ArchPundit

Call It A Comeback

December 2006

Obama

Jeff Greenfield, Brought to you By Brooks Brothers

ArchPundit 4 Comments

I mean, how else do you explain this garbage other than Jeff Greenfield is pitching for an end to business casual:

The senator was in New Hampshire over the weekend, sporting what’s getting to be the classic Obama look. Call it business casual, a jacket, a collared shirt, but no tie.

It is a look the senator seems to favor. And why not? It is dressy enough to suggest seriousness of purpose, but without the stuffiness of a tie, much less a suit. There is a comfort level here that reflects one of Obama’s strongest political assets, a sense that he is comfortable in his own skin, that he knows who he is.

If you want a striking contrast, check out Senator John Kerry as he campaigned back in 2004. He often appeared without a tie, but clad in a blazer, the kind of casual look you see at country clubs and lawn parties in the Hamptons and other toned (ph) locations.

When President Bush wanted in casual mode, he skipped the jacket entirely. Third-generation Skull and Bones at Yale? Don’t be silly. Nobody here but us Texas ranchers.

You can think of Bush’s apparel as a kind of homage to Ronald Reagan. He may have spent much of his life in Hollywood, but the brush-cutting ranch hand was the image his followers loved, just as the Kennedy sea ferry look provided a striking contrast with, say, Richard Nixon, who apparently couldn’t even set out on a beach walk without that “I wish I had spent more time at the office” look.

But, in the case of Obama, he may be walking around with a sartorial time bomb. Ask yourself, is there any other major public figure who dresses the way he does? Why, yes. It is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, unlike most of his predecessors, seems to have skipped through enough copies of “GQ” to find the jacket-and-no-tie look agreeable.

And maybe that’s not the comparison a possible presidential contender really wants to evoke.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GREENFIELD: Now, it is one thing to have a last name that sounds like Osama and a middle name, Hussein, that is probably less than helpful. But an outfit that reminds people of a charter member of the axis of evil, why, this could leave his presidential hopes hanging by a thread. Or is that threads? — Wolf.

If you dress business casual, the terrorists have won.

Truly silly people.

H/T TPM

Uncategorized

Oh yeah, Pinochet’s Dead

ArchPundit 0 Comment

A Tale of Two Editorials:

Trib:

Pinochet seized power in 1973 in a coup that ousted leftist President Salvador Allende. Pinochet’s defenders insist he was a patriot who did only what was necessary to protect Chile from the Communist tide that was sweeping Latin America. Under the guidance of University of Chicago economists, he installed free-market reforms that helped Chile become a model for the region. But he also jailed, tortured or executed thousands of political opponents, according to a civilian commission appointed by his democratically elected successor.

WaPo

AUGUSTO PINOCHET, who died Sunday at the age of 91, has been vilified for three decades in and outside of Chile, the South American country he ruled for 17 years. For some he was the epitome of an evil dictator. That was partly because he helped to overthrow, with U.S. support, an elected president considered saintly by the international left: socialist Salvador Allende, whose responsibility for creating the conditions for the 1973 coup is usually overlooked. Mr. Pinochet was brutal: More than 3,000 people were killed by his government and tens of thousands tortured, mostly in his first three years. Thousands of others spent years in exile.

Allende was no saint, but this is foolishness of the type that leads people to say rape victims were asking for it. Saying Allende was a poor President, doesn’t change the fact that he was the duly elected President of Chile. If he was that bad, there is a removal process in all countries to remove a President from power. If Pinochet and his allies wanted to do that, they could have done so through Constitutional means that respect, you know, that democracy thing. They didn’t. Instead they killed people and then they killed thousands more in an attempt to make Chile like the United States. Chile was stable for Latin America before that. It is still recovering from the effects of the military rule.

On top of it, great advocates of freedom, like Milton Friedman, helped him do it.

Uncategorized

Apologizing and Clarifying

ArchPundit 7 Comments

A response to this post is from Elizabeth Edwards and her comments can be found here–for a lot of reasons I believe this is actually Elizabeth Edwards and as soon as I finish this post I’ll follow it up with an e-mail.

