How Obama Can Cement a Win in '12

Drop Biden from the ticket and take on Hillary as his VP.

Updated Labels: Shunned, Nut

Back at the beginning of the year, I worked on the epistemological task of updating my blog-labels. One change was to add titles to politicians, e.g. instead of plain old Bill Clinton, he became Citizen Bill Clinton. I explained the change thusly:

Herr is a title for evil politicians (and the appropriate gender specifics, e.g. Herr Cheney, Frau Coulter);

Citizen for good guys (for the most part; I'm being generous by including Krugman here);

Comrade for bad leftists (e.g. Ralph Nader).

Since that time, early January, I've added a few more categories:

1. "The Nut" = This applies to people I used to align with but who have since either gone completely crazy or whose previously existing crazy has shown to be no longer useful. This applies to my bygone favorite politician Joseph Lieberman who has transformed himself into a monster, and Martin Peretz (editor of The New Republic) who has always been crazy but while it was useful during the Bush Years and the two Israeli Wars of 2006-2008, his anti-anti-Zionism has gotten too shrill and unhinged to be useful.
   
   
2. "The Shunned" = This applies to people/politicians who's early promise was destroyed by subsequent immorality and/or incompetence. This applies to John Edwards and Ehud Olmert. Edwards had such promise but it turned out that his tacky lack of judgement was deeper than I could have imagined. And Olmert, oy, whose talent as a consummate political strategist and in-fighter was unbalanced by his utter inability to lead a nation, resulting in thousands of innocent deaths.
   
   
3. Miscellaneous additional titles = Extremely crazy or evil right-wingers get added fascist titles, e.g. "Mayorissimo Herr Rudolf Giuliani" or adding a "von" to the middle of the name "Herr Ronald von Reagan"
   
   
4. Borderline cases = Despite my grand disappointment with Paul Krugman, I've given him a "Citizen" title; Hillary Clinton, once she joined the Obama admininstration earned her a "Citizen" title as well. But these can be lost.

For the special cases of Hillary and Lieberman, I will explain more of my thinking anon.

Chelsea Clinton Is Engaged (to a Tribesman)

The NYTimes is announcing that "Chelsea Clinton Is Engagedto her longtime boyfriend, Marc Mezvinsky..." The story goes on to say:

Mr. Mezvinsky, 31, works at Goldman Sachs and is the son of two former Democratic members of Congress, Edward Mezvinsky of Iowa, who served from 1973 to 1977 but was later convicted of defrauding investors and sentenced to seven years in prison, and Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky of Pennsylvania, who served from 1993 to 1995 and lost re-election after voting for President Clinton’s budget program.

A quick wikkiing, shows that shver Ed is Jewish (and I assume Margolies is, duh).

So, will Chelsea pull an Ivanka? Maybe if Hillary were still a NY Senator, she would.

But along with Gore's daughter, and Howard Dean, this is an interesting 'high-placed Democrats marrying Jews' thing. That and Gore's elected VP, makes a nice pattern of the party and Jews. True, Bush was grrrrreat for Israel, but there's more to listen to than assertions of ignorant Fox-News-Frummies.

Pic from the Times.

Newsweek's Revelations

Newsweek's Special Election Project, according to their description: "...first published in 1984....is an inside, behind-the-scenes account of the presidential election produced by a special team of reporters working for more than a year on an embargoed basis and detached from the weekly magazine and Newsweek.com. Everything the project team learns is kept confidential until the day after the polls close." Here are some direct quotes of revelations from this project. I present them first without comment, then add a few afterward (note, there's more on the website):

1. "NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin's shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain's top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family—clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast," and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.
   
   
2. "McCain himself rarely spoke to Palin during the campaign, and aides kept him in the dark about the details of her spending on clothes because they were sure he would be offended. Palin asked to speak along with McCain at his Arizona concession speech Tuesday night, but campaign strategist Steve Schmidt vetoed the request."
   
   
3. "The Obama campaign was provided with reports from the Secret Service showing a sharp and disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September and early October, at the same time that many crowds at Palin rallies became more frenzied. Michelle Obama was shaken by the vituperative crowds and the hot rhetoric from the GOP candidates. "Why would they try to make people hate us?" Michelle asked a top campaign aide."
   
   
4. "Obama was never inclined to choose Sen. Hillary Clinton as his running mate, not so much because she had been his sometime bitter rival on the campaign trail, but because of her husband. Still, as Hillary's name came up in veep discussions, and Obama's advisers gave all the reasons why she should be kept off the ticket, Obama would stop and ask, "Are we sure?" He needed to be convinced one more time that the Clintons would do more harm than good. McCain, on the other hand, was relieved to face Sen. Joe Biden as the veep choice, and not Hillary Clinton, whom the McCain camp had truly feared."
   
   
5. "McCain was dumbfounded when Congressman John Lewis, a civil-rights hero, issued a press release comparing the GOP nominee with former Alabama governor George Wallace, a segregationist infamous for stirring racial fears. McCain had devoted a chapter to Lewis in one of his books, "Why Courage Matters," and had so admired Lewis that he had once taken his children to meet him."
   
