US Presidential Race 2008: February 2008 Archives

I'm always amazed by how short sighted we can be in the media. I freely admit that generally speaking, when the masses tend to agree on something, they're generally right. But consensus does not always equal correct, especially when it comes to politics. Right now, I think most of us can agree that a large amount of the media attention in the US Presidential race is focused on Barack Obama.
The junior Senator from Illinois has captured the attention of the media, given that he's A)black, B)camera-friendly, C)creating a lot of buzz with the younger generation, which - these days - comprises a good chunk of the demographic of the people in the media (the Walter Cronkite-types no longer rule the airwaves). As such, the media tends to gravitate toward covering him. But, as Zhongnanhai's Cam can well attest, (sorry buddy), making predictions about who is going to be the next US President at this point would be a ridiculous venture. We're only approaching March. November is a long way away. And in politics, the fortunes of any one particular candidate can change in a heartbeat. One can't deny that Obama does have the forward momentum in the race for the Democratic nomination. But, as Mitt Romney's campaign well showed, shots of momentum do not make a campaign. And even if Obama does make it through the Democratic nomination ahead of Clinton, he's still got a tough fight ahead of him against the senior statesman McCain (I know the irony of me pre-nominating McCain for the Republican nomination in this particular post, but at this point, betting against him to win would be like betting against the Harlem Globetrotters).

So to my colleagues in the media, I posit this thought: Punditry is fun. But ask any odds maker, and they'll tell you that it's perhaps not always wise to bet on the favorite, especially when credibility is the only bargaining chip you've got.

This is a post in a series focusing on the US Presidential race. As the 2008 campaign has global implications, the writers at Zhongnanhai will be occasionally posting on this topic. You can read more of our coverage by clicking here

This guy has about as much political sense as the cartoon character that share's his first name on The Simpsons! Ralph Nader has once again thrown his dumb ass into the US Presidential race. This man, who must realize that he has absolutely no hope in hell of winning a single Electoral College vote, let alone the election, has decided to waste more of his supporter's money, which should actually be used to treat whatever mental disorder they're obviously suffering from. This man has become such a political liability that he now has the term "Effect" attached to his name. If you're unfamiliar who Ralph Nader is, let me rustle up a short bio for you.

Mr. Nader, who is actually a Harvard Law School grad, if you can believe it, has unsuccessfully run for US President four times already, and is getting ready to fail for a 5th straight time. A left-wing activist, Nader became a well known consumer rights advocate who gained his notoriety by taking on the auto industry over safety concerns. And, though it loathes me to say so, the guy did a pretty good job as a consumer campaigner, and actually helped some innocent victims of consumer products get compensation. But Mr. Nader is best known as the guy who basically handed George W. Bush the election in 2000. Flashback to the days of the dangling CHAD if you would, please. It was the 97,421 ill informed, likely mentally unstable people in Florida (likely in the Everglades) who marked their X (which was likely very close to the signatures on their welfare forms) for Nader. Mr. Nader's supporters - if he wasn't around - would likely have voted Democrat. And those votes would likely have been enough to give Florida to Democrat Al Gore, and thus, would have put him into the White House. Hence the term the Nader Effect.

So should the Republican's be lining up to fund this guy's campaign this go round? I don't really think so. I suspect that Democrats and left-leaning social activists have actually learned their lesson from 2000, and are not going to bother spoiling their ballots by casting a vote for a 3rd party candidate. As such, I really don't see the Nader Effect wreaking havoc on the election this year like it did in 2000. So best of luck, Ralph! I'm sure there's some tattooed nimrod somewhere that's probably jumping for joy at your announcement to run again this year. And hey, who knows, 5th time could be the charm?!?

This is a post in a series focusing on the US Presidential race. As the 2008 campaign has global implications, the writers at Zhongnanhai will be occasionally posting on this topic. You can read more of our coverage by clicking here

My head continues to spin as we move closer to the day when the Clintons are finally dispatched from Presidential politics (I can only assume she won't run again in 2012, especially against the incumbent President Obama) and the Illinoisian (is that right?) Obama lines up for the main event against Arizona Senator John McCain.

Obama is on a roll. He's won 11 consecutive primaries and caucuses, including the overseas American primary. (And we know that he has ample support here in Beijing). As I've said before, I tend to like Barack Obama. At least, I like what I've seen of him. He has a grand vision for the country. He wants to unite the red and blue states behind his leadership. He wants to bring equality to everyone, and change to Washington. I would reckon even most Republican voters would agree with him on all of those points. But after all of these feel-good platitudes, what do we have left? Nothing. Yet.

Barack Obama has been given the largest free pass that I've ever witnessed in presidential politics. Those who wanted more scrutiny paid to Bush and his National Guard documents, Clinton and her income taxes, or McCain and his pseudo-mistress lobbyist private-airplane friend, seem to recoil when Obama is put under the spotlight. Those who criticize him are "divisive", represent "old-style politics", and might even be "racist".

The reason I bring this up is because I respect many of Obama's supporters. Many of my friends follow the news daily, read up on their politics, and can comment with an informed skepticism on Chinese affairs, the US trade deficit, and the Pakistani elections. But many of these same people have no problem blindly following a politician who's given them not a whole lot to follow. Whatever fairy dust Obama is sprinkling on these people, I'd like to know what it is.

Despite this easy ride, some say things are beginning to change for the good Senator. I read an editorial a while back, and I've been unable to find the link (my apologies), which stated that Obama's wave is cresting. A politician can not sustain a two-year long campaign on lofty rhetoric alone, and will need to alter his strategy and throw some policy meat to his skeptics (those few that exist) before people begin to tire of his empty repitition.

Karl Rove, who is much disliked despite his strategic brilliance, believes we've hit the turning point, following an Obama speech in which he outlined some broad left-leaning policy goals:

Mr. McCain can now question Mr. Obama's promise to change Washington by working across party lines. Mr. Obama hasn't worked across party lines since coming to town. Was he a member of the "Gang of 14" that tried to find common ground between the parties on judicial nominations? Was Mr. Obama part of the bipartisan leadership that tackled other thorny issues like energy, immigration or terrorist surveillance legislation? No. Mr. Obama has been one of the most dependably partisan votes in the Senate.

Mrs. Clinton can do much more to draw attention to Mr. Obama's lack of achievements. She can agree with Mr. Obama's statement Tuesday night that change is difficult to achieve on health care, energy, poverty, schools and immigration -- and then question his failure to provide any leadership on these or other major issues since his arrival in the Senate. His failure to act, advocate or lead on what he now claims are his priorities may be her last chance to make a winning argument.

Chris Matthews, a self-described Democrat and a man hailed as a fan of Obama ("I felt this thrill going up my leg"), has also finally decided to ask some tough questions. He had Texas State Senator Kirk Watson, an Obama supporter, on his program this week. When Matthews asked him the simple and fair question - What has Obama accomplished as a legislator? - he had no answer (you can view the video here - warning: it can be painful):

MSNBC's Chris Matthews: "You are a big Barack supporter, right, Senator?"

State Sen. Watson: "I am. Yes, I am."

Matthews: "Well, name some of his legislative accomplishments. No, Senator, I want you to name some of Barack Obama's legislative accomplishments tonight if you can."

State Sen. Watson: "Well, you know, what I will talk about is more about what he is offering the American people right now."

Matthews: "No. No. What has he accomplished, sir? You say you support him. Sir, you have to give me his accomplishments. You've supported him for president. You are on national television. Name his legislative accomplishments, Barack Obama, sir."

State Sen. Watson: "Well, I'm not going to be able to name you specific items of legislative accomplishments."

Matthews: "Can you name any? Can you name anything he's accomplished as a Congressman?"

State Sen. Watson: "No, I'm not going to be able to do that tonight."

Matthews: "Well, that is a problem isn't it?"

One commenter, on the Huffington Post, sums up his feelings after watching the video:

Chris Matthews isn't my hero now that he has finally put Obama under the microscope. He should have been doing it all along. As regards [to] Obama's record: I am still waiting to know what, if anything, he has authored and passed in the U.S. Senate. Usually I am treated to a list the bills he co-sponsed in Illinois. Apparently some Obama backers are banking on the fact that most Americans won't notice the difference between being in the Illinois state senate and the U.S. Senate. Hillary has authored twenty pieces of legislation that has passed into law....in the United States Senate. Not co-sponsered.... authored. Obama's legislative record is very thin, by any standard, and Chris had every right to point that out. If we shouldn't care about the resume of a man that would be President, who's resume should we care about? Not that I think any of this will cause any Obama supporter to think twice. They reject the idea that they are "cultish". Strange, since they demonstrate slavish devotion to Obama and are impervious to arguments based on reason and common sense. "Change" and "hope" are held up as cure-alls. Objectivity is treated like Kryptonite.

Despite these, Obama is now roughly tied with Senator Clinton according to the latest polls in the State of Texas. The Obama train keeps rolling, and even if Clinton can pull out victories in Ohio and Texas, her "final stand" according to her husband, that would merely keep her in the race. She'd still face an uphill climb to the nomination.

Meanwhile on the Republican side, Senator McCain has been blindsided by what could hardly be called journalism on the front page of the New York Times. The article, for those who haven't seen it, basically says McCain may or may not have been influenced by a lobbyist, and may or may not have been romantically involved with her. The Old Grey Lady had been sitting on the piece since last year, and only published it after it learned the New Republic would go ahead with their own story about the Times holding the story.

It was shoddy journalism. If Barack Obama is against this "old-style" politics, why doesn't he say something about the way McCain was treated? Even long-time readers of the Times, according to today's letters section, were embarassed by the writing. Obama can dismiss criticism against himself as "old-style" and "divisive", yet his silence indicates that he welcomes it when used against his political rivals.

This post, and this previous one, may seem critical of Barack Obama. In part, they are. But I don't think I've written anything unfair. Barack Obama may well be a ground-breaking President that changes America for the better. But as of today, he has told us very little about what he would do other than simple platitudes, rhetoric, and cliches. I'm embarassed that so many otherwise intelligent people have fallen so easily for the sweet nothings Obama has been whispering.

I am not an American, and thus can't vote in November (I'm sure the Obama fans just breathed a sigh of relief). I don't know who I would vote for if I could. The job as the Commander in Chief of the world's most powerful and influential country is a big one. I need to see concrete evidence the person is ready enough, mature enough, strong enough, and capable enough to take on the job. I also want to know what that person would do when he or she sits down for the first time in the Oval Office. I think everyone can agree this is fair request -- and we've haven't received any answers yet from Senator Obama.

This is a post in a series focusing on the US Presidential race. As the 2008 campaign has global implications, the writers at Zhongnanhai will be occasionally posting on this topic. You can read more of our coverage by clicking here.

This is a question I'm sure the Clinton campaign has been asking for months now. The current state of their two campaigns, during their speeches tonight, have never been so stark; Clinton at a school in Youngstown, Ohio, promising to be ready on "day one", and vowing that she is the most qualified person to be Commander in Chief.

Then the networks cut to Barack Obama, who, contrary to political etiquette, jumped on stage while Senator Clinton was mid-speech. He was in the Toyota Center in Houston filled with 20,000 roaring fans (his estimate). The scene was like a rock concert, and in comparison, made Clinton seem like she was delivering a eulogy rather than a stump. Perhaps she was.

Obama now has major momentum, and the question is how to stop him. I don't raise this question because I dislike Senator Obama, but rather because there is currently high-priced PR talent on both the Clinton and McCain campaigns trying to answer it themselves. What on Earth are they telling their candidates?

Some politicians seem to repel criticism like teflon, but everytime Obama seems to be criticized, even in the most polite forms, it seems to backfire on those levelling the charges. Anytime the Clintons raise even the smallest issue, it is turned around as "old-style" and "divisive" politics, exactly the kind of politics Obama is campaigning against. The criticisms give more fuel to Obama's main argument.

The strategy to attack his oratory seems to have had minimal results, if any. Obama is offering hope, his opponents, if they choose to attack, represent those dark and evil forces that fear change in America. True or not, that seems to be how the electorate sees it.

Consider the lines of attack the Clinton campaign has used on Obama:

1. Bill's famous outbursts in South Carolina, claiming Obama's campaign is a "fairy tale".
2. Hillary drawing a line between speeches that raise hope, and deeds the get results.
3. Obama is not experienced enough to handle complex foreign policy matters in a time of war.
4. Obama's healthcare plan isn't as comprehensive as Clinton's, and would leave 15 million Americans without coverage.

Then there are the smaller issues, like Clinton's claim that Obama plagiarized parts of his speeches, and the McCain campaign making hay with Michelle Obama's comments that this is the first time in her adult life that she's been proud of America.

So what's sticking? I'd argue none of it, although it remains to be seen how much the GOP can milk out of Michelle's words. But as Dick Morris said on Fox News tonight, nobody has ever gained momentum by attacking a candidate's wife.

The New York Times explains that the Clinton campaign knows it has to begin shedding a negative light on Obama:

Clinton advisers, acknowledging that they must change the course of the campaign by defining Mr. Obama in negative terms for voters, said they intended to try to draw sharper contrasts by highlighting what Mrs. Clinton believes are his biggest weaknesses: his readiness to be commander in chief, and his support for a health care plan that would not initially seek to cover all Americans.

Yet Mr. Obama's advisers plan to continue making the case that after nine consecutive victories, many by large margins, Democratic and many independent voters are speaking clearly that Mr. Obama is their choice, and that the party should begin coalescing around him.

Mrs. Clinton's team features some major campaign strategists, such as James Carville and Paul Begala, so it's telling that even they have been unable to make serious dents in Obama's support.

So, PR professionals and armchair quarterbacks, what can be done? As likeable as Obama is, nobody should be getting such a blatant free pass. There are legitimate questions about his experience that critics seem timid to raise, because nobody wants to be seen trying to knee-cap America's potentially first black President. Even one of John McCain's senior advisors, Mark McKinnon, says he can't continue to work for the Senator if Obama is the Democratic nominee. Although, he points out, he'd still vote for McCain:

"100%, ... I met Barack Obama, I read his book, I like him a great deal. I disagree with him on very fundamental issues. But I think, as I said, I think it would be a great race for the country and I would simply be uncomfortable being in a campaign that would be inevitably attacking Barack Obama. I think it would be uncomfortable for me, and I think it would be bad for the McCain campaign."

In all of this, I feel slightly badly for John McCain. How is a 71 year old, career civil servant supposed to go up against such a young, brash, eloquent man calling for change in Washington? McCain is not part of Washington's "in crowd", despite portrayals from the Obama campaign. He has also never been a major player in, or supporter of, the Bush administration. But charges from the Obama campaign that he represents the status quo and is yesterday's man, in my opinion, will stick. It's just too bad, because McCain has a 20-year long career in the Senate calling for change. A fine statesman has finally made it to the big dance, only to be up against an historical candidate that will be extremely tough, if not impossible, to beat. Where's John Kerry when you need him?

I rarely (in fact, this is the first time) agree with Rush Limbaugh, but he has often stated that people like Obama because they can project their hopes and dreams on him. Obama represents a blank slate: he has authored no major legislation in the Senate. He has been a part of no major votes. He talks in uplifting phrases, saying there are no red and blue states, only the United States. This is powerful stuff, and it does instill one with confidence and hope going forward. But at some point, the rubber is going to hit the road. Obama will have to make actual decisions, he'll inevitably disagree with his GOP colleagues, and may even make choices that upset some of the very Democrats that are currently supporting him. When the rubber hits the road, what choices will he make? What does he stand for? Where does he draw the line? At what point does he forego cooperation to push forward the principles he believes in? In fact, what exactly does he believe in, besides platitudes and rhetoric? As long as he doesn't have to answer these questions, Obama can continue to be the candidate who supports whatever you support.

So, dear readers, I ask you. How do you campaign against Obama? How do you gain traction for your arguments, and slow his momentum? What is the messaging that will resonate with Americans, and make them reconsider whether Obama is fit and/or ready to be President? I will certainly think more about it, but I welcome responses.

This is a post in a series focusing on the US Presidential race. As the 2008 campaign has global implications, the writers at Zhongnanhai will be occasionally posting on this topic. You can read more of our coverage by clicking here.