- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
- Jan 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Feb 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–29
- Mar 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Apr 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–30
- May 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Jun 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–30
- Jul 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Aug 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30 31
- Sep 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–30
- Oct 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Nov 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- Dec 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Re: McCain's Great Night
Posted by on 8.16.08 @ 11:26PM
Phil: Boy are you ever right about this one. Watched the forum because I was asked to write about it for the Guardian. It was very much the Arizona senator's night.
McCain's Great Night
Posted by on 8.16.08 @ 10:17PM
I don't know how many people were watching, but all I can say is that Barack Obama will have his work cut out for him in this fall's debates if this is at all an indication of how the two of them perform on the same stage. McCain was really at his best and the contrast played to his strengths. Obama was long-winded and wishy-washy in his answers, while McCain was short and to the point --Rick Warren even had to ask him additional questions because he finished them so much more quickly than Obama. Obama was analytical and professorial, where McCain was substantive. Obama said his most gut-wrenching decision was opposing the Iraq War as a state senator, while McCain described his decision to refuse early release as a POW even though he was severely injured, and even though he was promised it would lead to even harsher treatment. Obama was aloof and distant, McCain was funny and connected emotionally with the audience. Sure, those of us who have been following this campaign for nearly two years have heard all of McCain's jokes and anecdotes, but they were a hit with the audience who probably hadn't. If this were an actual debate, it would have been a blowout. Obama looked every bit like the rookie against a seasoned (not washed-up) veteran.
UPDATE: If you needed any more evidence that John McCain dominated, Andrew Sullivan has called it a draw.
Kudos to Rick Warren
Posted by on 8.16.08 @ 10:03PM
I was wrong to doubt him. He asked the abortion question.
Obama Says Clarence Thomas Was Too Green
Posted by on 8.16.08 @ 8:59PM
Asked by Rick Warren who he would not have nominated to the Supreme Court, Barack Obama named Clarence Thomas, arguing that he wasn't a "strong enough jurist or legal mind" at the time he was chosen -- an interesting argument coming from a man just a few years removed from the state senate who thinks he's ready to be president. Obama also said that while Scalia displays "intellectual brilliance," he disagrees with him, and though John Roberts is "compelling" and "thoughtful" he's too deferential to executive power.
Overall, I think this Warren forum suits Obama well, in a touchy-feely Oprah sort of way (he talked about the selfishness of his teenage drug and alcohol use and cited Matthew to justify liberal economic policies), but especially because there aren't any tough follow ups.
It was absurd when Obama cited his opposition to the Iraq War as a gutsy move that defied his party, given that he was representing an overwhelmingly anti-war district and about to launch a long-shot bid for the U.S. Senate in which his only opening was to run to the left of the field in the primary.
Also, on abortion, he said it was "above [his] pay grade" to say when human rights begin, that he unserstands the moral and ethical issues involved, and that he supports reducing the number of abortions. But he couldn't name a single instance in which he voted for legislation aimed at reducing or restricting abortions, only that he theoretically is open to restrictions on late term abortions if there is a health exception. Warren didn't follow up with a question about his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as a state senator.
When asked whether he thought evil exists and how we confront it -- Obama mentioned Darfur, evil on the streets of American cities, and child abuse -- but not 9/11 or Islamic terrorism.
PUMA Aristocracy
Posted by on 8.16.08 @ 7:16PM
At the Democratic national convention next week, Lynn Forester, Lady de Rothschild, one of Britain's most influential political hostesses, will be contemplating treachery. She poured her heart and money into Hillary Clinton's campaign and she is thinking of voting for John McCain, the Republican candidate, for president.Nice to have a Rothschild on board when you're plotting convention mischief. I tend to share Lady Rothschild's assessment of the damage that will be done when Obama picks an ABC ("Anybody But Clinton") running mate.
She is not impressed by Barack Obama and doubts he will reach the White House. "My loyalty is to the Democrats winning. Barack Obama is going to have a serious problem getting elected, for good reason," she said in an interview.
"The party needs to face the fact that without Hillary Clinton on the ticket, the Democrats will probably lose."
Obama: $51 Million July
Posted by on 8.16.08 @ 2:54PM
When Team Maverick held a conference call Friday to announce they'd raised $27 million in July (plus another $26 million by the RNC), I wrote:
Probably Team Maverick expects Obama to announce huge numbers for July, and so they wanted to get ahead of the story by putting McCain's numbers in context of the large RNC/state GOP fundraising operation.Prophetic powers vindicated:
Sen. Barack Obama raised $51 million in July, falling short of his one-month record, but raising enough to end the month with $65.8 million in the bank -- a formidable number for the middle of the summer.
By the way, somebody want to explain to me again how Republicans are "the party of the rich"?
(Cross-posted at The Other McCain.)
Another Reason I'm Voting for Bob Barr
Posted by on 8.16.08 @ 2:42AM
John McCain, Abba fan:
"Now look, everybody says, 'I hate ABBA. Oh ABBA, how terrible! Blah blah blah,'" he said. "How come everybody goes to 'Mamma Mia?' Huh? I mean really, seriously, huh? 'I hate ABBA, they're no good, you know.' Well, everybody goes. They've been selling out for years."This is unacceptable. Strangle the First Amendment with campaign regulation, betray our sovereignty and undermine the rule of law with amnesty for illegals -- OK, we can find reasons to overlook these things. But Abba? I could think of groups more execrable, but Gary Lewis & the Playboys are so unspeakably wretched that nobody even bothers to hate them anymore.
Will Rick Warren Give Obama a Pass on Abortion?
Posted by on 8.16.08 @ 1:57AM
Tomorrow, Rick Warren will host John McCain and Barack Obama for a candidate forum at his megachurch in California. Warren is famous for authoring the towering bestseller The Purpose-Driven Life and for his activism in Africa in favor of AIDS victims.
For reasons I spelled out in a post at Redstate, I've always admired him, but I'm worried he'll let Obama go without challenging his support for a broad abortion license and for infanticide.
Here's a short excerpt:
However, there are certain issues that demand the church's involvement, issues of basic justice, issues of life and death. Perhaps the least ambiguous of those issues is the protection of babies throughout pregnancy and immediately after birth. We live in a culture that, strangely, acts as though unborn children are like genies that can be stuffed back into the bottle. We know that isn't true. We know that abortions end with little piles of bloody flesh and bone. Fetuses don't merely cease to exist. They experience violent physical death.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Party Faithful
Posted by on 8.15.08 @ 8:35PM
Do I understand that some 20 percent of Republicans on the Hill do not plan to attend their party's convention?
You Left Out WHAT?
Posted by on 8.15.08 @ 7:38PM
Over on the Spectator main page today, Sean Higgins picks up a familiar theme in his review of a new book about the faith of Barack Obama. This time, however, he has a Night of the Living Dead reference. Why do I mention this here? Because, due to technical problems yesterday, I somehow managed to drop the section that considered the theological implications of Zombie Jesus. That's right, Zombie Jesus. If you've read the piece already sans that section, please give it another pass.
The McGovern Coalition
Posted by on 8.15.08 @ 4:03PM
There's been a lot of back-and-forth here the past few weeks over Obama's electability. Stacy points out, correctly, that the coalition Obama put together to win the Democratic nomination -- young voters, activists, affluent white liberals, and blacks -- looks a lot like George McGovern's coalition. Hillary Clinton, though a McGovernite herself and the candidate McGovern actually endorsed in the primaries, had to remake herself as a Hubert Humphrey Democrat to compete. She (rather improbably) tacked blue-collar union workers, Appalachian working-class whites, culturally conservative ethnic Catholics, and Hispanics onto her base of pro-choice feminists.
Richard Nixon buried McGovern in a 49-state landslide in no small part because he divorced the Democratic Party from the blue-collar voters who were critical to the New Deal coalition. Nixon, taking Pat Buchanan's advice, was able to win these voters by appealing to their patriotism and social conservatism. Democrats have had a hard time winning these voters -- and winning presidential elections -- ever since. But because of family structure changes, government growth, immigration, and other demographic/social trends, the McGovern coalition has grown larger over time.
Yes, Michael Dukakis blew a 17-point lead (though that lead was likely inflated). But he also won 46 percent of the vote, including nearly half the Democrats who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1984. And while he also lost 40 states, many of them were close. Bill Clinton built his 32-state victory in 1992 in large part by targeting states where Dukakis won 45 percent of the vote or more. Sixteen years later, the Democrats nominated another personality-deficient Massachusetts liberal to run against a Republican named George Bush. That liberal, John Kerry, won 48 percent of the vote against an incumbent president during a time of war, a growing economy, relatively low unemployment, and just three years after 9/11 took Bush's approval ratings into the 90s. That's a larger share of the vote than Clinton won in 1992.
The McGovern coalition is still not a majority coalition, as evidenced by the continuing closeness of this race (McCain and Obama are tied in the latest Gallup tracking poll). The fact that we can seriously entertain the thought that the Democrats might lose this election is ample evidence of Stacy's contention that they have a terrific ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. That said, no Republican should bank on a strategy of waving the bloody shirt against McGovern, Walter Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry. Obama has all the same vulnerabilities, but he also only needs to move the country three points to the left of where it was in 2004.
Did the Surge Make It Worth It?
Posted by on 8.15.08 @ 3:20PM
Francis "End of History" Fukuyama lost his bet about what kind of shape Iraq would be in after five years of war, but is sticking to his guns about whether the war was worth it. I happen to agree with most of his Wall Street Journal op-ed, but more importantly I think it is closer to the majority American position than John McCain's position. Of all the successes that can be attributed to the surge, convincing Americans that the initial invasion was a good idea isn't one of them. If McCain uses the surge to bolster his argument about his judgment, his commander-in-chief credentials, and his qualifications to decide what to do next in Iraq, he will be doing himself a favor. If he argues that the surge retroactively vindicates the entire war, he will be playing on Barack Obama's home turf.
Garden State Tease
Posted by on 8.15.08 @ 2:48PM
Also, if Corzine could win after the McGreevey debacle and there was no political penalty for subbing Lautenberg for Torricelli after the deadline, you have to wonder what it would take for Democrats to lose in New Jersey. Of course, this is a state that had two-thirds Republican majorities in both houses of the legislature a little over a decade ago.
Re: Garden State
Posted by on 8.15.08 @ 2:26PM
Back when he ran for Senate in 1996, Dick Zimmer kept the race close until the very end, but ultimately lost to Bob Torricelli by 10 points. It's worth keeping an eye on, for sure, but New Jersey has long been a big tease for Republicans.
A Close Senate Race in the Garden State?
Posted by on 8.15.08 @ 2:01PM
The Club for Growth has released a poll showing Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg and former Republican Congressman Dick Zimmer in a dead heat, with Zimmer taking 36 percent of the vote to Lautenberg's 35 percent. A Quinnipiac University poll has Lautenberg ahead 48 percent to 41 percent. But even that can't be terribly reassuring for the incumbent, since he is only up by seven points and is below 50 percent. Another poll shows a toss-up in a hypothetical governor's race between Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine and Republican U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie, suggesting an underlying weakness in the Democratic brand in New Jersey.
When I wrote about this Senate race in the May 5 issue of The American Conservative, before Zimmer was nominated and when there was even talk of having him tossed off the primary ballot, I concluded the contest would be interesting but Lautenberg was likely to win. I haven't revised that prediction yet and consider Louisiana the Republicans' only remotely realistic Senate pickup opportunity this fall, but this is becoming a race worth keeping on the radar screen.
Targeting Aid Workers
Posted by on 8.15.08 @ 1:56PM
Kashmir Hill, a colleague and journalist in Hong Kong, commemorates her friend:
I was concerned when I got that e-mail, with the continuing
instability and violence in Afghanistan. But I thought she would
manage to steer clear of the violence. She was an aid worker. Why
would anyone target her? I don't know why, but they did: "Three aid
workers killed in Afghan attack."
Such is the tragedy of terrorism, by which I don't mean the typical "we're in a new world with new threats" cliche. I mean that an overlooked component of terrorism is that it can occur in places other than crowded subways and populated malls. It can occur in war zones.
The temptation is great in a post-modern, post-warrior society to assume that all war zones are places of terror. But there are rules of engagement that serve the purpose of allowing a civilian population relief from the war that surrounds them. We've been taught that "peace" is the hallmark of a civilized society. It's an unfortunate mistruth, because "peace" (where conflict doesn't exist) can really only happen when one power submits to another. But if you can accept war as an inevitable part of human existence, then you see that the rules of engagement may be a better measure of civilized society. Kidnapping and beheading innocents on purpose is a less humane act than mistakenly targeting the wrong building. At least soldiers obey cease-fires.
Nicole Dial, the brave aid worker who was killed, was acting with compassion. What we fail to see is that even "compassion" is seen by our enemies as a weapon, one that can only be countered by cruelty. If ever it should occur to you that we might possibly be on the wrong side in pursuing terrorists, I should think our choice of arms should provide comfort. Nicole Dial chose compassion.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 8.15.08 @ 1:49PM
Georgia signs ceasefire with Russia
Apple overtakes Google to be biggest company in Silicon Valley
Obama already regrets crossing the Clintons
Just mentioning Ridge gets McCain in trouble with pro-life constituents
The candidates have significant but different religion problems
Pull Up The Stakes & Head Home, Friends
Posted by on 8.15.08 @ 1:13PM
Election's over. John McCain's wardrobe--and, thus, presidential aspirations--are not fit for the Oval Office.
Campus Debate: 'Building Bridges'
Posted by on 8.15.08 @ 1:01PM
There is a lot of not-safe-for-work language in this video from a college debate during which two professors got into a profanity-laced shouting match:
This speaks volume about the current state of academic discourse. Of the several beyond-parody moments in the video, at about the 7:25 mark, an Emory University instructor stands on a chair and delivers a harangue about the importance of "community":
I think most, if not all, of you want to build bridges. And if you don't want to build bridges, I'm not talking to you!Build bridges -- or else!
McCain and RNC Have $96 Million in Cash
Posted by on 8.15.08 @ 12:54PM
John McCain raised a solid $27 million in July, and combined with the RNC had $96 million in cash as of the beginning of the month. Once McCain accepts the nomination next month, he'll be facing a spending cap because he opted into the public financing system, so the RNC fundraising haul will take on added importance, especially because the Obama money machine will not be facing the same restrictions.
Hillary Fakes It
Posted by on 8.15.08 @ 10:43AM
Hillary Clinton pretends to be excited about electing Barack Obama in an e-mail to supporters pitching her latest fundraising effort to pay off her campaign debt:
Dear Robert,"Sincerely" -- you just got to love it when a Clinton says "sincerely."
I cannot wait for the lights to come up and the cameras to roll at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. When I join Democrats from across the country who are unified and ready to get to work to elect Barack Obama, I want you there.
I hope you will take this chance to come and cheer us on!
So many people have reached out to help us pay down our campaign debt, and I was just overwhelmed by the generous spirit of so many of you. I'm pleased to announce that Leslie of Tacoma, WA won our contest and will be joining me for dinner soon. But so many people participated that I knew I just had to give you another chance. So will you enter today for the chance to join me in Denver?
This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see an event that will truly make history. I'll make sure you get great seats to see me speak on Tuesday night when I address the nation and see Senator Obama accept the nomination at Mile High Stadium on Thursday.
We're going to have an amazing convention and head into the fall campaign unified and ready to work. And if you contribute today to help us pay down our campaign debt, you might be the one to join me in Denver! ...
If you're the lucky winner, we'll fly you to Denver, where you'll be my special guest at the convention. And I'll make sure that you and I have some time together to chat. You'll get to see me speak Tuesday night and see Senator Obama accept the nomination at Mile High Stadium on Thursday.
You know that we're still working hard to pay off all the small vendors we owe from our presidential campaign. And your help continues to make a huge difference.
So let's have some fun in Denver -- try your luck and contribute today. You might be the one joining me for the 2008 Democratic Convention!
Contribute today, and you might be my special guest for the convention.
Thank you again for your incredible support!
Sincerely,
Hillary
Look Out, John Edwards
Posted by on 8.15.08 @ 9:51AM
Serge Kovaleski, the New York Times reporter who outed Gov. Eliot Spitzer's activities with a prostitution ring, is on your case.
Ungratefultarians
Posted by on 8.15.08 @ 1:58AM
In the Boston Globe today, our very own W. James Antle III looks at the tempestuous teaparty that's brewing in Boston over the state's refusal to recognize Bob Barr as the Libertarian candidate, and the local party chairman who... wouldn't be too broken up about that.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
The Real Stakes In Georgia
Posted by on 8.14.08 @ 10:44PM
By now, a great deal has been written about Russia's invasion of
Georgia and the resulting conflict raging in the Caucasus. Most of
it, however, misses the crucial context: that the current war is a
bellwether for the future physical borders of the Russian
Federation, and for the political independence of the countries to
Europe's east.
In his excellent piece in the Wall Street
Journal a couple of days ago, Melik Kaylan points out
that, "Having overestimated the power of the Soviet Union in its
last years, we have consistently underestimated the ambitions of
Russia since." His assessment echoes that of AFPC President Herman
Pirchner, who writes in the Washington Times today
that "the smaller the cost of Moscow's victory in South Ossetia,
the stronger the Russian nationalists - who back current Russian
policy in Georgia - will become."
The real stakes for the United States in the current conflict,
then, have precious little to do with South Ossetia, or even
Georgia for that matter. Rather, they involve Western democracies
demonstrating to Russia, clearly and uneqivocally, that the
political gains made by the "post-Soviet space" since the collapse
of the Soviet Union are not reversible. Sadly, so far neither we
nor our allies seem to be doing anything of the sort.
