The vice-presidential debate: Joe Biden vs. Joe Six-pack

The catastrophe that is Sarah Palin knows no bounds. Tomorrow night she debates Joe Biden, the absurdly more qualified Democratic vice-presidential candidate who is expected to restrain himself from criticizing Palin too heavy-handedly (lest she rally the pity vote). But Biden’s strategy may be too timid. In recent days Palin has styled herself the “Joe Six-pack” candidate, a reference as pathetically self-congratulatory as McCain’s “original maverick” intonation in the presidential debate last week. But who knows, maybe this phrase will stick and Palin will reverse the Democratic gains from the past two weeks.

Which is exactly why Biden can’t be timid in tomorrow night’s debate. If Sarah Palin wants to call herself Joe Six-pack, so be it. There’s little Biden or Obama can do to dispel the notion that our moose-hunting friend from Alaska shares more in common with the average Joe than career politician Biden or ivy leaguer Obama. But what Biden can do (and Obama should do) is suggest that while Palin may indeed be Joe Six-pack incarnate, she doesn’t have any answers to the big important questions like Iraq, the financial crisis, Russia, inequality, education, etc. In other words, don’t let her claim to be a more capable representative of the people. But this shouldn’t be so hard. As we saw in the Katie Couric interviews, Palin is more than capable of embarrassing herself without too much effort from the other party. Biden, however, would serve himself and Obama well to highlight these mistakes and explain, humbly but directly, why Sarah Palin is unfit to serve as vice president of the United States.

A narrow foreign policy debate

They talked about the financial crisis. They talked about Iraq, Venezuela, Iran, and Russia, and about restoring America’s respect in the world. So granted, McCain and Obama provided answers on several important foreign policy issues facing our country today.

But what about trade? What about development? What about democracy promotion? What about the catastrophic failure of the Doha Round at the WTO? The complete omission of these topics from the so-called “foreign policy” debate borders on negligence. Of course American voters may not be interested in such topics (do they understand the significance of Doha?), but the job of the moderator and indeed the candidates is to hold themselves to a higher standard. Besides, if we want to fight global terrorism, or prevent a global economic recession, or restore our respect in the world, we could start by rewarding our allies with trade deals, supporting third world development, ensuring that responsible democracies have the resources to survive their perilous first years, and, above all, by committing ourselves to the vitally important Doha Round of trade talks at the WTO. These issues may not have the Cold War glamor of confronting Russia, or the “I told you so” quality of the Iraq question, but they are just as, or more, important to the future safety, security, and prosperity of our country.

The debate and the financial crisis: they’re both politics

So John McCain has decided to attend tonight’s debate. That’s good news for everyone who cares who leads the United States for the next four or eight years.

Before moving on the main event, we should all take a moment to ponder John McCain’s puzzling and opportunistic suggestion that he wouldn’t attend the debate and instead would focus on more important (less political) matters, such as the financial crisis.

But it’s ridiculous to separate the two events as political and apolitical, respectively. The debate is concerned with choosing the next president, a decision that couldn’t be more relevant for the resolution of the crisis. And the crisis itself is wholly embedded in the political processes of the country. Secretary Paulson will propose a bail-out, the Congress will consider it, and it may or may not pass (depending on Pelosi, other Democratic leadership, etc). McCain’s implicit suggestion that the ‘dirty’ business of politics ought to be set aside for the ’serious’ business of running the country is either bizarrely naive or cold-heartedly calculating and opportunistic.

Fortunately we’ll have our opporunity to see Obama and McCain in action tonight. But be wary of any candidate who tries to play the “I’m too good for politics” card (which is all too common). Neither of them are too good for politics–they’re both politicians! And they continue to run the same dumb and less than truthful attack ads on television. Instead of a debate about who cares more about the country, I’m hoping to hear persuasive answers to questions like: “What are we going to do about Iraq?”, “How will we resolve the financial crisis?”, “How will we achieve these objectives?”.

Response: Know the reality behind the words

This post started as a comment to “John Bolton’s farcical ‘realism’”, but I think it’s worth considering separately.

Oddly enough, I agree with part of Mr. Bolton’s quote:

…’walls’ exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict.

However, I would argue that the “walls” are clearly metaphorical and the “human conflict” that results is not necessarily “conflict” per se, but can (and must) result in the positive recognition of differences and the discussion that can perhaps lead to mutually shared values. Recognizing these differences is essential, provided that we realize that very few differences between people are truly intractable.

The rest of his quote seems ridiculous. Having an English teacher for a parent, I almost never correct grammar because I find it annoying, but I think in this case correcting Mr. Bolton’s grammar reveals a major flaw in his thinking. He claims that the Berlin Wall was a result of the “hostility of communism toward freedom”. The flaw in this statement is that communism is an idea, not a thing, and it, on its own, cannot have any hostility toward anything. It is the people who hold certain ideas who can be hostile, not the ideas themselves. The reason I bring this up is that it is a prevalent flaw of politicians, particularly current ones, and it has real implications. The most obvious example is the “war on terror”, which led the US (and NATO, in one case) into wars with Iraq and Afghanistan, not “terror”, because that would be impossible. The problem with this is that we will never rid the world of terror or people who would like us to suffer from it. Attacking the idea, and not those who hold it or the conditions which drive them to take those positions, is precisely what leads us into incoherent policy and inescapable military commitments.

To be fair about it, Obama’s use of the word hope is, I fear, equally dangerous. “Hope”, on its own, cannot be audacious, the people who are hopeful are. But people have real goals and real aspirations, hope does not. The worry about Barack Obama is that this talk of hope allows him to gain the favor with the American public without anyone familiarizing themselves with what “hope” actually stands for. Once he starts enacting policies, people may realize that the kool-aid they drank during the campaign tastes a little more bitter than they thought.

The root of this problem is the citizen. It is our responsibility to know the true nature and policy of these ideas and make sure that we don’t just blindly accept the ideology. So how do we sift through the semantics? Moreover, how do we start to change the behavior of our leadership so they actually provide information and not just empty statements? That’s our challenge. Its time to get informed.

Any chance McCain or Obama shares the ticket with the other party?

First it was Democrat Joe Lieberman endorsing Republican John McCain for President. Then we found out that former GOP Secretary of State Colin Powell is considering voting for Obama in November. Finally, long time Republican Senator Chuck Hagel has even accompanied Obama on his week long campaign visit to the Middle East and Western Europe. Of course this sort of crossing the aisle is nothing new: everyone remembers Democratic Senator Zell Miller’s bizarre appearance as the keynote speaker at the 2004 Republican convention, for example. But what makes this year unique is the persistent speculation that Lieberman might join the McCain ticket or Hagel might join the Obama ticket. Does this make sense for either candidate?

Probably not for McCain. McCain does need a bold pick (Jindal or Palin would do), but picking Lieberman exposes one of his biggest weaknesses: the wavering support of the religious right. Aside from foreign policy, Lieberman’s relatively liberal. If McCain adds a pro-choice semi-Democrat to the ticket, the religious right might very well stay home. Plus Lieberman has alienated so many Democrats with his defeat of Ned Lamont in 2006 and his premature criticism of Obama that it remains to be seen just how many new votes he would carry as a vice-presidential candidate. McCain would probably do better to shore up his base with a more conservative pick, or broaden his appeal with a like-minded moderate Republican.

Hagel makes more sense for the Obama ticket than Lieberman does for the McCain ticket. If Obama picked the Nebraska Republican he might be able to reclaim some of his early bipartisan credentials that were overwhelmed by “most liberal senator in the Senate” accusations. Plus Hagel would add a strong military and foreign policy resume to a ticket mostly bereft of any international experience. And Hagel’s even more popular among Nebraska Democrats than Republicans, at least according to one poll.

Obama with Senator Hagel and General Petraeus in Iraq.

Still, Hagel’s right of center (although in a libertarian sort of way) and would no doubt ruffle a few feathers amongst Obama’s far left coterie (that’s already angry about shifts to the center on Iraq, campaign finance, and trade). My guess is that Hagel lands a Cabinet level position in the Obama administration, most likely Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense. But he wouldn’t make a half-bad veep pick either. Obama clearly likes Hagel enough to invite him on his overseas trip and that’s critical in the selection process.

Will Democrats and Republicans share the White House next year? I doubt it, but an Obama-Hagel ticket might make sense. Thoughts?

If Barack Obama were President…

We’d get along with everyone, or so has been the storyline of his recent tour of the Middle East and Western Europe. At the halfway point of his trip, Obama’s met with literally everyone: Hamid Karzai, Nouri al-Maliki, Jalal Talabani, King Abdullah, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Mahmoud Abbas, Shimon Peres, Ehud Olmert, plus several governors, mayors, and other dignitaries. His reception has been overwhelming friendly, complete with smiling photos ops, glowing praise, and fawning media coverage.

Obama with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani earlier this week.

And that doesn’t even include the Western European portion of the trip, where Obama is expected to meet with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The New York Times reports the Germans are expecting the crowd at Obama’s public Berlin address to be as high as ONE MILLION (!). What, one million protesters (like when Bush visits)? No — more likely one million adoring fans, German no less.

Obama’s media team has been careful to remind reporters that there’s only one president, that this trip is not a policy-making trip, but come on, what kind of US senator gets one million Germans to turn out for a glorified campaign speech? Maybe one who’s getting a little ahead of himself? Does Obama mean to suggest that as President he’d enjoy this kind of international support?

Or maybe we’re all to blame — perhaps we’ve bought in so easily to Obama’s charm that it’s blinded us to the fact that he’s a politician who does stupid things domestically (supporting the farm bill, destroying campaign finance) and is likely to do them abroad given the chance. The New York Times even reports that comedians are struggling to find funny Obama material. Apparently he’s too pure. Huh?

It’s easy for leaders like al-Maliki and Karzai to cozy up to Obama when he’s a media-managed starlet, but once he’s been in office for a time and had to make hard decisions, he probably won’t draw a million Germans to hear him speak. Or if he does, they’ll be there to protest his decision to stay in Iraq for another year or his unrelenting support for American farm subsidies that impoverish the third world. As David Aaronovitch, columnist for the Times of London, tellingly observes, eventually we will all hate Obama.