So, I haven't written in a couple days. I've had a few ideas written on paper, but just wasn't in the mood to write something coherent.
In the wake of Lieberman keeping his chairmanship, I wanted to write a post about the different ways the Republicans and the Democrats treat their respective bases. But then, while perusing The Daily Dish I stumbled across another website which wrote about the exact same thing, only better. So if you want some excellent analysis on the subject go here. I'll just add what I was going to say:
Republicans treat their base with reverence, or at least they make the appearance of treating their base with reverence. If they pursue policies that hurt the white rural Christian working-class (and oh lord do they do they ever), they will 1) spin their actions to make it seem like they're acting in the bases interest, 2) talk about how God-fearing and patriotic their rural base is. Republicans, for better or worse, are unashamed to be married to their base, will walk proudly down the street holding their rural, hard-working hands. They will defend them against all comers, and make no excuses for the actions of the worst of them. When it comes time to dole out the goodies after an election is won, they throw them not just a bone, but the big piece of chicken reserved for the head of the household.
Democrats, particularly the spineless ones representing the party are utterly ashamed of the people who ultimately get them elected. They are more than willing to not only ignore the interests of their base, but Dems actually will brag about the ways in which they scorn them. Even with resounding wins in the last two election cycles, Democratic leaders still do not think Americans actually like their policies. They subscribe to the right-wing talking point that this is, essentially, a center-right country. They act like the geeky, slightly overweight guy who used his good personality and keen sense of humor to land the girl of his dreams. Even though they're married and she professes that she loves him everyday, he still cannot believe that she is actually with him. He thinks he needs to act like someone else in order to keep her- but in the end, no one likes a phony. To me at least, it makes the Dems seem ungrateful. They had people giving up days, months, years, of their lives in order to help get them elected (I know, I was one of them, although I'm not sure where I categorize myself at this point). Many of those people were the "far-left" part of the party, the very hippies that they deride in the papers. The ones Rahm Emanuel wants to upset because it appears "bipartisan", the ones Nancy Pelosi is so dismissive of. I bet that in the halls of Congress, Repubs talk derisively about their "Bubbas and Rapturists" just as much as the Dems talk bad about their "Hippies and Darkies." When they walk outside though, that's a different story.
Politically speaking, it is actually much more efficient to treat your base as if they were your loyal battered wife. The Democratic base, particularly because they are so politically inclined, will always come back to the fold, even if you persue policy after policy that is the antithesis of what they want. Better to focus your time, money, and legislative power on those crucial "swing voters," or as the hilarious Daily Show put it (and I'm paraphrasing), those fucks who can't seem to make up their mind. The Republican concentration on their base is a foolish move in the end, because they are wasting precious resources on 1's, those people most likely to come vote for them anyway. You have to continue to make overtures to your foundation of course; you want them to come out and vote and knock on doors. But you don't always have to kow-tow to them, and you don't always have to flatter them, because it means that their worst aspects will paint the entire party the same shade of racist/sexist/leftist/etc.
Obama may be heading down that road as well. Apparently, it was ultimately up to him that Lieberman stayed as chairman of Homeland Security and Government Affairs. His entire Cabinet is old-time Clintonistas and a bunch of people from his Chicago political machine. I got no problem with that per se (except for wanting to appoint John Brennan, the torture and extraordinary rendition apologist, as CIA Director, that is deplorable and completely unacceptable). Most Presidential adminstrations are filled with people who have served under previous Presidents or were a part of the Presidential-elects machine back in his home state. I just think that the so-called "most liberal" senator will disassociate himself from not only the worst of the "far-left" but also the best. His people will tell him that it doesn't play with certain segments of our society. Obama is his own man, nobody on his team will be able to pull the puppet strings on him the way that Cheney did Bush. He is pragmatic, and thoughtful, a damn good politician, and I'll hold back any kind of judgment until he actually starts. But even Pat Buchanan said that he needed to give his foundation a Cabinet seat. I just hope he doesn't forget about the base that worked their asses off for him to be in the position he is in.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, November 21, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Playing Politics
Just a few things-
So it seems like Joe Lieberman might keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee so long as he apologizes on the floor of the Senate. Evan Bayh and Chris Dodd have been two of the main senators speaking on Lieberman's behalf while Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders have been two prominent senators who want him ousted. Lieberman has said that if he does not retain his chairmanship, he'll caucus with the Republicans. Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader has reciprocated, offering Lieberman an invitation to caucus with the Repubs if he leaves the Dem caucus.
My take on it? You have to let Lieberman go. The Dems will not have the 60 votes necessary to stop filibusters with or without him, so that's off the table. More importantly, he SLAMMED your nominee for President. If he did not want to support Barack Obama, that's fine and that's his coice. He could have sat out the campaign. He could have been like Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator from Nebraska and endorsed the oppositions nominee but stayed out of day-to-day campaigning activities. But no, Lieberman was actively campaigning against his party's nominee for President; he SPOKE at the Republican National Convention. He tried to scare Jewish people into voting for McCain by saying an Obama victory was dangerous for Israel. There is NO WAY he should be allowed to keep a major chairmanship in the Democratic Party.
Look, I think it's fine that Lieberman had a conviction that he thought McCain was the better man for President. People should stand on their convictions. But you have to know there are consequences for your actions. When it comes to legislation, I think that playing politics should be kept to a minimum, particularly on legislation that is of utmost importance to the American people. Vote your conscience, vote for the policy that you think will help the American people, regardless of your party line. When it comes to the inner workings of the party apparatus, I'm all for playing politics, and you crack the whip on those who cross the line. You mean to tell me that the Dems can play politics when it comes to something like the bailout or stimulus package, but they're suddenly "above it all" when it comes to ousting a turncoat from a major chairmanship? Perhaps they're just really concerned about that one vote- but Lieberman will still be who he is even if he caucuses with the Repubs, a socially liberal hawk who because he believes in abortion rights, won't have much of a place in the Republican party. He might have to do a few more favors for some social conservatives but he won't be nearly as dangerous outside the party as he is made out to be.
Keeping him in however, would undermine party leadership and cohesiveness. It would show other senators that they have an enormous amount of leeway in their actions against the party. As an added bonus- Lieberman lost his last Dem primary but won as an independent probably because there were more than a few Dems who probably thought that he'd still caucus with the party. He'd lose a lot of those votes if he started caucusing with the Repubs. So remove his chairmanship and call his bluff- now is the perfect time to play politics.