Did I Call This One, Or What?
Posted by on 8.14.08 @ 10:13PM
Aug. 4, AmSpecBlog:
Watch it while you can, boys and girls. Jackson Browne is a liberal, and that video will be on YouTube only as long as it takes for Browne's copyright lawyers to fire off a cease-and-desist letter.Aug. 14, Huffington Post headline:
Jackson Browne Sues GOP And McCain CampaignMy prophetic powers are vindicated. (Are you paying attention, Phil?)
Re: Grim Battleground
Posted by on 8.14.08 @ 10:03PM
Dang, Philip, I've fought so hard to overcome my natural pessimism, only to find myself cast as Pollyanna amid a chorus of doomsayers.
Maybe I find it so easy to discount the harbingers of an impending Democratic landslide because of my gloomy memories of being a Democrat during the '80s. If Mike Dukakis could blow a 17-point July lead, the potential of a complete meltdown by Barack Obama seems perfectly plausible.
I think you young whippersnappers underestimate the ability of Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. All this bold talk of Hope and Change strikes me as so much whistling past a familar graveyard.
McCain's Grim Battleground Outlook
Posted by on 8.14.08 @ 4:41PM
While a lot of focus has been put on the national poll numbers, which point to a close race, elections are won and lost based on electoral votes. Though Barack Obama and John McCain are essentially tied in most national polls, when you analyze the race on a state-by-state basis, it's easy to see why McCain considers himself the underdog.
Looking at Real Clear Politics polling averages, I see that 18 states are currently within the single digits. Of those states, Obama has an edge in 11 to McCain's 7. To be fair, in many of those states Obama's edge is statistically insignificant. But far more troubling for McCain is the fact that Bush carried 12 of these 18 states. This means that Obama is putting far more 2004 red states in play than McCain is putting blue states in play. Or to express it another way, McCain will be defending a lot more turf this fall, and thus will be more limited in his ability to go on offense.
Obama is competitive in several states that are usually reliably Republican. In Virginia, which hasn't voted for the Democrat since LBJ's 1964 landslide, Obama is essentially tied as he is in Indiana, which Bush won by 21 points in 2004. In North Carolina, McCain's average lead is 3.5 percent, but Bush won there by 12 points in 2004 -- even though pre-scandal North Carolina Senator John Edwards was on the opposing ticket. In Iowa, which Bush lost to Gore but won narrowly against Kerry, Obama has a 5.7 point lead. Obama campaigned hard in Iowa all of last year in the run up to his launch pad victory in the caucuses, while McCain largely wrote off the state. I don't know anybody who thinks McCain is going to win the state's 7 electoral votes. In New Mexico, which Gore won but Bush carried in 2004, Obama has a 6-point lead in the latest poll. He also has a pickup opportunity in Colorado and Nevada, which have been trending Democratic.
The fact that McCain is keeping things close in such an unfavorable electoral environment for Republicans certainly says something. But it's worth noting that of the six Kerry states in which McCain is within the single digits, all of them are states that have been battlegrounds in recent elections anyway. Unlike Obama, he isn't putting long-time Democratic strongholds in play (i.e. California, New Jersey, etc). Michigan, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, and Pennsylvania may be close, but that's generally to be expected. Of those six states, I would say that New Hampshire and Michigan present McCain with the best opportunity for pickups, while the other four states are a stretch.
While we can drive ourselves crazy doing the electoral math between now and Election Day, here's the bottom line. In 2004, Democrats had a much worse candidate, and the electoral environment was much more favorable for Republicans, and yet Kerry fell just 18 electoral votes shy of becoming president. Looking at the election on a state-by-state basis, you can come up with a lot of scenarios whereby Obama gets to 270 electoral votes, but it's a lot harder to come up with a combination of states that will put McCain over the top. This isn't to say it can't be done, but amid all of the focus on the closeness of the daily national tracking numbers, it's important to keep in mind what an uphill climb this still is for McCain.
Nightmare On Pennsylvania Ave.!
Posted by on 8.14.08 @ 3:45PM
Okay, so we all knew the moment John McCain was nominated the left-wing praise chorus was going to have an epiphany and realize the maverick was actually ex-maverick, worse than Bush (TM). Conservatives understand, better than many would like to, the need to reconsider McCain. Leave it to a DailyKos poster--while making the important point that McCain and pals do not belong directly involved in the Georgian conflict, no less--to cap off salience with a big dollop of stupid:
Re: Obama's Lead
Posted by on 8.14.08 @ 2:40PM
On August 7, the day before Russia invaded Georgia, Obama lead McCain by 46 to 43 in the Gallup daily tracking poll. In today's poll, Obama still leads McCain -- 46 to 43!
Sorry Stacy, but it's hard to argue that this "may be evidence that John McCain has scored with his tough stance on the Russian invasion of Georgia."
Obama's Lead Shrinking Again?
Posted by on 8.14.08 @ 2:07PM
Gallup shows Barack Obama's margin shrinking to 3 points, after running 5 or 6 points earlier this week, while Rasmussen sees it as a 1-point race. This may be a one-day blip -- statistical noise -- or it may be evidence that John McCain has scored with his tough stance on the Russian invasion of Georgia.
"We are all Georgians" might be saber-rattling balderdash, but if there is one consistency in presidential elections for the past 40 years, it's that (ceteris paribus) voters generally prefer the more hawkish candidate as chief executive.
On the other hand, if Maverick manages to pull off an upset victory this year -- and, as McCain said Tuesday, he's the underdog -- expect Democrats to console themselves with the excuse that their candidate was Swiftboated by the vicious Republican attack machine and, oh by the way, it was all about racism anyway.
In Other Third Party News
Posted by on 8.14.08 @ 1:50PM
Jerome Corsi, author of the anti-Obama book Obama Nation, which is to top the next New York Times bestseller list, isn't voting for John McCain. Corsi says he intends to vote for Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin. Corsi himself had been rumored as a possible Constitution Party presidential candidate but apparently decided he would rather write bestselling books.
Hillary's Name to Be Placed in Nomination
Posted by on 8.14.08 @ 12:28PM
Hillary Clinton's name will be placed in nomination and there will be a roll call vote at the Democratic National Convention. This is apparently the result of an agreement between the two campaigns and an opportunity to showcase Clinton's support.
UPDATE: Byron York posts the joint Clinton-Obama press release.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 8.14.08 @ 12:25PM
Obama's economists try to make his tax plan sound attractive
Rove breaks down the battleground states
The U.S. is trading with Iran -- through Dubai
Don't look now, but the Volt has quite a waiting list
Breakfast with Bob Barr
Posted by on 8.14.08 @ 11:48AM
Libertarian Party presidential nominee Bob Barr, the former Republican congressman from Georgia, spoke today at The American Spectator/Americans for Tax Reform Newsmaker Breakfast today. Barr emphasized that his candidacy was designed to bring libertarian principles and the Libertarian Party into the mainstream by collecting as large a number of votes as possible. He argued that change will not come from within the two major parties. Barr said that many of the reform ideas contained in the Contract with America were influenced by Ross Perot's 1992 presidential candidacy, which attracted enough support nationwide to move the debate and influence Republicans.
Barr hastened to add that he wasn't necessarily running to help nudge the Republicans in the right direction, but contended that the only way our politics will move in a more small-government direction is if Libertarian candidates receive significant support. Barr argued that the Libertarian Party needed to be a "real political party" rather than a "debating society." On the issues, Barr discussed his new, detailed plan to privatize Social Security, his opposition to the Bush administration's national surveillance program, and the need for a "Grace Commission on steroids" to recommend spending cuts. Barr didn't want the commission to simply focus on government waste, as it did under President Reagan. Describing the federal government itself as "wasteful," Barr said the commission would identify programs that have no "legitimate basis" constitutionally, that could be better operated by the states, and which do not sastisfy cost/benefit analysis so they can eventually be put on the chopping block.
Barr also criticized John McCain's "we are all Georgians" statement as meaningless and simplistic. He cautioned against becoming involved in the territorial dispute between Russia and Georgia for reasons that do not touch upon vital American interests. He subsequently criticized both McCain and Barack Obama for being too interventionist and "equally bad" on foreign policy.
CEI's John Berlau asked Barr about his recent appearance with Al Gore after calling global warming a "myth" on Glenn Beck's show. Barr replied that he did not buy into either Gore's apocalyptic view of climate change or his big-government, "tax-driven" policy solution but does believe that the science points to warming surface temperatures. He says that there should be further scientific exploration of the problem to perhaps lead to different fuel sources, but his willingness to listen to Gore should not be construed as an endorsement of the former vice president's policy views.
