This is going to be my last political post for the Super Terrific Happy Hour. I’ve followed politics my whole adult life and I studied political science in college. As many who read this on a daily basis can attest I lean to the right. Up until a few years ago that wasn’t a bad thing. Unfortunately nowadays political discourse is in an ugly tailspin of name calling and conspiracy theories. Yes, I prefer John McCain. That doesn’t mean I hate Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I just disagree with them. The problem is you can’t just disagree anymore. I had a conversation about this with a friend today. His advice was to simply stop reading the A section of the newspaper, stop watching cable news and don’t listen to political talk on the radio anymore. If you don’t pay attention to the negativity, it won’t effect you. I’m not going to go that far but I am going to stop writing about it on a semi-regular basis. So this site will no longer partially be about politics. It will continue to be about my other passion sports and some lighter subjects, humor, daily observation etc. This isn’t the Drudge Report but I do get a decent amount of hits. To those who come here to read the political stuff, I apologize.
What was the final straw you ask? The final straw for me was this short article on CNN. It’s a little blurb on Colonel Bud Day and his support of the McCain campaign. Powerline covers it here. The article is a meaningless hit piece on Colonel Bud Day, former POW with John McCain, and his support of the McCain campaign. The author attempts to minimize the status and accomplishments of Mr. Day and simply paint him as a former “Swift Boater”. I could care less about the article, it’s par for the course. What put me over the edge is the endless pithy comments after the article by readers. They seem to encompass what’s happened to this country. A Congressional Medal of Honor recipient and the most decorated US officer since Douglas MacArthur can’t even avoid this drivel. We’ve become a country without discourse. Any public figure, irregardless of their personal history, is automatically looked at as an enemy and part of a larger conspiracy. The reaction to Col. Day is much like the reaction to the great Jim Stockdale after the VP debates of 1992. There’s no time or effort to look at someone’s character and accomplishments— they’re simply dismissed due to age and an opposing viewpoint.
I used to love to debate politics. Real debates with an understanding of the opposing viewpoint— agreeing to disagree, etc. You can’t debate politics anymore in the United States. I’m going to stop trying.
Far
We’ve been travelling far
Without a home
But not without a star
Free
Only want to be free
We huddle close
Hang on to a dream
On the boats and on the planes
They’re coming to America
Never looking back again
They’re coming to America
As I was driving home from the 4th of July spent in Upper Michigan one of the quintessential Neil Diamond songs came on the air, “They’re coming to America.” Obviously a very apt song for Independence Day weekend. My thoughts turned to the protest of President George Bush’s speech at Monticello on Friday. With cries of fascism the protesters interrupted the swearing in ceremony of a new batch of Americans. I get a kick out of the cries of “fascism”. Once the Nazi comparison was worn out they’ve moved onto “fascism”. In a country where the opposing party controls both the House and the Senate and the Supreme Court is, at best, split 4-4-1 (4 GOP, 4 Dems, 1 Space Cadet). Not to mention the fact that there’s a Democratic dominated media. Still the word has meaning and it had it’s effect getting the news coverage that they wanted. As the Houston Chronicle headline noted, free speech is still alive and well— unfortunately intelligent free speech is being lost. Those new citizens who were sworn in that day couldn’t have cared less of the charges against the President— they’re just happy to be Americans—- hanging onto a dream as Neil Diamond said.
Unlike this guy, I love the 4th of July and am pretty proud to be an American. Here are a handful of links from various sides of the aisle.
Two opposing viewpoints of the Wesley Clarke’s comments on McCain’s military record. One is from Paul Krugman and the other is from Steve Huntley and the Chicago Sun-Times. Mr. Krugman we can debate about what Mr. Clark may or may not have said but the fact is he did question John McCain’s military experience and how that benefits him as commander-in-chief. What Krugman and Clark miss is that the courage McCain showed while as POW is compelling to many Americans who see such qualities as something they would like to see in their President. Krugman again goes to the DNC talking points and brings up the Swift Boaters and goes further south in bringing up the evil lord of darkness, Karl Rove. John Kerry made his military experience the central part of his campaign, remember “courage under fire?”; remember the giant banners on stage during his speeches? The Republicans were justified in using the story of the Swift Boaters. There were over one-hundred former swift boaters who directly contradicted John Kerry’s story and his use of it in the campaign. If the Dems can go out and find anybody to contradict McCain’s courage and military story they should feel free to use them. Good luck. The fact is the Dems want it both ways. They wanted to ridicule Dubya’s military record and prop up John Kerry four years ago. Now when the tide is turned they want to tear down John McCain and his courage during wartime. Steve Huntley is right. Attacking McCain in his sweet spot is absurd. It’s almost like they’re saying, “well he is a war hero, but not big enough of a war hero.” McCain has one of the most courageous and compelling stories of any national leader. Trying to attack him in that area is an exercise in futility.
To move on to more positive things, a typical sound and thoughtful article by Victor David Hansen.