So it seems like Joe Lieberman might keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee so long as he apologizes on the floor of the Senate. Evan Bayh and Chris Dodd have been two of the main senators speaking on Lieberman's behalf while Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders have been two prominent senators who want him ousted. Lieberman has said that if he does not retain his chairmanship, he'll caucus with the Republicans. Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader has reciprocated, offering Lieberman an invitation to caucus with the Repubs if he leaves the Dem caucus.
My take on it? You have to let Lieberman go. The Dems will not have the 60 votes necessary to stop filibusters with or without him, so that's off the table. More importantly, he SLAMMED your nominee for President. If he did not want to support Barack Obama, that's fine and that's his coice. He could have sat out the campaign. He could have been like Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator from Nebraska and endorsed the oppositions nominee but stayed out of day-to-day campaigning activities. But no, Lieberman was actively campaigning against his party's nominee for President; he SPOKE at the Republican National Convention. He tried to scare Jewish people into voting for McCain by saying an Obama victory was dangerous for Israel. There is NO WAY he should be allowed to keep a major chairmanship in the Democratic Party.
Look, I think it's fine that Lieberman had a conviction that he thought McCain was the better man for President. People should stand on their convictions. But you have to know there are consequences for your actions. When it comes to legislation, I think that playing politics should be kept to a minimum, particularly on legislation that is of utmost importance to the American people. Vote your conscience, vote for the policy that you think will help the American people, regardless of your party line. When it comes to the inner workings of the party apparatus, I'm all for playing politics, and you crack the whip on those who cross the line. You mean to tell me that the Dems can play politics when it comes to something like the bailout or stimulus package, but they're suddenly "above it all" when it comes to ousting a turncoat from a major chairmanship? Perhaps they're just really concerned about that one vote- but Lieberman will still be who he is even if he caucuses with the Repubs, a socially liberal hawk who because he believes in abortion rights, won't have much of a place in the Republican party. He might have to do a few more favors for some social conservatives but he won't be nearly as dangerous outside the party as he is made out to be.
Keeping him in however, would undermine party leadership and cohesiveness. It would show other senators that they have an enormous amount of leeway in their actions against the party. As an added bonus- Lieberman lost his last Dem primary but won as an independent probably because there were more than a few Dems who probably thought that he'd still caucus with the party. He'd lose a lot of those votes if he started caucusing with the Repubs. So remove his chairmanship and call his bluff- now is the perfect time to play politics.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The Republicans Art of Relativism
One of the most interesting aspects of Stephen Hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell" is his discussion of Albert Einstein. It's pretty amazing how a scientist (admittedly of the once in a few generations variety) could amass such a stature in popular culture- tot he point where everyone knew not only who he was but could recite and (in many cases) explain his most famous equation. As Hawking explained it, the reason behind Einstein's mainstream fame was that the theories of relativity were applicable not only to the physics and cosmological world from which they came, but also to almost every other facet of life. Relativity and relativism literally chanted the way people thought about the world around them; suddenly there was a coherent argument stating that there was no universal center, no universal truth which applied to everyone. Truth, centrality, and objective authority all depended on where you were situated, on your point of view.
I don't know the extent to which scientific relativity informed the social science concept of relativism- it's been a few years since I last read Universe- but I recall it being substantial. For instance, relativism complicates any notion of a universal morality taught by religion. It's harder to teach supposedly objective accounts of historical events as facts without presenting other points of view. Relativism as a concept brought many benefits to academia and the world, particularly by making possible different cultural studies programs as different points of view were given the same value as more dominant ones. Old sources of authority were questioned and forced to justify their positions. Anything that allows for more critical questioning, I think, is always a welcome development.
I am a big believer in self-reinforcement and relativism, which started out by saying that there are multiple valid opinions, reinforced that position to the point where it became ALL opinions are valid and further more, ALL opinions are equally valid. I'm definitely exagerrating the extent to which this sentiment was broadly expressed, but certainly many people had grown weary of the endless march into a sea of relative murkiness. There had to be some things that were certain, right?
This is just my mildly (mis)informed opinion, completely unresearched, but the rise of conservatism and the appeal of people like Ronald Reagan may had had something to do with achieving a degree of balance with the liberal relativism from the academic elite that said we should not judge but try to understand that hood nigga who mugged us after our delightful dinner date downtown.
But Pandora's Box cannot be unopened, and relativism of a different strain has entered the Republican party/conservative movement and is threatening to break it apart. The first thing that has made this infilitration possible is the relativism of the news media. After years of being accused of having a barely concealed liberal bias, the media has gone out of their way to be deferential to both sides, to the point where they will no longer call out blantantly wrongheaded drivel when they see it, but instead just present both sides of the story without passing judgement. Kind of like just laying out two sandwiches without telling you which one has the poison in it, even when they know. This has allowed the right wing to put out blatantly false statements without fear of retribution- because it could/can/is true from their point of view. This has made the use of testimony and evidence based in fact unnecessary.
The second thing is the new populism to which the Republican party has hitched their wagon. I was reading an article in the Wall Street Jorunal entitled "The Perils of Poopulist Chic." The article quoted NYT columnist David Brooks as saying that the base of the GOP started out attacking elite liberals but that attack has transformed into an attack on ALL elites even conservative ones. It's what makes the base believe that "Joe the Plumber"'s statements on economics and foreign policy deserve the same amount of attention as an economic policy professor's at Princeton. It's what makes Sarah Palin a frontrunner for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination and not a colossal embarrasement to her party.
The problem is that it's just not true- the TRUTH is that Joe the Plumber's opinion is NOT as valid as someone learned in foreign policy and Sarah Palin is NOT even remotely qualified to be a head of state. When relativism goes too far it creates these kinds of false equivalencies that must be stopped on both sides, but mostly on the Republican side. Just because someone's opinion IS valid does not make their opinion AS valid as someone else's. The problem with eleites is that they are often times... well.. elitist and they can become guilty of not believing the first part of my statement. Just because they can become elitist though does not mean that we do not need elites to temper the base instincts of the base though. There has to be some kind of balance between taking into account all opinions without making them all equivalent- a balance between securing a place for the common man in the decisions of our country and discounting for the fact that common people are not as versed in all of the relevant subjects. That's the prevailing conondrum of democracy, but as long as the Republicans place all their chips on the opinions of their lowest base, I have a feeling they won't have to worry about being in power anytime soon.
