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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Clinton: We Wrote The Texas Rules Assuming We Would Win

More or less, that is.

First Read reports today:

Here’s a quote from him campaigning in Odessa late last month: “Now look, this system was set up years ago when Texas was late, late in the primary process. No one ever thought that the votes would determine the nominee of the party. And frankly, the party leaders set this up, so they could go in. They knew nobody else would go to these conventions, and they could make sure they had a fair share of the folks that went to the national convention. It was never intended to basically reverse the results of a popular election in the daytime, but it could happen.”

Yet given that criticism, it’s worth noting that, according to Texas Democratic Party attorneys NBC spoke with in the last few days, Bill Clinton’s campaign helped write those rules for 1992, and Bill Clinton twice won the Texas primary using those rules.

Now, the point of this isn’t to attack Bill Clinton having a connection on writing the rules. As such a major figure in the Democratic Party over the last 16 years, that is to be expected (although saying votes were designed to not matter most of the time is … curious, to say the least). It’s more that I just disagree with him on the value of a two tiered primary. I mentioned it here, and the news reported here gives me an excuse to reprint my analysis the day before the primary: Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Weird Clinton Campaign Suggestion of the Week

The Obama campaign and its allies are outspending us two to one in paid media and have sent more staff into the March 4 states. In fact, when all is totaled, Senator Obama and his allies have outspent Senator Clinton by a margin of $18.4 million to $9.2 million on advertising in the four states that are voting next Tuesday.

Senator Obama has campaigned hard in these states. He has spent time meeting editorial boards, courting endorsers, holding rallies, and - of course - making speeches.

If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there’s a problem.

No need to cite everyone else that’s weighed on this. (Which has happened a lot.) But the message that Obama needs to win all four states next Tuesday when only a week ago none other than Bill Clinton said that Hillary Clinton had to win Ohio and Texas … well, it’s poppycock.

But that’s happening on so many Clinton memos nowadays that it drowns out whatever good they have to say. It’s as if they’re the campaign that cried wolf too many times. …

Sphere: Related Content

Clinton Campaign: Caucus or Death?

The Texas Primary includes both a primary vote and a caucus. The vote is to measure the width of support - who has the most supporters. The caucus, meanwhile, is to measure the depth of support - who cares the most. It’s a system I like more the more I read about it, since it resolves a lot of the problems traditionally associated with voting (Person A, who cares a lot, has equal say with Person B, who does not care who wins and chooses randomly). This rewards passion in supporters, while not solely basing it on passion. That’s a good thing, from where I sit.

But Bill Clinton thinks otherwise:

“The doors open at 7 and they close at 7:15. It would be tragic if Hillary were to win this election in the daytime and somebody were to come in at night and take it away.”

I can only presume that Bill is busy writing the concession speech if Obama wins the primary vote and loses the caucus vote.

It’s amazing how the Clinton campaign refers to caucuses as undemocratic but does not apply the same label to superdelegates.

Sphere: Related Content

Live Blog Of Bill Clinton Event In Madison, Wisconsin (February 14, 2008)

Today, Bill Clinton is campaigning for Hillary Clinton in Madison, Wisconsin. He’s scheduled to speak at 2:15 CST. I’ll be live blogging.

1:15: Alright, I’m here and I have my press credentials. He’s speaking at the UW Stock Pavilion. It’s probably worth noting that there are animal feces on the floor (not a lot, but enough to make the place smell a bit and certainly enough to mess up one’s shoes, like mine for instance). This is an especially sour point for me because I was forced to throw out my soda before taking my seat in the press area. Apparently, poop is okay, but Coke Zero is just going to create too much of a mess.

1:30: Apparently, President Truman spoke here during his campaign for reelection. I wonder if it was smelly/messy back then.

1:50: They’re still seating people. An inordinate amount of effort appears to be going into the locations of where people stand/stand.

2:12: And the seating continues. As of now, the venue is approximately half filled with some people on the floor in front of the stage. So, I’d say there are about 1100-1300 people right now.

