It’s the Thought that Counts

I’ve been away all weekend, and the stuff that has come out about Palin is almost too much for me to keep track of.  (We had plenty already.)  Let’s review in nice, condensed, bulleted-list format:

• Her 17-year old, unmarried daughter is pregnant and has dropped out of high school, but will be marrying the father and keeping the baby.
• She is being investigated in “troopergate,” where she is accused of trying to get the state trooper who was involved in a bitter divorce with her sister fired.  She is alleged to have fired the state police chief when he refused to fire the brother-in-law.  The report on this comes out a couple days before the election.
• She supported a group pushing to have Alaska secede from the United States (though there’s some confusion about how much).
• Despite bragging about turning down federal funding for the bridge to nowhere in her first speech as the VP nominee, she turns out to have supported it at first.  She didn’t refuse the federal money, but just allowed it to be diverted to other pork projects and eventually killed the bridge proposal when there was no money left for it anyway.
• Her husband was arrested for a DUI in 1986.
• As mayor she talked to the town librarian about banning books she found objectionable.
• She doesn’t believe global warming is man-made.
• In her first election, she took a traditionally nice, friendly small-town mayoral race and injected a lot of divisive social issues.
• She only met McCain in person once, months ago, and he had one brief phone-call with her about the vice presidency.

Now, these issues vary massively in importance.  The one that’s getting all the coverage, her daughter’s pregnancy, is the one I’m most conflicted about.  There is a slight bit of relevance to governance in that it maybe says something about her opposition to comprehensive sex education, but that’s only a minor relationship.  It really is irrelevant.  I am inclined to totally ignore it and criticize everyone who writes stories about it, etc.  What’s holding me back is the parallel hypothetical.  Say a liberal Democrat had a pregnant teenage daughter.  Would James Dobson be saying encouraging, supportive things about how much love was being shown the daughter?  It would obviously be used as an attack and a rallying point for those who believe liberals have no family values.  (It probably wouldn’t be used directly by a Republican opponent, but it wouldn’t need to be.)  Imagine if it was Obama, with all the racial stereotypes that come with it.  It would be a massive story and horribly damaging.  This of course is part of a larger, broader question.  Which is worse, to play dirty or to play clean and let those who play dirty win?  I’m not ok with either, and that’s why I’m still so conflicted on this one.

What worries me more is that the sexy but obviously unfair story is overwhelming the more mundane but in reality more worrying stories.  The first public statement she made included large, highlighted claims that were outright lies.  Supporting Alaskan independence?! That’s nutso kook territory.  McCain didn’t meet with her in person somewhere in between her becoming a candidate for the vice presidency and him choosing her?!  She has a history of doing whatever it takes to win an election and then making even the most uncontroversial job into a political appointment. These things are seriously worrying.  They fundamentally undermine her reputation as the honest reformer.  These things should be getting real coverage.  They’re much more important than the pregnant daughter story, but they can’t break through.  (Even the pregnant daughter story had some trouble, being purposely released at the moment that Gustav made landfall.)  I can only hope that, as the tabloid story passes, some real time is spent on the actual worrying issues.

I’ve also got to say, while on the subject, that the efforts to show that she is qualified to be president are now getting somewhat ridiculous.  We’ve gotten things to the effect of “Alaska is physically proximate to Russia, so she has foreign policy experience.”  There was the wonderful interview on CNN where Tucker Bounds couldn’t name a single decision that Palin had made as commander of the state national guard, despite bringing that up as important experience for her.  The winner, though, has got to be the person I just heard talking about how she had once “helped to run a family-owned fishing business.”  I’m all for that, but by the time you are in the presidential line of succession, things like that should be pushed to not-worth-mentioning status by other things on your resume.

Tags: politics, sarah palin, vice president

I’m not going to do a full post on the Obama speech because I largely agree with the conventional wisdom that everyone started spouting the minute it was done.  It was a very good speech, and it was excellent political theater.  I was particularly excited to see the counterattacks on McCain.  I say counterattacks rather than “attacks” or “defense,” and I think the distinction is important.  He defended himself against McCain, but he did so by attacking McCain for even making the attacks in the first place.  (Perfect example: attacking McCain for suggesting that Obama didn’t put his country first.)  Attacking the partisan attacks is a very good way to go on the offensive without totally ruining the bipartisan, new politics feel of the campaign.

Now, for the news of the day: McCain picks Sarah Palin for VP.  This is, as far as I’m concerned, a huge gamble in more ways than one.  There are some obvious upsides, though most of them are political/tactical rather than about good governance.  She has very good anti-corruption credentials.  That should definitely help get the McCain as reformer image back.  She’s also young, which helps, though it also might highlight McCain’s age.  Most importantly, of course, she’s female.  This is obviously an attempt to win over Hillary voters, and it’s one that has a meaningful chance of working.  It obviously won’t get nearly a majority (I mean, she’s vehemently pro-life, for starters) but getting a sizable minority would be plenty to do massive damage.  She also has a nice, conservative-friendly biography.

The downsides, though, are blatantly obvious.  The first one is her utter lack of any experience whatsoever.  She has two years as governor of Alaska, a state with fewer people living in it than most major cities.  She hasn’t touched a foreign policy decision in her life.  This is particularly noteworthy because of McCain’s attacks on Obama.  It’s not insane to claim Obama is short on experience.  At the very least, he has far less than McCain, but you can’t claim Obama is too inexperienced and then claim Palin is ready to jump into the presidency at a moment’s notice.  Being a prominent senator is clearly more experience than Palin has, even if it’s still your first term.  Moreover, Obama has all sorts of other resume items — community activism, a distinguished academic career, time in the state legislature.  Palin was mayor of a town of under 10,000 people.  That puts her somewhere in between high school principals and university chancellors in level of responsibility.  She definitely doesn’t have a distinguished early life either (second-place Miss Alaska followed by University of Idaho and no post-grad degree) or any other non-political credentials.  She doesn’t have anything like Obama’s early Iraq speech to show that despite not being in office she was making good policy decisions.  Choosing someone like Lieberman would have allowed McCain to continue the experience-based criticism.  Picking someone like Jindal or Pawlenty would have made it hard to criticize Obama.  You have to go pretty far into the land of the neophytes before Obama would feel comfortable going on the offensive on experience, but McCain has managed to do it.

Palin’s issue profile is also about as far the right as you could possibly fine.  She’s very fiscally conservative, which is something that, while I disagree with it, I can respect — there’s a legitimate argument to be made for it.  She is also, however, conservative in some ways that make no sense.  Reason has a good post about this.  There’s this great gem on global warming, for example:

Q. What is your take on global warming and how is it affecting our country?

A. A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I’m not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.

You’d think that the governor of Alaska of all places would be clear on this one by now.  My favorite, though, is this one, where she comes out in favor of teaching creationism in public schools.  Now, as much as we like to point out that intelligent design and creationism are in fact the same thing, it’s a little comforting to me that most proponents of teaching creationism at least feel the need to pretend they’re not advocating teaching a religious belief in a public school, or at least have enough deference to the Supreme Court to try to work around it.  Here, though, she goes against decades of established law and practice and actually calls what she’s supporting creationism.  It’s nice that she’s honest, but I really thought that phase of the debate was over by now.

“Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information….Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject — creationism and evolution. It’s been a healthy foundation for me. But don’t be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.”

She’s also, of course, massively pro-oil.  Anyone from Alaska has to be.  Lots of states have their own self-interested idiotic policies.  In Iowa it’s ethanol, and in Alaska it’s oil.  I’m not particularly extreme on environmental issues.  I can definitely see the argument for drilling offshore or in ANWR, though I still come down on the other side.  What I can’t stand, though, is the implication that those decisions, which are pretty low-impact, could possibly take the place of strong efforts on alternative energy sources and other kids of research (electric cars, actually clean coal, etc.).  Nevertheless, here she goes right off the deep end:

I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can’t drill our way out of our problem…

The outcome of this choice is going to be a wonderful experiment in the intelligence of the average voter.  If voters are rational, she should be loved by the Republican base, but hated by independents.  She should win over very few Hillary voters.  She’s massively opposite Clinton on the issues.  If people though Obama was too inexperienced (the only rational reason I’ve seen for voting for Clinton but then choosing McCain over Obama), then Palin should seem much worse, and should hurt.  The only reason left for the Clinton-to-McCain switch is to literally say you are such a feminist that you will vote for a female regardless of the issues.  That’s a bizarre form of feminism, choosing the affirmative-action type voting motivation over things like abortion rights and equal pay.  I would have respect for someone who was honest about that motivation, but I think it’s so obviously idiotic that no one consciously believes that it’s the reason for their vote.  In general, Palin should hurt McCain’s appeal to anyone other than the far right wing.

If, however, voters are irrational (and they probably are), the outcome of this decision is unclear.  The youth and vitality and reform will help the brand.  She might make McCain look old, and the inexperience will definitely get some traction.  She’ll get some female support, and in a way being female might make it harder to get the far-right policy stuff to really stick.  It’ll be interesting.  There’s definitely no way anyone can criticize McCain for making a boring choice, at least.

Tags: barack obama, john mccain, politics, sarah palin, vice president

The Biden pick is excellent in many ways.  In these situations, I always have two conflicting parts of my personality.  One is the voter who wants whomever will be best for the job.  The other is the strategist who, having already decided I prefer Obama to McCain, wants whomever will maximize Obama’s chances.

The voter side of me is thrilled.  I’ve liked Biden for years because he’s clearly smart and knows his stuff.  He’s known and respected in foreign capitals for a reason.  In addition to having plenty of legislative experience, he was also a constitutional law professor like Obama, and is clearly willing to say what he thinks.  Really, he’s the kind of guy who should have a lot more national name-recognition than he does.  Americans are, in general, pitifully bad at identifying members of their own legislature, and Biden ought to be as easily identified as anyone.  If name recognition really worked the way it should, Biden probably would have had a very good shot at getting the Democratic nomination himself.

The strategist side is also happy, but not totally without reservation.  My concern is largely what I’ve said before — that I think picking someone whose credentials are largely in foreign policy does more to highlight and tacitly admit to a shortcoming on the issue than it does to address it.  Nevertheless, it clearly does something to address it.  There is also the strategic concern of his earlier comments about Obama not being ready, but I think this is, despite being a clear downside, not going to be horrible.

Biden does have a lot of other strategic considerations going for him.  He has blue-collar appeal, though I don’t think he has so much blue collar support at this point. I’m sure within Delaware he does, and he has a lot of national potential, but I don’t think he has the name recognition to have much support already.  (I think I caught on CNN that he’s the least wealthy senator?)  Also, he’s clearly very good at the nonabrasive attack.  He’s so straightforward with all his thoughts that his attacks seem like he’s just more candid about his thoughts than others are.  I think he’s one of few that can add the aggressiveness the Obama campaign needs without undermining the positive image.  His son is going to Iraq, which will be a mild background help. He has Pennsylvania roots, though I doubt that’s a huge thing (I think that Pennsylvania is actually not that big a concern — if Obama is losing there, he’s already lost).  Overall, Biden’s a politically solid pick, and I’m not sure anyone else would clearly be better, but from this perspective he’s not as unambiguously good as my voter side would rate him.

This is a good choice and a strong ticket.  Any Democrat should be happy.  Now I get to go back to being conflicted about whether I want to see a good Republican VP who I wouldn’t mind in office versus seeing a stupid choice (i.e. Romney) that’d maximize Obama’s chances.

Tags: barack obama, joe biden, politics, vice president

I think the media has largely written Clinton off as a possible VP choice, but I think it’s actually been making a lot more sense recently than it did before.  I should be clear - I’m not saying it’s my preferred choice or that I expect it, but I think it makes a lot more sense than most people seem to realize.  I should also say that I’m not a bitter former Clinton supporter.  I was ambivalent and happy with both during the lead-up to the primary, started to lean towards Obama around Iowa and New Hampshire, supported him clearly after the crap Clinton pulled in South Carolina, and got increasingly annoyed at Clinton as she stayed in and went negative after she had no hope of winning.

A lot of the reasons for not picking her have disappeared.  Early on, it looked like if he had picked her he would have been caving to pressure from her supporters, but expectations of her being selected are now so low that I think Obama has clearly established his ability to pick someone else.  If he picks her, it’ll be seen as a proactive choice by most, I think.  I also think it will be much more surprising.  Most of the reasonable choices are widely suspected, and only a few (Richardson?) would come as much of a surprise.  Most of the ones that would be surprising would also be obscure.  Clinton seems like a unique way to generate a lot of excitement.  It was also help with her former supporters, most of which seem to have come around to Obama, but are less stable in their support and less enthusiastic.  (This boost can even be tied to specific states like Florida, where her supporters are greater in number.)