I don't know the extent to which scientific relativity informed the social science concept of relativism- it's been a few years since I last read Universe- but I recall it being substantial. For instance, relativism complicates any notion of a universal morality taught by religion. It's harder to teach supposedly objective accounts of historical events as facts without presenting other points of view. Relativism as a concept brought many benefits to academia and the world, particularly by making possible different cultural studies programs as different points of view were given the same value as more dominant ones. Old sources of authority were questioned and forced to justify their positions. Anything that allows for more critical questioning, I think, is always a welcome development.
I am a big believer in self-reinforcement and relativism, which started out by saying that there are multiple valid opinions, reinforced that position to the point where it became ALL opinions are valid and further more, ALL opinions are equally valid. I'm definitely exagerrating the extent to which this sentiment was broadly expressed, but certainly many people had grown weary of the endless march into a sea of relative murkiness. There had to be some things that were certain, right?
This is just my mildly (mis)informed opinion, completely unresearched, but the rise of conservatism and the appeal of people like Ronald Reagan may had had something to do with achieving a degree of balance with the liberal relativism from the academic elite that said we should not judge but try to understand that hood nigga who mugged us after our delightful dinner date downtown.
But Pandora's Box cannot be unopened, and relativism of a different strain has entered the Republican party/conservative movement and is threatening to break it apart. The first thing that has made this infilitration possible is the relativism of the news media. After years of being accused of having a barely concealed liberal bias, the media has gone out of their way to be deferential to both sides, to the point where they will no longer call out blantantly wrongheaded drivel when they see it, but instead just present both sides of the story without passing judgement. Kind of like just laying out two sandwiches without telling you which one has the poison in it, even when they know. This has allowed the right wing to put out blatantly false statements without fear of retribution- because it could/can/is true from their point of view. This has made the use of testimony and evidence based in fact unnecessary.
The second thing is the new populism to which the Republican party has hitched their wagon. I was reading an article in the Wall Street Jorunal entitled "The Perils of Poopulist Chic." The article quoted NYT columnist David Brooks as saying that the base of the GOP started out attacking elite liberals but that attack has transformed into an attack on ALL elites even conservative ones. It's what makes the base believe that "Joe the Plumber"'s statements on economics and foreign policy deserve the same amount of attention as an economic policy professor's at Princeton. It's what makes Sarah Palin a frontrunner for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination and not a colossal embarrasement to her party.
The problem is that it's just not true- the TRUTH is that Joe the Plumber's opinion is NOT as valid as someone learned in foreign policy and Sarah Palin is NOT even remotely qualified to be a head of state. When relativism goes too far it creates these kinds of false equivalencies that must be stopped on both sides, but mostly on the Republican side. Just because someone's opinion IS valid does not make their opinion AS valid as someone else's. The problem with eleites is that they are often times... well.. elitist and they can become guilty of not believing the first part of my statement. Just because they can become elitist though does not mean that we do not need elites to temper the base instincts of the base though. There has to be some kind of balance between taking into account all opinions without making them all equivalent- a balance between securing a place for the common man in the decisions of our country and discounting for the fact that common people are not as versed in all of the relevant subjects. That's the prevailing conondrum of democracy, but as long as the Republicans place all their chips on the opinions of their lowest base, I have a feeling they won't have to worry about being in power anytime soon.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Do The Right Thing
Oh man am I royally pissed.
Tonight was supposed to be completely joyous. Barack Obama is the President-elect of the United States. The first Black president, but more importantly, he is intelligent, thoughtful, has very capable advisors, and will bring much needed sanity to the White House after eight years of the Bush debacle. I am happy that John McCain gave a gracious concession speech which reminded me why I liked him back in 2000 when Bush and Rove dragged his name through every mud pit they could find, why I liked him 2004 and thought he might be a good running mate for John Kerry. Unfortunately, his supporters were ridiculously ugly during the speech, booing their next President loudly. It just goes to show you that right wingers are not as patriotic as they say they are, they are only true patriots when the person they want is in charge.
Anyway, all of this isn't what gets my blood boiling. What makes me so angry is that Proposition 8 which bans gay marriage in California, passed. And what made the difference is the votes of Black people, the very same Black people who came out in droves to vote for Barack Obama. From exit polling, 69%... SIXTY-NINE PERCENT of Black people voted to ban gay marriage. It makes me sick to my stomach to think that Black people would so openly and heavily discriminate against another group of people, after all we've been through. How and why should someone, through referendum/proposition/constitutional changes, tell another adult how to love ANOTHER ADULT? This is not about children, not about teaching different kinds of sexuality, this is not about religion. This is about the states ability to tell two adults whether or not their relationship is recognized under the law. I don't want to hear that it's an argument over semantics, over whether or not civil unions are legally equal to marriages. Seperate but equal? Where have we heard that before?
What it really comes down to, is gay sex, and more specifically, gay male sex. Homosexuals are not seen as human beings; in this context they are seen only as sexual beings whose only goal in life is to fuck every man that moves. Well, I think Twizzlers are nasty and not only that, but we are feeding them to our children, IN SCHOOLS!
What's funny is that, as Andrew Sullivan (the conservative writer for the Atlantic, who is also gay) put it, marriage would go a long way towards helping Americans accept gay people outside the context of sex. When I think of married couples, I think of people raising a family, of sharing responsibilities, both the good and bad times, about having a companion to grow old with and bounce ideas off of.
People always go back to religion on this. The Bible (the Quran, the Torah, etc.) says it's wrong, it's a sin. I love the selectivity with which people apply the "it's a sin argument." People I went to high school with, who had pre-marital sex, cursed, drank, smoked, disobeyed their parents, and did badly in school would nevertheless say, "being gay's a sin," when we would have discussions about civil rights. We as a community have an enormous amount of problems, economic problems, educational problems, self-esteem problems, problems that will take vision and dedication in order to solve and it's a shame that instead of concentrating on building coalitions we are tearing them down, expelling our gay brothers and sisters from our community and repelling the goodwill we could generate from the gay community at large. How about these huckster, pimp/preachers concentrate on helping Black people solve some of those problems instead of trying to push their incredibly skewed views of religion on to an entire state. Let's be real about this, and I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but the Old Testament of the Bible is a book of myths, like Greek myths or Norse myths, only it's also packed with a bunch of boring lists. Regardless of what you believe, can you honestly say that a free society, which purports to separate church and state, should rely on 6000 year old books as a basis for its laws? Leviticus, the book with the most widely used anti-gay scripture quote, calls homosexuality an abomination. You want to know what else is an abomination? Shrimp and wearing clothes made of two different types of material, among other things. So, of course we should make it illegal to eat at Red Lobster. And it's a sin to have that nice blue and white polycotton blended shirt in your dresser. Snarkiness aside, why should our society have to subscribe to a skewed view of Christianity, or any religion?
I'm not anti-religion, like I said before, I love the mystical aspects and the emphasis on service that some religions have. I just don't buy arguments that are based on religion in these circumstances. The fight has to continue on, and hopefully those that have already fought so hard can help to persuade others to help fight this civil rights issue. As T. Coates, another writer from the Atlantic said, "You don't have to like black/gay people in order to do the right thing." Here's hoping that we eventually do the right thing.
PS: I am VERY DISAPPOINTED in Barack Obama for taking such a milquetoast stand on this "controversial issue." He's on record opposing gay marriage but for civil unions, a political tool me thinks. I guess it's because of his religious beliefs which, would make him inconsistent to say the least.
Tonight was supposed to be completely joyous. Barack Obama is the President-elect of the United States. The first Black president, but more importantly, he is intelligent, thoughtful, has very capable advisors, and will bring much needed sanity to the White House after eight years of the Bush debacle. I am happy that John McCain gave a gracious concession speech which reminded me why I liked him back in 2000 when Bush and Rove dragged his name through every mud pit they could find, why I liked him 2004 and thought he might be a good running mate for John Kerry. Unfortunately, his supporters were ridiculously ugly during the speech, booing their next President loudly. It just goes to show you that right wingers are not as patriotic as they say they are, they are only true patriots when the person they want is in charge.
Anyway, all of this isn't what gets my blood boiling. What makes me so angry is that Proposition 8 which bans gay marriage in California, passed. And what made the difference is the votes of Black people, the very same Black people who came out in droves to vote for Barack Obama. From exit polling, 69%... SIXTY-NINE PERCENT of Black people voted to ban gay marriage. It makes me sick to my stomach to think that Black people would so openly and heavily discriminate against another group of people, after all we've been through. How and why should someone, through referendum/proposition/constitutional changes, tell another adult how to love ANOTHER ADULT? This is not about children, not about teaching different kinds of sexuality, this is not about religion. This is about the states ability to tell two adults whether or not their relationship is recognized under the law. I don't want to hear that it's an argument over semantics, over whether or not civil unions are legally equal to marriages. Seperate but equal? Where have we heard that before?
What it really comes down to, is gay sex, and more specifically, gay male sex. Homosexuals are not seen as human beings; in this context they are seen only as sexual beings whose only goal in life is to fuck every man that moves. Well, I think Twizzlers are nasty and not only that, but we are feeding them to our children, IN SCHOOLS!
What's funny is that, as Andrew Sullivan (the conservative writer for the Atlantic, who is also gay) put it, marriage would go a long way towards helping Americans accept gay people outside the context of sex. When I think of married couples, I think of people raising a family, of sharing responsibilities, both the good and bad times, about having a companion to grow old with and bounce ideas off of.
People always go back to religion on this. The Bible (the Quran, the Torah, etc.) says it's wrong, it's a sin. I love the selectivity with which people apply the "it's a sin argument." People I went to high school with, who had pre-marital sex, cursed, drank, smoked, disobeyed their parents, and did badly in school would nevertheless say, "being gay's a sin," when we would have discussions about civil rights. We as a community have an enormous amount of problems, economic problems, educational problems, self-esteem problems, problems that will take vision and dedication in order to solve and it's a shame that instead of concentrating on building coalitions we are tearing them down, expelling our gay brothers and sisters from our community and repelling the goodwill we could generate from the gay community at large. How about these huckster, pimp/preachers concentrate on helping Black people solve some of those problems instead of trying to push their incredibly skewed views of religion on to an entire state. Let's be real about this, and I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but the Old Testament of the Bible is a book of myths, like Greek myths or Norse myths, only it's also packed with a bunch of boring lists. Regardless of what you believe, can you honestly say that a free society, which purports to separate church and state, should rely on 6000 year old books as a basis for its laws? Leviticus, the book with the most widely used anti-gay scripture quote, calls homosexuality an abomination. You want to know what else is an abomination? Shrimp and wearing clothes made of two different types of material, among other things. So, of course we should make it illegal to eat at Red Lobster. And it's a sin to have that nice blue and white polycotton blended shirt in your dresser. Snarkiness aside, why should our society have to subscribe to a skewed view of Christianity, or any religion?
I'm not anti-religion, like I said before, I love the mystical aspects and the emphasis on service that some religions have. I just don't buy arguments that are based on religion in these circumstances. The fight has to continue on, and hopefully those that have already fought so hard can help to persuade others to help fight this civil rights issue. As T. Coates, another writer from the Atlantic said, "You don't have to like black/gay people in order to do the right thing." Here's hoping that we eventually do the right thing.
PS: I am VERY DISAPPOINTED in Barack Obama for taking such a milquetoast stand on this "controversial issue." He's on record opposing gay marriage but for civil unions, a political tool me thinks. I guess it's because of his religious beliefs which, would make him inconsistent to say the least.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Bailouts and Plans
So the sky doesn't fall another day! Another rally, the Dow is up 450 odd points after being down 777 just yesterday. The S&P 500 made similar gains. The more we delay the inevitable bailout, the more it seems like it doesn't have to be inevitable.
I have more than a few friends who oppose the bailout under any circumstances and the general public seems to agree. I have mixed feelings about it honestly. On the one hand, I don't mind letting Wall Street squirm a little under their own failed largesse and excessive risk taking Right now, the only real effect it's had on me is that it's made work a lot more interesting and I get to have wonkish discussions with my coworkers. On the other hand, some people I know have been more effected, primarily because mutual fund indexes are down 52% on the year and their 401K's are looking pretty horrific right now. Luckily for me, I didn't have anything to begin with; nobody is freer than a man with nothing no? But I think that's something being lossed in all of this- the effect this will have on ordinary people. If nothing is done, credit will be even harder to come by, people's savings and investments will drop considerably. Take a look at Japan's lost decade. If we can do something to avoid that then we should. And there are credible economists who think that something like that could happen. Not Great Depression level, but a gradual contraction of our economy and the credit markets. It's always fun to "stick it" to the fat cats on Wall Street, but like it or not, we voted for these policies of little oversight by voting for the leaders who enacted them. The game is always rigged against the little guy, but we helped to rig it ourselves as well. What is important is saving the ship now, and making sure something like this doesn't happen again.
