Politics from The Washington Independent - U.S. news and politics - washingtonindependent.com

Biden Time

Jefferson Morley — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:03:19 GMT

Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware will be announced today as Barack Obama's vice presidential nominee.

Obama sent word of the selection of Biden, a six-term Senator and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in an email at 6:55 this morning after the decision was first reported by Association Press around midnight.

"Joe and I will appear for the first time as running mates this afternoon in Springfield, Illinois -- the same place this campaign began more than 19 months ago," Obama told supporters.

Biden is known for his international expertise and his talkative--some say longwinded--style which has occasionally gotten him in political trouble. Last year he described Obama "the first mainstream African American [presidential candidate] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," a remark he spent days trying to explain away.

In the end, the gaffe didn't hurt Biden, as the Illinois Senator yesterday told Virgnia Governor Tim Kaine, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh and defeated rival New York Senator Hillary Clinton that they would not be on the ticket.

Biden differed from Obama on the key issue of Iraq, voting in late 2002 to authorize the Bush administration to use military force against the government of Saddam Hussein. While Biden became a fierce critic of the Bush policy after the 2003 invasion, he still defends that vote, a stance that may rankle anti-war Democrats.

Biden provides no obvious electoral advantage to Obama. Delaware's three electoral votes are all but certain to go for the Democrats.

The youngest person ever elected to the Senate, Biden was just 29 when first took office in 1972.

As Iowa Independent has reported, his wife Jill teaches at a community college. His son Beau was deployed to Iraq earlier this year as a member of the National Guard.

A New Democratic Coalition

Steven J. Ross — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:40:58 GMT

In 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt redefined U.S. politics by forging a dramatically new coalition that ended 12 years of Republican rule and propelled him to the presidency. Seventy-six years later, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama hopes to replicate Roosevelt’s success by forging his own coalition — if one markedly different from FDR’s.

Roosevelt built an alliance that included labor unions, white ethnics (Irish, Italians and Jews), African-Americans, liberal intellectuals, urbanites, Southern whites and, after passage of the Social Security Act in 1935, the elderly. FDR’s New Deal coalition proved powerful enough to enable Democrats to win seven of the nine presidential elections between 1932 and 1964.

Obama has drawn a decidedly different coalition into his campaign: white professionals, Internet activists, independents, disenchanted Republicans and the new technological white-collar workforce—people who tend to vote; and youth, African-Americans and apolitical women—groups who often fail to register but are being persuaded to by Obama and powerful allies like Oprah Winfrey.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Obama’s faithful represent dramatically different groups from FDR’s era -- in part because the U.S. economy and workforce are dramatically different. The industrial working class of the 1930s has been supplanted by a new generation of information-technology workers—educated men and women who labor in a wide variety of white-collar information-technology jobs and run many of the Internet websites that have brought him unprecedented campaign contributions.

Yet many now wonder whether the Democratic Party can survive without its traditional base of labor unions, blue-collar white males, white ethnics and old style urban political machines—groups who proved its stronghold during the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s.

That base began crumbling in the mid-1960s, when debates over civil rights and the war in Vietnam drove many Democrats — especially blue-collar workers — into the Republican camp. The New Deal coalition continued deteriorating during the late 1960s and fell apart after the 1968 Democratic convention, when ant-iwar activists succeeded in setting new quotas for increased minority, youth and female participation in the next convention.

In 1972, after rejecting Old Guard leaders like Hubert H. Humphrey, Edmund Muskie, and Henry “Scoop” Jackson, Democratic delegates—80 percent attending a convention for the first time—nominated George S. McGovern and passed a decidedly Left platform that was anti-imperialist, anti-racist, pro-feminist, pro-abortion and pro-gay rights.

Arguing that Democrats no longer championed values FDR stood for, values that drew together a broad spectrum of middle- and working-class Americans, many longtime liberals and prominent intellectuals left to join the emerging neo-conservative movement. The old New Deal coalition was dead and none has been reassembled since. No wonder Democrats can sometimes look like a party without a center.

Obama stands poised to forge a new Democratic coalition. To win, however, he needs to draw another critical group into his potential alliance, one that could help sweep him into office and keep him there for the next eight years: the 50 percent of the eligible electorate who rarely vote.

Americans have become blasé about voting for national leaders. That was not always the case. From 1840 to 1900, voter turnout in presidential elections ranged from a low of 70 percent to a high of 82 percent.

The second half of 20th century, however, saw a sharp drop in the percentage of citizens who voted. Most presidential elections between 1948 and 1968 attracted only 50 to 60 percent of the eligible voters. From 1972 to 2004, voting percentages averaged 53 percent. Contrast this to the long lines of Venezuelan voters who turned out before dawn several months ago and stood in line for hours to vote down Hugo Chavez’s constitutional amendments.

Why has U.S. turnout been so low? Largely because American feel alienated from the political process. Many say they see little real difference between candidates, little real difference between parties and little likelihood that politicians will carry out their campaign promises.

The conventional wisdom among political consultants is that only 50 percent of the eligible population will vote in presidential elections—and of that group, 40 percent vote Democratic and 40 percent Republican. That leaves the election in the hands of the remaining 20 percent of the undecideds. Not surprisingly, recent presidential campaigns focused on winning that 20 percent. Republicans move to the left and Democrats to the right in hopes of winding up somewhere in the seemingly appealing—to the undecideds at least—bland middle.

Things could be different this year if Obama succeeds in adding citizens who do not usually vote to his New Democratic coalition. According to most polls, this group is comprised of blacks, Americans under age 30, the lower middle class, those who never attended college and people who feel they have little grasp of key election issues.

Over the years, many candidates have talked about reaching out to the 50 percent of Americans who feel alienated from the political process -- the 50 percent who feel disenchanted, disillusioned and discouraged with politics as usual. However, during this election season, voter turnouts in primaries have been unusually high—record-setting in many states.

Pundits now predict an extraordinarily high turnout this November. If that happens, it will be because many of the 50 percent who never bother have decided to join the national body politic. The discouraged are finally feeling encouraged. Moreover, a large percentage of those new activists are young voters, who feel they can finally make a difference.

What has changed? Three things: charisma, new messages and a powerful ally—Oprah Winfrey.

The first two are familiar to political junkies, but they matter to those who do not usually follow campaigns. In our telegenic age of politics, Obama displays more charisma and screen presence than any candidate since John F. Kennedy. To paraphrase Marshall McLuhan, the medium can be more important than the message. Consider, hose who listened to the John F. Kennedy-Richard M. Nixon debates on radio in 1960 thought the latter won; those who watched it on TV thought Kennedy won. We know who won that November.

Equally important, Obama has excited Americans by moving away from FDR’s interest group politics and embracing a more transcendent message that avoids harsh partisanship and reaches out to a broader range of citizens.

Since the onset of the Cold War, Republicans have often preached the politics of fear and reassurance—of dire foreign threats coupled with reassuring promises to preserve domestic tranquility. Democrats, on the other hand, preached the politics of hope and guilt—of what America could be, but how prejudice and selfishness prevented us from realizing those dreams. Fear and reassurance often proved a greater motivator of voters than hope and guilt.

Obama has now reinvigorated the message of hope by dropping the guilt. Instead, he is focusing on the possibility of change. “Yes we can!” and “Change we can believe in” have become rallying cries for many who never cared much about politics.

Winfrey is another critical part of Obama’s new politics. Celebrities have endorsed political candidates since the 1910s, often with mixed results. In a media-drenched culture, support from a Sean Penn or Barbra Streisand can often hurt a candidate now.

Yet Winfrey’s gravitas and reputation as a serious activist who tries to improve the lives of others is far greater than any contemporary star. Her reach is extraordinary: a television show that attracts 8 million viewers each weekday afternoon; a magazine with a circulation of 2 million; a weekly newsletter sent to nearly a half-million, and 360,000 people who subscribe to her web site for daily “Oprah Alerts.”

Winfrey's endorsement of Obama in July 2007 marked the first time she has supported a political candidate. Though this will not necessarily make her fans vote for Obama, it will make them pay attention to what he has to say. Once they do, once they no longer feel ignorant about key campaign issues, many could wind up voting for him.

As one Iowa woman told a New York Times reporter, “I’m leaning more towards Obama, and that’s because of both Oprah’s support and what I’ve seen of him.” That Iowan is not the only one affected by Winfrey. Her mere presence at rallies helped draws tens of thousands of people to arenas in Iowa, New Hampshire, California and South Carolina—where Obama had to rent a stadium to satisfy the overwhelming demand to see him and Winfrey.

Many of the 50 percent who never vote are Winfrey’s people—women who feel turned off by politics. Her support of Obama might change the political constellation.

We know from political demographics that women tend to vote Democratic far more heavily than men. If Winfrey can get them to listen -- as she seems to have done in the primaries -- if she can get 1-2 percent of the non-voters to vote, what we know from the 2000 and 2004 elections is that an increase of 1-2 percent in key states can swing a presidential election.

Indeed, a recent study by two economists contends that Winfrey’s endorsement gave Obama a boost of more than 1 million votes in the primaries and caucuses—nearly 1 percent of the total votes cast in the 2004 presidential elections. This is why Winfrey and her fans can be as powerful as any interest group recruited into FDR’s coalition.

Is this the same Democratic Party as in FDR’s day? Yes and no.

The specific issues and coalition partners have changed, but the core message of Obama’s Democratic Party remains the same as in Roosevelt’s time: more government rather than less.

Though Republicans see government as the problem and not the solution, Democrats continue to promote a strong federal government that acts to protect the interests of the nation’s citizens. Local and state governments, they believe, simply cannot address the complex problems that face a country of more than 300 million people.

Today’s Democrats are no longer the party of Roosevelt or his New Deal coalition. But come November, pundits, academics and citizens could well be talking about Obama’s New Democratic coalition—one powerful enough to change the face of American politics for decades to come.

Steven J. Ross, a professor of history at the University of Southern California, is the author of "Working-Class Hollywood: Silent Film and the Shaping of Class in America." He is now working on a new book, "Hollywood Left and Right: How Movie Stars Shaped American Politics."

McCain Camp Mum on Iraq Timeline (Updated)

Matthew DeLong — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:19:24 GMT

Up at his ranch near Sedona, Sen. John McCain must be fuming. After everything he's done for President George W. Bush's campaign efforts -- the endorsement through clenched teeth after the bruising 20000 primary, stumping in 2004, etc. -- Bush couldn't even do McCain the simple courtesy of not completely undermining the Arizona senator's entire Iraq policy as he makes his bid for the presidency.

Now that the Bush administration appears to be on the verge of agreeing to a timeline (or is it a timetable? a time horizon?) for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq by 2011, the presumed GOP nominee is in a pretty tight spot. On the campaign trail, McCain frequently disparages any notion of a timeline for withdrawal, preferring instead to put his faith in the judgment of Gen. David Petraeus -- whom McCain referred to as "one of the great military leaders in American history" last weekend at the Saddleback Church forum -- to bring the troops home as developments on the ground permit.

Sen. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has had his 16-month timetable essentially endorsed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- who is currently negotiating the new timeline with the Bush administration. The administration subsequently shifted its position from being adamantly against anything remotely resembling a timetable for troop withdrawal and agreed to a "time horizon," the difference being largely semantic.

Of course, the agreement being negotiated reportedly provides for a change to the timeline if security deteriorates in the future, so it's not totally artificial. But now that McCain finds himself all alone on one side -- with objective reality, the Iraqi and American governments, and perhaps most important for him, his Democratic opponent standing together on the other -- what is he to do? Flip-flop? Hold fast to an increasingly irrelevant position?

Not surprisingly, the McCain campaign has yet to make a statement on the new developments -- it may be waiting to see the final result. But the prospect of reformulating its position on the central issue of its campaign, with a little more than two months remaining until the general election, must have some folks in Sedona and Arlington a bit worried.

UPDATE: At 8:07 EDT Sen John McCain released the following statement, doing its best to spin the days events favorably -- i.e. the success of the surge allowed these discussions in the first place, and this is fundamentally a "conditions-based agreement" that is really what McCain has been arguing for the whole time.

"I am pleased that, following the surge strategy led by General David Petraeus and our brave men and women in uniform, security in Iraq has improved to the point at which we can responsibly talk with our Iraqi allies about U.S. troop withdrawals. Because of the hard-won success of this strategy, the Iraqi security forces are able to take on ever greater responsibility for security in their country. We should not forget that this is possible only because of the surge -- a strategy many predicted would fail and that some cannot, even today, recognize as a stunning success.

"While negotiations with the Iraqi government are ongoing, reports indicate that all dates included in the draft security agreement are aspirational goals, based on conditions on the ground. Conditions-based withdrawals of U.S. troops are the precise opposite course of that advocated by Senator Obama. Senator Obama seeks to withdraw all U.S. combat forces regardless of the consequences for Iraq or for American national security, and in disregard of our commanders' best counsel. Had we followed his course, Iraq could have easily descended into chaos and America would have suffered a catastrophic defeat. Instead, we are today negotiating a conditions-based agreement that will enable us to withdraw troops in victory and with honor."

McCain Crisis Strategy: Go All In

Matthew DeLong — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:34:40 GMT

The McCain campaign's responses to the events of the last two days have revealed much about its strategy for dealing with crises. This strategy can be easily summed up: "At the first sign of trouble, go all in."

This week was the first time Sen. Barack Obama really went after Sen. John McCain. First, with an ad released Wednesday linking McCain to Ralph Reed, a prominent associate of convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Then again yesterday, with an ad hammering McCain on the "Housegate" controversy -- when he was unable to recall just how many houses he had -- and portraying him as out of touch with the troubles of ordinary Americans.

The McCain camp, in full-on damage control mode, immediately went to the big guns it had been saving for just such a situation. The campaign has been keeping three cards up its sleeve since Obama became the nominee in June, all involving controversial figures connected in varying degrees to Obama: former domestic terrorist William Ayers, convicted real-estate developer Tony Rezko and the senator's former minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In the last 48 hours, the campaign trotted out two of them -- and threatened the third.

Yesterday, a conservative group called the American Issues Project announced a massive $2.8 million buy for an ad linking Obama to Ayers -- a former member of the Weathermen, the radical group responsible for bombings around the United States to protest the Vietnam War, during the late 1960s and early '70s.

Without defending Ayers' actions, it is worth noting that the only people the Weathermen's bombs ever killed were their own members -- by accident. After turning himself in to authorities in 1980, Ayers is now an education professor and activist in Chicago. Politico reported earlier this year that Obama attended an event at Ayers' home before he ran for the Illinois State Senate in the mid-1990s, and the two remained casual friends -- though Obama has condemned Ayers past actions. From Politico:

Now, as Obama runs for president, what two guests recall as an unremarkable gathering on the road to a minor elected office stands as a symbol of how swiftly he has risen from a man in the Hyde Park left to one closing in fast on the Democratic nomination for president.

“I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers’ house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,” said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the informal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. “[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.”

Obama and Palmer “were both there,” he said.

The AIP ad also draws a non-existent connection between Ayers and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The message: Obama is connected to Ayers, who was connected to bombings, which are a form of terrorism -- and Islamic terrorists carried out 9/11. Therefore, Obama is connected to Islamic terrorists. Get it? To its credit, Fox News declined to run the spot yesterday.

Of course, it was not the McCain campaign that released this ad. However, in a Wednesday evening post on The McCain Report blog, McCain campaign blogger Michael Goldfarb posted a statement from McCain spokesman Brian Rogers, raising the Obama/Ayers connection in response to the Obama campaign's Ralph Reed ad:

“Barack Obama’s ad is ridiculous. Because of John McCain, corruption was exposed and people like Jack Abramoff went to jail.

“However, if Barack Obama wants to have a discussion about truly questionable associations, let’s start with his relationship with the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, at whose home Obama’s political career was reportedly launched. Mr. Ayers was a leader of the Weather Underground, a terrorist group responsible for countless bombings against targets including the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon and numerous police stations, courthouses and banks. In recent years, Mr. Ayers has stated, ‘I don’t regret setting bombs … I feel we didn’t do enough.’

It's possible that the one-two punch on Ayers is a mere coincidence. It would also seem to be a distinct possibility that AIP had the ad in the can for a while, just waiting for the McCain campaign to say something about Ayers, and then -- BAM! -- get it on the air. However, a former senior McCain campaign adviser, Ed Failor Jr., is one of only two AIP board members listed on the group's Website. Also noteworthy: According to ABC News, the AIP spokesman, Christian Pinkston, formerly worked with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who attacked Sen. John Kerry in 2004.

The McCain campaign trotted out the Ayers connection in response to a relatively minor threat -- Obama's Ralph Reed ad was only aired in Reed's home state of Georgia -- a relatively safe Republican state -- where Reed had solicited donations from political associates on behalf of the McCain campaign. Of course, the ad was garnering national headlines about McCain's support from an Abramoff crony -- which explains the campaign's desire to hit Obama hard on one of his own associates.

Similarly, McCain hit back with a vengeance against Obama's "Housegate" ad -- actually titled "Seven" -- with the Rezko spot, which I discuss in detail here. Rezko is far more of a sore spot for the Obama campaign than Ayers, because Rezko's ties to the Illinois senator are far more extensive and longstanding. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, the two met in 1990 and Rezko was one of Obama's major financial backers since the beginning of his political career in the mid-1990's. Aside from Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- Obama's controversial former pastor -- Rezko is likely the biggest piece of dirt the McCain campaign has on Obama.

Wright is the McCain campaign's real "nuclear option." Wright was Obama's pastor for 20 years -- and he officiated at Obama's wedding and baptized his children. Though Obama has distanced himself from Wright and his inflammatory comments, in the eyes of many Republicans the preacher represents all the anti-Americanism and radical Black Nationalism that they have long, if subtly, sought to tie to Obama. It was telling that a McCain campaign official reportedly dropped Wright's name into the mix yesterday. This means one thing: he's definitely coming -- probably the next time Obama does some real damage to McCain.

The problem for McCain is that there is still more than two months until the general election. With this much time left -- and three debates still to come -- there will likely be many opportunities for Obama to bloody McCain. McCain has already played the Ayers and Rezko cards, leaving him with just Wright. Each of these lines of attack will likely lose potency the more they are trotted out. From a strategic point of view McCain will have to wait for the right moment to use Wright for maximum benefit. If his campaign overreacts and releases a Wright ad too early -- or too frequently; or if Obama has an effective counter-strategy for deflecting this attack, it could be wasted. Obviously, the last two days have demonstrated that the Obama campaign needs to have that strategy prepared and ready to go, if it hasn't already. Though I'm sure it is.

The question remains: how far will Obama go in retaliating against such an attack? Will the Keating Five scandal -- in which McCain was a central figure -- show up in Obama's ads? Time will tell. If this campaign continues on the negative path it is currently on, I would certainly not be surprised.

But even if -- or when-- that happens, McCain has demonstrated that when the attacks get personal, he is fully prepared to break out the brass knuckles.

A post on Pandagon [warning, foul language] yesterday sums up the situation nicely, I think:

It’s good to see that the McCain campaign’s response to the first punch [Obama]’s caught is to go apeshit nuclear out of the gate. He may go "Taxi Driver" on us by the time this is said and done.

Stingy Republicans Hurting GOP Ad Efforts

Mike Lillis — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:30:00 GMT

For Senate Republicans, November could be the cruelest month. Not only are they the party of the least popular president in the history of approval ratings, but they also have scandals to confront and 23 seats to defend (compared to just 12 for Democrats). Seems that, in the face of all those factors, Sen. John Ensign (Nev.), who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, is having a bit of trouble getting colleagues to open their wallets to help out Republicans facing tough reelection bids this year. The absence of willing donors is impeding GOP efforts to run campaign ads. From CQ:

Republican lawmakers contributed $1.1 million to the NRSC through June, while Democrats chipped in nearly $5 million, according to FEC reports. Joint fundraising committees raised nearly $1.2 million for the NRSC, compared to $3.4 million for the DSCC.

[…]

Ensign had challenged his colleagues to step up back in July by increasing their fundraising efforts or by providing more of their own direct contributions. His statement amounted to a renewed call to arms.

"It is my hope that my Republican colleagues will engage in this election and help match what the Democrats are doing," Ensign said. "If they do, I will adjust our budget accordingly."

Not sure what Ensign hopes to accomplish by issuing such a statement, unless he thinks that embarrassment is the surest form of persuasion. Perhaps, senator, your colleagues just see a losing cause when they see one.

Ad: McCain Is Just One of Us

Matthew DeLong — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:11:47 GMT

In its newest TV ad, titled "Higher," the McCain campaign once again hits Sen. Barack Obama on taxes and his "celebrity" status -- and seeks to link Sen. John McCain with average Americans. Here's the ad:

PRODUCTION NOTES: The ad begins with the now-familiar crowd chanting Obama's name. As flash bulbs go off, a female announcer says, "Celebrities don’t have to worry about family budgets, but we sure do. We’re paying more for food and gas, making it harder to save for college, retirement." Wait a second. We? Who is the announcer referring to -- herself and the rest of us? Since she is an employee of the campaign, it would be fair to assume that the campaign is linking itself -- and its candidate -- to average Americans. "We" are all in this together, and "we" are all worried about higher taxes.

The purpose of this language is obvious. The Obama campaign attacked McCain yesterday for being out of touch with regular people after he could not say for sure how many homes he and his wife own -- clearly not a problem most Americans have. Now the McCain campaign is coming back and saying, "Don't worry, McCain is one of you guys."

The announcer also says, "[Obama]'s ready to raise your taxes." However, as McCain's ads frequently do, the spot falsely implies that Obama wants to raise taxes on all Americans, because his tax plan calls for a tax increase on some Americans in higher tax brackets. I believe this is what's known as a logical fallacy. Under Obama's tax plan, most Americans do not have to worry about tax increases -- but McCain does. Even conservative analysts have acknowledged that Obama's plan will deliver larger tax cuts to middle class Americans than would McCain's. But Obama would raise taxes on those making more than $200,000 for an individual or $250,000 for a couple -- which, by the way, the McCains do. So maybe the "we" to which the announcer refers is actually John and Cindy McCain. That would actually make sense.

McCain Almost Certain He Has Ten Toes

Bruce McCall — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:31:04 GMT

Tracking panther-like through a jungle of personal statistics, Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, today counted off one crisp fact after another about himself and his possessions in a breathtaking reversal of his recent muddled answers on how many homes he owns.

"I stand here before you," McCain began, "on what I am almost certain are 10 toes -- which is easy to
remember, because by great coincidence that is the same number of fingers on my hands. I'm told that this is how many homes I own as well. I always knew that's the same as the number of Canadian provinces. But I didn't want to intrude on another country's internal affairs by saying so; those ----- Canadians are such ------- touchy ----------s."

The Arizona senator then launched into a dazzling display of his command of statistical data. "I'd have nine holes left over if I only played half of an 18-hole golf course. Sorry to sound like I'm showing off, but when you got it, flaunt it!"

Returning to the matter of his multiple dwellings, McCain stated that it would be good for America to have a president with 10 homes. "That way, he explained, "you could have a Southwestern Summer White House, a West Coast Winter White House, a D.C. Christmas White House, even a National Secretaries' Week White House -- if Cindy gave it the OK. The point being, a White House for every need, every notion."

The soon-to-be 72-year-old senator did confess that being the owner of multiple homes is not always a blessing. "Last time I came off the campaign trail," he noted, "I had to try seven houses before I found the one Cindy was in."

Bruce McCall, a humorist, is a regular contributor to The New Yorker and Vanity Fair. He is the author of "All Meat Looks Like South America: The World of Bruce McCall" and "Zany Afternoons."

McCain Drops Rezko Ad

Matthew DeLong — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:03:12 GMT

We all knew it was coming -- it was just a matter of when. In response to an ad released by the Obama campaign feeding off the so-called "Housegate" controversy and portraying Sen. John McCain as out of touch with ordinary Americans on the housing crisis, the McCain campaign yesterday "went nuclear" and released its own spot blasting Sen. Barack Obama for his ties to his long-time friend and fund-raiser, Tony Rezko. Rezko, a Chicago real estate developer, was convicted in June on fraud and bribery charges. Here's the McCain ad:

PRODUCTION NOTES: The McCain ad, titled "Housing Problem," focuses on two aspects of Obama's relationship with Rezko that drew attention in the course of Rezko's trial. First, it says Rezko helped Obama "buy his million dollar mansion, purchasing part of the property he couldn't afford." In fact, it was Rezko's wife who purchased the parcel adjacent to the Chicago home Obama bought in 2005. The seller owned both parcels and wanted to sell them both at the same time. From the Chicago Sun-Times:

Obama’s relationship with Rezko grew closer in June 2005, when Obama and Rezko’s wife bought adjoining real estate parcels from a doctor in the South Side Kenwood neighborhood. Obama paid $1.65 million for the doctor’s mansion, while Rezko’s wife paid $625,000 for the vacant lot next door. Obama’s purchase price was $300,000 below the asking price; Rezko’s wife paid full price.

Six months later, Obama paid Rita Rezko $104,500 for one-sixth of the vacant lot, which he bought to expand his yard. In November 2006, he expressed regret about the transaction.

“It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else,” Obama said, “to believe that he had done me a favor.”

According to the Sun-Times, it was "widely reported" that Rezko was under investigation at the time of Obama's land purchase from Rezko's wife. I'm not going to defend Obama here. Without a doubt, this does not look good.

The ad then suggests Obama did political favors for Rezko, "including $14 million from taxpayers." This is a reference to letters Obama wrote in 1997, as an Illinois state senator, in support of a deal that benefited Rezko. From the Sun-Times:

As a state senator, Barack Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting his political patron Tony Rezko's successful bid to get more than $14 million from taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens.

The deal included $855,000 in development fees for Rezko and his partner, Allison S. Davis, Obama's former boss, according to records from the project, which was four blocks outside Obama's state Senate district.

It is important to note that Obama has never been accused of wrong-doing. However, the sequence of the two charges in the ad seems to imply that Obama did a $14 million favor for Rezko quid pro quo for the land purchase. Because the letters preceded the house/land purchase by about eight years, this is extremely unlikely -- unless Obama and Rezko conspired with remarkable forethought and patience -- and therefore the ad is misleading.

In this ad, the McCain campaign brought out the big guns. I'll go out on a limb and predict this is not the last we'll hear about Mr. Rezko.

Battleground Zero

Jefferson Morley — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:48:39 GMT

On the eve of the presidential nominating conventions starting next week, Sen. John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, has narrowed, if not eliminated, the lead that Sen. Barack Obama, the likely Democratic candidate, held in national polls just a month ago.

The Zogby/Reuters poll that had McCain behind by seven percentage points in July now has the Arizona senator leading by five points. Meanwhile, Obama, though ahead by six points in a Gallup poll as recently as a month ago, now has just a slim one-point lead, well within the margin of error.

Why is the race getting closer?

Reasons for this shift may be evident in dispatches from four Center for Independent Media journalists reporting from battleground counties in key swing states. Each county surveyed was closely contested in the 2004 contest, which pitted President George W. Bush against Sen. John Kerry. Each was won by the candidate who carried the state that year.

Over the last week, these political reporters spoke with political observers and voters in these four contested areas, to learn how this presidential campaign is playing out--not in the blogosphere, not on talk radio, not on cable, not on a MSM editorial page--but on the streets of America.

In Dallas County, the fastest growing in Iowa, Jason Hancock of the Iowa Independent found that McCain has rebounded from the drubbing he received in the caucuses. He now has the support of many conservatives who had voted against him just eight months ago.

In Sandoval County, suburban Albuquerque, New Mexico Independent reporter Joel Gay found Obama's message of change was resonating with voters disappointed by eight years of Republican rule.

In Pine County, the exurbs of Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn., more than a few voters did not shy from telling Minnesota Independent's Paul Demko that Obama's race is a reason to vote against him.

And in Michigan, which could the most important swing state, Michigan Messenger's Alexa Stanard found in Oakland County that Obama's race--and McCain's age--clearly figure in some voters minds.

Voters were interviewed randomly. The samples were small and unscientific. Any conclusions should be made cautiously.

This is a snapshot of four bellwether counties of an evenly divided nation 10 weeks away from selecting its next president.

Battleground Zero

Iowa Independent: McCain recovers in a GOP bulwark against a statewide Democratic tide.

New Mexico Independent: In New Mexico's presidential vote, Sandoval County will be key.

Minnesota Independent: The battle for Pine County.

Michigan Messenger: In Oakland County, "change" is the word -- and race and age are in the air.

He's Black -- 'Get Over It.'

Ari Melber — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:04:13 GMT

When future historians dissect the press coverage of the first black person to run as the presidential nominee of a major party, they will surely marvel at all the linguistic acrobatics and patronizing euphemisms. There are exceptions, of course, and today's New York Times features a welcome break from vague racial speculation with a thoughtful, well-researched report on racial prejudice in rural Pennsylvania. Journalist Michael Powell hits the problems that many reporters are afraid to touch, largely because he did enough homework to ensure that the article enables voters to tell the story themselves:

In Raccoon, Kelly Dobbins, a middle-aged factory worker, offered the same [view as another voter]: “I’m like a duck in the water — I float there but underneath I’m paddling hard as I can go,” Mr. Dobbins said. “What’s pushing me toward McCain is Obama. Who is he? Where does he stand?" Such questions hint at a cultural disconnect. Mr. Obama would invest tens of billions of dollars in retooling mills and factories to fashion windmills and solar panels. He notes that Denmark and the Netherlands have grown fat off the new energy economy....

White-haired Art Seckman stepped gingerly off his porch. Mr. Seckman puts no faith in Mr. McCain. “He looks tired, and he’s gung-ho about war,” Mr. Seckman said. “I was a Hillary guy, but Obama sounds honest and he’s young and he understands the modern economy.” He paused, and laughed, “Maybe, funny as it sounds, it’s time for a black man to fix this mess.”

For a century, Aliquippa formed the primal heart of Beaver County. There was the mill, the company store and the Italian Renaissance library built by the daughter of the mill founder. Ethnic communities occupied each hill. Croats, Italians, Irish and blacks worked, fought, and drank together. Now the downtown offers swaybacked homes and boarded storefronts, and rubble. Aliquippa is 35 percent black, the highest percentage in the county. Glenn Kimbrough, 65, with a silver-tipped goatee and a neat Afro, came out of the mills after 37 years. Mr. Kimbrough is an Obama supporter but he would not hazard a guess as to how his white buddies will vote. He said economic disaster had exacerbated racial tensions. With the mills closed, the work force is resegregating. Carl Davidson, a white friend and an Obama supporter, sat in Mr. Kimbrough’s living room. “My father voted for Edwards in the primary and now he wants McCain,” said Mr. Davidson, whose father and grandfather labored in the mills. “Without realizing it, he’s wrapped up in white-identity politics.” Sorting out white-voter discomfort with Mr. Obama is tricky business. Most speak of unease with his newness. But one in five primary voters surveyed in the Edison/Mitofsky exit poll in Pennsylvania said race was a factor. (emphasis added).

It's disheartening to learn about these voters, but that's the reality. This kind of "white-identity politics" is racist, and there's very little value in pretending it's not a major factor in key states. The article ends on this point, with a crisp counterpunch from a union organizer:

In Hookstown, Kristine Lakovich, 48, works the counter at Kiner’s Superette. She likes Mr. Obama, a preference she keeps to herself. “If you ask people around here, he’s not exactly the right answer,” Ms. Lakovich said. “People are split between their politics and their prejudice.”

Nationally, the Obama campaign shies from talk of race, preferring to argue that the poor economy will dominate this election.

Such delicacy holds no purchase here. An organizer with the United Steelworkers met with 30 workers in Beaver. He could not have been blunter. Mr. Obama, he told them, stands for national health care, strong unions and preserving Social Security.

“Some of you won’t vote for him because he’s black,” the organizer concluded. “Well, he’s a Democrat. Get over it.”

It doesn't make for the typical campaign slogan or bumper sticker. But it sure is true.

Swift Boaters and the Housing Crisis

Mary Kane — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:21:05 GMT

Since housing and politics are so intertwined today, it's worth noting this post from The Big Picture, which details the role of swift boaters in a new development regarding the failed IndyMac Bancorp.

There's a lot to explain here, since swift boating and the housing crisis haven't exactly been linked previously. But via a Reuters report, The Big Picture says that 51 former IndyMac employees sent a letter to the California Attorney General's office, requesting an investigation into Democratic Senator Charles Schumer's role in possibly causing the bank's failure. Schumer sent a letter in June to federal regulators questioning the financial stability of IndyMac, a troubled subprime lender hit hard by the mortgage crisis. Shortly after the letter was made public, the bank experienced a run by account holders. The FDIC took over IndyMac on July 11, and it became the third-biggest bank failure in American history. The problem here, as The Big Picture notes, is there wasn't exactly an authentic and sudden groundswell of indignation from former IndyMac employees. Here's what really happened:

Who is behind this "groundswell" of (former) IndyMac workers? It turns out that the employee letter was distributed to the media by CRC Public Relations -- yes, the group whose clients include the National Republican Congressional Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Republican National Committee.And, CRC was the PR firm behind the company that published a book questioning 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's Vietnam service on a swift boat. Yes, those despicable, embarrassing festering boils on the Americans body politics: Liars, cheats & traitors all. Let's review: It wasn't the conflicts of interest, the outright fraud, or management's rampant criminality that sent Indy Mac belly up. It wasn't losing nearly a billion dollars this year alone. It wasn't the share prices tumbling 87% in 2007, and then losing another 95% this year-to-date. And of course, the loss of ~$30 billion dollars had nothing to do with this. It was the Senator's letter in June that was the cause of the collapse. Man, these swift boat guys are a dangerous combination of rabidly partisan, utterly ethicless, economically clueless -- and about as dumb as lawn furniture. They make you proud to be an American.

Looks like the housing crisis is about to become an even bigger political issue, and it's going to go well beyond the debates over foreclosures and rescue plans.

McCain Flack: Rezko Is 'Fair Game' Now

Matthew DeLong — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:38:38 GMT

Responding to the Obama campaign's attacks on Sen. John McCain's inability to say how many homes he owns, McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers basically said "it's on," according to The Washington Post:

"We're delighted to have a real estate debate with Barack Obama," said spokesman Brian Rogers, adding that the press should focus on Obama's house. "It's a frickin' mansion. He doesn't tell people that. You have a mansion you bought in a shady deal with a convicted felon."

The felon reference was to Tony Rezko, a former Obama friend and financial backer who was convicted on fraud and bribery charges this year. Rogers vowed to intensify efforts to link Obama to Rezko in the coming days.

"That's fair game now," he said. "You are going to see more of that now that this issue has been joined. You'll see more of the Rezko matter from us."

Politico's Jonathan Martin -- who, along with his colleague Mike Allen, asked the now-infamous question that McCain couldn't answer -- reports the Republican National Committee has released a torrent of oppo research on the Obama-Rezko connection. Here's a sample, from Politico:

Obama Paid $300,000 Less Than The Asking Price For His Mansion, While Tony Rezko's Wife Paid Full Price For A Vacant Lot Next Door On The Very Same Day. "Two years ago, Obama bought a mansion on the South Side, in the Kenwood neighborhood, from a doctor. On the same day, [Antoin 'Tony'] Rezko's wife, Rita Rezko, bought the vacant lot next door from the same seller. The doctor had listed the properties for sale together. He sold the house to Obama for $300,000 below the asking price. The doctor got his asking price on the lot from Rezko's wife." (Tim Novak, "Obama And His Rezko Ties," Chicago Sun-Times, 4/23/07)

The Seller Of Obama's Home "Wanted To Sell Both Properties At The Same Time." "On the same day Obama closed on his house, Rezko's wife bought the adjacent empty lot, meeting the condition of the seller who wanted to sell both properties at the same time." (Brian Ross and Rhonda Schwartz, "The Rezko Connection," ABC News' "The Blotter" Blog, abcnews.go.com, 1/10/08)

Rush Limbaugh is, predictably, getting in on the action as well, according to another of Martin's Politico colleagues, Ben Smith:

This business about McCain not knowing how many houses he has. Folks, it turns out that Obama already knows. Obama’s got an ad: He’s got seven houses. They’re worth $13 million. That wouldn’t even pay for one of John Kerry’s houses.

And the second thing I have to point out to you is that I don’t care how many houses McCain has, he and his wife did not get a sweetheart deal from a fraud embezzler like Tony Rezko to buy their houses. But the Messiah did. The Messiah got all kind of sweetheart deals with Rezko, and who knows who else.

Last I checked, John Kerry isn't running for president, but Rush was never one for sticking to the relevant issues. However, the Rezko thing is certainly not something Obama wants back in the headlines. It was always out there during the primaries, but never gained much traction nationally. Now that Obama has effectively secured the nomination -- and his campaign chose to make an issue of McCain's homes -- it's more likely that the national press will pick up on the story, considering the Republicans will undoubtedly continue to push it. As I wrote earlier, Obama may have picked a fight that will leave both candidates bloodied.

UPDATE: The RNC has launched a Website highlighting Obama's relationship with Rezko -- or relaunched with a new header, we should say.

Political Groups Rake in Funds

Mike Lillis — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:23:44 GMT

Hoping to maintain their campaign-finance-reforming personas, both Sen. Barack Obama, the likely Democratic nominee, and Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican nominee, have asked supporters to forego contributions to independent political groups and instead channel dollars directly to them.

Donors from both sides, however, are clearly ignoring these messages.

Through June of this year, total fund-raising by "527" organizations -- tax-exempt groups that participate in elections but can't advocate for or against specific candidates -- is up roughly 24 percent compared to four years ago, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan campaign-finance watchdog group. While the bulk of those dollars are now focused on state and local elections, millions are also being funneled to federally focused groups, created to sway the presidential race.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

The strategy played an important role during the 2004 contest, when a conservative 527, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, helped torpedo the presidential chances of Democratic Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) by airing dubious charges against his Vietnam War record. Since that episode, campaign finance reformers have sought to rein in these groups, while new 527s regularly pop up in hopes of becoming the next Swift Boat Veterans. While election experts all agree that these "issue-advocates" will have an effect on this year's race, no one knows beyond speculation what that effect will be.

"The 527s and the independent groups can say things that the candidates can't," said Robert M. Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, a Los Angeles-based non-profit research group. "They're going to have some role this year, but the role is unknown. We won't really be able to evaluate it until after the election."

The potential influence of 527s is difficult to gauge for a host of reasons. First, most 527 spending in 2004 came late in that election season, and experts anticipate a similar trend this year. Some organizations may not have yet even been fully formed, waiting until the election gets closer before they emerge and pounce on an issue. "Groups in '04 waited until the fall to ramp up their spending," said Paul Ryan, FEC program director at the Campaign Legal Center. "We're really in a wait-and-see posture."

In addition, because these 527s are not regulated by the Federal Election Commission, much of their activity can go unnoticed until elections have passed. That's because 527 reports are due quarterly, as opposed to the monthly filings required under FEC election rules. "There won't be a lot of good information until it's already too late," said Laura MacCleery, deputy director of campaign finance at New York University Law School's Brennan Center for Justice.

Clouding the predictions, 527 fund-raising is not always the best indicator of potential influence. Groups need an issue that resonates with the public. Consider that the Swift Boat Veterans spent less than $23 million in 2004, according to the CRP -- a healthy sum, but still only a fraction of the roughly $78 million spent by America Coming Together, a liberal get-out-the-vote organization. The controversy swirling around the Swift Boat campaign, however, made the group the focus of countless news stories. And, more important in this process -- many voters bought their message.

"They actually didn't spend a lot," Richard Briffault, a campaign finance expert at Columbia University Law School, said of the Swift Boat Veterans. "They just got a ton of free publicity."

Hoping to make a similar impact on this year's presidential contest, donors from both the left and right are opening up their pocketbooks to these groups. Indeed, conservative, federally focused 527s took in roughly $43 million through June, CRP says -- more than twice what they had at the same point four years ago. Highly energized liberal donors, meanwhile, have contributed about $92 million to federally focused 527s over the same span, CRP says. That's less than they gave by that juncture in 2004, but more than double what similar conservative groups have amassed.

Furthermore, when state and local groups are factored in, contributions to liberal 527s are rising this election cycle at almost precisely the same clip as four years ago, up to $171 million through June (versus $175 million in 2004). Nationwide, conservative 527s have raised $98 million, nearly double their take in 2004.

It wasn't supposed to play out this way. At least on the surface, both presidential candidates have sought to discourage such donations. In May, Obama spokesman Bill Burton told The Washington Post, "If people want to support our campaign, they should do it through our campaign."

Charles R. Black, a senior campaign adviser to McCain, echoed that. "Obviously," he told The Post, "McCain would prefer that people give money to him and the RNC [Republican National Committee] and let us run our own campaign."

Ostensibly, those requests were designed to lend the candidates greater command over their own campaign messages. Many experts, however, question whether the presidential hopefuls were ever sincere in their opposition to 527s. After all, these "independent" groups can get away with attack ads that the campaigns probably cannot. In a tight election year, the desire to win the White House could easily trump a principled stand on an obscure campaign-finance issue. Stephen Weissman, associate director for policy at the Campaign Finance Institute, characterized the candidates' positions on these independent groups as "ambiguous."

"They want to win," Weissman said in an email, "and if these groups are useful they will not repudiate them." Or maybe repudiate them after they have proved effective.

Neither Obama's nor McCain's campaign office responded to requests for comment.

Another factor involves the eagerness of the FEC to go after potential 527 violators. In the wake of the 2004 election, the FEC concluded that the Swift Boat Veterans, along with a handful of other organizations, some of them liberal, had abused their 527 status. The group declined to fight the ruling and paid a $300,000 fine. Unfortunately for the Democrats, it was then December of 2006.

Many campaign finance groups say the FEC needs to get more aggressive with potential 527 impersonators. Otherwise, there is little to discourage some groups from breaking campaign finance rules when it matters most.

"Well-funded 527s might be prepared to just push ahead and pay a fine," said Massie Ritsch, communications director for the CRP.

In a move that's gained a great deal of attention, T. Boone Pickens, a billionaire oil tycoon who contributed heavily to the Swift Boat Veterans as well as other GOP causes in 2004, has seemingly abandoned his partisan cheerleading this election cycle to promote a comprehensive energy plan, with wind power as a big component. "I'm totally non-partisan," Pickens told reporters last week during a press call urging a national energy debate.

Experts cautioned, however, not to interpret Pickens move away from the 527 business as a sign that a larger national trend is at hand.

"He's got his own pet issue," said Jan W. Baran, a campaign-finance expert with the law firm Wiley Rein. "Obviously, it's got nothing to do with boosting the campaign of either candidate."

"It's a mistake," said Briffault of Columbia, "to generalize based on any one individual."

Indeed, the Pickens exodus has made little difference in a frenzied campaign environment where 527s have already raked in more than $300 million.

DNC Slams McCain as 'Sen. Hothead'

Ari Melber — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:16:50 GMT

Who said Democratic campaigns don't launch personal attacks? The Democratic National Committee just hit a huge personal weakness of Sen. John McCain -- his anger-management problem.

In a research document blasted to campaign reporters, the Democrats are teeing off McCain's recent complaint that Obama is "testy." After asking whether McCain "Really Want[s] to go Down This Road," the DNC runs through reports of McCain's infamous temper -- from his own Republican colleagues:

GOP Sen. Thad Cochran: “The Thought Of His Being President Sends A Cold Chill Down My Spine.”

“Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, who has known Sen. John McCain for more than three decades, on Wednesday endorsed Mitt Romney for president. Cochran said his choice was prompted partly by his fear of how McCain might behave in the Oval Office. ‘The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine,’ Cochran said about McCain by phone. ‘He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.’” [Boston Globe, 1/27/08]

Former GOP Sen. Bob Smith: “His Temper Would Place This Country At Risk In International Affairs, And The World Perhaps In Danger. In My Mind, It Should Disqualify Him.”

“Former Sen. Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican, expresses worries about McCain: ‘His temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him.’… ‘I've witnessed a lot of his temper and outbursts,’ Smith said. ‘For me, some of this stuff is relevant. It raises questions about stability. . . . It's more than just temper. It's this need of his to show you that he's above you -- a sneering, condescending attitude. It's hurt his relationships in Congress. . . . I've seen it up-close.’” [Washington Post, 4/20/08]

GOP Sen. Pete Domenici: “I Decided I Didn't Want This Guy Anywhere Near A Trigger.”
McCain’s “ire is all too real. This has prompted questions about whether his temperament is suited to the office of commander-in-chief... [AP, 2/16/08]

Some Democrats worry that this kind of argument leaves the party vulnerable to accusations of negative campaigning, which could potentially undermine Obama's promise of a new, honest and more civil politics. That gets it backward. It is McCain's temper and actions -- widely and openly discussed by members of his own party -- that demand public scrutiny as he seeks the most powerful position in the world. Voters may choose him despite his temper, but honest campaigns are supposed to ensure all legitimate issues are vetted and debated in public. These issues cannot be preempted because insiders think voters can't handle vexing issues, or that the public will resent the political party that bring them up.

Obama Hammers McCain on Homes

Matthew DeLong — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:19:39 GMT

The Obama campaign wasted no time in jumping all over Sen. John McCain's admission in an interview with Politico that the doesn't know how many homes he and his wife own. In one of its sharpest attacks to date on the presumed Republican nominee, the Obama rapid response team quickly put together a video that portrays McCain as out of touch on the housing crisis -- and reminds him that he owns seven homes, worth $13 million.

At a town hall today in Chester, Va., Obama linked McCain's homes to his recent statements that a rich person makes more than $5 million annually and that "the fundamentals of our economy are very strong," to illustrate how McCain is out of touch with the economic hardships faced by many Americans.

"[T]here was another interview – this is yesterday, same day – where somebody asked John McCain, how many houses do you have? And he said, 'I’m not sure. I’ll have to check with my staff.' True quote. 'I’m not sure. I’ll have to check with my staff.' So they asked his staff, and he said, at least four. At least four.

Now, think about that. I guess if you think that being rich means you’ve got to make $5 million and if you don’t know how many houses you have, then it’s not surprising that you might think the economy was fundamentally strong. But if you’re like me, and you’ve got one house, or you are like the millions of people who are struggling right now to keep up with their mortgage so they don’t lose their home, you might have a different perspective. And, by the way, the answer is John McCain has seven homes. So there’s just a fundamental gap of understanding between John McCain’s world and what people are going through every single day here in America."

The McCain camp immediately hit back, releasing a statement painting Obama as a hypocritical elitist for pursuing this line of attack:

“Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses? Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people ‘cling’ to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who’s in touch with regular Americans?”

Politifact, the St. Petersburg [Fla.] Times' fact-checking operation, released a report confirming that, including investment properties, the McCains do in fact own seven homes -- most of which are in Cindy McCain's name.

So basically, we have two wealthy candidates -- one being relatively "new money" who was still paying off student loans until his books became bestsellers, and the other married into such an incredible fortune that he can't even say with certainty how many houses he has -- hammering away at each other on who is more out of touch with the American people. This is obviously a favorable issue for Obama, but it could easily turn into one of those inter-campaign spats that leaves the winner bruised as well.

President McCain Would Hold 'Question Time'

Matthew DeLong — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:41:37 GMT

The Politico interview with Sen. John McCain yesterday in Las Cruces, N.M., was chock full of goodies. In addition to not being able to say how many homes he and his wife own, McCain "flatly" stated that he is not considering a one-term pledge, as many had speculated. He also promised to hold weekly press conferences as president -- the current traveling press corps should be so lucky! -- and to appear on C-SPAN "all the time."

But the real gem, in my humble opinion, was McCain's vow to hold "Question Time," à la British Parliament, once every "couple weeks" -- during which members of Congress would be able to ask questions of him. Anyone who has seen the prime minister go before the House of Commons knows what I'm talking about -- this is the WWE "Smackdown" of politics. We in America may (finally) get a regular dose of this:

That would be so sweet. I couldn't think of a better way to get young people interested in government affairs.

It's a Daddy Thing -- Campaign '08 Edition

Ari Melber — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:30:00 GMT

This year's presidential nominees have both penned autobiographies exploring their family roots. Sen. John McCain coauthored "Faith of My Fathers," tracing his initial rebellion and ultimate embrace of his dad's military traditions, while Sen. Barack Obama meditated on the role of an absent parent in "Dreams From My Father." The books' emphasis reveals that both politicians have "father issues," argues my friend Eli Sanders in a new essay, that gamely plays the father card on the presidential contenders.

Starting with the Obama side, Sanders plucks a striking quote from "Dreams," when the young Obama wrestles with his feelings on a visit to Kenya in search of information about his father's side of the family:

What if the truth only disappointed, and my father's death meant nothing, and his leaving me behind meant nothing, and the only tie that bound me to him, or to Africa, was a name, a blood type or white people's scorn?

Sanders thinks Obama's vexing quest to engage and understand his dad, even if only through memory, follows the worldview of enlightenment liberals:

[Thus Obama is a] man who exemplifies the liberal ideal, operating on the belief that difficulty will be overcome through honest interaction between interior pain and outside realities, and committed to serious intellectual inquiry but ready for the possibility that it will only disappoint.... [The candid, emotional book is] a great achievement and now serves as a powerful antidote to the conservative meme about Obama being a shallow changeling with no fixed core. At Obama's core, the book convincingly shows, is a deep yearning to have had a father to teach him what it meant to be Barack Obama, and a deep pride at having learned to be that father to himself.

That sounds nice, but a bit too neat, since Sanders does not detail what he thinks it means to be Barack Obama -- or even how Obama transcended that yearning to teach himself. (To be fair, one response is that Obama's books and visionary speeches, including his controversial address on fatherhood, already cover that ground.) Sanders goes on to dissect McCain's writing, and then issues the conclusion to this political book report:

The books, taken together, do a surprisingly better job of providing one with a feel for the candidates than the current blizzard of news coverage. They also suggest a clear choice of daddy issues in this election.

On one side is a man who sought to understand his father, move on, and become his own person—a man who in his early 30s looked inside himself and found a voice, and a memoir, that were both ahead of their time.

On the other side is a man who sought his father's approval, failed in moments to live up to his father's ideals and continues to this day to want to be a man cut from the family mold—a man who late in life got a friend to help him write a book that sounds like just about every other made-to-order political biography of a once-wayward military hero. (emphasis added)

Or, as the political shorthand puts it: change versus more of the same.

Most commentators say that Obama is a better writer than McCain. That view is so established in conventional wisdom, in fact, that it even made for Saturday Night Live fodder. The books' content, however, is obviously more important than any literary skills involved.

Indeed, it is worth focusing on whether Obama's inclusive family journey, now embedded in his unusual campaign for president, is a better framework for the kind of nation voters want, as Sanders argues, than a worldview informed by McCain's conflicted relationship with traditional authority -- a pol who played the loud rebel role, but always fell into line when it was time to work for the man.

What Do You Mean He's Out of Touch With Working-Class Americans?

Matthew DeLong — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:40:00 GMT

Is it fair to expect Sen. John McCain to pay attention to trifling details -- like how many homes he owns? He is a busy man after all. I'm sure it's hard to keep track of such things when you're running for president. In an interview with Politico yesterday, McCain could not give a definitive answer when asked how many properties he and his wife, Cindy, own. From Politico:

"I think - I'll have my staff get to you," McCain told us in Las Cruces, N.M. "It's condominiums where - I'll have them get to you."

I mean, I'm constantly forgetting how many homes I own. There's the ranch near Sedona, the Coronado Island condos, the one in Arlington...

That's usually when I wake up and realize I was just dreaming about living McCain's life -- and then I look around and find that I'm still in my $700 per month apartment, with a car that would be starting high school this year if it was a person. I'm not complaining though. No sir, because I'm rich in character -- and according to McCain, that means I have real wealth. Also from Politico:

“I define rich in other ways besides income,” he said. “Some people are wealthy and rich in their lives and their children and their ability to educate them. Others are poor if they’re billionaires.”

See? It's not about money. What I want to know is where is the compassion for those poor, lonely billionaires? Where's the outrage?

Obama Curbs Superdelegates and Eyes 2012

Ari Melber — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:22:31 GMT

Today's Washington Post reports that Sen. Barack Obama will try to change party rules to reduce the power of superdelegates and reform the presidential nominating calendar:

[A new commission would be established] with a goal of reducing the power of superdelegates, whose role became a major point of contention during the long battle for the Democratic nomination between Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. The commission also will be urged to redraw the nominating calendar for 2012 to avoid starting the primaries and caucuses so early, and also to look specifically at ensuring more uniform rules and standards for those caucuses.

Vesting unchecked power to unelected insiders. Overriding the clear will of the majority. Undermining political activity by making citizens feel like their participation is futile. Those are dark aspects of the Democratic Party's primary rules. When you think about it, they're also longstanding problems in American democracy, from the Constitution's unelected Senate to an Electoral College that took the candidate with fewer votes in 2000 and made him president. Change starts at home, as they say, so it's logical for Obama to begin democratizing America by democratizing his own Democratic Party. But, but, but -- a commission? We need a blue ribbon commission to nix a few hundred superdelegates? Again, from The Post:

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the campaign will ask delegates at the national convention in Denver to approve a resolution approving the establishment of a 35-member Democratic Change Commission. The charter would authorize the [DNC] chairman to appoint the commission soon after the election and ask it to report back by January 2010.

This is fine, it could work. Still, let's be serious. This is exactly what the Democrats did last cycle, just after the 2004 race. We now turn to a similarly earnest, though dated, announcement from the party:

The 2004 Democratic National Convention passed a resolution calling for the creation of the Commission on Presidential Nomination Timing and Scheduling. The commission is charged with studying the timing of presidential primaries and caucuses and developing recommendations [to improve the timing and fairness of] the 2008 nominating process...

That commission had 39 members, not 35, and it did make some changes -- like inserting Nevada and South Carolina into earlier spots on the calendar. But most of the key reforms -- like ending the front-loaded primaries, that benefit front-runners and knee-cap candidates who raise less money; or adjusting which states go first, which can completely change who wins the whole show -- died a slow death in a deadlocked commission. (I was following it back in 2005.) In other words, to paraphrase Sen. John McCain, commissions are not change you can believe in.

If the objective, as Obama's aides have announced, is to reduce the power of elite superdelegates, Obama should just lay that proposal on the table, sans commission. As a rule tweak, it's a populist no-brainer backed by just about every Democrat who is not a superdelegate.

Now, if the campaign doesn't want to offend powerful superdelegates during the convention, for practical reasons, fine. But then the safer course is to push this change after November (assuming there is power to be wielded), and again, without a commission. Finally, reforming the nomination calendar, a boring task that happens to have huge consequences for which candidates get near the White House, could be hard to achieve through a commission full of people invested in the status quo.

The Dream Ticket, That Wasn't

Sridhar Pappu — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:30:00 GMT

LYNCHBURG, Va. --They would have been the perfect couple, a marriage of experience and candor and simple toughness with the young avatar of the hopes and dreams of young Americans and the Democratic Party. That's the thought thought that came to mind when Virginia Sen. Jim Webb led his colleague, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, Barack Obama, into a school gymnasium literally shaking from the rafters with a racially mixed crowd of 2,200. The sight of Webb pumping his fist in the air as Obama followed, you saw not just two senators, but a dream ticket unrealized.

Confident and measured in his introduction, you looked at Webb and saw what Obama supporters had been hoping for since he cinched the Democratic nomination. While the Republicans offer up a candidate in Sen. John McCain who graduated from the Naval academy and served his country with honor and distinction in Vietnam, he would have been matched by Webb--himself a Naval academy graduate who served with valor in that same senseless war, a Democrat who went on to a post as Secretary of the Navy under the great Republican icon Ronald Reagan.

With any vice-presidential nominee you want a heavy, a person who's willing to be blunt and attack when needed, leaving the lead man to remain above the fray. Obama would most certainly have that in Webb, who was not afraid to mention the pounding Obama took during the primaries in his introduction tonight. Indeed in one of the most memorable political exchanges in the past several years, in Nov. 2006, shortly after Webb was elected to the Senate, President George W. Bush approached Webb to ask him about his son, a Marine serving in Iraq, by saying, "How's Your boy?

"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Webb reportedly responded.

"That's not what I asked you. How's your boy?" Bush said.

"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb reportedly replied in words that still echo as words of defiance in the corridors of Washington power and helped define him as a force of his own within the Democratic Party.

As of this writing, reporters are camped out on the driveway of Delaware Sen. Joe Biden. By Saturday Obama will have his running-mate. He will be well vetted and prepped to stand beside a man in a historic campaign. For the Democrats sake it's too bad Webb stepped aside from consideration. Yes, he makes a powerful surrogate and ally. But as a vice-presidential candidate his impact would have been so much more.