Politics '08

Duck! Here Comes the Mud!

2008-05-13T16:59:15Z

Republicans chafe when the media predicts a dirty campaign with the lion's share of mud thrown at Barack Obama. But if the past 24 hours are any guide, there's good reason for that assumption, and you can blame it on Republican House leader John Boehner.

]]>

At issue is this exchange that Obama had about Israel in an interview with the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg:

Goldberg: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America's reputation overseas?

Obama: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I'm not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that's the safest ground politically. I want to solve the problem, and so my job in being a friend to Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth and say if Israel is building settlements without any regard to the effects that this has on the peace process, then we're going to be stuck in the same status quo that we've been stuck in for decades now.

As ABC's The Note points out, Boehner chose to completely distort Obama's comments, saying: "Israel is a critical American ally and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, not a 'constant sore' as Barack Obama claims."

Boehner's comments are as politically stupid as they are intentionally wrong and misleading. It's exactly the kind of thing that allows Obama to argue that Americans deserve a beter kind of government and to make the case that he wants to be a different kind of politician who ends the mudslinging (or at least rises above it) and brings real change to Washington.

Let's hope voters see Boehner's comments for what they are. I bet they will.

Blue Collar Whites: Does Obama Need Them?

2008-05-13T13:09:37Z

When tonight's results from West Virginia show blue collar whites went overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton, the TV pundits stuck with hours of air time to fill will no doubt speculate on what Barack Obama needs to do to broaden his appeal in November. But the more important question is, does he need to even try?

]]> Here's a dirty little secret: Obama can win in November without very many blue collar whites. And anyway, whether he tries to win them over or not, it may not matter much. He'll still get many who are determined to see a Democrat in the White House and he'll have a chance of slim to none in winning over those who just don't trust or like him.

You can debate the reasons why working class whites without college educations are voting for Hillary -- maybe they're racists, maybe they think Obama is too elite or too liberal or as analyst Rhodes Cook recently put it, maybe they were horrified at his bowling. But whatever their reason, the decision of many working class whites to go Democratic or Republican in November will have little to do with Obama and more to do with trends, issues and feelings.

Consider this: Voting in the U.S. has been increasingly partisan in recent elections, with minimal crossover. In 2004, 90% of voters who identified with the GOP voted for George Bush and 90% who identified with the Democrats voted for John Kerry. Compare that to the three presidential elections between 1972 and 1980, when an average of 30% of Democrats went for the GOP candidate, according to political scientist Alan I. Abramowitz. That's largely because the makeup of the Democratic Party has changed. Today, conservatives represent only 9% of self-identified Democratic voters, compared to 25% in 1992, suggesting the age of the Nixon or Reagan Democrat is long over.

That may be because they finally gave up on the Democrats and became Republicans or it may be that they changed their views -- but again it doesn't really matter. Democrats hold a huge advantage over Republicans in claimed and real party affiliation, so even if they've lost the Reagan Democrats, all they have to do is hold on to enough of their self-identified voters and cut reasonably well into the independent bloc to do just fine in November. And given the strong desire to change the direction set by Republicans over the past eight years, many independents are squarely on the Democrats' side.

Another way to look at it is to consider the results in Ohio in 2004, as laid out by the Los Angeles Times. Bush narrowly carried the state, in part by winning 16% of the African-American vote. This year, the black vote will be considerably larger and Obama's share will be close to 100%. That will more than make up for the likely loss of many blue collar whites who defect to McCain.

This isn't to suggest that Obama doesn't need to work on his "elitist" image and try to win over as much of the white vote as he can by offering economic programs that appeal to working class voters. How successful he is can make a big difference in some swing states.

But the fact is that some of these whites will never vote for Obama. Fortunately for him, though, it's also a fact that he can put together a winning coalition without them. He's already made a good start in the primaries. He just needs to build upon it.

Debates Worthy of The Name?

2008-05-12T17:45:33Z

Forget the endless debate over when and how Hillary Clinton oughta get out. Skip the superdelegate count. The most interesting thing to happen in this campaign in weeks -- and what would be the biggest change in nearly a half century in how we elect presidents -- cropped up over the weekend.

John McCain and Barack Obama are seriously considering a series of joint town hall meetings over the summer. If they pull it off, they'll be giving voters the kind of discussion and back and forth that would be fitting for what has long been described as one of the most significant and consequential presidential races in decades.

]]> Since the groundbreaking televised showdowns between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy in 1960, presidential debates have grown into agonizingly stilted affairs, with every ground rule carefully negotiated to disguise weaknesses and protect the candidates from game-ending gaffes. The result is not a debate so much as an exchange of carefully rehearsed sound bites.

But the ideas proposed by McCain and being seriously entertained by the Obama camp would change that dramatically. There evidently would be few rules and no moderators, with questions coming from the audience and/or the candidates themselves. That means a much less predictable agenda and more opportunity for serious conversation. Sure, the candidates would still uncork planned soundbites, but a candidate who tried to play it safe and stick to a script would run the risk of appearing flat and unadventurous at best and uncertain and hesitant at worst.

McCain's suggestion does much more than shake up accepted debate format. It threatens to change the entire campaign calendar. Debates are usually held in October, preceded by months of the candidates trying to define themselves and their opponents, largely though shallow and misleading television ads. With town meetings beginning in a matter of weeks, however, McCain and Obama could begin a candid discussion far earlier. While many Americans are already cringing at the length of this campaign and may see the forums in that light, more meaningful discussions may actually provoke broader interest and get the public to pay closer attention.

And what an appropriate year to do so. The country has long faced difficult, seemingly intractable and even scary problems that repeatedly are addressed limply and vaguely or not at all. In a race that has long promised to be historic and different, wouldn't it be refreshing to actually see the nation's priorities and choices discussed frankly and openly by thoughtful leaders who are promising to try to tackle them in entirely different ways?

Voting on Tuesdays is Plain Silly

2008-05-12T15:13:57Z

It's as modern as the buggy whip and should just go. Voting on Tuesday, a tradition that dates back to when the U.S. was largely agrarian, needs to be updated to address modern American life. Here's my plan.

]]> First some quick background: Voting on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November dates back to 1845. Congress set the date largely to accomodate farmers who where accustomed to travel by horse and wagon from their distant farms after the fall harvest to participate in city market events on Wednesdays. A related reason was to allow three days of uninterrupted worship following All Souls Day, Nov. 1 on the Roman Catholic calendar.

In recognition of the rhythms and demands of modern life, a much better plan would be to allow three days of voting, from Friday through Sunday, keeping it in early November since we're used to that now. It would allow more flexibility for people who feel tied to their offices on Tuesday or need to pick up a child after work or go to the pharmacy before work, etc.

About the only people who would be against it, I bet, would be the people doing the exit polls. But who cares if they have to work longer?

There's a small bipartisan voter-reform group trying to spur talk about changing the voting day and updating the whole voting process, but it hasn't got the recognition it deserves. It's called "Why Tuesday?" Led by former Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young, the voter advocacy group's mission statement is "Fixing Our Voting System, One Question at a Time." The hayseed tradition of Tuesday voting in November is only one of the archaic practices they want to change.

Showdown in Mississippi

2008-05-09T16:34:08Z

There's a very important election Tuesday and it's not the Democratic primary in West Virginia. It's the special congressional election in Mississippi. A Democratic win would -- and should -- propel Republicans from simple alarm into full-fledged panic.

]]>

This is the third election in 10 weeks in a solidly Republican district. Democrats won the first two, and if they manage to win this one, look for GOP leaders to go into crisis mode. Already, the loss of the first two seats -- in Illinois and Louisiana -- has prompted former Speaker Newt Gingrich to issue a dire warning. "It's time to face a stark choice," Gingrich wrote in Human Events. "Without change we could face a catastrophic election in the fall." Gingrich called for a complete overhaul of the campaign effort and a new contract with America.

House GOP Leader John Boehner of Ohio lectured his flock sternly about the need to burnish the GOP "brand" and plans to create a committee to advise him. At the same time, Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, the head of House Republican election efforts, warned members to make raising cash a top priority.

By right, the race in Mississippi for a seat held by Republicans since 1994 shouldn't even be close. But conservative Democrat Travis Childers won more votes than Republican Greg Davis and forced a runoff. As they did in Louisiana, without success, Republicans are running ads trying to tie Childers to Barack Obama and, by implication, to Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The ads replay Wright's controversial remarks criticizing the U.S. and imply Childers agrees because he didn't speak out immediately .

This has not been a good year for Republicans and all the usual indicators point to big losses in November -- a weak economy, unhappiness with the war in Iraq and the very low approval ratings for President Bush. The one bright spot, Republicans say, will be having John McCain at the top of the ticket in the fall -- and having Obama to attack. We'll find out Tuesday whether that's a real plus -- or an empty hope.

McCain Faces Tricky Senate Votes

2008-05-07T22:09:40Z

John McCain has missed most of this year's Senate votes, devoting his time instead to criss-crossing the country to campaign for the presidency. But in the next several weeks, there are a couple of crucial votes coming up that he can't afford to miss -- and that will put him into a tough position.

]]> One is the immense new farm bill, chock full of higher crop subsidies. McCain will vote against it, saying it is bloated and unnecessary now that crop prices are at sustained highs, even as other parts of the economy struggle. It will be a principled stand, but it will put him at odds with farming states in the Midwest. McCain has long been opposed to farm bills, making him a champion of fiscal conservatives. It would be a flip-flop for him to support it now, although he said before the Iowa caucus that he supports large ethanol subsidies, a switch from his past record on the subject.

Another minefield for McCain is a planned hike in education benefits for veterans. The issue will come up either on a war supplemental bill or a defense policy bill. Bipartisan-backed language, drafted by Sens. Jim Webb, D-Va., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., both veterans like McCain, would substantially enhance higher education benefits for post 9/11 military veterans. Other language would give troops longer rest periods between tours of duty. McCain worries of the cost of a new, larger education entitlement -- an estimated $4 billion over 10 years. He'll offer a less costly alternative, but it may not sail in the Senate. The Bush administration is also opposed.

McCain has backing from the joint chiefs on the rest period issue. They say more down time for troops would create further strain on military readiness.

McCain will also vote against many budget bills with popular domestic spending, complaining of too much pork. Those are easy votes for him, though, and it won't matter because the bills will pass anyway.

Clinton's Last Opportunity for Grace?

2008-05-07T16:34:03Z

The time has finally arrived for Hillary Clinton to decide what matters most -- her or the Democratic Party. Clinton can do as she has promised and press on, forcing Barack Obama to beat her and making many superdelegates choose between personal loyalty to her and her husband and party unity. Or she can seize her last opportunity to be graceful by pulling the plug on her presidential aspirations herself.

]]> loaned her campaign another $6 million. She may have lost to Obama in Indiana Tuesday had it not been for a contingent of Republican trouble-makers hoping to prolong the Democrats' painful battle.

Clinton has not quite reached the point where slim hope turns into utter desperation, but if she waits until the last dog dies, as her husband used to put it in stump speeches, she will have squandered an important opportunity for both herself and Democrats. She's an incredibly tough and resilient fighter -- qualities that will be desperately needed by the greener and less combative Obama in the fall campaign against John McCain. If she is willing to put those attributes to work on behalf of Obama and the party now, if she can sacrifice the last few ounces of hope, Clinton could immediately change the appearance and tone of the presidential campaign. By ending her campaign on a noble high note and giving some genuine inspiration, purpose and direction to her supporters -- especially the white blue-collar voters she so desperately and so successfully pulled behind her by helping to drive a wedge between them and Obama -- she could give the party a much needed blast of vigor.

Clinton certainly can and may decide to be beaten rather than give up gracefully. And sure, she would still embrace Obama at that stage and campaign for him. But by then she would have no choice. To do otherwise would seem so churlish that she would do far more damage to her reputation than to Democrats as a whole. No matter how heart-felt, her campaigning for Obama under those circumstances would ring a little hollow. The suspicion would be that she was going through the motions for appearance's sake rather than out of personal and moral conviction.

