Say It Is So, Joe

My sentimental favorite, Sen. Joe Biden, got what he wanted...sorta.  Barack chose him as his running mate.

The long-time senator from Delaware, the beloved Catholic son of the working class, the man who has survived the death of his wife, two daughters, a brain aneurysm and a reputation as a moronic windbag, the man who became a senator at the (politically) early age of 29, the man who is now considered a foreign policy expert, a legislative workhorse, and an elder statesmen with a tongue that wont stop flapping, is getting what he wanted.  Well, sorta.

This is also the man that ran for president back in 1988, and was derailed by speech and law school paper plagiarism allegations.  His gauche exchanges with reporters also didn't help much either.  He also butted heads with those he must now brainstorm with.  But he is getting what he wanted...sorta.

Joe Biden is now given the chance to redeem himself of his political ghosts.  He is now able to hush his critics and demonstrate his political prowess and fulfill his ambitions, thanks to a Senator he once called 'naive'.  Obama might be... but in choosing Biden?

Joe Biden, I believe, is perfect for Obama.  The only other VP candidate that I saw that fit the bill was Wesley Clark, but he must have never been in contention.  Biden fills a lot of holes in Obama's campaign and resume.  He also brings a creative tension that is crucial for ambitious administrations.  More importantly, he adds what Obama does not seem to want to undertake.  

Biden will be a pitbull when it comes to defending Obama, and he will not flinch at defending him against a McCain campaign that has had a free ride in doing so thus far.  Biden will also court those factions Obama is getting tired of persuading: the Clinton club.  Biden has deep working class roots, and even deeper working class appeal.  While he may not be able to woo the Angry Women of Hillary, he will strike a chord with the blue-collar workers she convinced during her campaign.  Vote for vote, that is more important.

A stumbling block will be Biden's vote in 2002 to authorize the Iraq War.  This was the major reason there was an outcry by Obama supporters when Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh was being considered as a top contender for the VP slot.  But, unlike Bayh's conflicting position vis a vis Obama's on Iraq, Biden's sin will be forgiven. 

This man has been in the senate for decades, while Bayh is still an upstart.  His resume is more comparable to Kerry's than to Bayh's, and with that comes both understanding from the public and conflicting stances on almost anything.  The problem with Senators is that they will take both sides to every issue, eventually.  The important thing is how vocal where you with each, and what do publicly regret later on.  Biden has been vocal on the right things, and has publicly criticized the war AND his own vote for the last few years.  He is a senator, but he is a likeable one because he recognizes his humanity and flaws.

Obama could not pick a better VP to redraw comparisons with the Kennedy campaign of 1960.  Biden is Lyndon Johnson to Obama's JFK: a seasoned, loquacious, senator with great legislative reach and influence, to aid a young senator's hopeful, ambitious, and somewhat cocky entry to a White House ripe for change.  

This might end up looking a lot like 1960, actually.  The curmudgeonly McCain against the pretty-boy Obama.  Nixon v. Kennedy.  The debates await to prove or not my theory.

The next question is: will Biden be Lyndon B. Johnson, or will he just be Biden circa 1988, an undisciplined campaigner who couldn't take the heat on the national stage?  Maybe Obama could teach him a thing or two about that.

lhp

McCain: I am not sure how many houses I own

McCain's wealth comes back to the foray.

This will be the first test for Obama post-vacation: Do you or do you not have the killer instinct?

lhp

Boring So Far, Campaign Issues To Expect

Much of the hoopla piled onto the 2008 political season since the last election is not being ignited yet. The melodrama in both parties has been a partial story, with the Obama-Clinton bickering marriage, and the McCain-GOP awkward one-night stand. McCain's pros and cons have not really been used as campaign fodder, and neither has Obama's exoticism. So what's the deal? Patience, my dears, patience.

