Speed Reading the Palin Report

An Official Report of the investigation into Sarah Palin’s conduct regarding behavior surrounding the dismissal of Commissioner Walt Monegan was published today. The entire lengthy report can be found here. In the meantime, I’m going to post some thoughts as I read. This is very stream of consciousness.

Page 11: As of Fall 2005, Palin did not understand the rights of due process and privacy available to troopers who had reports filed against them.

Page 14: Todd Palin “summoned” Walt Monegan, appointed by Gov. Palin as the police chief in the state, to a meeting in the governor’s office. If Hillary Clinton had met with any cabinet member over a personal matter in the Oval Office, it would not have taken so long for impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton to begin.

Page 18: I’m not sure what Mike Wooten did to Sarah Palin’s sister, but whatever it was, he really must have angered everyone in the family. I mean like Godfather-style righteous anger. In addition to filing a complaint against him, the Palins also hired a private investigator. Moreover, after elected, and the investigation had already come back negative, Todd Palin brought in the Commissioner for police in the state, Monegan, and briefed him not only on the concluded investigation, but also on what the PI found. That’s some grudge.

Page 19: Todd Palin says that the entire meeting was because Wooten was not adequately punished with “a few days off” and that he should instead be fired. Monegan thinks the entire episode was a natural outgrowth of anger normally felt after a divorce.

Page 24: Monegan tells Todd Palin that if the charge for illegally shooting a moose will not be charged, because it does not violate the spirit of the law, and because other people, including the Governor’s father and Wooten’s wife, would have to be named as accomplices. Palin stated in return that he only wanted Wooten charged. Gov. Palin called a few days later to complain that the punishment given to Wooten “just didn’t seem right.”

Page 25: Gov. Palin felt that the punishment for Wooten as given was “a slap on the wrist” and wanted him to be punished more.

Page 29: After Gov. Palin and Monegan agreed that none of this discussion should go through her for protocol reasons, her chief of staff Mike Tibble summons Monegan to a meeting concerning only Wooten. David Addington has nothing on Tibbles, except for a more imposing name.

Page 32: Multiple political appointees called Monegan on behalf of Palin, including the Attorney General. I’m also getting the sense that Todd Palin hired someone to follow Wooten around. This is beyond tenacity, this is Inigo Montoya level dedication. “My name is Sarah Palin, you divorced my sister, prepare to die.”

Page 33: The Attorney General refers to both Palins - “them” - as his superior.

Page 35: Palin aide Frank Bailey pulls an Alec Baldwin. He called a trooper demanding that Wooten somehow be fired, unaware the line was being recorded. Gov. Palin herself referred to the tape as a “smoking gun.”

Page 36: Bailey calls the Deputy Commission for Public Safety to complain that Wooten was sitting in a patrol vehicle outside his children’s school while on duty. When told this was note a fire-able offense, Bailey wants to know why Wooten is being “protected” after everything else he had done. Bailey also disclosed that he had received the information from the Palin’s.

Page 39: Monegan probably lost Palin’s confidence when he sent a poster to Palin’s office that featured a trooper, who he did not recognize as Mike Wooten. Oops. In return, Palin cancelled her public appearance with Monegan.

Page 39: A replacement for Monegan was arranged because “Todd is really unhappy with Monegan.” When asked why Monegan was being replaced, Bailey told the eventual replacement that it was partially because of the poster featuring Wooten.

Page 44: Oh my. The replacement for Monegan was hired so quickly by Palin that he was not at all vetted. Fifteen days after he was hired, he had to resign because of a previous allegation of sexual harassment against him that the governor’s office did not know about.

Page 44: The first time the Palins met with their security director, they did not say that Wooten posed a threat; shortly after she was inaugurated, Todd Palin said that Wooten was a threat to their family. Despite this threat, Gov. Palin took actions to reduce her security detail.

Page 45: Todd Palin spent about half his time in the governor’s office, regularly using the conference table. Palin was far more involved in running of the government than the wives of governors who preceded him. Palin contacted multiple state employees regarding Michael Wooten.

