http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080910/pl_politico/13317
Well, let's be honest - if Obama picked Hillary, Palin wouldn't even be on McCain's ticket. But JMac saw an opening and he took a big risk, which at least for now appears to be paying off. Even if she lies about the Bridge to Nowhere and may know less about foreign policy than us, it doesn't really matter because she has done what she was asked to do: "energize" the GOP, which is what they needed more than a boring veteran DC wonk like Biden.
But this ongoing (and clearly it is still ongoing) Hillary-Obama feud may continue to divide and hurt the party more than it already has. Sure the Clintons have enthusiastically endorsed Obama (publicly at least), and Obama has swallowed his pride to seek out advice from Wise Bill as his lead in the polls evaporated. Millions of Hillary supporters have been convinced and rallied behind Obama, but millions of others haven't, even though those two candidates' stances on the issues are 90% similar. For any of them to even consider McCain-Palin demonstrates that there's clearly a major personal rift that I don't think the Obama camp has sufficiently addressed. It's not enough to just say "Can't we all get along?" and stress party unity for the sake of beating the GOP. Anyone can say those things, but if Obama is truly a uniter and a transcender, then he needs to do more, personally, to heal the party and convince/reach out to hesitant or angry Hillary supporters. Is it that hard to figure out why they still dislike him and rectify it?
It made a lot of sense to get Hillary on the ticket, but the Obamaniacs ignored better judgment. If the objective in selecting a VP is getting someone who will give you the most help to win the election, then Hillary is the best choice by far (assuming Gore is retired). If the objective is to pick someone who will work well with you, then she's not so attractive (she can compliment him though). If the objective is to pick someone wise who can help the president craft policy, Hillary has some knowledge but clearly there are others more astute. But that is what a cabinet is for! Biden could be Sec. of State or whatnot. Those two were already colleagues and friends, so Biden would obviously do a lot to help an Obama presidency - he doesn't have to be VP. Clearly many Americans think Hillary can be a good president, but Obama has spent the last year trying to de-legitimize her (and the media haven't been "fair" with her either). Of course she and Bill have screwed themselves too. Maybe Obama wasn't ready to reverse course so drastically now and seek the help of a former enemy, which also might be seen a sign of weakness to the GOP (but as if they have an answer to the Dem's dream ticket!). But it could also be construed as a great sign of leadership, "change", and reconciliation that might play out well with independents and the white people that Palin is attracting.
I thought it was also interesting that on Day 1 of the DNC, before the Clintons' speeches, prominent Hillary-supporter and SF Mayor Gavin Newsome said that he and other Hillary supporters got a general feeling of disrespect from the Obama campaign leading up to and at the convention. This seems like a petty divorce court feud for the soul of the Dem Party. Are we the Clinton's party or Obama's? Neither of course! We're the people's party, and we're all just Americans. We should stop this cult rivaly crap before we lose the White House, and clearly it is the Dems' game to lose.
From L: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-mckay/were-gonna-frickin-lose-t_b_124772.html
----------
Also from the Huffington Post that L sent me, advice for Obama:
3. Stop talking about Sarah Palin and rebutting her lies. NOBODY CARES WHAT THE FACTS ARE. They are influenced by her persona -- the impression they take away from her appearances. When you allow yourselves to become distracted and start serving as a Republican fact-checker, you come across as petty and self-congratulating. Same applies to McCain.
----------
Could Clinton have Palin-proofed Dems?
Glenn Thrush, Martin Kady II Wed Sep 10, 5:32 AM ET
Republican Rep. Candice S. Miller says Barack Obama had only one shot at Palin-proofing the Democratic ticket — and he missed it when he passed over Hillary Rodham Clinton as his running mate. "Every woman in America knows what Barack Obama did to Hillary Clinton: He looked at her and thought, 'There's no way I'm doing that,'" said Miller. "If Hillary was on the ticket, he'd be in a much better position to win women voters."
Sarah Palin's presence — coupled with Clinton's absence — may be altering one of the great verities of American politics: that women voters overwhelmingly favor Democrats. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released this week showed white women swinging hard against the Democratic ticket. Obama left Denver with an 8-point lead among white women; by the time John McCain pulled out of St. Paul, Minn., with Palin at his side, he had taken a 12-point lead.
Former Clinton strategist and pollster Mark Penn on Tuesday said that it's too soon to know where women will wind up in November, and he declined to engage in any "woulda, coulda, shoulda" speculation about how things might be different if Clinton were on the Democratic ticket. But another former Clinton adviser, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that the "Obama people have got to be kicking themselves" for not putting choosing Clinton as his No. 2.
Julia Piscitelli of the American University's Women and Politics Institute agreed. "I don't think Palin would be seeing these kind of gains if Hillary was on the ticket," she said. "When Obama picked Biden, it gave Republicans an opening, and they are taking full advantage of it. ... The question is: How long will it last?"
The answer, some Democrats say, is not long. "I don't think this is a real swing [in the polls] until it's been a week, said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), one of Obama's busiest female surrogates. "We'll need to see whether Sarah Palin is willing to answer questions. ... No one will be a stronger advocate for Barack Obama and Joe Biden than Hillary Clinton."
Sen. Blanche L. Lincoln (D-Ark.) also sounded the Palin-will-wilt-in-the-spotlight theme. "Sarah Palin delivered a great speech, but we haven't heard anything else about what she's going to do," Lincoln said. "American women are smart, they're bright and this election isn't just about Sarah Palin. This is about what they want to do for the country."
The Obama campaign has denied that it has a serious problem with female voters. On Monday, campaign manager David Plouffe told a Washington Post reporter, "Your poll is wrong," adding, "We certainly are not seeing any movement like that. Polls, time to time, particularly on the demographic stuff, can have some pretty wild swings."
That view won support from two unlikely sources Tuesday: Penn and a Republican senator who backs the McCain-Palin ticket. Penn said that women are going to be "the absolute swing vote in this campaign, and it's not clear which direction they are going to go in. "I don't think it's a Hillary backlash we're seeing," he added. "With Palin on the ticket, we're going to be seeing this thing swing back and forth."
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who has had a strained relationship with her state's governor, downplayed Palin's power. "I find it difficult to believe that many of the Hillary supporters are going to come over just because of Sarah Palin," Murkowski said. "It should be about strength of positions" and policy.
But Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who is locked in a tough race of her own, says several women — former Clinton supporters — have come up to her in Maine to say Palin gives them a reason to back McCain. "I have never seen such excitement in the Republican Party as we're seeing in response to Sarah Palin," Collins said. "I've had a lot of Democrats and independent women in Maine who say they're happy to see a woman on the ticket. Many of them saw an Obama-Clinton ticket as unbeatable. ... That is significant and remarkable."
Quinnipiac University Polling Institute Assistant Director Peter A. Brown said the Obama campaign is fooling itself if it discounts the importance of the problem. "This isn't about Hillary; it's about Obama's problem with white women voters," he said. "Hillary won about 10 million votes from women voters in the Democratic primaries — there are 52 million women voting in the general election."
Clinton has said she'll hit the road for Obama, but her team says she refuses to be an anti-Palin "attack dog." Further complicating matters for Obama, Hillaryland fundraiser Susie Tompkins Buell is leading a group that will fight media sexism against the Alaska governor.
-------
I have two complains with this email.
I think you are gravely OVER estimating how many Hillary supporters will actually vote for McCain. Especially now that Palin is on board. The latest poll I saw, which may have been before Palin was selected, had the VAST majority of Hilary supporters on board with Obama, 90/10 kind of vast. And with Palin on the ticket, with her extremely conservative pro-life views, it is hard to believe she will pick up many Hilary supporters.
I think that there are many problems with putting Hilary on the ticket as the VP. It may seem like appeasement to her voters but it also may seem like pity, or a superficial ploy. And were they to work together, it is hard to fathom Hilary taking a backseat by choice. And as we have seen with Cheney, a VP has more leeway than one might imagine for the easiest job in America. It is just too dangerous politically to let someone that powerful in Washington with that many backers be your running mate when she STILL wants your job. A lot of that is based on hypotheticals, but plausible in my opinion.
I think the best way to have done it was to have a pseudo offer to Hilary which she would gracefully decline. Maybe not a public rejection, but a press conference where Hilary or Obama mentions a private chat they had with the other concerning the VP spot and a graceful but firm no. Save face and show support. What Hilary folk seem to fear is that they are forgotten/not important to Obama, which I think that would have alleviated somewhat.
-------
Yeah I agree with that. I was not saying that Hillary's Dem supporters are flocking to the GOP - as you said, it's like 90-10 (though that "10" is still about two million passionate voters). But Hillary could have given Obama the full 100, plus swayed a lot of undecided, blue-collar types who may be disillusioned with the Republicans after the Bush years. Biden really means nothing to them (I refuse to believe that his humble upbringing in PA 50 years ago will win battleground states for the Dems). Now Palin is a gimmick who offers them an intriguing option.
Sometimes a VP is a blessing and a curse to a ticket, and there's no way around it (I don't know pre-WWII presidential history, but we have the LBJ, Agnew, Cheney, and Quayle examples at least). Hillary would get a lot of attention and maybe cause some rivalry/tension with Obama, but what is wrong with that? In European governments, the top leaders compete and feud with each other all the time, yet stuff still gets done. Maybe with Hillary and Obama to keep each other in check, we can actually make government cooperative/collaborative instead of being so caught up in who gets the credit and who is the visionary. They would be a dysfunctional ticket at times, but what else is new? It's not like Biden won't be a liability here and there.
-------
I think perhaps that I think more of Hilary’s ambition than you. I don’t think she would cause “minor” problems, I’m considering more of a purposefully undermining his presidency to give herself the next term, even that term if she is lucky. But that is not a reality at this point, so who can say. And I agree, Biden is a nothing VP choice, Obama is so magnetic and different that it is hard to be in his shadow on the national scene.
What I DO disagree with wholeheartedly is that Palin is an intriguing option. I was reading just today how she is claiming executive privilege on her emails (sound familiar) that were from A) her personal account (gov.sara@YAHOO.COM) and B) many of them were addressed to her husband. So…where is the executive privilege? Home account…to husband…I’m not seeing it. But it sounds like a whole lot more of the same. Just one of the many steps I have seen that takes Palin from a nobody who I can’t believe made the ticket to someone I am actively against having in office.
-------
I guess because she is an "executive" and backed by more lawyers that we are. Well, if she read her Yahoo! user agreement carefully, she really has no security, privacy, and "rights" to her public account.
I don't know if I'd rate Hillary's prospects as a statesman(woman) so poorly. I agree that she is a pure ambitious political animal, sometimes quite phony and self-serving. But for a VP to try to undermine her own president while in office is nearly unprecedented in Western politics and worse than The Sopranos (well, her campaign ad with Bill did make an allusion to that show!). Plus, what can a VP really do to help or hurt a president anyway? So if I read you right, you think that she would try to ruin Obama's first term, and then try to weasel her way to the head of the ticket when they're up for re-election? "Obama couldn't get it done, so for the good of America I must step in." I mean, it's possible, but no way the Dem Party or media would let her get away with that. Also remember that she didn't run for president in 2004 when she could have, and might have had a better chance than Kerry to beat Bush. She probably wanted to run, but was dissuaded by Party bosses or other factors. If she was 100% ambitious as you said, wouldn't she have taken her first chance then? I think part of her does love America more than herself and wants to do the right thing, but that part is buried deep inside her, like Darth Vader.
And for Palin - of course I'm not saying that she can be a great leader with what little I know of her. But you can't deny that she is captivating a lot of Americans and getting them more interested in politics, as Obama did for the left (though some of that is starting to wear off). Some Americans are intrigued by her, which is a boost to the GOP. Was McCain's big convention bounce (maybe 5-10 points) because of Rudy's speech? On The Daily Show they were interviewing GOP delegates as to why they liked Palin (to demonstrate that they don't really know why they like her), and one said, "Because she shows that anyone can be VP." Of course that was meant to mock her, but it is also amazing how quickly this previously anonymous politician has been embraced by the skeptical right as "one of us".
-------
Hillary's ideal scenario here is not to be VP. It's that Obama loses this election and in 4 years she's again the obvious Dem pick for President (and the Clintons regain control of the party). She can't be seen torpedoing Obama because that would get her shut out, so she presented a strong convention speech and all that. But her incentive is to hold back some of her support.
I don't know that the Palin pick is expected to go after the hardcore Hillary supporters, the people who go to caucuses and carry signs and all that - it would be hard to imagine politicians who have fewer policy points in common. Rather, it's aimed at the far larger group of independent female voters (and more casually-Democratic voters).
And the trap the GOP has set with Palin is actually more subtle and evil than just "Hey lady-voters, we've got someone on the ticket who has the same gender as you!" It makes it very easy for the GOP to cast people who oppose Palin as sexist. This is fairly cheap, but it's reasonably effective at galvanizing voters - the GOP can paint it that the Democrats are trying to keep women out of the White House, present it to women as an "us vs them", and so on. It's certainly hilarious to watch; I saw James Carville get caught out by this on some news-debate show a week ago, and then spend several minutes having to backpedal as the GOP congresswoman he was arguing with beat him about the head and shoulders with the sexism card. And I'd expect to see a lot more of this after the VP debates, charges that Biden bullies or talks down to Palin, etc.
-------
Thanks for your input J, we've missed you these last few months!
Yes I agree that VP is not necessarily in Hilly's best career interests, but if she cares about her party and cares about the country, it should be on her mind. She was interviewed about being Obama's VP, and said that she would take the offer if it was given (first link). Maybe it was just lip service, but she put it out there. The second link is another article further promoting the potential benefits of an Obama-Clinton ticket. But I guess big egos and especially big Dem egos have trouble playing team ball.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/03/ap-clinton-says-shes-open-to-being-obamas-vp-candidate/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-reardon/why-obama-and-clinton-wou_b_101603.html
Hillary's senate career is not promising (she's still Schumer's junior in NY and won't head a cmte. for years), so veep could have been better for her. Yes it does "work in her interests" if Obama loses (and then could chastise the Dems, "I told you so"), but as you said, it will come to haunt her if she is perceived as not having done everything in her power to get the Dems back to the White House this year. Already she didn't do much to promote Kerry/Edwards in 2004. I think many black Americans and hardcore Obamaniacs already feel that way and don't trust Clinton, which is a sad reflection on the party today. But still, there is sexism involved because people hold her to higher standards. Why does she have to be Obama's #1 champion, the man who stole her show and let down millions of American women who thought this was "their time"? Of course Clinton let them and herself down too. But where is the criticism about silenced Edwards not supporting Obama enough (he has his marriage to repair), or famous Clinton backers like Mayors Villeraigosa/Newsome, or even another female like Pelosi, who didn't take a side in the Obama-Clinton war? I guess Hillary wanted to be better than everyone else, and now she's got to deal with extra scrutiny.
Regarding what you said about the GOP Palin sexism trap, I totally agree and that was one of my first thoughts when McCain announced her as running mate a couple weeks ago. Biden already roughs up his male colleagues plenty, so I'm sure his handlers will shoot him up with valium before the debate with Palin. Of course the Dems and Obama camp are playing it safe, and only sending out fellow popular female governors Sebelius & Napolitano to badmouth Palin. Supposedly sexism-proof attack dogs? Clinton, however, said that she wouldn't go that far for Obama, and her people said that Obama has not asked her to do so, at least on the record. Though who the hell would admit to asking a popular feminist voice to badmouth a rival female politician? I think it's at least on their minds.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080905/pl_politico/13193_1
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/10/condon.palin/index.html?section=cnn_latest
As you said, I don't think anyone in the GOP are foolish enough to believe that Palin alone can sway the hardcore Hillary backers who are also hardcore feminists and liberals. She may have sway with the suburban moms and centrist undecideds, as you, M, and I said before. But even before the Palin VP pick was announced, millions of angry Hillary backers had already shunned the Obama alternative and started groups and blogs like "Hillary supporters for McCain" (some examples below). Of course this is just the Net, so not sure how representative such attitudes are of the Hillary Dems in general. As we previously discussed, 90% of them are behind Obama, but that number is a lot lower than it should be. Did disappointed Dean or Gephart supporters refuse to back Kerry in 2004? It's a sad personality feud, which is something that the Dems can't afford now or ever.
http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com/
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/26/clinton.backers/
Well another boost that Hillary could bring to the ticket is money and influence. I know Obama has plenty of both (the former in record amounts, and no, it's not all from patriotic "small donors" online). Hillary's finances were a mess after the primaries, but she could connect Obama to her elite fundraising networks, famous fans, and other power players. Of course Obama supposedly wants to shun such campaign influences, but we all know he holds plenty of private VIP fundraisers and no-media-allowed exclusive events too. Well, maybe all this worrying is unneccesary because Obama still has a good chance to win without Hillary on his ticket.
--------
T wrote in his first email that Palin was picked to "energize" the GOP. To be specific, she was picked for the very traditional reason that all of her views are in line with the people who don't like McCain. McCain calls himself a maverick partly on this reasoning, there are a lot of people in the GOP (mostly traditional far right and religious types) who hate his guts. Palin offsets that. And I believe that is a very traditional common way to pick a vp, find someone to offset your weaknesses. The problem is that these far right types don't simply dislike McCain but actually pray for him to die in office.
http://toddalcott.livejournal.com/221089.html#cutid1
Warning: This guy is a hardcore left wing type. But he quotes another website that's amusing. Also it's probably immoral for me to copy and paste a whole page but people on the internet in general (me=guilty) tend not to go to links. So whatever.
"A few days ago, I posted a snarky little piece on Sarah Palin. In it, I suggested that McCain, in giving Palin the VP slot on the GOP ticket, was rallying the far-right base by dangling the very real possibility of his imminent death in front of their hateful, blood-thirsty little eyes. To the left, I suggested, Palin is a veiled threat, but to the right she's a coded promise.
The piece was intended as a kind of dark imagining of the far-right mind, satire, perhaps, if you will. Well, if there's anything the past 8 years have taught me, the morning's satire goes stale by lunchtime as the far right catches up to it and makes it news instead of comedy.
Jay Rogers, a real-life evangelical, has a website, The Forerunner, where he talks up Jesus. Part of the site is his weblog, where he talks about more political stuff. He's supporting someone named Chuck Baldwin for president, which is his right and good for him.
The other day he published a piece on Sarah Palin. His only problem with Palin, it seems, is that she's running for vice-president instead of president. If she were running for president, he'd toss his fave Chuck Baldwin overboard like week-old manna. Why does he like Palin? I'll let him talk: "She's pro-life and would work to overturn Roe v. Wade. She would lower taxes and return America to a supply-side free market in the philosophy of Adam Smith. She's a strong Christian who isn't afraid to confront moral issues and corruption in politics." Which, again, good for him. And, he seems to want to fuck her brains out. Which, okay, to each his own, I can think of worse reasons to vote for someone.
But, you know, there's a problem. Palin, that fine, foxy, hypocritical, corrupt, book-banning, oil-money-loving Christian babe is still anchored to that godless heathen McCain. What is a hateful, intolerant fundamentalist Christian to do? Luckily, Rogers has a "three point plan:"
1. Vote Constitution Party. (I vote my conscience and cannot support McCain even with Palin.)
2. Hope and pray for McCain/Palin to win. (I am an idealist, but also a realist!)
3. Pray for John McCain's salvation and pray specific imprecatory prayers if he fails to pro-actively defend the sanctity of human life.
Huh. Funny thing about those "imprecatory prayers." There's something a little threatening about that phrase. I wonder if there's another meaning behind it? In fact, I wonder if there's an earlier version of this column, posted but redacted, that might better clarify Rogers' position? What? There is?
Ah, there it is: "Pray for John McCain's salvation and speedy death." How very Christian.
I hate it when I'm right.
This original was, of course, scrubbed from Rogers's site within hours, but speedy hands were able to recover it.
I knew that McCain was eager to rid himself of any shred of dignity he possessed in order to win this election, but even I would have thought he'd stop short of promising his own death to get votes. It seems there is no underestimating the man.
(If you would like more bile, there's always Ixion, who goes so far as to stage an inspirational image of the assassination of John McCain. These are, seriously, the people McCain wants to vote for him -- the ones who want him dead by the end of January 2009.)"
So Palin being a woman probably factored into it, (as if they couldn't find a man with those values) but her views are the primary factor in her getting a vp nomination. On the positive side, I never imagined hardcore republicans wanting to get a woman into office so badly.
I don't have much to add on the Hilary being a vp thing other than that public perception is that they are not big fans of each other. Whether that is true or not (I'm pretty sure it is) its enough that I think an Obama/Hilary ticket would have been more harmful than helpful. I also agree that her ambition for the office would be transparent and harmful to the democratic party and all that other stuff others have mentioned.
-------
It's good that you brought up these points, Glarg. Of course with all the BS in the media about "culture wars", "true conservative", and whatnot, I think hatred for McCain by the religion right is ludicrous, and I don't envy him for having to work with them to try to become president. Is it just because he doesn't invoke Jesus every day to help us win our "crusade" against terror? Just because he called out extremists like Robertson and Falwell for what they are? Just because he won't kiss their born-again asses and pander for their support like Bush and others might? Huckabee, despite being a former minister, didn't sink that low either. Many old school conservatives feel that the hijacking of the GOP by the Christian Coalition/religious right is a bigger danger to their values and the future of their party than the Dems.
Is McCain a "maverick" because he tries to reform corrupt campaign finance, actually speaks to people on the other side of the aisle, and doesn't want to deport 12M undocumented workers overnight? I thought that was called being "reasonable". McCain's views vacillate when convenient like most politicians, but consistently he has been for small government, free trade, low taxes, ethics, anti-abortion, and ant-gay marriage. What's not to like there for a church-going conservative? Just because he doesn't publicly endorse creationism means he's not one of them? Bottom line, McCain was going to pick a "typical" modern conservative as his running mate, Palin, Pawlenty, Romney (despite his universal health care baggage), or otherwise. As you said, the veep should compliment the president. And to have it both ways, they're selling Palin as a true conservative who also happens to be a reformer (in their imagination at least).
Chopes and I were discussing how maybe JMac's old trusted friend Lieberman was his first choice, but obviously it would have angered a lot of GOPers and split the party with little political gains for them. Some Reps can't fathom a non-Rep on their ticket, especially one that used to run with Gore and Clinton, but is now a Dem pariah. And let's be honest, Lieberman only chose to distance himself from the Dems when they rejected him for his pro-Bush positions on Iraq and the War on Terror. They created the liability by running a "true liberal" against Joe in the CT Dem primary. If the war in Iraq was going well (or never happened), Lieberman would still be a Dem and Hillary would be our nominee now. But such hypotheticals don't really serve a purpose, so sorry for my digression!
No comments:
Post a Comment