Usually I would let a post like this slide, figuring life is short and no one bats 1000%. But I also know how lore is built, particularly on the internet. The post itself is a great example of that actually, moving from a post elsewhere about the 2004 differences between David Axelrod and me (David Axelrod knows that I like him personally then and now) to a conclusion in this post that I was, well, a pretty awful sort of person altogether, with an odd reference to Mudcat Saunders. Mudcat and I are a dear friends; I have always respected him and I think the feeling is reciprocated. It has been that way from the beginning and I have remained one of his strongest cheerleaders. The post is simply wrong. Wrong on the facts but most wrong in the huge leaps it takes.

But listen, wives have a tough time in this. Do I want the best for John? You bet, but not one smidgen more than Christie Vilsack or Cindy McCain do for their husbands. And these women will — when and if the time comes — spend a lot of themselves in the campaign that bears their husband’s — and their — name. They will know although it is not their campaign, it is their life that will be affected. It was unfair in 1992 to suggest that Hillary not speak up in Bill Clinton’s campaign; it is unfair to suggest that if one of us expresses our opinions, pro or con, on anything that we are being petty and certainly unfair to suggest that we are being vindictive.

You can have at me. You don’t have to like all you see. None of us ever expects to bat 1000%. But — and this is not just for me but for all the spouses — be fair.

First, an apology–the post wasn’t clear in what I was saying and several other people I talked to noted that to me. I’m sorry for giving the impression that she has a bad relationship with the two people listed, though I think it’s safe to say the professional relationships were strained at times. It was sloppy writing and I’m sorry for hurting Elizabeth Edwards’ feelings. She is an incredible woman and doesn’t deserve that.

Second, the point I was trying to make was that she has people who absolutely love her and people who absolutely hate her. I think that’s very accurate and even her strongest advocates will say that. I don’t see that as a bad thing because one thing that such loyalty brings are people who will work their asses off for you and I intended for the point to be made with the rhetorical question of what is the problem then? What is clear in my mind isn’t always so clear in my writing. There are a couple testimonials to her in comments that fit with other descriptions I’ve heard previously and they are quite touching.

And the post isn’t about spouses only, though they often are the most frequent category of person fitting into this sort of problem. I think any candidate who had a remarkably talented wife would be stupid to not include her or him in the campaign–as some pointed out this sort of complaint that the wife is involved is often a sexist point.

The point was supposed to be far more narrow and clearly from the reaction, I didn’t make it very well which is my fault and I can’t blame Elizabeth Edwards or some commenters for calling me on it because I reread the post as a neutral observer I’d probably have come to the same conclusion.

So the point was supposed to be in regards to her handling of consultants and staff was problematic because she tends to micromanage and many would say she cuts people out of the loop. That’s a management problem. It’s also what probably endears her to those who love her and so it’s a double edged sword. But here is the key to what I meant:

The problem then? Campaigns cannot be run when the entire staff has to answer to someone outside the traditional hierarchy. It creates fear and people tend to avoid taking risks.

To me the problem isn’t the spouse is involved, it’s that in this case, as I understand it, there are problems with the way the campaign is managed with people answering to more than one voice at the same time. Elizabeth Edwards is free to disagree on that point as well–in fact, she’s welcome to a front page posting if she so desires.

It is great that she reads blogs and that she sticks up for herself. It shows one of many reasons she is considered very smart politically (as I did say–many think she’s the brighter of the two which is pretty high praise given John is pretty smart himself).

Obama

The Chink in the Armor

ArchPundit 5 Comments

Rich writes a very good column about Obama and his prospects and addresses the Lincoln comparisons in a fairly rational manner.

He also brings up the chief problem for many right now–the Rezko house deal.

I think Obama has handled the fall out from a dumb decision to get involved with Rezko at all relatively well. He’s answered the questions in long form and tried to be relatively transparent, but the next step is needed and that step is for the press to do interviews with the people who sold the house and for the Obama camp to release to the press all of the paperwork they have on the deal.

The only part of the deal that seems to be at issue is that the house sold for less than asking price while the lot sold for asking price. Obama indicates the land and house were listed separately–find the listings and provide those. Confirm with the buyers that they insisted on closing on the same day. Then go and find whomever bid on the lot at $625,000 and do two things–confirm the bid and make sure it was a real potential buyer. Finally, find out who else bid on the house—there was apparently another bid and confirm that it was lower than what Obama bid. If these things are confirmed, the story stands relatively well and assuming there aren’t any other types of transactions that show up, the story dies.

There’s no real doubt to me that Rezko was trying to influence Obama and for that is where Obama made his mistake in buying the strip of land–even though he paid twice as much as the assessed valuation. And Obama admits that. However, the real test is to see if the story holds up regarding other bids on the two properties and if it does then Obama comes out looking like a guy making a mistake, but not a crook.

Krol brings up that Clinton will go negative on it and he’s probably right. Except one thing that such an ad let’s Team Obama do–retaliate and I’ll take one house purchase deal over Whitewater and cattle futures. While both turned out to be less than what the investigations tried to make of them, they certainly provide fodder for far harsher commercials on Hillary’s ethics than anything she can dish up on Obama. It would be a dumb strategic move to pull out the ethics card and give the Democratic field an excuse to go after her. That doesn’t mean her consultants won’t do it, but it’ll be dumb when they do.

Obama

Now Getting to the Analysis of the Politics of the Presidential Nomination

ArchPundit 32 Comments

While I was against Obama running initially, I’ve converted and I’m guessing he’s in and I’m on board (no not the campaign, as a supporter–I do accept free drinks).

Four posts by others point out why they think Obama is in a very good position.

Kos: 2008: If Obama runs, he wins.

Jerome Armstrong: On the ’08 Presidential field

Dan Conley: A Life All It’s Own

Pastor Dan: Obamarama

Let’s start off with what should be a fairly non-controversial statement unless you live within 10 miles of Washington D.C.

Hillary Clinton is not going to be the nominee. It’s great for Republican fundraising and it’s great for overpaid over the hill consultants, but that’s about it. She has no personality, no presence, and people don’t like her. They’ll say they’ll vote for her as long as she is the Democrat they know the name of the easiest, but once the other candidates raise their profile, she’s toast. For some reason no one has noticed that absolutely no grass roots Democrats are behind her and while the grassroots can be oversold, you have to have some support and buzz.

We can also stipulate that Evan Bayh and Joe Biden are wasting our time. I don’t care enough about them to worry if they are wasting their own time, but they are definitely wasting our time. Neither has a compelling argument to be President other than being ‘experienced’. Never mind much of that experience is being wrong about everything, but what the hell.

Biden is my favorite to watch though. There’s the great story of Joe Biden meeting with Iowa activists and spending all of his time grooming himself. Not just his hair on his head, but while pretending to talk to an A level activist, he groomed his chest hair out the top of his shirt.

The level of pomposity to do that is truly evidence that God has a sense of humor.

John Kerry was a horrible candidate once and he will be again, but without the shield of Dean to surprise everyone. Not to mention that foot is really hard to remove from his mouth.

Chris Dodd, who I happen to like a lot, is dead in the water. There is no space for him to occupy and I doubt he’ll even make it to Iowa. Richardson simply isn’t compelling–his ability to hit national security is limited by Clark.

That gets us down to Tom Vilsack, John Edwards, Wesley Clark, and Barack Obama. I like Vilsack a lot, but I just don’t see how you get traction. I tend to believe being from Iowa is a huge problem because it means people cede Iowa to you and then you don’t get the chance to field a strong grassroots organization to overcome other disadvantages. This is especially a problem for Vilsack who ran an incredible campaign in 1998 to become Govenor of Iowa. The very place he could do the best is the place he takes off the table.

Clark I like a lot and he’ll have to field a strong operation that he didn’t last time. He still needs to demonstrate he can do that–as Markos said, he’ll need to start a buzz early and build upon it.

Edwards is a favorite, but he has three significant problems. Many of the people who seem to most strongly support him seem to criticize Obama for a lack of experience. There’s an irony there. That said, he’s an excellent candidate and I voted for him last cycle. Second, he voted for the war and was an early vocal proponent even though he has renounced that since.

The final problem is one not talked about very often. Elizabeth Edwards is a person you love and pledge your undying loyalty to, or she’s a pain in the ass who is petty, vindictive, and overly demanding. She’s driven away many a consultant from one who was quoted explaining why Senators weren’t supporting Edwards–there was no criticism–just a description of what Senators thought, to Steve Jarding and Mudcat Saunders to David Axelrod (see Conley’s post here).

I know people who would take a bullet for the women as well and when they went to law school, one classmate always said they knew one of them would run to be President, but everyone thought it would be Elizabeth. The problem then? Campaigns cannot be run when the entire staff has to answer to someone outside the traditional hierarchy. It creates fear and people tend to avoid taking risks.

A final option is if Al Gore gets in the race. I’m torn on this because I remember him being a giant ass in his primary against Bill Bradley and frankly his condescending tone drives me batty. Probably because he has been mythologized by the 2000 election debacle and not many blogs were around to document the obnoxiousness of that primary, he’s seen positively. He’d be a strong contender in that race though I think many of his annoying traits might surface again.

Of the above, there’s only two who I can’t stand and wouldn’t feel enthused about in a general election and that’s Bayh and Biden. Even Clinton I could deal with, but I don’t believe that’s a real concern.

Finally, Barack Obama. I’ll stipulate his legislative record at the federal level is thin and that he doesn’t have executive experience. Then again, only Richardson, Bayh, Vilsack, and Clark have run large organizations. Only Dodd and Biden have long legislative records. Kerry has a decent record on investigations such as BCCI, but his legislative record is weak. Clinton’s experience legislatively is weak and her experience in the administration was damn near disastrous.

Compare him to what Democratic voters in the primary want and he comes away doing very well. He was against the war and wants us out starting soon. He thinks the war is a failure and its time to move on. He is strong on health care, his foreign policy experience is slim, but substantial for someone with his experience, he actually has real ideas for energy policy, and he led on reform. He was a strong voice for immigration reform that values a path to citizenship for those who work in the US.

Other than giant screams of triangulation which does not actually rest on what he said when taken in context, he fits with what most Democratic primary voters want and he is inspiring. For some inspiring language doesn’t count for much, but the primary power of the President is to persuade and that is not something to dismiss. To some activists it’ll seem as though he’s not fighting the way they want him to do, but his abilities to communicate go beyond simply fighting the same fight better, he wants to fight an entirely different fight on his terms, not the press’ or the Republicans’.

Edwards looks to be putting together a strong labor team, but Obama is likely to do well with SEIU which has been one of his strongest supporters in Illinois–in fact, if you want to point to a reason he did well in the primary, it wasn’t Blair Hull’s implosion, it was the SEIU’s support and a strong volunteer corps along with great media and a good plan. When you talk to people in Illinois, unless they were Hull partisans, virtually no one believes Hull’s numbers were going to improve significantly or take the remainder of votes out there. Then again, maybe some people think SEIU is all about private jets.

Stoller has suggested he’s weak with the netroots, but that would be true of just about anyone at this time in a race other than those who have run before. I have some concerns about the online strategy the campaign might try, but in 2004 he hired much of the Dean team after the primary, but the entry of Keyes made that unnecessary.

But I think Stoller misses a larger point—candidates can improve their relationship with the netroots, but many of the strongest operations come from individuals on the net doing it on their own with campaigns coming in to open up communication and responsiveness.

Finally, as much as I believe in on-line activism–John Kerry had very little presence in 2004. 2008 will increase the importance of online activism, but it isn’t everything.

Let me add one other thing—Stoller says there is no Dean in the race. That’s true. Obama is to the left of Dean in general. What’s most strange about the complaints about Obama is here is the guy who was against the war from the beginning, trumpeted the EITC and civil rights and death penalty reform in Illinois. Dean’s record was relevant in Vermont when it came to civil unions. Why isn’t sponsoring SB 101 relevant in Illinois? Or how about passing a serious racial profiling law? Extending CHIP? I know early education and care aren’t big issues to the young male dominated blogosphere, but how about many bills to improve the quality and affordability of care for infants and toddlers?

Oh, and he introduced a bill for public financing of judicial elections in Illinois and a Constitutional Amendment for universal care in Illinois. I mean, if filing a bill counts by Sirota’s position, that’s a hell of a record. In fact, what he did pass was impressive.

Obama

Even More

ArchPundit 5 Comments

Sirota attacks Obama again with a great line:

I sincerely hope that Obama becomes a conviction politician, whether he stays in the Senate or runs for President. I mean that, because our side needs conviction politicians with his skills, and because I don’t want to see our movement be tricked by someone who is not part of the movement. If he becomes a conviction politician, then there is no quandary for progressives, and he would make a great president – one that I would loudly cheer on.

It’s true, Obama hasn’t taken on Sirota’s primary issues, but I’d hardly call the issues he has taken on trivial.

Darfur, Non-proliferation, AIDS in Africa, CAFE Standards tied to health care cost relief, Ethics, and transparency in government.

The best line from Sirota:

However, the admission that Barack Obama has to hustle now to create accomplishments as a WAY to run for President rather than him running for President as a way to nationalize accomplishments he’s already achieved or merely TRIED to achieve is really a sad commentary on the substance-free nature of American politics today.

I remember a time when nuclear weapons were actually a significant issue for the left. When did that stop being the case? Seriously, what the fuck is going on when someone takes on both human rights and security in terms of nuclear weapons and he’s called a lightweight?

Somehow Sirota has confused not introducing a bill pushing for public financing of campaigns as a sign that Obama isn’t really trying when any such bill would have been killed before it even got a hearing.

Is David Sirota’s idea of accomplishing things introducing bills that don’t go anywhere? If so, that should tell us a lot about his expectations.

But one of the more telling things about the criticisms of Obama aren’t that they are a fair criticism involving the lack of executive experience (also true of all the other Senators running other than Bayh), but that the criticisms ignore that many of the others have remarkably thin legislative records. John Kerry’s primary accomplishment as a Senator was the BCCI investigation, but his legislative record is weak. John Edwards has a weak legislative record and for decent reasons–he was only a one term Senator.

Dodd has a good record and I would have to go back to pull it up, but Dodd isn’t going anywhere. Biden has a record. We’ll leave it at that as does Bayh. Clinton? Her biggest failure legislatively was universal health care–see Brad DeLong for some great takes on that fiasco.

I think primaries are good so I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but I’d love for the criticisms of Obama to deal with the whole guy and not some cherry picked quotes from poor news coverage. Usually there is a healthy level of skepticism on blogs about news stories.

Beyond that, while calling his experience to be thin is a legitimate point, attacking him for having few legislative accomplishments when the top candidates opposing him have thin records is a bit odd to say the least.

Uncategorized

Because, you know, he’s answering the question

ArchPundit 2 Comments

Chris Bowers jumps on the claims that Obama is triangulating by taking everything he says and turning it into some sort of major speech instead of a decent answer in a town hall–but again, the quote is clipped.

We’re now in a packed room at Eastern Illinois University. A woman stands up and tosses Obama what I assume she thinks is a bit of red meat. What, she asks, does the senator think of the pervasiveness of religion in public discourse these days? Obama doesn’t take the bait.

“No one would say that Dr. King should leave his moral vision at the door before getting involved in public-policy debate,” he answers. “He says, `All God’s children.’ `Black man and white man, Jew and Gentile, Protestant and Catholic.’ He was speaking religiously. So we have to remember that not every mention of God is automatically threatening a theocracy.

Chris criticizes Obama’s response because no one suggested it was threatening theocracy, but there is a simple point here–Bill Clinton’s language was no less religious than George Bush’s. In fact, one of Clinton’s speechwriter’s pointed this out while doing a book on Presidential religious rhetoric. So the premise of the question rests upon the notion that religious discourse has become far greater—which isn’t true from anything I know. I take issue with how Bush uses religion, but the amount of discourse hasn’t changed much if at all.

Chris also leaves off the paragraphs in the story that follow:

“On the other hand,” he continues, “religious folks need to understand that separation of church and state isn’t there just to protect the state from religion, but religion from the state.” He points out that, historically speaking, the most ardent American supporters of the separation between church and state were Evangelicals—and Jefferson and Franklin. “Who were Deists, by the way,” he adds, “but challenged all kinds of aspects of Christianity. They didn’t even necessarily believe in the divinity of Christ, which is not something that gets talked about a lot.”

Back in the car, he elaborates on the kinds of themes he tries to communicate to his constituents. “To me, the issue is not are you centrist or are you liberal,” he says. “The issue to me is, Is what you’re proposing going to work? Can you build a working coalition to make the lives of people better? And if it can work, you should support it whether it’s centrist, conservative, or liberal.”

What’s interesting about the complaints about Obama supposedly triangulating is that each example is taken from speeches or venues that are not soundbite based, but actually thoughtful statements and points in a larger context of a speech. The questioner at this venue suggested by the very premise of the question that religious rhetoric is increasing and there is too much, but the response isn’t one of attacking the woman, but putting religious rhetoric in context of history and then moving from rhetoric to problems of religious entanglement with government–one in which he strongly supports the separation of church and state.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

You Missed

Blog

Trump Campaign “Field”

Blog

Trying 2

Blog

Don’t Call It A Comeback

Uncategorized

More Like This