Sadly and fittingly, that would reinforce the image that may have cost her the nomination -- that of a politician willing to sacrifice almost anything on the altar of politically expediency. Is that the way Hillary Clinton wants to go out?

Score One for Rush Limbaugh?

2008-05-07T16:00:26Z

A close look at the exit polls suggests Rush Limbaugh may have swung Indiana to Hillary Clinton, providing the margin of victory with Republican mischief-makers.

With just a relative handful of votes remaining to be counted, Clinton appears to have won Indiana 51% to 49%, with a margin of about 22,500 votes. Exit polls show that 11 percent of voters in the Democratic primary were actually Republicans, and some 73,000 of them went for Clinton, even though they acknowledged to pollsters that they're likely to vote for GOP candidate John McCain in the fall.

]]> Many were following the suggestion of radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who urged his conservative audience, in what he called "Operation Chaos," to complicate and prolong the Democratic race by "holding their noses" and voting for Clinton. Enough Republicans apparently went along to give Clinton the edge.

The Indiana results weren't all good for McCain, however. Although the Republican race is over, almost a quarter of GOP primary voters cast protest ballots for Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul -- a clear sign that McCain still hasn't managed to unite a large bloc of the GOP's conservative base behind him.

The Ultimate Decider: Democrats' Proportion Rule

2008-05-07T15:35:01Z

If there's one word to describe the driver of this presidential race, it may not be race, gender, age, money, Iraq or economy. The most powerful word arguably is "proportional," referring to the Democratic Party rule on dividing delegates based on primary results, not awarding them on a winner-take-all basis. Candidates have lived and perished by it ...

]]> Sure, this sounds technical, but sometimes a technical rule defines the entire race, the ultimate outcome and its impact on history.

The Democratic Party's rule on dividing delegate votes on a proportional basis is why Barack Obama is near to locking up the nomination. It's why Clinton has not been able to break his dominance in the delegate math. Even with her wins in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana, the delegates are nearly evenly split between the two, making even small net gains difficult. The only way for her to close ground substantially has been to win with super-large margins, such as 70 to 30 or so. With two very good candidates after others bowed out, that's proven impossible. It's also the reason Obama has labored under criticism that he's not "closing the deal" even as he gets closer.

Had Democrats opted for a winner-take-all approach, such as Republicans have, Clinton would have sewn up the nomination awhile ago, racking up a huge margin from wins in New York, New Jersey, California and Texas.

Conversely, had Republicans followed a propotional rule, the GOP race might still be going on, with Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and what would probably be a financially strapped John McCain fighting to gain ground in what by now would be a bitterly divided Republican party.

McCain Judiciary Speech Points to Fall Strategy

2008-05-06T19:17:51Z

With so much attention paid to primaries in Indiana and North Carolina, you may have not noticed that John McCain took his general election campaign to a new level today.

]]> McCain's speech on the judiciary at Wake Forest University in North Carolina was ostensibly about the wreck and ruination that "activist judges" are bringing down on the country -- a long-time rallying cry of political conservatives of all ideological stripes. But the speech had two other clear targets as well -- the broad swath of independents and potential cross-over voters who are likely to determine the November election.

While he criticized both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, McCain made clear that he believes Obama will be the one to end up with the crown by singling him out for special and specific ridicule. McCain pointed to how Obama portrays himself as "someone who can work across the aisle to get things done," but when the nomination of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts came up, "he went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee."

And with that judgment, as well as a few other lines aimed at Obama and Clinton, McCain sought to accomplish multiple tasks:

-- Undercut Obama's image as a bipartisan consensus builder by branding him as a partisan Democrat and liberal who would unleash a cadre of activist judges to interpret the Constitution as they see fit.

-- Take a page from Clinton's playbook and characterize Obama as out-of-touch with mainstream Americans and part of "an elite group of activist judges, lawyers, and law professors who think they know wisdom when they see it -- and they see it only in each other."

-- Recapture the attention of independents, centrists and conservative to moderate Democrats by pointing to rulings in recent years by federal judges at different levels that many Americans found outlandish or even offensive, such as a short-lived appeals court decision that would have removed the words "under God" when the Pledge of Allegiance was said in public schools.

-- Remind that same group of voters, which have been his most reliable supporters, of his record as an independent maverick and bipartisan broker of compromises by pointing to his pivotal role in a controversial deal that protected the use of the filibuster by the minority in the Senate while also putting Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito on the bench.

But McCain's neatest trick of all was to make that appeal to centrists and independents in the same speech while simultaneously trying to persuade the pro-business and social conservatives that make up much of the base of his party that only he stood between them and a reign of judges with lifetime appointments who could undermine their social and religious values and slip a noose of regulation around the neck of entrepreneurs.

McCain doubtless picked the judiciary as a topic to emphasize early on because of the rousing and unifying effect he expects it to have on supporters. While many conservatives are wary of McCain -- and some despise him -- for crossing them with the filibuster deal and on a host of other issues, they fear giving Democrats the power to pick a Supreme Court nominee more than almost any other aspect of an Obama or Clinton presidency. McCain's reminder of what he and they regard as the disastrous consequences of that happening could energize many voters who otherwise might give Election Day a pass.

The Real Lessons of the Louisiana Vote

2008-05-05T18:36:46Z

Democrat Don Cazayoux won a special House election in Louisiana Saturday, capturing a seat that Republicans have held for 33 years. Now both sides are trying to spin the results for political advantage, obscuring the important lessons to be learned.]]> Cazayoux (pronounced KAZH-oo) beat Republican Woody Jenkins for the seat vacated by Rep. Richard Baker, who resigned to take a lucrative lobbying post. For the last three decades, the district has been heavily Republican, electing Baker repeatedly and voting for George Bush over John Kerry, 59-41 in 2004. It was the second Democratic victory in a GOP stronghold in two months. In March, Democrat Bill Foster won a Republican seat in Illinois. A Democrat also won the most votes and forced a run-off election in Mississippi next week for a House seat held by Republicans for 13 years.

Republicans poured $1 million into the Louisiana campaign to run ads linking Cazayoux to Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and Obama's controversial pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The win allowed Democrats to crow that an anti-Obama campaign won't work, while Republicans said it almost did, with Jenkins cutting Cazayoux's lead from 13 points to 3 in the last week of the campaign.

Both are partially right but both also miss the more important lessons of this special election:

-- The quality of the contenders matters. Democrats are in a strong position to make gains on the congressional level in large part because they've been able to recruit stronger candidates and because they're more willing to allow them ideological independence. No Democrat objected when Cazayoux ran away from the party leadership and cast himself as a pro-life, pro-gun conservative. The GOP had to settle on Jenkins, a weak candidate who lost earlier contests when stronger challenges decided against running. That pattern -- which was first evident when Democrats seized control of the House and Senate in 2006 -- is playing out all over the country, much to the GOP's dismay. Consider Virginia, where former Democratic Gov. Mark Warner has just launched his run for the Senate. He's widely excpected to capture that GOP seat, in part because the strongest potential opponent, Rep. Tom Davis, a popular centrist Republican who is leaving the House, decided not to run because of the long odds of winning and the tough primary fight he would have had with a more conservative candidate.

-- The Democratic presidential race can limit gains at the congressional level in a kind of reverse coattails effect. The anti-Obama ads did cut into Cazayoux lead, and if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, that will rally the Republican base, boosting turnout in many swing districts. Democrats will need a plan to encourage split tickets in areas where their national ticket is weak.

-- But anti-Obama or anti-Clinton sentiment won't be enough to avert big Democratic gains. Many GOP congressional candidates have their backs against the wall because the electorate is so unhappy with the direction the country has taken and they blame that mostly on Republicans. To have any chance, they need to find moderate candidates in moderate or swing districts, but the party's conservative core shows no signs of being more accommodating. It still has tight control over the party's direction, even with the more independent John McCain at the top of the ticket. It doesn't help that many Republicans are still living in a dream world, insisting the outlook isn't that bad. Consider, for example, the article in today's Washington Times that suggests it's the Democrats who are on the ropes.

The evidence all points in the opposite direction, with Democrats likely to pick up two to four Senate seats and up to a dozen House seats.

Gas Tax Holiday: Are Voters That Dumb?

2008-05-02T17:27:39Z

There's new evidence that voters are smarter than politicians give them credit for. Two admittedly unscientific polls and plenty of anecdotal evidence suggest that Americans see proposals for a summer gas tax moratorium for what it is -- a cheap political trick that is actually antithetical to our national and public interest.]]> We were quick to dismiss the gas tax holiday idea when John McCain first suggested it two weeks ago. But we were wrong to think it had no legs. We didn't figure on Hillary Clinton seizing hold of McCain's idea as a way to appeal to the blue collar workers whose support has kept her chances alive.

Only Barack Obama is giving voters the straight-talk they deserve, rightly dismissing the idea as a short-term ploy that does more harm than good. First, the idea of a tax holiday sends the wrong message: that energy prices are temporarily high and an age of affordable gas will soon return. The truth is that demand is skyrocketing while resources are getting scarcer. Gas and oil prices may decline some, but the message to drivers can't be, you need cheaper gas. It has to be, drive less and drive more efficently. Given escalating oil prices and the need to cut emissions that contribute to global warming, we need a sound energy policy. Conservation has to be part of it. Many economists believe that drivers should be discouraged from driving by making gas taxes even higher, and then offering tax relief in a different way to help people cope with the extra costs.

Second, suspension of the 18.4 cents-a-gallon tax for four months would, at most, save the average motorist the cost of about one tank of gas. More likely, it would lead to a drop in prices for just a few days, then demand would increase (or greed would) and prices would climb back up and eliminate the savings, but with the extra money going into the pockets of the oil companies, not the blue collar workers McCain and Clinton are trying to please. In the meantime, the highway trust fund would lose $9 billion that is sorely needed to repair roads and crumbling bridges -- not to mention the loss of jobs and other economic impacts that would be caused by scrapping projects.

McCain, who wouldn't offset the lost revenue, defends it as a way to give hard-working voters a break. Clinton proposes to make up the lost revenue by repealing tax breaks for energy companies, an idea she knows can never pass Congress, in part because McCain, President Bush and other Republicans would block it.

Members of Congress would love to do something for motorists in this election year, but Democratic leaders are rejecting the moratorium as unworkable. And it doesn't hurt that the highway lobby and members who want their share of district road spending are all against any loss of revenue for the trust fund.

But that hasn't stopped Clinton from hammering Obama, trying to use his honesty as more evidence that he doesn't understand the concerns of blue collar workers. Fortunately, initial signs suggest the strategy isn't working that well. An unscientific Internet poll on CNN yesterday and one by The Wall Street Journal today find voters overwhelming opposed to the tax holiday. Let's hope those polls accurately represents the general view.

The End is Getting Closer, Really

2008-05-02T14:37:41Z

Barack Obama may be losing ground in the polls as a he battles to put the Rev. Wright controversy behind him, but he's gaining where it counts -- in the race for superdelegates. Today he bagged another big name -- Paul Kirk, the second former chairman of the Democratic National Committee to come out for Obama in two days. That suggests a convention fight -- Democrats' worst fears and Republicans' greatest hopes -- isn't in the cards.

]]> If the trend continues, Obama may well wrap up the nomination by the time the last two primaries are held in Montana and South Dakota on June 3. At worst for Democrats, it will be over by mid-June when the last of the superdelegates weigh in.

There are stll some big names that have been silent, and they may well wait until the very end. They include former Vice President Al Gore, who has a cool relationship with the Clintons but has given no public indication of where he stands. Also uncommitted are former candidates John Edwards and Joe Biden. But likely to come down for Obama are former President Jimmy Carter and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who says superdelegates should not overturn the national will of voters.

After just a few of these big-wig superdelegates decide, any other holdouts will follow whatever trend has been set. If they resist, party leaders will hunt them down and essentially order them to decide so the nominee is determined well before the August convention.

Insights into Obama

2008-04-30T14:01:14Z

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd today wrote the most insightful and incisive piece I have read to date about Barack Obama's struggles to keep the Rev. Jeremiah Wright from casting a shadow so large and dark that it obscures all other aspects of his campaign.

Dowd is a loud, rambunctious, caustic and often hilarious liberal who can sometimes clatter too long and loud on the same notes. But she is also a serious and lifelong student of politics and politicians and has made a specialty of understanding how human frailties and strengths can influence both governance and whom we choose to govern us. And her clear-eyed look at Obama draws a near perfect portrait of how the Democratic front-runner's struggle in his war within could well determine -- and may have already determined -- the battle he is waging with Hillary Clinton and perhaps with Republican John McCain.

Death of the Artful Zinger

2008-04-30T13:19:45Z

If you're thinking the exchanges between candidates in this presidential campaign season are reaching new lows of bitterness and negativity, a look into the nation's past shows that ruthlessness and politicking are hardly new ... ]]> The comparison of today's political dialogue and verbal dust-ups to yesteryear's is sharp -- and contradicts the perception that nastiness is in any way new. The insult of choice these days is to call an opponent "elitist" or a "flip-flopper" or "liberal tax-and-spender" or a "cookie-cutter conservative." In bygone campaigns, there were far more colorful verbal assaults launched under cover as artful zingers.

I was recently reading "The Fine Art of Political Wit" by Leon A. Harris, which was published in 1964. It's a collection of colorful and clever ripostes from days before campaigns were overrun by pollsters, political advisers. video sound bites and what amounts to political sparring on cable and talk radio. Harris took most examples from open public debate or speeches, not from memoirs written at the safe distance time provides.

Here are just a few:

Sam Houston on Jefferson Davis: "Yes, I know Mr. Davis, he is as ambitious as Lucifer, cold as a snake and what he touches will not prosper."

John Quincy Adams on Daniel Webster: "I am aware of his gigantic intellect, his envious temper, his ravenous ambition and his rotten heart."

Houston on Thomas Jefferson Green: "He has all the characteristics of a dog -- except loyalty."

Abraham Lincoln on Stephen Douglas' vision for the country. "It is as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had been starved to death."

Sen. John Randolf on President John Quincy Adams: "His face is ashen; gaunt his whole body. His breath is green with gall; his tongue drips poison."

British MP John Wilkes replying to the prediction by the Earl of Sandwich that he would die on the gallows or of venereal disease: "That depends my lord, whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."

Franklin Roosevelt on Republican attempts to blame Democrats for depression: "You never speak of rope in the house of a man who has been hanged. In the same way, if I were a Republican leader speaking to a mixed audience, the last word in the dictionary I would use is that word 'depression.' "

John F. Kennedy deflecting suggestions of vote tampering. "I just received the following wire from my generous Daddy -- 'Dear Jack' -- Don't buy a single vote more than necessary. I'll be damned if I am going to pay for a landslide."

And two lesser known rhetorical gems from Winston Churchill, who has a large chapter devoted to him:

On Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain: "Mr. Chamberlain loves the working man, he loves to see him work."

On Ramsay MacDonald, the Labour Party leader being named to the top British financial post. "I remember, when I was a child, being taken to the Barnum Circus, which contained an exhibition on freaks and monstrosities. But the one exhibit I most wanted to see on the program was the one described as "The Boneless Wonder." But my parents judged it would be too revolting and demoralizing for my youthful eyes, and I have waited 50 years now to finally see the Boneless Wonder sitting on the Treasury Bench."

Just imagine if some of these early politicians had had the capability to air 15-second TV attack spots. They'd no doubt be more vitriolic and jaw-dropping than today's fare, perhaps more interesting too.