Canossa

LiveBlogging McCain's Speech (Continual Updates)

Yeesh.  I cannot imagine that tonight is going to be stellar, especially as they have pegged the duration of the speech at 50 minutes, but every now and then you have to take one for the team.

8:41 pm - Cindy is yammering.  Sorry, not really listening.  She is spooky and on something.  Look at the eyes.  Nobody home.  Eeek.

I would guess that, as he plans to do a 'Townhall' type bit, that McCain hopes to be the anti-Obama. He will stalk the stage, microphone in hand, and attempt to show that he has some kind of connection to the average voter, as opposed to Obama's grand theatre of last week.  Its all foolish nonsense, of course, because tonight is as produced and scripted as last Thursday.  The sets may be different, but the stage management is the same.   The problem is rather simple, though, he will not be as specific, nor as forward looking as Barack Obama.

John McCain will tell us about being a POW, being a Maverick, and all assorted nonsense and knavery that you can expect.  How many times will he actually mention something that even remotely resembles a plan, an agenda, a strategy?  Not often, I would bet.

8:59 pm - Nice yawns in the crowd.  Could be a long night.  Others are happy-clappy old white folks trying to show that they have rhythm.

Talking-heads are trying to say that McCain is going to morph back into a moderate tonight.  Please.

9:04 - McCain movie starts - Did you know that McCain was a POW?  Nope, never knew.  Oh, by the way, lousy production values.

9:07 - And they mock Obama as the One?  Honestly.

9:08 - Neat trick, he returns from the war and they don't mention that he ditched his first wife.  Hmm, why is that?  Oh, thats right, Family Values.

9:11 - Yep, the Republicans want to elect McCain because he was a POW.  Not because he is wise, nor intelligent, nor forward thinking, not because he has plans, a solid agenda, a single idea in that head of his.  John McCain of 2000, where have you gone?

9:15 - My god, the green screen is back.  Oh, its just grass.  Still, the green screen is not good.

9:20 - I like McCain's Mom, she should run.  She acts younger.

9:24 - A good number of war protesters.  They should ignore them, but they keep giving them the oxygen the need.  As people watch the convention, they will begin to ask why it is that the Democrats did not have such protesters, even in a crowd of 80,000. 

Mr. McCain, you are going to change Washington?  Haven't the Republicans been in charge over the last eight years?  Haven't you sold your soul to the radical right-wing over the last few years?  How can you be the agent of change? 

"Get off my lawn!"  Sorry, no idea what he just said, but he started waving his hands and arms and bleating at me.

9:34 - The Daddy Party!  The Daddy Party!  They are going to keep us safe from our enemies.  Whoever they may be. 

9:35 - Not the most effective speaker in the world.  I just noticed, he bagged the town-hall concept.  Hmm.  Wonder why that is?  Of course, it seems strange that I didn't notice until now.

9:36 - Nothing specific yet.  Except of course banging away at folks who 'legislate from the bench'. 

Honestly, this is the worst form of boiler-plate nonsense.

9:44 - Teacher's Unions foolishness.  Check.  Isolationism.  Check.  Drill baby drill.  Check.  Oh, yes, quite the Mavericky Maverick.

On another, rather more methodological or meta point - my goodness, what an atrocious speaker.  He could read the Gettysburg Address and blow it, spectacularly.

Ah, now it is fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear. 

Wait for it, 9-11 will be mentioned soon.

Oh, good lord, the Manichean World View.  Yeesh.

9:53 - Accountability?  Republicans?

9:55 - Back to POW-speak.  Honestly.

Yes, you suffered, but that is all you really talk about.  This is all that he has to offer.

John McCain is Mel Gibson.  He only really soars when he is talking about his own suffering.  But he has nothing else to offer.

10:04 - McCain has just stepped all over his conclusion.  Who knows what he said at the end.  I certainly don't.

Cindy still looks stoned.

Palin looks like she just steered John McCain around the stage like he was in a Nursing Home.

10:09 - Chris Matthews is having McCaingasms.  Really?  What utter nonsense.  McCain has sold out, and no matter what Matthews says, McCain is tied to Bush.

Its over for the night, and not a moment to soon.   I will have more to say tomorrow, after I have had the opportunity to digest McCain's failed attempt to reclaim the center, to reclaim his Maverick role.  Unfortunately, he was deadly dull, lifeless, and provided no clue as to what he actually would do as President.

Good night, dear Friends.

Gov. Palin's Next Target

"He is one righteous dude."

Let your memories drift back. 

You can hear the voice. 

Recognition slowly creeps in along the edges.

Yes, indeed, that is the voice that I have been trying to figure out since last night's speech by Gov. Palin.  That is the voice.

Grace, the secretary, from the movie, "Ferris Bueller's Day Off".

The actress's name is Edie McClurg, she of the off-kilter pseudo-Minnesotan/Fargo accent.  The broad, flat vowel sounds.  The drill-like intensity of the 'r' sound.  That immediately recognizable tortured Scandinavian lilt. 

That!  That is Gov. Palin.  Who I shall now dub Gov. Grace in honor of the voice. 

Of course, this is all rather unfair, isn't it?

Yes, yes it is.  It is wildly unfair to Grace the secretary, and Edie McClurg whose gifts at comedy and character acting are immeasurable.  Why is it unfair?  Because Gov. Grace is exactly like Rudy Giuliani, cruel and snide, unable to do anything other than taunt and harangue like a play-ground bully.  The very kind of people whose smug self-assurance makes you want to throw bricks through the television screen whenever they show their faces.  It is even worse, because they don't really stand for anything, they simply delight in shredding somebody else.  So completely unlike the Grace character, and McClurg.

Well, I guess the Republican party decided they needed a strong hatchet arm, and with Gov. Grace, they have one. 