   
6. "On the night she officially lost the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton enjoyed a long and friendly phone conversation with McCain. Clinton was actually on better terms with McCain than she was with Obama. Clinton and McCain had downed shots together on Senate junkets; they regarded each other as grizzled veterans of the political wars and shared a certain disdain for Obama as flashy and callow."
   
   
7. "At the GOP convention in St. Paul, Palin was completely unfazed by the boys' club fraternity she had just joined. One night, Steve Schmidt and Mark Salter went to her hotel room to brief her. After a minute, Palin sailed into the room wearing nothing but a towel, with another on her wet hair. She told them to chat with her laconic husband, Todd. "I'll be just a minute," she said."

OK, some quick comments:

1. The towel story is the most revealing (har) about Palin's character, even more than the incredible spending/theft (which can be explained as a combo of pure Republican greed and the Beverly Hillbillies). Palin knowingly used sex as a weapon and that above anything else was why she was hated by moderate & liberal women.
   
   
2. The McCain campaign "truly feared" Hillary Clinton. What rubes. But it gives more context for the insane choice of Palin.
   
   
3. The John Lewis story highlights a growing impression about John McCain's cluelessness and ambivalence in this campaign. McCain comes across as a sheltered, half-dead candidate who had no idea what his operatives were doing in his name. I'm not exonerating him, but it does explain why his speeches (most notably his concession) was in a vastly different tone from his campaign. The GOP Machine never liked him and never trusted him... for the very same reasons that McCain was popular and liked by everyone else in America. McCain's joking accessability and his reasonableness were anathema to the Bush/Rove Party. And with the same short-sightedness that destroyed Iraq and spoiled the bipartisan patriotism after 9/11 was the same toxic stupidity that destroyed McCain's reputation and chose Sarah Palin.
   
   
4. A sign of the toxicity of the GOP, and especially Palin, is the bit about the threats to the Obamas as a direct result of Palin's rhetoric. We can not forget, nor forgive, the GOP for that.
   
   
5. "Clinton and McCain had downed shots together on Senate junkets;" Ugh
   
   
6. "Clinton was actually on better terms with McCain than she was with Obama. ... [Clinton and McCain] regarded each other as grizzled veterans of the political wars and shared a certain disdain for Obama as flashy and callow." Ya know, that didn't come across at all. Heh heh heh. Losers.

More Thoughts

Continued from below (read that first):

1. More people who deserve rewards: Howard Dean, Tim Kaine, Bob Casey. I assume Dean will want to leave the DNC (leave on top, ya know), but will he want a cabinet post? Ambassadorship? I don't know how these guys think, so I don't know what's considered a 'reward.' Kaine (Gov. VA) helped carry Virgina, and he's young and needs to get a new job because of term limits (and since VA now has 2 Democratic senators, he won't get those slots for a long while). I've heard he wants Sec of Education, so OK. Casey (D-Sen. PA) was an early and solid supporter. PA is now reliably blue, with a Democratic governor (the irritating Rendell) so it's safe to move on up. Then again, I've long felt that being Senator is the best, cushiest sinecure in America, so maybe he wants to stay put.
   
   
2. Will John Lewis want to leave Congress to join the cabinet? Like I said above, I have no idea what a politician likes as their reward. Maybe the election of Obama is the biggest most amazing dreamlike award he cold have wanted.
   
   
3. There's debate as to who will be Obama's chief of staff. I always looked at that role - while it's cabinet "like" and stature - to be a real job and not something to be filled as a reward for a deserving politician. So while people have mentioned Rahm Emmanuel or Tom Daschle, I don't understand why either would take it. Emmanuel is great in the House and I want to see him as Majority Leader soon. He's way better than Pelosi - whose been door-matted too often these past 2 years - and better than Hoyer. And Daschle deserves to be rewarded, not overworked. My assumption is that if David Axelrod wants the job, he needs to get it.
   
   
4. Other big posts: CIA chief? FBI chief? Do politicians want to be rewarded by being appointed as Federal judges?
   
   
5. Will Obama need to 'tokenize' the cabinet or his other appointments?
   
   
6. What about the proper respect and repayment for Al Gore? I'd love to see him get the next open slot on the Supreme Court. He deserves some kind of restoration for the scandal of 2000.
   
   
7. Oh, and while others may, I still don't forgive Bill and Hillary for the crap they did during the primaries. I don't think Obama owes them anything.

The Styx Endorsement

Ya know, I've been so busy, I completely overlooked my sworn blogger duty to actually endorse a candidate for president! This is probably the toughest part of blogging - because my words are so consequential, millions (or posssibly dozens) of people are hanging onto my pixelized words, in suspense for whom I will endorse.

To clarify my thinking, I will list the pros and cons of each candidate. That should make it easier to decide in this election season where - like I was told repeatedly in 2000 - there's really not much difference between the two candidates. And, as people remember from the ho-hum results of 2000, a Gore presidency would have been indistinguishable from the subsequent Bush presidency. So too with McCain v. Obama.

McCain - Pro & Con

Pro: He is "experienced". Which is short-hand for "old." He's a war hero, and that's always a good predictor for executive ability. He is a maverick. He's physically ill and may die at any time, so if we don't elect him now, we won't get another chance. Moreover, if he loses, we run the further risk that he will hawk Viagra, and I don't think I can stand that. His running mate fills me with glee and expectation of a wonderful future filled with sports stadiums, no state colleges, and children with hilarious first names. Most importantly, he promises to do everything George W. Bush has been doing without the slightest change, except maybe more tax cuts; but clearly there will be more wars. And wars are fun.

Con: I'm not sure the world will survive 4 years of a McCain presidency. When I said a similar sentiment about Bush back in 2004 ("I feel as if a great worldwide tragedy has occurred. It's like 9/11 - but instead of seeing the mass murder, I have the nightmares of all that this criminal government can perpetrate. ... I am sick, scared, and devastated. God help us.") it turns out that we only have barely survived the second term (unless you lived in New Orleans, good luck with that). The cratering economy, the debilitating mindless war in Iraq, the warrant-less wiretaps, the destruction of habeas corpus, Hurricane Katria, the dissolution of the Justice Department... all because of the Bush re-election. So, if we elect McCain, I have a feeling things will possibly be worse.

Oh, and to elect McCain will also give support for his despicable, scorched earth campaign of lies and sleaze. Not good.

Barack "Huggably Hussein" Obama, Pro & Con

Pro: Not Bush. Not McCain. Not Palin. Not Hillary Clinton. Once in a generation mind and temperament at a critical time in World history.

Con: Young. Black. Funny name. Democrat. According to many in the Orthodox community, Obama is actually Louis Farrakhan and Saddam Hussein.

Conclusion?
After considering all the pros and cons, I feel undecided. This decision is too big, and it has come upon us too quickly. If only there was more time to get to know these candidates. Especially McCain... I mean, gadzooks, where has this guy been for all these years?

If forced, I will say vote more my youngest child (pictured below). And if he's not on the ballot, then vote Obama.

Backpost: Obama's "Luck"

From September 1, 2008; I sent this email to Mark Kleiman of Samefacts.com.. Background: many people have asked why Obama seems to have luck that all his opponents, from the Senate on down to the primary and now general, seem to self-destruct. It sounds like luck! As Kleiman wrote:

Apropos the many developing Palin scandals, an observer of the Chicago political scene reminds me of Obama's "noted eerie knack for finding self-destructing opponents."

There was Alice Palmer, the incumbent State Senator who didn't submit enough valid signatures. There was Blair Hull, the apparent frontrunner in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, accused of wife-beating. There was Jack Ryan, the Republican Senate nominee, whose kinkily erotic side spilled out into the newspapers through his divorce proceedings. And then there was the comic carpetbagger Alan Keyes.

I try to keep theology separate from politics, but it's hard to escape the thought: If Obama didn't make a pact with Satan he must be on a special mission from God.

So my response:

re: Obama's Luck

Dear Prof. Kleiman,

While I agree with you that supernatural forces should never be discounted in any scientific inquiry, I think the reason Obama's opponents self-destruct is a combination of (a) the old adage that "fortune benefits the well-prepared", and (b) his ability to maintain his cool, which drives his opponents batty, to the point they self destruct.

Hillary self-destructed (Bill started first, though), then even Edwards (and he had already dropped out!), and now McCain.

all the best,
JC

And, true to his gentlemanly nature, Kleiman quotes me in an update: "Update: Or perhaps, a reader suggests, this may merely be a case where 'Fortune favors the prepared mind.'"

Now this analysis of mine has become conventional reason. But I was an early advocate of the theory that Obama's opponents self destruct because they can't handle his skill. Basically, because Obama is unflappable, his increasingly desperate opponents up the volume of their attacks, trying to rattle him, and all they succeed in doing is self-destruction.

Miscellaneous from My Files, part 2

More miscellaneous links & commentary from my inbox:

1. 09-03-2008: From Sullivan, it turns out that Palin *is* what the GOP tried to smear Obama as... right down to the preacher!
   
   
2. The Onion's page about Bob Barr is right on the money in almost every way (warning: nivul peh).
   
   
3. 09-05-2008: Washpost review of Woodward's scathing new book about Bush. Woodward's a consummate journalist - his books supported Bush when he was popular and attacked Bush when he was not. Thanks, Woodstein! It just proves that the real hero of Watergate was William
   Deep Throat" Felt - the FBI informer who gave the journalists all the info. He risked his career, they made theirs. Ah well, there's a reason why print media is dying.
   
   
4. 09-07-2008: Maureen Dowd is so weird. She thinks so little of Obama... that he'll somehow be eviscerated by Sarah Palin; and she thinks so much of Hillary, while hating her. Sad.
   
   
5. 09-07-2008: Frank Rich is a great contrast to Dowd (and others). When he was a regular columnist, he wasn't so hot, but since his weekly Sunday spotlight he's been en fuego! Key line (about Palin): "How long before we learn she never shot a moose?"
   
   
6. 09-01-2008: Martin Peretz defends Biden. Peretz is as Zionist as they come (and as Zionist as necessary). If he defends Obama and Biden - which he has - then it's good enough for me. Peretz' critics claims he finds anti-Semities in shadows... so choke on this feebs. Key line: "Look, what is happening here is that a senator with a sterling record, an unexceptionable sterling record on Israel is now in the eyes of the snipers, a kind of political terrorism in which evidence has no place, history no relevance and real politics no standing. Joe Biden is one of the most astute and committed supporters of Israel in American politics."
   
