Earlier today Colin Powell announced his endorsement of Barack Obama for President. What does this mean?
[1] Fewer people making an issue of Barack Obama’s limited experience.
[2] More people wondering what John McCain was thinking when he picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate.
[3] More people criticizing McCain for the Bill Ayers guilt by association attacks on Obama.
[4] More people accepting Obama’s claim that he can work with Democrats and Republicans alike.
[5] Some people wondering if race had anything to do with Powell’s endorsement.
Powell’s endorsement is big, much bigger than any other previous endorsement (although that’s been said about many endorsements including Kennedy’s and Kerry’s). I don’t see how McCain can recover, especially since so many of his attacks on Obama (lack of experience, liberalness, Bill Ayers association) are directly or indirectly refuted by Powell. I’ll be interested to see what the McCain campaign does for the next two weeks.
I am traveling today, but just wanted to throw up a question for discussion. Does Hurricane Gustav help or hurt the Republicans? There has been a lot of debate over the situation: here,here, and here, to name a few. Thoughts?
With the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate there was a short-lived feeling among Democrats that Palin was vulnerable on her lack of experience. Sensing an opportunity, Obama spokesman Bill Burton quickly released a statement mocking Palin’s short resume. He noted that only two years ago, before her current tenure as Alaska’s governor, Palin’s biggest political credential was being mayor of an Alaskan town of 8,500 people called Wasilla. But the statement was soon retracted. The reason, no doubt, was fear of falling into McCain’s so-called “brilliant trap”. This trap, by inducing the Obama campaign to criticize Palin for her lack of experience, would highlight Obama’s own limited experience. It would also draw him into a shouting match with the bottom half of the Republican ticket, not the most flattering role for the Democratic standard-bearer.
At risk of falling into this trap ourselves, let’s give some thought to the experience question. How does experience qualify one for the presidency? What are the most important experiences? Does Palin have them? Does Obama have them?
To start, not all experiences are created equal. Certainly being the governor of California is a more impressive experience than being the governor of Alaska. California, after all, has more than thirty-six million citizens while Alaska has only 683,000. But let’s not stop there. Would it be reasonable to say that the mayors of Austin, TX, Columbus, OH, and Jacksonville, FL have equally impressive resumes as Sarah Palin? Probably, since Austin, Columbus, and Jacksonville each have larger populations than the entire state of Alaska. But no one’s called John Peyton, Michael Coleman, or Will Wynn to tell them they were on the short list for a VP nomination. And for good reason: they’re not particularly qualified. Of course that’s only to say that Sarah Palin’s meager resume is no qualification for the vice presidency of the United States. Although one Fox News analyst believes that Alaska’s proximity to Russia gives Palin some sort of foreign policy expertise. Huh?
But what about Barack Obama’s supposed lack of experience? Can Bill Burton still criticize Palin’s resume and avoid hypocrisy in supporting Obama?
The answer is yes, Palin can (and should) be criticized for her lack of experience, even by Obama supporters. This is because Barack Obama does have the experience to be president. Put aside, for a moment, his eight years as an Illinois Senator and four years as a US Senator. These qualifications are already impressive, but I agree with critics who worry that twelve years of legislative experience are not enough. Fortunately Obama has another qualification on his resume: Nominee of the Democratic Party for President of the United States of America. In a campaign that lasted for twenty months, spanned all fifty states, Puerto Rico, and Guam, witnessed twenty-six debates, and faced relentless 24/7 media coverage, Obama came out ahead. His personal management of the campaign is testament to his outstanding leadership ability. Even when Obama trailed both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton in the polls, and Clinton appeared to be the inevitable nominee, Obama never gave up. Instead, his record-breaking fundraising in early 2008 set the stage for his shocking upset of Clinton, concluding with his nomination at the DNC last week.
Obama’s experience running his national campaign is the right kind of experience to qualify him for the presidency. This is most true today, in a media driven age, when the presidency is more about management and judgment than it is about technical expertise. Obama has demonstrated both qualities; we know this because otherwise he wouldn’t be the nominee. Sarah Palin, however, has demonstrated neither quality. Yes, she has been successful in Alaska, but the stakes in Alaska are about as high as they are in, well, Jacksonville, FL. When it comes to the national stage she’s untested and grossly under-qualified.
Obama supporters fear not, you can criticize Palin’s inexperience and not worry about undercutting Obama. He’s plenty experienced and the voters agree.
UPDATE 8/31:
Now Cindy McCain’s claiming that Palin has “national security” experience because Alaska is close to Russia. Also check out Michael Kinsley’s analysis of Republican hypocrisy and John Podhoretz’s feeble defense of Palin’s candidacy (which proves Kinsley’s point).
Let’s get the superficial differences out of the way first. One of our vice-presidential candidates is a man and one is a woman. One’s from the continental US and one’s from northwest of Canada (that being Alaska). One is old and one is young. One’s never been in a beauty pageant and one’s a former beauty queen.
Now for the real differences. One’s political resume reads US Senator 1972-2008 and one’s reads Mayor of Wasilla, AK (pop. 8,500) 1996-2006. One knows national prominence on the basis of 35 years in the US Senate and extended chairmanships of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (1987-1995) and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (current). The other one knows national prominence on the basis of veep speculation during her two years (2006-2008) as Governor of Alaska. One has weathered critical coverage from the national media his whole career while one’s never been covered by the national media, until today.
One, of course, is Democrat VP nominee Joe Biden. The other is the surprise Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin.
The question now facing voters, in addition to the choice between Barack Obama and John McCain, is the choice between potential Commander-in-Chiefs should the unthinkable happen to our newly elected president. Could we trust Joe Biden and his 35 years of national experience? Absolutely. Could we trust Sarah Palin and her two year governorship of Alaska plus ten year stint as mayor of a town of 8,500? I don’t think so.
Plus we only have two short months to examine her candidacy. That is simply not enough time to vet a candidate for this nation’s second highest office. With Joe Biden, on the other hand, we’ve had 35 years to find faults (and we’ve certainly found some).
The presumptive nomination of Sarah Palin should also cast substantial doubt on John McCain’s judgment. Whereas Obama picked a running mate with strong credentials and experience, McCain picked a running mate with none whatsoever. Indeed, the Palin pick looks like a cynical ploy to win over disgruntled Hillary voters. This is not to suggest, of course, that they will be won over so easily. Surely anyone should recognize the deficiencies of a Palin vice-presidency or, heaven forbid, a Palin presidency.
Finally, this is not the same debate as Obama’s change vs. McCain’s experience. Obama was a raw and unknown candidate when he began his campaign over a year and a half ago, no doubt. But the intervening time has given us a chance to question, scrutinize, and debate Senator Obama. He has weathered the national stage like a veteran. But Palin, only a heartbeat away from the presidency, has faced no such scrutiny. Again, two months and one vice-presidential debate is just not enough exposure to know Palin’s presidential mettle (or lack thereof). John McCain has made a risky, foolish, and cynical decision which deserves our condemnation.
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?
Is that really an Obama campaign banner in front of the Western Wall? (And it’s in Hebrew?)
Before Obama arrived at the Western Wall today in Jerusalem
Consider that just earlier today, in a column at The Huffington Post, Obama supporter and Florida Democrat Robert Wexler called McCain’s criticism of Obama’s comments at Yad Vashem “shameful” and “unconscionable”. I’d like to agree with Wexler that it’s inappropriate to use “Senator Obama’s somber visit to Israel’s Holocaust Museum Yad Vashem as a backdrop to score cheap political points”, but it’s difficult to do so when Obama uses a separate visit to Judaism’s holiest site the Western Wall as a campaign photo op.
Politics is supposed to stop at the water’s edge. It certainly doesn’t belong at Yad Vashem or the Western Wall. Apparently the Obama and McCain campaigns just don’t care.
UPDATE 7/24:
It’s been reported that the Obama banners were distributed by the campaign itself. And Jerusalem Police spokesman Mickey Rosenfeld says this is not typical practice for political visits to the Western Wall.
