Joe Biden » Undiplomatic

29 October 2008 Charles J. Brown
01:16 pm

Biden Was Right: Obama Will Face A Crisis (But So Will McCain)

It’s been over a week since Joe Biden said that world events would test Obama in his first six months in office:

“Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama. . . . The world is looking. . . . We’re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. . . . I guarantee you that it’s going to happen.

The McCain campaign has jumped all over this, running an ad with the tag line, “It doesn’t have to happen. Vote McCain.”

When I first heard about this, I dismissed it as a tempest in a teapot — Joe Biden running off his mouth and the McCain campaign using it to make yet another commercial. But then I began to think about it a little more, and I realized that not only is Joe Biden right, John McCain is delusional if he thinks that his election would prevent the world from testing him.

Over the past fifty years, every newly elected President — with one notable exception — has faced multiple major international incidents in his first year of office (defined as January 20 to the following January 19 for those elected to office, day of swearing in to one year later for Johnson and Ford). Using Wikipedia’s year by year historical calendars, I put together a short list:

John F. Kennedy (January 20, 1961 - January 19, 1962):

Civil war in the Congo
The Bay of Pigs incident
Soviet decision to build the Berlin Wall

Lyndon B. Johnson (November 22, 1963 to November 21, 1964):

Coup in South Vietnam
Gulf of Tonkin incident (and subsequent Congressional incident authorizing war)
China tests its first atomic bomb

Richard M. Nixon (January 20, 1969 to January 19, 1970):

Sino-Soviet border conflict
Secret bombing of Cambodia
Hamburger Hill (major battle in Vietnam)
The “Football War” between Honduras and El Salvador
My Lai massacre

Gerald R. Ford (August 9, 1974 to August 8, 1975):

Cyprus
Mayaguez incident
Fall of South Vietnam
State of Emergency in India

Jimmy Carter (January 20, 1977 to January 19, 1978):

No major crisis

Ronald Reagan (January 20, 1981 to January 19, 1982):

Israel’s attack on Iraqi nuclear facilities
Gulf of Sidra incident (U.S. and Lybian planes clash)
Assasination of Anwar Sadat,
Martial law in Poland

George H. W. Bush (January 20, 1989 to January 19, 1990):

Lockerbie/Pan Am 103 (technically, this happened before Bush was sworn in, but the determination of who was responsible took place during his watch)
Tiananmen Square massacre
Fall of Berlin Wall and collapse of Communist rule in Eastern Europe

Bill Clinton (January 20, 1993 to January 19, 1994):

Somalia
World Trade Center bombing
North Korea withdraws from the NPT,
Attack on Iraq in response to ttempted assassination of G.H.W. Bush by Iraqi agents
Yeltsin uses tanks on Russian Parliament

George W. Bush (January 20, 2001 to January 19, 2002):

U.S.-China dispute over American spy plane
9/11
War in Afghanistan

So it is not uncommon for new Presidents to be tested by world events. In fact, early crises are the rule, not the exception. The only President in the past fifty years not to face multiple crises in his first year was Jimmy Carter — and we all know how well he did with foreign policy.

For argument’s sake, let’s remove relatively minor crises like the Soccer War or self-inflicted ones like the Bay of Pigs. In fact, let’s limit the list to incidents that involve another country or terrorist group “testing” a new President. Here’s what we end up with:

Kennedy: Soviet Union (Berlin Wall)
Johnson: North Vietnam (Vietnam War)
Nixon: North Vietnam (Vietnam War)
Ford: Cambodia (Mayaguez incident)
Reagan: Libya (Gulf of Sidra incident)
Bush I: Libya (Lockerbie), China (post-Tiananmen sanctions)
Clinton: Somalian insurgents (Black Hawk down episode), terrorists (WTC bombing), Iraq (Bush assassination attempt)
Dubya: China (spy plane incident), al Qaeda (9/11), Afghanistan (the Taliban’s refusal to hand over bin Laden and other al-Qaeda members)

In other words, other than Carter, every President has been deliberately provoked by someone over the course of their first year in office. The notion that McCain somehow would be an exception to the rule defies the reality of the past half-century.

Or to put it another way, new Presidents don’t get tested because of their youth or inexperience — they get tested because they’re new. The key question isn’t whether there will be a crisis, but rather how the new President will respond.

Going to Camp

When Sarah “Whackjob” Palin was asked about reported divisions between John McCain and her, here’s what she had to say:

John McCain and I, and our camps, are working together to get John McCain elected.

And our camps? Aren’t you all in the same camp? I don’t think that even Joe “the Gaffer” Biden would be dumb enough to suggest that he and Obama were in different camps.

I used to work in a camp. It was fun. Maybe they can hire the Sarahnator to teach BB guns to 6th graders after her sad pathetic excuse of a campaign is over.

The Transition

If, as expected, Barack Obama is elected in ten days, attention will turn almost immediately to the transition. Several friends close to the Obama campaign have shared some of the speculation they’ve heard on who will be named to Obama’s foreign policy team. Several other bloggers, including Steve Clemons and Marc Ambinder, have heard similar rumblings.

There are two problems with such rumors. First, as one of the commenters over at Steve’s site noted, they usually are little more than trial balloons designed to find out what folks think of a particular candidate. Perhaps the best recent example of this were the stories that Evan Bayh was a sure thing for Obama’s VP.

Second, as one of my friends said to me recently, “people are anxious about Obama winning, but they’re just as (if not more) anxious about whether they’re going to be offered a job.” I’ve heard that too — in fact, it’s not just concern about being offered a job, but also worrying about whether they’ll be offered the right kind of job. If past is prologue, it is often the candidate who starts the rumor in order to advance his or her own cause. Most of the time, it doesn’t work.

Given the degree to which the Obama team has managed to remain leak-free so far, I find it hard to believe that its discipline would start breaking down now, especially given the fact that, as Ambinder reported, most senior campaign staff have excluded themselves from transition deliberations in order to remain focused on winning the election. In addition, Obama remains focused on the campaign, meaning he is unlikely to havesigned off on any of these appointments.

One rumor I’ve heard (as has Steve) is that Obama will announce a number of key appointments as early as Friday, November 7th in order to speed up public vetting and, to the degree possible, Senate confirmation. If that’s the case, I’m guessing that any announcement will be limited to the national security team (State, Defense, National Security Advisor), the Attorney-General, and the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Treasury.

I’ll leave speculation on the last three to others more qualified than me, but I would like to offer my thoughts on who is (and who should be) on the short list for the first three (as well as their Deputies and the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations). To be clear, this is more speculation than reporting.

Secretary of Defense: The most likely scenario has Obama keeping current SecDef Robert Gates for at least one year, and appointing a key Obama team member as Deputy Secretary — probably either Richard Danzig , who was Secretary of the Navy under Clinton, or Scott Gration, who is a retired three-star general. The deputy will then step in after learning the ropes. The other strong contender is Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed, but I would be surprised if Gates doesn’t stay for at least six months. The long-shot outsider is Wesley Clark, who has not played a prominent role in the Obama campaign.

National Security Advisor: The safe money is on Susan Rice, who has been one of Obama’s top foreign policy aides during the campaign, and has managed the 300-odd (now probably closer to 600) members of the two dozen foreign policy advisory teams. Susan would be a fine choice, but I’m not sure that she’s a lock. Some are suggesting Gregory Craig, who headed policy planning in State under Clinton and served as one of Clinton’s attorneys during the impeachment trial (only to break with the Clintons fairly early in the campaign). Although that certainly is plausible, I think Craig may be a better fit as Deputy Secretary at State. I’ve heard through the grapevine that James Steinberg, who currently is managing the foreign policy transition team and who served as Deputy National Security Advisor in the Clinton Administration, also is a strong contender.

Should either Craig or Steinberg get the top post, then Rice probably would be named Deputy National Security Advisor (the other two are unlikely to serve in that role). Other possible candidates include Dennis McDonough, who formerly served as Tom Daschle’s chief foreign policy advisor; Mark Lippert, who has been Obama’s chief foreign policy aide in the Senate; and Sarah Sewell, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Peacekeeping Operations in the Clinton Administration. Samantha Power, who also served on Obama’s staff is a long-shot, but I think she’s more likely to be named Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (she would be an outstanding choice). All four have been part of Obama’s inner circle of foreign policy advisors (although Power had to resign after calling Hillary a “monster”), but none are senior enough to get the top job.

State: Joe Biden is likely to play a central role in foreign policy decision-making, and may serve as a de facto Secretary of State. That means that certain individuals who otherwise would be interested in the job, may pass on it. Among Obama’s current advisors, Anthony Lake, who served as National Security Advisor in the Clinton Administration, would be a strong contender, but I hear that he has made it pretty clear that he’s not interested. Other names I’ve heard include Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, John Kerry, and Bill Richardson. Although Obama will want to demonstrate bipartisanship, he would get significant pushback from Democrats were he to appoint Republicans to both State and DOD. That would exclude Hagel and Lugar, unless Gates doesn’t stay.

That leaves Richardson and Kerry. Given the fairly dynamic figures that have held the post more recently, Obama will want someone who can be an effective leader with the capacity to push back against Biden (when necessary). He also should pick someone who can fix what’s wrong with the current bureaucracy, including the challenges facing existing foreign assistance and public diplomacy operations. That pretty much excludes both Kerry and Richardson, who are neither assertive nor reformers.

Steve Clemons believes that, if those are the choices, Obama should go with Kerry — largely because of Clemons’s concerns (which I share) about Richardson’s temperament, mistreatment of staff, and tendency toward personal self-aggrandizement. Richardson also might face the toughest confirmation fight, given his erratic tenure as Secretary of Energy and a talent for exaggeration that exceeds even Joe Biden’s.

But I’m not so high on Kerry either. Despite his brilliant speech at the convention, Kerry is, in many ways, a slightly younger version of Warren Christopher, Clinton’s first Secretary of State. Christopher was a weak Secretary, lacking the energy to reform the Department (not that his three successors did much better) or the charisma to influence policy. Kerry also would reinforce the now-outdated perception of the Department as a striped pants-wearing East Coast elite out of touch with mainstream America.

There are two other factors concerning Kerry that Steve may not have considered — neither of which is likely to prevent him from taking the job, but still should be remembered as we discuss the possibility of it. First (and sadly to say), Ted Kennedy probably doesn’t have long to live; Kerry may hesitate to leave his state with two fairly junior Senators (then again he may not). Second, assuming that Chris Dodd wants to continue playing a central role in managing the Congressional response to the financial crisis, Kerry is next in line to succeed Biden as Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. Again, that may not prevent him from taking the job, but I could see Obama encouraging him to play that role for at least a couple of years.

So where does that leave us? I see four likely scenarios:

Obama goes with Reed, Danzig, or Gration at DOD, enabling him to pick Lugar or Hagel at State;
Obama picks Kerry or Richardson;
Obama picks a younger, more dynamic figure from his inner circle (Danzig, Rice, or Craig are the most likely);
Obama goes long and makes an unexpected pick.

If it’s the fourth scenario, let me throw out some names: former Vice President Al Gore; former Senator Gary Hart (who has done some of the more creative thinking out there); and former Congressman (and 9-11 Commission co-chair) Lee Hamilton. Gore would have the gravitas, the ability to push back when Biden gets a bit assertive, and experience in trying to reform government institutions. Hart also has those qualities, although his track record as a reformer is more the result of his post-Senatorial career promoting change from outside the political process. Hamilton flunks the dynamic leader test, but his leadership on the 9-11 Commission demonstrates that he understands the structural challenges.

Let me suggest three other possibilities, all of which would pass the dynamic leader and reformer tests: Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, and Eric Holder. Neither Feingold or Boxer has much executive experience, but Hagel, Lugar, and Kerry don’t either. Of the two, I think Feingold is more likely, if only because James Doyle, a Democrat, would appoint his replacement, while Schwartzenegger would pick Boxer’s.

Holder, who served as Deputy Attorney-General in the Clinton Administration, is usually viewed as a leading candidate for the top job at Justice. But when Obama announced his national security advisory group back in June, Holder was on the list. He certainly passes the dynamism test, and he also should be able to shake up the foreign policy apparatus.

In terms of who definitely won’t get the job, my money is on Richard Holbrooke, who would have been the frontrunner had Gore won in 2000. Holbrooke is smart, capable, and has the confidence to be an effective leader, push back against against Biden, and reform the foreign policy apparatus. Unfortunately, he also has a track record of angering the wrong people at the wrong time, and treats his staff as abysmally as Richardson does. According to what I’ve heard, neither Rice nor Lake like him much. CQ’s inclusion of him as one of the three most likely candidates (along with Rice and Richardson) is laughable, especially given the fact that he was consciously excluded from the senior foreign policy advisory team created after Obama brought the Clintonistas on board.

Deputy Secretary of State is a much more significant position than it used to be — Richard Armitage, Robert Zoellick, and John Pointdexter all were important players during the Bush years, and both Zoellick and Pointdexter left cabinet-level positions to take the job. If Obama goes with one of the more senior figures as Secretary, then he’ll want someone younger and more dynamic to lead the charge on foreign affairs reform. As I noted earlier, Gregory Craig would be a solid choice, although his role as Elian Gonzalez’s father’s attorney may hurt his chances for confirmation (something he wouldn’t face were he to be named National Security Advisor). Susan Rice also would be a good pick, although my gut says she’ll want to stay closer to the White House. If he doesn’t get one of the top two jobs at Defense, Richard Danzig also is a possibility. Two other possibilities are Morton Halperin, who served as head of policy planning under Albright, among other positions over the years; and Dennis Ross, Clinton’s Middle East guru.

Some Presidents have made the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations a Cabinet-level position. Bush did not (thank God in the case of John Bolton); Obama should do so, even if he does not name someone in the near future.

In terms of who would be best for the job, Obama should pick someone who not only can play the role effectively, but will be seen as credible advocate to the rest of the world. My choice would be Harold Hongju Koh, current Dean of Yale Law School and former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor in the Clinton years (full disclosure: Harold is my former boss and a close friend) — although he’s far more likely to be on any short list for the Supreme Court. Another possibility is former Senator Timothy Wirth, who now heads the U.N Foundation. A third is former Deputy Secretary of Treasury Stuart Eisenstadt, though he is more likely a candidate for Secretary of Treasury or U.S. Trade Representative.

So who do I want and who do I think will get it? First, here’s who I would like to see named:

Secretary of Defense: Jack Reed or Richard Danzig (although I could live with Gates staying on);
Deputy, DOD: Danzig or Gration
National Security Advisor: Susan Rice or Jim Steinberg
Deputy, NSC: Susan Rice if she doesn’t get the top job, Mark Lippert if she does
Secretary of State: Chuck Hagel (unless Gates stays on, in which case I’d like to see Russ Feingold)
Deputy, DOS: Greg Craig or Mort Halperin
USUN: Harold Koh

Now here’s who I think will get it:

Secretary of Defense: Robert Gates
Deputy, DOD: Richard Danzig
National Security Advisor: Jim Steinberg
Deputy, NSC: Susan Rice
Secretary of State: Bill Richardson
Deputy, DOS: Greg Craig
USUN: Tim Wirth

Share your ideas in the comments below.

300 x 89 = Victory in Ohio

Joe Biden just did a bus tour of southern Ohio, focusing on the fact that Ohio went to Bush by 118,000 votes in 2004.

Obama has 89 offices in Ohio. That means each office has to find an additional 1,326 voters.

Based on my experience during the primary season, each office needs to deploy somewhere in the range of 300 canvassers on election day, plus another 50 making phone calls. Those are probably on the conservative end of what is likely to happen.

If we assume that each bank of phone canvassers can get an additional 100-125 voters to the polls in the 10-12 hours they make calls, and that only 300 canvassers show up at each office, then each canvasser needs to convince four people who didn’t vote for Kerry four years ago to vote for Obama. That includes those not registered to vote four years ago, those who failed to vote, and disillusioned Bush supporters. It does not include absentee or early voters.

Four voters for every volunteer — if the campaign can put 27,000 volunteers on the ground. If it can get 35,600 volunteers, that’s three votes for every volunteer.

Think that’s not plausible? When I was in South Carolina for the primary, I drove five people to the polls who otherwise would not have voted. Five others immediately got in their cars and head to the polls after I reminded them that it was election day. When I was in North Carolina, I got more than a dozen folks to do early voting, and another five to go to the polls on election day.

If you live in Michigan, Kentucky, Illinois, or western New York, vote absentee and get to Ohio. (If you live in Indiana, Pennsylvania, or West Virginia, vote absentee and help get those states in the win column).

Unless, of course, you want Sarah Palin to be our next vice president.

Morning Buzz: Joe Biden’s Favorite Video

Because, and I mean literally, it’s literal. A revisioning of the A-Ha uh, classic.

Floridaze

So you may be wondering why both campaigns have been focusing on Southwest Florida — the area known as the Gulf Coast. Just yesterday On Monday, Sarah Palin appeared at a rally in Ft. Myers (the one where the Lee County Sheriff called Obama by his full name and is now under investigation for violating the Hatch Act). Today, Joe Biden hosted a fundraiser in Naples. The Gulf Coast usually isn’t on the front lines of Presidential politics, but this year it may be the swing region within the biggest swing state out there.

I’m what Floridians call a semi-native — someone who was not born in the state, but spent a good part of their youth there. I went to high school and college there (Cardinal Mooney High School and New College represent!), and I even worked on a political campaign there (for the record, Marlene Woodson-Howard for Governor, and yes (gasp) she was a Republican — call it my misspent youth).

I don’t claim to have an extensive understanding of Florida politics, but having spent some time on the campaign (surrogate) trail, I do know that the state should go Republican. So needless to say, I’m surprised to see this happening:

Florida basically can be divided into five zones: Panhandle (including Jacksonville), the East Coast, Central Florida (including Orlando), Tampa Bay, and the Gulf Coast. There is some overlap among the zones, but basically each has a different identity.

The Panhandle is closer in outlook to the rest of the Old South than it is to the rest of the state. Consider it solidly Republican.
The East Coast is primarily populated by retirees from the northeastern United States, and in the Miami area, Cuban-Americans and other immigrants from Latin America and the Caribbean. With the exception of the Cubanos, the region gets progressively more Democratic the farther south you go.
Central Florida, despite its reputation as a mecca for tourists, is strongly evangelical. This is Sarah Palin’s home turf, and the area where she’s been getting most of her big crowds. If Orange, Lake, and other counties do not go for McCain in a big way, I’ll be shocked.
The southwest Gulf Coast is populated primarily by retirees from the Midwest. It tends to be fiscally conservative and socially neutral-to-liberal. The instinct for most of the voters has traditionally been to support Republicans.
The Tampa Bay area is the most mixed. To the east, it resembles Central Florida. To the west, in St. Petersburg, it resembles the Southwest. In the middle is Tampa, which includes large minority communities and trends Democratic.

Many commentators have observed that McCain should do well in the Panhandle and Central Florida while Obama should do well along the East Coast, Most have said that the election will come down to the Tampa Bay area. That is quite possible, but I would suggest that the Gulf Coast might play as important a role. Many of its residents are old school Rockefeller Republicans who have voted with their pocketbook. This year, however, many are disillusioned with eight years of Bush mismanagement and wary of further strengthening of the social conservative elements within the Republican Party. McCain should have been a natural candidate for them, but his lurch to the right, epitomized by his pick of Palin, has many questioning whether he is the best candidate. I think that they just might go for Obama in big numbers.

If they do, McCain will lose Florida. And if he loses Florida, he loses the election. So on election night, watch five counties in Florida: Manatee, Sarasota, Charlotte, Lee, and Collier. If some or all of them swing to Obama, it may forecast the outcome of the election.

I’ve asked my Dad, who still lives in Sarasota — and writes a weekly column for the Sarasota Herald-Tribune — what he’s heard on the ground. I’ll report back what I hear. In the meantime, any other readers from Gatorland are more than welcome to chip in.

In the meantime, can I please ask one favor of my friends down there? Please please please don’t let it be close. We don’t need 2000 redux, especially in the middle of two wars and a massive financial crisis.

If Candidates Were Trains. . . .

Via Streetprophets:

Hat tip: South Jerusalem

Morning Buzz: SNL

Harumph

So the bailout passed. Can’t say I’m thrilled. Congress did not exactly cover itself in glory here, and they’ve given far too much away both to Paulson and Wall Street. I’m still not sure why an interim $150 billion dollar package would not have made just as much sense.

Judging by the reports coming out of Sacramento and Detroit, this is only the end of the beginning. And the TED Spread went up today, higher than it’s ever been. Unless the credit crunch begins to ease, things aren’t going to get better anytime soon.

In terms of politics, I doubt that this will help the McCain campaign. First, it reminds people of the mess we’re in. Second, it takes attention away from last night’s debate. Third and most importantly, it reminds everyone of how ineptly he handled things during the first bailout vote, and highlights that this got done even though he did not suspend his campaign.

Barack Obama probably should benefit, both in terms of his willingness to step forward and push for the bailout, and his role in convincing a number of Democrats to switch their vote. Given the polls showing that Biden won last night, it’s going to take a major meltdown or an unexpected foreign policy crisis for Obama to lose at this point.

Thought of the Night

McCain-Palin won a tactical victory, but I don’t think this was a momentum-changer.

Live Blogging the VP Debate III

10:01 Ifill calls Biden an interventionist. Asks whether Americans will tolerate it. Biden says that Americans will tolerate success.

10:02 Biden: a noun, a verb, and Dick Lugar. Do Americans care about what he thinks?

10:03 Palin has crib notes.

10:04 Biden is making good points, but is he talking too much?

10:06 Palin says John McCain knows how to win a war. Really? Which one did win? POW POW POW!

10:07 Biden does a good job of deflecting what, frankly, was a dumb question about how his Administration would differ from Obama. Palin says that a team of mavericks don’t agree on anything. You’re right — McCain disagrees that it was a good idea to put you on the ticket.

10:10 I didn’t know that Wasilla was the epicenter of reality. I thought it was Springfield.

10:10 It’s weird, but I think Biden actually comes across as more connected to Main Street.

10:11 You know she was waiting to say “Say It Ain’t So, Joe.” I don’t think that’s the killer line they thought it was.

10:12 Molly just asked if Palin meant that some children should be left behind. Heh.

10:13 Palin’s line about a lame joke was actually pretty good.

10:14 Dick Cheney had no trouble exerting his powers. It was pretty yucky.

10:14 Was Biden’s comment about a long talk a shot at Palin?

10:15 Biden is talking too much about himself here.

10:16 Ooh constitutional theory ftw!

10:16 Opening for Biden: Palin just said that she agreed with Cheney.

10:17 Biden: good comeback on Cheney. And then he gives Palin a little lesson on the Constitution.

10:18 What’s your Achilles heel? Palin misunderstands the question and talks about her experience. For someone who claims that she’s not a typical politician, she’s giving a typical answer.

10:19 America is a nation of exceptionalism??? Really? Where has that gotten us? Palin appears determined to lash the McCain camp to the Bush Administration. A good idea?

10:21 That was Biden’s best answer, by far. And is sounding shallow in comparison.

10:22 Molly said that she’s all style over substance. I would add talking points over policy.

10:23 Biden is making a fundamental framing mistake by using the word maverick over and over again.

10:24 Smart — Biden brings up the Supreme Court without mentioning Palin — reminds people about her awful answer.

10:25 “Quasi-caved in?” Steve Schmidt just screamed. Signing a budget is not changing a policy position.

10:27 I guess the final question was actually the pentultimate question.

10:28 Sorry, Joe, but I questioned the motives of Jesse Helms.

10:28 Palin: a smile wide and an inch deep.

10:29 Answering tough questions without the filter of the MSM. Or follow up questions of the MSM either. Palin: I’m a victim! Katie Couric is a big meanie!

10:30 Our children are at risk of dictatorship? Well McCain did say he wanted to be a dictator.

10:31 I liked Biden’s ending: It’s time for America to get up.

Palin was much better than expectations. That means, of course, that the media will say she won. Palin basically had six talking points: energy, Iraq, Israel, maverick, experience, and USA! Clearly, the debate prep people emphasized to her that she should appeal to the base and focus on the red meat. In the end, a tactical victory for the McCain campaign, largely because they were able to define a debate format that played to Palin’s strengths.

I think Biden was far stronger. But it wasn’t enough to look like a win.

So she didn’t destroy the McCain campaign, but I don’t think she did anything to bring McCain back into the race.

Live Blogging the VP Debate II

9:37 Question on partner benefits. Biden hits it out of the park. Palin: choosing to be gay? IT’S NOT A CHOICE YOU DIMWIT. Palin argues gay marriage.

9:38 When Biden said that he and Obama don’t support gay marriage, Molly said “coward.”

9:39 Here we go — foreign policy. Palin is clenching her teeth while talking about Iraq. Repeating the lie that Obama did not support the troops.

9:40 Palin: I oppose early withdrawal. Maybe that’s why she has five kids.

9:41 Iraq: McCain is noun, verb, Petraeus. Obama is noun, verb, Maliki. Biden then hits on the timeline issue, fact that Iraq is spending money

9:42 OOOH Palin just called Biden a surrender monkey! Shouldn’t the Iraqi government tell us when they’re ready? And she just called Obama worse than a surrender monkey. . . a surrender ferret?

9:44 Biden is failing to do something fairly important: he’s failing to link McCain and Bush.

9:45 Hey Gwen, why the false dichotomy on Iran and Pakistan?

9:46 Biden is hitting all the points on Pakistan-Iran, but does anyone care?

9:47 Hey Sarah, who is that leader of al Qaeda? How many times did she practice Ahmadinejad?

9:48 Damn. I didn’t pick Ahmadinejad in our drinking game. Palin plays the Israel card.

9:49 Especially Henry! News flash: Dictators hate America!!! Who knew?

9:50 Dueling Ahmadinejads!! Biden plays Spain card.

9:51 “Secretary Rice meeting with leaders on one side or the other dere.” Friends, that’s experience we can believe in.

9:52 She’s gone from a noun, a verb, and energy to a noun, a verb, and Israel.

9:53 Joe Biden just referred to himself in the third person.

9:54 Does Palin know the difference between Hezbollah and Hamas? Finally he talks about Administration, but fails to say Bush.

9:54 Americans are going to get tired of pointing fingers at the Bush Administration? HAHAHAHAHAHA.

9:55 THERE we go. McCain = Bush. Over and over again. And switch to new question leaves no response.

9:56 Nuclear weapons would be the be-all and end-all to too many people. Here we go — Incoherence alert!

9:57 STOP SAYING NUC-U-LAR!!!

9:57 She’s lying more about Obama’s record than McCain does.

9:58 Biden needs to stop speaking of himself in the third person.

9:59 Biden is talking circles around her, but she’s not cratering. Bet pundits will say she won.

10:00 Palin is actually coherent and forceful on Afghanistan.

Live Blogging the VP Debate I

Okay here we go.

9:01 I hope Gwen Ifill kicks Palin’s ass at some point.

9:03 Palin was charming, asking if she could call Biden Joe.

9:03 First question: bailout and failure of House. Biden not best or worst, but economic policies worst we’ve ever had. Aside: he’s hoarse. Goes straight to Obama’s four point plan. Emphasizes middle class.

9:05 Palin goes straight to a frame of how this is affecting average folks. That is a much stronger approach than Biden’s wonky answer.

9:06 The new McCain/Palin mantra: a noun, a verb, and Freddie/Fannie.

9:07 Second question: polarization. This format is going to help Palin. No wonder that the McCain campaign pushed it.

9:07 Biden goes to McCain’s comments about fundamentals of economy is strong. Palin comes back with argument that McCain was speaking to and about the American worker. She’s prepared, at least on econ questions. And she’s being homey.

9:09 Ifill calls them for not answering the question. Next question: financial meltdown — who was to blame? Palin says it was predatory lending. Palin: Never again. Charlie: Yep, never again elect a Republican money sucking slime weasel. Now she’s lecturing Americans on personal responsibility.

9:11 Biden hits McCain about McCain’s support for deregulation. Cites that mag article but it wasn’t a major magazine. Still, he’s sticking to the right talking points.

9:13 Side on the people’s side? She’s just this side of coherent. Problem is, so are many Americans. They’re going to cheer for her and want to like her.

9:13 John McCain has voted for tax increases 476 times — pow! bang! boom! Challenges Palin to answer question. Palin avoids replying, saying she’s not going to answer the questions the way you or the moderator want.

9:15 Gwen Ifill is jumping up and down in the weeds on tax policy. Trying to call out Palin?

9:16 Good line: when you do well, America does well. Biden the middle class warrior.

9:17 Palin just (indirectly) called Biden a socialist. What’s the Wall Street bailout. That’s his answer, me thinks. Calls Biden for calling tax increases patriotic. Claims she and Todd have been in middle class.

9:18 Palin has memorized her talking points, but they seem disconnected to the post-meltdown reality.

9:19 “We don’t call that redistribution, we call it fairness.” “Ultimate Bridge to Nowhere. Heh.”

9:21 What promises can’t you keep? Biden: foreign assistance, then goes into McCain’s tax policies. Energy, education, affordable health care all keepers. Really didn’t answer question.

9:23 Palin doesn’t answer question either. Talks about how she took on the oil companies in Alaska. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh man, you’re killing me. The fact you even know the names of the CEOs proves what a corporate shill you are.

9:24 Ifill calls her on not answering the question. Palin again avoids it.

9:25 “I’ve been at this five weeks.” ?? Not the message she wants.

9:26 Biden points out McCain and Palin are on opposite sides on windfall profits.

9:26 Bankruptcy bill. Palin says she’d support changes but then changes the subject. Noun, verb, Fannie Freddie. Biden called on his support for bankruptcy bill. Good.

9:29 Palin keeps coming back to energy whenever she doesn’t know the answer to a question. And format lets her get away with it.

9:30 Palin is a good actress, but she’s a parrot, not a politician.

9:31 Incoherence alert! Palin is warming! Danger! Danger! Biden needs to hit her on Bush’s position on climate change.

9:32 Palin: a noun, a verb, and energy.

9:32 Biden: if you don’t understand the cause, you can’t come up with a solution. Second direct hit on Palin.

9:33 Clean coal. Sigh. Bet Palin hits him on it. Makes the point on the problem with drilling — 10 years until we get anything out of it.

9:34 Did Palin just correct Biden on drill baby drill? Heh.

9:35 Senator O’Biden? Heh.

9:36 Biden has a good line about McCain favors only things that don’t work or things that the Government doesn’t do.

What Joe Biden Has to Do to Win Tonight

1. Talk about John McCain and McCain only, as if that’s who he’s debating.

2. Highlight why Barack Obama would make a better President than John McCain.

3. Keep his answers within the time constraints placed on the candidates.

4. Treat Sarah Palin with respect, avoiding condescension or inadvertent sexism.

5. Not die while on stage.

Polls: The Most Important Number?

The most important numbers in the race may be the spread between the four candidates favorability and unfavorability ratings. Here’s the latest data:

Andrew Sullivan and others have focused on the fact that Sarah Palin has moved from +17 to -10 in less than three weeks. What I find more striking is that McCain has dropped from +12 to+1 in that same period, and Obama has gone from +15 to +27.

If these trendlines continue, Obama will soon have a double-digit lead in the polls.

Joltin’ Joe

Another great point from the only VP candidate actually qualified to hold the job:

COURIC: Your vice presidential rival, Governor Palin, said “To the rest of America, that’s not patriotism. Raising taxes is about killing jobs and hurting small businesses and making things worse.”

BIDEN: How many small businessmen are making one million, four hundred thousand–average in the top 1 percent. Give me a break.

I remind my friend, John McCain, what he said–when Bush called for war and tax cuts–he said, it was immoral, immoral, to take a nation to war and not have anybody pay for it. I am so sick and tired of this phoniness.

The truth of the matter is that we are in trouble. And the people who do not need a new tax cut should be willing, as patriotic Americans, to understand the way to get this economy back up on their feet is to give middle class taxpayers a break. We take the tax cut they’re getting and we give it to the middle class.

Pow! Bam! Zing!

The Candidates and the Crisis

Noah Millman over at The American Scene, my favorite conservative site, summarizes what the four candidates have to say about the current financial meltdown:

Obama: We’re in this mess because the fundamentals are bad, and the fundamentals are bad because the Republicans have been ignoring ordinary working people and their needs. Most of what I think we should do is not particularly germane, and what is germane I don’t want to explain in too much detail because I’m worried I might get it wrong. I’m sticking to my platform.

McCain: We’re in this mess because a bunch of Wall Street hot shots got us into it, but they won’t dare to pull that stuff when I’m in the White House, because I survived five years in a POW camp. Do I look like the kind of guy who hangs around with a bunch of Wall Street sissies who buy their shirts at Thomas Pink? Not on your tintype girlie-girl.

Biden: I’ve been in the Senate forever, and I proposed a whole bunch of bills to deal with this problem – in fact, I’ve proposed bills to deal with just about any problem – but nobody will listen to me, particularly not John McCain. I hate it when people don’t listen to me.

Palin: I’m pretty sure John said he was against the bailout yesterday, but today he said he supported it. So I guess this is one of those times when you have to support something that you don’t basically feel good about because there’s no real alternative. That sounds about right.

Yes it does, Sunshine Sarah, yes it does.

If you’re not reading TAS, check it out. If other conservatives were as consistently thoughtful (and often hilarious) as they are, progressives actually would have someone to debate.

Memo to Michael Gerson: WTF?

In today’s Washington Postdated, former Bush flack-hack and occasional thoughtful conservative Michael Gerson goes off the rails again, suggesting that Obama has made three mistakes during his campaign that just might prove to be fatal.

1. Obama made the mistake of choosing in Joe Biden a thoughtful, experienced, and capable running mate instead of a crazy, inexperienced, and frequently vicious unknown.

He could have reinforced a message of change and moderation with a Democratic governor who wins in a Republican state, or reached for history by selecting Hillary Clinton. But his choice came soon after Russia invaded Georgia, and the conventional wisdom demanded an old hand who knew his way around Tbilisi. When the Georgia crisis faded, Obama was left with a partisan, undisciplined, congressional liberal at his side.

Apparently it is better to score easy points by creating a celebrity while sating your red (moose) meat base than it is to think about what is necessary to govern a large and complex nation.

2. Obama made the mistake of turning his convention speech into a thoughtful discussion of the issues that matter to the American people instead of a rehash of his inspirational stumps:

In his Denver speech, it seemed that every American home was on the auction block, every car stalled for lack of gasoline, every credit card bill past due, every worker treated like a Russian serf. And John McCain? He was out of touch, with flawed “judgment.” His life devoted to serving oil companies and big corporations. And, by the way, he didn’t have the courage to follow Osama bin Laden “to the cave where he lives.”

Apparently it is better to speak blandishments than talk about the real problems facing this country. The irony, of course, is that much of the commentariat before the speech — including Republicans — could not stop talking about how Obama needed to talk policy. After the speech every commentator — even Pat Buchanan, for crying out loud — called the speech one of the finest of his career and an extraordinary challenge to McCain. All that was forgotten by Gerson and other folks, largely because the next day, John McCain opened up that big ol’ can of crazy known as the Sarahnator.

3. Obama is now making the mistake of getting tough on McCain for being such a lying liar who lies about his giant sack of lies.

Who is hurt most by this race to the bottom? McCain, by the evidence of his own convention, wants to be a viewed as a fighter — which a fight does little to undermine. Obama was introduced to America as a different and better kind of politician — an image now in tatters.

That’s right — it’s Obama’s fault for challenging the lies, because it makes him look like a typical politician. Forget the fact that McCain has sullied his honor. It’s far more relevant that Obama chose to fight back, thus hurting his reputation as a change agent.

If Michael Gerson wants to put on a pair of beer goggles when he looks at John McCain, that’s his prerogative. But he shouldn’t expect the rest of us to believe him.

Best Comeback of the Day

Joe Biden campaigning in Michigan:

I hope this becomes a staple of his campaign. Obama should use it too.

Obama, Messaging, and Dean Wormer

Take a moment to watch this clip. It’s from an Obama town hall appearance yesterday in Farmington Hills, Michigan.

At first glance, it seems pretty good. He says that “there should be no contradiction between keeping America safe and secure and respecting our Constitution.” He gets in a good shot in about the need to catch the terrorists before you worry about what to do with them. And he has a great line at the end: “Don’t mock the constitution. Don’t make fun of it! Don’t suggest that it’s un-American to abide by what the founding fathers set up.”

Those are all good points. The problem is that along the way, he violates two fundamental rules of messaging:

1. Don’t use your opponent’s talking points to frame your arguments. Obama did that on three occasions:

“Senator Obama is less interested in protecting people from terrorism than he is in reading them their rights.”

“You may think it’s Barack the bomb thrower, when in fact it might be Barack, the guy running for president.”

“The reason you have this principle is not to be soft on terrorism.”

When you do this, you reinforce people’s preconceptions about you. If folks are already inclined to worry about whether you’re the right guy, then what they’re going to hear is that Obama is soft on terrorism, has a Muslim name, and is interested in protecting the bad guys.

2. Don’t try to convince people with facts. Obama spends over a minute explaining the concept of habeas corpus. He sounded like a professor. Most people don’t have any idea what the words “habeus corpus” mean. But they do understand the underlying principle: that sometimes, our government makes mistakes, and we need rules to protect innocent people from being thrown in jail indefinitely. They’ll understand that much more readily than talking about how this right goes back to before we were a country.

So what should have Obama said? How about something like this:

You know, all of us want to be treated fairly. You could say that’s the basic idea behind the Constitution and the Bill of Rights: do unto others as you would have them do onto you. In this country, we give people the chance to be heard. We promise them that they won’t be tortured. We say to them that they have the right to prove that they are innocent of the charges against them, and that they don’t have to incriminate themselves.

These are our core values. These are incredible gifts that the founding fathers gave to us. And these are the very things that our opponents are now mocking. How dare John McCain and Sarah Palin suggest that what was good enough for Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and Benjamin Franklin isn’t good enough for us.

Other than our familes, our freedoms are the most precious thing we have . They are what made this country great. They are the promise that all men and women are created equal, that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and, as you said so beautifully, ma’am, that we are the sweet land of liberty.

John McCain and Sarah Palin, just like George Bush and Dick Cheney, want you to believe that our security is more important than our freedoms. What you know and what I know — and what McCain and Palin and Bush and Cheney certainly should know is that we cannot have security without freedom. We cannot have justice without freedom. We cannot be America without our freedoms.

Those who suggest otherwise should be ashamed of themselves.

They should be ashamed for resorting to torture, for doing the very same things that John McCain himself suffered in Vietnam. They should be ashamed for letting places like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, instead of places like Farmington Hills and Peoria define who we are. They should be ashamed for allowing waterboarding, beatings, sleep deprivation, and other techniques that we used to think only happened in places like Zimbabwe and Burma and Cuba. They should be ashamed of themselves for believing that it’s all okay because the President can do anything he wants anytime he wants.

That’s not my America. That’s not your America. That’s not George Washington’s or Abraham Lincoln’s or Teddy Roosevelt’s or FDR’s or JFK’s or Ronald Reagan’s America. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say the President can do anything he or she wants. Nowhere. That’s not Martin Luther King’s or Susan B. Anthony’s or Bobby Kennedy’s America. That’s George Bush’s America.

It’s time we reclaim our heritage of freedom, our role as that shining city on the hill. It’s time we say “not on our watch,” not here, not in Guantanamo, not anywhere.

It’s time that we say to Bush and Cheney and McCain and Palin and anyone else who supports them, we’re taking America back. We’re taking America back to what it stands for. We’re going to make America great again. We’re going to be the America that respects people’s rights, that honors our core values, that draws so many people around the world to our shores.

Let’s start showing the world why we’re better than our enemies. Let’s honor our founding fathers by returning to the values that make America America.

That would knock McCain and Palin on their butts. It would force them to explain why they support the very torture techniques that John McCain himself endured. It would make them explain why they aren’t un-American. It would require them to argue that they don’t want to destroy the Constitution or shred the Bill of Rights. Tar them with every sin of the Bush Administration, and do it in a way that will leave them no space to reply except by repeating your arguments.

That, after all, is exactly what they’re doing to the Democrats.

So for crying out loud, Senator Obama, stop defending yourself and start attacking them. It’s the only way you win.

P.S. To my colleagues in the blogosphere and the mainstream media, this goes double for you. Stop caring about how many times Sarah Palin lied about the bridge to nowhere and start talking about why Obama and Biden are the right choice. Stop parsing every lie that McCain and Palin tell and start talking about what their Administration would do to the country. And if you can’t, then shut the hell up.

It’s the Dean Wormer Theory of Politics. In Animal House, Dean Vernon Wormer tells Flounder, “Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.”

In politics, defensive, bitter, and angry is no way to win an election.

What’s Wrong with this Picture?

Here’s who appeared on this morning’s news shows:

ABC’s “This Week” — Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

CBS’ “Face the Nation” — Republican presidential nominee John McCain.

NBC’s “Meet the Press” — Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden.

In case you’re wondering, she wasn’t on Fox or CNN either.

The Dems Strike Back

Beware McCain-Palin — Obama-Biden are ready to rumble, baby.

First, Obama:

Next, Biden:

And only one gratuitous “literally”!

These guys are gonna open up a really big can of whoop-ass on McCain-Palin over the next fifty-eight days. Give ‘em hell.

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts

Related posts