A (very smart) reader writes in:
There is another important strategic implication of choosing Hillary Clinton now. Three of the worries/concerns that people had about Clinton would be that she would fire up the Republican anti-Clinton machines, in times of both money and energy as well as do the thing that John McCain couldn't do--unite the Republican party.Continuing:
The case for picking Clinton doesn't have all that much to do with Obama's deteriorating poll numbers -- although you can certainly make a separate argument based on the electoral math. Rather, it's that the Republicans have shown their hand -- and made it clear that they aren't going to be running any sort of nice, safe campaign where Obama coasts to victory while the base stays asleep.Well, we can draw at least three conclusions.1. Clearly McCain has been able--for the most part--to unify his party. Now that may change depending on his VP pick, but chances are the pick will be fairly conservative (in both senses of the word.)2. Clearly much of the anti-Clinton machine has already turned their sights--predictably--on Obama. That machine has latched onto the Obama as other/celebrity/whatever attack and will be relentless about it, aided and abetted by a docile media.3. Clinton's presence may be able to gin up Republican fundraising...except, because they are taking public financing, the McCain campaign will have precisely one week to both collect AND spend that money. In short, absent some increase in RNC money and possibly 527 money, for the most part McCain's advantage here would be completely neutralized by the clock. If Hillary had been the VP nominee all summer long the Republicans would be dining out on this--but now they simply would not have enough time to do it.As for the turnout, I would have to imagine that any increases in Republican turnout would be matched or bested by older female voters turning out for their hero.
In fact, I'd go one step further than my reader. I think that if Obama picks Clinton, the Republicans are likely to overplay their hand. One thing that Obama has not really been able to do is to generate some organic level of backlash when he is attacked. This is separate and distinct from the notion of "fighting back"; it is voters stepping in and refereeing the match themselves. Voters recognize that McCain has gone negative but they aren't really punishing him for it -- his favorables haven't moved at all. Why not? I think it has to do with the nature of Obama: he is new, he is confident to the point of being arrogant, and up until recently, he has been leading. To the extent there is any genius in the "celebrity" line of attack, it's that nobody feels much sympathy when celebrities are made fun of (well, except for this guy); it is a sort of sport to try and pierce their bubble.
With Clinton, on the other hand, voters naturally want to come to her defense -- and overzealous attempts to whip the Republican base into a frenzy will be counteracted with outrage from significant numbers of older and working-class women.
210 comments
By Clinton do thou mean sebelius? Wock.
But Nate, I can come up with countless reasons why Hillary would be a poor choice. It completely ruins the Obama brand. The chief reason I'm even supporting Obama is because he is not Clinton. Otherwise I'd be supporting the republican except I've had it with Bush. If Hillary were on the ticket, I'd probably stay home, as well as the other polarized independents out there.
One question: all these statements that McCain has to be limited to $84 million due to public financing -- what kind of enforcement is being assumed here? Might he not be able to get the public money, do whatever the hell he wants, and have the legal complaints tied up until it doesn't matter? It's not like Republicans have some inherent appreciation for the law simply because "it's the law".
By the way Nate, what are your thoughts on Mark Warner? I've heard rumors that he may be the pick, but then again I've heard rumors of Dick Gephardt as well.
1. "Unity" and "Energized" are two different thing. The polls still show a huge enthusiasm gap between the two - Another reason the gorundgame Obama is investing heavily in is a huge factor.
2. This would have happened whoever the nomineee was. It's the exact reason McCain handed over day-to-day operation to Karl Rove-ites. McCain is a gaffe machine. Schmidt and Rove and pulling the strings - they're basically babysitting McCain.
Add Rudy Giuliani, also. His encounter with a reporter who asked an uncomfortable question yesterday was an obvious example.
3. McCain will flip-flop and refuse public financing when it comes to the crunch. It's his character - he lied to the VFW about supporting the Webb G.I. bill, and has flip-flopped on just about every issue since indicating he'd be a candidate. And the MSM won't call him on it.
I'm going to point out Irene's comment and say that my grandfather, who supports Obama, feels the same way. Choosing Clinton would be a huge mistake.
Irene I think if Clintoris was on the ticket you would be too confuseed to know what to do on Nov 4. Hopefully, he hasn't lumped all potetial women VP prospects with Clinton and given them a fair shake of the vetting proces (Sbelius, MCaskill). I'll be tres disappuyed if he hasn't.
The new NBC/WSJ and CBS/NY Times polls are out and there are no radical changes from yesterday's poll tightening. As previously noted, we pay special attention to media polls because of their ability to drive narrative.
One narrative that seems clear as a short term gain and long term pain: McCain is perceived as running a negative campaign.
By a nearly six-to-one margin, voters say Republican presidential candidate John McCain is running a negative campaign against his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.
Nearly three in 10 voters, 29%, pointed to McCain as the candidate running a negative campaign, compared to just 5% who said Obama is running a negative campaign. McCain’s 29% rating is the highest of any one candidate in the previous two presidential elections according to the WSJ/NBC News survey.
In October 2004, 15% of voters identified both President George W. Bush and Democratic nominee John Kerry as negative campaigners. In July 2000, 8% identified Bush as a negative campaigner, while 13% said Vice President Al Gore was a negative campaigner.
However, 41% of respondents said neither McCain nor Obama is running a negative campaign, while 19% said both men are guilty of using negative tactics.
NBC/WSJ Presidential choice
8/08 (6/08) (5/08) (4/08)
Barack Obama 45 (47) (47) (46)
John McCain 42 (41) (41) (43)
CBS/NY Times Presidential choice
8/15-19/08 (7/31-8/5/08) (7/7-14/08)
Barack Obama 45 (45) (45)
John McCain 42 (39) (39)
For CBS/NY Times, it's 45 (45) Obama, 42 (39) McCain, also a tightening. The enthusiasm gap is 48-24 (guess who), and 28% of McCain's supporters are either 'he's the GOP nominee' or anti-Obama. And like the NBC/WSJ poll, more people perceive McCain as negative on Obama than positive on McCain. From NY Times:
"There were indications that the more negative tone Mr. McCain adopted this summer could prove risky. Attempts by Republicans and the McCain campaign to cast Mr. Obama as elitist, or out of touch, do not seem to have moved popular opinion much yet against the Democrat, but they appear to have led more voters to view Mr. McCain as a negative campaigner.
Obama leads 20 points with 18-34s, McCain leads by 1 with everyone else."
Back to NBC/WSJ: Hillary Clinton's voters are half the 13% undecideds. See Ruth Marcus:
"It's not that Obama has a problem with female voters. To the contrary, he does significantly better among women than among men. It sounds paradoxical, but the campaign, lagging badly among white men, may have its biggest growth potential among female voters. Women, especially women without a college education, tend to make up their minds later. Recent polls show twice as many women as men are undecided."
77% still think McCain will follow Bush's policies. Not good for McCain.
In any case, with both polls, there's a 3 point Obama lead, well within the MoE (usually +/- 3). That feels about right. McCain, as noted throughout this week, is consolidating his (smaller) base.
For perspective, I like Marc Ambinder.
"McCain has given them something to think about this summer: Obama. And Obama hasn't returned the favor. He hasn't defined McCain in a visceral way, yet. He hasn't demonstrated that he can connect with working class white voters, although voters do find him empathetic enough. He can do both of these at the convention, and there are indications that he's doing the former in states with advertising.
With the convention coming up, there's lots of upside for Obama to do the same, and more talk about Lieberman for McCain. Now, that may be a head fake to distract and get some attention away from Obama's VP, and it would severely hurt with the religious right. But the fact is the next week belongs to Obama. We'll see what he does with it and how well the numbers look afterwards. McCain has built up some significant negatives, he's still tied to Bush, and the economy is still the driving force in this election. Think about what that means in the long run."
From NY Times:
"Slim majorities said neither candidate had yet made clear what he would do as president, suggesting that both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain need to use their conventions to provide voters with a better sense of their plans for addressing the deteriorating economy, high energy prices, access to health care and national security.
Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, is still closely associated with the deeply unpopular President Bush: nearly half of those surveyed said they expected him to continue the Bush administration’s policies if he is elected president. But voters, by a wide margin, view Mr. McCain as better prepared to be president than Mr. Obama, and as more likely to be an effective commander-in-chief."
My read is that McCain is spoiling his own brand with independents in order to consolidate his own base (my prediction from way back was that he can't have both) while the Democrats take their time to make up their mind. We will see what happens, starting with the next eight days, but I don't think this is great news for McCain no matter how the media spin goes. For all his vaunted "great couple of weeks" McCain is still stuck in the low 40's and has an unenthusiastic base behind him (one that's smaller than Obama's.)
Plus, yesterday's LA Times/Bloomberg and Q-poll both show Obama winning with indies, and McCain is perceived as a negative camapigner closely associated with the unpopular George Bush (CBS/NY Times: 47% think he'll continue Bush's policies but only 9% want him to. 48% want him to be less conservative.)
Finally, it would seem this year, the Obama campaign, as has been posted at fivethirtyeight.com, is investing in the ground game rather than blowing their wad on negative ads with limited effect, the way McCain did.
Can McCain win? Maybe. Obama still has plenty of work to do, and there are no guarantees (and, in fact, the real campaign starts Monday) but McCain might just have hit his ceiling with these polls while Obama still may have a lot of upside.
El Cid said:
"It's not like Republicans have some inherent appreciation for the law simply because "it's the law"."
Just what are you implying?
John McCain wrote the law.
Are you saying that John McCain has no appreciation for his own law? You should think about this because he has endured POW level torture from his own party for writing that law.
Looks like another Dem choke job to me unless they pick Hillary and go with the "Dream Team". Hillary can bring the older working class catholic women in Ohio/PA etc. who are now "undecided". I'd say that's more plausible than this phantom ground game scenario.
I agree %100.
It has to be Hillary. She is partly responsible for the negative campaign McCain is running now using her words and ads.
Picking her will force Hill-Bill and all the rest to really put their 'hearts' into it.
Bring more women on board.
He needs to threaten- blackmail whatever to get her on that ticket. If he goes down, she goes down with him and no 2012 for them.
dariencrow: Okay, let me rephrase the question. Is there any outside enforcement capable of restricting the McCain campaign from ignoring the public financing limits he supposedly has to legally follow not based on appeals to have faith in John McCain's soul?
Regardless of who the VP is, the announcement date makes a lot more sense given the deadline for Republicans ending their public contribution collections. Why make any news that mobilizes the base and draws money until you finally have to.
The polls "tightening" hasn't changed my opinion in the slightest on who Obama should select as his Vice President.
In order of preference:
SCHWEITZER (by far the most audacious pick)
WARNER (only because he'd gurantee Virginia)
CLARK
WEBB
BIDEN (if Obama pick him, you'll know the gloves are coming off)
BAYH (Obama campaign internals will dictate if he's the pick)
POWELL (he'll endorse at some point)
CLINTON
RENDELL
SEBELIUS
HAGEL (an endorse would suffice)
RICHARDSON
Any one of the top 5 will do nicely.
completement fascinating, porridge goon.
DarienCrow said...
Are you saying that John McCain has no appreciation for his own law? You should think about this because he has endured POW level torture from his own party for writing that law.
Wow. Geez, I hope that was some sort of twisted sarcasm.
Anyway, to answer your point - John McCain wrote loopholes into the campaign finance reform laws that allowed him to still use his wife's company jet for free. Would John McCain break the law? Maybe not, but he sure as hell has left himself a lot of outs.
Whenever I read about people bringing their home state I think of Al Gore in 2000. If he'd won his home state of Tennessee he would have been President. Clinton/Gore won Tennessee in 92 and 96.
If Hillary was the VP choice yesterday... she is not today.
Make no mistake. Hillary Clinton wants to be president and Obama ruined it for her. She will see his decline and failure as her chance for 2012.
Bill and Hill will make sure Obama loses. The trick is for it not to look like it's their fault. So they can say I told you so. Then a 64 year old Hillary can run against a 76 year old McCain in 2012.
Hillary won't take the chance of running with the loser Obama or being stuck as his Veep for 8 years.
But this is just my opinion I could be wrong.
such sweet thunder -
Good point. Also, looking at the timing, if it were to be Clinton and that announcement came out Saturday then it doesn't really leave much oxygen in the news cycles for the McCain/GOP to express their shock and get a couple of hard jabs in. This is key. The media will be eat up with the Dream Ticket actually coming together which will then fold into the Dem convention, unity, excitement, etc.
The timing would practically silence any immediate blowback and the Dems can create the narrative for the whole week of the convention. Even furthering this point, McCain's own VP pick on the 29th would continue the drown out the GOPs chance to make a concerted anti-Hillary move. The longer the Dems could keep them off that track, the better they could solidify an Obama/Clinton ticket.
I came across a study about 10 years ago on the effect of negative campaigns on voter sentiment, apathy and turnout. (Unfortunately I can't remember who it was commissioned by or I would provide a citation.) The conclusion of the study was that negative campaigns are indeed highly effective against their targets. The targets tend to take massive hits in their support, to the point that many voters come out to vote against them. Maintaining the "high road" usually ended up in losing the election when faced with the negative campaign. If the target goes negative in response, the effect was to neutralize the advantage of the original attacker. The problem was when both sides went negative, lower turnout occurred for both sides and voter sentiment was poor for both candidates.
Obama's hands are tied because of public commitment to change and post-partisan politics. He can't go negative without appearing to be a massive hypocrite. Clinton obviously would have no qualms with going negative. And, she would come across a lot tougher, which could only help in these times where people are worried about "The Return of the Cold War."
But that's not enough reason to select her as running mate. Much of Clinton's support surely comes from people who would simply like to see a woman in the White House. Those people would be just as likely to back Sebelius. Furthermore, Republicans talk about Clinton as if she were the anti-Christ. It wouldn't take much time or money to fire up the troops to oppose her. My guess is that a Obama-Clinton ticket would galvanize the Republican base, polarize the independents and give Obama very little net gain.
I say Obama should forget about Clinton and go with Sebelius. She's female, which would please the feminists. She's older, which could help against the attacks on his experience. And, as a Democratic governor of a Republican state, she's clearly post-partisan. Then, the question is should Obama go negative? It would be sad to see, but if he makes a wise VP choice he may not have to.
Anyone here besides me find it extremely bizzare that Hillary Clinton has lost 2 of her strongest Super-Delegates in like one week?
Sebelius just doesn't do it for me. Maybe I haven't familiarized myself with her enough to see the upside, but putting her on the ticket for the sake of putting a woman on the ticket is a mistake. I'm not a fan of Clinton, but if you're gonna put a woman on the ticket then pick the woman who's shown you she can fight. Sebelius seems like such an unknown entity. But I'm sure there's people out there that think the same thing about Joe Biden or Evan Byah, too.
In any case, I think Clinton as VP locks McCain into picking Romney. Then again, I'm guessing it's gonna be Romney. Mark Halperin of Time made an excellent point that all the whispers about a pro-choice VP for McCain is to soothe the base for Romney who doesn't have a stellar pro-life record.
DarienCrow - copied from the Wall Street Journal:
"Sen. John McCain raised $62.3 million for his presidential bid in the second quarter in conjunction with the Republican National Committee, according to campaign-finance reports filed Tuesday night.
The campaign gathered most of the money using an unprecedented system that allows it to collect checks as large as $70,000 from an individual by parsing the money between the campaign, the national party and state committees in four states. That fund raised $41.2 million in the three-month period."
Funds raised in this manner are available for the general election...in addition to public funding.
x0lani, I think there's a difference between ad hominem attacks and criticisms based on issues. An ad hominem and deplorable attack on McCain would be "He is too old to be able to serve effectively." Good "negative campaigning" might go something like this:
"John McCain used to vote against the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and the biggest corporations because the huge national debt is a threat to our national security. He knows that right now, our ability to wage war and maintain our standard of living is controlled by Communist China. That's right. The only thing that's keeping our Treasury from going bankrupt is that the Chinese still consider U.S. bonds a good investment. China holds 1/3 of our national debt today. But what happens if they get fed up with Republican borrow-and-spend policies and stop buying? And if John becomes President, he's promised to make things worse by continuing to waste hundreds of billions of dollars a year in Iraq and giving even MORE tax cuts to the same multinational corporations that are sending jobs overseas and making a killing on today's high gas and food prices. He knows this would harm the country, but he thinks he can confuse you just enough to get into the White House. Show him he's wrong. Elect the candidate who believes in taking back control of our own finances, Barack Obama."
Tito,
True, Sebelius would be enigmatic, but that would just give them more freedom to define her as needed to suit the campaign. It would difficult for the McCain campaign to define her negatively, since her past seems so impeccable. Of course, so did John Edwards...
True, just being a woman shouldn't be reason enough to select her as a running mate, but where exactly does Clinton's support come from? She's not really defined by any particular issue besides health care reform, which doesn't really seem to help her in any case. Whether rightly or wrongly, it seems her support stems from her gender.
Romney would please the evangelicals. He has repented his early pro-choice positions. Then again, it could balance out the Republican ticket nicely for most conservatives without being as polarizing as, say, Huckabee...
ok, look there are more democrats then republicans in the country. thus uniting the base is all obama needs to do. hillary would do this for him- you know it. come one lets get serious the best help electorally is ohio and florida.
The more I think about it, the number one reason Clinton might actually make sense is Arkansas. Obama is going to win the Kerry states, plus IA because he sells well there, and New Mexico, with the increase in Latino vote. All you need is one more state, and that state might as well be Arkansas.
I have a hard time believing that Hillary, Bill and Chelsea couldn't single-handedly turn AR blue if they spent three weeks campaigning exclusively in that state.
Firstly, I think that Obama should film some 'straight to camera' ads, where he explains some of his views in one minutes segments. That at least has the value of novelty (as compared to previously in the campaign).
Secondly, about the electoral advantages of VP picks. People say things like, 'Biden will lock up seniors', and 'Clinton will bring her disaffected supporters'. The fact is, VP candidates can often alienate people from the ticket. Hence, Biden repels a lot of people for his corporate ties, Sebelius repels a lot of Hillary supporters because she's a women who isn't Hillary, and Hillary Clinton repels a lot of people because she's Hillary Clinton. Apart from relative unknowns like Schweitzer and Clark, there are negatives as well as positives to VP picks.
michael,
That's was excellent! Are you sure you don't already work for the Obama campaign?
I'm unable to find the orignal study, but a quick Google search of "effect negative campaigning voter participation" returns similar results. I don't think they really differentiate between the personal attacks and the policy attacks.
I would be surprised if attacks on policy were that effective though. We've known the negative effects of tariffs and subsidies for decades, but the average voter nearly always supports them.
obamawill said
"ok, look there are more democrats then republicans in the country. thus uniting the base is all obama needs to do."
Totally untrue. If he unites 100% of Democrats but independents all side with McCain, he loses in a landslide.
Foregone Conclusion said:
"Sebelius repels a lot of Hillary supporters because she's a women who isn't Hillary"
Is there any polling data behind that claim? I find it totally bizarre that some of Hillary's supporters would be so sexist as to penalize Obama for picking a woman other than Hillary but that these same women would supposedly vote for him if he picks a man for VP. Is there any truth behind this oft-repeated claim, or is it just the bizarre sexist conceit it looks like to me?
Boy this VP rabbit hole goes deep... Clinton would be a retarded pick...
x0lani:
I don't work for any campaign and continue to keep in mind that we really don't know whether any politician will do what s/he says s/he will do, if elected. I do hope Obama fights harder and smarter, though. He'll have to, if he really wants to win.
As for your main point, Obama will have to win on policy, because I don't believe he will or should make ad hominem attacks.
But you may be missing part of my point. Because by saying that McCain's campaign is based on positions he opposed in the past and knows would damage the country's economy and national security, Obama could paint McCain as an opportunistic hypocrite without having to say he is, in so many words. He would be attacking McCain's character, but with substance, not through libel or innuendo.
Finally, on tariffs and subsidies:
People have supported tariffs when they liked the idea of making foreign goods more expensive. I doubt they'd support them now, knowing that their oil is from Saudi Arabia and their clothes are made in China.
As for subsidies, the people who support them are the ones who benefit from them. Farm subsidies have always been much more popular with farmers than they are unpopular with consumers. You also have to remember that the disproportionate representation of sparsely-populated farm states in the Senate has distorted the politics on such issues.
The campaign finance laws don't mean shit. You know it, I know it. McCain can easily circumvent them by having the RNC raise money on his behalf. The RNC is not subject to any cap nor are the 527 groups. Sure, McCain has to be slightly careful not to leave a paper trail that shows that he is co-ordinating with the RNC and the 527s but that is pretty easy and the MSM don't have the appetite or the will to do the thorough and painstaking investigative research required to demonstrate that McCain is bypassing the spirit of the law. That is the very reason why Obama rejected public funding. He knew this would happen and he also knew that the DNC would not be able to raise funds as effectively as the RNC leaving him at a huge competitive disadvantage. As things stand, they will end up about equal.
Does anyone else think it's odd that CNN allowed its futures markets on the VP pick expire? They were set to expire on 8/20, so they have. I figured that they made a habit of extended it when they needed to, but now it's closed, with Sebelius on top.
Picking Hillary would strike the fear of God into the Republicans. She would immediately deliver half of the 20% of Dems who are holding out and, as the GOP base have already polarised like sheep around the most right wing candidate, there is very little downside.
Sure there are a few independents like Irene who understandably won't be comfortable with it initially but ultimately Obama is the presidential candidate and Hillary will be his deputy.
If you're a woman who wants to preserve the right to make the most difficult choice you may have to make in your life, then Obama is your only option. If you're happy with a bunch of grey haired angry conservatives telling you that even if you get raped, you have to bear the baby to term then go ahead and vote for McCain because McCain has made it crystal clear that if he gets the chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice, Roe v Wade is dead and once Roe v Wade dies and a one day old embryo is considered to be a person, abortion will logically have to be banned in ALL circumstances. Fact. They will have police guarding the border to Canada with sonography equipment to prevent women crossing over for terminations. Welcome to a McCain presidency.
But it's not just hot button issues like abortion that are crucial indeed it's much bigger issues such as the economy. If you agree with Bush/McCain that tax cuts should go exclusively to the rich then please, vote for them. If you think tax cuts should go to the working and middle classes then Obama is your candidate and having Hillary as his deputy changes nothing.
The one downside to Hillary is the personal issues that exist between her/Bill and Obama. Can she really be trusted to advocate for him 100% and be his trusty attack dog as Lieberman and Romney would do for McCain. If not, he can't pick her. But I think she realises that this is her only chance to become president in the long term. If Obama loses, she will be blamed for it and the party will not touch her again.
I would still prefer Bayh but Clinton would spark a media frenzy that would steal the narrative for weeks and deliver the critical states of OH, MI and FL. It would be a bold choice and would demonstrate that Obama is big enough to work with someone who has previously assailed him mercilessly. If I were a McCain supporter I would want him to pick Sebelius. She's a great person but an ineffective speaker and people would not regard her as ready to be president in the way that Clinton so clearly is.
The game is winning the election, so the VP pick must be someone who energizes the Dems base, appeal to independent voters and can crossover GOP votes, or at least didn't mobilize them against Dems. This is the only metric, forget about carrying states, balancing candidate assets and liabilities and anything else.
Ugg -I dread the though of him picking Hillary. I'm supposed to be one of "her" people - you know - white, female, 57 & no college degree. But, I am progressive & she is DLC & I absolutely hate what the DLC & the Clinton's with their triangluation did to this country. Of course i would never vote republican, because as bad as what the clinton's did the Rebublicans did worse - 10 times worse. I would hold my nose & vote but say good-bye to the excitement & hope.
If Obama picks Hillary he is defeating himself. Sge is the antiethis of what his whole campaign is supposed to be about. She represents the lobbyists, the status quo, the go along to get along path. If he chooses her what he is saying to the millions & millions of people who believed in his hope & change message is "Psych!" That it was all just a come-on, that he isn't authentic.
At least that's the way I see it. Now, if someone else can explain how he gets around her lobbyist problems & her DC/DLC insiderness without compromising his stated positions I would love to hear it.
I sincerely hope that this election won't be about abortion. Not because the GOP will win on the issue - if Roe v. Wade is really under threat, then pro-choice voters will come out in hordes - but because it is not the most important issue in the campaign. It is AN important issue, but far more people will die in this country each year from poverty, lack of access to health care, and violent crime (and far more people will die in Iraq) than the number of abortions carried out.
One last word about VP picks. Can you imagine them not just as a running mate, but as President? That's the ultimate test. If you think that Cheney is, at the moment, only a heartbeat away from the presidency, you see how important the right pick is.
Further to Morague's comment:
I think that many people share my view that Hillary Clinton and John McCain are two people who would say anything they thought would get them elected. Obama's argument is that he is sincere and really stands for what he believes in. I don't know if that's true or not (I condemn his vote to pass the FISA bill that included retroactive immunity for telecoms), but it's his main argument for being elected. He needs a VP-designate who is also perceived as genuine, not a hypocritical opportunist, and especially not one who made offensive race-based appeals. (Remember Hillary's "hard working people, white people" remark?)
"One last word about VP picks. Can you imagine them not just as a running mate, but as President? That's the ultimate test. If you think that Cheney is, at the moment, only a heartbeat away from the presidency, you see how important the right pick is."
You're right, Foregone: If Cheney died, Bush would have to take over. Sorry, I couldn't resist making that joke. ;-)
CNN has a futures market!? I had to look for it but it's true.
It's hard to take seriously because it doesn't use real money, and thus quite possible to game. Also, Sebelius comes out top, but only with 34% chance of being selected.
Reading the tea leaves and the polls, I don't think Clinton wants it. Too much risk being associated with a losing effort.
Obama's path to victory is unclear. Not so much in terms of cobbling together an electoral majoiorty, but finding the rationale for his candidacy and defeating the attacks that are and will be waged against him such that he can win.
The convention in Denver will tell us a lot about the themes that will be used.
But its its all about the present gloom and doom, and McBush and Big Oil, don't expect much.
What must a VP candidate be like? Better than the other party presidential candidate, but a little worse than his/her own counterpart.
Even if she took it, an Obama Clinton ticket would be liberalism squared. Too much change as well. It's that dollar bill thing again!
Go with Bayh and get it over with, Barrack.
McCain - Portman '08!
All that might be true, Nate, and they might even win... but really, who can picture the two of them as a team? There's some things numbers can't quantify, and a unified ticket is one of them.
Since the age of cable dawned in the early 90's, every race has been won by the ticket with more personal chemistry. It's a sign of confidence to pick the guy you have a good working relationship with, and voters can see that.
Michael,
If Obama paints McCain as a flip-flopper, it is an ad hominem attack. Even if he frames it in a policy attack. There's nothing inherently wrong with changing one's opinion on a subject. In fact, it's usually seen as a sign of maturity to admit when one has made a mistake. Somehow in the political arena, it has been turned into a liability. Regardless, there is a very thin line between personal and policy attacks, so thin that they may not be distinguishable.
That said, when I brought up tariffs and subsidies, my point was that academic policy debates don't motivate people. Emotive, social ones do. Gay marriage has no discernible effect on people's standard of living but was identified as bringing out African American votes for Bush, who received more African American votes than any Republican in recent history. Where are the protests against agricultural subsidies? Or, against foreign ownership of Miller and Anheuser-Busch?
Basically, I really think it will be very difficult for Obama to maintain the high road and win, although it would be commendable he does.
The damage that has been done to Obama's campaign has been deep and it will be permanent. If Obama campaigned well and hard from June 4th on, McCain would have been toast and it would have been a repeat of 1996. However, McCain's tactics and Obama's repeated gaffes have now framed a narrative of the heroic, old war soldier vs. the mistake-prone, untested newbie. I think Hillary knows that another shoe is going to drop in October and that losing Democratic VP candidates don't win the subsequent primary so she will stay safely on the sidelines preparing for a winning run in 2012.
Besides, Hillary gift-wrapped the way to beat Obama to the Republicans in the Spring and McCain has followed that playbook well.
Here's my Republican perspective on a Hillary pick.
First off - you're going to have to make sure she wants it. I am not at all convinced she does. Why should she take the VP slot? I am sure she believed that if she and Obama were both white men with the exact same resumes she would have won. I happen to agree with the Clinotns that if Obama could not have built a huge AA advantage all across the south (and with two white Democrats it wouldn't have been 97-3 for one candidate among blacks), he could not have won. Now some liberals may disagree that this is the case, but it's pretty clear she believes it. It is further clear that she thinks she was robbed. Bill Clinton thinks so also. Her campaign people have been saying for months that they don't think Obama could win. Bill Clinton has incinuated as much. Hillary has hinted as much.
Having put that out there, why would Hillary want to ride in on a white horse to save Obama (from her perspective, that's what she would be doing) now that the polls show a "jump ball"? Now I know if I were her, I'd let him choke. All she has to do is pay minimal lip service to wanting him to win. She can show up at a few campaign events and go through the motions. But if she doesn't take the VP slot and he loses - as long as she doesn't make trouble for him from now on - she can run again in 2012. If she is on the bottom of a winning Obama ticket she can't run until 2016. She'll be 69 in 2016. And fair or not, society is much more harsh on judging women on their age than they are in judging men. I don't believe that Hillary wants to take one for the team if there is no guarantee it will ever be her turn.
The second factor is Obama's arrogance. Is Obama incompetent for not challenging McCain's tough ads? Maybe. But what if Obama is just so stuck on himself that he thinks he doesn't need to do it. If that is closer to the truth than why would he even ask Hillary? He doesn't like the Clintons on a personal level any more than they like him.
Now, assuming all of that mess gets ironed out and Obama does select Hillary and Hillary does accept? I doubt it, but it's possible. What then? Well if that happens - then I think the Republicans *might* be in for some trouble - at least in the short term.
Why? Well, After February 5th it became pretty clear that it was going to be an uphill slog for Hillary to win. So the Right largely held their fire on her. In fact, we even propped her up at times because we knew the Clintons loved playing dirty and what better way to bloody Obama than to have the home team do the bloodying. It worked quite well as Hillary made our attacks for us, gave us plenty of material to use, and Obama limped across the finish line. He really did. If WrightGate had occurred in January then Obama would have lost.
But in letting Hillary off the hook, Republicans allowed her to connect with the blue collar voters Republicans will need in November. Now the GOP has an advantage because culturally these folks (especially in Appalachia) are much more in line with McCain than Obama. But Hillary found her voice with this group and her presence on the ticket will pull some of these folks back into the Democrat orbit. Ditto this sentiment for older white women in FL.
That's the up-side of a Hillary selection. The downside is that the GOP has a treasure trove of good stuff on Hillary that can be used. A Hillary selection will boost Obama's numbers but it might prove only to be fleeting. Republicans will run clips of Hillary with her sniper-fire nonsense. They'll remind voters of her scandals. They'll play clips from primary season to divide the Democrats. Also, the partisan Obama supporters won't like the message of Obama "selling out" yet again to the "politics of the past" - and fewer of them will show up on Election Day (those kids are fickle anyway). Eventually the Dream Ticket polling numbers will come back to earth, and by Election Day - the numbers might be exactly where they are today.
So Clinton might (believe it or not) eventually be a candidate with little net effect on polling at the end of the day.
My two cents anyway. Feel free to chew on it or spit it out.
If Hillary is the VP, McCain will have an opening to choose his pro-life running mate. The conservative base will be united to vote against her, not for him. Very different scenario than currently.
Excellent thoughtful post Adam. You neatly sum up the issues that could make it either a breathtaking matchwinner or a move that undermines the essence of Obama's campaign.
Your first point I believe is the key. If she wants to do it and commits to it with her heart, it could be a match winner. If Hillary is on the ground in Florida, Ohio and Michigan telling disenchanted women voters that if they care about economic issues and social issues like abortion then they need to join her and vote Democrat, it could be immensely powerful. Anything short of that passion and commitment and Obama shouldn't touch her with a barge pole.
To judge the merits of something I tend to look to the reaction of your opponents. It is clear to me that most republicans would be very comfortable if he picked Sebelius or Kaine, they would be slightly concerned about a heavyweight like Biden or Bayh but Clinton represents their worst fears. Sure they can take shots at her and consolidate the base but they have done that. The GOP priority is to prevent her from bringing blue collar Dems back to the party and that will be tough if (it's a big if) she and Bill are on the ground as his committed surrogates.
x0lani said:
"If Obama paints McCain as a flip-flopper, it is an ad hominem attack. Even if he frames it in a policy attack. There's nothing inherently wrong with changing one's opinion on a subject. In fact, it's usually seen as a sign of maturity to admit when one has made a mistake."
You've TOTALLY missed my point now! The issue isn't that McCain changed his mind on the Bush tax cuts and fiscal responsibility. The issue is that he has TURNED HIS BACK ON FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY for cynical and hypocritical reasons, mainly that he couldn't win the Republican nomination by maintaining his integrity and painted himself so far into a corner in the primaries that he can't now recant his support for budget-busting tax cuts in the general election.
I've suddenly had a revelation...
What if Obama has decided to announce his VP just one hour before his/her speech at the DNCC?
Yeah, Clinton has made it clear that she wants to take the contest all the way to the Democratic National Convention. What would they do there? It sounds too much like a wrestling tag-team matchup from the WWE...
Imagine an announcer addressing the crowd of delegates, "This side wants Obama! And this side wants Clinton! Well, what if we put these two bruisers on the same side!!?" Huge cheers abound while popcorn and beer flies over monster truck rally caps.
No... Clinton wants to take it to the DNC to show she's viable for 2012.
So glossing over the message board here, it appears the consensus that a Obama-Clinton ticket either shouldn't happen or wouldn't happen, with only a few for it. Sorry, Nate, either your (very smart) reader really sees something we're all missing or they've just got this one wrong.
One of the most telling internals from yesterday's poll asked "Do you want to see Hillary Clinton be president someday?
Yes: 43%
No: 49%
A very interesting number...and it essentially suggests that Hillary has an absolute ceiling of about 51% of the popular vote...not much to work with.
If she were to somehow usurp the nomination at the convention next week, that number would surge even higher. Hillary couldn't win in 2008, and wouldn't win a future contest, ever.
the unknown here is the extent to which voters (especially indies)will assume that they are voting for Billary, not Hillary- that by voting for Hillary, they are re-inserting Bill Clinton into the governing process by proxy. Given his bull in a china shop contributions to her campaign thus far, it isn't such a great leap. I'm not sure that people in general, dems included, think his post-presidency has been stellar; I do think that there is a general Clinton exhaustion in the back 40.
And I do think that the 527/RNC money generated by Obama/Clinton would be a tsunami.
Another point, x0lani:
Economics is not purely academic during bad times. Tell George Bush, Sr. that he lost for emotional social reasons, not because the economy was bad and he was considered hypocritical for raising taxes after promising not to. Social issues had very little to do with Ronald Reagan defeating Carter, either. His most effective line was "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"
McCain himself admits that many people are worse off than they were 8 years ago, yet he promises to worsen the policies that created much of the problem. On the face of it, that should make him easy to defeat, but Obama seems to need something more. And the clever thing about tying Republican borrow-and-spend policies with national security vulnerability to Communist China is that it hits McCain on two fronts at once - one of them being his supposed strength. In my humble opinion, Obama should make this a theme of his campaign, repeating it over and over again. He who pays the piper calls the tune, so China controlling the Treasury is not at all comparable to a Belgian company buying a major U.S. beer company, nor to subsidies for U.S. farmers or U.S.-based agribusinesses.
Looks like another Dem choke job to me unless they pick Hillary and go with the "Dream Team". Hillary can bring the older working class catholic women in Ohio/PA etc. who are now "undecided". I'd say that's more plausible than this phantom ground game scenario.
I'm amazed by the continued myopic outlook of people looking at adding Hillary to the ticket and only commenting on the demographic that it might add to the ticket while ignoring the almost certainly larger group that it would be even more likely to lose.
The voters Hillary "might" bring are white working class voters. Plus, during the primaries, she tended to win in the counties that go red in general elections. That's two groups that are just as inclined (perhaps slightly more) to vote GOP anyways.
Adding Hillary = net vote loss
Either because those most excited about Obama would be disillusioned (the group that is most likely to just stay home rather than hold their nose), or because Hillary on the ticket drives GOP turnout upward (if Hillary were on the ticket, all the GOP would have to do is air an ad consisting of a stiull photo of Bill and Hillary on Inauguration Day 1993, and Republicans would be stampeding to the polls) or, more likely a combination of both.
Obamas Arrogance?? How could anything on this Earth be as arrogant as Bush/Cheney?? Im getting sickkkkkk of this "eletist' and 'arrogant' argument on Obama. Its CRAP.
And Picking Hillary? Keep your friend close and your enemies closer.
Clinton leaves you with a cash problem. Would Obama continue his "no lobbyist no PAC" pledge? If so, he'd have to refund much of Clinton's general election cash (and she'd be further in debt). Her individual donors were anemic, and, while they may vote Obama/Clinton, a *lot* of his anti-war netroots donors will dry up.
I don't think she wants it either. She wants to run in 2012. Even if Obama loses, she'd do even worse in 2012. McCain would only take one term, and Romney never sold pardons.
So...
Vote McCain because Obama is such an arrogant guy... Is this even an argument?
Quick Q:
If Bo doesnt want to go negative, and being the positive candidate he has boxed himself in a little.
Why cant he get some organization to set itself up to 'swiftboat' Mccain?
You know the employing the man who smeared your family, plagerism, the comb over.
Nothing needs to happen until after the debates but all you american liberals seem to be hanging around talking about how bad the Neocons are without getting down and fighting dirty for your man. - Just a thought.
And the race remains more or less the same 04 plus IA, plus VA or two of CO,NM,NV - Since there are no polls there all that has happended is BOs secondary paths, OH, FL, IN, MO have gotten a little further away.
I think it's very simple. He needs her to cement Ohio. He can give up all the other states. If he picks up Kerry states plus Ohio, he wins. It's simple. Clinton is really the only one who can do that for him.
If he goes with Biden, he's at least got somebody who can attack McCain. Every other pick is a loser.
I think without Clinton, he's going to lose. The Democrats once again will have blown it.
People say that Obama needs to pick Hillary if the polls get worse.... but does Clinton want to be on the ticket if the polls get worse? Would she have a chance in 2012 if she loses the ticket with Obama now? If she was on the ticket and wins with Obama, would she be the nominee in 2012 against Obama?
Hillary Clinton has no reason to get onto the ticket except if she is preparing for a run in 2016 as VP (against Warner?).
And besides, Obama needs to know what message he is giving. In the last 2 months he wasn´t really giving a message. Ok, he was in Europe, the trip was a success, he can shake hands with other world leaders.... and he can imagine supporting off-shore drilling under certain complicated circumstances. I enthusiastically support his thinking, but he isn´t president yet, and the vast majority of voters is not listening to the details as much as me (and the majority of readers of this site). He needs to get his message across, the change-campaign, the fresh face, the independence of Washington and the beltway.
Hillary Clinton would make that message "explode". Her attacks would be sharp and populist. She will make the Republicans open their chest of opposition research - and I bet they have been waiting 8 years to do that.
The candidate Obama is everything Hillary Clinton is not. It is about as realistic as a McCain/Huckabee ticket (which, funnily, I would view as McCain´s best choice).
Obama should emphasize his own message, not confuse it with another one. That´s also why I am so enthusiastic about Sebelius, she is practising what Obama so far is promising. Clinton will be a huge, huge gamble. Obama´s volunteer army was forged in the primaries AGAINST Clinton - there could be the danger that it collapsed with her on the ticket.
It's not so complex folks. In 2008 Generic Democrat beats Republican. As Nate has mentioned, no one Democrat (Obama) can be Generic Democrat. But Obama/Clinton, that's Generic Democrat. Obama/Clinton ticket wins. Simple.
McCain not Generic Republican? Maybe so. But it's the Generic Republican Negative Distortion Ad-Campaign that's been hitting the airwaves. We can accept a negative Obama campaign (that is, a negative ad that can be followed with Obama saying "I'm Barack Obama and I support this message.", a hurdle overcome as long as the charges are true and FactCheck.org proof.)
Air an add that touts McCain's various war ambitions: Iraq until victory (apparently not soon, as the conditions on the ground would otherwise indicate), plus bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran, plus the renewed Cold War with Russia. That's a 3-front war paid for by debt with China. Ignoring the real war in Afghanistan and apparent approval of the draft of course.
With Obama deciding on Clinton, I would think that it is not only the strategy of victory in Nov, but also the dynamic of a four or eight year presidency. Obama thinks this is his election to lose; he does not lack self-confidence. The thought of having to work with Hillary and Bill for the next 4-8 yrs is keeping him up at night. I also agree that it challenges the whole "change" narrative which he will drive home the remaining 70 or so days till the election.
Andrew,
That's the thing. Clinton is not a generic Democrat at all. She has some of the highest name recognition of anyone in politics worldwide. If you want generic, you're better off looking at someone else on the shortlist.
Michael,
I'm not sure we disagree here, though I'm probably missing some of the finer points of your hypothetical attack ads. All I'm saying is that Obama has his hands tied and it's going to be tough to work his way out of this. Generally and roughly speaking, he can't criticize anything without appearing negative. He can't appear negative in order to appear to provide post-partisan leadership. And, he probably can't win without going negative.
I think where we disagree is that, I believe even your cleverly crafted negative attack ad would still be perceived as negative.
Maybe I am just a biased former Clinton supporter, but Obama should pick her. Are there two more credible campaign surrogates than Hillary and Bill? It would be a package deal, and Obama would get two surrogates working 24/7 for the ticket and bashing McCain. And yes, Bill is angry, but with his wife on the ticket, he would have the incentive to work his butt off to have the ticket win.
Hillary is the only choice that would meet all of this building hype, and I really believe we would be up 10 in a week. McCain would cease to exist for two weeks with the pick stealing all the oxygen.
The GOP would definitely label it the "most liberal ticket in history", but as Nate noted, people might not buy that argument as much given the economy. Take her Obama!
x0lani,
I think you've got a point that Clinton isn't necessarily a generic Democrat. However, she has star power that wouldn't be out-shined by Obama. Biden is a generic Democrat, but next to Obama, who notices? I think Clinton is the only VP that could bring balance to Obama in the realm of public perception.
Nate:
No, no, no. Obama simply cannot pick Clinton. Here's rebuttals to your arguments above:
1. Clearly McCain has been able--for the most part--to unify his party. Now that may change depending on his VP pick, but chances are the pick will be fairly conservative (in both senses of the word.)
Clinton will unify some Democrats, sure, but she will drive away just as many (such as Irene's comment at the top of this thread) She's always been a love her/hate her figure, and if just as many Democrats come on board as do Democrats who abandon support, it's a wash.
2. Clearly much of the anti-Clinton machine has already turned their sights--predictably--on Obama. That machine has latched onto the Obama as other/celebrity/whatever attack and will be relentless about it, aided and abetted by a docile media.
The "Obama is a celebrity" attack doesn't preclude them from also making the "Hillary is a bitch" attack. In fact, they have lots of video from the primary to show what little she thinks of Obama as a commander-in-chief, and can easily craft a narrative that she is constantly undercutting Obama for her own ambitions. Not a winning message for Democrats.
3. Clinton's presence may be able to gin up Republican fundraising...except, because they are taking public financing, the McCain campaign will have precisely one week to both collect AND spend that money. In short, absent some increase in RNC money and possibly 527 money, for the most part McCain's advantage here would be completely neutralized by the clock. If Hillary had been the VP nominee all summer long the Republicans would be dining out on this--but now they simply would not have enough time to do it.
The 527 money will go up dramatically with Hillary on the ticket. 527's can put out ads right up until the election, so there's no clock to run out here.
And these are besides the well-known arguments against Hillary: it undercuts Obama's message of change, Bill and Hillary campaigning for Obama would become a media circus (not to mention if Obama wins - how do you keep the spouse of the V.P. from trying to run the country?), and she has campaign debt that needs to be taken care of.
I'm sure I could come up with more reason why, but it's early and I need some coffee. :)
To sum up: bad, bad, bad idea.
Two points:
(1) Some of the anti "HRC for VP" recommenders seem to be Repubs. This means they are scared of "HRC for VP". Why are they scared? Think about it.
(2) Historically, the surest path to presidential nomination is thru the VP. So, HRC's best chance to be future pres is to be VP now.
Surely, she knows this, and would campaign hard to be VP if given the chance.
DarienCrow said...
Anyone here besides me find it extremely bizzare that Hillary Clinton has lost 2 of her strongest Super-Delegates in like one week?
Well, if you mean something that is more "bizarre" than coincidence, then, no, unless you mean to include people who are seriously deranged in the head.
Great analysis, Adam in NY. I totally agree and you aid it all w/o insulting anyone.
I could learn something from you, buit then I wouldn't have as much fun!
Clinton is obviously the smartest pick strategically. When you only need half the undecideds to win, and half the undecideds voted for one of your VP possibilities once already this year, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
Never mind that right now Obama just has to win one of CO, NV, OH, or VA and Clinton would help in the first three states given their demographics as well as add AR and FL to the mix of possible clinchers. The chances of McCain sweeping those six states against an Obama-Clinton ticket is really low.
Lots of people have their heads in the sand (or in other places) about this situation just because they don't want her on the ticket. Obama's "change" and "new politics" brands need big time updating to win this election anyway. That's precisely the lesson of the summer.
If he doesn't pick her, liberals should be pissed. Not because she somehow deserves it (she doesn't, not anymore than anybody else) but because he is consciously decreasing the probability of a democratic president for fundamentally personal reasons - he doesn't want the aggravation or the risk of being overshadowed. He should sack up and do the right thing for the people who have worked so hard for a democrat to win office.
Ordinarulo said:
"McCain would only take one term"
If you mean that he wouldn't run for a second term if he had any shot of winning it, I think you're being naive. He's unprincipled and has shown a tremendous penchant for shifting his positions in any way he finds politically expedient. He is motivated by power, not principle. If, on the other hand, you believe his administration would be so disastrous that he'd be run out of town...
Dash Riprock said:
"If he picks up Kerry states plus Ohio, he wins. It's simple. Clinton is really the only one who can do that for him."
No. Obama is the only one who can win the election for Obama. VP candidates almost never win elections. It's up to Obama to do what's necessary to win. Which brings me back to the need to forcefully criticize McCain's presidential campaign:
x0lani said:
"All I'm saying is that Obama has his hands tied and it's going to be tough to work his way out of this. Generally and roughly speaking, he can't criticize anything without appearing negative. He can't appear negative in order to appear to provide post-partisan leadership. And, he probably can't win without going negative.
I think where we disagree is that, I believe even your cleverly crafted negative attack ad would still be perceived as negative."
Well, Obama has already criticized McCain in stump speeches and in ads. If his "new politics" is based on the same kind of refusal to defend himself and his party "brand" forcefully that was so successfully exemplified by Presidents Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry, his campaign is doomed, and I believe he's smart enough to know that. (Yeah, I do believe that Gore and Kerry would have won fair elections, but that's beside the point right now.) One indication that he does know that is the effort he's put into quickly countering all attempts to smear him. But he has to get tougher on McCain to puncture his image of leadership and being strong on national security.
As I said, there's a difference between ad hominem attacks and substantive ones, and if they are nevertheless perceived by the public as negative, that's better than taking it on the chin. It helps, though, if every negative ad and every speech emphasizes the positive - the "Why should I vote for Obama?" argument - as the answer to the negative - "Why shouldn't I vote for McCain?"
I wonder about PSmith and whether Reps are really fearful of an HRC candidacy.
I will admit to a certain unease in him picking her. Not so much for intrinsic qualities which I think are largely negative and bring a lot of baggage, but it would foolhardy to ignore her political appeal.
We Republicans think we have this race moving in the right direction. HRC would be a game changer and it is not clear which way she would tip things.
My hope is that the two of them together would be more change than the country can stand and that it would also become apparent that she won blue collar votes more by default than anything else.
Still, her appeal to women is undeniable, just as she seems to turn off men.
Then there is the whole Clinton family saga and drama.
It would be fun to watch, but on the whole I'd much rather see Obama pick Kaine!
If Intrade is a good predictive market and BO announces today, then you would have to think it is Biden. Biden doubles Bayh at the momemnt on live quote and his stock has exploded over the past week.
DWBH at 801 has it right:
Hillary repels as many, if not more, as she attracts and putting her on the ticket will allow the Reps to really make us of all that film in the can about how unprepared Obama is to be Prez ("all he has is a speech"). That is exactly the line of attack that has been working. Putting her on the ticket allows the Reps to perpetuate that while at the same time further neutralizing the Obama inevitability argument that has been dashed on the rocks this week.
The media loves a horserace and will align themselves with the Rep talking points if only to make for good theatre.
My perspective-- which doesn't matter much-- is Hillary was never going to be as strong a candidate as people thought. People were voting against her and easily had Clinton overload. I don't think she stands a good shot in 2012. We've already had Clinton overload and seeing a never ending campaign for the Clinton family just looks more and more power-grabbing. If they're smart they'll back off.
On the other hand, I can actually see her working as VP candidate (not sure I want to see her as VP though). She's ruthless and she can parrot a message as easily as... a parrot. And I'm sorry for all the Obama voters who will hold their vote because he ruined his brand. No offense, but I think you're a very small minority and many in your group will end up supporting the man they originally liked for President no matter what.
And think of the extra voting incentive of voting to put the first viable female VP candidate in power. The media's too afraid to talk about race anymore, but they wouldn't be afraid of letting everyone know how long that particular glass ceiling has been intact.
Anyway, I'm fine with anyone else too, but at this point I've warmed to Clinton and think it could be fun to watch the aftermath of a true game changer.
Ruin the Obama brand? McCain has already ruined the Obama brand due to stupid decisions by Axelrod. Pick Hillary, pick her today.
Stephanie Tubbs Jones
The country Lost Stephanie Tubbs Jones yesterday of an apparent burst aneurism. She was the first black female Congresswoman from Ohio and was a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter.
Without doubt her political views were anathema to me, but she was an ebullient and cheerful Hillary Clinton supporter and Sen. Clinton was lucky to have her in her corner and as her surrogate.
I will miss this member of the loyal opposition. May flights of angels speed her to her rest.
I think the most important thing about a Hillary pick would be what it shows us about Obama.
It would confirm that he is intelligent, decisive, humble, thoughtful, confident, and above all... pragmatic.
To my mind those are the most important qualities a president can have.
I also think Biden is more likely to have refused the job than Clinton. Biden woudl rather be Secretary of State than VP. Hillary would rather be a Supreme Court Justice, but the "glass ceiling" thing really matters to her. Women have already made it to the bench, but not the White House. She would not turn down the chance to carry the banner there.
As for the choice driving the wingers totally apeshit, I say bring it on. Let them overplay their hands and alienate the country. Because they forget that on the stump, their evil monstrous "Hildabeast" is actually a very likeable woman, and the public warms to her.
Obama up just 48-45 in Pennsylvania according to a new Rasmussen poll.
Davelondon said, VA or two of CO,NM,NV - Since there are no polls there.
Please check your recent history. There are polls in VA, CO, and NV, all of these are now slightly in McCain's camp.
Pennsylvania will not be a decisive state this election, McCain can only gain it if he safely wins nationwide.
I've been wondering. What is the data or stats on how much a VP choice can help a candidate in the polls (in the long run, not just the bounce)....???
Strange how Obama holds on to his advantage in the 2 daily national trackers. +3 in Ras (without leaners), +2 in Gallup today - in contrast to the tied situation if you look at the states, a situation that was mostly constructed by Obama-unfriendly Rasmussen results in AZ, CO, FL, NH, NV and OH.
The idea that Hillary Clinton being on the ticket would ruin Obama's brand doesn't make sense to me.
First of all on virtually every major domestic policy issue there is nothing to distinguish Hillary from Barack, whether it's health care, civil rights, jobs, education, "choice," or other areas.
Second of all, the (uh-oh, I'm going to use that word I hate) meme would still be a focus on change, rebuilding the economy, reforming the tax structure, changing our trade policies, and giving a new face to our diplomacy (and the president, not the VP is always the chief diplomat).
Third, the "brand" right now is losing some of its shine, and the quickest way to show new momentum would be for wavering Dems to come home, and Hillary's becoming a team member would help provide a pre-convention as well as a convention bump.
Alex:
I am beginning to think that PA is very much in play, but Mi will tip first. It all has to do with the way Obama is being defined in the race. Right now a celebrity tax and spender, soon to come a dangerous radical. It will only get worse.
Also, the trackers I am told over sample the big states in order to get their numbers, e.g., NY, CA, TX, IL, FL etc, so you get an unbalanced view of the electorate. You add to that the fact that Obama has huge leads in NY and CA while McC's leads are more modest and you have a picture where Obama appears to be winning the popular vote, but McCain is much more competitive in terms of EVs.
McC may have fewer votes, but he disperses them more evenly and to greater effect.
This is a snapshot and not a prediction.
I've noticed since McCain has inched closer and closer to Obama and the race has essentially become a dead heat, that Nate has focused less and less on hard-core "stats" and "polling" with posts on cross-tab checks, registered and likely voters, etc. and focused more and more on threads about "cone"-gate and VP speculation and left the "stats" behind.
What a wanker.
The difference between the trackers and the state polls is actually no difference at all. McCain's best state polls arose from survey work done a few days ago before Obama was back on the campaign trail. State polls will always lag behind trackers by the very nature and for a true comparison we need to see how the state polls are affected today and tomorrow.
The reduction in Obama's PA lead was 3 points with leaners and there was no change without leaners. The PA fieldwork was done on Tuesday. By contrast the polls in Minnesota and Iowa which show bigger drops were conducted at the end of last week and Monday. The later in the week the better the polls will look for Obama now that he is back on the trail and in the news getting in McCain's face.
Today we have a poll from NM. I would expect a reduction in Obama's lead but a much smaller one, say a couple of points.
This is all academic as the VP announcement is imminent and if it is Hillary, hang on to your hats
Juris: I have to disagree - I just don't see the post-Clinton bump you see. I found an ABC news poll from a few weeks ago (sorry, can't find the link) that said just as many Democrats would be less likely to vote for Obama with Clinton on the ticket than would be more likely. As I said above, she'll bring some home and drive just as many (or more) out. Sure, announcing an Obama-Clinton ticket would generate a swarm of press coverage which may generate some kind of bump, but they're going to get that anyway with the convention.
And the change brand isn't about policy (at least not in the minds of low-information voters) - a lot of it comes from Obama being a "Washington outsider". His lack of experience actually plays into this. They may be similar on the issues, but putting Clinton on the ticket creates headache after headache without any clear benefits. And that's not even considering Bill.
agreed.
and here are 28 more reasons:
1980 Reagan and BUSH
1984 Reagan and BUSH
1988 BUSH and Quayle
1992 CLINTON and Gore
1996 CLINTON and Gore
2000 BUSH and Cheney
2004 Bush and Cheney
and 2008?
Obama and CLINTON.
Something is wrong with that picture. I mean, it isn't like the Bush's and the Clinton's are carved out of Roosevelt stock, no?
Mule, if Nate is a wanker then what does that make you. Someone who obsesses over a wanker? A voyeur wanker if you will?
Unlike you, PeteKent, VA Con and other Republicans here are happy to discuss all manner of issues with each other and with Democrats without feeling the need to abuse the guy whose site is hosting our discussion.
In fact without Nate, even fewer people would know or care what you say. Perhaps we should rebrand you Kleenex Wiper.
@ Pete:
PA might be in play, but I didn´t deny that. But even now, McCain doesn´t win PA, so it´s not an important state.
The dangerous radical-rumor didn´t work. Obama did well with the Rev. Wright/Ayers/Muslim/blablabla-stories already circulating.
The next step, and possibly the worst rumor you could ever make, will be the Infanticide-smear. What could be worse than this? This will be the last shot remaining for the rightwingers.
Obama is down in the polls because he didn´t define himself enough, but he also didn´t get defined by his enemies in a way that sticks. (And by the way, abortion is the one issue that was brought up against Sebelius, so she wouldn´t offer a new "front".)
@ Mule Rider:
Let´s wait a little more ;-). The primaries delivered results each week. And it´s still summer. We will have a lot more polls and statistics to talk about after Labor Day. And apart from that, the VP-issue is the ultimate pundit-test. If you it´s summer and you are an election pundit, you talk about possible VP-picks.
You miss one very important point...the whole basis for this thread is a moot point. Obama has completely ruled out Clinton. You know how I know? Because he said just yesterday or the day before that his VP would be someone who was in politics for the right reasons. Even if Obama thinks Clinton is in it for the right reasons (and he doesn't seem that stupid), we know Michelle doesn't buy that, and she's on the vetting team.
Here's the link I was referring to:
link
If Clinton were on the ticket with Obama, 23 percent said that would make them more likely to vote for the Democratic ticket, but an essentially identical 22 percent said it would make them more likely to vote for the Republican ticket, according to the July Washington Post/ ABC News Poll.
New Minnesota poll out, published by Minnesota Public Radio and the University of Minnesota. Take it for what it's worth:
Obama 48
McCain 38
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/27223064.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aU7EaDiaMDCiUT
abovemypaygrade
I meant in terms of the changing ovverall outcome of the race, yes those polls have been slightly towards mccain for a few days.[I said about a week ago how surprising i found it that not much attn had been paid to them]
The principle point was If you werent worried a couple of days ago why worry now? The election is still about the 4 states and there is unlikely to be any entirely reliable polling data for a couple of weeks due to the conventions, unless someone has a disaster of a convention [maybe if a gust of wind blows mccains hair up dead straight].
To continue the olympic theme of a few threads ago its like the bit of the rowing when the camera goes for a close up on the boats and you have no idea quite what is happening before it goes back to the wide angle with 30secs to go and the bloody aussies have gone out infront.
Oh and I thought Adam in NY was spot on too.
Surely Clintons thought processes is let BO lose, the Dem Party will come crawling back to her with its tail between its legs and she can challenge a 76yr old mccain who has presided over a recession.
I doubt independents will be that enthusiastic to come to Clinton's defense. Few people came to Obama's defense because, first, he's not that likable on a personal basis. He is a leader ("arrogant"), not a populist. And second, because he's black. There was indeed a backlash against Bill Clinton when he made what was perceived as racist attacks, but that was principally among blacks. White support, indeed, seemed to have dropped. Now that the race is between Obama and McCain, it is difficult to produce a backlash among swing voters (white, low/middle-class voters) even if McCain makes racially provocative comments - or indeed, any negative comment at all, as long as Obama's race is continually reminded to all voters, justifiably or not. And Hillary won't be a cure to that problem because independents mostly have a personally unfavorable view of her. The radical feminists would indeed defend her at all costs, but so would they, except a very few, defend any other white women candidates with less political baggage. Kathleen Sebelius would be an excellent choice simply because voters would want to defend the ticket, although that effect may be diminished by her boring personality. Wesley Clark and Joe Biden would, in my opinion, be the best choices simply because of their offensive capabilities. And of course, Clark outranks McCain.
Also on that poll from MN it is claimed that,
“Our analysis suggests that the McCain ticket jumps by 13 points by adding Gov. Pawlenty to the ticket. That is quite an impact.”
Now I don't think any VP potentital pick is going to alter a ticket 13 points (on either side) but the claim is there.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/08/20/prezpoll/
Clinton would be a terrible pick, but by all means go for it. Unless you can get Bill to STFU its a disaster waiting to happen.
James Carville had a great column on CNN.com, though. Says Obama has to get mad to win and go on the attack. Couldn't agree more--theres a reason why Carville is probably the only really good Democrat strategist in the past 28 years.
I only skimmed the comments, so I'm not sure if anyone else brought this up, but:
it's not true that McCain's unfavorables haven't gone up. i'll use Rasmussen tracking because it's granular, stable, and easy to get at.
McCain's total unfavorable rating has not changed noticeably. But his very unfavorable rating has gone from aroun 17 to around 20. Not a huge jump, but comparable to the shifts in topline numbers that we obsess over.
Obama's total unfavorable rating, incidentally, has made no change I can see--maybe a point. His very unfavorable rating has gone up by perhaps a point or two at the most.
So according to this measure, the negative ads may be hurting McCain more than Obama.
So why do the topline national and state numbers close? My theory is it's an "anti-bounce" before the convention. Since there are open questions (will Clinton be picked as VP, how harmonious will the convention be, how much respect will C give O and O give C), Clinton voters are understandably less likely to say they will vote for Obama over McCain right now, and the numbers tighten.
Yeah, I don't think the 13 point jump is all that realistic. Pawlenty isn't even that popular in Minnesota. In 2006, he won re-election by about one point, and I don't think he even won a majority.
I think Obama's lead in Minnesota (nothing substantial, other than me living here) is probably in between this number and the number other polling has shown in recent days — probably about 6-8 percent. Obama is a very popular figure in Minnesota, especially among the younger crowd. Minnesota also has one of the best voter turnouts in the nation.
My guess... Pawlenty may add a point or two in Minnesota. But by no means would he swing the state.
JMHO.
When the hell is Obama's VP announcement coming anyway? Its getting a little late!
Is he having some last minute change of thought?
I meant my assumption is BASED on nothing substantial... although it could be argued that I am not very substantial either... :-)
On this date in history, August 21, 2004, inthe Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll, John Kerry and President George Bush were tied 49% to 49%.
For final results, please see Presidential Inauguration January 2005.
You know what's interesting? The media frenzy and people in general have been obsessed with Obama's VP selection, and not so much with McCain's.
After a quick and unscientific Google search, I get
8,100,000 for obama vice president
7,500,000 for mccain vice president
That's nearly 10% more hits for Obama than McCain. Admittedly, I myself haven't been so interested in who McCain picks, with the assumption that it will be a "generic Republican". I wonder why the asymmetrical interest in VP selection?
p smith,
I know, I know. I've made that my daily ritual to come on and call Nate a wanker, but it's more a friendly poke and not "abuse."
And I try and get into more intellectual debates/discussions, although I admit I have delved off into some rather childish banter when some liberal thinks he/she has to be a smartass.
Anyway, I agree that VP selection this time of year is a pretty solid topic to be discussing.
x0lani:
The 10% matches roughly the difference in party ID. It's actually kind of remarkable that it works that way, particularly since the Obama choice will come first.
jack black: although some might not, I appreciate your updates. But I'll point out that they're starting to favor Obama. Obama is +2 (with leaners). Bush-Kerry was close; that +2 can make a difference. And, most importantly, this time in 2004 was after the Democratic convention but before the Republican one. Surely that should be worth at least a point or two difference.
Rasmussen's PA Poll header:
Obama Clings to Modest Lead in Pennsylvania
Clever wording Rasmussen.. very tricky.
his robo-calling may not be partisan, but his summary of it sure is.
When I put the following two (more specific queries) in, I got these results:
2,560,000 for -mccain vice president obama
1,650,000 for mccain vice president -obama
That's a 55% increase of Obama hits over McCain!
So, it has to be more than party identification. This would include worldwide interest as well.
x0lani: OK. But there's still the matter of the Democratic convention being first. Obama has to announce in the next few days, so the web is in a frenzy right now. That's a lot of it.
But I do agree that passions are higher for the VP choice on the Democratic side, because of the Hillary question.
VA Con, I have to say that if Obama leaves it till the weekend, he is missing an opportunity. Most people don't bother watching the news over the weekend and unless the announcement is for Hillary, I just don't see the MSM and the public getting excited about a Biden/Bayh/Kaine selection on a Saturday night.
I would expect him to announce tonight in time for the evening news or tomorrow morning. Anything later and he is wasting time. I would go today. Hillary is down in Florida, Obama should pop up at her rally and say "Surprise!"
No doubt Bill's initial response to the news will be "I'm not a racist".
As for McCain. No way is he picking a pro choice VP. Having said just 5 days ago that he will be a pro life president with pro life policies and that he will not change the GOP platform on abortion which does not include an exception for rape, incest and the health of the mother, it would completely undermine his Christian jihadist outreach to make his first executive decision a pro choice one.
Mule, fair play.
He better have one hell of a choice. Because this its less than a week until Mystery Veep is going to speak.Give him some time to prepare his speech at least!
I think the Minnesota Public Radio poll is a must read. They do blow the Pawlenty thing, confounding "more likely to vote for" with "will vote for" in their analysis. But it's one of the best written poll releases I've seen, clearly noting that, for example, the 9% who say Obama's religion makes them less likely to vote for him were mostly "Republicans and others unlikely to support him regardless." They also do a very nice critique of SurveyUSA's methods, explaining why they think their recent poll underestimated Obama's levels of support. Like I said, a must read for those interested in polling.
I am no longer a fan of Hillary (and especially Bill), but I still think she'd make the best choice for strictly pragmatic reasons. I'm certainly not looking forward to 8 or even 16 more years Clinton drama and distractions, but if it means the difference between winning and losing this election, it's a price worth paying, IMHO.
Some (obvious) reasons Hillary is a strong pick:
First and foremost, people still associate the Clintons with prosperous times. This is huge in a year where Republicans are extremely vulnerable on the economy. And thanks to the drilling issue, we have seen a 15 point swing in the polls in favor of McCain on economic issues. Biden may have great FP credentials, but no one can touch the Clintons on the economy (at least in terms of public perception).
Second, she may represent the status quo to many, but the mere fact that she would be the first woman VP, in itself, is symbolic of change. In short, the first AA Prez and female VP is still a strong change ticket.
Third, despite her Bosnia gaffe (or lies), she has strong foreign policy credentials in both real terms and, more importantly, in the view of the populace.
Along these same lines, she makes up for Obama's lack of experience in the eyes of the public. She is a familiar commodity, so whether people love her or hate her, they don't have to fear the unknown (the devil you know). This is also huge, since we know McCain's fear tactics will become more and more desperate as November 4 nears. If tensions with Russia increase, or if other quasi-crises erupt between now and then (including late October "manufactured" ones courtesy of the Bush administration), the "comfort factor" the Clintons bring to the ticket will be invaluable.
So while I agree that she takes some of the enthusiasm out of Obama's base, I think her positives among independents, women, older women, blue-collar Dems, and fed-up Republicans greatly outweigh such considerations.
Having said just 5 days ago
I doubt McCain recalls what he said five days ago.
I think Nate has made a compelling argument for Hillary from a strategic standpoint. But, the reason Obama still won't pick her is because he doesn't want to work with someone he can't trust, someone who has her own agenda, someone who isn't fully committed to an Obama presidency.
The Clintons have been undermining Obama in subtle and not-so-subtle ways ever since it became clear he was going to be the nominee. If Hillary's the VP nominee, will she (and Bill) suddenly be fully committed to Obama? Or will part of the Clintons' agenda still be to improve their legacy? Will it be to push the idea in the public's mind that it's sort of a co-presidency? Will she fully support Obama on issues she doesn't agree with him on or will she push her own agenda?
These are relevant questions for both the campaign and (assuming they win) for the Presidency itself.
If Pawlenty spikes McCain up 13 points up here in Minnesota, it's because the people want to get him out of St. Paul.
He won 47-46 in the last election, and that was one bridge ago.
Pick him and we'll be seeing the I-35 bridge in campaign ads.
Va Con:
He better have one hell of a choice. Because this its less than a week until Mystery Veep is going to speak.Give him some time to prepare his speech at least!
Something tells me all of the prospective veep candidates have their speeches already written. ;)
He should pick his VP soon, because the Bill Ayers story is getting play again. It may sink him further.
SarahLawrenceScott:
You're right that the increase in interest is probably due to the proximity of the DNC, but if you look at this...
Obama's has been higher since mid-April. I think what makes this significant is that it
1) Means people are more interested in Obama's campaign
2) Means Obama's VP choice is more influential and thus important than McCain's
I with ya Jackson... but think about this: Governor Carol Molnau *shudders*
Anyway, anyone seen the new Obama ad? I hope this thing is on the air from now until the election. Priceless!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpmFd25tRqo
If he does pull a surprise and its Mark Warner (doubtful, though) he will win Virginia.
I guess you can call me a conspiracy theorist, but I don't think either CNN or FOX official policy want Obama to win.
Since most adults (i.e. potential voters) don't go past _television_ to learn about things to vote, they have the power.
It is also critical to remember that a close race is good for ratings, while a blowout is bad for ratings. We are talking many millions of dollars profit if the race looks close. Now, if one candidate is ahead, doesn't the media have a huge financial interest in helping the other guy, whoever it is?
x0lani: very nicely done! I agree that general interest in the campaign in general is part of it. But Hillary is clearly a huge factor. Look at the gigantic "unification spike" when people were speculating over whether Obama would "have" to pick Hillary. Now there's another convention spike. But even between those, your graph shows more than a factor of two difference between interest in Obama's pick and McCain's pick. That's a lot.
An earlier comment about Hillary addressing the experience issue on the Dem ticket got me thinking.
In reality, is "experience" the amount of experience the candidate has governing and/or legislating or is it the length of time which the candidate has been in the public consciousness.
I think Obama really needs to tear down the experience argument to its core, as he did with Clinton. Experience, as measured by time in office, is merely being used as a proxy for the person's ability to make good judgments. But instead of showing the strength of his own good judgment, Obama needs to focus on the contrast between McCain's experience (which he can use implicitly to reinforce the age issue) and his poor judgment. Once he erodes the generic experience card, McCain will have to fight Obama on policy terms -- which is not a good arena for him.
JB,
Your time is up! Bush lead in the Rasmussen tracking poll for each of the final nine weeks before the 2004 election. Now your reports suggest an Obama victory if he is leading in the RTP. Have you changed sides?
The fact is that, since 1952, all the successful presidential candidates but one were leading in the averaged polls at the beginning of September. Reagan was able to beat this pattern and Gore nearly did but that isn't how I would bet my money.
My sister voted for Clinton in the primaries. She believes Clinton as VP would undermine Obama.
Personally, I'm one of those Obama supporters who would bleed left and vote Green if Clinton is on the ticket.
Clinton undermines the Change motif; she dampens enthusiasm among Obama activists; and she mobilizes the Republican "anti-Clinton" base.
VC - Ayers is "getting play"? What, did somebody write a WorldNetDaily editorial?
Honestly, three months ago I would have flipped if Obama had announced the "dream team" ticket. But today, I think it would be a smart move. Looking at the numbers, Obama is winning independents. All he needs to do is shore up Democrats to win. Clinton is the only VP choice that would bring in a good number of Democrats that aren't already behind Obama.
The anti-Clinton wing of the party will hold their nose because Obama is at the top of the ticket and VPs don't really matter. It will be more about symbolically uniting the party. Think Kennedy picking LBJ.
The Republican blowout won't matter because of the timing and conservatives were going to line up and turnout against Obama regardless of the VP pick. With the Democrat ID advantage and Obama's appeal to independents, he'll have a good +5 nationally to put him over the top. I don't think independents will flee him just because Clinton is his VP. McCain isn't likely to pick a VP with appeal to independents (read pro-Choice) because it will anger the base.
The real question: would Obama actually do it? Obama has been extremely gracious to Clinton since he knew he was going to win the nomination. Though he has stated many times that he's going to pick someone who he knows he can trust. I don't know that he trusts Clinton enough after their bitter primary. Even though it may make political sense, I'm not sure Obama has the stomach for it. He might not actually be willing to do ANYTHING to win.
I just saw they added Blanche Lincoln, the Senator from Arkansas, to the Intrade odds.
I certainly hope Obama picks a woman. I agree that the Republicans have been attacking, and with a woman as #2, they are likely to 'overplay their hand'.
Remember Hillary's tears back in Jan/Feb and how the voters responded? Nobody cares when the attack dogs go after Obama, but they will care if it's a woman they're smearing.
It's not just older women voters who come to the aid of Clinton.
Clinton had 18 million voters - a coalition nearly the same size as Obama's (or arguably larger than Obama's).
Obama needs that coalition on his side now - entirely - and there is only one way that's going to happen...
Slightly off topic, but...for all of you (Matt J.H., I'm thinking of you in particular) who have been critical of Obama and frustrated that he hasn't taken the might to McCain more: I think he might be moving into full-steam-ahead mode. After coasting for weeks and only running positive Obama ads and a few national and locally targeted issue-based attack ads (e.g. on DHL in OH), he is turning up the heat on McCain. He added a Yucca Mountain ad in NV yesterday.
Today he is pouncing on one of the many, many McCain mistakes: not knowing how many houses he owns. As far as I can tell, this is the first real character attack from the Obama camp. Personally, I am not a huge fan of this type of ad, but Obama has been hammered by them for months. McCain could not answer a question about how many houses he owns, which would seem to be problematic for someone who has been characterizing his opponent as an elitist. The ad paints McCain as an out-of-touch rich guy...which he almost certainly is. You can't really blame McCain for this, since his wife is a multi-millionaire and one almost can't help but to live differently than average Americans. Not only that, he grew up quite privileged, so he isn't even a self-made man, like Bill Clinton was. I think it takes a very rare person to live a lavish life for years and yet still have empathy for ordinary working-class Americans. FDR was able to do it, but I'm not sure who else (probably not even Kennedy or Reagan, though they clearly connected with average Americans).
I think this line of attack might be very effective. While people might have a sense of McCain the maverick (though it is greatly exaggerated), most people don't have a sense of McCain the multi-millionaire. The contrast with Obama's background and (until very, very recently) financial status is dramatic. We'll see if it works, but it clearly shows that Obama is starting to take the gloves off.
Here's the link to the ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpmFd25tRqo
It was the L.A. Times, KS.
Mainstream enough for you?
Have to disagree, Alex S.
"The dangerous radical-rumor didn´t work. Obama did well with the Rev. Wright/Ayers/Muslim/blablabla-stories already circulating.
The next step, and possibly the worst rumor you could ever make, will be the Infanticide-smear. What could be worse than this? This will be the last shot remaining for the rightwingers."
This stuff is only just getting off the ground. You have not seen the last of it yet.
teh infanticide story will be used to brand Obama as an outcast even among extremsits.
This may be posted on this site somewhere, but the rumor mill here in Indianapolis is that after Obama makes his VP announcement in Springfield this Saturday, he will be in INDIANAPOLIS. Time/place TBA, but the blogs are starting to go crazy that Bayh is infact the nominee.
Sedi--
that seven houses ad made me laugh outloud. it's exactly the right type of attack ad-- it's entirely true, tells a compelling narrative, and easy to shrug off if saying it's "the low road" that mccain should lighten up.
there's the abramoff scandal ad coming out too.
issue ads are great but a petty/entertaining character assasination sticks with you. case in point paris and britney.
looks like obama's moving to fight fire with fire.
Obama's attack ads are good by themselves, but theres no theme uniting them.
Obama needs a consistent theme against McCain, so people start thinking, McCain is a _____ every time his name is mentioned.
Is he an elitist (the seven ad)? Corrupt Washington insider (the Abramoff ad)? Or Dr. Strangelove?
They need to pick one and stick with it.
Virginia Conservative--
McCain has way too many pejoratives for Obama which I find conflicting too. (Celebrity, crazy liberal, flipflopper, usurping arrogant powerhungry politician). Maybe the idea is you just throw them all out there anyway and they probably each work for at least someone.
dwbh: I don't buy it. In many of these polls there has been a lot of "strategic" as opposed to "sincere" responses to such hypotheticals. If you were to look at polls from three or four months ago, you'd recall the evidence that many Hillary supporters were saying they'd rather vote for McCain than for Obama. There's still such a lingering group, who though they wouldn't vote for McCain might well not vote for Obama for Pres; but it appears from recent polls that most Hillary supporters have in fact jumped onto the Obama bandwagon. The issue is: how many more can be brought on board, reducing that pool of Democrats who are not yet in the Obama fold?
As cases in point, I've got my own parents, who I think are typical of some of the elderly liberals who may have reservations about Obama. Talking to my Dad the other day, he said that he had supported Hillary and would never vote for McCain; yet he wasn't ready to commit to Obama. I think the only thing that might (I should emphasize the word "might") bring him to vote for Obama would be if Hillary were on the ticket. He's not holding out strategically; he's just not sold on Obama yet. There are many many thousands like him living in Florida, for example (he lives in Cali, so his "nonvote" probably doesn't matter); and that's not the only place.
McCain has found his line of attack. Vapid celebrity. He seemed confused in July but he has one now.
Obama needs one, and one that doesn't look reactive or defensive (i.e., "Washington's biggest celebrity). It can't be something derivative from McCain's attack, that doesn't work very well.
"McCain has found his line of attack. Vapid celebrity. He seemed confused in July but he has one now."
Too bad this line of attack will backfire on him:
http://www.wilshireandwashington.com/2008/08/mccains-hollywo.html
Oh yes Shap, its backfiring horribly.
Why, thats why hes catching up in the polls and wins a small minority of simulations on this site!
What a horrible attack THAT was!
i bet after the republican convention the main line of attack will be simply McCain = Old politics and Bush.
VA Conservative: I think Obama is in fact finding one about McCain:
Rich guy who has to ask his campaign staff how many houses he owns, thinks even some billionaires are poor, and wears $500 loafers. Probably has ten pairs of them, one in each of his houses for when he returns from a hard day's campaigning.
"McCain = Old politics and Bush."
Thats been tried for the last seven months. It only resonates with the Democrat base. Try harder.
There are some interesting polls out today which suggest that Obama's return to the campaign has helped him recover.
Obama up 44/43 in Nevada with fieldwork done Monday to Weds.
Obama up 48/38 in Minnesota with fieldwork done over 10 days which covers periods when Obama has been away and on the trail.
Finally a Battleground States poll by NPR taken in 19 states, 15 of which Bush won in 2004. Obama leads 45/44. This of all of them is the best news for Obama.
By contrast Rasmussen does all his polling for a state on a single day and he has unsurprisingly chosen to poll the big states at the end of Obama's vacation and before he has got back on the trail. So while that may make you Republicans feel good, I expect the worm is turning up already.
With polling timing is everything and I don't expect Obama to take a holiday from here on in. Incidentally McCain is on holiday this weekend thereby ceding the field to Obama. Watch the figures move.
This is out of ignorance, so apologies. There is this new poll out of Nevada with Obama ahead by 1. It is linked by Ambinder in his blog. will this make into the model today or not?
Stephen,
Yes, what I think is most effective about the ad is its basis in fact. The guy is rich and he really didn't know how many homes he owns. That's not to say that ordinary Americans can't connect with him on some other level, but in an election where the economy is likely to be the biggest single issue, it could prove to be a real liability for McCain. We'll see.
VCon,
My sense is that Obama is just starting up his negative ads, and the campaign might want to run a few different ones, see what seems to stick the best, and then hammer it home. The GOP attacks on Obama have been all over the place as well (celebrity, exotic, inexperienced, elitist, etc.) and they seem to have worked, at least to some extent. I'm not so sure that they are set on "vapid celebrity" now, but if so, they are making a huge mistake. The problem with that line of attack is that all Obama has do do is come across as a nice, likable guy, which by all accounts he is (heck, even Bush is a nice guy on a personal level).
I couldn't disagree more about the Ayers stuff: the charge is hollow and even if it does re-appear, I think few will be influenced. Guilt by association is a very weak line of attack unless the ties are strong. This isn't the case with Ayers.
I think his best line of attack, by far, would be to go the "McCain is a senile Dr. Strangelove" route. That would work with a war-weary public.
Plus you can gently (or not so gently) suggest his time in the POW camp busted a screw loose in his head.
I think America likes war too much for the Dr. Strangelove.
I know McBush might not have been too compelling in the past, but McCain is going to have to sidle up pretty close to Bush at the convention and it will be clear that they align on every single issue. He only has 30% approval. I think it's the way to go.
Juris: I don't doubt that there's other people like your parents who might feel safer voting for Obama if the ticket also had Clinton. Then again, they might not. After all, Clinton has given Obama her full-throated endorsement for over two months now, campaigning for him and being a top-notch surrogate, and yet your parents still aren't sold. And as we know, the support she had in the primaries against Obama doesn't easily translate into support against McCain in the general.
My own case in point would be irene @ 2:27 AM at the top of this thread. Many people supported Obama precisely because he wasn't a Clinton, and would be disillusioned if they had to vote for a Clinton after all. irene flatly says she would probably stay home in such a case. There's no way to really know if the poll I cited included a large amount of "strategic" responses or not (guess we need more polling!) but it's clearly not a slam dunk that Hillary would give Obama a 10-15 point bounce, as he suggested a couple of days ago.
Obama cannot be guilty of blocking the infanticide bill, Pete, after all he has no opinion on when the life of a child begins, and a child deserves protection from doctors and parents who want to kill it. By not forming an opinion on the beginnning of life and legal protections how can you accuse him of having an opinion on the issue. After all this issue as he states is "above my pay grade."
Obama cannot be guilty of blocking the infanticide bill, Pete, after all he has no opinion on when the life of a child begins, and a child deserves protection from doctors and parents who want to kill it. By not forming an opinion on the beginnning of life and legal protections how can you accuse him of having an opinion on the issue. After all this issue as he states is "above my pay grade."
All the lines of attack have now boiled down to three adjectives on either side.
Obama is too liberal, popular and exotic.
McCain is too old, rich and hotheaded.
Adjectives matter. Over the next couple of months America has to decide who it wants running the country... a liberal, popular, cosmopolitan kind of guy... or a wealthy old dude who's borderline crazy.
I know who I'd pick. As for the country... I guess this is when we see whether America is beginning to grow up. (I'd say yes.)
There are now 27,600 google search results for Obama quoted as saying "above my pay grade." I cannot wait for that to get to the million mark.
VC - No, it's not good enough for me. The story you seem to be referencing, in it's entirety, reports that the Annenberg (radical!) foundation board which Obama served on along with Ayers is "waiting" to release "records" pertaining to the board's activities. Big deal. It's a non-starter.
dwbhWell I certainly know a lot of "Irenes" who will probably in the end, vote for Obama with anybody he puts on the ticket with him. They will ultimately calculate that with him at the top of the ticket they have their best hope to change course from the current administration's rank illegality and avoid critical changes in the balance on the Supreme Court.
But hey, we're in the middle of an election campaign, and a lot can happen between now and November. So all we can do is stay tuned.
The only thing that's keeping our Treasury from going bankrupt is that the Chinese still consider U.S. bonds a good investment. China holds 1/3 of our national debt today. But what happens if they get fed up with Republican borrow-and-spend policies and stop buying?
Then they go broke with us and it's essentially a declaration of war. It's really not China that is keeping us from bankruptcy as much as it is the fact that oil may only be bought and sold in London and New York using American dollars (the petrodollar). As a result anyone who wants oil has to go through us to get it and we get our cut regardless of who is buying and selling.
If China get's uppity we will block their direct supply of American dollars meaning either their oil supply will plummet or they will have to secure those dollars from a third party making the price of oil skyrocket for them. The overall effect of this is really that we can run up as much debt as we want and as long as we hold the petrodollar we don't have to worry too much about paying it back...for now.
The problem is that it would be far more profitable for OPEC to trade oil for Euros and if we allow that to happen then suddenly we DO have to start paying back our debt because we'll have nothing to hang over the heads of our debtors and if you think the economy is bad now, just wait until THAT happens.
History has shown that when a nation is pushed to the brink of bankruptcy and their economic dominance is about to cruble they do the one thing possible to keep them alive...they attack militarily and attack big.
Iraq is a prime example of this as Saddam Hussein had a deal with France and Germany to trade oil for Euros through the oil for food program. That threatened the petrodollar and in a worst case scenario could have been a complete economic disaster for us...far worse than what we are experiencing now.
So essentially if China wants to go that route they are really cutting their own throats economically. The game China wants to play is to covertly support the Iranian effort to trade oil for Euros through the Iranian Oil Bourse giving them an alternate (and cheaper) way to acquire oil and once the petrodollar is out of the way they can start pressuring us for the money we owe them. HOWEVER...they have to be careful to do it slowly otherwise they will push us to the point where our only option will be a massive military response.
Oh and one last thing...Iran has been delaying their Oil Bourse for quite a while (probably because our tanks and carriers are on their borders) but the second they open it we WILL be going into Iran regardless of who the POTUS is.
"There are now 27,600 google search results for Obama quoted as saying "above my pay grade." I cannot wait for that to get to the million mark."
Well, if you extrapolate linearly, it should hit a million just after Obama's inauguration in January.
Va Con: The Dr. Strangelove attack may work, but they'll need to frame it differently - lots of Obama's young voters probably have no clue about Stanley Kubrick or his movie. Finding subtle or not-so-subtle ways to suggest he's a warmonger is probably better. It sets up the same kind of simple association McCain has now with "Obama is a celebrity" - one people start thinking "McCain is a warmonger", that's when the real damage happens.
But even if the "McCain is an out of touch rich guy" attack doesn't stick (and I don't think it will, without a "Kerry likes windsurfing" kind of moment Obama can exploit), it appears the Obama campaign is at least willing to try and find the right line of attack. This is a vast improvement over a few weeks ago.
dwbh-
Of course I didn't mean that literally. Dr. Strangelove is shorthand for "nutty warmonger".
I can't believe they haven't used the "Bomb bomb Iran" thing in an attack ad yet! Thats almost too easy.
Maybe Obama just doesn't have the balls to go for the jugular.
If Barack chooses Hillary or if the delegates in Denver vote her onto the ticket against his wishes, Barack will lose the election for sure. Without her on the ticket he has a good chance to win the election.
I'm not going to outline my reasons because they are too many.
But an Obama/Clinton ticket spells disaster.
Wow, the 'seven houses' meme really has legs! It's already popped up all over the blogs, and what's even more telling... they're bristling over it and going into a defensive crouch at the Corner and Free Republic.
VC said: McCain has found his line of attack. Vapid celebrity.
It's a little more than that. I think that Rove has boiled down the attacks to five:
Attack: "Vapid Celebrity" (to use your term)
Positive Message: McCain is a guy of substance you can trust.
Delivered by: Campaign
Attack: "Unknown commodity"
Positive Message: McCain is known and you can trust him.
Delivered by: Campaign and 527's
Attack: "Doesn't share your values"
Positive Message: McCain is your kind of guy and you can trust him.
Delivered by: Campaign and 527's
Attack: "Too inexperienced on Foreign Policy"
Positive Message: McCain knows what he's doing and you can trust him.
Delivered by: Campaign and 527's
Attack: "Bad for the economy"
Positive Message: You can trust McCain to drill for oil and not raise taxes.
Delivered by: Campaign
The fact that I could identify and state those themes with only five minutes thought is scary and shows that they're out there.
The "Celebrity" theme is right out of the Swiftboat playbook: go at the other guy on his perceived strength and turn it against him. Effing brilliant, if my candidate wasn't always on the other side of it.
The campaign's commercials will be the "nicer" ones.
The 527's will do the dirty work on TV and through the Internet. Ayers, Doehrn, Wright, Farrakhan, "Barack Hussein Obama", Muslim (including the school registration where he's listed as Muslim), "first time I'm proud of my country..." (I KNOW they're unfair, that's not the point. Arguments over what was "unfair" occur after the campaign and are usually made by the loser.)
It's not too late but another Democrat has followed in the proud footsteps of Dukakis and Kerry and has let the Republicans go at him basically unanswered in August.
Obama has to get sharp and focused fast. So far he's been on the defensive (Washington celebrity) and whiny ("He attacked my patriotism"), to which voters generally don't respond well. Maybe the seven houses thing will stick. But, it has to be much more cohesive and coherent and hard hitting and consistent.
I feel that Obama's message has lost focus. Dragging this VP selection out with names dropped left and right has been a bad move. He's squandered the week before his convention when he should have dominated the story with positive lines. I'm a little concerned about who's running the show.
Va Con: yeah, Obama has left way too much good stuff on the table. Like Phil Gramm and his "whiners" comment. And Cindy McCain's multiple gaffes. Were they asleep or something?
Being an armchair campaign director is frustrating ;)
I don't think the line of attack is "Mccain has seven houses."
It's "McCain doesn't know how many houses he has!"
That's just devastating on so many levels.
While Hillary's electoral upside may be a little overstated, that has never really been the problem with her.
The problem isn't even the charge about special interests etc. Obama can easily say, that in my white house there will never be issues with special interests blah blah blah
What do you do with Bill Clinton once you get elected is another issue?
FILLSTRO:
Seven houses. Really?
That is such populist clap trap.
McCain said it very well at Saddleback: he wants all Americans to be rich and we should not penalize those who have succeeded, especially when they have been so charitable and have given so much back in terms of time, talent and treasure.
Perhaps an ad can be devised featuring Obama's half brother in Kenya standing beside his shack, declaiming how he lives on ONE DOLLAR A DAY and how he has been forced to live by his fists, which he proudly proclaims he is good at.
There is something so ineffably sad about that, that it is not even funny.
As VC pointed out -- Did the Obama's even send a card with a few bucks at Christmas? I know they don't believe in Christmas presents for their own children, but this is their blood and he is clearly in need.
Perhaps Obama is unaware of his brother's mean existence. Isn't that the greater sin?
Conservatives go to church and tithe and donate their time to the unfortunate.
Liberals sip cocktails and agitate for more government aid to the less fortunate while being less likely to personally help the needy. That’s why we need more faith-based initiatives. Liberal atheists only give money to pro-abortion and animal rights groups, it seems.
Don’t believe me? Ask brother Obama.
Pete... read my post at 12:03
Obama brings a knife, McCain brings a flamethrower:
"p:
“Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses? Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people ‘cling’ to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who’s in touch with regular Americans?”"
From the McCain camp in response to the "Seven" ad.
Again, it's not about wealth.
It's about aspiring to manage the world's largest economy when you don't even know enough about your own personal finances to be able to count how many houses you have.
I don't want to sound like Pete... but this one just might be fatal.
All McCain has to do is bring up arugula and his "Clinging statement", AND how Rezko helped him buy his home.
This wasn't smart.
Scattershot defense, VCon. A sure sign of panic.
These things don't have to be make sense in order to have legs. They just have to fit into one or more existing preconceptions.
This one's a trifecta. Nothing screams "doddering old rich guy" like not knowing how many houses you own.
People will think "Hes a war hero and a POW, he deserves to have nice homes".
And that will be the end of that. Watch.
If Obama/Clinton can't win, then Obama/? is unlikely too.
The argument that this is a loser is false.
This is a swing for the fences pick. It could be an HR, but there is a higher risk for a swing and miss.
It definitely would show Obama is Machiavellian and tough enough to do what it akes to win.
It would also remove some of the spot light from him, which may be a good thing since he is really under the microscope.
The narrative from the pick and through the convention would really suck the media oxygen out of McCain's pick and RNC.
The visuals and concept of the change theme with a black man and a white woman would be intact... despite Clinton's legacy.
The key wildcard is Bubba. Has he stayed faithful to Hil? Are his money dealings on the up and up?
Obama would lose some younger and/or more idealistic I's and R's but I think he would gain older and/or more pragmatic D's I's and even some R's.
To me on balance this is net positive and potential game changer. However, we are counting on Bill being a good boy for the last 7+ years and until Nov. That's the biggest risk and it could cost Obama the election. However, playing it safe may also be a loser.
If the R's can unite around McCain because they want to win, then I think the Obama supporters can do the same.
The Dems need to keep throwing stuff at McCain until something sticks. It won't be easy because McCain gets a pass from the MSM for his gaffes. They should have been doing this six weeks ago instead of taking the high road. They have to play by Rove's rules. I'd mention every day that McCain is for the draft.
Me, I'm for the draft, not because I was in the military 71-73, but so the rich will think twice about going to war if their kids will be drafted.
Housing (Nuclear) War [Byron York]
Did I say that the Obama campaign is in full-court-press mode against McCain on the house thing? What's the next step up from that? The latest release from the Obama campaign:
CHICAGO – Today, the Obama campaign released a new 30-second TV ad, Seven, discussing just how out of touch John McCain is with the struggles of everyday people. The ad highlight’s John McCain’s desire to just offer more of the same economic policies we’ve gotten from President Bush, as just yesterday he declared “the fundamentals of our economy are strong” and lost track of how many houses he owns.
In addition, Obama supporters are speaking out in battleground states across the country about how out of touch Senator McCain is. Listed below is information on the ad as well as just a few of the events happening today across the country.
BURLINGTON, VT: Vermont State Representative Rachel Weston will be speaking outside her home about McCain losing track of how many homes he owns
LA CROSSE, WI: State Rep. Jen Shilling and La Crosse Obama supporters host a news conference on McCain losing track of how many homes he owns
MADISON, WI: Former US Senator Jean Carnahan holds event in Madison with Women For Obama where she will talk about McCain losing track of how many homes he owns
DES MOINES, IA: Kansas Governor, Kathleen Sebelius campaigns in Des Moines this afternoon where she will discuss McCain losing track of how many homes he owns
KANSAS CITY, MO: Obama Heartland Change RV Tour with State Senator Wes Shoemyer will visit a Missouri family in Kansas City to discuss McCain losing track of how many homes he owns
ST. PAUL, MN: State Senator Tarryl Clark discusses McCain losing track of how many homes he owns
BANGOR, ME: Rep. Mike Dunn, and House Majority Whip Sean Faircloth will hold a press conference to talk about McCain losing track of how many homes he owns
PUEBLO, CO: State Rep. Terrance Carroll will hold an event with Obama supporters in Denver and State Sen. Abel Tapia about McCain losing track of how many homes he owns
OH: Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen will talk about McCain losing track of how many homes he owns at events throughout southeast Ohio
ALTOONA, PA: State Senator John Wozniak will headline an event in Altoona, PA on McCain losing track of how many homes he owns and the campaign is also announcing a statewide search for anyone who doesn’t know how many houses they own
MI: Campaign for Change offices across Michigan are launching a “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire: McCain Edition” contest where volunteers will be able to win a free “Exxon-McCain” bumper-sticker if they correctly guess the number of houses John McCain owns. Prizes will be only be awarded after McCain clarifies exactly how many houses he owns. To win, the answer must be specific — “at least four” doesn’t count.
TAMPA , FL: Campaign for Change in Florida launched a statewide search to find Floridians who, like John McCain, have so many homes that they just can’t keep track of the number.
RALEIGH, NC: Campaign for Change in North Carolina is holding a press conference in Raleigh with Representative G.K. Butterfield to talk about McCain losing track of how many homes he owns
BILLINGS, MT: A local family will hold an availability in front of a house slated for foreclosure
NV: Congresswoman Berkley will host a conference call to talk about McCain losing track of how many homes he owns
ANCHORAGE, AK: Local residents will hold a press availability to talk about McCain losing track of how many homes he owns
Can someone please tell me why Obama has not picked his VP yet. The convention starts Monday, if he has indeed made up his mind, holding out further has no benefit. It feels as though he's still undecided but reporters claim they have sourced who say his mind is made up.
I think McCain can´t win in MN, it´s too blue.
You mean to say the Obama campaign is actually going to start employing a coherent consistent media message with talking points? HALALUIA!
And he's finally going after McCain for being out of touch? well its about damn time. Welcome to the general election barack, we've been waiting for you. Better late than never.
P.S.-Obama's new AD, "Seven" is excellent.
Check it out
Matt-
Because hes getting cold feet and has no courage?
I doubt we will know before Saturday. We definitely won't know today.
SalP7 said...
The Dems need to keep throwing stuff at McCain until something sticks. It won't be easy because McCain gets a pass from the MSM for his gaffes. They should have been doing this six weeks ago instead of taking the high road. They have to play by Rove's rules. I'd mention every day that McCain is for the draft.
Me, I'm for the draft, not because I was in the military 71-73, but so the rich will think twice about going to war if their kids will be drafted.
You are exactly right. If the united states want to implement a draft, it should be based on all age appropriate children not just those not in college. I think this country would explode if the rich folk didn't have to send they're kids. Its not the 70's no more.
MATT J. H. said...
Can someone please tell me why Obama has not picked his VP yet. The convention starts Monday, if he has indeed made up his mind, holding out further has no benefit. It feels as though he's still undecided but reporters claim they have sourced who say his mind is made up.
-------------
Don't trust the press. There have been no leaks from the people in the Obama campaign that know anything about it.
I think they want the announcement to flow directly into the convention to get the longest possible positive bounce out of both.
If it is not HRC the move to the convention may also deflate some of the dissatisfaction of her supporters. If it is her, the media will go batshit and that level of intensity will spring board into the convention and well after.
Matt-
It could be holding off to let the media work themselves up about it to a breaking point, plus waiting for the Olympics to take backseat. I figure it doesn't necessarily hurt to not put it out til right before the convention either.
Matt-
Ah, I'm very happy too. It's a perfect low brow issue to hammer, it's entertaining and memorable, and ties well into taxes/energy/housing stump speech. Out of curiosity i just flipped on CNN and it was playing Obama making fun of McCain's statement.
Let's get ready to rumble...
McCain's comments hit pretty close to home, for me.
When I was very young, a strange old woman wandered into our house through the garage, while my whole family was home. She was confused, thinking that she was in her own house, and clearly wasn't thinking straight, but we tried to explain to her that she was not in her own home, and eventually had to call the police to help her find her way home.
It makes me feel all warm inside to know that, in America, somebody like the old woman from my childhood could one day be the President of our great country. It just goes to show that, even though you can't remember where you live because you're senile, you can still run for the highest office in the country. We, as a nation, have come a long way!!!
There's a new McCain GAFFE, and this one is getting MSM attention:
McCain was asked how many houses he owned. His response? He stammered for a bit and told the reporter that his staff would have to get back on that one. Later, the response was modified to say they "think, four." (BTW, I've heard the correct answer is nine. Nine.)
HOW CAN YOU NOT KNOW HOW MANY HOMES YOU OWN?? Are you so out of touch that you've lost count? I guess coming from a guy who thinks the threshold for rich is $5 million, this makes sense?!
The more McCain is exposed to large audiences (like the debates), the more the country will see that he is losing his mental capacities. The only countries that elect leaders as old as McCain are the old eastern block communist countries and China.
Scott919: The currency in which oil is denominated is not so important as the currency in which reserves are held. Consider Italy, which has euros and wants oil. They sell euros for dollars, give the dollars to OPEC for oil, and OPEC holds the dollars. Because OPEC is willing to accept AND HOLD dollars, the value of the dollar is supported. Actually, rather then hold them, they loan the dollars back to us to fund our chronic deficits in exchange for the promise of even more future dollars, i.e. Treasuries. Hence, because OPEC is willing to hold Treasuries, we get modest financing costs for our debt. Now suppose OPEC continued to require dollars for oil sales, but wanted their accumulating reserves to be denominated in Euros. Easy. Italy sells Euros for dollars, gives dollars to OPEC for oil, OPEC sells dollars for euros, and holds the euros or buys euro-denominated debt. The oil transaction is still denominated in dollars, but because the reserves are held in euros, there's no support for the dollar or for Treasuries. The story is the same in Asia except the export is plastic junk, electronics and apparel rather than oil.
On topic: If Obama were going to pick Hillary, I would expect major operations in AR and WV, states that would likely become competitive. I haven't seen evidence of that.
And, Obama attacking McCain: I think the overall thrust should be that McCain used to be a maverick and a straight-talker, but after 2000 he sold his soul to the rightwing fringe in order to get the nomination this time around. That includes kissing up to Bush and vowing to continue his failed policies, but it also cuts deeper, challenging McCain's core brand.
The latest Fox News poll has been released with Obama up +3. More interesting are its questions about the Democrats VP choice.
Respondents generally and both Democrats and Independents specifically report that they would be less likely to vote for Obama if Biden, Bayh or Kaine were his running mate. 56% of democrats say Clinton would be the best choice but only 41% of Independents and 28% of Republicans.
I see FILISTRO is still stirring the pot. I guess tommorrow McCain will have a tony resko as out.
I don't thing Odumbo wants to go down this road; Nobody has ever won the Presidency by taking the populist route.
How many of us have had a convicted felon buy property next door and then sell it to you at half the cost so your house value rises. I'm waiting.
Of course all of this happened while Odumbo and his bitchy wife were attending meeting with a terrorist. Now, how many people out there have had the lot next door bought by a convicted felon, sold back to you at a reduced cost, all while eating arugula and attending a meeting with a terrorist. I know I haven't.
I guess I am one of those people who clings to his bible becasue I don't have a friend who is a felon and who will buy the lot next door. Oh well.
The chief reason I'm even supporting Obama is because he is not Clinton. Otherwise I'd be supporting the republican except I've had it with Bush.
This is why we are in the trouble we're in -- so many Americans are utterly clueless about politics and about the nature of the political parties.
The October surprise of 2008 isn;t going to come from any candidate ... it will be the nationalization and $600 billion bailout of fannie mae and freddie mac. These two whores are the ultimate in DC sleaze and corruption and why all of us (Dems, Indies, Repubs) should be in the streets in DC demanding all their heads. On balance McCain is more exposed than Obama when these two cesspools of corruption implode. Hillary (a favorite dumping ground of fannie and freddie $) tips the scale to even.
PS Bayh who sits on Senate Banking (arguably the most corrupt institution in the nation) is poison too.
Post a Comment