Gray Matter

Friday, February 08, 2008

The Choice

Mitt Romney’s decision to drop out of the race appears to lock up the nomination for John McCain though it will be interesting to see how long Mike Huckabee stays in and makes McCain continue defending his conservative credentials.

The Republicans, as usual, are playing by the standard rulebook by falling in line behind a nominee early. Conventional wisdom suggests that the earlier a party chooses its candidate, the better its chances are going into the November election. The less messy intraparty eye-gouging, the better and, besides, no sense squandering precious resources fighting your friends.

But the subject du jour is the Obama-Clinton competition so let’s have at it, okay? Here we have a virtual tie between two obviously bright and politically savvy candidates both of whom would represent a historic first if elected. While many of us may feel that we’d be happy to support either one, our primary here in Wisconsin is a mere 11 days away so we can only duck the choice for so much longer.

What follows is something of a cheat sheet on the differences between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton which I thought I’d pull together as a kind of public service. Don’t feel you have to thank me but I welcome your adoring comments.

The Issues:

By most accounts, the two candidates are remarkably similar on the issues. The two issues that observers use to draw distinctions between them are the Iraq War and Health Care Reform. Even on these issues their differences can appear to some as hairsplitting since they virtually agree on what to do from this point forward in Iraq and they both support providing health care to everyone who wants it.

As for Iraq, Obama has gotten a lot of mileage out of the fact that Clinton voted in favor of authorizing the Iraq War while he opposed the war from the beginning. While Clinton did vote in favor of the use of force, as did John Kerry, John Edwards and many other Democrats, she did forcefully urge President Bush to work with other countries to apply pressure on Saddam Hussein before resorting to war.

Obviously, Clinton and many of her senate colleagues voted as they did as a political calculation that to do otherwise would brand them as weak, limb-wristed namby-pambies. So much for political calculations, especially when it comes to matters of war. But, as the Baker-Hamilton Commission concluded, the key issue is what to do from this day forward and here they agree. Let’s get out as soon as possible and bring other countries in to help ensure stability.

On health care, Clinton’s experience is both her greatest asset and liability. She knows the issue better than anyone. She lead her husband’s Task Force on Health Care Reform and is largely credited with being responsible for that debacle by devising an overly complicated package and refusing to consider any compromise.

Her current proposal is remarkably similar to a national version of the Massachusetts legislation that was supported by Romney. The key provision that separates it from Obama’s proposal is the requirement that everyone have some form of coverage.

Obama insists that people shouldn’t be required to have coverage if they don’t want it or can’t afford it. This strikes many as a critical oversight since allowing people to opt-out avoids universal coverage and prevents significant cost controls. It appears to me that Obama is playing a similar political calculation here that he accuses Clinton of doing with her Iraq War vote. He seems to be ducking the label of endorsing socialized medicine while the Clinton plan is anything but that. (See Paul Krugman’s recent column in the New York Times.)

Both candidates have demonstrated an extraordinary command of the issues during the course of the campaign especially during the debates. Clinton deserves credit for being able to answer questions in remarkable detail while Obama wins points for sticking to thematic answers that connect with people more effectively than the wonkish responses of the former first lady.

Advantage: Clinton

Likability/Ability to inspire

Hands down this goes to Obama. While Clinton has many devoted followers, she also has alienated many others; Republicans, Democrats and Independents. She carries negative baggage from the grossly mishandled health care reform effort to the missing boxes of documents that suddenly reappeared during the Whitewater investigation to her transparent efforts to spin events to her advantage, for example her current morphing from inevitable juggernaut to insurgent underdog.

Obama benefits from his relative freshness on the national scene but he has also been remarkably astute at maintaining an aura of authenticity. His insistence that it’s time to reject politics as usual and embrace a new way is just spot on in tune with the nation’s mood. Hillary Clinton has come to appreciate this but her attempt to seize the mantle of change agent just can’t hold a candle to his.

The Clintons (especially Bill) have tried to goad Obama into slinging mud but he has been extraordinarily restrained in his responses. In fact, he has demonstrated a facile and sophisticated understanding of the principle of proportional force. Whether it was the Clintons’ floating of the race card and past drug use, or the theme of battle-tested, ready for the onslaught of the Republican sleaze machine, Obama has elevated his image by letting the insinuations bounce off him and splash back on her.

Advantage: Obama

Electability

The Republicans are clearly hoping that they will be facing Clinton in November suggesting that Obama has the clear edge here too. Her negatives are so much higher than his and he has been doing so much better among independents that it is difficult to imagine this not sending uncommitted Democrats flocking to Obama. The one caveat, of course, is that this kind of reasoning is what led the party to nominate John Kerry four years ago. Predictions about head-to-head contests at this point have often proven to be irrelevant. Twenty years ago, Michael Dukakis led George H.W. Bush by nearly twenty points. ‘Nuf said.

Advantage: Obama

So let’s recap where things stand.

We may not love Hillary Clinton but we know her. She’s incredibly bright, liberal and savvy. Sure she made a mess of the health care reform initiative back in Bill’s first term but she deserves credit for learning from her mistakes. She has demonstrated an ability to reach across the aisle and build coalitions in the Senate. Though she has run as a fire-breathing liberal to stoke the base, her strength really is her incredibly sophisticated mastering of realpolitik positions and strategies.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, is much less of a known commodity but what we have learned about him is very, very appealing. He’s also amazingly intelligent, articulate and progressive. In many ways, his personal story serves to reinforce his talents and confirms his ideal fit with the needs of our times.

Obama appears to offer a movement that comes along once a generation, if that often. He does seem to represent a transformative moment in our nation’s history. As impressive and competent as Clinton is, a vote for Obama seems so much more, well, hopeful. E.J. Dionne Jr.’s recent column in the Washington Post captures the almost evangelical nature of his appeal.

I prefer the more secular comparison to the language of Ken Kesey’s band of Merry Pranksters famously chronicled by Tom Wolfe in The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test. When the question is asked, “Are You On the Bus or Off the Bus?” how will you answer.”

When it comes to Barack Obama’s promise of a new era in American politics, principled and positive, inclusive and resolute, count me in. I’m on the bus!

Barack Obama for President in 2008!

(2) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

The Day After

So Tsunami Tuesday has come and gone and life, as we know it, goes on.

Little has changed following yesterday’s mega-primary when nearly half of the states held contests to choose each party’s nominee for president.

Certainly the Clinton-Obama battle for the Democratic prize remains deadlocked. The two candidates divided up the states, the votes and, most importantly, the delegates almost evenly.

Hillary Clinton is left still fighting for the nomination the day after the largest set of primaries that the nation has ever held which she hoped would drive a dagger into any opponent still standing in her way.

And Barack Obama failed to leapfrog over the Clinton machine and assert himself as the new frontrunner. We’re left with two impressive combatants slogging on with the distinct possibility that it will take the party’s convention this summer to decide their fate.

Partisans fear that such a lengthy process could do harm to the Democratic Party’s unity going into the fall campaign. But both candidates have apparently decided to stop throwing mud at each other and run reasonably respectful campaigns, at least for the time being.

I, for one, think this is a marvelous development for our Republic. It gives schnooks like us in supposedly late primary states the opportunity to cast our votes in a meaningful way. And both candidates are being scrutinized in a way that can only help define them as better qualified than whoever the Republicans nominate.

As for the Republicans, the outcome of their Super Tuesday contests provided the only real surprise in the strong showing of Mike Huckabee. As expected, John McCain ended up with the lion’s share of the states and the delegates. But Mitt Romney, who many hardline Republicans were hoping would draw support from the party’s most conservative voters, was overtaken by Huckabee who won several southern states.

Prior to Tuesday’s voting, Romney enraged Huckabee by insinuating that the former Arkansas governor had little chance to be anything other than a spoiler. Early last evening, Huckabee appeared to gleefully throw those words back at Romney when he acknowledged that the race had narrowed to two candidates but he was one of them.

McCain’s eventual nomination appears pretty close to a sure thing. Huckabee’s success seems to ensure that he will coast to the convention with political capital that may result in his selection as the vice presidential nominee. Romney, on the other hand, looks more and more like the Black Knight from Monty Python who insists he is getting stronger each time he gets one of his arms or legs lopped off.

Get over it, Mitt. The people are just not that into you.

But the Clinton-Obama contest is what has captured the attention of our nation and the world. Let’s face it, there’s an epidemic of Bush fatigue. Not even the Republicans are dumb enough to be linking themselves to the current occupant of the White House. The historymaking Obama and Clinton campaigns are engaged in an epic battle, neck and neck, or at least competitive, in polling, endorsements, positions on issues, fundraising and just about every key criteria.

So what is a Democrat to do? Isn’t this what we wish for; a choice between two qualified, competent, appealing candidates? But how are we to choose?

For the most part, most Democrats say they would be happy with either candidate. But it’s becoming increasingly difficult to remain on the sidelines and simply say, “I’ll support whichever candidate get the nomination.”

Here in Wisconsin we have less than two weeks before we have to actually make a choice. We’ll undoubtedly get several opportunities to see both candidates up close and personal before Feb. 19th. But chances are we aren’t going to get much in the way of new information.

So come back tomorrow and I’ll handicap the Obama-Clinton race for you. You don’t have to thank me but I welcome your comments.

(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Thursday, January 31, 2008

The McCain Surge

And then there were two.

Two Democrats and Two Republicans, that is. With John Edwards and Rudy Giuliani dropping out of the presidential campaign, both contests now get really interesting.

John McCain narrowly beat Mitt Romney in Florida’s Republican primary Tuesday but because the GOP winner gets all of the state’s delegates, McCain has now emerged as a solid favorite. Romney must be looking to next week’s Tsunami Tuesday to “Keep Hope Alive.” Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul are still actively campaigning but their chances are slim to none, particularly in winner take all states.

On one level, Democrats should be salivating at having McCain as an opponent in November given the overwhelming unpopularity of the war. Not only has McCain been an outspoken supporter of the war but he was calling for a “surge” back when President George “The Decider” Bush was still endorsing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s “What, me worry?” approach.

But McCain appeals to many independents and Dems would be wise not to underestimate the former Navy pilot and Vietnam POW. It is difficult to imagine a candidate winning on a platform of “full-speed ahead” in Iraq. Yet if McCain is nominated the Republicans will try to exploit the contrast between the war veteran and either Democrat on the issue of maintaining America’s strength in the world.

In fact, I’ll go out on a limb and predict that the Republicans will be far better at managing the war hero advantage in 2008 than the other side did in 2004.

One of the sweeter ironies of McCain’s sudden emergence as the Republican frontrunner is how disliked he is by the party’s conservative base. His positions on immigration and campaign finance have infuriated the party faithful and have driven notorious rabble-rousers including Rush Limbaugh and Tom DeLay to distraction.

Romney is now focusing on attacking the conservative credentials of McCain but his own moderate past makes this a difficult sell. So it appears that for the first time in anyone’s memory the Republicans will likely nominate someone not favored by the party’s elite. A strange year, indeed.

Another factor that makes McCain an odd choice is the sense that the nation is clamoring for change. While it’s hard to imagine anyone perceiving a 71-year-old white male Washington insider who
supports the Bush policy in Iraq as an agent of change, McCain may benefit from his reputation as a renegade.

His image as a “straight talker,” supported by his congenial relationship with the national press, also enhances his popularity with moderates and independents. Conventional wisdom suggests that the electorate is depending less on the mainstream media for information in our internet age but the truth is many of the most popular news web sites are often recycling stories from the dreaded MSM.

So far, McCain has also managed to control his legendary temper. I guess it shouldn’t surprise anyone that someone who survived five years in a Viet Cong prison could avoid responding to the much milder indignities of the campaign trail in anger. It sometimes seems that McCain uses the term “My Friend” as a mantra to help him maintain his composure during debates and other public appearances.

Of course, it will also be interesting to see which of the two remaining Democratic candidates emerge victorious. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both appear likely to survive Super Tuesday, making Wisconsin’s Feb. 19th primary suddenly quite important. The idea of an open convention, so farfetched as recently as a few weeks ago, now seems like a real possibility.

Hillary Clinton’s supporters probably thought she had an “ace-in-the-hole” at the convention given the large number of Super Delegates, officeholders and other party big shots who automatically get invited to the show, they felt she could count on. But the recent deluge of endorsements going Obama’s way has thrown everything up for grabs.

Lots of Democrats are apparently comfortable with either choice and are just hoping that the contest doesn’t get so divisive that the two end up shooting each other in the foot. But the Clinton camp has suddenly tightened up its message machine, most prominently by muzzling, or at least reining in, former President Bill Clinton, so the danger of the party self-destructing seems slim, for now anyway.

My advice is to pull up a chair and give the election a look see. With the writer’s strike, this is the best show in town. And when it comes to reality-based entertainment, it don’t get any better than this!

(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

A Hungry Nation

The presidential campaign of Barack Obama received a stunning boost this week after scoring a huge victory in South Carolina’s primary Saturday followed by endorsements from Caroline Kennedy, Sen. Edward Kennedy, and other members of one of the royal families of the Democratic Party.

Much has been made about the negative tone that has recently permeated the contest between Obama and Hilary Clinton with most of the blame falling on the Clinton camp. To his credit, Obama has tapped into a positive vein that seems to be surging throughout the country at just the right time for his campaign.

His “Audacity of Hope” rhetoric and determination to run an inclusive campaign contrasts sharply with the image projected by Sen. Clinton, her former president husband and her many experienced surrogates. Her campaign is heavily invested in promoting her not only as more experienced at governing but also more skilled at defending herself from the negative attacks that the Republicans will direct at whichever candidate the Democrats nominate.

At this point in the campaign, the Clinton machine appears seriously out of touch with the mood of the nation. While the candidate and her supporters deny introducing the issue of race, you have to scratch your head and wonder “What was he thinking?” when you hear Bill Clinton dismiss Obama’s success in South Carolina by comparing it to Jesse Jackson’s victory in 1988.

Coupled with former Atlanta mayor and United Nations ambassador Andrew Young’s absurd remark that Bill Clinton is more “black” than Obama because he bedded more black women and former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey’s repeated references to “Barack Hussein Obama” calls into question the whole notion that the Clintons offer the benefits of a well-oiled election machine.

Clearly, it’s too early to call this race over. Only a fraction of the delegates necessary for nomination have been chosen. Tsunami Tuesday is next week when more than 20 states hold primaries and about 40 percent of the number of delegates needed to win will be divided up. But unlike the Republicans, the Democrats divide states up proportionately so that it is very likely that neither Obama nor Clinton will be in a position to declare the race over anytime soon. With all due respect to John Edwards, his inablity to win any of the early contests has made it difficult to imagine a scenario where he can catch either of the frontrunners.

When asked, voters generally complain that there is too little attention paid to substantive issues and too much on the horse race. At this point, that seems a bit beside the point, at least as far as the Democratic contest goes. For one thing, there are very few significant differences between the two. Policy wonks will note that Clinton’s health care proposal pledges to provide universal access, while Obama’s falls short of that standard, popular as it is among the party faithful. But on Iraq, the economy, and so many issues their differences are minimal.

The key variable which may play a larger role than any other for many primary voters is which candidate is most likely to win in November. You can almost sense the Republicans licking their chops at the possibility of running against Clinton. But her supporters say her ability to take on her opponents is one of her greatest assets.

Obama may be less battle-tested but his commitment to maintaining a civil dialogue appears to be connecting with independents and people who have been turned off to politics. Insiders point out the irony in this since Clinton has reinvented herself in the Senate as a collaborative legislator who has reached out to Republicans.

At some point, the choice between Obama and Clinton boils down to a gut check. Which candidate do you feel is more likely to do a better job as president? The truth is, missing a crystal ball, it’s something of a crapshoot.

The one thing we can count on is that the nation will recognize the superiority of the Democratic candidate whoever gets nominated.

That’s a given, right?

(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Clearing the Air

A proposed ban on smoking in all workplaces in Wisconsin is stalled in the state legislature and that’s too bad. There’s no doubt that secondhand smoke is dangerous so it seems to me a no-brainer that no employee should be subjected to toxic air on the job.

More than twenty states including New York, California, Illinois and Minnesota have passed smoke-free workplace measures and, as Gov. Doyle has pointed out, Wisconsin is in danger of becoming the ashtray of the Midwest. Even tobacco-addled countries like Ireland, Italy and France have enacted smoking bans, for heaven’s sake.

Gov. Doyle reiterated his support for a ban on smoking in the workplace during last night’s State of the State address but it is unlikely to get very far this year. The Senate Public Health Committee passed a version of the ban earlier this month but Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker appears unwilling to bring the measure to a vote. He has called for supporters and opponents to work out a compromise which basically amounts to sweeping the bill under the rug.

It’s a disappointing position for Decker to take since his rise to his leadership role was largely tied to his support for the Healthy Wisconsin proposal. Apparently, he wants Wisconsin residents to have access to health care as well as making sure they get exposed to air that can cause lung cancer, emphysema and other diseases so they need the coverage. I’d call that the “Full Employment for Healthcare Workers” platform.

Most people recognize that the key stumbling block on this issue boils down to whether an exception should be allowed for bars and taverns. Opponents argue that the owners of places where people go to drink should be able to decide whether to permit smoking or not. Their customers, it is said, choose to spend their money there and are free to go elsewhere if they don’t like it.

On the other hand, of course, bars and taverns are also workplaces and their employees are as entitled to clean air as everyone else. The bill passed by the Senate committee would give bars and taverns an extra year to comply with the ban but opponents apparently aren’t satisfied with that.

The idea that waiters, waitresses and bartenders know that exposure to secondhand smoke comes with the job and could work elsewhere if they wanted to is bogus. I had a boss once who held meetings in his office where he smoked. They rest of us hated inhaling the smoke and we knew it wasn’t good for us. But it’s not that easy to find work or to tell a job supervisor you’d like them to be more sensitive to your needs. Newsrooms used to be as smoke-filled as any bar and that just doesn’t make it right.

Interestingly, there appears to be widespread agreement on this issue. A variety of polls shows that more than two-thirds of people favor a ban on smoking in workplaces, including bars and taverns, and even a majority of smokers support it.

So let’s hope Sen. Decker allows a floor vote on the workplace smoking ban. Maybe if he had a son or daughter working as a waiter or waitress, he’d understand what an important step this is to promoting a healthy Wisconsin.

(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink