One would not think Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan would have much in common, other than both having lived in Illinois at some point in their lives. However, if the Illinois senator does become the 44th President of the United States, much of his success will have been due to emulating the 40th President of the United States.
Certainly, their politics, personal stories, career paths and eras in which they came of age are quite divergent. However, in their pragmatic approaches to politics, and their ability to forge personal bonds with legislators who are the political polar opposites, one can easily discern some striking similarities.
You can see the first similarity in their Presidential campaigns. Reagan had a simple rule: Thou shalt not hurt a member of thine own party. Now, as George H. W. Bush can attest, that didn’t mean you couldn’t attack a fellow Republican (or Democrat) on the issues. However, that didn’t extend to gutter politics, such as George W. Bush’s smear campaign on John McCain in 2000.
This approach was a big part of why Reagan enjoyed such sweeping general-election success. He didn’t have to clean mud from his shoes after the GOP conventions in 1980 and 1984 – and this relatively clean image really helped his generally positive and hopeful outlook that his campaigns offered the voting populace.
It’s obvious that Obama is trying to walk the same path. He certainly hasn’t made much of an issue of Hillary Clinton’s personal peccadilloes. He’s certainly taken more shots than Reagan did, but by not jumping into the same sewers as his attackers, he’s got the same benefit of relative cleanliness.
Their positive stumping points are also very similar. Like Reagan, Obama offers a rosy view of America’s future, with more substance than his detractors are willing to admit. Obviously, their implementations are very different. But the approach is very similar.
Obama has been described as an “empty suit”, “Manchurian Candidate”, and, courtesy of the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd, “Obambi”. Reagan endured the same types of criticisms, even though he had executive experience by the time he ran for President. One need only recall the 1980 and 1992 Republican primaries for proof. In 1980, the man eventually known as Bush 41 hung the classic “voodoo economics” tag on Reagan’s economic proposals. In 1992, H. Ross Perot dropped some political karma on then-President Bush by, of all things, coining a famously derisive phrase to describe Reaganomics, which Bush had adopted: “Trickle-down don’t really trickle down.”
Obama and Reagan saw the same priority in fixing Social Security. Both also have a very similar funding element: a temporary raise in the capital-gains tax, and an adjustment on the Social Security payroll tax.
Both have shown a clear, demonstrated ability to work with the other party to get their legislation passed. Reagan was famous for panning Congress to the press, who ate up Jellybean Ronnie’s tough talk like cake. However, remember that Congress spent much of Reagan’s eight years under a heavy Democratic influence. Despite this, Reagan managed to get almost all his proposals through. He did this by employing a personal touch not seen since the days of Lyndon Johnson. He knew how to cajole, how to plead, and how to reason with legislators. Even Democrat Tip O’Neill, then the Speaker of the House, grudgingly praised Reagan’s ability to glad-hand his way to one legislative victory after another.
In the U.S. Senate alone, Obama co-authored the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (known in Beltway shorthand as “Coburn-Obama”), the Lugar-Obama non-proliferation bill to reduce conventional WMDs, and another Lugar-Obama bill, the American Fuels Act. These major pieces of legislation were authored with Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Dick Lugar (R-IN), two of the most conservative Senators. For a “far left liberal”, Obama sure managed to get some polar opposites to work with him. These important pieces of legislation show Obama’s negotiating skills.
Probably the most striking similarity between the two politicians, though, is their ability to turn negative criticism into positive public feeling. Reagan spent a good deal of his Presidency fighting off scandals – including “Iranamok”, which exploded and stayed hot for months, and included several Reagan “inaccuracies”. A lesser politician would have been completely disgraced. Reagan, though, somehow managed to glide through it all relatively unscathed, thus earning another moniker: “Teflon Ron”.
Obama has already dealt with a raft of potential hot-button issues. His racial makeup, his middle name, the unfortunate similarities between “Obama” and “Osama”, his religious beliefs (polling still shows that about a quarter of white Americans who disapprove of Obama still think he’s a Muslim), Jeremiah Wright, Antoin Rezko, William Ayers, “Bitter-gate”, etc.
Many Democrats have been sunk for far less than the perceived weight of those issues. (Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry leap to mind.) However, Obama’s poll numbers seem to have improved after many of these stories broke. And if the controversies have hurt him with the party elite, the superdelegate movement definitely doesn’t reflect it, as Obama is now less than 25 supers behind Clinton, who started out the primary season with over 200 endorsements.
Obama has a Teflon coating wrapped in a Kevlar bodysuit. He’ll need all of his armor in the general election, courtesy of your friendly neighborhood right-wing 527s.
Of course, the two men aren’t really alike. If they ran against each other, they’d have big differences in policy and personal stories. Both men ran for President under strikingly similar national circumstances: burgeoning international crisis, depressed economic circumstances, and stark rises in fuel costs.
Ronald Reagan’s real secret to political success was to offer a hopeful agenda that made Americans believe positive change was not only possible, but even inevitable, if he got elected. If Barack Obama does take the oath of office next January, the concepts of hope and change will have found their greatest advocate since Reagan himself.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Dumb and Dumberer: When Charlie met George
There was a debate last night at Philadelphia's Constitution Center. Unfortunately, the people who should have been in attendance at the end were the city's vice detectives. That way, at least the fraud that was perpetrated by Charles Gibson, George Stephanopoulos and ABC could be fully investigated.
Yes, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama have debated 20 times before. However, it had been almost two months since the Cleveland debate, and as we all know, much has transpired since then.
What I expected was some difficult questions for both Senators. For Obama, I thought he'd have to answer questions on "Bitter-gate", as well as some of his personal associations with people like Jeremiah Wright, Antoin Rezko and William Ayers. Personally, I don't think those are major issues, but they're definitely fair game for a Presidential election. They're also part of the real talking points the Clinton campaign will use in persuading superdelegates to move in her direction.
For Clinton, I thought she'd have to talk about Tuzla, Colombia, and the Peter Paul trial. Again, I am not convinced these are major issues, but they're also fair game for a Presidential election. And Clinton hasn't been made to answer any serious questions about possible conflicts of interest in a third Clinton Administration or the possibility of the next POTUS being found liable in an eight-figure civil suit.
I thought the time limits were a good idea. At least that way, once the tabloid stuff was done, we could move on to talk about such insignificant matters as the Iraq occupation, the possibility of military action in Afghanistan or Pakistan, how to handle Iran, the economy, the mortgage crisis, and the decline of American educational performance.
Unfortunately, three horrible things occured to make this, without question, the worst of the 21 Democratic debates. We'll look at them as questions I would ask to ABC News executives, if I ever got the chance.
(1) What happened to balance? Obama was asked some tough questions. Ayers, again, is fair game. I thought he was correct to bring up the fact that Ayers was doing his work when Obama was still in primary school, several thousand miles away. The point about Tom Coburn is legitimate, though perhaps not politically correct. He might have done better to throw in the fact that he's successfully co-sponsored major legislation with Coburn.
However, Clinton was asked exactly one question that touched on her own controversy - and it didn't even come from the moderators. She gave an answer that, while stilted, finally gave some public declaration of remorse for her Bosnia prevarications. She should have avoided the passing reference to sleep deprivation, but again, at least she owned up to the embarrassment. Then, immediately after her answer, Gibson went at Obama with a different question, allowing no chance for a response on Tuzla. Obama probably wouldn't have gone after Clinton, but it's worth noting that Clinton was given specific opportunities to rebut every one of Obama's responses in the first 40 minutes.
I was stunned that there were no questions on Colombia. Clinton's got three major people involved with her campaign who either have been or are actively involved with lobbying efforts in favor of a free-trade agreement with that nation - a concept that Clinton has actively opposed. This seems to be an issue that is worth examining more fully. The Paul case is also a big issue. How many Presidential candidates have ever been defendants in a civil suit while running for office? A judge thought enough of Paul's case to reinstate Sen. Clinton as a defendant. This alone is newsworthy, yet she's not been asked a single MSM question on this.
(2) Where did these questions come from? Gibson's justification for the questions on flag pins and patriotism is that "they keep coming up." That might be the single most inane line of reasoning I've ever heard him utter. Clinton doesn't wear a flag pin. For that matter, John McCain doesn't wear one either. If it's a non-issue for them, it's a non-issue for Obama. The debate spent several minutes on this manufactured issue. Along with the other inanities, this left 30-60 seconds per candidate at the end to discuss such trivialities as how to keep gas prices under $4 per gallon.
Stephanopoulos, not to be outdone, got in on the idiocy too. What possible import could Jeremiah Wright's patriotism have on the election issues? Never mind the fact that the man volunteered to become a US Marine, and personally tended to President Lyndon Johnson, or that he was one a select group of clergy invited to the White House in 1998 to pray for Bill Clinton at the dawn of the Lewinsky scandal. Wipe those arguments out, and it's still a patently goofy question.
(3) Did anyone bother to consider the moderators? After his putrid performance last night, Gibson should never be allowed to moderate another debate again for as long as he lives. But at least one can understand why he would have been selected. Stephanopoulos, though, should never have been selected. His professional and political associations alone should have disqualified him. His clownish performance should, like Gibson's, be a permanent disqualifier for future moderator gigs. ABC royally blew this part of the debate. They'd have been better off with Joy Behar and Elisabeth Hasselbeck.
So, who made better points? That appears to be a draw. I suspect most undecided voters will give Obama a pass for the first 40 minutes. Although I imagine we may see a few more Ayers stories in the media, this will not be an issue again until the Republican attack machine tries to drum it up in the general election, should Obama be the nominee. Clinton seemed to be at her best when pressing issues, and made her main points of electability and detailed policy proposals. However, Obama counterpunched effectively - stopping her on Ayers when he pointed out that Bill Clinton had pardoned two Weather Underground activists. She also walked into a stiff left jab when he ended the Social Security debate by pointing out that the 1983 Reagan commission, which Clinton had just praised, did, in fact, raise the payroll tax to beef up funding - which Clinton had just opposed. The debate was heading for a break before that exchange started, and that was probably fortuitous for Clinton.
Who won? Overall, Clinton will probably come out of the debate less the worse for wear - if for no other reason than the first 40 minutes set the tone for the evening. Neither candidate made any new points or brought up anything new, which probably helps Obama more than Clinton. She didn't get her big break tonight, but did show more humor and personality than she usually does.
I thought the only potential Obama stumble came when Gibson asked a follow-up question about what appears to be Obama's handwriting on a 1996 survey that stated, among other things, his position on gun control at the time. Obama's response was to say that his handwriting wasn't on that survey. However, there's a Politico article by Kenneth Vogel that includes a link to the PDF version of the survey, and the handwriting does look like Obama's. This is potentially another "gotcha" moment. But the debate wasn't a big poll mover, most likely.
Who lost? Without question, the "Dumb and Dumber" moderators - and, by extension, their network. Because of them, what should have been an interesting, mostly issue-focused debate was instead the greatest waste of bandwidth since George W. Bush's last press conference. I just hope the detectives bring latex gloves and galoshes to the crime scene, because there's probably some serious excrement around the moderators' table.
Yes, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama have debated 20 times before. However, it had been almost two months since the Cleveland debate, and as we all know, much has transpired since then.
What I expected was some difficult questions for both Senators. For Obama, I thought he'd have to answer questions on "Bitter-gate", as well as some of his personal associations with people like Jeremiah Wright, Antoin Rezko and William Ayers. Personally, I don't think those are major issues, but they're definitely fair game for a Presidential election. They're also part of the real talking points the Clinton campaign will use in persuading superdelegates to move in her direction.
For Clinton, I thought she'd have to talk about Tuzla, Colombia, and the Peter Paul trial. Again, I am not convinced these are major issues, but they're also fair game for a Presidential election. And Clinton hasn't been made to answer any serious questions about possible conflicts of interest in a third Clinton Administration or the possibility of the next POTUS being found liable in an eight-figure civil suit.
I thought the time limits were a good idea. At least that way, once the tabloid stuff was done, we could move on to talk about such insignificant matters as the Iraq occupation, the possibility of military action in Afghanistan or Pakistan, how to handle Iran, the economy, the mortgage crisis, and the decline of American educational performance.
Unfortunately, three horrible things occured to make this, without question, the worst of the 21 Democratic debates. We'll look at them as questions I would ask to ABC News executives, if I ever got the chance.
(1) What happened to balance? Obama was asked some tough questions. Ayers, again, is fair game. I thought he was correct to bring up the fact that Ayers was doing his work when Obama was still in primary school, several thousand miles away. The point about Tom Coburn is legitimate, though perhaps not politically correct. He might have done better to throw in the fact that he's successfully co-sponsored major legislation with Coburn.
However, Clinton was asked exactly one question that touched on her own controversy - and it didn't even come from the moderators. She gave an answer that, while stilted, finally gave some public declaration of remorse for her Bosnia prevarications. She should have avoided the passing reference to sleep deprivation, but again, at least she owned up to the embarrassment. Then, immediately after her answer, Gibson went at Obama with a different question, allowing no chance for a response on Tuzla. Obama probably wouldn't have gone after Clinton, but it's worth noting that Clinton was given specific opportunities to rebut every one of Obama's responses in the first 40 minutes.
I was stunned that there were no questions on Colombia. Clinton's got three major people involved with her campaign who either have been or are actively involved with lobbying efforts in favor of a free-trade agreement with that nation - a concept that Clinton has actively opposed. This seems to be an issue that is worth examining more fully. The Paul case is also a big issue. How many Presidential candidates have ever been defendants in a civil suit while running for office? A judge thought enough of Paul's case to reinstate Sen. Clinton as a defendant. This alone is newsworthy, yet she's not been asked a single MSM question on this.
(2) Where did these questions come from? Gibson's justification for the questions on flag pins and patriotism is that "they keep coming up." That might be the single most inane line of reasoning I've ever heard him utter. Clinton doesn't wear a flag pin. For that matter, John McCain doesn't wear one either. If it's a non-issue for them, it's a non-issue for Obama. The debate spent several minutes on this manufactured issue. Along with the other inanities, this left 30-60 seconds per candidate at the end to discuss such trivialities as how to keep gas prices under $4 per gallon.
Stephanopoulos, not to be outdone, got in on the idiocy too. What possible import could Jeremiah Wright's patriotism have on the election issues? Never mind the fact that the man volunteered to become a US Marine, and personally tended to President Lyndon Johnson, or that he was one a select group of clergy invited to the White House in 1998 to pray for Bill Clinton at the dawn of the Lewinsky scandal. Wipe those arguments out, and it's still a patently goofy question.
(3) Did anyone bother to consider the moderators? After his putrid performance last night, Gibson should never be allowed to moderate another debate again for as long as he lives. But at least one can understand why he would have been selected. Stephanopoulos, though, should never have been selected. His professional and political associations alone should have disqualified him. His clownish performance should, like Gibson's, be a permanent disqualifier for future moderator gigs. ABC royally blew this part of the debate. They'd have been better off with Joy Behar and Elisabeth Hasselbeck.
So, who made better points? That appears to be a draw. I suspect most undecided voters will give Obama a pass for the first 40 minutes. Although I imagine we may see a few more Ayers stories in the media, this will not be an issue again until the Republican attack machine tries to drum it up in the general election, should Obama be the nominee. Clinton seemed to be at her best when pressing issues, and made her main points of electability and detailed policy proposals. However, Obama counterpunched effectively - stopping her on Ayers when he pointed out that Bill Clinton had pardoned two Weather Underground activists. She also walked into a stiff left jab when he ended the Social Security debate by pointing out that the 1983 Reagan commission, which Clinton had just praised, did, in fact, raise the payroll tax to beef up funding - which Clinton had just opposed. The debate was heading for a break before that exchange started, and that was probably fortuitous for Clinton.
Who won? Overall, Clinton will probably come out of the debate less the worse for wear - if for no other reason than the first 40 minutes set the tone for the evening. Neither candidate made any new points or brought up anything new, which probably helps Obama more than Clinton. She didn't get her big break tonight, but did show more humor and personality than she usually does.
I thought the only potential Obama stumble came when Gibson asked a follow-up question about what appears to be Obama's handwriting on a 1996 survey that stated, among other things, his position on gun control at the time. Obama's response was to say that his handwriting wasn't on that survey. However, there's a Politico article by Kenneth Vogel that includes a link to the PDF version of the survey, and the handwriting does look like Obama's. This is potentially another "gotcha" moment. But the debate wasn't a big poll mover, most likely.
Who lost? Without question, the "Dumb and Dumber" moderators - and, by extension, their network. Because of them, what should have been an interesting, mostly issue-focused debate was instead the greatest waste of bandwidth since George W. Bush's last press conference. I just hope the detectives bring latex gloves and galoshes to the crime scene, because there's probably some serious excrement around the moderators' table.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Hillary As Rocky?
There's a lot of nameless irritation about Sen. Hillary Clinton. Some of it is in her campaigning, some of it is with her almost Sybil-like message changing, some of it is with her almost uncanny ability to "spin" or "misspeak" so frequently.
However, my own recent irritation with Clinton revolves around her particularly contradictory and insulting attempts to portray herself as the underdog for the Democratic nomination.
She was asked yesterday by ABC News how she planned to win the nomination. Her response: "Why is this question directed at me?" She went on to complain that the question should also be asked of Sen. Barack Obama, as he can't win without superdelegates either. Of course, the de rigeur "double standard" complaint was rehashed shortly thereafter.
Of course, there is no double standard here. When there's a political race, the candidate who is losing is asked how they plan to win. John Edwards, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee were all asked this question prior to dropping out of the primaries. On the other hand, you wouldn't ask the leading candidate how he plans to win...because he's already winning.
A few days ago, Clinton was speaking to the AFL-CIO in Philadelphia. There, she compared herself with fictional boxing legend Rocky Balboa. (This implies that Obama would be - Apollo Creed? Maybe Clubber Lang, as a Chicago foil for the Italian Stallion, would be her chosen projection for Obama instead?)
Now, I love underdogs. I find them encouraging and uplifting. As a lifelong, dyed-in-the-red St. Louis Cardinals fan, I rejoiced when they thumped the "experts" and the Detroit Tigers to win the 2006 World Series. As a current Pittsburgh area resident, I loved seeing the sixth-seeded Steelers win three road games and Super Bowl XL. My movie collection includes "Rudy", "Hoosiers", "Pride", "Stand and Deliver", "Lean on Me" and "Invincible". I also have "Rocky", "Rocky II", "Rocky III" and "Rocky Balboa". I've even run the steps of the eastern entrance to the Philadelphia Art Museum. (My lungs were very unhappy with me for several minutes afterward.)
You, Senator Clinton, are no Rocky Balboa. Trying to claim that you're an underdog is disingenuous - at best.
A reasonable definition of “underdog” is, someone who STARTS OUT way behind and faces serious shortcomings in skill against prohibitively formidable front-running opposition. With a little luck, a lot of support from those closest to him, and a remarkable ability to focus on the goal despite tremendous obstacles, the underdog becomes top dog in a closely-fought climactic contest.
The Clinton spin machine would like you to see Hillary Clinton as a brilliant, tough, put-upon victim of (choose at least one: sexism, misogyny, anti-feminism) who is scrapping just to stay in the race and fight for every American's vote.
“She’s being victimized! She’s being railroaded by this young punk with no brain, big ears and a big grin! Don’t let the sun go down on her! She’s the only one who can run the country!”
I agree that she's brilliant and tough. The rest of it? Pure bunk.
Hillary Clinton started out with enormous advantages. She got virtually all positive media attention when she announced her candidacy. She enjoyed tremendous name recognition. Compared to Obama, she is the consummate Washington insider, with the connections to match. She was running at 40% in national polls for the Democratic nomination last year - with EIGHT other candidates in the field. She has a two-term President spouse who has thrown all his political resources and chits behind her candidacy. She had 200 superdelegate endorsements before a single vote was ever cast in the Iowa caucuses. She had a $120 million war chest ready to go.
Now, all she has is a $5 million IOU and a small - but difficult to close - delegate deficit.
If Clinton loses this race, it has nothing to do with her gender. It has to do with her badly misreading the electorate and badly mismanaging her campaign. Why would one run as a candidate of “experience” in a year where incumbents in general are likely to take a beating? Why would one claim “35 years of experience” that would have to have started the moment she matriculated from Yale Law?
The abject failure to push a correct and consistent message can't be foisted off on Bill Clinton, Mark Penn, Patti Solis Doyle or anyone else. If she can mismanage a $180 million campaign this badly, I shudder to think what she’ll do with a few trillion.
Rocky Balboa? I think not. Try the 2007 New England Patriots. Bill Belichick must have a "19-0" hoodie he can lend to Clinton.
However, my own recent irritation with Clinton revolves around her particularly contradictory and insulting attempts to portray herself as the underdog for the Democratic nomination.
She was asked yesterday by ABC News how she planned to win the nomination. Her response: "Why is this question directed at me?" She went on to complain that the question should also be asked of Sen. Barack Obama, as he can't win without superdelegates either. Of course, the de rigeur "double standard" complaint was rehashed shortly thereafter.
Of course, there is no double standard here. When there's a political race, the candidate who is losing is asked how they plan to win. John Edwards, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee were all asked this question prior to dropping out of the primaries. On the other hand, you wouldn't ask the leading candidate how he plans to win...because he's already winning.
A few days ago, Clinton was speaking to the AFL-CIO in Philadelphia. There, she compared herself with fictional boxing legend Rocky Balboa. (This implies that Obama would be - Apollo Creed? Maybe Clubber Lang, as a Chicago foil for the Italian Stallion, would be her chosen projection for Obama instead?)
Now, I love underdogs. I find them encouraging and uplifting. As a lifelong, dyed-in-the-red St. Louis Cardinals fan, I rejoiced when they thumped the "experts" and the Detroit Tigers to win the 2006 World Series. As a current Pittsburgh area resident, I loved seeing the sixth-seeded Steelers win three road games and Super Bowl XL. My movie collection includes "Rudy", "Hoosiers", "Pride", "Stand and Deliver", "Lean on Me" and "Invincible". I also have "Rocky", "Rocky II", "Rocky III" and "Rocky Balboa". I've even run the steps of the eastern entrance to the Philadelphia Art Museum. (My lungs were very unhappy with me for several minutes afterward.)
You, Senator Clinton, are no Rocky Balboa. Trying to claim that you're an underdog is disingenuous - at best.
A reasonable definition of “underdog” is, someone who STARTS OUT way behind and faces serious shortcomings in skill against prohibitively formidable front-running opposition. With a little luck, a lot of support from those closest to him, and a remarkable ability to focus on the goal despite tremendous obstacles, the underdog becomes top dog in a closely-fought climactic contest.
The Clinton spin machine would like you to see Hillary Clinton as a brilliant, tough, put-upon victim of (choose at least one: sexism, misogyny, anti-feminism) who is scrapping just to stay in the race and fight for every American's vote.
“She’s being victimized! She’s being railroaded by this young punk with no brain, big ears and a big grin! Don’t let the sun go down on her! She’s the only one who can run the country!”
I agree that she's brilliant and tough. The rest of it? Pure bunk.
Hillary Clinton started out with enormous advantages. She got virtually all positive media attention when she announced her candidacy. She enjoyed tremendous name recognition. Compared to Obama, she is the consummate Washington insider, with the connections to match. She was running at 40% in national polls for the Democratic nomination last year - with EIGHT other candidates in the field. She has a two-term President spouse who has thrown all his political resources and chits behind her candidacy. She had 200 superdelegate endorsements before a single vote was ever cast in the Iowa caucuses. She had a $120 million war chest ready to go.
Now, all she has is a $5 million IOU and a small - but difficult to close - delegate deficit.
If Clinton loses this race, it has nothing to do with her gender. It has to do with her badly misreading the electorate and badly mismanaging her campaign. Why would one run as a candidate of “experience” in a year where incumbents in general are likely to take a beating? Why would one claim “35 years of experience” that would have to have started the moment she matriculated from Yale Law?
The abject failure to push a correct and consistent message can't be foisted off on Bill Clinton, Mark Penn, Patti Solis Doyle or anyone else. If she can mismanage a $180 million campaign this badly, I shudder to think what she’ll do with a few trillion.
Rocky Balboa? I think not. Try the 2007 New England Patriots. Bill Belichick must have a "19-0" hoodie he can lend to Clinton.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
