It's time for a look at the Cabinet in the upcoming Obama administration. First up - Secretary of State, the point person - in repairing our alliances, in building on the goodwill that is already flowing in from around the world.
There are a number of excellent options - some who served in the Clinton Administration - some outsiders - and even a couple of Obamicans. For convenience, I've taken the list from a betting site (yes, it is in the order of the oddsmakers' favorite):
Richard Holbrooke
Anthony Lake
Richard Lugar
Bill Richardson
Chuck Hagel
John Kerry
Daniel Shapiro
Daniel Kurtzer
George Mitchell
Eric Lynn
Dennis Ross
Susan Rice
James Steinberg
Mara Rudman
Bill Clinton
Colin Powell
Hillary Clinton
I evaluate each option as best I can on the flip. (I had to research the credentials of a few.) I trust others will add more data. (And if nobody notices diaries here, I'll probably also post on the great Orange blog too.)
From the about section of the ActBlue page I've created:
Despite the self-important screechings of the traditional media, the hurt feelings and ruffled feathers of the primary season are not insurmoutable. Hillary and Bill Clinton have worked to unite the Democratic Party with their rousing convention speeches and gracious support of Obama during the delegate voting process. Now it's time to reward Hillary for being a team player by helping pay off her campaign debt.
And while we're at it, lets give Barack Obama, who was equally gracious in victory, the funds he needs to expand the map, create coattails for down-ballot races, and end the conservative governing that thinks that all social issues are due to gays, Atheists, Hollywood, and working women, that the way to solve all economic ills are tax cuts for the super rich, and that war will solve all of America's international problems.
I am not going to be very articulate - I've been browsing all the favorite sites to see what people thought, after having my own celebration of this historic event in my own quiet way. I thought the speech itself was amazing - practical, down to earth, but with a hint of that soaring inspiration that everyone showed up to get.
I do not think it is going to far to say the election may be decided in the next two nights. As I have written here before, it is more common for races to be decided in the summer than in the fall. As of this moment, tracking poll information indicates that Obama has not received a bounce from either the first night of the Convention or from the Biden announcement. As I noted here previously, even Kerry got a bounce out of naming Edwards. In '96 Dole got a significant bounce from naming Kemp (and from the first two nights of the convention), and both Bush and Gore in 2000 saw some movement after naming their running mates (data on the flip).
The reason for the lack of a bounce thus far is obvious: everyone is waiting for Hillary and Bill. Right now the overwhelming media narrative of this convention is of a party that is badly split.
This may be counter-intuitive, and you can dismiss it as wishful thinking, but the very lack of a bounce to date to me suggests the opportunity at hand. What television hungers for is drama. When Bill and Hillary speak tonight and tomorrow the drama will be very real. And that is why what they say will be of critical importance.
A generation ago Ted Kennedy spoke to the Democratic Convention and delivered the one of the most moving speeches I have ever seen. The situation was not unlike the present (people keep drawing the wrong analogies to 1980) - the Democratic Party was so badly split in 1980 that Carter was actually below 50% among Democrats in one summer poll. Kennedy was hardly conciliatory to Carter in that speech. But it WAS effective, and it did help Carter temporarily put the Democratic Party back together.
You can argue that for Clinton the task is somewhat different tonight: surely she must put to rest the sense that her support for Obama is simply for show. On another level, though, her task is to show how HER causes would be destroyed by a McCain Presidency. When Kennedy spoke in 1980 he barely mentioned Carter. But he made to sure to attack Reagan.
If she makes this case effectively, and Bill re-enforces it tomorrow night, the election may be substantially decided. If they do not, we can expect a very close and hard fought election.
I was amazed last night watching Chris Matthews' show on MSNBC to hear a Hillary supporter saying she would be voting for McCain because Obama won the Democratic Primary. I was amazed because anyone who looks at the Old Man's record will see that he is totally against the rights of women to have any personal control over their own lives.
Empirical evidence that Wright and tying Obama to him doesn't matter at ALL, via Ben Smith:
The AP calls a tight race for Democrat Travis Childers in Mississippi, a win for the DCCC and a symbolic win for Obama, the GOP bogeyman of choice in the conservative Mississippi district, and a very bad sign for House Republicans.
This is the reddest of red congressional districts, one that went 62%-37% for George W. Bush in 2004. If race-baiting and Wright association (via Obama association) can't hurt a candidate here, how the hell will it hurt Obama in the fall ANYWHERE else in the entire country?
The pundits should be intellectually rigorous enough to call the Wright flap DEAD, which it clearly now is.
This is what Hillary said on 10/10/07 regarding the MI Primary and leaving her name on the ballet: "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything"
While the choices for President slim down to next to none, one might evaluate positions instead of joining the various cheer leading camps. Who, overall has the best trade, economic positions to stop this global train wreck?
Firstly any group name calling someone protectionist because they acknowledge the obviously massive ~5.6% GDP trade deficit, is obviously not basing their economics on anything remotely resembling reality. The reason I link to this Pro Obama group is because they want more bad trade agreements. They assessed Obama as more of a corporate free trader than Hillary. Below are some statements from the two for easy comparison contrast.
But she can't so she has created this false dilemma where she tries to convice primary voters that the only reason she doesn't attack is because she is nice but hint hint, wink wink the Republicans won't be so nice about Obama's "deep dark secrets." If such secrets existed, Hillary would have used them.
I doubt there are many Republican or independent voters who would fall for the old "crack-dealing Muslim terrorist" Clinton PR machine smear again. It didn't work on Democrats in South Carolina, and chances are that it would backfire on Republicans as well.
So far nobody has figured out an effective way to smear him, he is like Teflon. The brilliant guys over at the conservative think-tanks aren't likely to come up with anything clever either. Fox News hasn't come up with much (besides imaginary Madrasas). He has too much of a nice-guy image for these types of vicious attacks to be effective.
Oh yeah and BTW I'm sick and tired of hearing people say "Obama hasn't been vetted all the way, Hillary is taking it easy on him but the Republicans will throw the REAL SCARY attacks (and the kitchen sink)."
Hogwash. The Clintons would use ANY available type of negative attack, smear job, wisper campaign, push poll, ect. Anything that would help her secure a victory at this critical stage in the race. The only reason they haven't done more negative attacks on him is because they know that THE ATTACKS SIMPLY WONT WORK. Nobody will believe it and it will make her look like a bully.
All we would have to do is nominate Obama, tell him to shut up then sit back and wait for the Grand Old Party to completely implode upon itself from trying to figure out how to walk the line during attacks and hide their true racist colors. One can only imagine with pure glee how many pieces the GOP will have disintegrated into.
Hell, by the time its over and done with there will probably be an entire new cross-section of Republicans openly and proudly pronouncing their racism and white supremacy ideology.
Last Wednesday John Edwards formally exited the Democratic Presidential Primary. This brings one very important question to mind. With Edwards gone, will Hillary or Barack gain the support of Edwards voters? This depend on two things, who if anyone Edwards endorses, and who better takes up his cause of supporting the impoverished.:
"I think both candidates wiil benefit in the short term, but long term, the candidate who talks about the plight of the poor, that champions the middle class.. will benefit from the support of John Edwards" CNN politcal analyst Donna Brazile said
I can't tell if he's a sly dishonorable politician or if he honestly believes the BS that he spews out every time he gets the chance to speak. This quote from CNN's Political Ticker leads me to believe that not only is it both, but he is also nauseatingly cocky and arrogant:
"Tonight I predict that most of the guns will be aimed at me. I predict they're going to be shooting shots one after the other and they're going miss," Romney told a Florida crowd packed into a local restaurant. "They're going to shoot time and time again but you know, if they're shooting at me that means I'm the guy they're worried about and for good reason, because we are going to win Florida!"
That's exactly what they did tonight in Boca Raton at the debate - shoot continuous shots at him. And what did he do? Romney did all but literally spit on Hillary Clinton's shoes. To those that were listening and weren't blinded by his sparkling grin of deception, it is apparent that he has no respect for Hillary and sees her campaign as a nothing more than a Clinton couple's effort for the white house. He definitely scored with Hillary-haters tonight, as he took every opportunity he could to speak out against her.
While Republican candidate Ron Paul did a poor job of dodging his own shots when he was questioned about his loyalty to the Republican Party due to his previous run for the presidency as a Libertarian candidate in 2004), Mitt Romney was prepared for every shot. He made it is point to appear to be the most conservative candidate, the kind of conservative that can "be trusted" and the kind that clearly doesn't trust the Democrats. He openly supported President Reagan, saying that he would lead like him, yet also said he wouldn't raise taxes as Reagan did. He openly supported the war in Iraq and Bush's decision to invade, yet said he would have done it differently and made different decisions.
It seems that Romney is just the perfect Republican candidate right (at least that what's he'd tell you). He has the best aspects of previous conservative leaders but, of course, with politically sensitive issues, ones on which there is a clear "P.C." opinion, Romney votes classic Conservative. It's almost as if the Republican Party created its own Manchurian Candidate. But with one flaw: he's Mormon. Was it a slip up in the data entry? Or a planned error meant to deflect the public from catching onto their undercover plot?
When Republicans act like Democrats, America loses," he said.
What a shocker? He's against Democrats? Wow, that's so unlike him!
Bill Clinton may be taking things a little too personally on the campaign trail. During encounters with several press he has given long, almost rant like answers in response to various questions. He appears very unlike himself, rash and easily angered, not the former President who displays grace under pressure with the media. This new Bill Clinton will frustrate the media, and cause them to portray Hillary's campaign in a less favorable light.
I can't tell if he's a sly dishonorable politician or if he honestly believes the BS that he spews out every time he gets the chance to speak. This quote from CNN's Political Ticker leads me to believe that not only is it both, but he is also nauseatingly cocky and arrogant:
"Tonight I predict that most of the guns will be aimed at me. I predict they're going to be shooting shots one after the other and they're going miss," Romney told a Florida crowd packed into a local restaurant. "They're going to shoot time and time again but you know, if they're shooting at me that means I'm the guy they're worried about and for good reason, because we are going to win Florida!" (http://politicaltick...)
That's exactly what they did tonight in Boca Raton at the debate - shoot continuous shots at him. And what did he do? Romney did all but literally spit on Hillary Clinton's shoes. To those that were listening and weren't blinded by his sparkling grin of deception, it is apparent that he has no respect for Hillary and sees her campaign as a nothing more than a Clinton couple's effort for the white house. He definitely scored with Hillary-haters tonight, as he took every opportunity he could to speak out against her.
While Republican candidate Ron Paul did a poor job of dodging his own shots when he was questioned about his loyalty to the Republican Party due to his previous run for the presidency as a Libertarian candidate in 2004), Mitt Romney was prepared for every shot. He made it is point to appear to be the most conservative candidate, the kind of conservative that can "be trusted" and the kind that clearly doesn't trust the Democrats. He openly supported President Reagan, saying that he would lead like him, yet also said he wouldn't raise taxes as Reagan did. He openly supported the war in Iraq and Bush's decision to invade, yet said he would have done it differently and made different decisions.
It seems that Romney is just the perfect Republican candidate right (at least that what's he'd tell you). He has the best aspects of previous conservative leaders but, of course, with politically sensitive issues, ones on which there is a clear "P.C." opinion, Romney votes classic Conservative. It's almost as if the Republican Party created its own Manchurian Candidate. But with one flaw: he's Mormon. Was it a slip up in the data entry? Or a planned error meant to deflect the public from catching onto their undercover plot?
In a sorry attempt to provide so-called balance the Washington Post manufactures from whole cloth a negative story about Hillary Clinton. This is reminiscent of the anti-Gore coverage in the 2000 elections. Al Gore was the front runner and George Bush was a clown and a fraud and therefore the media felt that they had to balance their coverage by knocking Gore down.
Ever since the YearlyKos forum where Hillary Clinton defended taking money from D.C. lobbyists, OpenLeft.com and many other blogs have been full of commentary about that statement. Where the statement could hurt her the most is in my old home state of Iowa.
Iowans, especially Iowa Democrats, tend to be natural-born populists. Iowa's Democratic Senator Tom Harkin is a quintessential populist hell-raiser. Their two new congressmen and new governor are all oriented toward a populist message and policies. Iowa's caucus history is full of outsiders, reformers, and populists doing surprisingly well:
-In 1972, the first time the Iowa caucuses played a role, George McGovern's Midwestern populism helped him do surprisingly well in Iowa.
-In 1976, outside reformer Jimmy Carter beat a bunch of better-known, better funded D.C. establishment Democrats to score a shocking victory.
-In 1984, Mondale- even though he was clearly an insider- ran a classic labor-oriented Midwestern populist-style campaign to win Iowa, and Gary Hart ran an outsider, reform-the-system race to surge to a surprising second.
-In 1988, Gephardt won by running a strongly populist anti-free trade campaign to win, and a fellow Midwesterner with an outsider, clean-up-government message, Paul Simon came in a close second. (Distinctly non-populist technocrat Mike Dukakis finished 3rd, but then won New Hampshire and used his money edge to sweep the table everywhere else.)
-In 2004, Edwards' small-town, son-of-a-millworker, two Americas message allowed him to surge dramatically at the end of the race, and come within an eyelash of beating Kerry for first.
Obviously, the pattern doesn't hold 100% of the time- Dean was a hell of a lot more of an outsider than Kerry, for example- but there is certainly a strong tendency toward outsider, reformer and hell-raiser candidates in Iowa.
I've already written, and told my friends inside Hillary's campaign, that I think the lobbyist answer is a big problem for Clinton in general but especially in Iowa. I don't think that substantively there is any difference between a registered D.C. lobbyist for a corporation giving and raising money for you than the CEO or a major shareholder of the same company doing so for you, so I think the distinction that Edwards and Obama raise is more than a little phony. But I think politically, Clinton has put herself in a corner here and needs to be very clear that she is not defending the status quo and the establishment.
The thing is, the Hillary Clinton I know from my White House days has a strong populist streak in her. I'll never forget how pissed she was the morning the Harry and Louise ads started running, how her first instinct was to go and hammer the insurance companies for doing it, or how much she advocated for policies in internal debates that would help working-class folks.
For her sake, I hope she gets back to that sense of populist outrage. She has some advisers around her, such as Mark Penn, who recoil at anything the least bit populist or anti-establishment in nature because they are so happily entrenched in the D.C. establishment. But I don't believe she can win in Iowa without making it clear that she is more on the side of the regular folks than she is of the big dogs in D.C. And as front-loaded as the calendar is, if she loses in Iowa, the road to the nomination becomes very challenging.
