Barack Obama blew through San Francisco last night, one last time before next week's Democratic National Convention in Denver. And while he was here, he blew away the all-time single-event presidential fundraising record.
Obama raked in an astounding $7.8 million during three hours at the Fairmont Hotel. A million-dollar haul is good for one of these stops; two million is a great night. But almost eight million? That is simply astonishing. One could argue this wasn't a single event; the Illinois Senator went from room to room, knocking off two VIP receptions and a gala dinner in the Grand Ballroom (heirloom tomato salad, lavender salt-crusted beef tenderloin and carrot cake mousse, if you must know). But it was still a one-stop haul that dwarfed anything any other candidate has ever done high atop tony Nob Hill, or anywhere else in America for that matter.
Much of the money was sucked out of the deep pockets of about 200 South Asian and Asian Pacific Islander donors. It was an elegantly dressed crowd, with some of the women in beautiful saris. They certainly looked like they could afford the $14,000-a-head ticket.
Yes, you read that right: 14k per person. You could get in for a mere $2300, the federal maximum contribution to Obama's general election campaign. But that only got you that plate of beef and a chance to see the candidate deliver his usual stump speech. For the extra $11,700 - most of it going to the Democratic National Committee - you could shake hands with The Man himself, exchange a few words, and pose for a picture.
We've all heard Obama adopt a Southern drawl when campaigning in Alabama, or sound like a brother from the hood when he's back home in Chicago. But he struck quite a different tone in the VIP room with the Indian and Pakistani crowd.
"I not only think I'm a desi, I am a desi," he told them, using a Hindi word, derived from the Sanskrit, that means a person of South Asian descent. In India, it also can mean local, or indigenous. "I'm your homeboy." He told the well-heeled donors that he became an expert at whipping up dal during his freshman year at Occidental College, where his roommate was from Pakistan. "But someone else made the naan," he joked.
Well, he's certainly learned how to make bread since then.
There's nothing wrong with trying to connect with a crowd. I do the same thing when I interview someone. I try to find something we have in common, so that we click and become comfortable. I've lived in six different states, have eight far-flung siblings, and have had a pretty full life, so there's usually some sort of connection to be made.
But Obama's getting awfully close to pandering to some of these audiences, especially when he's asking for their money. Now he's a South Asian homeboy? Last time I checked, he's half-Kenyan, half-Kansan. Yes, he was raised in Indonesia and Hawaii, but that's not exactly Mumbai. Technically, Indonesia is part of Southeast Asia, although since it's in between South Asia and the Pacific Islands, I suppose I should cut him some slack, given the diversity of this particular audience.
I just find the whole campaign fundraising thing unseemly, and the ingratiating tone doesn't make it any more attractive. And I wonder whether Obama should be describing himself as a "South Asian homeboy" at a time when the conservatives are putting out best-selling books portraying him as an un-American, Arabic-speaking, closet Muslim, radical. He needn't deny his heritage; he should embrace it. But that doesn't mean pretending to be all things to all people.
Do they even know what dal is in Iowa or New Hampshire?
He'd better hope swing voters don't select "naan of the above" in November.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Monday, August 4, 2008
Veepstakes Part II
The buzz is building. The four-year wait is almost over. The network TV coverage is about to begin.
No, not the Summer Olympics. I'm talking about the national political conventions, which have been stripped of most of their relevance and news value but remain compelling theater for true political junkies.
This time around, Barack Obama and John McCain are threatening to suck the last bit of drama out of their parties' quadrennial confabs by naming their vice presidential selections ahead of time. That doesn't usually happen; in some years, the running mate choice has kept convention-goers guessing right up until the moment of nomination, on the convention's second night.
But with McCain and Obama jockeying for whatever advantage they can get - and with the convention schedule compressed this year, and competing with the Olympics for attention - one or both of the candidates may seek an early August boost by ending the suspense and picking a running mate early.
We already vetted McCain's potential choices a while back, although you can add late-breaking rising star Eric Cantor, a Jewish, conservative Congressman from Virginia, to McCain's short list. Now it's time to break down Obama's possible veeps:
THE VIRGINIANS: Barack Obama is no dummy. He's studied the electoral map and he sees an awful lot of red in between the blue coasts. He knows that this election is all about him - he has said as much - and that unless he pulls a Thomas Eagleton or Dan Quayle out of his hat, his vice presidential choice is not likely to make a huge difference. So he'd like to find someone who can help him put a little blue in the heartland, whether it's Virginia, Indiana or Colorado. He knows that if he can just move one or two states into the Democratic column, he can win the White House. And that's why he's looking so hard at Virginia, a solidly Republican state in recent history, that is becoming more and more Democratic. It's elected two consecutive Democratic governors, and one U.S. Senator, and may elect a second Democrat to the Senate this November. And all of those Democrats have been considered by the Obama camp for the vice presidency.
One of them, former governor Mark Warner, is not a serious contender, since he's running for a Senate seat that the Democrats need to capture. Another, freshman Senator Jim Webb, seems to have taken himself out of the running, and, despite his experience as Navy Secretary for Ronald Reagan, probably isn't seasoned enough politically for Obama. That leaves Governor Tim Kaine, who may well be the frontrunner now. Kaine was Mayor of Richmond, was elected Lieutenant Governor, and then succeeded Warner as governor. He's only 50, has no military and little foreign affairs experience, and doesn't really bring the gray-haired gravitas many observers think Obama needs on the ticket. But he and Obama are said to be simpatico, and like Obama, he's a Harvard lawyer with Midwestern roots, who has lived abroad. His selection could give the Democrats a ticket like the 1992 team of Clinton and Gore - two smart, next generation, up-and-comers who appeal to young voters and independents. Kaine has some pluses - born in Minnesota, raised in Missouri, went to Harvard Law School, is fluent in Spanish - and some minuses: he's Catholic and has a fairly short government resume. Plus, the Republicans could knock an Obama-Kaine ticket as a couple of brash Ivy Leaguers. But the more you look at Kaine's background, the more he clicks as a potential partner for Obama.
BAYH-PARTISAN: Somewhere in my campaign button collection, I have some old Birch Bayh for President pins from 1976. One of them reads "I'm Bayh Partisan." Barack Obama may be, too - because he is strongly considering Birch's son Evan for the vice presidency. Evan Bayh (he's actually Birch Evan Bayh the third) almost ran for president himself this year, but bowed out at the last minute. He's a former Governor of Indiana who is now in his second term in the U.S. Senate. He's a Clintonesque (Bill, not Hillary) centrist, who would be a safe, maybe even boring, pick. But if Obama wants to play it by the book, Bayh could be his man.
THE VANQUISHED RIVALS: Hillary Clinton? Since she represents New York, I'll sum up her vice presidential prospects this way: fuhgedaboutit. Ain't gonna happen. Bill Richardson? He makes a lot of sense on paper - Latino, seasoned, excellent foreign policy experience, from a swing state - but as Richardson proved in the primaries, campaigns aren't run on paper. He ran a terrible, clumsy campaign, so there's little reason to think he'd be any more effective as Obama's running mate. John Edwards? Been there, done that. That leaves Chris Dodd and Joe Biden - and word has it they're both on Obama's list. Dodd would make a great vice president; he comes across like your favorite uncle, a sweet, genuinely caring man. He's got loads of experience, gray hair, young children and is fluent in Spanish. But he also represents Connecticut, and it's hard to see how that helps Obama get elected president, and I don't think he'd be comfortable in the role of vice presidential attack dog.
Biden would love to be vice president - let's face it, Biden would love to be ANYTHING if it means attention and an invitation to speak - but he wouldn't add much to the ticket. Delaware is a tiny state that is safely in the Democrats' column, and despite Biden's 30 years-plus of foreign policy expertise, he wouldn't move voters in the South or the Mountain states. I see him more as a potential Secretary of State for Obama, but sources insist he's under serious consideration as another "safe" alternative to Kaine, and has made the short list.
DARK HORSES AND WILD CARDS: This list could go on a long time, but I'm in danger of becoming a Joe Biden speech, so we'll try to keep it brief. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is pushing nine-term Texas Congressman Chet Edwards, but that's because she wants a House member to get some consideration. There's no reason to think he's on Obama's list. Obama has examined some generals, including Wesley Clark and James Jones, but all indications are he's moved back toward choosing a conventional politician. Obama is said to like Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius, who has raised her profile in recent years and could run for president herself someday. She is 60 years old, in her second term, and has proven adept at attracting crossover voters. If Obama decides he wants a woman - one not named Hillary Clinton - Sibelius could be the choice, but that could also alienate Clinton supporters who will see the selection of any other woman as an affront. Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano has also been mentioned, but choosing her would give the governorship there to the Republicans, and Napolitano has said that no one from the Obama camp has contacted her yet, so she seems out of the running. There was some early talk about Sam Nunn - isn't there always? - but that's faded now, as has speculation about Missouri's freshman Senator, Claire McCaskill.
There are also a few governors said to have been considered, but at this point, if the vetters haven't asked for financial records and the like, they're probably out of the running, because Obama only has three weeks left to make his decision. Those governors include Ohio's Ted Strickland (an early and avid Hillary supporter, which makes his selection unlikely), Pennsylvania's Ed Rendell (Jewish and given to speaking bluntly and honestly, which makes him a long shot) and Colorado's Bill Ritter, mainly because he governs a state Obama wants to snatch from the GOP.
So where does that leave us? I will go boldly out onto a limb that someone can saw off later this month, when I'm proven completely wrong. I claim no track record for predicting running mates, but here goes: Even though I'm intrigued by the Eric Cantor candidacy for McCain's veep slot - attracting Jewish voters who are nervous about Obama could help McCain win Florida, Pennsylvania or New Jersey - I think McCain will go with Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty. And I think Obama's whittled his list down to Kaine and Bayh. "Obama-Kaine" does sound like some sort of numbing agent, but "Obama-Bayh" would present some intriguing song possibilities. And besides, "Obama-Biden" sounds too much like "Osama bin Laden."
Feel free to post your own suggestions below. And check back in three weeks to tell me how wrong I was...
No, not the Summer Olympics. I'm talking about the national political conventions, which have been stripped of most of their relevance and news value but remain compelling theater for true political junkies.
This time around, Barack Obama and John McCain are threatening to suck the last bit of drama out of their parties' quadrennial confabs by naming their vice presidential selections ahead of time. That doesn't usually happen; in some years, the running mate choice has kept convention-goers guessing right up until the moment of nomination, on the convention's second night.
But with McCain and Obama jockeying for whatever advantage they can get - and with the convention schedule compressed this year, and competing with the Olympics for attention - one or both of the candidates may seek an early August boost by ending the suspense and picking a running mate early.
We already vetted McCain's potential choices a while back, although you can add late-breaking rising star Eric Cantor, a Jewish, conservative Congressman from Virginia, to McCain's short list. Now it's time to break down Obama's possible veeps:
THE VIRGINIANS: Barack Obama is no dummy. He's studied the electoral map and he sees an awful lot of red in between the blue coasts. He knows that this election is all about him - he has said as much - and that unless he pulls a Thomas Eagleton or Dan Quayle out of his hat, his vice presidential choice is not likely to make a huge difference. So he'd like to find someone who can help him put a little blue in the heartland, whether it's Virginia, Indiana or Colorado. He knows that if he can just move one or two states into the Democratic column, he can win the White House. And that's why he's looking so hard at Virginia, a solidly Republican state in recent history, that is becoming more and more Democratic. It's elected two consecutive Democratic governors, and one U.S. Senator, and may elect a second Democrat to the Senate this November. And all of those Democrats have been considered by the Obama camp for the vice presidency.
One of them, former governor Mark Warner, is not a serious contender, since he's running for a Senate seat that the Democrats need to capture. Another, freshman Senator Jim Webb, seems to have taken himself out of the running, and, despite his experience as Navy Secretary for Ronald Reagan, probably isn't seasoned enough politically for Obama. That leaves Governor Tim Kaine, who may well be the frontrunner now. Kaine was Mayor of Richmond, was elected Lieutenant Governor, and then succeeded Warner as governor. He's only 50, has no military and little foreign affairs experience, and doesn't really bring the gray-haired gravitas many observers think Obama needs on the ticket. But he and Obama are said to be simpatico, and like Obama, he's a Harvard lawyer with Midwestern roots, who has lived abroad. His selection could give the Democrats a ticket like the 1992 team of Clinton and Gore - two smart, next generation, up-and-comers who appeal to young voters and independents. Kaine has some pluses - born in Minnesota, raised in Missouri, went to Harvard Law School, is fluent in Spanish - and some minuses: he's Catholic and has a fairly short government resume. Plus, the Republicans could knock an Obama-Kaine ticket as a couple of brash Ivy Leaguers. But the more you look at Kaine's background, the more he clicks as a potential partner for Obama.
BAYH-PARTISAN: Somewhere in my campaign button collection, I have some old Birch Bayh for President pins from 1976. One of them reads "I'm Bayh Partisan." Barack Obama may be, too - because he is strongly considering Birch's son Evan for the vice presidency. Evan Bayh (he's actually Birch Evan Bayh the third) almost ran for president himself this year, but bowed out at the last minute. He's a former Governor of Indiana who is now in his second term in the U.S. Senate. He's a Clintonesque (Bill, not Hillary) centrist, who would be a safe, maybe even boring, pick. But if Obama wants to play it by the book, Bayh could be his man.
THE VANQUISHED RIVALS: Hillary Clinton? Since she represents New York, I'll sum up her vice presidential prospects this way: fuhgedaboutit. Ain't gonna happen. Bill Richardson? He makes a lot of sense on paper - Latino, seasoned, excellent foreign policy experience, from a swing state - but as Richardson proved in the primaries, campaigns aren't run on paper. He ran a terrible, clumsy campaign, so there's little reason to think he'd be any more effective as Obama's running mate. John Edwards? Been there, done that. That leaves Chris Dodd and Joe Biden - and word has it they're both on Obama's list. Dodd would make a great vice president; he comes across like your favorite uncle, a sweet, genuinely caring man. He's got loads of experience, gray hair, young children and is fluent in Spanish. But he also represents Connecticut, and it's hard to see how that helps Obama get elected president, and I don't think he'd be comfortable in the role of vice presidential attack dog.
Biden would love to be vice president - let's face it, Biden would love to be ANYTHING if it means attention and an invitation to speak - but he wouldn't add much to the ticket. Delaware is a tiny state that is safely in the Democrats' column, and despite Biden's 30 years-plus of foreign policy expertise, he wouldn't move voters in the South or the Mountain states. I see him more as a potential Secretary of State for Obama, but sources insist he's under serious consideration as another "safe" alternative to Kaine, and has made the short list.
DARK HORSES AND WILD CARDS: This list could go on a long time, but I'm in danger of becoming a Joe Biden speech, so we'll try to keep it brief. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is pushing nine-term Texas Congressman Chet Edwards, but that's because she wants a House member to get some consideration. There's no reason to think he's on Obama's list. Obama has examined some generals, including Wesley Clark and James Jones, but all indications are he's moved back toward choosing a conventional politician. Obama is said to like Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius, who has raised her profile in recent years and could run for president herself someday. She is 60 years old, in her second term, and has proven adept at attracting crossover voters. If Obama decides he wants a woman - one not named Hillary Clinton - Sibelius could be the choice, but that could also alienate Clinton supporters who will see the selection of any other woman as an affront. Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano has also been mentioned, but choosing her would give the governorship there to the Republicans, and Napolitano has said that no one from the Obama camp has contacted her yet, so she seems out of the running. There was some early talk about Sam Nunn - isn't there always? - but that's faded now, as has speculation about Missouri's freshman Senator, Claire McCaskill.
There are also a few governors said to have been considered, but at this point, if the vetters haven't asked for financial records and the like, they're probably out of the running, because Obama only has three weeks left to make his decision. Those governors include Ohio's Ted Strickland (an early and avid Hillary supporter, which makes his selection unlikely), Pennsylvania's Ed Rendell (Jewish and given to speaking bluntly and honestly, which makes him a long shot) and Colorado's Bill Ritter, mainly because he governs a state Obama wants to snatch from the GOP.
So where does that leave us? I will go boldly out onto a limb that someone can saw off later this month, when I'm proven completely wrong. I claim no track record for predicting running mates, but here goes: Even though I'm intrigued by the Eric Cantor candidacy for McCain's veep slot - attracting Jewish voters who are nervous about Obama could help McCain win Florida, Pennsylvania or New Jersey - I think McCain will go with Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty. And I think Obama's whittled his list down to Kaine and Bayh. "Obama-Kaine" does sound like some sort of numbing agent, but "Obama-Bayh" would present some intriguing song possibilities. And besides, "Obama-Biden" sounds too much like "Osama bin Laden."
Feel free to post your own suggestions below. And check back in three weeks to tell me how wrong I was...
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
How Wrong Can I Be?
Very wrong, if John McCain chooses Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal as his running mate.
I'm just back from two weeks' vacation, in Montana and San Juan Island, Washington. It's risky to take a break during the presidential campaign, but I figured it was fairly safe to split during what's typically a July lull. For a fortnight, I focused on trailheads, not talking heads. Trekking poles...instead of tracking polls.
Of course, I couldn't escape the campaign entirely. San Juan Island is mad for Obama, as is much of the Seattle area. So is Missoula, maybe even enough to offset the red-state mindset of the rest of Montana. That's one of those typically Republican states that Obama's targeting, and with good reason. Montana's governor and both its U.S. Senators are Democrats now, and the place is still buzzing about the huge crowd that turned out for Obama a few days before I was there (for more on red states turning blue, listen to our most recent campaign song).
I came back in time for Obama's Grand World Tour, with all its breathless media coverage. John McCain is trying, tirelessly, to steal as much of Obama's thunder as he can, with daily campaign events and intensifying criticism of Obama's Iraq policy. There's even speculation that McCain will try to trump Obama by announcing his running mate this week, although it now appears that may be a ruse, and that merely floating the rumor was enough to swipe a few headlines from Obama.
(By the way, both Barack Obama and John McCain sat down with Katie Couric for interviews this week; the Obama one featured lots of hemming and hawing but the McCain one made news. You can hear them right here.)
Which brings me to Bobby Jindal. I left him off my list of 22 potential McCain running mates a few blogs ago, because I just don't take him seriously as vice presidential material yet. He's too young and inexperienced, and nominating him would deprive McCain of one of his strongest potential arguments against Obama - that he's not ready to be president. A McCain-Jindal ticket would be a bold stroke, and if McCain is determined to make one, his list of viable options is short. Jindal could get the nod by default. The Republican field of potential veeps is dominated by old white men, and the women on the list all have flaws, too (Sarah Palin of Alaska isn't seasoned enough; Kay Bailey Hutchison may be over-seasoned).
Jindal is a solid Southern conservative with a fascinating personal story. But he's only 37, and has been a governor for all of seven months. He has ten years' prior government experience (as a two-term Congressman, four years running Louisiana's health department, and two years in President Bush's Department of Health and Human Services). But does all that add up to an Oval Office-ready resume? John McCain has said he will choose a running mate who's ready to be president from Day One, in case something happens to the soon-to-be-72 McCain. I just don't see how Jindal makes that grade, even if Rush Limbaugh has anointed him the "next Ronald Reagan."
The campaign will shift back into high gear in the next few weeks. Both candidates will focus on choosing their running mates. There will be much pre-convention jockeying, and then we will have the conventions themselves, later than ever before, and closer together, too. Six weeks from now, we will be measuring post-convention bounces, and then we should get a better sense of just how close this race will become. I think it will be our third straight nailbiter, although some observers point to signs of a potential Obama landslide.
See? Another chance for me to be embarrassingly wrong, in public.
I'm just back from two weeks' vacation, in Montana and San Juan Island, Washington. It's risky to take a break during the presidential campaign, but I figured it was fairly safe to split during what's typically a July lull. For a fortnight, I focused on trailheads, not talking heads. Trekking poles...instead of tracking polls.
Of course, I couldn't escape the campaign entirely. San Juan Island is mad for Obama, as is much of the Seattle area. So is Missoula, maybe even enough to offset the red-state mindset of the rest of Montana. That's one of those typically Republican states that Obama's targeting, and with good reason. Montana's governor and both its U.S. Senators are Democrats now, and the place is still buzzing about the huge crowd that turned out for Obama a few days before I was there (for more on red states turning blue, listen to our most recent campaign song).
I came back in time for Obama's Grand World Tour, with all its breathless media coverage. John McCain is trying, tirelessly, to steal as much of Obama's thunder as he can, with daily campaign events and intensifying criticism of Obama's Iraq policy. There's even speculation that McCain will try to trump Obama by announcing his running mate this week, although it now appears that may be a ruse, and that merely floating the rumor was enough to swipe a few headlines from Obama.
(By the way, both Barack Obama and John McCain sat down with Katie Couric for interviews this week; the Obama one featured lots of hemming and hawing but the McCain one made news. You can hear them right here.)
Which brings me to Bobby Jindal. I left him off my list of 22 potential McCain running mates a few blogs ago, because I just don't take him seriously as vice presidential material yet. He's too young and inexperienced, and nominating him would deprive McCain of one of his strongest potential arguments against Obama - that he's not ready to be president. A McCain-Jindal ticket would be a bold stroke, and if McCain is determined to make one, his list of viable options is short. Jindal could get the nod by default. The Republican field of potential veeps is dominated by old white men, and the women on the list all have flaws, too (Sarah Palin of Alaska isn't seasoned enough; Kay Bailey Hutchison may be over-seasoned).
Jindal is a solid Southern conservative with a fascinating personal story. But he's only 37, and has been a governor for all of seven months. He has ten years' prior government experience (as a two-term Congressman, four years running Louisiana's health department, and two years in President Bush's Department of Health and Human Services). But does all that add up to an Oval Office-ready resume? John McCain has said he will choose a running mate who's ready to be president from Day One, in case something happens to the soon-to-be-72 McCain. I just don't see how Jindal makes that grade, even if Rush Limbaugh has anointed him the "next Ronald Reagan."
The campaign will shift back into high gear in the next few weeks. Both candidates will focus on choosing their running mates. There will be much pre-convention jockeying, and then we will have the conventions themselves, later than ever before, and closer together, too. Six weeks from now, we will be measuring post-convention bounces, and then we should get a better sense of just how close this race will become. I think it will be our third straight nailbiter, although some observers point to signs of a potential Obama landslide.
See? Another chance for me to be embarrassingly wrong, in public.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Spare Some Change?
As even a casual observer of the 2008 presidential campaign knows, Barack Obama is running as the candidate of change. I've written before in this space about how that in itself is nothing new: John Adams ran on the same platform. So did Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, for that matter.
But there is a gnawing fear in the hearts of some progressives that Obama won't really be the once-in-a-generation transformational leader they'd hoped - that they're being set up for colossal disappointment. "We think he's Bobby Kennedy," a veteran Berkeley progressive fretted the other day. "But what if he's just another DLC Democrat?"
She was referring to the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist "New Democrat" faction that produced "Third Way" Democrats Bill and Hillary Clinton and Al Gore, and profoundly influenced Tony Blair in the UK. As far as progressives are concerned, if you're in the DLC, you might as well be a Republican.
The DLC is getting behind Barack Obama now, by default, if nothing else. The Clintons, if we take them at their word, would still rather see another Democrat in the White House than another Republican.
But it's Obama himself who's alarming the left. First, he reneged on his earlier intention to accept public financing for the general election, becoming the first major party candidate to do so since the system was put in place after Watergate. Then he agreed to vote for the FISA amendment bill, which means the telecommunications giants will be immune from lawsuits for participating in warrantless government wiretaps.
Those two moves make Obama seem an awful lot like a conventional politician, not an "agent of change." They should actually reassure all those rabid conservative talk show hosts who fear he's out to destroy America - because it could turn out he's just another willing cog in the corporate political machine. But Obama needs to be careful not to alienate that young, idealistic army of his - he needs them to win in November.
The decision to opt out of the public financing system was disappointing for some, but really, it should hearten Democrats who watched in frustration as Al Gore and John Kerry frittered away their natural advantages with inept fall campaigns. Barack Obama is doing what he has to do to win. He may well be asking himself, "What would Karl Rove do?" The answer, of course, is, take the money and run. Obama's ahead of John McCain in the polls now, by as much as 15 points if you believe the Newsweek poll (I don't). McCain will have $85 million to spend in the last two months of the race, the money allotted him by the federal funding system (that three bucks you probably don't check off on your tax return). Obama could either have that same amount - fair enough - or he could have $250 million, the amount he can probably raise from his and Hillary's donors. Hmm, tough decision, huh? This was a choice between progressive principles, and pragmatism and ambition. Guess who won? Obama took some heat for a few days, but who can really blame him? Now he can compete in all 50 states, with paid staff everywhere, something McCain simply can't do. Obama can inundate voters in swing states with a volume of TV ads that McCain won't be able to match. And he even turned his controversial decision into yet another fundraising opportunity, sending out a video by email with a pitch for new donations (and I've gotten two more since then, from his campaign manager, David Plouffe, asking for still more money, money, money).
Instead of criticizing him for going back on his word, those Republican talk show squawkers should admire Obama for applying free market principles to his campaign. Is he a socialist who wants to dismantle capitalism? Apparently not, at least not until he gets himself elected. Which might reassure some on the right. It's scaring some on the left, who aren't sure what they're getting now...and what kind of change, if any, an Obama presidency would really bring.
FOOTNOTES: I sat down last week with former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan, to talk about his new inside-the-Oval Office expose, "What Happened." You can hear some of it here
along with excerpts from Obama's speech on patriotism, and stories on his rapprochement with Bill Clinton, and the energy policies of Obama and McCain, among other things.
But there is a gnawing fear in the hearts of some progressives that Obama won't really be the once-in-a-generation transformational leader they'd hoped - that they're being set up for colossal disappointment. "We think he's Bobby Kennedy," a veteran Berkeley progressive fretted the other day. "But what if he's just another DLC Democrat?"
She was referring to the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist "New Democrat" faction that produced "Third Way" Democrats Bill and Hillary Clinton and Al Gore, and profoundly influenced Tony Blair in the UK. As far as progressives are concerned, if you're in the DLC, you might as well be a Republican.
The DLC is getting behind Barack Obama now, by default, if nothing else. The Clintons, if we take them at their word, would still rather see another Democrat in the White House than another Republican.
But it's Obama himself who's alarming the left. First, he reneged on his earlier intention to accept public financing for the general election, becoming the first major party candidate to do so since the system was put in place after Watergate. Then he agreed to vote for the FISA amendment bill, which means the telecommunications giants will be immune from lawsuits for participating in warrantless government wiretaps.
Those two moves make Obama seem an awful lot like a conventional politician, not an "agent of change." They should actually reassure all those rabid conservative talk show hosts who fear he's out to destroy America - because it could turn out he's just another willing cog in the corporate political machine. But Obama needs to be careful not to alienate that young, idealistic army of his - he needs them to win in November.
The decision to opt out of the public financing system was disappointing for some, but really, it should hearten Democrats who watched in frustration as Al Gore and John Kerry frittered away their natural advantages with inept fall campaigns. Barack Obama is doing what he has to do to win. He may well be asking himself, "What would Karl Rove do?" The answer, of course, is, take the money and run. Obama's ahead of John McCain in the polls now, by as much as 15 points if you believe the Newsweek poll (I don't). McCain will have $85 million to spend in the last two months of the race, the money allotted him by the federal funding system (that three bucks you probably don't check off on your tax return). Obama could either have that same amount - fair enough - or he could have $250 million, the amount he can probably raise from his and Hillary's donors. Hmm, tough decision, huh? This was a choice between progressive principles, and pragmatism and ambition. Guess who won? Obama took some heat for a few days, but who can really blame him? Now he can compete in all 50 states, with paid staff everywhere, something McCain simply can't do. Obama can inundate voters in swing states with a volume of TV ads that McCain won't be able to match. And he even turned his controversial decision into yet another fundraising opportunity, sending out a video by email with a pitch for new donations (and I've gotten two more since then, from his campaign manager, David Plouffe, asking for still more money, money, money).
Instead of criticizing him for going back on his word, those Republican talk show squawkers should admire Obama for applying free market principles to his campaign. Is he a socialist who wants to dismantle capitalism? Apparently not, at least not until he gets himself elected. Which might reassure some on the right. It's scaring some on the left, who aren't sure what they're getting now...and what kind of change, if any, an Obama presidency would really bring.
FOOTNOTES: I sat down last week with former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan, to talk about his new inside-the-Oval Office expose, "What Happened." You can hear some of it here
along with excerpts from Obama's speech on patriotism, and stories on his rapprochement with Bill Clinton, and the energy policies of Obama and McCain, among other things.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
An Early Stumble
My favorite quote from the campaign trail this week:
"I'm not hiring a vetter to vet the vetters."
Barack Obama said that, after the Wall Street Journal reported that longtime Democratic insider Jim Johnson, hired by Obama to lead his search for a running mate, had gotten some sweetheart home loans from collapsing subprime lender Countrywide Financing.
Johnson ended up resigning from Obama's veep committee. The news that the presumptive Democratic nominee hadn't properly vetted the man who would be vetting his vice presidential choice makes some Democrats even more nervous about November than they already were. Obama has called his choice of a running mate "the most important decision" he'll make before Election Day. Yet he's already botching it. Jim Johnson seemed like a safe choice for the assignment; after all, this guy is the consummate Washington insider, and he performed the exact same task for Fritz Mondale in 1984 and John Kerry in 2004.
Hmm, maybe that's part of the problem. First of all, Mondale's choice of Geraldine Ferraro, though seemingly inspired at first, ended up being more problematic than helpful. Kerry's choice of John Edwards made little difference in that campaign. But why is Barack Obama, who's supposed to be new, fresh, different and exciting - a candidate who says he embodies change so much all by himself that he won't actually have to make any if he's elected - turning to an old D.C. hand like Jim Johnson? Is he trying to pull a George W. Bush, who sought to make up for his own lack of experience and gravitas by leaning on GOP wise head Dick Cheney (so much so that Cheney himself got the number two slot)? There's nothing wrong with seeking sage counsel for such a critical decision (although I will argue in a later blog that it's really not so critical, from a campaign standpoint, as everyone thinks). But come on Obama, if you really want to be different - THEN BE DIFFERENT. Let's bring in Eddie Vedder from Pearl Jam to be in charge of vetting. Or maybe a Vietnam Vet who came home and became a veterinarian. The more Obama makes this kind of mistake, the more he'll seem like just another politician, and the less the voters will believe his advertising.
By the way, I was curious about the etymology of this particular meaning of the word "vet" (it's meaning number three in my OED). It turns out it comes from the Latin word "veto," which we all know - as in, checking someone out thoroughly so you can veto the choice if you find anything bad. Such as a cozy Countrywide loan or three on their balance sheet.
Check out the latest polls on our website. Obama is pulling away from McCain in all of them, although that may just be the post-primary, Hillary-endorsed-him bounce. We'll go into some greater detail on the polls in our next post, unless something else leaps out of my brain first. Also, speaking of brains, give yours a tickle by trying this week's trivia question. The answer may surprise you!
"I'm not hiring a vetter to vet the vetters."
Barack Obama said that, after the Wall Street Journal reported that longtime Democratic insider Jim Johnson, hired by Obama to lead his search for a running mate, had gotten some sweetheart home loans from collapsing subprime lender Countrywide Financing.
Johnson ended up resigning from Obama's veep committee. The news that the presumptive Democratic nominee hadn't properly vetted the man who would be vetting his vice presidential choice makes some Democrats even more nervous about November than they already were. Obama has called his choice of a running mate "the most important decision" he'll make before Election Day. Yet he's already botching it. Jim Johnson seemed like a safe choice for the assignment; after all, this guy is the consummate Washington insider, and he performed the exact same task for Fritz Mondale in 1984 and John Kerry in 2004.
Hmm, maybe that's part of the problem. First of all, Mondale's choice of Geraldine Ferraro, though seemingly inspired at first, ended up being more problematic than helpful. Kerry's choice of John Edwards made little difference in that campaign. But why is Barack Obama, who's supposed to be new, fresh, different and exciting - a candidate who says he embodies change so much all by himself that he won't actually have to make any if he's elected - turning to an old D.C. hand like Jim Johnson? Is he trying to pull a George W. Bush, who sought to make up for his own lack of experience and gravitas by leaning on GOP wise head Dick Cheney (so much so that Cheney himself got the number two slot)? There's nothing wrong with seeking sage counsel for such a critical decision (although I will argue in a later blog that it's really not so critical, from a campaign standpoint, as everyone thinks). But come on Obama, if you really want to be different - THEN BE DIFFERENT. Let's bring in Eddie Vedder from Pearl Jam to be in charge of vetting. Or maybe a Vietnam Vet who came home and became a veterinarian. The more Obama makes this kind of mistake, the more he'll seem like just another politician, and the less the voters will believe his advertising.
By the way, I was curious about the etymology of this particular meaning of the word "vet" (it's meaning number three in my OED). It turns out it comes from the Latin word "veto," which we all know - as in, checking someone out thoroughly so you can veto the choice if you find anything bad. Such as a cozy Countrywide loan or three on their balance sheet.
Check out the latest polls on our website. Obama is pulling away from McCain in all of them, although that may just be the post-primary, Hillary-endorsed-him bounce. We'll go into some greater detail on the polls in our next post, unless something else leaps out of my brain first. Also, speaking of brains, give yours a tickle by trying this week's trivia question. The answer may surprise you!
Friday, June 6, 2008
History, As It Happens
The poet and critic Matthew Arnold once famously described journalism as "literature in a hurry." Sometimes, I also like to think of it as history, as it happens. There are moments during this long, fascinating presidential campaign when it strikes me that I do actually work for a history company - except, lacking the perspective of decades, or even centuries, I study events in the moment, and then disseminate my findings almost immediately.
And who said, when I got that history degree, that the history firms weren't hiring?
It might be easy in the raucous tumult of the 24-hour news cycle to overlook the historic importance of Barack Obama's Democratic primary victory. Don't let it get lost in the sauce. I hope you'll put your own cynicism, weariness or politics, whatever they may be, on pause, to savor and appreciate just what we are witnessing in 2008.
Obama isn't just the first black nominee. He breaks the 220-year hammerlock on presidential candidacy by white men of Northern European descent (and all Protestant, too, with the notable exception of JFK). His ascendancy opens the door for Italian-Americans, women, Jews, Latinos, or any ethnic, hyphenated American. Obama may not win, but his nomination means there could be a President named Cuomo, or Feinstein, or Martinez, or Jindal. This goes way beyond the color of his skin, to the very essence of what America means.
It has special resonance for me, too. Yes, I am as privileged a white man as you'd ever care to meet, incredibly fortunate to have been born free, white, male and American, probably in the top point one percent of the planet, socioeconomically. But I grew up in a civil rights household, with my father deeply involved in issues of race and discrimination in the 1960s. He was part of the legal team that successfully sued the United States on behalf of the syphilis victims of the Tuskegee experiment. As soon as I was old enough to read, I was stumbling across NAACP Legal Defense Fund briefs and Thurgood Marshall opinions and slave memoirs. When we moved to Wisconsin, where we were among the very few Jewish families, I experienced anti-Semitism that left me forever sensitive to prejudice and discrimination. I still recall the shock of my sixth-grade classmates, back in New York City, when I stood and delivered my book report on the 1860s diary of a slave woman, right after Tracy Present gave hers on "Stuart Little" (I won't even get into the jawdropping reaction to my short story about the beating death of a sharecropper's son for stealing food, which, needless to say, stood in sharp contrast to my friend David Grossman's story about Boris the talking spider).
Every presidential election is pivotal and historic. The 2000 race was described as "the most important of our lifetime." So was the one in 2004, being the first after 9/11. But 25 years from now, at whatever KCBS radio and KCBS.com become by then, some future instant historian will be assigned to do an anniversary piece on that groundbreaking campaign of 2008, when a lanky guy named Barack Obama became the first presidential nominee who wasn't an Anglo-Saxon white dude. Maybe that reporter will go back into our archives and pull some of the sound we've been posting on this website. You can say you were there, and you heard it live. As it happened.
And who said, when I got that history degree, that the history firms weren't hiring?
It might be easy in the raucous tumult of the 24-hour news cycle to overlook the historic importance of Barack Obama's Democratic primary victory. Don't let it get lost in the sauce. I hope you'll put your own cynicism, weariness or politics, whatever they may be, on pause, to savor and appreciate just what we are witnessing in 2008.
Obama isn't just the first black nominee. He breaks the 220-year hammerlock on presidential candidacy by white men of Northern European descent (and all Protestant, too, with the notable exception of JFK). His ascendancy opens the door for Italian-Americans, women, Jews, Latinos, or any ethnic, hyphenated American. Obama may not win, but his nomination means there could be a President named Cuomo, or Feinstein, or Martinez, or Jindal. This goes way beyond the color of his skin, to the very essence of what America means.
It has special resonance for me, too. Yes, I am as privileged a white man as you'd ever care to meet, incredibly fortunate to have been born free, white, male and American, probably in the top point one percent of the planet, socioeconomically. But I grew up in a civil rights household, with my father deeply involved in issues of race and discrimination in the 1960s. He was part of the legal team that successfully sued the United States on behalf of the syphilis victims of the Tuskegee experiment. As soon as I was old enough to read, I was stumbling across NAACP Legal Defense Fund briefs and Thurgood Marshall opinions and slave memoirs. When we moved to Wisconsin, where we were among the very few Jewish families, I experienced anti-Semitism that left me forever sensitive to prejudice and discrimination. I still recall the shock of my sixth-grade classmates, back in New York City, when I stood and delivered my book report on the 1860s diary of a slave woman, right after Tracy Present gave hers on "Stuart Little" (I won't even get into the jawdropping reaction to my short story about the beating death of a sharecropper's son for stealing food, which, needless to say, stood in sharp contrast to my friend David Grossman's story about Boris the talking spider).
Every presidential election is pivotal and historic. The 2000 race was described as "the most important of our lifetime." So was the one in 2004, being the first after 9/11. But 25 years from now, at whatever KCBS radio and KCBS.com become by then, some future instant historian will be assigned to do an anniversary piece on that groundbreaking campaign of 2008, when a lanky guy named Barack Obama became the first presidential nominee who wasn't an Anglo-Saxon white dude. Maybe that reporter will go back into our archives and pull some of the sound we've been posting on this website. You can say you were there, and you heard it live. As it happened.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
The End Times
How will Hillary Clinton devise an exit strategy for Iraq when she can't even come up with one for the Democratic primary campaign?
Yes, the Apocalypse nears - the last days of the bruising, interminable nomination battle between Clinton and Obama. The signs are everywhere: renegade preachers causing hell for candidates of both parties...earthquakes, tornadoes and cyclones...Hillary Clinton raising the specter of assassination...even a DNC Rules Committee meeting televised live on CNN. Surely, the end is near. And then what's a pundit to do?
But before we get to the blog...here are some things you may have missed: Our most recent song, "Torn Between Two Democrats," about those conflicted, undecided superdelegates...John Edwards endorsing Obama....John McCain campaigning in the Bay Area....Nancy Pelosi telling San Francisco reporters the Democratic nominee will be chosen by the end of next week...and President Bush sitting down for an exclusive interview with our CBS Radio White House correspondents, Peter Maer and Mark Knoller (hmm, that link seems to have disappeared, we'll work on that).
And now back to our blog.
It's over, Hillary. She knows it, too. Save your irate emails, Clinton supporters, I'm not taking sides, I just call 'em as I see 'em, and what I see here is a presidential nominee named Barack Obama.
Look, when I went out on my quadrennial limb six months ago, I said Hillary would be the nominee, and you all know how it pains me so to be wrong about something. Sigh. I guess it has to happen sometimes, even if it's only once every four years.
Clinton is still making blustery threats about taking her delegate fight to the credentials committee, or even the convention floor in Denver, but I really think that's just empty straw-grasping. She's a clear-eyed, pragmatic politician, and she well knows that to scorch the earth of the Democratic Party in a futile tantrum would be to close the White House doors to any future Clinton presidency...at least until Chelsea turns 35. No, after the DNC decision on Michigan and Florida this weekend - giving Obama delegates from Michigan that he never even won - her best bet is to accept the inevitable, endorse Obama this Wednesday and hope he puts her on the ticket.
As for Obama - he's turning into a regular gaffe-a-minute George W. Bush. Did you catch his Memorial Day act? His Auschwitz mistake made national headlines - but it was his Sixth Sense moment that made me gasp. Yes, he told a veterans' group in New Mexico that his uncle had been among the first American troops to liberate Auschwitz. Well, it turned out to be his great-uncle, and it was Buchenwald, not Auschwitz. The GOP jumped all over him on that one, pointing out that the Soviets, not the U.S. Army, had liberated Auschwitz. A Republican spokesman even wondered if Obama's great uncle had served in the Red Army (yes, he's descended from Communists too, not just terrorists!)
I can forgive Obama a slip like that. Family history often gets distorted or misremembered over the years, although it would behoove him to get his death camps straight. For decades, I've been told that my lefthanded cousin Hank Sovern was an undefeated pitcher for the Yankees' AAA team, on the cusp of big league greatness, when World War Two broke out. He traded his pinstripes for GI khakis and never pitched again. Except, I can find no record of him in any baseball record book. So who knows? If I ever run for president, I won't bring him up.
But Obama's real jawdropper came earlier in that same Memorial Day speech. He began by saying "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes – and I see many of them in the audience here today – our sense of patriotism is particularly strong."
Oops. Do you feel that chill in the air? BARACK SEES DEAD PEOPLE. Not a huge surprise, since he's from Chicago, where dead people are the key to winning an election. Apparently, as many Americans do, Obama confused Memorial Day - a tribute to those who give their lives in military service, dating back to the Civil War - with Veterans Day, which salutes living former soldiers and sailors, replacing the Armistice Day that began after World War One. His scripted speech didn't include the parenthetical about seeing fallen heroes in the audience. Apparently, he ad libbed that. Something tells me he didn't write this speech himself!
Now we all make mistakes. I made the mistake of underestimating Obama, and overestimating America's racism, when I predicted Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee. We've all seen Hillary commit one faux-pas after another, and John McCain, too, pretty much on a weekly basis. But if President Bush said the things Obama said last week, the late-night comics and the pundits would have been merciless. Don't let your Obama love blind you to his flaws. He's still a politician, folks, and a fairly novice one at that.
And while I'm calling 'em as I see 'em...I covered John McCain's latest Bay Area campaign swing the week before last. No flag pin in his lapel. In fact, I've covered him at least five times in the last year, and not once have I seen him wear a flag lapel pin. Never. For that matter, I've never seen one on Hillary either (not in person; I have seen them wear them during debates or televised speeches). So why is Obama held to a higher lapel pin standard? Someone needs to start circulating pictures of ALL the candidates, sans flag pin, on the Internet.
And an odd tidbit from that McCain event: his press passes had "Visit to the United States" printed on them. Were these left over from some foreign dignitary's junket? Is McCain actually from Albania or something? Is what we've suspected all these years, true - that the Bay Area really IS the real America, and all those flyover heartland states are some bizarre foreign hinterland? The campaign staffers shrugged, and had no explanation. As the Apocalypse nears, maybe McCain is hoarding resources, and is bumming leftovers from the Pope's recent visit.
The devil is always in the details...
P.S. Here's the link to Obama's Sixth Sense moment, on YouTube.
For our great new trivia question, click here.
For the latest polls, click here.
For more video, audio, etc. click here.
Yes, the Apocalypse nears - the last days of the bruising, interminable nomination battle between Clinton and Obama. The signs are everywhere: renegade preachers causing hell for candidates of both parties...earthquakes, tornadoes and cyclones...Hillary Clinton raising the specter of assassination...even a DNC Rules Committee meeting televised live on CNN. Surely, the end is near. And then what's a pundit to do?
But before we get to the blog...here are some things you may have missed: Our most recent song, "Torn Between Two Democrats," about those conflicted, undecided superdelegates...John Edwards endorsing Obama....John McCain campaigning in the Bay Area....Nancy Pelosi telling San Francisco reporters the Democratic nominee will be chosen by the end of next week...and President Bush sitting down for an exclusive interview with our CBS Radio White House correspondents, Peter Maer and Mark Knoller (hmm, that link seems to have disappeared, we'll work on that).
And now back to our blog.
It's over, Hillary. She knows it, too. Save your irate emails, Clinton supporters, I'm not taking sides, I just call 'em as I see 'em, and what I see here is a presidential nominee named Barack Obama.
Look, when I went out on my quadrennial limb six months ago, I said Hillary would be the nominee, and you all know how it pains me so to be wrong about something. Sigh. I guess it has to happen sometimes, even if it's only once every four years.
Clinton is still making blustery threats about taking her delegate fight to the credentials committee, or even the convention floor in Denver, but I really think that's just empty straw-grasping. She's a clear-eyed, pragmatic politician, and she well knows that to scorch the earth of the Democratic Party in a futile tantrum would be to close the White House doors to any future Clinton presidency...at least until Chelsea turns 35. No, after the DNC decision on Michigan and Florida this weekend - giving Obama delegates from Michigan that he never even won - her best bet is to accept the inevitable, endorse Obama this Wednesday and hope he puts her on the ticket.
As for Obama - he's turning into a regular gaffe-a-minute George W. Bush. Did you catch his Memorial Day act? His Auschwitz mistake made national headlines - but it was his Sixth Sense moment that made me gasp. Yes, he told a veterans' group in New Mexico that his uncle had been among the first American troops to liberate Auschwitz. Well, it turned out to be his great-uncle, and it was Buchenwald, not Auschwitz. The GOP jumped all over him on that one, pointing out that the Soviets, not the U.S. Army, had liberated Auschwitz. A Republican spokesman even wondered if Obama's great uncle had served in the Red Army (yes, he's descended from Communists too, not just terrorists!)
I can forgive Obama a slip like that. Family history often gets distorted or misremembered over the years, although it would behoove him to get his death camps straight. For decades, I've been told that my lefthanded cousin Hank Sovern was an undefeated pitcher for the Yankees' AAA team, on the cusp of big league greatness, when World War Two broke out. He traded his pinstripes for GI khakis and never pitched again. Except, I can find no record of him in any baseball record book. So who knows? If I ever run for president, I won't bring him up.
But Obama's real jawdropper came earlier in that same Memorial Day speech. He began by saying "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes – and I see many of them in the audience here today – our sense of patriotism is particularly strong."
Oops. Do you feel that chill in the air? BARACK SEES DEAD PEOPLE. Not a huge surprise, since he's from Chicago, where dead people are the key to winning an election. Apparently, as many Americans do, Obama confused Memorial Day - a tribute to those who give their lives in military service, dating back to the Civil War - with Veterans Day, which salutes living former soldiers and sailors, replacing the Armistice Day that began after World War One. His scripted speech didn't include the parenthetical about seeing fallen heroes in the audience. Apparently, he ad libbed that. Something tells me he didn't write this speech himself!
Now we all make mistakes. I made the mistake of underestimating Obama, and overestimating America's racism, when I predicted Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee. We've all seen Hillary commit one faux-pas after another, and John McCain, too, pretty much on a weekly basis. But if President Bush said the things Obama said last week, the late-night comics and the pundits would have been merciless. Don't let your Obama love blind you to his flaws. He's still a politician, folks, and a fairly novice one at that.
And while I'm calling 'em as I see 'em...I covered John McCain's latest Bay Area campaign swing the week before last. No flag pin in his lapel. In fact, I've covered him at least five times in the last year, and not once have I seen him wear a flag lapel pin. Never. For that matter, I've never seen one on Hillary either (not in person; I have seen them wear them during debates or televised speeches). So why is Obama held to a higher lapel pin standard? Someone needs to start circulating pictures of ALL the candidates, sans flag pin, on the Internet.
And an odd tidbit from that McCain event: his press passes had "Visit to the United States" printed on them. Were these left over from some foreign dignitary's junket? Is McCain actually from Albania or something? Is what we've suspected all these years, true - that the Bay Area really IS the real America, and all those flyover heartland states are some bizarre foreign hinterland? The campaign staffers shrugged, and had no explanation. As the Apocalypse nears, maybe McCain is hoarding resources, and is bumming leftovers from the Pope's recent visit.
The devil is always in the details...
P.S. Here's the link to Obama's Sixth Sense moment, on YouTube.
For our great new trivia question, click here.
For the latest polls, click here.
For more video, audio, etc. click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)