Al Regnery asked Barr about whether he had met with Ron Paul and sought out his supporters. Barr said yes to both questions, pointing out that he had hired Paul supporters for his IT team, but respected Paul's decision not to endorse a presidential candidate at this time. Barr also said that it didn't matter whether McCain picked a pro-choice running mate like Tom Ridge because "libertarian-leaning" Republicans and "real conservatives" wouldn't vote for McCain anyway. Barr also acknowledged that some Libertarian "malcontents" were not reconciled to his candidacy, but that such people exist in every party and his campaign had moved on to the general election.
Finally, IBD's Sean Higgins asked Barr if his lack of emphasis on Iraq during the breakfast indicated the war was less salient. Barr responded that he thought the war was very salient and related to the economic concerns he'd been addressing, as our military presence in Iraq costs $400 million a day. He argued that taxpayers would rather spend money on the infrastructure at home instead of building up infrastructure in Iraq. He called for an end to the military occupation so that our troops could come home. He said he would shift toward a national-security posture that was "defense-oriented with a capital 'd.'"
UPDATE: Dave Weigel has more.
Not Bayh-ing It
Posted by on 8.14.08 @ 11:47AM
Red state Democrat. Executive experience. U.S. Senate experience. Appeal to working class voters. Potential to make a strong Bush state competitive. At first glance, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh seems like the ideal choice to be Barack Obama's running mate. But the growing buzz that Bayh could be the pick already has the left in a tizzy.
Bayh was once considered a likely Democratic candidate for president, but, like Mark Warner, he bailed out because he was too hawkish and moderate for this electoral environment.
The more he's mentioned as a possible VP candidate, the more opposition there is to him among the netroots. The Washington Independent notes that "now something close to the opposite of a draft is rumbling among concerned Democrats," citing, among other items, a new Facebook Group "100, 000 Strong Against Evan Bayh for VP."
The trickiest aspect of a Bayh nomination would be the fact that he was a strong supporter of the invasion of Iraq, and were he on the ticket, the McCain campaign would have plenty of video of Bayh making the case for overthrowing Saddam, which would undercut Obama's message, and certainly dull any attacks he launches against McCain on the war. A few weeks ago, TPM reported that in 2003, Bayh was an honorary co-chair, along with John McCain and Joe Lieberman, of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which blogger Greg Sargent referred to as, "a neo-con group that was formed to propagandize the country into war." The Booman Tribune writes, "It would be hard to f--- up Barack Obama's brand any worse than picking John McCain's honorary co-chairman of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq."
Meanwhile, Jeffrey Goldberg recalls the Indiana Senator's hawkishness on Iran in early 2007, when Bayh said:
All of this, I think, shows the difficulty Obama faces as he searches for a running mate. A lot of the red state Democrats are too moderate for the liberal base of the party that helped win Obama the nomination. The names who typically come up as people with stature and foreign policy experience supported the Iraq War and thus would blunt his message. And yet if he settles for a governor who doesn't have enough of a record on foreign policy to really undermine Obama (Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius come to mind), he reinforces his inexperience and the riskiness of his own candidacy.
Is Putin Blinking?
Posted by on 8.14.08 @ 11:17AM
If reports that Russian troops are turning back from Gori are correct, then the steps for which the Wall Street Journal praises the Bush administration today may already be working.
If this is a head-fake, though, the US still has options. Charles Krauthammer has a column today with a lot of ideas on how to get Russia to back off from the goal of a puppet government in Georgia.
Department of Who Could Resist?
Posted by on 8.14.08 @ 11:06AM
Over on the main page today, MarioKart champ Robert VerBruggen looks at how your college roommate's video game play can affect your grades. And on one NRO blog, he gets to the bottom of another gripping academic controversy.
Will We Ever Laugh Again?
Posted by on 8.14.08 @ 10:55AM
Not if Special Olympics Chairman Tim Shriver, frantic over Tropic Thunder's parody of award hungry actors magnetic attraction to "intellectually disabled" roles, has his way. Mean Martin Manning author Scott Stein administers the appropriate spanking over at When Falls the Coliseum.
The Chinese Cheaters
Posted by on 8.14.08 @ 10:48AM
The AP reports:
In its report Nov. 3, Xinhua identified He as one of "10 big new stars" who made a splash at China's Cities Games. It gave her age as 13 and reported that she beat Yang Yilin on the uneven bars at those games. In the final, "this little girl" pulled off a difficult release move on the bars known as the Li Na, named for another Chinese gymnast, Xinhua said in the report, which appeared on one of its Web sites, http://www.hb.xinhuanet.com
The Associated Press found the Xinhua report on the site
Thursday morning and saved a copy of the page. Later that
afternoon, the Web site was still working but the page was no
longer accessible. Sports editors at the state-run news agency
would not comment for publication.
Walter Shapiro, Disappointed
Posted by on 8.14.08 @ 5:06AM
Nearly 40 years in journalism, and he still accepts Democrats at face value?
Five days after Edwards flat-lined on "Nightline," I am still embarrassed by how badly I misjudged him both in print and in my personal feelings. . . .Shapiro then draws this "moral to the story":
My wife (a magazine writer who developed her own friendship with Elizabeth) and I had several off-the-record dinners with the Edwardses. . . .
I naively believed that I knew Edwards as well as I understood anyone in the political center ring. Yet I never saw this sex scandal coming -- partly because I accepted the mythology that surrounded the Edwards' marriage and partly because I assumed that any hint of a wandering eye would have come out during the 2004 campaign.
If we stopped expecting would-be presidents to be paragons of marital fidelity and shining examples of religious faith in the public sphere, we would not set ourselves up for constant disappointment at human frailty.
No, the real lesson is far more simple: Don't trust politicians . . . especially millionaire lawyer politicians.
(Cross-posted at The Other McCain.)
The Other Klein on Corsi
Posted by on 8.14.08 @ 2:54AM
Anonymous Joe writes of Obama Nation:
It is also true that Corsi's book this time is far less effective than his Swiftboat venture, since it doesn't come equipped with veterans willing to defile their service by telling lies to camera.Which one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth does Klein mean to call a liar? All of them? Was any veteran who opposed Kerry by definition a liar?
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Arkansas Democratic Party Chair Murdered
Posted by on 8.13.08 @ 8:31PM
Bill Gwatney, chairman of the Arkansas Democratic Party, has died from multiple gunshot wounds inflicted this afternoon.
Powell For Obama?
Posted by on 8.13.08 @ 5:30PM
Bill Kristol says his sources are telling him that Colin Powell will be endorsing Barack Obama, and may even speak on his behalf at the Democratic National Convention. This doesn't come as a major shock, but it should certainly help Obama among independents. Powell would also be a useful surrogate to make the case that Obama is up to the job of being commander in chief.
UPDATE: Powell's spokeswoman pours cold water on the idea:
Go Easy with the Handshakes
Posted by on 8.13.08 @ 4:51PM
An overzealous supporter sprained Cindy McCain's hand while she was pressing the flesh.
Fox & Your Friends
Posted by on 8.13.08 @ 4:13PM
J.P. Freire is on "Your World with Neil Cavuto" sometime this hour, talking about the Reagan tax cuts at 27. Al Regnery will be on Cavuto's show at 6:08 talking about McCain, Obama, and the crisis in Georgia.
Communist Party Endorses Obama
Posted by on 8.13.08 @ 3:41PM
A broad multiclass, multiracial movement is converging around Obama's "Hope, change and unity" campaign because they see in it the thrilling opportunity to end 30 years of ultra-right rule and move our nation forward with a broadly progressive agenda. . . . The struggle to defeat the ultra-right and turn our country on a positive path will not end with Obama's election. But that step will shift the ground for successful struggles going forward.(Hat tip: JWF, LGF.) A "broadly progressive agenda" isn't exactly "death to the bourgeois oppressors," but it's close enough for CPUSA. (Cross-posted at The Other McCain.)
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 8.13.08 @ 3:37PM
Hillary's Shakespearian will to undercut Obama
Is the West going to let Putin bully them with oil?
Tale old as time: the Democratic candidate can't convince white men
New background on Clinton's epic failure
Former 'roid-rager wants to regulate the health of your diet
Obama Adviser Agrees with McCain on G8
Posted by on 8.13.08 @ 2:29PM
I don't agree with John McCain on kicking Russia out of the G8, but Zbigniew Brzezinski apparently does, on the reasonable grounds that the country's participation in a group of leading democratic societies is a "farce."
A Republican Winning A Race?
Posted by on 8.13.08 @ 2:20PM
It's a man bites dog story, even if the only evidence is the Republican's own internal polling. Hazelton Mayor Lou Barletta, a Republican, holds a 4-point lead over Democratic Congressman Paul Kanjorski in Pennsylvania. At 41 percent, Kanjorski is well below the 50-percent safety mark for an incumbent.
