"That Isn't the Wesley Clark I Knew"

• Author: Ben Keeler
• Filed under: McCain, Obama, Presidential
• Date: Jun 30,2008

Warm up the bus, another Obama friend / surrogate will be getting run over in the next few days. This time it will be Wesley Clark, who was sent out yesterday morning to attack Senator John McCain as Obama himself was getting ready for his big patriotism speech today.

Trying to tear down McCain, Wesley Clark said this yesterday on "Face the Nation" after host Bob Schieffer asked how Clark could claim that McCain was "untested and untried":

CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk, it's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it publicly?

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean……

CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

SCHIEFFER: Really?

CLARK: But Barack is not — he is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements. He's running on his other strengths.

Wesley Clark was sent out as a political operative to attack the military background of a political foe and every argument he made can be applied more so to Obama than McCain!

*In "the matter of national security policy making" Barack Obama hasn't ever done anything.
*In the matter of gauging your "opponents", Obama wants to meet with them without preconditions despite having no national-security, military, or diplomatic experience.
*Barack Obama hasn't been on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
*Barack Obama hasn't had any executive experience.
*Barack Obama hasn't commanded anything, in wartime or not.
*Barack Obama hasn't dealt with diplomats in any capacity at all.

People like Clark don't hit the Sunday Morning talk shows and just say whatever comes to mind. Both parties send out people with well rehearsed lines to spout. This line of attack is becoming commonplace for Democrats against McCain (see Rockefeller, Jay and Harkin, Thomas). There have been others as well. Don't try and tell me these people are all just shooting from the hip. They agree to go out there and take the fire for Obama. That is how it works. Anyhow, John McCain, as far as I know, has never suggested that his military service alone qualifies him to be President of the United States over Obama or anyone else. He is running on his lengthy public service record in addition to what Clark went after him on. John McCain refused to make military service an issue against George Bush in 2000. Also, I seem to recall John McCain defended John Kerry against the SBVFT in 2004. As expected, favor not returned.

Of course, the Democrats can say whatever they want. This is how campaigns work. However, I don't think it is a very smart strategy. These sort of attacks are more than likely to backfire. Far lefters might like it; reasonable Americans will not. So have at it. The Obama Campaign, using their surrogates like Clark, have now attacked McCain's age and mental capabilities, bravery and honesty. Once again, change you can believe in.

But of course, the Obama bus will still get a fill-up in the next couple of days and come looking for Clark so they can look above it all. After thinking about it, you almost have to wonder if Clark is trying to sink Obama so Hillary can run in 2012.

***In other news, I am a dirtbag. At least according to Paul Begala, who would know one if he saw one since he worked for the biggest of them all (former President William Jefferson Clinton).

Don't Say The Obvious

• Author: Ben Keeler
• Filed under: Presidential
• Date: Jun 24,2008

McCain adviser Charlie Black: As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. 'Certainly it would be a big advantage to him,' says Black.

Some people are upset by this, even on the right - asking if McCain hired "Kerry advisers." I am not upset or offended. People would prefer McCain over Obama if there was a terrorist attack. Polls and common sense tell you so. They do. Of course, hopefully there is not one. I would rather lose the election than have another huge attack and find out if the comments are right. But what is wrong with saying the truth? Just because it is a sensitive subject you can't tell it how it is anymore? Fortune Magazine interviewed Black and asked him the question. He wasn't saying one was wanted or expected, was he? He gave his opinion. No different than Democratic House Whip Jim Clyburn saying a good report by David Petraeus was a "real big problem for us," meaning his political party.

McCain, always the politician, was asked his thoughts on the statement at a press conference in California yesterday, and unaware of what had been said, responded with: "I cannot imagine why he would say it. It's not true." I guess he feels that is what he had to say from a political standpoint.

More Americans would rather have McCain in the Oval Office in this situation than some guy who wants to go back to the 1990s Bill Clinton era indictments of bad guys. Americans would expect a military response, and Obama has said that wouldn't be in his plans. McCain would go out and do something about it.

And Hillary Clinton agrees: "It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world," Clinton told supporters in Concord. "So I think I'm the best of the Democrats to deal with that."

Two Ohio blogs disagree with me here: Political Science 216 (self proclaimed in the tank for Obama) and Weapons of Mass Discussion on the right.

Bob Barr Releases A Short Recruitment Video

• Author: Kyle Kutuchief
• Filed under: Presidential
• Date: Jun 24,2008

The video is 1:23 long and introduces us to the presidential campaign of Libertarian Bob Barr. Also featured in the video is his vice-presidential nominee Wayne Allyn Root. These guys obviously need help to get their campaign off the ground. Watch this short video and share your thoughts.

152 Short Days

• Author: Ben Keeler
• Filed under: McCain, Obama, Presidential
• Date: Jun 5,2008

Well, here we are. And here is where we stand.

Since the 11 state primary winning streak came to an end, the cracks in Obama have shown. I have long been skeptical that he will be able to piece together enough voters from different typical Democrat coalitions to win. I still am, and many soft Democrats have the same concerns. Since said streak ended, this Democratic primary process was an up or down vote on Obama as he was the front runner. Last night was a perfect example - Obama got smashed in SD (a primary, not a caucus), a state he was leading in up until like a week ago, despite the fact that it was clear he was going to be the nominee. I will admit that when this whole process started I doubted that Hillary Clinton would not be the nominee. In the end, many Democrats were as eager to get rid of the Clintons as much as Republicans have been for years. As a Republican, it is hard to ever count the Clintons out. Hillary would have smashed McCain in the general. Oh well.

