A little more than a week ago, the Phillies stood one win away of their first title since 1980 and the first Philly championship in 25 years. They had soundly outplayed the Rays for the first 4 games, they had made all the right moves both on and off the mound and their young ace was on the mound in the clincher. I had every logical reason to start dreaming of the parade down Broad Street. And yet...these were the Phillies. Hope without a gnawing doubt was not an option
That about sums up my feelings on the eve of a possible Obama victory. All of the stars are aligned for a Democratic victory, the financial meltdown simply bringing the flaws of the Bush era into sharp relief. For once the Democratic campaign has been well-crafted and well-executed, rather than tone-deaf and outdated. Obama has played his weak cards (the residual racism of older America, a foreign middle name, a relatively thin resume) as well as they could be played. There is every reason to believe that Obama's ground operation will if anything exceed the giddy expectations set by the polls. And yet...., the Democrats have found ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory time and again.
Still, we live in a world in which the Phillies are the World Champs. And so it is not too much to hope that Americans will finally reject the politics of distraction and division and instead embrace a politics of potential and renewal.
Tasty commentary on politics, law, religion and more, without the fattening dogma. (The views expressed on this blog are the author's alone, and do not represent those of any past, current or future employer or his past, current, and future soulmate.)
November 03, 2008
January 26, 2008
The Choice (II) - The Case For Barack Obama
Super Tuesday is rapidly approaching and I remain undecided even at this late date. Massachusetts is one of the states voting, although you would hardly know that from television coverage. California and New York are understandably getting the most attention, but the Bay State has more delegates at stake than Georgia, Tennessee or Missouri. Especially in a proportional election, every vote counts. At this rate, I may not know who I vote for until I actually get in the ballot box.
The Case For Barack Obama
The case for Barack Obama is simple - words do matter when spoke by a president. Obama wields words better than any Democratic politician (with the possible exception of Bill Clinton.) Obama's political skills go beyond his powerful oratory. He understands, in a deep way, that transforming this country will require radically changing the terms of debate. Progressive ideas need to defined as centrist, conservative ideas that are now "mainstream" to be deemed extreme. A Democratic president elected in 2008 will face a Republican minority in the Senate that can move to block him or her at every turn. It is not enough to have a President who can work behind the scenes to forge bipartisan agreements, we need one who can bring his or her case directly to the voters so that Republicans fear the consequences of turning down olive branch.
On the stump, Obama purposely does not tick off a laundry list of policy proposals. However, there's evidence that he understands the complexity of the most important domestic issues facing the country: health care, climate change,education, family leave. On these issues, his relatively short tenure as a U.S. Senator is sufficiently bolstered by his strong work as a state senator and prior experience as a community organizer. On foreign policy, its reassuring that the one issue Obama has worked on in detail is nuclear proliferation.
Obama also represents the Democrats best chance of a landslide victory in November.
Certainly any Democratic win this November can staunch the bleeding, but only a landslide victory can deliver a mandate for progressive politics. The primary campaign has also shown Obama's ability to handle the rough waters of politics. Obama has shown significant aptitude for political jujitsu. He turned attacks against his record (or lack thereof) as attacks against hope and change.
Obama's ability to attract independents and produce ambivalence rather than loathing in many Republicans is important. But it is his ability to tap in the pool of potential voters who general sit on the side lines that is truly game changing. The passion that Obama instills in young voters is electrifying. As much we would hope that electing the most powerful person in the world differ from voting for student body president the stark reality is that charisma wins.
The Case Against Obama
It is easy to get caught up in Obama-mania. But as the Obama-skeptics rightly point out, Obama is not the messiah. Whether you view it as a strategic decision or evidence that the emperor has no clothes, Obama's campaign has been awfully free of substance. Obama's posturing on health care indicates a willingness to tack to the political winds even when it is arguably unnecessary. His resume is awfully thin for a presidential candidate.
None of these are compelling, at least not enough to outweigh Obama's positives. What does give me pause, however, are serious questions about what the foreign policy on an Obama Administration will look like. Obama has a extraordinarily slim track record on foreign policy. Being "right" about Iraq doesn't make up for this. There simply isn't enough evidence to be sure that he was "right" for the right reasons.
Obama says all of the right things - he wants to withdraw carefully from Iraq, hold firm in Afghanistan, keep the pressure on Al Qaeda, rebuild diplomatic alliances and restore American soft power. Like all Democrats, he rejects the Bush administration's foreign policy and promises something akin to the globalism of the Clinton Administration. What I don't have a sense of is the extent to which Obama recognizes where the Clinton Administration did things right and where it made grievous mistakes. Obama is quite cogent at pointing out the wasted opportunities of the Clinton years on the domestic front. He has offered no comparable critique on foreign policy.
Obama's early leadership on Darfur is commendable, and the presence of Samantha Power suggests a commitment to taking genocide seriously. But, on the other hand, Obama's "slippery slope" argument in the context of the debate over preventing genocide in Iraq was disturbing. Obama's other advisers are a mixed bag. Realist eminence grace Zbignew Brzezinski is the Democratic answer to James Baker. There are conflicting reports about whether Robert O'Malley, a leading peddler of Camp David revisionism, is a member of Obama's team (and O'Malley presence would be somewhat offset by Dennis Ross, who also has been linked to Obama.) I've seen little of substance, pro or con, on perhaps the most important Obama advisers - former Clintonites Susan Rice and Anthony Lake.
Essentially, Obama's foreign policy is significantly more likely to be different than the late Clinton Administration than a 2nd Clinton Administration. But it is wholly unclear whether that difference is going to be for better or worse. And as inspiring as Obama's campaign has been, part of me will go into the polling booth thinking not about JFK - a senator with 14 years in Congress marinating in security issues, but Jimmy Carter - brilliant, well-intentioned, but having too much to learn and too little time to learn it.
The Case For Barack Obama
The case for Barack Obama is simple - words do matter when spoke by a president. Obama wields words better than any Democratic politician (with the possible exception of Bill Clinton.) Obama's political skills go beyond his powerful oratory. He understands, in a deep way, that transforming this country will require radically changing the terms of debate. Progressive ideas need to defined as centrist, conservative ideas that are now "mainstream" to be deemed extreme. A Democratic president elected in 2008 will face a Republican minority in the Senate that can move to block him or her at every turn. It is not enough to have a President who can work behind the scenes to forge bipartisan agreements, we need one who can bring his or her case directly to the voters so that Republicans fear the consequences of turning down olive branch.
On the stump, Obama purposely does not tick off a laundry list of policy proposals. However, there's evidence that he understands the complexity of the most important domestic issues facing the country: health care, climate change,education, family leave. On these issues, his relatively short tenure as a U.S. Senator is sufficiently bolstered by his strong work as a state senator and prior experience as a community organizer. On foreign policy, its reassuring that the one issue Obama has worked on in detail is nuclear proliferation.
Obama also represents the Democrats best chance of a landslide victory in November.
Certainly any Democratic win this November can staunch the bleeding, but only a landslide victory can deliver a mandate for progressive politics. The primary campaign has also shown Obama's ability to handle the rough waters of politics. Obama has shown significant aptitude for political jujitsu. He turned attacks against his record (or lack thereof) as attacks against hope and change.
Obama's ability to attract independents and produce ambivalence rather than loathing in many Republicans is important. But it is his ability to tap in the pool of potential voters who general sit on the side lines that is truly game changing. The passion that Obama instills in young voters is electrifying. As much we would hope that electing the most powerful person in the world differ from voting for student body president the stark reality is that charisma wins.
The Case Against Obama
It is easy to get caught up in Obama-mania. But as the Obama-skeptics rightly point out, Obama is not the messiah. Whether you view it as a strategic decision or evidence that the emperor has no clothes, Obama's campaign has been awfully free of substance. Obama's posturing on health care indicates a willingness to tack to the political winds even when it is arguably unnecessary. His resume is awfully thin for a presidential candidate.
None of these are compelling, at least not enough to outweigh Obama's positives. What does give me pause, however, are serious questions about what the foreign policy on an Obama Administration will look like. Obama has a extraordinarily slim track record on foreign policy. Being "right" about Iraq doesn't make up for this. There simply isn't enough evidence to be sure that he was "right" for the right reasons.
Obama says all of the right things - he wants to withdraw carefully from Iraq, hold firm in Afghanistan, keep the pressure on Al Qaeda, rebuild diplomatic alliances and restore American soft power. Like all Democrats, he rejects the Bush administration's foreign policy and promises something akin to the globalism of the Clinton Administration. What I don't have a sense of is the extent to which Obama recognizes where the Clinton Administration did things right and where it made grievous mistakes. Obama is quite cogent at pointing out the wasted opportunities of the Clinton years on the domestic front. He has offered no comparable critique on foreign policy.
Obama's early leadership on Darfur is commendable, and the presence of Samantha Power suggests a commitment to taking genocide seriously. But, on the other hand, Obama's "slippery slope" argument in the context of the debate over preventing genocide in Iraq was disturbing. Obama's other advisers are a mixed bag. Realist eminence grace Zbignew Brzezinski is the Democratic answer to James Baker. There are conflicting reports about whether Robert O'Malley, a leading peddler of Camp David revisionism, is a member of Obama's team (and O'Malley presence would be somewhat offset by Dennis Ross, who also has been linked to Obama.) I've seen little of substance, pro or con, on perhaps the most important Obama advisers - former Clintonites Susan Rice and Anthony Lake.
Essentially, Obama's foreign policy is significantly more likely to be different than the late Clinton Administration than a 2nd Clinton Administration. But it is wholly unclear whether that difference is going to be for better or worse. And as inspiring as Obama's campaign has been, part of me will go into the polling booth thinking not about JFK - a senator with 14 years in Congress marinating in security issues, but Jimmy Carter - brilliant, well-intentioned, but having too much to learn and too little time to learn it.
January 07, 2008
The Choice (I) - The Case for Hillary Clinton
I'm not voting today. In fact, only 22 out of the 4,049 Democratic convention delegates are at stake in the ballots being cast 1-3 hours north of an unseasonably warm Cambridge. So in theory, when I do vote on February 5, none of the candidates will have locked up the nomination, which is refreshing. How much my vote will matter will depend in large part on the herd mentality of the American people. The fact that the judgments of the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire should be allowed to so drastically shape who the rest of us vote for is absurd. My loathing of the political press rises with every horse-race speculation on how X candidate is "finished" if they lose X primary. Still, before I along with everybody else get swept away in the self-fulfilling nonsense that will inevitably follow the results in NH, its good to think through the decision before me and fellow Democrats.
Al Gore, the most qualified person to be president in the nation and who would have without a doubt would have secured my support, did not run. The choice before me is between three major candidates, Clinton, Obama and Edwards that each have both significant positives and drawbacks.
For the most part, this is not a choice about ideology or policy. In contrast to the fierce battles between Democrats on economic policies in 1988 and 1992 and over foreign policy in 2004, the overlap between the 3 major Dems on policy matters is striking. You have to look very carefully to find any differences at all. The inclusion or exclusion of a mandate in a universal health care plan is trivial. Edwards' across-the-board opposition towards free trade agreements and Obama's willingness to put entitlement reform on the table are less so, but still minor. All three of the candidates have painted similar themes in foreign policy - soundly rejecting Bush's 1st term Jacksonian/neocon policies. All three are advised (or will likely be advised) by the architects of the pragmatic globalism of Clinton's 2nd term. Ferreting out actual differences between the candidates on these issues is exceedingly difficult.
Therefore, the choices between the three candidates come down to far more nebulous factors - their past experience, their political skills, and the best guess as to how they would fare in a general election. The decision is not an easy one.
The Case For Hillary Clinton
The strongest argument for Senator Clinton is that she has the firmest grasp on policy of any candidate in the race. This has been particularly evident from the debates. In last Saturday's debate for example, on a wide range of topics, Clinton repeatedly pointed out nuances glossed over by her opponents. In a question dealing with how to uproot Al Qaeda from Pakistan, Clinton brought up the complicating factor of the nuclear-fueled tensions between Pakistan and India. Similarly, in a discussion of energy policy, Clinton alone discussed cushioning the costs passed onto the poor from policies designed to increase energy efficiency.
The fact that Clinton is the best prepared to lead from day one is not simply a campaign slogan, its objectively true. While any Democratic administration will tap into the first Clinton Administration's foreign policy and national security team, for Senator Clinton that team is largely constructed already. They are the safest bet, the least likely to make a drastic error in the first year of a new administration. (Although keeping the Clinton foreign policy team together also puts a ceiling on what Clinton (II) would look like. There were plenty of failures with the first Clinton administration and its unclear to what extent any lessons were learned from those failures.)
Finally, there is the infamous Clinton political machine. The Clintons know how to fight, and they understand that politics is a contact sport. Unlike the disastrous, Shrum-led campaigns of Gore and Kerry, a Clinton campaign will not remain passive in the wake of right-wing Swift-boating. They not only respond to GOP attacks, but make sure to take the initiative as well.
Finally, I'd be remiss in noting that even though Hillary was launched onto the national stage in her role as First Lady, her election as president would be a tremendous milestone in moving this country towards gender equality.
The Case Against Hillary Clinton
Senator Clinton herself stated that you campaign in poetry, but govern in prose. To put it mildly, she is not a gifted political poet. Senator Clinton is not particularly adept at placing her policy agenda in the context of a clear political vision. Unlike her husband, she is not blessed with strong political instincts. Her political attacks, especially those that are made off-the-cuff, are clumsy and frequently backfire. The last debate was no exception. I don't think should could have made a worse attack on her opponents that criticizing them for "raising false hopes." She couldn't have played into the false narrative equating her as the candidate of cynicism any better.
I'm less comfortable with a related argument against nominating Clinton, which is that she faces a major handicap from the media. She faces the natural hostility to wonkery that Gore was subjected to in 2000. The political media is fundamentally disinclined to address the merits of substantive issues, so they consistently move the discussion from Clinton's home turf to highly subjective inquiries on "character." In Clinton's case, there is the added burden of the psycho-drama of her marriage and latent misogyny. She faces a ridiculous double-standard, accused of being "cold" where a man would be considered cool, accused of a "breakdown" where a man would be praised for fiery passion. As an argument against Clinton's candidacy I find this very disturbing, yet...the stakes could not be higher. I cannot afford to blithely ignore factors that will very much impact her prospects in a general election.
Finally, there is the bleak prospect of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. In a deep way this is not healthy for American democracy. Certainly healthier than 4 more years of disastrous administration of the executive branch by the GOP, but a slide towards dynastic politics nonetheless.
Al Gore, the most qualified person to be president in the nation and who would have without a doubt would have secured my support, did not run. The choice before me is between three major candidates, Clinton, Obama and Edwards that each have both significant positives and drawbacks.
For the most part, this is not a choice about ideology or policy. In contrast to the fierce battles between Democrats on economic policies in 1988 and 1992 and over foreign policy in 2004, the overlap between the 3 major Dems on policy matters is striking. You have to look very carefully to find any differences at all. The inclusion or exclusion of a mandate in a universal health care plan is trivial. Edwards' across-the-board opposition towards free trade agreements and Obama's willingness to put entitlement reform on the table are less so, but still minor. All three of the candidates have painted similar themes in foreign policy - soundly rejecting Bush's 1st term Jacksonian/neocon policies. All three are advised (or will likely be advised) by the architects of the pragmatic globalism of Clinton's 2nd term. Ferreting out actual differences between the candidates on these issues is exceedingly difficult.
Therefore, the choices between the three candidates come down to far more nebulous factors - their past experience, their political skills, and the best guess as to how they would fare in a general election. The decision is not an easy one.
The Case For Hillary Clinton
The strongest argument for Senator Clinton is that she has the firmest grasp on policy of any candidate in the race. This has been particularly evident from the debates. In last Saturday's debate for example, on a wide range of topics, Clinton repeatedly pointed out nuances glossed over by her opponents. In a question dealing with how to uproot Al Qaeda from Pakistan, Clinton brought up the complicating factor of the nuclear-fueled tensions between Pakistan and India. Similarly, in a discussion of energy policy, Clinton alone discussed cushioning the costs passed onto the poor from policies designed to increase energy efficiency.
The fact that Clinton is the best prepared to lead from day one is not simply a campaign slogan, its objectively true. While any Democratic administration will tap into the first Clinton Administration's foreign policy and national security team, for Senator Clinton that team is largely constructed already. They are the safest bet, the least likely to make a drastic error in the first year of a new administration. (Although keeping the Clinton foreign policy team together also puts a ceiling on what Clinton (II) would look like. There were plenty of failures with the first Clinton administration and its unclear to what extent any lessons were learned from those failures.)
Finally, there is the infamous Clinton political machine. The Clintons know how to fight, and they understand that politics is a contact sport. Unlike the disastrous, Shrum-led campaigns of Gore and Kerry, a Clinton campaign will not remain passive in the wake of right-wing Swift-boating. They not only respond to GOP attacks, but make sure to take the initiative as well.
Finally, I'd be remiss in noting that even though Hillary was launched onto the national stage in her role as First Lady, her election as president would be a tremendous milestone in moving this country towards gender equality.
The Case Against Hillary Clinton
Senator Clinton herself stated that you campaign in poetry, but govern in prose. To put it mildly, she is not a gifted political poet. Senator Clinton is not particularly adept at placing her policy agenda in the context of a clear political vision. Unlike her husband, she is not blessed with strong political instincts. Her political attacks, especially those that are made off-the-cuff, are clumsy and frequently backfire. The last debate was no exception. I don't think should could have made a worse attack on her opponents that criticizing them for "raising false hopes." She couldn't have played into the false narrative equating her as the candidate of cynicism any better.
I'm less comfortable with a related argument against nominating Clinton, which is that she faces a major handicap from the media. She faces the natural hostility to wonkery that Gore was subjected to in 2000. The political media is fundamentally disinclined to address the merits of substantive issues, so they consistently move the discussion from Clinton's home turf to highly subjective inquiries on "character." In Clinton's case, there is the added burden of the psycho-drama of her marriage and latent misogyny. She faces a ridiculous double-standard, accused of being "cold" where a man would be considered cool, accused of a "breakdown" where a man would be praised for fiery passion. As an argument against Clinton's candidacy I find this very disturbing, yet...the stakes could not be higher. I cannot afford to blithely ignore factors that will very much impact her prospects in a general election.
Finally, there is the bleak prospect of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. In a deep way this is not healthy for American democracy. Certainly healthier than 4 more years of disastrous administration of the executive branch by the GOP, but a slide towards dynastic politics nonetheless.