To continue my theme of the past week another interesting piece on the changing fortunes in Iraq and how it’ll effect Barack Obama if/when he gets elected.
I wanted to write something about everything I love about the 4th of July. This guy did it better. From Drew Magary at Deadspin. Warning, some vulgarity.
Interesting poll taken on who American’s would rather have over for a barbecue, Barack Obama or John McCain. The disparity seems to mirror the national polls right now but if I’m a Republican I’d be a bit concerned. I think the idea of the barbecue poll is interesting. Say what you want about George W. Bush, but he does pass the barbecue test. I’m not sure if the poll was run in the last two elections but I’m assuming Bush would be the popular choice. The same goes for Bill Clinton versus the elder Bush and Bob Dole, and Ronald Reagan compared to Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. If you look at McCain’s background he should have what it takes to win such a poll. If I were one of his image consultants I’d work to re-cast McCain to the American public. Perhaps if the pollsters would have reminded folks that Cindy McCain is the President of one of the largest Budweiser distributors in the US things may have been a bit different. The lure of potentially free beer has to be worth a swing of five percentage points— at least in this household.
So let’s go over some potential subjects to talk about…
McCain: Getting shot down in Vietnam; His time as POW; Nearly twenty years in Washington; His time at the Naval Academy; Growing up all over the world in a military family; his years spent being mentored by Barry Goldwater; His recollections of Ronald Reagan…
Obama: Hope; Change; Hope; Change; Change; Hope; Hope; Change;
The choice is clear!
A week or so ago I wrote this:
There is one major campaign promise that will effect Obama and much of his core constituency, the Iraq War. With the gains the US and the Iraqi’s have made over the last several months and the virtual elimination of Al Qaeda in Irag it may be difficult for Obama to keep his campaign promise of full troop pullouts. Come January of next year, if the successes continue, President Obama may have a different view of the war as candidate Obama. If real success and even victory is in sight I find it highly unlikely he can keep his timeline for a pullout. If pressure mounts and he (intelligently) decides not to pull out as planned he could face some real dissension in his own party, dissension that could be a factor in the initial midterm elections.
Today in the New Yorker George Packer wrote the following:
In February, 2007, when Barack Obama declared that he was running for President, violence in Iraq had reached apocalyptic levels, and he based his candidacy, in part, on a bold promise to begin a rapid withdrawal of American forces upon taking office. At the time, this pledge represented conventional thinking among Democrats and was guaranteed to play well with primary voters. But in the year and a half since then two improbable, though not unforeseeable, events have occurred: Obama has won the Democratic nomination, and Iraq, despite myriad crises, has begun to stabilize. With the general election four months away, Obama’s rhetoric on the topic now seems outdated and out of touch, and the nominee-apparent may have a political problem concerning the very issue that did so much to bring him this far.
As I wrote a week ago and have been telling friends and colleagues for the past month Barack Obama will have to renege on a major campaign promise, a promise that energized a good majority of his supporters on the left. The way things are going now it’s very possible that he minimizes the question until November and still gets elected, unless John McCain can make the issue a central part of his campaign. It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the debates. It’s amazing to see a left-leaning periodical like the New Yorker state the obvious, that a sixteen month withdrawal from Iraq like Obama has promised doesn’t make sense at this point with the consistent reduction of violence and movement towards stability in the region.
As Packer points out, there is political gain to be made by McCain:
Obama, on the night that he proclaimed himself the nominee, in St. Paul, made a familiar declaration: “Start leaving we must. It’s time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future.” His supporters claim that the polls are with Obama, that war fatigue will make Iraq a political winner for him in November. Yet, as exhausted as the public is with the war, a candidate who seems heedless of progress in Iraq will be vulnerable to the charge of defeatism, which John McCain’s campaign will connect to its broader theme of Obama’s inexperience in and weakness on national security. The relative success of the surge is one of the few issues going McCain’s way; we’ll be hearing about it more and more between now and November, and it might sway some centrist voters who have doubts about Obama.
This is a clear issue just waiting to be exploited by John McCain. The question is whether he’ll successfully be able to use it against Obama or if it’s too little too late…and too much of George W. Bush. The unusual and brazen attacks on McCain’s military record by Obama advisers Wesley Clark and Merrill McPeak could be tied to extinguishing the impact of this issue be discrediting McCain’s ability to successfully execute the war.
At least some former Obama advisers are hinting towards a shift in policy if Obama gets elected. Former adviser Samantha Powers indicated recently that a full withdrawal is not a certainty and they’ll be looking for advice from the military establishment.
“He will, of course, not rely upon some plan that he’s crafted as a Presidential candidate or a U.S. senator. He will rely upon a plan—an operational plan—that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground.”
Stay tuned on this one. It’s clear that the promise of a full withdrawal becomes more and more unlikely everyday. It will be interesting to see how this plays out if Obama ends up in the Oval Office. Will the “out of Iraq” constituents who are a big role in Obama rising to his current level of popularity turn on their chosen candidate?
