08 Presidential Candidates, Political Analysis

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.

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.

Obama also drew criticism from Pro-Life activists for being extreme on abortion, which coincides with Obama’s timing on trying to persuade evangelicals that he is their candidate.  See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/politics/main4243015.shtml.

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.

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.” 

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:

Changes 1,2, 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.

Second, and the biggest news of the day, is McCain advisor Charlie Black’s comment that a terrorist attack would benefit the McCain campaign.  To my mind, this type of comment is outrageous enough that Black should resign or McCain should throw him under the bus.

Obama added several females to his leadership team in an effort to reach out to the female vote.  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11233.html.  This is an effort to reach out to female voters.  Last week, he drew criticism from feminists who asked him what he would do to win them over from Clinton.  He stated that he acknowledged that the divisive fight left a lot of healing to be done, but the women needed to recognize that McCain is wrong on women’s issues in order to help themselves “get over it.”  That did not go over well.  Doyle and Dunn have important positions, while Cutter is more of a tag-a-long, and even Doyle’s role is unclear in the extent of her authority.  But they have a symbolic value if nothing else to his campaign.

First, today Obama officially declined to take public funds, making him the first Presidential candidate to do so for the general election since Watergate.  See http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/19/republicans-hammer-obama-for-sidestepping-public-funds/.  Back in November, Obama unilaterally stated he would hold both parties to a public fundraising truce where each would have to take public financing.  He then rendered his now infamous quote:
 
“Senator John McCain has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge,” Obama wrote. “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” 

A few months later, McCain won the GOP primary and agreed to Obama’s proposal to take public financing.  McCain called on Obama to do the same.  Obama, however, raised eyebrows at the time stating only that he would look forward to a conversation with McCain on the subject.  McCain stated he wanted Obama to keep his word, plain and simple.  Obama’s decision was precipitated by his experiencing an unanticipated, record-breaking fundraising success streak.  The reason public financing was called for originally by Obama and then also by McCain was that it is supposed to protect the integrity of the political process as a check and balance against the special interest groups (that both candidates decry) that dominate American politics.  If a candidate takes public financing, they do not have to rely on lobbyists who can raise huge sums from special interest groups.  That independence allows for elected representatives to be statesmen rather than politicians, so to speak.  Bush was heavily criticized for raising unprecedented sums breaking previous records that left “no special interest group behind.”  Now, Obama is in Bush’s old position. 

Obama will be able to use that fundraising advantage to run attack ads on McCain that he will not possibly be able to counter in swing states with the lower amount of money that public financing limits him to, which also enables (though not necessarily ensuring) that Obama could distort McCain’s record/statements with relative impunity. 

Obama’s team has generated two justifications for this complete 180.  One, they note and criticize McCain for the 527s that could run attack ads on his behalf.  While it is true that 527s can raise their own money and run ads independent from a campaign, thus far Obama supportive 527s have outspent McCain supportive 527s by more than a 4:1 margin, so I’m not sure that really makes up the difference for McCain.  Two, Obama’s team has claimed they have created in effect a “parallel public financing” system.  That argument relies on the fact the campaing has a record number of small donors, who typically have less influence on a candidate.  They also, however, have a record number of special interest group donors from many special interest sectors that are unprecedented, so the small donors are more of an “in addition to” and not “instead of” the special interest influence that public financing is meant to protect against.

Second, equally disappointing is Obama’s refusal to engage in the proposed weekly series of ten town hall debates across the country to showcase the candidates directly to the people without the media filtered questions.  Obama has agreed to only 1 town hall, and suggested the usual three standard media controlled debates.  He debated Clinton, according to his own stated number, 22 times.  This refusal to engage McCain will also magnify the importance of Obama’s now superior funding base for the general election.

Third, the candidates have sparred over energy policy, which is front and center in most every voter’s mind who drives a car at this period where gas prices are $4 a gallon and rising.  McCain (and Clinton) jumped in front initially by calling for a gas tax vacation to ease the traditionally higher gas prices of the summertime, which would save us all 20-25 cents per gallon.  Obama opposed the measure, stating the amount was insignificant and unlikely to result in permanent solutions to the problem, and might even increase the price of gas eventually if demand were to increase, (at this point though, U.S. gas consumption is down 3% from this time last year). 

Obama then called for a windfall profits tax against the oil industry.  This would be punitive in nature, blaming the oil companies for making record profits during the time when we are suffering at the gas pumps.  McCain noted that the oil companies are making less profit per gallon than they used to during this time and opposed the plan as a “tried and failed” method that did not work under the Carter administration and the 1970s gas lines and skyrocketing energy prices that resulted the last time this policy was tried.  Besides the immediate hit on 40% of all American stockholders who have a stake in oil companies, the disincentive for oil companies to generate more oil by capping their profits would increase America’s dependence on foreign oil, and would increase the price of gas, McCain charged.

McCain then put forth a rather comprehensive approach to the problem, which may win him points on this issue down the line.  In short, he would want to:

1.  Increase off-shore drilling.  Each state would decide for itself whether to conduct offshore drilling.  Obama has criticized and rejected this part of the proposed solution on environmental grounds (environmentalists won on the issue of offshore drilling prevention 30 years ago) and because it would not significantly increase our domestic oil for at least 5 years.

2.  Increase domestic drilling, including in Alaska.  Again, Obama rejected this portion of the proposed solution on environmental grounds.

3.  Creation of tax incentives for entrepreneurial innovations in alternative energy sources, including solar, wind, and clean coal energy.  Again, Obama has opposed this measure of tax incentives, but has stated he supports development of these alternative energy sources.

4.  Development of 100 new nuclear generators, utilizing existing American technology to generate a wealth of more environmentally friendly and safe energy.  Obama has rejected this measure as well, but called McCain “soft” on nuclear energy.

Dick Morris, a former (President) Clinton advisor, notes that the contrast between these two is likely to hurt Obama.  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_dick_morris/mccain_scores_with_offshore_drilling_proposal

Fourth, the Iraq war of course remains the predominant issue of the campaign, even though it did not receive the most attention this week.  Obama has now promised to visit Iraq and Afghanistan before the election, another significant change from his previous declarations that he did not need to visit those countries to understand what was happening there.  A few weeks ago, he rejected McCain’s invitation for the two of them to go to Iraq to meet with General Petraeus and other military commanders, as well Ambassador Crocker and other American and allied political leaders there to show American unity on foreign soil and to see the events on the ground.  Obama dismissed and rejected that invitation as a political stunt.  He later stated he might go to Iraq, then upgraded that to would probably go to Iraq, and now has promised it. 

Conservatives have sharply criticized Obama for the fact that he has not been to Iraq and Afghanistan since long before the surge, in fact, over two years.  He also has not held a single meeting in his capacity as Chairman of the subcommittee in the Senate on Afghanistan despite the war there.  On top of that, Obama’s statements of what he would do in Iraq have also been criticized as a series of flip-flops.  First he stated he would immediately pull all American troops out of Iraq.  Then he stated he would pull them out in phases, within 6 months, then he would pull them out according to the recommendations of our military commanders, then clarified that he would pull them all out within 1 year, then clarified that if al Qaeda were to establish a base of operations in Iraq or Iraq were to become unstable then he would send the troops back in.  He has also stated he would utilize an “infusion” or “surge” of diplomacy, capture bin Laden, invade Pakistan (although they are our ally), and send farming aid to Afghanistan to help resolve that conflict.  A good example of the criticisms of Obama’s lack of plan specifics is here - http://www.nypost.com/seven/06192008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_vs__osama_116128.htm?page=0.

McCain has also criticized Obama for missing the Senate vote on designating certain groups as “terrorist groups” that have been proven to be killing American soldiers in Iraq, showing a lack of care about the issue.  He further attacks Obama’s willingness to meet with Ahmadinejad as a “spectacle” which would embolden the terrorists, and sustain a failing regime in Iran that could enable the country to go nuclear, endangering both U.S. and regional allies (Israel, Iraq) security. 

Obama has stated he supports Israel’s bombing of Syria, and wishes to see Israel divided between the Jews and Palestinians in order to achieve peace, cut off weapons flow through Egypt to Gaza, pressure Israel to ease freedom of movement for Palestinians (Israel has many restrictions related to their stated security needs that effectively reduced the number of suicide bombings), improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and pressure Israel to refrain from continuing to build settlements in the West Bank.  Hamas in turn should be isolated under his plan until they renounce violence and terror and recognize Israel’s right to exist (something Hamas will never do) and abide by past agreements.  There is “no room at the table for terrorist organizations” according to Obama.  Of course, if he can successfully get Israel to do all he has stated he intends to then there does not appear to be any reason for Hamas to want to come to a negotiating table anyways.

Fifth, also in the news this week was the candidates’ spars over trade policy.  McCain has repeatedly called Obama a protectionist who is anti-free trade while Obama continues to state that he is against protectionism.  Nevertheless, Obama has called in the past for unilaterally changing NAFTA, an issue on which he flanked Clinton’s left to gain union support during the primary, calling NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake.”  He added that unilaterally invoking opt-out tactics would create a negotiating “hammer” with which we could forward American values and interests in renegotiating the deal.  His chief economic advisor at the time was exposed to the media as assuring Canadians that Obama did not mean what he was saying and that it was purely political posturing.  This week, Obama stated that like all politicians, he was “guilty” of “overheated” or “amplified rhetoric” when it came to this topic.  Other Democrats had distanced themselves from him on the issue and the international community expressed concerns over their own free trade agreements, (America has several dozen right now), and what Obama might do to them.  Obama has repeatedly criticized free trade as not being “fair trade” and noted he is concerned with finding deals that help “all parties” (as opposed to just America).  Specifically, he has noted he wants labor and environmental standards to be part of these deals, which is laudable, though, as McCain and other critics note, this would likely cause many American jobs as the inherent tradeoff.

Sixth, the candidates sparred over tax policy.  Although there has been significant discussion on this topic, this post is getting too long to go into the depth that would do the topic justice, so I will reserve that for another post.

Seventh, the Supreme Court rang in on granting terrorist suspects due process rights like American citizens in a 5-4 decision that Obama praised and McCain criticized as endangering America.  The right to habeas corpus and other due process rights that make it difficult to put U.S. citizens behind jails (and, in all fairness, prevent unjust convictions) now apply to captured enemy combatants during a time of war.

In other miscellaneous items:

8 - McCain has announced he will visit the flood devastated regions in the midwest, and was in Iowa today.

9 - Obama has been meeting lately with the AFL-CIO and will garner that endorsement shortly, which may create another fundraising and volunteer upswing for his campaign, though most of them are already on board as individual unions made endorsements prior to the federation.

10 - Obama’s team fired two volunteers for telling two different women that they could not be seated behind Obama where they might be in press pictures because of the head scarves they were wearing.  This was reminiscent of the event at Penn State a few months ago where Obama campaign volunteers stated they needed more white people in the background for the press pictures.  The campaign has condemned these acts and stated it was not their policy.

11 - Obama’s V.P. search committee co-chairman (1 of 3 members) Jim Johnson resolved over an alleged scandal in which he received a $21,000,000 golden parachute and was involved in the Countrywide subprime mortgage fiasco, an issue for which Obama went after Clinton surrogates and attacked Countrywide’s fault in the mortgage crisis on the stump.  It may be problematic not only that Obama’s team did not call this to light and disclose it but dismissed it under these circumstances as irrelevant, despite having Johnson resign.   (In fact, this may be a blessing disguise for Obama, since Johnson also helped select V.P.’s for the not so successful 1984 Mondale campaign and 2004 Kerry campaign, including Geraldine Ferraro - an outspoken critic of Obama). 

12 - McCain broke party ranks again and defied President Bush by joining Democrats on their unemployment policy extension plan.

13 - Obama has called for more regulation on credit card company rates and policies.

14 - Had Obama agree to McCain’s proposal for weekly town halls, they would have had their second one yesterday probably.

Senator Obama has clinched the Democratic nomination and Senator Clinton is bowing out, sort of.  While Clinton will throw her support behind Obama, probably as soon as this weekend, she has reminded him not so subtly that she still has leverage and she wants the veep slot on his ticket.  This puts Obama in a pickle.  If he puts her on the ticket now, he will look like he is cowtowing to her hardball, and then who would really be in charge if she, (and Bill Clinton), are constantly there in the spotlight.  If he does not, she may not wholeheartedly support him, and her supporters may not either, which could very easily cost him the election.  Consequently, people are simultaneously saying that he’d be crazy to put her on the ticket and that he has no choice.  The most likely course of action to my mind, though far from a sure thing, is that he’ll promise her a cabinet position, (Health and Human Services perhaps to pursue her health care agenda?), or a Supreme Court seat, or the like, and then he’ll pick a different female for his veep slot.  If he does not choose a female, then McCain has an excellent option that might peel off a lot of disaffected Clintonistas.  See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/the_vp_case_for_gov_sarah_pali.html.

Hot on the heels of Obama was McCain, who invited Obama to join him for a weekly town hall meeting, each week for 10 weeks, all over the country.  The venues would be small, a couple of hundred people, probably in symbolic locations, where the two could talk openly and have non-vetted questions from the crowds, who would be selected by independent pollsters.  The first one would be next week.  This was a brilliant stroke by the McCain camp.  No Democrat can be seen refusing a debate challenge, especially Obama who has already been criticized by Clinton for refusing to debate her in North Carolina or Indiana.  See McCain’s letter to Obama here - http://www.johnmccain.com/downloads/townhallletter.pdf.  Obama’s team has responded they agree in principle but want something with longer speeches, and less audience questions, like the Lincoln-Douglas debates.  Both formats are intriguing, and I hope they do some combination of both.  Its time for both candidates to put their money where their mouths are on this one.

With all the other major news this week, somewhat overlooked is the conviction of Tony Rezko, on 16 guilty counts.  Rezko, a longtime Obama supporter who has funded his 2004 campaign with monies generated from illegal kickbacks and engaged in a land deal to facilitate Obama’s dream home in Chicago, is now in jail.  The prosecutors are at least interested in seeing if he will “give the goods” on Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, (D), who multiple witnesses testified was aware/involved in corrupt fundraising schemes.  While there is no evidence of illegal activity at this time, who knows what Rezko might say to cut a deal that could implicate Obama down the road.  At a minimum, Obama will likely be criticized more in the weeks ahead for his associations with this large financial backer, slumlord who benefitted from government financing programs Obama championed in the Illinois legislature, who ran illegal land deals and also did land deals with Obama, etc.

In other news:
 
McCain raised a record of $22 million in May, Clinton appears to be $30 million in debt, and Obama’s numbers have not yet been released.  In all likelihood, Obama can raise a million a day through the summer, maybe more, so money will not be a problem for him. 
Dick Morris, former advisor to President Clinton, believes McCain will continue to press his case on Iraq until Obama can answer some important questions.  See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_dick_morris/obama_s_iraq_achilles_heel

I would also commend as two speech transcripts worth a definite read for any politics junkie - McCain and Obama’s comments on the night the Democratic primary ended and the general election began:

Barack Obama at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/obamas_victory_speech_in_st_pa.html

John McCain at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/mccains_speech_in_new_orleans_1.html

Though each of their speeches deserves a separate post in and of themselves since they are loaded with clues of what we can expect their campaign themes in the general election to be, and some brilliant sound bites for both of them, and some real substantive position statements from each as well. 

Although I have not commented much on Michigan, it seems to me that Clinton should at least get the 55% that she won, whether it be under a half vote scheme as they have implemented under party rules (although that too can be appealed which would help Clinton), or a full 1 delegate, 1 vote approach.  Far more logical would be the proposition to not seat Michigan at all.  But that would be electoral suicide.  The initial Obama position on this one was to not seat any of them, then to seat them all via a 50-50 split, – both completely irrespective of the votes in Michigan.  They amount to the same premise, that Michigan should not count for anything, as they both net 0 delegates to either candidate.  Some suggested that Clinton would get the 55% and Obama should get the 40% that voted for undecided to be fair.  To my mind though, this is also tortured logic.  At the time of the Michigan vote, John Edwards was running nearly if not more popularly than Obama in that region of the country, and only lost Iowa to him by a couple of percentage points.  It is more likely that considering Edwards and the other 6 Democrats that also might have fallen under “undecided” votes, that Obama should get something more akin to 20% of those votes counted for him, if any.  Clinton will likely make these arguments at least until the credentialing committee can hear her appeal in July, so I would be surprised if she drops out this week as Obama’s camp continues to suggest she must.  The Clintonistas are outraged.  Compromises that get neither party what it needs are pointless and not likely to stand.  This may have been the worst course of action for the Democrats.

Obama’s in a tough position now, even though the nomination is still his to lose.  He has to win over the Clintonistas in order to win in November, and to anger the Florida and Michigan voters is electoral suicide.  Florida he probably will not win anyways, but the failure to make a good run in Florida hurts him both financially and by easing the time and resources McCain would need to spend in the state.  Michigan is a purple state that the Democrats have won by 3 or so points in the last few cycles.  To lose that swing state could be his undoing.  Half the Democratic party, give or take half a percent, voted for Clinton.  Without her endorsement and a feeling that she was treated fairly, her supporters are not going to flock to him as much as they otherwise would. 

Now, if Obama were to intervene and say that we must count them all, he would come off looking like he had taken the high road.  It would be what Clinton’s supporters expected.  It would also bring Clinton right back to a virtual tie, if not a lead over him.  That situation will not likely improve after the combined results of Puerto Rico, South Dakota and Montana roll in.  Still also are 180-190 superdelegates who increasingly may go for Clinton if the numbers were even, and he might even be able to expect defections given her better polling against McCain in most swing states (save Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and perhaps Wisconsin - depending on the poll).  Clinton will claim she has won the popular vote as well.  And no Democrat wants to be talking in Florida while people are protesting about their votes not being counted over arguable application of election rules.  Such a “high road” would be a calculated risk for Obama, but one that might be necessary to gain the White House.  Short of that, expect Clinton’s supporters to accuse him of doing as much to drag out this fight until July, or perhaps August.  If Clinton denounces this compromise, he will be forced to make this decision.  By the numbers, Obama’s lead is cut by only 24 delegates on this arrangement, but if the votes are not halved and Clinton were to get 55% to Obama’s 0% for Michigan, then another 153 votes in the gap between them would close.  That would still leave Obama with a 21 delegate lead. 

Obama’s likely strategy at this point will be to wait until the superdelegates are pressured come Wednesday by Pelosi and Dean and other senior Democrats to choose a side, hopefully have enough of a buffer come the July appeal to the credentialing committee, and take the high road then, if feasible, allowing Clinton her full tally at that time.

McCain meanwhile has been careful to not comment on this fight.  The last thing he wants to do is give the Democrats a reason to blame him for this mess, and at best, he will hope that whichever group winds up being disenfranchised will find him by comparison a more reasonable alternative than their intraparty rival.  The question is not whether or not everyone will flock to him or to Obama from Clinton’s camp, the question is how many based on how this is handled?

Perhaps as a bit of getting all the bad news out on the week’s slowest news day that has bigger headlines, Obama has finally left his church.  The recent impetus appears to have been a sermon by a Catholic priest at the church who was a guest homilist that crossed some line Wright did not or was the straw that broke the camel’s back.  The priest, Fr. Pflager, had sharp criticism of Clinton at Obama’s now ex-church.  Obama has not announced whether he will be switching to a new church or denomination.  It seems unlikely that this will make the Wright issue go away, but Obama is likely to be very careful in selecting his next minister, whomever that may be.

Last, Obama and his team criticized McCain this week for getting his tenses wrong on a matter relating to the Iraq war.  May had the lowest level of troop deaths in the war, with only 20, well down from the 132 high point a year and change ago.  Between that and 3 major cities being transitioned to primarily Iraqi control, McCain noted that the war is going well, invited Obama to come see for himself and speak with Amb. Crocker and General Petraeus, and noted that we are now reducing troops to the pre-surge level.  The pre-surge level will not be reached, however, for another 4-6 weeks, and Obama’s team felt McCain’s statement was misleading.

McCain thinks so too.  He has ignored Clinton and taken fire at Obama for being more willing to meet with the leaders of rogue states such as Ahmadinejad than our own leaders in Iraq such as Amb. Crocker and General Petraeus.  He invited Obama to go with him to Iraq to see for himself that Obama’s “facts” on Iraq are wrong, but Obama dismissed it as a political stunt.  McCain’s team has noted it has been nearly 2 years since Obama has been to Iraq, but Obama stated that if he goes to Iraq, it will not be with McCain.  McCain also took fire at Obama for still not having held a single meeting on the subcommittee he chairs overseeing operations in Afghanistan.  Obama fired back at McCain stating that Iraq is diverting necessary troops and agricultural experts from Afghanistan. 

Obama right hand man David Axelrod has continued to call McCain’s advisor Charlie Black a powerful corporate lobbyist.  To date, it is clear that Black has lobbied in the past, but it does not yet appear there is any indication Black is lobbying now or has influenced the McCain campaign on behalf of his former clients.  McCain’s camp noted that Axelrod is also a lobbyist, as are many members of Obama’s team.  On the ethics issues of campaign finance, dealing with lobbyists, non-cooperation with earmarks, McCain has a bit of teflon from criticism from Obama since he has taken far less corporate money and has pledged to veto and fight earmarks as President, as he has done in the Senate.  This probably is not going to be a winning theme for Obama who also has still to live down McCain taking public money while he is not going to after having promised that he would.  It became apparent this week that Obama is set on not taking public money as he urged his donors to not give to independent groups but to focus their donations on his campaign so that they can focus their message.