Let me also say that I think the bailout package as proposed, both the three page sham which Secretary Paulson started off negotiations with and the 100 plus page document that Congress ended up putting together, were terrible. They both called for the US to buy 700 billion dollars of bad assets with the money being spent solely at the discretion of the treasury secertary with no or little oversight. Congress added caps for executive compensation and cursory support for other "populist" measures to make sure that taxpayers eventually get their money back. There are no provisions for helping homeowners keep their homes, which, so I've heard, is a complete non-starter for Republican House members (as one Republican who voted against the package put it, if we start socializing the losses then we'll have to socialize the profits, one shudders at the thought). What no one has really explained, however, is how this solves the credit crisis we've been in for some time now. Nor has any one in Congress actually sat down to really think if this is even close to being the best plan. Perusing some economists websites, I saw an intriguing case study of 42 instances where the government had to intervene during a banking crisis. The first conclusion is that doing nothing was the worst option; that much is clear. The study also concluded that attempts by the government to buy bad assets without getting any stock, as in cases by Japan and Mexico cost significantly more than other plans. What this economist thought was the model for dealing with this kind of crisis was the Scandanavian model (man the Scandanavians sure know how to do things right). It was basically using public funds to recapitalize troubled firms through buying preferred shares of stock, putting government securities on the balance sheet of troubled banks, and getting the private sector to match government contributions.
There are a few major things wrong with buying bad assets. First, the taxpayers have much less of a chance of recouping their money. The government would be paying above market price for all of these assets and there is a good chance that even held-to-maturity their net present value is less than what we pay for them. Second, it does not address the real problem of recapitalizing the undercapitalized banks. While passively explained in the economist post I linked to I'll try and explain it more right here really quickly. If the government were to buy the assets it would help cash flow but writedowns would still be necessary and permanent. If the government were to buy equity in the firm, writedowns would still be necessary, but the recapitalization would improve the equity side of the balance sheet and the written down assets could be written back up if/when the market returns.
A United States plan could look something like this, the government could use a significant portion of the 700 billion to buy preferred voting shares and convertible debt with the insistence that the private sector match dollar for dollar. I'd prefer for the taxpayers debt to be senior, but subordinate is okay also. Part of the money could be used to buy some assets, but an equitable plan must taxpayers having stake in the company and a chance to share in the profits should they be realized. If these assets we're buying will eventually payoff as people say they will, then why not let the companies keep them on their books for now. Mark them market right now and hold on while the injection of public money tides you over.
It's a shame- I'm 22 years old, just started my first real job, only took undergraduate economics classes. But I understand that there are plenty of smart and judicious people in the world who have expertise in this area and at the very least, their research could help make a more palatable plan. Why can't our congressional and adminstrative leaders understand this?
I have more than a few friends who oppose the bailout under any circumstances and the general public seems to agree. I have mixed feelings about it honestly. On the one hand, I don't mind letting Wall Street squirm a little under their own failed largesse and excessive risk taking Right now, the only real effect it's had on me is that it's made work a lot more interesting and I get to have wonkish discussions with my coworkers. On the other hand, some people I know have been more effected, primarily because mutual fund indexes are down 52% on the year and their 401K's are looking pretty horrific right now. Luckily for me, I didn't have anything to begin with; nobody is freer than a man with nothing no? But I think that's something being lossed in all of this- the effect this will have on ordinary people. If nothing is done, credit will be even harder to come by, people's savings and investments will drop considerably. Take a look at Japan's lost decade. If we can do something to avoid that then we should. And there are credible economists who think that something like that could happen. Not Great Depression level, but a gradual contraction of our economy and the credit markets. It's always fun to "stick it" to the fat cats on Wall Street, but like it or not, we voted for these policies of little oversight by voting for the leaders who enacted them. The game is always rigged against the little guy, but we helped to rig it ourselves as well. What is important is saving the ship now, and making sure something like this doesn't happen again.
Let me also say that I think the bailout package as proposed, both the three page sham which Secretary Paulson started off negotiations with and the 100 plus page document that Congress ended up putting together, were terrible. They both called for the US to buy 700 billion dollars of bad assets with the money being spent solely at the discretion of the treasury secertary with no or little oversight. Congress added caps for executive compensation and cursory support for other "populist" measures to make sure that taxpayers eventually get their money back. There are no provisions for helping homeowners keep their homes, which, so I've heard, is a complete non-starter for Republican House members (as one Republican who voted against the package put it, if we start socializing the losses then we'll have to socialize the profits, one shudders at the thought). What no one has really explained, however, is how this solves the credit crisis we've been in for some time now. Nor has any one in Congress actually sat down to really think if this is even close to being the best plan. Perusing some economists websites, I saw an intriguing case study of 42 instances where the government had to intervene during a banking crisis. The first conclusion is that doing nothing was the worst option; that much is clear. The study also concluded that attempts by the government to buy bad assets without getting any stock, as in cases by Japan and Mexico cost significantly more than other plans. What this economist thought was the model for dealing with this kind of crisis was the Scandanavian model (man the Scandanavians sure know how to do things right). It was basically using public funds to recapitalize troubled firms through buying preferred shares of stock, putting government securities on the balance sheet of troubled banks, and getting the private sector to match government contributions.
There are a few major things wrong with buying bad assets. First, the taxpayers have much less of a chance of recouping their money. The government would be paying above market price for all of these assets and there is a good chance that even held-to-maturity their net present value is less than what we pay for them. Second, it does not address the real problem of recapitalizing the undercapitalized banks. While passively explained in the economist post I linked to I'll try and explain it more right here really quickly. If the government were to buy the assets it would help cash flow but writedowns would still be necessary and permanent. If the government were to buy equity in the firm, writedowns would still be necessary, but the recapitalization would improve the equity side of the balance sheet and the written down assets could be written back up if/when the market returns.
A United States plan could look something like this, the government could use a significant portion of the 700 billion to buy preferred voting shares and convertible debt with the insistence that the private sector match dollar for dollar. I'd prefer for the taxpayers debt to be senior, but subordinate is okay also. Part of the money could be used to buy some assets, but an equitable plan must taxpayers having stake in the company and a chance to share in the profits should they be realized. If these assets we're buying will eventually payoff as people say they will, then why not let the companies keep them on their books for now. Mark them market right now and hold on while the injection of public money tides you over.
It's a shame- I'm 22 years old, just started my first real job, only took undergraduate economics classes. But I understand that there are plenty of smart and judicious people in the world who have expertise in this area and at the very least, their research could help make a more palatable plan. Why can't our congressional and adminstrative leaders understand this?
Friday, September 26, 2008
Immediate Thoughts of the Debate- I Have A Bracelet Too
Just got done watching the debate and my initials thoughts are that it was close- a win on points for Obama but certainly not the knockout punch that many of us Obama partisans wanted.
Jim Lehrer was not as good of a moderator as I thought he'd be. I love the Jim Lehrer Newshour, but I just thought that he was ineffective and more importantly, he was easily run over by the two candidates, especially John McCain. He tried desperately to get the candidates to actually engage each other but they did not do that either. Hopefully now that they are use to the format we will see more first person rather than third person addresses.
Lehrer started out asking about the bailout and Obama scored some easy and critical points. The beginning of the debate is the best time to be engaging, because people are actually paying attention. His opening statement was much better than McCain primarily because he was so much more forceful and much more direct. McCain looked very tired and tentative, like a worn out boxer who spends the first few rounds slowly circling his opponent. Obama certainly got the better of the economic parts of the debate, partially because he tied it to a larger narrative and partially because he just had more energy. He soundly connected our economic condition to the failed philosphy of the Bush administration and by extension John McCain. At the beginning of the debate, Obama was much better at placing McCain and Bush in the same category. It's a shame he got away from that as the night wore on. McCain in the early going was fixated with earmark spending making it seem much more important than it was and Obama rightly caught him on the fact that earmark/pork barrel spending is a fraction of the budget. As with most of his attacks however, Obama would not continue to press on them, letting them pass without much repetition. I can see how it was frustrating for Obama's supporters, but overall I think it was good strategy since he was primarily going for a presidential rather than a truly confrontational demeanor. McCain, for his part, was much more confrontational, if not directly, than it was definitely implied. As the economic section of the debate came to a close, McCain frequently expressed his condescension for Obama and it showed.
Both candidates avoided Lehrer's question about what part of their agenda they'd have to give up post-bailout like ebola. My roommate said he thought it was a dumb question, because it was impossible to answer. I thought it was a very good question in the abstract because it would help to narrow down their priorities, but it was a bad question for our politics, which rewards vague but pleasing answers and punishes unpalatable honesty. Barack tried in his own way to answer the question with a more positive spin by talking about what he would not cut rather than what he would. He also very smartly said that ending the Iraq War would help with a portion of the budget. McCain after again talking about earmarks proposed a spending freeze, which, if we had true conservatives, would have scored some points, but it was not pressed upon and advocating a spending freeze leaves one open for all kinds of attacks. Obama ended the economic portion by landing a punch on the entire Republican brand, saying that they were the cause of the increases in spending. Again, his followup was lacking; perhaps he was hoping that people would remember it anyway. Obama also had a good line in about using a scalpel in order to decrease spending instead of a hatchet. That was memorable and pretty pragmatic as well. This exchange could be scored as a draw.
It took nearly half an hour to get to the foreign policy portion of the debate, mostly because people kept interrupting but also because they HAD to work in the economic crises. The foreign policy portion of the debate was pretty much evenly split as both candidates could point to victories depending on the country of choice. Obama clearly won on Afghanistan, highlighting the Republicans failure and inability to stay focused in order to get the job done. He coupled our diversion in Iraq to the failures and turmoil in Afghanistan, particularly as it pertained to troop levels. He also tied in our growing concerns in Pakistan, and rightly clarified his position on Pakistan's sovereignity in the war on terror. He followed that with the one of the better lines of the night- the "I have a bracelet too," which seemed a little petty but also highlighted the fact that McCain has been using the same lines over and over again in his stump speeches. On Iraq, Obama was a little more hesitant- he had another great exchange on judgment which featured his only real repeatables (You were wrong!). He was in a precarious position because to explain the multifaceted reasons behind the surge would have been too academic, and he'd already conceded that territory. The best he could do was point out the problem of going into Iraq in the first place, which he did, and then try and reduce the damage of essentially agreeing that the surge has worked, which he had trouble with.
I also thought that Obama got the better of the Iran exchange- he used Henry Kissinger's words against McCain and showed that he is much more of a realist in terms of foreign policy than McCain. He did a good job of showing how our standing in the world and the Iraq war has strengthened Iran, and how using direct diplomacy without preconditions, would help to increase our standing and in the end undermine Iran's regional power. The bellicose neocon view of foreign policy has crowded out a view of the world AS IT IS, rather than as our political leaders imagine it to be for far too long, and ultimately I think Obama was effective in displaying his foreign policy credentials.
McCain did have his strong points. He clearly won the discussion on Russia and Georgia, if only because they fundamentally agreed on the position. Since McCain arrived there first, all he had to do was defend territory, which he did admirably. Now, anyone who has read my blog knows that I think we are extremely misguided in our approach to Russia. I for one think that Obama's first reaction, that both sides were at fault was correct. Unfortunately, he defered to his vice presidential nominee and to the media narrative about what went on in initially. Overall, I think this is a minor issue, our national security concerns are more wrapped up in the Middle East and far southwest Asia. I don't think that there'd be too much political damage if Obama were to stand by his previous statements. I think both candidates are wrong where they currently stand. McCain also did well in another area ceded by Obama, the surge. He ceded any way of winning that argument specifically when he said that it was working. It's hard to debate that point, mostly because the surge did what it was designed to do. Obama tried his best to say that the surge didn't solve the main problem (how are we going to ultimately win in Iraq rather than just curb the violence), but it was an uphill battle for him and ultimately McCain took that round as well.
As far as presentation was concerned, Obama looked much more presidential. He looked directly at McCain or into the camera lens, and the entire time he was confident. Many commentators remarked that he did not have too many "ahs" and "uhms", that he was more forceful, less professorial, more direct and assertive and I agree. McCain looked downright exhausted at the beginning of the debate and seemed to gather steam as the night went on. McCain was more cocky, at least in his disdain, had an oft repeated one-liner about Obama not understanding, but he also did not look at Obama. It was weird how he could be so confident that Barack was not in his league on foreign policy yet he was unconfident when it came to his actual demeanor. It was a good performance by both men although it was not a terribly exciting debate. The policy wonk in me enjoyed it, the other me was just happy that the Brewers are now a game up in the wild card. Again, I think that Obama won but he did not deliver a knockout blow or any real haymakers. Early polls indicate that independent voters thought that Obama won as well. Overall, I think his ability to lay out a broad plan and his pragamatism were reassuring. McCain, while he was able to win some rounds did not have any semblance of a central theme. I think that McCain needed a win, if not a clear one than at least a point one because he had the most to gain. All Obama needed to do was look presidential and he did that. Foreign policy was supposed to be McCain's best topic and he merely held Obama to a draw while losing on the economy. He'll need a great performance out of Palin (highly likely of course) or really hammer home on the domestic issues and the economy (not exactly his strong suit). I think McCain just let his best chance to catch Obama get away from him.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Some things on Sarah Palin
I read a pun today that instructed me on how to pronounce McCain's running mates name... her name is Sarah Palin (Pail-in or Pale-in) as in Sarah pale-in comparison to Joe Biden. I really thought that McCain would pick Tom Pawlenty from Minnesota, in order to appease his right-wing Rovian masters. From the looks of things, he actually wanted either Joe Liebermann from Connecticut or Tom Ridge from Pennsylvania, but they were both too centrist (except on foreign policy where they, especially Liebermann are both as hawkish as they come). So instead, he ends up picking Sarah Palin, the first term governor from Alaska who two years ago was the part-time mayor of a town whose population could fit comfortably in the office building where I work, a town which is basically two medium sized high schools. Even her governorship is of a state whose population is 1/3 the size of Brooklyn, four state representatives from New York would have more constituents than she. Not that having a small constituency is a deal breaker, I mean Joe Biden is from Delaware. The difference is that he has more than enough experience to make up for it- you cannot make up for such a small constituency from being governor of a small state for 20 months and being part-time mayor for 6 years.
Not that Palin does not have any bonafides, she did help to clean up Alaska's notoriously corrupt Republican party, where seemingly ever one, most notably Ted Stevens, is under indictment. She's a wildly popular governor with approval ratings hovering between 80-90% (edit, it's now down to 67% from a high of 90%), and although I'm pretty sure governing a section of New York is harder than governing the entire state of Alaska, Alaska does have big resource businesses which are very technical and require certain expertise. At the very least, she hopefully brings some kind of knowledge on oil (her husband works for BP). She's young, she's pretty, she's intelligent. Then again, her best bonafides are that she's a dyed in the wool social conservative, she's anti-abortion (I hate the phrase pro-life, it's the way Repubs control the conversation), against gay marriage (although Obama is a states rightist on the issue), for teaching creationism in schools. She also has a very interesting story- married to a part Inuit, 5 children, one in Iraq, one with Down Syndrome (although I'll talk about that in a second), state champion basketball player, hunter, snowmobile rider, PTA/hockey mom, etc. Overall, she plays very well with the Bible-thumpers, a constituency that is still not completely fond of McCain and which would not have stood for pro-choice Joe Liebermann. Personally I think they would have come around anyway, but I guess this just solidifies the base- a decent defensive move if that's all it was supposed to accomplish.
But I think it's quite obvious that this was supposed to be an offensive move- Palin is supposed to capture for McCain a significant fraction of the so-called "PUMAS", who are pissed that Hillary Clinton did not get the nomination and so will not vote for Obama. Now that another person who is their "gynecological twin" as Samantha Bee put it, is on that Republican ticket, they'll move over to McCain. The basis for this is the overblown media coverage of the PUMAS and some ppolls which say that 20-30% of Hillary supporters will not vote for Obama. My personal opinion is that many of the, let's say 25% of those people were not Democrats to begin with, but were instead independents/women who were attracted by Hillary Clinton- who was a well-qualified, highly intelligent candidate. I don't know if Palin's conservative views on women's social issues guarantees her capture of most or even a significant fraction of them. To many people this seems like such an opportunistic/pandering move that it might actually hurt rather than help McCain. It rests on the assumption that women only voted for Hillary Clinton because she was a woman- rather than because they truly thought that she was a great candidate. Say what you want about Clinton, and even though I didn't vote for her in the primary, I still think she would have made a good president- much better than Bush or McCain. McCain or his camp has made a pretty big error, and while it got them in the newscycle after Obama's rousing acceptance speech, it's not going to win them this election.
And this brings me to my favorite part, scandal! Some of things I discovered, just yesterday about Palin are enough to make me question whether or not she has been properly vetted. First, the small, a video from one month ago, showing Palin as not exactly knowing what her role as vice president would be, basically kinda dissin the job. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loUHRv3ipLE Second, there is the whole scandal involving her trying to have the chief of Public Safety, Walter Monegan, fire her sisters ex-husband (they were in the midst of a bitter custody battle) and when he didn't, she fired him instead. She then appointed a new chief of Public Safety who was reprimanded for sexual harassment and ultimately stepped down two weeks later and got a severance package of 10,000 (for two weeks of service) while the by all accounts excellent Monegan got nothing. The investigation is still going on and will hopefully be done by the time of the election. (for more go to http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/what-is-mccain-thinking-one-alaskans-perspective/
The final thing is just a rumor that has been circulating parts of the web and on some radio shows. The more I read about it, the more I become skeptical of it, but nonetheless, sometimes we leftist need to roll around in the mud too (keeps us young). There are whispers floating around that her youngest baby, Trig (the one with Down Syndrome) is in fact not her baby at all but her daughters. No doubt wanting to hide the embarassment of being a Bible-thumper whose own daughter couldn't follow the abstinence only sex-education she no doubt wanted to place in schools all across the country, she said that the baby was her's. The evidence for this is all very circumstancial/speculative. She made her announcement when she was 7 months(!) pregnant, which is a little odd. By all accounts, she did not look pregnant at all. She flew down to Texas to give a speech while she was 8 months pregnant (with a baby already diagnosed with Down Syndrome), said that her water broke that morning, proceeded to spend most of the day at the conference, give her speech, then fly 8 hours back to Alaska to have the baby. She also posed for Vogue in December 2007, at which time she would have been 5 months pregnant with Trig. Also, there are rumors that her daughter was pulled from school for months with a case of mono. For all of the details you can go here, http://www.mahalo.com/Sarah_Palin_Pregnancy_Rumors
Now, there are things that could dispel these rumors, particularly the fact that the baby has down syndrome, which is 10 times more likely in women over 35. Also, there would have to be a pretty good conspiracy going at the hospital where the baby was born (unless they went through one physician at home or something). Those are two pretty good pieces of evidence, and really, if Sarah Palin wasn't so willing to tell other women what they should do with their bodies, if she wasn't so keen on saying that abstinence only education is the answer, I probably wouldn't be writing this. But because she is, game on.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
My Immediate Thoughts on Obama-Biden
I've been telling people the past few days that I thought Joe Biden would ultimately be Obama's pick for his running mate. I've held off telling people my opinion about it until I was sure that he would be the actual pick- but now that it is official...
My intial thoughts are that Biden is much more useful to an Obama presidency if he wins the election than during the actual campaign. Biden has several very excellent strengths which will make him a great vice president, his 35 years of experience in government, his formidable knowledge on issues of foreign policy, his willingness to bear his teeth when needed, his ability to debate, and his different outlook on certain issues which will be an asset to the future adminstration. Unfortunately, only two of those things matter during the campaign. Biden also comes with a few weaknesses; he is the antithesis of a "change agent" muting Obama's most powerful message, he comes from a small state which was dyed blue anyway, he does not have any executive experience either, and he can be a bit wonkish and long-winded on the stump. And none of those are his most damning weakness...
The worst thing Joe Biden brings to the campaign are his words in a 2007 ABC interview in which he says that Obama is not ready to be president and that the presidency does not lend itself to on the job training. He also went out of his way to praise John McCain. The McCain campaign already has come out with ads using Joe Biden's own words, which are pretty damning.
That being said, one thing that I've heard is that all of this could ultimately play into a very good strategic move by Obama. For instance, after his campaign hammered John McCain on forgetting the number of houses he has, McCain snapped back about the whole Tony Rezko thing. Now that Rezko is out, it's old news and won't have the ability to play as well in October. Similarly, by announcing Joe Biden as his running mate, the campaign knew that McCain's people would not be able to resist coming out with Biden's 2007 interview decrying Obama's lack of experience now in order to score some more points. If Biden does the right thing (which of course he will) and persuades the country that in the 9-10 months since the interview Obama has shown him that he does have the ability to lead the country, that the energy around the country among young people is "Kennedy-esque" while at the same time repudiating his previous statements about John McCain (along the lines of, I liked McCain, but he has made it clear that he will continue the failed policies of George W. Bush) then everything should blow over quite nicely before October. Hopefully that is part of their plan.
Ultimately, I think that Biden would have made a much better cabinet member, Secretary of State so he could concentrate on foreign policy, which is by far his best area. I do not agree with some of his policy, although his thoughts on Iraqi partition are intriguing. I thought Tim Kaine would have been a better choice, strictly from a political standpoint. He's still a white male, he is young and much more in line with Obama's message, he has executive experience having been the governor of Virginia, he puts Virginia even more into play at the very least diverting funds from other states, and best of all he's never said anything bad about Obama. Biden's fame from running in the primaries definitely adds to his ability to help Obama during the campaign but there is still going to be some battling over his words. I guess it all depends on the way you look at a running mate, either as someone who adds votes that were not in play before or someone who will help your administration be a better one. From the latter perspective Joe Biden is a great pick, the important thing right now though is whether or not we even get to that point. Hopefully we will!
(I'm excited to say that beginning in October through election day I will be campaigning for Obama in Missouri!)
My intial thoughts are that Biden is much more useful to an Obama presidency if he wins the election than during the actual campaign. Biden has several very excellent strengths which will make him a great vice president, his 35 years of experience in government, his formidable knowledge on issues of foreign policy, his willingness to bear his teeth when needed, his ability to debate, and his different outlook on certain issues which will be an asset to the future adminstration. Unfortunately, only two of those things matter during the campaign. Biden also comes with a few weaknesses; he is the antithesis of a "change agent" muting Obama's most powerful message, he comes from a small state which was dyed blue anyway, he does not have any executive experience either, and he can be a bit wonkish and long-winded on the stump. And none of those are his most damning weakness...
The worst thing Joe Biden brings to the campaign are his words in a 2007 ABC interview in which he says that Obama is not ready to be president and that the presidency does not lend itself to on the job training. He also went out of his way to praise John McCain. The McCain campaign already has come out with ads using Joe Biden's own words, which are pretty damning.
That being said, one thing that I've heard is that all of this could ultimately play into a very good strategic move by Obama. For instance, after his campaign hammered John McCain on forgetting the number of houses he has, McCain snapped back about the whole Tony Rezko thing. Now that Rezko is out, it's old news and won't have the ability to play as well in October. Similarly, by announcing Joe Biden as his running mate, the campaign knew that McCain's people would not be able to resist coming out with Biden's 2007 interview decrying Obama's lack of experience now in order to score some more points. If Biden does the right thing (which of course he will) and persuades the country that in the 9-10 months since the interview Obama has shown him that he does have the ability to lead the country, that the energy around the country among young people is "Kennedy-esque" while at the same time repudiating his previous statements about John McCain (along the lines of, I liked McCain, but he has made it clear that he will continue the failed policies of George W. Bush) then everything should blow over quite nicely before October. Hopefully that is part of their plan.
Ultimately, I think that Biden would have made a much better cabinet member, Secretary of State so he could concentrate on foreign policy, which is by far his best area. I do not agree with some of his policy, although his thoughts on Iraqi partition are intriguing. I thought Tim Kaine would have been a better choice, strictly from a political standpoint. He's still a white male, he is young and much more in line with Obama's message, he has executive experience having been the governor of Virginia, he puts Virginia even more into play at the very least diverting funds from other states, and best of all he's never said anything bad about Obama. Biden's fame from running in the primaries definitely adds to his ability to help Obama during the campaign but there is still going to be some battling over his words. I guess it all depends on the way you look at a running mate, either as someone who adds votes that were not in play before or someone who will help your administration be a better one. From the latter perspective Joe Biden is a great pick, the important thing right now though is whether or not we even get to that point. Hopefully we will!
(I'm excited to say that beginning in October through election day I will be campaigning for Obama in Missouri!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)