   
7. 09-16-2008: This is fun video
   
   
8. 09-09-2008: Kinda funny: Black Comic Introduces McCain (warning, many naughty words).
   
   
9. 09-17-2008: Ruth Marcus of Washpost turns against the McCain campaign. Something I predicted: that journalists will start to be professionally insulted by the bald-faced lies and distortions. I've been there: I get more angry at a lie that insults my intelligence than an attempt to deceive based on desperation or greed. And here's another journalist fleeing.
   
   
10. 09-21-2008: The only good thing I can say about Maureen Dowd is that she lets better writers do her work for her; here's Aaron Sorkin imagining Obama meeting President Bartlett.

Biden v. Palin

When I last commented about Biden it was my claiming that his choice would be a mistake: "I think Biden would be a mistake. While he's a fierce partisan fighter, he's also a gaffe-prone goofball. Nonetheless, it won't be a disaster." And I had no follow up, so here it is: my analysis back in August was on the basis of politics and not governance. Biden is a mistake for politics - he makes gaffes, his state isn't helpful - and all the other choices were for electoral reasons only: Sebelius (woman, Midwest), Bayh (moderate, boring WASP, Midwest), Kaine (governor, swing-state).

But once Obama chose Biden I was quite happy with the choice and because it was the electorally poor choice. It showed me that Obama was (a) confident enough in the election, and in himself, that he was concentrating on being an executive and not the Permanent Campaign (the hallmark of the Clinton and W.Bush years), (b) that Obama chose someone who was fierce, independent and a contrary thinker, emphasizing the 'cabinet of rivals' model of Lincoln, (c) and ultimately, because Biden is the best sitting Democratic senator for both defense issues (chair of Foreign Relations) and Domestic/Legal (chair of Judiciary) it showed that Obama cares more for good governance than good politics.

If Obama had gone for the electoral/politics route - chosen the three above or Hillary Ugh - then I would have accepted the situation as reflective of a weak coalition or a difficult election road. Instead, by choosing Biden, Obama showed confidence, competence, and seriousness. It made me feel better for my support of Obama, presence as a Democrat, and hope for the country.

Then we get Sarah Palin. Who is the exact opposite. Chosen for purely partisan and electoral reasons. My feeling about Biden - which I had talked to people about but alas didn't blog about, so you'll have to believe me - shows the reason why I reacted so negatively towards Palin, even before I knew just how horrible she was.

But if I needed to use a shorthand to describe the difference, it would be Politics or Governance. And the GOP has shown that over the GWB years, they have placed governance and policy as the lowest of priorities, while for teh Democrats it has long been the highest priority - often to our detriment.

This argument about governance/politics is seen in this Sept 14 essay by Alex Massie, about why McCain chose Palin. Massie basically states what did you expect McCain to do? He needed electoral help! He was *forced* to choose an unqualified nutjob!

Massie is wrong about the order, though. McCain's current scorched-earth campaign - and the subsequent trouble he's in - comes as a direct result of the choice of Palin. If McCain chose a moderate (Lieberman, Ridge) or a friendly talented person (Graham, Crist), then McCain would be able to run in 2008 like he did in 2000. However, even through downright cowardice or doddering incompetence, McCain surrendered to the Rove Crew and decided to run like GWB in 2000 & 2004 - through fraud, fear, and polarization.

Can you imagine what a McCain-Lieberman vs. Obama-Biden election would look like? That would have been enviable. The last time we had two decent tickets was 1996 (and before that 1964). But McCain was threatened by the freakazoids of the gnarled GOP base that there'd be a floor-fight if Lieberman - McCain's first choice (whose vibes I somehow intuitively picked up) - were chosen. McCain, when threatened by the GOP base, blinked (in the argot of the GOP chickenhawks). He pooped his pants, he ran away from principles and good judgment and into the waiting arms of the Karl Rove Machine.

Why should McCain fear the floor fight? Because it'd make him look weak? Remind us of 1968 (similar times ya know)? I think it's because ultimately McCain is a weenie who cares more for winning than for honor. He's a disgrace.

But I digress. By choosing Palin, McCain decided on a campaign of fear and intimidation - because she has nothing else to offer but red-meat to the partisans. And any candidate that has to run to the extremes in the general election, is doomed.

Which leads us to the paradigms of VPs. I've discussed this at length, but I think I can make the binary chakira of VPs of Politics (VPP) and VPs of Governance (VPG). And both of these categories are part of the vagaries of how the VP is chosen. As opposed to the old days (pre-12th Amendment) and especially in post-1968 times, the VP is directly chosen by the Presidential nominee. While beforehand he was nominated at the convention just like the President, and as such could reflect a balanced perspective of the party, the modern VP choice is the sole decision of the Presidential nominee. And while the Pres Candidate needed to weather an often expensive, debilitating, pummelling primary campaign, the VP candidate is allowed to just waltz right in. The Pres. candidate needs millions of people to choose him/her, the VP needs only 1.

As such, the VP provides an opportunity not only for the electorate to evaluate the judgement and sagacity of the Pres. nominee, it also gives the nominee (and to some extent the whole party) a chance to nominate someone who could never get past the gauntlet of the primary campaign.

