The Texecutioner's Song: Part I

By Nicholas Wilbur

I called the 2004 election for George W. Bush on October 8, the night of his second debate with John Kerry.

Political analysts and media critics said the town-hall debate ranked as a tie (the previous and following meetings were solid Kerry victories), but by the end of the night it didn't matter if they ever met on stage again.

"Need some wood?"

The moment I knew Bush would coast into another four-year term occurred during an exchange about tax rates on small businesses. Kerry said Bush's policy made "small businesses" out of everything and everyone. He cited a report about Bush's tax filings showing the president had an $84-dollar income from a timber company, a meager amount that nonetheless qualified Bush as a small business owner.

Bush's response sealed any lingering hope I had that he would lose.

"I own a timber company?" he asked the crowd. "That's news to me." And with a pause that should be studied by every politician wanting to master the art of public speaking, Bush added, "Need some wood?"

These exchanges went on all night and throughout the remainder of the campaign. When Kerry outlined his support for tort reform, he talked about numbers and policies: the 500,000 kids cut from after-school programs, the 365,000 kids cut from health care, the future tax bracket for those making under $200,000 a year, the $3,500 or 64 percent increase in premiums for Missourians, the percentage of medical costs associated with tort reform.

Bush was much simpler.

He pulled out one detail of Kerry's monologue and quipped, "You're now for capping punitive damages? That's odd. You should have shown up on the floor in the Senate and voted for it then."

The end.

The debate wasn't a tie. Bush secured his second term, and in the process he reminded Democrats that, in politics, facts don’t matter. Kerry's points on both tort reform and taxes were accurate and valid in the context of the issues, but nobody watching the debate could say one way or another whether health insurance premiums in Missouri rose 64 percent or 46 percent. Not only would Americans not remember such a statistic, they wouldn't care. And in all honesty, why should they?

It's for the same reason that I believe Rick Perry has the GOP nomination in the bag.

I make the prediction not merely because he surpassed all expectations by completing his sentences during his first live debate performance. It's not because he so flippantly dismissed the debate moderator's "gotcha" questions and stuck to his talking points. And it's not because he got a raucous round of applause from a crowd that apparently thought putting 234 Texans to death was commendable.

It's because he's a cowboy who embodies all the positive qualities the American people found in George W. Bush. He's passionate but not pinched. He's quick and harsh when on the attack, but he's more entertained than vengeful when launching them. He talks in the stilted, stuttering drawl of a clichéd Texan – a comfort to those who aren't Ivy League elocutionists. Mainly, he appeals to the heart.

Tom Pennington, Getty Images

Similar to how most Republicans react to politics, my prediction about Perry's primary success is based on a gut reaction.

As Roger Simon of Politico put it, those who watched Rick Perry in the primary debate "saw a guy with square shoulders and a gunslinger squint, a man who likes to drop his g's when speakin' his mind... What his answers sometimes lacked in logic was made up for in enthusiasm, and after some initial nervousness – he gripped the sides of his podium as if he were hanging onto a life raft – Perry settled down to his talking points."

Indeed he did.

When asked about climate change – specifically, if Perry could name "specific scientists or specific theories" that he found "especially compelling" – the Texas governor focused on one detail of the question, in this case a word, and crafted an answer that was palatable to essentially every American watching on TV.

"Let me tell you what I find compelling, is what we've done in the state of Texas, using our ability to regulate our clean air. We cleaned up our air in the state of Texas, more than any other state in the nation during the decade. Nitrous oxide levels, down by 57 percent. Ozone levels down by 27 percent. That's the way you need to do it, not by some scientist somewhere saying, 'Here is what we think is happening out there.' The fact of the matter is, the science is not settled on whether or not the climate change is being impacted by man to the point where we're going to put America‘s economics in jeopardy."

Is any of it true?

Well, no. Texas ranks 13th on the "Toxic 20" list of most polluted states, and Houston ranks as the fifth most polluted city in the U.S. (Dallas also was in the top 10). Furthermore, climate change is only a "questionable theory" to cranks, and PolitiFact.com confirms that Perry's statement is utterly false.

But again, the facts are irrelevant.

In between his regular criticisms of "Romneycare," Perry finally fielded a question about his own "health care mandate" – a mandatory vaccination against cervical cancer for 12-year-olds.

Rather than stumbling over a defensive apology for his record, he put the question to rest by saying, "I hate cancer."

Who in America disagreed?

In mocking the intellectual over-analysis of left-wing pundits, Comedy Central's Jon Stewart explained Perry's magnetic effect with Republican voters this way: "In the presence of Republican voters, Rick Perry actuates an neuro-endocrine reaction that reroutes any analytic frontal cortex activity as a hotwave of electro-chemical impulses, stimulating their proto-reptilian limbic system."

As George Lakoff noted in The Political Mind, 98 percent of all political beliefs are unconscious. While Romney will win the battle for intellectuals who agree with his economic plan, Perry will win the war by appealing to the heart, the gut and, as Stewart's crotch grab implied, the balls.

"You don't get Rick Perry here," he said, pointing to his head. "You get him here!" 

(Cross-posted at Muddy Politics.)

This day in history - August 2, 1943: Lt. John F. Kennedy's PT-109 is rammed by a Japanese destroyer

By Richard K. Barry

Working with a lot of younger people as I do, I no longer take it for granted that they will have a working knowledge of the historical events that I consider important. It would have been impossible to have grown up in the '60s, for example, without knowing the story of President John F. Kennedy's exploits as a young naval officer in the Pacific during WWII. They even made a movie about it, not to mention the book, both of which came out in 1963.

The short of it is that Kennedy commanded a small patrol boat that was rammed by the Japanese destroyer Amagiri. Although there were a couple of fatalities, the remaining crew managed to reach an island and were later rescued. Kennedy's leadership in helping to secure the crews' rescue was no doubt helpful in defining him in a way helpful to his political career.

If you are of a certain age, you knew all of that.

