« May 25, 2008 - May 31, 2008 | Main | June 8, 2008 - June 14, 2008 »
I like to try to end the week on a light note, and today I found a gem over at the jedreport.com. It's a clip of Fox & Friends attempting to catch FPBO (Future President Barack Obama) plagiarizing Mario Cuomo.
Honestly, you can't make this stuff up - hilarious. See the clip here.
And a good weekend to you all!
Future President Barack Obama (FPBO) has formed a Vice Presidential search committee, headed by Jim Johnson, who also preformed the same task for John Kerry in 2004.
Because there is so much of the unknown involved here, the pundits and blogs are going to have plenty to speculate over during the next two months. Voters thirst for change, Obama as the first mixed-race candidate, McCain as the oldest...who knows where this will go. And it's the first time since 1988 that BOTH parties are selecting running mates at the same time! Merry Christmas you pundits!
Because John Edwards was no more able to save John Kerry's ticket in 2004 than Dan Quayle was to potentially sinking the first George Bush ticket in 1988, the addition of a running mate should be seen as less of a reflection of electoral advantage and more so a reflection of the presidential candidate.
Historically, successful presidential candidates usually pick runningmates who suit the way they will govern. George W. Bush selected Cheney, indicating that the President would heavily rely on the counsel of others. Bill Clinton selected Al Gore indicating he was looking for a fully invested partner.
Politico has an excellent piece on the politics of picking a mate which espouses similar sentiments.
Both selections went against conventional wisdom: Clinton and Gore paired a young Southerner with...another young Southerner. Bush and Cheney saw two men from Texas, one who had to re-establish his Wyoming residency in order to be eligible to run. (Dick Cheney was living in Texas and the constitution bars a President and Vice President serving from the same state - this should have been the first clue of the "flexible terms" in which they would view the constitution for the next eight years).
* * *
Having that primer, let's put all of the math aside and see if we can get into the mind of FPBO and figure out where his leanings might be. Chances are, it may be a choice out of nowhere!
FPBO probably prefers someone likely want someone whom offers reliable counsel, has Washington credibility is easy to work with on the campaign trail and most of all...who can be President. And though he represents a brand of change, FPBO might perfer a mate who is less likely to lead an Obama-esque revolution and more likely to follow marching orders. Add to that, Obama's strongest Washington ties are in the US Senate. Hmm...
And awaaaaaay we go...
Chris Dodd, Connecticut. Sitting senator who also a primary opponent this season, he was the first to endorse FPBO. Has an expertise in financial markets and is former Chair of the Democratic National Committee. And he offers two things that help in Western states: Dodd is fluent in Spanish and his wife is Mormon - two things that come in handy in Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico.
Tom Harkin, Iowa. Once a presidential contender himself, he's been around Washington as a Congressman and Senator from more than 30 years. Has an expertise in rural issues, was an early supporter of FPBO prior to the Iowa caucuses and he is a grandfatherly type figure who people can probably easily envision assuming the office of President. He is rural, and he is Catholic - both which are two important constituencies this year.
George Mitchell, Maine. Former Federal Judge, Ambassador and Senate Majority Leader. Is respected around Washington and is known as a bi-partisan bridge-builder.
Harry Reid, Nevada. Current Senate Majority Leader from the swing state of Nevada, and has experience at the state level. Also a Mormon.
Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia. Current Senator, former Governor, and endorser of FPBO. Offers a lifetime of political experience and has served in Washington for more than 20 years. Currently age 70, he has never voiced ambitions to run for President.
Where have you gone, Joe Inevitable?
Lots of theories swirling around the Internets as to how and why Senator Clinton lost the Democratic nomination. CBS has a good list, as does Chris Cillizza in the Post.
Here's a collection of theories from various news sources, listed in the descending order of probability:
Superdelegates lost the election for Senator Clinton, according to the New York Times. And while this statement is ultimately true, I don't put that much into this idea because there had to be a trigger that put the campaign in a position to even need Superdelegates in the first place. Thus, we arrive at...
Chasing battleground states and not delegates, as cited by the Washington Post. In defense of the Clinton campaign, this approach has been one which traditionally pays off. It worked for John Kerry, it even worked for Bill Clinton. But this is an unconventional year, which means Hillary Clinton needed an unconventional strategy. Which bring us to...
Skipping Iowa, as proposed by Deputy Campaign Manager Mike Henry in May of 2007. Because Iowa was rendered irrelevant in the 1992 primaries, most candidates skipped the state. As such, there was no Clinton history or organization there to rely on. (Incidentally, I made a similar recommendation to Bill Richardson: pull out of Iowa, focus on Nevada). Skipping Iowa would have also absolved Clinton from signing the early states pledge, which in turn might have compelled the other candidates to leave their name on the Michigan ballot. That doesn't change the outcome of the Michigan election, but a Michigan and Florida win with all other candidates on the ballot helps give Clinton momentum heading into Super Tuesday. Leading us to...
Super Tuesday, which proved that the strategy to win the nomination was not inevitable as written by ABC News. The lack of a contingency plan to recover after an essential tie on Feb. 5th knocked the campaign off of its footing - and the rest of February turned out to be a bad month as Senator Clinton went on to lose in the neighborhood of 11 consecutive contests. Not only did this give Senator Obama an edge heading into this stretch of contests, but it gave him a platform to further his message of...
Change. The Associate Press writes that a "thirst for change trumped Clinton's experience," which is probably the single factor that is harder to alter in the course of a campaign than anything else. Not matter how many staffers you have, or how many negative (er, comparative) ads all of the candidates put out - it's difficult to turn back tides. Ironically, it's a similar tide that Bill Clinton rode into office in 1992.
What now? Does she go on to be a Vice President? A Cabinet Secretary? To take on either of the aforementioned positions, would be to confine her to the term limits of the executive branch and the will of a President.
Naturally, people are stuck on the issue of this current election and her role in it. Though I think that there is a bigger picture to look at here.
Senator Clinton may find that her legacy is best paved in the US Senate. There she can serve for decades and author meaningful reform to healthcare and all of the other issues she championed in her campaign. And she can continue the legacy of her predecessor, New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Clinton, who is already a giant among giants in the US Senate, doesn't need the Presidency to accomplish many of the things she is fighting for. She has the ability to craft legislation which impacts education, housing, the elderly and the poor. And without term limits, the Senate offers the benefit of longevity - which means she'll be around to see all of these things through.
(Two in a series of three "The Future Of..." posts this week).
A lot's taken place, there is a ton of news today and you've no doubt got a lot on your mind as the Democratic Finale concludes. Obama v. McCain, Clinton's next moves, the Vice Presidency...hey remember the national conventions?
Also, Ted at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion posted an insightful blog entry today about the state of the Democratic Party and the history that this nomination represents. Worth a read.
Your thread, your thoughts. Let's have at it...
Now that we've seen the process unfold, this subject will no doubt require thought, conversation and examination in the near future. Ideally, we won't need to test this issue until the 2016 primaries after Barack Obama has concluded eight glorious years as President. But still, let's strike while the iron is hot and look into this now.
Any proposed rule change must be voted on by DNC members, and as you know we are all Superdelegates (and contrary to the New York Times reporting, it's DNC members - not members of Congress - who represent the largest well of Supers at a tad over 50%). And keep in mind that the idea of Superdelegates is not unique to the Democratic Party, the Republicans have them as well.
We'll probably see a commission put together to examine the process. The commission will probably cover the topic of the early states nominating window again as well the overall presidential calendar.
Which ways should the Party deal with the issue of Superdelegates?
Some ideas to get us started:
The last idea will probably be the most popular, but also the least likely to occur. That said, let's have at it...I know you've got thoughts on the subject.
(One in a series of three "The Future Of..." posts this week).
During the course of this election, we've seen the candidates take
shots at each other, the blogs rough-up the Superdelegates, and the
media go after everyone in order to generate material to feed the
24-hour news cycle. It takes a thick skin to work in politics, as people get beat up (figuratively speaking) everyday in this business. It's a rough and tumble profession.
In the end, most of it is not personal - it's just politics. Same goes with supporting candidates for public office. Supporting one candidate does not always mean you are wholly opposed to the other (especially in a primary race).
In May, Marie Cocco wrote an opinion in the Washington Post entitled Misogyny I Won't Miss, which goes over a list of unfortunate remarks made about Senator Clinton over the past year. It also notes that Clinton was subject to sexism in this campaign, and essentially claims that it had something to do with the Senator's eventual loss of the nomination.
Just as I sincerely hope that people don't buy into the notion that most people who voted against Obama did so because he is black, I really hope we don't get carried away with the notion that other people voted against Clinton because she is a woman.
A couple of LA Times opinion pieces have made valiant attempts to bring some reason to this notion: Jonathan Chiat wrote that though he doesn't support Senator Clinton, that people should also remember that it's not personal. Rosa Brooks wrote that it's wrong to assume it's a woman's duty to support Hillary Clinton.
And though it should be obvious, it seems that we need to point out that not supporting Senator Clinton does not make Obama supporters chauvinist, sexist, or superior. It does not mean that Obama supporters have made a choice that is any less cerebral, emotional or calculated.
Supporting a different candidate simply boils down to a difference of opinion, a difference in vision. Maybe a different form of inspiration.
In the end we're all Democrats. By and large we all want the same things and subscribe to the same principles.
Five months to the day from the first Iowa Caucus on January 3rd, Senator Obama claims the Democratic Nomination for President of the United States.
I am getting emails from people who are saying that they will vote Republican in the fall because the Democrats have taken away 50% of the convention delegates from Florida and Michigan. This might be a good time for a reminder.
Last November, the Republican National Committee stripped Florida and Michigan of 50% of their RNC convention delegates for scheduling primaries which busted Party rules.
Not only do these states have fewer votes, they actually have fewer delegates in the hall. In effect, the RNC penalty is worse than the DNC one.
To see the actual penalty, read the "Call for the 2008 Republican National Convention" here. The Florida penalty is on page 35, the Michigan penalty is on page 38.
You can also read about the penalty here, here and here. And here.
Oh and here, too.
I'm just sayin'.
Recent Comments