I couple of months ago while having a political conversation with my friend Matt I remember making the point that as gas prices go up interest in environmental matters will decrease among the general populace. If gas is less than $2.00 a gallon the majority of the public is just fine with banning offshore drilling. Now that gas is over $5 per gallon in California a Survey USA poll out this week shows that the majority (59%) of Californians are now in favor off offshore gas exploration. I’m sure there’s a smart economist somewhere who has a term for the forces at play here. The interesting contrast is global warming. With gas prices so high there is justifiably a movement to increase gas mileage and reduce the dependence on oil. The price of gas works to help the idea of global warming. Not only are we paying too much for gas but it’s affecting the environment, etc. Of course if gas prices were to suddenly fall back down to late 90’s $1.15 per gallon levels the support of global warming would probably decrease among the masses as well. It’s kind of a paradox.
Gas prices up—-> environmental awareness down
Gas prices down—-> interest in combating global warming down
Or to put it another way:
Gas prices up——> where can I buy a Hybrid?
Gas prices down——> can I trade-in that Prius for Escalade?
My liberal friends never believe me when I express skepticism about the reporting of CNN. I scoff at CNN like they scoff at Fox News. As they roll their eyes at the idea of “fair and balanced” I roll my eyes at any mention of Wolf Blitzer and the rest of the crew. The channel isn’t exactly Olbermanesque, but it’s a lot closer to the DNC talking points than those of the Grand Old Party.
Which gets me to my pet peeve for the day— the fact that CNN is played for all to see and hear in every airport in America. I’m not sure who the marketing wiz that came up with the idea is but it’s been successful. As I sat in the Dallas airport this morning getting ready to head back to Minneapolis I had to sit through your typical CNN Sunday morning. Today Condi Rice was getting grilled heavily on Middle East policy while a CNN Sunday panel debated the various levels of Barack’s overall awesomeness.
You know the beauty of the whole CNN airport monopoly? No one complains. We conservatives make up about 40% of the population but you don’t see anyone complaining. Much like the featured space that the left-leaning authors get in the major bookstores we just turn the other cheek. Can you imagine the reaction of all the major airports played Fox News on a continuous loop like they do CNN?
Not pretty.
P.S. In keeping with my post from a few months back, sure enough, the person in front of me just jacked their seat back as I write this. You know how impossible it is for a 6’2” adult to try to type on a laptop with the seat in front of you fully reclined. Why not take a nap? It’s 1:30 on a Sunday afternoon, of course you’re tired honey. I look around and in the four rows ahead of me there is not one seat reclined other than the one in front of me. My amazing streak continues.
Multiple people have asked me why I’ve slowed down on the political stuff. First off I went on vacation for a week. I also took a couple of weeks off studying for a professional exam. In the span of the three to four weeks I realized one undeniable fact. The Republicans are in for a bloodbath in November. Whether you like John McCain or not he was by far the most electable Republican in the field. Electable or not, in this electoral climate its simply not going to matter. Obama will win the popular vote by as much as 6-8 percent. He will win Ohio, Pennsylvania and all the other battleground states with the exception of Florida. The big if, and it’s a big one that could save McCain is if there are any other Reverend Wright type episodes yet to come out. I’m thinking there’s not, so it’s going to be a landslide.
In a weird sort of way I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing. Whether you’re a Bush supporting Republican or not there really has to be a clean break from the Bush years so the party can re-group and re-energize. An Obama win could be the best thing to happen to the party. From a fiscal standpoint the party has lost its way over the last eight years and an Obama presidency could be the perfect time to get back to the basics and rebuild the party on the core conservative principles.
There is one major campaign promise that will effect Obama and much of his core constituency, the Iraq War. With the gains the US and the Iraqi’s have made over the last several months and the virtual elimination of Al Qaeda in Irag it may be difficult for Obama to keep his campaign promise of full troop pullouts. Come January of next year, if the successes continue, President Obama may have a different view of the war as candidate Obama. If real success and even victory is in sight I find it highly unlikely he can keep his timeline for a pullout. If pressure mounts and he (intelligently) decides not to pull out as planned he could face some real dissension in his own party, dissension that could be a factor in the initial midterm elections.
Finally, let’s talk about President Bush. Yesterday as I was driving to Forth Worth on the President George Bush Turnpike my thoughts turned to how he may be remembered in history. Right now history would not be kind. Still, let’s think about a couple of things and how history may change it’s attitude toward Bush. First is Islamo-fascism. Over the last six months there have been consistent accounts in the world media about how many of the religious leaders in the Islamic world continue to fight the idea of Jihad and press the idea of peace. What if this trend continues and the tide turns against the proponents of Jihad and violence. Second, what if Iraq continues to stabilize and becomes a stabilized western ally in the Middle East? The view of President Bush could drastically change in a decade or so if these trends continue. The other area for Bush is his success in Africa in fighting AIDS and malaria. As demonstrated on his visit there a few months back he is well respected and seen in a positive light by a huge majority of the country. What if Bush’s policies control the twin scourges of AIDS and malaria?
