08 Presidential Candidates, Political Analysis

First, before delving into this week's election news on the 2008 race, it is worth highlighting McCain and Obama's divergent votes on a major piece of legislation - the farm bill.  Obama voted for it, McCain against it.  The vote passed overwhelmingly.  McCain criticized it as being loaded with earmarks and bad for the country.  An insightful article into why they may have voted as they did is here - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin where David Brooks of the New York Times discusses this vote as a litmus test for what type of leaders the two candidates would be.

While most of the coverage this week in the news has focused on Obama winning Oregon and closing toward the magic number needed to clinch the nomination while Clinton also won a big victory in Kentucky, I find these newscasts and articles utterly uninsightful.  Oregon and Kentucky were not interesting because of a split decision, which sounds bland in and of itself, nor because they were very important to the outcome of the nomination, as they played out roughly as expected.  The poll internals were interesting.  Most notably in Kentucky, Clinton won 118 counties to Obama's 2, and even in those two he only got 51 and 53% of the vote.  Take those two out, and Clinton's 65-30 victory becomes more like 80-18.  In over 80 counties Obama did not even get 20% of the vote, and in 15-20 he got less than 10%.  Simultaneously, he edges Clinton in nearly every demographic in Oregon, some 2,500 miles away.  What would be interesting would be to see more articles to explain these disparities.  The usual tripe blaming white racists for stifling Obama in these states he is failing in is intellectually short of the mark to my mind.  While the race gap was 134 points, about 85 of those points came from the black vote breaking for Obama 92-8.  Some people did identify race as a factor in voting against Obama, but what they meant by that was not entirely clear, nor were they a remotely large percentage of the population.  Take them out and Obama gains only another 3-4 points off a 35 point loss.  The big question as to why did Obama do 50 points better in Oregon than in Kentucky, therefore, needs more than the perfunctory answer of "race."

Turning towards the general election, I'd have to mark this down as a very bad week for Obama.  Despite having raised 3-4 times as much money as McCain during the campaign season, Obama and his party's national committee now has less money (when the RNC and DNC numbers are added in) than McCain and his for the very first time.  Obama raised another 31.3 million in April, down from 40 million in March, which was down from the high water mark of 55 million in February.  McCain raised only 17.8 million, but that represents his third consecutive month of improvements in that category.  The RNC raised 15.7 million in the same time to the DNC's 4.7 million, leaving Obama with 37.5 million in his war chest to McCain's 21.7 million.  The RNC has saved 40.1 million, however, to the DNC's 4.4 million.  More importnatly, however, is the downward trend for Obama's fundraising.  It is now imperative for him to get Clinton on his side after defeating her, assuming he can close the deal, to raise at least an average of 42 million a month to outstrip the public funds amount of 84 million for the two month general election period that he rejected back when he was pulling in 55 million a month, (all during a very public flap about McCain's charge that Obama was reneging on his earlier promise to take public funds when Obama did so, thereby apparently paving the path for more money for his campaign).  See http://www.nypost.com/seven/05212008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/barack__the_furies_111822.htm?page=1 for an interesting article into Obama's challenge on the dynamic of Obama needing to convert the Clintonistas. 


Obama had two major gaffes this week.  One, while deflecting a question from Peggy Agar, a journalist following his campaign in Michigan and inquiring into Obama's plan to help autoworkers, Obama called her "sweetie" while telling her to wait for the press avail.  He never answered her question, then or later, prompting her to remark "this 'sweetie' never got an answer to her question."  The second half of the first gaffe was Obama's "apology" where he noted that he calls women "sweetie" all the time and that he was duly chastened, stating its just a "bad habit."  Translation to feminists was that he's not really sorry because its a habit and therefore not derogatory and since he's "duly chastened" he wants everyone to drop the issue already.  They went in uproar mode.  He still never answered Agar's question about how he would help the autoworkers.  To my mind, Obama has a real problem with slipping in condescending ways, making it worse with apologies, and handling criticism or pointed substance questions.  This will be a real problem once he gets to the general election and the GOP takes him on.

Which is a nice segue into his second major gaffe this week.  Following up on last week's back and forth with McCain, they continued the jabs this week, each chomping at the bit for a debate with the other one on the foreign policy matter of whether it is appropriate to meet with foreign leaders who despise America without preconditions.  Obama stated setting preconditions for meeting with an enemy is "cowboy diplomacy" like George Bush, that setting preconditions is "not a strategy, its naive, wishful thinking."  Obama added, "I'm not afraid we'll lose some propaganda fight with a dictator."

McCain responded by stating that there is a "huge difference" between him and Obama along the lines of "experience, knowledge and judgment -- none of which Senator Obama has." 

Obama's surrogates responding by quoting McCain on his willingness to meet with Hamas, which McCain's surrogates noted was only on the preconditions that they cease terrorism and stop calling for the destruction of Israel.  Obama's surrogates then pointed to James Baker, a supporter - not team member, of McCain's, who stated that "talking with an enemy" is not "appeasement."  Of course, Baker also never said meeting an enemy without precondtions was good foreign policy.  Obama's team then pointed to Kennedy's quote "never negotiate out of fear, but never fear to negotiate", suggesting McCain was unwilling to ever negotiate.  Obama pointed out also that Reagan met with Gorbachev and Nixon with China, although again, McCain's supporters note that there were precondtions to those meetings, Kennedy never met with Castro as Obama has said he would do, nor would any of those Presidents likely have done so with jihadist terrorists. 

The aftermath of this give and take is enough to score this round for McCain.  Senator Biden, a senior Democratic Senator on the Foreign Relations committee stated simply that Obama gave the "wrong answer" on this topic.  He explained that Obama is intelligent though and would come around to the right answer and he must not have really meant that.  Similarly, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, also a Democrat, and Obama foreign policy advisor Susan Rice all stated at different times that Obama must not have really meant no preconditions such that he would just sit down and meet with foreign dictators.  Later in the week, Obama introduced entirely new terms into the discussion, explaining that while not demanding preconditions, he would demand "preparations" as lower level diplomats would discuss the items to be negotiated, if any, and the terms for doing so, which, of course, is the same thing as preconditions.  Obama also said this week that when he agreed to meet with the leaders of countries like Iran, he did not mean necessarily Ahmadinejad, implying he might meet with Khomeini or an opposition political figure, but this too is inconsistent with his earlier explicit statements while campaigning that he would meet with Ahmadinejad.  Several articles, all from neutral or liberal media outlets, have noted the duplicity and the folly in these statements for Obama in a rather damning fashion:

See http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/parsing_obama_without_precondi.php "parsing Obama"

See http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4896002&page=1 "Obama's answer on rogue nations evolves"

See http://www.nypost.com/seven/05212008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_to_ajad__atomic_assist_111819.htm?page=0 "Obama gives Ahmadinejad a nuclear assist" contending that Obama severely undermined this week Ahmadinejad's strongest domestic political rival as he contended Ahmadinejad's nuclear violations were undermining Iran's stature in the global community.

See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_dick_morris/obama_wrong_on_iran Perhaps the most insightful argument, put forth by Dick Morris, former advisor to President Clinton and sworn enemy to Hilary Clinton, as to why Obama's stance on Iran is a very bad foreign policy.

And, perhaps most importantly should there be an electoral tie, Senator Lieberman's article, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121132806884008847.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries, also blasting Obama.

These attacks all came from the left, stating Obama was too far left, on an issue he politically threw the hatchet down against McCain on, then had to retreat on.  While the KY and OR drama dominated news coverage, these issues are not going away, and Obama has set himself up for a foreign policy debate nightmare down the road.  They have an apparent "truce" as they have stopped attacking each other lately, perhaps some sort of deal has been worked out.  Speculation has ranged from Hilary getting a VP slot to a cabinet position to being promised as Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court if he gets elected, but this is all at this stage idle speculation, unsubstantiated by any comments from the candidates.  Something must have changed based on the change in candidates' tones however.



Looking ahead to next week, Obama and Clinton will campaign in Florida while the Credentials Committee of the DNC is now set to meet on 5/31 to decide the fate of Florida voters, around the same time as trailers for "Recount" the movie in which Kevin Spacey stars and reminds the nation of the recount episode in the 2000 election (from a very pro-count them all perspective) are playing.

McCain meanwhile has pledged to appear at the NAACP convention, and noted that even if he does not win the black vote or any segment in particular, he will represent all Americans, including those who opposed him and the "forgotten America" groups he coined during his tour a month or so ago.

The most notable piece of news this week was John McCain laying out his first term platforms.  See http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/15/mccain.2013/index.html for the story.  Most notably, McCain stated he believes we will have achieved victory in Iraq by 2013.  He also defines "victory" clearly, articulating his vision for what Iraq will be -- a peaceful democracy who will be an important ally to the United States.  An insightful article into McCain's thought processes on Iraq and other foreign policy matters, see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/magazine/18mccain-t.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin.  Most interesting to me where a few paradigms that McCain's foreign policy approach is very pragmatic, yet the use of force is justified upon moral grounds.  A particularly striking excerpt was:

"Most American politicians, of course, would immediately dismiss the idea of sending the military into Zimbabwe or Myanmar as tangential to American interests and therefore impossible to justify. McCain didn’t make this argument. He seemed to start from a default position that moral reasons alone could justify the use of American force, and from there he considered the reasons it might not be feasible to do so. In other words, to paraphrase Robert Kennedy, while most politicians looked at injustice in a foreign land and asked, “Why intervene?” McCain seemed to look at that same injustice and ask himself, “Why not?”"

Also highly notable among McCain's plans for a first term are his plans to:
 
1.  Create a "League of Democracies" which will supplant the United Nations.  This is one of the effective mechanisms he says could be used to force an end to the genocide in Darfur, which along with NATO logistical and air support, and "stiff diplomatic and economic pressure" by the United States, he believes could end the genocide.

2.  Pledge to work with members of both parties, as he notes he has done frequently in the past, and not care who gets the credit, so long as the bipartisan efforts will improve the safety and prosperity of the United States.

3.  Ensure several years of robust economic growth.

4.  Facilitate the end of the United States dependence on foregin oil, in part by the development of 20 new nuclear generators.

5.  Confirm "scores of judges" to the Federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.  McCain's "Gang of 14" leadership position may make him ideally suited on that front.

6.  Establishing a Social Security system that is solvent, does not reduce benefits for those nearing retirement and includes individual retirement accounts.

7.  Providing more accessible health care for Americans and an easing of pressure on Medicare because of lower health care costs.  McCain's $5000 tax credit incentive to buy health care programs with GAP coverage (see earlier post on Health Care issue for details) would be paid in part out of the reduced strain on Medicare, relying on the market based approach to lower costs and increase consumer choice.

8.  Transition more taxpayers to a simpler tax system via a flat tax that peope could opt into if beneficial.  Paired with largely increased (doubled) personal exemptions and widely applicable large new credits, this could be potentially a very progressive tax system.  Although I will conduct a later post comparing the Democrat nominee's tax plans with McCain's, most likely this plan would eliminate income taxes in effect for lower income taxpayers and greatly reduce the tax burden on businesses, especially small and new ones, and the middle class.

9.  Witness Russia and China cooperating in "pressuring Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, and North Korea to discontinue its own."

10.  Significantly increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps, which will be "better equipped and trained to defend us."

11.  End the world food crisis and achieve low inflation and a "much-improved" quality of life "not only in our country but in some of the most impoverished countries around the world."

12.  Secure the southern border for the United States after "tremendous improvements to border security infrastructure and increases in the border patrol, and vigorous prosecution of companies that employ illegal aliens."  McCain's stance on illegal immigration is starkly different from most in the GOP and from Bush.  He has gotten in extremely heated debates, (and rumor has it resorted to swearing at a Senator in his own party over their "nativist" approach to immigration).  McCain wants border enforcement and security but utterly rejects many of the tenets of the anti-illegal immigrant lobby.  He has traditionally done very well among Hispanics in Arizona, and it would not surprise me if he chooses an Hispanic running mate to make further outreaches into that community.

13.  Promised to "exercise my veto if I believe legislation passed by Congress is not in the nation's best interests, but I will not subvert the purpose of legislation I have signed by making statements that indicate I will enforce only the parts of it I like." 

14.  Try to generate efforts in Pakistan to work with the United States in deploying counter-insurgency tactics in the al Qaeda-laden tribal regions

15.  Strive to kill or capture bin Laden and his lieutenants, leave no safe haven on the globe for al Qaeda, and make sure that there are no major terrorist strikes against the United States.

16.  Promised that if elected that the era of the "permanent campaign" will end, and the era of problem solving would begin. 

While this is by no means an exhaustive list, (his web site would be a better bet to get more details and specifics on the array of issues), these comments help to portray a sense of his priority initiatives.



Second, obviously big news this week also was Hilary Clinton slaughtering Barack Obama in West Virginia, 67% to 26%.  This was even more noteworthy since Obama poured far more resources into the state (although not personally appearing himself), ran more ads than Clinton, and had more than twice as many offices open across the state.  Clearly, if Obama could only garner 26% of the Democrats in West Virignia, this will not be a state he will contest in during the fall.   Nevertheless, Obama's week was not a complete loss, as he secured a slew of superdelegate endorsements, including Senator John Edwards, who has 22 delegates of his own going to the convention.  Most of those delegates will now likely go to Obama, and Obama's chances of winning the nomination continue to increase.  Looking ahead to Tuesday, Obama looks like he will get slaughtered by Clinton again in Kentucky by another 25-40 points, but may be able to win Oregon by double digits.  Most importantly perhaps are the internals of the exit polls in West Virginia, replicating the same pattern of support and lack thereof Obama had in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio, and Texas.  He continues to better among college students, blacks, and the very rich, but very poorly among the poor, poorly educated, religious, white, old, moderates and conservatives demographics.

Last, Obama, along with many surrogates, lashed out in a full scale attack against President Bush, (right after McCain unveiled his first term plan), for comments Bush made in Israel.  Bush condemned the politics of "appeasement" as a naive and historically failed policy.  Obama and his team felt this was a criticism against them, although Obama was not specifically mentioned.  To be fair, Obama certainly would fall in this category in Bush's teams' mind, but so would former President Jimmy Carter who recently traveled to the mideast and met with terrorist Hamas leaders without precondition.  At the link below, Obama's speech on the matter can be seen, as can McCain's counter-response, and Obama's counter-counter-response. http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/05/mccain_hits_back_at_obama.html