Independent Caucus

Sarah Palin - Redux

I'm guessing folks who have subscribed to this blog for email updates get updates any time a new post is made by me.  It's supposed to, and if it ever doesn't, please send me an email, and I will follow-up with the folks at Typepad.  But, I'm fairly certain subscribers don't get email updates for every comment posted by readers.  So, this post is to point you to Marty's comment on my initial, completely nonplussed reaction to McCain's pick of Sarah Palin for Vice President.  It is here:
http://independentcaucus.typepad.com/independent_caucus/2008/08/who.html#comments

I was listening to Brit Hume, Mara Liasson, Bill Kristol and Juan Williams, along with moderator Chris Wallace this morning, in fact, just a few minutes ago, on Fox News Sunday assess the pick.  I had already read an opinion piece from Kristol on the Weekly Standard site.  Brit went first.  And he said the pick was both smart and risky (well, everyone agrees there is an obvious risk component), and he said it was smart because it fires up McCain's base - gun owners, pro-lifers, and so on.  Just like the point Marty made about McCain never having had a shot wooing Hillary voters, Obama never had a shot with base Republican voters.  The country was nearly split 50/50 red/blue in the last two presidential elections, and the nominations of McCain (who has moved considerably right since losing the nomination to Bush) and Obama (always left) have not done anything to change that.  So the Republican base was not at risk of going Obama.  Perhaps staying home?  No, they know what that could mean - Obama for President.  So, no.  Brit you are wrong.  And I thought, "Why are these guys on TV?"

Then it was Mara Liasson's turn.  She said, "Well, I think Brit is right, that it helps with the base."  Sigh.  Marty, send these guys a letter or something.  I'll pass on Kristol.  His piece in the Weekly Standard made it for the moment the Weakly Standard.

Then Juan.  And it wasn't Sarah Palin redux, but Marty Lynch redux.  I mean redux, redux.  He said it wasn't about the Hillary voters, but those independent, rural and suburban women who are the small, slim, and critical group of swing voters in our 50/50 country.  Then, Chris Wallace still not getting it (now, it's one thing if you don't get it yourself, and even worse if you don't get it after someone has put it right out there for you, and I thought, "Why are these guys on TV?"), rephrases to Mara, "Mara, so does this give McCain a shot at the disaffected Hillary voters?"  (Wrong question)  She says, "No, I think the Democrats made good progress in mending those fences.  I think Sarah Palin was chosen to help them shore up their base."  Unbelievable.  I mean, it wouldn't have been unbelievable, because I didn't get it either, but Juan had just put it out there.

The key point is this, "history is history, and people want to be a part of it".  That, in one phrase from Mr. Lynch, explains why Hillary only got 10% of the black vote when but for Obama's candidacy she would have gotten 90%.  History is history, and people want to be a part of it, and that includes white, suburban women, oh, who just happen to be the swing voters in this presidential contest.  Folks will say, as I would have, "Oh, but it's so cynical.  Women will see right through that.  They won't vote for the ticket just because there is a white female on it."  But if they are politically in the center - not predisposed to either party or either candidate, even somewhat apolitical, and could just as easily vote for one or the other, the very definition of "swing" voter - then by saying women are too smart for that, are we saying that women are too smart, but African-Americans are not?  That was the point that got me in Marty's piece.  I don't know about you, but I don't believe that.  History is history, and people want to be a part of it.

And then folks might counter, "well, that's not an equivalent comparison, because Barack has more experience than Sarah Palin".  And they would be right.  They would be right.  But she is a state governor, and not without experience.  She's 44 and been in government, I admit, Alaskan government, but making law and leading since age 28, and now as Governor of Alaska.  And, further, if voters were primarily concerned with experience in this election, the Democratic ticket would be flipped, or Hillary would be the nominee.  This is a change election, folks.  Not an experience-trumps-all election.

Now, if Sarah Palin falls flat on her face, and looks like she could never step in and be President, then she won't add any votes - white female votes, or any other.  But if she shows poise and impresses, and makes white woman proud, apolitical women or women in the very center politically, then, oh, yeah, that small group, which could determine this election, may just.  I'm not saying she was not a long-shot.  She is a pass way down field, in the 4th quarter, but not a Hail Mary pass.

Foreign policy knowledge is always the weak point for state governors.  It was with Bill Clinton.  And so he ran on the phrase, "It's the economy, stupid" which was something he felt he knew well.  And he set himself to becoming a fast learner on matters of foreign affairs.  Sarah Palin better study nothing but her foreign affairs text book between now and election day.  On domestic and family issues, she can speak to both capably as a state governor, even a small-state governor.  And if her answers on Iraq, Pakistan, Russia, China, Sudan, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban sound like she knows the difference between all those things, and sound reasonable, then the election swings back to what it has always been - about change and about history.  And that's where Sarah Palin, if all those other things work out, will not be a liability but a plus.  But there are several very big "ifs" there.

McCain has gone all in, figuring two aging white men cannot win (the other final-two of the final-three apparently were Tom Ridge and Joe Lieberman), though it might be close, in an election about change and history.  And he went long down field.  The answer to Palin's first big if?..the debate with Joe Biden.  Strap yourself in, ladies and gentlemen.  That is a don't miss.

Who?

Hmm.  Guess John McCain is a Maverick.  One with incredibly mercurial and bad judgment.

I don't know what to say, what to write.  Really.  I am at a complete loss to explain this pick.

Completely unknown to the nation.  Does she know personally any of our foreign partners and leaders abroad?  I mean, obviously I don't know, but..does she?  She has not been vetted, tested, pushed, queried, tried, challenged, or asked to speak or give her views on anything outside of Alaska.

She would have to have PHENOMENAL judgment to be any kind of pick.  And I mean an ability to assess, conclude and act that is on par with Barack, Joe Biden or McCain.  And if she hasn't given - and I don't know that she hasn't, but if she hasn't - a lot of attention already to all of the hot-button domestic and international issues of this campaign, and I won't bother to list them, then even possessive of phenomenal judgment, she will need to be an EXTRAORDINARILY fast learner.  She's got two months!

My goodness.

Out the window goes...I mean out, way out, and smashed and obliterated several stories below on the street...ANY criticisms, including their much ballyhooed "celebrity" ads, claiming Barack is a face, a name, without the experience to be president.  That chiding is now moot!  Silenced!  Gone!  Done!

Sarah Palin, his choice for VP, is 44 and a little under two years governor of Alaska.

She's pretty.  I'm not being patronizing.  She is pretty.  But wow.  If McCain is elected, she would be one heart attack, stroke, lightning bolt, meteor, or chicken bone away from the Oval.  My goodness.  I have no idea what McCain was thinking...

...but, whatever it was, it was his first presidential decision, his first presidential appointment, and he completely blew it.

The Task For These Candidates

Well, for Obama, for the millions who don't live in and among a lot of heterogeneity, It was to not seem so different, and while a "change" guy, not to sound like a radical, or someone who is not ready.  Ready to be President.  He also had to show he is not a wimp (see previous post), and that he will stand up for himself against a baseless attack, and thereby give us some hope he can and will stand up for us.  And he had to spell out his change agenda, bring to it some additional detail, focus, and specificity.  Lastly, he had to knock John McCain down a peg or two, not by questioning his character or patriotism, but his reason, his priorities, his policies, and his judgment.  Overall, overall, I'd say for the Dems it was mission accomplished.

John McCain has to convince people that he is change as opposed to adjustment.  He has to convince people that, in order for him to have been right in many of his Senate votes, that George Bush was right too.  That's a tough sell, but, easier than saying he is now possessive of an enlightened change of view.  He may have to convince folks he's not too old, though he seems feisty enough, so that's not a big deal.  He has to describe in detail how his budget numbers balance.  THAT will be tough.  Because he wants to keep the tax cuts George Bush made to the rates previously in place under Clinton.  And he wants to continue going it alone in Iraq for some time.  And he wants to cut corporate taxes by an additional hundreds of billions (was it around $200 billion?).  And..and he's talking very tough on Iran, and, finally, on Afghanistan, too.  So, I don't see where the money is.  But, particularly if Barack is not lying, and that his economic plan is fully paid for, then McCain will have to show how his is too, or cede more of what it is to be a conservative to the Democrats.  And while everyone knows he wants to drill, he will have to convince folks that he also wants renewables, and in a big, hurried way.  And he will need to bring Barack down a few pegs, but it will be interesting to see if he does it by calling Barack a "celebrity", as he has done repeatedly so far, suggesting that not only is McCain more ready, but that Barack is not ready, period.  That approach risks sounding not like change, but like Rove, since Barack is now the defacto nominee, and he beat out a bunch of other candidates with more "experience" in order to get there.

We can all sit back now and see if the Republicans succeed.  McCain has to show that his judgment in making his first presidential decision, selection of a running mate, is good.  And here it will be fascinating to see whom he chooses, even more fascinating than Obama making his choice.

But this was the Dems' week.  With assists to President Clinton, Hillary, Joe Biden and Al Gore, mostly, Barack launched his general election campaign with a minimum of partisan rancor, but a lengthy shot across the bow in his acceptance speech, that the Swift Boat fleet shall not sail towards him.  I honestly believe, showing that he was capable of taking that shot was the most important and most necessary thing he did.  And now it's a tennis match.  So settle on in.  It's going to be interesting.

YES!

I won't go on at length.  I've written enough laudatory posts about Joe Biden.  And, in fact, this is really more about Barack Obama.

Some folks, predictably, Republican partisans, yet still, some independent-minded analysts, say the Biden pick was Obama admitting his weakness in the area of foreign policy.  Don't you hate those people who work on their weaknesses?  I much more admire those people who just leave them weak.

Come on.  Throw that spaghetti against the wall and it sticks like a super-ball.

Some critics of the pick point out that Biden did not agree with Obama on everything during the primaries and Democratic debates.  Hmm.  Guess those critics are saying that is a weakness, too, that it is a weakness to disagree, only exacerbated no doubt by discussing those differences via public debate.

Please.  Once again.  Such a stupid and utterly transparent criticism.

And it's amazing how little it takes in Washington to be labeled a "gaffe machine".  Honestly.  Joe Biden talks a lot.  That is very true.  And we hear much of it.  Why?  Folks don't hear me that much, nor most of you.  We hear Joe a lot, because people ask of him, demand of him, his view, his input, his recommendation, a lot, because he is smart and knowledgeable and fair, and, oh yeah, an extraordinarily nice man.

So Biden himself pays no attention to that charge.  That Obama doesn't either tells you something of the substance of the man, his priorities, what he values.  And he values all the things which make Biden a tremendous talent, and a tremendous human being.

Obama just made his first cabinet appointment.  Just nominated his first Supreme Court justice.  That's ever how the Vice Presidential pick is interpreted by voters.  It's the first indication of the kind of person a president wants to surround himself with.  A yes-person?  A toady?  A pretty face?  Someone who already agrees with him on everything?  Someone who is a particular race, or sex, or faith, or age, or resident of a particular in-play state?  Obama just showed you something of his soul, if you were paying attention.  He showed you he wants people who are good.

Clean Hands Lose a Mud Fight

For all of Bill Clinton's eloquence and intelligence, traits similarly ascribed to Obama, he could return mud-ball fire accurately and with the best of them.

Can Obama?

He hasn't shown he can yet.  And Americans have shown they like and want that quality in their president.  McCain has been a mud-ball gatling gun ever since airing the Paris Hilton / Britney Spears ad, and observing that his poll numbers improved shortly thereafter.  Americans understand that presidents, whether with foreign leaders or Congress, are engaged regularly in oratorical battle, and their skill in winning those battles determines important outcomes for our country.

Americans also want their president to speak to our better natures, ideals, and purpose, and from that frame a vision for the future and a plan for getting there.  Obama has shown he can regularly deliver on the first half of that.  He is still weak in the "plan for getting there" part.

But it's the ability to return mud fire in kind that I'm interested in with this post.  Obama has shown a decided unwillingness to sharply, directly and quickly fight back in what we can now see will be McCain's strategy toward Obama unless and until McCain's poll numbers begin to slip.  It's a hypocritical, low-road strategy McCain promised us all he would not engage in, unless, of course, it works.

It began with the Hilton/Spears ad, which basically told all the millions of voters who voted for Obama over the course of 50 state primaries and caucuses that they are wrong, and that John McCain is right.  It was an ad that said, in effect, that while all those millions who voted for Obama were voting for him to be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States - and asserting with their vote that he was not just able and qualified for that position, but the best qualified in their view - that all those millions are dead wrong, and not only is he not the best qualified, he isn't qualified at all.  He is a celebrity.  Nothing more.  He is no more qualified to run for president than Paris Hilton or Britney Spears.  That's what the ad said.

The initial media reaction was overwhelmingly critical.  Obama's reaction was remarkably cool and remote.  Cool and remote in the same way as Kerry's reaction to the Swift Boat ad, or Michael Dukakis' reaction to the Willy Horton ad.  That reaction, or lack of one, shocked the voters, and got their attention much more than the ads themselves.  It gave them a vision of a president they did not want.  Someone who could not defend himself against a baseless attack.  Basically, someone who could not defend himself.  Further, someone who could not quickly and readily grab a handful of mud himself, return fire, and solidly hit his mark.

Bill Clinton had that skill.  Hillary has it.  I don't think it's practiced as much as instinctual with them.  But for the occasional flash, I didn't see anything in the primaries to give me confidence that Obama has it.  And he's not showing it against McCain so far.  And his poll numbers are slipping.

It's not that his vision is any less attractive than a few weeks ago.  Obama is looking like the wimp.  Americans instinctively know an American president can be many things, even an adulterer, but he can't be a wimp.  The leader of the lone superpower, the leader of the free world cannot be a wimp.

Obama should have, as Kerry should have, and Dukakis should have, come out swinging.  He should have shown some good ol' vituperative indignation at McCain's claim that he wasn't even qualified to run for president, much less become president.  While he might have asserted that before the nation's primaries had been held, he cannot make that case - well, he can, but he's basically telling millions of people across the country that they are wrong, and that he, John McCain is right - that Obama is not qualified to be running for president, that he is no more qualified than a couple Hollywood celebrities.

Obama's instinct has been so far to keep his hands clean, to criticize McCain's tactics and ads, but to do it with an impassioned, above-the-fray kind of style.  Americans saw that ad for what it was - a callous and deep political swipe at Obama as a man.  What they saw in response was a reaction from Obama which reminded them of Dukakis' calculated description of how he would feel and react if his wife had been raped and murdered.

Not how Kennedy would have responded.  Or Reagan.  Truman, Nixon, Johnson.  Or Clinton.  All of them would have responded and emerged victorious - and with some dirt on them.

McCain is going to give Obama a steady diet of this now, of this kind of campaign tactic, until either Obama finds a way to fight back, or his (McCain's) poll numbers begin to slide.  Believe it or not, McCain, in doing so, is better fitting the appearance of a president in the American subconsciousness than Obama.  Americans instinctively know that an American president must be able to throw a punch, take one, and then throw a counter-punch.  They see it as a necessary condition (though not sufficient, unless the other guy lacks it entirely).  If you can't do that, you can't be president.

Obama's numbers are down because he did not immediately, aggressively, and effectively counter-punch after McCain insulted him directly and as a man with the charge that he is no more ready to be president than Paris Hilton or Britney Spears, and also, somehow, that his moral judgment is appropriately grouped with those two.  He didn't defend himself, and now Americans are wondering if he can, and whether they should.

Weaselly

Ok, not a word.  And, I also know, very non-IndependentCaucus.  Unflattering animal reference.  Arguably, name-calling.  Ann Coulter caused a big stink by calling him a 'faggot'.  I thought that was wrong and unhelpful.  I still think so.  But I was at a loss to find a word, finally settling upon 'weaselly', which captured my reaction to John Edward's explanation of his affair to Bob Woodruff of ABC News.

It was his explanation which so repulsed me.  He could have said, "We've had trouble in our marriage but we are working on it."  He could have said, "It was just bad judgment.  There was the temptation, and I gave in."

What did he say?  What reason did he give?  He launched into a litany of his resume.  Of his rise from poor kid, to lawyer, to rich lawyer, to Senator, to Vice Presidential nominee, to candidate for President.  He said that all along the way, people continually told him how talented he was, how good, how necessary, how important, "All of which fed a self-focus, an egotism, a narcissism that leads you to believe that you can do whatever you want. You're invincible. And there will be no consequences."  Followed by, "Yeah, I didn't think anyone would ever know about it."

John is a victim...of his own hard-won success.  If people just hadn't applauded and complimented him so much he would have left the woman alone.  It's our fault.

Oh, and he threw in that his wife's cancer was in remission at the time.  Ughhhh.

It is our fault, for not seeing through this guy earlier.  While I don't approve of the language Ann Coulter used, I kind of get where she was coming from, the visceral place.  She makes a living by giving voice to her viscera.  I think she was trying to say that she doesn't believe John Edwards.  That he seems weak, "a wuss," as she tried to clarify in a subsequent interview on the topic.  He always seemed that way to me.  Bill Clinton's worst side without his best side.  I always felt Edwards was almost clinically full of himself.  That he grabbed considerably more mirror time in the morning than his wife, and more throughout the course of the day.  That he lacked an internal character and courage.

Now he cites the praise of the public as the headwaters of his downstream affair.

Please.

This guy needs to go away.

Oh, and by the way, he still thinks he might have a role in an Obama administration, so grand is this guy's ego.  He needs to go far away.  I hope we have seen the last of John Edwards.