Thinkingman's Blog

McCuster's Last Stand Coming!

2008-10-05T03:00:30Z

The Republicans are on the verge of an historic repudiation. Not only is our side set to take the Whitehouse, but we may even achieve a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Add to that an even larger majority in the House. We will be in a position to DOMINATE policy for at least the next two years and, if we don't screw things up, much longer than that. It will be like the heyday of the New Deal or the Great Society. We can make things happen. [But don't forget the last two times we had unified Democratic Government, we did indeed blow it!]

The Republicans probably realize that they have one, maybe two weeks at the most to fight their way back into this race. Fortunately for us and unfortunately for them, the ISSUES landscape is completely unfavorable to them. They have zero chance of winning an argument over economic policy. Even their typical staples -- divisive social issues and national security -- seem to be pretty much eitehr dormant (in the case of the social issues) or impotent (in the case of national security) in the current political landscape.

What do they do? Pray for a terrorist attack on the homeland? Even they are not that evil. (Okay, I can't vouch for them on that front. But I THINK they aren't really that evil. -- Okay, even that's too strong. I least HOPE they aren't that evil. But really, you never know with their ilk. But fortunately, it doesn't matter. I don't believe in the power of prayer anyway. And they have screwed up so much even if there is a God listening to their prayers, he wouldn't answer. So let them pray. It just won't work.)

Short of their desperation prayers being answered, about the ONLY bullets they have left are attacks on the character and competence and readiness of Obama. These have been shown to be pretty weak bullets -- ask my girl Hilary about that. But that's it. That's all they've got left.
So look for the next two weeks to be a relentless no holds barred negative campaign. We're going to hear all about Wright and Rezko and Ayers. Obama's unfortunate remarks made in SF about folks in rural America are going to be played like a zillion times.

The good thing about this all is that they are really down to their last bullets. IF they shoot and miss, this thing is over. It could be a rough ride for the next couple of weeks, but if we're still ahead after these next two weeks, we win. Period!

Democrats, Fannie, and Freddie

2008-09-25T17:27:09Z

Prompted by something I saw on the news last night, I started going back over some old newspaper articles to see who said what when about the state of Fannie and Freddie.
Seems as though the repugnants -- at least some of them -- were pushing for regulatory reform of the two of them starting around 2005. And at least some democrats were resisting.
Below is just a sampling of the record. It looks in hindsight like the Dems were on what can be spun as the wrong side of this issue and the Repugnants were more nearly on what looks perhaps like the right side.
For example, here's a quotation from a 2005 NYT describing an exchange between Schumer and Greenspan.

Mr. Greenspan's heavy regulatory bent on Wednesday was in marked contrast to his overall deregulatory approach in other areas, like hedge funds. That distinction was noted by several senators who questioned the need to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reduce their portfolios.

In several pointed lines of questioning, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, criticized Mr. Greenspan's recommendation and called it both inconsistent with his other views on regulation and potentially damaging to the housing markets.

Without identifying anyone in particular, Mr. Schumer also suggested that some people who have advanced tougher regulation of the two housing finance companies were really pushing a broader agenda to eliminate the companies and their mission of providing affordable housing.

''I see an analogy to Social Security,'' Mr. Schumer said. ''Social Security has a problem and there are ideologues who want to undo it. Fannie and Freddie have problems, and there are ideologues who want to undo them. But there are ways to fix the problems short of what's been proposed. When the sink is broken, you don't want to tear down the house."

What seems to have been going on is Democrats suspected that the Republicans really wanted to eliminate Fannie and Freddie under the guise of regulating it. And so they stopped legislation in the banking committee that actually LOOKS in retrospect like it might have stopped some of the abuses that lead to the bail-out
Barney Franks is on record in, I think, 2003 saying how sound they two lenders were then and resisting the Bush administration's call for greater oversight and new regulations. Here is Frank's 2003 opening statement to a hearing on regulatory reform of Fannie and Freddie:

I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury.

I must say we have an interesting example of self-fulfilling prophecy. Some of the critics of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac say that the problem is that the Federal Government is obligated to bail out people who might lose money in connection with them. I do not believe that we have any such obligation. And as I said, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy by some people.

So let me make it clear, I am a strong supporter of the role that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play in housing, but nobody who invests in them should come looking to me for a nickel--nor anybody else in the Federal Government. And if investors take some comfort and want to lend them a little money and less interest rates, because they like this set of affiliations, good, because housing will benefit. But there is no guarantee, there is no explicit guarantee, there is no implicit guarantee, there is no wink-and-nod guarantee. Invest, and you are on your own.

