Political analysis, (Please click refresh if screen does not load properly)
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Recap
This week Obama bounced up to a 6 point lead and back down to 1-2 points after his "world tour" of the Middle East and Europe. Along the way, he stayed on script with a carefully controlled message, with little interaction with the press. Many in the press have hailed it a success.
On the downside, however, Obama did not shake hands with the troops and spend much time with them besides his photo op shooting hoops for a few minutes. He released his "Plan for Iraq" the day before he went on his "fact finding mission" which he asserted afterwards to have confirmed his beliefs, despite his position's contrast to that of General Petraeus, he deftly asserted he would still now knowing the results of the surge which has cut American troop deaths by 65-70% have opposed it, and cut out off his schedule the trip to visit wounded soliders in favor of spending extra time in Germany. Even the German newspapers noted in der Spiegel that he was thin on specifics. While the Europeans welcomed his pledge to withdraw from Iraq, (in a speech which did not discuss residual forces, listening to the commanders on the ground, need to possibly return if chaos results, etc.), they were unenthused and stonewalled his call for them to help in Afghanistan.
McCain continued to hammer away at all the mistakes in judgment Obama has shown on foreign policy.
New York Times censors McCain, Obama continues tour, and McCain veep speculation
The most notable news story this week to my mind has been the New York Times editorial page's refusal to publish John McCain's response to Barack Obama's submission on his plan for Iraq. This flagrant partisan censorship was capped with a condescending and patronizing feint at neutrality as they stated that although McCain's first submission didn't meet standards, he could submit another draft if he wanted.
So when did the New York Times become John McCain's 10th grade history teacher taking a struggling student under their wing? Long criticized for its failure to maintain neutrality and blatant partisanship, especially in yet another election cycle where the New York Times is writing puff pieces on Obama and hit pieces against McCain on a daily basis, this act can only be considered an abandonment of whatever pretense at professional journalistic integrity they maintained.
But as to the fallout, yet again, I believe this will hurt the New York Times more than John McCain. The ad revenues at the New York Times are reported as down 84%, including a 16% drop in June alone. Once a somewhat reputable newspaper, Democrats could cite to the New York Times as evidence in support of various claims. The New York Times could paint the issues that would get discussed. Republicans felt uncomfortable dismissing such a large "mainstream" newspaper. But no more.
Rasmussen Reports recently reported an astounding 49% and rising block of the public feel the media is out to help Obama get elected. While the 31% or so of the public Rasmussen reports as enthusiastically supporting Obama will not admit it, they are most likely aware that the newspaper tends to disproportionately support their candidate. The real number of people, therefore, who know the media, and in particular blatantly partisan media outlets such as the New York Times, is biased is probably well over 80%.
A critical mass has been reached in the public consciousness such that the New York Times, and similar groups such as the L.A. Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, etc. are no longer owed any deference or automatic credibility in the public conversation. Reading them may be a nice reference point, but it is no different really than going to a liberal blog.
To make up for its advertising revenue losses, the New York Times has hiked its prices for the second time in a year, with the newstand price now at $1.50 per day. That's $45.00 a month. Heck, for half that, anybody could pay for their internet, drop the newspaper, and get far more diverse, professional, and thorough news online. One could even take that $45 a month, get a computer on a monthly payment plan, get their internet connection, and still be saving money!
While Obama's "media army" marches on the home front, he continues his tour of the Middle East. Obama spoke to the Israeli's today, incorrectly asserting his role in pushing forward legislation that would put economic pressure on Iran. Obama referred to the bill as coming out of "his committee" even though it did not. It seems anytime he is put in any setting where his message is not carefully controlled through teleprompter, advance knowledge of the questions and control of the backdrops, or avoidiing random questions from reporters, he gets off message and flubs something.
His reception in Jordan was positive, and several terrorist groups declared, (though Obama did not rebuke them nor reject their offer) that Obama was under their protection as he visited the Middle East.
Obama also re-declared his support for peace in Israel, but seems to have taken a yet third stance on the issue. First, he stated he supported a non-divided Israel. Then, he stated that he wanted to have things divided between the Israelis and the Palestinians and that Israel should commit to trading land and any future settlements to achieve peace. Then he oscillated back to support for a non-divided Israel. Now, he is saying that it would be unrealistic to expect to achieve peace quickly given the historical problems and that it is chiefly up to the Palestinians and Israelis to work it out. Israelis favor McCain by a 2-1 margin.
Here is an excerpt from an interview of Obama by Katie Couric:
Meanwhile, McCain has struggled to gain media attention here in the States. McCain has, to my mind, wisely utilized this juncture to call attention to Obama's multiple unpopular policies and position changes, as well as misjudgments on Israel, Iran and Iraq. Most pointedly, McCain points out that Obama, (as recently as today), is still harping on the surge as a mistake, stating that he would still vote against the surge. The surge in American troops though has been directly responsible for the reduction in violence, the reduction in loss of life of American troops (from 80-90 or more per month to under 30 per month). Obama continues to bleat that a political solution is necessary. While of course that is true, Obama seems very Bush-esque in that he seems incapable of admitting he made a mistake in voting against the surge and that his judgment was off. Obama also claimed that nobody could have foreseen the Sunni militias joining with American forces as "Sons of Iraq" and the "Awakening Councils" which coincided with the surge, and the announcement there would be a surge, which also helped turn the tide.
One story, perhaps a tactic of the McCain campaign this week, was a rumor that McCain might pick a veep this week.
Here are my thoughts on the respective candidates:
1. Mitt Romney - while he currently is considered the leader among possible candidates, and he would not make a bad veep, he would be the wrong choice. For an excellent analysis as to why, see Dick Morris's article - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/romney_a_mistake_for_mccain.html. While I disagree that Romney's Mormonism would be a big problem to the base, and Romney does have some economic gravitas, Romney for whatever reason has not been able to win anything despite heavily outspending his opposition in the primaries. What would be interesting though is to see whether Romney would help the ticket much in Michigan, the one state he did win, and see a few polls there. He would not carry Massachussetts, and the Mormon vote is already going to go strong for the GOP, so there's no chance of losing there anyway. Most pointedly, Romney was a voracious critic of McCain in the primary, almost to a brutal extent.
2. Tom Ridge - Would be an unmitigated disaster of a choice. Ridge was Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and comes from Pennsylvania, which are overstated as accolades. A recent Rasmussen poll showed just as many people would be less likely to vote for McCain as more likely to vote for him with Ridge on the ballot. Ridge would not help McCain carry Pennsylvania. Ridge would also hurt McCain in important base constituencies to whom Ridge's pro-choice stance is anathema. No pro-choice veep ticket could possibly stand even a slight chance of winning in 2008. I'll say that again - no pro-choice veep could do anything but destroy McCain's chances of winning. McCain has had a long hard road to unite his base, but he will lose in a landslide if he alienates them by picking someone like Ridge. In that same vein, forget about Rice, Powell, and Giuliani.
3. Tim Pawlenty - Governor of Minnesota, he also would not be a bad choice, but I'm not sure if he'd give the ticket any boost at all. While Minnesota would be closer, he would not carry Minnesota for McCain, and a loss is a loss is 0 electoral votes from Minnesota.
4. Mark Sanford - While this South Carolina star would please the base, and would not be a bad choice, he also would not particularly help McCain.
5. Sarah Palin - Governor of Alaska, she is without a doubt the best choice of any potential veep candidate, head above shoulders over the rest. The political stars are perfectly aligned for her candidacy. The Clintonistas who have never been really won over by Obama yet reluctantly support him would flip back against Obama. Before Clinton dropped out to a few days after, Obama went from a 8-10 point underdog to McCain to a 5-10 point leader. That was a swing of about 15 points. While McCain campaigned well over the next month and managed to even the polls out to the virtual tie its at now, with perhaps Obama still sporting a point or two lead, the "Clintonistas" are still out there as the reluctant Obama supporters. NO MALE VEEP WILL FLIP THESE VOTERS TO MCCAIN. There is no larger swing block that can be moved by a veep selection in this cycle. Hispanics are a second major swing group that McCain could tap into through selecting a Hispanic, but the female vote is even bigger in this cycle. McCain should promise some prominent positions to HIspanics in his administration and continue to reach out to them, but a female veep is the ticket this year.
Clintonistas still remember Obama's sometimes chauvinistic and sexist comments and how their gal criticized his inexperience and other shortcomings in that long brutal primary. The "bitterness" if you will of that drawn out primary is still the hatchet sticking out of the ground behind Obama's back that the GOP could lift up if McCain is wise enough to pick a female.
Not only that, but look at the internals in the polls in swing states as to the gender gap. In Michigan, there is a 21 point gender gap according to Rasmussen Reports.
Last, the Clintonistas should not be thought of as merely acolytes of NARAL and NOW. Exit polls consistently show only 9 percent of the public base their vote on abortion, and they break 7-2 Pro-Life. So those 2% are only a small portion of the 25-30% of the Democratic party who just two months ago were saying Obama would not win their vote over McCain.
They are still open to McCain. They want a woman. They know the glass ceiling got more cracks in ever in it during the Clinton candidacy, and McCain's nomination choice could be the hammer that breaks that glass ceiling once and for all.
See my previous posts for a full top 25 reason list as to why Palin is the best choice on an array of other issues. The beauty queen, sports star, highly effective, strong fiscal conservative, strong social conservative, with an astronomical approval rating and excellent resume on achieving energy independence, as well as nothing short of heroic stand on ethics reform where she risked her own political demise and came out the brighter for it, is the ticket.
The Dems can't attack her without risking bleeding support. A mother of five and successful working woman, she is the whole package. If they attack her in almost any way, more women will line up and rally behind her and McCain. If they attack McCain for being too old, the Clintonistas will be even more cognizant that as our nation's #2, she could become the first female President a lot sooner than any Democrat could.
The major bit of news from the Obama campaign this week was that he raised an impressive $51 million in June, though it is not clear how much he has spent, but he continues to open new campaign offices around the country. The other news highlight is Obama's visit to Iraq. During this visit, Obama's team released a long planned editorial, published in the New York Times, defining his position on Iraq. It can be found here:
Notably absent from Obama's plan is language referring to his previous commitments to listen to and take advice to the commanders on the ground and our ambassador in Iraq. Restored are his (late) primary positions of pledging to withdraw from Iraq within 16 months. The "plan" strikes me as notoriously optimistic, focused on the past, and entirely silent as to what contingencies/backup plans are in place if things go differently than expected.
It seems Obama plans on either continuing to oscillate back and forth between pledging to withdraw in 16 months and listening to the commanders on the ground as polls dictate or he is incapable of imagining a scenario where the two do not coincide, (such as now and the previous year). No matter where someone stands on Iraq, it would seem hard to imagine being confident that Obama is your guy or knowing what he believes.
In addition to the video link above, McCain's speech the following day on the same topic can be found here:
Obama has also spoken of increasing our military presence in Afghanistan, (McCain has done the same), and has not ruled out invading Pakistan, nor going back into Iraq after the 16 month withdrawal if that causes conditions in the country and/or region to deteriorate.
Last, der Spiegler, a German news magazine, reported this week that al Maliki endorsed Obama's 16 month withdrawal plan, which, after the Obama team touted the report, was flatly denied as a misrepresentation and mischaracterization by the Iraqi leader.
Obama will tour Europe, including Germany, after he finishes his first trip to Iraq in over two years.
McCain, meanwhile, continues his outreach efforts to Hispanics.
McCain and Obama are tied; Obama rebukes Bernie Mac, sort of; McKinney to lead Greens
The most striking development over the weekend was the evaporation of Barack Obama's narrow lead. Rasmussen Reports now has the two tied. Newsweek, which had the largest outlier of all polls with Obama at a 15 point lead a few weeks ago now only say he is 3 points up. Rasmussen puts McCain and Obama at 43-43 and with leaners 46-46.
Obama's slide down in the polls I attribute to an array of factors, detailed in the earlier posts of the past two weeks. But several overarching factors/causes jump out as most prominent. One, Obama faces a revolt in his own base over his rapid moves to the center. In time, he will likely be able to quash them, but they are going to fight hard to bring him back to the left some. Two, Obama's startling volume of position changes undermines people's confidence in his self-portrayal and claim to be a "different type of politician" as they have seen this type of politics before and can discern that he is consistently putting polls before principle, and self-interest ahead of prior professed beliefs. Further, this malleability makes supporters queasy perhaps as to how far right he will go and if they know what they are buying while making others willing to withhold their support perhaps as leverage to pull them in the direction they want (particularly the netroots). Three, McCain's outreach to Hispanics has probably dented the prior huge pro-Obama margins in that demographic.
Cynthia McKinney looks like she will be the leader of the Green party in this 2008 Presidential race. McKinney stated the Green party's goals will be to get on the ballot in 40 states and get 5% of the vote. Although they will likely do neither, they will likely siphon more support from Obama than from McCain. Yet, with environmental responsibility being such a buzzword for the modern ethics of good citizenship, it is not impossible to see them making a splash, perhaps particularly on the west coast.
Last, Obama "sort of" reprimanded comedian Bernie Mac for some racy jokes at a campaign event, (yet again a $2300 a head rich donor only event), where Mac joked about infidelity, promiscuity, etc. Obama chided him that he needed to keep it clean because this was a family affair, (though I'm not sure how many families can afford $2300/head dinners), and then Obama added "By the way, I'm just messing with you man." After the event, the Obama campaign overstated the moral courage of Obama in standing up to Bernie Mac as "Sen. Obama told Bernie Mac that he doesn't condone these statements and believes what was said was inappropriate." Some voters may ask themselves, if someone cannot stand up to a comedian making racy jokes and being shouted off the stage by the crowd, how can he stand up to political pressures and other scenarios involving actual moral courage? See http://omg.yahoo.com/news/bernie-mac-makes-off-color-joke-at-obama-event/10715?nc.
This incident with Mac may further hurt Obama at the end of a bad week in three ways. One, the lack of moral courage paints him as a weak character in inviting someone to headline an event who says inappropriate things, rebuke him, then hedge the rebuke and turn that into a joke, and then the campaign releases a statement portraying him as having made an unequivocal stand and rebuke. Two, this hurts him with women. These comments Obama was comfortable joking about are offensive to women. Pair that with his previous such blunders/comments offending women voters, and it adds to the tally. Three, it adds to the narrative that Obama does not pick his friends wisely.
Next, McCain's team released a new ad called "Love" which again hearkens back to defining the character of McCain as a war hero and a patriot who has sacrificed for and loves his country. While the ad will not hurt him, it still lacks the "pathos" emotional connection of his earlier ads. Frankly, they should replace whoever is coordinating the ads for this campaign and involve someone who understands how ads can utilize an emotional appeal. I give this ad a C-:
Except for the most determined McCain haters, even his opponents already recognize that he is a war hero who sacrificed greatly for his country. Independents are also already aware of it. The 60s images and pop cultural references have got to stop quite simply, or he will start to look like a cultural ignoramus. The sound quality on the ad is poor, the static images, the absence of engaging people in emotional images, the overabundance of images that make him look like a CEO, the inexplicable failure to have the candidate himself narrate in favor of a dull voice with no emotional investment in the message, the overuse of symbols such as the bald eagle (not even a soaring one or even a picture of one but an image of one) make this ad poor in quality. He already looks plenty presidential, but that is simply not enough.
If McCain's ads do not start demonstrating his care for them on bread and butter issues, the American public will conclude he does not. The ads should have a conversational feel to the viewer. McCain may never be the charismatic speaker type, but anybody who has genuine care on an issue or driving passion can communicate that and frame it in a way that could resonate with others who are looking for a leader who understands them and cares about them. By contrast to Obama, McCain is losing on a huge block of voters who respond to such appeals and, at least as yet, is missing opportunities for significant inroads against Obama.
Obama meanwhile campaigned in Virginia, devoting the day to reaching out to women. His speech is here:
Obama's speech was not bad but he frankly looks tired and not invested in this message for women. Obama's problem is the opposite of McCain's. While McCain is short on "pathos", Obama is short on "logos." Voters looking for concrete measures, plans, and commitments are left feeling these comments are overladen with rhetoric and thin on something tangible they can point to that Obama would do if elected.
McCain's outreach to women is summarized here - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2008/Jul/11/like_obama__mccain_devotes_a_day_to_women_voters.html. This is, however, a demographic in which he needs serious inroads. Men love McCain more than Obama. But the same female voters that Obama was weak on during the primaries are, to put it most precisely, defaulting in large margins to Obama. What McCain could do to make huge inroads in this demographic, and what in my humble estimation he should do, is to name a female Vice President candidate. This would be especially powerful if he does so at the convention right after Obama nominates a male. (If Obama picks a female, the Clintonistas will pivot to Obama and McCain should pick a different veep, preferrably a Hispanic like Senator Martinez, or another minority such as Gov. Jindal). Among the female candidates out there now, the clear favorite that is getting surprisingly little discussion is Gov. Palin of Alaska.
Palin has a number of things going for her:
1. She has executive experience as a Governor.
2. She brings youth to the ticket. Further, as a female, her youth does not contrast nastily with McCain's age as would a young male on the ticket.
3. She is the mother of 5, a true working mother success story who women will know is someone who can identify with and understand their struggles.
4. She would unite the cultural conservatives to the ticket, and generate honest to goodness enthusiasm in that critical part of the GOP base. Not only is she Pro-Life, pro-2nd Amendment, etc. but her life story makes her a poster child hero for the movement as well. Her youngest child, and 5th has down's syndrome, but she never wavered towards abortion. She could be the most credible Pro-Life advocate perhaps ever.
5. She could help unite fiscal conservatives as well. She has a strong record of pro-growth policies, reducing taxes, and cutting excess government spending.
6. The Clintonistas are itching still for a women to get to the White House. The "unity events" Obama and Clinton have held have a forced and thick with tension air about them. The Clintonistas were passionate about not her but what she represented - the breakthrough the highest profile glass ceiling in the world. Her victory would have felt like their victory. They may pivot to other issues if there are no females on the tickets, but they still feel like they lost. Given the chance to recapture that feeling and fight that fight, they would welcome the second chance. From a very pragmatic standpoint, when Clinton withdrew and endorsed Obama, Obama went from a 5 point underdog to an 8 point favorite. At least 1/4 to 1/3 of the entire Democratic party I believe could be open to switching to the McCain/Palin ticket. It could be McCain's only way to a landslide. And, if it was a landslide, she could become the most prominent female voice in the world.
7. If McCain won with her on the veep side, this would look an awful lot like a potential 16 year ticket for the GOP.
8. People love her. Not only is she a former beauty queen and sports star, but she has an approval rating that is nothing shy of astronomical at 84%. Contrast that with someone Obama might pick from the Congress (which one poll last week put the Congressional approval rating at 9%) and there is a clear favorite.
9. She is the epitomy of a government ethics champion with a Hollywood quality story line. Opposing corruption within her own party, she fought the good fight against corrupt interests that went as high as the Governor's office. While the old boys' club ignored her message and ostrasized her, she resigned in protest. Shortly thereafter, she was vindicated as the wave of anti-unethical voters and scandals swept her political enemies into disrepute and she overtake an incumbent Governor in a primary battle, and then went on to win the nomination.
10. She is strong on energy issues, as a consistent supporter for drilling, offshore drilling, and other alternative energy proposals, and her leadership led to the construction of a major new pipeline in Alaska that has greatly increased the prosperity of the people there. The country as a whole, especially given the current energy crisis and mounting public opinion demanding independence from foreign oil are going to like that in her.
11. She is a Washington outsider that can outflank Obama's "new politics" message. What voters have become skeptical and/or disillusioned about in him, she exemplifies.
12. On a very basic level, her selection gives McCain supporters "cultural cover" to become active. I believe a huge portion of people are going to be reluctant to be the ones with a McCain/(any other old white guy) bumper sticker or yard sign. Very few people who level the critiques against that are going to feel comfortable dispiriting those who are supporting the ticket that would create the historic first female Vice President.
13. She has no serious disagreements with McCain on any important issue.
14. She mirrors his reputation as a maverick, as an ethics reformer, as strong on spending restraint, strong on independence from foreign oil, could easily be harmonized to his strength on foreign policy, and simultaneously reaches major demographics where he has no traction.
15. It would put the Democrats into a horrible Catch-22. Along would come this human interest superstory who could infatuate the media interest which translates into superstardom and teflon from complaints. The Democrats then must either let her importance works its magic or try to take her down with attacks. If they try to attack her, they must spend that much less attacking McCain and they come off message. What's worse, if they go to hard, they risk alienating women. They can't call her unqualified, she has a much stronger record than Obama. If they say she has too many children, (as some mindless Obama surrogate will likely do), that too would backfire in a major way. If they say she cannot do such an important job due to her family obligations, if they say she was too recently pregnant, if they say she is only being chosen because she is a woman, etc. it would all backfire.
16. She bears the antithesis of resemblance to Dick Cheney.
17. She alienates no part of the GOP base.
18. Though Alaska is probably not in contention, the old saw that you should pick a veep from a swing state is overstated. Pawlenty would not carry Minnesota, Ridge would not carry Pennsylvania, Lieberman would not carry Connecticut. Huge inroads into the national female voting blocks could, however, carry New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc.
19. As yet, she has not really been attacked by anyone in any important way.
20. She would be a surprise ace in the hole, as none of the key pundits are plugging her as a possibility.
21. McCain's campaign is way too male right now throughout its senior leadership. Women know this.
22. She would help balance the "cool" gap McCain lags behind Obama now. That matters to young voters, even though they never say it that way.
23. There is a huge "enthusiasm gap" in which McCain lags behind Obama. There are simply more passionate Obama supporters and grassroots activists on Obama's side than McCain's, though there are huge, huge, huge untapped conservative grassroots out there that could get involved with the right veep. McCain alone or an unexciting veep is not going to do it.
24. She has the "pathos" element to complement McCain's message and may even help bring it out in him.
25. No other veep possibility has nearly as few down sides, as important the upsides, or the ability to help McCain win that she does.
Campaing money numbers, McCain's economic platforms, and Obama's fundraising efforts
Today was a good news day for McCain.
First, McCain's camp released their June money numbers today, and the numbers look very positive for McCain's team. They raised yet another personal high for McCain of $22 million, continuing the upward progression he has had every single month. McCain has $26.7 million cash on hand now, and the RNC is up to $67.8 million, the GOP State Victory funds have an additional $8 million, putting the GOP cash numbers into 9 digits at just over $100 million or so. Assuming McCain continues his current fundraising pace until the convention, he will now be able to spend more than double the amount he has been averaging on a daily basis for ad buys and campaign get out the vote infrastructure. At the same time, he has inched closer to Obama in the polls than he has at any point since Clinton's concession speech over a month ago.
Obama's team has not yet released their June numbers (which are not due for another week and a half) but their campaign has issued statements that fundraising has been slow, perhaps to prepare supporters/media for perhaps a disappointing number. While McCain's fundraising has steadily inched upwards each month, Obama's has gone down every month since February. If that continued in June, then June will be the first month in which McCain outraised Obama. Obama has also been spending well over a million dollars every day from his campaign chest, and (perhaps due in part to the Obama's campaign appeal for Democratic donors to give directly to the campaign rather than to many different sources) the DNC has crawled along at a snail's pace in fundraising, lagging far behind the RNC. Obama has continued his recent strategy of focusing solely on big money donors, holding high priced events exclusive to donors giving the maximum amount allowed by law. Yesterday, he raised $4.1 million in a single event in Manhattan with Clinton's help. Obama then got himself into trouble as at the unity event in which he was supposed to ask his own supporters to return the favor and help Clinton retire her debt, forgot to ask his supporters to donate to Clinton until someone reminded him after the speech was over. Each such event is further distancing himself from even the pretense that he is utilizing the "parallel public financing system" that would be "free from the taint of special interests" that he cited as a justification for reneging on his pledge to accept public financing. Here is the video clip:
McCain campaigned in Ohio where he received a standing ovation from a town hall of 500 when promoting a values message calling for greater respect for the rights of the unborn. McCain also spent considerable time touting his economic credentials and platforms, including several highlights:
1. A pledge to balance the budget in 4 years
2. A focus and priority in his administration to create jobs for Americans
3. A "jobs coalition" of small business owners supporting McCain across 19 states
4. Endorsements from 300 reputable economists on his economic plan.
Details on his economic plan can be found on his web site - www.johnmccain.com if you are interested.
Obama meanwhile campaigned in Virginia today, possibly a swing state this year with its 13 electoral votes. Obama drew further fire today on several fronts:
1. German Chancellor Merkel said she was "skeptical" about the appropriateness of a planned Obama campaign event in Germany, and even further skeptical about the location being in front of the Brandenburg gate due to its historical symbolism. That was the site where Reagan said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" - the event which precursored the fall of the Berlin wall and the fall of the communist empire.
2. Obama's recent statement to the Iran missile firings noted that he takes the Iranian threat very seriously, which leads to position Change #30 (see earlier posts for other 29), reversing his earlier statements that consistently dismissed Iran as a country which did not "pose any serious threat" to American security or American interests.
3. Obama's statements in favor of faith based initiatives receiving government funding is Change #31 as it constitutes a complete reversal from his primaries stance that such programs violated the separation of Church and state.
4. Obama was criticized by a Hispanic advocacy group as having exaggerated his role on immigration reform during his criticism of McCain's record on the topic. It was noted that Obama did not attend a single committee meeting on immigration reform and contended that he was "AWOL" and an "absolute non-player" in achieving anything on immigration reform, thus, it was improper for him to claim ownership and credit. This criticism echoes that of fellow Democrats from the Illinois state legislature from early in the primary season that Obama was a "bill-jacker" who would co-sponsor bills and bipartisan efforts after others had completed or nearly completed all the hard work necessary to bring a bill to pass.
Jesse Jackson lashes against Obama, Obama criticizes Americans lack of bilingualism, McCain reaches out to Latinos and criticizes Obama for surveillance and Iran votes
A very interesting day of developments on the 2008 campaign. When some commentators say that the 3-4 months left to the election is like an eon in politics, days like today reinforce that sentiment.
The headline story is Jesse Jackson's comments that Obama is "talking down to black people" and that he wanted to "cut Obama's nuts out" which is tantamount to calling him a condescending elitist with a moral superiority complex. While Jackson later said he supports this historic campaign and what it represents that Obama is the head of, that type of endorsement is perhaps more significant for what he's not saying. He's not saying Obama is the great candidate. Whether its sour grapes that Obama has fared better as an African American candidate than he did, a grudge over Obama's emotional condemnation of former President Clinton's comments for ever comparing him to Jesse Jackson, or if Jackson just does not like Obama, these statements and half hearted re-endorsement show Jackson's true feelings toward Obama.
The fallout from this is that Jackson's role as a leader in the black community is going to be significantly lessened at least for a while, as Obama clearly outranks him as the premier black politician in the country. The African-American community is supporting Obama by a 94-6 margin in this campaign, so there is little doubt about that. Where this may hurt Obama is that it feeds into one of the key talking points against him - that he is a condescending elitist.
Unfortunately for Obama, this comes on the heels of some off beat comments he made yesterday that also made him sound like a condescending elitist where he stated he is embarassed by Americans who can't seem to mirror the standard Europeans have achieved of speaking multiple languages, that he doesn't get the drive for English only, that Americans should learn Spanish, sounds like he is making fun of stupid Americans, and not to worry about immigrants because they'll learn to speak English. Here is the video:
In a rare union between McCain and liberal activists, both took Obama to task for his vote today in which he reversed himself on his previously stated position that he would oppose and even filibuster FISA's immunity for telecommunication companies that assist the government in surveillance in the war on terror. While the "netroots" base which has financially and energetically supported his candidacy collected tens of thousands of signatures and swarmed Obama's own web site in a revolt over the betrayal, McCain's camp pointed out that Obama voting for this now shows that "What Barack Obama will do is show that he’s willing to change positions, break campaign commitments and undermine his own words in his quest for higher office." Obama denied that he is moving to the center at all or trying to become more centrist for the general election, insisting that he has not changed from his earlier positions on this, Iraq, or other issues, and that he is a "progressive" politician. http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/09/obama-takes-heat-from-mccain-camp-for-surveillance-vote/
See also http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/09/fisa/ for an example of the type of "netroots" revolt mentality Obama is facing. Another article worth a read is one discussing the parallel revolt Obama is facing from his base over his reversal on his Iraq position where the sentiment is not so much that Obama flip-flopped but that he "betrayed" his supporters and the promises he made earlier. See http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/Story?id=5338914&page=2.
McCain meanwhile is trying to win over Latino voters, stating that their needs are as important as border security and helping businesses, pledging to help them. McCain has publicly supported a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, bucking the portion of the conservative base that wants all illegal immigrants deported. In fact, he has cursed at a fellow Republican Senator on the Senate floor for criticizing McCain for failing to support that "no amnesty" agenda. McCain has criticized Tom Tancredo, who perhaps was the standard bearer for those activists as a "nativist" whose ideas about what makes one an American is foreign to him. McCain will speak to La Raza, a huge Latino political group in the next few days, and recently visited Mexico. At the same time, McCain supports a border enforcement policy, and continues to oppose mass deportation calls. Obama somewhat incorrectly called this a reversal of position as he stated "We need a president who isn't going to walk away from something as important as comprehensive reform when it becomes politically unpopular." Obama also supports a path to citizenship for Hispanics, has talked about border enforcement as a laudable objective, and rejected the "nativist" approach, though it has been a far easier position for Obama to take considering his own base than it was politically for McCain.
Last, a budding story is that an Ethics complaint has been filed against Obama by a group called Judicial Watch for improperly accepting a below market interest rate from mortgage company Northern Trust. The interest rate of 5.625% was given to Obama at a time when the market was about 6%, resulting in $125,000 in savings for Obama, which might constitute a "gift" in violation of Senate ethics rules. The complaint alleges that the loan rate was given to him because he was a Senator. A number of Democrats, including Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) have come under fire lately for these same types of "VIP loans" that the Senate members are prohibited from accepting.
Also relevant perhaps to this allegation is that Obama's endorsement of a mortgage reform plan that had several provisions in it that would not so much help those suffering in the mortgage crisis as it would lenders like Northern Trust and Countrywide who engaged in the "predatory lending" Obama denounced. Specifically, giving a $7000 tax credit to those who buy a house that has been foreclosed upon by a bank raises the market value of the houses only that have already been foreclosed upon, makes it easier for banks to move those and thereby frees up resources to foreclose on other properties (and removing that glut would remove the one thing that was preventing a slew of foreclosures - that it was in banks' self-interests to be more patient with endangered homeowners when they already had their hands full with other properties that had been foreclosed), and gives an extra incentive to engage in predatory lending. Unlike McCain who wanted to authorize lawsuits to hold those who engaged in predatory lending to account, Obama's approach was more regulation-centric, and while not condemining any litigation against those predatory lenders, the Obama endorsed plan (generated by his fellow Senate colleagues in his party) did not include any initiatives that would facilitate holding the responsible parties to account.
Again, this is a budding issue that may amount to nothing. Anyone can file a claim or a lawsuit or a complaint, and some groups have filed complaints against McCain as well on the grounds they suspect he may have used the promise of public financing to secure a loan during the primaries, although there has not been any evidence that established that violation as yet. Public financing advocacy groups at this point, however, have largely condemned Obama's reversal on his pledge to accept public funds and vigorously fight for the GOP candidate to do the same when Obama opted for the lure of far larger sums he could raise on his own while commending McCain's follow through in taking public funds.
Here is an RNC attacking Obama's shifting positions on the war on Iraq. Its not a bad ad as it shows Obama clearly shifting his position and the rhetoric of Axelrod who always insists no position changes have occurred on this issue or on any other issue despite obvious shifts. It also shows Obama unwilling to lock himself into any position, apparently out of a desire to leave open the possibility of shifting further.
This ad will damage Obama particularly among two groups. One, those on the left (and the right) who are tired of the war and supported him due to his promise to immediately withdraw the troops were already exasperated by his repositioning to an 16 month withdrawal timeline, and now he appears to be moving more and more away from that promise made in the primaries to "it depends." What it depends on changes from speech to speech, as sometimes its 'the advice of the military commanders,' other times its his own 'evaluation of the situation' and others 'when it becomes safe for the troops.' The only consistent standard followed thus far seems to be that it depends on the current state of polls.
Two, this will hurt Obama among those who are seeing more and more position changes by him, and may be particularly struck by such a shift on what had been a signature platform for him during the primary when he outflanked Clinton's left.
McCain meanwhile made the following statement on the contrast between Obama and himself on Iraq:
"Well, I think you know that I opposed the failed strategy of the Bush administration. I argued for the strategy that is succeeding. I have been to Iraq 8 times. I know the situation on the ground. I predicted we would succeed and we are succeeding. And, we are winning. That victory is fragile, it can be reversed. Sen. Obama opposed the surge. He said it would fail. He still is saying that it would fail. Now, last Thursday or Friday, it seemed for a while there he was agreeing with the surge, then maybe he's not. So, I'm glad he's going to Iraq for the second time. He hasn’t been there in 900 days. I'm glad, for the first time, he’s going to sit down with General Petraeus -- for the first time, a sit-down briefing, if you can believe that. And, I hope that he will reach a position. I don't know what position, because he's been all over the map, calling for immediate withdrawals, back in the primaries to now saying you know -- so it's hard to know. I hope that he'll go over there and get the kind of information he needs that he hasn't requested in the past...But, have no doubt what my position was when I called for additional troops, it was a very unpopular thing to do and many people said my campaign was dead and I said I'd rather lose a campaign then lose a war. He said it would fail, it has succeeded. [The] American people should take notice of that. So, I'll see what he has to say when he gets back from his visit to Iraq. And, I'm sure he'll be impressed with a sit down with one of the greatest generals that America has ever produced, General David Petraeus."
Here's the ad:
Obama has a new ad out as well. First, here's a link to one of his many earlier speeches in which he promised not to run any negative ads:
Added to the list of reversals from the previous post, we can add:
26. His promise to not run negative ads.
27. His pledge to debate McCain anytime, anywhere and then refusing a series of 10 debates, 1 a week until the conventions, counteroffering a proposal that included the standard 3 debates of every recent Presidential campaign, plus one, and a single town hall.
28. In another recent ad Obama claimed credit for welfare reform in Illinois that moved many individuals off the rolls and back to work. The ad has backfired, however, as fact checkers have pointed out that he voted against the reform bill he is touting the success of, and he was never a sponsor nor author of it.
29. Obama has declared that abortion should never be for an emotional reason. As a Constitutional law professor, however, he knows that supporting Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton means exactly that, and he has supported every single type of abortion procedure, including those up through the third trimester and partial birth abortion, and even opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which protects babies who are accidentally born during an attempted abortion and vests them with the full rights of personhood, stating it was superfluous. Pro-Life fact checkers cite numerous examples, however, as to incidents where such a law would not be superfluous.
In any event, the new Obama ad is here:
Obama clearly runs a negative ad against McCain for high gas prices, but he does not make clear anything McCain has done that has led to high gas prices. Indeed, the GOP has not even been in control of the Congress during the last 18 months when gas prices have gone from about $2.30 to $4.10 a gallon. The one thing he does cite to is McCain's support of tax breaks for oil companies, but that is very disingenuous here. McCain's "tax breaks for big oil" here would come in the form of incentives to invest in alternative energy sources that would increase our independence from foreign oil, and Obama addresses none of those specific incentives. It is intentionally deceptive and misleading to suggest McCain just wants to give money to big oil. The ad is also rather negative in that it portrays McCain's 26 years in Washington as a bad thing, whereas presumably Obama's 3 years in Washington is an advantage in a Presidential candidate. The link to voting with Bush "95% of the time" is also problematic. First, Bush does not vote, he can only veto or not. Many bills get passed that are not controversial, and by a similar calculus one might say Obama voted with the Democratic leadership in the Congress 95% of the time, or perhaps closer to 100% of the time, where some polls now have the approval ratings thereon down into single digits.
Obama is claiming that he will lead to independence from foreign oil but almost all of his positions run counter to that. He is against drilling in ANWR, against offshore oil drilling, against increased domestic drilling, against non "clean coal" fossil fuels, against developing nuclear power plants, against tax incentives for oil companies and/or anyone else to develop alternative energy sources such as a cost-effective, market-feasible battery powered vehicle, is against dipping into our oil reserves and against a summer gas tax holiday which would at least lower gas prices temporarily. The justifications for these stances have included both that the relief in gas prices would be only temporary as well as the price in gas relief would not be seen for some time. The environmental interest groups' every stance he has prioritized over moves that would concretely move us toward energy independence. That is fine if that is his policy position, but it is duplicitious to simultaneously claim he is the energy independence candidate in an attack ad.
He mentions in the ad he would make energy independence a priority and break the grip on foreign oil, but the only ways he proffers to do that are to "fast track new technologies", "a $1000 middle class tax cut", and "raise mileage standards." Fast track new technologies does not sound like a policy stance at all, unless he were to support tax incentives for those developing such technologies or some other reward or government incentive or enabling program for them to do so. He has voted against all these initiatives, however. It will be an entrepreneur and/or scientists who drive the next big development, which will not occur sooner because Obama is hoping in such futuristic dreams without supporting anything conducive to achieving that objective.
The tax cut for the middle class sounds nice, but is not related to independence from foreign oil. It could help pay for gas, but its insufficient to roll that out against every issue as if it addresses it. Further, McCain's proposed tax credits ($5000 for health care coverage), ($3500 increase in exemption for each dependent) far exceed the $1000 tax break he proposes.
Last, to "raise mileage standards" may be yet another boon to the environmentalist cause, but its relationship to independence from foreign oil is tenuous at best. If we had more fuel efficient vehicles, then people would consume less gas and the law of supply and demand might decrease the price of oil somewhat, though we would still be dependent on it. A gradual increase in gas efficiency, however, would not likely significantly affect the cost of gas. Further, in the absence of any tax incentives for doing so that would instigate the necessary R&D, it is unclear if car companies can produce an economical mileage efficient vehicle. Even if such a regulation were to lead to better technology, (and it might not, in which case it is unclear what penalties Obama would set against our American manufacturers and foreign owned but American operated manufacturers), but the cost of vehicles would likely skyrocket, which is certainly not lower class or middle class friendly.
Both candidates support a number of other measures such as solar power, wind power, etc., but even there McCain is offering tax incentives to those who can develop it, which encourages scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs to get involved in that effort, while Obama gives it mere lip service.
In short, Obama does not have a plan for energy independence - he has empty talk, proposals thin on specifics, a consistent policy of cowtowing to every environmentalist position on the issue that is at odds with measures that would help achieve energy independence, and general plans that forebode making things worse for the American people in other ways.
As attack ads go, this is a particularly disingenuous or inappropriate one. Further, it certainly betrays his promise of "no attack ads" and a "new kind of politics."
McCain mobilizes base and shakes up staff, Obama focuses on fundraising, a new notion of "Change We Can Believe In"
While the polls have not changed much over the past three weeks, see the numbers over at the ever reliable and precise www.rasmussenreports.com, things may be about to heat up somewhat. While McCain had been leading Obama for a long time prior to the nomination bounce Obama got and the AFL-CIO endorsement bounce, since then Obama has led McCain by about 5 points, give or take 2 points on any given day for the better part of a month.
McCain has four hopes for a "bump" in the coming week or two. One, he just shook up his staff. The new personnel are expected to catalyze the campaign into a more unified message. Two, the NRA has pledged to spend $40 million in ad blitzes this season, and in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's Heller decision, they were upset enough by Obama's response and/or impressed enough by McCain's to throw their weight behind the GOP candidate to the tune of a record amount. Three, over 100 Christian leaders met in Colorado where they pledged to help elect McCain this time around and denounced Obama. While many of them may be more anti-Obama than pro-McCain, such numbers of Christian leaders help define this as more of a moral issues election than it had been which brings in a part of the conversation that will favor McCain. Four, Obama upset his own base, perhaps for the first time, when he announced a change in his position on FISA courts (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) that the "netroots" considered betrayal from his pledges during the primary.
McCain has been spending his time continuing to do town hall type meetings, taking unscreened questions from anybody present, and meeting with different members of the press during travel. This past week McCain went down to Colombia and met with President Uribe, a conservative populist, similar to McCain, and discussed U.S.-Colombian relations and trade policy. While McCain was there, a daring rescue was put into operation where several Americans that had been held hostage by the terrorist FARC organization were rescued, some after having been held for more than 5 years. The timing was coincidental.
Obama, meanwhile, has focused a great amount of time and effort on large fundraisers lately. See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/us/politics/03donate.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin. While Obama focuses on raising money from large money donors, he continues to spend money at an unprecedented rate as well, running ads in many "red states" including those experts believe he has no chance of winning. In order to maintain that pace, (which presumably is what is in part helping keep his numbers in the polls up), he now has to reverse the course of his decreasing fundraising capabilities that petered out during primary season. While Obama raised $55 million in February, he sank to $40 million in March, $31 million in April, and only $22 million in May. The June numbers have not been released yet, (they will be released no later than the 22nd of July), which leads me to believe that they were not good. While the Clinton donors may now give to Obama, many of them are not supporting, downright opposing, or are not enthusiastic enough to give to Obama as they did to Clinton. It would not surprise me to see a second straight month in which his expenditures outpaced his fundraising, despite his status as the most prolific fundraising candidate in history. The new focus is on venue after venue of high priced dinner functions that are limited to only wealthy donors.
Also, I would predict that one of the new themes attacking Obama will be that he is a flip-flopper who cannot be trusted. Here is some of the fodder that might be pointed out in support of that theme, to take a top 25 that come to mind immediately:
Changes1,2, and 3 - Obama changed his position on public financing. He pledged he would take public financing as a matter of principal and aggressively pursue an agreement with the GOP nominee to do the same. When it became apparent his self-interest was not in public financing (contrary to his likely assumption in November when he made the promise, well before his fundraising prowess was unleashed), he changed his position. He first changed it from a pledge to an ambiguous statement as to whether he was retracting the pledge stating he would like to have a conversation with the McCain campaign (who did take the public fundraising pledge) as to the best way to protect the integrity of the process. The second change was that he then never contacted the McCain campaign to have such a conversation but a few months later swore off public financing, calling the system broken, pointing out two chief rationale. One was that he needed the money to defend himself from McCain's 527s, laughable even to the Pro-Obama press because McCain has none and only one small 527 in the Dakotas has launched any anti-Obama attacks. Second was the rationale that Obama had an "army" of small donors that constituted a "parallel public financing system" that would ensure he would not be subject to any of the undue influence of lobbyists and large donors that public financing was meant to protect against. He was then denounced by the public financing advocates and lost some credibility. With the new fundraising strategy aimed exclusively at large donors, the same types of lobbyists that he indicated were not significantly funding his campaign, (although they were a large percentage even before the current focus on large donors), we see change #3.
Change 4 - Obama flanked Clinton's left during the primary by reaching out to the "netroots" who constituted a large percentage of his online fundraising team, on the FISA issue. While to his credit, this is the first and perhaps only departure from the wishes of his base, it also represents a departure from his previous stated position that he would never support immunity for telecommunications companies involved in surveillance. Now he does support that. Nothing has changed in the law of great substance, but this may be an effort by Obama to move more to the center for the general election since unlike in the primary, supporting immunity for telecommunications companies involved in surveillance is now in his interest. See http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/333298 for the story.
Change 5 - Obama has this past week changed his position on the death penalty. Also, a fairly major issue most of us have had years to form an opinion on, Obama opposed the death penalty as never necessary. Now, after hearing the facts of some particularly gruesome cases, he has stated he supports the death penalty for such offenses. To my mind, as gruesome as these cases were, there is no principle that separates them from previous gruesome cases during the time he opposed the death penalty. It was just unpopular to stake that position in the general election.
Change 6 - Welfare reform. Obama previously stated he opposed welfare reform, but now he supports it. Again, his prior position was more popular during the primary and the new position is more popular in the general election.
Change 7 - Decriminalization of marijuana - Obama had previously supported decriminalization of marijuana, and now opposes it. Not sure what could have changed his mind on this issue.
Change 8 - D.C. School voucher program - opposed it, now he supports it. Program has not changed, nor has the underlying arguments in favor or against school voucher programs in general.
Change 9 - The Cuba embargo - Obama forcefully called the Cuba embargo "a failed policy" that "must be lifted." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20369459/ After touting the position in Florida to Cuban-Americans, (who constitute a significant voting block in that significant swing state) he changed his position to insisting that the embargo not be lifted. He pledged in late May that "I will maintain the embargo" as it "provides us the leverage to present the regime with a clear choice." http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/207613,obama-wont-lift-embargo-on-cuba.html
Change 10 - D.C. Handgun ban - Obama, during the lead up to the Supreme Court's Heller decision, stated he supports the D.C. Handgun ban. Then, after the 5-4 decision which struck down the ban as unconstitutional, a ruling which is a huge landmark victory for gun owner rights, Obama praised the decision. This is particularly surprising since he used to be a Constitutional law professor and he must know the history of Constitutional law on the Second Amendment. The NRA found his endorsement of the decision disingenuous, citing to its members his membership on the Board of Governors of a group devoted to promoting gun control over NRA-type 2nd Amendment arguments.
Changes 11 & 12 - Change 11 is NAFTA. During the primary, Obama pounded Clinton for her support of NAFTA, which he claimed undermined labor and environmental concerns and had a "devastating" impact on the U.S. economy. A story arose that Austin Goolsbe, a top economic advisor to Obama, at the time told Canada not to worry about our trade deal being threatened because Obama was just posturing. The Obama campaign denied Goolsbe's statements and continued to denounce NAFTA and again flanked Clinton's left. He then promised that if necessary to gain the necessary labor and environmental objectives he would unilaterally opt the U.S. out of the treaty until it could be restructured. While that sounds tough, it drew a backlash from even those within his own party with foreign policy expertise, who noted that other countries would not know where we stood on our trade policy with them if we were going to unilaterally alter or withdraw from trade treaties, (we have a good 30 or more international free trade treaties spanning the globe). Obama then stated he would not unilaterally withdraw from NAFTA. He has since waffled on that again, stating that all the options are on the table, apparently to appease those on the left who liked the idea of unilateral withdrawal to leverage environmental/labor provisions. Obama's 12th change was his decrying "protectionist" trade policies and then advocating them in other contexts, particularly his denouncement of the trade treaty with Colombia, where high tariffs already limit the capability of American manufacturers to export into their market and they already have tariff free exports to the United States, leaving a clear U.S. jobs advantage in supporting the treaty. Obama does not deny that either, only stating that Colombia's record on labor rights is too objectionable. (It is true Columbia does not have the best history on labor rights, but it has gotten better over the past few years).
Change 13 - Obama has changed positions on the Reverend Wright, according to some, 7 times. See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352947,00.html. First, Obama claimed Wright was being taken out of context. Then he said he disagreed with Wright on many things but he was still a good man and he "could no more disown Wright than disown the African American community." Then he claimed he was not there in Church on the occasions Wright said those things. Then, when it became apparent that Wright preached this stuff all the time, Obama distanced himself further condemining the comments of his minister but not the man, which came off as somewhat self-righteous for someone simultaneously being shown to not pay attention during the church sermon. Next, after Wright noted that Obama was only stating he disagreed with Wright because that's what Obama must do as a politician, Obama noted that he would have left the Church if Wright had not retired. Then, after Wright used his public microphone to amplify his brand of black liberation theology, (a radical belief system perhaps which Obama still has not rescinded his endorsement of, though perhaps that list is a subject for another post), Obama disowned Wright due to Wright showing "disrespect" to Obama. Not the 20 years of comments, not the fact his daughters were being ministered to by a crazed man, not the fact he and his wife were perhaps shepherded badly by the man who married them, but disrespect sealed the deal.
Change 14 - Obama implied by stating he would have left the Church that he would remain loyal to the Church since Wright retired. A month later or so, a visiting Catholic priest gave a sermon in the Church in which he supported Obama and criticized Clinton, who at that time was Obama's rival. Obama took that opportunity to use the occasion to leave the church. Although Obama has "reached out" by meeting with evangelicals since then (though their recent alignment behind McCain shows that effort to be a colossal failure) I have not seen anything indicating whether he has joined a new church anywhere or if he attends anymore. To some, backsliding might be the biggest change.
Change 15-18 - Obama's stances on meeting with foreign leaders, detailed more fully in an earlier post, changed from pledging to meet without preconditions, to essentially only meeting with preconditions. This could perhaps constitute several changes as it applies in distinct important arenas such as the U.S. relationships/interactions with (15) Iran, (16) North Korea, (17) Venezuela, and (18) Cuba.
Change 19 - Obama and his team have gone from all but calling the Clintons racists and pointing out every problem with the Clintons to staking a position that the Clintons are two people the country "really needs."
Change 20 - Energy policy - see earlier posts for Obama's refusals to support almost any measure that could produce energy independence, despite having pledged to do so. Most notably, however, here the change is found in his position on nuclear energy where he has both stated that he does not support the increased use of nuclear energy while (incorrectly) criticizing McCain for failing to do so.
Change 21 - Willingness to visit Iraq and meet with our leaders on the ground there. This change, like many of the others, came in incremental phases, and is detailed more fully in an earlier post. He is now promising to go there within the month.
Change 22 - Obama's position on unilateral military action - after promising he would never take unilateral military action Obama has stated he would consider invading Pakistan (a U.S. ally).
Change 23 - Obama's stance on protecting Israel has changed significantly. He has stated he is committed to protecting Israel, and doing anything possible to prevent Iran from going nuclear, including military force, but has also pledged not to start a war with Iran. Obama has also stated mulitple positions rather inconsistent with backing up Israel in the middle East, including supporting the Palestinian (and terrorists who share the same views) that Israel must build no new settlements in the West Bank, Israel should trade land for peace, and release hostages. If not an explicit change, this position is so inconsistently untenable in and of itself that it belongs in the same category.
Change 24 - The lapel pin. Though not an important issue to my mind, it belongs in the list of publicly stated positions or principles that he has changed. He not only stated that he does not wear it, but added that those who do often do so to exhibit a fake brand of patriotism. He then clarified that he wears it sometimes, but it is not a big deal. Now, if there is an important function where he appears in front of a bunch of flags, (or a version of the Presidential seal altered in an almost copyright infringement manner to be the Obama Presidential seal), he is wearing the lapel pin. But still, of all the issues on this list, this is the one that least concerns me.
Change 25 - Perhaps most importantly is his change on Iraq. Obama has staked out several new positions this past week on Iraq, and earlier posts have detailed his prior trend of backing off his primary season promise to bring the troops home immediately. Now we are hearing there will be a gradual pullout, or that the pullout will depend on the advice of the commanders on the ground, etc.
Now some may argue that when a candidate changes a position, that is a good thing, because they have come around to the right side of an issue, or that circumstances have changed, or that someone has effectively persuaded them. In each instance, however, the principled change that is to be credited must come from a candidate who acknowledges that the position has changed in fact. That has not happened with Obama in any of these instances. And a cynic might note that it appears these changes are coming more from him listening to polls than to people. Some of these changes look slight, some dramatic, some calculated step-phased 180 degree changes, etc. At this rate, it is likely that there will be even more changes by the time election and, perhaps, governing time rolls around for the Illinois junior Senator, perhaps some of which will be in areas that will upset his base further.
Further troubling is that in addition to these many changes on this non-exhaustive list are the many vague, ambiguous positions that a cynic might point out looks as if the shortness on details may be to provide flexibility in adjusting position by leaving it undefined. Or, the lack of depth in explaining how certain platforms will be achieved shows lack of plans. Both Clinton and McCain have criticized him along this vein, all but calling him an "empty suit." For example, Obama's pledges to capture bin Laden and fight al Qaeda while withdrawing from Iraq seem short on details, as do his pledges to restore the international U.S. image while simultaneously pledging in some contexts while condemning in others unilateral U.S. action. Most importantly perhaps, are the details on how he sees the situation in the middle east and the war on terror playing out if we follow through with his plan of rapid withdrawal from Iraq. To name a few.
The time has come for more detail and substance and clear definition for the candidate, not just in stating platitudes about non-objectionable goods we can all assent to (working to stem the mortgage crisis, increasing jobs, improve the economy and bipartisanship, "change", etc.) but getting to some actual details. A $500 million dollar campaign ought to be able to afford to do that.