Kerry vs. Corsi
Posted by on 8.13.08 @ 2:09PM
John Kerry just sent out this e-mail:
Pick up the New York Times this morning and read the headline: "Book on Obama Hopes to Repeat Anti-Kerry Feat."Kerry is just recycling the MoveOn.org formula: Send e-mails to liberals, decrying some putative GOP atrocity and soliciting money to "fight back." Rinse, lather, repeat. As a fundraising mechanism, this has proven amazingly effective, and has been imitated by the Obama campaign. Once you sign onto the Obama e-mail list, not a day goes by without a new message asking you to give money for some reason.
Yes, Jerome Corsi, the right wing fringe author who made his bones smearing the Catholic Church and lying about my military record, is back atop the best seller list with an anti-Obama book chock full of lies.
If your blood isn't boiling yet, read this: "This is a fact: Today Barack Obama is subject to what is probably the greatest concentrated attacks of smears, lies and innuendo in the lifetime of anyone who reads these words."
Those are the words of Brent Budowsky in Editor and Publisher. He knows what he's talking about.
And it's not just Barack: up and down the ticket and all across the country, the rightwing smear machine is ramping up attacks on Democrats.
We've seen this movie before. The Republicans, without ideas, start running a negative campaign filled with personal attacks and misleading ads. The attacks get condemned, but they get lots of attention and get played on TV endlessly.
We've got to fight every way we can. I'm going on television and the radio pushing back every chance I get - just like I did on MSNBC a few days go - but I need your help. . . .
We're launching a new website that empowers you to fight back across the country in ways no campaign has attempted. It's called TruthFightsBack.com, and we can use all the help you can give.
By signing up, you'll stay on top of what the rightwing is doing and help fight for the truth. And you can report smears when you see them to keep us on track on what the smear machine is up to at every moment. You will be our eyes and ears.
We know the game, we've learned some things, and we have a fired up movement of activists like no party has had in decades, all networked together with great Internet tools.
So sign up to help. This is a massive undertaking, so we need your help to pull it off. . . .
You can't just play defense against smears, pointing out how they aren't true. You've got to play offense, too, exposing the whole cynical game for what it is: an attempt to keep us from talking about the real issues and ultimately changing our country for the better.
The Republicans have nothing to run on, no ideas to push, no solutions for America. They'll run a campaign of laughable gimmicks and outright distortions and lies. But we can fight back with the truth - and the truth can win this time.
Let's do it.
Thanks,
John Kerry
All Hillary Hat, No Clinton Cattle
Posted by on 8.13.08 @ 1:47PM
PUMA's plan for a pro-Clinton counter-convention in DC appears to have been a fizzle, with only 60 people in attendance.
UPDATE: Disgruntled Hillary supporters might not be good at organizing conferences, but that doesn't mean they don't matter. According to Pew Research, 28% of those who supported Hillary in the Democratic primaries aren't supporting Obama. So 28% of 18 million is about 5 million. And 18% of Hillary's primary voters (about 3.25 million voters) say they'll vote for John McCain in November.
UPDATE II: Reminding you of the Cagney-and-the-grapefruit shock that many Hillary supporters will get when Obama picks someone else as his running mate.
'Obama Nation' Creates Consternation
Posted by on 8.13.08 @ 1:36PM
Jerome Corsi's The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality will debut on the New York Times bestseller list at No. 1, having reportedly shipped nearly half a million copies already. The New York Times is apoplectic.
About two weeks ago, I bumped into Corsi at Shelly's Backroom Tavern, where he was smoking a cigar and laughing like a man who'd just made a fortune. And if the New York Times is fit to be tied now, what will they do when Citizens United debuts its new documentary Hype: The Obama Effect?
There was an advance screening of Hype in DC last week, I'm told, and though I haven't seen it, if it is as good as Citizens United's Hillary: The Movie, it could have a devastating impact on the Democrat this fall. Here's the trailer:
Class Matters
Posted by on 8.13.08 @ 1:30PM
Peter Beinart, after charging that John McCain will press the race issue, argues that Barack Obama will never be able to prevent race from becoming a factor in the election, so he has to take the issue head on by coming out in favor of replacing race-based affirmative action with class-based programs.
Beinart notes that, "Notre Dame political scientist David Leege estimates that 17 to 19 percent of white Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents will resist voting for Obama because he is black." There's really no way of telling whether such an estimate is accurate, but even if it is, I'm not sure if I buy into the rest of Beinart's argument.
For one, I don't think that affirmative action is as salient of an issue as it once was, and I'm skeptical that the average voter -- let alone voters who won't vote for Obama because he is black -- will be swayed by such a distinction.
Either way, I think the discussion is moot, because nothing suggests that Obama would take such a position.
Beinart notes that:
Arguing that his own daughters shouldn't benefit from affirmative action, he told the Chronicle of Higher Education last year that "we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and have grown up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed."
he may seem to class-based affirmative action in a broad discussion, I'd be shocked if as a matter of policy, he came out in favor of using such criterion as an outright substitute for racial preferences.
Pigeon Promiscuity
Posted by on 8.13.08 @ 1:21PM
Megan McArdle wonders:
Here's the thing. Distributing birth control to pigeons across the board ignores the wishes of the pigeon parents. These pigeons, with their small brains, are likely to think birth control is a blank check for reckless behavior -- before you know it, they'll be laying unwanted, unplanned-for eggs.
Every pigeon should be a wanted pigeon.
... And come to think of it: Does this mean that pigeons are taking more precautions than John Edwards?
Safe, Legal, and Everywhere
Posted by on 8.13.08 @ 1:08PM
Earlier this week, there was a conference call by evangelicals and Catholics seeking to make the Democratic Party platform more tolerant of pro-lifers. The participants were pro-life liberals (Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis) and disaffected conservatives (Obamacon Doug Kmiec and short-lived Christian Coalition head-to-be Joel Hunter). Linda Hirshman looks at the same language and celebrates the deletion of "safe, legal, and rare," which, she complains, "had asked that women not have abortions unless they absolutely must." Who's right?
Hillary Snubbed for Warner
Posted by on 8.13.08 @ 1:05PM
Although Hillary Clinton will be delivering a high profile speech to Democrats on the Tuesday of the convention, the keynote slot will be reserved for former Vrigina governor and current Democratic U.S. Senate candidate, Mark Warner. It should be interesting to watch Warner and Clinton on Tuesday night, because if Obama doesn't win the election, it could be a preview of the Democratic primary race in 2012.
It was Obama's keynote speech to the 2004 Democratic convention that launched him into superstardom.
Obama's Republicans
Posted by on 8.13.08 @ 12:56PM
The NY Sun notes that they all share something in common -- a contempt for Israel.
Enquirer: Edwards Still Lying
Posted by on 8.13.08 @ 11:56AM
If you've already heard too much about the John Edwards scandal, avoid the latest National Enquirer. Suffice it to say that Edwards has that Clintonian instinct: When in doubt, lie.
Democrats Look At 60
Posted by on 8.13.08 @ 11:52AM
In the upcoming September issue of the print magazine, I have an article about what would happen if the Democrats achieve a filibuster-proof majority. It's a topic I've also discussed on the main site. The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee is now openly campaigning for such a majority:
Hope vs. Evidence
Posted by on 8.13.08 @ 11:37AM
The Politico examines the precedents and finds no evidence of an impending Obamalanche:
From the fever swamps of the blogosphere to the halls of academia, there is a chorus of voices who have come to the same conclusion about the presidential election: Barack Obama is going to win in November, by something resembling a landslide.Yet for all the breathless analysis and number-crunching that has convinced observers Obama is en route to an epic victory, there is one key historic fact that is often overlooked-most popular vote landslides were clearly visible by the end of summer. And by that indicator, 2008 doesn't measure up.
Talk of a landslide for the Democrat has been encouraged by the manic tendencies at Team Obama, and has been abetted by Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight (as I've noted).
Because of Obama's weak primary performance in such states as Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia, Team Obama began projecting alternative Electoral College roadmaps to the magic 270 -- "We're going to compete in Georgia! North Carolina! Maybe even Louisiana!" It's all about Obama the "map-changer," pursuing the "50-state strategy" advocated by David Sirota, et al.
After Labor Day, when the Kool-Aid wears off and Team Obama is forced to confront political reality, I suspect Democrats will wish they'd concentrated their efforts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri and Florida -- and that Obama hadn't taken a week's vacation in Hawaii.
Working For Obama
Posted by on 8.13.08 @ 11:13AM
I guess Michelle Obama wasn't kidding when she declared that, "Barack Obama will require you to work" and "demand" that "you move out of your comfort zone..."
Only now it turns out that her hubby will be making making such demands before he's been elected president.
The Rocky Mountain News reports:
Some of those hoping to wrangle a seat for Barack Obama's speech were told this week they have to put in six hours of volunteer work for his campaign by Friday to have a shot at a ticket.
And that ruffled at least a few feathers.
