Content notwithstanding, Mac's acceptable acceptance speech gets contradictory reports of review.
Id est, The Guardian, well known for reporting from the hip, claims that everyone though Mac's spiel was a one way ticket to Boresville, or more appropriately to the outlet, Borington Cross. The U.S. News and World Report says everyone liked it. Now, the USNWR is also known for being a one-way ticket to Dull County, but really, did everyone like it or everyone hate it? The Beeb says the reactions were mixed and Salon calls it empty (you can search for Salon yourself, I refuse to link to it).
Here's what he said: I'm a maverick. Let's stop spending so much. Obama, I shake hands with you before we go at it, octagon-style. It wasn't a bad speech. It wasn't a great speech. It was a decent speech, and what he mostly talked about was, strangely enough, change. It's interesting to note that Obama galvanized the primaries with Hope and Change and then switched to Explaining My Platform and Mac went from Explaining My Platform to Hope and Change. Funny things, these elections.
Obama. Biden. McCain. Sarah. None of these people is a demon.
This is what I learned from the RNC: Mac is not actually a doddering old fool. I thought he was, and I guess I listened to a lot of blue rhetoric there, but having defended Obama so hard in the past was wading through the same kind of crap, delivered by red-staters. I still don't think he's the man for the job, but if he [Mac] wins, I won't move to Canada. Necessarily. I might move to Canada anyway, but it won't be because I'm afraid of our president. It's 'cause Canada has awesome food.
Showing posts with label john mccain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label john mccain. Show all posts
Friday, September 5, 2008
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Nome
More about - surprise - the Sarah Palin circus.
Ben, I hope I didn't come across as overtly criticizing Palin. I'm certainly not implying that the Obama camp should start criticizing her. In fact, she's about the one thing about the McCain campaign that they can't touch. The issue is that her inexperience and associated liabilities are very different than Obama's.
Having children in difficult life circumstances doesn't disqualify her from the vice presidency. Almost the opposite, actually - blue-collar Americans can identify with the situation she's in. I'm just worried that with all the emphasis she's put on her family lately, at some point she will choose family over duty, which is something I'd prefer not to see from our vice president. (The VP does do some important things, actually. Dick Cheney has made the position far more important and powerful than the "warm bucket of spit" the office used to be.) Obama has two young children as well, and so one could conceivably turn the tables, except that Obama hasn't made as big a deal of his family as Palin has. It's not quite the same thing.
The issue of inexperience is worth looking at, too. Both have had relatively little time in major political offices, but I'd have to give the experience edge to Obama. While he's only had four years on the national stage, his four years have come in the Senate. He knows the people he will have to work with in Congress should he become the president. He's had a chance to gain some foreign policy experience. While Palin has had experience actually governing in her two years over Alaska, one has to remember that it's Alaska. If Alaska were a metro area, it would be slightly larger than Knoxville, but slightly smaller than Akron. It's governing experience, yes, but on a far smaller stage than the national one. And while it's true that she'll only be the vice president, in McCain's case it's a real worry that she could have to take over for him, possibly even in the first term. (We all wish John McCain a long and healthy life, but you have to consider the possibilities.) Her inexperience is far more pronounced than Obama's.
Let's also apply the final smell test. Say each of these to yourself: "President Obama." "President Palin."
The real issue, though, is that this pick isn't so much about Palin's weaknesses and flaws as McCain's. This is the first big decision he's had to make as the Republican nominee, and there are some real worries about it. It's becoming increasingly clear that he made it very quickly, possibly in as little as two days. Sound a little like the Decider to anyone else? For a campaign that has been trying as hard as possible to convince people that a McCain term would not be a third term for Bush, the nominee has been more than a little off-message.
Ben, I hope I didn't come across as overtly criticizing Palin. I'm certainly not implying that the Obama camp should start criticizing her. In fact, she's about the one thing about the McCain campaign that they can't touch. The issue is that her inexperience and associated liabilities are very different than Obama's.
Having children in difficult life circumstances doesn't disqualify her from the vice presidency. Almost the opposite, actually - blue-collar Americans can identify with the situation she's in. I'm just worried that with all the emphasis she's put on her family lately, at some point she will choose family over duty, which is something I'd prefer not to see from our vice president. (The VP does do some important things, actually. Dick Cheney has made the position far more important and powerful than the "warm bucket of spit" the office used to be.) Obama has two young children as well, and so one could conceivably turn the tables, except that Obama hasn't made as big a deal of his family as Palin has. It's not quite the same thing.
The issue of inexperience is worth looking at, too. Both have had relatively little time in major political offices, but I'd have to give the experience edge to Obama. While he's only had four years on the national stage, his four years have come in the Senate. He knows the people he will have to work with in Congress should he become the president. He's had a chance to gain some foreign policy experience. While Palin has had experience actually governing in her two years over Alaska, one has to remember that it's Alaska. If Alaska were a metro area, it would be slightly larger than Knoxville, but slightly smaller than Akron. It's governing experience, yes, but on a far smaller stage than the national one. And while it's true that she'll only be the vice president, in McCain's case it's a real worry that she could have to take over for him, possibly even in the first term. (We all wish John McCain a long and healthy life, but you have to consider the possibilities.) Her inexperience is far more pronounced than Obama's.
Let's also apply the final smell test. Say each of these to yourself: "President Obama." "President Palin."
The real issue, though, is that this pick isn't so much about Palin's weaknesses and flaws as McCain's. This is the first big decision he's had to make as the Republican nominee, and there are some real worries about it. It's becoming increasingly clear that he made it very quickly, possibly in as little as two days. Sound a little like the Decider to anyone else? For a campaign that has been trying as hard as possible to convince people that a McCain term would not be a third term for Bush, the nominee has been more than a little off-message.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Juneau
Even more drama to the Sarah Palin pick.
As if the Sarah Palin pick wasn't already surprising enough, there's another fun little tidbit to think about now - Palin's 17-year old daughter Bristol was revealed today to be teen pregnant. (I really wish I could claim the title of this post as my own, but it's borrowed from Slate's XX Factor blog.) This is just the latest development in the Palin candidacy that is fast becoming a five-ring circus. Who is this woman? Is she even qualified to take office? What's the deal with the state trooper she fired who turned out to be her brother-in-law? What about her son she chose to deliver, even though he has Down syndrome?
This makes a sticky situation for the Democrats, who would love to tear this woman apart, yet are afraid to do so and risk alienating their already fragile base of women voters. Even still, this bears examination under a nonpartisan microscope. Is this someone we really want to be in the White House, even as a vice president? Consider the following things that could demand her attention in a meeting:
The whole saga is starting to remind me of Tom Eagleton in 1972, who accepted the VP spot under George McGovern only to retract it 18 days later after reports surfaced that he had undergone electroshock therapy for physical and nervous exhaustion. Eagleton ended up on a ticket because he was only cursorily vetted, something that campaigns go to great pains to avoid today. One wonders if McCain's campaign may have made the same mistake. Palin was probably chosen to draw new attention to the McCain campaign, but this may have been more than they bargained for.
As if the Sarah Palin pick wasn't already surprising enough, there's another fun little tidbit to think about now - Palin's 17-year old daughter Bristol was revealed today to be teen pregnant. (I really wish I could claim the title of this post as my own, but it's borrowed from Slate's XX Factor blog.) This is just the latest development in the Palin candidacy that is fast becoming a five-ring circus. Who is this woman? Is she even qualified to take office? What's the deal with the state trooper she fired who turned out to be her brother-in-law? What about her son she chose to deliver, even though he has Down syndrome?
This makes a sticky situation for the Democrats, who would love to tear this woman apart, yet are afraid to do so and risk alienating their already fragile base of women voters. Even still, this bears examination under a nonpartisan microscope. Is this someone we really want to be in the White House, even as a vice president? Consider the following things that could demand her attention in a meeting:
- A young baby with Down syndrome.
- News from her son in Iraq.
- A teenage daughter with a child of her own and a teenage husband.
- Her other two children, aged fourteen and seven.
The whole saga is starting to remind me of Tom Eagleton in 1972, who accepted the VP spot under George McGovern only to retract it 18 days later after reports surfaced that he had undergone electroshock therapy for physical and nervous exhaustion. Eagleton ended up on a ticket because he was only cursorily vetted, something that campaigns go to great pains to avoid today. One wonders if McCain's campaign may have made the same mistake. Palin was probably chosen to draw new attention to the McCain campaign, but this may have been more than they bargained for.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Prolonging the Maverick
Why McCain/Palin need to reinvent Republicanism, or put the heat on the donkey.
Here's a statement you don't want to make on the internet: I am a registered Republican. I'm registered in Colorado, where I haven't lived since 2006, but there you have it. I would have cared enough to do this in Utah, but registering Democrat would be hypocritical of me and Republican doesn't quite fit either. Now in Arizona ("McCainland"), I'm voting Obama. I see little hope for McCain getting into the White House much less doing a good job of it, especially given his recent bent toward bushleaguing and GOP kowtowing. He is a Republican and a conservative, but has always (whether deserved or not) had a reputation of a maverick in Washington, which given my lowly month of Arizonan-ness, makes tonnes of sense. The People of the Desert do things their own way, whether you like it or not. That edge was effectively circumsized from his platform, probably due to party pressures. He's been a funny-looking maverick since then, playing right into leftsiders' views of Republicans and not really offering anything interesting to anyone. He doesn't stand a chance as is. There are two options for him, it appears:
1.) Put the heat on the Democratic Party. Having been accused of fearmongering, the Mac Camp might do well to stop pandering to the ignorant ultra-right and play more to those who are painfully straddling the fence, unsure of Obama's Clinton-esque healthcare, or a little less hasty to pull the troops out of Iraq by tonight at dinnertime. This isn't done by impugning Obama's dignity--this is done by pointing out the difference between the parties. If Mac's going to pander to the party, he'd better do some better PR. The war hero card really only pulls soldiers and vets, who are already likely to go red in November. Obama's popular and cool, but the Democratic Party has pushed some fairly unpopular legislation in its day. Most people still oppose gay marriage and other moral/religious hot topics. Bringing out the godless side of the Left would do him well.
or
2.) With the youthful Palin at his side, he could stick it to the GOP again, and shed some of the more ignorant points of the party, and start rebranding. Issues like border control become less "They're criminals and have to go home" and more "We need to secure our borders, but the way we're doing it right now isn't helping. Let's sit down and talk about it." The more deliberate center-right that's up and coming might really appreciate some aisle-crossing even if you can't say that to Republicans outright.
We'll see in Minnesota whether either will take place. Personal opinion: McCain's groupies aren't smart enough to pull either off.
Here's a statement you don't want to make on the internet: I am a registered Republican. I'm registered in Colorado, where I haven't lived since 2006, but there you have it. I would have cared enough to do this in Utah, but registering Democrat would be hypocritical of me and Republican doesn't quite fit either. Now in Arizona ("McCainland"), I'm voting Obama. I see little hope for McCain getting into the White House much less doing a good job of it, especially given his recent bent toward bushleaguing and GOP kowtowing. He is a Republican and a conservative, but has always (whether deserved or not) had a reputation of a maverick in Washington, which given my lowly month of Arizonan-ness, makes tonnes of sense. The People of the Desert do things their own way, whether you like it or not. That edge was effectively circumsized from his platform, probably due to party pressures. He's been a funny-looking maverick since then, playing right into leftsiders' views of Republicans and not really offering anything interesting to anyone. He doesn't stand a chance as is. There are two options for him, it appears:
1.) Put the heat on the Democratic Party. Having been accused of fearmongering, the Mac Camp might do well to stop pandering to the ignorant ultra-right and play more to those who are painfully straddling the fence, unsure of Obama's Clinton-esque healthcare, or a little less hasty to pull the troops out of Iraq by tonight at dinnertime. This isn't done by impugning Obama's dignity--this is done by pointing out the difference between the parties. If Mac's going to pander to the party, he'd better do some better PR. The war hero card really only pulls soldiers and vets, who are already likely to go red in November. Obama's popular and cool, but the Democratic Party has pushed some fairly unpopular legislation in its day. Most people still oppose gay marriage and other moral/religious hot topics. Bringing out the godless side of the Left would do him well.
or
2.) With the youthful Palin at his side, he could stick it to the GOP again, and shed some of the more ignorant points of the party, and start rebranding. Issues like border control become less "They're criminals and have to go home" and more "We need to secure our borders, but the way we're doing it right now isn't helping. Let's sit down and talk about it." The more deliberate center-right that's up and coming might really appreciate some aisle-crossing even if you can't say that to Republicans outright.
We'll see in Minnesota whether either will take place. Personal opinion: McCain's groupies aren't smart enough to pull either off.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Big, big surprise
John McCain ensures that all eyes are on him following Barack Obama's big speech.
John McCain was set to announce his running mate today, and by all accounts, it was going to be a fairly traditional affair. He was likely to pick someone like Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney, whose names had been floating around for months. Then, this morning, everything was turned on its head.
Pawlenty announced that he would not be in Dayton this morning, the site of McCain's scheduled rally. When asked if that meant he was not going to be the pick, he told reporters that they could "draw [their] own conclusion." Romney also announced that he would not be in Dayton, leaving pundits without any names to go on.
And then, the bomb dropped - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Who? Palin is actually a very savvy choice. She ousted the old guard in staunchly conservative Alaska. She's young - at age 44, she balances the 72-years old today McCain. And - get this - she's a woman. If there was any doubt before that McCain is doing all that he can to court disaffected Hillary supporters, there isn't now. After all the tough talk about McCain not actually being much of a maverick during the DNC, he pulls off a move out of nowhere that removes all doubt. Very, very impressive move.
John McCain was set to announce his running mate today, and by all accounts, it was going to be a fairly traditional affair. He was likely to pick someone like Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty or Mitt Romney, whose names had been floating around for months. Then, this morning, everything was turned on its head.
Pawlenty announced that he would not be in Dayton this morning, the site of McCain's scheduled rally. When asked if that meant he was not going to be the pick, he told reporters that they could "draw [their] own conclusion." Romney also announced that he would not be in Dayton, leaving pundits without any names to go on.
And then, the bomb dropped - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Who? Palin is actually a very savvy choice. She ousted the old guard in staunchly conservative Alaska. She's young - at age 44, she balances the 72-years old today McCain. And - get this - she's a woman. If there was any doubt before that McCain is doing all that he can to court disaffected Hillary supporters, there isn't now. After all the tough talk about McCain not actually being much of a maverick during the DNC, he pulls off a move out of nowhere that removes all doubt. Very, very impressive move.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
The Main Event
The thrilling conclusion to four days of political pageantry.
I'm pretty sure I found the song I want to be playing when Obama takes the stage: "Keep Hope Alive," by the Crystal Method. What could be more fitting than a song whose lyrics are taken from the Jesse Jackson speech of the same name?
Also, one thing I missed from the Gore speech. As expected, he invoked his own failed campaign of 2000, but he made an interesting point. He said that in that election, most people felt that the two were so similar on nearly every point that it didn't particularly matter which of them became president. (In retrospect, it mattered very much.) He warned voters of falling victim to the same line of thought. It's a point well received.
Senior Illinois Senator Dick Durbin is introducing Obama right now by reminding everyone that he did the same thing in 2004. What a difference four years make. I remember after the keynote address having a hard time remembering which of his names was his first name. ("Barack Obama? Obama Barack? Something like that, I forget.") Now he's easily one of the most famous names in American politics. The crowd is all fired up, but it's not for Durbin. I think just about anyone on earth could be speaking right now - Ben Stein, my landlord, the corpse of Grover Cleveland - and the crowd would be yelling and screaming with anticipation. He's got them all chanting "yes we can!", a phrase I haven't heard much of since the primaries. Why is that, anyway? Isn't this the phrase most associated with Obama? Where did it go?
Here comes the introductory video. They're playing up the single mother and hard-knock life aspect of him, which is in keeping with everything else in this convention. Make him a man of the people, a person just like everyone else, and people won't be so scared of him. People fear what they don't understand. By making Obama more approachable, they remove some of that fear. Even if it doesn't work like they hope, they still have the very personable Joe Biden. That said, they're doing all they can to play up this aspect of him.
Side note: while we aren't hearing much from the narrator this time (no Tom Hanks, friends), he really sounds to me like David Strathairn. No Morgan Freeman, who is in my mind, the quintessential narrator, but he's a great choice, if it is him.
I'm starting to wonder what the opening line of the speech will be. Is it going to be like in 2004, when Kerry walked out saying, "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty?" I always thought that was a great line.
And here he is - and if I'm not mistaken, that was a song by Keane that he walked out to. That's an interesting choice of music. Also, it has to be deafening in Denver. 75,000 screaming Obama fans going crazy all at once. Somehow, it's just not the same over the internet.
Ooh - the crowd provided his opening line for him, chanting "yes we can!" at him. They beat him to the punch. His response, "I accept your nomination for the presidency of the United States," wasn't nearly as good, but it still generated a cheer that sounded like an atom bomb went off at Mile High Stadium. He gets off right away by praising the candidate who "traveled farther than anyone else," Hillary Clinton (duh).
This was cute - when he mentioned Michelle, everyone jumped up to their feet, but one of his daughters (Sasha?) took a couple of seconds to figure it out. When she did, she looked at Michelle and said, "Hey, that's you!" I love stuff like that.
So far, he hasn't really said anything new. He's reminding people that we face tough times, economically and militarily, and that while the government isn't responsible for the problems, they certainly aren't responding or doing anything about them. His response, "We are a better country than this," is an interesting one, though. It's not just that he can do better than McCain. It's that we as a people can do better. That's a great way to make the argument. It's not about him (though it had better be eventually), but it's about us. We can do better. We must do better. Clever way to take the focus off himself, and therefore the negative image McCain has put on him.
"We love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight." "Eight is enough." That's a slogan that could go on a bumper sticker. In fact, the crowd is chanting it right now. This campaign could do with more simple statements like that. Lofty rhetoric is great and all - it inspires, and it's definitely a strength of Obama's - but simple things like that stick in people's minds more than great speeches do.
Here's another good one - "I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance on change," a great dig at McCain's 90% voting record with Bush. The word "maverick" is synonymous with McCain by now. Tearing that image apart is an interesting strategy. Actually, it's an awful lot like the GOP destroying Obama's image of hope and replacing it with fear.
Here he goes into taxes and the economy. "John McCain doesn't get it." I keep waiting for him to drop some specifics. I like the idea of fixing the economy, but I want to know how he's going to do it. Now would be a great time to dispense with some of that.
Here he goes again citing the Clinton presidency. Good comparison - after all, Clinton is one of only two Democratic presidents since 1968, and certainly the popular one. Reminding people what life was like during the 1990s is a great way to get them to vote for you. Times were good economically then. Times haven't been so great since them. It's the economy, stupid. Think that phrase is going to come back before November?
He just told the story of his grandmother working her way up through the ranks to middle management and all the while giving any spare money she had toward Obama's future. Boy, did that get a cheer. He then asked the audience (indirectly) if that was the sort of life celebrities lead. Very masterfully done. He doesn't look particularly elitist to me tonight.
Here's a thought - is the reason we think Obama is such a great speaker mostly because of his voice? If John McCain were to deliver the same speech, I don't think it would come off as nearly as powerful. The baritone voice that projects and inspires - that's where the power is.
"I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper." Words taken directly from the 2004 keynote speech. I was waiting for something like that. That's the way to bring back the glory of that earlier speech that launched his career.
Ooh, specifics! He's starting to say exactly what he wants to do to restart the economy - no tax raises for little people (95% of all working families), restoring domestic manufacturing jobs, eliminating the capital gains tax for small businesses, and a clear goal to eliminate our dependance for Middle East oil within 10 years. Wow, is that last one bold. If he can do that, he'd easily be the greatest president in recent history - probably at least since FDR. No idea how he can pull that off, but that's a tremendous promise. Good luck matching up to that. Also, good luck in preventing the GOP from eating that promise for breakfast. Expect to hear a lot about that line over the next two months.
Actually, he's doing a good job of explaining how he plans to get rid of foreign oil, and it sounds like a solid plan. Obama's been criticized for not providing specifics for months, and now he's finally proving everyone wrong. This is a big deal - it makes him more of a heavyweight on the political circuit. No more saying that Obama's just an empty suit with pretty words. This is serious, meaty stuff. Very impressive.
"If you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education." And there's the bit about health care, which has to be the focus of this campaign. He just promised lower premiums and the same coverage Congressmen get. Citing his mother arguing with insurance agents brought a huge cheer. You can't help but wonder what Hillary is thinking, though. This has been her thing since 1992. If it were up to me, I'd appoint her to head up the health care movement as soon as I took office. She clearly knows the most about it. Let her get it done.
He's going to go through the budget "line by line" to find ways to cut spending and make things more efficient. I know it's not what he's talking about, but does this make anyone else think of the movie Dave? You know, the bit where he brings Charles Grodin in to cut the fat out of the budget? "We cannot meet 21st century challenges with a 20th century bureaucracy."
That was a sharp dig at McCain's temper. He's accusing him of having too short a fuse to be an effective commander in chief. That's an argument we haven't heard for a while. I don't know how relevant it is, but it's interesting to hear it again.
More focus on the war in Afghanistan instead of Iraq. I agree that's more important, but I can't help but wonder if Afghanistan will turn into the new Iraq in a couple of years. Isn't that how it went for the Soviet Union? Isn't that how it went for us? We thought we beat them into the ground, but surprise surprise, the Taliban is back in power only a few years later. I don't know that it's going to be as simple as everyone makes it out to be.
Nice shot at the national security issue. "We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. Don't tell me the Democrats aren't going to keep this country safe."
This is another good one - he's pledging to restore the image of America as the world's "last, best hope." I kept hoping this was going to come up, and it finally did. I still think this is one of the biggest assets Obama has to offer. Just about the entire world wants to see Obama elected over McCain. Doesn't that affect our decision at all? Don't we want to restore American prestige?
Another chorus of "yes we can!" after he throws out the line about the country not being red states or blue states, but united states. He's talking about unity - lofty rhetoric, too - while offering specific issues for people to think about. Best of both worlds here. Obama supporters get what they want - a beautiful speech, and it's been impressive so far - and the McCain camp gets what they've been clamoring for, specifics. Let them chew on that for a while. You'd better believe we'll hear a lot about them next week.
"If you don't have any fresh ideas, then you run on stale tactics." Accusing the McCain camp of using fear rather than solving America's problems. That's a good point, too. I haven't heard a whole lot of ways McCain plans to solve the economic problems or anything else. Just that Obama will ruin the country if he's elected.
"What the naysayers have never understood is that this election is not about me. It's about you." Brilliant. Take the focus off himself and place it on the people. On the party. Is McCain going to attack the common people? He can attack Obama, but as long as he keeps the focus on the people, he's in good shape, I think.
Obama says he's seen the change coming. There has been a lot of change over the last year or so. He says it may not be easy, but it's on its way. Change again. That was the defining word of the primary season, and I've been waiting for a while for it to come back. Here it is, full force.
He's citing the "I Have a Dream" speech, which you had to know was coming, since it was delivered 45 years ago today. With all the references over the last few minutes, I almost expected him to say that he had a dream, too. It would have been impressive, but you have to believe there would have been plagiarism charges all over the place.
And that's it. Was it the prettiest speech he's ever given? No, I don't think so, but it might be the most important. He went a long way toward throwing out specifics and shaking the image of him as someone without substance. I think the GOP will be hard-pressed to outdo this convention. McCain can't match up to Obama in giving a speech. It's not even close. Look for a lot of demonizing and a lot of fearmongering, if you ask me. I'm not trying to color anyone's judgment of their tactics, but given how the campaign has gone so far, I don't expect anything different, unless they suddenly decide to reinvent the Republican brand.
I'm pretty sure I found the song I want to be playing when Obama takes the stage: "Keep Hope Alive," by the Crystal Method. What could be more fitting than a song whose lyrics are taken from the Jesse Jackson speech of the same name?
Also, one thing I missed from the Gore speech. As expected, he invoked his own failed campaign of 2000, but he made an interesting point. He said that in that election, most people felt that the two were so similar on nearly every point that it didn't particularly matter which of them became president. (In retrospect, it mattered very much.) He warned voters of falling victim to the same line of thought. It's a point well received.
Senior Illinois Senator Dick Durbin is introducing Obama right now by reminding everyone that he did the same thing in 2004. What a difference four years make. I remember after the keynote address having a hard time remembering which of his names was his first name. ("Barack Obama? Obama Barack? Something like that, I forget.") Now he's easily one of the most famous names in American politics. The crowd is all fired up, but it's not for Durbin. I think just about anyone on earth could be speaking right now - Ben Stein, my landlord, the corpse of Grover Cleveland - and the crowd would be yelling and screaming with anticipation. He's got them all chanting "yes we can!", a phrase I haven't heard much of since the primaries. Why is that, anyway? Isn't this the phrase most associated with Obama? Where did it go?
Here comes the introductory video. They're playing up the single mother and hard-knock life aspect of him, which is in keeping with everything else in this convention. Make him a man of the people, a person just like everyone else, and people won't be so scared of him. People fear what they don't understand. By making Obama more approachable, they remove some of that fear. Even if it doesn't work like they hope, they still have the very personable Joe Biden. That said, they're doing all they can to play up this aspect of him.
Side note: while we aren't hearing much from the narrator this time (no Tom Hanks, friends), he really sounds to me like David Strathairn. No Morgan Freeman, who is in my mind, the quintessential narrator, but he's a great choice, if it is him.
I'm starting to wonder what the opening line of the speech will be. Is it going to be like in 2004, when Kerry walked out saying, "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty?" I always thought that was a great line.
And here he is - and if I'm not mistaken, that was a song by Keane that he walked out to. That's an interesting choice of music. Also, it has to be deafening in Denver. 75,000 screaming Obama fans going crazy all at once. Somehow, it's just not the same over the internet.
Ooh - the crowd provided his opening line for him, chanting "yes we can!" at him. They beat him to the punch. His response, "I accept your nomination for the presidency of the United States," wasn't nearly as good, but it still generated a cheer that sounded like an atom bomb went off at Mile High Stadium. He gets off right away by praising the candidate who "traveled farther than anyone else," Hillary Clinton (duh).
This was cute - when he mentioned Michelle, everyone jumped up to their feet, but one of his daughters (Sasha?) took a couple of seconds to figure it out. When she did, she looked at Michelle and said, "Hey, that's you!" I love stuff like that.
So far, he hasn't really said anything new. He's reminding people that we face tough times, economically and militarily, and that while the government isn't responsible for the problems, they certainly aren't responding or doing anything about them. His response, "We are a better country than this," is an interesting one, though. It's not just that he can do better than McCain. It's that we as a people can do better. That's a great way to make the argument. It's not about him (though it had better be eventually), but it's about us. We can do better. We must do better. Clever way to take the focus off himself, and therefore the negative image McCain has put on him.
"We love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight." "Eight is enough." That's a slogan that could go on a bumper sticker. In fact, the crowd is chanting it right now. This campaign could do with more simple statements like that. Lofty rhetoric is great and all - it inspires, and it's definitely a strength of Obama's - but simple things like that stick in people's minds more than great speeches do.
Here's another good one - "I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance on change," a great dig at McCain's 90% voting record with Bush. The word "maverick" is synonymous with McCain by now. Tearing that image apart is an interesting strategy. Actually, it's an awful lot like the GOP destroying Obama's image of hope and replacing it with fear.
Here he goes into taxes and the economy. "John McCain doesn't get it." I keep waiting for him to drop some specifics. I like the idea of fixing the economy, but I want to know how he's going to do it. Now would be a great time to dispense with some of that.
Here he goes again citing the Clinton presidency. Good comparison - after all, Clinton is one of only two Democratic presidents since 1968, and certainly the popular one. Reminding people what life was like during the 1990s is a great way to get them to vote for you. Times were good economically then. Times haven't been so great since them. It's the economy, stupid. Think that phrase is going to come back before November?
He just told the story of his grandmother working her way up through the ranks to middle management and all the while giving any spare money she had toward Obama's future. Boy, did that get a cheer. He then asked the audience (indirectly) if that was the sort of life celebrities lead. Very masterfully done. He doesn't look particularly elitist to me tonight.
Here's a thought - is the reason we think Obama is such a great speaker mostly because of his voice? If John McCain were to deliver the same speech, I don't think it would come off as nearly as powerful. The baritone voice that projects and inspires - that's where the power is.
"I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper." Words taken directly from the 2004 keynote speech. I was waiting for something like that. That's the way to bring back the glory of that earlier speech that launched his career.
Ooh, specifics! He's starting to say exactly what he wants to do to restart the economy - no tax raises for little people (95% of all working families), restoring domestic manufacturing jobs, eliminating the capital gains tax for small businesses, and a clear goal to eliminate our dependance for Middle East oil within 10 years. Wow, is that last one bold. If he can do that, he'd easily be the greatest president in recent history - probably at least since FDR. No idea how he can pull that off, but that's a tremendous promise. Good luck matching up to that. Also, good luck in preventing the GOP from eating that promise for breakfast. Expect to hear a lot about that line over the next two months.
Actually, he's doing a good job of explaining how he plans to get rid of foreign oil, and it sounds like a solid plan. Obama's been criticized for not providing specifics for months, and now he's finally proving everyone wrong. This is a big deal - it makes him more of a heavyweight on the political circuit. No more saying that Obama's just an empty suit with pretty words. This is serious, meaty stuff. Very impressive.
"If you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education." And there's the bit about health care, which has to be the focus of this campaign. He just promised lower premiums and the same coverage Congressmen get. Citing his mother arguing with insurance agents brought a huge cheer. You can't help but wonder what Hillary is thinking, though. This has been her thing since 1992. If it were up to me, I'd appoint her to head up the health care movement as soon as I took office. She clearly knows the most about it. Let her get it done.
He's going to go through the budget "line by line" to find ways to cut spending and make things more efficient. I know it's not what he's talking about, but does this make anyone else think of the movie Dave? You know, the bit where he brings Charles Grodin in to cut the fat out of the budget? "We cannot meet 21st century challenges with a 20th century bureaucracy."
That was a sharp dig at McCain's temper. He's accusing him of having too short a fuse to be an effective commander in chief. That's an argument we haven't heard for a while. I don't know how relevant it is, but it's interesting to hear it again.
More focus on the war in Afghanistan instead of Iraq. I agree that's more important, but I can't help but wonder if Afghanistan will turn into the new Iraq in a couple of years. Isn't that how it went for the Soviet Union? Isn't that how it went for us? We thought we beat them into the ground, but surprise surprise, the Taliban is back in power only a few years later. I don't know that it's going to be as simple as everyone makes it out to be.
Nice shot at the national security issue. "We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. Don't tell me the Democrats aren't going to keep this country safe."
This is another good one - he's pledging to restore the image of America as the world's "last, best hope." I kept hoping this was going to come up, and it finally did. I still think this is one of the biggest assets Obama has to offer. Just about the entire world wants to see Obama elected over McCain. Doesn't that affect our decision at all? Don't we want to restore American prestige?
Another chorus of "yes we can!" after he throws out the line about the country not being red states or blue states, but united states. He's talking about unity - lofty rhetoric, too - while offering specific issues for people to think about. Best of both worlds here. Obama supporters get what they want - a beautiful speech, and it's been impressive so far - and the McCain camp gets what they've been clamoring for, specifics. Let them chew on that for a while. You'd better believe we'll hear a lot about them next week.
"If you don't have any fresh ideas, then you run on stale tactics." Accusing the McCain camp of using fear rather than solving America's problems. That's a good point, too. I haven't heard a whole lot of ways McCain plans to solve the economic problems or anything else. Just that Obama will ruin the country if he's elected.
"What the naysayers have never understood is that this election is not about me. It's about you." Brilliant. Take the focus off himself and place it on the people. On the party. Is McCain going to attack the common people? He can attack Obama, but as long as he keeps the focus on the people, he's in good shape, I think.
Obama says he's seen the change coming. There has been a lot of change over the last year or so. He says it may not be easy, but it's on its way. Change again. That was the defining word of the primary season, and I've been waiting for a while for it to come back. Here it is, full force.
He's citing the "I Have a Dream" speech, which you had to know was coming, since it was delivered 45 years ago today. With all the references over the last few minutes, I almost expected him to say that he had a dream, too. It would have been impressive, but you have to believe there would have been plagiarism charges all over the place.
And that's it. Was it the prettiest speech he's ever given? No, I don't think so, but it might be the most important. He went a long way toward throwing out specifics and shaking the image of him as someone without substance. I think the GOP will be hard-pressed to outdo this convention. McCain can't match up to Obama in giving a speech. It's not even close. Look for a lot of demonizing and a lot of fearmongering, if you ask me. I'm not trying to color anyone's judgment of their tactics, but given how the campaign has gone so far, I don't expect anything different, unless they suddenly decide to reinvent the Republican brand.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Live-blogging the DNC
Live coverage of the second night of the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver.
I doubt many people are reading this anymore, but I'm always happy to write for writing's sake.
The big story here at the Democratic National Convention has been the continuing feud between supporters of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Clinton's supporters are convinced that the Obama campaign has continuously disrespected the New York senator, to the point that more than a third of them have said that they refuse to vote for Obama and will instead either vote for John McCain or stay at home. Perhaps it's just me, but I can't quite figure out what the Obama campaign has done to defame Sen. Clinton other than defeat her in the primaries. It all seems like a lot of sour grapes to me. In fact, I'm surprised that so many Democrats would rather see a Republican in office to assuage a grudge. Of course, it's more than likely that the media has made this a bigger issue than it really is. In fact, my blogging on the subject is only making it worse. Let's move on.
Virginia governor Mark Warner delivered the keynote address tonight, something that has drawn particular attention this year because of Obama's stirring and now-famous keynote address in 2004. Warner was tapped as a likely Democratic nominee until he announced that he would not run in 2007, preferring to see his daughters graduate from high school first. After listening to his speech, I really wish he would reconsider. Warner is a terrific speaker and a centrist to boot. Rather than enshrine Obama and demonize McCain, he talked about reaching across the aisle and accepting good ideas no matter which side they come from. I'd love to see a President Warner someday. He seems like someone a lot of people could get behind. At the very least, he's not someone that people could forward emails about claiming all sorts of atrocities. (Not that we have anyone like that now.)
After Gov. Warner, a parade of lesser-known governors (Ohio's Ted Strickland, Massachussetts' Deval Patrick, and Montana's Brian Schweitzer) came out and did exactly what Warner didn't - demonize John McCain. That's their job, really, but it came as quite a contrast from Warner's speech. I'll summarize their speeches here:
"As you're aware, by electing Barack Obama as the next president of the United States, we will be able to create three billion new jobs - every month! It's absolutely amazing what we could accomplish! By contrast, if John McCain becomes president, we will literally be forced by law to brutally slaughter and consume our own children. Is that what we want to see happen in the future? No! Only Barack Obama can save us from the coming apocalpyse!"
(Actually, I really enjoyed Brian Schweitzer's speech. He played up the fact that he's a simple rancher from Montana, and he really seemed to be having fun. It's a rare thing to laugh out loud during a convention speech. I did several times during Schweitzer's speech. Here's hoping we see more of him in the future.)
While I'm waiting for Sen. Clinton to come on stage, I'll talk about Deval Patrick briefly. I thought it was interesting that they invited him to speak, considering the "just words?" flap earlier in the primary season. He was a good speaker, but I cringed a little bit when he started having the audience chant "yes, we can". It seems a little bold of him to invite plagiarism back into the campaign. The McCain campaign is doing a good enough job of shredding Obama's image without him adding more fuel to the fire.
(Schweitzer is still going, and he's shouting at each state's delegation individually to get up off their feet and shout for energy independence. Man, this guy is an electric speaker!)
Before Sen. Clinton took the stage, they played a montage of her speeches and people talking about her. It was pretty inspiring, and you'd better believe they put that "18 million cracks" line in there a couple of times. Chelsea Clinton narrated the video, and she introduced her mother to the crowd, who gave her a few minutes of a standing ovation and waved a ton of Hillary posters, which seemed to appear out of nowhere. The big question, though: can she convince her supporters to (enthusiastically) back Obama?
It sure looks like she's off to a good start - she mentioned the fact that she was a "proud supporter of Barack Obama" within the first 30 seconds of her speech. Statements like "we are all on the same side, and none of us can afford to stay on the sidelines" seemed like pointed remarks to her supporters to vote for Obama already.
She's doing a very good job of reminding Democrats what the real contest is - not Clinton vs. Obama, but Obama vs. McCain. She mentioned once that Obama was her candidate and was met with grumbles of disdain, but she kept talking and shouted them down. I'm convinced she's sincere. While she's certainly disappointed that she didn't win this round (who wouldn't be?), she really wants to see a Democrat in the White House.
(Personally, I think she'll be a more powerful agent for the Democratic Party as a senator than she could have been as a president. She'd meet with a lot of strong Republican opposition as a president, but in Congress, she can be a strong voice and push things through. This is probably the best situation the party could be in at this point, all things considered.)
It's interesting that all of these speakers have stayed away from personal attacks on John McCain in keeping with Obama's vision of post-partisan politics, but that it seems to be open season on attacking George W. Bush. His name is practically a four-letter word here at the convention, becoming synonymous with "failed leadership," "economic ruin," and "short-sighted."
Wow. Hillary's finishing this speech off with a bang. She's asking her supporters, "Were you in this campaign just for me, or were you in it for [a million stories that tug at the heartstrings]?" For someone whose public image is so much about me-first and selfishness, she's doing a good job of taking the spotlight off herself. I saw a lot of shots of tear-streaked faces of women who are still reluctant to let the dream go, but the message seems to be getting through. This is a really good speech.
Now she's implying that it's our duty as Americans to elect Barack Obama to ensure a brighter future. That's a powerful statement, and it's interesting that she was able to make the point without mentioning either Bush's or McCain's names. Very skillfully done.
That's it for the convention tonight. It looks like Hillary did all that she could to convince her renegade supporters to get behind Obama and the party in November. She wasn't wishy-washy in her support, either. She made it very clear that she doesn't want to sabotage her party's chances at the White House. Sure, you might argue that such was the politically expedient thing for her to do (could she really stand up and tell people to abandon Obama?), but the message really seemed sincere. I was impressed. But boy, would I be excited if Mark Warner were on top of the ticket. Especially if he had Brian Schweitzer as his VP. What a tremendous ticket that would be. Maybe someday in the future.
I doubt many people are reading this anymore, but I'm always happy to write for writing's sake.
The big story here at the Democratic National Convention has been the continuing feud between supporters of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Clinton's supporters are convinced that the Obama campaign has continuously disrespected the New York senator, to the point that more than a third of them have said that they refuse to vote for Obama and will instead either vote for John McCain or stay at home. Perhaps it's just me, but I can't quite figure out what the Obama campaign has done to defame Sen. Clinton other than defeat her in the primaries. It all seems like a lot of sour grapes to me. In fact, I'm surprised that so many Democrats would rather see a Republican in office to assuage a grudge. Of course, it's more than likely that the media has made this a bigger issue than it really is. In fact, my blogging on the subject is only making it worse. Let's move on.
Virginia governor Mark Warner delivered the keynote address tonight, something that has drawn particular attention this year because of Obama's stirring and now-famous keynote address in 2004. Warner was tapped as a likely Democratic nominee until he announced that he would not run in 2007, preferring to see his daughters graduate from high school first. After listening to his speech, I really wish he would reconsider. Warner is a terrific speaker and a centrist to boot. Rather than enshrine Obama and demonize McCain, he talked about reaching across the aisle and accepting good ideas no matter which side they come from. I'd love to see a President Warner someday. He seems like someone a lot of people could get behind. At the very least, he's not someone that people could forward emails about claiming all sorts of atrocities. (Not that we have anyone like that now.)
After Gov. Warner, a parade of lesser-known governors (Ohio's Ted Strickland, Massachussetts' Deval Patrick, and Montana's Brian Schweitzer) came out and did exactly what Warner didn't - demonize John McCain. That's their job, really, but it came as quite a contrast from Warner's speech. I'll summarize their speeches here:
"As you're aware, by electing Barack Obama as the next president of the United States, we will be able to create three billion new jobs - every month! It's absolutely amazing what we could accomplish! By contrast, if John McCain becomes president, we will literally be forced by law to brutally slaughter and consume our own children. Is that what we want to see happen in the future? No! Only Barack Obama can save us from the coming apocalpyse!"
(Actually, I really enjoyed Brian Schweitzer's speech. He played up the fact that he's a simple rancher from Montana, and he really seemed to be having fun. It's a rare thing to laugh out loud during a convention speech. I did several times during Schweitzer's speech. Here's hoping we see more of him in the future.)
While I'm waiting for Sen. Clinton to come on stage, I'll talk about Deval Patrick briefly. I thought it was interesting that they invited him to speak, considering the "just words?" flap earlier in the primary season. He was a good speaker, but I cringed a little bit when he started having the audience chant "yes, we can". It seems a little bold of him to invite plagiarism back into the campaign. The McCain campaign is doing a good enough job of shredding Obama's image without him adding more fuel to the fire.
(Schweitzer is still going, and he's shouting at each state's delegation individually to get up off their feet and shout for energy independence. Man, this guy is an electric speaker!)
Before Sen. Clinton took the stage, they played a montage of her speeches and people talking about her. It was pretty inspiring, and you'd better believe they put that "18 million cracks" line in there a couple of times. Chelsea Clinton narrated the video, and she introduced her mother to the crowd, who gave her a few minutes of a standing ovation and waved a ton of Hillary posters, which seemed to appear out of nowhere. The big question, though: can she convince her supporters to (enthusiastically) back Obama?
It sure looks like she's off to a good start - she mentioned the fact that she was a "proud supporter of Barack Obama" within the first 30 seconds of her speech. Statements like "we are all on the same side, and none of us can afford to stay on the sidelines" seemed like pointed remarks to her supporters to vote for Obama already.
She's doing a very good job of reminding Democrats what the real contest is - not Clinton vs. Obama, but Obama vs. McCain. She mentioned once that Obama was her candidate and was met with grumbles of disdain, but she kept talking and shouted them down. I'm convinced she's sincere. While she's certainly disappointed that she didn't win this round (who wouldn't be?), she really wants to see a Democrat in the White House.
(Personally, I think she'll be a more powerful agent for the Democratic Party as a senator than she could have been as a president. She'd meet with a lot of strong Republican opposition as a president, but in Congress, she can be a strong voice and push things through. This is probably the best situation the party could be in at this point, all things considered.)
It's interesting that all of these speakers have stayed away from personal attacks on John McCain in keeping with Obama's vision of post-partisan politics, but that it seems to be open season on attacking George W. Bush. His name is practically a four-letter word here at the convention, becoming synonymous with "failed leadership," "economic ruin," and "short-sighted."
Wow. Hillary's finishing this speech off with a bang. She's asking her supporters, "Were you in this campaign just for me, or were you in it for [a million stories that tug at the heartstrings]?" For someone whose public image is so much about me-first and selfishness, she's doing a good job of taking the spotlight off herself. I saw a lot of shots of tear-streaked faces of women who are still reluctant to let the dream go, but the message seems to be getting through. This is a really good speech.
Now she's implying that it's our duty as Americans to elect Barack Obama to ensure a brighter future. That's a powerful statement, and it's interesting that she was able to make the point without mentioning either Bush's or McCain's names. Very skillfully done.
That's it for the convention tonight. It looks like Hillary did all that she could to convince her renegade supporters to get behind Obama and the party in November. She wasn't wishy-washy in her support, either. She made it very clear that she doesn't want to sabotage her party's chances at the White House. Sure, you might argue that such was the politically expedient thing for her to do (could she really stand up and tell people to abandon Obama?), but the message really seemed sincere. I was impressed. But boy, would I be excited if Mark Warner were on top of the ticket. Especially if he had Brian Schweitzer as his VP. What a tremendous ticket that would be. Maybe someday in the future.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
In which the author loses his mind
Why this primary season is driving me insane.
(In this article, the author will replace his traditional style of summarizing news stories without editorial bias with RAW UNBRIDLED SARCASM. Please be forewarned that the following statements will be purely opinion and not meant to be construed as fact. Thank you. --ed.)
The dominant story in the headlines today was that Barack Obama all but officially cut ties with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his controversial pastor who has been causing problems for him on the campaign trail. (I've already documented my feelings on the Wright imbroglio previously; feel free to refresh yourself on them.) After laying the story to rest a few weeks ago, Wright has taken it upon himself to go on a speaking tour in an effort to clear his name. To his credit, he sounds much more polished and intelligent than the sound bites you hear on YouTube. And to his credit, Obama really didn't have any other political recourse than to once again publicly distance himself from Wright. That's all good and well. But why does this story have to be the top item on my Google News page? It's a story that's already been put to bed several weeks ago. It didn't affect the polls the first time around, and it won't affect the polls this time around. (Pro-Obama voters would love him even if he ate babies, anti-Obama voters would hate him even found a way to cure cancer and turn it into gold, and undecided voters will vote based on the economy.) Let it go already! It doesn't matter!
I know I sound like a broken record here, but the fact is that none of the election coverage over the past few months has really mattered. Almost without exception, each state has gone for the candidate projected to win there weeks and months earlier. The only exception has been Hillary Clinton's win in New Hampshire, which showed Obama leading on the day of the primary. Can we please skip to the end already? Clinton DOES NOT have a chance to win the nomination. She can take the race all the way to the convention, sure, but in the end, she's going to end up as close to winning the nomination as Dennis Kucinich. Taking second place isn't any different than taking twentieth. You still lose.
Don't believe me when I say she's not going to win? Take a look at Slate's Delegate Calculator, which shows how many delegates each candidate has and stands to win in each state. As I'm writing this article, Obama holds a 155 delegate lead. That may not sound like much when there are over 3100 delegates that have been awarded, but that's more delegates than there were at stake in Ohio. (Remember when Ohio was a big deal?) Obama's lead is huge, and Clinton isn't doing much to chip away at it. The major media outlets made a huge deal about her win in Pennsylvania last week, saying that she was back from the dead and that maybe Obama was the underdog now. This is lunacy. Absolutely ridiculous. She ended up with a net gain of 12 delegates from that primary. If she wanted to make a legitimate claim that she could win this race, she would have needed at least twice that to start making a dent in Obama's lead. As it stands, Clinton needs to win the remaining nine primaries by forty points each to even catch up to Obama. Forty points. That means she needs to get at least 70% of the vote in nine more contests if she wants to take the lead and start convincing superdelegates that the has the voice of the people.
Do we have any idea how utterly impossible it is to get 70% of the vote in any given state? Any??? It's only been done twice in this primary season. Obama did it in Hawaii (where he benefited from being a native son and the caucus format) and Clinton did it in Arkansas (again, with the native son). Obama couldn't do it in Illinois. Clinton couldn't do it in New York. John McCain is just barely pulling it off now, even though he's UNOPPOSED. Is this starting to make sense? HILLARY IS DEAD, PEOPLE. ACCEPT IT.
Seriously. Let's just agree to tune out all election coverage until June 4, when we wake up and see that Obama is STILL ahead after the Montana and South Dakota primaries. Clinton won't have a leg to stand on. She'll be completely finished and won't have anything else to fall back on. (Who am I kidding? Of course she'll come up with something else to justify staying in the race.) Anything else that happens between now and then can be safely ignored, unless we find out Obama is a convicted murderer, alligator rapist, or serial pope abuser. Almost every single primary (remember New Hampshire?) has gone according to the polls so far. There's really no reason to assume that it won't continue. Here, I'll even tell you who's going to win each of the remaining nine contests:
May 6: Indiana (Obama, close)
North Carolina (Obama, by a lot)
May 13: West Virginia (Clinton, by a lot)
May 20: Kentucky (Clinton, by a lot)
Oregon (Obama, close)
June 3: Montana (no polling data available, but probably Obama by a lot)
South Dakota (same thing)
There aren't any opinion polls taken for Guam and Puerto Rico, either. Even if we assume those to be virtual ties, there's no chance that Clinton will get 70% of the remaining vote. Even if she does, she still has to convince something like 80% of the remaining superdelegates to side with her. It's impossible.
Seriously. Come back and read this article on June 4 and see if I wasn't right.
(In this article, the author will replace his traditional style of summarizing news stories without editorial bias with RAW UNBRIDLED SARCASM. Please be forewarned that the following statements will be purely opinion and not meant to be construed as fact. Thank you. --ed.)
The dominant story in the headlines today was that Barack Obama all but officially cut ties with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his controversial pastor who has been causing problems for him on the campaign trail. (I've already documented my feelings on the Wright imbroglio previously; feel free to refresh yourself on them.) After laying the story to rest a few weeks ago, Wright has taken it upon himself to go on a speaking tour in an effort to clear his name. To his credit, he sounds much more polished and intelligent than the sound bites you hear on YouTube. And to his credit, Obama really didn't have any other political recourse than to once again publicly distance himself from Wright. That's all good and well. But why does this story have to be the top item on my Google News page? It's a story that's already been put to bed several weeks ago. It didn't affect the polls the first time around, and it won't affect the polls this time around. (Pro-Obama voters would love him even if he ate babies, anti-Obama voters would hate him even found a way to cure cancer and turn it into gold, and undecided voters will vote based on the economy.) Let it go already! It doesn't matter!
I know I sound like a broken record here, but the fact is that none of the election coverage over the past few months has really mattered. Almost without exception, each state has gone for the candidate projected to win there weeks and months earlier. The only exception has been Hillary Clinton's win in New Hampshire, which showed Obama leading on the day of the primary. Can we please skip to the end already? Clinton DOES NOT have a chance to win the nomination. She can take the race all the way to the convention, sure, but in the end, she's going to end up as close to winning the nomination as Dennis Kucinich. Taking second place isn't any different than taking twentieth. You still lose.
Don't believe me when I say she's not going to win? Take a look at Slate's Delegate Calculator, which shows how many delegates each candidate has and stands to win in each state. As I'm writing this article, Obama holds a 155 delegate lead. That may not sound like much when there are over 3100 delegates that have been awarded, but that's more delegates than there were at stake in Ohio. (Remember when Ohio was a big deal?) Obama's lead is huge, and Clinton isn't doing much to chip away at it. The major media outlets made a huge deal about her win in Pennsylvania last week, saying that she was back from the dead and that maybe Obama was the underdog now. This is lunacy. Absolutely ridiculous. She ended up with a net gain of 12 delegates from that primary. If she wanted to make a legitimate claim that she could win this race, she would have needed at least twice that to start making a dent in Obama's lead. As it stands, Clinton needs to win the remaining nine primaries by forty points each to even catch up to Obama. Forty points. That means she needs to get at least 70% of the vote in nine more contests if she wants to take the lead and start convincing superdelegates that the has the voice of the people.
Do we have any idea how utterly impossible it is to get 70% of the vote in any given state? Any??? It's only been done twice in this primary season. Obama did it in Hawaii (where he benefited from being a native son and the caucus format) and Clinton did it in Arkansas (again, with the native son). Obama couldn't do it in Illinois. Clinton couldn't do it in New York. John McCain is just barely pulling it off now, even though he's UNOPPOSED. Is this starting to make sense? HILLARY IS DEAD, PEOPLE. ACCEPT IT.
Seriously. Let's just agree to tune out all election coverage until June 4, when we wake up and see that Obama is STILL ahead after the Montana and South Dakota primaries. Clinton won't have a leg to stand on. She'll be completely finished and won't have anything else to fall back on. (Who am I kidding? Of course she'll come up with something else to justify staying in the race.) Anything else that happens between now and then can be safely ignored, unless we find out Obama is a convicted murderer, alligator rapist, or serial pope abuser. Almost every single primary (remember New Hampshire?) has gone according to the polls so far. There's really no reason to assume that it won't continue. Here, I'll even tell you who's going to win each of the remaining nine contests:
May 6: Indiana (Obama, close)
North Carolina (Obama, by a lot)
May 13: West Virginia (Clinton, by a lot)
May 20: Kentucky (Clinton, by a lot)
Oregon (Obama, close)
June 3: Montana (no polling data available, but probably Obama by a lot)
South Dakota (same thing)
There aren't any opinion polls taken for Guam and Puerto Rico, either. Even if we assume those to be virtual ties, there's no chance that Clinton will get 70% of the remaining vote. Even if she does, she still has to convince something like 80% of the remaining superdelegates to side with her. It's impossible.
Seriously. Come back and read this article on June 4 and see if I wasn't right.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
The Republican Primary, Take Two
The vice presidential sweepstakes begins.
Now that John McCain has the Republican presidential nomination wrapped up, speculation has begun over who his running mate will be. Not only is this a logical thing to discuss now, but it doubles as a good strategic move, since the longer the battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continues, the more McCain fades into the background. Let's review some of the names that have been thrown out and their likeliness of being accepted.
Mitt Romney. Hands down, the most commonly mentioned name. Romney has some considerable pluses, not least of which is his considerable personal fortune that could be used for campaign finance. That's also a liability, however, as McCain has made a crusade out of campaign finance reform over the last few years. Romney's only other real asset is his name-recognition factor, which helps to explain why he has attracted so much attention lately. Voters, even when serious matters of policy are on the line, tend to vote for the candidate who they have heard of the most, which explains why the front-runners last summer were Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. Still, Romney's star power doesn't extend far past Idaho and Utah, two states that are already safe bets for the Republicans. Don't bank on Romney picking up the nod.
Mike Huckabee. Huckabee's appeal is similar to Romney's; people have heard of him because of his recent success in the primaries. He also has the advantage of appealing to evangelical voters, whose support McCain badly needs. He could also bring in Southern voters. Questions still arise concerning his conservative credentials, since he raised taxes while governor (legit) and didn't see through enough executions while in office (I still can't believe people actually think this). Moral of the story? Huckabee is more likely than Romney to make it on the ticket, but still far from a sure thing.
Condoleeza Rice. The Secretary of State only has one thing going for her, and that's her name recognition factor. Possibilities of breaking barriers aside (you're thinking about running a black or a woman? what about a BLACK WOMAN???), her service in the Bush administration is just too big a liability for her to be seriously considered as a vice president. Not a chance.
Colin Powell. Wishful thinking. He's publicly ended his political career, which is good, since his role in starting the war in Iraq (even if he was deceived by Bush and Rumsfeld) would effectively prevent him from ever being elected.
Dick Cheney. I've actually heard his name floated, although mostly in jest. Moving on.
Tim Pawlenty. Haven't heard of him? Pawlenty is the governor of Minnesota and looks like he'd be an excellent vice
president. and might help to tilt his traditionally Democratic home state for the Republicans. Pawlenty has long been a McCain supporter and is a popular governor among his constituents. He's also young (just 48), which adds a nice counter-balance to McCain's age. There's a fair chance that he could get the nod.
Charlie Crist. This name might sound more familiar - he's the governor of Florida whose last-minute endorsement gave McCain the push he needed to take the state and the momentum heading into Super Tuesday. There's every reason to think that McCain might repay the favor by adding Crist to his ticket, especially since Florida is a major swing state. 27 electoral votes can make a big difference. Crist, too, is relatively young (52), though his gray hair could actually be the difference. (Pawlenty just looks younger than Crist. Like I keep saying, this election is all about image.)
Jon Huntsman, Jr. As the governor of Utah, you would Huntsman to be an ardent Romney supporter, but he's actually backed McCain from the early stages of the primary season. Like Pawlenty and Crist, he is young, charismatic, and energetic, all things McCain would love to have associated with his campaign. Unlike Pawlenty and Crist, however, he is not the governor of a swing state. A McCain-Huntsman ticket wouldn't be a big surprise, but I think it would be more likely to see him with a Cabinet position.
But even more likely to be accurate than my speculations, however, is the market on political futures - Intrade.com. Intrade allows you to buy and sell futures on politics. It's essentially like betting on who you think will end up as the nominee for either party. Mitt Romney leads the field in the vice presidential market, but Tim Pawlenty is close behind. When you factor out Romney's name recognition, Pawlenty looks like the likely candidate. Keep your eyes peeled.
Now that John McCain has the Republican presidential nomination wrapped up, speculation has begun over who his running mate will be. Not only is this a logical thing to discuss now, but it doubles as a good strategic move, since the longer the battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continues, the more McCain fades into the background. Let's review some of the names that have been thrown out and their likeliness of being accepted.
Mitt Romney. Hands down, the most commonly mentioned name. Romney has some considerable pluses, not least of which is his considerable personal fortune that could be used for campaign finance. That's also a liability, however, as McCain has made a crusade out of campaign finance reform over the last few years. Romney's only other real asset is his name-recognition factor, which helps to explain why he has attracted so much attention lately. Voters, even when serious matters of policy are on the line, tend to vote for the candidate who they have heard of the most, which explains why the front-runners last summer were Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. Still, Romney's star power doesn't extend far past Idaho and Utah, two states that are already safe bets for the Republicans. Don't bank on Romney picking up the nod.
Mike Huckabee. Huckabee's appeal is similar to Romney's; people have heard of him because of his recent success in the primaries. He also has the advantage of appealing to evangelical voters, whose support McCain badly needs. He could also bring in Southern voters. Questions still arise concerning his conservative credentials, since he raised taxes while governor (legit) and didn't see through enough executions while in office (I still can't believe people actually think this). Moral of the story? Huckabee is more likely than Romney to make it on the ticket, but still far from a sure thing.
Condoleeza Rice. The Secretary of State only has one thing going for her, and that's her name recognition factor. Possibilities of breaking barriers aside (you're thinking about running a black or a woman? what about a BLACK WOMAN???), her service in the Bush administration is just too big a liability for her to be seriously considered as a vice president. Not a chance.
Colin Powell. Wishful thinking. He's publicly ended his political career, which is good, since his role in starting the war in Iraq (even if he was deceived by Bush and Rumsfeld) would effectively prevent him from ever being elected.
Dick Cheney. I've actually heard his name floated, although mostly in jest. Moving on.
Tim Pawlenty. Haven't heard of him? Pawlenty is the governor of Minnesota and looks like he'd be an excellent vice
president. and might help to tilt his traditionally Democratic home state for the Republicans. Pawlenty has long been a McCain supporter and is a popular governor among his constituents. He's also young (just 48), which adds a nice counter-balance to McCain's age. There's a fair chance that he could get the nod.Charlie Crist. This name might sound more familiar - he's the governor of Florida whose last-minute endorsement gave McCain the push he needed to take the state and the momentum heading into Super Tuesday. There's every reason to think that McCain might repay the favor by adding Crist to his ticket, especially since Florida is a major swing state. 27 electoral votes can make a big difference. Crist, too, is relatively young (52), though his gray hair could actually be the difference. (Pawlenty just looks younger than Crist. Like I keep saying, this election is all about image.)
Jon Huntsman, Jr. As the governor of Utah, you would Huntsman to be an ardent Romney supporter, but he's actually backed McCain from the early stages of the primary season. Like Pawlenty and Crist, he is young, charismatic, and energetic, all things McCain would love to have associated with his campaign. Unlike Pawlenty and Crist, however, he is not the governor of a swing state. A McCain-Huntsman ticket wouldn't be a big surprise, but I think it would be more likely to see him with a Cabinet position.
But even more likely to be accurate than my speculations, however, is the market on political futures - Intrade.com. Intrade allows you to buy and sell futures on politics. It's essentially like betting on who you think will end up as the nominee for either party. Mitt Romney leads the field in the vice presidential market, but Tim Pawlenty is close behind. When you factor out Romney's name recognition, Pawlenty looks like the likely candidate. Keep your eyes peeled.
Monday, March 31, 2008
McClone
Further proof that John McCain is the second coming of George W. Bush.
Criticism of John McCain has been varied, to say the least. Ultraconservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh have publicly announced that McCain is not conservative enough, stating that they would even vote for Hillary Clinton over him. Critics from the left - especially his likely November opponent, Barack Obama - have denounced him for being too conservative, saying that a McCain presidency only amounts to a third Bush term. Both sides have a legitimate beef, but accusations of McCain as Bush, Jr. are starting to look more accurate. Even more than his policy, McCain's speech is starting to sound downright Bushian of late.
Consider this. McCain, whose major strength is his understanding of the military, said the following at a press conference: "[I]t's common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and is receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran." Senator Joe Lieberman, who was standing at his side, quickly whispered into his ear, after which McCain said that he misspoke, and that Iran was not training al-Qaeda in Iraq forces. A simple mistake, right? Perhaps, except that he made the same misspeech a day earlier. The error is a small one - Iranians are
training Iraqi extremists, not al-Qaeda forces - but one that hearkens back to the road to war in 2002. Bush was adamant that there were connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda, which ultimately proved to be false. It's far from clear that McCain is as gung-ho about war as Bush has been, but this sort of mistake from a professed military expert does raise some eyebrows.
Couple that with another recent statement, and things seem even more sketchy. When asked about the situation in Iraq now that the death toll for U.S. soldiers had risen above 4,000, McCain answered, "We're succeeding. I don't care what anybody says. I've seen the facts on the ground." That's a statement that sounds eerily like Bush. The war in Iraq, along with many other hallmarks of the Bush administration, were perpetuated due to the government's insistence on ignoring reality. That has been the most glaring criticism of George W. Bush. It's unnerving to think that the likely Republican nominee could already have the same thing going against him.
Criticism of John McCain has been varied, to say the least. Ultraconservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh have publicly announced that McCain is not conservative enough, stating that they would even vote for Hillary Clinton over him. Critics from the left - especially his likely November opponent, Barack Obama - have denounced him for being too conservative, saying that a McCain presidency only amounts to a third Bush term. Both sides have a legitimate beef, but accusations of McCain as Bush, Jr. are starting to look more accurate. Even more than his policy, McCain's speech is starting to sound downright Bushian of late.
Consider this. McCain, whose major strength is his understanding of the military, said the following at a press conference: "[I]t's common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and is receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran." Senator Joe Lieberman, who was standing at his side, quickly whispered into his ear, after which McCain said that he misspoke, and that Iran was not training al-Qaeda in Iraq forces. A simple mistake, right? Perhaps, except that he made the same misspeech a day earlier. The error is a small one - Iranians are
training Iraqi extremists, not al-Qaeda forces - but one that hearkens back to the road to war in 2002. Bush was adamant that there were connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda, which ultimately proved to be false. It's far from clear that McCain is as gung-ho about war as Bush has been, but this sort of mistake from a professed military expert does raise some eyebrows.Couple that with another recent statement, and things seem even more sketchy. When asked about the situation in Iraq now that the death toll for U.S. soldiers had risen above 4,000, McCain answered, "We're succeeding. I don't care what anybody says. I've seen the facts on the ground." That's a statement that sounds eerily like Bush. The war in Iraq, along with many other hallmarks of the Bush administration, were perpetuated due to the government's insistence on ignoring reality. That has been the most glaring criticism of George W. Bush. It's unnerving to think that the likely Republican nominee could already have the same thing going against him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)