Who knows— there may be a couple of success stories on two continents that change the perception of the Bush presidency.
Anything could happen.
On to John McCain. He’ll be remembered as a war hero and a solid Senator who as a result of history and timing didn’t really quite make it to the Presidency. Maybe its the best for him and the party. In this current climate, with a Democrat Senate and Congress a McCain presidency would be a tough task for the Republicans.
Time to regroup and re-imagine the party.
Obama, Sunday night on Iran:
“They don’t pose a serious threat to us.”
Monday afternoon on Iran:
“I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”
You can’t make it up. He’s clearly tailoring his argument to fit the crowd he’s speaking to. Portland is clearly a liberal crowd so let’s just say there’s no threat at all. Montana? Well, they’re a bit more conservative so let’s say Iran has been a threat for years.
Also from Powerline, and from Obama on Sunday.
We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.
What does this mean?
From the Strib today, Tim Pawlenty now has a 54% approval rating but most voter’s still won’t let the possibility of him being on the national Republican ticket sway their presidential vote. For as much as I like Pawlenty it’s for that reason that I don’t see him getting the VP nod. I can’t see him helping McCain win any states, a good debate performance aside. If I were McCain I’d beg Rudy Guiliani to be my VP and then tell him not to campaign outside of Florida, New York, Ohio and New Jersey until November. The ticket will likely win Florida and leads most polls in Ohio. If Guiliani can somehow sway New York (may be a miracle I admit), the Republicans just may take this thing.
Now back to Pawlenty. Any reasonable person would have to admit he’s done a solid job as governor. The budget has been balanced, the 35W bridge collapse was handled admirably and infrastructure changes have been created, the light rail now has two more lines on the way, and property tax relief has been legislated. Last week’s compromise and goodwill between Pawlenty and the Democratic leaders was very refreshing. They worked together towards a common goal and had nothing but positive things to say about each other after. Both parties, and Pawlenty, deserve a lot of credit.
For that reason I’m surprised his approval is only 54%. No matter how you feel about national politics you have to admit that T-Paw has done a good job governing this state. Unfortunately the tone of politics in this country has become so bitter and conspiracy minded that we often lose site of the fact there are good civil servants out there. As someone with a degree in Political Science I often find it difficult to even debate people nowadays. The days of spirited discourse at the local pub followed by a smile and a handshake are over. For too many people it’s too personal with too much name calling.
The perfect example is the comments under the Srib article on T-Paw’s approval rating. Who are these people? The vitriol and nastiness is over the top. Maybe it’s not that bad of an idea for Pawlenty to go national. The fact he’s been elected twice in a state like Minnesota is kind of amazing as it is. If you don’t agree, read the Srib editorial page on a daily basis.
Here’s the piece of George Bush’s speech in Israel that has set off a firestorm with reaction from Pelosi, Biden and Obama:
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
I think it’s safe to say that historians and those who study foreign policy agree with the example of British PM Neville Chamberlain and the idea that you can’t negotiate with despots. In the speech he may allude to Obama but never actually mentions him. The reactionary ways of the Democrats is a bit puzzling here. They’re so quick to condemn the President when the logical response would be to simply say very broadly that “we agree, you should never negotiate with terrorists and radicals.” Who can disagree with that statement? Rather than simply putting the question to bed, Obama has raised another issue that will be an issue in the fall.
Here’s a sample debate question:
“Senator Obama, you’ve stated in the past that you’d be open to negotiating with Syria, Iran and Hamas. You’ve also stated that you condemn with President Bush’s comments in regards to negotiating with terrorists. Will you have a policy of negotiating with terrorists groups like Hamas?”
The easy answer is, “no”. Unfortunately he can’t answer the questions quite so simply.
Who’s running this party? Jimmy Carter?
Thought provoking article from the London Times Online regarding the perceived idolatry by many in the media towards Barack Obama. The article takes particular offense with the recent Newsweek “O-team” lovefest.
Mr Obama is portrayed throughout as an immanently benevolent figure. Not human really, more a comforting presence, a light source. He is always eager to listen to all aides of an argument, always instilling confidence in the weak-willed, resolutely sticking to his high principles and tirelessly spurning the low road of electoral politics. I stopped reading after a while but I’m sure by the end he was healing the sick, comforting the dying, restoring sight to the blind and setting prisoners free.
Mr. Baker also takes on an increasingly common theme, the media’s turn in the portrayal of John McCain— the long time darling of many of the same media outlets, but now unfortunately running as the GOP nomination for president.
There’s a special irony here. Senator McCain is the Republican who has received probably the single most favourable treatment from the media in the past 40 years. He has been a favourite because he conformed to the first law of contemporary political journalism: the only good conservative is a bad conservative. His willingness to defy his party on everything from taxes to global warming, to take on George Bush, has earned him at least an honourable mention in the martyrology of American politics of the past 40 years. But now that he’s up against Oh! Bama! he will have to be recast in the more familiar Republican mould of villain and scaremonger-in-chief.