2:16: “A Change Will Do You Good” is blaring from the speakers.

2:18: And now, they are playing Obama’s entrance music - U2’s “City Of Blinding Lights.” This was certainly not an accident. And this is the kind of lame actions that people criticize the Clintons for.

2:21: Some woman takes the podium. I have no idea who she is (and neither does anyone else in the press area). She talks about tomorrow being Susan B. Anthony’s birthday; then goes on to explain why she is supporting Hllary Clinton.

2:23: The speaker notes that “Hillary represents the kind of change we need to get our country back on track.”

2:26: She criticizes Republicans for cutting financial assistance to energy programs, then goes on to say “you don’t need to be from Wisconsin to know that people need heat” - an ironic statement given that this building isn’t heated and it’s freezing.

2:30: Congresswoman Hilda Solis from California takes the podium.  She begins, “Bienvenidos! That means welcome in Spanish.” Then she starts a chant, “What do we want!?” The crowd, obviously confused, did not respond. So she helps them by exclaiming, “Hillary Clinton!” She goes on, “When do we want it?!” Again, only a few responses from the crowd.  She tries another cycle of the chant, but quickly moves into her speech.  She begins by explaining that she’s campaigning in Wisconsin because she believes in Hillary Clinton.

2:37: Solis makes a reference to the low turnout at Bill Clinton’s earlier event Milwaukee (reportedly only had a few hundred people showed up). She says that there was a right wing radio host, who she didn’t name, that was telling people that the event was canceled or postponed. I should add that the event I am at has about 2,000 people.

2:43: Some annoying girl in the audience keeps inexplicably screaming “Hillary!”

2:44: The crowd roars as Bill Clinton takes the podium.  He begins by talking about how Rep. Solis’ district is comprised of Latinos and African Americans. Someone in the crowd shouts “YEA!,” there’s an awkward pause, Bill says “huh?” and then moves on with his speech.

2:48: Bill talks about the founders and their desire to create a more perfect union. He adds that Hillary believes in their vision, even though, at the time of the founding neither she nor Obama would have been allowed to participate because only white men were allowed.

2:50: He talks about the recession that most people are beginning to feel. Asks the crowd to compare these past 7 years with the 90s. Then, he goes on enumerate some economic problems: 1) growth rates, 2) job rates and 3) types of jobs. Already, this speech has more substance than Obama’s speech in Madison, which took place two nights ago. [To clarify: I'm not saying one is necessarily better than the other, I'm just saying is all]

2:53: Asks the crowd to raise their hand if they know someone without health insurance, then tells everyone to look around.  He states that this question couldn’t even be asked in any other wealthy country around the the world because they all have universal health insurance.

2:55: He launches into a discussion about the context in which this election is taking place. According to Bill, it’s taking place in the context of: the Iraq war, an international community that’s angry with us, climate changes and an economic downturn. After discussing each of those issues a bit (some more than others), he goes on to remind voters that their decision on who to vote for must be made in the context of these issues.  After complimenting the other people who have run for the Democratic nomination this cycle, he suggests a calculus for voters to use when making their decision.

2:59: But first, he responds directly to Obama’s movement of change for change’s sake by arguing that it seems unfair to eliminate someone solely because they were part of the struggle during the 90s.

3:00: Now, his proposed voting calculus: “how would you define success?”  Hillary’s answers this question with three considerations:  (1) She will want the American people to be better off after after she leaves office than when she started; (2) she will want the children and grandchildren of this generation to be better off; and, (3) she will want the United States’ prestige and respect restored in the international community.

3:02: Moving on, he offers a biographical discussion of Hillary.  He begins by referencing her decision to stay at law school an extra year in order to fight for children’s’ rights. He forgot what he wanted to say for a second and says to himself, “I’ve forgotten what I wanted to say.” Then, remembers, and offers some contextual information about the children’s issues that Hillary addressed at that time.  This speech is substantive.

3:06: Next up, he mentions Hillary’s work in the Irish peace process. Notes how when the Irish leaders recently came to Washington to thank Bush for his support, they also requested that Hillary be present.