And this is where the Politics/Governance split comes in. Sometimes the VP couldn't get through the primaries because they are talented at governance but have no electoral appeal (cf. George HW Bush in 1980, Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, Al Gore in 1992, Jack Kemp in 1996, Joe Lieberman & Dick Cheney in 2000). Or the VP is a token ethnic/ideology that's to 'out there' to be acceptable by the primary voters, but is considered necessary for the general election (cf. Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, Dan Quayle in 1988, and Sarah Palin in 2008).

This is one reason why the electorate was so angry about Palin... here's a woman who could not survive a month of a primary campaign allowed to just shtup her way into the (second) most powerful job in the world. Dan Quayle in lipstick, as it were. I remember how angry I was, and the country was, after Quayle was chosen. This is worse. Yet this is why I'm happy about Biden and was happy about Lieberman - two men who would be good at governance but who are just too nutty or boring to survive the primaries. So it works both ways.

One thing Massie says that I very much agree with, and felt intuitively, which I will quote in entirety:

there's an argument you can make that the Vice-Presidential candidate needs to be more, not less qualified to be President than the chap at the top of the ticket. Why? Because a VP can only become President in an emergency and so needs to be able to start governing immediately. A President - eg, Clinton - can learn on the job even if this costs capital and credibility; a Veep does not enjoy that luxury. Of course, if Palin were to become President in, say, 2011, that would be one thing, but the potential for her to in the Oval Office next year is quite another. Biden could do the job next year, Palin probably couldn't. That's an unfortunate truth that her boosters just look silly trying to deny

Yes. The reason why most smart people think that the VP should be highly qualified - ironically, even more qualified that the President - is because of this intuitive understanding of the historical role of the VP: to step in when disaster strikes. Moreover, as I explained above, because of the unique opportunity to be able to easily place a person in line for the presidency who has high qualifications but could not otherwise make it through the primary, also depicts the feeling of lost opportunity when it comes to Palin... when Obama had to sneak someone into the White House, it was someone who conceivably could walk in on his own merit. When McCain chose, it was to sneak it some crypto-crazy Christianist hillbilly.

Miscellaneous from My Files, part 1

I'm dedicating today to writing & blogging so here's some stuff from my unsorted inbox, basically brief links/commentaries:

1. Sept 9 2008; from Huffy herself, inventing a great image, Sarah Palin as a Trojan Moose.
   
   
2. Sept 10 2008; Why Obama will actually beat the poll numbers, because of his incredible ground game. And see here.
   
   
3. From the Atlantic, the GOP dirty trick machine of 2004.
   
   
4. Sept 11 2008, from the NYTimes, about vote suppression/dirty tricks in 2008 Mississippi.
   
   
5. Sept 10 2008, from McClatchy [the best single news organization in the world, IMHO], about how the U.S. is in similar danger from al Qaida in 2008 as we were in 2001.
   
   
6. Sept 11 2008, the Washpost describing an underhanded smearing tactic by McCain.
   
   
7. From Salon, how CBS capitulated in 2004 and did not show a documentary about the Bush Administration lies about the Iraq War.
   
   
8. Sept 13 2008, from Digby, more about voter suppression.
   
   
9. Good New Yorker humor about Palin.
   
   
10. Excellent piece by Ezra Klein about the problem with political reporting. Shorter EK: "I think one aspect of the modern press that doesn't get enough attention -- either among folks in the media or folks critiquing it -- is the transition from the fundamental scarcity being information to information being in abundance and the fundamental scarcity being mediation." It's especially sweet because his target is the fatuous Marc Ambinder - who over this election season has been twisting himself into pretzels to be 'even-handed' first with Hillary and now with McCain. His only value comes from his stature allowing him to receive equal opportunity leaks from all camps. Otherwise, he's a dolt.

Balloon Juice about GOP

John Cole of Balloon Juice echoes my feelings about the GOP and their Palin-slathering purity tests; read the whole thing:
"Missing The Point" One thing John focuses on is something that I've found stirring both a social-scientist and a Democrat: the eerie way that the conservative bloggers attach themselves to the actions and fortunes of the Republican party. None of these bloggers, as far as I know, are paid by the GOP. The conservative pundits neither. Yet they act, free of charge, as direct surrogates with 0% diversion from the party line and party goals. It's sick and it's the core of what Hillary Clinton called the 'vast right wing conspiracy.' The use of conspiracy is wrong - because conspiracies are by definion secret and this is as wide out and open.

Some Predictions, Part 2: Cabinet

I originally discussed this question here, here and here. The picture has changed a little, seeing who has helped the most or not at all. A summary of the previous discussions:

1. Tom Daschle can get any post he wants, he's been that important.
   
2. State: Gov. Richardson (D-NM),
   
3. Def.: Fmr Sen. (D-GA) Sam Nunn.
   
4. AG: Sen. Feingold (D-WI), Sen. Kerry (D-MA)
   
5. Treas.: Fmr Sec Robert Reich, Mayor Bloomberg, Fmr NJ Sen Bradley, Fmr Commerce Sec Daley.
   
6. Others John Edwards: HUD, Interior or Labor.

Since then, there have been changes in the world. First of all, John Edwards is out, permanently. Also, Hillary Clinton - whom I still haven't forgiven for her disgraceful primary behavior - won't want a cabinet post. She will want to stay in the Senate - where the money is. Moreover, it's unclear if Obama needs to pay her any lip service at all, especially if he has some women in prominent places in the cabinet. Moreover, I think that Richardson hasn't proven himself so useful, so why put him in State except for tokenism? That could open up.