I was hoping by the end of her speech that she would call McCain, a 'righteous dude.'  It would have been the perfect end to the evening.  Maybe once during the election she can pull it off.  It would be just about the only thing that she could do to make me smile.

Ah, I have it.  She can save it for the concession speech. 

Obama's Executive Experience

The good folks over at the excellent Obsidian Wings, specifically Hilzoy, have produced a quality piece of writing regarding Obama's executive experience.  As noted in the post, the right-wing has decided that they will trumpet Gov. Palin's executive experience as somehow the most salient factor of her resume. While others will argue that her executive experience is more illusion than reality (I mean, honestly, Mayor of a town of less than 10,000 people?  Being the Governor of Alaska less than two years?  Please.), Hilzoy presents the case for Obama's executive experience.

Executive Experience

by hilzoy

On the McCain Report, Michael Goldfarb writes that Sarah Palin "has more executive experience than Barack Obama and Joe Biden put together", a point that, by some strange coincidence, has popped up all over the conservative blogs. I think that the idea that Palin has an advantage over Obama in this area is completely wrong.

When this campaign started, one of my biggest questions about Barack Obama was whether he would be any good at managing things. The President is, after all, the head of a very large organization, and he had better either have good management skills or hire a chief of staff who does. The fact that I didn't know whether Obama had them didn't prevent me from voting for him -- none of the other candidates I might have supported had a track record in management either -- but I would have been happier had I known whether Obama was any good at running things.

I don't have that problem any more. Obama has spent the past year and a half running a large organization -- as of last December, it had "about 500 employees and a budget of $100 million" -- and running it very well. It's not just that he and his team beat the Clinton campaign, which started out with enormous advantages. It's not even that he often did so by building effective political machines from scratch in states in which Clinton had locked down the political establishment. It's that every account of the Obama campaign that I've read makes it clear that he has done an outstanding job of constructing and running a political organization. For instance, this account of Obama's campaign is very much worth reading, if you want to get a sense of how he runs things:

"The story of how Obama assembled his top advisers — and how he got them to work together as a team — offers a glimpse into his approach as a chief executive who manages an organization of nearly 1,000 employees. Obama has built "an amazingly strong machine," says Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, president of the Chief Executive Leadership Institute at the Yale School of Management. "People expected a more ad hoc, impromptu, entrepreneurial feel to it. It has been more of a well-orchestrated symphony than the jazz combo we expected."

Indeed, in merging the talents of powerful Washington insiders and outside-the-Beltway insurgents, Obama has succeeded at a task that has traditionally eluded Democratic candidates: forging an experienced inner circle who set aside their differences and put the candidate first. "The whole point is that it's not about any of these guys," says longtime GOP strategist Frank Luntz. "They feel blessed. They see it as how lucky they are to be working for this man, at this time, in this election. This is the dream team for the dream candidate. I waited all my life for a Republican Barack Obama. Now he shows up, and he's a Democrat.""

You can find more good descriptions of the Obama campaign here and here.

Executive ability is not the most important thing in the world. (For one thing, hiring a good chief of staff goes a long way towards making up any deficiencies you have as a manager.) But it does matter. At the beginning of this campaign, I don't think anyone knew whether Barack Obama would be any good at running things. Now, however, we do.

by hilzoy

On the McCain Report, Michael Goldfarb writes that Sarah Palin "has more executive experience than Barack Obama and Joe Biden put together", a point that, by some strange coincidence, has popped up all over the conservative blogs. I think that the idea that Palin has an advantage over Obama in this area is completely wrong.

When this campaign started, one of my biggest questions about Barack Obama was whether he would be any good at managing things. The President is, after all, the head of a very large organization, and he had better either have good management skills or hire a chief of staff who does. The fact that I didn't know whether Obama had them didn't prevent me from voting for him -- none of the other candidates I might have supported had a track record in management either -- but I would have been happier had I known whether Obama was any good at running things.

I don't have that problem any more. Obama has spent the past year and a half running a large organization -- as of last December, it had "about 500 employees and a budget of $100 million" -- and running it very well. It's not just that he and his team beat the Clinton campaign, which started out with enormous advantages. It's not even that he often did so by building effective political machines from scratch in states in which Clinton had locked down the political establishment. It's that every account of the Obama campaign that I've read makes it clear that he has done an outstanding job of constructing and running a political organization. For instance, this account of Obama's campaign is very much worth reading, if you want to get a sense of how he runs things:

"The story of how Obama assembled his top advisers — and how he got them to work together as a team — offers a glimpse into his approach as a chief executive who manages an organization of nearly 1,000 employees. Obama has built "an amazingly strong machine," says Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, president of the Chief Executive Leadership Institute at the Yale School of Management. "People expected a more ad hoc, impromptu, entrepreneurial feel to it. It has been more of a well-orchestrated symphony than the jazz combo we expected."

Indeed, in merging the talents of powerful Washington insiders and outside-the-Beltway insurgents, Obama has succeeded at a task that has traditionally eluded Democratic candidates: forging an experienced inner circle who set aside their differences and put the candidate first. "The whole point is that it's not about any of these guys," says longtime GOP strategist Frank Luntz. "They feel blessed. They see it as how lucky they are to be working for this man, at this time, in this election. This is the dream team for the dream candidate. I waited all my life for a Republican Barack Obama. Now he shows up, and he's a Democrat.""

You can find more good descriptions of the Obama campaign here and here.

Executive ability is not the most important thing in the world. (For one thing, hiring a good chief of staff goes a long way towards making up any deficiencies you have as a manager.) But it does matter. At the beginning of this campaign, I don't think anyone knew whether Barack Obama would be any good at running things. Now, however, we do.

John McCain is the Issue, Not Sarah Palin

Gov. Palin is irrelevant. 

The more I think about the pick, the less it makes sense outside of the narrow confines of the belief that a socially conservative woman will sway enough voters to give this election to McCain.  Beyond that, the pick represents the first major decision of John McCain as the Republican presumptive nominee for President, and that decision reveals someone far too willing to gamble on the future with gimmicks and gut-feelings.  Gov. Palin could very well be a solid VP, but we simply don't know, we simply cannot know, as her record is so thin that McCain had to dip back into her PTA days to have something to talk about.  The lunatic foolishness about her knowing something about Russia due to Alaska's proximity to Russia is laughable.  At the very least.

Again, though, Gov. Palin is not the story.  The story is about John McCain, and how he will act as President.  We begin to learn about his potential by looking at how he has run his campaign, and the decisions that he makes. 

So what have we learned thus far?

First, that McCain has decided that wallowing in the Rovian end of the pool is not a bad idea.  This is not a good turn of events for McCain, as he has essentially had to offer up his honor for the sake of winning the elections.

Second, that McCain has been more than willing to bend over backwards for the religious right - Hagee, Ralph Reed, etc, etc.  Palin is simply one more example of McCain swallowing his principles so that he can make certain that the religious right-wing will not stay home this fall.  His choice of Palin is clearly a sop to the religious right.  She is pro-life (even in the cases of rape and incest, which is just so fundamentally cruel that I am at a loss for words), she is of the belief that creationism should be taught in schools.  Again, this is hardly the point, and attacking Sen. Palin for her beliefs is unnecessary.  It is McCain who folded like a cheap tent in the face of criticism of the religious right.  Ugly, just ugly.

Third, McCain has shown that he is far more willing to roll the dice than perhaps is actually necessary.  When we are dealing with various nefarious types around the world, I really don't want someone who is not, well, serious about the task at hand.  I don't want somebody playing hunches.  I don't want somebody to throw the hail-Mary because all of the other options (that may take more work, but would provide a better long-term rate of return) seem to be gone.  I want someone to take this job seriously.  I want them to do their homework.  I want them to outwork the other side.  I want them to out-think the other side.  I want them to be smarter.  I want them to evince some wisdom.  This pick does none of that.  It simply shows that McCain is a craps player.  He will try to play the odds on a game of chance.  You want this type of person to be your President?   

Fourth, McCain clearly is either deeply cynical or profoundly naive.  This pick reveals a deep cynicism if McCain reasoned that picking a woman would automatically encourage women (especially Democrats and Independents) to vote for the ticket.  Palin enhanced this thought when she gave a shout out to Hillary Clinton during her first speech.  The nod to Ferraro made sense, but the Hillary bit was nothing but cynicism.  McCain had to think that women would vote for a woman, regardless of who that woman was (honestly, for even the Hillaristas, did he not notice that they would have been furious at Obama if he had picked any other woman other than Hillary), regardless of her merit or talents. 

If not cynical, then even more naive than anyone could ever accuse Obama of being.  Naive?  Yep, for clearly McCain is of the conviction that someone like Palin, who may or may not be a very solid government official, who may or may not know the first thing about the US economy, who may or may not know anything about foreign policy, who may or may not know anything about homeland security, who may or may not know about immigration issues, who may or may not know about a great many things, actually doesn't need to have such a knowledge base.  Not experience, this is not about experience.  This is about knowledge, education, understanding, a desire to learn, curiosity , and the expression of that knowledge.  McCain picked this person, hoping against hope that she will be up to the task.  McCain picked this person without really even knowing her or her capabilities (they have met fewer times than the students I have in the new semester).

They say that the VP pick is the first true measure of the candidate.  McCain's pick reveals a candidate that doesn't seem quite ready for prime time himself.  The pick is risky, cynical, highly political, and reveals a disturbing lack of foresight and intellectual curiosity.

As a bit of an addendum:  Palin seems to have a bit of a problem with abusing power.  The early reports show some evidence that she will fit right in with the Bush-Cheney style of governing, but I will have to leave that for another blog, as I need to dig up a bit more on the evidence front before yammering on incessantly about it.  That said, it certainly does not look good, and reveals yet another possible corrupt Alaskan pol.  Great.  Just what we need.  Maybe this is what McCain was looking for to reassure the true believers in the Republican Party - someone willing to bend (or possibly break) the laws as necessary to do what they want, regardless of the impact on our theoretical love of the rule of law.

Ah, well.  That is for another day.

Why Sarah Palin Was Not the Best Pick for VP

John McCain clearly wanted to change the channel on the Obama speech with his pick, probably sensing that Obama was going to create the kind of evening that he did provide - big, dramatic, sterling oratory, plenty of details, a tough refutation of the McCain platform.  I would guess that even McCain didn't think that Obama was going to pull off such a great evening, but clearly his gracious ad that aired prior to the speech was a tip-off that McCain knew it was going to be a good night for the Democrats.

So, McCain was probably kicking this VP decision around for awhile and realized that he had to swing for the fences.  A VP nod to Romney, Pawlenty, or Tom Ridge would have been seen as too safe, too standard, too old school.  Thus he decided to go for a bold pick.

Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska since 2006, is a bold pick. 

But not the right bold pick.  It is a blunder on McCain's part, as he has just given away one of the arguments that made some sense, and gained some traction, against Obama - that he simply did not have the experience necessary to confront the dangers of today's world.  It also somewhat deflates the charge of 'celebrity' that McCain had been using to some effect, as clearly Palin was not simply chosen on the merits.

The basic advantages of this pick are theoretically as follows:  Budget Hawk/Reformer, Social Conservative, Female, Not a Washington Insider.  So let us take a look at some of the other possibilities out there.

Budget Hawk/Reformer - Mike Pence, Indiana. Jim DeMint, South Carolina, Tom Coburn, Oklahoma, Bobby Jindal, Louisiana, Newt Gingrich, Utopia.  Palin falls a bit behind for a couple of reasons, the first (and most important) is simply that it is not always true.  She is now against the Bridge to Nowhere, but that was not her position in 2006, when she seemed to point to this pork project as a pretty decent thing.  Second, she simply doesn't have enough of a record to show any true patterns.  We simply don't know what she will do.

Social Conservative - Mike Huckabee, Tom Coburn, Sam Brownback, Bobby Jindal.  Again, if you are trying to entice the social conservatives to vote for McCain (who they have always disliked), why not go with a social conservative that has been through a campaign of some substance and difficulty.  Huckabee flogged McCain in a great many states during the primaries because of his strong standing with the social conservative/evangelical wing of the party.  Why not bring him on board if you were fishing for the conservative vote?

Female Candidate.  Ok, this is an easy one.  If you wanted the strongest female candidate, the one who would find an easy rapport with McCain, has a reliable conservative voting record, can appeal to the Hillary Clinton demographic (white women above 50), and is a great hit with the party faithful, you go with Kay Baily Hutchison of Texas.  Yes, Texas is safe for the Republicans this year, but Obama will spend some money here.  If Hutchison is on the ticket, Obama doesn't spend a dime here, which means that McCain can safely ignore the state as well.  Money spent in Texas by McCain is not money well spent.  Other choices - Liddy Dole, Susan Collins, Christine Todd Whitman.

Not a Washington Insider - Bobby Jindal (and too many others to list).

Just about a month ago, Gov. Palin was asked about the VP speculation and delivered a rather interesting confession - "But as for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day."  Yeesh.  That is not a good. 

If McCain wanted to find a candidate to fill these various bits and pieces, and give the nation a leader that could actually step in and be President - two names rise to the top of the list:  Kay Baily Hutchison and Bobby Jindal.  Jindal offers many of the same characteristics that Palin offers, only with a great many more positives - his reforms have started to make a difference in Louisiana, has a bit more experience, and can actually move some votes in LA and other southern states. Hutchison would give McCain an even better chance to win, especially if he was reasoning that adding a woman to the ticket was a good plan for this year.  She has a very strong voting record, offers solid electoral help, is a whip-smart campaigner, doesn't sacrifice the experience issue, and offers better visuals - she and McCain could be the wise, old sage team that can say that between the two of them they have seen more than that young Obama could ever dream, they could say that what the world needs is wise, steady leadership. 

Palin robs McCain of all of his best arguments.  She is a cynical choice, hoping against hope that the unknown, but reliably conservative, young governor can attract...who?  Social conservatives are not going to vote Democratic.  Those seeking a truly experienced team (especially in foreign affairs) cannot be happy with the Republican ticket now, because Palin has displayed no knowledge of foreign affairs or national security issues.  That debate with Joe Biden is going to be a rather ugly affair unless she happens to be a very quick study.

McCain needed to make a wise choice, not simply a bold choice.  It is a splashy, risky, and a huge roll of the dice.  My guess is that Gov. Palin will reveal herself as someone simply not ready for the role that she has been thrust into.  This is Dan Quayle redux.   

Barack Obama's Speech in Denver

John Kerry's Speech at the DNC... The One You Didn't See Because of the Babbling Talking Heads on all the Networks...So, Watch It Now

Michelle Obama at the Democratic National Convention - Perfect

Obama - Biden

Obama VP Watch - Gov. Brian Schweitzer

Just a bit of idle speculation - whatever happened to the possibility that the VP slot could be given to Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer.  I know, I know, a bit too off the beaten track, but I am starting to think that Obama has an odd card up his sleeve.  Too much focus on Biden. 

Oh, and just to get this out in the open, I will be an exceptionally unhappy camper if he picks Senator Clinton.  Yeesh.  Not good.  Not good at all.

Back to Schweitzer.  Could be an interesting choice.  Western Governor.  Independent minded.  Speaks Arabic fluently.  The good folks over at FiveThirtyEight.com ruminated on the possibility back in June. 

I don't think this will happen, but it could be a great bolt-from-the-blue pick.  Just something to ponder as we wait for the text message from the Obama campaign.

Last night, Senator Jon Tester impishly threw Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer's name into the ring as a potential VP choice. That set off a bunch of thoughts, because I have a closer perspective on Schweitzer than most bloggers. Without going into too much detail, I've worked a short while in Montana politics, enough to feel relatively confident in the following analysis.

The first time I heard Brian Schweitzer speak, I thought: "This guy is going to be President." That is not a common reaction on my part to politicians. I've listened to hundreds and hundreds of Democratic politicians speak, and I've only had that reaction twice in my lifetime. The first was Barack Obama, the second was Brian Schweitzer.

People have asked me what it was that made me feel so strongly in reaction, and the way I'd put it now is that Brian Schweitzer and Barack Obama are the two "new Democrat" styles that are extremely effective in the post-Clinton era. Both emphasize solutions over partisanship. Both are suspected by Republicans of talking a good game of bipartisanship and hewing to traditional Democratic Party ideology. Both are great communicators, but with different rhetorical strengths. Obama rose from an mainly urban and intellectual background; Schweitzer's breakthrough is probably the single best example of why the Democrats chose Denver as the convention site this year.

In addition to being a strong speech-giver, Schweitzer is a gifted quote-machine. He regularly delivers the glib, funny ways of both explaining his position on policy and mocking his opponents for their unreasonableness. It's hard to think of a more effective way of developing popularity among voters who think of themselves as uncomplicated common sense types. His most notable one-liner is actually a counterpose to the legacy of national Clinton branding of the Democratic Party: "Gun control is you control your gun and I'll control mine." It's glib, it's memorable, it communicates exactly where he stands, it's populist.

It matters when you can give voters lines like that, because the real sell-job is one regular voter to another. When one guy in the barber shop says, what do you think about this guy Schweitzer, is he one of those Democrats who want to take away everyone's guns? The other regular guy remembers that line and repeats it, and now the first guy just learned Schweitzer's position even if he's a low info voter. Low info voters are the voters with whom Obama has the most trouble. None of the names bandied about in the VP talk are in Schweitzer's league when it comes to this ability.

This way of speaking is not accidental. Schweitzer has made an amateur study of right wing radio, to understand how to turn the effective glibness those toxic hosts use for their own benefit into his advantage. Schweitzer is a hell of a smart guy. A soil scientist and rancher, he spent 6 years in Saudi Arabia working on irrigation projects. He speaks fluent Arabic and has an intuitive grasp of the region based on real life experience. Certainly that would open him up to the sleazy email "Manchurian Candidate" stuff, especially as the radical Islamic Hussein Osama's running mate. But I have a feeling, knowing Schweitzer, he'd be asked about it and his response would have people slapping their foreheads in laughter with, "Yes! That's the perfect reply!"

As far as other stats, Schweitzer is one of Al Giordano's Catholic governors. He is known for energy policy, which aligns with Obama's comments about wanting to find a running mate with executive experience and energy policy expertise.

He's young (52), and if Obama were to somehow lose the presidency this year, I would immediately look into a futures bet on Schweitzer. In my mind, Schweitzer would be the clear front runner for 2012, regardless of whether he'd been on the ticket this time or not.

Now, here are a few halts on the idea. First, I've talked directly to family members who seem to honestly be saying Schweitzer doesn't have these national ambitions. I take those things seriously, but I also know that being asked to be VP would almost certainly be accepted, as Jon Tester said last night. Things change when it's real, when it's right there in your lap.

Second, Schweitzer, for all the attention and high profile he's gotten from Stewart, Colbert, 60 Minutes, the Candy Crowleys and Joe Kleins, as well as his hero status in the Democratic political blog world, Schweitzer actually doesn't have a big resume. He's only been governor of a small population state for 4 years. As a good friend who has extensive experience with both Schweitzer and Obama has pointed out, this would not necessarily be the best way to fend off the "inexperience" charge that will be leveled at Obama.

My reaction to that argument is that I take Obama's confidence at its face value - he is looking for quality people period, and willing to do battle on the attack ground of inexperience if necessary. If the truth is that this X is the right candidate, then Obama picks X and relies on his ability to meet that argument head-on and win. Moreover, I don't think the mood of the country really cares about length of resume right now. They want people with solutions, and incumbency starts out having to prove itself as a valuable quality rather than part of the problem.

Another argument against Schweitzer, the one I have long thought most persuasive, is that while most have tended to think Montana is undergoing a blue revolution, the Democrats in Montana have a much thinner bench than most realize and his departure to run on a national ticket would hurt Montana Dems badly. Take Schweitzer out of the governor's mansion, his Lieutenant Governor is a Republican. There's no obvious replacement. If Schweitzer chooses to accept a VP offer, he knows he's going to leave a mess and some unhappy allies who are negatively affected.

Now, if Tester says he'd probably take it, he'd probably take it. You notice he hesitated a bit, and I can assure you that the hesitation is all about what the ripples would be back home. Schweitzer is very popular in Montana, he came out of the 2007 Legislative Session debacle looking far better than his Republican counterparts did (in no small part because of his gift for producing quote after quote about the situation that made him look sane, reasonable and the bigger man). But a valid criticism is that Schweitzer's roster of drafted Dems to run for legislative seats in 2006 was weak at best. Montana had the only state legislative chamber that flipped blue to red in the 2006 wave. The 100-member House had been barely blue, and by 3 votes in Laurel, Republicans took back the chamber, leading to a nightmarishly confrontational Session. (Ironically, the field staffer assigned to Laurel was one who Schweitzer's brother had to be talked down from demanding his dismissal for a harmlessly-intended but poorly executed joke in a local meeting just weeks before the election.)

Montana Republicans have it in for Schweitzer. They want his head on a platter. They hate his popularity. They were willing to go nuclear in 2007's Session to undermine him. Ironically, while Schweitzer will win easy re-election against the painfully nasal Roy Brown, it's an uphill battle to hold the 26-24 Senate, much less take back the 51-49 House (one of those is a Constitution Party member who caucuses with Republicans). Particularly if Schweitzer's candidate drafting ability does not dramatically improve. If Republicans have both chambers in the 2009 Session, the #1 agenda will be to thwart Schweitzer from having any legacy after 8 years to go national.

The upshot of the Montana situation is that if Schweitzer grasps that (and I think he's savvy enough to see all the angles which are more numerous and complex than I've outlined), he might just take an offer from Obama if it comes. It's risky, because he might leave behind an ugly state situation in a vacuum and I do think he cares about that.

Will an offer from Obama come? I am probably the only poker player who has the mp3 of this year's Mansfield-Metcalfe Obama speech on his iPod shuffle. When I hear that speech, it's clear from Obama's reference to Schweitzer that he has great admiration for the governor's skill. "And how about this guy?" is how he starts out. It's obvious Obama has great appreciation for Schweitzer's talent. Obama clearly sees Schweitzer's gifts. You know Obama's thought about him as VP.

But from my reports, which well could be incomplete, is that Schweitzer had not exactly embraced Obama. I don't know why, and again I stress that this is from people I trust who have proven to have great feel for Montana politics in the past, but I cannot guarantee its accuracy. Without going into the personal, I know at least one person very close to Brian who had flirted with the Clinton camp from the early going. It adds up to there being something less than the enthusiastic support offered by Kaine, Sebelius, Richardson, Napolitano, etc.

One big advantage of adding Schweitzer to the ticket would be his ability to play the perfect VP role of constantly tweaking John McCain in the language that would reach the so called "working class white vote" that has the collective punditocracy up in "Oh Noesville!!1!!11!" Tweaking John McCain from two different rhetorical angles would resonate on a much wider platform. And tweaking thin-skinned John McCain drives John McCain out of his mind with rage. All you have to do is quote the guy accurately and he snaps. Brian Schweitzer would keep his cool. He's very hard to rattle. When Mike Lange memorably went on an end-of-session, profanity-laced diatribe against Schweitzer, Schweitzer played it masterfully by not taking the bait and emphasizing Mike Lange in a bad moment was not the Mike Lange he knew. Game, set, match.

The ultimate question: do I think Schweitzer will be offered the job? No. Barely. Gut sense. Perfectly content with being wrong.

Do I think Schweitzer would take it if offered? Yes. I was beginning to go that way, and Tester's hesitating yes pushed me there last night.

(By the way, Jon Tester is just a tremendous human being. He is also the only Senator who, if I ran into him tomorrow, my first instinct would be to give him shit. He's that real of a guy. I'm honored I got to help him. Quick story: A few days before the election, I asked him if he could do anything what would he want to do right after it was over. I believed him when he said he'd want to put on a fake beard for about three days and just go drink at a bar. I love that guy. I digress.)

Still, if I'm Obama, I'd look at Schweitzer long and hard. I do think the Clintons are determined for it not to be Richardson (I have been hearing all the zipper rumors too, and if those have any truth you can be sure that the Clintons know what they are and will have no remorse about submarining Judas with that info, unlinked to them of course).

Like a lot of you, I'd been thinking about a female choice but it does make Obama look like he had to pick "a woman" and not "the most qualified" even if Obama deems Sebelius to be the most qualified. He'd be open to that annoying, nagging charge regardless of its truth. I hadn't thought of how Clinton would react to Obama picking a woman that wasn't her, but it makes a certain kind of sense that Clinton would find it unacceptable. If she has any future chances to be the nominee, it's important to her that she still is the first. (Again, I think there is absolutely no chance of her ever being president. That's just my opinion, now that half her own party feels about her close to the way they feel about Joe Lieberman and Republicans still galvanizingly hate her. But I realize that she may be oblivious to this and will react badly if Obama picks a woman VP for this reason.)

Brian Schweitzer is a noted early morning devourer of political blogs; let's hope he's found his way over here to 538 and posts something in the comments to steer me back on course where I've erred in the analysis (ha ha). I'd also love to hear Sirota's take on the whole idea, because he knows Schweitzer's world far better than I do.

McCain's Housing Crisis

Maureen Dowd Actually Has A Clever Column (it has been awhile)

As loathe as I am to give Mo Do any props, today's column is quite good, and captures the essential foolishness of Clinton and McCain quite nicely. 

How I love the smell of vindictiveness in the morning.

In the dead of night in a small hideaway office in the deserted Capitol, a clandestine meeting takes place between two senators with one goal.

They grin at each other as they lift their celebratory shots of brutally cold Stolichnaya.

“Our toast to The One,” they say in unison, “is that he’s toast.”

“Obama should have picked you, Hillary,” John McCain tells her. “It isn’t fair, my friend. But it just makes it easier for me to whup him.”

“Don’t worry, John, I’ve put it behind me,” Hillary replies. “I’m looking toward the future now, a future that looks very bright, once we send Twig Legs back to the back bench.”

They chortle with delight.

“He’s a bright young man, but he got ahead of himself,” McCain says. “He needs to be taught a lesson, and we’re the ones to do it. Have you seen the new Bloomberg poll? Obama’s dropped and we’re even again. The Bullet’s getting all the credit, but you and I know, Hillary, that it’s these top-secret counseling sessions we’re having. And thanks again for BlackBerrying me the Rick Warren questions while I was in the so-called cone of silence.”

“Oh, John, you know I love you and I’m happy to help,” Hillary says. “The themes you took from me are working great — painting Obama as an elitist and out-of-touch celebrity, when we’re rich celebrities, too. Turning his big rallies and pretty words into character flaws, charging him with playing the race card — that one always cracks me up. And accusing the media, especially NBC, of playing favorites. It’s easy to get the stupid press to navel-gaze; they’re so insecure.”

“They’re all pinko Commies,” McCain laughs. “Especially since they deserted me for The Messiah. Seriously, Hill, that Paris-Britney ad you came up with was brilliant. I owe you.”

Looking pleased, Hillary expertly downs another shot. “His secret fear is being seen as a dumb blonde,” she says. “He wants to take a short cut to the top and pose on glossy magazine covers, but he doesn’t want to be seen as a glib pretty boy.”

McCain lifts his glass to her admiringly. “If I do say so myself, while the rookie was surfing in Hawaii, I ate his pupus for lunch. Pictures of him pushing around a golf ball while I’m pushing around Putin. Priceless.”

“I have a little secret to tell you about that, John. Bill made it happen. He loves you so much. He called Putin and told him that if he invaded Georgia, he could count on being invited to the Clinton Global Initiative every year for the rest of his life.”

“Wow. Should I call him? I saw your husband’s kind words about me in Las Vegas on Monday, saying I’d be just as good as Obama on climate change.”

“I think he’d like that,” Hillary smiles. “He’s still boiling at Obama. And you don’t have to worry about my army of angry women. We’ve spread the word in the feminist underground — as opposed to that wacky Obama Weather Underground — that ‘catharsis’ is code for ‘No surrender.’ My gals know when I say ‘We may have started on two separate paths but we’re on one journey now’ that Skinny’s journey is to the nearest exit.”

“But Obama’s says he’s finally ready to hit back,” McCain says, frowning. “He’s starting a blistering TV campaign and attacking me for attacking his patriotism.”

“Now, John, you know that every time he tries to get tough, he quickly runs out of gas. Sometimes in debates, he’d be exhausted by the third question. He must use up all his energy in the gym. He doesn’t have any stamina, and he certainly doesn’t have our bloodlust. Besides, you can throw that Mark Penn stuff at him that I couldn’t use in a Democratic primary about how he’s not fundamentally American in his thinking and values. While he’s up on his high-minded pedestal, you’ll scoot past him in your Ferragamos.”

“How can I ever thank you, my friend?”

“You can announce that you won’t be running for re-election because you’d be 76, and you can pick somebody really lame to run with, like your pal Lieberman. That means one term for you, and two for me.”

“It’s a deal,” McCain says, sticking out his hand to shake on it. “That was inspired to snatch his convention away — makes him look so weak. Listen, why don’t you stop in Sedona on the way to Denver? Wear a black wig and I’ll spirit you up to the cabin for the night. I’ll catch a catfish in the mill pond and grill it for you. It will be an adventure.” There’s a knock on the door. Jesse Jackson sticks his head into the meeting.

“Is it over?” he asks his co-conspirators.

“Yes, he’s over,” they respond in unison.

Biden or Sebelius - A VP Poll

Ok, gang, lets get quibbling.  Biden or Sebelius?  I will look for your picks in the comments section.  I am such a sap about this VP business, that I actually signed up for the text-message roll-out.  As soon as I know, I will post the pick.

 

 

Who Won at Saddleback?

I posted this as a comment on The Plank at The New Republic, and thought it worth reprinting here.

Warren won the day.   Think of it, he just wrestled the title of 'voice of the Evangelical movement' away from all of the other AmeriProt mega-church types.  The folks crying into their martinis this Lord's Day are the Robertsons, the Hagees, and the Dobsons of the world.

I am not quite certain that it is progress.  Yes, in the sense that clearly Warren is a great deal less overtly narrow-minded, it can be seen as progress.  But, I am leery.  First, Warren still has an exceptionally conservative agenda, as noted by the audience last night cheering every simplistic grunt uttered by McCain.  When he brayed about drilling, and the audience erupted as if he had just declared a cure for cancer, I knew that the very fact that they didn't chase Obama out of the auditorium was a victory for Obama.  Second, Warren represents a deeper, more profoundly unnerving (and wildly popular) form of Christianity, that dovetails quite nicely with the kind of muscular, anti-intellectual Republicanism that McCain parrots so well these days.  It is Christianity-lite; a pablum spewing, happy-clappy, Buddy Jesus (yes, just like the movie Dogma (one of my favorite Kevin Smith films)), short-attention span theatre, entertainment reductions of what Christianity can be.  Not unlike Joyce Meyers, the vacant foolishness of Joel Osteen, and any number of other AmeriProt types who have reduced Christianity to some vague feel-good Gospel of Prosperity.

The convergence of this empty-headed foolishness (both religious and political), this sharp reductionist tendency to see the world in dualistic fashion, is dangerous, both for the country and Christianity.  In both cases the assumption is that the American people simply do not have the patience for questions, for examination, for doubt, for anything that doesn't offer immediate gratification.  I do not see it as a mark of strength that so many seem to be following this lead.

Warren plays to this as expertly as anyone, and proved this once again last night.

I am less than enthused by this development.

The Manichean Candidate

The Saddleback business has concluded for the night, and I now have a very good idea of how this elections will shake out. 

Obama answered the questions thoughtfully, probing the concepts and attempting to offer actual answers.  Once again we see, moreso than in many other venues in the past, his time as a Con Law professor.  He questions, he probes, he ruminates, he offers nuanced solutions to very tricky questions.  It is a subtle piece of examination of the issues, and he does not often provide the lovely sound-bites that our modern media so love to regurgitate.

McCain provided sound-bites, quick, decisive punches, revealing yet another presidential candidate who sees the world dualistically.  Black and white.  Good and evil.  Right and wrong.  American and anti-American.  He is Manichean in his world view.

So, we have a choice.  Are we going to elect yet another individual who cannot quite muster any thoughtfulness about the issues that confront us and the world?  Or are we going to elect someone who actually evinces a willingness to work through these knotty problems; someone who realizes that such complicated questions will need a thorough examination.  Will they allow the evidence to lead them, or will they simply make decisions from a pre-determined set of realities. 

Obama (whether you agree with him or not) you must acknowledge, will at least give your position a hearing.  I am not convinced that McCain will do so.  He will act based on this 'you are either with us or against us' mentality, and in this complicated world of ours, a world comprised mostly of shades of gray, that is a grave danger. 

A great many will say that John McCain did very well tonight.  And they would be right, if your idea of success is offering pre-digested platitudes meant to reveal a cut and dried view of the our nations problems.  If you like someone to do your thinking for you, or who shares your desire to find the most simplistic of solutions to complicated problems, than, yes, McCain is likely to be your guy, and you will argue that it was a good night for him.

I am biased.  I know that.  But I would rather our President actually believe that thoughtful examination of the issues is a good thing, not something to be scoffed at. 

 

 

Please Tell Me Senator McCain Was Kidding

"My friends, we have reached a crisis, the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War. This is an act of aggression."

History is not that difficult to master.  Truly it isn't.  You simply need to have some observation skills, some inquisitiveness, and a willingness to methodically dig through the source materials.  Time, a bit of patience, an openness to allowing the evidence to shape your argument, a thoughtfulness in pulling it all together, and there you have it, a decent understanding of history.

John McCain, with this statement, fails on every level possible.  Every single level.

"My friends, we have reached a crisis, the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War. This is an act of aggression."

Senator McCain is either incredibly unobservant, or is willfully bending history to fit his own needs.  In either case, this is not something that we can simply slough off when contemplating our next President.  Obama may come off as naive, but he has never appeared this myopic, this dangerously out of touch with our recent past. 

The First Gulf War, The Russian Constitutional Crisis, Bosnia, the PLO-Israel Peace Accords, The First World Trade Center Bombing, Somalia, The Taiwan Straight Crisis, India-Pakistan Nuclear Testing, the USS Cole, 9-11, Afghanistan, The War in Iraq, Genocide in Africa, North Korean nuclear advancements, loose nukes in the former Soviet Republics, Chechen separatists, etc.  

This is just a cursory list, I am sure that I have forgotten a few.

So, Senator McCain, since the implosion of the Soviet Empire, the Russo-Georgia fight is the first thing that springs to mind.  How very convenient.  How profoundly self-justifying.  How dangerous.

Now, I have nothing against projecting American power, should the need arise, but I am rather curious as to why Senator McCain went straight to blind bellicosity over this particular issue.  Hmm.  Wonder what it might be. 

The problem really isn't even McCain's tendency to want to shoot first and ask questions later.  The problem is that in his thirst to spank the Russians, he trampled all decent historical sense.  Such a willingness to rewrite history for his own ends, his own electoral ends mind you, is frightening. 

What it also reveals is just how much McCain, like Bush, doesn't really seem to be interested in the rest of the world until it is too late.  There is a genuine lack of curiosity regarding the rest of the world, and the way these disparate places work, that is truly alarming.  Shouldn't Senator McCain, who is theoretically the foreign policy heavyweight in this Presidential election, have known that Russia was going to put Georgia back into its place if they started mouthing off?  If he did know this, why not encourage the Georgians to find other ways to tweak Russia, especially if one really understood Putin's thug-like response to any upheaval of the status quo. 

Nope, instead, Senator McCain bellows about the awakening of the Russian Bear, and begins to sound like someone who seems to want to pick a fight with the Russians.  "We are all Georgians", McCain shrilled.  Nice. How does this even begin to help at the table with Russia.  Does McCain really think that Russia doesn't notice that we won't actually lift one finger to help Georgia?  Or was he actually starting to rally the country to get into it with Russia?  You know, the very thing that we avoided during the entire Cold War.

But, you see, that is all rather secondary.  McCain needed to look tough, to prove that he can be the Daddy protector just like his now-mentor George W. Bush.  If conservatives rightly find the nanny state distasteful, should we not also find the willingness of the Republicans, as of late, to go to war in every corner of the earth for the slimmest of rationales as equally unnerving? 

What happened to diplomacy?  Oh, that's right, it is evidence of being soft and weak.  Only fools actually sit down at the table to talk.  Best to warm up the ICBMs once again. 

Senator McCain, it is not too late, step back from the brink and remember who you once were - someone who used to urge caution because you had a good sense of history and understood the potential for catastrophic unintended consequences due to recklessness (as you urged Reagan not to go into Lebanon, and Clinton not to go into Somalia). 

Dig into your own history, look at the sources, and dust off your younger, slightly more rational, self.  Our future history may depend on it.

Bayh is not only boring...

...but associated with the shambling horror-show that is Mark Penn.  Good lord, it gets worse and worse.

Josh Green of The Atlantic provides the ghastly details:

One of the fun things about writing a controversial piece like the one we posted yesterday on the collapse of the Clinton campaign is the ensuing flurry of ungrounded pronouncements about this or that major character. If you watch cable or read liberal blogs, you’ve no doubt gotten the impression that former Clinton chief strategist Mark Penn is finished in politics, owing largely to this memo suggesting that Clinton target what he calls Obama’s “lack of American roots.” Not only do I suspect these commentators are jumping to premature conclusions, but one obvious scenario could bring Penn back rather quickly—and right into the middle of Obama’s campaign.

For years, Penn and his wife, Nancy Jacobson, have been close advisers to Indiana Senator Evan Bayh. Jacobson put together Bayh’s finance team during his aborted presidential bid, and previously served as national finance chair for the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Penn was the DLC’s longtime pollster and worked for Bayh during his last Senate race. The couple has also been associated with Third Way, the centrist think tank Bayh helped organize in 2005 that many in Washington viewed as a vehicle for his presidential run (the DLC obviously belonging to Clinton).

Bayh gets major play in today’s New York Times for being on, and possibly even atop, Obama’s vice-presidential short list. He has many attractive qualifications. But in choosing Bayh, Obama would be pairing himself with someone awfully close to Mark Penn. Would it bother Obama’s people to have Penn whispering in their vice president’s ear? The official answer, conveyed by Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor, is “We aren’t commenting on the VP selection process.” The unofficial answer is, “You bet it would!”

That may or may not be sufficient cause to scotch Bayh’s VP prospects. But if it isn’t, Penn is right back in the presidential race—if not in an official capacity, then certainly in a functional one. “Bayh is the one guy who could get Penn back in the mix,” a Democratic pollster told me today. “One guy” isn’t much. But it’s a long way from “finished.”

Evan Bayh for VP? Oh. My. God. No.

I know, I know.  Seems a bit underhanded to actually post a picture of the possible Democratic VP pick.  But my goodness, just looking at the picture induces crashing waves of fatigue and sleepiness. 

This is a boring human being.

A vastly boring human being.

A creature of such lifelessness that he produces narcolepsy in all listeners whenever he speaks.

A person of such profound dryness that flood zones beg him to show up.

A man who couldn't produce an exciting moment if he was jolted with two-million volts.

The sun would turn to a cold, lifeless clot of fused metal and rock if he got too close.

The makers of Ambien have attempted to block his speeches as a part of a restraint of trade injunction.

So, naturally, the Democrats are flirting with this man as the possible running-mate for Barack Obama.  Yep, clearly they think that the best way to balance the ticket is to put the world's most horrifying dull human being on the ticket. 

On top of this - oh, yes, it gets even better - yep, he is a Clintonite of long standing, a creature of the triangulation and hedging, of never really quite committing to anything, and certainly will never promote anything that even remotely resembles progressivism. 

He bores the pants off of me. 

People vote for him because as they slept during his speeches they dreamed that he was a good candidate. 

I would rather read 19th century German theology.

Yep, this is who we, as Democrats, are going to have foisted off us.  Mr. White Bread.  Mr. Slippery Pot Pie.  Mr. Luby's.  Splendid.  What a great choice.  No, really, I am...zzzzzzzzzz   

David Gergen on the Racial Subtext of the McCain Campaign