HRC-Seward Watch, Part I

Andrea Mitchell:

Two Obama advisers have told NBC News that Hillary Clinton is under consideration to be secretary of state. Would she be interested? Those who know Clinton say possibly.  But her office says that any decisions about the transition are up to the president-elect and his team. Clinton was seen taking a flight to Chicago today, but an adviser says it was on personal business. 

William Seward, of course, was a Senator from New York and the favorite for the 1860 Republican nomination and shockingly lost to s skinny guy from Illinois, only to become the Secretary of State.

He’s better known for Seward’s Folly: buying Alaska. But that didn’t happen until Andrew Johnson was President.

Clinton, though, does not hold Seward’s seat. She does hold Gouvenour Morris’s seat, though. So she’s got that going for her, which is nice. On the other hand, there’s a clear reason why she was not made VP: she also holds the seat once held by one Aaron Burr.

Of course, plenty of others have made this comparison before, including me.

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (11/02/08)

In this podcast, we discuss projections for election day and reflect on the campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain in order to glean insight into how they would serve as president.

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

Sphere: Related Content

McCain’s Terrible Strategy, Part 894

Al Giordano makes a great point:

The irony of the week is that with their recent divisive statements about “pro-American parts of the country” and “anti-American parts of the country,” about “real Virginia” and “fake Virginia,” and an assist from that whack-job Congresswoman in Minnesota who wants an investigation of what she calles “anti-American” members of Congress, Obama’s rivals have served up the perfect introduction to the return of his 2004 convention speech, making it seem new and fresh all over again.

The way you beat Obama is the way you beat any politician the public likes but has doubts about: you adopt his message and then add some value to it. By the end of the primaries, Clinton had done this (change + a fighter). This is also what Kerry did in 2004 to beat Dean (Dean is all about standing up for values but Kerry did the same in the trenches).

McCain actually has the history to out-Obama Obama. But starting with his choice of running mate, he’s run completely away from that, and more towards turning out the base. It’s not going to work, and in essence gives Obama the dream closing stump he wanted, without making it seem forced. All for what? To pander to a few thousand voters?

Sphere: Related Content

The Problem With McCain’s Narrative: It’s Only About The Senate

First, if you’re not reading Robert Draper’s article about McCain’s campaign, do so immediately after reading this post.

The core of McCain’s message has been that he puts country first; as evidenced by Obama not taking on his party:

The McCain campaign maintained that in contrast to Obama, their candidate had taken on his own party while working with Democrats on such issues as immigration and campaign-finance reform. “Obama pays no price from his party — never has,” Salter told me. “My guy has made a career out of it. So, how can you get people to believe that if you can’t get the press to make an honest assessment of it? You tell a story. ‘When it came down to a choice between my very life and my country, I chose my country.’ That’s why the story’s important. Just as Obama’s story is important to him. I don’t gainsay it. You know, tell your story!”

The record of Obama going against party leaders in the Senate is indeed scant. This is true. However, the McCain camp misses (but yet made a VP pick trying to exploit) the one really memorable time Obama took on his party: in the most hotly contested primary in modern campaign history. Hillary Clinton was widely seen as standing for the party as it was (through some fault of her own). Obama meanwhile campaigned on the message of change. Ask yourself this: what relationships are better known: that between Obama and the Clintons, or that between Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?

This is completely reinforced, ironically, by the reaction of Bill Clinton, whose relationship with Obama is still being speculated about. This narrative is more deeply ingrained in the American public than McCain-Feingold or anything like that.

McCain’s record on bipartisanship has been forged mostly through the Senate, according to his campaign. The problem for McCain is that the Senate and Congress are deeply unpopular right now. The campaign would probably have been better off trying to recapture the spirit of the 2000 campaign somehow to show evidence of McCain’s ability to cross party lines.

At the end of the day, though, the McCain campaign is trying to drive home that Obama never bucks the party line six months after the most historic series of debates since Lincoln-Douglas, only this time it was within a party. McCain’s biggest problem has been thinking too small. If this was a race for President of the Senate, I suspect, McCain would be the runaway winner.

(And if you read the article, the second biggest problem has been not following through with anything.)

Sphere: Related Content

Are Republicans Costing McCain The Election?

Answer: Not really, but they’re not helping.

Nate Silver dug up this fascinating data; I’m attaching his analysis as well because it’s so on point:

Support within own party:
Pollster             DEMS       GOP
Rasmussen            86         87
IBD-TIPP             88         83
Research 2000        87         89
ABC/Post             91         84
Zogby                87         84
Battleground         89         85

AVERAGE              88.0       85.3

2004 Exit Poll       89         93
2000 Exit Poll       86         91

Among Democrats, Barack Obama is now winning 88 percent support, comparable to John Kerry in 2004 or Al Gore in 2000. And there are a couple of points’ worth of undecideds left in there, so it’s possible that Obama could scrape up against the 90 percent number on election day.

By contrast, John McCain is winning the support of just 85.3 percent of Republicans, well down from Bush’s 93 percent in 2004 and 91 percent in 2000. There are some undecideds in there as well, so his numbers should improve some, but McCain is likely to underperform Bush by several points.

This is really the key theme of the whole post-Lehman Obama surge. Between his more populist talking points on the economy, the backlash to McCain’s attacks, and — I’m guessing here — a deep level of antipathy among Democrats toward Sarah Palin (Battleground has her favorability ratings at 12/78 among Dems), Obama has really brought the Democratic base home. By contrast, Obama’s support among independents varies quite significantly from poll to poll, ranging from essentially even in the Rasmussen tracker to a +15 in Zogby.

 

These numbers are just stunning. There’s two different ways to look at this for Republicans: The way that Silver portrays, that the party is running too far to the right in the current economic conditions to hold the party together. The converse lesson, and the one I suspect will become conventional wisdom in most conservative circles, is that the party did not run far enough to the right, or hard enough: if only had McCain taken a principled stand against the bailout  on conservative  grounds, maybe he would have had a chance. (Look for Newt Gingrich to especially drive that ppoint hard in Iowa over the next 36-40 months.) The best evidence of this is House Republicans, who are widely known to be wildly against the bailout. 

I think Silver is right and that hypothetical argument is wrong, though. Palin’s approval ratings are in the tank. Had McCain made a choice like Lieberman, his base would have yelled loudly at him but ultiately still voted for him, given the alternative. Obama has truly earned the wrath of Republicans. Had McCain picked a candidate that brought credibility among moderate Republicans and indepdents, he still might be in this. Picking Palin at the end of the day was about a base election. If McCain could run a moderate campaign based on personality and Palin could rally the base, that sort of campaign may have been successful. But the financial crisis actually forced the election to be about issues, and it collapsed the carefully constructed House of Cards. Furthermore, Sarah Palin never had a chance of winning all the most dead end Hillary Clinton supporters. Silver makes the accurate point that it gave a lightning rod for Democrats to rally against. If anything else, it also forced Hillary Clinton out on the trail even more for Obama, which has really helped Obama consolidate support. (And erased any suggestion that she would cost Obama the campaign.)

In short, I think the leftward drift of independents would have probably cost McCain the election no matter what. But the financial crisis plus Sarah Palin will probably produce a landslide.

Brett Farve throws a lot of touchdown passes by being reckless. But he also throws a lot of interceptions.

Sphere: Related Content

California GOP Site Takes Down Offensive Material

The full story is here, hat tip to Sullivan, but I have one question: why did the logo use Hillary’ Clinton’s flag logo from the primary? It’s pretty obvious.

To state the obvious, attacks like these are baseless and frankly, more likely to backfire than work.

Sphere: Related Content

Vice Presidential Debate Liveblog: Sarah Palin v. Joe Biden from Washington University in St. Louis

5:34: Let’s start off with the ridiculous Gwen Ifill controversy. Gwen Ifill, I would argue, is the second best moderator possible behind Lehrer. She’s the best choice to get the Meet the Press Chair. And Tim Russert, let’s not forget, was a Democratic operative before moving to the news side; few people would argue that his past work disqualified him from being a netural moderator. And yet, we have actual Republicans saying Ifill is in the tank. It’s mortifying. If Ifill looks biased, we’ll say so and a bunch of other people will say so. But just publishing a book about race relations after the rise of Obama’s campaign hardly is evidence that she’s going to do something untoward. 

By the way, the strangest part of that press release is where Orrin Hatch complains that Biden is … getting advice from Hillary Clinton. As if this is some sort of shocking or horrifying fact, that Senators get advice from each other.

5:45: Former Clinton operative Phil SInger previews the debate on his blog here and here. Essentially, the two previews sort of have it both ways: one good Palin performance could help save her, but also if any of the Couric-interview Palin shows up, there’s nothing but trouble on the horizon. I think both are true - for different people. As for undecided, I’m betting that if they are still undecided now, they’re unlikely to be persuaded by an uneven performance from either candidate.

5:51: The baseball playoffs are far more compelling than this debate. The Phillies-Brewers game is incredible - and only in the second inning. Shane Victorino grand slam!

5:55: In case you had wanted to know what the British Ambassador’s private thoughts on Obama, well, here you go.

6:00: Here’s Howard Wolfson on the stakes for the debate tonight:

The short answers: Gov. Palin needs to demonstrate a real understanding of complex issues. Simple talking points won’t cut it. She needs to make clear she grasps the difficult policy challenges that the next administration will confront.  if she doesn’t the debate will quickly turn into her own version of Thursday Night Live.

Sen. Biden’s burden is the opposite. We all know he understands the issues. Instead he has to connect with Americans, making the case against John
McCain without condescending to Gov. Palin and angering female voters.  (He will not, for instance, be calling her “Sarah”)

6:03: Good thing Obama and McCain will not be in the buiilding. We wouldn’t want to make anyone uncomfortable.

6:06: Mary Katherine Ham says Palin will be “free” tonight. She continues:

Conventional wisdom says low expectations will behoove Palin, just as a similar soft bigotry worked for Bush, but after several very shaky interviews, it may be that expectations are so low for Palin as to require resuscitation by way of a knowledgeable, confident performance. Passable alone probably won’t do for a slipping ticket, especially with media primed to highlight every mistake.

Expectations would seem to set the bar high for Biden, but everyone knows there’s only one thing Joe Biden does more than ride the Amtrak, and that’s say spectacularly stupid things. Given the slant of the media and his reputation for political pratfalls, I wouldn’t be surprised to see post-debate coverage congratulate him for getting through 90 minutes without referring to his running mate as “clean and articulate.”

I’m not sure a lack of freedom was her problem with Couric. It was more a lack of ability to command any sort of details. She’s a wonderful attack dog (or pitbull, as she referred to herself), but she hasn’t shown anything beyond that so far. Any time she spends being on the attack will just take away from time for her to make her case.

6:39: Sabathia doesn’t make it through 4 in Philly.

6:41: Lafayette at the fellow o8 Bloggers Network blog 2008 Presidential Election Blog previews the debate:

The expectations are super low for SP.  This favors her, big-time.  If she makes a barely passable showing, the story’ll be her come-from-behind triumph.  Or at least her supporters will think so; the media is another story.  Will they gang up on her?  I think so, but I also think they have to be sensitive to their clientele, and they don’t want to be seen picking on her.  So they’ll gladly make fun of whatever is awkward and unbecoming.  I really don’t see how SP can avoid the mockery she is about to get dumped on her.  However, if she’s poised, they vipers can’t unleash their venom, because they’d be picking on her.

And of course Biden does not want to be seen this way either!  But he won’t.  He’s too good of a politician to flub it up.  Democrats don’t have to worry–this one’s all on SP.  Biden will be fine, he’s done this numerous times.  He won’t mess it up.  But he can be fought to a draw by the ordinary gal Pal(in) if she’s passably articulate.

We see this as the opposite: nothing will happen tonight. That hasn’t stopped me from liveblogging, though.

6:45: Dyre Portents, another 08 Bloggers Network Blog, says the expectations will be hard for Biden to overcome:

I don’t think Biden can beat Palin in a popularity contest. He’s somehow going to have to either force Palin to stick to the issues or find a way to repeatedly politely point out that Palin isn’t actually answering the questions. Given his gaffe prone nature and his temperment he may not be up to that particular task.

Biden has a tough job in front of him, no matter how you see the debate.

6:48: Famous alumni of Washington University include Harold Ramis, better known as Egon from the Ghostbusters.

6:49: Washington University soda trivia: The founder of 7-up, Frank Gladney, graduated from Washington University.

6:54: Election Geek is another 08 Network blog.  They’re not convinced that Ifill is a fair moderator. 

7:21: Jennifer Granholm, Democrat governor of Michigan, discussed what it was like to portray Sarah Palin in practice debates with Biden, and what it is like to be a female politician.

7:24: Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman are in the house tonight. They’re talking with two other old white guys I cannot identify.

7:30: The parade of semi-important dignitaries has begun. We’re listening so you don’t have to.

7:35: The two old white guys aforementioned are former Republican senators Jack Danforth and Al Simpson.

7:39: Missouri soda trivia part II: Dr. Pepper was introduced at the World’s Fair in St. Louis in 1904.

7:42: The parade of self-important dignities is still talking about sponsors. Meanwhile, I just found out that a Frenchman fur trader named Auguste Chouteau claimed to found St. Louis, but there are doubts to the authenticity of the claim.

7:45: St. Louis is the location of the first debate in 1992 between Clinton, Bush, and Perot. It was also the site of the last debate between Gore and Bush in 2000. And also the second debate between Bush and Kerry in 2004. In other words, this is increasingly a popular site.

7:48: Gwen Ifill uses crutches to take her seat. “In case you were wondering, I fell, I wasn’t pushed.” The crowd is too stunned to react to that line, but it’s basically all she says. Jim Lehrer, comparatively gave a lecture the last time.

7:52: Let me take this opportunity to thank everyone for reading. I’ll try to add a bit more flavor than I did the last time.

7:57: Republicans are dreaming about how Palin can attack both Ifill and Obama in one swing.

7:59: Still 5-2 Phillies over the Brewers in the 8th. I’m guessing a lot of people in Milwaukee will be too upset after tonight’s game to watch any of this debate.

8:00: And away we go. Biden on the left, Palin on the right, which is certainly appropo.

8:03: Bailout bill question to Biden. Biden pivots immediately to criticizing the economic policies of the last 8 years, and then segues into Obama’s criteria for any bailout plan, and then into showing the importance of focus on the middle class. Good answer, if a bit rushed given that the answer is 90 seconds. Palin says the test of the economy should be asking parents at kids soccer games on Saturdays. She’s talking directly into the camera; Biden was looking at Ifill. Hits the same notes as Biden, before seguing into reform. She blames Biden and the Senate for not listening to McCain’s warning on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

8:06: How would you end the polarization in Washington? Biden talks about his experience and bipartisanship. Biden then goes back into criticizing Mccain for being out of touch. Palin says he was talking about the American work force. That’s just not persuasive. She talks about joining a team of mavericks, whereas Obama only votes along party lines. They awkwardly smile at each other while she criticized Biden.

8:09: Palin blames the deception of the predatory lenders for the housing meltdown. She’s going full-blown with the accent, now mentioning Joe Sixpack and Hockey moms banding together. This is going to be something the mainstream media can’t really talk about, but will be either be really persuasive or not persuasive. Biden criticizes McCain for not being on the vanguard of subprime problems, and for his focus on deregulation. Biden is showing a better command of facts, but it’s distracting that he’s only looking at Ifill. He finally ends that with a good story about a guy at a gas station not knowing how much it takes to fill a gas tank. Palin talks at length about Biden and Obama voting for higher taxes. She says “government will have to learn how to be more efficient.” Is there any more meaningless boilerplate possible? Biden goes directly at Palin, criticizing her answer and standard on raising taxes, and saying she did not talk about regulation. Palin answers, and gives an indirect swipe at Ifill, and talks about her record. She mentions the drug industry and tobacco industry when Ifill cuts her off.

8:15: Taxes question. Biden says their tax plan is about fairness. Biden says no one making under 250 k will have a tax raise, and everyone making under 150k will have a tax decrease. Criticizes McCain for tax breaks for corporations, and saying corporations will be taxed at the level they were under Reagan. Palin says that philosophy is a redistribution of wealth, and criticizes Biden for saying taxes are patriotic. Palin says it’s patriotic to say government is not always the answer. Ifill asks about the health care plan, and talks about a tax break for families, and criticizes Obama for wanting the federal government to “take over” health care. Interesting that Obama took so much heat for not including a mandate in the primary, and now is still having his plan called a mandate. Biden says it’s not redistribution, but just fairness. Biden says McCain’s plan will tax health care benefits as income, and calls it “the ultimate bridge to nowhere.” First one liner of the night, from Biden.

8:21: What promises can yo not keep? Biden says you have to slow down foreign assistance. Segues into a discussion of what you cannot slow down: energy jobs, education (which he calls the engine of the economy - he also called the middle class the engine), and a few others. Palin says that McCain is not duplicitous. Palin criticizes Obama for voting for the 05 Energy Bill, and talks about taking on the oil companies in Alaska. Palin makes a joke about not promising much in the five weeks she’s been VP. Biden is stuttering a bit tonight - hopefully not a relapse. Biden says that Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska, but McCain will not. Interesting strategy by Biden.

8:26:Palin talks about “the corruption and greed” on Wall Street, which is a “toxic mess” requiring us to be “ever vigilant.” Is this a Presidential election or a preview of the next Batman movie? Biden dodges questions of a vote, and talks about Obama again being on the vanguard. He talks about bankruptcy courts being able to adjust terms of a mortgage. Biden is now almost always looking at the camera. Palin goes back to the 05 Energy Bill, and talks about energy indepedence, and blames “east coast politicians” for not allowing Alaska to drill; easy retort: even McCain is against drilling in ANWR. The level of irony here is off the charts.

8:30: Climate change question. Palin says she blames man and cyclical forces, but she does not want to argue about causes. Underlines the “all of the above” approach. She’s saying a lot of words, but not either attacking or building a good case. Biden says it’s man made, and if you don’t understand the cause, you can’t find a solution, but says the “cause is man-made; that’s the cause.” Biden talks about renewable energy, clean coal, and nuclear energy, and attacks McCain for not voting for renewable energy, while criticizing McCain for not exporting clean coal technology. Palin corrects Biden on the chant being “drill baby drill” and not “drill, drill, drill.” The rest of her answer is OK, but it drowns in the triteness of that. Biden eventually talks about the problem being carbon emissions.

8:36: Biden supports extending same-sex benefits to couples, and says there will be no distinction. Talks about visitation rights in hospital, joint ownership of property, etc. The property rights are not really that big a problem. Palin says she does not want to redefine marriage, but wants to be tolerant of choices of relationships. Do you support gay marriage? Biden says no, it’s a question of faith. and says that they agree on these civil rights. Palin sort of half-heartedly agrees that they agree.

8:39: Iraq time. Palin talks about the surge, and criticizes Obama for voting to cut off the troops. Mentions Biden criticizing Obama on that vote. Says we are down to pre-surge levels and should put more troops in Afghanistan. This format is going to save her. Biden talks about Obama’s plan being what Bush and Maliki are negotiating. Biden shifts to discussing a timeline, and says McCain also voted to cut off funds. Biden promises to end the war. Palin has a moment of silence, and then “your plan is a white flag of surrender.” Palin says we will know when victory is in sight. Petraeus has said there will not be victory in any conventional sense. Palin mentions Biden’s son, and then hits Biden for saying he’d be honored to run with McCain, and that Biden criticized Obama for not being ready to be C-in-C. Biden says that McCain voted against funding of MRAPS “that protect the governor’s son” and others in Iraq. This is getting a bit personal. Biden then gives a long list of issues on which McCain has been wrong on Iraq.

8:45: Biden talks about the work he’s done in Pakistan, and that any attack in America will come from the hills in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and that competing for the hearts and minds in that region is necessary. Palin says that both Iran and Afghanistan are dangerous, and that Petraeus says Iraq is the central front. She talks at length about how bad it would be if Iran got a nuclear weapon. This would be interesting if all four candidates didn’t agree on it. She then segues into criticizing Obama for willingness to meet with Castro, Ahmadinejad, and Kim Jong Il, who is apparently alive for the purposes of this debate.

8:49: Palin talks about needing to engage in diplomacy, but not at a presidential level, and says diplomacy is doing hard work with allies ready to back up. Biden says the theocracy controls nuclear weapons and security in Iran. Biden says the friends and allies have been the ones saying talk. Biden criticizes McCain for not being willing to talk with the government of Spain, even though they are fighting in Afghanistan.

8:51: Israel! Palin says the two state solution is the solution, and thanks Secy. Rice for working to bring the peace. Says we can never allow a second Holocaust. She then just repeats the talking points. She’s really excited to talk about Israel as a peaceful nation. Biden says that he’s been a friend to Israel and that he would not join the ticket if he thought Obama thought otherwise. He then criticizes the Bush administration policies re: Israel, mentioning Hamas in the west bank and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Biden says the only thing on the march is Iran. Palin is excited to agree that they both love Israel. Who was the last candidate on a major ticket who didn’t? This is ridiculous. Palin says that fingerpointing to the past means you cannot be change. Good lord. There’s no substance. This is purely a rhetorical answer. If you criticize Bush, you can’t be change? Biden is stunned: he wonders how McCain’s policy would be different from that of Bush.

8:56: Palin: Nuclear policy is the “be all end all.” She says using nuclear weapons as a deterrant is a safe usage. For anyone? Good lord. She goes back to Afghanistan, and says that she wants to bring the surge philosophy there, and that is what is different from Bush. Biden says the commanding general in Afghanistan says the surge principles in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan. Well, that settles that. Biden says we spend every three weeks in Iraq what we spend in Afghanistan. His style is undermining him a bit, but he’s way out-fact-checking Palin tonight. He complements Obama for working nuclear proliferation, and says McCain has been opposed. Palin says there are differences, but counter-insurgency principles could work, cites Gen. McClellan, specifically clearing, holding, rebuilding. Uhm, half the country is “clear” already. Biden is thrown off by Palin’s short answer. The General is apparently McKiernan.

9:01: Biden as an interventionist. He says his plan worked in Bosnia. Biden talks about being in camps in Chad, and that rallying the world to act in Darfur. Talks about it being a genocide. She criticizes Biden for being a Washington insider, who was for it before he was against it in Iraq, and that Biden supported McCain and opposed Obama. Palin talks about the importance of divestment in Darfur, but also notes that the legislation she proposed in Alaska has not passed yet. Biden says he never supported McCain’s strategy, and talks about his foresight on being locked down in Iraq. And we’re back into the same discussion. Palin insinuates that Biden is lying, and even refers to the factcheckers, who McCain embraces and ignores depending on their favorability to him. She says McCain will know how to win a war.

9:07: What if you had to become President? Would you follow your wishes or your running mates? Biden says it would be a national tragedy, but he would follow Obama’s wishes. Goes over a laundry list of Obama’s preferences. I’m interested in what Palin will say. Palin says that they are mavericks and will not disagree. Her cheerfulness is odd after Biden’s sobriety. She then tries to be solemn and says she will continue his good work, and talks about bringing reality from Wasilla main street. It’s just a hodge podge of talking points. At least Biden answered the question before he did the same. I still don’t know what her priorities would be if McCain died on issues they disagree on. Biden jumps in to respons and talks about a street in Wilmington, and that Bush and McCain don’t disagree enough. He gives a shout out to other places he used to live. Palin: “Say it ain’t so Joe.” Palin lists Biden’s wife accomplishments (seriously) and then talks about the importance of education. Says her brother is the best teacher, and that kids at his school get extra credit. A flurry of pluck, but nothing else. She says either one of them is top of the line in terms of education. She wants more attention on education. I wonder what she means by that.

9:13: Palin jokes about not knowing what a VP does. She’s happy the Constitution allows a powerful VP. I’m stunned with that line. In reality, though, the history of the Constitution has left a hodge podge of inconsistencies with the VP position. Biden immediately goes back and hits McCain on education. He says he’s going to be giving constant advice on decisions.

9:15: If the VP a member of which branch? Palin says the founding fathers allowed flexibility. Holy crap this is a terrible answer historically. The founding fathers made the LOSING PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE the VP. It was only changed with the amendments, much later. Wow. Terrible, terrible answer. Biden says that Cheney was a terrible VP, and the VP is in the executive branch. He says the only time the VP has authority is a tie in the Senate, and it was a bizarre notion invented by Cheney.

9:18: What good is your experience? Palin says it’s not just her experience, but her connection to the heartland, with a son in the war and a special needs child. This is trite overload. No one that watches a debate for an hour and a half will be convinced by lines like this unless they want to be convinced by it. Talks about Reagan’s city on a hill analogy. Biden talks about writing the crime bill and the violence against women act, and then segues into talking about how his wife died, and other personal problems. He chokes up a bit when mentioning his children maybe not being able to make it. Palin talks about McCain being a maverick, and McCain being in a position of being a maverick, and then lists supporters, like Lieberman, Guiliani, and Romney. Really? Listing supporters, all but one are Republicans? That’s being a maverick? I vet Plouffe smiled at that one. Biden says that McCain is only a maverick on some issues, not the key ones, talking about voting for Bush’s budgets, and opposing health care and education and the war.

9:23: Did you have to change a position based on circumstances? Biden talks about the judicial nomination process. He touts his fight against Bork as showing that ideology matters. Palin says that she “quasi caved” in not vetoing budgets but did not do it because she did not have support. She says they work together up there in Alaska. She looks nervous to finish.

9:26: How do you change the tone in Washington? Biden says he’s worked across the aisle because he never questions the motives of those in the Senate he disagrees with, he just questions the judgment. Palin says that you appoint people regardless of their party affiliation. (Or whether the position is already filled? OK, no more troopergate references…) She talks about reigning in spending and creating jobs.

9:29: Final statement. Palin says that she likes the ability to speak to people without the filter of the mainstream media, as if it’s the filter that’s caused people to be astounded. Making excuses for bungling two interviews in your only debate appearance. She talks about fighting for freedoms, and quotes Reagan as that freedom is always at risk. Biden says this election is the most important election, and the past 8 years have been spent digging a hole. Biden talks about a couple of policy preferences, including protecting the troops.

Grades and thoughts on a podcast to come later tonight. No gaffes for Biden, and only minimally bad for Palin.

Chuck Todd: “You’re may not see this debate have a lot of effect It may just disappear, despite the hype.”

Who said that before hand? That’s right, us. Podcast to come.

Sphere: Related Content

Morning Potpourri: Obama/Bill, and Palin’s Interview

First up, a little old school Bill Clinton.

John F. Harris of Politico writes:

It is not at all clear that Barack Obama particularly wants Clinton’s advice about how to win the presidency—after all, he kept the former president at a cool distance, with just occasional phone calls, for months—but many Democrats believe it is increasingly clear that he could use it.

Meanwhile, Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny write in the NYT (my emphasis):

One adjustment for the Obama campaign comes as Mr. McCain is seeking to claim the Democrats’ theme of change by pointing to Ms. Palin. For months, advisers to Mr. Obama had assumed that Mr. McCain would play up his experience; Mr. Plouffe said he welcomed what he argued would be a campaign fought out on the issue of change.

“This is a very major development,” Mr. Plouffe said. “John McCain jettisoned his message and his strategy. It is now about change. We’re going to lean into that very, very hard.”

In the midst of all this, Mr. Obama had a private lunch on Thursday with someone he battled with for much of the year but who knows how to put the Republicans on the defensive: former President Bill Clinton. Discussion topics, aides said, included how Mr. Obama might handle Ms. Palin in the days ahead.

I think the conclusion is not only does Obama want to confer with President Clinton regarding at least some campaign strategy, but he also wants people to know he’s doing it. (That may be because Bill Clinton’s staff is notorious for leaking, of course.) Knowing Bill, he’ll give some good advice to Obama. I think you’ll see a stronger Obama in the next week, in part due to Bill. He statement yesterday that Obama would win big was a great start, tactically.

Second thing is the interesting Sarah Palin interview. I choose interesting, because the only other word I can think of is shockingly lacking. Howard Wolfson gives his thoughts:

Her answers to a fairly basic set of foreign policy questions were formulaic and unimpressive. She didn’t say anything disqualifying, but it is unlikely that anyone watching would have come away sanguine about her ability to step in as President on Day One if necessary.

This would not have surprised the McCain campaign. They were no doubt aware before yesterday of Gov. Palin’s abilities as a candidate. She gives a strong speech, has a compelling bio, and tells a good story about her record — but if last night is any indication, lengthy interviews about policy are not her strong suit.

Don’t expect to see her do many more. The risk/reward calculus here is not complicated. The McCain campaign knows they will pay a price for keeping Gov. Palin from the national press — but they also know that price is worth paying if it buys them insurance against her giving a disqualifying answer to a legitmate question.

There’s two answers I want to highlight in particular. One is her apparent botching of the Bush Doctrine. She clearly did not know what “Bush Doctrine” meant, but unlike almost everyone on the left, I don’t see that as a big problem: she clearly knew about the general direction of the doctrine. I was more surprised in the manner she 1) misinterpreted the first priority of the President and 2) flippantly used the word imminent. Again, my emphasis:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: I agree that a president’s job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

First, as Andres Sullivan rightly notes, the President and Vice-President take oaths first and foremost to defend the Constitution, not to protect people. I don’t consider that s trivial difference either.

Second, her use of the word imminent is misleading to the point of being deceitful. The entire debate regarding the Bush Doctrine was how imminent an attack had to be in order to justify an attack. Take Barack Obama’s 2002 speech against the war. The key line of the entire speech:

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

There are perhaps elements of the fringe left or isolationist right who would be against repelling even an imminent threat, but that’s not the controversy surrounding the Bush Doctrine whatsoever. Obama himself tacitly admitted the Iraq war would be justified if Iraq was an imminent threat. That also makes the screeching from conservative quarters over this issue ring hollow. They all miss this portion of the question and focus more on the first part. That part looks bad, but substantively seems like something of a wash to me. Her flippant use of the word imminent implies something much, much worse: it suggests either that she still thinks Saddam had WMDs and was ready to use or distribute them; she thinks that Iraq was behind 9/11; that that Iraq would have somehow other threatened the United States in some imminent way had the US not invaded; or that she simply doesn’t know. Of course, the other option is that she’s qualifying her phrase with the term imminent despite the fact that she knows a threat was in no way imminent, or to make McCain’s policies seem more reasonable than they are. But I’ll take her at her word.

The last answer of hers I want to look at is her answer on Pakistan:

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we’re going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.

GIBSON: But, Governor, I’m asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.

GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.

This is another troubling answer. Not, again, for the surface answers. Saying everything is on the table is a safe and nice way to avoid controversy, even if your running mate called the policy “naive” last year when your opponent suggested it. (Welcome to America: agreeing with your opponent on an issue your running mate called “naive” is the safe answer. Mostly because McCain’s initial answer was terrible, and no one bats an eye if you say you want all options on the table.)

The problem with Palin’s answer on Pakistan and Afghanistan is that is shows that she does not understand the difference at all between the wars, thinking that importing the surge strategy to Afghanistan will solve the problems. (Both McCain and Obama are already for more troops in Afghanistan).

I think I can make my point best by citing a post criticizing Obama’s plan for Afghanistan on Powerline (since Palin wants to apparently embrace it it means she embraces the criticisms too):

For the reasons you cite the answer is not more US troops. The circumstance are different and, to use Obama’s word, nuance is important. (as an aside, isn’t Obama’s prescription for Afghanistan — a surge — at least an implicit admission that he believes the surge in Iraq is effective? If not, where did he get the idea?)

Unlike Iraq, control of the cities is not the problem in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is HUGE. Bigger than Iraq. We just don’t have the troops to do in Afghanistan what we did in Iraq, even if we weren’t in Iraq. Rather it’s the lawlessness in the hinterlands that is the problem. Regular Army doesn’t get you much there. We need to bolster Afghan security forces and dismantle enemy networks, not control territory (i.e., it’s a special forces mission).

The root causes of the trouble in Afghanistan are twofold: (1) the slow (and frightening!) disintegration of Pakistan and (2) Iran’s alliance with the Taliban. Pakistan can’t control its border or northwest territories. This gives the Taliban and AQ a free area to operate and a porous border that they can cross to attack US troops. Just as troubling, Iran is training and equipping the Taliban with even more deadly tactics and weapons. Of note is that the Taliban has begun employing the same deadly EFPs that Sadr’s goons use against US troops in Iraq.

On the other hand, it appears that Robert Gates is preparing to transfer more troops to Afghanistan.

But the point is not just more troops or less troops: the point is that, as evidenced above and as Charlie Gibson himself said, the root the problems in Afghanistan go far beyond merely being able to be solved by more troops. The logical conclusion of this is that Sarah Palin knows little to nothing about Pakistan and Afghanistan. Say what you will about Obama, Biden, and McCain, but they all discussed the various pros and cons of the situation in various debates and interviews at some point. Even the Bush Administration is now authorizing more actions across the border. If the commander in chief does not understand what is going on on the ground, they will either get overriden badly by the generals, they will overrule the generals based on their own baseless impulses, or more likely, they will decide fights among the generals arbitrarily and politically, with no good long term sense or appreciation for the bigger picture.

I think there’s serious limits on how much someone not receiving intelligence reports should be expected to know about foreign policy, even amongst presidential candidates. But that bar is still exceptionally high, and Palin did not come close to passing it. She’s lucky the gaffes are not - so far - more obvious to the common man.

One more thing.

Palin yesterday:

We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.

Petraeus yesterday:

“This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade… it’s not war with a simple slogan.”

That’s just bad luck, really.

One Extra Last Thing That I Really Mean This Time:

You know someone is stretching for an argument when they compare the complexity of the Bush Doctrine to the complexity of …. the Constitution. Come on. Let’s get back to the real world.

Sphere: Related Content

Bob Barr Snubs Ron Paul And Other Third Party Candidates

The GOP and the Democratic Parties may have a monopoly on mainstream press coverage, but they certainly don’t have one on drama in presidential campaigns. While talk of lipstick and pigs has dominated the airwaves the past couple days, the impudence from the rest of the campaign has gone unnoticed.

Yesterday, Ron Paul held a press conference at the National Press Club to discuss third party issues. See our post on this event here. Joining Paul at this event were third party candidates Cynthia McKinney (Green Party), Ralph Nader (Independent) and Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party); Bob Barr was supposed to attend, but he was a no-show. And so the drama begins…

Asked about Barr’s apparent no-show, Libertarian Party Media Director issued the following statement:

The real question is why Bob, who is a major player in this election, want to be on stage with people like McKinney, who stands against everything the LP does, and Baldwin, who is barely on enough ballots to have a statistical chance of winning.

Barr is not a minor party candidate. Barr is a major player this year.

He is holding his own press conference right now.

According to the AP, Barr’s stated reason for not attending the event was that Paul did not endorse a specific candidate.  So, clearly there is a bit of a tension there between the Libertarian Party’s communications and Barr’s.

Don Rasmussen, Campaign For Liberty Events Coordinator, tells of being told to “go f*ck himself” by the Barr campaign when he questioned Barr’s no-show [h/t IPR]:

I asked Barr Communications Director Shane Corey after the event why they pulled this stunt and was told to go f*** myself.

Barr Campaign Manager Russ Verney may have fanned the flames by criticizing Paul’s efforts Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Ron Paul Rallies Silent Majority, Discusses Third Party Candidacies At Vote-Your-Heart Press Conference

Yesterday, Ron Paul held a Vote-Your-Heart press conference where he discussed the issue of Third Party Candidacies. Although Ron Paul is not currently a presidential candidate, he does still have a large following and is continuing to advocate the issues that are important to him with his Campaign For Liberty movement. Paul was joined by three third party candidates - Cynthia McKinney (Green Party), Ralph Nader (Independent) and Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party). Notably, Bob Barr (Libertarian Party) was supposed to join Paul, but he was a no show.

In his remarks, Paul first announced the Four Principles signed onto by the Third Party Candidates involved in this effort.

Then, he recounted how the McCain Campaign contacted him on September 9th for the first time.  They requested that Paul endorse McCain at this event. Their reasoning per Paul was that “[McCain] would do a little less harm than the other candidate.”

Next, he went on to assail the two party system as not offering a real choice, saying: Read more

Sphere: Related Content

DNC Convention Speeches Day 4: Al Gore and Barack Obama

4:45 CT (ish): David Plouffe talks about the voter registration drive.

5:12: Jennifer Hudson does the national Anthem: That girl can sing!

5:31: Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter is speaking, and he sounds like he has a hairball in his throat. He’s talking mostly about western values.

5:36: DemConWatch: “You’ll notice there are 3 podiums at Invesco - two on the sides and the main one in the center. Word is that only Gore and Obama will speak from the center podium.”

5:45: Howard Dean is introduced by a Howard Dean video, which had to be authorized by … Howard Dean. Lovely. Angelo notes that it’s similar to the guy from ALong Came Polly that paid for the camera crew for his E True Hollywood story. Dean talks his 50 state strategy, and talks in more generics about no being able to afford 4 more years of the same. He tries to bring out the red meat, but is stunningly bad at riling up the crowd. I think it’s because he frames things very poorly. He line that McCain is not a maverick, but instead a yes man would be good if it was a climax, not said as a throwaway line.

5:58: John Lewis is out next, introducing the tribute to MLK. Also, both Lewis and Dean used the main podium; so much for only Gore and Obama using it. Lewis discusses being at MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech. He’s a civil rights legend, and he discusses the paththe movement has taken, and what it means to nominate Obama and what is done.

6:08: Bernice King says that Obama was nominated not because of the color of his skin, but because of the content of his character. She introduces Martin Luther King III. He talks about how proud his father would be, but that there is more work to do.

6:14: A DNC video. The musical accompaniment? Fake Empire, by The National. Good song, but I don’t think it’s really the message Democrats want to send.

6:33: will.i.am and John Legend perform that silly Obama “Yes we can” song.

6:40: James Dobson prayed for rain tonight. Skies are clear in Denver, but Hurrican Gustav looks threatening next week during the Republican Convention. Way to go.

6:46: Sheryl Crow time. At least for the people there. Airborne Toxic Event on here.

6:57: Obama’s campaign just sent out a text to all those who signed up reminding them that his speech is tonight.

7:03: Mark Udall, Senate candidate and son of Mo Udall, talks about western politics.

7:07: Veep runner up Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine is next. He attacks McCain a bit and alks about when he lived in Honduras a bit. The theme is putting into action what you believe in. It’s not like McCain has a storyline here that would dwarf working on the streets of Chicago. On the plus side, he’s showing far more energy than he did for his SOTU response. He finishes by getting the crowd to yell the mountain to move aside.

7:14: Bill Richardson time. He’s a governor, by the way. He’s pushes back against the celebrity mantra. He gets the crowd riled up. I missed a bunch ordering dinner.

7:30: Stevie Wonder is out as Al Gore’s opening act. He jokes about McCain recycling the policies of Bush, and talks about how differences between presidential candidates matter, citing 2000. He then talks at length about the climate crisis and how American innovation can solve it and how special interests and oil companies are preventing that. He’s being very blunt in his criticisms of Bush and in the stakes for this election. He gives America a history lesson on Lincoln, and condemns the Mexican War in the process.

8:05: Michael McDonald time. I still can’t believe he’s there.

8:15: Susan Eisenhower, granddaughter of Ike, addresses the crowd.

8:16: A tribute to retired generals includes what I think is the only appearance by Wesley Clark this convention. Scott Gration discusses his history with Obama, and why he is qualified to be C-in-C, mainly focusing on judgment, integrity, and patriotism.

8:23: Joe Biden is back for more. Of course, one address would not be enough for him. The one person he says hello to? Harry Reid. Go figure. He jokes about playing for the Denver Broncos. He goes through a list of people Democrats want to help. Biden introduces a number of ordinary people who are going to speak. And the only person he says goodbye to? Harry Reid. How odd.

8:28: A truck driver from Michigan is first.

8:30: An insurance agent from Ohio talks about the emails about him are lies. I can’t imagine anyone who took the time to watch C-span coverage of the convention is that misinformed. It’s the least informed people who are susceptible to that.

8:33: A pet store owner from Florida is very unhappy about the Bush years.

8:34: A woman from New Mexico discusses education.

8:37: Pam from North Carolina is next. Her husband lost a job and needed surgery; then she did. :She should immediately be put in a commercial. She also was a Republican.

8:40: A lifelong Republican from Indiana is next. His name is actually Barney Smith. He lost his job when it was replaced overseas. Saying that Barney Smith should go before Smith Barney erupts the crowd, and they chant his name! Whoever wrote these deserves a raise.

8:49: Obama’s prepared remarks.

8:51: The music plus the ridiculous spotlights make this seem like a disco hall.

8:56: Dick Durbin is here to introduce Obama. He starts by referring to Obama’s 2004 keynote. Durbin talks about people needing change, and how people are now familiar with Obama.

The video introducing Obama starts. It’s a good biographical story.

9:12: Here he is.

9:14: Long applause. This is going to go long, I think. He thanks HRC again right off the top, and President Clinton right after. He also thanks Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden.

9:57: Liveblogging this seemed a bit unnecessary. You’re going to have watch it. Very impressive.

Sphere: Related Content

Clinton To Be DNC Nominee?

If you’re confused by the title, don’t ask me, ask The New York Times.  They are currently running a Google ad with the headline “Clinton To Be DNC Nominee.”  And people wonder why they say print is dead…

Here’s a screenshot of the ad:

Sphere: Related Content

A Note About The “Tensions” Between Obama And Clinton Supporters…

There’s an awful lot of discussion about the rift in the Democratic party, the anger among Clinton supporters and general Clinton “drama.”  Dont buy it.  Yes, there are a significant number of Clinton supporters that are very upset about Obama being the nominee.  However, the reality of the tensions between the camps is not anywhere near the degree that it is being portrayed.  The story is being completely overblown and it’s probably the result of two major factors: 1) A lack of historical knowledge (conventions in the past have been significantly more controversial, with much stronger tensions between internal camps) and 2) Clinton drama sells and the media has largely made it clear that profit and not information is their primary motivation.

Some examples of the silliness out there (the overwhelming majority of the aforementioned ridiculousnes can be found on cable news)…

• Justin Gardner criticizes HRC for knowing that her critiques would be used against Obama by McCain in the general election.  Because, Obama didn’t run critical ads against HRC, right?  I’m not sure why her critiques against Obama in the primary (which by historical counts weren’t that harsh) are still an issue.
• The Guardian’s Michael Tomasky is really upset by all the Clinton drama, especially after reading reports that some Clinton people won’t be staying in town for Obama’s speech.  So, to demonstrate how ridiculous all the drama is, he throws a hissy fit.  How dare those selfish Clinton advisors/staffers who spent countless hours fighting in a primary leave before watching Obama’s speech live and in person, I mean, my goodness, the room may not even be filled now.  Let me get this straight, apparently, the Clintons are being bad because some supporters don’t want to stick around for Obama’s speech? This is the best the press can do to gin up the controversy even more?  Sigh
• The National Review has a laughable list of the 20 ways that “Hillary is being snubbed.”

Sphere: Related Content

Obama-Biden Confirmed

Via CNN or Weekly Standard or Ambinder.

Interesting pick in that Obama basically seemed to ignore the notion of change. That said, it’s a pretty decent choice. It’ll add gravitas, and Biden will be a good attack dog on McCain, and a competent VP on foreign policy should Obama win. Those outweigh the negatives.

Sphere: Related Content

Did McCain Pick Romney?

Mark Halperin cites two GOP operatives who say McCain will announce Mitt Romney as VP next Friday. Unless those operatives include the likes of Steve Schmidt, Mark Salter, or Rick Davis, I’m inclined to view it with a very large grain of salt. And even so, leaking something like this now would completely undermine the purpose of holding off the announcement for the extra week. Not to mention that leaking that the richest guy in politics as your VP is a bad idea on the day that you’re already getting hit for owning too many homes.

This seems more to me like an intended leak to calm down conservatives who are in an uproar after pro-choice VP candidate after pro-choice candidate (Ridge, Lieberman, etc.) being leaked.

Romney will surely be on the list, but in short, I’m not convinced.

PS: This news would also make Mike Huckabee go nuts. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty may be the one candidate who is borderline acceptable to the entire broad coalition McCain is trying to build.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama VP Announcement Imminent; McCain’s Set for August 29th

At this time tomorrow, most likely, we will officially know the identity of Obama’s VP. The big rumor right now is Joe Biden. For someone who voted for the resolution to authorize for in Iraq, has a history with plagiarism, and has said some really … racist things in the past, he’s getting rave reviews in the liberal press.

You know things are getting serious when people are already editing Wikipedia to say that he is the official Democratic VP candidate.

That said, we’ll wait for some confirmation before divind headfirst into the shallow end. But Biden’s bluntness does make some sense. And we have been very complementary of Biden’s debate skills this election. (I still don’t understand how Edwards managed to get outdebated by Cheney in 2004, although who knows, he may have been thinking of how to get a mistress at the time.)

Of course, Sen. Lloyd Bentsen was a widely praised VP choice in 1988 too. So who knows.

McCain for his part has sent out a save the date to conservative media that he will announce his VP the day after the Democratic Convention on Friday August 29.

Marc Ambinder runs down the logic:

This week, it splices into the threads of attention that Barack Obama’s campaign is sewing ahead of Obama’s announcement.

Next week, it ensures that the press pays at least mild attention to McCain.

I have to disagree. it tells the press it can ignore McCain until August 29th, which is a Friday. When the announcement is imminent but the date unclear, you get nonstop media coverage (see Obama the last few weeks). When it’s set, the media can run off and do other things knowing you won’t make waves. If McCain wanted that media coverage next week, he’d make the announcement just before the Democratic Convention, and use that week for the rollout tour. Now, any negative news about a VP is going to be breaking during the Republican Convention, providing a mixed message at best. Meanwhile, it looks like Obama will have at least a few days advance to rebut such problems and give the Convetnion planners advance news on the identity of the choice. Not to mention that McCain had a two month head start to begin with.

There’s a reason bad news always leaks on Friday: people don’t pay attenion. On one of the last Friday’s of the summer, McCain is going to fire the biggest bullet he has left? I don’t like that strategy. I think it undermines any Obama conventio