"My whole reason why I'm so mad about it is because Democrats need to act like Democrats," said Heather Kreider, a working mother from Centennial.
"Democrats work for a living, and they have to work and take care of their families. And they say these are open to those in the community, so they shouldn't ask people to drop everything in their lives for this," Kreider said Tuesday.
"It's not fair. It's elitist. And they need to practice what they're preaching," she added,
In fairness to the Obama campaign, if they have to allocate a
limited number of tickets, it isn't unreasonable that they'd give
preferential treatment to their loyal volunteers. But the way
they're going about it seems brash and is creating some bad PR.
This will become more embarrassing if somehow he doesn't fill the
80,000 seats.
Re: The Clinton Meltdown
Posted by on 8.13.08 @ 11:13AM
I'm still skeptical, Jim. Did nobody vote for Hillary? I seem to recall her getting 18 million votes.
All Georgians?
Posted by on 8.13.08 @ 10:36AM
How should the Georgian crisis have been handled by any
competent administration of either party?
1) Intelligence should have pointed out the Russian troop buildup and provided an analysis of its likely result. The President would have this estimate on his desk three months before the actual conflict.
2) The President should, at that moment, have called Vladimir Putin and asked him to stop the buildup. In that conversation, the President should have held out both vague carrots and sticks.
3) If the buildup persisted, the President should have made a speech calling attention to it, and analyzing for the American and world audiences what that buildup likely portends. Pointed description of South Ossetsia and its conflicted nationalities would be pertinent.
4) If the buildup still persists, the U.S. has to do something. That could range from moving an aircraft carrier attack group to the jujitsu approach, i.e., brokering the handover of South Ossetsia from Georgia to Russia -- thus taking the wind out of Georgia's supposed provocation and leaving nothing to fight for.
How far did actual U.S. policy diverge from this truly "realistic" approach? Let's not even count the ways.
Re: The Clinton Meltdown
Posted by on 8.13.08 @ 2:24AM
Those voting blocs may have supported the Democratic nominee since 1972 (and before), but in the primaries they have supported different candidates. There really has never before been a candidate who united the Gary Hart white liberal vote with the 90 percent of the black vote won by Jesse Jackson, which was in fact more than enough for Obama to beat Hillary.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Re: The Clinton Meltdown
Posted by on 8.12.08 @ 8:25PM
Being past deadline right now, I shouldn't have time to quibble, Phil, but . . .
Obama's coalition of upper class whites, young voters, and blacks was something we've never seen before in Democratic primaries."Never seen before"? You've just described the Democratic Party core constituencies since 1972, when George McGovern was the party's first presidential candidate to abandon the blue-collar vote. I am profoundly suspicious of those hyping Obama as something altogether unprecedented in politics. Strip away the hype, and he very much resembles McGovern, Dukakis and Kerry in his appeal.
The Clinton Meltdown
Posted by on 8.12.08 @ 5:56PM
I just read through Joshua Green's article on Hillary Clinton's collapse in the Atlantic, which was based on internal memos and accounts of campaign staff, and a few things struck me.
Though Clinton focused much of her campaign around the claim that she was "ready to lead from day one," the piece exposes her managerial incompetence and inability to make key decisions or to institute a clear chain of command among her bikering staff. She couldn't figure out whether she wanted to run a positive campaign that tried to soften her image, or to agressively take down Obama.
Green offers this account of a post-Iowa conference call:
Mustering enthusiasm, Clinton declared that the campaign was
mistaken not to have competed harder for the youth vote and
that-overruling her New Hampshire staff-she would take questions at
town-hall meetings designed to draw comparative," but not negative,
contrasts with Obama. Hearing little response, Clinton began to
grow angry, according to a participant's notes. She complained of
being outmaneuvered in Iowa and being painted as the establishment
candidate. The race, she insisted, now had "three front-runners."
More silence ensued. "This has been a very instructive call,
talking to myself," she snapped, and hung up.
In the grim days of March, Green writes:
In a sense, a lot of this is a useless exercise, because no matter what the strategy she employed, I'm not sure that Clinton could have taken down Obama, given his tremendous political talents and the fact that he was really tapping into what Democrats were feeling in this cycle. His initial opposition to the Iraq War and her vote for the war was just an absolute killer in Iowa. And Obama's coalition of upper class whites, young voters, and blacks was something we've never seen before in Democratic primaries.
With that said, I wonder if Clinton would have been a lot better off had she collapsed earlier, like McCain did last summer. That would have enabled her to refocus her message, adjust her strategy, and reshuffle her staff with plenty of time to recover. As it turned out, by the time the campaign realized she was in trouble, it was too late.
Running Away from Obama in Louisiana?
Posted by on 8.12.08 @ 3:10PM
The AP reports:
Re: Sensitivity
Posted by on 8.12.08 @ 2:26PM
If the subtext is so doggone transparent, J.P., why does Tapper feel the need to point it out? Maybe his own subconscious terror has overwhelmed him.
Big Phony
Posted by on 8.12.08 @ 2:24PM
In the Washington Times today, I have a review of The Case Against Barack Obama. Last week TAS ran an interview with author David Freddoso here.
Heightened Racial Sensitivity
Posted by on 8.12.08 @ 2:16PM
Jake Tapper really reaches for this one:
One...two...three...four...sure are a lot of young white women in this thing....
Why do you think they put so many young white women professing
their love for Obama in what is clearly an anti-Obama video? What
would possibly be negative about young white women liking Sen.
Obama?
Miscegenation-fearing people, let alone abject racists (I'm willing to entertain a line between the two) don't need to be reached out to in this election. We can safely assume they aren't going to vote for Obama, or that if they are, then they've clearly found issues that overrule their more provincial sensibilities. Same goes for the Corker/Ford fight in Tennessee.
Arguing that McCain's campaign, or "The Republican Attack Machine," is actively (or subconsciously) racist is a waste of time and ink (and pixels). Racism can't be proved or disproved. It's just a slander. And it's not at the same level as the cultish "celebrity" of Obama, which is precisely how a man with little experience (but great skill) has come so far with so little.
Whatmore, it's a distraction from all the interesting things this election is offering us by way of issues. Every time a journalist offers the analysis of, "My, aren't there a lot of white women in this ad," or, "Interesting how this resonates with Triumph of the Will," he is not saying, "I am very thoughtful about this election." He is saying, "I am having a lazy moment and would prefer to report something that can only be substantiated by an NYU film class that's cross-listed with the Urban Studies department."
Now, I know that Jake Tapper is a hard-working, thoughtful guy. That post, however, is not the product of hard work or thought.
Elizabeth Edwards and the 'Present Voyerism'
Posted by on 8.12.08 @ 1:57PM
I have a confession to make. I've always found Elizabeth Edwards to be really annoying, but have never wanted to say so, because, frankly, I'm too much of a wuss to attack somebody who has cancer. There was always something really weird about how utterly obsessed she was with running for First Lady -- and clearly rivaled Bill Clinton when it came to her presence on the campaign trail on behalf of her spouse. This was particularly odd to me given her condition. I would think that somebody with a terminal illness would rather spend her limited time out of the public eye, with her children, than barnstorming Iowa and posting messages on DailyKos. Now that we know Elizabeth had knowledge of John's affair the whole time, it adds a whole other dimension.
In the wake of John Edwards' appearance on "Nightline," Ruth Marcus raises some questions about Elizabeth:
In fact, if she wanted to avoid "the present voyeurism," what was she thinking when she supported his running? She knew about his affair, she knew that everything about a presidential candidate's life is at risk of exposure, and she encouraged him? If she cared about shielding her family from this terrible intrusion, what did she think was going to happen if he won the nomination -- or the presidency?
Re: We're All Georgians
Posted by on 8.12.08 @ 1:46PM
Stacy, did he happen to mention whether we should all be at war with a nuclear-armed Russia, too?
McCain: We Are All Georgians Now
Posted by on 8.12.08 @ 1:05PM
YORK, Pa. -- "History is often made in remote, obscure places," John McCain told Pennsylvanians here today, saying he had spoken by phone to Georgia's President Mikhail Saakashvili this morning.
"I told him that I know I speak for every American when I said to him, today, we are all Georgians," said McCain, mentioning his 2006 visit to Georgia and pointing out that Georgia's troops had served alongside U.S. forces in Iraq.
Republicans for Obama
Posted by on 8.12.08 @ 12:34PM
The Obama campaign has launched its Republicans for Obama group, which is not uncommon. There are people who cross party lines to endorse a presidential candidate every four years. But this crew of Obamacans strikes me as pretty thin gruel, considering Obama's allegedly bipartisan appeal: former Congressman Jim Leach, former Sen. Lincoln Chafee, and former Bush fundraiser Rita Hauser. Leach and Chafee both lost in 2006, and the latter has actually bolted the Republican Party to become an independent. Hauser supported John Kerry in 2004. And the reporter in the story I linked above mispells Chafee's last name. They couldn't even manage a Chuck Hagel or Colin Powell?
Who's a Celebrity?
Posted by on 8.12.08 @ 12:33PM
YORK, Pa. -- For all the talk of Barack Obama as a "rock star," John McCain's entrance at the Toyota Arena was very show-bizzy. As the theme from "Rocky" blared from the speakers, the "Straight Talk Express" bus rolled in through a door of the arena, under a giant American flag. The announcer introduced former Gov. Tom Ridge, Sen. Joe Lieberman, and McCain. The three VIPs were bathed in flashes from hundreds of cameras, held aloft over the heads of standing audience members, as the music segued into Van Halen's "Right Now."
Re: Georgia, Like An Old Sweet Song
Posted by on 8.12.08 @ 11:57AM
For some reason, likening the Chechens to the South Ossetians strikes me as wrongheaded. And likening the Russian invasion of a sovereign nation to the American invasion of a sovereign nation is also strange thinking.
As I read more about this conflict, the only thing that becomes abundantly clear is not a mandate for intervention, but rather the situation's complexity. Dismissing conservative reluctance to get involved in Kosovo as "isolationist," or even "anti-humanitarian" is the same sort of hyperbole that leads to unnecessary flexing of military might. Wars we don't have to get involved with are far more preferable than ones we do.
Specter on McCain
Posted by on 8.12.08 @ 11:48AM
YORK, Pa. -- Sen. Arlen Specter just gave a speech in support of John McCain here at the Toyota Arena, where a full house awaits the Republican candidate's arrival for a town hall meeting.
McCain is "tailor-made for the job," said Specter. "I've worked with John McCain for 22 years ... and I can tell you first-hand, he is a man who's ready for the job."
Specter noted that McCain has already made seven campaign appearances in Pennsylvania, and said, "It may well be that the election is decided by Pennsylvania."
Specter, joked about his frail appearance, the result of chemotherapy for cancer. "Some people have told me I ought to shave my head and be a sex symbol like Bruce Willis," he said. "But I decided against it, because my wife is opposed and I'm not qualified."
RealClear Culture Wars
Posted by on 8.12.08 @ 11:26AM
It may just be a coincidence, but Pat Buchanan's "The Catholic Case Against Obama" and a New Republic article emtitled "John McCain is a Pro-Life Zealot" are running one after the other on RealClearPolitics today.
Obama Changes Tune on 527s
Posted by on 8.12.08 @ 11:26AM
Although Barack Obama's campaign once decried the influence of outside groups on politics and vowed to control its own message, the Huffington Post reports that the campaign will now start looking the other way when it comes to spending by 527s.
RNC to be
Posted by on 8.12.08 @ 11:24AM
From an RNC release:
Oh? Is that why we're going to have to pay through the nose to get wireless access?
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 8.12.08 @ 11:22AM
New Jersey strikes a blow against eminent domain
Obama can't get by on mere generalities
The UN is paralyzed when it comes to real crises
The devout might give Obama trouble in November
Georgia, Like An Old Sweet Song
Posted by on 8.12.08 @ 11:09AM
Dan Flynn sums up the political debate over Russia's invasion of Georgia:
The same jingoes who smile at the thought of General William Sherman's scorched earth campaign through Georgia beat war drums at Vladimir Putin's ruthless campaign through Georgia. The same doves who loudly condemned George W. Bush for invading a sovereign nation tell everyone to shut up when we condemn Vladimir Putin for invading a sovereign nation. The same Putin who violently suppressed separatists in the Russian province of Chechnya now violently aids separatists in the Georgian province of South Ossetia. The same Americans who declared Kosovo a republic independent from Serbia decry Russians who declare South Ossetia a rebublic independent from Georgia. "The first casualty when war comes is truth," noted Senator Hiram Johnson in 1918. Hypocrisy, on the other hand, emerges unscathed
![Georgia]("http://www.vacationrentals.com/images/maps/georgia.gif"){kind=link}
![Georgia]("http://www.eurasianet.org/resource/georgia/images/georgia_map.jpg"){kind=link}
This song remains the same.
McCain in Pennsylvania
Posted by on 8.12.08 @ 10:15AM
YORK, Pa. -- I'm on the scene at the Toyota Arena at the York Expo Center, where Sen. John McCain will have a town hall meeting today at 11:45 a.m.
The crowd was waiting in line at 9:30 this morning, and a campaign volunteer told me they've issued 5,000 tickets for this event -- a much larger attendance than in Wilkes-Barre three weeks ago.
UPDATE: Local radio talk show host Gary Sutton of WSBA is broadcasting live from the parking lot. According to the York Daily Record, local Republican Party officials in six surrounding counties helped distribute tickets for this event.
This is one of the most staunchly Republican areas of Pennsylvania. York County went 64% for President Bush in 2004, while Kerry won statewide with 51%. Hillary Clinton got 55% of the York County vote in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary in April.
10:45 a.m.: Just talked to Nancy Otstot, a Cumberland County delegate to the GOP convention, who's dressed in red, white and blue and scoffs at talk of an "enthusiasm gap."
"We'll get the job done," Ms. Otstot says.
Ms. Otstot is a woman of mature years, and the Washington Post has an interesting story today about Barack Obama's problems with older voters.
Are They Facebook Friends, Too?
Posted by on 8.12.08 @ 10:05AM
Monday, August 11, 2008
Catching Up On the Caucasus
Posted by on 8.11.08 @ 8:02PM
I haven't said much about the situation in Georgia, mainly because I've been reluctant to say anything without reading closely. Some of Russia's claims about atrocities that may or may not have been committed by Georgia really would, if true, justify sending in the tanks to protect South Ossetia, and maybe even Abkhazia. But Robert Kagan is right that Putin has been baiting Saakashvili into a blunder like this for a long time, and now that the Russians have gone beyond the breakaway regions and into Georgia proper, the "Kosovo precendent" excuse clearly doesn't wash. It's clear that what's going on is that the Kremlin is scratching the same old expansionist itch that drove Russia policy under both the Soviets and the Tsars.
So, what do we do about it, beyond the ride home from Iraq that we've given to Georgian troops? I have no idea. Ronad Asmus and Richard Holbrooke's invocation of "a vast array of political, economic and other areas in which Russia's role and standing will have to be reexamined" is pretty vague; they mention the Sochi Olympics, but what else do they have in mind? Bill Kristol calls for "emergency military aid"; what exactly would that entail?
Re: Russia v. Georgia
Posted by on 8.11.08 @ 7:21PM
Poulos isn't the only conservative who is reluctant to have a second Cold War in the midst of the war on terror. Ross Douthat has additional thoughts. Fred Ikle, who isn't naive about Russian intentions and was part of Ronald Reagan's team for winning the first Cold War, has been prudent on these questions for some time.
Hillary 'Her Own Shrewdest Strategist'
Posted by on 8.11.08 @ 7:08PM
Thus observes Joshua Green in the much-awaited Atlantic Monthly article about behind-the-scenes at the Clinton campaign, which arrives accompanied by a cache of internal campaign documents.
Re: Electoral College
Posted by on 8.11.08 @ 6:12PM
Jim, it seems obvious that Nickolas is playing the self-fulfilling prophecy game -- the same "inevitability" argument that Team Obama began using in the Democratic primaries in March. This is essentially what Nate Silver is doing, as well.
This manipulation of expectations will work only so long as Obama remains ahead in the polls. You saw the semi-panicked reaction last week, with the collapse of the bubble caused by Obama's foreign trip. Should McCain ever move ahead in the polls and stay ahead for any length of time, all of Obama's media buddies will start in on a "what went wrong" meme that could drag him down.
Russia v. Georgia
Posted by on 8.11.08 @ 5:41PM
Reading the coverage of the Russia-Georgia conflict, it's pretty clear that few actually understand the history of this conflict -- to some extent, myself included. James Poulos informs us in a thoughtful piece in the Guardian:
Read his piece to understand why it is we shouldn't cry for Saakahsvili, but rather his people who've had to put up with his strange penchant for bad strategy.
Fresh in my email inbox, however, is a press release from Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, condemning (and dismissing) Russia as harkening back to its ol' Sovietsky days:
That's too bad. While Georgia is no Belarus, it's certainly no Czechoslovakia either.
Obama's Coming Electoral College Landslide?
Posted by on 8.11.08 @ 4:34PM
Mark Nickolas has a fairly obnoxious post at Arianna Huffington's place lecturing "the talking heads on cable television" for their "incessant bloviating over whether Obama should be leading by more than just five points over McCain." He writes, "It's really painful to watch these fools who don't bother to pay attention to history to understand how a five-point popular vote victory almost always translates when it comes to the only metric that matters -- the Electoral College."
