My career -- and this campaign -- is about changing the Democratic Party. It's about changing America. And this campaign is about taking back the White House so we can have health insurance, so we can have a balanced budget, and so we can have an inclusive society where everybody believes in each other and believes in America.
Obviously, it's a trick question: it sounds like Barack Obama, but that would be too easy.
It's part of the closing to a speech Gov. Howard Dean made in Sacramento back in March 2003, the speech known by the lines "what I want to know is..." and "I'm Howard Dean, and I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." It was a turning point in Dean's campaign, as I am reading about in Mousepads, Shoe Leather, and Hope, a collection of essays by the people closest to the Dean campaign. The book is sort of the academic companion piece to Joe Trippi's excellent The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, and I highly recommend both.
Watching Dean's speeches from the '04 campaign, and reading the campaign post-mortems, reminds me that Dean was the first candidate I was ever excited about. Furthermore, the campaign foreshadowed the Obama phenomenon in many ways, in what has been written about elsewhere in great length; Obama has even adopted the 50 state strategy that Dean has instilled since becoming DNC chair.
Which reminded me of an idea I've had before but somehow neglected to write about in my last post (not to say that I'm the first to think of it): what about Howard Dean for VP?
For the most part, he fits the reinforcement criteria I laid out previously. Howard Dean is the consummate outsider, even as the head of the DNC. He was famously against the war since the beginning. He was the first Change Candidate. Plus, he'd make a great Vice President, relying on his experience providing health insurance and balancing budgets. An additional plus: an A rating by the NRA (since there is still no consensus on how Heller will play in November). And he doesn't leave a post that will be ceded to the GOP.
He is not without his faults. If I don't want to hear about JRE's haircuts, do I want to see The Scream ad nauseum? He's not disciplined and would surely cause some headaches every time he's on camera. As the head of the DNC, he's stuck his foot in his mouth plenty of times.
As with any presidential or VP candidate, the media will make or break you. In a way, they've already done this with Dean, so will they find a new narrative? I highly doubt it, which unfortunately makes this a non-starter.
An Obama/Dean ticket would make the netroots happy, combining the two movements that have revolutionized how we do business. But Dean's strengths as a presidential candidate are weaknesses as a VP: the direct, pragmatic message and a refusal to go along with the way things are done. So while it may not happen, at least we can look back on What Might Have Been with speeches like this:
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.
As with my multiple attempts at journals and blogs, life has once again intruded. Maybe if I used this to document my personal life I wouldn't have that problem, but that's not gonna happen.
Just over two months since relocating from DC to Dayton, I was forced to move again - this time to Madison, Wisconsin. In the context of the blog, hopefully I'll be able to see more films and concerts that call for reviews in what is definitely a 'liberal college town.' As time permits, of course, as this job will get progressively busier as we approach Nov. 4.
I'm planning to post a Senate race breakdown, a look at a few VP candidates, and a review of Snuff as soon as I finish it. The reality of Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee hasn't really set in. And as exciting as the presidential race is, I'm not sure how much I'll be posting about it.
So, I expect to start writing here again, but it will be helpful to have electricity and Internet access at my new place first. Until then, my hard copy journal desperately needs an update for posterity's sake.
(PS Why doesn't the blogger spell check recognize any form of the word 'blog'? It's no Obama/Osama, but the little red dots cause my OCD to flareup.)
I think even I may have presidential fatigue, and not just the kind that comes after 7.5 years of the Bush administration. With no one actually voting until April 22nd (Pennsylvania) and then on May 6th (Indiana and North Carolina), the campaigns have gone stagnant. Clinton did her part by stirring up the Wright mess, but Obama pushed back with one of the most important speeches of a generation (not to be hyperbolic or anything). Bill Richardson followed his heart and his head, endorsing Barack shortly after, but no other super delegates followed his lead.
But other than that, the echo chamber has been left to debate the after-effects of the Wright debacle. At least they get to finally talk about race, which is making Pat Buchanan so happy that he might explode, covering Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski with Hot, Nativist Craziness. Until a new story breaks, we're stuck with this one, so hopefully Barack can just wait it out. Stories like the Hillary's Bosnia lie, which she somehow made about Wright. I'm sure more stories like that are out there: ones that undermine the whole argument for her candidacy.
Not having cable news for a few days has been a mixed blessing. I feel a little out of the loop, getting all of my info from the blogosphere. But, I don't have to here about the daily movements of tracking polls that look like this:
The race is basically tied, and nothing in the last two weeks has changed that: not Wright, not Richardson, not Bosnia. I believe the double-helix structure goes back even farther, probably to right around March 5th.
It is clear that as long as HRC has a mathematically possible (though highly unlikely) path to the nomination, she will not bow out gracefully. Are there any circumstances that would change this? Howard Dean working with other party leaders to finally fix it? An Obama upset in Pennsylvania? The elusive Gore endorsement of BHO? My guess is none or even all of these will do the trick. See you at the convention!
Due to a confluence of events (leaving my job, getting a new one, moving 500 miles away, and other Major Life Changes), I haven't posted in a while. But as I get settled in my new job and have more freedom with my online activities, I will be getting back into the swing of things.
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"
So, from the campaign that repeatedly plays the race card and justifies itself with the gender card, here comes a high-level surrogate with some of the ugliest rhetoric so far. The first quote is bad enough - it sounds very much like the criticism hurled at successful African Americans in the age of affirmative action: "oh, he got where he is because he's black." The galling irony of the second quote is that the Obama campaign is supposedly racist for being upset about a race-based attack? Very rich, coming from the campaign that finds misogyny in every political debate.
Worse yet is that this may not be accidental, despite the admonishments from the Clinton campaign. Polls close in Mississippi in about 5 minutes, and Barack Obama will no doubt win big by dominating with the black vote (even though Clinton will maintain close in delegates because of gerrymandered districts). But maybe the Clinton's know that they're not getting the black vote back, not with Barack in the race, and certainly not after South Carolina. So what's the difference in losing that bloc 80-20 or 90-10? Why not go after the Reagan Democrats with something they understand: racism. Not only does it help her in the South and the Rustbelt, but it will further polarize the electorate and stigmatize Obama as "the black candidate." Just a thought - hopefully I'm not finding racism where there is none.
Edit: Check out the end of the clip of Ferraro on Fox News:
Don't antagonize me, Barack. I'm a Democratic Party fundraiser - you NEED me. If I call her a relic of a broken system and mention that she was on one of the worst Democratic tickets ever, am I misogynistic?
With 3 days to go until the Texas/Ohio/Vermont/Rhode Island primaries, the final picture is starting to come into focus. Despite all the hype, it looks like the real battle will be in framing the results. The most likely outcome is two states to each candidate, with a small delegate difference, making March 4th resemble the near-tie that we had on February 5th rather than a decisive win for either Obama or Clinton. Here are the current Pollster trends:
Texas is not a slam dunk for Obama, but his momentum over the last two weeks cannot be denied. Wild cards include the effects of early voting, state senate based allocation of delegates, and what are sure to be chaotic and contested caucuses. Still, I think it will all add up for an Obama win.
Despite similar demographics to Wisconsin and a larger African-American population, Obama's momentum hasn't been enough to catch Clinton in Ohio. It looks like Clinton's base is sticking with her. However, even a win here will barely net her any delegates. Obviously, that won't stop Penn/Wolfson/et al from harping about it, reality be damned.
Vermont and Rhode Island seem to be securely in the fold for Obama and Clinton, respectively. Even large wins will result in small delegate gains, but neither campaign is taking these states for granted, campaigning there between longer stays in Ohio and Texas.
Whereas a tie a month ago began the momentum towards Obama, a tie at this point hurts him. The Clinton campaign has been casting Obama as the frontrunner, with the March 4th primaries as a referendum on his status as such. For all their strategic incompetence, the Clinton campaign has been able to move the goalposts at their will. Luckily, Obama will most likely still hold a delegate lead as the calendar again starts to favor him. So, instead of ending her campaign once and for all, the slugfest will continue, possibly until April 22nd (a discouraging thought).
I also want to use this post to note how Obama has been able to turn Clinton's narrative against her. All the talk on Friday was about Clinton's ad titled "Children," with most pundits putting it in the fear-mongering category with "Daisies" from '64 and "Red Phone" from the Democratic primary in '84.
It's the same old message: I'm experienced, ready on day one, etc. Except now, appealing directly and superficially to the mothering instincts of women voters. Even her campaign couldn't name a "3am moment" in her career during a conference call, prattling on about military endorsements and the Armed Services Committee.
So, within about 12 hours of the ad coming out, the Obama team crafted a brilliant response ad that is a tribute to the professionalism and message discipline of his campaign. The ad insists that she had her 3am moment and blew it: the Iraq War vote.
As has been noted, the ability to fight off attack ads will no doubt help Obama in the general. And by the looks of March 4th, he'll have to fight off Clinton for another two months.
