Barack Obama won much tonight. He won Colorado's peaks and Iowa's farms. He won Key West and the coves of Maine. He reached into the South and won the capital of the old Confederacy. At the moment of this writing, he's in position to win North Carolina, yet another bastion of that slave republic. And at the moment of this writing, the dark-skinned product of an interracial mariage is in position to win the state where the Klan reached the apex of its power.
He has won for himself the responsibility of fighting the myriad problems besetting his nation. He has won for himself the task of ending a disastrous, unjust war and the task of rescuing from oblivion another. He has won for himself the right to squarely face a financial crisis of monstrous proportions.
He has won for all Americans the promise of hope. He was won for all Americans a triumph of idealism over cynicism, of striving over cowering. He was won for all Americans the right to look their children in the eyes and tell them, "In this country, any child can grow up to be president." He has won for Americans a dream of promises fulfilled and potential reached.
Showing posts with label Campaign '08. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Campaign '08. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Celebrating Independence With The 100th Post
As mentioned yesterday, I hauled myself out of bed at 5:00 am this morning so I could trek across the border into Missouri and do some volunteer work for the Obama campaign in Independence. (It's the former home of Harry Truman, though the town is incredibly reluctant to brag about that little factoid) According to FiveThirtyEight, Missouri is the closest state in the country. It also has a reputation as a presidential bellwether, so winning it would be huge. (And if Obama picks off Missouri, he's winning the election, so there's that)
I was about an hour and a half early, so I got to spend that time cutting my fingers on plastic door hangers. Yes, I am that dexterous. Any woman who wants my phone number need only shoot me an email.
They eventually sent me out to the streets, and not just because of my issues with the door hangers. I was teamed up with another volunteer (a lifelong Republican who crossed party lines and wore four different Obama buttons) and told to go do some canvassing. I drove out to Independence convinced I would spend all day in Missouri and work all three volunteer shifts. After walking around Independence from 10:00 am to 2:30 pm while lugging around a clipboard and vicious door hangers, I called it a day. Turns out idealism and one donut isn't much fuel.
I'll have to disappoint anyone looking for insights based on this experience. We talked to about 30 people (and visited about 100 homes), and only found three people who copped to being McCain supporters. Most who spoke with us said they planned to vote for Obama, though a handful were still undecided. The Obama folks were, as expected, thoroughly organized. They were also very nice to me, though I suspect that won't play much role Tuesday.
The heartwarming moment of the afternoon came when we were trekking through a predominantly African-American neighborhood. Only one of the five voters was home, but we stuck hangers on the doors of the absent ones.
We had just finished putting up a hanger and were walking down the street when two little girls, about seven or eight years old, excitedly ran up behind us.
"What ya doing?"
We explained that we were looking for people who liked Barack Obama. Their faces lit up.
"Oh, oh, we're voting for Obama!"
We smiled and asked if their parents were going to vote for Obama. They nodded. Then one of the girls noticed our door hangers and asked if she could have one. We gave one to her, of course, and then her friend simply had to have one too. They thanked us and sprinted away.
A couple minutes later they came sprinting right back out of a house, the hangers tightly gripped in their hands, with a couple more friends jealously tagging along after them. Naturally those friends desperately needed their own door hangers, and once we equipped everyone with a hanger there was much rejoicing.
After knocking on our last door, we walked back to our car so we could move on to a new neighborhood. Behind us we heard four or five girly, delightfully shrill little voices melodically chanting, "O-bam-a! O-bam-a! O-bam-a!"
If that doesn't move you at least a little you need to check your full-sized aortic pump.
I was about an hour and a half early, so I got to spend that time cutting my fingers on plastic door hangers. Yes, I am that dexterous. Any woman who wants my phone number need only shoot me an email.
They eventually sent me out to the streets, and not just because of my issues with the door hangers. I was teamed up with another volunteer (a lifelong Republican who crossed party lines and wore four different Obama buttons) and told to go do some canvassing. I drove out to Independence convinced I would spend all day in Missouri and work all three volunteer shifts. After walking around Independence from 10:00 am to 2:30 pm while lugging around a clipboard and vicious door hangers, I called it a day. Turns out idealism and one donut isn't much fuel.
I'll have to disappoint anyone looking for insights based on this experience. We talked to about 30 people (and visited about 100 homes), and only found three people who copped to being McCain supporters. Most who spoke with us said they planned to vote for Obama, though a handful were still undecided. The Obama folks were, as expected, thoroughly organized. They were also very nice to me, though I suspect that won't play much role Tuesday.
The heartwarming moment of the afternoon came when we were trekking through a predominantly African-American neighborhood. Only one of the five voters was home, but we stuck hangers on the doors of the absent ones.
We had just finished putting up a hanger and were walking down the street when two little girls, about seven or eight years old, excitedly ran up behind us.
"What ya doing?"
We explained that we were looking for people who liked Barack Obama. Their faces lit up.
"Oh, oh, we're voting for Obama!"
We smiled and asked if their parents were going to vote for Obama. They nodded. Then one of the girls noticed our door hangers and asked if she could have one. We gave one to her, of course, and then her friend simply had to have one too. They thanked us and sprinted away.
A couple minutes later they came sprinting right back out of a house, the hangers tightly gripped in their hands, with a couple more friends jealously tagging along after them. Naturally those friends desperately needed their own door hangers, and once we equipped everyone with a hanger there was much rejoicing.
After knocking on our last door, we walked back to our car so we could move on to a new neighborhood. Behind us we heard four or five girly, delightfully shrill little voices melodically chanting, "O-bam-a! O-bam-a! O-bam-a!"
If that doesn't move you at least a little you need to check your full-sized aortic pump.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
The 2008 Presidential Election: Prediction
I've fired up the Distressed Reporter Predict-A-Tron 5000 on my Apple II and received the following results for the electoral college:
Obama- 338 votes
McCain- 200 votes
First, the methodology. I used a system nearly as complex as the one employed by Nate Silver over at FiveThirtyEight: I looked at a map of the 2004 results and guessed which way the states would go this year. Very scientific.
Details, details, details. I don't think McCain will win over any of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004. I say this even though I'm panicking a little over recent polls in Pennsylvania that show McCain closing the gap. I think/hope/pray it'll be too little, too late, though it's worth noting that even with Pennsylvania McCain's not particularly close to the 270 votes he needs. Pulling the Keystone State puts him at 221 votes, while Obama rests comfortably at 317. McCain's also got a deep connection with New Hampshire, Obama quite famously lost the primary there and there aren't a lot of African-Americans in the state. But most recent polling indicates Obama's pretty safe up there.
The election is increasingly being fought in the Bush states; if McCain can hold most of those, he can still pull out a narrow win. I obviously don't have him doing that.
Iowa and New Mexico both seem relatively safe for Obama. Iowa has seven electoral votes, New Mexico five; add those 12 to the 251 Kerry pulled in 2004, and Obama's just seven votes from victory.
I think he gets the decisive states with relative ease. I've got Colorado going for Obama; add those nine votes to our running total, and Obama's at 272 and victory.
The rest of this is pretty much a tired litany of states. I think Obama takes Ohio, Nevada and Virginia in addition to the other states I mentioned. The biggest prize will be Florida; I think Obama gets an unlikely, come-from-behind victory after trailing most of the race in the state of my birth. Florida's been one of the biggest victims of the mortgage crisis, and I think economic anxiety combines with massive African-American turnout in the urban areas to give Obama the state's 27 electoral votes.
(Quick note: there was one "faithless elector" in 2004 who cast a presidential ballot for John Edwards. I'm assuming everyone writes in the correct names this time around)
I'm obviously predicting pretty big things for Obama, though it's worth noting that the FiveThirtyEight projection is even more optimistic, giving Obama 349.7 electoral votes. Their system has Obama taking North Carolina. I'm still skeptical; North Carolina might be a bridge too far this time around. It hasn't experienced quite the same demographic shifts as Virginia, and I can't quite bring myself to predict that huge turnout in the "Research Triangle" and among African-Americans will be enough to carry the state.
I'll believe Obama can win Indiana when I see it. It hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1964, and that was LBJ's landslide year. The Ku Klux Klan also reached the heights of its power in Indiana. That was, to be sure, in the 1920's, but there's an uncomfortable legacy there that will hinder Obama.
I also have McCain holding on to Missouri, meaning the state will lose its status as a presidential bellwether. Missouri's a true toss-up, the closest state on the map. Obama certainly has a great chance to win, but the state's been trending Republican in recent years. McCain wins by the skin of his teeth.
Obama- 338 votes
McCain- 200 votes
First, the methodology. I used a system nearly as complex as the one employed by Nate Silver over at FiveThirtyEight: I looked at a map of the 2004 results and guessed which way the states would go this year. Very scientific.
Details, details, details. I don't think McCain will win over any of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004. I say this even though I'm panicking a little over recent polls in Pennsylvania that show McCain closing the gap. I think/hope/pray it'll be too little, too late, though it's worth noting that even with Pennsylvania McCain's not particularly close to the 270 votes he needs. Pulling the Keystone State puts him at 221 votes, while Obama rests comfortably at 317. McCain's also got a deep connection with New Hampshire, Obama quite famously lost the primary there and there aren't a lot of African-Americans in the state. But most recent polling indicates Obama's pretty safe up there.
The election is increasingly being fought in the Bush states; if McCain can hold most of those, he can still pull out a narrow win. I obviously don't have him doing that.
Iowa and New Mexico both seem relatively safe for Obama. Iowa has seven electoral votes, New Mexico five; add those 12 to the 251 Kerry pulled in 2004, and Obama's just seven votes from victory.
I think he gets the decisive states with relative ease. I've got Colorado going for Obama; add those nine votes to our running total, and Obama's at 272 and victory.
The rest of this is pretty much a tired litany of states. I think Obama takes Ohio, Nevada and Virginia in addition to the other states I mentioned. The biggest prize will be Florida; I think Obama gets an unlikely, come-from-behind victory after trailing most of the race in the state of my birth. Florida's been one of the biggest victims of the mortgage crisis, and I think economic anxiety combines with massive African-American turnout in the urban areas to give Obama the state's 27 electoral votes.
(Quick note: there was one "faithless elector" in 2004 who cast a presidential ballot for John Edwards. I'm assuming everyone writes in the correct names this time around)
I'm obviously predicting pretty big things for Obama, though it's worth noting that the FiveThirtyEight projection is even more optimistic, giving Obama 349.7 electoral votes. Their system has Obama taking North Carolina. I'm still skeptical; North Carolina might be a bridge too far this time around. It hasn't experienced quite the same demographic shifts as Virginia, and I can't quite bring myself to predict that huge turnout in the "Research Triangle" and among African-Americans will be enough to carry the state.
I'll believe Obama can win Indiana when I see it. It hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1964, and that was LBJ's landslide year. The Ku Klux Klan also reached the heights of its power in Indiana. That was, to be sure, in the 1920's, but there's an uncomfortable legacy there that will hinder Obama.
I also have McCain holding on to Missouri, meaning the state will lose its status as a presidential bellwether. Missouri's a true toss-up, the closest state on the map. Obama certainly has a great chance to win, but the state's been trending Republican in recent years. McCain wins by the skin of his teeth.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Voting: It Tastes Like Democracy
Vote cast. Democracy saved. Sticker acquired.
I was looking forward to casting my vote on Election Day, amidst all the pageantry the DeSoto, KS branch of the VFW can muster, but I've committed myself to volunteering in Missouri Sunday, Monday and Tuesday. So advance voting was the only option.
This was my first time casting a ballot at a polling location, with a voting machine. I mailed in absentee ballots in 2004 and 2006, and if you're thinking, "Hey, Andrew, didn't you go to college in Florida? Why did you vote in blood red Kansas when you could have had an impact in a swing state?", well, you've got the same thought process as the classmate and Gainesville Democratic operative I had a crush on at the time.
But we're veering off the highway of topicality here. I wanted to brag about my valiant participation in America's democratic experience, but I also wanted to do some housekeeping. As noted above, I'll be pretty heavily engaged Sunday-Tuesday, so blogging will probably be light. I might be able to write something on one of those days, but no promises. I hoped to do an Election Night liveblog, but that's probably off the table.
To make up for one of those absentee days, however, I'm giving you a double dose of the Distressed Reporter charisma tomorrow. Look for a write-up of the Florida-Georgia game and my official prediction for the election.
I was looking forward to casting my vote on Election Day, amidst all the pageantry the DeSoto, KS branch of the VFW can muster, but I've committed myself to volunteering in Missouri Sunday, Monday and Tuesday. So advance voting was the only option.
This was my first time casting a ballot at a polling location, with a voting machine. I mailed in absentee ballots in 2004 and 2006, and if you're thinking, "Hey, Andrew, didn't you go to college in Florida? Why did you vote in blood red Kansas when you could have had an impact in a swing state?", well, you've got the same thought process as the classmate and Gainesville Democratic operative I had a crush on at the time.
But we're veering off the highway of topicality here. I wanted to brag about my valiant participation in America's democratic experience, but I also wanted to do some housekeeping. As noted above, I'll be pretty heavily engaged Sunday-Tuesday, so blogging will probably be light. I might be able to write something on one of those days, but no promises. I hoped to do an Election Night liveblog, but that's probably off the table.
To make up for one of those absentee days, however, I'm giving you a double dose of the Distressed Reporter charisma tomorrow. Look for a write-up of the Florida-Georgia game and my official prediction for the election.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
An Unclean Slate
I read something yesterday that got me pretty mad. Not Attend-A-Sarah-Palin-Rally-And-Call- For-The-Death-of-a-Presidential-Candidate mad, but mad enough that I wanted to write an angry email to the person responsible. Unfortunately, Slate, which published the piece, didn't provide the email address for Rachael Larimore, who wrote the piece. I searched high and low for that address, and while gross incompetence is always a possibility when we're discussing me, I eventually came to the conclusion that it wasn't available on the site.
I fumed for awhile. Damnit, I had all this righteous rage to vent and no way to do it. I resigned myself to the reality that in this situation, I'd simply have to let it go.
And then I remembered: I have a blog and a captive audience of several people. I never have to let anything go! Plus, I didn't have anything else to write about today, who knows what would turn up Friday and the Gators have an off-day Saturday. I didn't want to run silent here for three or four straight days. So this is a perfect opportunity to rage like noble Achilles. If noble Achilles had a laptop. And a blog. And no life.
What angered me about the linked post on Slate's XX Blog was not Larimore's claim that Obama's words to Joe Wurzelbacher (aka "The Plumber") "sent chills down her spine," though I would argue that if Obama's statement really had that effect on her she needs to join Cindy McCain in some spinal insulation shopping. No, what riled me up was this paean to the nobility of Joe Wurzelbacher:
Can we look at a larger point about Joe the Plumber? Joe Wurzelbacher is, after all, a plumber. He didn't have his well-off parents send him off for his MBA or a law-school degree so he could get a cushy 9-to-5 job with an office and an assistant and good benefits. He's not a 25-year-old starting an Internet company with someone else's venture capital. He's gotten where he is today by unclogging our smelly toilets and fixing the pipes we probably should have had looked at before they burst.
It should be noted that the post you're reading has been building for awhile. I've been growing increasingly agitated with Larimore's constant deification of the Average American (TM) at the expense of Elitist Intellectuals (TM). It's usually in the context of defending the folksy, down-home, heartland appeal of Sarah "Community Organizing Is A Pathetic Endeavor Worthy Only of Scorn And Derision" Palin. (The heartland I live in honors those who work for the betterment of their community, but whatever)
Here, it's in the context of glorifying Wurzelbacher and his fear of Obama's tax plan. I don't want to talk about Joe The Non-Licensed Plumber or the details of Obama's proposals. Instead, I'd like to register my disgust at Larimore's greater point.
Let me be very clear: there is nothing inherently noble about working with your hands. Cleaning a toilet is not prima facie evidence of moral character. It's not a fast track to beatification. Nor, of course, is it evidence of a life gone askew or intellectual inferiority.
But we have this kind of Cult of the Working Man established in our political dialogue. We have this idea that everyone with a blue collar is more American than everyone with a white collar, that those who work on the side of the road or in strange bathrooms are simply better than those who work in offices or libraries.
We have serious issues in this country with wealth disparity. Politicians should address that. But we do not glorify the plumber by denigrating the graduate student. We can not turn a blue collar into a halo by besmirching a white collar. There is no courage in mocking those with MBAs, no nobility in perpetuating the idea that education is a straight road to moral turpitude.
And Larimore's rhetoric isn't just unhelpful, it's actively hurtful. There's an education crisis in this country, and while that has many causes, one of those is student apathy. And while that has many causes, I am convinced part of it derives from the national pastime of assaulting book learning.
In the middle of this national education crisis, we have a pundit class that uses the adjective "professorial" as a slur directed at Barack Obama. We have politicians who continually tar their opponents with the dreaded "Ivy League" appellation. We have an education crisis and we're telling our children that they shouldn't strive to attend our best colleges, shouldn't strive to achieve advanced degrees, shouldn't strive for a wide-ranging intellectual curiosity.
A character in Caddyshack famously said, "The world needs ditch diggers too." It's true; society doesn't function without plumbers, garbage men and cable guys. But the world needs guys in suits too, it needs guys who went to school for eight years to get that master's degree in business administration or accounting or Eastern European Zoological History. Rhetoric like that coming from Larimore (who, by the way, has a degree in journalism from Ohio University and has contributed to The New York Times) only serves to hurt the country.
I fumed for awhile. Damnit, I had all this righteous rage to vent and no way to do it. I resigned myself to the reality that in this situation, I'd simply have to let it go.
And then I remembered: I have a blog and a captive audience of several people. I never have to let anything go! Plus, I didn't have anything else to write about today, who knows what would turn up Friday and the Gators have an off-day Saturday. I didn't want to run silent here for three or four straight days. So this is a perfect opportunity to rage like noble Achilles. If noble Achilles had a laptop. And a blog. And no life.
What angered me about the linked post on Slate's XX Blog was not Larimore's claim that Obama's words to Joe Wurzelbacher (aka "The Plumber") "sent chills down her spine," though I would argue that if Obama's statement really had that effect on her she needs to join Cindy McCain in some spinal insulation shopping. No, what riled me up was this paean to the nobility of Joe Wurzelbacher:
Can we look at a larger point about Joe the Plumber? Joe Wurzelbacher is, after all, a plumber. He didn't have his well-off parents send him off for his MBA or a law-school degree so he could get a cushy 9-to-5 job with an office and an assistant and good benefits. He's not a 25-year-old starting an Internet company with someone else's venture capital. He's gotten where he is today by unclogging our smelly toilets and fixing the pipes we probably should have had looked at before they burst.
It should be noted that the post you're reading has been building for awhile. I've been growing increasingly agitated with Larimore's constant deification of the Average American (TM) at the expense of Elitist Intellectuals (TM). It's usually in the context of defending the folksy, down-home, heartland appeal of Sarah "Community Organizing Is A Pathetic Endeavor Worthy Only of Scorn And Derision" Palin. (The heartland I live in honors those who work for the betterment of their community, but whatever)
Here, it's in the context of glorifying Wurzelbacher and his fear of Obama's tax plan. I don't want to talk about Joe The Non-Licensed Plumber or the details of Obama's proposals. Instead, I'd like to register my disgust at Larimore's greater point.
Let me be very clear: there is nothing inherently noble about working with your hands. Cleaning a toilet is not prima facie evidence of moral character. It's not a fast track to beatification. Nor, of course, is it evidence of a life gone askew or intellectual inferiority.
But we have this kind of Cult of the Working Man established in our political dialogue. We have this idea that everyone with a blue collar is more American than everyone with a white collar, that those who work on the side of the road or in strange bathrooms are simply better than those who work in offices or libraries.
We have serious issues in this country with wealth disparity. Politicians should address that. But we do not glorify the plumber by denigrating the graduate student. We can not turn a blue collar into a halo by besmirching a white collar. There is no courage in mocking those with MBAs, no nobility in perpetuating the idea that education is a straight road to moral turpitude.
And Larimore's rhetoric isn't just unhelpful, it's actively hurtful. There's an education crisis in this country, and while that has many causes, one of those is student apathy. And while that has many causes, I am convinced part of it derives from the national pastime of assaulting book learning.
In the middle of this national education crisis, we have a pundit class that uses the adjective "professorial" as a slur directed at Barack Obama. We have politicians who continually tar their opponents with the dreaded "Ivy League" appellation. We have an education crisis and we're telling our children that they shouldn't strive to attend our best colleges, shouldn't strive to achieve advanced degrees, shouldn't strive for a wide-ranging intellectual curiosity.
A character in Caddyshack famously said, "The world needs ditch diggers too." It's true; society doesn't function without plumbers, garbage men and cable guys. But the world needs guys in suits too, it needs guys who went to school for eight years to get that master's degree in business administration or accounting or Eastern European Zoological History. Rhetoric like that coming from Larimore (who, by the way, has a degree in journalism from Ohio University and has contributed to The New York Times) only serves to hurt the country.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Debate Live Blog #2
9:25 (Debate Over): McCain was on the attack all night, and Obama was on the defensive all night. By most accounts that means McCain won. It's never a good idea in politics to try and play prevent. I wouldn't be shocked to see McCain given a slight advantage by the pundit class tomorrow. But it won't be a big win. It won't be the kind of victory that erases Obama's advantages. Obama, again, looked calm, collected and in control. McCain was angry. He might want to ask his running mate for tips on how to stab a guy while wearing a pleasant smile. McCain walks out of Hostra University a happy camper, but Obama's probably sharing a few high fives with his staff.
9:23: Obama: I don't think America's youth are an interest group, I think they're our future. Why does John McCain hate America? Why does he want to destroy its future?
9:15: Obama takes a sip of water. Is his throat parched? Are McCain's hammer blows making him sweat? Will he collapse in a dehydrated heap?
9:12: McCain appealing to the pro life base: Obama's votes against late-term abortions.
9:10: Obama breaks out Ledbetter. "Hey, still-reluctant Clinton women: Look over here! Vote for me!"
9:08: McCain doesn't want a "litmus test," but he just said that a judge who supported Roe v. Wade wouldn't fit his criteria for a Supreme Court justice.
9:05: McCain just accidentally called Obama "Senator Government." As screw-ups go, you could do a lot worse.
9:03: I think the phrase "fundamental difference" has been used 87 times over these three debates, 60 times by Obama.
9:02: Obama's doing fine, but he's stumbling and pausing more today than he did in the previous two debates.
9:00: Joe The Plumber? Again? Joe's been a bigger part of this debate than William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Sarah Palin combined.
8:59: A lengthy healthcare discussion doesn't help McCain. It's just not an issue where people trust Republicans.
8:55: Hey, Hugo Chavez gets a shout-out from McCain. Nice little pivot to foreign policy.
8:53: McCain: You didn't support the Columbian Free Trade Agreement. Obama: But I supported the Peruvian Free Trade Agreement! Uruguay is left out in the cold, I guess.
8:51: McCain: I admire so much Senator Obama's eloquence. Sarcasm has always been the central theme of McCain's campaign.
8:50: Obama's looking at the camera. McCain's looking at Schieffer. (And Obama, which is an improvement for him)
8:47: Well, McCain certainly wore his attacking shoes to tonight's debate. Don't know if anything is landing.
8:45: Oh, interesting move by Obama there. Using Palin's Down Syndrome child to talk about the need for increased funding for autism and other related issues, thus criticizing McCain's spending freeze proposal. A fair point, but awfully dangerous.
8:44: McCain talking eloquently about special needs children. Serious question: what kind of history does he have on that issue?
8:42: Obama answering without mentioning the name "Sarah Palin" even once.
8:41: If that was the extent of the Association Attacks from McCain, there are going to be a lot of pissed conservatives. I don't see how McCain made any headway there.
8:40: Oh, fun question from Schieffer. "Senator Obama, why would the country be better off if your running mate was vice president than if Senator McCain's running mate was vice president?"
8:37: You know, it might not be a good idea for Obama to refer to Bill Ayers as "Mr. Ayers." Just a thought.
8:36: And here is Ayers. And here is the ACORN stuff.
8:35: Obama keeps parrying McCain's campaign-related points with a sentence or two and then pivots to talking about the economy.
8:33: McCain: I'm proud of the people who come to our rallies. He's carrying on his campaign's tactic of alleging that shaking your head at the remarks made at McCain's rallies is the same as attacking every attendee at those rallies.
8:31: No Ayers yet.
8:28: Obama: Let's not talk about the campaign. Let's talk about issues.
8:26: McCain's not playing the Ayers card yet. He is playing the John Lewis card.
8:25: And Schieffer's asking the Ayers question without using his name.
8:21: McCain is really pushing this across-the-board spending freeze. I don't think anyone's fond of that idea. Most importantly, he's being very, very aggressive, both in terms of words and tone. He's worked himself into a bit of a lather. Obama is smiling.
8:19: And the three million dollar projector for the Adler Planetarium is back. It was such a winner in the second debate.
8:16: Schieffer: Which programs will you have to pare down or eliminate because of the financial crisis? Specifically. Obama: I'm going to talk about energy independence. McCain: I'm going to talk about energy independence.
8:11: I don't know how it'll come off, but this "Joe The Plumber" routine is an interesting way of trying to personalize the "victims" of Obama's tax plan. Obama's been trying to talk up the idea of taxing Warren Buffet.
8:09: McCain just spoke extensively about Joe, an Ohio plumber who will be crippled by Obama's tax policies. He's clearly hoping "Joe The Plumber" becomes the star of this debate.
8:08: McCain talks to Obama! Directly! It's a breakthrough!
8:07: The candidates just talked about their plans for the mortgage crisis. That's four minutes of my life I'll never get back.
8:03: Excuse the callousness, but is this the third straight debate where McCain has started the evening by expressing sympathy for some august personage sitting in a hospital?
8:02: Big question of the night: Is Bob Schieffer going to hector McCain and Obama to talk to each other?
8:00: Brian Williams' backdrop includes a massive amount of Roman columns. John Dickerson is now deriding NBC as elitist and condescending.
Yes, it's that time again. We're about eight minutes away from the final presidential debate of the election season. If you can't feel the tension, you're not even human.
MCCAIN!
OBAMA!
NEXT ON CNN!
A little housekeeping, mainly directed at a certain anonymous commenter who had trouble figuring out the timestamps in the first live blog. My headquarters are in cosmopolitan DeSoto, KS. DeSoto is located in the Central Time Zone. Locations within the Central Time Zone are one hour behind locations in the Eastern Time Zone. So if the time stamps you see in this blog do not synch up with the time in your home, do not panic.
9:23: Obama: I don't think America's youth are an interest group, I think they're our future. Why does John McCain hate America? Why does he want to destroy its future?
9:15: Obama takes a sip of water. Is his throat parched? Are McCain's hammer blows making him sweat? Will he collapse in a dehydrated heap?
9:12: McCain appealing to the pro life base: Obama's votes against late-term abortions.
9:10: Obama breaks out Ledbetter. "Hey, still-reluctant Clinton women: Look over here! Vote for me!"
9:08: McCain doesn't want a "litmus test," but he just said that a judge who supported Roe v. Wade wouldn't fit his criteria for a Supreme Court justice.
9:05: McCain just accidentally called Obama "Senator Government." As screw-ups go, you could do a lot worse.
9:03: I think the phrase "fundamental difference" has been used 87 times over these three debates, 60 times by Obama.
9:02: Obama's doing fine, but he's stumbling and pausing more today than he did in the previous two debates.
9:00: Joe The Plumber? Again? Joe's been a bigger part of this debate than William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Sarah Palin combined.
8:59: A lengthy healthcare discussion doesn't help McCain. It's just not an issue where people trust Republicans.
8:55: Hey, Hugo Chavez gets a shout-out from McCain. Nice little pivot to foreign policy.
8:53: McCain: You didn't support the Columbian Free Trade Agreement. Obama: But I supported the Peruvian Free Trade Agreement! Uruguay is left out in the cold, I guess.
8:51: McCain: I admire so much Senator Obama's eloquence. Sarcasm has always been the central theme of McCain's campaign.
8:50: Obama's looking at the camera. McCain's looking at Schieffer. (And Obama, which is an improvement for him)
8:47: Well, McCain certainly wore his attacking shoes to tonight's debate. Don't know if anything is landing.
8:45: Oh, interesting move by Obama there. Using Palin's Down Syndrome child to talk about the need for increased funding for autism and other related issues, thus criticizing McCain's spending freeze proposal. A fair point, but awfully dangerous.
8:44: McCain talking eloquently about special needs children. Serious question: what kind of history does he have on that issue?
8:42: Obama answering without mentioning the name "Sarah Palin" even once.
8:41: If that was the extent of the Association Attacks from McCain, there are going to be a lot of pissed conservatives. I don't see how McCain made any headway there.
8:40: Oh, fun question from Schieffer. "Senator Obama, why would the country be better off if your running mate was vice president than if Senator McCain's running mate was vice president?"
8:37: You know, it might not be a good idea for Obama to refer to Bill Ayers as "Mr. Ayers." Just a thought.
8:36: And here is Ayers. And here is the ACORN stuff.
8:35: Obama keeps parrying McCain's campaign-related points with a sentence or two and then pivots to talking about the economy.
8:33: McCain: I'm proud of the people who come to our rallies. He's carrying on his campaign's tactic of alleging that shaking your head at the remarks made at McCain's rallies is the same as attacking every attendee at those rallies.
8:31: No Ayers yet.
8:28: Obama: Let's not talk about the campaign. Let's talk about issues.
8:26: McCain's not playing the Ayers card yet. He is playing the John Lewis card.
8:25: And Schieffer's asking the Ayers question without using his name.
8:21: McCain is really pushing this across-the-board spending freeze. I don't think anyone's fond of that idea. Most importantly, he's being very, very aggressive, both in terms of words and tone. He's worked himself into a bit of a lather. Obama is smiling.
8:19: And the three million dollar projector for the Adler Planetarium is back. It was such a winner in the second debate.
8:16: Schieffer: Which programs will you have to pare down or eliminate because of the financial crisis? Specifically. Obama: I'm going to talk about energy independence. McCain: I'm going to talk about energy independence.
8:11: I don't know how it'll come off, but this "Joe The Plumber" routine is an interesting way of trying to personalize the "victims" of Obama's tax plan. Obama's been trying to talk up the idea of taxing Warren Buffet.
8:09: McCain just spoke extensively about Joe, an Ohio plumber who will be crippled by Obama's tax policies. He's clearly hoping "Joe The Plumber" becomes the star of this debate.
8:08: McCain talks to Obama! Directly! It's a breakthrough!
8:07: The candidates just talked about their plans for the mortgage crisis. That's four minutes of my life I'll never get back.
8:03: Excuse the callousness, but is this the third straight debate where McCain has started the evening by expressing sympathy for some august personage sitting in a hospital?
8:02: Big question of the night: Is Bob Schieffer going to hector McCain and Obama to talk to each other?
8:00: Brian Williams' backdrop includes a massive amount of Roman columns. John Dickerson is now deriding NBC as elitist and condescending.
Yes, it's that time again. We're about eight minutes away from the final presidential debate of the election season. If you can't feel the tension, you're not even human.
MCCAIN!
OBAMA!
NEXT ON CNN!
A little housekeeping, mainly directed at a certain anonymous commenter who had trouble figuring out the timestamps in the first live blog. My headquarters are in cosmopolitan DeSoto, KS. DeSoto is located in the Central Time Zone. Locations within the Central Time Zone are one hour behind locations in the Eastern Time Zone. So if the time stamps you see in this blog do not synch up with the time in your home, do not panic.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Same Bat Time, Same Bat Channel
The 961st debate of the presidential election season will be held Wednesday night at Hofstra University in New York. At this point you know well the participants: John McCain, the great American hero who spent five and a half years locked in a North Kansas City prison camp where he was forced to watch Neifi Perez take batting practice on a daily basis. He was only able to survive by repeatedly carving the word "maverick" into the bamboo of his cage. And then there's the Democrat Barack Obama, born in Hope Memorial Hospital in Hope City, the capitol of Hope Island, America's 50th state. In college, Obama majored in Sauntering Up To Attractive Women And Making Them Swoon By Saying "Hey, How You Doin'?"
Wednesday night they'll discuss the important issues. The economic crisis. Global climate change. That guy in 7th grade Obama ate lunch with one day who eventually racked up over $3,400 in unpaid parking tickets in...San Francisco. It's all going to be on the table when McCain, Obama and CBS anchor Bob Schieffer shoot the breeze. Seriously, they're going to be sitting down. God only knows what surprises that radical format will birth. Maybe McCain will light up a joint and invite Obama to take a hit. There's a glorious rainbow of possibilities.
You can find more witty insights like the ones you just read Wednesday night, when I'll be liveblogging the debate. It will be my second liveblog; I skipped the second presidential debate because I was generously volunteering at my high school alma mater, and I skipped the vice presidential debate because I wanted to.
But this affair's interesting in that I don't know what to expect. You may recall that I expected McCain to come into the second debate and attack Obama. He did attack, but not with any verve and not with any original lines. He didn't mention William Ayers. He later explained that the issue never came up "in the flow of the debate," and while that was kind of a pathetic post-debate rationalization, it had the advantage of being true. None of the audience members asked about Ayers. None of them asked a question that could conceivably be viewed as dealing with Ayers. McCain's not skillful enough to pivot away from the question and hit his (completely unrelated) talking points, and he's not shameless enough to ape his running mate's tactic of openly announcing that she's ignoring the question.
So we'll see what happens Wednesday. To put it bluntly, McCain is losing the election. If things stay on their normal course, with the remaining 20+ days sort of teeter-tottering in the usual fashion, with Obama winning one day and McCain winning the next, McCain loses. He needs something out of the ordinary. The other team is preternaturally poised and disciplined. They're not going to give you an epic mistake on a silver platter. McCain's going to have to manufacture a gamechanger out of whole cloth.
Wednesday's his best chance to do that, but it's not going to be easy. Obama's shown in two debates that he can appear calm and presidential, which is more than you can say for McCain. If McCain wants to do something with the Ayers or Jeremiah Wright cards, he has to do it Wednesday.
How and where to bring it up are the difficult questions. McCain's camp desperately wants Schieffer to ask about Ayers without prompting from their candidate. It would introduce the topic into the debate without McCain having to raise it. If Schieffer doesn't ask the question, McCain has to decide whether he gains or loses from raising the issue without prompting. He's been getting hammered for the frighteningly hostile nature of his recent rallies. If it's perceived that he's doing anything to rile up those supporters, the post-debate stories are going to be unpleasant. Which in turn will make his supporters angrier. Which in turn will make his rallies more frightening. Which in turn will make the stories unpleasant. Which in turn...
Obama's strategy is the same as its been for the past month: throw some jabs, parry the minor attacks and dance away from the big punches. He's winning. The entire structure of the race is in his favor. Some will demand aggression from him, but that's not Obama's style, and considering what the campaign has overcome to reach this point, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt on tactics.
Wednesday night they'll discuss the important issues. The economic crisis. Global climate change. That guy in 7th grade Obama ate lunch with one day who eventually racked up over $3,400 in unpaid parking tickets in...San Francisco. It's all going to be on the table when McCain, Obama and CBS anchor Bob Schieffer shoot the breeze. Seriously, they're going to be sitting down. God only knows what surprises that radical format will birth. Maybe McCain will light up a joint and invite Obama to take a hit. There's a glorious rainbow of possibilities.
You can find more witty insights like the ones you just read Wednesday night, when I'll be liveblogging the debate. It will be my second liveblog; I skipped the second presidential debate because I was generously volunteering at my high school alma mater, and I skipped the vice presidential debate because I wanted to.
But this affair's interesting in that I don't know what to expect. You may recall that I expected McCain to come into the second debate and attack Obama. He did attack, but not with any verve and not with any original lines. He didn't mention William Ayers. He later explained that the issue never came up "in the flow of the debate," and while that was kind of a pathetic post-debate rationalization, it had the advantage of being true. None of the audience members asked about Ayers. None of them asked a question that could conceivably be viewed as dealing with Ayers. McCain's not skillful enough to pivot away from the question and hit his (completely unrelated) talking points, and he's not shameless enough to ape his running mate's tactic of openly announcing that she's ignoring the question.
So we'll see what happens Wednesday. To put it bluntly, McCain is losing the election. If things stay on their normal course, with the remaining 20+ days sort of teeter-tottering in the usual fashion, with Obama winning one day and McCain winning the next, McCain loses. He needs something out of the ordinary. The other team is preternaturally poised and disciplined. They're not going to give you an epic mistake on a silver platter. McCain's going to have to manufacture a gamechanger out of whole cloth.
Wednesday's his best chance to do that, but it's not going to be easy. Obama's shown in two debates that he can appear calm and presidential, which is more than you can say for McCain. If McCain wants to do something with the Ayers or Jeremiah Wright cards, he has to do it Wednesday.
How and where to bring it up are the difficult questions. McCain's camp desperately wants Schieffer to ask about Ayers without prompting from their candidate. It would introduce the topic into the debate without McCain having to raise it. If Schieffer doesn't ask the question, McCain has to decide whether he gains or loses from raising the issue without prompting. He's been getting hammered for the frighteningly hostile nature of his recent rallies. If it's perceived that he's doing anything to rile up those supporters, the post-debate stories are going to be unpleasant. Which in turn will make his supporters angrier. Which in turn will make his rallies more frightening. Which in turn will make the stories unpleasant. Which in turn...
Obama's strategy is the same as its been for the past month: throw some jabs, parry the minor attacks and dance away from the big punches. He's winning. The entire structure of the race is in his favor. Some will demand aggression from him, but that's not Obama's style, and considering what the campaign has overcome to reach this point, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt on tactics.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Delayed Debate Reaction
As mentioned in a previous post, I missed the first hour of tonight's debate. I caught the final half hour on radio, locked myself in an isolation booth when it ended and watched the repeat on CSPAN. This post is written without any outside influence; I've deliberately avoided any debate reaction or spin so that I can write this up "clean."
The verdict: excuse me if I repeat my take on the previous two debates, but that was roughly a draw. Nothing important changed. No dynamics were shifted. And when the dynamic is so dramatically in favor of one candidate, that candidate is perfectly fine with the status quo.
I was wrong about McCain's strategy. He was tough and threw punches, but they were largely policy-oriented, standard Republican punches. Obama's a big-government liberal, he's inexperienced, he was wrong about The Surge (TM), etc. Nothing terribly innovative there. William Ayers wasn't mentioned. Tony Rezko wasn't mentioned. Jeremiah Wright's name didn't come within a country mile of Belmont University in Nashville. (And by the way, why are these three debates being held in Mississippi and Tennessee, two solid red states, and New York, a solid blue state? Ohio, Florida, Virginia or Pennsylvania don't have colleges to host these things?)
What I didn't take into account was the chilling effect the debate's format would have. It's easy to attack your opponent on the stump. You're speaking to huge crowds of enthusiastic supporters; there's no one to grimace when you tell a "Yo' mama" joke about the other guy. Even a traditional debate features questions from a stoic, stone-faced moderator. When the questions come from Joe Sixpack or Sarah HockeyMom, it's tougher to insult your opponent. You've got to look the questioner in the eye while you attack. The psychological effect is an important one.
There weren't even any moments on par with Obama's "You were wrong" list in the first debate or Joe Biden's emotional speech at the end of the VP debate.
Obama, for his part, is clearly playing a bit of Dean Smith's Four Corners offense. Stay disciplined, don't make mistakes, don't give the other side any ammunition when they've resorted to throwing their guns at you. It's not an inspiring performance, but it might be a winning performance, and right now that's more important.
Obama's goal is to make it obvious that he knows what he's talking about. He wants to show that America has no need to fear the prospect of an Obama Administration. And as I've posted before, it's not a difficult sell right now, given the economic climate and the low opinion most hold of the Republican party.
I'm now off to check out the pundit reaction and see where I'm wrong.
EDIT: And I've already found one thing I forgot to mention in the original write-up, this one brought to mind by the excellent Joan Walsh over at Salon. There was a strange moment when McCain was defending his votes on alternative energy by criticizing an energy bill that was festooned with pork. In doing so, he said, "And you know who voted for it? That one." I thought it was rather bizarrely condescending to refer to Obama like that. Not sure what McCain was thinking about there.
The verdict: excuse me if I repeat my take on the previous two debates, but that was roughly a draw. Nothing important changed. No dynamics were shifted. And when the dynamic is so dramatically in favor of one candidate, that candidate is perfectly fine with the status quo.
I was wrong about McCain's strategy. He was tough and threw punches, but they were largely policy-oriented, standard Republican punches. Obama's a big-government liberal, he's inexperienced, he was wrong about The Surge (TM), etc. Nothing terribly innovative there. William Ayers wasn't mentioned. Tony Rezko wasn't mentioned. Jeremiah Wright's name didn't come within a country mile of Belmont University in Nashville. (And by the way, why are these three debates being held in Mississippi and Tennessee, two solid red states, and New York, a solid blue state? Ohio, Florida, Virginia or Pennsylvania don't have colleges to host these things?)
What I didn't take into account was the chilling effect the debate's format would have. It's easy to attack your opponent on the stump. You're speaking to huge crowds of enthusiastic supporters; there's no one to grimace when you tell a "Yo' mama" joke about the other guy. Even a traditional debate features questions from a stoic, stone-faced moderator. When the questions come from Joe Sixpack or Sarah HockeyMom, it's tougher to insult your opponent. You've got to look the questioner in the eye while you attack. The psychological effect is an important one.
There weren't even any moments on par with Obama's "You were wrong" list in the first debate or Joe Biden's emotional speech at the end of the VP debate.
Obama, for his part, is clearly playing a bit of Dean Smith's Four Corners offense. Stay disciplined, don't make mistakes, don't give the other side any ammunition when they've resorted to throwing their guns at you. It's not an inspiring performance, but it might be a winning performance, and right now that's more important.
Obama's goal is to make it obvious that he knows what he's talking about. He wants to show that America has no need to fear the prospect of an Obama Administration. And as I've posted before, it's not a difficult sell right now, given the economic climate and the low opinion most hold of the Republican party.
I'm now off to check out the pundit reaction and see where I'm wrong.
EDIT: And I've already found one thing I forgot to mention in the original write-up, this one brought to mind by the excellent Joan Walsh over at Salon. There was a strange moment when McCain was defending his votes on alternative energy by criticizing an energy bill that was festooned with pork. In doing so, he said, "And you know who voted for it? That one." I thought it was rather bizarrely condescending to refer to Obama like that. Not sure what McCain was thinking about there.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Wherein I Realize That Volunteerism Is A Sham
Both of you anxiously anticipating a liveblog of Tuesday's presidential debate will be, like my various math teachers, severely disappointed. I've volunteered to help my old high school debate team prepare for next weekend's tournament. Yes, I'm missing a debate to help prepare for a debate. It's irony worthy of Sophocles.
I suspect there'll be a TV or two at the old high school Tuesday (Go Shawnee Mission West!) showing McCain-Obama: Part Deux, but I won't be observing with my usual religious fervor. Expect a post after the debate once I get a chance to review the transcript and watch some video.
It's a shame I won't be able to give this debate the attention it deserves, because I suspect there will be some fireworks in this one. John McCain's entering the 11th round of this fight trailing on all cards. He needs a knockout, and he's going to come out throwing hay makers. Several published reports indicate that the McCain campaign, facing national tracking polls that indicate Obama's up anywhere from six to 11 points and a truly frightening electoral map, intends to dial up the attacks.
Those attacks are going to include the standard Republican attack lines ("Tax and spend liberal!"), but they're largely aimed at the details of Obama's past. Namely, his former associations and friendships. Sarah Palin, Alaska Governor and the most adorable scamp in the history of American politics ("Aw, Sarah just mocked community organizing as a worthless endeavor. What a troublemaker!"), fired the first shot Saturday with a particularly nasty attack focusing on Obama's relationship with William Ayers.
It's not going to end there. Tuesday's going to be the primetime rollout of that strategy. McCain's going to use this "townhall meeting," his preferred forum, to launch the personal attacks. The only question is whether he'll be able to look Obama in the eyes when he does so.
Obama, for his part, isn't going into the debate with any extraordinary ambitions. He was cool and cautious in the first debate, didn't wander far from his comfort zone and still won over most independents. This is just a guess, but I think most undecideds are looking for reasons to vote Obama. They're anxious to be won over. And so long as Obama doesn't give them any reason to doubt, he will win them over. He "won" the first debate by showing a solid command of the issues and, for lack of a better phrase, looking presidential.
He'll be a little more aggressive Tuesday, but not nearly enough to satiate the bloodlust of the liberal base. Whatever. We'll get over it. His challenge is going to be keeping his cool and remaining presidential in the face of McCain's attacks. And yet, he doesn't want to be too cool. If McCain attacks him, it won't do to just smile the insult away. He'll need to show a little fire.
But, again, not too much fire. He wants to convey "spirited," not "militant." That's his balancing act. Obama's in the dominant position right now, but his task for Tuesday is slightly more difficult than McCain's. The Arizona senator is just going to attack. He's not even going to worry about coming off as hostile; that ship sailed a long, long time ago.
Still, McCain's bar is higher. Another average performance, another "draw," and his hill gets a little steeper. He needs a big-time performance.
I suspect there'll be a TV or two at the old high school Tuesday (Go Shawnee Mission West!) showing McCain-Obama: Part Deux, but I won't be observing with my usual religious fervor. Expect a post after the debate once I get a chance to review the transcript and watch some video.
It's a shame I won't be able to give this debate the attention it deserves, because I suspect there will be some fireworks in this one. John McCain's entering the 11th round of this fight trailing on all cards. He needs a knockout, and he's going to come out throwing hay makers. Several published reports indicate that the McCain campaign, facing national tracking polls that indicate Obama's up anywhere from six to 11 points and a truly frightening electoral map, intends to dial up the attacks.
Those attacks are going to include the standard Republican attack lines ("Tax and spend liberal!"), but they're largely aimed at the details of Obama's past. Namely, his former associations and friendships. Sarah Palin, Alaska Governor and the most adorable scamp in the history of American politics ("Aw, Sarah just mocked community organizing as a worthless endeavor. What a troublemaker!"), fired the first shot Saturday with a particularly nasty attack focusing on Obama's relationship with William Ayers.
It's not going to end there. Tuesday's going to be the primetime rollout of that strategy. McCain's going to use this "townhall meeting," his preferred forum, to launch the personal attacks. The only question is whether he'll be able to look Obama in the eyes when he does so.
Obama, for his part, isn't going into the debate with any extraordinary ambitions. He was cool and cautious in the first debate, didn't wander far from his comfort zone and still won over most independents. This is just a guess, but I think most undecideds are looking for reasons to vote Obama. They're anxious to be won over. And so long as Obama doesn't give them any reason to doubt, he will win them over. He "won" the first debate by showing a solid command of the issues and, for lack of a better phrase, looking presidential.
He'll be a little more aggressive Tuesday, but not nearly enough to satiate the bloodlust of the liberal base. Whatever. We'll get over it. His challenge is going to be keeping his cool and remaining presidential in the face of McCain's attacks. And yet, he doesn't want to be too cool. If McCain attacks him, it won't do to just smile the insult away. He'll need to show a little fire.
But, again, not too much fire. He wants to convey "spirited," not "militant." That's his balancing act. Obama's in the dominant position right now, but his task for Tuesday is slightly more difficult than McCain's. The Arizona senator is just going to attack. He's not even going to worry about coming off as hostile; that ship sailed a long, long time ago.
Still, McCain's bar is higher. Another average performance, another "draw," and his hill gets a little steeper. He needs a big-time performance.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
St. Louis: Full of Number Two
Yes, a poop joke. Have I told you about my deep-seated faith in the power of beautiful language?
Anyway, I think my pre-debate prediction was largely on target. (The accuracy of your predictions is always good when you're the judge) Nothing extraordinary happened tonight. Sarah Palin didn't look like a complete amateur and Joe Biden didn't call Palin "sweetie," "babe," "dear" or "dame." So it was a success on all fronts.
That said, I don't give either of them positive reviews. Palin still rambled at times, and though avoiding any Couric-esque failures, she didn't exactly seem like someone with an iron grip on the intricacies of issues. Her answer on the role of the vice presidency was, frankly, rather frightening. She expressed her support for Dick Cheney's philosophy, and I found that troublesome. She also completely avoided the issue of providing benefits to gay couples, and moderator Gwen Ifill let her get away with a standard conservative bromide about keeping marriage as a union between man and woman. Simply as a reporter I was disappointed with Ifill in that exchange.
She quite skillfully played the persecuted, put-upon down home girl card. It annoyed me, but as she's said before, she doesn't care what people with journalism degrees think. It'll probably play well overall, and that's what matters.
Biden was, above all else, dull, and perhaps he erred a bit too much on the side of caution. With the exception of one reference to the "Bridge to Nowhere" he restricted his jabs to John McCain and largely left Palin alone. It was dull, as I said, but it was certainly the safe option. He didn't give the McCain camp any ammo for an attack ad or a vitriolic press release.
He stumbled a few times with his wording, mixing up a couple names and having to correct himself once or twice. He was frequently left in the difficult position of having to use his 90 seconds to respond to three or four different allegations, which diluted his overall point. Biden did have an excellent moment at the end of the debate when he discussed the tragedy that had befallen his family. He showed real emotion and pathos.
In a lot of ways Palin's responsibility was similar to Barack Obama's in last week's presidential debate. He had to convince people that he had the bare competence needed to run the country. She had to convince people that she had the bare competence needed to be one heartbeat away from running the country. I don't think she did as good a job in that as Obama did, but she cleared the bar set for her.
Anyway, I think my pre-debate prediction was largely on target. (The accuracy of your predictions is always good when you're the judge) Nothing extraordinary happened tonight. Sarah Palin didn't look like a complete amateur and Joe Biden didn't call Palin "sweetie," "babe," "dear" or "dame." So it was a success on all fronts.
That said, I don't give either of them positive reviews. Palin still rambled at times, and though avoiding any Couric-esque failures, she didn't exactly seem like someone with an iron grip on the intricacies of issues. Her answer on the role of the vice presidency was, frankly, rather frightening. She expressed her support for Dick Cheney's philosophy, and I found that troublesome. She also completely avoided the issue of providing benefits to gay couples, and moderator Gwen Ifill let her get away with a standard conservative bromide about keeping marriage as a union between man and woman. Simply as a reporter I was disappointed with Ifill in that exchange.
She quite skillfully played the persecuted, put-upon down home girl card. It annoyed me, but as she's said before, she doesn't care what people with journalism degrees think. It'll probably play well overall, and that's what matters.
Biden was, above all else, dull, and perhaps he erred a bit too much on the side of caution. With the exception of one reference to the "Bridge to Nowhere" he restricted his jabs to John McCain and largely left Palin alone. It was dull, as I said, but it was certainly the safe option. He didn't give the McCain camp any ammo for an attack ad or a vitriolic press release.
He stumbled a few times with his wording, mixing up a couple names and having to correct himself once or twice. He was frequently left in the difficult position of having to use his 90 seconds to respond to three or four different allegations, which diluted his overall point. Biden did have an excellent moment at the end of the debate when he discussed the tragedy that had befallen his family. He showed real emotion and pathos.
In a lot of ways Palin's responsibility was similar to Barack Obama's in last week's presidential debate. He had to convince people that he had the bare competence needed to run the country. She had to convince people that she had the bare competence needed to be one heartbeat away from running the country. I don't think she did as good a job in that as Obama did, but she cleared the bar set for her.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Another Programming Note
I will not be liveblogging tomorrow's VP debate, for the simple reason that I don't think there will be anything terribly consequential said or done.
The McCain campaign is trying to drive expectations for Sarah Palin down to the 10th ring of Hell. Those stories coming out in The Wall Street Journal and other venues quoting anonymous aides as being terrified of what she might say seem way too convenient. Frankly, they're reminiscent of an episode of The West Wing from its last season when Leo leaked footage of his deliberately awful debate prep performances. Campaign journalists are smart enough to recognize what's going on, but even subconsciously all that spin is going to sink in. If Palin gets through the night without mispronouncing a foreign leader's name the performance will be hailed as a tour de force.
Joe Biden's staffers, for their part, are probably going to slip some Valium into their candidate's pre-debate bottle of water. He'll be so afraid of coming off as condescending and sexist that he'd probably hesitate to speak up if Palin talks about how the conflict in Georgia endangers the several million people who live in Atlanta. He'll take the standard shots at John McCain, try to link him to President Bush, but he'll probably just leave Palin alone and hope she repeats her performance from the Couric interviews. As I said above, I don't think that will happen.
And then there's the moderator, PBS' Gwen Ifill, a journalist I like an awful lot. The right is already wailing and gnashing its teeth over the book Ifill plans to release in a couple months. One of McCain's surrogates has ominously threatened unnamed punishment should Ifill dare to ask Palin "gotcha" questions. I don't know how all of that will affect Ifill's performance. I hope not at all. But you can never tell.
So no liveblogging. I will, however, have post-debate reaction here. So look for that if your life is sad and pathetic.
The McCain campaign is trying to drive expectations for Sarah Palin down to the 10th ring of Hell. Those stories coming out in The Wall Street Journal and other venues quoting anonymous aides as being terrified of what she might say seem way too convenient. Frankly, they're reminiscent of an episode of The West Wing from its last season when Leo leaked footage of his deliberately awful debate prep performances. Campaign journalists are smart enough to recognize what's going on, but even subconsciously all that spin is going to sink in. If Palin gets through the night without mispronouncing a foreign leader's name the performance will be hailed as a tour de force.
Joe Biden's staffers, for their part, are probably going to slip some Valium into their candidate's pre-debate bottle of water. He'll be so afraid of coming off as condescending and sexist that he'd probably hesitate to speak up if Palin talks about how the conflict in Georgia endangers the several million people who live in Atlanta. He'll take the standard shots at John McCain, try to link him to President Bush, but he'll probably just leave Palin alone and hope she repeats her performance from the Couric interviews. As I said above, I don't think that will happen.
And then there's the moderator, PBS' Gwen Ifill, a journalist I like an awful lot. The right is already wailing and gnashing its teeth over the book Ifill plans to release in a couple months. One of McCain's surrogates has ominously threatened unnamed punishment should Ifill dare to ask Palin "gotcha" questions. I don't know how all of that will affect Ifill's performance. I hope not at all. But you can never tell.
So no liveblogging. I will, however, have post-debate reaction here. So look for that if your life is sad and pathetic.
Monday, September 29, 2008
This Is Why They Call It Political SCIENCE
A few months I pilloried Kansas Senator Pat Roberts for running a campaign ad that featured awful writing. Well, in the interest of maintaining balance, here's a link to opponent Jim Slattery's newest ad on America's healthcare crisis.
I'm...I'm not really sure how to respond to that.
I'm...I'm not really sure how to respond to that.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Debate Live Blog
(All times Central)
9:39 (Debate over):Instant reaction: no clear winner or loser. McCain had his moments, especially at the end of the debate when he sort of rolled over Obama on a couple issues. (Iran, namely) I'm interested to see how that plays. Generally, however, Obama gave a good account of himself on foreign policy. If this debate was about convincing Americans that he wasn't a little boy trying to sit at the grown-up table, it was a success. He didn't look scared or intimidated. And the first 30 or 40 minutes, focused almost entirely on the financial crisis, played into Obama's strengths.
If McCain performed poorly, it might have ended his campaign. He avoided that. But I think Obama avoided any sort of blunder that would endanger his front-runner status.
9:27: That's twice now where McCain has verbally steamrolled Obama and Obama has pretty much smiled it away. I don't know how that'll look, whether Obama will come off as controlled and patient or like a doormat.
9:17: McCain just rolled over Obama in an exchange about presidential level meetings. It's not that his arguments had any extraordinary force behind them, but he kept talking and Obama couldn't wriggle his way into the conversation. Lehrer didn't do a great job of shutting down McCain, and Obama wasn't forceful enough.
9:12: Obama has a great response here, but sort of ruins it with the "there's a difference between preconditions and preparations" line. I know what he's saying, but that's too cutesy and Clintonesque.
9:10: And that was a good response. Tough, but realistic. McCain comes back with the argument that Obama will meet with Ahmadinejad.
9:06: McCain's excoriating Iran. Obama has to be careful that he doesn't go overboard in trying to prove that he's "Barack Obama, Friend of Israel And Tough Fighter."
9:02: McCain tells a touching story about a bracelet he was given by the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq. Obama points out his own bracelet, given to him by another mother. This is dangerous: you don't want to play dueling mothers.
8:58: Obama just launched the toughest attack of the night. He said that McCain's plea for vocal caution is rather silly coming from someone who sings songs about bombing Iran.
8:50: I'm biased, but I think this is a good exchange for Obama. He's making the case that the war in Iraq is distracting us from the War on Terror as a whole. He did have to make a difficult argument on a troop funding bill, which has an unfortunate "I voted for it before I voted against it" vibe.
8:46: And he doesn't let him do that. Obama is blasting McCain on a whole series of judgment questions.
8:45: McCain tries to move away from the question of whether the Iraq War was a good idea at all. Obama shouldn't let him do that.
8:43: Did you know that Barack Obama opposed the war from the start?
8:40: McCain's economic plan comes down to cutting spending. Obama ties him to Bush, using the "votes with Bush 90 percent of the time" line.
8:37: McCain slams Obama on offshore oil drilling. Lehrer slams his head on the desk trying to get an answer to his original question about changing priorities after the financial collapse, and Obama misses a chance to fight back on drilling.
8:35: McCain wants to consider a spending freeze on everything but defense, entitlements and veteran's affairs. Obama calls this using a hatchet when a scalpel is needed. And we have our first mention of Iraq!
8:34: There is an Amber Alert in Ottawa, Kansas.
8:31: McCain on Obama's record: It's hard to reach across the aisle from that far on the left.
8:30: All these debate sites are made to look identical. I think they should all these things outdoors, work in some local flavor. Ole Miss has a beautiful campus. Put up a magnolia tree or something.
8:27: The "foreign policy debate" has yet to leave these borders.
8:26: McCain uses the word "festoon." He wins the battle for best word. Obama needs to break out "celerity" if he wants to catch up.
8:25: I like this format so far. They're going back and forth, and Lehrer isn't getting in the way.
8:23: McCain with a nice free market attack on the business tax. He explained that well.
8:21: Obama: Eliminating earmarks alone is not a strategy for helping the middle class. A nice line, maybe mitigating the fact that he just seemed to talk about a line item veto.
8:19: Obama points out that eliminating earmarks won't pay for McCain's corporate tax cuts. Not a bad little slash there. Shoehorn the "McCain cuts taxes for big corporations" argument into an irrelevant question, bring up your own middle class tax cut.
8:19: About 20 minutes in, and McCain hasn't done much attacking.
8:18: McCain just said he'd veto "every spending bill" that crossed his desk. I don't think that's what he was going for.
8:16: I'm tempted to vote for the first candidate to pass on a chance to use the "Main Street vs. Wall Street" meme.
8:15: Lehrer really wants these two to speak directly to each other.
8:13: McCain brings in a barely relevant anecdote about Eisenhower and the Normany invasion. He also says he's caught flak for calling for the SEC chair's resignation, when, in reality, he caught flak for saying he'd like to fire the SEC chair. Which he can't do.
8:11: Lehrer presses the point, but Obama pivots away to praising himself for his foresight. Ditto for McCain.
8:10: Same question to McCain. He doesn't offer a position on any specific plan.
8:07: Lehrer starts by asking Obama about the bailout plan. Obama offers a fairly standard set of Democratic conditions (oversight, limits on executive compensation, equity stake, etc.) and attacks McCain in the process. Nothing terribly specific.
8:03: Lehrer pronounces his last name "Lay-ruh"
8:00: I'm watching this debate on exciting high definition. Obama's mole! McCain's melanoma scars! I can see it all.
7:52: Hello and welcome to the Distressed Reporter laptop, located in lovely DeSoto, KS. From here I'll be live blogging tonight's debate between Senators McCain and Obama. Expect serious analysis, insightful commentary and blatantly partisan spin.
9:39 (Debate over):Instant reaction: no clear winner or loser. McCain had his moments, especially at the end of the debate when he sort of rolled over Obama on a couple issues. (Iran, namely) I'm interested to see how that plays. Generally, however, Obama gave a good account of himself on foreign policy. If this debate was about convincing Americans that he wasn't a little boy trying to sit at the grown-up table, it was a success. He didn't look scared or intimidated. And the first 30 or 40 minutes, focused almost entirely on the financial crisis, played into Obama's strengths.
If McCain performed poorly, it might have ended his campaign. He avoided that. But I think Obama avoided any sort of blunder that would endanger his front-runner status.
9:27: That's twice now where McCain has verbally steamrolled Obama and Obama has pretty much smiled it away. I don't know how that'll look, whether Obama will come off as controlled and patient or like a doormat.
9:17: McCain just rolled over Obama in an exchange about presidential level meetings. It's not that his arguments had any extraordinary force behind them, but he kept talking and Obama couldn't wriggle his way into the conversation. Lehrer didn't do a great job of shutting down McCain, and Obama wasn't forceful enough.
9:12: Obama has a great response here, but sort of ruins it with the "there's a difference between preconditions and preparations" line. I know what he's saying, but that's too cutesy and Clintonesque.
9:10: And that was a good response. Tough, but realistic. McCain comes back with the argument that Obama will meet with Ahmadinejad.
9:06: McCain's excoriating Iran. Obama has to be careful that he doesn't go overboard in trying to prove that he's "Barack Obama, Friend of Israel And Tough Fighter."
9:02: McCain tells a touching story about a bracelet he was given by the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq. Obama points out his own bracelet, given to him by another mother. This is dangerous: you don't want to play dueling mothers.
8:58: Obama just launched the toughest attack of the night. He said that McCain's plea for vocal caution is rather silly coming from someone who sings songs about bombing Iran.
8:50: I'm biased, but I think this is a good exchange for Obama. He's making the case that the war in Iraq is distracting us from the War on Terror as a whole. He did have to make a difficult argument on a troop funding bill, which has an unfortunate "I voted for it before I voted against it" vibe.
8:46: And he doesn't let him do that. Obama is blasting McCain on a whole series of judgment questions.
8:45: McCain tries to move away from the question of whether the Iraq War was a good idea at all. Obama shouldn't let him do that.
8:43: Did you know that Barack Obama opposed the war from the start?
8:40: McCain's economic plan comes down to cutting spending. Obama ties him to Bush, using the "votes with Bush 90 percent of the time" line.
8:37: McCain slams Obama on offshore oil drilling. Lehrer slams his head on the desk trying to get an answer to his original question about changing priorities after the financial collapse, and Obama misses a chance to fight back on drilling.
8:35: McCain wants to consider a spending freeze on everything but defense, entitlements and veteran's affairs. Obama calls this using a hatchet when a scalpel is needed. And we have our first mention of Iraq!
8:34: There is an Amber Alert in Ottawa, Kansas.
8:31: McCain on Obama's record: It's hard to reach across the aisle from that far on the left.
8:30: All these debate sites are made to look identical. I think they should all these things outdoors, work in some local flavor. Ole Miss has a beautiful campus. Put up a magnolia tree or something.
8:27: The "foreign policy debate" has yet to leave these borders.
8:26: McCain uses the word "festoon." He wins the battle for best word. Obama needs to break out "celerity" if he wants to catch up.
8:25: I like this format so far. They're going back and forth, and Lehrer isn't getting in the way.
8:23: McCain with a nice free market attack on the business tax. He explained that well.
8:21: Obama: Eliminating earmarks alone is not a strategy for helping the middle class. A nice line, maybe mitigating the fact that he just seemed to talk about a line item veto.
8:19: Obama points out that eliminating earmarks won't pay for McCain's corporate tax cuts. Not a bad little slash there. Shoehorn the "McCain cuts taxes for big corporations" argument into an irrelevant question, bring up your own middle class tax cut.