It really is a shame that someone of John McCain’s stature, character, and history of working across party lines will now be cast as the ultimate villain.
I’ve gone on record on a couple of occasions scoffing at the notion of Hillary Clinton as Barack Obama’s running mate. In the last couple of days it now seems highly possible with both Obama and some of Hillary’s advisers hinting at it. If Hillary goes for it I’ll be as shocked as anybody. You’d think she’d rather be Senator from New York than Vice President. I realize Dick Cheney has changed the role and scope of the job but I’d highly doubt she’d have a similar role in Obama’s presidency. George Bush gave Cheney such a role because he didn’t see him as a threat. Hillary would clearly be a threat to Obama. Even if she does become VP she’ll be 70 years old in eight years after Obama’s potential term would end.
Bill Clinton as “Second Man” of the United States?
Minnesota has the double whammy going here. According to a Pew research survey Republicans are happier than Democrats, by a wide margin. It’s not a rich/poor difference either, poor Republicans are happier than poor Democrats. Since Minnesota is a largely left leaning state its safe to say people in Texas are happier. And nicer— but let’s not talk “Minnesota nice”. The same survey brings the double whammy: evidently people in warmer climates are happier than those in cold climates. Who would have thunk that one?
Why are liberals so unhappy? I’m not close to being an expert but the co-workers I talk to that lean left sure seem down about everything. Could the fact you can’t have a political conversation without hearing that everyone in Iraq hates us and everyone in Europe hates us. Really? Every single person?
From the author:
When I tell my liberal friends about Republican happiness, they usually reply angrily — angry not being a happy trait. “They’re just not paying attention,” one friend snapped. “Ignorance is bliss,” said another. Or perhaps it’s what Ralph Waldo Emerson said, putting it more eloquently and less angrily: “God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose. Take which you please — you can never have both.”
Me? I watch Fox News. I’m generally a happy guy— except for when Gavin Floyd was on the mound last night.
Here’s a balanced view of the war on terror and in Iraq and where we sit currently by Victor David Hansen over at Real Clear Politics. Hansen makes some interesting points on how getting oil back down to reasonable prices can affect Iran negatively.
Very compelling article over at the Wall Street Journal from an author I won’t name. It seems the mere mention of his name throws 20% of the population into complete hysterics. It touches on John McCain’s personal story and how it needs to be told, but he’s not willing to tell it. It’s an interesting dilemma. As we learned with Guiliani and 9/11 you walk a fine line when you attempt to use your past experiences to appeal to voters. Perhaps the best way for McCain to get his story out is to have the people who were there with him talk about it— like Bud Day in the Rove article:
Mr. Day recalls with pride Mr. McCain stubbornly refusing to accept special treatment or curry favor to be released early, even when gravely ill. Mr. McCain knew the Vietnamese wanted the propaganda victory of the son and grandson of Navy admirals accepting special treatment. “He wasn’t corruptible then,” Mr. Day says, “and he’s not corruptible today.”
Finally, one more comment on the whole Rev. Wright affair. It strikes me as a bit ironic that at a time when Chicago is at its knees due to horrible gang violence the Reverend would rather spend his time traveling the country undermining Barack Obama. As a significant Chicago religious and community figure you’d think the Reverend would have some other things on his mind—namely working with the police and other community leaders to combat this growing trend— much of it right in his own backyard.
I agree with Bill Kristol on this one. As I posted last Tuesday the media really isn’t giving Hillary Clinton a lot of credit for the strong campaign she’s run since Super Tuesday. Good analysis here.
Meanwhile, why can’t Barack Obama and his supporters get his former pastor to be quiet? Just when the issue was beginning to fade its rearing back from an unlikely source, Reverend Wright himself. It’s kind of amazing but he seems hell bent on derailing the Obama campaign himself. Here’s the Fox News story. Yesterday during an interview with Chris Wallace, Obama did what I thought was incredible, actually admitting that the Wright comments are a legitimate political issue. Can you imagine if Kerry came out and said the Swift Boat ads were “legitimate” politically? Obama is basically admitting that its OK to use the Reverend Wright comments against him. If I were McCain I’d take that Fox news interview and put it right into my commercials. Some conservative commentators even believe that Wright may have “derailed” Obama’s campaign. I wouldn’t go that far but the more he’s exposed the more it hurts Obama. Some people on the left may agree with Wright’s negative comments comparing the Marines with the Roman Legions and the US Military with Al Qaeda, but these comments just won’t play in the heartland. The campaign isn’t derailed but Obama would be best to find a compromise that allows Reverend Wright to disappear until November.
Finally, on the McCain temper issue a typically entertaining piece by Christopher Hitchens over at Slate. The temper issue will pop up quite a bit in the fall and has shown some traction as multiple columnists have commented on it. That and McCain’s age will be the double whammy that the Democrats will attempt to exploit in the fall. I think the age issue is a potential problematic piece if its Obama running against McCain due to Hillary’s success with voters over 65. The Democrats will have to be careful not to offend an aging electorate. All in all I pretty entertaining piece.
