I have serious attention deficit disorder when it comes to blogging. It's been over a year since my last post, and for some reason I've decided to start back up during the busiest part of my year (Labor Day to Election Day). Which reminds me of where I was one year ago today.
September 1, 2008. The annual Laborfest on the Milwaukee Summerfest grounds. Only a few days after his acceptance speech at the convention, the Democratic nominee for President spoke to thousands, extolling the value of organized labor with a speech that connected the history and importance of unions with our United States. It wasn't his stump speech, and it won't go down in history, but these were the days of Hope and Change, and it was hard not to be moved by the significance of the moment.
The Obama administration has been driven by a desire to not repeat the mistakes of the Clinton administration (see "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"). I still believe that Obama is playing 3D chess while his opponents/enemies are still figuring out checkers. He's been fighting for bipartisanship while they've been bringing AR-15s to rallies. I think he's given them just enough rope to hang themselves with, as he often did during the campaign.
In general, the Senate is where good legislation goes to die, a product of small state domination and outdated rules. In this case, the process is being held up by "Democratic" senators that are bought and paid for by health care interests. The President can only twist the arms of his former colleagues from Montana and North Dakota so much (I knew we should have kept extraordinary rendition around for a little longer). The Senate Finance Committee will eventually have to produce something. So we wait. And wait. And wait some more. But when all five committees have passed laws, and it becomes clear that Republicans will not admit there is a problem, much less support a final bill, they can bring out the big gun of reconciliation. Obama is not one to back down from a fight, but he also doesn't draw first.
A lot can change in a year. And in the age of the 24-hour news cycle, a lot can change in days and weeks, as well. So I still have faith in the man that stood on the stage at Laborfest, whether the topic of the day is unions or health care.
Just a few words about Senator Barack Obama's acceptance speech, because I won't be able to match the eloquence on display by both politician and pundit alike tonight.
The expectations for this speech seemed impossibly high. In front of a crowd of 84,000 (and millions at home), on the anniversary of arguably the most famous speech in American history, and in light of a speech four years earlier that launched him onto the national scene, Barack Obama did everything he had to do, and much, much more.
Outlining a specific, Democratic plan for America's future, Senator Obama answered the questions posed even by doubters in his own party, basing it on the core values shared by all Americans, chiefly responsibility for self and for each other.
Rhetorically brilliant and inspiring, it reinforced the themes that have propelled this historic campaign: change that you can believe in and change you must work for. The "rhetorical flourishes" did not weigh it down - they lifted it up.
It brought the fight to Republicans like most Democrats have not been able or willing to do. It was filled with charge after charge, not only against the Bush administration and its faithful sidekick John McCain, but also against the failure of a self-defeating conservative ideology. Obama is ready to lead, and ready to fight for what he believes in.
The message from 62262 finally arrived at 2:16am on Saturday: "Barack has chosen Senator Joe Biden to be our VP nominee. Watch the first Obama-Biden rally live at 3pm ET on www.BarackObama.com. Spread the word!" The story had broken earlier, but not through the usual series of leaks to friendly reporters. Instead, they happened to catch Secret Service at Biden's home. Take that, old media.
I embarked on the four hour trip down to Springfield, IL at 4am, for what was sure to be another historic speech (or two) at the Old State Capitol. Having missed Obama at a 2006 campaign event, the Miami Book Fair later that year, and the Kennedy endorsement celebration at American University, I simply had to do it. I was not disappointed: about 20 yards from the podium, I had an excellent view of the event. And while I didn't think Obama or Biden delivered their best speeches, the excitement put it over the top.
So, why do I like Joe Biden? In my Vice Presidential Diatribe, I categorically eliminated him for being a Washington insider, antithetical to the change message. If I had been asked to elaborate, I would have said he's blowhard with foot-in-mouth disease, the senator known online as Joe Biden (D-MBNA). Plus, his foreign policy experience balances rather than reinforces Obama's strengths. Oh, and he voted for the war. But at the end of the day, he's a passionate fighter, an old-school liberal, has a compelling personal story, and he's just plain likable.
As with any of the choices, Biden has weaknesses. Obviously, the RNC was going to attack any pick, especially someone who was an Obama detractor during the primaries (doesn't McCain know the DNC can do the same thing with Romney?). Predictably, they also are throwing Hillary's words at Obama for passing her over. And who knows if Biden can be disciplined, even with the stakes this high.
