ArchPundit

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

ArchPundit December 7, 2006 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.

Even More

ArchPundit December 7, 2006 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.

It Must Hurt to be as Dumb as Joe Klein

ArchPundit December 6, 2006 5 Comments

From Think Progress:

On the Chris Matthews Show yesterday, Time magazine senior writer Joe Klein said of Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) support for setting a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq: “That may well be true, but it’s wrong to say it.”

So if you think a war is pointless and American troops are dying for nothing, you should keep clapping.

I guess that’s what serious people do.

Many, Many problems

ArchPundit December 6, 2006 3 Comments

Fisking is a stupid process that right wing bloggers have mistakenly thought meant refuting an argument. Big Tent Democrat does it to Obama’s speech and makes some rather bizarre claims.

One of my favorites is this:

But Mr. Keyes implicit accusation that I was not a true Christian nagged at me, and I was also aware that my answer didn’t adequately address the role my faith has in guiding my own values and beliefs.

My dilemma was by no means unique. In a way, it reflected the broader debate we’ve been having in this country for the last thirty years over the role of religion in politics.

For some time now, there has been plenty of talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country has fallen sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest “gap” in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don’t.

This of course is a red herring and Obama well knows it – the biggest political divide is between black and white voters. Why no discussion of that?

Among white voters… If somehow Obama is supposed to discuss the white/black issue in every sentence perhaps that’s an issue, but arguing that Obama never talks about race is a bit silly.

Mr. Obama says he’s a Christian, he would say, and yet he supports a lifestyle that the Bible calls an abomination.

Mr. Obama says he’s a Christian, but supports the destruction of innocent and sacred life.

What would my supporters have me say? That a literalist reading of the Bible was folly? That Mr. Keyes, a Roman Catholic, should ignore the teachings of the Pope?

Personally, I would have Obama say what was in his heart. That he disagrees with Keyes’ extremist views whether the are in accord with the Pope or not. But Obama did not:

And he does. You know, later in the speech.

I think that we should put more of our tax dollars into educating poor girls and boys. I think that the work that Marian Wright Edelman has done all her life is absolutely how we should prioritize our resources in the wealthiest nation on earth. I also think that we should give them the information about contraception that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, lower abortion rates, and help assure that that every child is loved and cherished.

But, you know, my Bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not turn from it. So I think faith and guidance can help fortify a young woman’s sense of self, a young man’s sense of responsibility, and a sense of reverence that all young people should have for the act of sexual intimacy.

Insinuating that Obama didn’t speak to what he believed when he does is simply dishonest. Cutting the speech to ignore when Obama pointed out his position is even more dishonest.

Conservative leaders, from Falwell and Robertson to Karl Rove and Ralph Reed, have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design.

I assume this was an unfortunate turn of phrase by Obama as it is false that Democrats disrespect the values of evangelical Christians.

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that – regardless of our personal beliefs – constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, some liberals dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word “Christian” describes one’s political opponents, not people of faith.

These are utterly false Roght Wing strawmen as described by Chris Bowers. It was very wrong of Obama to embrace these falsehoods.

Like being personally against abortion, but the Constitution ties one hands. I can think of several Democratic candidates who say exactly that sort of thing. Like John Kerry. He framed it as something he was against, but that civil society needed rules to allow such things. Instead of having a value debate about safe, legal, and rare abortion, the debate is one about how we all hate it, but it’s a Constitutional issue. It shouldn’t be one only about the Constitution, it should be about how values and morality insist upon choice and why different moral judgments made by secular or Christians who are not right wing are valid moral positions.

There are people who argue that religion doesn’t belong in the public sphere. And when you describe the position as at worst—it’s not saying that’s a mainstream position, it’s saying it’s a position held by some liberals. Having come out of talks where people criticize right wing fundamentalists as Christians, that’s true. It is a problem on the left that many people cannot distinguish between different forms of Christianity and there are stereotypes of what a Christian is.

And it’s an odd complaint given many of the progressive movements in the United States are based on Christianity including abolition, peace, civil rights, and abolition of the death penalty. But it is a complaint that is not uncommon when someone brings up religious values. That doesn’t mean it’s the majority left position, but it is a significant position.

Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome – others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.

Of whom does Obama speak here? What Democratic politician is Obama referring to? This is yet another false strawman.

Okay, how many Democratic politicians ask for equal time when their opponents show up on religious radio? The radio station doesn’t have to give it, but it will. I know it was quite the exception when Durbin demanded it on Chicago’s WYLL and he showed up and didn’t concede the venue. Having listened to a number of right wing religious stations, that is truly uncommon. Hell, most Democrats have never listened to evangelical radio to understand the messages out there.

When the debate is about whether school prayer can take place or about intelligent design and those issues represent religion, it does define religion negatively and that’s often done. Debate about religious values isn’t only about tolerance in civil society that many make it out to be. It is also about alleviating poverty and treating the poorest amongst us with kindness and providing opportunity. Liberals do avoid this in many instances–think about debates over poverty or education where the debate is about the benefits to the larger society. Fine, but there is a moral reason to support such programs beyond simply its benefit to the whole society and liberals are generally bad at making those arguments.

Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical. Our fear of getting “preachy” may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems.

What a crock. Obama assumes moral underpinnings are all faith vased. This is simply offensive and I strongly condemn Obama for saying so. It is an outrageous thing to have said.

This is my favorite part though. After saying that Obama is playing up a strawman in saying that there is an aversion to religion from liberals and Democrats, BTD demonstrates that aversion. How? By saying that Obama assumes all moral underpinnings are faith based when Obama doesn’t say that.

For example, high rates of teenage pregnancy is a huge moral issue for those who are secular or religious and underpinnings for those beliefs. Both secular and religious people can get preachy about the issue by pointing out the importance of values and culture. It is not only those who have faith who rely on values and culture. The problem is that all too often liberal politicians don’t talk about the problem in the culture instead relying only upon interventions while conservative politicians only talk about the culture and not interventions. Most Americans understand teenagers are going to have sex and they understand two things. First, there are parts of our culture that encourage irresponsible sex at young ages and second, that intervening in the lives of those kids through sex education and access to health care professionals can reduce the problem of unwanted teenage pregnancies. Obama is explicitly suggesting just this sort of model later in the text of the speech. How much later? Starting in the next paragraph.

After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness – in the imperfections of man.

Solving these problems will require changes in government policy, but it will also require changes in hearts and a change in minds. I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers’ lobby – but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we’ve got a moral problem. There’s a hole in that young man’s heart – a hole that the government alone cannot fix.

I believe in vigorous enforcement of our non-discrimination laws. But I also believe that a transformation of conscience and a genuine commitment to diversity on the part of the nation’s CEOs could bring about quicker results than a battalion of lawyers. They have more lawyers than us anyway.

I think that we should put more of our tax dollars into educating poor girls and boys. I think that the work that Marian Wright Edelman has done all her life is absolutely how we should prioritize our resources in the wealthiest nation on earth. I also think that we should give them the information about contraception that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, lower abortion rates, and help assure that that every child is loved and cherished.

But, you know, my Bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not turn from it. So I think faith and guidance can help fortify a young woman’s sense of self, a young man’s sense of responsibility, and a sense of reverence that all young people should have for the act of sexual intimacy.

If one follows BTD’s comments, one should only speak in sentences and not paragraphs. While I think Democrats often forget that reporters tend to take sentences from paragraphs and distort their meaning, the real problem is when bloggers help the media do that.

As I said when he made the speech, the speech isn’t anything like what many have reported it. It’s a challenge to reshape and reframe the debate from one liberal versus conservative which isn’t terribly compelling other than to partisans, but to a debate about the values each party trumpets and how the Democratic values fit with the core values of the country.

To take issue with Obama in this case is to miss what he is saying. Democrats have ceded the debate to Republicans on matters of faith even though Democratic policies are rooted in core American values. All he wants Democrats to do is point that out instead of relying on John Kerryish crap that gets you saying things like I was for it before I was against it.

Talk like real people do and put it terms of their lives and those lives are often influenced by faith so why shouldn’t Democrats’ language do the same.

does Obama deny that Keyes is an extremist?

ArchPundit December 6, 2006 7 Comments

This is perhaps one of the dumbest questions ever. It’s written by Big Tent Democrat over at Daily Kos.

Here is the relevant text:

. . Now, I was urged by some of my liberal supporters not to take this statement seriously. To them, Mr. Keyes was an extremist, his arguments not worth entertaining.

What they didn’t understand, however, was that I had to take him seriously. For he claimed to speak for my religion – he claimed knowledge of certain truths.

Perhaps so, but does Obama deny that Keyes is an extremist? If so, why so? Keyes is undoubtedly an extremist and Keyes was his political opponent. Did Obama fear telling voters the truth about Keyes? Did he fear damaging his image?

Now forgive me, but is there anyone that got the impression that Obama didn’t think Keyes was a right wing kook? Seriously, anyone in Illinois who took anything Obama said about the man as to indicate that Keyes was not a extremist kook?

I know it’s fun to poke holes in the Obama myth, but it would be nice if we took reality into account.