8:19: About 20 minutes in, and McCain hasn't done much attacking.
8:18: McCain just said he'd veto "every spending bill" that crossed his desk. I don't think that's what he was going for.
8:16: I'm tempted to vote for the first candidate to pass on a chance to use the "Main Street vs. Wall Street" meme.
8:15: Lehrer really wants these two to speak directly to each other.
8:13: McCain brings in a barely relevant anecdote about Eisenhower and the Normany invasion. He also says he's caught flak for calling for the SEC chair's resignation, when, in reality, he caught flak for saying he'd like to fire the SEC chair. Which he can't do.
8:11: Lehrer presses the point, but Obama pivots away to praising himself for his foresight. Ditto for McCain.
8:10: Same question to McCain. He doesn't offer a position on any specific plan.
8:07: Lehrer starts by asking Obama about the bailout plan. Obama offers a fairly standard set of Democratic conditions (oversight, limits on executive compensation, equity stake, etc.) and attacks McCain in the process. Nothing terribly specific.
8:03: Lehrer pronounces his last name "Lay-ruh"
8:00: I'm watching this debate on exciting high definition. Obama's mole! McCain's melanoma scars! I can see it all.
7:52: Hello and welcome to the Distressed Reporter laptop, located in lovely DeSoto, KS. From here I'll be live blogging tonight's debate between Senators McCain and Obama. Expect serious analysis, insightful commentary and blatantly partisan spin.
David Brooks is a Sad Panda
David Brooks likes John McCain. There's nothing surprising about that, of course, but more importantly, there's nothing wrong with that. I've castigated Brooks on a couple occasions for pointless cynicism, so it would be inconsistent and wrong of me to mock him for being genuinely fond of a politician. And considering how genuinely fond I am of Barack Obama, I would only be adding to the world's endless trough of hypocrisy.
Brooks' point, and it's not a ridiculous one, is that McCain is a good man, a serious man, and that we've lost track of that in the crucible of our presidential election. Brooks criticizes McCain for running a campaign with "no central argument," but the rest of the column is largely a paean to Arizona's senior senator. He desperately urges us to remember McCain's basic decency.
On that point I agree with Brooks. McCain's a decent man. It's unfortunate that we've forgotten that. But if McCain wants to blame someone for that lapse in our collective memory, he needs to look in the mirror.
McCain has run a brutal, dishonest, sarcastic, insulting campaign, and he's done so in an election that is guaranteed to be remembered in the annals of our history. Brooks acknowledges this reality. He just doesn't care about it.
And besides, both sides are guilty, so no one's to blame.
Nor is it, primarily, the dishonest ads he is running. My friends in the Obama cheering section get huffy about them, while filtering from their consciousness all the dishonest ads Obama has run — the demagogic DHL ad, the insulting computer ad, the cynical Rush Limbaugh ad, the misleading Social Security ad and so on. If one candidate has sunk lower than the other at this point, I’ve lost track.
Let's get this part of the discussion out of the way early, because Brooks loves to caricature everyone who supports Obama as an unthinking cultist. Yes, Obama has run several deceptive ads. Yes, he has pursued lines of attack on the stump that are misleading. No, those are not acceptable.
Still, we must make no mistake: it was McCain and Steve Schmidt, the Karl Rove acolyte who runs his operation, who poisoned the atmosphere of this election. As Slate's John Dickerson always takes pains to point out, Obama did start the attacks. He was linking McCain to President Bush before the Republican primary results were official and before his own primary battle with Clinton was even close to finished. And yes, Obama did make the unfortunate decision to spurn McCain's offer of several joint town hall meetings.
But I think deep down, David Brooks knows who has fallen deeper into the muck. The astonishing aspect of McCain's campaign is not that it has thrown mud at the opposing camp. Every campaign does that to some extent. What sets the McCain campaign apart is the joy it takes in trying to drive a shiv into the back of Obama's neck.
But Brutus is an honorable man.
When Karl Rove painted Al Gore, a good and decent man, as a serial liar back in 2000, or alleged that decorated war hero John Kerry was a spineless coward unwilling to defend America in 2004, he didn't do it out of any personal animus. He did it because Gore and Kerry were in the way, and those attacks were the best way to remove the obstacles. McCain's group, by contrast, has reveled in nothing so much as mocking and denigrating every aspect of Barack Obama's life.
But Brutus is an honorable man.
It was not Obama who released an ad rife with potentially explosive racial symbolism that accused the opposing candidate of being nothing more than a vacuous, empty-headed celebrity. It was not Obama who kicked dirt in the faces of the millions of young people who were engaged in, and enthusiastic about, the political process for the first time in their lives. It was not Obama who nominated a dangerously incapable and unsuitable woman for the vice presidency and then roared with false outrage when anyone dared question her qualifications.
But Brutus is an honorable man.
And above all else, remember, it was McCain who uttered the most odious assault of the election when he said Obama would "rather lose a war than lose an election." That was McCain's choice. Those were his words. It was John McCain, David Brooks' good and serious man, David Brooks' good and serious man who at the 2004 Republican Convention had urged his party to not treat its opponents as its enemies, it was that man who alleged that his opponent was deliberately advocating a strategy he knew would result in a defeat. That allegation, practically a charge of treason, introduced a toxic element into the campaign. That element would not have existed if McCain had not conjured it.
But Brutus is an honorable man.
I could argue that journalists, men and women like David Brooks, should be on guard for attacks like McCain's, as they would be most vulnerable in a society that treats criticism of the government as treason. But I suspect that's not something David Brooks would have to worry about.
Is John McCain a good man? Probably. A serious man? Probably. But that doesn't redeem his story. That only makes it a tragedy.
Brooks' point, and it's not a ridiculous one, is that McCain is a good man, a serious man, and that we've lost track of that in the crucible of our presidential election. Brooks criticizes McCain for running a campaign with "no central argument," but the rest of the column is largely a paean to Arizona's senior senator. He desperately urges us to remember McCain's basic decency.
On that point I agree with Brooks. McCain's a decent man. It's unfortunate that we've forgotten that. But if McCain wants to blame someone for that lapse in our collective memory, he needs to look in the mirror.
McCain has run a brutal, dishonest, sarcastic, insulting campaign, and he's done so in an election that is guaranteed to be remembered in the annals of our history. Brooks acknowledges this reality. He just doesn't care about it.
And besides, both sides are guilty, so no one's to blame.
Nor is it, primarily, the dishonest ads he is running. My friends in the Obama cheering section get huffy about them, while filtering from their consciousness all the dishonest ads Obama has run — the demagogic DHL ad, the insulting computer ad, the cynical Rush Limbaugh ad, the misleading Social Security ad and so on. If one candidate has sunk lower than the other at this point, I’ve lost track.
Let's get this part of the discussion out of the way early, because Brooks loves to caricature everyone who supports Obama as an unthinking cultist. Yes, Obama has run several deceptive ads. Yes, he has pursued lines of attack on the stump that are misleading. No, those are not acceptable.
Still, we must make no mistake: it was McCain and Steve Schmidt, the Karl Rove acolyte who runs his operation, who poisoned the atmosphere of this election. As Slate's John Dickerson always takes pains to point out, Obama did start the attacks. He was linking McCain to President Bush before the Republican primary results were official and before his own primary battle with Clinton was even close to finished. And yes, Obama did make the unfortunate decision to spurn McCain's offer of several joint town hall meetings.
But I think deep down, David Brooks knows who has fallen deeper into the muck. The astonishing aspect of McCain's campaign is not that it has thrown mud at the opposing camp. Every campaign does that to some extent. What sets the McCain campaign apart is the joy it takes in trying to drive a shiv into the back of Obama's neck.
But Brutus is an honorable man.
When Karl Rove painted Al Gore, a good and decent man, as a serial liar back in 2000, or alleged that decorated war hero John Kerry was a spineless coward unwilling to defend America in 2004, he didn't do it out of any personal animus. He did it because Gore and Kerry were in the way, and those attacks were the best way to remove the obstacles. McCain's group, by contrast, has reveled in nothing so much as mocking and denigrating every aspect of Barack Obama's life.
But Brutus is an honorable man.
It was not Obama who released an ad rife with potentially explosive racial symbolism that accused the opposing candidate of being nothing more than a vacuous, empty-headed celebrity. It was not Obama who kicked dirt in the faces of the millions of young people who were engaged in, and enthusiastic about, the political process for the first time in their lives. It was not Obama who nominated a dangerously incapable and unsuitable woman for the vice presidency and then roared with false outrage when anyone dared question her qualifications.
But Brutus is an honorable man.
And above all else, remember, it was McCain who uttered the most odious assault of the election when he said Obama would "rather lose a war than lose an election." That was McCain's choice. Those were his words. It was John McCain, David Brooks' good and serious man, David Brooks' good and serious man who at the 2004 Republican Convention had urged his party to not treat its opponents as its enemies, it was that man who alleged that his opponent was deliberately advocating a strategy he knew would result in a defeat. That allegation, practically a charge of treason, introduced a toxic element into the campaign. That element would not have existed if McCain had not conjured it.
But Brutus is an honorable man.
I could argue that journalists, men and women like David Brooks, should be on guard for attacks like McCain's, as they would be most vulnerable in a society that treats criticism of the government as treason. But I suspect that's not something David Brooks would have to worry about.
Is John McCain a good man? Probably. A serious man? Probably. But that doesn't redeem his story. That only makes it a tragedy.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
A Programming Note
Should tomorrow's debate go on as scheduled (and that's still my prediction), I'll live blog the event here at Distressed Reporter. Should McCain decide not to attend and the debate becomes some kind of Lehrer-Obama interview or a standard town hall meeting, I'll post some reaction and attempts at analysis.
As I said, I expect McCain to attend. One thing to keep in mind: whatever McCain's motives for suspending his campaign and calling for the debate to be postponed, if he does show up and argue with Obama, he'll be facing remarkably low expectations. After all, Obama had a couple days of intense debate prep. McCain decided against those sessions, and then valiantly took himself off the trail so he could return to Washington to...do whatever it is he's supposed to be doing up there.
As a result, if he shows up, debates respectably and doesn't trip over the microphone cord, he's going to get the benefit of the doubt. On the flip side, Obama, who insisted on the debate, will be expected to show something spectacular.
I definitely won't go so far as to allege that this whole operation was an elaborate attempt at lowering expectations for Friday. That's absurdly Machiavellian. But it is a pleasant side benefit.
As I said, I expect McCain to attend. One thing to keep in mind: whatever McCain's motives for suspending his campaign and calling for the debate to be postponed, if he does show up and argue with Obama, he'll be facing remarkably low expectations. After all, Obama had a couple days of intense debate prep. McCain decided against those sessions, and then valiantly took himself off the trail so he could return to Washington to...do whatever it is he's supposed to be doing up there.
As a result, if he shows up, debates respectably and doesn't trip over the microphone cord, he's going to get the benefit of the doubt. On the flip side, Obama, who insisted on the debate, will be expected to show something spectacular.
I definitely won't go so far as to allege that this whole operation was an elaborate attempt at lowering expectations for Friday. That's absurdly Machiavellian. But it is a pleasant side benefit.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The Head Scratcher
Bizarre, bizarre day on the campaign trail. I wanted to wait a few hours for things to settle down so I could survey the damage; I can do that since I'm not in this to be your one-stop shop for all the breaking political news. I recommend Talking Points Memo or Salon for that.
First, the Times reported that the Bush administration had caved on its bailout package and was willing to limit executive compensation for those companies that participated in the plan. For awhile that looked like the dominant story. Later stories indicated that a preferred version of the package floating around the House included several amendments demanded by the Democratic majority.
Then, John McCain took the extraordinary step of suspending his campaign and calling for a postponement of Friday's presidential debate. The reason? McCain feels like the country would be better served if he winged his way back to Washington to work on the bailout package, a bailout package that seemed to be slowly, but steadily, working its way through the legislative process.
Then the Obama campaign alleged that it was Obama who reached out early in the day to try and forge some kind of joint statement for the two campaigns. Obama said in a news conference that he wanted the debate to go ahead as planned. It was, I thought, a good response, echoing something I was ineloquently saying on another board:
“This is exactly the time when people need to hear from the candidates,” Mr. Obama said.
McCain's massive gamble is the story here. What he's trying to do is cast himself as the patriotic statesman, abandoning a selfish campaign to return to his job and save America from a second Great Depression. Barack Obama, in contrast, will continue to plow ahead with his individual desires, forgetting his country and putting himself first. It's a familiar play; the McCain campaign has staged several of those during the election season, and they're getting pretty good at the blocking of it. It's usually part of a double feature with "Bitching About the Media."
But this is a different issue. The American people don't really care about what's said in a presidential debate, barring some kind of extraordinary gaffe or witty rejoinder. But they're deeply attached to the idea of the debates, the theater of them. As Obama points out, this is a moment when people really do want and need to hear from the country's two most important politicians. (Sit down, Mr. President.)
McCain might be able to cajole Obama and the Commission on Presidential Debates into delaying Friday's debate, possibly pushing it back to the date currently occupied by the Vice Presidential affair. I hope Obama stands firm on this, and I suspect he will.
Here's McCain's quandary: he cannot, cannot, cannot unilaterally withdraw from that debate. He cannot allow Obama to stand alone on a stage and answer questions from Jim Lehrer. So he better hope the Congress has a bailout passed. I suspect he has reason to believe that'll be the case.
My guess? We'll have our debate. Obama won't officially suspend his campaign, but he'll fly up to Washington, do the Senator thing, get his photo taken huddled with white-haired economists and do his debate prep in the evening. McCain will do much the same.
First, the Times reported that the Bush administration had caved on its bailout package and was willing to limit executive compensation for those companies that participated in the plan. For awhile that looked like the dominant story. Later stories indicated that a preferred version of the package floating around the House included several amendments demanded by the Democratic majority.
Then, John McCain took the extraordinary step of suspending his campaign and calling for a postponement of Friday's presidential debate. The reason? McCain feels like the country would be better served if he winged his way back to Washington to work on the bailout package, a bailout package that seemed to be slowly, but steadily, working its way through the legislative process.
Then the Obama campaign alleged that it was Obama who reached out early in the day to try and forge some kind of joint statement for the two campaigns. Obama said in a news conference that he wanted the debate to go ahead as planned. It was, I thought, a good response, echoing something I was ineloquently saying on another board:
“This is exactly the time when people need to hear from the candidates,” Mr. Obama said.
He added: “Part of the president’s job is to deal with more than one thing at once. In my mind it’s more important than ever.”
The McCain camp then said their candidate would unilaterally skip the debate if a bill was not passed by Friday at 9 PM. Harry Reid said McCain and Obama weren't needed in the capital.
About an hour ago, Obama and McCain both accepted invitations from the president to attend a White House briefing tomorrow.
McCain's massive gamble is the story here. What he's trying to do is cast himself as the patriotic statesman, abandoning a selfish campaign to return to his job and save America from a second Great Depression. Barack Obama, in contrast, will continue to plow ahead with his individual desires, forgetting his country and putting himself first. It's a familiar play; the McCain campaign has staged several of those during the election season, and they're getting pretty good at the blocking of it. It's usually part of a double feature with "Bitching About the Media."
But this is a different issue. The American people don't really care about what's said in a presidential debate, barring some kind of extraordinary gaffe or witty rejoinder. But they're deeply attached to the idea of the debates, the theater of them. As Obama points out, this is a moment when people really do want and need to hear from the country's two most important politicians. (Sit down, Mr. President.)
McCain might be able to cajole Obama and the Commission on Presidential Debates into delaying Friday's debate, possibly pushing it back to the date currently occupied by the Vice Presidential affair. I hope Obama stands firm on this, and I suspect he will.
Here's McCain's quandary: he cannot, cannot, cannot unilaterally withdraw from that debate. He cannot allow Obama to stand alone on a stage and answer questions from Jim Lehrer. So he better hope the Congress has a bailout passed. I suspect he has reason to believe that'll be the case.
My guess? We'll have our debate. Obama won't officially suspend his campaign, but he'll fly up to Washington, do the Senator thing, get his photo taken huddled with white-haired economists and do his debate prep in the evening. McCain will do much the same.
Monday, September 15, 2008
The American Mainstream and My Place Outside It
It's a strange thing to realize you're strange.
One of the most effective slurs leveled by the Republican attack machine over the past few decades is that Democrats in general, but those nasty "liberals" specifically, are far out of the American mainstream. They don't get it. They don't identify with average people.
It's a nasty claim, a brutal insult devised by a collection of fabulously wealthy, fabulously powerful individuals. Al Gore's out of the mainstream, doesn't display American values, but that George W. Bush, he's salt of the Earth, a guy who "gets" the average American. But as much as I hate hearing the argument, I've come to realize in recent weeks that it is, in my case, depressingly accurate.
This election has brought that home to me, but not because I've potentially backed the wrong horse. Again. If everyone who supported a losing presidential candidate was out of the mainstream, we'd have tens of millions of loner freaks out there, and that's not the case. The problem isn't even that I'm dramatically more liberal on a number of issues than the average American; by the definition of average, there are going to be a lot of people who are more liberal or more conservative than normal. Again, that doesn't cast someone out of the mainstream.
I have, instead, come to the realization that those things I value are not considered important by the general public, and I have come to the realization that I do not consider important those things valued by the general public. If that's the case, you are out of the mainstream. No debate.
Sarah Palin has become many things to many people, but right now she is a personification of my alienation from the mainstream. I find myself reacting viscerally, with disgust and dismay to the news reports chronicling some of her Alaska Adventures. I find myself convinced that this time, this revelation will shock and appall the American people.
And I find myself wrong.
Sarah Palin is opposed to abortion, even in cases of rape and incest? Why, polls constantly show that while Americans are divided on abortion, but they also show that most Americans are willing to allow it in cases of rape and incest. This will really hurt her.
McCain's poll numbers shoot up.
Sarah Palin had conversations with the Wasilla librarian about banning books? There's very little that offends me more than the idea of banning books. Basically, if the offense doesn't involve killing people, it doesn't bother me as much as the concept of banning books. You can sodomize a puppy in front of my eyes and it won't offend me as much as if you propose to remove The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from the library.
McCain takes a four-point lead in Ohio.
The New York Times publishes a story detailing multiple examples of Palin engaging in Cheney-esque secretive behavior, deliberately skirting public records laws, turning every political dispute into a personal one and elevating friends to important governmental positions. I spent four and a half years at journalism school being taught that the government must be open and transparent, that there's very little more important than that.
McCain and Palin draw thousands at rallies across the country.
What I'm facing, then, is the simple reality that my values largely conflict with those of the average American. That being the case, I could act like the stereotypical liberal and insist that my values are the reasonable ones, the mainstream ones, the correct ones. Or I can come to peace with the idea that the Republicans are largely right: I'm not part of the American mainstream, and those who share my values are in the same boat.
This isn't really a matter of wrong or right; I'm not prepared to renounce all I hold dear because my candidate might well lose an eminently winnable election. Being out of the mainstream doesn't mean you're wrong.
But it doesn't mean you're right, either. And holding your breath until everyone acknowledges that your values are the only correct ones won't accomplish anything.
One of the most effective slurs leveled by the Republican attack machine over the past few decades is that Democrats in general, but those nasty "liberals" specifically, are far out of the American mainstream. They don't get it. They don't identify with average people.
It's a nasty claim, a brutal insult devised by a collection of fabulously wealthy, fabulously powerful individuals. Al Gore's out of the mainstream, doesn't display American values, but that George W. Bush, he's salt of the Earth, a guy who "gets" the average American. But as much as I hate hearing the argument, I've come to realize in recent weeks that it is, in my case, depressingly accurate.
This election has brought that home to me, but not because I've potentially backed the wrong horse. Again. If everyone who supported a losing presidential candidate was out of the mainstream, we'd have tens of millions of loner freaks out there, and that's not the case. The problem isn't even that I'm dramatically more liberal on a number of issues than the average American; by the definition of average, there are going to be a lot of people who are more liberal or more conservative than normal. Again, that doesn't cast someone out of the mainstream.
I have, instead, come to the realization that those things I value are not considered important by the general public, and I have come to the realization that I do not consider important those things valued by the general public. If that's the case, you are out of the mainstream. No debate.
Sarah Palin has become many things to many people, but right now she is a personification of my alienation from the mainstream. I find myself reacting viscerally, with disgust and dismay to the news reports chronicling some of her Alaska Adventures. I find myself convinced that this time, this revelation will shock and appall the American people.
And I find myself wrong.
Sarah Palin is opposed to abortion, even in cases of rape and incest? Why, polls constantly show that while Americans are divided on abortion, but they also show that most Americans are willing to allow it in cases of rape and incest. This will really hurt her.
McCain's poll numbers shoot up.
Sarah Palin had conversations with the Wasilla librarian about banning books? There's very little that offends me more than the idea of banning books. Basically, if the offense doesn't involve killing people, it doesn't bother me as much as the concept of banning books. You can sodomize a puppy in front of my eyes and it won't offend me as much as if you propose to remove The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from the library.
McCain takes a four-point lead in Ohio.
The New York Times publishes a story detailing multiple examples of Palin engaging in Cheney-esque secretive behavior, deliberately skirting public records laws, turning every political dispute into a personal one and elevating friends to important governmental positions. I spent four and a half years at journalism school being taught that the government must be open and transparent, that there's very little more important than that.
McCain and Palin draw thousands at rallies across the country.
What I'm facing, then, is the simple reality that my values largely conflict with those of the average American. That being the case, I could act like the stereotypical liberal and insist that my values are the reasonable ones, the mainstream ones, the correct ones. Or I can come to peace with the idea that the Republicans are largely right: I'm not part of the American mainstream, and those who share my values are in the same boat.
This isn't really a matter of wrong or right; I'm not prepared to renounce all I hold dear because my candidate might well lose an eminently winnable election. Being out of the mainstream doesn't mean you're wrong.
But it doesn't mean you're right, either. And holding your breath until everyone acknowledges that your values are the only correct ones won't accomplish anything.
Monday, September 8, 2008
The Palin Problem
I don't much like the Republican candidate for vice president. It's worth noting that I haven't had much exposure to her, so it's possible Sarah Palin has some great features lurking below the surface. But what I have seen is a candidate who's all too willing to cry sexism when legitimate questions are raised about her qualifications, who's all too willing to shamelessly jump on a feminist bandwagon whose tires she has spent her entire career attempting to slash and who's all too willing to engage in the kind of mean-spirited, often cruel politics of denigration and mockery John McCain purports to abhor. She is, in short, not my favorite person.
But you know what? I'm a liberal Democrat in Kansas. The McCain campaign cares about as much for my opinion as I do for David Brooks' take on the new Kanye West album. What's important is finding a way of successfully conveying that message (the stuff in the first paragraph, not the mental image of David Brooks rocking out to "Love Lockdown") to the people who do matter. Soccer moms in Ohio and Colorado, I'm looking at you. Through your windows. While you sleep.
The question is how to approach Palin, how to attack her, whether it's even a good idea to attack her. A "normal" vice presidential candidate wouldn't present many problems, but Palin's a moose of a different color. She has energized the evangelical base of the Republican Party and helped close the much-chronicled "enthusiasm gap" that supposedly existed between McCain's and Obama's supporters. Those base players wouldn't have voted for Obama, and they probably weren't staying at home on election day either, but they weren't canvassing or phone banking for McCain. Now? They're more inclined to open up the checkbooks.
Far more troublesome is her potential impact on swing voters. Strike that: swing women. (Not to be confused with "swinging women," who, let's face it, are probably voting Democratic in November) The fear is that Palin can use her compelling personal story and preternatural ability to sling mud without dirtying her hands to draw independent, moderate women away from Obama.
Normally the job of attacking the other team's vice presidential pick would fall to your vice presidential pick, but that's dangerous territory for Obama. I'm a Joe Biden fan, but he can sometimes come off as a bit of a...well, "jackass" seems like a kind word for it. And when an old white guy comes off as a jackass when dealing with a woman, unfortunate implications abound.
Biden's not in a position to lecture independent women about Palin's strident opposition to abortion, her opposition to pay equity legislation or her fondness for abstinence-only sex education programs. (The last one being quite an oxymoron, as a "sex education program" dedicated to telling kids "Sex is bad, m'kay?" isn't worthy of the name.) Palin and the McCain campaign would respond with frenzied accusations of sexism. Those accusations would be baseless, of course, but the media would be obliged to cover them. Would many voters be persuaded by all this? Maybe not. But the journalistic maelstrom would suck all the oxygen from the campaign and distract from the economic message Obama is trying to push.
The first obvious solution is to dispatch some high-profile Democratic women to carry the standards against Palin. The highest profile belongs to Hillary Clinton, and she will be campaigning for Obama in Florida this week. I expect Sarah Palin will come up. Clinton could be an effective weapon in this particular battle.
But as some of her aides have pointed out, it's unfair to expect miracles from Clinton. She's got a lot on her plate this fall. The under card is going to be awfully important. There are Congressional majorities to expand and governorships to acquire, and Clinton will in high demand for many of those races. Not to mention, you know, being a Senator. Her dance card is going to be full. When she pledged to help get Obama elected, she didn't bind herself to the role of Obama's troubleshooter on women's issues.
There's another problem as well. The Democrats can send Clinton or any other woman to Ohio to talk about reproductive rights and feminism, but the message might fall on deaf ears. Conservative women energized by Palin obviously aren't going to be swayed.
And those suddenly intrigued independent women aren't in love with Palin because they've made a cool, rational assessment of her policy positions and decided they fall in line with their own. Palin interests them because of that ephemeral concept of identity. She's like them. In many ways, she is them. She's got a large, vibrant family. She cooks dinner. Her husband's a union man, a rugged outdoorsy type. She seems so genuine, so down-to-Earth.
If that comes off as insulting, it's not meant that way. I'll tell anyone who listens that I'm supporting Obama because I agree with his proposed policies, but I largely agreed with the policies proposed in the primary season by Clinton, Biden, John Edwards, Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich, and I didn't support them. I'm as vulnerable to those meaningless superficial dynamics as anyone. I like Obama's policies, sure, but there's no doubt that I'm drawn to this young, handsome, hip man and his remarkable wife.
So I don't begrudge these hypothetical women their attachment to Palin, but it's important for this exercise to acknowledge that it's not based on concrete positions. They're not going to be swayed by constant reminders of Palin's extreme conservatism. They're not stupid and they don't live in caves. They know she's strongly pro-life. They know she's not fond of comprehensive sex ed. You can bang that drum all day, but you're not going to accomplish anything. You're not addressing Palin's root appeal.
The other option is to just ignore Palin and focus withering fire on McCain. That has the advantage of avoiding any gender minefields, and you can always hope the Palin stories will fade away until the vice presidential debate October 8. Then you just have to hope Biden can go two hours without accidentally calling her "honey."
But ignoring Palin cedes the field to her, and if early returns hold, she's going to keep lobbing Molotov Cocktails at Obama. The media will cover those attacks, both out of obligation and because they're going to be viciously quotable. Not responding isn't an option; no one wants to repeat John Kerry's mistakes. And responding doesn't make you look strong, it just makes you look reactive, like you're trailing the play. Plus, any journalist reporting your response will have to re-print the original attack.
So, how to deal with Palin? I've written 1,100 words to write these three:
I don't know.
But you know what? I'm a liberal Democrat in Kansas. The McCain campaign cares about as much for my opinion as I do for David Brooks' take on the new Kanye West album. What's important is finding a way of successfully conveying that message (the stuff in the first paragraph, not the mental image of David Brooks rocking out to "Love Lockdown") to the people who do matter. Soccer moms in Ohio and Colorado, I'm looking at you. Through your windows. While you sleep.
The question is how to approach Palin, how to attack her, whether it's even a good idea to attack her. A "normal" vice presidential candidate wouldn't present many problems, but Palin's a moose of a different color. She has energized the evangelical base of the Republican Party and helped close the much-chronicled "enthusiasm gap" that supposedly existed between McCain's and Obama's supporters. Those base players wouldn't have voted for Obama, and they probably weren't staying at home on election day either, but they weren't canvassing or phone banking for McCain. Now? They're more inclined to open up the checkbooks.
Far more troublesome is her potential impact on swing voters. Strike that: swing women. (Not to be confused with "swinging women," who, let's face it, are probably voting Democratic in November) The fear is that Palin can use her compelling personal story and preternatural ability to sling mud without dirtying her hands to draw independent, moderate women away from Obama.
Normally the job of attacking the other team's vice presidential pick would fall to your vice presidential pick, but that's dangerous territory for Obama. I'm a Joe Biden fan, but he can sometimes come off as a bit of a...well, "jackass" seems like a kind word for it. And when an old white guy comes off as a jackass when dealing with a woman, unfortunate implications abound.
Biden's not in a position to lecture independent women about Palin's strident opposition to abortion, her opposition to pay equity legislation or her fondness for abstinence-only sex education programs. (The last one being quite an oxymoron, as a "sex education program" dedicated to telling kids "Sex is bad, m'kay?" isn't worthy of the name.) Palin and the McCain campaign would respond with frenzied accusations of sexism. Those accusations would be baseless, of course, but the media would be obliged to cover them. Would many voters be persuaded by all this? Maybe not. But the journalistic maelstrom would suck all the oxygen from the campaign and distract from the economic message Obama is trying to push.
The first obvious solution is to dispatch some high-profile Democratic women to carry the standards against Palin. The highest profile belongs to Hillary Clinton, and she will be campaigning for Obama in Florida this week. I expect Sarah Palin will come up. Clinton could be an effective weapon in this particular battle.
But as some of her aides have pointed out, it's unfair to expect miracles from Clinton. She's got a lot on her plate this fall. The under card is going to be awfully important. There are Congressional majorities to expand and governorships to acquire, and Clinton will in high demand for many of those races. Not to mention, you know, being a Senator. Her dance card is going to be full. When she pledged to help get Obama elected, she didn't bind herself to the role of Obama's troubleshooter on women's issues.
There's another problem as well. The Democrats can send Clinton or any other woman to Ohio to talk about reproductive rights and feminism, but the message might fall on deaf ears. Conservative women energized by Palin obviously aren't going to be swayed.
And those suddenly intrigued independent women aren't in love with Palin because they've made a cool, rational assessment of her policy positions and decided they fall in line with their own. Palin interests them because of that ephemeral concept of identity. She's like them. In many ways, she is them. She's got a large, vibrant family. She cooks dinner. Her husband's a union man, a rugged outdoorsy type. She seems so genuine, so down-to-Earth.
If that comes off as insulting, it's not meant that way. I'll tell anyone who listens that I'm supporting Obama because I agree with his proposed policies, but I largely agreed with the policies proposed in the primary season by Clinton, Biden, John Edwards, Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich, and I didn't support them. I'm as vulnerable to those meaningless superficial dynamics as anyone. I like Obama's policies, sure, but there's no doubt that I'm drawn to this young, handsome, hip man and his remarkable wife.
So I don't begrudge these hypothetical women their attachment to Palin, but it's important for this exercise to acknowledge that it's not based on concrete positions. They're not going to be swayed by constant reminders of Palin's extreme conservatism. They're not stupid and they don't live in caves. They know she's strongly pro-life. They know she's not fond of comprehensive sex ed. You can bang that drum all day, but you're not going to accomplish anything. You're not addressing Palin's root appeal.
The other option is to just ignore Palin and focus withering fire on McCain. That has the advantage of avoiding any gender minefields, and you can always hope the Palin stories will fade away until the vice presidential debate October 8. Then you just have to hope Biden can go two hours without accidentally calling her "honey."
But ignoring Palin cedes the field to her, and if early returns hold, she's going to keep lobbing Molotov Cocktails at Obama. The media will cover those attacks, both out of obligation and because they're going to be viciously quotable. Not responding isn't an option; no one wants to repeat John Kerry's mistakes. And responding doesn't make you look strong, it just makes you look reactive, like you're trailing the play. Plus, any journalist reporting your response will have to re-print the original attack.
So, how to deal with Palin? I've written 1,100 words to write these three:
I don't know.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
The Best Adjective for Sarah Palin's Speech
Small.
You could also say that at times it was mean-spirited, vindictive, effective, energizing, petty and even cruel. But it was, at all points, small.
It was small when she denigrated community organizing as a worthless pursuit, an especially egregious maneuver considering the GOP's emphasis on "service." It was small when she mocked Obama as a man without accomplishments or worth. It was small when she gave in to that most atavistic conservative inclination and excoriated the press for asking questions about her.
It is, to be sure, unfair to single out Palin. (Wouldn't want to be accused of sexism) Wednesday night at the Republican convention was all about small. It was all about sarcasm, scorn, mockery.
And it is, to be sure, unfair to single out Wednesday night. The Republican presidential campaign has centered around the excessive use of sarcasm as a political weapon. The campaign has been about sinking claws into Barack Obama and dragging him down into the muck. It has been about trying to make sure no Democrat feels good about their allegiance.
McCain/Palin: Hope Is For Losers.
You could also say that at times it was mean-spirited, vindictive, effective, energizing, petty and even cruel. But it was, at all points, small.
It was small when she denigrated community organizing as a worthless pursuit, an especially egregious maneuver considering the GOP's emphasis on "service." It was small when she mocked Obama as a man without accomplishments or worth. It was small when she gave in to that most atavistic conservative inclination and excoriated the press for asking questions about her.
It is, to be sure, unfair to single out Palin. (Wouldn't want to be accused of sexism) Wednesday night at the Republican convention was all about small. It was all about sarcasm, scorn, mockery.
And it is, to be sure, unfair to single out Wednesday night. The Republican presidential campaign has centered around the excessive use of sarcasm as a political weapon. The campaign has been about sinking claws into Barack Obama and dragging him down into the muck. It has been about trying to make sure no Democrat feels good about their allegiance.
McCain/Palin: Hope Is For Losers.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Hitchens Misses the Point
Christopher Hitchens is an interesting guy, to the extent that every vituperative, besotted British writer is an inherently interesting guy. I can't say I "like" him, per se, since his is the kind of reflexive contrarianism I find annoying. Add in the fact that I disagree with him on most important issues, and the fact that he seems to actually believe that Bill Clinton is a member of a sub-human, reptilian species, well, there's a lot there I find distasteful.
But he's a good writer, and I like reading good writers. He almost always raises at least a couple of interesting points and brings a...call it "unique" perspective to issues.
So I found his column on the furor surrounding John McCain's 2,915 houses (linked above) rather disappointing. He has two main points:
1. McCain was almost certainly joking with the Politico reporter.
2. This is tiresome class warfare and demagoguery.
The first point is rather weak; if McCain was joking someone with the campaign would have gone to a reporter and said, "Dude, the Senator was joking. Obviously he knows the number of houses he owns" once the interview became an issue.
Hitchens' second point is more compelling. A man who possesses wealth may still possess empathy. The fact that McCain has seven houses doesn't mean he's callous or uncaring. As others, including Paul Krugman, have pointed out, Franklin Roosevelt was a fabulously rich man and he tried everything in his power to help Americans devastated by the Great Depression. (Whether he succeeded or not is left to the reader to decide; within the context of this post, all that matters is that he did care about the poor)
However, Hitchens ignores the reason this is a legitimate issue: the McCain camp started the "elitist" attacks long before the brouhaha over their candidate's properties. They weren't talking about houses, to be sure, but Steve Schmidt and others in the campaign have been trying to portray Obama as an out-of-touch celebrity for months. (To be fair to Hitchens, he does criticize McCain's people for retaliating by going after Obama's questionable real estate deal with Tony Rezko.)
Look, McCain's houses and various rental properties were not the issues around which I wanted this campaign to revolve. It's a stupid controversy, and I hate that we're talking about things like this.
But if McCain's embarrassed by this discussion, by the idea that his wife owns so many houses that he doesn't even bother to keep track, he needs to look in the mirror. McCain has spent months arguing that Barack Obama, an African-American raised by a single mother who occasionally resorted to food stamps to feed her son, is a "pointy-headed, arugula-eating professor type." I put those words in quotation marks because they are, verbatim, the words a McCain spokesman used to describe Obama.
If you're going to argue that Obama is unable to connect with the Average Joe (TM) because of his relatively new-found wealth and celebrity, you make the "elitist card" available for anyone to play. Don't unsheathe a double-edged sword and complain when it cuts you too.
But he's a good writer, and I like reading good writers. He almost always raises at least a couple of interesting points and brings a...call it "unique" perspective to issues.
So I found his column on the furor surrounding John McCain's 2,915 houses (linked above) rather disappointing. He has two main points:
1. McCain was almost certainly joking with the Politico reporter.
2. This is tiresome class warfare and demagoguery.
The first point is rather weak; if McCain was joking someone with the campaign would have gone to a reporter and said, "Dude, the Senator was joking. Obviously he knows the number of houses he owns" once the interview became an issue.
Hitchens' second point is more compelling. A man who possesses wealth may still possess empathy. The fact that McCain has seven houses doesn't mean he's callous or uncaring. As others, including Paul Krugman, have pointed out, Franklin Roosevelt was a fabulously rich man and he tried everything in his power to help Americans devastated by the Great Depression. (Whether he succeeded or not is left to the reader to decide; within the context of this post, all that matters is that he did care about the poor)
However, Hitchens ignores the reason this is a legitimate issue: the McCain camp started the "elitist" attacks long before the brouhaha over their candidate's properties. They weren't talking about houses, to be sure, but Steve Schmidt and others in the campaign have been trying to portray Obama as an out-of-touch celebrity for months. (To be fair to Hitchens, he does criticize McCain's people for retaliating by going after Obama's questionable real estate deal with Tony Rezko.)
Look, McCain's houses and various rental properties were not the issues around which I wanted this campaign to revolve. It's a stupid controversy, and I hate that we're talking about things like this.
But if McCain's embarrassed by this discussion, by the idea that his wife owns so many houses that he doesn't even bother to keep track, he needs to look in the mirror. McCain has spent months arguing that Barack Obama, an African-American raised by a single mother who occasionally resorted to food stamps to feed her son, is a "pointy-headed, arugula-eating professor type." I put those words in quotation marks because they are, verbatim, the words a McCain spokesman used to describe Obama.
If you're going to argue that Obama is unable to connect with the Average Joe (TM) because of his relatively new-found wealth and celebrity, you make the "elitist card" available for anyone to play. Don't unsheathe a double-edged sword and complain when it cuts you too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.png)
Posts