Strategically, Biden also has numerous strengths. He delivers attacks with a smile and bit of sardonic humor. Examples abound: he had the best line of the day when he said McCain would have to choose which of his seven dinner tables to sit at. In 2004, he allegedly told Dick Cheney: "Mr. Vice President, I wouldn't keep you if it weren't constitutionally required." And there's always this, the best line of the debates (that can easily be adapted for McCain):
Biden is going to eat the Republican VP alive in the debates, outperforming Lieberman and Edwards in his sleep. He wears the attack dog role well, unlike a Kaine/Sebelius/Bayh pick. His energy and attitude belies his 66 years. Plus, his age in 2016 precludes him from a presidential run, creating a real opportunity to nominate a new, progressive candidate. Can you imagine being 'stuck' with Evan Bayh in eight years? :shudder:
Obama/Biden is a formidable ticket, as Republican Senators Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel, and Arlen Specter have acknowledged (good message discipline, GOP!). Despite any initial disappointment with such a safe choice, I'm reminded that most of the short-listers were safe. None were unacceptable to a majority of Democrats, in a way that Romney, Lieberman, Ridge, Huckabee, Jindal, and Crist are to Republicans. Each of those picks has the chance to fracture the Republican base and upset some of the -Cons (paleo-, neo-, corporate-, etc.) that make up their party.
So bring it on, Old Man McCain. Try to step on Obama's bounce by announcing your choice on Friday. It's your 72nd birthday, so don't pick someone too old or too young! It's also the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, so don't pick someone whose negligent deregulation put American citizens in danger. Oh, and try to beat this picture:
I almost don't want to write a post about possible VPs, because it contradicts my general feeling about the subject: they don't really matter. Unless the VP is particularly offensive or unpopular with large parts of the population, no one votes for or against a candidate based on their VP pick. I think the CW surrounding vice presidential candidates is entirely wrong, and like most political conventional wisdom, comes from the echo-chamber and is not based in reality.
Vice presidential candidates cannot win a state, much less a whole region, simply by being from there (short of having the type of state-wide political machines of previous generations). Luckily, it looks like Obama's team gets this. And while most of the media looks for candidates that "balance the ticket," I agree with Chris Bowers that presidential candidates are better served by VPs that reinforce the campaign's narratives. For example, while an old, white Southerner with military/national security credentials makes the media cover their shorts, pairing that type of VP with Obama screams "you're right, I have no idea what I'm doing in foreign affairs, please help me." It plays right into opposing frames, and even if it's the media calling for it, they'll be the first to start asking "what the pick really means," etc.
So what criteria should we hope Obama's team uses when narrowing down the short list? Again, I mostly agree with Bowers. Obviously, the "change" meme is the strongest part of the Obama phenomenon, so someone without DC/establishment ties would be a good start. Same with being against the war from the start, or at least having the judgment to be firmly against it for the last several years. Also, I'm weary of losing a Senate seat that will be tough to regain, especially when a 60-seat supermajority, without Lieberman (I-Lieberman), is within reach. Plus, discount the idea of naming the standard bearer for (hopefully) 2016 now - a lot changes between now and then.
Also, it should go without saying that I think picking Senator Clinton would be a huge mistake. Off the top of my head: it weakens Obama, attaches Clinton baggage to the ticket, goes against "change," and validates all the ridiculous claims she made during the primary. It would be a true shit show, and luckily it looks like it won't be necessary; women are a big part of the "bounce," and the "PUMA" (Party Unity, My Ass) crowd can go vote for McCain for all I care. They are not part of the 21st century Democratic party, nor part of the winning coalition in November. Some of these concerns extend to vocal supporters of Clinton, as well - you're already on record attacking your running mate. Sorry, you picked the wrong horse.
I came up with a list of 25 people that are frequently speculated as possible VPs or members of the Short List Club. I don't plan on profiling people that don't meet the qualifications I've put forth, especially when most have the same concerns.
DC establishment: Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Joe Biden, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Chris Dodd, fmr. Sen. Tom Daschle, Sen. Jack Reed, fmr. Sen. Sam Nunn. Tough to make a clean break with DC when you're firmly entrenched in it.
