If the separation between the two candidates is within the margin of
error, how can we expect to fairly determine the winner? Seems like a
run-off vote would make a lot more sense. Throw out the third party
candidate and let's figure this one out for real.
Palin's speech last night took me back to the waning days of the Dem Primary, as a (once again) re-invented Hillary wandered from bar to diner to bar and introduced herself as a hard-drinkin' hard-talkin' regular Jane who "got it" unlike them sissified Big City types who didn't understand the real needs and concerns of those "hard workin" (conspicuously WHITE - her words, not mine) male voters.
Adopting this persona, Hillary chewed the Obama campaign up in states that will be critical in the general election...and SOMEone on the GOP side was obviously paying attention because they found the real person that Hillary pretended to be with that particular audience and stood
her up next to McCain. In so doing, they may have altered the dynamics of the race - and possibly the dynamics of "race" for the election.
A lot of voters go on gut instinct rather than specifics of policy or experience. Palin appealed to those gut instincts last night and, for a candidate who is known for his cool, cerebral approach, that could spell trouble. In essence, Palin made the Obama campaign's sense of grandeur seem...a tad silly ("Yeah...what's up with those Greek columns, anyway...?"). Overblown ("I guess change really should be about experience rather than a speech") . Perhaps a bit un-American ("Why CAN'T we be proud of America?").
Hillary laid the groundwork for this Ms. Palin and this speech months ago. Now we will find out if Obama took away the right lessons from his experiences during those closing weeks of the Dem Primary.
Will the McCain's selection of Palin shock the Republican Party out of its current funk and toward a better future - regardless of the ticket's ultimate success or failure on election day?
Palin has the opportunity to recast the 2008 election entirely — by proving that freshness and unpreparedness for office are not synonyms, and that Democrats do not have the corner on our broad, deep hopes for political revitalisation. Just as Obama brilliantly selected Biden to connect the ticket to the Democratic party of the pre- and post-Clinton years, McCain made the savvy and humane decision to connect his ticket to the years that bracket the Republicans' sorry Bush/DeLay era.
As such, Palin, like Biden, is a victory for all America, and the beginnings of a promise that — young or old, Republican or Democrat — American leaders have the capacity to renovate their country's dysfunctional politics without waging a scorched-earth culture war.
Hm...perhaps a better title would have been, "Say hello to Mrs. Mitty, ready to pretend on Day One." Anyway...
I think Hitchens touches on what bothers me so much about Clinton's pretend experience in Bosnia:
From Obsidian Wings:
Bill Clinton claims that Hillary Clinton urged him to intervene militarily in Rwanda:
And then, using a more somber tone, he explained that she had wanted the United States to intervene in Rwanda in 1994, when hundreds of thousands of people died in a genocide that lasted just a few months.
Clinton has often said that not acting in Rwanda was one of his biggest regrets. It's a decision, he said, for which he continues to try to make amends. Had he listened to his wife, Clinton said, things might have been different.
"I believe if I had moved we might have saved at least a third of those lives," he said. "I think she clearly would have done that."
When Hillary Clinton was asked whether this was true, she said "It is."
Uh-huh. I can see it now...
35 years of experience? Doing what, exactly? Preparing to hire the most expensively unprepared campaign staff she could find?
In essence, the paradigm has shifted (back...?). Traits viewed as important to the electorate have shifted and Hillary is too angry to acknowledge what is becoming increasingly obvious. Trying to score petty points against Obama won't change the bottom line: Barack's personality, likability, and perceived values (his paper) beats Hillary's policy specificity, her obvious political posturing on specific issues, and her references to the past (her rock). She can argue all she likes that her rock is detailed, experienced, and ready for a fight. It's still a rock. And paper beats rock.
My LAST "crazy-ass prediction" was, well...crazy. And almost certainly wrong. But here I go again. IF (still a big "if") McCain wins Florida, the Republican nominee, after a crazy opening to the campaign season, will be chosen (or obvious - even prior to amassing enough delegates) before the Dem nominee. It might even be safe to assume that the presumptive Republican nominee (again, assuming it's McCain) will change Dem sentiments - probably more toward Obama than Hillary.
I think this is, as the article describes, a key test for the candidates - and (possibly) a coup for the likes of Hillary Clinton and John McCain.
The key question will probably be this: how much does the general American electorate (or, more specifically, that portion of the electorate that tends to show up during the primary season) really understand the importance of events in Pakistan? The fact that folks like Richardson and Biden have gained absolutely zero traction in the race so far would seem to indicate a distinct lack of desire among the electorate to immerse themselves in the details of foreign policy. The polling strength of Obama, Guiliani, Romney, and Huckabee is, I think, built upon a general belief that international affairs - outside of one's position on Iraq - really aren't all that important.
The Clinton campaign's efforts to emphasize her "proven" ability to govern based on experience and an understanding of international issues (as questionable as I believe that experience to actually be...) looks a lot more appealing in a time of international crisis. That being said, she doesn't really say a whole lot about what she would DO other than push for an international investigation of the incident (not a bad idea...but unlikely to do much more than spur more angst in Pakistan...much as the international investigation did little to settle the political tension in Lebanon).
Of course, she frowns upon the Administration's handling of Pakistan (without offering specific examples of her approach) and trots out some brief factoids on Pakistan history. It makes her appear well-informed but, as usual, avoids specifics. Then again, I'd argue her short description of Pakistan's political history completely ignores the instability Pakistan suffered under previous democratic governments - to include Bhutto's. I would argue that Pakistan likely needs the steady hand of a strong ruler (with the firm backing of the military) similar to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in Turkey if they hope to reach the level of stability necessary to create a self-sustaining democracy. I would also argue that Musharraf SEEMED to be a possible candidate for such a role up until the events of the last year or two. Viewed from that perspective, American conditional support for his rule made more sense than pushing too hard for premature elections - or providing him unconditional support. The dynamics have changed, the situation is much more difficult, and Hillary Clinton is not reflecting that complexity in her current posturing.
On the other side of the Democratic candidates, we have Joe Biden...much more well-informed, much more specific, but also caught up in a number of inconsistencies. I just finished listening to his take on Pakistan (voiced prior to the death of Bhutto) and...I was disappointed. He is:
...why do I just have this vision of Republican strategists scrambling to secretly prop Hillary up as they prepare for the general election?
Seriously. Maybe the drawn out campaign for the presidency is paying some dividends this election cycle. As time passes, more and more of the weaknesses and personality flaws of Clinton rise to the surface. Suddenly the candidate of the Establishment is much less of a shoe-in.
But, again, if I was a particularly sneaky Republican strategist, I'd be doing everything I could to prop her up through the Primaries because I think she's actually the weakest of the big three Dems come game time.
