"In the coming days, America is looking forward to hearing governor Palin's views on the issues on voters minds - the economy, and expensive ongoing war, resurgent Russia, etc. after 26 years in Washington, John McCain will no doubt benefit from the fresh perspective and insight in facing these challenges. Obviously, large numbers of people think that our country is on the wrong track and there is no question that Palin brings something new to the table. While there is little doubt that Palin brings a new point of view to this campaign, her record indicates little difference from the policies pursued by those in power over the last eight years. She presided over boom times in Alaska and ensured that all Alaskans benefited from high oil prices. I imagine she would hope to do the same as Vice President. The American people surely look forward to hearing about her policy differences from the Bush administration."
If she doesn't respond, hit on the point over and over again - eventually the media will start talking about how she needs to differentiate from Bush to win independents. If they come back with issues, Obama is on winning territory. If they come back with their existing talking poitn with the personality appeals and vague Bush-like promises about "exec experience", washington outsider, uniter-not-divider type arguments. "George W. Bush represented the same party, and gave us the same vague promises. Palin represents a fantastic story for America and for women, but the American people need to know why they should expect a different result from McCain/Palin than we got from George W Bush?"
The fact that under her leadership Alaskans have largely benefiting from high oil prices while the lower 48 were left to suffer is a winning point for Obama. Anyways, regardless I think that the Palin bubble will reach it's peak over the week-end with her ABC interviews. Hopefully she'll again repeat the falsehoods. Though it appears inexplicable, the fact is that a lot of people like her - people liked Bush too. He has to push them off the likability turf and frame the campaign with the question, "How are your policies different from those pursued in the first term of the Bush administration?"
I still think the Palin bubble in the polls will begin to burst over the next week or two. People like what's new or exciting and want to get to know it better. We need to ensure they get that chance because what they see looks a lot like Bush in drag.
Anyways, those are my thoughts on the matter, would love to hear other viewpoints on how to deal with this challenge. Feel free to recommend if you think this discussion is worthwhile.
We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit, "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in]]>
"Of the three presidential candidates displaying their intellectual wares in questioning Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, Obama surely was the most subtle and shrewd....Obviously Obama gives away his status as a neo-phyte on these issues by showing actual independent thinking. This mindset shows that he just does not have enough experience to grasp the nuances of complicated geopolitical issues required to fight the "war" on terror - like which groups are sunni and which are shiite or whether snipers are indeed firing or not.
By contrast, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) basically delivered dueling campaign speeches over which was more “irresponsible” — too-hasty troop withdrawals or continuing present policy.
But it was Obama who took most advantage of the televised hearings to render a nuanced — even silken — performance.
In a statement rare among Democrats, he declared “we all have the greatest interest seeing a successful resolution to Iraq.” The party line is that Iraq is a “quagmire” or (Clinton’s words) a “failed policy.”
Obama acknowledged that “the surge has reduced violence and created breathing room,” although he did not take the opportunity to admit that he was wrong last year to predict that the surge would fail and to vote to cut off funds for U.S. troops.
Obama didn’t, to his credit, say that no political progress had been achieved using the surge’s “breathing room.” He just said it “has not been taken the way we all would like it.”
The most interesting part of Obama’s performance, though, was his laying down of what constitutes “success” or “a manageable situation” in Iraq.
His standard seems to be “a messy, sloppy status quo but (where) there’s not, you know, huge outbreaks of violence, there’s still corruption, but the country is struggling along, but it’s not a threat to its neighbors and it’s not an al-Qaida base.”
This sets a good foundation for debates with McCain on Iraq - challenge him to define success. If McCain's definition is little different then Obama's it becomes harder for him to pursue the pavlovian "Retreat and Defeat" line - it's a difference of opinion on the effect of withdrawal. However, McCain would probably just lose his temper and reveal that he actually prefers the 10,000 year occupation to either the 1,000 or 100 year options and would like to be cryogenically frozen and reawakened every few hundred years to have a check on things and show his experience off by having a relaxing stroll under sniper fire.
In discussing the principles upon which any new regulation should be based, Obama said the focus should be on what financial institutions do, rather than what they are. The current crisis has stemmed largely from the fact that new institutions became key players in the creation of mortgage credit with no regulatory oversight. He acknowledged that for the most part, the US banking system is already highly regulated and the vast majority of these institutions have acted responsibly. This is a reassuring tone for most of the nation’s 8500 banks, only a handful of which are the size of BoA’s, Citibanks and JP Morgans. These banks support the real economy of this country and often lack the resources to remain viable when forced to comply with punitive or excessive regulation targeted at the actions of others. A great example is how US banks are so frequently asked to play police force by federal authorities – for instance to bear the costs of trying to enforce a misguided ban on internet gambling passed by the last moralistic republican Congress. Banks file thousands of reports on transactions each day – like those that led to the fall of Elliot Spitzer and comply with many levels of regulation. They do this in return for the system of deposit insurance which provides them with greater stability by guaranteeing the deposits of their customers. These banks, while not perfect and not always concerned with the consumers best interest, are not to blame for this crisis. Obama engaged with the problem at the very center of this current crisis – the intersection of regulated and unregulated financial institutions – rather than proposing feel-good solutions which will only create further problems.
In contrast, Clinton’s proposed 5-year rate-freeze is populist nonsense and would be a total disaster. Forcibly rewriting contracts in such a way is a case where the cure would kill the patient – it may indeed make for a better outcome in the long run, but the pain getting to that point would be catastrophic. Such a policy would lead to an unimaginable contraction of mortgage credit which would cause house prices to collapse completely and bring down the current financial system with them. The good news is that after going through a new great depression, we would get to start again from scratch and think twice about the excessive level of subsidy which has brought the cost of housing to unaffordable levels which are out of alignment with historical norms. This was a primary factor in the proliferation of exotic mortgages which allowed people to buy into the dream of homeownership, a cornerstone of the Bush presidency. Republicans and Democrats alike have shown an inability not to interfere with the functioning of the housing market and have pursued distorting policies providing excessive levels of subsidy for homeownership driven by an expansion of credit. These policies are just as responsible for the crisis as unregulated financial institutions. McCain calls this “not interfering with the functioning of the free market”. Unfortunately for McCain’s ideological tic of a response, the reality is that US real estate is already partially nationalized through Fannie and Freddie so a little bit more won’t hurt at this point. Yes, if you have a mortgage it’s very likely that your house is owned by both that bank and the federal government agencies disguised as independent companies. Finally, Obama’s focus on Rep. Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services and one of the most respected and intelligent members of congress, as a key player in any solution to the current crisis is worth noting. Barney is perhaps the key player in any reform of financial regulation. He commands respect from those who work with him on both sides of the aisle, is incredibly engaged with the relevant issues and despite sometimes displaying an abrasive personality, he has a track record of working closely with stakeholders to develop good public policy. He works to protect consumers while allowing financial institutions to remain competitive in the domestic markets and internationally. By contrast, Clinton put her faith in former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, whose legacy is now being rewritten by the current financial crisis and whose policies as Fed Chairman are now widely regarded to have been a major contributing factor to our current problems.
The economic proposals of both Clinton and McCain show that both are completely out of touch with the reality of this crisis. Clinton’s focus on the minutiae of policy shows a tendency to micromanage that may work in a Senate committee, but would be a serious handicap as president. Further, her focus on the concrete details is calculated to hide ill-considered policies, born out of triangulation – keep in mind she already had one disastrous try at reforming health-care where she proved to be something like Barney Frank’s opposite. McCain shows the symptoms of that rare form of tourette’s syndrome contracted by most Republican presidential candidates which allows them to communicate with the unthinking automatons of the “free market” faith. Obama, on the other hand, shows a level of leadership and intelligent engagement that the other candidates simply do not match. To me, the closest parallel to Barack Obama is Tony Blair as New Labour came to power in 1997 – both are modernizing figures, driving his party out of the past and towards its future – with much kicking and screaming. His concerns about inequality allow him to pursue redistributive policies in an attempt to rectify that injustice but he ultimately recognizes the vital importance of business, finance and trade to our country’s standing in the world.
]]>