Do not expect this campaign to continue to small bore-a-thon for long. The conventions are pretty much pep rallies for each party that try to remind everybody: Hey! You are supposed to pick sides soon! Soon after they both wrapup, expect some of these "issues" to make headlines:

• McCain's age: So far, no one has pointed out (at least not seriously) that McCain dined with Attila the Hun. That might be because it can easily be turned around and hurt the attacker (remember Reagan v. Mondale in 1984). McCain's age is like Obama's race, it shouldn't matter, but it will, and voters will justify their reasons to themselves why it should.
• McCain's One Term Try: Today was the first day I read anyone actually posing this question to McCain: Will you pledge to run only once? He said, Nay. Good or bad, we will have to wait and see.
• Obama and the Weather Underground: Obama reportedly has visited some of the Weather Underground's key leaders in the past. The WU was a leftist, violent, anti-war activist group in the 1960's. This may never get attention, as his link to that group is tacit at best, but you may soon be hearing William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn in a Breaking News update.
• McCain is an angry old man: This is called assassination of character. It is also called calling a rooster by its name. McCain has long been rumored to be a hot-head of major proportions. Many of his colleagues have, at one time or another, claimed they think McCain is unfit for the presidency just judging his dangerous temperament. They may become louder as Election Day nears.
• Obama's race: Many are claiming this is the reason why this election is such a dead-heat, when it shouldn't be. The Bradley Effect might be covered more and more as the stale poll numbers plague the campaign.
• McCain is filthy rich: Thanks to Cindy McCain, who is valued at over $500 million, McCain is at a different level of rich than even the Clintons. This, along with how we met and hooked up with Cindy (coughADULTERYcough) might end up making headlines.
• Obama's assassination: No one says it, but everyone thinks it. Will the possibility that someone will attempt to kill president-elect Obama be raised? How will it affect everything?
• McCain's death: Same as the last one, but by natural causes (he's old, remember). Will these scenarios raise the importance of the VP?

lhp

Looking For Their No. 2: VIce President Hopefuls

A short run down of whose name might be paraded this week and next, as McCain and Obama finish their own American Idol competition for a running mate:

Obama's Top Picks:

• Evan Bayh: HAHA! Just kidding. This guy had his ship sunk by the Left's blogosphere
• Joe Biden: Even though he claimed today he is "not the guy", he might actually be the guy. The only thing holding him back: he talks. And often. And often not well.
• Hillary Clinton: She is probably the VP candidate with the longest list of pros AND cons attached to her. Do not be surprised if Obama caves to angry women everywhere and makes Hillary his attack dog (joke inserted here).
• Tim Kaine: The Virginian Governor is having a meteoric rise in the short-list. But was it too little, too late?
• Chuck Hagel: This Nebraskan Republican Senator may have kept himself quiet for awhile, but he has also kept himself quiet by not supporting his party's McCain. A dark horse candidate.

My pick: Kaine or Clinton, preferring (by a laaaarge margin) the former.

McCain's Top Picks:

• Joe Lieberman: The droopy dog of the Senate, Lieberman is pretty much McCain's no. 1 adoring fan. Might as well recompense him for all his troubles.
• Bobby Jindal: The governor of Louisiana, and conservative darling (sorry Mitt, you're out), is a quiet, but very influential member of the GOP's base. McCain needs him, for his support, his age, and his blooooood.
• Tom Ridge: The former ne'er do-well secretary of Homeland Security (the first one! put that on a resume!), and former Gov. of Pennsylvania, is a good fit...if it weren't for his devilish hunger for abortions and McCain's pious stance against them.
• Meg Whitman: The former CEO of eBay has had her name dropped various times by McCain, hinting at a possible (if truly a longshot) place in his slot. If it sounded dirty, it's because it is.

My pick: Jindal. I think he eventually has more to offer than all the other possible choices. His conservative credentials and his non-whiteness will compensate for McCain's clandestine (but truly there) right-wing posture and pasty-uber-whiteness.

Obama/Kaine and McCain/Jindal. How sweet it is.

lhp

Is Jon Stewart The Most Trusted Man in News?

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Of course, who else?

In the 2007 Pew Research Center for the People and the Press poll, The Daily Show's Jon Stewart was tied for first place with Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams, Dan Rather, and Anderson Cooper. As someone who is not an actual news anchor, like the latter four, Stewart is loved in part because of going against the mainstream idea of an anchor.

In a New York Times article, Mr. Stewart and his Daily Show are shown to be more than just class clowns. They do indeed make fun of the teacher's pet, and the jock, and even the hipster, but they do it with wit and biting satire. The Daily Show has quite a following, and contrary to what Bill O'Reilly claimed years ago, the show's audience is one of the most educated of all.

It is interesting to see how Mr. Stewart, 45, started his career as a comedic actor in bit parts, doing some standup here and there, but ended up as a 'news anchor' in a news show aimed to ridicule the Hollywood for ugly people=Washington. If anything else, Mr. Stewart has shown the TV-viewing audience that you don't just have to laugh on the joke shown onscreen--you can be in on it, too.

lhp

Clintons: We will, We will Crush You

What did you really expect from these two? Graciousness? Ha. No dice.

Hillary and Bill are not letting the limelight move away from the just yet. As the attention hogs they are, they want just one more chance to put themselves above the party, as something greater THAN the party.

It will be announced today by the Obama campaign that Hillary's name will be kept in the nomination ballot. This means her "catharsis" will be achieved. This comes soon after Bill and Hillary were announced to headline two days at the convention. Like an only child on their birthday, they screamed and jumped, and finally got what they wanted.

But not yet. They want more. Hillary wants another go at the presidency in 2012 and Bill stills wants the title of elder-statesman of the Democratic party. The only way to get both is to have a Republican president again. Barack must lose.

Are they doing this to make such a thing probable? Maybe, maybe not. If you are a romantic, then of course not! If you are a cynic, then you think they are probably buying www.barackisblackandamuslim.com. But what if they are?

As a heap of emails The Atlantic obtained from Hillary's campaign internal communication show, the fall was imminent. Discord, delayed reaction, and debt-inducing finances were the decay inside Hillary's formerly unsinkable boat. Contrary to what one of her campaign aides said, she would NOT have won Iowa if John Edwards had admitted his affair earlier and taken himself off of the ballot (most of Edward's supporters in Iowa had Obama as their second choice, not Hillary). So Hillary was running an unsuccessful campaign from the beginning, only to let it rot as the days went by.

Hillary added an "another thing" to her list of wishes for Obama: a line in the party's platform that the sexist media ran "demeaning portrayals of women ... dampen the dreams of our daughters", meaning she blames her sunken boat on the MSM. But as Maureen Dowd insightfully pointed out, the line shoud be reworded to:

A woman who wildly mismanages and bankrupts a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar campaign operation, and then blames sexism in society, will dampen the dreams of our daughters.

lhp

Evan Bayh, Too Much Risk, Too Litte Payoff?

The long days of summer are ending quickly. What was improbable in Spring, is a reality going into the fall. Not only has Mr. Obama become a giant-slayer by bringing down the mighty Clinton machine, but he is also barely leading McCain, a candidate that would lose a race against himself. Both of these scenarios were once considered more a fable than a fact, but here we are, in the last days of summer, with a dead-heat, and a contentious environment.

While there are many theories why Obama is only barely leading a McCain campaign that stumbles and mumbles and looks in lockstep with the unlikeable president (his arrogance, his inexperience...his race), the focus now is on the conventions. More immediately, the focus on the VPs at the conventions. McCain's list is still loosey-goosey, with Gov. of Louisiana Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney, and former PA Gov. Tom Ridge at the head of the pack. But with Obama, only one is getting a fair amount of coverage as of late.

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana is a political neighbor of Obama's Illinois. Both have hung out frequently lately, and both share characteristics that make them a dreamy tandem (youth, charisma, hollywood looks, and oratorical skills). What they don't share is what might make this duo a less competitive one.

Back in 2002, Sen. Bayh was on the wrong side of things, in respect to Obama's stance on the war. He publicly supported the war, albeit reluctantly, and followed through with his support until lately. His support for the Iraq War would not be so great if he had run in 2004, or even if he was John Kerry's running mate, who also voted in favor of the war. But in 2008, in a campaign that is more and more a referendum on the past 8 years, Sen. Bayh may be a huge liability for Obama, the candidate who said No to the war from the beginning and who is betting his chips of becoming the candidate of change.

There are probably a few reasons why Bayh looks so damn tasty as a VP choice. He is adored in Indiana, coming from a lineage of Indiana politicians (his father was a loved Senator and presidentia candidate in 1976), and filling his own resume with extensive executive experience as two-time Governor of Indiana and serving in his second term as Senator of the same state. His roots are deep; deep enough to make this Republican stalwart state a competitive one. His previous support for Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign might assuage the angry Clinton supporters a bit.

Or maybe not.

As we learned in 2004, the electorate is not stupid. It knows what a VP means. And power is not associated with it, not immediately. A VP pick is not as influential as many believe. In 2004, casanova Edwards, the charming, sexy southerner did not help Kerry get ONE southern state...NOT ONE. Not even his home state of South Carolina was competitive. That is because people know the VP isn't important now, but way later, and way later is not important right now.

If Obama picks Bayh, he will have to weigh the risks. A careful campaign of emphasis and de-emphasis on the Indianan Senator's record will be needed. Emphasize the long resume; de-emphasize the war votes. Emphasize his midwesterness; de-emphasize his moderate-conservative votes. Obama will need to calibrate an Evan Bayh VP nomination as much as he calibrated his own.

lhp

Bush STILL Loves The Olympics

Umm...

lhp

Even Bush Loves The Olympics

As little as I think of the guy, I am sure he would make a hell of a wingman.

lhp

Obama Assassination Attempt Stopped

We may forget we are in the year 2008 when stuff like this makes news:

MIAMI - A man is being held in Florida by federal authorities on charges of threatening to assassinate Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Seriously, if something like this DOES happen, we will go back to state of national confusion and anger not seen since 1968, not to mention erase any notion that we are no longer a country with tense race relations.

A search of Geisel's SUV and hotel room uncovered a loaded handgun, knives, dozens of rounds of ammunition, body armor and a machete. The SUV was wired with emergency lights.

lhp

3 Summer Movies Ready For Oscar

Summer is the designated season for movie fluff and puff. But every now and then, some movies are made seriously enough to be taken serious. They may not end up being Oscar contenders...but they just might. And in summer, no less, the season where big bucks are expected, otherwise your time will be up in one week.

So far, I would argue a few have made a big splash at the box office and at the balcony. The Dark Knight comes to mind, with its skillfully written screenplay and masterful portrayal of the Joker by the deceased Heath Ledger. A possible nod for its cinematography might also occur. The Visitor is in the same boat, with a strong script and even stronger performances. Richard Jenkins is a darkhorse for Best Actor. Wall-E is a piece of art...but unfortunately, it will only be considered a piece on computer-generated art, thereby limiting its acclaim.

There some more, but I suggest looking ahead. The tail-end of the summer tends to give us the movies riding the Summer Blockbuster coattail. They may not be your usual summer fare, and they may be completely made for Oscar season (late fall, winter), but they dabble enough in both to be uniquely intriguing. Here are a few to look out for:

Vicky Cristina Barcelona (aug. 15)

The new flick by Woody Allen, this may be his best since Match Point and as career-defining as Manhattan. If this movie keeps all of its promises, Allen may have found a new New York: Barcelona. He has already found a new muse in Scarlett Johansson. He used Scarlett very well in Match Point, letting her simmer in her sexuality, and from the looks of it, this will be more of the same...in metric doses!

The movie looks fresh, light, and sensual. These are things not usually assigned to Woody Allen pre-Johansson. If this movie delivers, look for a turn to increasingly less neurotic, more exotic work by Woody. And more work with Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz.

Hamlet 2 (aug. 22)

And now, the darling of Sundance. This movie was bought for an estimated $10million. That is mucho money for a movie that will be controversial, hilarious, and a cult classic. Expect this be played well into the fall.

Burn After Reading (sept. 12)

Made by the Coen bros. What more do you need to know? I have been waiting for this movie ever since I saw Brad Pitt get punched in the face. A great cast, a great plot, and so far, a great soundtrack. Trademarks of a great Coen brothers movie. Let's do it in the back.

lhp

Is The Dark Knight cursed?

This would make no sense if it didn't make so much sense. Consider this breaking News:

Academy Award winning actor Morgan Freeman was involved in a serious car accident Sunday night in north Mississippi.

So let's see, Heath Ledger died right after finishing the film. Many claim the role of the Joker consumed Ledger, an actor known for his intense immersion in characters, and eventually killed him.

Then Christian Bale was charged with assault and faces criminal repercussions there.

Now this. Morgan Freeman is in critical condition at the moment because of a car accident. My question is this:

Is The Dark Knight the new Poltergeist...the new Exorcist? Is it cursed and bound to lay its curse on all those involved?

lhp

2008=2000: No, You're the Best...No, You Are!

Unfortunately for the ardent right and left-wingers in this vast country of ours, this election is not offering that much entertainment.  The old battle lines are being redrawn...nay, they are being shuffled away.  A liberal and a conservative, in the terms we are used to now, are not in play in this election.  Instead, a Nixonian Republican and a Wilsonian Democrat are duking it out.  But something tells me this may slightly resemble Bush v. Gore of 2000, also.

For a few reasons I believe this election may turn muddy.  Not in the mud-slinging, negative campaigning kind of way (that is almost a certainty and already a reality), but in the sense that the difference between each candidate will be muddied in the center.  Not as much as Bush and Gore in 2000, where, at the time, the only difference between both candidates lied in characteristics (a poor vocabulary versus a stilted one) rather than policies.  Little did we know back then, eh?  

Take, for example, the recent news about offshore oil drilling.  McCain has wavered on the issue, while Obama held ground with his fellow Democrats and opposed the drilling.  As the New York Times reports, this has changed:

A day after Senator Barack Obama said he would consider supporting broad energy legislation that would permit some of the offshore oil drilling he had previously opposed, an aide to Senator John McCain said Sunday that he too might support such a compromise package.  

Both McCain and Obama have gravitated toward the compromising center.  A firm Yes or No is nowhere to be found.  Instead, the "It depends" that makes the center its home is the word of the day.  

It doesn't stop with the drilling.  Both candidates have made shifts in their positions on Iraq, and the environmental issue as a whole so far.  The possibility that more inward moves is likelier by the second, but I doubt this will be 2000 Redux for a few reasons.

• Obama needs to keep the "Medicine" image:  If he becomes too much like McCain, or lets him do the same, he will lose his uniqueness, which includes his "Change" candidate mantra.
• McCain cannot afford to lose the little gains he has made with the conservative base.  Unlike Obama who can go out and slap an undocumented immigrant in the face and still keep the left side of his support, McCain is still trying to woo the right-wingers.  Bob Barr, the independent who could potentially derail McCain's shot at the presidency, is a conservative darling.  Many are still wondering if he should be given their full support and make him a true contender, thereby splitting up the conservative vote and making Obama president by default.
• There is too much passion in this election.  Unlike 2000 where our biggest fear was when the free shipping at Amazon.com would cease to be offered, our list of issues is huge and draws unbelievable passion from all sides.  If the candidates decide to become two heads of the same creature, a missed opportunity at political momentum will be had.

If Obama and McCain become pure pragmatists on all the issues, then they need to articulate that move very well to all of America.  If they fail to do that, then whoever wins, by no matter what margin, will inherit an America with a creeping malaise and lose of hope in their leaders.

lhp

Is the 2008 election like 2004?

How much things change, and how much they stay the same.  At a certain angle, the election in 2008 is very similar to 2004.  Or is it?

A few things to think about when making the comparison:

• Who are the candidates perceived as?
• What support are they tapping in order to secure a win?
• What type of campaign can be expected as a whole?
• What issue will win the election?

First, lets look at the two fellas:

Who are the candidates perceived as:

In 2004, the contrast was between the most liberal senator in Congress and the pro-war Republican candidate.  John Kerry ended up being portrayed as a stiff, hollow man who calculated more than a calculus professor.  George Bush did a fine job of putting himself in stark contrast as the passionate president who led with his gut as much as with his belly.  

John McCain may not be a conservative in the same vein Bush was, but he is slowly making inroads in that direction.  Framing himself as a no-nonsense right winger who is pro-life, pro-war, and anti-hippie, he knows the move he needs to make is to the right, to the right, as Beyonce would say.

Barack Obama is also not a liberal in the same vein as Kerry.  First of all, Kerry always rubbed liberals the wrong way with his pro-war stance.  The only reason he was stomached by most was because he was NOT Bush.  He ran a campaign off of a negative quality.  Obama is already outraging liberals, but for other reasons.  He is as much an intellectual as Kerry, but he does not wear it on his sleeve; instead, he takes a step back and takes the most pragmatist approach to issues.  This may eventually paint him as calculating, which was one of the downfalls of the Kerry campaign.

What support are they tapping in order to secure a win:

In 2004, it was all about the base.  Independent voters, undecided citizens, bah!  They played second fiddle to both parties.  Bush was lucky enough that the grand Karl Rove strategy to increase Evangelical turnout by 4mill proved to be a success.  Kerry built his campaign around the Bush outrage, again running a negative quality campaign.

The 2008 election could not be anymore different.  The base has dispersed from both parties, especially the GOP.  Instead of courting the choir, McCain and Obama have to proselytize to a new flock.  Moderates, independents, discouraged former party loyalists, they are all walking around aimlessly, judging each candidate with a grain of salt.

In order to win in 2008, both candidates will have to win the voters who decide who to vote for the day before the election.

What type of campaign can expected as a whole:

Dirty.  But that would not make 2004 that much different from most elections.  What made it distinct was how the dirt was thrown and received.  On both sides the dirt was thrown from outside the official campaign.  Bush mostly used the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (most effective, in the end), while Kerry relied on MoveOn.org and every other left-leaning group in the Western Hemisphere.

So far this campaign has been run with little fanfare.  An awkward New Yorker cover here, some inappropriate jokes made by McCain there, but nothing earth-shattering.  I suspect as the months roll by that McCain will become the aggressor in this campaign.  He is already positioning himself as the "underdog", which he is but not really.  His party is still fundraising very well, and he is not that far off from Obama in most polls.  Still, he is quite vicious when pinned against a wall.  Obama might keep a low profile except on media-heavy occasions, such as the debates and the convention.

What issue will win the election:

Security, security, security was the motto in 2004.  Bush knew this, Kerry didn't.  Kerry thought making himself a reasonable, smart, careful candidate would raise the collective feeling of comfort and give him a win.  But Bush knew better, creating instead a gap between what might happen with me and what happen without me.  The key emotion was fear, not comfort, and Bush tapped it out for all it was worth.  

In addition to the tandem of fear and security, 'morality' was key.  Bush won this handidly because of one thing he had over Kerry: clarity.  It was not really consistency, because both candidates lacked that.  But Bush was able to make what would be a 3-page long argument by Kerry into a bumper sticker that sticked.  He made his positions clear and compact, while Kerry went on diatribes that felt like lectures not positions.

So far there are a few issues that are raising their heads this year.  One is the economy, or more specifically, the potential of a worst economy.  The other is change.  This does not secure a win for Obama, as the polls show.  This is an issue that McCain is continually trying to adopt by making "Unlike the President, I..." statements.  How successful he will be at that, I am not sure of.

I believe the issue of Afghanistan, lobbyists, and healthcare will gain some prominence.  These are issue Obama and McCain differ in by wide margins, so the decision between both candidates, by Nov. 4th, will be an easy one to make by someone who has made up their mind on these issues already.

The comparison between 2004 and 2008 shows that while party faithful drive your primary campaign, they can ruin your national campaign.  Going after independents voters is essential, but ultimately, the power to rein is held in the hands of those who have held it before.  Obama and McCain are two of the most contrasting presidential candidates in decades, and keeping that contrast while reaching out for the middle will test both campaign's mettle and will to win.

lhp

Obama: Vietnam was not my bag

In a very thorough interview with the very thorough Fareed Zakaria (this guy is seriously a genius), Sen. Obama pretty much proves Andrew Sullivan's and my theory right.  

Fareed Zakaria centered the interview around foreign policy and the Senator's view on everything from Islam to Vietnam to the importance of Iraq.  

In one enlightening question, Zakaria pinpoints the core reason why Obama will fail to own the definition of 'Liberal' we have come to expect:

ZAKARIA: Why did you major in international affairs?

OBAMA: Well, obviously, having lived overseas and having lived in Hawaii, having a mother who was a specialist in international development, who worked -- was one of the early practitioners of microfinancing, and would go to villages in South Asia and Africa and Southeast Asia, helping women buy a loom or a sewing machine or a milk cow, to be able to enter into the economy -- it was natural for me, I think, to be interested in international affairs.

The Vietnam War had drawn to a close when I was fairly young. And so, that wasn't formative for me in the way it was, I think, for an earlier generation.

The Cold War, though, still loomed large. And I thought that both my interest in what was then called the Third World and development there, as well as my interest in issues like nuclear proliferation and policy, that I thought that I might end up going into some sort of international work at some point in my life.

Some inferences from this answer:

A) Vietnam did not form him like it did the Clintons, McCain, Bush, and Gore.

B) His candidacy is not so much about expertise, but exposure and comprehension of what the world is currently.

C) He is a pragmatist and unifier, who prefers a workable answer that dissatisfies some, rather than a faulty answer that promotes some.

lhp

Is 2008 more like 2004, 2000, 1992…1968?

Elections are no different from other grand shows of spectacle.  The Super Bowl, the Olympics, the new Batman movie, all of these are events that come with their own expectations and expected consequences.  Being so grand and anticipated they are often compared to other great events that have past.  Will the Giants be like the Joe Namath Jets and upset the seemingly invincible Patriots?  Will Phelps be our era’s Spitz?  Will the new Batman be a successful superhero sequel like Spiderman 2, or will it crash on top of its viral marketing scheme like Snakes On A Plane?  Questions, comparisons, anticipations, this is what makes stuff worth talking about.

How will 2008 measure up?  I see a few possible comparisons of what is still a nascent election season.

It could end up becoming an election decided by each party’s base, just like 2004 pitted Kerry’s angry liberals against Bush’s angry evangelicals.

It could become an election decided between two progressively similar candidates, moving each to the center as the campaign goes on until voters are not sure who is who or what makes them different, as was the case in 2000.

It could be an election lost by a splintered conservative base, thereby handing the presidency to the Democrats, similar to Bill Clinton’s 1992 victory.

Or it could become a historic election with historic implications, won by a photogenic, charming Senator over an older man considered angry, rough around the edges, and just untrustworthy because of the company he kept, like it was in 1968 between JFK and Nixon.

Which will it be?  I will explore each scenario in greater depth in later posts, but for now, what election year does this remind you of?  See any parallels with other elections?

lhp

Obama Supporters Flinch When Asked To Help Clinton

At a Women For Obama Fundraiser, Hillary Clinton might have hit it right on the nose:

Anyone who voted for me has so much in common with those who voted for Barack and it is critical that we join forces, because the Democratic Party is a family, sometimes a dysfunctional family, but it is a family and we care about what’s going to happen to the economy and health care and education and what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I can only infer that Hillary is the stepmom the Democratic kids aren't sure of, and she is trying to let them know she is cool with papa Barack, even though she might rub them the wrong way.  

The biggest problem with the Democratic party right now is themselves.  They are not sure how much they like each other.  Progressives are going against moderates, Clintonites against Obamaniacs, all the while Barack and Hillary pose nice for portraits and crack jokes about each other tinged with a slight bitterness.

As this NY Times article pointed out, the jabs were light-hearted, and reminded those present of an old school "screwball comedy."  How delightful!  Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn all over again.  I call it "Bringing Up Barry"...get it? Barack used to go by Barry...ah forget it.  

The premise here is a bit more dramatic than a screwball comedy could offer.  Barack needs Hillary.  Hillary needs Barack.  But Barack doesn't need all of Hillary, just her moral support.  Hillary needs Barack's dollars. So again we go back to the stepmom/kids methaphor.

But that is the sticky point.  The Democratic kids, especially those on the Obama side, aren't quite sure what motivates this Hillary lady, and they sorta distrust her, too.  A point of concern is how vocal Obama supporters are being when they refuse to help Hillary out with her massive debt.  Some choice responses:

Why would I help pay off debts that Hillary amassed simply to keep damaging Senator Obama?

Gas prices are up, the markets are in turmoil, my kid’s fall tuition bill is coming soon. Writing checks to politicians I don’t like is not at the top of my list.

Not a penny for that woman. Or her husband. Or — god forbid --Mark Penn.

They are not sure about this Hillary lady at all.  What does she want from papa Barack, and why does she keep pinching our cheeks when we don't like it???

The Obama knows what needs to resolved, and what needs to be resolved now: Unity.  I don't mean the little town in New Hampshire where the senators made their first joint appearance after Barack clinched it.  I mean party unity.  Sen. McCain is still having major issues working on his own party's unity, so if these two senators could come in to the convention with a happy family, that would be all the more powerful of contrasts between campaigns.

Barack and Hillary may not love each other, they just need to bear each other.  Do it for the children.  And children, in return, please try to like this new girl daddy is with.  Lets try to be a family, ok?

lhp

The Ting Tings-That's Not My Name

I'm in love.

lhp

McCain Talk Pretty One Day

There is a proposition made by the McCain campaign, and considered by the Obama campaign, that a string of town-hall debates should be had across the country.  Very a la Stephen A. Douglas v. Abraham Lincoln.  This is a nice idea.  The traditional town hall give and take is a nice show to check out.  It keeps the candidates on their toes, the voters involved, and the media in full attention waiting for a faux-pas.  What strikes me as specially cute is the Douglas v. Lincoln comparison.  Lincoln, the tall, lanky, oratorical genius hailing from Illinois, against the short, stout candidate of a splintered party, who was well known for as a political tactician, the "Little Giant" of politics.  How fitting!

McCain is not Douglas in a traditional way.  Douglas had a bit more hair and had a meaner mug.  But he does share something with the racist dead man: going against a Lincoln.  I am not comparing Obama with Lincoln, although a solid case could be easily made.  The likeness is in their rhetorical wizard.  Obama can galvanize thousands in an arena with only a few sentences.  McCain has trouble uttering a few sentences correctly to a few dozen supporters waiting for the free donuts and coffee.

As this New York Times article points out, McCain is getting better.  But don't get crazy now, he is still mad at the teleprompter:

In a town meeting in Cincinnati the next day, Mr. McCain would again slip up on the name of the Massachusetts town, where, he noted, “Americans asserted their independence once before.” He called it “the Lexiggdon Project” and twice tried to fix his error before flipping the name (“Project Lexington”) in subsequent references.

 

 It can be a tricky thing, you know, reading.  Is this a character flaw? Not at all.  Bill Clinton was a poor public speaker before he became a great one.  In the 1988 Democratic National Convention, a then Governor of Arkansas Clinton gave a boring, booed-at 32 minute schpeel that almost destroyed his political career.  So, things can get better. 

What is inopportune for McCain is the circumstance.  He is not Bill Clinton in 1988, going against only himself and bored to death party faithful, but against Barack Obama, one of the greatest orators American politics has ever witnessed.  The stout, grinchy McCain is absolutely going against the tall, galvanizing Obama.  This is not a character flaw, but a political one.  This a campaign of change, no matter who takes up the slogan (both have).  If you present yourself as an inept, uninspiring, dull candidate, how does that translate to sense of dynamic change? 

Unfortunately for Sen. McCain, it doesn't.  That is unfortunately, Un-four-choo-nat-lee.

lhp

Obama Make Liberals Mad! Liberals Smash!

The weeks after Obama secured the Democratic nomination have made liberals cringe.  They bitch and moan and yell "Treason!"...but only under their breath.  Liberals do not want 2004 redux.  They trust Obama will keep his liberal streak going when he is elected; they know he is just courting the center and a bit of the right just enough to secure a win.  He's just playin', they tell themselves.

And it gets harder and harder to believe themselves.  The most recent gasp-inducer was Obama's proposal to keep, and potentially expand, Bush's faith based initiatives.  Nay!, they say, Separatin of Church and State!, they clamor.  But they just don't get it.  Obama is not your typical liberal.  Is he a liberal, period?  Yes.  But instead of a period it is more of a 'w00t'.  A new brand of punctuation.

Andrew Sullivan, of The Atlantic, wrote an enlightening article on Why Obama Matters.  The key question all Obamaniacs have to answer for themselves.  But Sullivan takes a pragmatist approach, not a trait typically assigned to liberals (I would know, I slowly went from liberal to pragmatic liberal, and like it here, thank you very much).  In sum, he believes Obama is important because he is the one bringing the least amount of generational baggage:

It isn’t about his policies as such; it is about his person. They are prepared to set their own ideological preferences to one side in favor of what Obama offers America in a critical moment in our dealings with the rest of the world. The war today matters enormously. The war of the last generation? Not so much. If you are an American who yearns to finally get beyond the symbolic battles of the Boomer generation and face today’s actual problems, Obama may be your man.

That is the point most liberals are missing.  Obama will not be like Ted Kennedy, will not be like Kucinich, like Edwards, or even like Hillary.  He does not share their generational baggage.  He was born after the 'silent majority' and the 60's kids clashed.  He will not be a peacenik, not a welfare liberal, not a culture warrior.  He is something else.

Bush's faith based initiatives, while they have been proven to work and help out those in need, are immediately dismissed by liberals because they tend to proselytize.  True, but that is only part of the reality.  This is enough to take them out, however, for the most militant liberals.  Black or white answers are what people acting based off an ideology, theology, or tradition, prefer.  Obama likes grey more.  He is not bipartisan, or partisan, or party-none...he is antipartisan, which includes the liberal faction of the partisanship.

Obama will continue to disillusion liberals.  And he will take the wind out of them when he takes his presidential oath.  This, what you are seeing now, is the real Obama.  He is a liberal, but is also a pragmatist.  He will favor leftist policies, but he will also favor real politik.  The ideological war Hillary and McCain represent is something foreign to Obama.  Why does he matter? Because he doesn't 'get' the divides, the animosities, the loyalties.  Good for him, and good for us.

lhp