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

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

Mark Warner to Give Dem Keynote Address

Like Barack Obama in 2004, former virginia Gov. Mark Warner has an overwhelming lead to take a formerly Republican seat in the Senate. And now he is giving the Democratic keynote address.

Nate Silver:

Contrary to the reporting of some outlets, Hillary Clinton had never formally been guaranteed the keynote slot — rather, she had merely been guaranteed a prime-time speaking slot on Tuesday. But the perception out there was that Tuesday would be “her” night, and we can expect some growling from the PUMAs about Hillary being snubbed.

One would hope, however, that the Obama campaign was not so callous as to give Warner the nod without vetting/negotiating their position with the Clintons — perhaps in exchange for the prime-time slot that Bill was given on Wednesday night. To have had Hillary keynoting on Tuesday and then Bill headlining on Wednesday — he will surely upstage the VP’s speech — might have risked a Clinton overdose. There are risks in doing things this way too, however.

Biggest loser in all of this? Tim Kaine, who if given the VP slot, might seem like sloppy seconds next to Warner.

Silver also concludes that this might mean good things for Kathleen Sebelius as VP. This seems to eliminate Kaine as a possibility, and it also underlines the themes of change and being a Washington outsider.

Eve Fairbanks is underwhelmed:

When the Obama press-team email “WARNER TO DELIVER CONVENTION KEYNOTE ADDRESS” hit my inbox at 7:15 this morning, for a minute I actually thought, “Oh my God! It’s a coup! They’ve gotten John Warner to break ranks!”, until I clicked through and saw that, of course, the Warner in question was Mark.

I’m sure the charming, youthful, up-and-coming Warner will give a nicely charming, youthful, and up-and-coming speech in Denver. But I also think my reaction reflects something about Mark Warner: he’s a little forgettable, especially after he suddenly begged off of what seemed like an inevitable run for the top this year. I know he’s supposed to be the Next Big Thing in Democratic politics, but hasn’t that been true for a while now? Will he ever stop hovering around “Next” and make a pass at being the Big Thing proper?

Jim Geraghty takes the opportunity to hit Kaine, and to chide Warner for avoiding unpopular fights:

The Post quotes a Kaine source as saying the governor thinks he’ll get “the silver medal” in the veep race.

I am not quite convinced that that would be the decisive factor, as opposed to, say, inanely inaccurate statements in defense of Obama in recent weeks. After all, two Virginians gave the response to the President’s state of the union two years in a row, Kaine and Sen. Jim Webb.

At the 2004 GOP convention, Rudy Giuliani spoke Monday night and George Pataki spoke Thursday before President Bush (in probably one of his best speeches ever). Bloomberg spoke as well. A multitude of New Yorkers didn’t seem all that inappropriate for a convention in New York City.

All in all, for a Democrat, Mark Warner isn’t that bad, as a speaker or as a face of the party. Or at the very least, as governor, he was very, very careful to avoid unpopular fights.

Lynn Sweet laughs at anyone who thought Clinton would be giving the keynote:

The way these things work is that there are convention speakers and then there are people officially designated as keynoters. Such will be the case at the Democratic convention in Denver. With some fanfare on Sunday, some big name speakers were announced, including on Tuesday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). If you by chance thought she was the keynoter, you jumped to a conclusion. The keynoter, unveiled on Wednesday, is former Virginia Gov. and senate candidate Mark Warner.

Marc Ambinder noted two days ago how close Mark Warner could have been to running for President (and losing, since he would not have gotten the black vote that Obama got):

If Edwards’s affair had been revealed earlier, such as, say, right after it began, Mark Warner might have stayed in the presidential race. Indeed, if Mark Warner had decided to run for president, then he might have filled the anti-establishment void that Barack Obama jumped into. If, If, if.

I’m generally not a big fan of reading too much into keynote speakers. They generally have very little impact on the election. The tea leaves may indicate something, but it’s generally something very obvious. The obvious facts are these:

1. Tim Kaine was never the favorite for VP, and Mark Warner did not want to be VP.
2. Mark Warner shares a lot of traits with Barack Obama that Barack Obama feels are very important.
3. Mark Warner is from a swing state and is going to win his election going away.

I’m sure there will be some Clinton supporter unrest, but that seems to be inevitable at this point. It’s more important for Obama to emphasize what he is for than to worry about the remnants of the Clinton coalition getting upset at any particular position.

PS: Consider Sebelius my official VP pick, with Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer as the dark horse candidate (if he agrees).

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary to Headline The Second Night of the Democratic Convention

The Obama campaign announced today that Hillary Clinton will be his featured speaker, the second night of the Democratic Convention.

She will be speaking on the 88th Anniversary of the Woman’s Sufferage movement.  The next day Obama will be accepting the democratic nomination for President - the 40th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech.

While the theme for 2008 might be change, it seems the Democrats are also intent on emphasizing history.

CORRECTION: She will not be the keynote speaker. -john

Sphere: Related Content

Presidential Candidates As Batman Super Villains

With all the silly political talk of comparing the Bush Administration to Batman, I thought I’d take a look on the lighter side and compare various Presidential candidates to different Batman villains. This isn’t serious political analysis, but dammit, I have this site as a forum and I intend to use it. (And frankly, if it’s good enough of a topic for Wall Street Journal editors, It’s good enough for me.) I picked super villains arbitrarily. I don’t want to get into a “who is Batman and who is evil” argument. That’s just boring.

Barack Obama as Harvey “Two Face” Dent: The idea that spawned this post. While others are doing strange things like comparing Dick Cheney to Batman or something like that, given that the arch of the story is the rise and fall of newcomer and beacon of hope DA Harvey Dent, I’m surprised there’s not more comparisons between the two. There’s this article, sure. But that seems more intent on criticizing platitudes than it does at looking at something deeper: are figures of hope like Obama and Dent doomed to failure? Clearly they are doomed to dim. Wile the article criticizes Obama for lack of particular details, it’s ultimately Dent’s drive for only results that dooms him. When pushed towards the edge by his horrific scaring and in TDK the (spoiler!) death of Rachel Dawes, Dent is concerned only with the ends, not with the means, of resolving problems. One gets the feeling that more contemplation on platitudes would have helped him, not hurt him. So I think Obama differs in that respect. On the other hand, that side of Dent always existed; it was just hidden by both his meteoric rise and previous success. After all, anyone can keep their secrets hidden while succeeding.

Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton as Ra’s al Ghul and Talia al Ghul: In the comics, they are father and daughter; here they are husband and wife. Let’s just gloss over that difference. In the comics, Ra’s could not be killed thanks to the Lazarus Pits; where he could rise from the dead. Surely, this reminds everyone of the numerous times that Bill himself rose from what was surely political death. The intrigue between the al Ghuls rivals the reported intrigue between Bill and Hillary. Bill has actively and inadvertently hurt Hillary in the past, as any sane person would admit. In the comics, this antagonism even leads Talia and Batman to sleep together. Similarly, Hillary and Obama used to be close allies, with Hillary even fundraising for Obama at one point during his Senate run, the political equivalent of sex if there is any. Moreover, this also means that the normal Clinton confidantes are known as the League of Shadows. Just as in Batman Begins, they are regarded as formidable by Ra’s, but in the end do absolutely nothing to help him, and only allow the enemy to take him down. One can imagine Obama as Batman goading Bill to please bring on four pawns (Mark Penn, Harold Ickes, James Carville, and Terry McAulliffe) instead of just four. Although in reality, it’s because the four will get in each others ways. Of course in this analogy, Hillary as Talia has her own henchwomen, who are none the more competent (Patti Solis Doyle) for the most part. (You’ll never, ever hear me say anything negative about Maggie Williams, mostly because I think she would have me killed for real.)

Tom Tancredo as the Dr. Jonathan Crane, aka The Scarecrow: A candidate who bases his entire campaign on fear. But more than that: Tancredo never intended go through with his campaign. In Batman Begins, Ra’s al Ghul states that Scarecrow believes the plan was to hold the city to ransom. It seems Tancredo’s entire campaign was based on the premise that he would hold the Republican Party hostage unless they elected someone he agreed with. And then they decided not to anyways.

John McCain as the mob. Yes the mob as a whole. Carmine Falcone, Sal Maroni, the whole bunch. In the comics and in the Dark Knight there are factions of the mob, just like they are factions of McCain supporters. Rick Davis, John Weaver, Mike Murphy, Steve Schmidt and others all had their time to be in control before circumstances forced them out, and they all do not like each other, and do not work well together (as seen in the mob scene in The Dark Knight before the Joker arrives. Each of them backstabs and steals from the other, ostensibly to protect the rest). Moreover, there is no control over them from the mob as a whole. McCain is said to be a laissez faire manager just as the mob as a whole favors looser rules. Moreover, McCain absolutely seems to abhor Barack Obama, just as the mob abhors Dent for the type of change he wishes to bring. They want things to change to, but jsut to the way things used to be. They are in a way as old as McCain is. In the movies, the mob is somewhat like McCain in that they refuse to go away. Like the Hydra, you can cut off one head, but two more will sprout in its place. McCain similarly seems to never go away no matter how many times he seems out. Like the mob turning to Joker in the Dark Knight, McCain also seems to have no good plan whatsoever, and changes plans on the fly when things turn out to be different than he thought. Does this say anything about what McCain is doomed to be? I don’t think so. The mob keeps on existing, but never in the same format. It’s certainly not predestined in any movie that the mob will lose. Indeed, the only comparison seems to be that McCain’s campaign could turn out to either be the Joker tormenting the mob’s opponents, or the Joker later threatening the entire barge full of mob associates with death. Also like the mob, McCain functions better when backed into a corner. Lastly, McCain lacks a certain shine and appeal that the mob also lacks in comparison to other “freak” type villains.

Mitt Romney as Oswald Cobblepot, AKA the Penguin: Whereas the Penguin used his ownership of the Iceberg Lounge to gain entry into Gotham, Romney uses his leadership at Bain Capital for much the same purpose. There was always a question of taking what Penguin says as truth: he never comes across as sincere. Romney may not have come across as insincere as Penguin did in, say, Batman Returns, but his numerous problems with flip-flopping caused serious problems for him this cycle. Moreover, his sons are everywhere, just like the Penguins were seemingly in Batman Returns. And just as the Penguin in One Year Later seemingly abandons crime for a legal presence, Romney also aborted what was a previous hard line stance against McCain suddenly to endorse him shortly after Super Tuesday. Most superficially, the Penguin is the high society type criminal compared to all the rest; similarly, Mitt Romney seems the most high society of all the candidates, due in large part to his massive wealth. Note: If there is one supervillain Romney is not, it is Deadshot.

John Edwards as Waylon Jones, aka Killer Croc: The easy choice for Edwards is Two Face. Running a completely different campaign than his first time, being an impressive trial lawyer and all. But in reality, the specific flaws and details of Edwards this cycle have nothing to do with the flaws and defining characteristics of Harvey Dent. Killer Croc is the one villain whose entire existence is almost entirely defined by his appearance: his reasons and justifications for doing what he did are inconsequential, if they exist at all. In this campaign, despite the support he got (which, compared to all but Obama and Clinton, was very substantial), Edwards was doomed because of the perceptions he allowed to be created about himself: the expensive haircuts, the video of him combing his air, etc. Essentially that he came to be defined in the market place as someone really, really vain. Killer Croc is the only Supervillain similarly concerned with image. While Edwards allowed himself to be defined by his, Croc hid and acted out because of his image. And yes, there’s also that small matter of Edwards sneaking around in basements of hotels being stalked. Very Croc-ian.

Dennis Kucinich as Jarvis Tetch, aka the Mad Hatter: Like the Mad Hatter was inspired by Lewis Carroll, Kucinich seems torn out of a different era of politics, one where William Jennings Bryan and Eugene Debs were the constant candidates. The delusion of the Mad Hatter strikes me as exactly the same as the delusion of Kucinich that he can win. His many tricks in the comics are similar to Kucinich’s tricks in politics. Tetch was seemingly run over by a train, only for it to turn out to be a trick; similarly, Kucinich was thought done when he ran the city of Cleveland into bankruptcy, only to emerge years later as a Congressman. Moreover, anyone who is not his supporter wonders why he is still trying. I’ll just end with that there’s something of a physical resemblance as well.