More importantly, Clinton has secured in the primary - deserved or not - the status of the experienced, well-qualified candidate.  She brings with her the image of someone with good national security credentials without generating the stories about how he picked her to fill in his national security gap.  She is also someone who could add these credentials without seeming to some to overshadow the nominee.  They’ve gone against each other and she lost, so no one will wonder about why it is that Obama was picked over Clinton.  Well, some will, but the answer is clear - his greater ability to inspire, his better campaign management skills, and so forth.

That’s not to say there won’t be downsides.  The biggest downside is named Bill Clinton, who will be difficult to control and very tricky to use, but could end up being a benefit if all goes optimally.  There will also definitely be some stories about satisfying disgruntled Clinton supporters, but it wouldn’t be assumed without question that this was the reason for picking her.

Biden or Bayh or whoever definitely might be better, but I think Clinton does deserve at least another quick look.

Tags: barack obama, hillary clinton, politics, vice president

So, as anyone who is remotely aware of the news knows, Obama and McCain are currently in the midst of the VP vetting and choosing process.  There is no shortage of speculation about various potential choices, rumors, and so forth.  There are of course numerous points I could make about various particular candidates, but there is one common line of thinking that I just really disagree with.  The standard version says something to the effect of, “Obama needs to pick someone with lots of foreign policy credentials, to make up for his lack of experience.”  There are also versions about McCain needing to pick someone who’s strong on the economy because he is weak there.  I think choices like this won’t help.

The vice president just doesn’t have that much power.  Cheney obviously did, but more because of influence than actual direct authority, and that I think was largely the result of a president who didn’t have the experience, intellectual ability, or confidence to really have strong independent opinions.  I think the trend towards more powerful VPs is real and will continue, but I think it will look more like the Clinton-Gore relationship (where Gore had much more of a role than had been true through most of history) than the Bush-Cheney situation.  More importantly, the public votes for a president.  That’s who they see as running the country.  It’s good if they have good people working for them, but it’s the president that the public has to have confidence in.

I don’t think anyone is going to say “I know Obama isn’t really qualified to handle national security, but he has Sam Nunn as VP, so it’ll be fine.”  Anyone who agrees with the first half of that sentence won’t be voting for Obama.  Now, you could argue that having Nunn or Biden or whoever as VP shows that people who really know what they’re doing trust Obama, but I don’t think any single person has that kind of sway over the public in general.  Maybe it would work in elite foreign policy circles who really know these people, but not with the general public.  All it would do is generate headlines like “Obama compensates for national security weakness” and reinforce that perception in the public’s mind.  It also has the potential to make the ticket look bottom-heavy.

The long primary has probably done a bit to prevent that last danger from happening.  Obama might be new on the scene, but he’s been in the news a lot, defeated Clinton, raised so much money, become so respected as a speaker, etc.  The public sees him as one of the big, powerful figures in Washington now.  I also think that it makes the people he beat in the primary safe in this way.  No one’s going to feel like Bill Richardson should be at the top, because when they were up against each other it wasn’t even close.  People were very sure Obama would be better.  (Plus, with Richardson, it’s not clear what the narrative in the media is — going for New Mexico? Hispanics? National security credentials? Executive experience?  Probably the conflicting narratives will prevent one from dominating.)

This goes just as much for McCain as for Obama.  Despite claims to the contrary, no one is going to say “Oh, he has Romney as VP, so the economy will be fine.”  They’re going to say “He’s trying to address his weakness on the economy.”  The religious right isn’t going to like him all of a sudden because he picks Jindal.  Jindal won’t add youth and eloquence in any way that matters.  All Jindal would do is remind the religious right that McCain is trying to compensate for thinking they’re all hateful nuts, and remind the rest of the country that McCain is old and managed to get through decades in public life without ever learning how to give a decent speech.

I think both candidates would do themselves a favor by picking people who reinforce their image.  What McCain needs is a another somewhat old (though not as old as him) true maverick with tons of foreign policy experience.  That way it reinforces his image and allows him to criticize Obama as unqualified without people saying “But what about your VP?”  (That’s a tough order.  I’d say Chuck Hagel, except you also need someone where the maverick-ness has been kept strictly separate from the foreign policy…)  Obama needs to stick with the idea that you don’t need 30 years of experience in national security — you just need good judgment.  No one votes for the VP.  People vote for the president, and it’s how the VP choice makes the person at the top look that matters.

Tags: barack obama, john mccain, politics, vice president