Interesting to note that Kennedy's exploits were more or less accepted at face value, though many decades later John Kerry's military record and reputation were all but destroyed by lies and innuendo. Makes you wonder what has changed.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

"We, the People" abdicate

By Carl 

Every so often, maybe every two or three years, I'm asked by at least one person why I haven't run for office. "You'd make a great Congressman/Senator/President," they'll say.

I suppose it's true: I am pretty bright, can communicate well, have a large measure of compassion, and geet the human condition without being a soppy bleeding heart. My passion in life is to make connections that other people miss, to understand why something happens, which is the first step in making sure it does or does not happen again, as the case may be. 

There are plenty of reasons why I have not. I suck at fundraising, for one thing. I never ask for money, even if I could, absent the occasional ad to sell my photographs or to hawk a book or my writing, or what have you.

But here's the real reason I haven't and probably never will run.

I'm human.

I'm no better than you or you or him or her, at the end of the day. That immediately disqualifies me from public office. It shouldn't, but it does. And I think you can trace the roots of many of the problems that beset this nation to that inarguable fact.

We the people insist our politicians be better than we are. Under all the glue-huffing about Teabaggers and elitists and egghead liberals, we want our politicians to be smarter, handsomer, richer, better hung (or have bigger breasts), more articulate, and -- goshdarnit! -- more moral than we could ever hope to be.

We've created a fantasy class. In exchange, under the assumption of superiority, we've handed these people the keys to the bar and told them to lock up after we've gone to sleep.

We're asleep. The bar's still open.

Politicians are human, but we expect them to be superhuman. Do you see a disconnect here? If a politician betrays even the slightest humanity, we ridicule him or her.

I'm not talking about morons like Bachmann or Palin or Trump (who claims to be different from politicians, but I perceive that difference in the same way that malaria is different from a bad cold). Or even George W. Bush, who's reach exceeded his grasp and we all paid a heavy price for it.

I'm talking about how anytime anyone pokes his or her head above the foxhole, shots get fired, yet we expect them to leap up and take more ground, to lead us.

Take any presidential candidate of the past twenty years, including the ones who won (absenting Bush). John Kerry by all rights could have won (and in many lights did win) the 2004 election: a decorated war veteran, long-serving senator, a brilliant policy man, but brought down hard by a smear campaign that any American in his or her right mind would have laughed off as ridiculous if they had read it in a novel.

Clinton won, twice, but only because he had a core of support that anybody but Bush had to win, and Ross Perot was too scary to conceive of voting for (yet, tell me you didn't think some of what Perot espoused had some interest).

In all these elections, the issues favored Democrats: in 1992, we were in a mild recession and had twelve years of Reagan/Bush scandals. In 1996, Clinton was beseiged by know-nothing Gingrichites hellbent on destroying liberal America and jerking the country rightward. In 2004, Bush hadn't created a single job during his administration, had allowed 9/11 to take place and had the lowest approval rating of any President running for re-election, ever.

Look at what happens: Candidates can't win on issues, because those issues get swamped in the muck of the campaign. Money is flung, and after the Citizens United decision, more money will be flung at candidates, smearing them personally and ignoring the issues in favor of scare tactical talking points.

All because a guy is human.

And we the people have allowed this to happen, because we eat up Clinton's affairs or Obama's birth certificate or Palin's pregnancies.

No. Worse. We allow a small but loud minority to dominate the discussion. We presume that, because they're so loud and so "grass-rootsy" that somehow they've earned their say.

Notice that there's a corollary, an unwelcome development about this: because issues stop mattering, politicians stop caring about issues. This creates a vacuum, into which other, very human desires, rush.

Power. Greed. Politics no longer becomes about who does the best job of governing but about who can grab hold of and control power the longest.

In 1964 and 1965, when the Civil Rights, Economic Opportunity , and Social Security Acts were passed, they were passed by a coalition of Republicans and Democrats, mostly liberals, who wanted to do good. They saw injustice across this land. They saw that 12% of the populace was suffering mercilessly at the hands of people who wanted nothing to do with them for no other reason than they were different. They worked together to change that.

Could that happen now? No. Not because there are no longer any mountains to climb and conquer, but because it's not about governance, it's about power.

And neither side is winning.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

John Kerry really wants to be secretary of state

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As Joan Vennochi writes in the Globe:

The Bay State's senior senator is running an unofficial campaign to become the next secretary of state. For once, he looks artful, as well as ambitious.

His recent opinion piece in the New York Times said what President Obama couldn't or wouldn't: Mubarak must go.

Kerry's conclusion was elegant, but unequivocal: "President Hosni Mubarak must accept that the stability of his country hinges on his willingness to step aside gracefully to make way for a new political structure."

Of course, one has a certain freedom as a senator that one does not have as secretary of state -- or even as president -- and so Kerry can be direct in a way that Obama and Clinton cannot. Still, his strong position on the situation in Egypt is admirable, and while picking Hillary to be secretary of state made sense for Obama after the tough primary battle they waged, a "team of rivals" to unite the Democratic Party, it makes sense to turn to Kerry next, whenever Hillary leaves her post, perhaps after the 2012 election should Obama win.

I have defended Obama's handling of the situation, from the American perspective, but I agree to a certain extent with Vennochi that his administration generally "looked unprepared and off-balance when Egyptians took to the streets of Cairo." I don't necessarily fault Obama for this, as the situation and its likely outcome was unclear and he needed to walk a fine line with Mubarak, if only not to alienate him (and endanger U.S. interests) in the event he remained in power, but I do wish Obama would respond with greater moral clarity for once instead of equivocating (and, in this case it would seem, dismissing the pro-democracy movement and supporting, even if just as a "transition," yet more tyranny).

I'm not sure Kerry would bring such moral clarity to Foggy Bottom, and, even if he did, he wouldn't really be in a position to articulate it as formal U.S. policy unless authorized to do so, but he would be a smart, refreshing addition to Obama's team.

Is John Kerry right that Republicans benefit from an ignorant electorate? Yes. And Democrats, and American democracy, suffer.

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Speaking in Boston on Friday, Sen. John Kerry blamed Democratic fortunes, which currently appear to be extremely low, on public ignorance:

We have an electorate that doesn't always pay that much attention to what's going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what's happening.

Conservatives jumped all over this, and predictably so, attacking Kerry for being just the sort of coastal elitist Beck and Palin and their self-styled populist ilk like to vilify as anti-American, but, of course, Kerry was right. Much of the American electorate is dominated by apathy and ignorance, if not outright stupidity. Such apathy, such ignorance, and such stupidity are what allow so many voters to vote against their own self-interest, to be manipulated by right-wing propaganda, and to believe things that just aren't true.

-- Obama is a fascist/socialist/Muslim who wasn't even born in the U.S.? Check.

-- The Democrats health-care reform package that was pretty much the same as what Republicans proposed back in the '90s is a totalitarian attempt to subvert freedom? Check.

-- Government is evil and can do nothing to help the economy, but America is in the middle of a civilizational war and so there must be a Big Brother-like national security state that tortures, wiretaps, and kills? Check.

And so on... and so on...

Just why do you think it is that Republicans have been so successful? Because they have the right policies for America and because Americans are more Republican than Democratic? Please. Republicans thrive because low-information voters constitute a huge chunk of the electorate and because they can easily manipulate those voters, often through feeding their fears and prejudices. Why do you think Republicans work so hard to keep as much information out of the electorate as possible?

Take health-care reform. The elements of Obamacare are actually extremely popular -- more choice for consumers (i.e., patients), power taken away from the insurance industry (e.g., with respect to barring those with pre-existing conditions from acquiring adequate coverage), the extension of coverage to millions. On the merits, the Democrats should win this issue, and this is why the Republicans don't want to debate the merits and for voters to judge the two parties on the merits. Rather, Republicans prefer to keep voters uninformed and to seek to control the issue, and benefit from it at the polls, by trying to dominate the narratives through which the issue is presented to voters. With the media playing along, simply regurgitating their talking points, they spin their dishonest smears, lying to the public about Obamacare and scaring the many uninformed into opposing it. Democrats don't do nearly enough to counter this Republican strategy, but the unfortunate reality is that in today's America it is much easier to keep people uninformed than to educate them towards the truth.

An electorate of the educated would, I suspect, produce large majorities for the Democrats. But this isn't the utopia that was dreamed of during the Enlightenment. The educational system isn't great and, even if it were, a free and democratic society just tends to produce an electorate full of people who don't pay much attention to politics. In a way, that's a measure of success. People have other things to do, and it's not always a good thing when politics is front and center. But it also means that "simple slogans" can prevail and that those parties that know how best to manipulate the uninformed and uneducated into voting their way can do very well, forming governments that depend for their survival on keeping people largely uninformed and uneducated.

Jefferson and America's other philosophic founders, Enlightenment thinkers who understood that democracies need educated electorates if they are not to succumb to demagoguery, would not be amused, but this is, alas, what America has become. John Kerry just had the courage to tell it like it is.

Democrats who suck: Looking back at '04

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Jon Chait looks back at the 2004 Democratic presidential field and, well, finds it wanting:

Just how awful was the 2004 Democratic primary field? Go through the list, and try to imagine any of these men as a presidential nominee, let alone (shudder) a president:

Howard Dean, who's been spending the last year on and off trying to kill health care reform.

Dick Gephardt, who's now a corporate whore.

John Edwards, who's, well, John Edwards.

Wes Clark, last seen insisting that "New York money people" were pushing for war with Iran.

Dennis Kucinich, also trying to kill health care reform.

Joe Lieberman: [photo of Lieberman at McCain rally -- enough said]

and, of course, Al Sharpton.

At the time, I was disappointed that Kerry prevailed. And it's certainly true that Kerry lacked the communications skills to be a presidential nominee. But compared to that field, he was a giant. He's the only candidate you can imagine actually serving as president without bringing about some enormous disaster. And he's handled himself pretty well since losing the race. Indeed, the only other 2004 candidate who's actually raised his stature among Democrats is Sharpton.

Dean was the exciting candidate, and many in the base supported him, but I hesitantly backed Kerry and was anything but disappointed when he won. I came to admire him a great deal during the campaign, and I admire him still. (I later came to support Edwards, before turning to Obama early in the '08 primaries.) And certainly, when you think back to that bunch, he seems all the more impressive.

Let's not be too revisionist, though. At the time, Gephardt and Lieberman were respected figures in the party, Clark (a distinguished military man) and Edwards (a Southerner with a vote-winning populist pedigree) were rising stars, Dean was, in a way, Obama before Obama, and Kucinich, who never had a chance, was widely regarded, as he is still, as the leftist conscience of the party. Only Sharpton was a joke, or worse.

It's an embarrassing roster of candidates when you look back on it now, but was it so bad back then? Sure, you think the Democrats could have fielded stronger candidates (Kerry aside) given Bush's vulnerability, but the strength of the '08 field more than makes up for the weakness of the '04 one. The fact is, the Democrats were in rudderless disarray back then with the Clinton-Gore years behind them and with Bush skating along with 9/11 still fresh in everyone's mind and the Iraq War not yet the utter disaster it would soon become.

There is still some disarray, of course, but, at the presidential level, with candidates who could compete one day for the White House, they're in a much better position now than they were then. Or so I think. It's rather hard to tell, with a Democrat in the White House and with no one in the party seriously challenging him, but I just don't see the same vacuum of leadership, and forward-looking leadership potential, that I saw in '04 and that is so much starker now in retrospect.

Besides, take a look at the possible GOP field in 2012 if you want to see mediocrity, and worse: Romney, Huckabee, Palin, Paul, Pawlenty, Jindal, Santorum, Pence, Thune...

Now there's "some enormous disaster" waiting to happen.

Kudos to Kerry

By Creature

While I don't think a run-off election in Afghanistan will change the equation very much, I do applaud Senator Kerry's efforts to get Karzai to agree to them. A legitimate government in Afghanistan is a step in the right direction, though, I fear, having such legitimacy will simply mean America's war hawks will have an easier time cheerleading for neverending war.

John Kerry set to be new Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman

By Michael J.W. Stickings

John Kerry likely won't be the next secretary of state, but he will nonetheless be a major player in U.S. foreign relations:

More than three decades after he first appeared before the panel as a 27-year-old Vietnam veteran-turned-antiwar protester, Senator John F. Kerry will be named chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, giving him enormous influence over President-elect Barack Obama's foreign policy, according to congressional officials.

Kerry, who was elected to a fifth term from Massachusetts earlier this month, will be handed the gavel when the new Congress convenes in January, replacing Vice President-elect Joe Biden, the officials said.

Aides to Kerry said he is already laying out a broad agenda for the committee, beginning with new legislation to strengthen the United States' hand against terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan; provide oversight of efforts to end the war in Iraq; and seize what he sees as a new opportunity to curtail the spread of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

I would be happy to see Hillary at State, but my preference all along has been Kerry, with whom I am closer in policy terms. Still, the better job for Kerry may very well be the one he's about to get. He won't be the star out on the international diplomatic circuit, and he won't have quite the profile of whoever gets State, especially if it's Hillary, but I have no doubt he'll be an effective chairman of a key committee and a major influence on Obama's efforts to chart a new direction for U.S. foreign policy.

Why John Kerry's loss in 2004 was "the luckiest thing to happen to Democrats in 40 years"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Duke political scientist David Rohde has an interesting piece at The New Republic today on why the Democrats are much better off today because of Kerry's loss to Bush in '04.

Basically, Rohde's argument goes, "had Bush lost in 2004, the Democrats simply wouldn't be anywhere near as powerful as they are now." Kerry and Edwards would have faced "a hostile GOP Congress" unwilling to support their legislative agenda and, at best, they would have been "narrowly reelected" this year. And while it is true that "a second Bush term is a very steep price to pay for today's success," there is no denying just how successful the Democrats have become. "[T]he Bush administration survived, and the public grew increasingly disenchanted with its performance and the Republican brand." The Democrats won back Congress in '06, adding to their majorities this year. And, of course, there was "Obama's crushing White House victory." In addition, the Democrats have a "new, mammoth fundraising advantage" over the Republicans:

It will take time to discover whether the developments in 2006 and 2008 constitute an enduring pro-Democratic shift in the electorate, rather than just a transitory negative reaction to Bush and the GOP. But the benefits the Democrats have realized from 2006 and 2008 -- the ample mandate and the majorities the Democrats now possess -- have put the party on the path toward substantial progress in its policy goals. And if John Kerry and John Edwards had found their way into office four years ago, they would have found a much more difficult, possibly impossible, road ahead of them.

In other words, Kerry simply might not have been able to get much done (though he likely would have provided much better leadership on Iraq and Katrina). Now, though, Obama comes into office with an impressive victory behind him, a clear mandate for change (in a liberal direction), significant Democratic majorities in Congress, and a rejuvenated and re-empowered Democratic Party. There was hope in '04, if not as much this year, but there is now the opportunity, as there wasn't back then, to move forward not just on Iraq but on health care, education, energy, global warming, and tax policy, and well as to address the current financial crisis in a meaningful way.

I hesitate to say this, given how much I supported Kerry in '04 and continue to admire him, but I suspect that Professor Rohde is right: For the Democrats, and for those of us who support them, things have turned out for the best.

Vetting Bill, considering Hillary

By Michael J.W. Stickings

According to the NYT, "President-elect Barack Obama's advisers have begun reviewing former President Bill Clinton's finances and activities to see whether they would preclude the appointment of his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as secretary of state."

I still think Obama is serious about this (and should be) -- and that he and Hillary could form an effective "Team of Allies." It isn't just for show.

And yet...

Questions abound -- and Michael Crowley asked some of them last Friday, including:

-- "How would Joe Biden feel? Presumably he'd feel competitive with a very strong personality at State." That's one I hadn't been thinking much about, but I do wonder about a possible Obama-Biden-Hillary triumvirate (and with Gates as SecDef, perhaps). It's not that Biden and Hillary don't like each other, it's that both are strong and determined figures. Would Biden feel threatened, or insecure, with Hillary at State? It's hard to imagine Biden in such a position, given how self-confident he is, but he did admit during the primaries that Hillary was "as qualified or more qualified" than he was to be vice president. There is already the question of whether Obama and Hillary would be able to work together effectively, given their seemingly tense relationship (in the past, at least) and the specter of Bill looming in the background (and sometimes dominating the foreground). Throw Biden, with his extensive foreign policy experience, into the mix. How would that work?

-- "How does John Kerry feel today?" I'd love to see Kerry at State. On policy grounds, I prefer him to Hillary, not to mention to establishmentarians like Holbrooke. And he's clearly campaigning for the job. If he doesn't get State, wouldn't he make a fine AG?

So... will it be Hillary? The good people at MSNBC's First Read make a good point: "Has the momentum for a Hillary appointment gotten to the point where the only way this doesn't happen is if Clinton says no? Obama can't pull the offer (even if he hasn't officially made it) at this point, right?"

Hmmm... probably right.

Hillary to Foggy Bottom?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The latest juicy morsel of speculation coming out of The Transition, or at least making its way around Transition watchers, has to do with Hillary being a candidate for Secretary of State. Here's WaPo:

There's increasing chatter in political circles that the Obama camp is not overly happy with the usual suspects for secretary of state these days and that the field might be expanding somewhat beyond Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and maybe former Democratic senator Sam Nunn of Georgia.

There's talk, indeed, that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) may now be under consideration for the post. Her office referred any questions to the Obama transition; Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to comment.

Well, okay, though I'd prefer to have Hillary in the Senate working on, say, health care reform.

I still think it'll be Kerry, who clearly wants the job, who would provide progressive leadership on U.S. foreign policy, and who would be an effective counterweight to the more hawkish, Republican-lite Democratic foreign policy establishment with which Obama has surrounded himself (Richard Holbrooke, another possibility for the job, et al.). I don't mind Richardson, but there's just too much of the bumbling fool about him, and Hagel... well, as much as I admire him for his tough stand against the Iraq War, he's still a conservative Republican.

At MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell reports that Tom Daschle could be a "compromise choice." I didn't think much of him when he was Senate majority leader, but his support for Obama, from early on, was impressive, and I think he'd be an asset to the Obama Administration. I just don't think he's right for State.

As for Hillary, I just wonder how effectively she and Obama would be able to work together. At Politico, Mike Allen reports that she may be "the favorite," and that appointing her to State "would create the ultimate 'Team of Rivals' cabinet, according to officials involved in the discussions." Fair enough, and, indeed, there is certainly a lot to recommend her -- not least her foreign and military policy experience, her engagement in world affairs, and her undeniable stature and credibility. And it would certainly be a news-dominating pick, overshadowing the rest of the Transition and Obama's other Cabinet appointments. (For more, see Taylor Marsh, who makes a good case for her.)

I'd be happy with either Kerry or Hillary. I've been leaning towards Kerry, given that I'm closer to him on policy, but the thought of an Obama-Hillary foreign policy team, if it is at all workable, is rather appealing.

Obama's fight: Taking on the lies and smears of McCain, Palin, and the GOP machine

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Ever think you're living in some Matrix-like bizarro world -- you know, sort of like Jerry, George, Kramer, and Elaine? Ever think up is down, left is right, and so on and so forth?

Well, that's how it feels with McCain-Palin surging out of the RNC, drawing even with Obama-Biden in the polls, and basically dominating the political landscape of late. Some things just don't make any sense. How is it possible, in 2008, with all that has happened over the past seven-plus years, for this to be happening? To the say the least, it's rather worrying -- but I'll leave futher reflection for another time.

On a related note, that's how it feels doing something I rarely if ever do here in the blogosphere (or in real life, for that matter), namely, praising Joe Klein and Richard Cohen, two of the more pernicious GOP-enabling members of the middle-of-the-road commentariat. And yet, regarding the latter, that is just what I am about to do...

In his latest WaPo column, Cohen begins with this gem:

Thank God for Sarah Palin. Without her jibes, her sarcasm, her exaggerations, her smug provincialism, her hypocrisy about family and government, her exploitation of mommyhood, and her personal attacks on Barack Obama, the Democratic base might never be consolidated. This much is certain: Obama could never do it.

Okay... Cohen's right, to a point. He's right about Palin. He's sort of right about how the Democratic base is consolidating. And he's sort of right, but less so, about Obama.

Let me address the last point here.

Cohen's concern is that Obama is, to quote the title of his column, "too cool to fight," that is, that Obama "seems to lack fight." Cohen's one piece of evidence is an interview Obama gave to George Stephanopoulos on Sunday. (Though HuffPo's Bob Ostertag makes basically a similar point in response to an interview Obama gave to Keith Olbermann yesterday: Obama "[came] off as the most scripted, cautious politician ever.") "What Obama does not understand is that he is being Swift-boated," Cohen contends, and, like Kerry in '04, he isn't fighting back.

To a point, Cohen is right. I do think Obama needs to fight back, and hard. A positive message isn't enough. He must augment his calls for change and his serious, complex, and detailed policy positions with a concerted effort not just to repel the GOP attacks, not just to defend himself, but to define McCain-Palin and thereby to control the narrative that, through the media, dominates the campaign and shifts public opinion. This is what Kerry didn't do in '04. It was tough enough running against an incumbent in a time of war and fearmongering. What made it so much tougher was that Kerry let the Republicans, from Bush on down, get away with it. In the end, Kerry's war record -- the truth -- didn't matter. What mattered was that he was what the Republicans said he was, namely, a flip-flopper

The Republicans are doing this to Obama now -- not so much McCain as Palin, the party, GOP operatives, the pro-Republican right-wing media machine (Rush et al.), and McCain's various surrogates, like Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.

But it isn't enough to be right and it isn't enough to be above it all and it isn't enough to be the leader of a new and reformist democratic movement that will change the course of American history for the better. And it isn't enough because being those things doesn't get you elected, not against the Republicans, not even in a year when all signs are pointing in your favour, when the country is ready for change, when Democrats are poised to take advantage of a weakened Republican brand. And it isn't just because McCain remains popular despite his opportunism and hyper-Bush credentials and pathetic performance on the campaign trail, and because Palin has energized the base and, seemingly, McCain himself. No, McCain's popularity and Palin's celebrity are significant obstacles, but what should also be of great concern is Obama's own performance thus far, including his seeming unwillingness to fight.

And yet, Cohen overstates the case. Obama did extremely well on his trip to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Europe, and he certainly consolidated the Democratic base with an exceptionally good acceptance speech in Denver. Anything pre-Palin seems like a long time ago, but Obama-Biden and the Democrats looked extremely strong coming out of the DNC. And Obama does fight. He's a tough and seasoned political veteran. But he has to be careful. There is the racial component to consider, as Cohen admits. After all, he needs to avoid feeding into racist stereotypes of angry black men -- sad to say, but those stereotypes are out there, as is racism generally, and they could sink him. But it also wouldn't have looked good for Obama to come out swinging against Palin right away. He let the media take care of vetting her, of investigating her, and look what the media, finally doing their job, have turned up. Now he can begin to go after McCain-Palin without seeming excessively negative and vindictive -- now that the RNC is over, now that more and more of the truth about Palin is out there, now that the campaign has started in earnest.

I take Cohen's point, and I do think Obama is at times too cool for his own good, but there is the longer term to consider, and, in the long term, Obama's reluctance to jump down into the Republican gutter may prove to have been a sound political tactic.

Yes, Obama has to fight back -- to defend himself, to define McCain-Palin, to control the narrative -- and to do so with intensity and passion, much like he did with his acceptance speech, but there is more to him, and more to his campaign, than Cohen suggests.

Unless this whole bizarro matrix is messing me up. In which case, if Obama really does lack fight, that worrying over the latest poll numbers ought to shift into panic anytime now.

Party, platform, and Palin: The triumph of theocracy in the GOP

By Michael J.W. Stickings

TNR's John Judis, in the Twin Cities for the GOP convention, explains Palin's appeal, and how McCain has sold out to the theocrats:

The convention's first two days have been a conservative love-fest for McCain’s vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin. McCain's handlers have also allowed social conservatives free reign in writing this year's Republican platform.

McCain strategists have tried to explain Palin's nomination as an attempt to secure discontented Democrats who backed Hillary Clinton. But that's not the refrain heard here among social conservatives who predominate among the delegates. They like Palin because she is one of them. And there is some reason to believe that McCain's choice was partly intended to mollify conservatives like James Dobson and Richard Land who were on the fence, but who, since the choice of Palin, have become considerably warmer toward McCain.

*****

The platform is a paean to social conservatism and diverges from McCain’s own convictions. It backs a Human Life Amendment on abortion with no exceptions for rape, incest, or a threat to the health of the mother; it backs the Second Amendment with no exceptions ("gun control only affect and paralyzes law-abiding citizens"); and it takes a position on immigration that would warm Rep. Tom Tancredo's cold heart. It focuses on enforcing "border security," rejects "amnesty" and "en masse legalizations," and promotes English-only legislation. Most telling, perhaps, it devotes very little attention to the Iraq war. That, too, reflects the disquiet of many social conservatives like [Grover] Norquist about the war.

McCain has always been much more conservative, and socially conservative, than his manufactured "maverick" image has led many to believe, but he's never really been much of a theocrat.

Once upon a time -- i.e., before he realized what he had to do to win the nomination (and before he sold out entirely) -- he loathed the James Dobsons of the world, or so it seemed, and the feeling was not just mutual but even stronger among them. But, as John Kerry reminded us last week, Candidate McCain is nothing like Senator McCain (or, at the very least, the former is a calculated exaggeration of the latter, with the candidate putting aside all pretense to bipartisanship and independence).

And now... well, look what's happening both to his campaign and to his convention -- and to the party that has selected him as its presidential nominee.

McCain may or may not have wanted to pick Lieberman or Ridge, but he ended up with Palin, a darling of the theocrats. The vetting process was, apparently, not much of one, and he picked her only after conservatives had threatened opposition to any undesirable pick. He may have wanted to look bold, but he certainly also wanted to appease the right, the theocrats, and he seems to have done so. As The Nation's Max Blumenthal is reporting -- and as Capt. Fogg mentioned earlier today -- the Council for National Policy, "an ultra-secretive cabal that networks wealthy right-wing donors together with top conservative operatives to plan long-term movement strategy" (with members including Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Grover Norquist, Tim LaHaye, and Paul Weyrich) basically vetted Palin on its own last week. Palin was obviously their preference, at least among the leading contenders, and, in the end, McCain went right along with them.

What's more, McCain has essentially turned the convention, his convention, over to the theocrats. Whether or to what extent McCain actually agrees with the party platform, and its elements, is beside the point. The point is that he has allowed the convention and platform to be taken over by the theocrats. The theocrats may already control much, or most, of the party, but now, in McCain's year, they have formal control over policy and the direction of the party.

McCain will accept the nomination on Thursday, and he will no doubt continue to hype his "maverick" image and phony independent streak, but what is clear now, more than ever, is that the theocrats have triumphed.

This is the Week!

By Carol Gee

Update for The Reaction -- Memeorandum reports that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is McCain's VP pick: source.

The mornings after the Democratic National Convention (DNC) this week, I was often struck speechless. The DNC was so very big, bold and beautiful along the way. Fast paced, and yet somehow at ease, the convention moved towards the last day with ascending excitement. Media coverage of the week was available to cable and satellite TV viewers in pundit-driven or gavel to gavel style. By Thursday's the DNC had visited almost everything. The convention's conclusion did not begin until afternoon.

FRIDAY MORNING, everyone agrees the DNC was unprecedented in several respects. Barack Obama is the first African American candidate to be nominated by a major party to run for President. His acceptance speech audience was the largest ever. His candidacy was the most high-tech in history. And the United States is in a brand a new kind of governance crisis. The USA is embroiled in two very high cost (in people and money) wars. Polarized politically, in economic recession, its citizens have been routinely victimized by an out of control, inept, constitution-shredding administration. An unprecedented level of problems faces the nation; that is the reason the Democrats are willing to leave the venue mostly united. They and the whole country know what is at stake.

Is it any wonder that the "Change We Need" campaign of (dare I say it?) destiny's Obama was eventually so welcomed by Democrats? The other reason for Democratic party unity is Barack Obama himself. His skill as a the leader of his own campaign became more apparent as the week progressed. The stadium setting was the story for a while. And it was seized upon by nay-sayers as "over the top." A full stadium of flag-waving, enthusiastic people, who came early and in large numbers, affirmed the planners' decision, in my opinion. A text message exercise in voter recruitment energized a huge starry map showing supporters. Lots of good video filled in the gaps, along with food and funny hats, statement t-shirts, and Diverse Dems dancing in place. The audience was entertained by good music that seemed just right, much of it with a a modern folk feel. Stevie Wonder and Sheryl Crow sang. Republicans and Independents testified to their support. Obama's best political friends, including his mentor, Senator Dick Durbin, gave little speeches. And a set of "just folks" told us through vignettes why they had to support Obama. In contrast, a stage-filling group of military leaders and generals marched out in a line to support the candidate, some of whom had previously retired in protest against the Bush administration. Vice-President Gore did 'his thing" with sincerity and skill.

This is the week that culminated last night in Senator Obama's acceptance speech. By most accounts it was perhaps his best speech ever-- it was dynamite. At once biographical, inspirational and confrontational, it was also policy specific. It was a magnificent blue print for the next couple of months of this 2008 presidential campaign. I cannot wait for it to unfold. Unwilling to post yesterday, because I wanted to just enjoy the moments, I went back to my occasional years-ago choice of "being on vacation without my camera." The blogosphere took appropriate notice, however, as links to the other blogs where I post show. This is the rest of the week as reflected in my earlier notes:

THURSDAY MORNING, Wednesday was historic -- Senator Barack Obama was nominated by the Democrats to run for President. In a stroke of genius, Senator Joseph Biden was nominated for Vice-President. Speeches by Former President Clinton, Senator John Kerry, and Veep-to-be Senator Joe Biden were all outstanding. Many of us were relieved by Bill Clinton's endorsement. Wednesday night's theme was national security. Morning-after reflections gave the Democrats high marks for the way the theme was handled during the third night of this historic week. Bloggers gave the mainstream media less than high marks for the coverage. Because of the difficulty of Surviving the DNC on cable, too many viewers missed the best speech of the evening given by John Kerry.

WEDNESDAY MORNING, Democratic National Convention -- Tuesday night was all Hillary Clinton's, though she was not the official keynoter. The keynote speaking task fell to Governor Mark Warner, who was lack luster, by many of the next morning's accounts. To me, it was probably one of her best to date. A few questioned whether Clinton's endorsement of Obama was strong enough, but most bestowed qualified approval of her speech. Scott Paul, for instance at The Washington Note, gave: "A (Potentially Premature) Defense of Clinton." To quote:

I had two immediate reactions to Clinton's speech. First, purely from the perspective of speechcraft and delivery, I've never seen her deliver a better one. Second, she said very few positive things about Barack Obama or his candidacy. She talked at great lengths about the need to support Obama given the state of the country, the challenges we face, the alternative of John McCain, and the importance of Democratic Party unity. But aside from one line of praise for the grassroots oriented, bottom-up nature of Obama's campaign, she had precious little to say about the appeal of the candidate himself.

TUESDAY MORNING, Dateline: Democrats -- Michelle Obama was a big hit with all of us who listened to her speech Monday night (8/26/o8). She was both highly "professional," as well as very personal. On the morning after, this was a typical story: "Michelle keeps things down to earth." It was penned by Roger Simon at Politico.com. It refers to Michelle's narrative about Barack, the brand new father, driving his little family home from the hospital at a snail's pace. To quote:

. . . She was describing a simple moment, a real moment, an emotional moment and one that made only one point: Barack Obama is a human being just like you. He is not an other, he is not a celebrity. He is a father, a husband, a person.

And so, indeed, was Senator Ted Kennedy awesome, according to David Rogers at Politico.com (8/26/08). Most every listener was rooting for his success. In a way, he "had us with hello." The headline hinted at how we all still felt the next morning: "Ailing Kennedy: 'The dream lives on.'" To quote:

Most people have to fight a whole Civil War before getting a Ken Burns documentary. Not Teddy Kennedy, who staged a triumphant appearance before the Democratic National Convention Monday night complete with a Burns-crafted tribute casting him as the modern Ulysses bringing his party home to port.

Weakened by cancer, the Massachusetts senator first let the pictures do his talking but then rocked the Denver hall with an appeal for healthcare reform and party unity that brought him full circle from his famous the dream shall never die speech in New York 28 years ago.

This is also the week that Senator McCain was to have announced the identity of his running mate. I am not waiting to conclude this piece with that information. I want to savor the week before being forced to move on before I am ready. But, of course I will move on -- to Minneapolis. I predict that I will be able to post much more because I will not be savoring all those Republican moments. I give them back to the next participants in this wonderful democratic process.

ADDENDUM -- References From Tom Head, who writes about civil liberties for About.com.

1. Obama vs. McCain (on civil liberties issue differences)


2. Joe Biden on Civil Liberties


3. Joe Biden's Middle East Policy


4. Civil Liberties and November 2008 Ballot Initiatives


5. If You Make a Mistake While Voting

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

"The choice is clear, our cause is just." -- Kerry on Obama

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This is obviously a big night at the Democratic Convention -- both Gore and Obama are speaking -- but make sure, if you haven't already (or, if you have, do so again), to watch Kerry's speech from last night. Sandwiched between Bill and Joe, it didn't get much attention, but it's Kerry at his finest, the Kerry it should have been four years ago. He makes a compelling case for Obama, but it is his critique of McCain ("the myth of a maverick"), his juxtaposition of Senator McCain and Candidate McCain, that is the most effective part of his speech.

We need more of this, more of a sustained attack on McCain and the Republicans, more of an effort on the part of the Obama campaign, as well as the Democratic Party more broadly, to define the opposition and to create a compelling narrative to dominate the remainder of the race. Clinton and Biden did extremely well last night, as (I suppose) did Hillary the night before, as did Michelle and Kennedy the night before. But let's not overlook John Kerry. He may not have run the most impressive campaign four years ago, but he remains a good, decent, and, as he proved again last night, incredibly impressive man. And I was reminded, once more, of why I admire and respect him so much.

"Barack Obama is the man for this job."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm with Creature. It's been a powerful and effective Convention so far, and I feel inspired again. Hillary calling on the delegates to nominate Obama by acclamation yesterday was a high point, but the speeches have mostly been excellent, too.

I don't have much to add tonight at this late hour.

Suffice it to say that the momentum is building, from Michelle on Monday to Hillary on Tuesday to Bill and Joe last night, culminating with Obama's appearance (and brief remarks) on stage with Biden. There appears to be genuine excitement among Democrats, now united, the Obama-Clinton rift overcome. I thought Bill's speech was outstanding. He made the case for Obama, declaring that he is in fact ready to be president, and no one else could have done it better. Kerry was solid, too, if less rousing, and Biden, who started slowly and, I thought, tentatively, did what he had to do, presenting his personal story with emotional intimacy, going after his "friend" McCain with effective resolve, and making the case for Obama with impassioned confidence.

And tomorrow -- or, rather, later today -- it's time for Obama at Mile High.

It is all so much political theater, but what political theater it has been.

**********

Here, below, is Bill Clinton's speech from last night, via C-SPAN's excellent Convention Hub:

Strategic commands

By Carl

Thank God for The New York Times' The Caucus blog, which sums up about three articles I was going to cite today:

Though his fund-raising lagged somewhat in May according to the most recent financial disclosures, Senator Barack Obama is planning an extensive advertising effort for the general election, including television spots in states that are known to be Republican strongholds.

The Times's Jim Rutenberg and Christopher Drew report today on the Obama team's "multifaceted television campaign":

Future commercials could run on big national showcases like the Olympics in August and smaller cable networks like MTV and Black Entertainment Television that appeal to specific demographic and interest groups.

He is also dispatching paid staff members to all states, an unusual move by the standards of modern presidential campaigns where the fight is often contained to contested territories.

The Associated Press reports on how Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's donors could fatten Mr. Obama's campaign war chest while he helps pay off some of her campaign's sizable debt.

I stated during the week my support of Obama's repudiation of his former position regarding campaign finance reform, which was clearly a pandering gesture while he was running in seventh place and desperate for attention. Among the reasons I mentioned was John Kerry's "Swiftboating" in the 2004 election by an "independent" 527 group.

Kerry was in between the primary season and the general election, which could not officially kick off until George W. Bush was officially renominated. The 527 ads were run in this period when, because the campaign had not officially kicked off, Kerry could not use the public funding he had agreed to abide by, and had run out of primary funds.

He was forced to rely on ad hoc fund raising efforts by groups like MoveOn.org to combat the ads. Well, guess what? Progressives, it seems, are notoriously bad about funding things like this.

Obama appears to be positioning himself to battle in all 50 states against McCain, forcing McCain to spend money and effort in traditionally Republican states like Kansas and Virginia. Menwhile, there's a very good possibility that McCain could upset Obama's bid for big-ticket states like California, Florida, Ohio, Texas and even New York and Pennsylvania. The ability of one or the other strategy to work will determine the outcome of the November election, despite early indications that Obama is winning walking away now (51%-39%, according to recent polls).

The key demographic is the group that Hillary Clinton re-energized during the primary season, the working class vote, the so-called Hillary Democrats (nee Reagan). If McCain can hold his base and attract anywhere north of 1/3 of Hillary Democrats and Obama runs into trouble with his base because of whatever moves to the middle he is forced to make to shore up his support with HillDems, McCain could steal the election (allusion intended).

On the flip side, McCain will have troubling shoring up his base if he, too, has to repudiate the policies of the past seven years too fervently, which is why he's changed positions on drilling in ANWR among other things. Lose the conservatives and McCain can phone in the votes he'll receive after that.

Even if Obama loses the race this time, he would likely shore up Democratic votes in states that are usually dominated by Republicans, and perhaps swipe a few more Congressional seats. In 2012, he would be positioned to run again against a President McCain.

Assuming he got past the fact that Hillary Clinton would probably have much more support should Obama fail.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Obama is no Kerry; or, how to respond to being swift-boated

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I liked Kerry a great deal, and supported him enthusiastically in '04, but Obama, in preparing for the fight ahead, is going to be a whole lot tougher in response to the Republican Smear Machine (RSM):

The Obama campaign is planning to expand its research and rapid-response team in order to repel attacks it anticipates over his ties to 1960s radical Bill Ayers, indicted developer Antoin Rezko and other figures from his past. David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, tells NEWSWEEK that the Illinois senator won't let himself be "Swift Boated" like John Kerry in 2004. "He's not going to sit there and sing 'Kumbaya' as the missiles are raining in," Axelrod said. "I don't think people should mistake civility for a willingness to deal with the challenges to come." The move appears to be an acknowledgment that the Obama campaign may not have moved aggressively enough when questions about Ayers and Rezko first arose, and it comes amid fresh indications that conservative groups are preparing a wave of attack ads over the links.

I hope Axelrod is right. Maybe it helps that Obama has had to contend with the Clinton Smear Machine these past few months: anticipation of, and preparation for, what is to come to a far worse degree.

Of course, if last Wednesday's debate was any indication -- and it was -- Obama will also have to contend with major media outlets, and not just Fox News, that give McCain a free pass while gleefully acting as scandal-mongers and sensationalizers, as assassins of Democratic character, and as willful or ignorant mouthpieces for the RSM.

If the sandal fits...

By J. Kingston Pierce

In 2004, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry was tagged by right-wingers as a “flip-flopper,” based on the fact that as a U.S. senator he’d had to take so many contradictory votes over the years. This was supposed to show him up negatively in contrast against George W. “Stay-the-Course” Bush, who never seemed to learn anything from his mistakes.

Now it’s John “100 Years War” McCain’s chance to wear the flip-flopper label. The Carpetbagger Report’s Steven Benen, who’s been keeping track of McCain’s repeated flips and flops, has posted a list of the most egregious examples of his inconsistent statements and positions. Among the highlights:

• McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”

• McCain claims to have considered and not considered joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.

• McCain’s campaign unveiled a Social Security policy that the senator would implement if elected, which did not include a Bush-like privatization scheme. In March 2008, McCain denounced his own campaign’s policy.

• In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.

• On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.

• In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.

• McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”

• McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.

• McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

Sadly, for somebody who claims to be such a straight-talker, this list goes on and on. You can read all of Benen’s examples here. And considering McCain’s willingness to say whatever people want to hear, we can only expect additional examples of his flip-flopping to be added to this list as the campaign continues.

READ MORE: “McCain Opposes Earmarks--Except for the Ones He Likes,” by Steve Benen (The Carpetbagger Report).

(Cross-posted at Limbo.)