3:09: Continuing with the ‘Hillary is a doer’ theme, Pres. Clinton talks about a conversation he recently had with a “crusty Republican,” who indicated that he’ll vote for Hillary because she’s the only person that’s ever “done something.”

3:10: Now, he talks about her work against PCBs, for increased health benefits for national guardsman and a few other things. Challenges the audience: ‘you can say that these things don’t mean anything, but they do’

3:11: Changing topics quickly, he talks about Climate change and Hillary’s plans to combat it, while also creating green collar jobs.

3:13: Changing topics now, now it’s health care.  He discusses how universal health care is possible now because businesses and labor unions are joining together to support universal coverage.  He adds, “now if you really think this [universal health care] matters, you only have one choice. There is only one candidate left that really offers universal coverage.”  Tells voters not to believe the ads that they have seen telling them otherwise.

3:15:  He explains the specifics of Hillary’s health care plan; if you want to know, go to her website, because I’m not going to write about it now.

3:17: Aside from talking about the specifics of Hillary’s plan, he offers a broader discussion about insurance, how it functions and why universal coverage is feasible.

3:20: New topic, now he’s on to education. He begins by going through the bullets from Hillary’s website regarding education.  He spends some extra time touting Hillary’s national service program, which offers educational debt relief for individuals that perform community service.

3:23: Talks about the need for reforms in general. He talks about taking the “politics out of science” (big applause for that line), fighting special interests and a few other reforms. Notably, he says, “we’re going to…” as opposed to “Hillary’s going to…” a few times. He adjusted this rhetoric to be more Hillary focused after using “we” a couple of times.

3:24: He offers the reasons why Hillary believes we need to get our troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible: 1) It’s best for Iraq because the greatest likelihood for success there is if they do it themselves and 2) It’s best for the American military - we’re strained now and need to get them out so we can fix our military.

3:30: Adds that if you elect her, she will send a message to the world: “America is back.”

3:31: Concludes: “You need to decide what you want in a president.” Says that there are not many differences between the two on issues, but there are some differences: 1) Only Hillary’s health care plan is universal; 2) Hillary’s plan for dealing with the mortgage crisis is more aggressive (then he starts to wander off into an explanation about this issue…I guess this is a side effect of not having a planned speech; sometimes, the speaker will meander)

3:33: “Finally, let me say, we need your help” - Then goes on to discuss how Hillary’s campaign ran out of money in early January, but people helped out by donating as soon as they found out the campaign was in trouble. Then urges people to volunteer to help, tells them text message the word “join” to 442008.  Concerned that people don’t get it, Bill explains that “it’s electing the 44th president in 2008.” The crowd gets it now. *sigh*

3:36: Ends on an optimistic note by saying that Hillary’s administration will be even better than his was in the 90s. Now, he promises to tell some jokes, since he recognizes that his speech was a bit heavy. This speech is ending like the third Lord of the Rings movie - just when you think it’s over, the screen goes dark, and then a new scene begins.

3:39: As promised, he tells some jokes about the presidency - jokes about music playing when you walk in a room and how you get to live in best public housing.  He says that the presidency is a fleeting time - “poof, it’s gone.” Then, he talks about how if Hillary is elected president, “she will never forget the look in your eye.” (He’s used this line a few times during this speech). I actually have no idea what it means or how it relates to anything.

3:43: He tells another story about a conversation he had with a fireman in New York City. The story isn’t all that interesting, but his inflection is pretty impressive. I fancy myself (and I am) an extraordinary public speaker. There are few people that I will openly admit are better public speakers than me; Bill is definitely one of them.

3:44: And here it is, the closer: “I think it would be a good thing for this country to have the first woman president…but that’s because I was born to a widowed mother.” Then goes on to say that he also thinks it would be a good thing for this country to have the first African American president, and how it’ll be good for this country when we have the first Asian, Jewish, etc.. elected president. Why? “because we shouldn’t be divided by our categories.”

3:47: And we’re done.

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »