November 19, 2008 at 12:11 am
· Filed under Uncategorized
Just a note to my wonderful returning readers…. Thanks for reading and coming back!! You’re my favorites, you know that, right?
Now I know I’ve been missing for a few days since Hope Came to America, but I’m not abandoning this blog. I fully intend to come roaring, or dawdling, back to it, and to keep trying to amuse you while thinking about politics and news you could find interesting.
You could say that I am resting, but what I am actually doing is working really really hard again these next few weeks. (which was about time, wasn’t it!)
Please be back. Or maybe root through some old posts you may not have read. Miss Teen Alaska was pretty popular.
Look, I was never a Clinton (for president this year) supporter. And I came to hate the way she and Bill muddied up the water in the primary. I felt they wouldn’t acknowledge where the mood was and that the mood called for Barack Obama. But I have to say, it works.
It really works, it is exactly what we (the anxious transition watchers) were looking for. I’ve come across few people in Washington who have been feeling absolutely one candidate fits the bill. John Kerry, very accomplished, endorsed Obama at a crucial time. Bill Richardson, also very accomplished, endorsed Obama at another helpful moment, and is rumored to have a lot of ugly skeletons in his closet. Chuck Hagel, fun to interview for the press, very accomplished, principled, tough and would cross from the right and meet Obama in the middle, usefully. But it still just doesn’t fit perfectly.
Clinton brings bravado, finally in a very good way, starpower (it can intimidate, and awe), a symbolic political healing, especially with white women, and the satisfaction of the so-called Pumas, those stubborn women who felt violated and would not yield to the party’s choice. And she also brings an incisive studiousness, a seriousness and capacity (so they say) to absorb and learn incredibly quickly. And she’s poised, ready (youbetcha!) on day one, and it bears repeating, tough. She’d be a great Secretary of State.
And as I just heard Pat Buchanan envisage, with the challenges on the table in 2009, nobel peace prize could be in her grasp if she shows the extraordinary leadership she might possess. It’s just what she would look for if she were open to the opportunity and able to accept the loss (I think she has, if not Bill as much). She’d also be a good liaison for President Obama to John McCain if he plays a central role in our policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East, and elsewhere. The only drawback I see is that for a Clinton to be Obama’s envoy to the world, does that suggest a Clinton years redux in foreign policy.
Wait, there is one drawback, for it’s for Clinton herself. Taking the job would take her out of political rotation for a while, as Andrea Mitchell put it on Hardball tonight, she wouldn’t be out campaigning for people, collecting chits and so on. And, Chris Matthews rightly noted
She’d be an asset. And I think they both know it. This announcement will be something to see, people. Maybe they’ll cut to Bill wiping a tear from his eye.
The Kremlin has, not shockingly, turned down the recent U.S. offer to “mitigate some of the Russian concerns” restarting an arms race – with a missile shield in Russia’s backyard – by allowing Russia to allow representatives tour the launch sites.
“Russia is ready to cooperate with the United States on European security but considers the proposals that were sent are insufficient,” Itar-Tass news agency quoted an unidentified Kremlin source as saying.
“We will not give our agreement to these proposals and we will speak to the new administration,” said the source, who was quoted by Russia’s three main news agencies, an indication the remarks reflect official policy.
Thing is, the chances of actually deterring a missile, launched from who knows what corner of the earth, are so miniscile as to make spending billions of dollars on a missile defense shield in Europe. I can’t honestly figure what makes Republicans presidents (Reagan, Bush 43) tilt after missile defense shields, other than that billion dollar technology can be cool, if not effective.
But President Obama is going to find himself in the uncomfortable position of slashing and burning the federal budget to make it through the spending, deficit and taxes gauntlet next year. And no single line item offers as much give for the take as missile defense (or, Star Wars, if you’re feeling nostalgic for the 1980’s). President-elect Obama must be asking himself, do we really need it?
Getting the U.S. to scrap or even just freeze the Bush plan for a European missile shield (again, is there evidence that it really will protect anyone?) is about as big a priority for Russia as deterring Iran’s nuclear ambitions is to the U.S. It has become the Kremlin’s #1 international priority. In fact, you have to wonder how much more cooperation we could get out of Russia on the world’s most pressing crises – starting with Iran – and is it worth slashing a program that is years away from ready anyway? Could keeping a U.S. military presence out of Poland and the Czech Republic be so vital an interest that Russia would consider backing off of Georgia and Ukraine, for good, in exchange?
Whatever Putin’s intentions may be these days, I’m guessing that he doesn’t want to or can’t commit the resources it would take to catch up to the U.S. missile shield plan. Maybe we could just outspend the Russians (or maybe they could play dirty, like with stateless terrorists). It’s like the earth fell down a rabbit hole and we are reliving a Cold War and an arms race with Russia, twenty years after the end of the Cold War, on totally new ground.
I used to enjoy bashing Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. I found her to be incredibly unprepared and unapologetic, both in her unpreparedness and in her attacks on then-candidate Barack Obama, and on the intelligence of American voters.
And so it was with glee that I was looking forward to her sheepish retreat into relative, if temporary obscurity, in the coming weeks and months. But, like the diva she apparently was, Palin ain’t retreating. She’s now unmuzzled, and speaking her mind, there. Because in speaking to the people, you know, unfettered and transparently is gettin’ that back to the people, and knowin’ she knows she knows her geography in there is just not what’s it’s all about there. Ya know?
Seriously, I just want her to go away. For a while. Give us all a break. Deciphering her syntax is exhausting. But, no. Palin wants to save her reputation. So, she’s showin’ those jerks and talkin’ to every reporter in sight- ha! That’ll show’em. Yes, while Stephen Colbert may still be morose over how “the damn Democrats have spayed our pitbull,” I think that John Stewart is really more on to something: “Sarah Palin has been tagged and reintroduced into the wild.”
I can imagine that 10 days after the election, there is a segment of the Republican party at large – a goodly chunk of the rock bottom 30% GOP supporters (that is a number I’ve seen in post-election polling of how fearful respondents are about President-elect Obama) – that wants to see more of Sarah Palin now, and wants her to defend herself from the McCain staff leaks spilling out in the media this last week. Her supporters must be extra thankful, then, to hear that Palin will not hesitate to plough through any open door God helps her to see, including the door to the White House in four years.
This governors’ meeting in Florida should certainly be good for drama – Tim Pawlenty and Charlie Crist (washed up almost were’s), Mike Huckabee (a fellow aw shucks’n), Arnold Schwarzenegger (you just want him to mix it up) and potential rockstar Bobby Jindal (who was smart enough to turn down vetting before his time) come face to face with the now most controversial figure in the Republican party (George Bush must sure be relieved).
Does anyone really think that among the Republican governors, is there a one that wants to crown the Governor from Wasilla the party’s inheritor? Or how about the new comeback kid, Newt Gingrich, former House Speaker, architect of the last Republican revolution in memory? He claims to like Palin but he’s not vying to head the Republican National Committee for naught (I’d bet), from where he should easily be able to launch a campaign for president after what will hopefully be a minor improvement in Republican fortunes in 2010. Expect Ms. Palin to share a crowded stage in 3 years. It will certainly be curious to see how that goes for her.
But what most needs saying? For God’s sake, Governor, setting the fashion record straight does not a president make. You should be above comment on these sorts of stories – that is, assuming none of them are true.
I’m sick of reading and talking about the media’s supposed bias toward Obama, and so let me address the topic in hopes I can exorcise it (next exorcism: Sarah Palin).
The Washington Post’s ombudsman, Deborah Howell, studied the Post’s coverage of the election and concluded that there was an “Obama tilt” to its coverage.
But why would we not expect Obama, who only clinched the Democratic nomination four months after McCain emerged the victor among Republican candidates, to rack up more coverage during that period? Then, once Obama became the nominee, and particularly from mid-September onward, Obama led McCain in most and then all polls.
Greg Mitchell reminds us that more than 1,200 Post stories simply covered the horse race; around 500 covered issues. Readers can criticize the media for this imbalance. But that, and not playing favorites, likely explains a perceived Obama tilt. By virtue of being ahead in the horse race, Obama was more than twice as likely to net positive coverage. Mitchell concludes:
So we will be reading for years about the strong media “bias” against McCain — look at all those “unfavorable” stories about him — when it was mainly (although perhaps not completely) a matter of Obama leading the horse race and getting credit for that by reporters who were, surprise, not deaf, dumb and blind. Does anyone doubt that if McCain had roared to the lead in October and stayed ahead until the end that the results of the studies would have been completely different?
Yes, the press is biased — in favor of recognizing who is winning and stating that (perhaps too often).
Also: Can the media be faulted if one candidate is committing the major share of gaffes or (in this age of fact-check sites) making the most inaccurate statements in speeches and in ads? Is it “bias” to recognize that? Or to vet a candidate for vice president who (we now know) had not been vetted by anyone else?
If you want to talk about lopsided coverage, how about the endless loop of Reverend Jeremiah Wright played for three months this past spring? Who did that nonstop tape favor? Certainly not Mr. Obama. And does anyone believe nonstop coverage of former Weatherman Bill Ayers for the final 2-3 weeks of the general camapign really boost Mr. Obama?
What is so ironic is that McCain himself was long the media darling, and that he only ceased to be once his media availability became more a liability to his campaign than an asset. And there’s no one to blame for that except the candidate, and the campaign.
What’s fair to say, though, is that Obama the candidate was indeed a refreshing change from the waning days of the Bush administration, and a weakened, defensive Republican party. President-elect Obama, and the enthusiasm his candidacy generated, proved exciting to cover. Republicans, listen up: all you really have to do to get the press spotlight back is to make news.
I just heard Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary to President Clinton, make a case for spending Treasury dollars on infrastructure projects (on MSNBC’s 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue). Reich rightly notes that infrastructure investment, and not necessarily financial institution bailouts, creates jobs – lots of jobs. Infrastructure can be a multiplier for a flagging economy; it can help get the gears moving again.
Government spending has a bad name in DC. But in fact, only investing in our nation’s energy production, transportation and other infrastructure pays back in dividends in jobs, resources and a shot of confidence. Once Americans feel like they can spend again – with the government pumping its case into jobs to give the initial push – then cash and credit can flow again from banks and wallets.
So long as Democrats don’t overreach at this crucial recasting of government players, passing a reasonable sized stimulus package like what I am hearing the Democrats, including their president-elect, calling for is a good thing to do. If President Bush softens his stance, modifies the package some in negotiations and then signs it, such a bill could be a positive last initiative for President Bush, and ironically, a piece of compassionate legislation to make the end of the national conservative agenda for at least 2 years.
Karl Rove, Mike Huckabee, Florida Senator Mel Martinez (a potentially vulnerable Republican in 2010) and other Republicans have be calling for working with the newly-elected President and Democratic congress, and to do so by bringing ideas to the table. Therein – new ideas to the table – lies the rise of the old new Republican Party.
There is no old Virginia, no real America. But there are old Republicans, the careful ones who lost grip of their party in the waning 1990’s. The new Republicans leaned lazily on low taxes and ran up the bill on a Chinese credit card. The party faces a crucial decision on how to get the country out of its mini-depression, as I’ve now heard it called.
Of a public works program style stimulus effort, the party leaders must ask, “where does the money come from,” as Dan Lundgrun (R -CA) wondered to Chris Matthews today. And maybe it won’t work in the immediate term. These are fair concerns. But what else have you got? Where are your solutions. Because that is what elects a candidate (ideally).
In the coming days, the Republican Governors are gathering in Florida, and it will be an opportunity to make sense of what just happened, rebuild the platform and its players, and audition for the next cycle. The Republican party must answer the challenges ahead with real ideas, or else wander the wilderness for eight years to think about what they’ve done.
I’ve had a hard time figuring out what to write about the election of Barack Obama last night; it’s just such a stunning leap for America, after the hyper divisiveness of the last 8-16 years. All along I, even as a white American, feared that the politics of race and culture, which were arguably stoked by the McCain campaign in the final month or so of the election, would carry the day.
And then there was the post traumatic stress disorder of the 2000’s – hanging chads and recount battles in Florida. Many, many Democrats believe that election was stolen, not merely by an electoral system that favored geographic diversity, but by the one government body that was meant to be unpolitical- the Supreme Court. And then came voting irregularities Ohio in 2004, calls for Kerry to contest the state. Could the voting machines be trusted anymore? Was this really the greatest democracy on Earth?
So when first Pennsylvania, then Ohio, then Florida and even Virginia were called for Senator Obama without incident or significant delay, and in fact, with comfortable margins, it just didn’t seem real. But not quite believing it didn’t stop Democrats from reveling into the wee hours around this country last night. But it wasn’t just about Democrats; it was really about the man we had elected and what it meant for the country at this time in history. Over at fivethirtyeight.com, I found a great description of the mood here in Washington, D.C.:
America’s only remaining buttoned-downed town, horns were honking in a ticker-tape stream until three in the morning, and strangers black, white and otherwise were hooting and hollering and giving one another thumbs-ups and high-fives as they passed each other on the street.
There was no sense of anger, or rivalry, no sense that the enemy had been vanquished. There was, rather, a tremendous sense of empowerment in the notion that someone more like them was going to take up residence down the street: someone younger, someone blacker, someone poorer, someone who knew that the majesty of America exists not just in the tranquility of its small towns but also in the bustle of its cities.
It was an historic and emotional night for America. There’s no way to know exactly what kind of president Mr. Obama will turn out to be. But his election tells a lot about the electorate who just sent the first black man in the history of our country to the White House. We may not all agree on the politics, but maybe, just maybe, we are not quite as divided as we feared.
You had to know she wasn’t going away. Like Arnold Schwartzenegger, Sarah Palin will be back, barring further disastrous developments (like, getting impeached over troopergate?) . . . in 2012.
In fact Palin’s first step toward 2012 was a rather unseemly step away from the man who made her a household name by putting her on the Republican ticket, John McCain. I just caught a post-election clip on MSNBC’s 1600 Pennsylvania Ave (formerly Race to the White House) with David Gregory of Sarah Palin responding to a question about her effect on the losing ticket. Palin insisted that the pundits shouldn’t ” attribute John’s McCain’s loss to me [being on the ticket].”
But did you catch that? It was John McCain who lost last night. She’s practically kicked him to the curb hardly twelve hours later. True, people vote for the top of the ticket, but it’s still a ticket, a team, a duo. And I’ve heard, anecdotally, a lot of folks say that they were turned off by McCain’s judgment in selecting Palin. And then there’s CNN’s non-scientific text-your-response poll result: 82% of respondents said that Palin’s presence on the ticket hurt McCain.
Now, I admit that this is a nutty theory that I am about to espouse, but in my defense, I am not the only one.
I think Sarah Palin might make a run at the U.S. Senate via recently-convicted, possibly re-elected (seriously, Alaska??) felon and senior senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens. Even if Stevens wins his race, which has yet to be called for either candidate while absentee votes get counted, you have to imagine that the Senate Ethics Committee will give him the boot. (Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has already said Stevens should go.) His early departure would leave an empty chair for the governor of Alaska to fill on a temporary basis, until a special election for the seat can be called.
Would Palin – could Palin – appoint herself?? I’m not sure I know the second part of the answer, but of course, she would only take the seat after her supporters had begged her to do it. After what Ted Stevens put Alaskans through, it’s the least she can do. And it would be an awfully convenient way to stay in the national spotlight and to gain national experience (it worked for Barack Obama).
I do think, however, that she will probably stay where she is for one simple reason: it’s the quickest path to run for her party’s nomination in four years. Sarah Palin has two more years in Alaska to leave a mark on the state by which she can be favorably judged by the pundits and the people when she again seeks higher office. She can also take speaking engagements that keep her in the limelight, and help to burnish a national political persona over time. Then, she would be in position to get re-elected in Alaska (assuming she remains popular enough) and run in earnest for the Republican nomination. Last night, fifty-two percent of Americans chose a candidate who hadn’t even finished one Senate term in Washington; but I doubt they will be eager to do so again so soon.
If you live in Virginia, chances are you’ve now got a stack of campaign leaflets piled up on your door knob. If you had the time and inclination to compare the closing literature, here are some of the things you might notice:
The Obama leaflet didn’t say “Obama Biden” at the top, it said “Obama Warner.” I doubt that says anything about Joe Biden; simply that the Obama campaign hopes to ride Mark Warner’s coattails into Virginia. Moreover, That tells you that Warner feels safe enough with his 30-point lead in the senate race to agree to these leaflets.
Of course, he didn’t agree to the ones that came attached to the McCain leaflets- one-pagers for Jerry Kilgore, the former Republican governor running way behind Warner, the former Democratic governor. Kilgore’s one pager said at the bottom: “A vote for Mark Warner is a vote for Barack Obama.” But, I doubt that will affect the race at all, given Warner’s cushion.
But McCain has managed to tighten what had become a comfortable lead for Barack Obama in Virginia over the last ten days. A race that was – inconceivably – nearing 10 points three weeks ago has tightened to an average of four points, according to the latest numbers at RCP. McCain seems to have done so by hammering Obama’s tax plans, and by calling his opponent a socialist.
Whereas the Obama Warner leaflet had a few warm and fuzzy bullet point promises about economic and national security, the McCain leaflet had two columns: on the left side, one for McCain and campaign bullet point descriptions about their candidate and his policies. On the right, assertions about Mr. Obama with tiny little footnotes to sources, some of which I don’t even know what they are. My favorite was to a New Hampshire newspaper endorsement from December 2007.
What I found most insulting to Virginia voters is that the McCain leaflet continues the misleading attack on Obama that he “voted against funding the troops.” Well, so did Mr. McCain. Routine spending bills are routinely used to settle policy fights, and the spending bill in question was nothing out of the ordinary. Mr. McCain voted against funding the troops if there was a timetable in bill for withdrawing the troops from Iraq. Mr. Obama voted against funding the war in Iraq if there was not a timetable in the bill. In neither case did McCain or Obama intend to let our troops go hungry or unprotected. The McCain campaign knows that.
The McCain leaflet also criticizes Obama for criticizing our troops for “just air-raiding villages and killing civilians” in Afghansitan. First of all, Obama wanted more troops in Afghanistan. McCain’s leaflet chops the quote up and leaves out the real point of the remark.
“We’ve got to get the job done there. And that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.”
Still, McCain’s outrage over Obama’s comment is truly disgraceful because McCain himself made the same criticism of the the air war over Kosovo (under President Clinton):
“In the most obscene chapter in recent American history is the conduct of the Kosovo conflict when the president of the United States refused to prepare for ground operations, refused to have air power used effectively because he wanted them flying — he had them flying at 15,000 feet where they killed innocent civilians because they were dropping bombs from such — in high altitude.”
Want more? The McCain leaflet calls the McCain health plan good for Americans and that it will reduce costs; Obama’s plan will mean “higher premiums for many.” From where did that factoid come? From a consulting company the McCain campaign hired to analyze both campaigns’ healthcare proposals.
I looked around for a non-profit assessment of the Obama plan, just to see if one exists. Here is what I found from the Urban Institute:
The Obama health care plan would greatly increase health insurance coverage, substantially increase access to affordable and adequate coverage for those with the highest health care needs, significantly increase the affordability of care for the low-income, and reduce the growth in health spending through a broad array of strategies. Despite the overall positive assessment, a few concerns remain. The plan would leave about 6 percent uninsured, necessitating the maintenance of the current inefficient safety net system; the employer mandate may engender significant political opposition; and the cost estimate may be low depending upon how several plan details are resolved.
You don’t expect the campaigns to help their opponent in the closing literature, but it’s hard to admire a campaign that is all about tearing the other guy down. In two days, we’ll see if it worked for the McCain campaign.
If ever an election could give Democrats and Republicans alike a stomach ulcer, this would be it.
This election night, we could all be up waiting, pretty late, for the final call on this race. Why? For starters, California’s 55 electoral votes can’t be counted (or called by networks) until after their polls close- three hours after the east coast polls have closed, and, unless Obama sweeps the east coast, including Georgia, North Carolina, Florida and Ohio, he needs California to officially lock it in). And since it isn’t terribly likely that Obama can pull off such a complete sweep, then you have three mountain west battleground states, Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico, that could all play a down-to-the-wire role for either candidate.
So, for those of you who are frustrated that by 10:00 or 11:00 pm or so, none of the networks have called the race and neither of the two major party candidates has conceded the race, but you really, really want to a) go to bed election night knowing who the next president will be, or, b) go out on the town to revel in your candidate’s impending and assured success, I think I’ve got your answer:
OBAMA WINS: If Pennsylvania and Virginia go for Barack Obama (and the pollsters aren’t wrong on New Hampshire this time), this thing is over, baby. Over. Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Indiana, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico can all go to McCain at whatever hour of the night or morning it takes- won’t matter. Obama still comes out ahead. So, your revelry or bedtime could depend on how close the vote in Pennsylvania and Virginia are, and how long it takes to count them (if it isn’t very close, network statisticians will call the state’s race, and, of course, we’re less likely to see a Florida 2000 or Ohio 2004 mess). Does this seem too simple, too easy, to believe? You can check my math here.
McCAIN WINS: Because McCain is down in so many of the battleground state polls, in many cases by more than the margin of error, it would be very hard to definitively call the race for him early. Because if he wins Pennsylvania and Virginia, that merely shows he surprised in those states, and he will have to surprise in other states to win this thing. Yet, such shockers could indicate a larger trend for McCain, and would give his supporters reason to stay up late to watch to the end.
I’ll make this prediction, for whatever it’s worth: You can call this thing for Barack Obama before midnight election night.
No matter who you are supporting in this election, please, GO OUT AND VOTE.
I live in Washington, DC, so when I see a political ad, I can only assume it is intended to reach crucial swing voters in Virginia. For the first time today, I saw a two minute spot for Barack Obama entitled “Defining Moment.”
The ad is an excellent closer for Obama. Rather than ask the question, are you better off than you were four years ago (Obama, who speaks directly to the camera, says we know the answer to that question), we should ask ourselves will we be better off four years from now. It is an excellent, excellent question. It speaks to people who either don’t want to blame anyone, or have come to terms with the failures of the Bush administration, and are looking toward the future. And when you ask yourself that question, will we be better off, you imagine four years whizzing by of either McCain or Obama in charge.
I’d be willing to bet that a lot of folks’ gut reaction is that they don’t envision things being better with McCain. He is, afterall, closely tied to President Bush, even if he has managed to separate himself a bit more in the last few weeks.
But because Obama is a new face, and his whole campaign turns on the notion that we should recapture hope for this country, viewers might allow themselves to imagine that this new guy could really pull it off. They don’t know enough about him to be convinced he can’t.
Obama also addresses some of the major criticisms he must deflect to win over undecided voters in states like Ohio, Virginia, Nevada (which has the highest home foreclosure rate in the country) and Pennsylvania, where the McCain campaign’s hammering Obama as a tax-and-spender seems to have tightened that race. Obama explains how he will deal with the current financial crisis, promises tax cuts to families making less than $200,000, talks about energy independence and education, and describes how he will pay for his plans.
It is a solid, meaty closing argument, and it ends on a positive note, something which John McCain doesn’t have the luxury of as he tries to catch up to Obama by Tuesday.
Surely you all remember those two grumpy old muppets up in the balcony, griping throughout the 1980’s Muppet Show? Do you think you might get a pang of nostalgic delight if you could see them reprise their roles for the 2008 presidential election? The folks over at the Daily Show took a stab at it last night.
Click on this link to the main page of the Daily Show, scroll through the recent videos for the one called “Barack’s Millions,” and then fast forward through the clip if you want, to about 4:20 minutes in (as Jon Stewart analyzes John McCain’s cranky interview with Larry King in response to the Obama informercial). It’s a quick snippet, but I promise, you’ll get a good chuckle out of it.