Page 47: The Governor’s office wanted the claim of Wooten for workers comp to be denied, and called the insurance company to accomplish that.

Page 53: The Palins began their campaign to get Wooten fired even before Wooten and Sarah Palin’s sister were divorced. The divorce was settled in October 2005. Even the judge in the Wooten divorce trial was astounded by the lengths the family was going to in order to get him fired, noting that it would cut his earning potential and leave less money for child support, even noting that if the family was not making these efforts to get him fired, he might have given more money to the wife. Why did the Palins not quit and declare victory at some point?

Page 55: For the record, Wooten received his discipline, appealed, and the appeal was all resolved between March and September 2006. That means it was over a year after the punishment for Wooten, and over two years after the divorce the Palin even became Governor. Like I said, they can hold a grudge.

Page 55: Todd Palin told the Wasilla Police Chief to not hire Wooten as a police officer.

Page 57: An email from Gov. Palin I am going to have to rewrite character for character from Feb. 7, 2007 to Monegan:

In sharing a few personal examples with you including the trooper who used to be related to me-the one who illegally killed the cow moose out of season, without a tag - he’s still bragging about it in my hometown and after another cop confessed to witnessing the kill, this trooper was “investigated” for over a year and merely given a slap on the wrist….though he’s out there arresting people today for the same crime!. This is the same trooper who shot his 11 -yr-old stepson with a taser gun, was seen drinking in his patrol car, was pulled over for drunk driving but let off by a coworker & brags about the incident to this day….he threatened to kill his estranged wife’s parent, refused to be transferred to rural Alaska and continued to disparage natives in words and tone, he continues to intimidate and harass his ex. - even after being slapped with a restraining order that was lifted when his supervisors intervened…he threatens to be able to always be able to come out on top because he’s “got a badge”, etc. etc. etc.) This trooper is still out on the street, in fact he’s been promoted. It was a joke, the whole year long “investigation” of him - in fact those who passed along the serious information about him to Julia Grimes and Tandesky were threatened with legal action from the trooper’s union for speaking about it. (This is the same trooper who’s out there today telling people the new administration is going to destroy the trooper organization, and that he’d “never work for that b****, Palin”.)

Anyway - just a personal example of what I’ve personally seen out there and had to live with for two years - and this is what people in the Valley are putting up with (those many residents who know of this trooper time-bomb who’s supposed to be “protecting” them).

Where to begin? Her maverick-style use of a split infinitive? Her curious usage of punctuation? Or, how about that she actually was upset about someone using state authority (the “badge”) to accomplish something that was otherwise untoward. Also, to so cavalierly send a personal email - and then after identifying it was personal in the beginning of the email, to couch the language in random apersonal language. Giving a Vice President this sort of authority and power to enforce laws as they saw fit without reference to the law, or when feeling the law was just wholly inadequate would be very, very dangerous. Part of the greatness of America is repsect for the process, both politically and judicially. Sometmies your side loses a court case; you still comply with the ruling. Sometimes your poltical party loses an election. You don’t go off and rebel because of that.

Page 65: Important conclusion:

The evidence supports the conclusion that Governor Palin, at the least, engaged in “official action” by her inaction if not her active participation or assistance to her husband in attempting to get Trooper Wooten fired [and there is evidence of her active participation]. She knowingly, as that term is defined in the above cited statutes, permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor’s office and the resources of the Governor’s office, including access to state employees, to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired. Her conduct violated AS 39.52.110(a) of the Ethics Act. ….

Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired. She had the authority and power to require Mr. Palin to cease contacting subordinates, but she failed to act.

Such impermissible and repeated contacts create conflicts of interest for subordinate employees who must choose to either please a superior or run the risk facing that superior’s displeasure and the possible consequences of such displeasure. This was one of the very reasons the Ethics Act was promulgated by the Legislature.

Page 67: Another conclusion, that the Palins were trying to get Wooten fired for personal reasons, not because of fear.

The rest of the case concerns the dismissal of Monegan and other factors; the dismissal was found to be proper and lawful. The conduct of the governor prior to that dismissal is what was found as an abuse of power.