Fred Thompson as Bane: Bane was introduced in the comics as essentially the negative version of Batman: awesome power, awesome intellect. He ended up breaking Bruce Wayne’s back. But I’m not comparing Thompson to that Bane. I’m comparing him to the Bane in Batman and Robin, the horrible fourth batman movie. In that movie, going on the legacy of the comic book Bane, Bane instead becomes an unimportant tool who only serves as muscle; That is regularly noted as one of the worst transitions from comics to movies ever. Thompson similarly entered the race to great fanfare, only to find out he was far too little far too late. Thompson, like Bane, was a supposedly fierce character who when put into a campaign fizzled beyond what anyone expected. The comic Bane is the Fred Thompson that people expected; the awful film version is the one people got. I also have no problem comparing Holly wood to a South American prison. Many suggest that a new interpretation of Bane in the current Batman series could be widely successful; I’m not so sure. Wildly intelligent, strong, and athletic people tend to not sneak around in masks. While the true believers may never admit it, the concept at heart just is not very believable. Note: Just because Thompson and Clayface both were actors does not make them similar in any meaningful way.

Ron Paul as Lennie Adkin, aka Anarky: One sentence in Wikipedia says it all: “Lonnie Machin, a teenage prodigy who, believing in Anarchism, creates improvised gadgets and attempts to subvert government in order to improve society.” Paul himself was not young - the opposite of it - but he certainly attracted youth en masse to his libertarian oriented campaign. And while some would say the dominant Paul story as the racist old newsletters, Paul had no chance to win before or after that story broke. Moreover, Paul’s campaign innovated on the internet in ways few others have ever done, either their notable moneybombs and extensive social networking (and comment bombing). Moreover, the obvious comparison is in the goals of Adkin and Paul: both wanted substantially smaller governments (Adkin clearly went further than Paul). Does Adkin’s failure indicate that Paul’s crusade will never be successful? I don’t think so. There will probably never anytime soon be an extensive, successful libertarian movement, but there can certainly be small steps made in that direction. As a bonus, the character was created in part from Paulite hero and Alan Moore creation V from V for Vendetta.

Rudy Giuliani as Eddie Nashton, aka The Riddler: The Riddler, simply put, is known for leaving riddles after crimes; it’s a dare to be caught, whereas conventional wisdom would normally lead criminals to, you know, try to get away with the crimes they commit. The defining tactical decision of the Giuliani campaign was skipping all the early states that conventional wisdom said he had to at least get a symbolic if not a real victory in for him to be competitive in later states such as Florida. He decided not to. Moreover, the Riddler is covered with question marks all over his suit that give away not only his identity but also his only useful sentence was a Riddle to lead people to him. And while Giuliani’s innumerable references to 9/11 were not at all that pathological, there was clearly something in Joe Biden’s joke that ever Giuliani sentence contained a noun, a a verb, and 9/11. In short, Giuliani was the Riddler in that a lot of his campaign was built on one very simple and repetitive riddle.

Mike Huckabee as Arthur Brown, aka The Cluemaster: The Cluemaster was a failed game show host, and if there’s any four word phrase in Batman history that could define Huckabee, it is ‘failed game show host’ - with the possible exception of ’successful game show host’. The rise of Huckabee’s campaign was in large part due to his charm, and the fall of his campaign was ultimately responsible for his inability to transcend that charm as, say, Ronald Reagan did. The comic plight of Cluemaster is largely not very similar, except that Cluemaster ends up doing surprisingly well and survives a battle even when many thought he was dead from being shot in the chest. Similarly, Huckabee’s campaign refused to die even when it was mathematically impossible for him to win.

Bill Richardson as Catwoman: Get your gender jokes out of the way, I’m not interested in them. Good? Ok. The essence of the history of Catwoman as defined by Wikipedia: “Selina Kyle, starting as a criminal who wore a cat-themed costume and often operated as a burglar, has a love/hate relationship with Batman. For years, she skirted on the edge between villain and antiheroine. However, she has largely reformed in recent years, adopting the role of the guardian of Gotham’s crime-infested East End, though she still comes into conflict with Batman on occasion.” This mirrors Bill Richardson in many ways. First of all, Catwoman is the ultimate resume villain: she’s done it all. For evil, for good, she’s been there. If I had a nickel for every time Richardson said “Look, I’m a governor” this election as to prove what he has done, I would be able to hire someone to write this post. Moreover, Richardson essentially had a love-hate relationship with all his opponents. Clinton supporters liked him when he defended Hillary during debates, and then were outraged when he first appeared to help Obama on Iowa Caucus night and then endorsed Obama after allegedly promising not to. (Obama supporters were the opposite). In the end, Richardson was distrusted by all and left to run hos own state which was shockingly bad in most rankings. Similarly, the most recent Catwoman movie was shockingly bad by even the most generous standards. The Catwoman character, like Richardson, is championed by a small minority who think it is essential to Batman; others think its inclusion in any TDK sequel would be repetitive and boring. I’d be inclined to agree with the latter. The Catwoman character is played out and in the end not very interesting. A jewel thief who is athletic? In the Nolan’s Gotham, that’s about as small and pointless as they come. Meanwhile, just like some predicted Richardson would be a dark horse candidate, once people got a long look at him,  he disappointed; the more the Catwoman character has been exposed in movies, the less popular they have gotten. It’s fair to say that to some extent the character was a failure in Batman Returns and was again surely a disappointment in Catwoman. Also, Catwoman would probably defend cats as innocent ipso facto them being cats, just as Richardson accidentally defended Alberto Gonzalez in the first debate just because he was Hispanic.

Duncan Hunter as Garfield Lynns, aka Firefly: I don’t even have to add comment on this one. Wikipedia on Firefly: “Garfield Lynns, an orphan who became a pyromaniac and has developed a fireproof suit and flamethrower to further pursue his ‘hobby’. He was originally known as a cunning criminal who invented numerous weapons that use light to commit crimes with.” And Eve Fairbanks on Duncan Hunter: “During the trip, we stopped at a gold mine, and Hunter got the idea that the Brobdingnagian ore haulers (whose wheels alone are ten feet tall) would make good troop vehicles in Iraq since they’d resist IEDs. (Possibly true, but they also resist steering.) These kind of pie-in-the-sky, mad-inventor brainstorms earned the nickname “Hunter Specials” among staffers on the committee he chaired, Armed Services. I wondered occasionally if Hunter’s ruthless thrashing in the GOP primaries had dampened some of his unusual style of enthusiasm, but apparently it didn’t. This morning’s Post carried the story of a Hunter Special for the ages: He submitted a request to our embassy in N’Djamena, Chad, to personally hunt and serve wildebeest to needy Darfurian refugees there. ” Wow. Easiest one yet.

Last but never least: The Joker after the jump. ….

Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Morning Thoughts: Polls and Hillary Clinton

Three things this morning:

1. Nate Silver is probably right about why the election is tightening. (As opposed to the implications of racism being spewed by Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough on MSNBC right now). The extra attention to foreign policy favors McCain, even though Obama is making up ground on that issue.

The upside for Obama though is that after this trip is over, he’s going to spend the rest of the election talking about the economy, while presumably retaining any foreign policy gains he made on this trip. My pointis that the issue focus can change, but the underlying dynamics tend not to, barring major gaffes or major positive moments.

In short, I think this is a short term necessary evil for greater gains for Obama later. (Barring some major other gaffe by him or someone involved in his campaign.)

2. In the counterintuitive thought of the day, does this foreign trip open the door for Hillary Clinton as VP?

The major problem in the past has been that Obama would be overshadowed. But now that he’s had a trip with some (OK, many) talking about presumptive he has seemed, Clinton would no longer overshadow Obama, and indeed it would probably be perceived as a really unselfish move by Obama. Moreover, it would be am implicit shift back to economic issues, while ignoring any questions about whether she was qualified to be President.

There’s still problems, of course: the two are said to not really get along. And that’s a major, major problem. Also, it would undermine Obama’s message of change. But I think the idea makes a lot more sense today than it did a week ago. Obama has enough presidential cache that being overshadowed is probably the least of VP concerns.

That said, supposedly the VP search team is completely separated from the political wing of Obama’s campaign. So this might just end up being hot air.

3. Don’t forget to listen to our interview on Sirius this afternoon. Or if you don’t get Sirius, check out any of our podcasts. We’ll be doing one at some point this weekend.

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (07/17/08)

In this podcast, we discuss the New Yorker cover cartoon about Barck Obama, June fundraising figures, Obama’s trip to the Europe and the Middle East, the 08 Bloggers Network and 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

One Way Not To Court Hillary Supporters

John McCain does not have good political instincts:

McCain’s strongest denunciation of Obama came when discussing the Democrat’s health care plan, which would cost $50-65 billion per year but would not mandate insurance coverage for all adults, only children.

“My friends, we’ve seen this movie before,” McCain said. “It was called ‘HillaryCare’ back in 1993, and we’re not going to do it again. We’re not going to have the government take over the health care system in America.”

McCain’s best (and perhaps only) chance of winning is to keep a broad divide between Obama and Clinton supporters. Building a bridge between the two camps on Clinton’s signature issue is a very bad move given the political climate.

Sphere: Related Content

Election Law, Hillary Clinton, and Andrew Sullivan

Ever get the feeling that Andrew Sullivan is just as self-consumed as he claims Hillary Clinton is?

For instance, today:

She wants others to pay her 2008 debts but is asking some contributors to move their 2008 donations into her 2012 kitty.

Of course he ignores that Clinton is asking for general election donations to be moved to 2012. And he’s also ignoring that those general election donations cannot legally be used to pay off debts incurred in a primary election.

Not to mention that paying off debts has very little to do with Hillary Clinton and very much to do with vendors that are owed money. Sullivan is not so stupid that he would rather innocent vendors face bankruptcy just so Clinton can be embarrassed, is he?

The point, in short, is that it would behoove Sullivan to understand election law before he starts witch hunting.

Sphere: Related Content

AUDIO: Round Table Discussion With 08 Blogger Network Members…

Following an organizational discussion, some 08 Blogger Network members participated in a round table discussion about the state of the presidential election. Some of the topics discussed were Obama’s FISA vote, McCain’s issues with his base and the political consequences, noteworthy takeaways and much more. Since this discussion took place after an organizational meeting, introductions are not included on the recording. The participating bloggers were iPol, potus2008election, me (2008central.net) and Divided We Stand, United We Fall.

It was a very interesting conversation, take a listen…

If you are interested in joining the 08 Bloggers Network, please email 08bloggers

Sphere: Related Content

Veepstakes News Roundup (July 4, 2008)

If you’re interested in the happenings with the candidates’ search for a running mate, then here’s a roundup of recent news…

• Florida Governor Charlie Crist announced that he will be marrying his current girlfriend; they have been dating for nine months.  Crist is often discussed as a possible running mate for John McCain, however, his bachelorhood combined with rumors of homosexuality have prevented many from seriously discussing him.  This marriage is seen by some as a way to deal with these roadblocks.
• John Edwards and Karl Rove are set to debate in September.  The smart folks at FiveThirtyEight see this as a strong indication that Edwards is definitely out of the VP running.
• Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is discussed as a potential choice for McCain (Phoenix Business Journal)
• Jonathan Alter makes the case for why Sam Nunn should be Obama’s VP choice. Meanwhile, Michael Goodwin discusses Hillary Clinton’s rising VP prospects (extra commentary on Clinton from PoliGazette here).
• Andrew Romano profiles Gov. Sebelius in his most recent veepstakes profile. (I only recommend reading this if you are REALLY intersted in Sebelius.  Otherwise, I wouldn’t).
• Rachel Maddow spews insanity when she says that Jeb Bush is currently McCain’s top VP choice.

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »