Politirazzi

I see how it works now.

McCain picked Sarah Palin because her lack of experience highlights Obama's relative lack of experience.

McCain picked Sarah Palin because her past membership with a political party advocating Alaskan secession will only remind voters of Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright.

McCain picked Sarah Palin because her extended (and growing!) brood means Obama isn't the only family man on stage.

Man, the Republicans are totally airtight on this thing, and the Democrats are just walking right into it.

Fools!

By David

From The Trail:

The Democratic National Committee may be trying to get some mileage out of recent news about oil industry contributions to Republican Sen. John McCain, launching a web site spoofing the idea of McCain sharing his presidential ticket with Exxon. But they may have found an unwelcome surprise in a just-released analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Turns out, the biggest recipient of contributions from Exxon executives and employees during this campaign is not McCain. It's Obama.

The non-partisan center writes: "Through June, Exxon employees have given Obama $42,100 to McCain's $35,166. Chevron favors Obama $35,157 to $28,500, and Obama edges out McCain with BP $16,046 vs. $11,500."

"McCain leads the money race with nearly every other top giver in the oil and gas industry, though — Koch Industries, Valero, Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum, ConocoPhillips," the report says. "McCain also has a big edge with Hess Corp. — $91,000 to Obama's $8,000 — which has gotten some attention. And, overall, McCain's campaign has gotten three times more money from the industry than Obama's has — $1.3 million compared to about $394,000."

Boom. This strikes as a moment akin to al-Maliki saying he supports Obama's plan for Iraq, in that it undercuts not just a major talking, but a central rationale for his candidacy.

This looks all kinds of awesome, or all kinds of awful. I'm going to go with the latter but bet I love it anyway.

By David

In the primaries, when Hillary carped that Obama was woefully nice and naive and couldn't possibly be ready for the onslaught of the GOP in the general, Obama countered that he knew how to play the game, and always would fight fire with fire.

In the primary, he proved it, getting into a tit-for-tat over who was ready to do what at 3 a.m.

It's surprising then that the Obama folks found themselves on their heels last week with "The One" and the Paris/Brittney mash-up.

I'd be curious to hear what the reasoning for the delay from the Obama team is. Pundits may not like negative ads, and the conventional wisdom is that they turn off independent voters, but negative ads almost always always work to drive down enthusiasm and turn-out for an opponent.

And for those that think it's too early for mudslinging, it's worth remembering that it was almost exactly a year ago that Swift Boat Veterans for truth unloaded on John Kerry.

Obama's tentatively getting into the game with this on gas prices:

But I can't imagine McCain gets to take too many more unanswered shots.
Stay tuned.

By David

I hate to seem insensitive, but somehow I fail to see what all the uproar is over this week's New Yorker cover. I mean, if you can't laugh at the vicious stereotypes put forth by backwards paranoiacs, what can you laugh at?

This strike me as example No. 54,546,853 that the 24/7 nature of the news cycle is desperate for anything to feed the beast. Also, in an election season that has become the Year of Umbrage, I fail to see what either candidate thinks they hope to gain from being offended all the time.

By David

Speaking of vice presidents, there can be honest debate about how much the choice of a veep actually makes in the mind of voters.

The truism that no one votes for the vice presidential candidate is, well, true; but on the other hand the selection does reveal something about a future president’s ability to evaluate people.

In Obama’s case, this moment will take on even greater importance as there has been some question about his wisdom in choosing associates (see Wright, Rev. and Johnson, Jim).

Choosing a good vice president can do two things for a top of the ticket holder: It can reinforce your message, and it can provide new energy around a campaign, if only for a few days. The choice then should be somebody who is enough like the nominee in ideology and temperament that the dominant message of the campaign is made manifest (think Clinton’s selection of Gore); and someone enough off the radar screen that the candidate gets a few days of “Why didn’t we think of that — what a brilliant idea!!” coverage from the media.

And one last thing: probably best not to choose somebody you just vanquished in the primary. One need only look at the Kerry/Edwards debacle to realize that defeated running mates — their protestations to the contrary — still really believe it should be them.

For Obama, this means none of the usual names can be considered. So, no Sam Nunn, no Kathleen Sebelius, no Bill Richardson, Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton.

All vanquished, or the excitement around them drained out a long time ago.

Obama’s background is still exotic to Main Street, and questions about his experience will linger. The best thing he can do is choose an old, boring Washington hand, but one still vaguely post-partisan and “change”-oriented.

My list of the top contenders, then, in no particular order:

(continued)

By David

Well, I'm just grateful that no one on this blog was ever so foolish as to suggest that Jim Webb should have been V.P.

Because they would seem really foolish right now.

But seriously, despite all the speculation about Webb's Shermanesque stand yesterday, my guess is that what happened was that the Webb folks started to get the sense that they weren't going to get the nod, and wanted to put the kibbosh on it before the Webb-for-Vice President movement got any more traction or inspired any more foolish blog posts.

And in the sobering light of July, Webb does make less sense. Yes, he would have been able to connect with downscale whites, but he has less Senate service than Obama, so doesn't help with the experience question, and his long-ago description of the Naval Academy as "a horny woman's dream" wouldn't have endeared Obama to the scorned Hillaristas.

By David

The lefty blogosphere — otherwise known as the blogosphere — is in up in arms these days about Obama’s alleged centerward tack in anticipation of the general.

It is tacky (heh heh heh), but some of the sky is falling alarmism is a bit overblown.

The essence of political campaigns is to define yourself and your opponent before your opponent is able to do so to you.

It is worth remembering how exotic to most Americans Obama is: middle name Hussein, mixed race, grew up in Indonesia, etc., etc. If the McCain camp intends to paint him as outside of the American mainstream, which surely, they do, since every Republican tries to do that to every Democrat, then they have a lot to work with.

Democrats from Dukakis to Kerry have been skewered for having even slightly human impulses on the death penalty and war, and Obama’s record is far to the left of either of those.

The faster Obama can reassure Americans that he is one of them, and against child rapists, losing wars and terrorists, the better off he will be in the long run.

Of course, as John Kerry proved, and Tim Russert made a living out of, getting tarnished as a flip-flopper can be a death knell for a politician. People have a right to change their minds, but when they do so rapidly on the heels of a campaign season, you have to wonder about the sudden change of heart. And voters have been pretty astute about this. Mitt Romney was a pretty solid centrist governor of Massachusetts, and when he ran to the right of Jesse Helms this year, people were understandably skeptical.

All politicians do it, of course. In fact, that’s the game — talking to voters and convincing them why they should vote for you.

And, because the primary campaign, which had a message tailored for a certain audience, went on for so long, Obama got nailed down to a positions in a way that previous nominees did not.

On to the facts of each, along with a scorecard for political wind-twisting, on a Mitt Romney 1-5 scale:

(continued)

By David

The Washington Post beat me to the punch today on something I’ve been kicking around with for a while: Why is it that in this year of unconventional candidates do we have a presidential election that is so, well, conventional?

McCain the maverick and Obama the post-partisan promised us something different — if not traveling on the same plane to town halls, then at least something other than the “Republicans are reckless Neanderthals, Democrats are effete wusses” meme we’ve been getting since at least 2000, as Democrats tack ferociously to the center and GOPers go off on God, guns and gays.

The Post piece focuses mostly on the back-and-forth, charge-matched by countercharge:

Since Obama wrapped up the Democratic nomination a few weeks ago, he and McCain have served up a series of indignant exchanges over foreign policy, terrorism, the economy, energy policy and campaign money. Their aides have gone farther, with snarling conference call putdowns and taunting e-mails flowing constantly out of the Chicago and Crystal City headquarters.

McCain has given a series of policy speeches and Obama is beginning to do the same. Whatever substance they may contain has been buried in negative counterattacks from the opposing camp, designed to turn ideas into stereotypes and candidates into caricatures. In the hands of Obama's advisers, McCain is nothing more than the third coming of President Bush. To McCain's staff, Obama is merely a liberal, naive, arrogant extension of what Democrats have been offering for years.

(continued)

By David

Interesting new campaign tactic from Obama. His campaign launched a new Web site, "Fight the Smears" to beat back rumors that he is a Muslim, a racist, a terrorist, etc., etc.

Clearly, the Obama folks feel that merely dismissing these rumors as unfounded isn't enough, and they decided that putting out an online truth squad was necessary.

By David

Plenty of URL’s have already been spilled on "what went wrong," but before Hillary Clinton’s presidential run is ushered off the stage of history, my take is that it comes down to one thing: The Delegate Hunt.

In the days before Super Tuesday, at a visit to a state Obama campaign office, a couple of local campaign coordinators pointed to a computer with grassroots campaign events like "Dogwalking for Obama" and "Yoga for Obama" and "Salsa for Obama" and said to me, “This is a hunt for delegates.”

How right they were. Some very bright person in the Obama office obviously figured out that you could nickel-and-dime a victory in this thing by organizing in usually overlooked places and piece by piece amount enough delegates to keep the race competitive.

This was a bold strategy. Every previous primary campaign had ended before people were even able to find out how many delegates states like North Carolina and Montana even apportioned, as media and momentum crowned a winner, or at least frontrunner, early on. Why the Clinton team never figured out a way to counteract this, even after Super Tuesday, is a mystery.

As tempting as it is to lay blame at the Clinton’s feat, it’s worth pausing to note that they got in the way of whirlwind. Faced with Obama-mania, all they could really do was cower (and of course, make a dramatic turn to the populist right.)

In hindsight, it is worth remembering how flat-footed everybody was by this phenomenon. To wit, can anyone remember when the last time there was a primary upset in American presidential primaries, a time when the anointed frontrunner from the start wasn’t crowned the nominee at the convention?

The answer, at least since the modern primary process began in 1972, is never.

By David

Can he win?

With the trauma of the primary drawing to a close, that is the question Democratic activists are asking themselves as Hillary Clinton sows doubts that Barack Obama can actually rally a plurality of the electorate to his side.

It’s a valid question. Barack Obama is a singular, incandescent politician, the likes of which has not walked across the public stage in years.

But he is not without serious, serious flaws as a candidate. He would be one of the least experienced men ever to sit in the Oval Office. He comes out of the ward-heel Chicago political tradition. If he wins, he will send American men and women overseas while pointedly not wearing in American flag.

And with a middle name of Hussein, an international upbringing and law professor pedigree, he doubtless strikes any voters as strange, if not downright Manchurian. Does he even own a dog?

Recent polls suggest that a growing number of Democratic primary voters won’t vote for Obama because he’s black, but race may turn out to be the least of Obama’s problems with Main Street.

(continued)

By David

A few takeaways from last night results.

First, it’s unbelievable how badly the Clinton team played the expectations game. This has always been one of their strengths, and something the Obama folks have bungled badly. By assuming an air of pseudo-confidence along the way, they hurt their chances every time Clinton outplayed the conventional wisdom. Think how her 25 point lead in Pennsylvania whittled down to 9, but was still a “huge night” for her, or how they were able to escape Clinton must-wins in New Jersey and New York but paint them as resounding victories.

Last night the opposite occurred. Despite a big lead all spring in North Carolina, Clinton called in the last couple of days “the game-changer.” Despite built-in Obama advantages in Indiana — mainly its proximity to Illinois — Clinton folks were talking about (or at least not tamping down talk of) a big blowout there.

I would be curious to find out what happened here. For the first time the Clintonistas started believing their own press, the very thing pundits had accused Obama of doing throughout.

It turns out to have been a fatal mistake.

Sen. Jim Webb

By David

With the Dem nominating contest seemingly stuck in a never-ending death grip, it’s an odd time to start speculating on who the vice-president will be.

Interestingly enough, the occupant of that phantom spot on the ticket right now seems clearer than the one at the top.

Whoever wins out is likely to pick Jim Webb for Veep.

Webb, the tough-talking, ex-military man, ex-Reagan appointee from the purplish state of Virginia is the perfect pick — for both — for the second slot, one of the rare pieces of agreement between them these days.

For Obama, Webb would represent his most certain foray into going after the blue collar vote that has so far proved elusive and would shore up his national security bonafides. (Webb, besides once serving as secretary of the Navy, has the look about it like he is going to explode into anybody that crosses him, as he nearly did with George Bush.)

The only drawback for Webb, from Obama’s point of view, is that he is not a woman, and Obama will have to do a serious repair job with older white woman to win the election.

If Clinton somehow manages to pull it out, she’s likely to pick Webb as well, a move that had been widely rumored before Clinton’s campaign started to tank.

Though Clinton claims that she has passed the commander-in-chief test, she still would need someone who can make her look tough and Webb, besides once serving as secretary of the Navy, has the look about it like he is going to explode into anybody that crosses him, as he nearly did with George Bush.

The only problem with Webb from Clinton’s perspective is that he isn’t Barack Obama, and should Clinton take this thing, she would, it is widely agreed, have to offer the second slot to him practically out of courtesy.

by David

One amazing thing about this race that's full of amazing things, is how little has changed since the campaign began late last year.

In pretty much every state, Obama gets the young, the well-educated and black voters. Clinton get the old, the less-affluent and women.

No amount of polling, attacks ads or scandals has been able to change that.

Not sure what the lesson is here. Maybe it's that would be contributors ought to just keep their money to themselves, considering none of it seems to go anywhere.

Did both of these guys just come out to the same Cougar song?

Wow, the differences really are small.

Or, this campaign has gone waaayyyy too long.

Or both.

(AFP)

The only impression I'm left with after Slugfest XXI is that HRC has no intention of bowing out of this anytime soon. How this race ends for the Dems is going to be crucial to their chance in the fall, i.e they have to make a show of kissing and making up, the better to woo the loser's supporters. I kinda for a while have expected Clinton to start toning things down, a la Huckabee circa February.
Apparently not though...
— David

By David

The worst thing that could have happened to the Democrats was Hillary’s strong showing in the Texas and Ohio primary on March 4 and not necessarily because an extended, competitive primary is a bad—though there is some disagreement about that.

No, the real problem was that the loooonnnggg layoff between those election days and the one a week from Tuesday in Pennsylvania. Up until then , this campaign has been providing enough real news—as in actual voting— for the horserace obsessed news media to chew on. This six week interlude though has brought nothing but faux stories after faux story which churn out every day to show either a) how ruthless the other campaign is or b) how aggrieved they are.

To wit, consider that all of the following— Jeremiah Wright, Geraldine Ferraro, the Bosnian corkscrew, the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegation, calls for Clinton drop out, the backlash to calls for Clinton to drop out, Obama’s bowling, Chelsea’s rise as a campaign surrogate, the Lewinsky question, what the true role of superdelegates is, Mark Penn’s resignation—have been issues only for the past five weeks.

What we have now is sort of alternative-universe campaign, with the Obama and Clinton folks coming up guns blazing but without any legitimate why of knowing if the pare and thrust is actually working.

The latest dust-up—Obama’s supposed condescension towards Middle America—is just the latest in a series.

The result of all of this—besides trying the patience of even the most hard-core political junkie—remains to be seen, but if history is any guide, it will be forgotten as soon as the next gaffe floats across the airwaves.

By David

Clinton used to hammer Obama with the line that running for president and being president were not the same thing, in order to point out to undecideds that just because Obama can look presidential up on stage doesn't mean he'd make a great president

In yesterday's Washington Post though Peter Beinart refutes this idea, pointing out that, "presidents tend to govern the way they campaigned."

He goes on:

Of the three candidates still in the 2008 race, Obama has run the best campaign by far. McCain's was a top-heavy, slow-moving, money-hemorrhaging Hindenburg that eventually exploded, leaving the Arizona senator to resurrect his bankrupt candidacy through sheer force of will. Clinton's campaign has been marked by vicious infighting and organizational weakness, as manifested by her terrible performance in caucus states.

Obama's, by contrast, has been an organizational wonder, the political equivalent of crossing a Lamborghini with a Hummer. From the beginning, the Obama campaign has run circles around its foes on the Internet, using MySpace, Facebook and other Web tools to develop a virtual army of more than 1 million donors. The result has been fundraising numbers that have left opponents slack-jawed (last month Obama raised $40 million, compared with Clinton's $20 million).

There is a lot of truth it seems to me. As pundits and oppo research pour over the childhoods and Senate careers of the candidates to figure out how they'll act when they are in the Oval Office, the best play is to look is how they are every day out on the hustings.

This is because nothing can quite prepare someone for being president quite like campaigning. Campaigns are incredibly drain, require super-human feats of energy, and involve rallying people around new ideas. Candidates have to think on the feet, respond to crisis, and yet somehow exude inspire and exude charm and compassion.

(continued)

By David

Fascinating piece out of Salon today by Princeton history professor and avowed Clintonista Sean Wilentz on how HRC has been hung up by the Dems’ Byzantine electoral process:

Obama's advantage hinges on a system that, whatever the actual intentions behind it, seems custom-made to hobble Democratic chances in the fall. It depends on ignoring one of the central principles of American electoral politics, one that will be operative on a state-by-state basis this November, which is that the winner takes all. If the Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a commanding lead in the delegate count, one that will only grow more commanding after the next round of primaries, and all questions about which of the two Democratic contenders is more electable would be moot.

This, of course, has been Hillary’s take for months.

(continued)