There is no speech that Barack Obama will give in which I would agree with the content. To dispute, however, that he is not a good speaker in front of a large audience would be false, and that concerns me. The text of McCain's speeches always looks great but the delivery typically falls flat. This is a problem for him. He is going to have to give a lot of substance on big issues in comparison to Obama to compensate for this shortcoming.

Americans didn't just get to know McCain yesterday, and that is to his advantage. And they're just getting to know Senator Obama. Final impressions and gut feelings of the swings will determine this election. Obama is a serviceable enough candidate and in this political environment, it may well be all that is needed. He is a cult-like figure which can end up being a major positive or a major negative in a high risk / high reward type way. On the plus side for us, Obama is a seriously flawed candidate and a left-wing ideologue who is far outside the American mainstream. Maybe the most to the left of any nominee in recent history. There is a major opening for McCain. He has to take it. Republicans were able to raise enough doubt about Kerry in 2004, and no question the same strategy will be used against Obama. Against him it is much easier to do, but as stated the environment has shifted. The GOP looked to be on top of the world in 2004. How quickly things changed.

Democrats will work throughout the general election campaign to define McCain as a true representative of the GOP and try the whole "third term" stuff. I do not think this will work, as I have been asserting. John McCain has been able to distance himself from the damaged GOP brand. It is a hard argument to make against McCain. Both Obama and McCain will attempt to push the other one out of the political center. I didn't back McCain from the outset, as you know, but none of our other candidates would have won this fall.

This summed up my feelings on where we stand: Two friends have framed the race similarly to me. One says that McCain's great advantage is that he's basically acceptable to the public as president. The question is whether or not Obama is. If he is, he's the next president because it's such a Democratic year. Another friend makes the same point a little differently. He says that people want McCain to be president—except they don't want a Republican to be president. They do want a Democrat to be president—except maybe not this particular one. The campaign will be run on the horns of that dilemma.

After a long wait, the general election is upon us. The RNC didn't waste any time.

Some polling information after the jump.
Read the rest of this entry »

Obama Clinches The Nomination

• Author: Kyle Kutuchief
• Filed under: Democrats '08, Presidential
• Date: Jun 4,2008

Tonight, Barack Obama finally became the Democratic nominee to be the next President of the United States. It is a sight that has been a long time coming for those of us who have supported him through out this process. I first saw Senator Obama speak up at Cuyahoga Community College about 15 months ago. We got there two hours early and the lines were already out the door. Leaving that speech my friends and I knew that he was a different kind of candidate and the one that we wanted to see become the nominee. It is nothing short of amazing that he made it. Senator Clinton ran a tough race and our party is counting on her to help move us forward. I truly feel for my fellow Democrats who supported Senator Clinton, but came up short. I know those folks need a little time to reflect on the race and I respect that. However, I believe that after a little time passes the Democratic Party will be united like never before and ready to win in November. Tonight, it feels good to be a Democrat. Turn your speakers up.

One Term and Done?

• Author: Ben Keeler
• Filed under: Presidential, Republicans '08
• Date: Jun 2,2008

Back in the news today was the potential one term pledge by Senator John McCain. Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic:

When he formally announced his presidential candidacy last year, Sen. John McCain was inches away from making an unprecedented pledge: if he were elected, he would serve only one term as president….. the idea to serve one term had long been discussed among top advisers, and McCain was on board. A one-term pledge was set to be the central thread of his presidential campaign, and Mark Salter, McCain's chief speech writer, crafted an announcement speech around it. But less than a day before he was set to speak in New Hampshire on April 25, McCain ordered his aides to excise the paragraphs describing the pledge.

This would be gutsy. Very gutsy. It is going all in. There are some good aspects to this potential pledge. McCain comes off as a politician who wants to serve his country above all else. He states he wants to finish off the success of the surge in Iraq. He would add some other big ideas to his speeches on the trail; taxes, cutting spending and entitlements, judges, etc. This strategy also would mean that more skeptical Democrats (bitter people leaning Clinton) would be willing to vote for him, knowing things start fresh in 2012. Conservative holdouts also would fall under that thinking. "Well, he isn't my first choice, but we can use these four years to rebuild the movement while avoiding Carter's second term." They can vote for McCain knowing that four years of McCain is better than four years of Obama. Effective. It makes Obama look like some ambitious politician while McCain is trying to save the country with his service.

There are three major negatives I can see: First, and obviously, McCain starts off as a lame duck, so there really isn't much incentive for Congress to work with him (though too much obstruction could hurt them in 2010). The minute he is sworn in, speculation starts about 2012. For quite some time now, Democrats have been stalling on all sorts of federal nominations by the Bush Administration, hoping to run out the clock and put in their own people. No reason they wouldn't just employ the same tactics. Secondly, it brings up the age factor. I for one have never seen the big deal here, but maybe some people do. It could be interpreted as "I am only healthy enough for one term." Lastly, I sense that voters like the idea that they can "fire" who they elected. If McCain won't be running in 2012, then he really isn't accountable again. This would rub some folks the wrong way. That is probably my biggest concern.

If McCain starts to trail Obama by 5-10 points in the polls on a consistent basis this summer, this is something he is going to look hard at. McCain badly wants to be the 44th President. If he thinks this will help him get there, I don't think he will back out of making the pledge a second time. The chattering class and know it alls think that it is going to take a miracle to win this election for McCain (after all, he is running against a god). If they are right, something like this totally changes the dynamics of the race. Nearing the end of two very long and polarizing administrations, people might see this as a breath of fresh air. But it is something he has to do before (if) he falls too far behind, because doing it then makes him look desperate.

Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review suggested this back in October 2007.