What Will The Obama Victory Mean?

1. The fact that we have elected an African-American President is an amazing thing. No matter what happens over the next 4 (8?) years, this is a positive development that can't be undone. Young A-A children will grow up knowing that it is possible for them to reach any height in this contry. Young white children will grow up thinking it is perfectly normal for an A-A to be President. Racism was dealt a serious blow on Tuesday.

2. It's a positive message to the world. America is a place where anyone can start from humble beginnings, work hard, and rise to the top. We've always said that. We've given the rest of the world a reason to believe that it's true.

3. It is very likely that there will be at least 2 Supreme Court vacancies in the next 4 years. Roe v Wade is safe for now and dangerous expansion of the executive branch will be avoided.

4. We are much less likely to end up in a foolish war in Iran under President Obama than we would've been under President McCain. Obama seems very well equipped to guide the U.S. through the new global landscape.

5. We won't suddenly achieve Utopia. Obama will not be able to quickly fix the economy. I think his plans to invest in the infrastructure, create green jobs, and invest in education will improve the economy in the long-run, but the effects will be minimal over the next four years. Tax breaks will help the poor and middle-class get through the tough times, but the times will still be tough. I think it's very likely that Obama will do a good job, but still face a lot of voter discontent in 2012 due to a weak economy.

Desperate Times Call For...

538.com says McCain had a 4.2% chance of winning the election. The Intrade market gives him a 15.8% chance. Obama has a commanding lead in the polls, is spending more on advertising, and appears to have a significant edge in the ground game. There are only 20 days left.

As far as I'm concerned, there are only two ways for McCain to have a shot at winning: (1) some huge world event like a major terrorist attack on American soil or a major war involving a country like Israel or Russia; or (2) McCain somehow manages to change the narrative of the campaign.

Conspiracy theories aside, the McCain campaign can't do anything about #1, so they're stuck trying to come up with some brilliant new messaging. Of course, if the McCain campaign had some great ideas, they probably would've already used them. Tonight's probably the last chance for McCain to come up with a game-changer. So, without any surefire winners, should McCain just throw whatever ideas/themes he has against the wall and see if anything sticks?

Presidential Debate #2

I think it was pretty much a tie, which is really all Obama needed.

A lot of the pundits are reading too much into McCain's body language and his "that one" comment. Let's give credit to the undecided voters; I think they're actually listening to the words of the candidates and trying to hear real solutions. McCain spent way too much time talking about earmarks and pork. He comes across as a one-trick pony. How many times have we heard about the earmark to research bear DNA? Now, he wants to repeatedly tell us about $3 million for a Chicago planetarium? Even if you're a voter who is opposed to the federal government spending money on planetariums, is that really high on your priority list right now? The American public understands that the financial crisis is a large scale problem that won't be solved by just cutting out a little pork from government budgets. There's no easy solution, so neither candidate was able to give one. Voters at least want a President who understands the magnitude of the problem and is willing to work hard to try to come up with long-term solutions. McCain would've been better served to at least sound like he was focusing his energy to working on the problem instead of focusing on $3 million projectors. His message might've been effective during good times when people just want the government to get out of their way. It's like he doesn't realize that people are actually looking to the government for help right now.

VP Debate

I think James Fallows summed things up very well:

"Ifill, moderator: Terrible.

Palin: "Beat expectations."

Biden: No mistakes.

The race: No fundamental change. Which is better news for Obama than McCain."

I think he's pretty much right about everything except for the last point. I think by beating expectations, Palin at least stopped the bleeding somewhat for the McCain campaign. They can probably keep her away from interviews for the next month and get away with it now that she seemed semi-competent at the debate. But, all in all, Fallows is right in the sense that it's hard to see how Palin's performance will actually make much of a dent in Obama's lead.

"Extraordinary Times" in NYC

According to the Times, Mayor Bloomberg will announce on Thursday that he's going to seek to have the NYC term limits extended from 8 to 12 years and run for a third term. I'll make a few separate points:

1. In general, I'm against term limits for NYC mayor. There are arguments to be made that power will corrupt even the best of politicians over time and that limiting the mayor to two terms restricts his ability to overreach. But, I generally trust the voters to kick out a bum in city hall. New Yorkers seem to pay a lot attention to mayoral elections - there will be ads, debates, endorsements - the voters will have their say.

2. On the other hand, I don't trust the voters to shake up the City Council, so I think the current two term limit on Council members is a great idea. I don't know what the exact reasons are, but it's almost impossible to oust a sitting City Council member. Is it that people just don't pay attention to these races? Is it because the Democratic party machine works hard to keep them in office? Is it a fundraising issue? All of the above? I don't know. What I do know is that in 2005, 43 of the 51 city council members ran for re-election (the others were either ousted by term limits or ran for higher office). Of the 43 incumbents running, 42 were re-elected. The only one who wasn't was Allan Jennings, who was found guilty of sexual harassment by the City Council itself; his opponent had already served on the Council from 1991 to 2001 and was heavily supported by the Queens Democratic machine. The basic conclusion is that unless you do something horribly offensive (like sexually harass your employees) and lose support of the party machine, you'll be re-elected to the City Council.

3. Whether or not term limits are a good idea, it's particularly self serving for the current mayor and the current Council (the vast majority of its members are facing term limits in 2009) to extend their own jobs for 4 years. This isn't a philosophical debate at all - this is just a bunch of politicians deciding that they want to stay in office and are willing to change the rules to do so.

4. The pro-Bloomberg argument seems to be that term limits are a good idea in general, but that these are "extraordinary times" and that Bloomberg is the only person who can lead this city through them. Bullshit. The current financial crisis could turn out really bad, but it's a little soon to judge. Post-9/11 was an extraordinary time, but we didn't extend term limits then. I think Bloomberg's done a great job and is particularly well suited to handle the current situation, but couldn't some other CEO who is well-liked on Wall Street run for mayor?

Debates

The debates are important. For some reason, it's become trendy to deny this fact, but let's be serious for a minute. A lot of people watching the debates don't pay a ton of attention to politics and are undecided about who to vote for. There are a lot of distractions in the media and in the barbershop/hair salon. The debate this past Friday was a chance for the two candidates to make clear to the American public where they stand on the issues. From the CBS poll of 500 uncommitted voters:
MADE IT CLEAR WHAT HE WOULD DO AS PRESIDENT
Pre-debate : 37% Yes, 61% No
Post-debate: 65% Yes, 35% No
Those are the numbers for Obama; McCain's are virtually identical.

What that shows is that before the debate, approximately 2/3 of the uncommitted viewers were unsure where the candidates stand on the issues, and that after the debate, only 1/3 are. That's amazing - if anyone needs to justify to themselves why we have the debates - here's the evidence. Democracy in action!

Palin on CBS

The only positive thing the McCain campaign can take out of Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric is that not a lot of people watch the CBS news.
Seriously, Palin was embarrassingly bad. I can't imagine how anyone but the most loyal supporter could watch these interviews and come away thinking that this woman is ready to be President. She certainly doesn't seem to be ready to debate Biden next week.

I think the Palin pick is going to wind up being a really bad move. I admit I was wrong about the potential upside. I thought the potential brilliance of the pick was that it would convert women voters; instead, it seems that the upside is more in rallying the Christian base. But, couldn't they have rallied the base by picking someone who was ready for primetime? Someone like Mike Huckabee. Other than gender, Huckabee seems to have all the characteristics that make Palin appealing - religious, conservative, folksy, non-elitist, extremely likable, regular middle/working class white American. And Huckabee has over a decade of experience as Governor and has actually demonstrated that he can hold his own talking about policy with the other Presidential candidates. Why didn't he receive serious consideration?

Raising McCain?

Maybe I'm watching a whole different convention. Everyone seems to be in love with Palin's speech; I thought it was good, but not really sure how it swung any voters. Everyone seems underwhelmed by McCain's speech, but I think it was very effective. It was a speech directed at swing voters and it was successful. Heck, even I was starting to like McCain by the end. McCain seemed like a thoughtful, compassionate patriot. He didn't offer the bold rhetoric or bold proposals of Obama, but at least he made it seem like he's aware that there are problems with unemployment, schools, and health care, and that he's planning on doing something to solve the problems. His anti-earmark stuff always sounds good. And he repeated his POW story, but managed to make it sound like he was genuinely sharing a personal story, not hitting a talking point.

My thoughts at the end of the night: McCain might've been able to win this election on his own. I still feel like picking Palin was a stunt executed by a desperate campaign that thought it couldn't win unless it took a risky move. McCain should've had more confidence in himself.

Palin - Live Thoughts

10:29 - hmm, seems that Rudy went so long, they had to cut the intro video. Might not matter, but I thought the Dems did a great job with their videos, it seems foolish for the Republicans to not take advantage of the capability.

10:36 - The youngest daughter is adorable. Where was the middle one?

10:38 - Did she just lock up the parents of "special needs children" vote?

10:43 - "Small town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except you have actual responsibilities." Giuliani made fun of the community organizer thing, too. Is that really wise? The Democrats did a good job of establishing that Obama's work as a community organizer involved real help for recently laid-off factory workers. Making fun of it makes the Republicans seem callous.

10:48 - Wraps up the general theme about shaking things up, being a maverick etc. Talks about reform as governor - put the governor's private jet up on eBay. Great story.

10:50 - Repeats the "thanks, but no thanks to the bridge to nowhere" story despite the fact that the media has already called her out on being for the bridge before she was against it. I guess they're sticking to their guns on this one.

10:51 - Energy independence. The Republicans are really hammering this drilling thing tonight (earlier, they were chanting "drill, baby, drill"). The public seems to be in favor of drilling, but the Republicans might be overplaying their hand here. Do they really think that most Americans will believe that we can really drill our way out of the energy crisis?

10:53 - Wait, she addressed that concern - it won't solve everything, "but that's no reason to not do anything at all." Good job

10:56 - ~"Obama will make government bigger, increase taxes, reduce strength of our military". Taxes, taxes, taxes!!!

11:02 - Harry Reid can't stand John McCain. She's losing me a little here.

11:04 - Goes on for a bit about John McCain as a war hero, which is getting a little old. But, she does a nice job of tying it into her earlier point about him being like a lot of people from small towns, some of whom never came back.

11:09 - family joins her on stage. Sarah holds baby Trig. And there's McCain!

11:12 - I'm watching NBC and Brokaw just called her out on being misleading about "the bridge to nowhere."

All in all, it was a very good VP speech. I expected her to be good and it was. People who had low expectations were probably very impressed. In the end, is it enough to erase the concern that she isn't ready? I'm not sure. I'm curious to see how opinion polls shift. She gave a great speech, but other than the first 10 minutes of bio, it sounded like a speech that could've been written for any Republican VP. I imagine some voters were convinced she's ready, but that many will need to see how knowledgeable she is when she has to think on her feet without a teleprompter.

Palin's Big Night

Forget John McCain tomorrow night, tonight's speech by Governor Palin is the most important of the Republican convention. Nate described the situation as "low expectations and a fairly high degree of difficulty." I think he's wrong. The expectations are low, but I don't see why this is all that difficult a performance for Palin to pull off. I haven't seen much of her stump speeches, but by all accounts, she's a skilled public speaker who has a knack for connecting with audiences. She's had limited time to prepare for this speech, but she presumably has a team of elite speechwriters at her disposal. This shouldn't be too tough. She doesn't need to hit a home run, just a solid double. The debate with Biden will be a real test; tonight, Palin just needs to read off a teleprompter.

Andrew Sullivan's Gone Crazy!

I enjoy Andrew Sullivan's blog. He's an insightful writer, has interesting opinions, and writes frequent updates. And most of the time, he's very thoughtful and reasoned. On the Palin issue, he's sort of lost his mind. And in his latest post indicates that he's really losing it: "I'm beginning to wonder if McCain will have to withdraw. Or can they switch after the nomination?"

Come on, Andrew! The situation's not that dire. I agree that the Palin pick looks bad right now and is likely to look bad when all is said and done, but it's early and a bad VP pick has rarely been fatal to a candidate. A lot of voters still think very highly of McCain; there's no reason for the Republicans to think about replacing him at the top of the ticket.

This statement is also somewhat ridiculous: "He got the nomination by default." That's not true. The Democratic primary was unusual in that it had two extremely popular candidates with huge followings. The Republicans had a bunch of flawed candidates, but there were certainly candidates who had followings: Romney is loved by the fiscal conservative base; Huckabee by the evangelicals. Actually, these three are a great example of the three separate policy areas I discussed in the last post - the hawk, the fiscal conservative, and the social conservative.

Ron Paul

I'm impressed with the little bit I've watched of Ron Paul's event today. The mainstream press has been really unfair, basically ignoring him and his followers as an insane irrelevant group with radial views. I'm not a supporter of Ron Paul, but his views aren't insane or incoherent. I think the modern U.S. media just isn't equipped to handle third parties; they're used to framing political issues by just presenting the Democrats' position and the Republicans' position. Sometimes, there's a legitimate third view.

In a broad sense, you can break down policy issues into three categories: economic, social, foreign. Generally, most Democrats are for more socialist economic policies, liberal social policies, and dovish foreign policies; most Republicans are in favor of lower taxes and market-based economic policies, conservative social policies, and hawkish foreign policies. Of course, there's no reason why those three things should always be linked together. Ron Paul is basically in agreement with the rest of the Republicans in regards to two of the three categories, but has opposite views on foreign policy. Essentially, he's the Republican version of Joe Lieberman.

A lot of people have written about the "Reagan coalition" and pointed out that the Republican party could fall apart if the fiscal conservatives, evangelicals, and neocons can't all stick together. Nobody seems to mention that the Democrats' coalition is just as flimsy. There are plenty of union members who vote for Democrats just because of economic issues, plenty of people troubled by the Iraq war who will vote for the Democrats just because of that issue, and plenty of people who vote for Democrats just because they feel strongly about the right to choose an abortion and equal rights for gays. Those latter two groups are a little hard to identify, which is probably why nobody talks about them. But, I certainly know people who are strongly pro-choice, but don't agree with the Democrats on taxes or Iraq. And people who are strongly against the war, but otherwise agree with the Republicans.

Look, the two-party system has served us very well, but it distorts things in some ways. Would we be better served by a multi-party system that required parties to build coalitions?

More thoughts on Palin

I'm going back and forth every few minutes between thinking this is an amazing pick and a terrible one. But, let's boil it down - the issue is whether her presence on the ticket will bring over enough women voters to beat out however many voters are scared off by her lack of experience.

My first reaction was that she could potentially swing a lot of women voters. On the other hand, a feminist doesn't want a woman to be VP just because she's a woman, she wants a qualified woman to be VP and be treated just as fairly as a man. Older women in particular are likely to perceive Palin as unqualified. These voters may think McCain's decision demonstrates that he thinks women will just vote for any woman, which is pretty insulting.

There's also a generational issue. Older women may be more likely to question Palin's age, inexperience, and whether she's gotten ahead in part due to her good looks. To younger women, she might be an inspiration: a lot of younger women want to be successful in their careers while also raising families and finding time to hit the gym. Palin is a mother of five, very attractive, and on her way to being VP.

McCain chooses Palin!?!

Wow, Sarah Palin is a ballsy choice. High risk, high reward. All along, I've thought that a female VP candidate would be a nice move for McCain. The Hillary campaign made it clear that there are a lot of women in this country who are eager to see a woman in the White House, and many of them seemed pessimistic about how soon another viable female candidate would come along. Suddenly, John McCain has given them one. There are probably a significant number of women who were already somewhat ambivalent about Obama who will now cross over to the GOP just because they think it's important to put a woman one step closer to the White House. A woman on the ticket will at least be a thumb on the proverbial scale when certain feminists are weighing their decision (assuming they're willing to overlook the whole pro-life thing). Heck, if McCain's health declines, we could have a Palin-Clinton battle in 2012!

Let's be realistic - there's also a big downside to this pick. 72 year old John McCain needs a VP who is ready to take over from day 1. He's been arguing that Obama is too young and inexperienced. Well, Palin is younger (she's 44) and less experienced (she's been governor for less than 2 years). Maybe the Republicans think Obama won't make a big issue about it because it will put the spotlight on his own lack of experience. But I think that while Obama has already made a pretty good case for why he's qualified, the case for Palin is much tougher. First off, we at least know that Obama is extremely intelligent. He went to one of the top 3 law schools in the country and became editor of their law review, which is pretty much the highest law school achievement. He then taught Constitutional law at another elite law school for many years. On the political side, he served in the Illinois state senate for 7 years. He's now been in Congress for three and a half years and has proven himself to be knowledgable on foreign and domestic policy in numerous primary debates. Let's compare that to Sarah Palin. I admit I don't know much about her, so I'm mostly relying on her wikipedia page. She has a bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Idaho. She has worked as a commercial fisherman with her husband. She served on the Wasilla City Council for 4 years and then served as mayor for 6 (I think). That sounds impressive until you realize that the population of Wasilla was 5,470 (as of 2000). That's like the equivalent of someone where I live (NYC) being president of their block association. She has now been governor for a year and eight months. By all accounts, she's done a very good job. She has amazing approval ratings. Nonetheless, that year & 8 months is pretty much her entire resume. Again, I don't know much about Palin, maybe she's incredibly knowledgable about world affairs, economic theory, and lots of other things. But, she has limited time to demonstrate that to the American public. The VP debate will be incredibly important. That will be her one big chance to show that she's ready to be President in case John McCain's age catches up with him.

I'll say it again - high risk, high reward. Palin could swing lots of women voters and win McCain the presidency. On the other hand, if McCain catches a cold in late October, a lot of people might get spooked by the idea of a very untested, unknown person becoming the leader of the country. Generally, the VP choice has little effect on the election, but this choice could be the decisive factor in either direction. It will probably be remembered as either a fantastic pick or a terrible pick.

Convention - Day 3

Hillary gave a fantastic speech last night. It was as pro-Obama and anti-McCain as I had hoped, probably more so. I think it was pitch perfect. It would've sounded phony if she'd suddenly acted like she was Obama's biggest fan. Instead, she basically gave the message to her supporters that even if they're not fully enamored with Obama, they should vote (and campaign) for him because he'll help enact the policies they believe in.

The two primetime speeches have been fantastic, but the rest of the convention (outside of the Teddy Kennedy moment and the Schweitzer speech) has been really flat. Obviously, primetime matters much more, but there are still a lot of people watching cable news the rest of the night. I'm curious what the ratings are.

What I want From Biden tonight (in addition to his inspirational life story, etc.):
"The Iraq War has been a devestating mistake for this country - 4,000 American lives lost, over $1 trillion spent, all done while we took our focus off of capturing Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Barack Obama had the judgment to declare that the war was a mistake from the beginning. Geore Bush was wrong. John McCain was wrong. I was wrong. Barack Obama was right. Who is more fit to be commander in chief - the man who was one of the leading advocates for this disastorous war or the man who had the good judgment to say it would be a mistake? Barack Obama had better judgment on Iraq and he'll have better judgment when it comes to future foreign policy decisions."

Hillary's Big Night

Tonight is huge. Hillary's speech is more important than Mark Warner's, more important than Bill's, more important than Joe Biden's. I think the whole PUMA story has been largely media driven and that Hillary has been more supportive of the Obama campaign than she's been given credit for. Nonetheless, the impression a lot of people have is that she's not 100% behind Obama. Tonight is her chance to put an end to that storyline. Tonight she has a chance to make clear to all 18 million people who voted for her in the primaries that they should vote for Obama because she and Obama agree on all the important issues and they both disagree with John McCain.

I think it should be pretty easy for her to do it. NBC First Read wrote earlier today, "She may not be able to find her Goldilocks moment and strike a 'just right' balance tonight of both advancing her own political future and proving that she really does want Obama to win... The good news for her, the expectations are very low in this sense. No one expects her to be able to pull this off convincingly." Bullshit! Why are the expectations low? How hard is it for her to come out and basically give a more inspired version of what Nancy Pelosi said yesterday. Hillary Clinton can give herself a pat on the back and congratulate all her supporters for advancing the issues they care so much about. Issues like universal health care, saving the environment, guaranteeing a woman's right to choose, restoring the responsible economic policies of the Clinton administration, and ending the war in Iraq in a careful manner. And then she can run through each of those issues and say Barack Obama is right and John McCain is wrong. Barack Obama is right and John McCain is wrong. Barack Obama is right and John McCain is wrong. Simple and effective.

"I got into politics because of the causes and issues I cared about" - Hillary Clinton

Tonight, she has the chance to prove it.

Convention - Day 1

Michelle Obama hit a homerun. Some bloggers (and James Carville) are complaining that the Democrats didn't hit John McCain or the issues enough last night. They're wrong. As indicated by my last post, I think the campaign needs to start attacking McCain's policies and emphasizing how great Obama's are. They have three nights left to do that. Because of his race, his unusual upbringing, his relative newness, a sizable portion of the electorate is still not quite sure what to make of Barack Obama. And due to some unfortunate comments, Michelle Obama has been painted as some sort of militant angry black woman. Night one did a fantastic job of making the Obamas seem like a very normal, very relatable, very American family. Michelle came across as a dedicated mother and as a woman with immense love and admiration for her parents and her husband. She made it clear that her story is very much like the story of many Americans and that she and Barack love their country and have worked to make it a better place.And quite frankly, she's an amazing speaker. I was moved and I think a lot of other people were, too. I'm ready to vote for Michelle for some kind of office.

The introduction by her brother helped, too. Like I said, I think there was some suspicion that Michelle is an "angry black woman." Not only did she come across as someone who isn't all that different than the typical white person, her brother's intro made it clear that her family's not that different from the typical white family. I don't have a good PC way to say this, but let's just say that her brother seemed more Wayne Brady than Chris Rock.

Ring Generalship

In boxing, one of the four basic criteria used to score a fight is ring generalship, which is vaguely defined as how well a fighter controls the pace, style and tempo of a fight.

Up until now, the Obama campaign has mostly been letting McCain control the terms of the debate. Obama's been playing defense fairly well, he's been counter-punching, but he needs to make a stronger attempt to frame the debate. He needs to control the issues the public is talking about. A lot of citizens see rising prices, lost jobs and stagnating wages; these people want real solutions, not opposing ads about who has 7 houses and who made $4 million last year. Americans are ready to hear about real changes that need to be made in this country.

I'm hoping the convention will be somewhat of a turning point for the Obama campaign. Obama needs to focus on the bigger, broader messages. Here are three themes I think he should be pushing in regards to the domestic agenda:

1. Bush tax cuts have given too much to the rich / Time for more fairness - This fits into a broader message about fixing the economy. Investing in infrastructure and education can help the economy in the long run, but in the meantime, the middle class needs a tax break to help them get by. It's time to cut middle class taxes and raise taxes on the rich back to levels during the Clinton years.  I think it would be pretty easy to put together a 30 or 60 second ad for this issue, something like: "In the last 8 years, George Bush cut taxes for the wealthy by X%; the rest of America has only received Y%; John McCain's plan is to give even more tax cuts to the rich. Barack Obama's priority is to give the middle class a tax break, a tax break that is Z times higher than that proposed by John McCain."

2. Health Care - affordable health care for all! Remember when everyone was talking about universal health care during the Democratic primaries? Now, not so much. It's time to push this to the forefront. Because it doesn't force anyone to make any changes who doesn't want to, Obama's plan should be able to avoid a lot of the pitfalls that the Clinton plan fell into. 

3. Global Warming - Obama needs to make it clear that he offers a broad solution regarding this critical issue. He should make the differences between the Obama plan and the McCain plan clear. On cap and trade - the message should be that it's not a tax, it's just a method to make polluters pay for their pollution; Obama will funnel the collected money into environmental investment and back to consumers so they won't be hurt by rising energy prices. McCain's system will just give out billions in corporate welfare (there's your talking point - McCain's in favor of corporate welfare!!!!!!)

Obama also needs to take control of the foreign policy debate. Why let McCain question Obama's judgment about the surge? Obama needs to question McCain's judgment for being such a strong supporter of this war in the first place, a war that has cost us over 4,000 American lives and $1 trillion while arguably making our country less safe. The Iraq issue has understandably dropped in importance to a lot of voters, but Obama needs to emphasize that he exhibited better judgment on Iraq, and therefore, can be expected to exhibit better judgement on Iran, Korea, Russia, etc.

VP followup - Hillary

Nate (and one of his readers) make some compelling points for why Hillary is a good choice for VP.

I think they're missing the main reason Obama still won't pick her: he doesn't want to work with someone he can't trust, someone who has her own agenda, someone who isn't fully committed to an Obama presidency.

Ever since it became clear that Obama would be the nominee, the Clintons have been undermining Obama in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. If Hillary's the VP nominee, will she (and Bill) suddenly be fully committed to Obama? Or will part of the Clintons' agenda still be to improve their legacy? Will it be to push the idea in the public's mind that it's sort of a co-presidency? Will she fully support Obama on issues she doesn't agree with him on or will she push her own agenda?

These are relevant questions for both the campaign and (assuming they win) for the Presidency itself. Supposedly, the big piece of advice John Kerry gave to Obama is that he needs to trust his VP choice. Sounds like good advice to me.

Neck and Neck

Since Obama wrapped up the nomination, he's had a small solid lead on McCain. Now, all the polls are indicating that they're pretty much neck and neck. It's easy to panic, but I don't think this should be a big deal. I think it was unrealistic to think that Obama would just cruise through to election day. We live in a very partisan era; the last two elections have been very close, this one will probably follow suit.

According to the LAT/Bloomberg poll, Obama's favorable rating has slipped from 59% to 48% while his negative rating has risen from 27% to 35%. That sounds alarming at first, but I think it should've been expected. His new numbers are still slightly better than McCain's (46% positive, 38% negative), who is generally regarded to be very popular among independents andabout as liked as a Republican can be among Democrats. Obama's earlier numbers were unsustainable in this highly partisan era. During the primary, some conservatives hadn't focused hard on Obama's positions and the Republican attack machine was just getting warmed up. Now, both candidates are in the middle of a battle and people are choosing sides. It's a lot easier to view both candidates favorably in February than it is in November; we're seeing that shift in full effect right now.

Crazy Theory of the Day - Olympic Bounce?

McCain's enjoyed a modest bounce in the last week or two. This has happened during a relatively quiet period in the campaign and there doesn't seem to be any clear explanation (unless Americans care more about Georgia than I think). I have no basis for this, but here's a possible explanation: the Olympics.
Obama is running on a message of change. More broadly, the Democrats are trying to capitalize on dissatisfaction with the direction the country is heading, both domestically and abroad. But, if anything can make our country more patriotic, it's the Olympics. We see great hard-working Americans like Michael Phelps succeeding on the world stage and it makes us believe that everything's just fine; we're more patriotic and more optimistic. If we can beat the rest of the world in athletic competitions, we can beat them economically and militarily. Who needs change? USA! USA! USA!

VP - Democratic Choices

Let's get this blog started with the topic of the week - who should Obama pick for the VP spot?

The VP choice is really complicated because the VP is supposed to fill a lot of roles in the campaign. Here's a very rough, incomplete list of broad considerations:

1. Message of Change - the VP choice is the one clear message a Presidential candidate gets to give about what kind of people he will appoint/rely on. Obama is running on a message of "change." Ideally, the VP will be another person who represents change in Washington - this means either a governor who has effectively crossed over party lines (Sebelius, Kaine), another relatively new Senator (Webb if he was still under consideration), or even more of an outsider like a military person (Wesley Clark) or a CEO (?).

2. Experience (foreign policy experience, in particular) - Obama obviously trails McCain on foreign policy experience, so conventional wisdom is that his VP choice should help give the ticket some foreign policy muscle. Think Biden, Bayh, Reed, Richardson, Clinton. Of course, any "experience" pick will undermine the "change" message. That's not necessarily a problem - Obama could plausibly decide that he's already "changey" enough and that some (particularly older) voters may be scared of too much change. So, he might see some advantage in having an older, more experienced Washington insider, sort of like a Democratic version of Cheney. In this case, the message would be that Obama will bring change, but he will still rely on proven leaders to help him reach his goals.A counter-argument can be made that Obama shouldn't pick one of these more experienced people because it basically means that he's conceding that he's not experienced enough on his own.

3. Move to the Center - Republicans have tried to paint Obama as extremely liberal. A centrist VP choice (i.e. Bayh) can help convince voters that Obama is a moderate. Or course, if Obama reaches too far to the center/right (Hagel), then he risks alienating the base.

4. Attack Dog - the VP candidate is generally relied on to attack the opponent so the Presidential candidate can keep his hands clean. In addition to the VP debate, the VP candidate will regularly get lots of airtime on the cable news channels, so these attacks can be important.

5. Swing States - Ideally, a VP choice will also bring a key swing state with them. Historically, it's been hard to identify VP candidates who really made a difference in their home state. LBJ is the classic example, but the fact that you have to go back to 1960 to make the case doesn't give it a lot of credibility. On the other hand, if a state is really, really close (i.e. Ohio), then the VP choice can help tilt the scale. In other words, the VP may only add a point or two in their home state, but that could all that's needed in an otherwise even state.

6. Women (/Hispanics) - A similar idea is to have a VP that can bring a certain demographic with them (i.e. women will vote for a woman, Hispanics will vote for Richardson). The flip side of this is that this could also scare away certain sexist/racist voters. I also think there's a legitimate concern that a black man running for President might be helped by having a more traditional-looking VP; in other words, a ticket without any white males might be a little too revolutionary.
Let's take a look at some of the leading candidates (some in more depth than others) and see how they look in relation to the above considerations:

Evan Bayh - (1) Bayh would bring lots of experience to the ticket and has spent a decent amount of time in Washington, so he isn't a "change" candidate, but because he's relatively young and good looking, voters might not perceive him as quite the Washington veteran that Biden or Dodd are. (2) Bayh has plenty of political experience in general, but he's not known as a particular expert on foreign policy and was very wrong on Iraq. So, while some might lump him into the "experienced" category, it's not clear to me that how much he'll actually help swing voters who are scared that Obama lacks the necessary foreign policy credentials. (3) Bayh was a very popular governor in a somewhat conservative state who accomplished goals that aren't often attributed to Democrats (the WSJ called him "a genuinely fiscally conservative Democrat.") This could help Obama move to the center somewhat, reducing the perception that he's a tax-and-spend liberal. (4) Bayh is a political pro, but he's not a dynamic speaker. He doesn't come across as weak, but he's probably not tailor-made to be an attack dog either. (5) Indiana isn't one of the top swing states (538.com lists it as the #10 tipping point state, only being the difference maker 3% of the time), but Bayh is very popular in Indiana and his father was a very popular Indiana politician as well. It's possible tht Bayh could really be a difference maker. Indiana hasn't been polled extensively; I assume the Obama campaign has done their own polling and probably has a better idea how close things are. Also, Indiana borders Ohio, so there's possibly an argument that Bayh could make a tiny difference in Ohio.

Joe Biden - (1) Biden is not a "change" candidate. (2) Biden is a great choice for foreign policy experience. Not only does he have a resume of credentials (he just went to Georgia at their President's request), he also sounds incredibly knowledgeable when he talks about this stuff. He was a supporter of the Iraq war resolution, but I think Biden is enough of a strong speaker to turn this into a positive (something like "Bush got it wrong, McCain got it wrong, even I got it wrong, Obama got it right"). (3) Biden's been in DC for a long time, so I'm sure the Republicans can find enough votes to paint him as a leftist liberal. (4) Biden's probably the best choice for attack dog. He demonstrated during the primaries (on Giuliani - "there’s only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun and a verb and 9/11") that he can sound tough.

Tim Kaine - (1) As a governor in a traditionally conservative state, Kaine is a prototypical "change" candidate and (3) a good centrist candidate. (2) Unfortunately, he doesn't have much experience. (4) I haven't listened to that much of him, but Kaine doesn't come across as an ideal attack dog. (5) Virginia is one of the big 4 (along with Ohio, Michigan, and Colorado) states in this election, so a VP from Virginia sounds like a great idea. On the other hand, Kaine's approval numbers aren't that high, so it's unclear exactly how many votes he can swing.

Kathleen Sebelius - Let's skip to the big one: (6) Sebelius could bring a lot more women voters over to the Democrats. I realize that Obama will win a majority of the female vote regardless and that Sebelius will not convert many pro-life evangelicals, but I think there are a decent number of women on the fence who could be swayed by the possibility of having the first ever female VP. Of course, there's also the possibility that certain voters might be able to vote for a black man, but might not be willing to vote for a ticket on which neither candidate is a white man - maybe that's too much change. Quickly touching the other issues: (1) as a Washington outsider who is governor of a republican state, Sebelius is a strong "change" candidate and a (3) strong centrist candidate. (2) Sebelius has no foreign policy experience. An additional problem is that as a woman, she won't be able to fake foreign policy toughness in the way that a male governor might be able to pull off (Hillary was able to overcome this, but I think a lot of voters have trouble envisioning a woman as commander-in-chief). (4) Sebelius is a good speaker, but probaly not a great attack dog (her response to the State of the Union has been criticized as weak).

Hillary Clinton - Like Biden, she's not a change candidate and not perceived as a centrist, but has strong foreign policy creds and could be a good attack dog. She'd bring over a huge number of primary supporters, some of whom might be on the fence, including women and working class whites. But, the Clintons (they're a package deal) bring a lot of baggage and will wipe out the message of change. There are a lot of voters who simply dislike Hillary (for reasons I don't fully understand) and Bill proved to be a liability during the primaries. Plus, Obama has already made a lot of gains among women, working class whites, and Hispanics in the polls; he doesn't need Hillary as much as some people think. So, I think the potential negatives outweight the positives. Plus, I don't think Obama actually wants to have the Clintons be such important parts of his administration.

Wesley Clark - His name seemed to drop out after he called into question whether McCain's military experience makes him ready to be commander-in-chief. I still think he's worthy of consideration. (1) While Clark is not thought of as "change" candidate, he also hasn't been a career politician, so he can be positioned as somewhat of an outsider. (2) As a career military man and former NATO commander, his foreign policy creds are as good as they get. (3) Clark doesn't have a liberal voting record (he doesn't have any voting record), is a military man, and from the South, so he comes across as centrist. (4) Even though he's already gotten in trouble for attacking McCain, he doesn't come across as a strong forceful speaker, so he's probably not the best attack dog.

In summary, Biden has some deficits, but he'd be a great attack dog and be able to shore up Obama's perceived foreign policy weakness. Clark would be also be a great choice on foreign policy and doesn't have Senatorial baggage, but is less of an able attack dog. Bayh brings a nice combination of experience and bipartisanship, along with the small possibility of swinging a critical state; Bayh seems like the logical pick on paper, but he just doesn't seem inspiring to me. Kaine brings his Virginia-ness, but isn't tested on the national stage. Sebelius seems like a good choice, but also a risky one (through no fault of her own); Obama has been running a very risk averse campaign. Hillary brings too much baggage.