Nickolas's basic point, bolstered with charts, is right: A five-point Obama win in the popular vote would likely translate into an Electoral College landslide. In 1992, Bill Clinton only beat George Bush by about 43 percent to 38 percent in the popular vote but won the electoral vote 370 to 168. The odds are heavily in favor of a candidate having their five-point popular vote margin distributed in the right places for a convincing electoral vote win.
"So, exactly, what are the dimwits on cable news talking about?" Nickolas asks. Um, they are talking about a five-point (or less) lead in the polls, which can change, not the final popular vote which can't. The latter isn't the only history that's relevant here: Democratic presidential candidates have built up much larger summer leads in the past only to watch them slip away. Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Michael Dukakis in 1988 are the best examples -- Obama's lead isn't sufficient to sustain the kind of slippage that Carter experienced before narrowly winning the White House or even Dukakis's slide.
"If you simply allocate undecideds by the percentage each candidate is getting, " Nickolas writes, "Obama's lead jumps to close to seven points." But we don't know that you can "simply allocate the undecideds by the percentage each candidate is getting" at this point. The undecided voters heavily disapprove of Bush and would like a change but they also have deep misgivings about Obama. We don't know how they are going to vote right now, which is really the whole point of the political discussion. They may break for the challenger like they did in 1980, turning a nail-biter of an election into a landslide for Ronald Reagan. Or they might swing back to the incumbent, as they did with Gerald Ford in 1976, in which case a challenger who's never had a 34-point lead is in serious trouble.
I'd suggest to Nickolas that he should learn more history before he lectures the rest of us about it, but what I think he really needs to do is learn some manners.
Re: Parting Thoughts?
Posted by on 8.11.08 @ 3:26PM
Oh, I know the scandal isn't over. This is just hopefully the last time I will have to think about John Edwards.
Just In Case You Forgot Rev. Wright
Posted by on 8.11.08 @ 3:00PM
John Heilemann reminds you that you can't forget:
In October, Obama's former pastor, Wright, will publish a new book and hit the road to promote it, an occasion that might well place the topic of Obama's blackness . . . squarely at the center of the national debate.Just wait until those particular chickens come home to roost.
Re: Parting Thoughts?
Posted by on 8.11.08 @ 12:42PM
Jim, we have only begun to mine the dirt-rich lode that is the Edwards-Rielle saga. It's fraught with political significance. Howard Wolfson asserts that, had it not been for the cover-up of the affair, Hillary would have won Iowa and went on to win the nomination:
"Our voters and Edwards' voters were the same people," Wolfson said the Clinton polls showed. "They were older, pro-union. Not all, but maybe two-thirds of them would have been for us and we would have barely beaten Obama."
A friend of Hunter's says Edwards is still lying, and former Edwards campaign chairman Rep. David Bonior is furious:
"People put their heart and soul into the John Edwards campaign for President of the United States," said Bonior. "They put their energy, they put their time, the put their resources in, they gave them their confidence and in the end, he wasn't there for them."Don't tell me this scandal is over. It's not over until we say it's over. Enquiring minds want to know!
Parting Thoughts on John Edwards
Posted by on 8.11.08 @ 12:30PM
I'm sympathetic to the argument that John Edwards's affair is none of our business. Personal moral failings should generally remain private matters, even public figures are entitled to a reasonable zone of privacy, and reporters conducting stakeouts in hotels to root out infidelity is at least distasteful, if not incompatible with my first two points. But a lengthy affair that involves a potential love child -- I find John Tabin's dissection of Edwards's denials persuasive -- is in a different league. That alone is something we ought to want less of in public life. Worse, the details of the affair -- the amount of campaign resources that went into covering it up, the hush money, his wife's cancer -- do tell us things about Edwards's character that the public has an interest in knowing.
Given how central Edwards's family and his wife were to both his presidential campaign and his personal narrative, finding this out is along the lines of discovering that the ambitious trial lawyer enriched himself and impoverished others by using bogus science, or finding out that Edwards went from being a Southern moderate in Bill Clinton's Democratic Leadership Council mode to just four years later being the liberal second coming of Bobby Kennedy, or learning that Edwards strongly supported the Iraq war when it was popular and just as strongly opposed it when that became the popular position. In other words, it is part of a larger pattern of Edwards being a fraud, someone who makes Clinton's phoniness seem like one of Holden Caulfield's rhetorical excesses. Maybe if Edwards had already been a washed-up pol before this story broke, the media's reluctance to run with it would have been justified. Since Edwards might have played a significant role in the next Democratic administration, it's a legitimate story.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 8.11.08 @ 11:35AM
Chavez looking more like Castro every day
Delay in helping Georgia could invite graver dangers
The MSM's failure with the Edwards story was egregious
Rielle Hunter, 'Wack Job'
Posted by on 8.11.08 @ 11:30AM
The picture of John Edwards' mistress as a few tarot cards short of a full deck emerges more clearly:
Rielle padded in and out in Ugg boots and flared yoga pants, and in a voice that contained strange elements of surfer-ese and lockjaw, gave unasked-for information about her life's journey and personal health. She would tell us how she'd had an amazing yoga practice that day, or give an elaborate description of some braised root she'd eaten for lunch. I think I said to my friend once, "What a wack job," but that was the extent of my relationship with Rielle.You should read the whole thing, especially the part where Rielle Hunter is immensely impressed that Sarah Miller had an essay included in an anthology, believing that this equates to being "rich and famous." This reinforces the ditzy image of Hunter portrayed by Newsweek's Richard Darman. As with Bill Clinton and the Lewinsky scandal, Edwards' affair demonstrates a questionable taste in mistresses.
The Limits Of Girl Power
Posted by on 8.11.08 @ 10:45AM
Chris Matthews once got himself in a heap of trouble for saying Bill Clinton's infidelity essentially installed Hillary Clinton in a Senate seat, but now Howard Wolfson is claiming John Edwards (thankfully, for her sake, more tangential!) affair would have won her the Democratic nomination and, thus, possibly the presidency, had it been revealed earlier.
New book on Allen West
Posted by on 8.11.08 @ 10:30AM
A new book by Richard Berry, A Missing Link in Leadership: The Trial of LTC Allen West, examines the experience of Lt. Col. West in Iraq -- when he was charged with assault for the gunpoint interrogation of a terrorism suspect -- in the context of leadership theory.
CQ rates West's campaign for Congress in Florida's 22nd District as a long shot, because of first-term Democratic Rep. Ron Klein's huge financial advantage. However, West's campaign is now attracting national attention -- including recent coverage from Human Events, the New York Daily News and the New York Sun -- which should help generate fundraising for a candidate who's everything conservative Republicans say they want in Congress. As his campaign manager told me last week, their only concern is that the support might come too late to help.
(Cross-posted at The Other McCain.)
Coming Clean, Edwards Style
Posted by on 8.11.08 @ 9:46AM
According to
multiple sources, Edwards was apoplectic that ABC News broke the
story on its website and began promoting it early on Friday, giving
the rest of the media a chance to play catch-up and cite ABC News'
report. (Representatives for Edwards did not return a call or
e-mail for comment.)
Edwards subsequently made solicitous calls to multiple reporters
including CBS News' Bob Schieffer, who also talked to a distraught
Elizabeth Edwards.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Has Obama Lost His Mojo?
Posted by on 8.10.08 @ 11:00PM
Jennifer Rubin detects a shift in the political landscape to John McCain's advantage:
When late night comics are on to the Ego storyline, mainstream and liberal commentators focus on the flip-flop/lack of principle meme and Obama's losing race card gambit is the subject of consternation then something has happened. Like the cartoon character who runs off the cliff but is held aloft only so long as there is a suspension of disbelief that he is in any peril, Obama's candidacy depends on a mass consensus that The One is more than a carefully contrived artifice.Read the whole thing.
Is Obama Nearing A Decision?
Posted by on 8.10.08 @ 8:51PM
This just hit my inbox:
Be the First to Know Barack Obama is about to make one of the most important decisions of this campaign -- choosing a running mate.
You have helped build this movement from the bottom up, and Barack wants you to be the first to know his choice.
Sign up today to be the first to know:
http://my.barackobama.com/vp
You will receive an email the moment Barack makes his decision, or you can text VP to 62262 to receive a text message on your mobile phone.
Once you've signed up, please forward this email to your friends, family, and coworkers to let them know about this special opportunity.
No other campaign has done this before. You can be part of this important moment.
Be the first to know who Barack selects as his running mate.
Thanks,
David
David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
Caption Contest Winner
Posted by on 8.10.08 @ 2:40PM
Forget the
jokes. Stranger-than-fiction
news:
Bush knuckled off a couple of lobs, but defending gold medalists Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh gave the chief executive some pointers. Then after a good play, in the tradition of female volleyballers, May-Treanor turned, bent over slightly and offered her bikinied rear-end for the 43rd president to slap. "Mr. President," she said, "want to?" Want to has nothing to do with it in public life.
- Michael Ledeen on Iran and Democracy
- An American Tragedy
- Joe Being Joe