One reason I love me some Obama

From the New York Times Magazine:

"I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls," Obama told me. "If I were watching Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me, right? Because the way I’m portrayed 24/7 is as a freak! I am the latte-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that?

"I guess the point I’m making," he went on, "is that there is an entire industry now, an entire apparatus, designed to perpetuate this cultural schism, and it’s powerful. People want to know that you’re fighting for them, that you get them. And I actually think I do. But you know, if people are just seeing me in sound bites, they’re not going to discover that. That’s why I say that some of that may have to happen after the election, when they get to know you."

Originally from Daily Kos.

I have to be honest here. I watched me some Fox News the other night after the debate because CNN International cut off the post-game show a little early. It's pretty evident that Fox News has never been and never will be "News". It's also pretty evident that they employ a gang of morons who are only good at telling lies. I can only hope there is a special place in hell reserved for them.

But even beyond that, is Karl Rove really that stupid? It was the first time I'd seen him live and wow. Craven, amoral, and filthy he is. Intelligent, he is not. Same for Dick Morris (who I know very little about but who was entirely incoherent amidst the spittle). And frankly, former VP Nominee Geraldine Ferraro should be ashamed of herself. By going on Fox, she helps legitimize the organization. If I could, I would dedicate every moment I have to destroying Fox News. Anyone who wants to write me a grant to establish an NGO called "Destroy Fox News", let me know.

Post Biden Reflections

I think my post from the other day underlined one particular feature about the Biden choice: a lack of enthusiasm. For me, the choice was the right one given the candidates under consideration (I still think he should have seriously considered General Wesley Clark) which meant I gave a great sigh of relief when the choice wasn't Bayh or Kaine or any of the other problematic candidates. That doesn't mean I'm thrilled with the Biden choice. It just means that, given the cast of characters, from where I sit, Biden was the best of a weak group.

A lot has been made in the last couple days about how VP selections are basically non-factors in presidential elections (see this Kevin Drum post at his new digs). And I agree with that reasoning for the most part. Vice presidents don't generally matter to the electorate - i mean, after all, it's the rare event that ever makes the Vice-President relevant.

Or it used to be. Now with Cheney's unitary executive theory, the VP has a whole host of expanded powers that are probably not constitutionally supported. But I won't pretend that the electorate has noticed. No, the reality is, the electorate is going to make a choice almost entirely based on the merits (or perceived merits) of the presidential nominees.

So, to the extent that poll and historical data shows that VP selections don't matter *directly* in voter choices, I agree. What is less clear, however, is how a VP selection can have an *indirect* effect on voter selection. This is particularly relevant this year as Obama seems to have staked his ground as a "different kind of candidate" meaning that he won't go too negative or really crack down on McCain BS. Hiring Biden as the VP means that Obama can continue that role (i.e. look presidential) AND have an attack dog go after McCain nonsense in an aggressive, effective way. And, call me an optimist, but that could affect voter selection in November.

So in the end, I like the Biden choice because I think that it a) allows Obama to maintain his Presidential appearance (i.e. the high road), b) employs an experienced, well respected, and articulate attack against McCain, by someone who is well liked and respected by the insider press (never underestimate the impact of a press corp that likes a candidate, see McCain, John and "maverick") and c) is more racially pleasing to white America (having a black man attack a white former POW, war hero isn't the type of thing that white America really goes for now is it?).

Anyway, we're in DNC week now. Which means lots of ridiculous coverage from CNN and Wolf Blitzer, hours of blowhard "analysis", and political theater. For anyone who is genuinely considering their presidential selection, I recommend they watch Obama's speech and nothing else. Because the rest is like a Broadway play for political junkies.

The Biden Pick

All signs had pointed to Biden during the last week, so this selection does not come as a surprise. Now that it's official I have some thoughts:

1. It's a good pick if for no other reason, it doesn't hurt Obama. The other major candidates (Hillary, Bayh, Kaine, etc) were all controversial in their own right. Clinton is obvious (inflame the GOP), Bayh is a total nob, and Kaine is a very conservative Dem and likely would have alienated the base.

2. Biden is a man of extensive experience. In particular, he is the Senate Foreign Relations Committee leader and has served in the same role on the Senate Judiciary Committee. As far as Committee leadership in the Senate goes, he's got it in spades. Of course, he got it wrong on Iraq, but then came around. But no matter, he's got the "perception"of experience which is important to beat back the silly "Obama isn't experienced enough" meme.

3. He's an attack dog. Make no mistake, Biden is an excellent debater and will provide some swerve to Obama's dignified, non-confrontational stance. To a lot of people, Obama is almost too vanilla. Biden is more rough and tumble and if I were Mitt Romney (McCain's likely choice for VP), I'd be sweating already because Biden is going to destroy the Mittster (Mitt doesn't do himself any favors by being a total tool with zero foreign policy knowledge and a rich man's economic plan).

4. They can continue the "McCain is a rich, out of touch, fool" meme. Biden has 1 house. He's not wealthy. He's a regular guy who never got corrupted by the craziness of Washington. He's what McCain should have been. That doesn't mean he's perfect, but he damn well sure knows that it lettuce pickers don't earn $50/hour.

5. He *may* help Obama in Pennsylvania, which, as we all know, is pretty big. And, as CNN is trying to drive home today, Biden is Catholic and that could help Obama win some Catholics (no actual reasons have been given for that argument except that, you know, in 'Merica we vote for people like us).

Last thought: This is yet another example of Obama rubbing it in Clinton's face. He chose the "experienced" candidate, the candidate that would fill his gaps, be a bulldog etc. That was basically Hillary's line - that she was the one candidate who could take on the GOP, that she had the experience, and that she'd "been there before". I'm guessing that this is gonna smart.

Hillary Clinton and the Gender Card

There's a good bit of talk in the media about Hillary playing up her role as a woman and how tough it is and she is, etc. To her credit (although this is political subterfuge at its best - candidate denies what the campaign is doing under the covers), she stated:

“I don’t think they’re picking on me because I’m a woman, I think they’re picking on me because I’m winning,”

Of course, she followed that comment up with this one:

“I anticipate it will get even hotter — and if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. And I’m very comfortable in the kitchen.”

The "issue" at hand is that her campaign is hitting back at the fact that in Tuesday's debate, everyone seemed to gang up on the frontrunner. Not that there is anything unusual about it. In fact, what was more unusual this cycle is that no one seemed to be broadsiding the frontrunner. Now that they have, the Clinton campaign has been acting all put out and pouty like a cheerleader who missed out on being selected Prom Queen. (Sorry, couldn't help myself. HRC started mixing metaphors with the kitchen comment.)

There's more to this story and you can read a summary here. But I won't go into more details about the specific comments made because it's not terribly important to my point.

My point is, the Clinton campaign, and HRC to a certain extent, is doing their best to remind everyone that Clinton is a woman making a historic push to be the first woman president. Any denial of that central fact belies credibility. So, when someone says that HRC is not playing the "gender card" that smacks of over Hillary-love and can't be respected as an independent opinion.

The issue of whether this is justified or not is a different story. To some extent the Obama campaign has been playing politics with his race as well. (I have no means to measure which card is "more" in play, race or gender.) And I believe this to be the natural evolution of American politics as distasteful as it is. The bottom line is until we have a woman and black president, the gender and race issues will be in play given the American obsession with firsts.

So in this sense, I don't blame either candidate. But, I do take offense to the Clinton campaign acting so put off by it all. Obama said it best,

"Mr. Obama then said that he had not introduced race into a Democratic debate in Iowa. “We spent, I think, the first 15 minutes of the debate hitting me on various foreign policy issues,” Mr. Obama said. “I didn’t come out and say, look, I’m being hit on because I look different from the rest of the folks on the stage. I assumed it was because there were real policy differences there.”

(Note: I am already on record as opposing Hillary as the candidate. Not only do I like Obama much more, but I hate the idea of political dynasty in the US and I find her stance on Iraq and Iran naive at best, dangerous at worst. Nor do I think we should nominate a candidate on percieved electability - which is the crux of the HRC campaign. In other words, take what I say with that specific lens in mind.)