Sphere: Related Content

VIDEO: Michelle Obama On Larry King Live (October 8, 2008)

On October 8, 2008, Michelle Obama sat down with Larry King to discuss the tone of the campaign, the debates and more…

Transcript after the jump… Read more

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (10/07/08)

This podcast provides analysis of the second presidential debate between Obama and McCain, which was held at Belmont University in Tennessee.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content

VIDEO: Obama-Ayers, McCain-Keating Discussed On The View (October 7, 2008)

An exchange on The View about Obama-Ayers and McCain-Keating connections gets a bit heated:

Sphere: Related Content

Live Blog Of CNN/Saddleback Church Presidential Forum With McCain And Obama

Tonight is the Saddleback Church Presidential Forum with McCain and Obama, we’re live blogging…

7:00: A note on the forum — this is not a debate, thus McCain and Obama will not be engaging each other at all, nor will they be responding to each other’s points too. Obama gets the first round of questions.

7:04: Question Number 1 - Who are the 3 wisest people that you know. Obama says Michelle Obama and his grandmother. Then goes on to say that as President he wouldn’t limit himself to just 3 people; references Sam Nunn and Dick Lugar.

7:07: Question Number 2 - What is your own personal moral failing? What is America’s greatest moral failing? On his own personal failings, Obama says it was experimenting with drugs and alcohol during his teenage years. On America’s greatest moral failing, Obama limits his answer temporarily to in his lifetime. He says that the greatest moral failing of America is not abiding by the principle in Matthew “whatever you do to the least of my brothers you do to me.” Side note: This “least of these” phrase is something that Michelle Obama often used earlier in the campaign during her speeches.

7:09: Question Number 3 - What is the most significant issue/piece of legislation where you worked against your party for the good of America? Obama cites legislation that he “actually worked with John McCain” on - campaign ethics reform. This is somewhat of a bootleg answer because Obama actually pulled out of that specific legislation very early after starting to work with McCain (largely because of party politics). This created a bit of a dust up.

7:12: What is your most gut-wrenching decision? Obama says that it was his decision to oppose the war and also other issues of war and peace. Meh, duh.

7:19: What does it mean to you to trust in Christ? Obama says that he believes that Jesus Christ died for his sins and that he is redeemed through him. Says that if he can get himself out of the way, then maybe he can carry out what he (meaning Jesus) intends. He also says that it means to embrace not only words but deeds.

7:21: Abortion Question - At what point does a baby get human rights? Obama says that answering the question with that kind of specificity is above his pay grade. Says that he recognizes that the issue has a moral and ethical element to the issue, but notes that he is pro-life. Goes on to tout the fact that he added into the Democratic Party platform, the goal of reducing abortions.

7:25: Obama is asked to define marriage. Obama says, “I believe marriage is a union between a man and woman.” Says that he does not support a constitutional ban on gay marriage and adds that he supports civil unions.

7:29: Does evil exist? Obama says that evil does exist.

7:31: Which Supreme Court Justice would you have not appointed. Obama says that he would not have appointed Clarence Thomas. Adds that although he wouldn’t have appointed Scalia, he believes that he is qualified to serve on the court.

7:38: Define rich. He doesn’t give the strongest answer, but ultimately concludes with the number of 250,000 or more a year. I know plenty of folks that make 250,000 a year that are definitely not rich; however, they live in very rich areas, so the cost of living is not anywhere near parity with rest of the country.

7:48: Would you consider an emergency plan for orphans around the world? Obama says yes.

7:50: What would you do about religious persecution around the world? There’s really no way to answer such a vague question, so instead of criticizing Obama for giving a somewhat banal answer, I’m going to go ahead and call the question out for being bad.

7:53: In a minute, tell me why you want to be president. Obama believes that what makes America special is our empathetic spirit that supports the American Dream; he feels that it is slipping and he wants to bring it back.

7:56: Great Question - What would you tell the American people if you knew there wouldn’t be any repercussions? Obama says that he would say that combating climate change is going to require some sacrifices.

8:01: It’s John McCain’s turn. Who are the 3 wisest people that you know? McCain says Dave Patraeus, Sen. Lindsay Graham and the CEO of Ebay.

8:03: What is your own personal moral failing? What is America’s greatest moral failing? McCain says that the failure of his first marriage was his greatest moral failing. In terms of America, he says that it was not pushing for more voluntarism and sacrifice after 9/11.

8:10: What is the most gut-wrenching decision? McCain says that it was his decision not to yield to interrogation during his capture in Vietnam.

8:15: What does your faith in Jesus mean to you? McCain says that it means that he is saved and talks about the fact that faith is a global issue. He goes on to tell a story about the prison guard who drew the cross for him on Christmas (it’s a good story and one that he often tells)

8:19: Define marriage. McCain says that “it’s a union between one man and one woman.” He goes on to say that as a federalist, he believes that states have the right to define marriage how they choose. However, if a federal court were to force states to recognize it, he would support a constitutional amendment.

8:31: I’ll have to go back an insert some discussion about McCain’s last answers. I got sidetracked while discussing his performance with a colleague. I believe that McCain is performing significantly better than he has been the past few months.

8:33: After giving his oft repeated line about studying bears in Montana, McCain offers this subtle bit of humor: “we laugh, but we cry.”

8:40: Question: As an American what is worth dying for?  McCain says “Freedom”

8:43: On Russia: McCain says that he is saddened by Russian aggression.  He goes on to talk about Georgia’s long history as a Christian nation.  Interesting angle to play.

Sphere: Related Content

FLAHSBACKS: John Edwards is an Ass

Let me count the ways:

1) Cheating on his wife.

2) Running for President with this skeleton in his closet. What if he were nominated or chosen as VP?

3) Holding out his endorsement as meaningful when this was in the news, knowing the truth underneath.

4) Releasing a statement in which he tries to play the victim. You’re not going to guilt your way around this one.

Now, we’ve noted the problematic nature of John Edwards’ character before:

Edwards Initiates Operation Apology Drop

Edwards Campaign Conceals Internet History

Bob Shrum Blasts Edwards in New Book

Franky, there’s been little substance in either of Edwards’ too runs for presidency aside from the health care plan this time around, which was almost certainly something from Elizabeth, and not him. Edwards’ hubris and self-righteousness is really quite astonishing.

PS: It’s too bad that Kucinich’s network of spies couldn’t break this news earlier.

Sphere: Related Content

Just A Thought

If you want to send a strong signal that your wife is not a political target, I’m not sure Glamour Magazine is the place to do it.

Sphere: Related Content

Why Obama is Not Funny

There are a lot of people up in arms over why jokes about Obama tend to get less laughs. I think the answer is simple: he’s not nearly as funny as other presidents and candidates. To wit:

• Obama does not have the personality to do anything like this:
  

  The American leader, who has been condemned throughout his presidency for failing to tackle climate change, ended a private meeting with the words: “Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter.”

• He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock.
• Obama does not also have weird trivia about him, such as holding a man-sized safe in his office or shooting someone in the face.
• Obama is also not John Kerry, perhaps the most tone-deaf candidate since the introduction of television. The impersonation of Kerry by Seth Meyers on SNL was as good as any impersonation on the show ever.
• Obama is also not John Edwards, for obvious reasons.
• Obama is also not Al Gore. Gore ran as sort of a caricature of himself, with exaggerated references of the lockbox, and of course the infamous “sighing” problem. Gore himself seems to have realized how silly he sounded at times:
  

  “My plan to put Social Security in an ironclad lockbox has gotten a lot of attention recently, and I’m glad about that. But I’m afraid that it’s overshadowing some vitally important proposals. For instance, I’ll put Medicaid in a walk-in closet. I’ll put the Community Reinvestment Act in a secured gym locker. I’ll put NASA funding in a hermetically sealed Ziploc bag.”

• Obama is also not the biggest political humor magnet of all time.
• Even compared to John McCain, age is a much more rich area for jokes than inexperience is.

I think the key is that Obama, as Ambinder noted today, has protected his image throughout this campaign. The memes about him are often not fodder for jokes. Inexperience is, clearly, but it’s not something easy to make any jokes about. Moreover, the untruths about him are defined so clearly as to really make comedy very difficult, particularly subtle comedy.

There’s probably something to the theory that a lot of Obama supporters are so desparate for someone like him to come along that they don’t find jokes about him funny. But I think the reasons go deeper than that. Avoiding the silly image mistakes and ridiculous personality traits of his predecessors is something Obama and his team probably deserve credit for. Maybe we’ll discuss this more in the podcast tomorrow.

Sphere: Related Content

The Case That Divided Government is Irrelevant

One of the rationales brought up by people this election season for voting for John McCain is that with Democrats in control of Congress and the White House, this would create a problematic scenario. I think this idea is mostly ridiculous.

Michael Merritt lays out what he considers unified government:

What is unified government? I define this as the executive and legislative branches being controlled by the same party. In Congress, it means that both the House and Senate have comfortable enough margins of power to get their agenda passed swiftly without too much work.

I disagree with this characterization. One party has total control only if they have 60 members of the Senate, one reasons liberals are going crazy over that number this year. This is exceptionally unlikely to happen this year. Nate Silver projects that there is only about a 17% chance of that happening given the electorate.

Republicans did also not have 60 members in the Senate. So what happened? All of the partisan elements of Bush’s domestic agenda the past six years were either thwarted (Social Security) or co-opted by Democrats for various reasons (Tax Cuts, Energy Bill, FISA). The less partisan bills (No Child Left Behind, post-Katrina Bills) were in many cases co-authored by Democrats. There are other bills, such as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act and the Medicare Bill that fit into both categories to a certain extent. None of these depended on who held a majority in Congress; if Democrats had a slim lead on Republicans, much of the same would happen. The FISA Compromise in the Senate right now is indicatibe of that. The immediate effect of a new President in domestic policy is regulatory power; ability to set new standards, to appoint partisans to regulatory commissions, and whatnot. That is usually unhindered by Congress, except in extreme cases. This was similar for the Clinton administration: the partisan health care attempt failed, even with a majority of Democrats.

Moreover, in terms of foriegn policy, the development the past 50 years has strongly favored the President over Congress. Indeed, Bush has been able to do almost whatever he wanted in foreign policy, even after the Democrats took back Congress in 2006. Bill Clinton initiated the Kosovo campaign in the middle of being impeached.

The ultimate point is that in domestic policy, divided government is overrated. If one party has a supermajority, than they can accomplish very partisan things, such as what Democrats did in the early 60s. But there is little evidence that slight majorities change things dramatically either.

Merritt lays out other reasons.

1) Corruption

So why is having unified government so bad? Well, for starters, it leads to all sorts of corruption. You only need to look at the Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay and Mark Foley scandals to see what can happen when politicians get too comfortable with their own power. … As well as scandals in Congress, scandals in the executive branch can also go unchecked with unified government. Just look at the U.S. Attorney scandal, treatment of enemy combatants, and others.

Corruption is a worry not for divided government, but for parties that have any power whatsoever. As appealing as it would be if no party had power, that seems unrealistic. Moreover, it’s not just Republicans that have a monopoly on corruption; Democrats like William Jefferson are not squeaky clean, either.

As for Merritt’s second argument, Democrats have done absolutely nothing constructive regarding those scandals that they could not have done in the minority. Issuing unanswered subpoenas for instance. At best, you could argue that Democratic pressure made Alberto Gonzalez resign. But not even Republicans were not happy with him at the hearings.

2) Breakdown of Checks and Balances:

Merritt states:

Next, and arguably the worst, unified government creates a system where checks and balances break down, and the legislative and executive branches begin to take the country in too far of the wrong direction. Whether it’s more toward socialism or more toward laisse-faire capitalism doesn’t matter. When government is unified, the debate necessary to quash bad legislation just isn’t there, and the executive and party in control of the legislature can enact whatever they want without too much effort. Keep in mind that I speak of the kind of unified government that some commenters here are afraid of. That which has a large majority in the House (which the Democrats don’t quite have now but come close) and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate (which the Democrats don’t have now and probably won’t have even after this November).

