presidential pick today: Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. Palin is a virtual unknown, three decades younger than McCain, with absoluteley no foreign relations experience, and who has only been in office as Governor two years. The punditry is already calling her "Dan Quayle in a dress." Sounds bad, huh?
Back up. First of all, let's not forget Dan Quayle was on the winning ticket. Or, that his running mate, Big Daddy Bush, was the "3rd Reagan term." Or, that it was a Clinton who finally toppled the Republican stranglehold of the 80's. After all the comparisons to 1960 and 1978 that have been rampant since the Democratic primaries got really hot, it's starting to look more like 1988 again.
The announcement of Palin has dominated the news cycles all day long, much more so than any other pick would have. McCain has been saying for months that he would pick someone "unconventional," and that is exactly what he did. Barack Obama stumbled by not picking a woman as his #2, and McCain grabbed the ball and ran with it. It's a genius strategy move by McCain, and the conservative base seems fairly excited about it.
Palin in an interesting character as well. She didn't hesitate to co-opt Hillary Clinton's message, which arguably is as much any woman's message, "The women of America aren't finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all." She also spent most of her speech presenting her biography in a very compelling and charismatic way, calling herself "just a hockey mom," and highlighting her middle class heritage, her solid family, and her from-the-bottom-up political career. McCain also didn't waste any time co-opting the Democratic byline of 2008, "She's exactly who this country needs to help us fight the same old Washington politics of me first and country second."
Overall, I'd say McCain-Palin and the GOP in general hit a home run today. The Obama campaign seemed bowled over by it, with one campaign adviser damning them for putting someone with zero experience a "heartbeat away" from the Presidency, followed directly by Joe Biden heaping praise on Palin and her candidacy (much like he heaped praise on John McCain during his acceptance speech.)
Palin herself does seem to represent reform and a people-first ethic. She has been an advocate of reducing wasteful spending, cleaning up government corruption, and working for sustainable energy solutions. She does fit McCain's "maverick" image as well; for example, while she is opposed to gay marriage, she used her veto power to kill a bill in Alaska that would have denied gay people domestic partner benefits. More on Palin from her entry at Wikipedia.org:
The selection of Palin certainly silences the inexperience arguments used against Obama, but otherwise, there are few negatives to the choice. Mitt Romney was the "expected" pick, but he would have been more of a liability than anything else. His religion does not sit well with most Americans, and his personal wealth would have underscored what is already becoming an issue in the election overall. Romney was supposed to "sure up the conservative base," but I believe McCain has already done that on his own. Sarah Palin is a proven reformer, a solid "every American" and I'd wager a bet, not in the least bit afraid to go up against Joe Biden in a debate.
If nothing else, the game is back on.
Back up. First of all, let's not forget Dan Quayle was on the winning ticket. Or, that his running mate, Big Daddy Bush, was the "3rd Reagan term." Or, that it was a Clinton who finally toppled the Republican stranglehold of the 80's. After all the comparisons to 1960 and 1978 that have been rampant since the Democratic primaries got really hot, it's starting to look more like 1988 again.
The announcement of Palin has dominated the news cycles all day long, much more so than any other pick would have. McCain has been saying for months that he would pick someone "unconventional," and that is exactly what he did. Barack Obama stumbled by not picking a woman as his #2, and McCain grabbed the ball and ran with it. It's a genius strategy move by McCain, and the conservative base seems fairly excited about it.
Palin in an interesting character as well. She didn't hesitate to co-opt Hillary Clinton's message, which arguably is as much any woman's message, "The women of America aren't finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all." She also spent most of her speech presenting her biography in a very compelling and charismatic way, calling herself "just a hockey mom," and highlighting her middle class heritage, her solid family, and her from-the-bottom-up political career. McCain also didn't waste any time co-opting the Democratic byline of 2008, "She's exactly who this country needs to help us fight the same old Washington politics of me first and country second."
Overall, I'd say McCain-Palin and the GOP in general hit a home run today. The Obama campaign seemed bowled over by it, with one campaign adviser damning them for putting someone with zero experience a "heartbeat away" from the Presidency, followed directly by Joe Biden heaping praise on Palin and her candidacy (much like he heaped praise on John McCain during his acceptance speech.)
Palin herself does seem to represent reform and a people-first ethic. She has been an advocate of reducing wasteful spending, cleaning up government corruption, and working for sustainable energy solutions. She does fit McCain's "maverick" image as well; for example, while she is opposed to gay marriage, she used her veto power to kill a bill in Alaska that would have denied gay people domestic partner benefits. More on Palin from her entry at Wikipedia.org:
Palin became the first woman to be Alaska's governor, and at 42, the youngest governor in Alaskan history. Palin was also the first Alaskan governor born after Alaska achieved U.S. statehood and the first not to be inaugurated in Juneau, instead choosing to hold her inauguration ceremony in Fairbanks. She took office on December 4, 2006.
Highlights of Governor Palin's tenure include a successful push for an ethics bill, and also shelving pork-barrel projects supported by fellow Republicans. After federal funding for the Gravina Island Bridge project that had become a nationwide symbol of wasteful earmark spending was lost, Palin decided against filling the over $200 million gap with state money. "Alaska needs to be self-sufficient, she says, instead of relying heavily on 'federal dollars,' as the state does today." She has challenged the state's Republican leaders, helping to launch a campaign by Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell to unseat U.S. Congressman Don Young and publicly challenging Senator Ted Stevens to come clean about the federal investigation into his financial dealings. In 2007, Palin had an approval rating often above 90%
The selection of Palin certainly silences the inexperience arguments used against Obama, but otherwise, there are few negatives to the choice. Mitt Romney was the "expected" pick, but he would have been more of a liability than anything else. His religion does not sit well with most Americans, and his personal wealth would have underscored what is already becoming an issue in the election overall. Romney was supposed to "sure up the conservative base," but I believe McCain has already done that on his own. Sarah Palin is a proven reformer, a solid "every American" and I'd wager a bet, not in the least bit afraid to go up against Joe Biden in a debate.
If nothing else, the game is back on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
