Round 2 of the money game is in the books, and, surprisingly (or perhaps not), Barack Obama came out on top with $31 million to Hillary Clinton’s (estimated) $27 million. (John Edwards pulled $9 million, Richardson $7 million.) “Obama’s war chest in the second quarter was built on the strength of 154,000 new contributors, giving him well over a quarter-million donors since he started the race…[Clinton’s] fund-raising team has been relying much more heavily on larger donors.”
Category: Barack Obama (’04-’08)
My Clinton Concerns | State of the Field.
“‘You can look at this stage and see an African American, a Latino, a woman contesting for the presidency of the United States,’ Clinton said. ‘But there is so much left to be done, and for anyone to assert that race is not a problem in America is to deny the reality in front of our very eyes.'” Unfortunately, I missed the third Democratic debate at Howard University debate last night, so I can’t comment on the performances of Clinton, Obama, Edwards et al. I can say that this new NBC poll showing that 52% of the electorate wouldn’t consider voting for Hillary under any circumstances conforms to one of my major concerns with her nomination. As I said before, she’s a smart, talented, and impressive politico who’d undoubtedly sail the ship of state much more smoothly than the current administration. (Of course, so would you, I, the night-janitor at the local McDonalds, or almost anyone else one can think of.) But, really: [1] she’s thoroughly lousy on campaign finance reform, to my mind the issue that bears on virtually all others; [2] she apparently didn’t have the wherewithal or leadership instincts to realize the Iraq war was a terrible idea in 2003 (it didn’t take all that much to figure it out, particularly when you figure how much more information Clinton had access to than we did); [3] her view of centrism is apparently to act like Joe Lieberman every so often; and [4] most of the nation has already decided for various reasons that they don’t like her. With the Republicans scattered and in retreat, their ideology in eclipse, why do we keep throwing up marginal, tired candidates — Gore, Kerry, Clinton — on the off-chance that the electorate will manage to surmount their strong negatives, hold their collective nose, and vote for them?
To be fair, the other Dems haven’t been all that great at articulating a progressive alternative to Republican-lite DLC-ishness yet either, but at least there’s some potential for it there. Sen. Obama‘s got all the right JFK moves, and this all-things-to-all-people ambiguity may be one of his strongest political assets. But right now I think he’s relying too much on his initial spate of public goodwill, and missing a chance to really draw the nation’s attention to the issues that concern him. And John Edwards‘ son-of-a-millworker-made-good brand of populism, while laudable, doesn’t yet seem fully formed to me. But, at the very least, Edwards — unlike some of his more-willing-to-triangulate opponents — seems more often than not to let his flag fly, and act from the courage of his convictions. Right now, particularly with McCain hopelessly derailed by his blatant compromises of principle, Edwards may be the closest we’ve got to a Straight-Talk-Express this year (well, this side of Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul.)
At the moment, I’m still leaning towards Obama, just because of his tremendous upside — he, unlike virtually every other candidate, has the possibility to transform, revitalize, and realign our current political debate if he plays his cards right. But, Edwards is still in my estimation, and I’ll be taking a long hard look at him over the coming months (and either, in my humble opinion, are preferable to Senator Clinton, for the reasons listed above.)
Speech Impediments.
“I am also still convinced that voters originally liked George W. Bush’s inarticulacy: At least he didn’t sound quite as smooth, and ultimately meaningless, as everyone else. Only with time did his natural-born inability to speak English begin to produce infuriating phrases of truly unique pointlessness.” Slate‘s Anne Appelbaum surveys the sad state of political rhetoric in this country, concluding that, while “the brightest new hope for the English language is Barack Obama,” “[n]o good writer, however eloquent, can possibly survive a two-year presidential campaign.“
I have to agree, it is pretty bad out there. The main problem, and it’s no secret, is that most speeches today prize concepts over imagery. Read classic nineteenth-century political speeches today — Lincoln’s Second Inaugural, say, or Bryan’s Cross of Gold — and they’re flush with vivid imagery and extended metaphors. But, be it due to video killing the oratory star, the need for shorter, quicker, soundbites, or just a general fuzziness about the basic principles undergirding contemporary legislation, most speeches today languish in abstraction and platitudes. (The work of former Dubya speechwriter Michael Gerson is a notable exception in this regard.)
“If you win, you gotta have a hoop.”
“Before Rickey Green, a former NBA all-star, played with Mr. Obama in a 2004 Senate campaign fund-raiser, ‘I didn’t think he could play at all, to be honest with you,’ Mr. Green said. But ‘he’s above average,’ for a pickup player, Mr. Green said. ‘He’s got a nice little left-hand shot and some knowledge of the game.‘” Baracksketball? A NYT piece from last week examines Barack Obama’s fondness for the court. “Mr. Obama is left-handed, and his signature move is to fake right and veer left, surprising players used to guarding right-handed competitors.” Hey, that’s my move!
At any rate, my own appreciation for basketball-playing progressive presidential candidates is well-documented. In fact, this reminded me of a similar discussion about Al Gore on Meet the Press in 1999: “‘What left Gore’s hands and arrived at the basket was quite often, well, a brick, clanging off the rim or ricocheting off the backboard with regularity.’ Jim Hudson, a high school teammate, adds, ‘He tended to like the limelight. If he passed it to him to try and get something going, to get a better shot inside, Al would simply go ahead and shoot. When the ball got to him, that’s as far as it got.‘” Global warming or no, would you really want a chucker in the White House in 2008?
Friends to the Immigrant?
The big news last Friday: Dubya and the Senate came to a deal on immigration reform, although the compromise — supported by Democratic Senators Kennedy, Feinstein, and Salazar as well as Republicans such as McCain, Graham, and Martinez — faces some major implementation issues and potential fire from both sides of the issue. Among the critics: Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama: “Without modifications, the proposed bill could devalue the importance of family reunification, replace the current group of undocumented immigrants with a new undocumented population consisting of guestworkers who will overstay their visas, and potentially drive down wages of American workers.“
The Revenge of Gore-bot?
“But what if he does? What if he could take who he is now, all that he’s learned, and carry it back into the maelstrom? Could he stay as he is or would he revert? What if he launched a new kind of campaign: no handlers, just the liberated Gore talking about what really matters to him? Would he seem too squishy?” No. He would seem like Al Gore. This week’s Time pushes the 2000 nominee as a potential 2008 Democratic dark horse, and, Lordy, I am so not feeling it. Anybody who argues Gore has “the grassroots appeal of Barack Obama” doesn’t remember the man on stage. Obama can be certifiably electric. Gore is…Gore, in all his stilted, sighing, pedantic glory. I’m thrilled the man has found a happy second career fighting global warming — It’s suited him ever since Earth in the Balance. But, please, by all that is good and holy, keep him out of the Democratic presidential field.
The “Go Obama” Party?
“‘I disagree with Obama on the war but I don’t think it is a test of his patriotism,’ Martin says. ‘Obama has a message of hope for the country.‘” Come on aboard, you won’t hurt the horse: Disillusioned Republicans wander over to the Obama bandwagon, including “Power and Weakness” author Robert Kagan. “In an article in the Washington Post, Kagan wrote approvingly that a keynote speech by Obama at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs was ‘pure John Kennedy’, a neocon hero of the cold war…’Personally, I liked it,’ Kagan wrote.” And, really, after seeing what the Republicans have to offer at the first debate last week, can you blame him or anyone else for defecting?
Debated, Belated.
So, for the first time and by a (statistically-insignifcant) margin of 32% to 30%, Barack Obama has moved ahead of Hillary Clinton in the polls. And, in more good news for the Obama camp, this poll was mostly taken before last week’s first Democratic debate, so there might still be a bump to come. For, at least to my admittedly jaundiced eye, Obama came across as far and away the most impressive candidate last Thursday. I feared he might seem callow and inexperienced going in, but Obama came across to me as thoughtful, nuanced, and, when needed, decisive…in short, he seemed suitably presidential, while still exuding that youthful flair and enthusiasm that makes him such a potentially exciting vehicle for generational political change in 2008. (And, boding well for the general election, Obama also seemed well-practiced in the art of debate jujitsu, deftly tossing aside at least two clear trip-up questions — on shady campaign contributors and Israel — with remarkable ease.) As for Clinton, well, it’s not entirely her fault, I guess — unlike Obama, she’s been with us for a decade and a half now, and is nothing if not a known quantity. But she came across to me as the same cautious, methodical, triangulating centrist she’s shown herself to be over the past fifteen years in public life, and it’s getting harder to imagine myself being anything but underwhelmed by her as a candidate in the general election.
John Edwards still seems the best of the rest, but he didn’t do much on Thursday to stand out, I thought. (I expect he’ll do better as the candidates decrease in number.) I found Richardson surprisingly uninspiring, given all the good things often said of him. (The Governor really needs to work on his presentation — he kept scowling and frowning his way through every question like Old Man Potter.) Biden came across as better than usual but still interminably Bidenish — that cute one-word answer couldn’t mask his Senate-honed penchant for blathering and monologuing. Distinguished and discerning, Dodd actually seems like he’d make a fine president, if money and star power weren’t so often the defining factors in this business. (As it is, it doesn’t look good.) Speaking of which, the 2008 Kucinich seemed Kucinich-lite next to the throwback rantings of Mike Gravel, who was intermittently amusing with the Admiral Stockdale-isms at first, but who grew wearisome, in my opinion, by the end. (I’m all for the idea that the military-industrial complex has ballooned into a monstrosity, but saying things like America in fact has no enemies sounds a bit naive after 9/11, and is the type of thing the GOP agitprop hounds tend to have a field day with.)
Aboard the Clinton Dreadnought.
“Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign was designed and built to be a dreadnought, an all-big-gun battleship that would rule the waves without being dented, slowed or thrown off course. But it has been caught off guard by a submarine named Barack Obama, running silent, running deep — until he surfaced with a spectacular showing in the first round of fund-raising numbers.” TIME’s political bureau looks in on the Clinton campaign’s likely response to the threat of Obama (which reminds me, the first Democratic debate is tonight, 7pm EST, on MSNBC. [Previews: WP | Newsweek | The State | The Times and Democrat]) “Hillary Clinton is also banking on the grueling schedule of debates, which is ‘where she will shine,’ says a strategist. ‘This will be her strongest point. She knows this stuff inside out.’ But her team says she is not yet ready to begin challenging Obama directly on his lack of specificity. That’s because going on the attack could further boost her negatives and create an opening for Edwards, who has offered far more detailed plans than she has on issues like health care. ‘They are worried about both Obama and Edwards,’ says an outside adviser. ‘They think if Obama flames out, Edwards rises.‘”
A Chicken in every pot, a plunger in every terrorist.
“If one of them gets elected, it sounds to me like we’re going on the defense. We’ve got a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. We’re going to wave the white flag there. We’re going to try to cut back on the Patriot Act. We’re going to cut back on electronic surveillance. We’re going to cut back on interrogation. We’re going to cut back, cut back, cut back, and we’ll be back in our pre-September 11 mentality of being on defense.” Meanwhile in related news, Rudy Giuliani lapses into aggro fearmonger mode to try to shore up his right-wing cred. That accompanying giant sucking sound you might hear is all of Hizzoner’s legitimately-earned but now hopelessly squandered Churchillian cred going right out the window…He seems to have reverted to his true colors much earlier than I anticipated. Said Barack Obama, correctly, of Rudy’s pathetic stunt, “[Giuliani has] taken the politics of fear to a new low…We know we can win this war based on shared purpose, not the same divisive politics that question your patriotism if you dare to question failed policies that have made us less secure. The threat we face is real, and deserves better than to be the punchline of another political attack.” Touche.