reflectivepundit

Clinton and Obama Supporters Threaten to Elect McCain

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Take a good look at the results of a recent survey by the Gallup Poll that asked Clinton and Obama supporters whom they would vote for in the general election, if the Democrat of their choice failed to win their party’s nomination.

 

 

Close to 3 of 10 Clinton supporters and about 2 of 10 Obama supporters said they would vote for McCain. While not all of these eligible voters would actually follow through with their responses and other would simply not cast their vote for a presidential candidate, even a modest cross-over rate could mean that McCain wins and becomes George W. Bush’s successor.

That prospect is particularly scary in view of Senator McCain’s hawkish stance with respect to the “war on terrorism” and his clueless views on al-Qaeda and Iran. Because the news media have not laid glove on Senator McCain at all, the public is far less informed about his problematic agenda and record than about the real and imagined flaws of Senator Clinton and, to a lesser extent, Senator Obama.

But now, a few media voices have raised questions. The Washington Post’s Harold Myerson begins his column today with the following scenario:

It is 3 a.m., and the stillness of the White House night is shattered by the ringing of the red phone. President John McCain, rousing himself from a deep sleep, turns on the light and picks up the receiver. A
U.S. embassy in a Middle Eastern country, he is told, has been blown up, and al-Qaeda is taking credit. McCain takes a deep breath. "Character counts, my friend," he says. "Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb Iran."

There is a rustling of blankets, and, brushing aside Cindy McCain, a concerned Joe Lieberman rises from the bed. "Not Iran, Mr. President," he says. "They hate al-Qaeda."
"That's right," the president says. "I remember now." He sighs with relief. "Good thing you're here every night, Joe."

The above excerpt from Meyerson's column refers to McCain’s recent remarks that linked al-Qaeda and
Iran—a totally false assertion, he actually made before. During his recent trip through the Middle East, Senator Joe Lieberman set McCain straight as a YouTube video demonstrates—but how long does McCain remember, wants to remember?

Superdelegates and the Founding Fathers

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Much has been said and written about the role of superdelegates in the Democratic Party’s presidential selection process. The so-called superdelegates, mostly elected officials such as members of congress and governors, were created 25 years ago to give party insiders a voice in the selection of their party’s candidate for the highest office. After the selection of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter by primary voters, the idea of superdelegates made sense in order to make intra-party compatibility more likely. After all, in the American shared power system, presidents and their partisans in congress need to have common ground on important issues. The idea that superdelegates must to cast their votes along the lines of their respective states’ primary results is contrary to the rationale behind their creation.

As far as Senators Clinton and Obama are concerned, their views on superdelegates may well be colored by their current delegates’ counts. When I saw an op-ed article by John Yoo in today’s Wall Street Journal, I wondered why the law professor would weigh in on this issue. As an official in the Department of Justice during George W. Bush’s first term, Yoo found legal arguments against adhering to constitutional provisions, statutes, and international human rights and anti-torture agreements in the “war on terrorism.” Now, he thrashes the Democratic Party’s presidential selection model as undemocratic and contrary to the will of the Founding Fathers with a partisan slant. Thus, Yoo writes,

“That the 2008 Democratic nominee for president will be chosen by individuals no one voted for in the primaries flew for too long under the commentariat's radar. This from the party that litigated to ‘make every vote count’ in the 2000 Florida recount, reviled the institution of the Electoral College for letting the loser of the national popular election win the presidency, and has called the Bush administration illegitimate ever since.”

Clinton Will Soon Have the Lead in the Race

by David Epstein

There's an article making the rounds in Politico claiming that, in fact, the race is already over, and only Hillary's pull with the national press (oh really?) is stopping them from stating the obvious. Add this to similar pieces in Slate and the NYT, and we have a small boomlet of journalists trying to make it seem like the race is essentially over.

But as these articles point out, these calculations depend on completely ignoring the results in Michigan and Florida, which seems absurd. In Florida, both candidates had their names on the ballot. In Michigan, Clinton, Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel were on the ballot, Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Biden were off the ballot. So putting all the "uncommitted" votes in Obama's column is certainly giving him more than he deserves, but so be it.

With these two states added in, Obama's total vote lead shrinks from 700,000 to about 70,000. So it's likely that Clinton will take the total vote lead after the Pennsylvania primary. Then it would be up to Obama to explain why the fact that the delegate apportionment formulas give him more delegates than Clinton should override the majority vote so far in the primary season. After all, we usually associate democracy with a system where the candidate with more votes wins, so how would having the convention select Clinton be "overturning" the primaries?

No, the votes in Florida and Michigan were not perfect, and redoing them would be the best solution possible. But if that doesn't happen, we are left only with a series of imperfect measures of the candidates' popularity. None is ideal, but is it really better to throw the states out entirely? It seems that after Pennsylvania Obama's claim to front-runner status will be entirely tied up in this point of view, which is tenuous, to say the least.

After Obama’s Speech on Race in America

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Senator Obama delivered a powerful speech on the roots and the state of the white-black divide in this country. He deserves credit for addressing the race issue that for too many Americans, political leaders in particular, has been a taboo for too long. If delivered apart from the uproar over Mr. Obama’s close ties to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the eloquent words may have nailed the presidential race for the Senator from Illinois.

However, after reading through the first wave of comments on the sites of various mainstream media organizations and the blogosphere, I am convinced that the controversy surrounding Mr. Obama’s long-time pastor and spiritual adviser will not go away as a result of today’s remarkable speech. Obama’s supporters remain devoted and more enthusiastic than ever; his opponents remain as critical as ever.

Some commentators on the cable networks predicted that the Obama speech will be received well by African Americans and Whites, by Democrats, Independents, and even Republicans. But I am not convinced but believe that nothing has changed fundamentally in the presidential race.

As I wrote yesterday in my post below, Mr. Obama’s most convincing and moving words cannot erase the tapes of incendiary sermons by the Reverend Wright. If the taped material does not affect the remaining contests between Senators Clinton and Obama, it will resurface in the fall and work in favor of the Republican candidate.

Whether we like it or not, that is the political reality.

Obama, Pastor Wright, and the Presidential Race

By Brigitte L. Nacos
I have no intention to repeat here the most inflammatory, unpatriotic and, yes, racist statements that the Reverend Jeremiah Wright made during his sermons as pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. By now, the most provocative passages have been heard and seen in the mainstream media and in the blogosphere—not because of the Reverend Wright but because of presidential candidate Barack Obama who has been a member of this church for more than 20 years. Obama has called the recently retired pastor his spiritual mentor. The title of Obama’s bestseller “The Audacity of Hope” was taken from one of Wright’s sermons. And up to last week’s furor over Wright’s divisive sermons, the pastor was a member of the Obama campaign’s “African American Religious Leadership Committee.” Claiming now that he was unaware of his pastor’s shocking statements, as the Senator has, is disingenuous, if not outright dishonest.

By denouncing the pastor’s troubling statements after the latest revelations, Senator Obama cannot erase the incendiary sermon tapes or the controversy they have sparked. These tapes will be part and parcel of the Republican Party’s, the McCain for president campaign’s, and their supporters’ most damaging ammunition against Obama, if the Senator becomes the nominee of the Democratic Party. That’s politics. If the Democrats had tapes of equally controversial content by Senator McCain’s spiritual mentor and member of his campaign, they, too, would use them as weapons in their quest for the White House.

A New Theorem: Negative Campaigning in Primaries

by David Epstein   

I have a new theorem about negative campaigning in primaries (which is to say it is mine (Money Python reference)). Take a primary campaign in which one candidate is more extremist relative to the national distribution of voters (e.g., Obama), and the other more moderate (e.g., Clinton). Then negative attacks by the more extremist candidate are less damaging to the party in the national election than negative attacks by the moderate.

Why? Because the attacks by the extremist (taking the Obama-Clinton example) are of the form "Your positions are too far right." So Obama says that Clinton is too hawkish on the war. This is an attack that makes sense in a Democratic primary, but it's certainly not one that McCain will repeat in the general election; if anything, it helps her in November.

But Hillary attacks Obama by saying that he's too dovish, not experienced enough for the tough foreign policy challenges that he would face as president (this is the real message of the 3AM telephone call ad). This is an attack that McCain would certainly repeat and that damages Obama as a general election candidate.

I note this asymmetry not to make value judgments, but just because it's interesting and I hadn't heard it mentioned before. It does clarify a few elements of the current situation, though. To start with, it helps remind us that in a way Obama has been running a negative campaign from the very beginning, saying that Clinton was wrong on Iraq and he was right. In fact, I see his entire policy strategy as copying Clinton on every other major issue, so that these are a draw, and winning on Iraq. (There's also the old politics vs. Yes We Can dimension, but let's not go there now.) Obama hasn't received much flack for these attacks, partly because they bolster Hillary's image as a hawk, which she will certainly want to project in the national election once she's the nominee.

On the other hand, Hillary has to walk a finer line when she attacks Obama, because she's making many of the same points that any Republican opponent would. So she gets accused of disregarding the party's overall interests, sometimes fairly (she absolutely should not be saying that McCain is a better leader than Obama; that's heresy), sometimes not. But the rules are different for her, to some degree because she's Hillary and a Clinton, and to some degree because of the geometry of the situation.

Clinton-Obama Cease-Fire Now! Or McCain Will Win

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Unless Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama rein in themselves and call on their supporters to stop the ever more nasty attacks on the rival candidate, Senator John McCain will become the next president of the United States. While the tit-for-tat nonsense on the Democratic side is not new in this long primary season, it has gone up a nasty notch or two in the last weeks and, even more so, in the last few days. If the candidates don’t declare and implement a cease-fire on the part of their respective camps immediately, they will hand Senator McCain and Republicans enough ammunition to prevail in November.

I have been a long-time admirer of Geraldine Ferraro, but she was ill-advised and wrong in resorting in an interview to Senator Obama’s race in explaining his obvious and by many quarter’s unexpected strength in the competition for the Democratic presidential nomination. Senator Clinton was right to disassociate herself from these remarks. I also believe that Senator Clinton should not have left any doubt when what should be a non-issue of Senator Obama’s religious affiliation came up in an interview. By not unequivocally denouncing the wicked associations and doubts of bigots, one plays into their hands. Nor does it help that Senator Clinton questioned Senator Obama’s credentials to become commander-in-chief while seemingly endorsing Senator McCain’s qualifications for that role.

On the other hand, Senator Obama’s advisor, Samantha Powers, was out of line in calling Hillary Clinton a “monster.” A gifted journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner should know what on-the-record and off-the-record means in the context of interviews. Powers was right to resign. But apart from Powers, the Obama campaign has not taken the ethical high ground as the Senator wants us to believe.

Humor on the Trail

by David Epstein

Amidst the sturm und drang of L'affaire Spitzer, a few humorous tidbits from out there on the web that also overlap with previous posts/comments. First, Colbert dissects the "Big States" argument as only he can. The most telling point he makes is not the "size matters" argument -- decision theoretically, big states are more likely to tip the balance in a close race than small ones -- but dissecting the logic of "winning states in a primary means you're more likely to win them in November," which is right on the mark.

And Tom Tomorrow falls into exactly the trap I mentioned the other day in comparing the war's costs only to other possible domestic uses in his latest strip, but it's great anyway.

Spitzer: A Democratic Tragedy

As reported in the Times, NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer's career just ended when he was caught arranging to meet with a high-priced prostitute in Washington. Unless he can convince the voters that he was -- sorry about this -- engaged in an undercover investigation of the damage that top-of-the-line calls girls wreak on society, he will have to leave office in disgrace.

Spitzer was a rare politician who did enormous amounts of good as NY state attorney general. He had a rough beginning as governor -- he was, after all, elected to be the unstoppable force that could reform the immovable object that is Albany -- but I think he would have grown into the job in time, and is one of the few people you could imagine being president someday. This is a loss for New York state and a loss for the Democratic Party.

Bush’s Veto of Anti-Torture Legislation and Its Damage to America

By Brigitte L. Nacos
In today’s radio address President Bush revealed that he had vetoed legislation that would have prohibited the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics. He justified his veto by stating that the prohibitions "would take away one of the most valuable tools on the war on terror." And he added, "This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe.” In other words, torture continues to be allowed in Mr. Bush’s “war on terrorism.”
Besides prohibiting torture altogether, the vetoed bill would have banned the following:

Forcing a prisoner to be naked, perform sexual acts or pose in a sexual manner.
Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a prisoner, and using duct tape over the eyes.
Waterboarding.
Using military working dogs.
Inducing hypothermia or heat injury.
Depriving a prisoner of necessary food, water or medical care.

Even after America and the world saw the horrible visuals of Abu Ghraib and learned of “harsh interrogation” methods in other American-run facilities, the administration denied that detainees were being or had been tortured. After the U.S. Congress adopted and the president signed a bill with anti-torture provisions in October 2006, Bush insisted in his signing statement that is was the president’s prerogative to decide what methods CIA interrogators were allowed to use. But in the same breath, he continued to tell Americans and the rest of the world, “The United States does not torture. It’s against our laws and it’s against our values. I have not authorized it.” Similarly, right after Vice President Richard Cheney stated in a radio interview the “dunk in water” (meaning waterboarding) in the interrogation of detainees was a “no-brainer” he added, “We don’t torture. That’s not what we’re involved in.”