It will be interesting how the media spins Hillary’s victory in Pennsylvania. With this win she has now won three consecutive large states in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. She’s also captured New York, New Jersey, and California. As I’ve posted before she’s captured every large traditional Democratic state. I have a feeling that if it was Obama fighting to stay alive rather than Hillary the media post-mortem would be a little different. Like many of the former Clinton administration superdelegates the media has clearly staked their claim in Obama. Get ready for a bunch of “yes but” stories tomorrow.
“Yes Hillary won Pennsylvania, but…”
As someone with a background in political science the exit polls validate what I’ve been saying all along. Hillary captures the traditional and “true” Democratic voting blocks. According to Fox News:
Exit polls showed Clinton hanging on to key voting blocs — women, seniors, whites, union members and lower-income households. The polls showed she was leading in union households by 58 to 42 percent, and among voters making less than $50,000-a-year by 55 to 45 percent.
As I posted here and contrary to popular opinion I firmly believe that not nominating Hillary is a Democratic mistake of epic proportions. Unlike many national pundits its my opinion that McCain runs stronger against Obama than Hillary. Obama’s constituency, though diverse, is a mile wide and an inch thick. Hillary’s support is much more traditional. She already has the formula to win the electoral college while Obama doesn’t. Barack will likely lose Ohio and Florida to McCain. New Jersey and Pennsylvania is in play versus McCain. A McCain victory in either state could ensure an electoral college victory.
Back in 1992 Bill Clinton captured the New Hampshire primary and was dubbed “The Comeback Kid”. Can history repeat itself? If the playing field was fair, from a coverage perspective, I wouldn’t put it past her. The only problem is that its not a level playing field, the media has already decided, ask ABC news.
9:43 PM: With 76% of the precincts reporting Hillary leads 54% to 46%. In total votes the gap is just over 144,000 votes. No matter how the Obama camps spins it this is a significant victory. It will be interesting to see what happens as the final precincts report. Traditionally the cities (Obama’s strength) report first. If the rural areas can raise the gap to 10% the victory will be even more impressive. If Hillary can win Indiana next I think she’ll be in the race until the convention. A win in Indiana, which neighbors Obama’s home state of Illinois would be a major blow. Obama will take North Carolina, but Hillary is virtually guaranteed large victories in West Virginia and Kentucky in May. Take away North Carolina and Hillary will be on a five of six state streak. With victories in Ohio, Indiana (TBD), Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky she will have cut a pretty strong swath through the heartland.
9:56 PM: Just as I noted would happen the media spin has already begun. If you look at CNN.com there’s a picture of Obama smiling with the headline “Obama: Campaign Closed Gap in Pennyslvania.” With 80% of precincts in CNN is showing a 10% gap. From the article:
Calling Pennsylvania an “uphill climb,” Obama declined to predict a victory in the primary, but said his campaign showed he can compete in a big state.
Yes, he can compete…but can’t seem to win.
10:34 PM: You’ve got to love proportional representation. Hillary has a 10% lead on Obama, has captured more than 200,000 more votes yet has only 52 delegates to Obama’s 46. What a nomination process they have. I’m wondering how many Obama delegates came out of the very un-democratic caucus process.
11:10 PM: The New York Times fires the first salvo, slamming Hillary for her negativity. The recent obsession with “negativity” is hilarious, this is politics after all. You want negative campaigning? Andrew Jackson once accused his opponent of being a cannibal. That’s negative campaigning. The NYT goes one further in accusing Hillary of the dreaded “Karl Rove tactics”. Ouch. Last time I checked Karl Rove won elections. Give me a break. Her campaign hasn’t been overly negative. The Obama campaign has just been overly thin-skinned of late.
11:35 PM: Here’s an interesting link on the CNN web site that breaks down Hillary’s victory by county. There’s an awful lot of light blue there. This type of breakdown can’t be what the DNC wants to see in their potential candidate. Those same light blue areas is where John McCain and his personal story is going to play awful well against Obama. On the link if you scroll over the rural counties Hillary is looking at 20 and 30 point margins. When you see polls that show 20+ percent of Hillary voters potentially defecting to McCain these are the areas they’re coming from.
11:50 PM: I promise I’m done here. Here’s a link to a pretty provocative post over at Power Line. It will be interesting to see if Obama’s connection to Dohrn and Ayers is every truly fully explored by the MSM. One thing is sure— this type of connection would immediately end the career of most presidential candidates. This one may be different due to the free pass he’s getting.
“I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.”