As I noted above, the facts do not back this up; not at all. This type of strong push one way or another only occurs when one party has a supermajority, implicitly meaning that the people want the country to move in that direction. The reason is simple; the founding fathers created a system in the Senate that would check undivided government itself. Merritt completely glosses over this; he admits it exists, but does not want to trust it.

Less Partisanship:

At least with divided government, both sides are forced to compromise, at least in theory. This is in theory because it depends on how partisan minded your two parties are. If you get even one party that is unwilling to concede anything, then nothing gets done, as has often been the case with the current make-up of Congress. Yet, the partisanship we’ve seen isn’t so bad that we see no legislation come out of it. The Farm bill is just one example of where both parties got together to pass legislation.

This is also true when the same party is in control of Congress and the White House. I’ll take the Farm Bill and raise him every other bill I’ve mentioned: Tax Cuts, Energy Bill, Katrina Bills, No Child Left Behind, Medicare, etc. Even the poorly organized Democrats were able to negotiate somewhat with those. Moreover, even with undivided government, when negotiation failed, bills did not pass (Social Security).

Furthermore, I think the Farm Bill is a terrible example. Farm issues and immigration are two specific issues that naturally cut across both party lines. Support and Dissent on the bills is never aligned specifically by party. You find liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans agreeing to hate the Farm Bill, for instance. Somehow, I don’t think that what Merritt had in mind was that bipartisanship would emerge as a cabal of bipartisan representatives agreed to take money for their states.

There surely is some impact of divided government at the very margins. But that difference is dwarfed by the foreign policy differences between the candidates, even as their Iraq policies converge. It’s for that reason that I’ve defined myself as a foreign policy voter; if you want to effect a domestic policy, work and donate to Congress. For this Presidential election, too much is on the line in foreign policy to base a vote on marginal impacts of a divided government.

Sphere: Related Content

Review: Barack Obama Biography (Election Update)

The kind people at the Biography Channel were nice enough to provide us with advance copies of the Barack Obama biography that goes on sale at Wal-mart tomorrow.

The forty seven minute DVD covers mainly Obama’s rise to be Senator; a last segment that is added on covers briefly his chase for the nomination (not including his ultimate winning of that nomination). Obama’s biography draws a lot of attraction. At a local Barnes and Noble store yesterday, I found multiple books on Obama’s biography; conversely, there was only one on McCain’s biography, and it was written by the candidate himself (and is really more about his family than simply McCain himself, as evidenced by the name).

A challenge for me in reviewing this is to figure out what the DVD was trying to accomplish. This is not any fault of the Biography Channel, but rather a challenge for me, as I have essentially read everything I could on Obama; thus, I already knew a lot of this information. For people who already know Obama’s life story and have followed the campaign closely, there is not really much to be gained from this. Conversely, someone who wants to look at the DVD to get deep insight into Obama’s character (for instance, figure out why he joined Trinity Church), there is also little to be gained, which frustrated me. Jeremiah Wright is mentioned only in a footnote towards the end, without even mentioning why he was so controversial in the first place. The DVD is very good, though, at telling the story of the rise of Obama while glossing over political questions that really do not belong on a DVD.

The main narrative of the biography is the rise of Obama to give the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. Featuring interviews from his half sister Maya Soetoro-Ng and brother in law Craig Robinson, the parts of a young Obama growing up in Indonesia and Hawaii are really well done. It also heavily emphasizes the outsider status of Obama in terms of racial identity, having grown up in a white family but being perceived as an African American.

I’d highly recommend the DVD for the parts of Obama’s life outside of politics. Whenever the DVD veered into politics at all, it made me cringe, as it made a lot of broad statements that weren’t always necessarily true. The nonpolitical parts, by contrast, are good at highlighting Obama’s background and general worldview. Like Obama’s book, Dreams From My Father, the narrative focuses on his father significantly even though his mother seems to have more directly influenced him. The biography also details the rise of Obama at Harvard Law, focusing on the importance of it, and not as much on the specific details.

It’s important to be honest: This is an introduction to the character of Barack Obama, not a critical study of it. As an introduction, it’s a success, and encourages further research into his positions. For instance,

If you know a lot about Obama, and have read his books, insights on his character from family members and friends such as Marty Nesbitt and political advisor David Axelrod will be interesting. But it’s unlikely to be drastically different from what you have heard, and as the narrative gets further along, David Axelrod seemingly pops up more and more, and it feels like an extended campaign ad. But that’s not to complain. That’s just the nature of this sort of biography. Consider this the cliffnotes version of Obama’s own book. If you want a deeper and more critical look, I’d recommend for starters David Mendell’s book.

The much touted “Election Update” is already outdated - and will be even more outdated come the middle of November, win or lose. I’m a little perplexed at releasing this DVD now instead of then; but as I mentioned above, there’s a strong demand for biographical information on Obama.

However, it may be worth getting just for the footage of Obama walking around a cow at a local state fair, and for the look on David Axelrod’s face when talking about Jack Ryan.

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (06/29/08)

Today, we take a look back at this week in the election and also have an in-depth discussion about the Obama Campaign’s general election strategy.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (06/24/08)

John and Angelo are back and will be recording podcasts several times a week now.  This podcast covers (1) Obama’s ‘get over it’ statement and (2) McCain staffer Charles Black’s comments to Fortune Magazine regarding who would benefit from a terrorist attack.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content

Morning Briefing (April 9, 2008)

What’s news today…

• Mark Penn’s new role is clarified.  Despite all the hullabaloo, it’s clear that Penn will not play as influential a role as he was or what many still think he will.
• Sizzle: TNR scolds Obama for dismissing Clinton and McCain’s foreign policy experience as well as for  using his personal experience living abroad as a child to buttress his foreign policy credentials.
• An excellent look inside McCain’s campaign.  Is this what a McCain administration will look like?
• In our last podcast, we discussed Obama’s reversal on public financing and its political implications.  Coincidentally, it seems that Obama is preparing his justification for not opting into the public finance system should he become the nominee by contending, “We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the Internet and finance it, and they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful.”
• Why?  Howard Dean criticizes McCain and calls him “not a strong candidate.”  Somewhat ironically, one of the reasons he suggested McCain is a weak candidate is because “he is out of touch with the American people.”  To me, it certainly seems out of touch to suggest that McCain is a weak candidate.  I recognize that as Chairman, Dean has to support his party, but it seems that recognizing reality is often the fastest way to earn credibility.  Recognizing McCain’s strength is not mutually exclusive with opposing him.
• Bill Clinton’s recent trip to Puerto Rico could have gone better.  A report: While Clinton was giving a speech, in English:Nobody interpreted, and only a handful of audience members seemed to understand him. The crowd — raucous and dancing a few minutes earlier — remained mostly silent during the 10-minute speech. Some people left. Others chatted on their cellphones. ‘What is he saying? Do we clap now?’ asked Jerry Nieves Rosario, a college student who speaks only Spanish.
• Inform yourself: This roundup of Iran nuclear related news is useful.
• Can we just stop with the ‘calls to Al Gore‘ for the time being?  Honestly, who throws a shoe?
• A Democratic debate on Science?  Maybe, it’s still very early in the planning stage.  I like the idea, that’s for sure.

 

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (04/05/08)

During this show, the gurus discuss the state of the race, the Clinton tax returns, Obama’s strategy in Penn., McCain strategy, a general election preview and much more….

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast). 

Sphere: Related Content

The Bill Richardson Chronicles

In a word, boring. Michael Crowley gives the cliffnotes version:

Bill Richardson ran for president. He was nice to Hillary. Maybe he was angling for her veep? Then in Iowa he threw his non-viables to Obama. The Clintonites raged about a betrayal. Then he watched the Super Bowl with the other Bill and all was well. Then he was “genuinely torn” about who to endorse but didn’t like a phone call he got from a Clintonite. Then he endorsed Obama. Then Carville called him Judas. Then he blasted Carville for “character assassination.” Then they said he’d promised not to endorse Obama. Then he denied that. Then he said Hillary said Obama can’t win. Then Hillary’s people said he said Obama isn’t ready. Then he denied it. Then she seemed to deny saying what she supposedly said. Then her people said she didn’t deny saying that but won’t say if she did say it.

He’s going to make a really fun footnote in some historian’s book 50 years from now. Aside from that….

Sphere: Related Content

Behind The Scene At CDP: Bill Clinton Expresses Anger At Richardson And The Media; Turns Off Some Superdelegates

On Saturday, March 30, Bill Clinton addressed California Democrats State Convention.  This speech was not only intended to address the larger question of Democratic party unity, but also an opportunity to woo some of California’s remaining 23 undecided superdelegates.  California has 65 super delegates.  Of these 65, Clinton has the support of 29, Obama has 13 and 23 remain undecided.  During his speech, President Clinton struck a conciliatory and optimistic tone, saying:

“There is somehow the suggestion that because we are having a vigorous debate about who would be the best president, we are going to weaken this party in the fall.

“We’re going to win this election if we just chill out and let everybody have their say.”

However, Mr. Clinton offered a sharp contrast behind the scenes turning off some superdelegates.  Prior to his speech, he met privately with about 16 undecided superdelegates.

At first all was well and then: Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Lieberman and the Democrats Differ on Trade

This Sunday on This Week, Joe Lieberman chastised the Democratic Party for not being the party it used to be as reason for him endorsing John McCain:

Well, I say that the Democratic Party changed. The Democratic Party today was not the party it was in 2000. It’s not the Bill Clinton-Al Gore party, which was strong internationalists, strong on defense, pro-trade, pro-reform in our domestic government. It’s been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and basically will –and very, very hyper-partisan. So it pains me. I’m a Democrat who came to the party in the era of President John F. Kennedy. It’s a strange turn of the road when I find among the candidates running this year that the one, in my opinion, closest to the Kennedy legacy, the John F. Kennedy legacy, is John S. McCain.

Most of the focus on these comments have been regarding foreign policy. While many people point out the foreign policy ramifications of this, there seems to be less meat on that bone. Traditional Democratic and Republican foreign policy of yore really has little to no relevance. We don’t know how Democrats would have conducted foreign policy outside of the Cold War. It’s completely speculative. And while some guesses are better than others, it also seems pointless.

Moreover, Lieberman seems to be using somewhat of a straw man here. Neither Clinton nor Obama is as liberal on foreign policy as other Democrats. Indeed, Hillary Clinton could reasonably be described as one of the most hawk-like Democrats today at all. The candidates who are no longer in the race are all by far more liberal on foreign policy, save perhaps Biden. However, it’s a fair accusation in the sense that Clinton and Obama are currently locked in a silly argument on who could withdraw forces the fastest. As Ambers pointed out, that argument is spurious.

It seems to be more of a response to the Democrats taking the “100 years” comment of McCain out of context. That, in turn, seems to be in response to the general “cut and run” characterization of all Democratic policies.

Point being? Foreign policy is politicized. You have to wade through both sides’ rhetoric to find the truth.

The real disagreement seems to be on trade. The attempts to pander to the base of the party are clearly moving away from Democratic economic policies of the 90s. No one is admitting this, but strangely, no is worried about this. Conservative point to it as a matter of fact.

Picking a conservative blog at random, it seems Powerline last dealt with the substance of NAFTA back when Edwards was in the race. And it’s not that conservatives are not prepared to make this argument. Just that it has not been made yet. It’s coming.

I think this is something that could get more traction. On the same day that Lieberman made these comments, Chelsea Clinton said that her parents do not agree on NAFTA. Read more

Sphere: Related Content

God Bless First Read

Easter Shmeaster. There’s a better holiday:

Meanwhile, Bill and Chelsea hit Indiana all day today. They’ll be there for something called Dyngus Day. According to one Google search, Dyngus Day is a day where guys get to drench gals in water; apparently tomorrow, gals get to throw dishes at the guys. It’s a Polish holiday. Of course, what part of Dyngus Day will Bill Clinton take part in?

More on Dyngus Day here.

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »