« August 17, 2008 - August 23, 2008 | Main | August 31, 2008 - September 6, 2008 »

August 30, 2008

Palin Polls

Editor and Publisher summarizes the first post-Palin polls:

Here's a finding from Gallup: Among Democratic women -- including those who may be disappointed that Hillary Clinton did not win the Democratic nomination -- 9% say Palin makes them more likely to support McCain, 15% less likely.

From Rasmussen: Some 38% of men said they were more likely to vote for McCain now, but only 32% of women. By a narrow 41% to 35% margin, men said she was not ready to be president -- but women soundly rejected her, 48% to 25%.

Only 9% of Obama supporters said they might be more likely to vote for McCain.

Overall, voters expressed a favorable impression of her by a 53/26 margin, but there was a severe gender gap on this: Men embraced her at 58% to 23%, while for women it was 48/30.

And by a 29/44 margin, men and women together, they do not believe that she is ready to be President.

Sarah Palin and Pretty, Experience Talk

Stepping back from the "feminist for life," NRA-lifer, creationist, global-warming skeptic VP credentials for a sec, a few things are really annoying me about the Sarah Palin coverage. She's a woman, she's pretty, she's a mom with a gaggle of kids, and she's as green as DC politics gets. Though why do these descriptors get listed out as if they're stacked arguments toward the same end? Mitt Romney is pretty and has five kids, but if he had gotten the nom we wouldn't be referring to him as a looker with familial obligations, at least not when we're landing on his shortcomings. I know, people are doing so to point out the tokenism of McCain's pick, but it's frustrating how "beauty pageant good looks" and female are so often precursors to "don't know jack."

And the experience thing, sure, she's fresh out of Northern Exposure territory (Men in Trees for the millenial set), but slamming her lack of DC credentials is EXACTLY what the McCain team wants Dems to do. The first word out of the Obama camp yesterday? Palin has "zero foreign policy experience." Sorry, can't have it both ways. The counter-argument is, 'at least our presidential candidate does, and last time we checked the prez tops the ticket, meets with world leaders, and gets to hit the war button.' As we all know, the "zero foreign policy experience" phrase has been used for years now to describe Obama. Essentially the Republicans are putting experience back in play, and they're going to let the Dems keep it alive. As Palin's naivete is played up, rich material only beginning to be mined, it will, McCain hopes at least, make him the wise, experienced one, with Palin and Obama the pretty neophytes. Not a fair comparison by a longshot, but fair and nuance are not what the stretch run of presidential campaigns are known for. Palin's lack of fitness for the job will only help keep this dialogue in play. And the question McCain wants on people's minds when they enter the voting booth come November: Do you want experience in your president or your vice president?

Pretty ugly, I know.

August 29, 2008

McCain Strikes Blow for Womanhood (You Heard Me!)

I've been thinking all day about what Stephanie wrote on this blog earlier. And while I know she meant it in the best, most feminist possible way, the comments show the whole idea hits a nerve.
I have three kids, my youngest is three months older than Palin's, and that isn't stopping me from doing my job. Nor is it stopping Clara, my co-editor, who has a new baby; nor did it stop Stephanie; nor will it stop Palin. Of course I'm wondering how the hell she'll do it all--as, I'm sure, is she. And of course she will figure it out, as women do every day, often with far less support. But the point is, that's for each one of us to decide, and no one else.
Too many women have been patronized out of jobs they wanted with pseudo-considerate treacle like "I thought your priority right now was your family." It's happened to friends of mine; it's happened to me; if you have ovaries, chances are pretty good it has happened or will happen to you. That's the reality of living in post-women's lib America, and that's why one part of me is heartened by the Palin pick. People may find lots of reasons why she shouldn't be in the White House--but at least, having little kids didn't put her out of the running in the first place. And for that, I have to confess, I'm grateful to John McCain.

An Anti-Hillary, Pro-Life Feminist?

McCain's trophy Veep choice isn't just a pretty mother of five and not Mitt Romney. She's an outspoken pro-life feminist. Confusing concept, we know.

The anti-abortion group Feminists for Life's website is almost coy about Sarah Palin's exact involvement, but here's everything you need to learn—fast—about the group she's tangled up with. Apparently the tactical geniuses at Camp McCain are really counting on all four of America's undecided independent anti-abortion feminists to vote.

Aside: Does anyone but me think the phrase "feminist for life" reads a bit like a jail sentence?

The Palin Factor

Below is a guest blog entry by economist and MoJo author Nomi Prins:

Election campaigning is about winning. Winning is about not underestimating your opponent or how their choices might impact voters outside the pundit-belt. So, perhaps Alaska Governor Sarah Palin wouldn’t have been McCain’s first choice for vice president if there weren’t any lingering hard feelings about Hillary’s campaign or lack of consideration for the VP slot. Or perhaps Palin would have been selected anyway.

Whatever the case, the Democrats are in a tough position after Obama’s electrifying speech. It would be as hypocritical for them to attack Palin’s experience level as it is for McCain to have selected her after dissing Obama’s lack in that department.

It would be imprudent to assume that no one votes for the bottom of the ticket. Maybe that was the case in the past. But, this is a very historically different race, on many levels, and the female factor should not be underestimated.

Obama was propelled into the national consciousness by an amazing speech at the 2004 convention, and has a truly inspiring back-story and way of stirring voters. Palin may or may not do the same, but no one know yet. Meanwhile, Obama can only attack her and McCain on policy choices and how they impact the American population.

Obama took a risk in not choosing a woman who captured 18 million primary votes as VP, and then not explaining why. McCain seized on that omission by choosing the relatively unknown Palin as a result. Obama must now walk a fine line. He can criticize what Palin has done, or believes. But he must recognize her for the historic choice (to take a page from McCain's ad on Thursday congratulating Obama) she is. That could be the only way to capture the millions of female voters across the country, many of which, yes, voted for Hillary and haven’t yet decided on Obama.

McCain will praise Palin’s qualities as much as he will praise Hillary’s accomplishments. He and she will extol women’s suffrage with extreme political zeal. It may be theatrical, it may be pandering—but political pandering is a very effective path to victory. And, it requires a revised game plan for Obama.

—Nomi Prins

What The Palin Pick Says About John McCain and the GOP

John McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate this morning was a bit of a shocker. After all, the vast majority of Americans have never heard of her. But that could be an advantage for the Republicans: suddenly, their convention next week isn't about John McCain or George W. Bush. It's about introducing Sarah Palin to America. That could be the best distraction imaginable from issues like Katrina, Iraq, and the economy.

On balance, though, Palin could be bad news for the Republicans. Unconventional running-mate choices (and a first term governor who until recently was the mayor of a town of about 9,000 people is certainly an unconventional pick) signal desperation. Confident candidates make safe picks. Candidates who are trailing and need to make big moves make unconventional ones. McCain is taking a big risk by picking Palin because he has to.

The selection of Palin smacks of tokenism. Every four years, the Republican party trots out its few non-white, non-male leaders for the Republican National Convention. Many get prime speaking spots. Apparently Sarah Palin gets the Vice-Presidential nomination. The pick is clearly partly directed at disaffected Hillary voters with the idea that simply putting a woman on the ticket will win their votes. This is obviously wrong, as Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro will tell you. But the GOP and their mouthpieces don't get it: on Fox this morning, an anchor said: "It looks like the glass ceiling hasn't been broken by Hillary Clinton, but by Senator McCain." There is just so much wrong with that sentence, but for starters: it's obvious that this pick is more about John McCain than Sarah Palin. It's not about women succeeding on their own; it's about them being given something by a man. Frankly, the comparison to Hillary Clinton is just insulting.

This pick could be bad for McCain in other ways, too. Consider the parallels between Palin and another youngish governor from a deep red state: George W. Bush. Like Bush in 2000, Palin is though of as a reformist conservative. But her actual positions and policies are hard-right. The trick the GOP has been pulling for years, and is trying again here, is to support the policies and priorities of the far right while pretending to be "maverick" or "independent". There's nothing about Palin's politics that should appeal to Hillary Clinton supporters. Despite what you'll hear about this pick confirming McCain's "maverick" status, there are few VP nominees that would make conservatives happier than Sarah Palin does. She's a favorite of the Club for Growth, virulently anti-abortion, disdainful of environmental concerns, and thinks "Intelligent Design" should be taught in schools. But despite her actual politics being virtually identical to Bush's, Palin, like McCain, projects an image of independent-mindedness.

By far the most troubling part of this pick, however, is how it fits in with the central theme of the past eight years: the Rovian elevation of short-term political considerations over the actual governing of the country. More than anything, Palin is the perfect gimmick for today's news cycle. The pick is great symbolism—the Republicans picked a woman and the Democrats didn't! The media will eat it up: a "maverick" picking a "maverick". And it knocks Barack Obama and the Democrats off the television and maybe limits the Dems' convention bounce. There will be a lot of talk of change from the McCain campaign after this. But the McCain-Palin ticket raises a big question. Was it Bush and Cheney that made the Bush administration such a failure? Or was it Republican ideas and policies that were the problem? If the Obama campaign can convince the American people that our country is in a tough spot due to Republican policies, not just Republican politicians, then they'll probably win. But if McCain and Palin can convince Americans that the business model is sound and the GOP just needs a change in CEO, than, well, you can probably say hello to your next Vice President.

Photo from flickr user Alaskan Dude used under a Creative Commons license.

KBR Sued For Human Trafficking

In August 2004, as the insurgency in Iraq gathered force and kidnappings and grisly killings became commonplace, a group of 12 Nepalese contractors were captured by Sunni militants on the road to an American base. Days later, insurgent cameras rolled while they were executed. The men had been employees of Daoud & Partners, a Jordanian subcontractor of Kellog Brown & Root, which specialized in funneling cheap Third World labor to Iraq to staff support positions at US bases.

On Wednesday, the contractors' families filed racketeering charges against Daoud and KBR in federal court, alleging that the men were drawn to Jordan under false pretenses, had their passports confiscated, and were then sent to Iraq, where 12 died. A thirteenth, one of the plaintiffs in the suit, survived the attack, as he was riding in a different vehicle at the time.

More on the suit from the Courthouse News Service:

The families say the two named defendants - Daoud & Partners and Kellogg Brown & Root - engaged in human trafficking, preying on the men's poverty by claiming to offer well-paying, safe jobs while charging them a Nepali fortune in brokerage fees. Daoud allegedly charged each man between $1,000 and $3,500, with interest of up to 36 percent, to set him up with a job. That's between one year and one decade's wages for the average worker in Nepal.

Plaintiffs say the contractors told the men they would work at the swank Le Royal Hotel in Amman, Jordan, or at an "American camp," a place the families say they assumed was in the United States. But the men soon found themselves on their way to a war zone. Only one of the 13 young men returned alive, the families say.

According to the complaint, co-conspirator Moonlight Consultant recruited the laborers in Nepal, and filed documents with the Nepali government claiming that the men would work at Jordan's Le Royal Hotel. Instead, plaintiffs say, Moonlight transferred the men to Jordanian company Morning Star, which temporarily housed the men in Jordan. Plaintiffs say Morning Star has a booming business exporting laborers to Iraq. Another Jordanian company, Bisharat & Partners, transported the men from Jordan to Iraq.

KBR has so far declined comment on the case, other than to say that it does not abide human trafficking. As a spokesman explained in a written statement to the Washington Post: "KBR has not seen the lawsuit so it is premature for us to comment at this time. The safety and security of all employees and those the company serves remains KBR's top priority. The company in no way condones or tolerates unethical or illegal behavior."

Photo used under a Creative Commons license from James Gordon.

Will Palin Bring A Breast Pump On The Campaign Trail?

John McCain may think that Alaska governor Sarah Palin will help him pick off the Hillary voters, but the fact that she went back to work in April three days after giving birth to a premature baby with Downs' Syndrome has already got women buzzing on the web with questions about her judgment and priorities. Obviously 2008 is a lot different from 1992, when Hillary, who wasn't even running for office, was heavily criticized for her decision to pursue a career after having a child. But even in these more enlightened times, women on both sides of the political spectrum may frown on Palin's decision to hit the national campaign trail at this particular time of her life. (And of course, we'll all be wondering: will she bring her breast pump?)

Besides, Palin certainly won't be much help to those women trying to nudge the country into embracing more family-friendly workplace policies. John McCain doesn't actually have any work-family policies to speak of anyway, but now, when women argue for the need for paid family leave, the Republicans will only have to trot out Palin to illustrate why women don't really need it.

The First Time Hillary Clinton is Mentioned at the Vice Presidential Debate...

...Joe Biden better have this clip memorized.

More analysis of Sarah Palin in a minute. For now, here's her resume:

1992-1996: City Councilwoman from Wasilla, AK (pop. 8,471).
1996-2002: Mayor of Wasilla, AK (pop. 8,471).
2003-2004: Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
2006-current: Governor of Alaska (pop. 683,478).

Population of Charlotte, North Carolina: 671,588. Somebody tell Mayor Pat McCrory he could have been the pick!

August 28, 2008

Obama's Grand Speech: Reason for Hope

It was a historic speech on a historic night--in a remarkable setting. A crowd of tens of thousands of Americans, filling an entire stadium in the middle of the country, waved American flags and signs calling for "Change." Never in the nation's history had more Americans attended such an event. Never before had an African-American accepted the presidential nomination of a major party in the United States. And the speech of Barack Obama matched the moment.

He connected his own history--the history of a not-quite-ordinary American family--to the mythical promise of America. His rhetoric soared--as usual--but it was tethered to reality: in particular, the stark differences between how Obama would approach the challenges the nation now faces and how John McCain would do so. Obama laced his criticism of the Bush years and the possible McCain years with a dose of populism, which gave portions of the speech a sharp edge. And he brought his pitch for hope and change down to the ground with a succinct description of policy ideas he would work for as president.

Obama, as convention dictates, began with a high-minded theme: America is a land of promise, but, he declared, that promise--especially for hardworking Americans--is in jeopardy, placing the nation at a critical juncture. "These challenges are not all of government’s making," he said. "But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush. America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this." Given that polls show that at least seven out of ten Americans--maybe more--believe the country is on the wrong track and a similar number of Americans disapprove of Bush, his criticism was not at all radical.

In one of the more important passages, Obama, taking a populist turn, made the case that his opponent does not understand this:

The truth is, on issue after issue that would make a difference in your lives--on health care and education and the economy--Senator McCain has been anything but independent. He said that our economy has made “great progress” under this President. He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. And when one of his chief advisors--the man who wrote his economic plan--was talking about the anxiety Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a “mental recession,” and that we’ve become, and I quote, “a nation of whiners.”

A nation of whiners? Tell that to the proud auto workers at a Michigan plant who, after they found out it was closing, kept showing up every day and working as hard as ever, because they knew there were people who counted on the brakes that they made. Tell that to the military families who shoulder their burdens silently as they watch their loved ones leave for their third or fourth or fifth tour of duty. These are not whiners. They work hard and give back and keep going without complaint. These are the Americans that I know.

Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn't know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year? How else could he propose hundreds of billions in tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies but not one penny of tax relief to more than one hundred million Americans? How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits, or an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college, or a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement? It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it.

Obama blasted McCain for embracing the "that old, discredited Republican philosophy--give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else." He proclaimed that it was time for GOPers, "to own their failure. It's time for us to change America. And that's why I'm running for president of the United States."

He did not say--as Hillary Clinton did during the primaries--that he was running to fight for you. His is still a campaign of collective action--us, not me-- and that might continue to make it hard for voters facing tough economic times to identify with Obama. (Some people desire a champion slugging for them, not a movement to join.) But on tax cuts, health care, outsourcing, energy independence, and education, Obama vigorously outlined the stark differences between him and McCain--and he presented those differences in language designed to appeal to working-class voters.

On national security, Obama ceded no ground to McCain. "If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next Commander-in-Chief, that's a debate I'm ready to have," he said. None of his arguments were new--he blasted McCain for being overly eager to go to war in Iraq before the job was done in Afghanistan--but he did so with great confidence. "John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell--but he won't even follow him to the cave where he lives," he remarked.

Obama sounded strong; he looked strong. "If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice--but it is not the change that America needs," he said. Obama warned McCain to stop questioning his patriotism: "I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first." And, he said, don't go pulling the same-old, Rove-like stunts, accusing Democrats of being nothing but tax-raisers and national security weaklings:

The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America--they have served the United States of America.

Throughout the entire speech, Obama's delivery was powerful. He stuck with his now-familiar message of hope and change. He reiterated his call for a politics that transcends pettiness and distractions. But he really took it to the other side--issuing specific charges and offering specific ideas for policy changes. Obama still has one failing as a great speaker: he does not quite step out of the moment of the Grand Speech to talk directly to the individual on the couch who is watching and weighing. He seeks to inspire and attract support with political poetry--but there's a touch of abstraction to the exercise.

Nevertheless, what was in the speech was far more important than what might have been missing. Anyone watching could see that Obama has an economic vision. He showed he had no reluctance to challenge McCain on national security. He linked the policy debates of the moment to the noble currents of American history, noting that this day was the forty-fifth anniversary of the "I Have a Dream" speech of Martin Luther King Jr. He soared high. He punched hard. He was tough without being mean. It was a near-perfect--or maybe perfect--blend of positive and negative.

Can an acceptance speech make a difference in an election? This was one with the potential to do so. And as the Democrats' convention concluded with fireworks exploding at Denver's Invesco Field and stately orchestral music playing from the loudspeakers, Democrats were entitled to look at their once-improbable leader and say, Mission Accomplished. But the Republicans will have their chance to rip Obama apart at their convention next week--and in the weeks following that. This will be a fierce and bloody election. There will be no more big speeches for Obama, though the debates between the candidates could end up mattering much. Yet on a night when the fast trajectory of Obama's extraordinary life intersected with the slow trajectory of American history, Obama made a passionate and forceful case for himself, for his campaign, and for his view of America and what must be done to serve its citizens. He gave his supporters cause for hope.

Fox. Is. Amazing.

What can you do when you see something like this? Just bow in reverence, right?

Update: Rumors on the internets say this is a fake...

Gore's Speech: A Reminder of What's Missing

There's been some talk among pundits and progressives that the Obama campaign could use a touch more populism--especially to reach those working-class voters (read: white working-class voters). So maybe the Democratic convention could have used someone talking like this:

My focus is on working families--people trying to make house payments and car payments, working overtime to save for college and do right by their kids. Whether you're in a suburb, or an inner-city. Whether you raise crops or drive hogs and cattle on a farm, drive a big rig on the Interstate, or drive e-commerce on the Internet… Whether you're starting out to raise your own family, or getting ready to retire after a lifetime of hard work
So often, powerful forces and powerful interests stand in your way, and the odds seemed stacked against you--even as you do what's right for you and your family.
How and what we do for all of you - the people who pay the taxes, bear the burdens, and live the American dream--that is the standard by which we should be judged.

That's a passage from Al Gore's feisty I-will-fight-for-you-against-powerful-interests acceptance speech at the 2000 convention. This time around, on the final night of the convention, Gore appeared at Invesco Field an hour before Barack Obama was scheduled to come out, and he spoke--no surprise--mostly about climate change. He was eloquent on the subject, as he usually is. He did take a whack at the oil and coal industries and "the forces of the status quo." But he sure did not tailor his remarks to the sort of voters he focused on in his 2000 speech.

Of course, it's not Gore's job to populist-ize the Obama campaign. That seems to be Joe Biden's mission. But Gore's speech on Thursday night--given the obvious comparison to his 2000 speech--was a reminder that something's been missing.

THIS JUST IN: Shortly after Gore spoke, the convention presented several working- or middle-class voters who explained why they were supporting Obama. One of them, Smith Barney, who lost his job in a Marian, Indiana, factory, had what was (so far) the best populist line of the night: "We need a president who puts Barney Smith before SmithBarney."

Hezbollah Operating From Venezuela?

Eighty-five people were killed in Buenos Aires in July 1994, when a truck filled with explosives detonated outside the Jewish Argentine Mutual Association (AMIA). Since then, conspiracy theorists have had a field day speculating about who was responsible, but it is generally believed to have been the work of Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Lebanese militia group listed on the U.S. State Department's list of foreign terrorist groups. The presence of Islamist militants, including Hezbollah, in South America—in particular, in the anarchic Tri-border Region, where Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay meet—has long been suspected. According to the Los Angeles Times, though, terrorism analysts fear that Hezbollah is expanding its base in Venezuela.

Hugo Chavez's government enjoys warm relations with Iran, Hezbollah's financial and ideological patron. The countries have established numerous business ties, and in March 2007 agreed to flights between their capitals on IranAir—flights that include a layover in Damascus. (The State Department complained early on that passengers arriving in Caracas seldom were checked against immigration databases or had their passports stamped. Venezuela has reportedly stepped up security procedures as a result.) In June, the US government accused two Venezuelans of working with Hezbollah, obtaining finances and arranging travel. Such activities may represent things to come.

From the Times:

Linked to deadly attacks on Jewish targets in Argentina in the early 1990s, Hezbollah may be taking advantage of Venezuela's ties with Iran, the militia's longtime sponsor, to move "people and things" into the Americas, as one Western government terrorism expert put it...

Those deepening ties worry U.S. officials because Iranian spies around the world have been known to work with Hezbollah operatives, sometimes using Iranian embassies as cover, Western intelligence experts say.

In June, Assistant Secretary of State Thomas A. Shannon said Iran "has a history of terror in this hemisphere, and its linkages to the bombings in Buenos Aires are pretty well established."

"One of our broader concerns is what Iran is doing elsewhere in this hemisphere and what it could do if we were to find ourselves in some kind of confrontation with Iran," Shannon said...

Agents of Iran's Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah have allegedly set up a special force to attempt to kidnap Jewish businesspeople in Latin America and spirit them away to Lebanon, according to the Western anti-terrorism official. Iranian and Hezbollah operatives traveling in and out of Venezuela have recruited Venezuelan informants working at the Caracas airport to gather intelligence on Jewish travelers as potential targets for abduction, the Western anti-terrorism official said.

Photo used under a Creative Commons license from blmurch.

Obama's Speech Tonight: What to Expect?

There are some weird dynamics surrounding Obama's speech tonight. All of them, I think, point to a more subdued and workmanlike performance than many Democrats are hoping for.

(1) Obama delivered the speech of his career in 2004. Is it possible to give a better performance? Probably not, especially considering how the myth of that speech has grown. Obama may decide to give a different kind of speech tonight — not a barnburner like in 2004, but instead a deeply serious and policy-heavy speech that suggests Obama is ready to lead in difficult times. It wouldn't serve him well to try and fail to recreate 2004's magic.

(2) Today is the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech. Does Obama want to show that up? Does he want to risk the appearance of showing that up?

(3) The McCain campaign is slamming Obama daily for his "celebrity" status. Anything that works 75,000 adoring fans into a tizzy is just fodder for opposition ads. If Obama can do avuncular, this might be the night to do it. (Admittedly, there may be little Obama can do here. There will be 75,000 people there. They will go nuts.) The challenge is to do avuncular without failing the media's (and his supporters') massive expectations.

I think the campaign originally saw this as a culminating moment for the Obama movement. He would speak on the anniversary of King's speech in front of 75,000 people. King was a vanguard for change, creating a mass movement that followed behind him and revolutionized the country. If you remember some of Obama's early rhetoric, there was a strong strain in it that suggested Obama saw himself as the same sort of figure. But the idea of a "movement" has been turned from a positive into a negative. What was once universally acknowledged as a wonderful development in American politics — young people, minorities, and others traditionally uninterested in public affairs finally finding inspiration — has been turned into a liability.

Once upon a time, Obama wanted to be carried into office on the back of a movement; today, he may do what he can to pretend one doesn't exist.

Republican Solution to Health Care Crisis: Head, Meet Sand

Check this guy out.

Texas once again led the nation with the highest percentage of residents without health insurance, a U.S. Census Bureau report showed Tuesday...

But the numbers are misleading, said John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a right-leaning Dallas-based think tank. Mr. Goodman, who helped craft Sen. John McCain's health care policy, said anyone with access to an emergency room effectively has insurance, albeit the government acts as the payer of last resort. (Hospital emergency rooms by law cannot turn away a patient in need of immediate care.)

"So I have a solution. And it will cost not one thin dime," Mr. Goodman said. "The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American — even illegal aliens — as uninsured. Instead, the bureau should categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care.

"So, there you have it. Voila! Problem solved."

The fact that this guy is anywhere near actual public policy is scary. He is aware, of course, that you can't get a dental exam, mental health care, or any kind of preventative care at an emergency room? He is also aware that emergency room care is the most expensive of all kinds of health care, and that we should be taking active steps to minimize it, not ignore it?

Just tuck this little nugget away: The man who helped write John McCain's health care plan believes the solution to the health care problem in this country is to literally pretend we don't have one.

God Understands Irony, Part 2

Remember when the meeting of global warming deniers in Florida was canceled due to an impending tropical storm? This might top that. President Bush's speech at the Republican National Convention may be postponed from its current Monday slot because tropical storm Gustav may hit the Gulf Coast that day.

John McCain Does Not Understand Cause and Effect

Others are focusing on the more bizarre moments of Time's McCain interview, but I want to highlight a passage near the end. Here's McCain:

I believe that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. I believe it's clear that he had every intention to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction. I can only imagine what Saddam Hussein would be doing with the wealth he would acquire with oil at $110 and $120 a barrel.

Are there any sixth graders available who can explain to John McCain why that last sentence makes no sense?

Dep't of Rapid Response: 1968 Edition

Posted on the McCain campaign's blog yesterday:

Flashback: 40 Years Ago Today, Bill Ayers Arrested at DNC

Emailed to reporters by the Obama campaign shortly thereafter:

Flashback: 40 Years Ago Today, Barack Obama Was Seven Years Old

They made sure to include the photo at right.

Mitt Romney Would Be Karl Rove's Handpicked VP

According to Politco:

"Rove is pushing Romney so aggressively some folks are beginning to wonder what's going on," grumbled one veteran Republican strategist.

From his perch on Fox, Rove has touted McCain’s fierce primary rival as strong vice presidential material.

"Romney is already vetted by the media, has strong executive experience both in business and in government, has an interesting story to tell with saving the U.S. Olympics, and also helps McCain deal with the economy, because he can speak to the economy with a fluency that McCain doesn’t have," Rove said on "Fox News Sunday" in June.

Rove is specifically worried about one guy.

Rove called Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) late last week and urged him to contact John McCain to withdraw his name from vice presidential consideration, according to three sources familiar with the conversation. Lieberman dismissed the request, these sources agreed.

Lieberman "laughed at the suggestion and certainly did not call [McCain] on it," said one source familiar with the details.

I'm kind of stunned that the conversation has narrowed to these two guys. Romney, who McCain despised in the primaries because of his transparent lack of principle, and Lieberman, a conservative Democrat who threatens to rip the Republican Party apart. Surely the McCain campaign is smart enough to find a dark horse that will surprise the media (thus resulting in even more breathless coverage) and excite the base?

Update: Rove's denial on this story is so lame even Fox News says he's "waffling."

Thursday Cat Blogging

Kevin Drum's passion for the kitties is leaking over to MoJoBlog. So I'll briefly note this important development: cats have grown wings. Yes, it is true. I saw it on BoingBoing.

In all seriousness, please check out Kevin. He's been blogging up a storm, not only providing crucial updates on Domino and Inkblot but also giving readers an outside-of-Denver view on the convention. Haven't been able to catch much of the action? Read David Corn's night-by-night reviews of the action in Denver: Night One, Night Two, and yesterday's very-successful Night Three.

August 27, 2008

Night Three: Biden Doesn't Wow, But the Convention (Finally) Gains Momentum

The good news for the Barack Obama camp: Joe Biden has no more big speeches to deliver between now and Election Day.

In what was the Democrats' best night of the first three, Biden capped the evening with a heartfelt speech emphasizing his middle-class roots that was marred by an irregular rhythm and a series of verbal slip-ups. He said "millions" instead of "billions." He praised Obama for working on an Illinois state health care program that provided coverage to 150 children and parents, not 150,000. Biden blasted John McCain in a predictable manner: for championing tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, for misjudgments regarding foreign policy. There were good and touching moments, such as the tribute to his mother and his empathetic recognition of the everyday challenges confronted by Americans facing hard times. And he tied the need to help working-class families to Barack Obama's appeal: "He has tapped into the oldest American belief of all: We don't have to accept a situation we cannot bear. We have the power to change it." Biden covered the bases but did not rock the house. He was no Bill Clinton. He wasn't even a John Kerry. (See Kevin's somewhat more generous take here.)

But the Obama campaign had an insurance policy. After Biden finished, Barack Obama made an unscheduled appearance and restored the energy level to the room and the convention. Working the Pepsi Center like a talk show host--has he been taking lessons from Oprah?--Obama seized control of the evening and promised a great night on Thursday, when he will accept his party's presidential nomination at Invesco Field.

The third night of the convention--Biden aside--presented a more coherent message than the previous evenings, which were dominated by the obligatory tasks of undoing the rightwing attacks on Michelle Obama and satisfying Hillary Clinton and the Hillary Hold-ons. On Thursday, it seemed as if the Obama campaign was finally able to get down to business: making the pitch.

The evening program opened with Melissa Etheridge connecting "God Bless America" to progressive favorites, such as "Born in the U.S.A." Then came a series of Iraq veterans and other former warriors who rammed home the point: George W. Bush and John McCain have truly screwed up the foreign policy of the United States. This was McCain's turf: national security. And the Democrats hit it hard by bringing to the stage Tammy Duckworth, a paraplegic Iraq vet, who has as much standing as anyone to question and criticize McCain's judgment on Iraq--past, present, and future.

But even though the Democrats had billed the evening as national security night, it was more than that. With Clinton playing the good cop, and Kerry playing the bad cop, the Obama campaign presented both the case for Obama and the case against McCain in vivid and explicit terms. Clinton's speech was another masterpiece and a reminder that he could be a major asset in the weeks ahead, if he cares to be--and behaves himself.

Largely because of Clinton and Kerry, who was also at his best, it seemed that the convention finally gained momentum and produced emotional energy. But the Democrats still have trouble critiquing McCain without going overboard in celebrating his service and heroism--and that could prove a problem in the next two months. Biden the supposed attack dog felt compelled to say that McCain's courage still amazes him. He took his shots at McCain, but there were no memorable blows. Did the Obama campaign defang him? Or is he hesitant to go full-throttle on a fellow with whom he shares "a friendship that goes beyond politics"?

The Republicans, though, have no reluctance in blasting Obama as practically a traitor. McCain has repeatedly said that Obama puts his own political ambition ahead of what's good for the country, that Obama would see Americans lose a war in order to win an election. Yet the Democrats often limit their criticisms to McCain's policy ideas, not McCain the man. Kerry came closest to doing the latter when he challenged McCain's integrity, accusing him of flip-flopping (remember that?) on issues for political gain. Still, more than the previous nights, the Democrats moved toward a more even mix of positive and negative.

Night Three effectively set up the grand finale. On Thursday evening, Obama will appear before a crowd of 75,000. The Clintons, Michelle, the attacks on McCain, the anti-Bush vets--none of that will matter. There will be one story: the guy in the spotlight. He will stand it alone, and what he does will define the convention more than all that has come before.

(Photo by flickr user barackobama.com used under a Creative Commons license.)

Bill Clinton: Still the One—and a Potential Game-changer for Obama

Despite all the talk that Bill Clinton was not happy with his speaking slot at the Democratic convention or that he still was peeved by criticisms that came his way during the primaries, there was no way that Clinton would allow himself to be outshone as the orator of his party. As Kevin notes, he delivered a helluva speech on Wednesday night.

As soon as the crowd of delegates finished giving him the loudest and longest ovation of the convention (so far), Clinton declared that he was "here, first, tonight to support Barack Obama." With his trademark blending of folksiness and policy-talk, he presented a rock-solid case for Obama. Immediately, it was obvious: forget Hillary Clinton, it is Bill Clinton who has the potential to be Obama's best advocate on the campaign trail in the coming weeks,

The speech combined an effective critique of the Bush years, a sharp attack of Republican notions John McCain has embraced, and an enthusiastic endorsement of Obama as a man "ready to be president" on Day One. And it was laced with memorable lines. His rhetoric soared:

Barack Obama knows that America cannot be strong abroad unless we are strong at home. People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.

That last sentence may well be written in concrete someday. And Clinton poked the Republicans with a fine zinger:

They actually want us to reward them for the last eight years by giving them four more. Let's send them a message that will echo from the Rockies all across America: thanks, but no thanks.

Clinton was unequivocal in his support of Obama. And he tied Obama to his own story:

Barack Obama will lead us away from the division and fear of the last eight years back to unity and hope. If, like me, you still believe America must always be a place called Hope, then join Hillary, Chelsea and me in making Barack Obama the next President of the United States.

Clinton had a bad time during the primaries. His standing fell among members of his own party. But with this speech, Clinton might well win over those Democrats who soured on him during the fierce battle between his wife and Obama. More important, Clinton, once again demonstrating his exceptional skill as a politician and a speaker, showed he could be an ace champion for Obama, perhaps even--dare the Obama fans think it--a game-changer. If he wants to be.

John Kerry on the Attack: Adding Anger to Hope

Speaking at the Democratic convention on Wednesday night, Senator Evan Bayh made a qualified case against John McCain: he's a good man who has made some bad decisions. Senator John Kerry, who hit the podium later on, sharpened the attack and raised questions about McCain's integrity, age, and fondness for military confrontation.

Integrity:

Candidate McCain now supports the very wartime tax cuts that Senator McCain once called irresponsible. Candidate McCain criticizes Senator McCain's own climate change bill. Candidate McCain says he would now vote against the immigration bill that Senator McCain wrote. Are you kidding me, folks? Talk about being for it before you're against it.

Age:

So remember, when we choose a commander-in-chief this November, we are electing judgment and character, not years in the Senate or on this earth.

Eagerness for military confrontation:

John McCain stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier just three months after 9/11 and proclaimed, "Next up, Baghdad!," Barack Obama saw, even then, "an occupation" of "undetermined length, undetermined cost, undetermined consequences" that would, in his words, "only fan the flames of the Middle East." Well, guess what? Mission accomplished.

Kerry also took a swing at McCain for adopting "Rove tactics" and depending upon GOP Rove-bots to win election--and for perpetuating the politics of "Swift boating." For Democrats looking for a side of anger with their hope, Kerry came through.

Evan Bayh Attacks McCain With a Double-Edged Sword

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) lost out in the Democratic veepstakes. But on Wednesday night he was given a prime-time speaking slot and dutifully joined in the evening's assault on John McCain:

George Bush and John McCain were wrong about going to war in Iraq, are wrong about how to get us out of Iraq, and wrong to ignore the dangers in Afghanistan. The time for change has come, and Barack Obama is the change we need.

But this was an odd line of attack, coming from Bayh. He was one of the co-sponsors of the 2003 Authorization of the Use of Military Force in Iraq (AUMF). Bayh wasn't just attacking McCain. By condemning Bush and McCain for going to war in Iraq, Bayh was saying, "I was wrong." Well, sort of. He wasn't quite that explicit. And a great question for Bayh now would be, did you err, too?

And even in a speech that included a shot at McCain and Bush in almost every paragraph, Bayh did not launch as sharp an assault as he might have. He summed up the case against McCain this way:

John McCain, he's not a bad man, but he is badly mistaken about embracing the Bush agenda.

The GOP blasts Barack Obama for being risky and dangerous (and not really an American). In Bayh's view, McCain is a good guy who got some things wrong. Obviously, those two attacks don't match up. Bayh didn't define McCain in negative terms; he just disagreed with him. Can the Democrats win with that? A little more oomph might be needed.

MoJo Video: Meet Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com at the DNC

Nate Silver invented PECOTA, a system that predicts the future performance of baseball players that's used by teams and baseball geeks alike. Now he's turned his attention to political forecasting, and he's found he's pretty good at that, too. Silver's site, FiveThirtyEight.com (named after the number of electors in the electoral college), relies on polls, demographics, and statistical analysis to predict who is going to win the 2008 Presidential election. I sat down with him for a quick chat yesterday at the Democratic National Convention; watch the video here. [Nate's on the right.]

How Obama Could Capture Hillary Voters: Answer the Obvious

Below is a guest blog entry by economist and MoJo author Nomi Prins:

Hillary Clinton's speech has been duly dissected. Bill's will be, too. But the DNC question still lingering for the PUMAs is: Why didn't Obama choose Clinton as his running mate? Dems would be naïve to suggest such people just 'get over it,' Hillary's verbal push not withstanding.

Love it or hate it, it's a valid question, particularly for the women who did and do identify with her. And it's a question that Obama needs to at least acknowledge, if not address.

Why? Because in the absence of a resounding statement from Camp Obama, the bloviosphere has filled in the gap with excuses like these: She's too divisive, he couldn't deal with Bill, the Clintons are too powerful, she wouldn't have wanted it anyway.

Whatever. A s