-
sponsorship
A few weeks back, we tried to pre-empt the inevitable quest for this year’s group of easily labeled swing voters by tossing out a few candidates for the Soccer Moms of 2008 award. Among them were “Ageist Grannies”—seniors who judge candidates of their own generation more harshly than they judge others. Turns out we weren’t too far off.
The other day, Clinton pollster Mark Penn coined a new buzz group: “active grannies.” He defines them as “empty-nesters who have found a new freedom in their lives after the kids have left and who look at the world very differently than do their kids graduating college.” Some of these folks are attracted to Obama because of his proposed tax breaks for seniors and his Social Security and health care plans. Some like McCain because “they believe that the country has had a fundamental break in values from the past.”
Here’s an even easier way to think about this cute new group: old people. Penn attributes their strength mostly to demographics. Large numbers of seniors live in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. And over the past two decades, they make up an increasingly large portion of the electorate. So it’s not really the formation of a new group. (What qualifies these people as “active” is unclear.) It’s the growth of an old one.
Also, as Penn points out, this group has apparently chosen every president (or at least every winner of the popular vote) for the past 40 years. In other words, they’ve been swing voters for decades. Why the big fuss this year?
-
sponsorship
As we mentioned yesterday, thousands of people every month are visiting Obama.com expecting to find Barack Obama's campaign website. Instead, they find a Japanese site full of links for loans and hair transplants.
Thanks to the Web analytics firm Compete, we can begin to get an idea of how many eyeballs this is costing the Obama campaign. Compete provided Slate with "downstream" data--where people went after visiting Obama.com--for the 100,000-plus people who visited the site in June of the year:
- 21 percent went directly BarackObama.com.
- 40 percent went to a search engine.
- 17 percent tried another incorrect URL for Obama's site.
- 22 percent gave up and went elsewhere.
Of those 17 percent who took a second guess and failed, barakobama.com and barrackobama.com were the biggest attractions, both of which redirect to a Google search for the correct spelling of Obama's name. Obama.org and Obamma.com also show up.
As Slate's Paul Boutin has written before, Web analytics data is fungible. (Just ask Google.) But we can safely assume from these numbers that a failure to proactively register a wide variety of misspellings and alternate URLs is costing the campaign tens of thousands of page views a month. I presume that neither campaign needs my advice that every page view counts.
-
sponsorship
John McCain’s tax policy has come under fire in the past, particularly for its dependence on huge revenue windfalls to balance the budget. But now a new study from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center (a joint venture between Brookings and the Urban Institute) suggests there’s another flaw: a rhetoric gap.
According to the study, the tax plan McCain’s campaign laid out privately is different from the one he’s selling on the stump. If you include the policies he has advocated publicly—such as repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax, increasing the dependent exemption to $7,000 right away, and reducing the corporate tax rate to 25 percent immediately—then the deficit after 10 years would actually be $2.8 trillion greater than if you go by his private plan. There’s also a rhetorical gap for Obama, but in his case the public version generates more revenue than the private one, thanks to a suggested hike in payroll taxes for people who make $250,000 or more. (Read the full study here [PDF].)
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain’s chief economic adviser, says the numbers he provided to the TPC aren’t secret—they’re the same ones he provides to anyone who asks. He also disputes the way the study takes suggestions McCain has made on the stump out of context. “This is parsing words out of campaign appearances to an unreasonable degree,” Holtz-Eakin said. “He has certainly I’m sure said things in town halls” that don’t jibe perfectly with his written plan. But that doesn’t mean it’s official. For example, the study compares McCain’s promises on the stump to reduce the corporate tax rate immediately to his plan’s more gradual reduction. Holtz-Eakin objects: “You don’t say, I’d like to reduce it to 28 percent, then 26 percent, then 25 percent, then—no one talks like that on the stump. [You say,] I’d like to get it down to 25 percent.”
In other cases, Holtz-Eakin says, the TPC filled in gaps where the McCain campaign didn’t provide specifics. For example, McCain’s proposed Alternative Simplified Tax, a plan that would let taxpayers opt out of the current system in favor of a simpler two-rate system: “We were honest about the fact that we don’t have a specific proposal,” he said. “They didn’t have one, so they made one up.”
The Tax Policy Center sent the campaign a copy of the study a day before they released it. “Had I read more carefully, I probably would have raised [objections],” Holtz-Eakin said. “But I didn’t.”
-
sponsorship
Is Barack Obama a secret Jew?
-
sponsorship
From the Mississippi Clarion-Ledger:
PARCHMAN—Before he died Wednesday evening, death row inmate Dale Leo Bishop apologized to his victim's family, thanked America and urged people to vote for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.
"For those who oppose the death penalty and want to see it end, our best bet is to vote for Barack Obama because his supporters have been working behind the scenes to end this practice," Bishop said. …
Will Obama reject and denounce?
-
sponsorship
The National Enquirer said on Tuesday that its reporters tailed John Edwards to the Beverly Hilton, where he was allegedly visiting Rielle Hunter. She’s the woman the tabloid has claimed is the mother of Edwards' "love child."
Major media outlets haven’t picked up the story as of yet, presumably because it doesn’t prove Edwards is the father. All it shows is that the ex-senator met Hunter at a hotel in a room reserved under the name of her friend Bob McGovern (whom the Enquirer claims was there with the baby), entered through the basement and took the elevator up so he wouldn’t be seen, and left at 2:40 a.m., only to be accosted and cornered in the bathroom by reporters.
I’m sure there’s a perfectly plausible explanation. In fact, I can think of several:
Edwards met Hunter, who produced videos for the former presidential candidate’s campaign, to shoot a new "webisode" for the series they started last year. This one was going to be about Edwards accepting Barack Obama’s offer to be his running mate. They had to meet in secret at 2 a.m. because Obama didn’t want the news to leak.
Hunter was planning to sue the Enquirer for defamation, and wanted Edwards, an acclaimed trial lawyer, to represent her.
Edwards wanted to confirm the baby was not his but couldn’t be sure until it started growing hair.
A local charity asked Edwards to meet with a single mother who had no health care and couldn’t earn a living wage. He had no idea it would be this one!
Edwards had come to return Hunter’s sari, which she had left the time he came to return her bomber jacket, which she had left the time he came to return her charm bracelet, which she had left the time he came to return her first edition of Pulp’s His 'n' Hers, which she had left on the campaign bus in Reno.
It was a setup by Barack Obama, who needed some new material for his stump speech on deadbeat dads.
It was a setup by Hillary Clinton, who is still determined to knock Edwards out of the Democratic primary.
It was a setup by John Kerry, who doesn’t want Barack Obama to make the same mistake he made.
It was a setup by John McCain, who hates anything to do with the Hilton.
-
sponsorship
It’s still a reasonable assumption that a major organization’s Web site should be its name followed by .com or another relevant suffix. It’s true enough, anyway, that one can usually skip the search engine and guess a big company’s Web site on the first attempt.
Not so for anyone who goes to www.obama.com expecting a dose of change he or she can believe in. My colleague Andy Bouvé at Slate V noticed yesterday that this domain directs the user to a Japanese site registered to a Satoru Obama in Fukuoka, which is in southwest Japan. (The registration actually lists both "Satoru Obama" and "Obama Satoru.")
An auto-translation of the site strongly suggests it’s just a generic default page, with advertisements for loans, insurance, and hair transplants. Saturo has not responded to my email asking whether the Obama campaign has attempted to buy the domain name.
This would be nothing more than novelty but for the fact that, according the Web analytics company Compete.com, nearly 140,000 people visited Obama.com in February. After a dropoff in traffic in the spring, Obama.com rebounded with over 100,000 visitors last month.
By way of comparison, that makes Obama.com more popular than my hometown newspaper, the Daily Progress.
It doesn’t help the Obama campaign that commenters on online forums frequently implore fellow readers to "Go to Obama.com" to read more about the candidate. Sure, no one is going to mistake this site for official Obama campaign content. But how many of those 140,000 people had planned to donate $25 but got confused by their browser’s mangling of the Kanji font? It may not be insignificant.
-
sponsorship
This ad,
created by Ohio
congressional hopeful John Boccieri, dings his opponent for supporting domestic
oil drilling. But it could just as easily be an Obama spot. Obama has
criticized McCain for suggesting that off-shore drilling would ease oil prices
when, in fact, relief at the pump would be many years away.
The 2030 estimate comes from an Energy Department study on offshore drilling. Here’s the full quote: Their
projections “indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic,
and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude
oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no
sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017.”
The assessment doesn’t include the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. McCain recently
said
he opposes drilling in ANWR, but would be open to hearing arguments in favor.
After McCain’s “Pump” ad blaming oil prices on Obama -- a claim that's been widely panned -- Obama needs a good comeback. Cue snarky futuristic Web ad. (Can we suggest a soundtrack?)
And while we're at it, here's another projection: In the year 2030, Obama will still be younger than McCain is now.
-
sponsorship
The latest McCain flub to percolate across the blogs is a statement—made to CBS but not aired—that suggests the surge caused the Anbar Awakening. From the transcript:
Katie Couric: Senator McCain, Senator Obama says, while the increased number of US troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?
McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is as—such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel MacFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history. [emphasis added]
Spencer Ackerman and HuffPo have dug up a quotes from MacFarland and McCain himself to show that it’s the other way around—the "awakening," in which tribal leaders in Anbar province agreed to join forces against al-Qaida, preceded the surge. Here’s one more, from President Bush’s Jan. 10, 2007, address to the nation, in which he announced the surge:
Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders, and they are protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. And as a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to keep up the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan -- and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq. [emphasis added]
Indeed, the awakening was a justification for the surge, not a result of it. That’s not to say the surge didn’t facilitate the awakening’s long-term success. But as far as causation, McCain is just wrong. It wouldn’t be a huge deal if Iraq weren’t his supposed strong suit. His cocky delivery—did he really have to call it a "matter of history"?—makes it all the more absurd.
A statement from McCain’s campaign to the AP addresses the awakening’s post-surge success, but not the timeline problem: "Democrats can debate whether the awakening would have survived without the surge ... but that is nothing more than a transparent effort to minimize the role of our commanders and our troops in defeating the enemy, because to credit them would be to disparage the judgment of Barack Obama and praise the leadership of John McCain."
All this in the week when Obama was supposed to be the vulnerable one.
-
sponsorship
The reviews are in:
Obama’s trip to Iraq
came off without a hitch. John McCain, meanwhile, has managed to attract relentlessly
negative
coverage.
His only break was Drudge touting
his rejected New York Times op-ed,
which wasn’t exactly flattering either. And it’s not just quality of
coverage; it’s quantity, too. Just one
reporter showed up as McCain’s plane landed in Manchester last night.
But it’s hard to complain when Obama’s trip was your
idea in the first place. Back in May, John McCain chided Obama for only
having traveled to Iraq
once. “He could meet Gen. Petraeus and he could meet Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker,
and he could see — he could see the fact that Sadr City
is quiet,” McCain said. “He could see that the Maliki government has taken
control of Basra.
He could see that the Iraqi military is leading the fight in these places with
the support of American troops.” McCain also approved
of a joint trip to Iraq
with Obama.
The RNC piled on, too. “Obama has done shockingly little to
educate himself firsthand about the war in Iraq,” said RNC Chairman Mike
Duncan at the time. “Obama’s failure to visit Iraq, listen and learn firsthand
and witness the surge’s progress demonstrates weak leadership that disqualifies
him from being commander in chief.”
That’s not to say Obama wouldn’t
have taken the trip without pressure from McCain. But the Arizona
senator’s challenge, coming from someone who has visited Iraq eight
times since 2003, surely played a role.
So if the McCain camp is “frustrated”
by the attention being lavished on Obama, you can see why.
-
sponsorship
Over the past year, Barack Obama has spoken out aggressively against private security contractors in Iraq. He proposed legislation to hold these firms accountable for their actions eight months before Blackwater employees killed 17 Iraqi civilians in a square in Haditha. Since then, Obama has acknowledged that groups like Blackwater aren’t going anywhere in the short term. A foreign policy adviser to Obama even said the senator could not "rule out" using private firms in Iraq as president. (If you want to know the ins and outs of private security contracts, The Nation's Jeremy Scahill has written the book, literally, on Blackwater. He has also been pushing hard for Obama to take a stronger stance on the issue.)
So, the $64,000 question: Did Obama rely on private security firms this week during his trip through Afghanistan and Iraq? Apparently not.
When congressional delegations travel to Iraq, they're almost always protected by private security contractors provided by the State Department's Diplomatic Security division. In 2005, the department's Worldwide Personal Protective Services (WPPS) program awarded contracts to three security firms—Blackwater, DynCorps, and Triple Canopy—to protect high-level officials traveling to hot spots like Jerusalem, Kabul, Bosnia, Baghdad, and Kirkuk. WPPS does the vast majority of its business with Blackwater—about $340 million of the $400 million spent annually by WPPS goes to Blackwater, according to one State Department document.
But Obama isn't just any globetrotting senator. He's a presidential nominee, which means all his security arrangements at home and abroad are made not by the State Department but by the Secret Service. The Obama campaign refused to discuss his security detail, but a spokesman for the Secret Service told me that private contractors were not accompanying Obama in Iraq or Afghanistan. "We don't utilize contractors," said spokesman Ed Donovan. "We use military law enforcement and Secret Service."
-
sponsorship
AUSTIN, TEXAS—Samantha Power has kept a low profile ever since leaving the Obama campaign. But she resurfaced Saturday to appear on a panel about “war pundits” at Netroots Nation.
Power no longer speaks for the Obama campaign, at least not officially. But her answer to one question about the “human costs of withdrawal” from Iraq captured the same nuanced view of the war that, in part, forced her resignation. (She left after referring to Obama’s withdrawal plan on British television as a “best-case scenario.” Well, that and calling Hillary Clinton a “monster.”) It also captured a potential split between Obama, who would agree with Power on this one, and his supporters on the left.
During her presentation, Power had spoken about the need to acknowledge that withdrawal could get ugly. Tom Matzzie, former Washington director for MoveOn.org, objected to her “framing.” Here’s the whole exchange (cleaned up a bit for readability):
Tom Matzzie: The question is really about framing, and about building the story about what withdrawal means. The human consequences are something you have to consider, but we can’t help the right build the frame that disengagement is going to have negative humanitarian consequences. … The war’s already a tragedy, you know? That’s why you don’t want to get into them, they’re tragedies. So I’d be interested about how you can revise your language to help not build that right-wing frame. ...
Samantha Power: I don’t feel inclined to revise my frame out of deference to this manifestly moribund discourse that the administration and its supporters inflicted upon us in the course of the last few years.
By avoiding addressing John McCain’s apocalyptic claims about what will follow a U.S. withdrawal, we have allowed his claims to hang above the Iraq debate. When he says, as he said last year, that when we leave Iraq it’s going to make Srebrenica and Rwanda look like a Sunday school picnic—those were his analogies that he used on multiple occasions—and we say, No no, it’s going to be fine, because we don’t want to address that there could be any downside at all to withdrawal, I think we’re giving him a free pass.
I think we can instead say, [look at] all the costs—to Iraqis, to the region, to Afghanistan, to the military readiness, to U.S. national security—of staying, and address that head on, and then say the costs of leaving are unknowable. You, who predicted we’d have a cakewalk, are now to be trusted to tell us it’s going to be like Rwanda when we leave? How’s that? …
[Then we say], there are always risks, there are always consequences that are unknowable. Here’s what we’re going to do to address the concern. I think that’s a much more effective approach than to say, Oh , just because all the violence followed us into Iraq it’s going to follow us out of Iraq. I think it’s insulting to the American voter, the American people who know that certain things are unknowable. … That kind of belief that it’s all or nothing is in its own way analogous to the old one that was in this administration.
It makes you wonder how much of this Obama can say. Acknowledging the costs of withdrawal is one thing. Convincing people that the costs of leaving will be less than the cost of staying is different, especially when the costs of staying—at least in terms of human lives—appears to be decreasing. It’s a minefield Obama may have to navigate soon if Prime Minister Maliki’s endorsement of his withdrawal plan carries as much weight as people seem to think.
-
sponsorship
AUSTIN, TEXAS—If Al Gore was the day’s biggest surprise, the runner-up would have to be Bob Barr.
Barr, the Libertarian Party’s nominee for president, is holding court right now in the third floor lobby, surrounded by a gaggle of fans. His reception is oddly affectionate for a former Republican. One blogger looks like he’s about to ask a question—instead, he asks for an autograph. Another hands Barr his cell phone. “Can you talk to my brother for a second?” Another guy wants to ask him about his appearance in Borat. While Barr is answering a question about wiretapping, a kid goes up behind him and poses like he’s about to beat him up while his friend takes a picture.
What brings him to town? Barr is giving the keynote address this evening at RightOnline, the rival conservative blogger conference being held across the city. His Netroots Nation visit wasn’t anticipated, but conference political director Josh Orton said he was welcome as long as he paid the regular entrance fee.
I ask Barr why he thinks Democrats would vote for him. He goes straight for the wedge issue. “There’s no candidate out there who consistently stands for individual liberties,” he said. “You saw that with Obama’s embrace of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.”
But I have a different theory. Democrats might vote for Barr, but not because they like him. Rather, Barr’s candidacy is an opportunity for Democrats to split the right. Just like Rush Limbaugh told Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton and thus perpetuate Democratic tensions, Democrats in safe Democratic states—whose votes won’t make a difference anyway—could vote for Barr. If he gets five percent nationally, the Libertarians get public funds the next time around. No harm done to Obama; lots of harm done to Republicans.
Barr says he wouldn’t be opposed to such an effort. “It’s not my concern,” he says. “We’ll take a vote, regardless of the motivation behind it.”
-
sponsorship
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki gave John McCain a headache last week when he publicly announced his desire for American troop withdrawals. The Bush administration then turned the screws yesterday by agreeing to a “general time horizon” for withdrawal. (Not a timetable, mind you.) And now Maliki, as if to twist the knife a full 360 degrees, has praised Barack Obama’s plan for withdrawal in an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel. Here’s the transcript:
Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.
SPIEGEL: Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?
Maliki: Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.
The timing for Obama couldn’t be better. He lands in Kabul today and heads to Baghdad soon after. He’s getting mixed messages, certainly, from different leaders on the ground, many of whom are skeptical of his timetable for withdrawal. And keep in mind Maliki’s political interest—his sudden excitement about withdrawal makes it clear to critics he’s not in Bush’s pocket. But his statement, however political, is also symbolic. In the United States, people talk in broad strokes about what “the Iraqis” want, as if their opinion were uniform. From that perspective, Maliki's words carry weight.
McCain’s in a tough spot here: He’s said in the past that we should leave Iraq if asked. “I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people,” he said in 2004. But he has since backed off that stance. After Maliki’s comment last week, McCain didn’t criticize the PM but took the opportunity to reiterate his stance that troop levels should be determined by conditions on the ground.
Neither campaign has commented on the statement yet. Better to ride out the free media, no doubt. But Drudge has yet to pick it up. Maybe a little nudge is in order.
-
sponsorship
This one from Bloomberg News:
How can you read that and not think he's talking about a domestic terrorist attack? After the whole Charlie Black "big advantage" mess, it's not implausible.
-
sponsorship
AUSTIN -- Netroots Nation is reportedly forcing
Fox News reporters to wear badges that say “Opinion Media.” That’s funny,
because my credential just says “Media.” And Slate IS opinion media.
Anyway, a convention ID speaks a thousand words. Some
bloggers have crossed out their names and written in their blog handles. Others
have affixed colored ribbons marking them as a “Speaker” or “Sponsor.” Still others
have fashioned their own ribbons, saying “Embedded MSM Reporter,” FBI agent,
and CIA operative.
And oh, the swag. Convention
participants receive, among other things, a bright orange tote bag, free copies
of Mother Jones and The Nation, a bottle opener, a
mini-Constitution, a bag of salsa chips, a fortune cookie from 236.com, and a
condom that says “protect your constitution.” Needless to say, some of these items will get more use than others.
-
sponsorship
AUSTIN
– In an interview with Barack Obama last week, PBS’s Gwen Ifill pointed
out that Obama’s decision to reverse himself on public financing has
“raised hackles in the press.” Obama corrected her: "Well, raised hackles
amongst some in the blogosphere.”
Iced!
Maybe that’s why the CW going into the third-annual Netroots
Nation conference was about Obama-blogger tensions. Last year, all three major
Democratic candidates showed up. This year, Obama was too busy. So I expect the
question on every tongue to be, Why does he think the Brandenburg Gate is more
important than his bloggy base?
But I have to agree
with skeptics that the “tension” between the netroots—I’m writing that without
scare quotes to save server space—and Obama seems a little overblown. No one
I’ve spoken with has suggested they’re not voting for Obama. No one even seems
particularly peeved by positions on constitutional
issues like gun bans, faith-based initiatives, and the death penalty. In the outside world, “FISA” is shorthand for
online disenchantment with Obama. Here, it’s shorthand for the silly notion
that the liberal blogosphere has abandoned him.
Instead, I get the impression this conference is about the
netroots going legit. They’ve dropped the “YearlyKos” label. The panels and
events are largely about organization—“Get Ready to Volunteer,” “Canvassing and
Phonebanking,” “From Online Engagement to Offline Activism.” And as if to allay
concerns about the Democratic nominee, the Obama campaign has sent a whole
delegation of surrogates. Andy Borowitz brilliantly mocked
liberal bloggers for “Accus[ing] Obama of Trying to Win Election.” But in
truth, they’re trying to help him win, too.
Maybe forehead vessels will burst during the ‘Roots-DLC
smackdown between Markos Moulitsas and Harold Ford Jr. Maybe Nancy Pelosi will get
slammed for appeasing Republicans during tomorrow’s Q&A. Or maybe everyone has
realized that this year, the stakes are too high not to be on the same team.
-
sponsorship
I don't think John McCain is a transsexual Nazi pedophile. But I really don't know for sure.
That's the line of logic McCain followed when asked whether he thinks Barack Obama is a socialist. "I don't know," McCain responded. He elaborated: “His voting record … is more to the left than the announced socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont."
McCain's not the first to plead ignorance on a nonsensical claim. Back in March, Hillary Clinton drew heckles from Obama supporters for her less-than-decisive answer to a question about whether Barack Obama was a Muslim. "There's nothing to base that on ... as far as I know," she said. More recently, both Joe Lieberman and Tom Delay have suggested Obama might be a Marxist.
It's a tricky move. Some accusations—the Muslim charges, for example, or the absurd claims in 2000 that McCain had fathered a black child—demand outright denial. But others, like being a socialist, aren't quite as controversial. Conservative radio hosts like Glenn Beck regularly refer to Obama as a socialist. From McCain's perspective, why discourage them?
-
sponsorship
When Slate launched the "Choose Your Own Running Mate" game two weeks ago, we invited readers to nominate their favorite candidates and write a few sentences about why they felt their pick would be an ideal campaign-trail companion for John McCain or Barack Obama.
Below, the thousand-plus reader comments are arranged as tag clouds, with the size of the word proportional to the frequency with which readers used them to describe their ideal running mate.
While words like experience and American cropped up frequently in both Democratic and Republican nominations, readers tended to focus their choices on people with qualities complementary to Obama and McCain.
Words that derive from the same stem—economic and economy, for example—are combined here. In the case of white, the word was referencing the White House in 25 of the 89 uses for Obama's recommended running mate and seven of the 14 uses for McCain's.
Barack Obama's Running Mate
John McCain's Running Mate
-
sponsorship
It saddens me to see politicians punished for their honesty. But sometimes, it's deserved.
John McCain has confessed he doesn't know as much about economics as he should. He has acknowledged that his divorce was his own fault. But it's his admission that he doesn't know how to use a computer that has earned him the most scorn by far.
Especially from people who do know how:
It's hard to pinpoint, but there's something very unpresidential about online tutorials.
-
sponsorship
From The Page:
Perhaps not the best day on which to run that particular headline.
-
sponsorship
On the surface, Chris Dodd is the perfect vice presidential candidate for Barack Obama. He’s Catholic, while Obama has struggled to win over Catholics. He speaks fluent Spanish, which could help among Latinos. He’s a veteran, just like you-know-who. Jews love him—his father was on the prosecution team at Nuremberg. He sits on the Senate foreign relations committee, which could quiet critics who see Obama as green on foreign policy. His biggest legislative accomplishment, the Family and Medical Leave Act, dovetails nicely with Obama’s health care plans. The man is experience incarnate.
It’s too bad he probably won’t be picked.
Remember Jim Johnson, the guy in charge of Obama’s VP search committee? Johnson resigned last month under fire for receiving reduced-rate loans from Countrywide, a company criticized for its role in the mortgage crisis. It turns out Dodd was also part of the same “V.I.P.” program, which cuts rates and eliminates fees for special customers. In 2003, Dodd received two loans through Countrywide, saving a little under $3,000 thanks to the program, according to Portfolio. Countrywide has contributed $21,000 to Dodd’s campaigns since 1997.
Obama set a precedent by scrapping Johnson. (Johnson says he resigned of his own free will.) How can he possibly pick Dodd? If sweetheart loans are enough to disqualify the person appointed to pick the VP, what does it mean for the VP himself?
To be sure, Dodd is not Johnson. The size of Johnson’s Countrywide deal—he received $7 million in real-estate loans—dwarfs Dodd’s. Johnson was also criticized for perks he received while working for mortgage giant Fannie Mae (which now has its own crisis) and for his association with an executive compensation controversy and United HealthCare, where he served on the board.
But in a campaign that has made common practice of subvehicularization, also known as “throwing under the bus,” even the smallest impropriety is cause for concern. After his Countrywide loans were first reported, Dodd denied any wrongdoing. But it’s just sketchy enough that the McCain campaign could create headaches for Obama.
Plus, vice presidential selection is all about judgment—proving to voters that you know how to make tough decisions. And sound judgment is just as much about avoiding appearances of impropriety as avoiding impropriety itself. (Something McCain learned the hard way.) Chris Dodd could make a terrific vice president. But that’s different from making a terrific vice-presidential candidate.
-
sponsorship
McCain economic adviser Phil Gramm did his candidate no favors Wednesday when he told the Washington Times that the current economic downturn is a "mental recession." "We have sort of become a nation of whiners," Gramm said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline."
Off-message much?
McCain repudiated Gramm’s comments: "Phil Gramm does not speak for me. I speak for me, so I strongly disagree." Obama, meanwhile, mocked him.
But Gramm refused to play the gaffe game. "I'm not going to retract any of it,” he told the Washington Post. "Every word I said was true." He explained that although "the economy is bad," it doesn’t qualify as a "recession." And that other part? "When I said we've become a nation of whiners, I'm talking about our leaders. I'm not talking about our people."
The funny part is, recession or not, Gramm and his investors have felt the pain as much as anyone. Just look at the stock of UBS, where Gramm serves as vice chairman. It’s dropped by 70 percent over the last year. (See Daniel Gross' recent Slate piece to find out why.)
Perhaps UBS shareholders' losses are also mental? That, or they're just whiners.
Image credit: Yahoo! Finance
-
sponsorship
John McCain’s plan to balance the budget by 2013 may have just taken the prize for Most Ridicule Sustained in a 24-Hour Period. (Before that, McCain's and Clinton’s gas-tax holiday proposals held the title.) The biggest gripe: It’s hard to see how McCain would sustain the Bush tax cuts, which the CBO estimates would create a $443 billion deficit by 2013, and still find room for his estimated $300 billion in additional tax proposals while also eliminating the deficit.
The McCain campaign promises to reach the Big Zero through a combination of economic growth, controlled spending, and bipartisan budget efforts. But they don’t provide any numbers to show how much the economy must grow, how much spending they’d rein in, or what areas they’d trim. (Read his whole plan here.) Then there’s this:
The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.
This statement is … problematic. For one thing, reducing deficit spending doesn’t free up money. It’s just means we don’t create money. So while it may reduce the deficit, it does nothing to reduce the overall debt and balance the budget.
But there’s another problem: Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan will cost money before it saves money. The Congressional Budget Office estimated last year that reducing troops levels to 75,000 by 2013 would cost an additional $205 billion (that is, in addition to current spending levels) between 2008 and 2013. Only after that would the United States start saving—or, rather, not spending cash we don’t have. A faster drawdown to 30,000 troops by 2010 would reduce the deficit over the same period, but only by $70 billion. (Read the CBO estimate here; details here.) The CBO will have a new estimate in September.
So even if McCain was able to achieve his definition of victory in Iraq as laid out in his “Four Year Vision” speech in May—“The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role”—it wouldn’t likely save money until later. And it would certainly play little to no role in balancing the budget by 2013.
-
sponsorship
At a town hall meeting today in Denver, Colo., McCain highlighted the American footwear company Crocs—you know, the colorful rubber shoes with holes in them—as an example of how free trade benefits American business.
“This former small business now employs 600 people in Colorado alone, and sells over 50 percent of its products in 90 countries around the world,” McCain said. “Building barriers to Crocs or any American company’s access to foreign markets will have a devastating effect on our economy and jobs, and the prosperity of American families.”
It might have been a good local example of an entrepreneurial start-up prospering in the global economy—if the company hadn’t blown up in the last several months.
Have a look at Croc’s stock price. (Symbol: CROX.) It peaked at $75 back in late October, but since then has plummeted to one-tenth of that. It last traded at $6.91. Whereas footwear like Uggs managed to outlive its initial hype and become a footwear mainstay, Crocs appear to be what its investors most feared: a fad.
Not only that, but Crocs has been pushing for higher trade barriers, not lower ones. In March 2006, Crocs filed a complaint seeking to block imports of copycat shoes made in Canada and China, claiming they violated a patent for “breathable footwear pieces.” (They won.) Compare that with McCain’s assertion in his speech that “protectionism not only puts a hidden tax on almost everything you buy, but it undermines American competitiveness and costs jobs. … Our future prosperity depends on opening more of these markets, not closing them.” (Video available here.)
-
sponsorship
If you flip-flop on an issue that itself flip-flops all the time, is that considered flip-flopping?
That’s the question confronting Barack Obama, who hinted Thursday that he might “refine” his position on withdrawal from Iraq. Obama quickly held a follow-up presser to clarify his determination to pull out as quickly and safely as possible. But Obama’s mistake wasn’t suggesting that his position was subject to change. It was suggesting all along—and letting his opponents suggest—that his 16-month withdrawal timetable was anything more than a goal.
For some reason, the words goal, contingency, and facts on the ground are seen as code for wavering. As such, they rarely made it into Obama’s description of his plan for withdrawal. The RNC giddily rounds up the various instances when Obama articulated his timeline for withdrawal without strong caveats. Perhaps the most explicit moment was Obama’s exchange with Charlie Gibson at the CBS debate on April 16:
MR. GIBSON: And Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, when he is—this is talking about you—when he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most; there should be no confusion about that. So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order: Bring them home.
SENATOR OBAMA: Because the commander in chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals. … Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I've provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief. [E.A]
Gibson’s demand for a “rock-hard pledge” may have been the epitome of gotcha journalism, but Obama fell for it. He could have said, “No, Charlie, it’s not a rock-hard pledge—it’s a goal that’s subject to adjustment based on new facts on the ground.” But that, according to perverse campaign logic, would have been a sign of weakness.
That’s why it was a scandal when Obama foreign-policy adviser Samantha Power suggested that his 16-month plan was a “best-case scenario.” But her words made perfect sense: “You can't make a commitment in March of 2008 about what circumstances are going to be like in January 2009. He will, of course, not rely upon some plan that he has crafted as a presidential candidate or a US senator. He will rely upon an operational plan that he pulls together in consultation with people on the ground.” That’s how strategy works—you adjust your plan according to the circumstances. But somehow Power’s admission became a “gaffe.” If she hadn’t resigned from the campaign for calling Hillary Clinton a “monster,” this remark might have pushed her out instead.
It’s a common problem when politics and war intersect: Promises only hold if the facts on which the promise was based hold as well. Particularly in Iraq, where a relative lull in violence can be instantly upset, as it was this weekend. One can argue that Obama’s withdrawal plan has been overly ambitious all along, and that his attempt to “refine” his position reflects problems inherent to his plan as much as shifting facts. But to stick with a rigid plan when the underlying facts are changing isn’t consistent. It’s irresponsible.
-
sponsorship
Democratic strategist and former Kerry communications director Stephanie Cutter has joined the Obama campaign.* Her responsibilities include heading up a "war room" for Michelle Obama. A campaign’s "war room" typically refers to its rapid response team. But is it really a room?
Yes, usually. Modern presidential campaigns almost always designate office space for strategists and press teams to communicate quickly and easily. It’s a place for first responders to monitor the news, write up press releases, talk to reporters, and communicate directly instead of over the phone or email.
Of course, war rooms have been around as long as war itself. Churchill built a reinforced bunker beneath his London offices for Cabinet members to convene during the Blitz of 1940. Stanley Kubrick immortalized the term in Dr. Strangelove with the line, "Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here. This is the war room!" But it wasn’t until Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign that the phrase entered wide usage in a presidential campaign context. It helped Clinton cultivate his image as a fighter on the trail and then in the White House, where he set up "war rooms" for cutting government waste and health care reform. "We are going to work constantly, day and night, until we have a health care plan ready," Clinton promised in 1993.
Even as rapid response relies more and more on BlackBerrys and cell phones, the campaigns still maintain a physical space for strategy grand and not-so-grand. Hillary Clinton’s campaign had a room set aside for the rapid response team, which they called the "war room." Obama’s press operation sits together in a large room at the Chicago headquarters. A McCain spokesman characterized the Republican nominee’s war room as "a room that monitors all the media on a minute by minute basis."
Some people are particularly attached to the notion of war room as physical place. "I get hired by so many corporate clients who want a room with clocks and maps and everything," says Chris Lehane, a former spokesman for Al Gore who now heads a public-relations firm. "When you try to explain to them it’s just a concept and not a physical embodiment, they don’t want to hear it."
*Correction: This post originally stated that Patti Solis Doyle would be heading up the war room for Michelle Obama.
-
sponsorship
Barack Obama’s campaign has gone to great lengths to show that its candidate is just a regular guy. In Pennsylvania, his bowling performance drew more scrutiny than his health care plan. In North Carolina, he pointedly sipped a PBR with locals. Now he’s proving he’s just a normal dad who goes to his daughter’s soccer games.
There’s something bizarre about watching a presidential nominee in a setting so familiar to any modern American parent. You could just as easily imagine him loading up the Dodge Caravan and swinging by the Taco Bell—rather than ducking out for a campaign meeting, as he did.
Note, though, that this wasn’t a big media availability. The footage is paparazzi-esque and it comes from the Associated Press, not the big networks. If Obama had wanted to make a big show, the event would have been more camera-friendly.
Watch to the end, where Michelle pummels Barack. Will the slap fight be the new fist bump?
-
sponsorship
I just wanted to provide a little context to my piece about the losing line of argument against John McCain's military service. As a reader points out, Wesley Clark didn't go out of his way to say the line about McCain getting shot down -- Bob Schieffer prompted him. Here's the full context from the Face the Nation transcript:
Clark: He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has
traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive
responsibility. That large squadron in Air- in the Navy that he
commanded, it wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and
ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats
come in and say, 'I don't know whether we're going to be able to get
this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about
your reputation? How do we handle it-'
Bob Schieffer: Well-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: ' -it publicly.' He hasn't made those calls, Bob.
Bob Schieffer: Well, well, General, maybe-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So-
Bob Schieffer: Could I just interrupt you. If-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Sure.
Bob Schieffer: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any
of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and
gotten shot down. I mean-
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.
Bob Schieffer: Really?!
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But Barack is not, he is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements.
This doesn't change the point that Clark -- and others before him -- doubt the value of McCain's service for a commander-in-chief. But the context does make Clark's quote sound less like an "attack" than an answer to a question.