As someone who grew up watching SNL I have difficulty taking Al Franken seriously. This fall it will be interesting to see how seriously Minnesota voters take him. In our post-Bush political climate and taking into account the fact he’s running against Norm Coleman for Paul Wellstone’s former seat you’d have to think he has a pretty good chance of winning. Here’s an interesting article from Froma Harrop over at Real Clear Politics that breaks down the Democratic race. Evidently there’s actually a candidate to the left of Al Franken— and Harrop thinks he has a chance. I’m not surprised Franken has a competitor; I’m just amazed that the competitor is somehow to the left of Franken. A quick glance at Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer’s web site shows who he’s trying to emulate. From the fact he’s a St. Olaf graduate to his message of “courage” and “hope”, it’s clear he’s attempting to continue the Wellstone tradition while riding the Obama wave. It will be interesting to follow— he’s a candidate that will play well in Minnesota. What I thought was interesting in Harrop’s article is the fact that Franken is calling for individual states to develop their own health care plans. He may have a little “states rights” conservatism in him after all.
It’s going to be an interesting fall in Minnesota. The Coleman race will be one of the most hotly contested Senate seats in the land. I’m curious to see if the Republican convention in St. Paul will help or hurt Coleman. Personally I think it can only help because what he accomplished in revitalizing St. Paul will be on full display. Of course the Jesse Ventura factor could somehow be in play here as well. As I’ve noted before I’m not a big fan. A Ventura candidacy would probably ensure a Franken victory.
Having lived through the Ventura regime, I’ll take any of the three over Jesse.
I’ve written before on how ludicrous I think the idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket is. As their bitter contest continues I think it gets more and more unlikely— if it was ever “likely”. Still the New York Times soldiers on speculating once again on such a partnership. I don’t think they have any credible evidence of such a compromise being seriously considered. If you ask me I think the Times and other news outlets that have speculated on such a ticket combination are trying to create the news. As much as they genuinely like him or at least pretend to like him the New York Times doesn’t want McCain to win. The last month of poll data has shown McCain versus anybody a tossup. The polls also show a good chunk of Hillary moving toward McCain if she loses the nomination. What’s the best way to stop that? Have them on the same ticket! I think they’re again floating the story out there to get everyone talking about how “unstoppable” such a ticket would be— hoping that if you talk about it enough maybe it could actually become true.
___________________
In keeping with the political them here’s the definitive article (in my opinion) on the made up controversy from last week’s Democratic debate. From John Fund and the Wall Street Journal. Here’s an excerpt:
So far he has, as too many commentators tiptoe around him as if they were walking on eggshells. Just look at the late-night comedy shows, where jokes about Hillary Clinton’s fibbing and John McCain’s age have been frequent and memorable. But until perhaps very recently can anyone recall any comparable jape about Barack Obama’s foibles?
Mr. Obama has said he wants to be judged and treated as any other candidate would be. The hostile establishment-media reaction to ABC’s debate shows that he has not been. The presidency is too important to allow that kind of blinkered mentality to govern the rest of this year’s election coverage. Bravo to ABC for finally asking a lot of questions many Americans have been talking about.
__________________
One final thought…Mickey Kaus is the latest to bring up the term “Marxist”. He was responding to this article by Bill Kristol. My friend Matt Brown brought it up before both of them. From Karl Marx via Kristol:
“Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the people.”
Contrast the above piece to this recent quote:
“It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
John McCain built up massive popularity among American voters with his populist opposition to swindlers, liars and thieves, whether in business, Congress, labor or the defense community. His take-no-prisoners attitude toward corruption and his willingness to battle it wherever it crops up has made him an icon among our political leaders.
The above quote is from Dick Morris, former campaign manager for Bill Clinton and somebody who knows a thing or two about winning an election. The full article is here and is full of excellent analysis. Morris is correct in stating that John McCain, with the nomination in tow, now has to go back to his populist roots. His biggest mistake would be trying to please the conservative wing of the Republican party. If McCain has any chance to win this election, and the polls show he has a chance, he needs to bring the maverick back, the person who’s not afraid to reach across the aisle and appeal to Democrats and Independents. Most importantly he has to refrain from the urge to paint himself in a corner like Obama and Clinton did last night. Promising to not raise taxes on incomes under 200K while continuing to promise universal healthcare is a tough task. Taking such a hard line on Iraq withdrawal is equally difficult. I just don’t understand why Obama/Clinton are so focused on a timetable for the withdrawal. The American public realizes its a mess but they also realize that we may have to have a gradual pullout. None of the three candidates can take much of the blame for the situation we have there. A more pragmatic approach like McCain’s is more realistic to what the situation presents—- I feel middle of the road voters realize this. In the fall McCain will be able to make political hay with this issue.
Interesting breakdown over at Real Clear Politics of how the electoral college may play out in November. As I’ve stated before I was of the belief that Hillary Clinton would be John McCain’s best chance to win in November due to all the George Bush related factors. In the past month I’ve wavered and now feel that an Obama nomination, as Hillary has stated, would give McCain the best chance to win. McCain is certain to win in Florida and the comments made by Obama in San Francisco may come back to haunt him in Ohio and Pennsylvania. As I’ve posted in the past New Jersey and New York (amazingly) may even be in play. Whether you agree that they are inflammatory or not, Obama’s recent remarks about rural Pennsylvania voters has given more ammunition to those who believe Obama is an elitist. Hillary has used those comments to her benefit and who can blame her? Ever since Howard Dean came out and expressed his desire to have the nomination process sewn up by June I don’t think the media has been particularly kind to Hillary. She’s showing she’s a fighter— something that’s a pretty good quality in a president.