Now, we have got a system that I think has worked very well to help housing. The high cost of housing is one of the great social bombs of this country. I would rank it second to the inadequacy of our health delivery system as a problem that afflicts many, many Americans. We have gotten recent reports about the difficulty here.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a very useful role in helping make housing more affordable, both in general through leveraging the mortgage market, and in particular, they have a mission that this Congress has given them in return for some of the arrangements which are of some benefit to them to focus on affordable housing, and that is what I am concerned about here. I believe that we, as the Federal Government, have probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing and to set reasonable goals. I worry frankly that there is a tension here.

The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the Federal Government doesn't bail them out. But the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing.

As this history plays out more -- as I suspect it will in the coming debates -- I can't see how this all can be a net plus for the democrats or Obama. Here is the text of a speech that McCain gave on the floor urging greater regulation of Fannie and Freddie and sounding positively prescient.

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

Who would gain from debate postponement?

2008-09-24T22:01:39Z

Typically, it's the trailing candidate who wants debates and more debates. Remember how Hilllary tried and failed to make an issue out of Obama's refusal to debate during the Wisconsin primary? Since McCain is tanking in the polls, one would think that he would be eager to debate -- as trailing candidates usually are. Debates are the only remaining game-changer left for McCain --especially since the election is likely to be all about the economy - his weak suit.

McCain is calling for the first debate to be postponed. But why exactly? Some say he FEARS a debate. Some say he's attempting to SHIFT THE SPOTLIGHT away from his sagging polls and Obama's mini-surge. Some say he's trying to lay a trap of some unspecified sort for Obama.

None of that makes any sense to me. If he were reacting on the basis of sheer brass knuckle political calculations, wouldn't he be SEEKING debates, right now?

But I must be missing something, since every pundit and blogger on our side seems to be looking at this as a failed political play of some sort on McCain's part.
But what's the political play even supposed to be? Have I missed something?
Wouldn't debates be the political play for McCain? If not, why not?

Obama's Hollywood Fundraiser: Bad Timing? McCain's next ad?

2008-09-17T20:18:03Z

When Obama turned down public financing, he rather self-righteously said the following:

From the very beginning of this campaign, I have asked my supporters to avoid that kind of unregulated activity and join us in building a new kind of politics - and you have. Instead of forcing us to rely on millions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs, you've fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford. And because you did, we've built a grassroots movement of over 1.5 million Americans. We've won the Democratic nomination by relying on ordinary people coming together to achieve extraordinary things.

But how exactly does that sentiment square with raising 9 million dollars from the Hollywood crowd at 28,000/plate? How is that ordinary people doing extraordinary things? I guess some rich people and their money are less corrupting of the political process than other rich people and their money are. (Democratic leaning rich people good. Republican leaning rich people bad.)
Count on this to be in a McCain ad coming soon to a television near you.

Don't get Cocky. Don't Underestimate Palin

2008-09-13T01:19:52Z

I just saw more of her interview. She is much more comfortable talking about things other than foreign policy. She still does not come across as a terribly deep or astute student of the ins and outs of tax policy or entitlements or anything of that sort. But she is much more relaxed and in her comfort zone.

She also has certain openness and seeming vulnerability that many may find appealing. And I'm sure that now that she has basically flubbed her first foreign policy interview, she will be much better next time. By the time the debate rolls around, she may be able to bring that same relaxed folksiness to bear on foreign policy discussions.

My point is that we shouldn't underestimate her appeal. When she gets off the details of arcane policy and onto personal narrative and when she is allowed to talk those domestic issues at which she isn't a total dunce, one can see that she has a certain appeal

For example, even though her personal views on issues like abortion are quite conservative -- even to the right of her running mate's views -- she didn't come across as an intolerant right-wing loonie. She acknowledged the diversity of views on this score and she managed to sound like a politician who is more interested in finding reasonable compromises than one who is dedicated to fighting pitched battles. Of course, she could just be a wolf in sheep's clothing. On that I think the jury is still out. But its clear that McCain and Palin are counting on the base staying energized more by her personal story and personal commitment than by any explicit promises to do their bidding. This is the same kind of trick that Ronald Reagan successfully pulled on the prolife movement. He gave them the theme music constantly. But he didn't actually advance their cause all that much.

Anyway, the question with Palin is how far beyond the Republican base she will appeal. The folks who are in play, I'm guessing, are independents, weak dems, and/or weak republican constituencies. Whoever grabs the lion share of those folks wins the election.

I don't have any particularly startling thoughts right now about what we can do to diminish her appeal. I think on issues we win. I think if its more about personal narrative and a sense of identification, Palin gives their ticket a potential leg up.

Bottom line, I do think it would be a mistake to just ignore her, as somebody suggested we do on another thread. She is not out of the game. She had a bad debut in her first face to face interview -- a really bad debut. But her second act showed her strengths. They are not insurmountable. But they are real.