The biggest change from these May predictions is the new necessity of real talent/gravitas in the Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce. Why - because these two posts will be the most important of the cabinet in terms of the #1 perceived problem - the economy (I say perceived because I believe that there are two more important: Attorney General, to reverse the grave civil liberties abuses, then Defense/Homeland Security to get us out of Iraq and to protect us at home; the Iraq War is directly related to the cratering economy and the Homeland Security department needs to be eliminated and put back to the original offices)

My feeling is that Obama may choose Paul Krugman for either post. Krugman just won a Nobel prize, was a well-known and prescient critic of Bush and the Housing Bubble, and was also a Hillary supporter and a bastard toward Obama. BHO seems to follow the Lincolnian "cabinet of rivals" doctrine, something that I respect highly about both men. By choosing Krugman, BHO will show his independence, veneration of competence, and strength of character.

Another possible option for either is Barney Frank. He's been in the House since 1981 and is the current chair of Financial Services. I think that Obama may feel compelled to put an openly gay person in the cabinet and Treasury (asop Commerce) may be enough of a carrot to get a powerful congressman to leave his chairmanship.

A person I overlooked in May was Dick Gephart. He was House majority leader for a while, and his staff has been a huge help to Obama. Possibly Labor. Another strong possibility is Cory Booker for HUD, or some other low level post (Booker is a Rhodes Scholar, current mayor of Newark and was thought to be more likely than Obama to be first black president... but he's only a mayor, of a cruddy town, and after a term in HUD or Education he can run for Senate/Governor).

Some people who have distinguished themselves in the general election who need to be repaid:

1. Gov. Sebelius, who I thought as a good VP pick, should get a cabinet post.
2. Gov. Napolitano should run against McCain for Senate in 2010. TPM reported yesterday that current polls show McCain losing to her by 53%-45%! Stunning when you think of it. But McCain may retire on November 5 and I don't know if she can resign as governor after appointing herself as Senator...
   
3. Colin Powell crucial endorsement a few days ago has now put him in the cabinet running. Ideologically I don't want a Republican to be in either Defense or NSA - I want to break the myth that only republicans know defense. The myth has been shattered by GWB anyway, so why resurrect it? Powell still may be useful as UN Ambassador, or possibly Ambassador to Iraq (heh heh), or maybe Sec. of Veterans Affairs, if its not beneath him.
   
4. Rep. Robert Wexler has done yoeman's work as an Obama surrogate in Florida. Wexler's also an Orthodox Jew and I'd like to see him put in a low-level cabinet position (Transport, Energy) or even Ambassador to Israel. Then, like Booker, after a stint in the Executive he can shoot for Gov/Senate
   
5. There are a number of former officials (following my purple rule) that could be useful as well: Gary Hart, Lincoln Chafee, Paul Volcker, Larry Summers, etc.
   
6. A last 'cabinet of rivals' thought: Joe Lieberman for Homeland Security. Lieberman has acted shamefully in this election; he has bitten Obama's hand despite BHO's help to Lieberman back in '06. I am especially angered by Joe's hypocrisy: back in 1998 Joe publicly criticized Bill Clinton for the shameful act of adultery etc. Yet 10 years later, Joe is a HUGE supporter of what the TPM has claimed is one of the lowest, evil elections in a century. Where is Joe's outrage now? The fact that he's not calling McCain out for the terrorist smears shows that Joe was opportunistically criticizing Clinton (it did get him VP!) and has lost his moral compass now. So why do I want him to get Homeland Security. Even beyond the rivals idea, it because it will get Lieberman out of the Senate and then Obama can dissolve the whole department. Har.

Why Aren't They Reporting the Lies?

I mentioned below that the press will try to cover up for the McCain/Palin horrors as much as they can. How do I know this? Well, uh, because they've been doing it. Were Obama, Hillary, Gore, or Billy J Clinton to have said or done the same things McPalin has done, they would already have been laid out on a spit and roasted by the press. So why the double standards? Here's why:

1. Fox News & WSJ plus about half or more of the columnists in the major newspapers are lock-stock part of the GOP. No, they're not paid by them (as far as I know), but they identify closely with the GOP and believe that its crucial to their financial well-being and possibly the existence of civilization that the GOP remain in power. So this group of "journalists" - plus, naturally, all the known scum on the radio - will be campaigning for the GOP, attacking Obama, and covering for the GOP stooges. I suspect that based on the roster above, more than half of the voices in the major mainstream media are part of the GOP. Add onto that what I wrote about here - that the mainstream media is not liberal because of the market for news.

2. Reporters are basically cowards driven by market forces and will support anyone who's popular and attack anyone who's out of favor. People seem to really like Sarah Palin - and who doesn't want a evangelical dominatrix with a Fargo accent? - and the press won't rock that boat. Until people stop liking her.

3. Above all, the press need a horse race. The tension and conflict of politics sells news. We got the Iraq War because the press were cowards and we got a Bush re-election because the press needed to keep the election close. Even though in 2004 the Abu Ghraib story had already broke, and we hadn't found WMDs in Iraq, even with all these horrible things, the press decided that we needed a close election. Thanks.

What this means for 2008 is that even though McCain is clueless, has a temperament problem, changes his views more often than he changes shirts, appears to be very very stupid, and all in all will be a very dangerous president... were the press to point that out, there'd be a landslide for Obama and nobody would watch TV.

And even though Sarah Palin is a crazy Christian who can't tell the truth, bullies her enemies - which include those whose religion she despises - and is manifestly unqualified to be Vice President... if the press pointed all this out, they'd lose advertising dollars because of lack of interest.

As I said before, I think there's a good chance Palin/McCain will end up like Romney, but the press will do it's durndest to make sure we don't hear it from them.

Video of the Day: SNL on Palin and Hillary

Oh, this is SNL at what they do best. The 'press conference' of Palin and Hillary.


Backpost finished on 2009-12-03.

Sarah Palin?!

All the news reports are saying McCain's VP pick is Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. How does a 44 year old governor of a non-contiguous, and largely frozen, state pass the "commander in chief" threshold that McCain boasts about? Answer: because she's a republican.

She's the perfect GOP woman too: young, pretty, and anti-abortion. She was almost Miss Alaska, and that is how Republicans see women, no?

How is this a winner for McCain? Because he looks edgy? She's pro-life so most women won't flock to her (but it does explain all the weird pro-Hillary commercials McCain has been running). In fact, that must be the strategy: to use the groundwork of animosity and scorched-earth performed by Hillary to win over the largest block of disgruntled Democrats and Independents (PUMA/women). I really can't imagine it will work, but that must be the thought.

And she has no foreign policy experience what-so-ever, which means McCain took away his main line of attack against Obama. So the disgruntled Hillaryites is all he's done. McCain's kept the base happy by keeping it anti-abortion, so whoopie, but they must be in some strange echo-chamber if they think this will help.

To reiterate: McCain has been mocking Obama, and the Democrats, by saying we nominated a vapid pretty-boy who resembles Brittney Spears. And now McCain has actually nominated a young, inexperienced pretty-girl. Whoa.

McCain VP Speculation

I am on record believing it will be SC Senator Lindsey Graham. My brother points out that it's not possible because the man, uh, may be gay. Why say that? Well, he's a never-married in his 50s (and the fact that his name is "Lindsey" and his father's name, according to the Wiki was Florence. No joke.) Anyway, I still believe McCain doesn't care, but he's also a not-so-bright geriatric hothead, so anything can happen.

What worries me is Joe Lieberman. I've claimed that he won't accept the Republican nomination, but, like McCain, he's barely mentally competent nowadays, so I have lost my confidence.

Recent stories suggest that he won't remove himself from contention (see
here from Politico.com: "Rove tried to kill Lieberman VP pick.") It worries me as a pick not because I think it will be a formidable combo - quite the opposite - but because of the residual effects:

1. Lieberman will become the most hated man in America, second only to anyone involved in the current Executive branch: I like the man personally. He's the most prominent Orthodox Jew in America, possibly the world; and to have him a hated/reviled figure is a bad thing for him and a bad thing for all Jews.

2. The Democrats will lose the Senate: If Lieberman becomes the GOP nominee, I assume he'll leave the Democratic caucus and we'll then lose the Senate.

It won't be a good ticket because Lieberman is so hated by Democrats that - if he joins the GOP - he will become the Hillary Clinton type; Democats will flock to destroy him, the traitor. And he's not charismatic or likeable anymore.

Don't do it Joe.

Obama's VP Possibilities

As you may have noticed, I've not been bloggin' much about politics over the past month or two. One reason has been the imminent move and all that entailed. But also it's because the bruising primary was - in my mind - the only real contest. Once Obama trounced Hillary, the election choice is clear. I've lost interest because I've made up my mind (were it Hillary/McCain, I'd be in a quandary wrapped up in an enigma wrapped up in a pickle; I'd still vote Democratic - because of the Supreme Court - but I'd really hate doing it).

Anyway, I will try to give more commentary after the conventions, but the first big deal coming up will be the potential VP pick. I stand by my prediction for McCain - Senator Lindsey "I'm Not A Girl Despite My First Name and General Waifish Demeanor" Graham of South Carolina.

For Obama, the Times reported that there are three clear front runners: Sen. Biden (DE), Sen. Bayh (IN), and Gov. Kaine (VA). My favorite, Gov. Sebelius (KS), is considered less than likely.

I think Biden would be a mistake. While he's a fierce partisan fighter, he's also a gaffe-prone goofball. Nonetheless, it won't be a disaster; he's good on foreign policy; while he's not a veteran, his son (DE's current AG) is and will soon be deployed to Iraq. Bayh is the safest choice possible - he's a bland career/legacy politician from a red state with a good resume. If Obama chooses Bayh, that means he's being as risk averse as possible.

Of the top 3, Kaine is most likely. I'm averse to Kaine (and Bayh) on strategic party grounds - i.e. if either leaves office, they will be replaced by a Republican. This is not such a loss in a state house (who cares about 1 state), but can be a disaster in the Senate where the national stakes are high. Note, Biden and Sebelius would be replaced by Democrats.

Kaine's most likely because - based on what I've read - he's close to Obama and they trust each other. Virgina's an important swing state, and Obama may want to have a governor as #2 so to bolster the executive profile of the ticket (something which also applies to Sebelius). Kaine however is 10 years younger than Sebelius, 50 to her 60, and that may be the clincher. It's stronger to have a 58 year old run in 2016 than a 68 year old (even if it's an actuarially positive female).

In any case, here's an awesome spoof (via Sullivan) of all four candidates from 23/6 News:(WARNING very profane language): If they IM'd: Obama's VP Prospects.

Glenn McCoy - Voice of the Wingnuts

Political cartoonist Glenn McCoy not only can't draw that well (or at least he makes his figures purposefully disquieting) but he has one of the lowest common denominator minds of the idiot Right Wing. For a quick primer in what the wingnuts are thinking (or, a better term for right-wing nut: freeper), just read Glenn "W is God" McCoy.

These cartoons are from September 2007, but McCoy is as persistent as all small minds, so what holds back then, still holds for today.

Exhibit 1 (Aug 14 2007)

Exhibit 2 (Aug 8 2007)

Exhibit 3 (July 26 2007)


Exhibit 1: A standard Freeper view is that the media is unabashedly liberal. I disproved that canard here, - and it's pretty obviously a lie to anyone who pays attention - yet it's a rock solid axiom of the right wing.

Exhibit 2: Heh heh heh. Up until she actually left the race in June, the freepers believed with absolute certainty that Hillary was going to be the democratic nominee. It came from two coincident axioms: (1) The Clintons were unbeatable (proven by the fact that they hadn't been beaten) and (2) that the Democrats were so stupid, venal, evil that they would naturally choose Hillary.

Exhibit 3: Same with #2. Extra points for making Hillary look monstrous.

Summary: The key question is does Glenn - and by extension the rest of his freaky-right-winger ilk - actually believe this narrischkeit? Yeah, they're convinced, like most radicals, that the press is against them. The secret truth, that the press is on their own side, doesn't penetrate (but that's a different screed). But about Hillary? Or are they just trying to stack the deck in favor of who they think is the worse candidate, Hillary? This is what Rush Limbaugh did, with his Operation Chaos, and I at least give him credit for knowing that he's on the side of evil (same with Rove). So I guess the real question is: is Glenn in on Rush/Rove's joke?

Backpost, started 9/4/07, finished 2009-12-07.

Dowd and Hillary

Via TPM, the NYTimes Ombusperson (a.k.a. Public Editor) criticizes Maureen Dowd's coverage of Hillary (Pantsuits and the Presidency). I guess I don't expect much from Dowd to even bother outrage anymore. Dowd is an embarrasment to the profession, and that's saying a lot since 'pundits' are usually the lowest form of writer. 'Pundits' as we now have them are either bought-and-paid-for partisans or glib hacks. I really have no idea how Dowd got to her position (and I'm not surprised that she's won a Pulitzer - because those things are given out like meth at a hillbilly wedding).

But what makes this particular line of criticism important is the recognition that Dowd is basically gay-baiting. She applies a stark sexual politics onto Democrats - painting Democratic men as gay (unless they're like Bill Clinton and then they're pimps), and the women as lesbians. Considering Dowd is unmarried, and has attacked the notion of marriage in her book (Are Men Necessary?), her fixation on gender and sexuality goes beyond creepy into the pathology zone.

The whatever blog, Hullabaloo, put it very well:

"Again, the question isn't whether she should have treated Clinton any differently. It's that her entire worldview is toxic, both culturally and politically. She uses explicitly sexist and homophobic imagery that favors traditional authoritarian leadership to explain politics. She gets away with it because she has a rapier wit and is a physically beautiful person, thus insulating herself from the kind of criticism others would receive for writing this crud. But in truth she's a walking anachronism, more like a character in Mad Men than a modern sophisticate."

Pic self-made. Backpost finished 2009-12-03.

Hillary's Martyrdom

Jason Zengerle makes a good point today in TNR: Hillary's Martyrdom Isn't All It's Cracked Up To Be:

Hillary's martyrdom differs from Bill's [Styx: post-GOP witch hunt] in one key detail: he survived impeachment; she didn't survive the Democratic primary. Heilemann makes it clear that Hillary still wants to be president, but it's really hard to see how she'll ever accomplish that. If Obama wins, she won't be able to run until 2016, when she'll be 69 and as fresh as Hubert Humphrey was in 1968. And if Obama loses, a decent segment of black and activist liberal voters will probably hold Hillary at least partly responsible for his defeat, no matter how hard (and how disingenuously) she campaigns for him this fall. And as Hillary learned in '08, you can't win a Democratic primary without those voters. In other words, Hillary's martyrdom might have made her more resonant, consequential, and potent, but I don't think it's made her more presidential.

She's damaged goods, and the damage was all self-inflicted.

Backpost finished 2009-12-03, with a fixed link.