The claims Hillary made today that Obama may be going down the same road as Gore and Kerry in being seen as an “elitist” by certain constituents has merit. No matter how you interpret them they do seem pretty naive. Obama coming out yesterday and saying “shame on her” for exploiting the comments is even more naive. The last time I checked she is running for president. Her strength in both Ohio and Pennsylvania is the very same voter that Obama offended— of course she’s going to use the comments in her favor. Valid or not the comments do play to the idea that Obama is an elitist. Like John Kerry and the “Boston Brahmin” angle Obama opened himself up to being labeled a “San Francisco Democrat.” This only hurts Obama among his weakest constituency among traditional Democratic voters, rural whites.
According to Paul David Kuhn at Real Clear Politics:
To boot, Obama already had problems with small town voters. In the Appalachia region of Ohio, Clinton won over 65 percent of the vote. Obama has put out advertising in Pennsylvania to emphasize that his values are the same as regular folks’ values. But then this comes out. It appears Obama misunderstands how regular Americans arrive at their values.
This “elitist” idea is going to be hammered home by Hillary until she goes down— IF she goes down. The fact that he was speaking in front of a wealthy group of donors in San Francisco gives more weight in her claims. The Democrats biggest struggle is to mesh a liberal non-married, non-churchgoing, non-weapons owning, city dwelling upper-class party wing, with the rural poor to middle-class blue-collar workers that have been traditional Democratic voters. Comments like this don’t help.
Hillary is once again emboldened. She’s the Energizer Bunny. The media now has another story to play out.
Nothing like seeing which way the wind is blowing. Add Bill Richardson to this category as well. Al Gore and Jimmy Carter are ready to endorse Barack Obama for president. Of course if Hillary was ready to take the nomination they’d be endorsing her. Irregardless of Earth in the Balance and An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore would not have the stature he has without the influence of Bill Clinton. Take away his time as VP under Clinton and Gore would not have received the Democrat nomination in 2000. Take away his narrow loss to Bush and Gore doesn’t have the name or stature to drive his global warming message. It’s clear that loyalty means nothing anymore. If it did Richardson and Gore wouldn’t have slithered over to the other side. I guess the possibility of a cabinet position eliminates any personal loyalty. Carter? He always has been and will continue to be irrelevant.
As the Democratic nomination fight slowly and inevitably winds its way toward an Obama candidacy, some of the Democratic talking points in regards to McCain are materializing. I commented a couple of days about the “warmonger” talking point, as well as the McCain “temper” angle. A new strategy will be the clever (according to them) idea that McCain is “McSame” in regards to Bush. It will work with certain voters as all ads invariably do. I’m not sure its going to work with your typical moderate voter who has an open mind or many undecided candidates. It will be a buzz word for people who have already made up their mind and are firmly in the Obama/Hillary camp. From McCain’s perspective its just too easily countered with an honest look at this record.
They are not the “same”. The Democrats are going to have to realize sooner or later that neither George Bush or Dick Cheney is running in this election. Any attempt to tie McCain to Bush is foolish and any tuned in observer, Republican or Democrat realizes this. How we can go from McCain being a rumored VP candidate for John Kerry to the “same” as George Bush is beyond me. Starting eight years ago when Bush went negative in the South Carolina primary McCain and Bush haven’t had the closest of relationships. By no means a conservative, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen lauds McCain for his integrity and consistency in his positions— in steep contrast to Bush.
Via Slate. Over the next couple of months John McCain is going to be campaigning in some Democratic strongholds, specifically largely African-American parts of the south and poor parts of Appalachia. I think its an interesting strategy and something that makes sense. He’s afforded a unique opportunity with the Democratic nomination still in limbo and Hillary battering away against the nominee to be Barack Obama. All press at this point for McCain is good press.
As the Democratic nomination mess slowly sorts itself out the campaign “talking points” are being flushed out. Jay Rockefeller says John McCain doesn’t understand war. Ed Shultz says he’s a “warmonger”. How can you not understand war yet be a warmonger? The Obama campaign rejects both claims. Do they think we’re this stupid?
The Democrats will continue to find out that McCain is the teflon candidate in regards to such attacks. Both examples seem to me like a classic situation of get the quote out there, have the Obama campaign quickly denounce it, then have everyone cover it— to get max attention for the comment. In regards to Rockefeller’s comments, if the campaign doesn’t denounce it how many people outside of West Virginia would have read it anyway? Rockefeller just makes himself look naive. The only people that are going to buy such a statement aren’t going to vote for McCain anyway. West Virginia is going to go McCain. Sensible West Virginians see right through absurd comments like this. Are we honestly supposed to believe that someone who spent five years as a POW, has a son who has served in combat in Iraq and has another son in the Naval Academy does not understand war?
Read the rest of this entry »