Obviously, the McCain campaign will not let her do any heavy lifting on foreign and international affairs (except on questions about oil and energy independence) except when they are force to. She is very much out of her depth on these topics, obviously. But one can see what they see in her, despite that. When she is on her "home turf" she has a simple, understated appearance of authenticity that I do believe many will find appealing.

Maybe the key is to not let her play on her home turf very much. But I'm not sure how one goes about making that happen. That's not something our side really has much control over. THe press, I guess, could be a big help here. If the press decides it has a duty to make it plain that Palin is way out of her depth on C-in-C kinds of issues, that could be a big, big help.

Why Palin keeps repeating her discredit lie about that infamous bridge!

2008-09-10T20:54:19Z

Palin keeps repeating her line that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the bridge to nowhere. And some in the media and many in the blogosphere keep expressing incredulity that she would continue to express what has been thoroughly debunked as a flat-out lie. So that raises the question, if the "lie" has been "debunked" what is Palin doing so brazenly repeating it? The obvious answer is that she doesn't buy into the media and blog created meme that the story has been debunked as a lie. But there's obviously got to be more to it than that. That's because if she keeps on saying what keeps getting called a lie, then when she finally does face the press and finally does meet up with Biden in the VP debate, she will OBVIOUSLY be called on it and asked about it. Since that is obvious, it seems safe to infer that she's entirely prepared to be called on it and asked about it. Indeed, she must WANT to be called on it and asked about it. It's like she's begging the dems and the media to keep calling her a liar. Now why would she want that? Why would she keep provoking the media, the bloggers, et al that way? My guess is that she must BELIEVE, whether rightly or wrongly, that she has the better of the story. . But how could she believe that unless she's deluded? (typical blogger reaction right now would be to conclude -- yep, she's deluded.) But the devil is in the detail. Think about it. Sometimes the media and the blogosphere spin this as Palin mendaciously claiming to be and to always have been "against" earmarks in general and the bridge in particular. And then the charge against her is that this is just a complete fabrication. After all, she sought many earmarks as mayor and even hired a lobbyist to get more. And said that she would not stand in the way of the bridge during her campaign for governor. And this is supposed to show that she is a flat out liar. I even heard Steve Roberts, I think it was, ask some McCain spokesperson on CNN something like "how can Governor Palin claim to have always been against the bridge, when she campaigned in support of it?" But, of course, the Republicans aren't that stupid. They aren't stupid enough to lie THAT baldly. Palin has never said that she never ever sought an earmark or that she always opposed the bridge from the beginning. What she actually said during the campaign was something about not standing in the way of a project that the voters wanted and the congressional delegation had fought hard for. Or something like that. But if that's what she said, then we haven't yet found the bald-faced lie in her claim to have said thanks but no thanks to the bridge. So if that keeps being the spin, then when she is finally confronted with her supposed "lie" she will knock this thing out of the park. It will give her a chance to explain her side of this tale. And I suspect she will be able to tell the tale in a way that makes her look strong. She will be able to represent herself as having refused to go along, once she got elected, what she came to see as a Congressional pig in a poke. And she will be able to say that she rejected it despite the popularity of the bridge with her own voters and despite the work of her own Congressional delegation to get it done. She will look like a prudent administrator, a wise guardian of her states fiscal well-being. We will look look silly, small, desperate and grasping at straws. Some have suggested we should go after her for inconsistency -- you know, for being for it before she was against it. But that's silly too. Her response will again be that she changed her mind in the "right" direction, once she got a look at things. She will be able to say that it would have irresponsible to do otherwise. Well, perhaps we should go after her for "keeping the money" and using it for other priorities once the bridge was finally killed. But again, who WOULDN"T want their governor to use federally allocated highway funds (I think they were) for genuine state priorities? How could we possibly paint that as a bad thing? Are states never ever supposed to feed at the federal trough? Is a governor never ever supposed to use targeted federal funds for urgent state priorities? Is that our argument against her? Again, once she gets her chance to spin this in the light most favorable to her, we will have NO COMEBACK. We will look petty, small, silly, grasping at straws and out of touch with how real executives make real decisions. Maybe the only real issue is that she exaggerated her role in the killing of the bridge. Made herself look like the lone maverick who single-handedly took the bridge down. Maybe that is true. But that seems hardly an indictment worth of moving a single vote. And again, it gives her a chance to explain her role. And we're in no position, really, to contest that role. Bottom line, this whole thing about the bridge should be dropped. The fact that Palin and McCain show not an ounce of fear about repeating what we keep calling a lie, is either a testament to their "balls" or a testament to our folly. I'd put my money on the folly, to tell you the truth.

Why Palin keeps repeating her discredit lie about that infamous bridge!

2008-09-10T20:52:24Z

Why Palin keeps repeating her discredit lie about that infamous bridge!

2008-09-10T20:49:09Z

Why Palin keeps repeating her discredit lie about that infamous bridge!

2008-09-10T20:46:56Z

Why Palin keeps repeating her discredited "lie" about that infamous Bridge?

2008-09-10T20:41:16Z

What I predicted about the Republican Convention

2008-09-05T15:23:17Z

Here's what I predicted last week about the Republican Convention. I think I pretty much nailed it on the head -- though no one seems to have noticed. So, I'm singing my own praises as a political prognosticator.

Prediction: McCain/Palin will attack Washington at RNC Covention
August 30, 2008, 9:38AM
Choosing a Washington outsider will give the Republican Convention a chance to mount a new line of attack and to blunt one of the main lines of attacks that Obama/Biden has settled upon. McCain/Palin will attack Washington itself -- the whole corrupt establishment of both parties. Not only will they attack the democratic ticket, they will also attack the democratic house and senate. They will take some audacious jabs at both his own party and his own president -- though he will do this more in sorrow than in anger. They might even allow that the Republicans deserved to lose the 2006 Congressional elections. Or better they will say something to the effect that "we lost that election because we lost our way. "

This and other recurrent memes will be meant to decisively answer the charge that John McCain is running for the third term of George Bush.

In other words, McCain/Palin will both call out and call to their party. They will call out the party for its past failures -- again more in sorrow than in anger. And they will call to the party to be better --- to joint them in a great crusade to remake the party, to remake the government, and to remake America. At the same time, they will both remind the audience in and out of the hall of the highlights of Republican ascendency. The Republicans will be represented as the party that stood steadfast throughout the cold war and presided over the ultimate victory. They will talk about Repugs as the party that will win the war on terror, etc, that tame the tax code and on an on. They will say that they are the party that will reshape the American economy for the 21st century or some such thing and lead us to energy independence. (Drill! Drill! Drill!)

They will or course make an explicit and strong appeal to democrats of good will. McCain will highlight the times when he has stood up to his own party and reached across the aisle. Palin will echo this message. We will learn a helluva lot more about how she took on the Republican establishment in Alaska -- a lot more. We will hear about how she too reaches across the aisle.

The social issues will be handle lightly -- mostly through the personal narrative of Palin. Somewhere we will hear about her decision not to abort her down syndrome child.

We will still hear the relentless attacks on both the readiness and the emptiness of Obama. Both Obama and Biden will be present as mean of many words and few actions. Obama will be savaged as a man that has led no great fights, won no great battles. We will learn a lot more about his habit of voting present in the Illinois legislature. He will be called an absentee senator, who after 18 months in office decided to spend his time in office on the campaign trail.

This will be audaciously contrasted with Sarah Palin. She will be presented as a reformer, a woman of bold, decisive, courageous action.

McCain may even do something completely out of the box. He may name his national security team. And at least one democrat -- probably Joe Leiberman -- will be a member of that team.
They will paint a scary vision of what a unified democratic government will be like. It would leave the democrats unchecked with untrammeled power. A McCain administration would be dedicated to working with the democratic congress when possible, but it would also have the backbone to put a stop to it when necessary. But this will be more subtext than text.
A big play will be made for women voters, obviously. But this will again be done through the personal narrative and character of Sarah Palin. They won't hit hard on divisive social issues.
If they pull this all off, it will be game on. And we will be in a tough fight. The one thing that's to their advantage is that they will dominate the spotlight and can roll out Palin and their new narrative of the campaign in a relatively uncontested manner.

The thing they have going against them, is possibly Palin. She has to perform extremely well. She has never ever been on a stage like this. It's like bringing up an untested AA pitcher to be our starter for Game Seven of the World Series. High chance of failure. Plus we all know that McCain is no orator. So I don't look for his acceptance speech to be anything to write home about.

Who knows if I'm right about all this. But time will soon tell, won't it?

Prediction: McCain/Palin will attack Washington at RNC Covention

2008-08-30T13:38:09Z

Choosing a Washington outsider will give the Republican Convention a chance to mount a new line of attack and to blunt one of the main lines of attacks that Obama/Biden has settled upon. McCain/Palin will attack Washington itself -- the whole corrupt establishment of both parties. Not only will they attack the democratic ticket, they will also attack the democratic house and senate. They will take some audacious jabs at both his own party and his own president -- though he will do this more in sorrow than in anger. They might even allow that the Republicans deserved to lose the 2006 Congressional elections. Or better they will say something to the effect that "we lost that election because we lost our way. "
This and other recurrent memes will be meant to decisively answer the charge that John McCain is running for the third term of George Bush.
In other words, McCain/Palin will both call out and call to their party. They will call out the party for its past failures -- again more in sorrow than in anger. And they will call to the party to be better --- to joint them in a great crusade to remake the party, to remake the government, and to remake America. At the same time, they willboth remind the audience in and out of the hall of the highlights of Republican ascendency. The Republicans will be represented as the party that stood steadfast throughout the cold war and presided over the ultimate victory. They will talk about Repugs as the party that will win the war on terror, etc, that tame the tax code and on an on. They will say that they are the party that will reshape the American economy for the 21st century or some such thing and lead us to energy independence. (Drill! Drill! Drill!)
They will or course make an explicit and strong appeal to democrats of good will. McCain will highlight the times when he has stood up to his own party and reached across the aisle. Palin will echo this message. We will learn a helluva lot more about how she took on the Republican establishment in Alaska -- a lot more. We will hear about how she too reaches across the aisle.
The social issues will be handle lightly -- mostly through the personal narrative of Palin. Somewhere we will hear about her decision not to abort her down syndrome child.
We will still hear the relentless attacks on both the readiness and the emptiness of Obama. Both Obama and Biden will be present as mean of many words and few actions. Obama will be savaged as a man that has led no great fights, won no great battles. We will learn a lot more about his habit of voting present in the Illinois legislature. He will be called an absentee senator, who after 18 months in office decided to spend his time in office on the campaign trail.
This will be audaciously contrasted with Sarah Palin. She will be presented as a reformer, a woman of bold, decisive, courageous action.
McCain may even do something completely out of the box. He may name his national security team. And at least one democrat -- probably Joe Leiberman -- will be a member of that team.
They will paint a scary vision of what a unified democratic government will be like. It would leave the democrats unchecked with untrammeled power. A McCain administration would be dedicated to working with the democratic congress when possible, but it would also have the backbone to put a stop to it when necessary. But this will be more subtext than text.
A big play will be made for women voters, obviously. But this will again be done through the personal narrative and character of Sarah Palin. They won't hit hard on divisive social issues.
If they pull this all off, it will be game on. And we will be in a tough fight. The one thing that's to their advantage is that they will dominate the spotlight and can roll out Palin and their new narrative of the campaign in a relatively uncontested manner.
The thing they have going against them, is possibly Palin. She has to perform extremely well. She has never ever been on a stage like this. It's like bringing up an untested AA pitcher to be our starter for Game Seven of the World Series. High chance of failure. Plus we all know that McCain is no orator. So I don't look for his acceptance speech to be anything to write home about.
Who knows if I'm right about all this. But time will soon tell, won't it?

Is the Experience Argument Really Dead?

2008-08-29T20:37:52Z

Commentators and left-leaning Bloggers are breathlessly saying that McCain has given away the experience argument.
But this seems too quick to me. Think, for example, of Bush/Quayle vs. Dukakis/Bentsen. Bentsen did not save Dukakis's rear on the question of readiness to be Commander in Chief. Bentsen might have looked good in a tank, but that wouldn't have saved Dukakis's tail either. And Quayle's complete unreadiness did nothing to undermine Bush's standing as a former ambassador, former head of CIA, former Vice President.

It's the same here, I would think. It's the Democrats who have got an inexperienced head of the ticket and a highly experienced VP. The Republicans, on the other hand, have got a highly experienced head of the ticket with a highly inexperienced VP.
Why would Palin's inexperience detract from the side by side comparison between the two heads of ticket? How can Biden's experience compensate for that same comparison?

So don't count on McCain to surrender the experience argument at all -- no more than Bush the First did when he chose Dan Quayle or when Dukakis chose Bentsen.
Of course, there is the thing that Paul Begala pointed out -- but which I don't think either Obama or Biden can comfortably say -- that McCain is old and my even die in office. That does make for a disanalogy between Bush/Quayle vs. Dukakis/Bentsen and Obama/Biden vs McCain/Palin. But it would be pretty hard to exploit that disanalogy without seeming morbid and/or ageist. Wouldn't it?
I think we're left with the question of what this choice says about McCain's judgment. His argument would, I'm guessing, be that it shows that he is willing to make bold decisions in order to shake up the system. He wants a fresh face to be his partner in remaking Washington. Of course, the fresh face is going to be relatively inexperienced in the ways of Washington. But that doesn't detract from HIS experience in the ways of Washington. She is the Junior partner, after all. Not the senior partner.
Obama himself made a parallel argument in his speech last night, though only in passing. He admitted that his "career has not been spent in the halls of Washington" or something like that. And he tried to turn that into a virtue.
Well, it seems to me the case for that being a virtue in the junior partner of the team is much stronger than the case for that being a virtue in the senior partner of the team.

Question to myself: Why does Obama leave me so cold?

2008-08-27T23:57:51Z

So I said to myself. "Self, why can't you feel more excited by this Obama fellow. He's a brilliant man, who ran a brilliant campaign. If he wins, it'll be a breath of fresh air in America. Right?"
And the self said back. "Well, part of the problem is Hillary. You know, self, that I was and am an avid Hillary supporter to the end -- even though I had no great love for her husband. I keep thinking that Hillary would have made a great president, not just a good one, but a great one. "
And the self replied. "Well, I know you. That's saying a lot. You've believed that only about a couple of other candidates in our lifetime. Teddy Kennedy was the last one, as I recall."
And the self said. "Yeah, remember how we dropped out of graduate school for a year to work on his campaign. How we were so convinced that Carter was going to lose and didn't deserve to win anyway and how we wanted to save the party from itself by unseating our own incumbent president."
And the self recalls fondly. "Yeah but Teddy ran a lousy campaign. We didn't stand a chance, it turned out. And we got Reagan. Wow! "
And the self scolds "See what happens when you give your heart to the wrong guy!"
But the self ignores the self. "Let's get back to Obama. Why does he leave us so cold? That's the question. We're tried and true democrats. We believe in progres. And he surely represents progress. Why do we have such an empty feeling."
"You just can't get over Hillary. Take a closer looks at him. Don't you recognize his oratorical gifts. don't you recognize that he's a thoroughly decent guy, with brains and talent to spare. If he were a member of our department," the self said to me, "I bet you'd find him an amazing colleague. Plus he stands for many of the same things we are passionate about. Add to that he's an African American male, just like you."
"Well that's all true," I said to me, "and every member of our family is astounded that I find so little to cheer in Obama's rise. They are all deeply moved by the man and his message. Why can't we be?"
"Well if you really want me to be honest, I don't know about you self, but I just don't see anything at all in him that makes me passionately want to see him as president."
"That must be the passion of the recently ended campaign that getting in the way. That's just your grief over Hillary's loss talking."
"Well, self. You probably have a point. But that's only part of it. It's Obama himself. I see in him signs of a very large, very self-referential ego. I see a guy who's was just beginning to earn his stripes as a legislature but who has yet to make any deeply significant and difficult issue his own. I see a guy who has paid no dues, who has not been put to any great test, who has not had to make any hard and consequential choices. I see a guy guy who after waltzing into the Senate after an effectively uncontested election spent 18 months in the Senate doing little that was terribly earth shattering, who took the lead on no hard fights, who got no scars in the service of any great national causes. That's the very opposite of Hillary. This guy looks in the mirror and sees a future president of the United States. Of course, they all do. But it's not like he rolls up his sleeves and digs in and learns more and more in order to prepare. "
"Gosh, self. Don't be so hard on the guy. Maybe it was just that he realized that the longer he stayed in the Senate, the harder becoming president would become. After all, Senators have to cast thousands of votes over the years. They have to make choices. Pick their battles, make their compromises. And all that ruins their prospects of ever becoming president. If you really want to become president. Don't linger in the Senate too long."
"Well, you've got a point. But it doesn't change the thinness of his resume or the shallowness of his experience. I know he likes to say it's judgment not experience that matters --as if these are two separate things. But that's an illusion -- and a shallow one at that. The capacity to judge grows and deepens with experience. As one is tested more, as one has to make hard choices and live with their consequences, judgment becomes more profound, more grounded."
"But Obama was against the war. So were we -- at least I was. Weren't you too. I don't remember being divided from you on that score."
"No, we were indeed against the war. Wrote lots of stuff about it at the time. But you know it cost us nothing to be against the war. And it cost Obama nothing to be against it either. Our being against the war doesn't that we have the "judgment" to be president. If that were sufficient, millions and millions of people -- including you know who -- would have the judgment to be president. So that's a non-agrument."
"Are we getting anywhere with this? We're certainly going to cast our vote for Obama, right?"
"Yeah, sure we are. But we're going to have to hold our nose in doing so."
"Relax dude."
"You know what else gets me. His supporters. Can't stand his supporters, even though many dear friends and colleagues support him with a passion."
"What's wrong with his supporters. His supporters come from our crowd. Every member of the department, everybody in the hood.. They all support him. These are our friends. Our family too."
"I know, that's why I keep these thoughts mostly to us. What got me at least during the primaries was the constant self-reference of that crowd. Remember that yuck incantation "We are the change we have been waiting for." What's that supposed to mean. Compare that to "You must become the change you seek." The former is self-congratulatory. The latter is an injunction to begin the amelioration of the world with the amelioration of one's inner self. Want the world to be more just, more peaceful? Then be a peacemaker, be a spreader of justice. The other? What does it direct you to do? Congratulate yourself on being the change. It asks nothing new of you."

"Man you are an anal-analytic sort of dude. How did I get joined up with you?"
"YOu are me."
"Sometimes I wish I wasn't."
"Back to my point. That self-congratulatory, self-referential tone went through so much of Obama's primary campaign. It just left me utterly cold. And then there were his truly yucky morally superior supporters. Utter turn off. One is surrounded by them in life -- the morally superior class who think that anyone who doesn't see the world their way is benighted, morally compromised, and on and on. If you were against Obama you were all matter of bad things. If you were for Hillary, you couldn't be reasonable person. You were a racist, or a defender of the status quo, or .... Couldn't stand them. Made me not want to talk politics with many of those dear friends you were talking about before. And then there was this fairy tale naivety about how Obama was going to somehow magically change the face of American politics -- mostly by the force of his powerful rhetoric and his charismatic personality. He was going to appeal to the American people at large, across party lines, and generational divides, and inspire us all like some sort of new age political messiah. He was going to renew politics. And then when that silly illusion starts to fade, instead of seeing Obama's weaknesses for what they are, they start to cast blame on everybody but their guy. They really expected the whole world to be wowed in the same way that they were. And when millions of even hard core democratic constituencies proved immune to OBama's charms, they were completely unable to take a critical distance from him and utterly failed to perceive his weaknesses and vulnerabilities. They blamed everybody and everything except the man himself.
The self says back. "Okay man, give a break. You are never going to be fully reconciled unless he wins the election and governs in a kick ass way. You know our side is going to hold the both houses of the Congress by even larged majorities. So maybe this time we can get things done. Maybe Hillary can force her healthcare plan on him."
"That would be nice. Don't know where he got that plan of his. Doesn't even try to address the free-rider problem. What kind of solution is that?"
"You really aren't impressed with this guy. Reminds me of how you felt about Bill Clinton at first and his "third way." Seems like he leaves you colder than Michael Dukakis or Jimmy Carter did. And that's saying something, since I know with how little passion you voted for those two guys. Wow. You're strange. Get with the program. I think you are still heartbroken over Hillary. You're still upset that he didn't name her VP aren't you?"
"Well, self I have to cop to that one. But I'm more mystified than upset. I think HIllary would have been a game changing choice as his VP. I think the pair would have kicked McCain's sorry ass. And I think she would have helped deepen his understanding of lots of things -- she might have convinced him, for example, to abandon his half-assed healthcare plan. But here's another place where I think his ego and his adolescent supporters and his enabling staff probably got in his way. Makes me think even less of the man. And I never thought that much of him to begin with. "
"What's the point of all this??" the self asks the self again, "There's no chance that you won't vote for him, is there?"
"None, whatsoever, the self replies."
"Then hold your nose and go vote!"

What Obama Must do to Win This Thing!

2008-08-20T13:36:47Z

I woke up this morning w horrified at the thought that John McCain just might win this election -- and that was before I read the latest Zogby Poll that shows Obama losing ground with many of his own core constituencies.
Since I don't like the thought at all, I began thinking about what Obama must do to win this election.

Here are my somewhat rambling and probably too long thoughts.

First, if he hasn't already he has to set aside some illusory expectations from the primaries and face facing some stark realities. During the primaries, especially early on in the game, Obama, his staff and many of his supporters seemed to believe that he could win against anybody the Republicans were likely to put up in a cakewalk. That belief seemed to be predicated on the fact that independents and moderate republicans would be as susceptible to his charms as the campus crowd, upper crust liberals and African Americans proved to be. But that illusion gradually began to dissolve with the unfortunate appearance of the good Reverend Wright, Obama’s unfortunate comments about bitter, xenophobic, gun-toting small town folks – which the Clinton campaign deftly exploited to drive a further wedge between Obama and the lunch bucket wing of the democratic party. Of course, Clinton was winning that constituency and white women all along. But you will recall throughout the primary season a recurring question was whether Obama could poach some significant part of Clinton’s coalition (or Clinton poach some significant part of his) to break away once and for all. In Wisconsin, it looked like he did that and so was heading for a decisive and final victory in short order. We all know what happened to give the Clinton campaign renewed vigor after that.

Now I still think that most hard core democratic constituencies -- including older suburban women -- will almost certainly come home in November and vote for Obama. But I think softer democratic constituencies are much more up for grabs than one might have hoped. Moreover, I think soft republican constituencies may well be out of reach. And bona fide independents – who are swayed by who knows what in the end, election after election – are going to be harder to reach than Obama and his folks imagined.

What this means, in my estimation, is that democrats are perilously close to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. We have, I think, turned an election that we thought should be ours in a cakewalk into a pitched battle that will require some pretty tough-minded and deft campaigning and advertising to win. But I still think Obama can pull it off. Here’s how.

First, he has to run a “both and” campaign. He has to refocus on his somewhat muted message of “change” . The democratic convention has to feature a whole bunch of new faces; it has to somehow showcase a fresh, exciting policy agenda. I still think that Americans at large are, by and large, with us on most issues. But that and several billion dollars of campaign spending over the last 40 years has won us the White House exactly three times (well four, really, but the keys to the building were given to the wrong guy by the Supreme Court after our most recent victory.) We keep managing to lose elections even when the policy is on our side. We’re perfectly capable of doing it again. But we have to fight the good fight. We have to press our policy advantage – especially our advantage on taxation, healthcare, stewardship of the environment, the energy future. And on and on.

Part of what has to happen to do this is that Obama has to become more like Clinton. The Clinton campaign used to think of her – I think rightly – as the candidate of “people with needs” while Obama was the candidate of people with – I’m not sure how best to put this but let’s call it “aspirations.” People voted for Obama out of a hunger for change and out the belief or at least hope that a new voice, a new face in politics, would enable us to do things in a different way, a more inspiring, less divisive way.

I think he’s got to find a way to appeal both to people with needs and to people with aspirations. To appeal to people with needs, he’s got to do two things. He’s got to make it clearer, as Bill Clinton would put it, that he “feels their pain” and that he has concrete policy prescriptions that directly address that pain. He can’t do that with lofty speeches about change alone. He has to do more of what Clinton was good at. You came away from a Clinton rally, especially later Clinton rallies, thinking that she understood exactly what our problems are, exactly what kinds of policies would address those problems, and, moreover, that she had the combination of shrewdness, toughness, and tenacity that would give her a fighting chance of getting those policies enacted over the naysaying voices of entrenched guardians of the status quo.

Obama needs to adopt more of that style. I’m not suggesting he become Clinton on the stump. Because he has his own unique magic. He speaks to our aspirations in a way that Clinton did not really. She was too willing to get down and dirty. She was old style, brass knuckle politics to the core. And she gave off no vibes that we could ever expect politics to be different in our lifetimes. (Of course I was for her and not for Obama partly because I believe her to be right.)

What we need is a campaign that combines a powerful appeal to people with needs with an equally powerful appeal to people with aspirations. We don’t need one and not the other. We need both. And we need them urgently.

But here’s the tricky thing. I think many people are starting to tune out Obama, to suffer from a little Obama fatigue. The Convention is his last chance before the debates to shift the dynamic. And he better get it right. He better put on a show that’s more than a show about his biography and personal narrative. And it had better speak to more than what I’m calling the aspirational voter. It certainly must speak to and reenergize that aspirational voter -- I'm expecting one helluva speech on that score. But it also has to speak to people with need, whose needs are too urgent for them to worry about a "new" politics. He's a brilliant man and I'm sure he can do it.

Finally, and this is the really tricky part, we have to set aside a little bit the new politics meme. We’re in a dogfight. In a dogfight you have to shoot the other guy down. It’s time to take the sheen off John McCain. That would be hard for any democrat to do. McCain has got an impressive biography in his own right -- the kind that many, many Americans will think a president should have. It will be even harder for Obama in particular to do. Because doing so is going to take a massive dose of old politics. Consequently, doing so will sully a bit the Obama new politics brand. You never want to mess up your brand if you don’t have to. But I’m afraid Obama has to.

Here’s one thing that I said a lot during the primaries that some people disagreed with and maybe took the wrong way. Perhaps because I could never find a completely artful way of making the point. Obama is really sort of a far less personality challenged and African American version of Gary Hart or Paul Tsongas or Jerry Brown (circa ’76) or Bill Bradley. Those guys never really made inroads into Clinton style voters with needs. They appealed to the young and to upper crust liberals. But they couldn’t win partly because their appeal to that group wasn’t quite intense enough to sustain them when the going got tough, but also because they made almost no inroads into the voters driven more by need than by aspiration. Obama by contrast provoked an intensity that those guys never matched but also made inroads into a huge constituency that is usually driven more by need than by aspiration. That’s because he spoke powerfully to the aspirations of African Americans (from all walks of life) just by being who and what he is. I’m not criticizing this as a bad thing. It’s a very good thing. But it did help mask his weakness on the score of connecting viscerally to more downscale voters' sense of felt need. I reiterate this point now just to stress again that Obama really has to work to make that visceral connection. If he doesn’t, we will lose many weak democrats, because many of these weak democrats swing back and forth on the basis of their gut. Even though our policies are better for them, they don’t always have the sense that our candidates are better for them. I think Obama’s a bit in danger of becoming one of those guys who is right on all things substantive (as far as these voters go) but who gets tuned out because, well, he isn’t the right guy.

The convention is his last best chance to (a) convince more of our potential folks that he has the right policies; (b) is the right person; and (c) that McCain is not a legitimate alternative. He's got to do all three of those things.