Losing a Senate seat: Sen. Jim Webb, Gov./Sen. Mark Warner, Sen. Evan Bayh, Sen. Bill Nelson, Sen. Sherrod Brown. We might be able to hold a few of these, but why take a chance, especially when the bench is so short already in a place like Virginia.
Too much balancing: Gen. Wesley Clark, Gen. James Jones, Sen. Chuck Hagel. Military experience is great, but it plays into McCain's hands.
Clinton BFF: Gov. Ed Rendell, Gov. Ted Strickland. Some people say putting a Clinton surrogate on the ticket will help heal the wounds (really?). Images of Strickland standing behind HRC as she screamed "Shame on you, BarackObama" dance in GOP strategists' heads.
That leaves, in my opinion: John Edwards, Sen. Patty Murray (WA), and Govs. Tim Kaine (VA), Janet Napolitano (AZ), Brian Schweitzer (MT), Kathleen Sebelius (KS), and Bill Richardson (NM). Unfortunately, media obsession with the "dream ticket" and the Clintons will not let Obama pick a woman not named Clinton, even if she is the best candidate and better suited for the VP than HRC. So as much as I admire Gov. Sebelius and think she would make a perfect reinforcement pick, it's not gonna happen. So the list quickly becomes two '08 presidentials and a couple of governors.
I think Richardson is off the list because he's the type of undisciplined, foot-in-mouth guy unsuited to the VP role. Would the first African-American/Hispanic ticket be a high-risk, high-reward venture? Sure, but do low information voters even know Richardson is Hispanic? Either way, he's got a great resume, but as he often proved during the primaries, he's not ready for prime time.
How about John Edwards, would he carry the warm bucket of piss a second time? He was pretty Shermanesque but started to back off into the standard, "I'm not interested but I would serve my country" type answer recently. Paul Rosenberg has been making a case for Edwards for VP on Open Left, and while I think the poll analysis is premature, he has a point that Edwards would be both balancing and reinforcing. I think this is a real dream ticket, as in keep on dreaming. He supposedly would be happier as Attorney General, like his idol, RFK. Who knows where that puts him as a 63 year old in 2016, but it's fun to think about. I'm weary of all the trial lawyer / $400 hair cut crap that this would open the ticket to, but it's an interesting, if unlikely, prospect.
Gov. Kaine was an early supporter of Obama, but he's also the 3rd best option from a critical state. However, he is the youngest of the bunch at 50 years old, and would be a steady if unimpressive candidate to balance out the ticket. However, his three years haven't been as successful as Gov. Warner's, and leaving Richmond a year early gives the GOP a jump-start in the '09 elections. Maybe he's better suited to AG as well?
Which leaves us with my favorite at the moment, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. He definitely reinforces the change/outsider theme of the campaign and his "folksy charm" is a tool that Obama doesn't have at hand. While the political impact of today's Heller decision is still unclear, it won't hurt Obama to have someone on the ticket whose stance on gun control is "you control your gun, and I'll control mine." Plus, it'd be funny if the one who speaks Arabic on an Obama-Schweitzer ticket is the latter.
On a serious note, Schweitzer's main issues are clean government and clean energy, and I doubt he'll hesitate to take a combative stance from the #2 slot. He's a progressive in Western populist clothing, and his kind of Democrat is a big part of the party's future. Check out these brief remarks - he's the real deal and he knows what Democrats have to do to win.
Nearly two weeks since my last post. I let myself off the hook because I've had a nasty bug for about 10 days, but I need to show a little more dedication to my own project. Many observations have been ruminating, so without further ado:
The February 5th races led to a few surprises, but the main result was a draw with a slight edge for Obama, simply for surviving. I remember not even 6 months ago thinking this primary would be sealed by Super Tuesday. Instead, the contest is escalating and gaining excitement. Massachusetts was not a big disappointment: the machine politics are far removed from Kennedy, Kerry, and Patrick, and Obama held his own. Neither Edwards or Richardson has endorsed, instead choosing to wait for the right time to play their cards; at this point, I'm not sure if either really matters, unless Edwards' 20something delegates are required for a win. Obama rolled to huge victories in 13 states throughout the country simply by showing up, something that the Clinton campaign is now admitting they didn't do.
The momentum carried Obama to wins in Washington, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Maine. What is astounding is that he won by huge margins (21, 46, 37, and 19 points, respectively) in geographically and demographically diverse states. By this point, he was expected to win the Potomac Primary on the 12th, and I began to get a little nervous about the expectations game: would a win of "only" 10 points in VA be seen as a Clinton victory? Or would there be a huge swing in undecideds a la NH?
Last night, my fears were put to rest. Barack Obama crushed Hillary Clinton by 23 points in Maryland, 51 in DC, and 29 in Virginia, well past most polls of the region. Maybe the Clinton camp can continue to disrespect the voters, saying that MD and DC don't matter, but Virginia? Obama won across all demos, with a decisive win with white males. He's shrinking her supposed base with each successive victory, and her camp is grasping at straws.
Things are getting worse before they get better for Clinton (if they ever do). Long-time Clinton confidante and campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle was fired. According to everyone close to Hillaryland, it was way past due, and possibly too late. Solis Doyle was an ineffective manager and in way over her head. Plus, the person who supposedly coined the term "Hillaryland" for a group of professional adults needs to hit the bricks. Deputy campaign manager Mike Henry also left after the embarrassing loss in Virginia, a state he won for Gov. Tim Kaine (who must. Plus, the surrogates are out freelancing, with Carville saying she needs to win Ohio, Texas, AND Pennsylvania, and Ed Rendell blathering on about race. If I was impartial, I would feel bad. As it is, I'm thrilled that her hubris is coming back to her tenfold.
Wisconsin and Hawaii look to be locks for Barack, and Clinton has conceded both of them to move down to Texas, sombrero in hand. If he goes 10-0 post-Feb. 5, the Clinton-Giuliani comparisons become more apt. She's banking on states where her leads are soft. Plus, thanks to a primary-caucus hybrid only Texas could love, her diminishing leads among Hispanics might not even help in her "firewall state."
As good as the picture looks, Obama supporters need to keep fighting. Hillary has nothing left to do but go negative, so the missiles should start flying... now.
Barack Obama - 55% Hillary Clinton - 27% John Edwards - 18%
Pretty amazing. Soon after polls closed, it became clear that the only question left would be how large the margin of victory would be. I was legitimately worried that "only" a 10% victory would let the Clintons spin this into a win. However, you can't shine shit, and losing 2-to-1 is never a good thing. The CNN exit polls show that Obama won across demographics, and the media narrative has thankfully focused on that. Also, it looks like Noam Scheiber's "reverse Bradley effect theory" was proven, at least in SC: black voter preference for Obama was under-reported because of a desire to appear colorblind.
On the heels of the win came major endorsement news: Ted Kennedy would be announcing his support for Obama at a rally at American University on Monday (which I cannot attend due to work!). This should hopefully seal the MA primary and put a nail in the "Obama the Reaganite" story being pushed by Camp Clinton. Plus, the media will now have a day to cover both the victory and the endorsement before the Florida primary.
There are many reasons why I don't believe Hillary Clinton should be the Democratic nominee for president. Chief among these is the deep well of hatred ("the vast right-wing conspiracy") that will rear its ugly head and work against the Democratic wave, possibly delivering the presidency and countless down-ticket races to an outmoded, foundering GOP. Furthermore, the insider-first, triangulation model of government that Hillary strives to uphold is the opposite of what the party should be working for: the real change that Americans want.
The worst thing about Clinton, however, is the tone that her campaign has taken in attacking Barack Obama. Until a few months ago, the Clinton campaign attempted to deflect any of Obama's criticism by mocking the "politics of hope," a cynical knock on something that many people feel passionately about. But after losing Iowa and substantial momentum (even after winning in NH and NV), the campaign has gone on a full-throated offensive, spreading lie after lie about Obama's works and words. By using President Clinton as just another surrogate, the campaign teamed up on Obama in a way much worse than any Obama/Edwards parternering ever could be. The ugliness continued at the last debate in South Carolina, which found Hillary at her most shrill and angry.
