Veepstakes Bleed Blue

It may be a moot point, but before March 4, I feel that it is necessary to finish up my Veepstakes analysis.  The Democratic race, as you know from reading some of my earlier posts, may very well end if Barack Obama wins either Texas or Ohio on Tuesday.  If Hillary Clinton wins both states, then she regains some of the momentum she lost following Super Tuesday, and the race goes on to Pennsylvania and possibly the convention.

If Clinton pulls off what would now be considered a stunning upset, she will have a interesting choice to make for Vice President.  The first consideration is actually a lack of one; Clinton will not need to nominate a strong, well-experienced advisor.  She’s got Bill, and putting a strong, opinionated voice on the ticket could very well cause a clash and rift within a Clinton White House.  Therefore, if she does nominate an experienced candidate, it will have to be someone who understands that he will have to wait his turn.

The next consideration is that, against McCain, Clinton has a problem with independents, and she may have to cover her right flank.  Independents tacking towards McCain is a weakness specifically a problem for Clinton, who is one of the most polarizing politicians in the country with both sides having largely made up their minds about her.  Clinton would need to put someone who, while clearly a Democrat, has broad, cross-party appeal.

Coupled with the above consideration is that Clinton will most likely struggle in a general election to move well beyond the states Al Gore and John Kerry have won in the last two elections.  Therefore, there will be pressure to pick a candidate from Ohio, Florida, Virginia, or the Southwest.  I personally believe that picking a running mate based on that person being able to deliver his or her home state is a fallacy, and can lead a presidential nominee to ignore more salient characteristics that define a good running mate.  If a candidate would need a one state strategy when picking a running mate, however, it would be Clinton.

So, we are left with a nominee who has cross-party appeal who is not terribly experienced or willing to play second fiddle, and possibly comes from a swing state or region.  However, she may have to pick Barack Obama regardless of any of these considerations.  A strong minority of Obama supporters are fervent, almost cult-like in their adoration of him.  There is a real danger that Clinton leading the ticket would alienate these voters, and they will stay home.  Obama as Vice President would largely heal these wounds, and provide Democrats with a very bright future for a full generation.

Ralph Nader: Who Cares

I received this instant message from a friend yesterday, one day after Ralph Nader declared he is running (again) for the presidency:

“I hate Ralph Nader.”

I do not hate Ralph Nader. I am, however, disappointed by him. I do not buy the argument that Nader “stole” the election from Al Gore in 2000 – the Supreme Court, Katherine Harris, and his own incompetence did the trick, and if you can’t pull enough votes away from a guy who can’t win, well, maybe it was meant to be. I have a fundamental problem with Nader’s candidacy – it is a lie.

Ralph Nader may enjoy the idea of being president, but that is not why he is running. In the mold of such recent titans of the political world as Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Tom Tancredo, Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes, Al Sharpton, etc., Nader has something to say, and he wants people to hear it. Also like the aforementioned “candidates”, Nader knows he cannot win. Nader therefore fakes a presidential bid in order to get attention for his platform, attention he could not get without the moniker of “presidential candidate Ralph Nader.”

There is a sad concession in these types of candidacies. These politicians concede that, on their own, their base of support is too small to have their voices heard without the presidential run. That is why all of the aforementioned politicians will not be heard from again once they stop running for president. With the other candidates, this conclusion is obvious. What is so disappointing about Nader is that he seems to actively marginalize himself with these ill-fated “campaigns” of futility. Nader had so much support amongst disillusioned lefties, hardcore environmentalists, and anti-corporate libertarians, that he could have wielded a little bit of clout in 2008. Now, he’s just another guy in the way of the real candidates, and joins the white noise machine of dissent mongers who will bang on the doors of the debates, demanding a seat at the table while the meal goes on without them.

McCain v. NY Times: Public Editor Weighs In

I discussed the New York Times story regarding McCain’s ties to lobbyists in last Thursday’s post, and promised to continue the discussion once the Public Editor of the Times voiced his opinion. You can read the whole article here, but I have provided excerpts:

The newspaper found itself in the uncomfortable position of being the story as much as publishing the story, in large part because, although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics — sex — it offered readers no proof that McCain and Iseman had a romance. Upon reflection, I think the Times could have gotten around this whole thing by, in part, stating in the article that it could not confirm the romance actually occurred, and then reiterate that it was only discussing the perceptions of the former McCain staff members.

The article was notable for what it did not say: It did not say what convinced the advisers that there was a romance. It did not make clear what McCain was admitting when he acknowledged behaving inappropriately — an affair or just an association with a lobbyist that could look bad. And it did not say whether Weaver, the only on-the-record source, believed there was a romance. The Times did not offer independent proof, like the text messages between Detroit’s mayor and a female aide that The Detroit Free Press disclosed recently, or the photograph of Donna Rice sitting on Gary Hart’s lap. Or the Linda Tripp tapes. Or the instant messages between Mark Foley and the page. There is such a long line of precedent for how much information the newspaper needs to provide to substantiate a claim about a politician’s sexual habits, and the Times ignored it all.

A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide.

The stakes are just too big. As the flamboyant Edwin Edwards of Louisiana once said, “The only way I can lose this election is if I’m caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy.” I do think the placement of the implicit allegation had a lot to do with the furor. Bob Novak outed Valerie Plame in the middle of a column, but he purposefully buried the outing of a CIA agent in order to maintain plausible deniability that his only agenda was a partisan hit job on Joseph Wilson. If the Times had placed its discussion of McCain and the lobbyist in the middle, and provided the necessary caveats I outlined above, its claim that the story was primarily about McCain’s professional ties to lobbyists would have been much more believable.

In the final analysis, this is the best thing that could have happened to the McCain campaign short of something coming out against Barack Obama. The story rallies the base around McCain, with the wagons circling to protect its nominee from the dreaded, liberal New York Times. The lack of real information in the article also inoculates McCain from his personal past, particularly the dissolution of his first marriage, because all of that will now seem fruit of the poisonous tree. The lobbying ties may provide some difficulties down the road, but they will regardless of the substance of this article; there is a ton of time between now and November for McCain’s record to be evaluated.

The Oscars Proved It

I still can’t figure out women.

I’m also finding out my gut is a sore winner (see: Best Actress).

Other than that, not too bad.  I did CNN’s Oscar prediction game, and ranked 889th out of 11751.

Oscars!

Hollywood’s big night is tonight. What makes the Oscars so great? Let’s take a look:

What the celebrities are doing

1) Wearing unbelievably expensive clothing… once.

2) Reading from teleprompters with the charisma and flair of Al Gore circa 2000. These guys are actors, right?

3) Smiling that totally believable, sincere Hollywood smile. Especially when that other guy wins.

4) Trying to get on camera.

5) Handing golden statues of some naked guy to other celebrities.

6) Talking to Ryan Seacrest. Or Joan Rivers. Or… is Kathy Griffin still doing this bit?

7) Not being on my television until 10:00, when they start doing the real awards (sorry, best costume design).

Not getting Jon Stewart’s humor. Anyone think Matthew McConaughey is going to get the joke about CNN’s flying pie chart? Or John McCain’s flip-flop on torture?

Now, for the predictions. I haven’t seen a fair number of these movies, so some of these predictions are based on speculation from what critics have said about the movie, it’s performance at the box office, subject matter, and, my most reliable source, my gut.

Best Supporting Actor – Javier Bardem (“No Country for Old Men”). It is a tossup between him and Tom Wilkinson from “Michael Clayton.” Bardem’s character has the advantage of catching on in the popular culture. Isn’t that right, friend-o?

Best Supporting Actress – Amy Ryan (“Gone Baby Gone”). Ryan actually did are fair amount of publicity for this movie, including The Tonight Show, despite being an unknown in a movie directed by Ben Affleck and starring his brother and Morgan Freeman. Ruby Dee could get this, as well, for her work in “American Gangster.”

Best Actor – Daniel Day Lewis (“There Will Be Blood”). Maybe the best performance I have ever seen. Lewis took a movie that was almost three hours long, had no dialog for the first 20 minutes, and did not particularly care about coherence of plot, and was able to keep me totally captivated throughout. I was actually hoping it would keep going, even though my thigh muscles had begun to atrophy. The surest best among all the major awards, with Tommy Lee Jone from “In the Valley of Elah” as being the only real other contender.

Best Actress – Julie Christie (“Away From Her”). This was a very tough choice, since only Ellen Page is nominated from a movie that got a best picture nomination, and it is also the only one I have seen. However, Christie’s performance has gotten fantastic reviews, and the Academy, which had been in a bit of a rut lately with giving the award to actresses under 35, seems ready to move to expand its horizons. I am ignoring my gut on this prediction, to be honest, which is screaming Marion Cotillard from “La Vie en Rose.”

Best Adapted Screenplay – No Country for Old Men. This award may be the best predictor of the Best Picture nod, with “No Country” going up against “Blood” and “Atonement.” However, a win here may not mean the ultimate success, particularly since the “No Country” does not have a nomination in the Best Actor category, possibly indicating that “No Country” left a little to be desired. If either “Away From Her” or “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” win, then look for a potential major upset in Best Picture.

Best Original Screenplay – Juno. If “Michael Clayton” gets the award, they should give it to the screenwriters for “The Rainmaker” or “A Civil Action” or “And Justice For All” or any of the hundreds of lawyer movies where the protagonist finds the religion of ethics in the end. Which means it will probably win. However, I’m sticking with “Juno” and it’s ability to turn teenage pregnancy into a witty, light-hearted, warm, feel-good movie for the whole family.

Best Director – Joel and Ethan Cohen (“No Country for Old Men”). I hope Paul Thomas Anderson gets real consideration for this award. After getting Tom Cruise to the point where he was nominated for an Oscar, and Adam Sandler to the point where he could legitimately be seen as a dramatic actor, clearly he has an ability to get the best performance possible out of his actors. However, I feel the momentum building for “No Country,” which leads to…

Best Picture – No Country for Old Men. My predictions may not make it seem like the truth, but this is a wide open race this year. “Atonement” took the Golden Globe in the same category. “There Will Be Blood” clearly has the best performance. “Juno” will be the popular choice, and has had by far the most box office success in the U.S. out of the five. “Michael Clayton” got fantastic reviews from the critics, although I’m not sure why, and has Hollywood darling George Clooney. However, “No Country” has the iconic character, the respected Cohen brothers who seem to have put out their best work, and late momentum.

Disagree? Let me know.

Prevent Defense II/McCain v. NY Times

I apologize for the delay between posts, but I was in Portland all weekend, and then have been at death’s door (or, at least, circling in death’s cul de sac) with this nasty bug that is going around Seattle.  Still sick, so the post will be short, but I felt it necessary.

Prevent Defense: I have had a couple of you bring up recent polls showing that the gap in Texas has closed dramatically between Clinton and Obama, and the two are now in a virtual dead heat in the Lone Star State.  Meanwhile, while the gap has narrowed, Obama still trails by a decent margin in Ohio.  HA!  See, leaving Texas behind doesn’t make sense! my critics have proclaimed with glee.  Well, I reply, my strategy doesn’t change.  Just switch out “Ohio” for “Texas” if it looks like Texas is the better bet.  Even Bill Clinton said that Hillary won’t be able to keep going if she doesn’t win BOTH Texas and Ohio, so Obama should make it that much more difficult for her to win both by making a strong play in his best state.  Summary: fundamentals of strategy don’t change, only the state does (if the polls are right.  Demographically, I still have to think that Ohio is a more favorable state.  At this point, though, with the way the race has been playing out, I wouldn’t be surprised if both the prevent defense and the blitz would work.  Obama is on a roll).

McCain v. NY Times: The New York Times dropped a bombshell yesterday, implying that John McCain had an inappropriate (read: sexual) relationship with a lobbyist during his presidential run in 2000.  I normally would side with the New York Times, particularly since I believe it’s conservative critics judge the whole paper by it’s editorial page commentary and ignore the largely objective reporting that it does.  However, in this instance, the paper was wrong to run the story that it did, even if it comes out with more facts down the road.  The only time a paper should run a story that even implies a candidate for president had an extramarital affair is when they’ve got it dead to rights; anything short of that besmirches the personal integrity of a politician through rumor and innuendo, which is the tabloids’ purview.  The article raises legitimate concerns regarding McCain’s professional ties to lobbyists, and I am interested in learning more about the Keating Five and the savings and loan scandal.  However, the lead paragraphs of this article discuss McCain’s personal life, and the New York Times should have been much more careful with how it handled this aspect of the story.  I look forward to reading the Times ombudsman’s analysis of this article, and the events leading up to it (apparently, the Times was under pressure to publish the article because the New Republic was set to run a story about internal turmoil at the Times specifically regarding the McCain piece).

Note: The Washington Post has a story on it’s website regarding the lobbyist, but keeps the story to McCain’s professional ties with the lobbyist and discusses the possible romantic involvement only to say that it is what the New York Times reported.

Prevent Defense

I have had this conversation with a couple of people already. Now that Obama has won Maryland, DC, and Virginia by wide margins, on the heels of equally convincing victories in Washington, Louisiana, Nebraska, the Virgin Islands, and Maine (that makes eight), and with two more convincing wins expected in Wisconsin and Hawaii, what should the Obama strategy be going into the March 4 states? Why the March 4 states? This is Clinton’s “firewall” of Texas and Ohio, and wins in both those states stops Obama’s momentum in its tracks. The debate I have had has boiled down to two schools of thought:

Rack up delegates: This strategy looks at Obama’s delegate lead, which has grown considerably, takes a look at the remaining states, and determines that, if Obama can minimize the damage in Texas and Ohio, he can be almost assured to win the pledged delegates. Therefore, while Ohio is important, Obama should spend a significant amount of time in favorable and swing congressional districts in Texas, and hope that he can keep the delegate count close in the Lone Star State. I call this strategy the “prevent defense,” which should give you an idea of what I think of it. It’s strength is also it’s weakness: it’s looks ahead all the way to the convention. Obama, with this strategy, would be playing it safe, trying to hold onto his delegate lead and make the decision difficult for the superdelegates, who may have a hard time going against a pledged delegate majority. Essentially, this strategy is based on the assumption that a victory in pledged delegates, especially one of 100 or more, should more or less guarantee Obama will get the nomination.

Attack: This is also the “blitz” strategy, and the one I would employ if I were czar of the Obama campaign. My belief is that Clinton cannot justify continuing her campaign if she loses Texas or Ohio.  Therefore, since Texas is a really tough state for Obama to win, he should concentrate his efforts on Ohio.  I mean, really, really concentrate on Ohio.  Every day spent in Austin, Dallas, or Houston is a day Obama doesn’t get local press coverage for getting 15,000 at an area in Columbus, or 10,000 in Toledo, or 20,000 in Cleveland.  He can win Ohio, which is demographically more favorable than Texas, and if he does, he wins the nomination.  No convention, no tough decision for superdelegates, no worrying about some event happening between now and Denver that changes the political landscape.  Furthermore, Obama still has the resources to do a ton of groundwork in Texas, and he can still make a couple of stops in districts where he can do some good.  Hillary has to make a play in both states, while Obama needs to win only one.  Go for broke in Ohio, and if it doesn’t work out and he gets blown out in Texas while narrowly losing Ohio, the narrative will not be much different than if he lost both states by closer margins.  Clinton’s got 3rd and long, her team is on it’s heels.  Blitz.

Is Clinton Finished?

I’m going to try something new: an open thread.  I will give my opinion tomorrow, but I pose the question to you, first.  Simply, is the Democratic presidential race over?  Is Obama more than simply the frontrunner, but now the presumptive nominee?  Let’s hear it.

Wrong Side of My Twenties

Oh, well.

Guest Poster!

From Chauncey. This post comes on the heels of Super Tuesday, but considering the results from last night (Obama cleaning up in Virginia, DC, and Maryland), I don’t see how his analysis would be any different. (Sorry about the formatting, but I’m still getting the hang of WordPress)

The Expectations Game & Where We Go From Here

 

Don’t let anybody tell you the Clintons aren’t good at this “politics” thing. They are playing the expectations game like champs, having saddled Obama with the expectation that he win every primary & caucus before March 4^th. That’s not to say that Obama can’t win all the states before March 4^th, but the Clinton’s may succeed in blunting the momentum he receives from winning states that he’s “supposed to win.”

 

What happened on “Super Tuesday” is a prime example of the Clintons’ expectations game prowess. Tuesday could have been positioned as a clear-cut victory for Obama, but the story of the Obama “surge” prevented that possibility.

 

Of course, the Clinton’s are not primarily responsible for Obama’s artificially high expectations going into “Super Tuesday” – the media crush, his fundraising totals, and the Zogby California polls (all of which are out of his control) are responsible – but the Clintons get credit for successfully managing expectations.

 

Fostering the impression that Senator Clinton is “on the ropes” is a dangerous game (see; New Hampshire), and that’s why the Obama camp is doing its best to steer clear of it.

 

The current story of Clinton’s “financial distress,” is being used as an effective (short-term) fundraising tool, and also plays into their narrative of Obama now being the front-runner, which some media figures are picking up.

 

That beings said, if the best thing you got going for yourself at the moment is the ability to manage expectations, you are not where you want to be. The Clintons premised their campaign on inevitability, and were hoping that they could have put this thing out of reach yesterday.

 

The Clinton strategy now seems to be to survive until March 4^th, and to have enough cash to win in Texas and Ohio. “Surviving” until March 4^th may require her to win a state or two, and Maine and Virginia look like her best chances (see WashPo’s nice analysis of the February contests here). This strategy can certainly be successful, but it is also dangerous. If Obama does in fact win every contest between now and March 4^th, his momentum may very well carry him to wins in both Texas and Ohio. If that happens, it’s a checkmate. But if Clinton does do well on March 4^th, all eyes will be on Pennsylvania. Lacking a decisive victory there by either party, we could very well be looking at a stalemate.