May 5th, 2008...
Quotable: May 5th, 2008
Glenn Beck - May 5th, 2008 Sen. Barack Obama is moving away from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright so fast he may claim to be an atheist by next weekend.
April 21st, 2008...
Clarification From Ayers
Conservative blogs and talk shows have been talking about Obama's ties to former domestic terrorist William Ayers for months on end, but the story has reached the mainstream thanks to a few pointed questions on the topic during last week's debate.
Ayers is apparently now clarifying his relationship with Obama. Here's a quote:
April 20th, 2008 Ayers says he has been the target of hate-mail.
He also says that he is often quoted as saying that he has "no regrets."
"This is not true," he writes at his Web site. "For anyone paying attention _ and I try to stay wide-awake to the world around me. . . . Life brings misgivings, doubts, uncertainty, loss, regret. I'm sometimes asked if I regret anything I did to oppose the war in Vietnam, and I say, `No, I don't regret anything I did to try to stop the slaughter of millions of human beings by my own government.' Sometimes, I add, `I don't think I did enough.'"
"This is then elided: `He has no regrets for setting bombs and thinks there should be more bombings . .'" he writes. "I encourage people to argue, to agree or disagree, to discuss and struggle, to engage in conversation."
As far as I know, Obama hasn't responded to this story, which effectively extends the amount of time people talk about this issue, so I'll do it for him:
WILLIAM AYERS: No, see, it wasn't really terrorism, because terrorism is about fear. And when I said I didn't regret killing people, I just meant that I, like, think Vietnam was really bad and stuff, and that it killed more people than me.
BARACK OBAMA: Shut up. Shut up. Stop talking. Shut. Up. Stop it. Stop talking. Stop. Shut up.
March 17th, 2008...
Obama and Wright: It's Not About His Views
Andrew Sullivan has been blogging like crazy about the Obama/Wright debacle. Sullivan's a very bright guy, but he's got Obama Fever and has been vaguely apologetic about this whole thing. He does this not by defending Wright, but by misinterpreting the uproar. For example:
Andrew Sullivan - March 16th, 2008 The relevant - the only relevant - question is: are Obama's beliefs represented by the handful of video clips of the most incendiary of Wright's sermons? Or to unpack it a little further: Does Obama believe that black people should damn America? Does he believe that racial separatism is a viable option? Is he a black liberation theologian?
This is absolutely, positively not the "only relevant" question. No serious individual can claim with any authority that Obama agrees with Wright's ridiculous statements. Even his critics aren't doing so, for the most part. That's not the issue.
The issue is why Obama chose to overlook Wright's behavior. Why did he continue to attend a church with a bigot at its head? Why did he look to a man like Wright for guidance and mentorship? Obama clearly doesn't believe many of the crazy things Wright has spewed forth, but there's a real question about whether or not he turned a blind eye to them for the sake of political expediency. Did he feel that being near Wright would help offset his privileged upbringing, and increase his credentials as a bonafide crusader for the African-Americans community? Or did he just not want to make waves so early in his political career?
All of these things are possibilities, and until Obama gives a full, candid confession about why he chose to stay with the church, we won't know which is true, if any of them are. We can certainly assume that Obama is not a bigot, as Wright appears to be. But that doesn't mean he did not implicitly tolerate bigotry for political reasons. That's a serious thing to do, especially for a candidate who has professed a desire to transcend racial divisions.
These are the real questions of the debate; not the straw men that Sullivan is knocking down.
March 14th, 2008...
I Can't Believe I'm About to Quote Keynes
Article from AP writer Charles Babington yesterday detailing Obama's criticism of McCain on the Bush tax cuts:
Charles Babington - March 13th, 2008 Criticizing GOP efforts to extend major tax cuts from Bush's first term and to eliminate the estate tax, Obama said: "These are all steps that John McCain rightly said were irresponsible when they first came up."
"He made a decision to reverse himself on that," Obama told reporters as he flew from Chicago to Washington for a series of Senate votes on budget issues.
But of course, following McCain's oppositions the tax cuts were implemented anyway, and resulted in tremendous economic growth, and higher tax receipts. If the source of the quote were not so inconvenient, McCain would do well to tell Obama: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
March 12th, 2008...
The Veepstakes Have Begun
That's the word from Reuters Steve Holland, who reports that McCain has begun looking for a running mate. I can imagine the ad now: "70-something Republican presumptive nominee looking for 40-50 year old running mate. Must enjoy long, hard slogs on the beach and share a passion for fiscal restraint." Anyway, here's a real quote:
Steve Holland - March 12th, 2008 McCain said he was just beginning to put together a search team to vet potential candidates and seek background checks on them. He joked that he has had "at least 100 volunteers to lead" the search for a No. 2.
Holland adds that "no decision was expected any time soon."
Probably true, but we can still look forward to the inevitably leaked shortlist. Smart money's still on Pawlenty, I suppose, assuming you can't bet The Field.
More on the Smoke-Filled Auditorium
Andrew Sullivan quotes Kos to demonstrate that, barring an "epic collapse," Obama will head into the convention with a lead in states won, delegates, and total votes, and asks:
Andrew Sullivan - March 12th, 2008 Do the Clintons seriously intend to overturn that?
This is a point Sullivan (and other Obama supporters) have been hammering on relentlessly: the idea that the superdelegates are somehow obligated to vote for whichever candidate has a lead in delegates and/or votes.
It's reasonable to conclude that the superdelegates will be loathe to contradict the will of the people, but Obama supporters routinely fail to acknowledge two key points: a) the superdelegates are not required to do anything, and b) the margin of Obama's lead could end up being razor-thin.
Now, a win is a win is a win, and the most sensible thing for the superdelegates to do is, most likely, to back whomever has a lead. But the entire idea of the superdelegates sprung up to stop Democratic voters from nominating candidates who'll get creamed in the general election. So, if they honestly believe Clinton is a safer, more viable choice in November, they're doing nothing more or less than fulfilling their role in voting for her.
Naturally, Obama supporters have a right to be mad should this take place. But when the issue of seating Florida and Michigan's delegates is raised, they are quick to remind us that you can't change the rules once the game has started. Logic dictates that the same goes for the superdelegates. You can rail against them all you want, but you're really railing against their mere existence, because choosing the candidate they believe to be their best choice in November is well within their authority.
The margin, too, should have some bearing on the discussion. While it's always fairer that the candidate with the most delegates and votes get the nomination, the idea that a potentially 1% margin represents some sort of mandate is downright silly. If two candidates enter the convention in a near dead-heat after tens of millions of votes have been cast, any reasonable person has to conclude that Democratic voters are essentially split between the two. And why do the superdelegates exist if not to help decide such things? Why exist at all if they're merely going to vote for whomever has the lead heading into the convention?
Obama backers don't have to like the rules. I sure wouldn't, if I were them. But they are the rules, and they exist for just such a situation.
And, of course, it must be noted that the superdelegates wouldn't exist in the first place if the Democratic party did not occasionally nominate fringe candidates, and had reason to believe it would happen again. A slightly saner Democratic party wouldn't have nominated McGovern, wouldn't have created the superdelegates, and therefore wouldn't have this problem to begin with.
March 10th, 2008...
"The Man in the Arena"
As a libertarian-leaning conservative, I long ago reconciled myself to the fact that the far left gets most of the creative folks. So it was nice to see the McCain campaign's new video, "The Man in the Arena." Why, it's almost Obama-esque in its production values.
The Man in the Arena
I particularly like the end; "Yes, We Will" strikes me as an outflanking of "Yes, We Can."
March 5th, 2008...
The Math Doesn't Work For Anyone
The line we've been hearing from the Obama camp over and over is that "the math doesn't work" for Senator Clinton. They point out that she'd have to win an overwhelming number of delegates -- 97%, by some accounts -- to achieve the magic number of 2,025.
This is true, but it ignores a salient fact: the math doesn't really work for Senator Obama, either. He'd need around 77% of the remaining delegates to formally win the nomination. If Clinton continues to campaign vigorously, it's hard to imagine him getting there, either.
So, dismissing either candidate on account of "the math" is simply obtuse. The race is close enough, late enough that that superdelegates are certainly going to decide the nomination. When the Obama campaign talks about "the math," and say it favors them, they're assuming both that a) the superdelegates will not overrule the voters, and b) the voters will continue to vote for Obama.
It's probably true that the superdelegates aren't going to give Clinton the nod if Obama goes into the convention leading in terms of both delegates, states, and total votes. But what if he only leads in the first two? What if Clinton performs fairly well the rest of the way, and takes a slight edge in the popular vote?
This isn't likely, of course, but with scattered reports of a possible revote in Florida and Michigan, it's not beyond the pale.
Regardless, it's important to understand that when the Obama campaign talks about "the math," they're not really referring to the primaries and caucuses...they're assuming that the superdelegates will ultimately back whoever has a lead in delegates -- even if that lead is tiny.
February 29th, 2008...
Carefully Crafted: Obama, the Candidate
Interesting blog entry from Marc Ambinder up today on contrasting McCain's oft-mentioned penchant for making himself available to the media against the less-accesible Obama. Here's a quote:
Marc Ambinder - February 29th, 2008 Barack Obama doesn't have the warm and fuzzies for his press contingent and every casual encounter between him and them is painfully negotiated between, usually, the AP reporter and Robert Gibbs.
This strikes me as important. When a candidate seeks an inordinate amount of control over the circumstances under which they can be exposed to the public, it indicates either a lack of faith in the candidate's core, a lack of faith in their competence, or simply the belief that their reputation exceeds their reality. Campaigns that believe in their candidate through and through have less reason to restrict the way in which they make themselves available.
Combine this with the meme that Obama lacks susbstance, and it's easy to believe that his campaign thinks the idea of their candidate is a good deal better than the candidate himself.
McCain, meanwhile, is well-known for pontificating freely and answering any and all questions. The campaign rests on his ideas, and his ability to convey them.
One wonders if Obama's focus on "the people" is not just a method by which to inspire, but a means by which to remove the focus from himself. A fine line, maybe, and it may all be hopelessly Machiavellian, but it's a question worth posing.
Either way, Obama's tack is still a historically successful one. Eisenhower said that leadership is the "art of getting people to do something because they want to do it." Obama's focus on his supporters and vague concepts like "change" are the kinds of things that give people a stake in his campaign. It just so happens they might have the additional effect of delaying the time when Obama the Man has to replace Obama the Concept.
February 22nd, 2008...
Quotable: February 22nd, 2008
John McCain, commenting on Fidel Castro stepping down:
John McCain - February 22nd, 2008 "I hope he has the opportunity to meet Karl Marx very soon."
Would You Like Me to Repeat the Allegation?
John McCain's strategy for painting Obama as inexperienced isn't really a secret. It's obvious because, well, it's the truth, and it also contrasts starkly with McCain's own strengths; particularly on foreign policy. It's a no-brainer.
What's odd, however, is the Obama campaign's response to such allegations. From Mike Allen over at Politico:
Mike Allen - February 20th, 2008 Showing a new aggressiveness and focus on Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) as the likely Republican nominee, the Obama campaign held a conference call with foreign policy adviser Susan Rice to “respond to Sen. McCain’s foreign policy attacks on Barack Obama.”
Rice called the argument that Obama lacked experience "specious."
"He's shown the judgment that's necessary, and that's what we need," Rice said.
Rice deserves credit for owning a thesaurus, but "specious" is a pretty poor choice of words. It means "superficially pleasing," after all, and it was used in response to accusations that Obama's appeal is, well, superficial.
Choice of words, aside, however, it's a pretty odd response. It doesn't even attempt to refute the McCain camp's claims, simply offering up a lame reference to "judgment." Maybe you can brush off Obama's lack of experience on the domestic front, where some believe an outsider is better-equipped to run things than someone who's been immersed in the culture. But suggesting that experience doesn't play a role in foreign policy is not only specious (I kid, I kid)...it's downright dangerous.
Strategy aside, the statement isn't even technically correct. How can someone have shown judgment in foreign policy without having any experience? Is Rice referring only to his opposition to the Iraq war? Because, by that standard, everyone over on The Daily Kos has shown the "judgment" necessary to direct the foreign policy of the most powerful nation in the world, too.
Experience is not just about bestowing wisdom on whoever has it...it also bestows information on the voters. Through a candidate's experience, they generate a record. And through that record, we can better see their strengths and weaknesses. Thus, you cannot truly demonstrate judgment on a topic without experience to show said judgment.
Maybe Rice could use a dictionary to go with the aforementioned thesaurus.
Turning a Weakness Into a Strength
Well, that was fast.
Within a day of the New York Times piece on the vague possibility that anonymous aides to John McCain may have suspected he might possibly appear to have a potentially intimate relationship with a lobbyist (whew), the McCain camp had not only torn the article to shreds, but rallied conservatives to their side to aid in the defense.
This was stunning work by the McCain camp, who have known about the possibility of the story since November, and came out totally prepared to shoot it down. Jonathan Martin at Politico has a great article up to this effect:
Jonathan Martin - February 21st, 2008 “We wanted to be fast, forward-leaning and as open and transparent as possible,” said a McCain aide involved in the effort.
Craig Shirley, a public relations consultant working for McCain, called conservative media critic Brent Bozell—a McCain skeptic. Bozell, who heads the media watchdog group, Media Research Center, then issued a statement ripping the Times while defending McCain. Shirley’s firm sent that criticism, along with comments from Pat Buchanan, out to all conservative contacts, ranging from radio hosts to producers to bloggers. As one of the first conservative leaders to come to McCain's defense, Bozell provided ideological cover to others, including morning talk show host Joe Scarborough—another McCain skeptic—to support McCain and go after the Times.
It's worth a read.
One might think that every shot at a candidate, even if its discredited, can harm the candidacy in question. Often, this is correct; even raising these issues in people's minds can be enough to make them doubt a candidate's sincerity and ethics...especially when that candidate is running largely on their unimpeachable integrity, as McCain is.
However, when the story is discredited this quickly, and this thoroughly, it can clearly help its intended target. The NY Times' piece may have unwittingly made a martyr out of McCain, and the fact that his reputation can so easily deflect the throwing of such a cheap elbow makes it look all the stronger as a result.
|
|
Calendar
More Entries
Blogroll
Instapundit
Andrew Sullivan
Tom Maguire
Decision '08
Patrick O'Keefe
Categories
Blogging
Democrats
Economy
Elections '04
Elections '06
Elections '08
Entertainment
George W. Bush
Iraq
Media
Miscellaneous
Republicans
Social Security
Supreme Court
Technology
War on Terror
Email Me
|