This is scorched-earth politics at its worst, and it comes from Clinton being unprepared or simply shocked that someone would have the audacity to challenge her inevitable run. A new radio ad once again takes Obama's words about Ronald Reagan and the Republicans out of context. Obama was making a point about the conservative movement and how Democrats should emulate his success in crafting a governing supermajority. He definitely wasn't praising his policies; you will not find much common ground between the two. Obama was simply reiterating a strength of his campaign: reaching out to a large group of Democrats, independents, and Republicans.
Will the attacks work? Obama will probably win by a large margin in South Carolina, which no doubt will be spun as black voters choosing "one of their own" rather than a clear win for a candidate who made a nearly 20-point net gain in just a few months. This conclusion gives Clinton the rest of the week to start hitting Feb. 5th states with this crap, negating any bump Obama should receive from a solid SC victory. If her tactics don't change, hopefully the media narrative will, focusing on her dubious claims and petty politics.
EDIT: I alluded to it in the last paragraph, but the race card has been played by the Clintons, and it may be what eventually dooms Obama. If they can cast him as "the black candidate," emphasizing his win in SC, its no longer a post-racial candidacy. Plus, by Clinton ceding the black vote for the Latino one, she positions herself better for Feb. 5 but plays off racial tension.
I would be remiss if I did not post about two more high-level endorsements: Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO). Another two superdelegates from states with February nominating contests (Missouri has a Feb. 5 primary and Nebraska a Feb. 9 caucus) add to the momentum. As for message, this allows the campaign to stress the "working across the aisle" and "working for change" memes; Nelson is a noted conservative Democrat and McCaskill is the first woman elected to the Senate in Missouri, a 2006 freshman.
Once again, I believe endorsements are most important as a piece of the press narrative. However, it would be nice to have some push-back against Clinton surrogates like former Sen. Bob Kerrey, former NH Chair Billy Shaheen, and even Bill. Thankfully, Dick Durbin has called out the former President on his assertion that Obama wasn't really pro-war, but I don't see the campaign engaging Clinton's in such slash-and-burn tactics.
As a side note, I believe Richardson will stay neutral when it still matters. However, if/when Edwards loses in NV and SC (and runs out of money), I really hope he bows out and throws his support behind Obama before Florida and Feb. 5. Uniting the two change candidates against Clinton could really help, and I have a suspicion that Edwards may see his last chance to get to the White House on an Obama ticket.
Endorsements of presidential candidates are tricky. I doubt voters ever cite specific endorsements as their reason to vote for or against a candidate, but they can add to the a campaign's momentum or sense of viability. Like with much of these campaigns, it's not what happens but the reaction to what happens that matters.
With that in mind, I was a little apprehensive at first when John Kerry endorsed Barack Obama. Gore's endorsement of Dean in 2004 did not protect him from his eventual downfall, and John Kerry is neither a symbol of change nor a true icon of the Democratic Party. However, I thought that when a Senator like Kerry came out for Obama, it would lead other superdelegates to do the same and further tarnish Clinton's "aura of inevitability."
Today, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano endorsed Obama. This is a good one for the press to be talking about: popular, two-term Democrat, in an ostensibly Republican state, in a key region. Her gender will no doubt be seen as a sign that there are powerful women who aren't falling in line behind Clinton because of their chromosomes. Plus, she would make a great VP candidate, if like me you believe in the reinforcement over balance theory being kicked around. In this vein is Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who could endorse soon, hopefully before the Feb. 5 Kansas caucus.
With news of the Kerry endorsement came an endorsement from Pelosi lieutenant George Miller (CA-07), the chairman of Education and Labor. Much was made of whether or not this is the closest Pelosi will come to endorsing, which lead to a lot of regrettable crap about a Pelosi vs. Clinton powerplay. Either way, it is a powerful Democrat sending signals to the liberal base.
Most intriguing, however, is a NYT piece suggesting that James Clyburn could break his promise and endorse a candidate, predicated by the nasty tone the Clintons have taken against Obama. Specifically, Hillary's remark that MLK really wasn't that important after all, but also Bill's "fairy tale" garbage. Black leaders have been hesitant to back Barack for a variety of reasons, and a respected Congressman like Clyburn giving his seal of approval before the SC primary would be choice.
The benefit endorsements actually contribute is debatable, but their strategic use can no doubt help Obama's campaign, dampening the effect of NH and regaining some of the momentum before SC and NV.
