Dining With Rivals: Obama to Honor McCain, Biden and Powell at Pre-Inauguration Event

According to the Associated Press, President-elect Barack Obama will host three dinners during the week of his inauguration in order to honor "leaders who worked across party lines." On the night before the inauguration ceremony Obama will recognize John McCain, Joe Biden and Colin Powell as individuals who put "their country ahead of their political party."

Cynicism Overload Alert: Isn't this the exact same campaign message upon which McCain ran, but which Democrats and Obama blasted and contested almost to the point of overkill?

Also, aside from saying he believes in affirmative action and endorsing Obama, how has Powell challenged his party? Depending upon your political ideology, you might not even agree that he put country first during these discrete moments of "rebellion." And when has Biden ever contested the Democrats on substantial issues? I do not recall him ever disagreeing with the Democrats in a very public way that mattered. Perhaps a reader could fill in this blank.

This news of the dinners comes directly from the inaugural committee, according to the article. So, it looks official.

I accept the fact that Obama apparently wants to go down in history as the president who loves his election opponents once he can do so safely. But at some point, the reconciliation movement will begin to look too peculiar. The nomination of Hillary Clinton, whom he said lacked judgment, as Secretary of State has already tested the limits of my cynicism. But honoring McCain, whom Obama called erratic and out of touch seems a bit much, especially using the "country first" theme. But perhaps I'm too critical. What do you think?

Frum Is Dumb: Former Bush Speechwriter's "Interesting" Analysis of Hillary Clinton

The American political landscape is surreal at the moment, which makes me open to a lot of unusual things. But my flexibility has some limits. Today, David Frum, a former speechwriter for President Bush, offered his analysis regarding Obama's decision to select Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Frum has tested my limits.

Obama Engaging in "Tough Politics" and Now in "Control" of Clinton
During an interview with CNN, Frum provided this interesting perspective on Obama's decision to pick Clinton:

[She] has just moved from having an independent power base in the Senate to being in effect an employee of Barack Obama. And not just any employee, but one who has had to open her files to Barack Obama.

Just imagine the scene of the Obama people going through the Clinton files and saying, "Wow, this could be embarrassing if anybody ever found out about it. Don't worry, it's safe with us."

He has just cemented his enormous power over her, and the sentimental idea out there that he's reaching for a rival and padding the dust off her and bringing her into a Cabinet to be his rival -- no, he's putting her into his Cabinet in order to control her. It's a pretty impressive display of tough politics.

Response: Certainly Clinton, like any other cabinet member, will serves at the will of the President. But anyone with a knowledge of politics knows that cabinet members typically have a lot of say in formulating policy. The Bush administration, however, operated like a dictatorship; perhaps this clouds Frum's analysis. Clinton will clearly implement Obama's policy perspectives, but it is becoming abundantly clear that Obama and Clinton probably do not differ too much in terms of policy (certainly not to the degree advanced by Obama's supporters during the primaries). Besides, if Obama simply wanted to "control" Clinton, he could have picked her as his running mate or appointed her to a less powerful cabinet position.

Also, Clinton is not just any other staffer. She won 18 million votes in the Democratic primaries, and has a large following. That, in fact, explains why people (including Frum) continue to debate her. The pro-Hilary crowd will not vanish simply because she now occupies a high-level position in Obama's cabinet. Having Clinton in the cabinet will keep her from publicly criticizing Obama, but this does not mute her fanbase. Besides, if I am correct, and the two share a similar vision on foreign policy, then they will probably see eye-to-eye on most issues anyway.

Finally, I am not sure whether too many damaging documents concerning Clinton still exist. But even if they do, once she becomes part of Obama's administration, the two politicians' destinies become more united. Her embarrassments become his, and vice versa. Neither has an interest in slamming the other once they begin working together.

Clinton Was "Trapped" Into Accepting the Job By Press Leaks
When asked why Clinton would take a job that requires her to cede her independence, Frum says: "Well, I think part of it, she was trapped. The series of leaks that happened over the past week; they leaked the news of the offer. Barack Obama looks of course very magnanimous, making such an offer. . . Could she afford to say no and look like she was keeping some kind of grudge? And that might put her on the outs for a lot of Democrats for whom Barack Obama is the leader" (italics added).

Response: Leaks happen for a reason. One explanation: people hold on to juicy news items about as well as newborn babies control their bladders. DC is a leak machine, and Obama's decision to nominate his former rival is about as sensational as it gets. Beyond this reality, I imagine that both sides were playing the media in order to get leverage. Obama probably wanted Clinton to make a quick decision, but he benefited from the leak because it allows him to demonstrate that he has no "hard feelings" towards Clinton.

But once the press got hold of the story, Clinton benefited from stretching out the decision. The longer it bounced around, the more it looked like she controlled his transition process. A media circus could have occurred. Behind the scenes, the two were negotiating a lot of things, including Clinton's authority over hiring her own staff and the release of Bill Clinton's financial dealings. Apparently both sides won. Clinton has secured a "purge" of Obama's aides who said the most vicious things about her during the campaign, and Obama gets husband Bill to turn over documents. Joy.

Frum's assertion that Clinton needed to accept the position in order to demonstrate that she did not hold a grudge against Obama is disconnected from political reality. There are many Democrats who do not like Clinton and believe that she is the antithesis to Obama. If she turned down the job, this crowd would have cheered. Right now, the crowd is crying over Obama picking Clinton and many others from the Clinton administration.

Biden Might Eclipse Clinton on Foreign Policy
Frum also argues that Biden might become as strong Vice President as Dick Cheney and eclipse Clinton. Frum wonders whether Clinton will simply "take orders from the vice president, Joe Biden, who also has a lot of strong policy ideas, and who may end up having a role not unlike that of Dick Cheney. . . And maybe not as powerful quite as Dick Cheney, but he's got a big institutional base, a lot of strong foreign policy ideas. There will be some rivalry there."

Response: This is probably Frum's strongest argument, but I imagine Obama and Clinton have worked out the details of "power" during the long delay. And if reports which say that Clinton has secured a purge of her enemies from Obama's foreign policy team are accurate, then I imagine they have worked out the potential Biden-Clinton conflict. Also, Clinton and Biden are even closer on foreign policy than she and Obama. Accordingly, Frum's analysis probably exaggerates potential conflicts between Clinton and Biden.

But Obama has not announced a project for Biden yet. If Biden's role centers more on foreign policy, then he and Clinton could clash. I predict that Biden will play a greater role ushering Obama's legislative agenda through Congress. Domestic matters are subject to legislation far more than foreign policy initiatives. Accordingly, Biden's experience in the Senate could prove highly useful for Obama as he seeks to implement his policy vision.

Concluding Thoughts: I cannot pretend to know how this will evolve. But Frum's analysis does not sit well with me. What do you think?

Ombudsman Concludes that the Washington Post Was In the Tank!

After the public began turning against the Iraq War, the New York Times and the Washington Post both conceded that they were literally and figuratively in the tank with Bush. The newspapers admitting either failing to publish anti-war stories or refusing to place them on their front pages. They also rushed to publish pro-war stories without confirming the accuracy of the content.

Today, Deborah Howell, the Washington Post Ombudsman, released a report (which remarkably concluded the night of the election) that shows that the Washington Post tilted towards Obama in its coverage. The results confirm opinion polling data and a study by the Pew Center which show that voters found the election coverage biased and that the content of media coverage heavily favored Obama. Here is a slice of the article:

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen.
John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than
there were about Obama (32), and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement.
The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about
McCain.

Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered
those devoted to McCain. Post reporters, photographers and editors -- like most
of the national news media -- found the candidacy of Obama, the first African
American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the
new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more
scars from his longer career in politics...

One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission. However, I do not agree with those readers who thought The Post did only hatchet jobs on her. There were several good stories on her, the best on page 1 by Sally Jenkins on how Palin
grew up in Alaska.

Related Reading on Dissenting Justice:

2 Politico.Com Reporters Concede Media Biased, Blame McCain

ABC News Takes on Issue of Media Bias and Concludes: It Exists

Poll: 55% of Voters Believe Media More Biased Than in Past Elections

Washington Post Proclaims That "Sarah Palin Picks Ferraro as Favorite Vice President." Shocking -- Yes. Truthful -- No.

CNN and CBS Release Highly Misleading Polls Regarding VP Debate

New York Times to Hillary Clinton: "Call Off the Dogs"

Another Study Proves That 1+1=2, Or That the Media Love Obama, Hate McCain/Palin, and Who's Biden?

CNN and CBS Release Highly Misleading Polls Regarding VP Debate

According to most media accounts, last night's vice presidential debate was a thriller. Sarah Palin received much of the focus due to her lackluster performances in recent television interviews. But I stated in a blog post prior to the debate that pundits should not dismiss Palin, because many of her failings of late could result from her lacking the experience engaging the national media. Also, many Republicans said that Palin had been overly handled but that they were now "freeing Sarah." Well, she certainly seemed more comfortable, poised, and well versed last night, just like she did in some of her earlier outings. Biden pulled in a great performance as well -- given his tremendous experience.

Several polls have emerged since the debate which try to tell viewers "who won." All of these polls are hopelessly flawed.

CNN/Opinion Research

CNN declares on its website that "Debate Poll Says Biden Won, Palin Beat Expectations." The specifics of the poll show that 51% of those polled thought that Biden did better, while 36% gave the nod to Palin. But the poll does not disclose the party affiliation or candidate preferences of the individuals surveyed. Evaluating performance in a debate that lacked any real "knockout" punch will inevitably turn on partisan preferences. So, this poll is absolutely useless without information concerning the ideology and politics of the individuals evaluating the candidates.

This same problem plagued CNN's polling of the presidential debate. Then, the headlines declared Obama the winner, and the national media reprinted the results widely. But if you actually read the full article, rather than the headlines as many people do, the pollster actually conceded that the survey polled far more Democrats than Republicans and that if one adjusted for party affiliation, the result was a "tie." Remarkably, the latest CNN poll does not give us any information regarding the party affiliation or candidate preferences of those surveyed. It simply declares Biden the winner.

CBS News

CBS News also released a poll concluding that Biden won the debate. On the surface, this poll seems to avoid CNN's mistake of not telling the reader the candidate preferences of the individuals polled. Why? The poll purports to provide the opinions of "uncommitted" voters.

Well, like a good lawyer, I read the fine print, and I found that uncommitted includes voters who are truly undecided and voters who have already chosen a candidate, but who "could still change their minds." So, some of the individuals polled are already leaning towards a candidate. The poll fails to provide a breakdown of their choices.

Studies show that people tend not to change their minds this late in an election cycle. So many of these so-called uncommitted individuals are probably sold on a candidate and probably thought that candidate won the debate. Because CBS News does not reveal what portion of the uncommitted voters actually preferred a candidate or the party affiliation of those polled, it is difficult to isolate bias in this survey. Accordingly, the poll is worthless.

Drudge Report and FoxNews

I have seen several websites citing to polls on the Drudge Report and FoxNews.Com. Unlike CNN and CBS, however, these media outlets have not officially released the results of the polls. The Drudge Report poll shows that Palin won by a landslide, while the FoxNews.Com polls shows that Biden won.

This category is very easy to dissect, mainly because both polls are online surveys. First, the polls are just as bad as the CNN and CBS polls because they fail to provide information about the candidate preferences of those who participated. Also, web polls in general are highly biased and inaccurate. You have to own a computer to participate (which could exclude older or poor people). But more relevant in this instance, you have to read the particular web page that conducted the poll in order to vote. Also, it is commonly known that people often "flood" webpages that they usually do not visit in order to influence the results of online polls. Thus, these polls fail to provide random samples and are thefore easily dismissed.

So Who Really Won?

The debate was very interesting, and I think objective commentators, to the extent that such exist, would find that Palin exceeded expectations and connected better to voters in terms of her style, but that Biden was more seasoned and specific. Beyond that, the person you wanted to win probably won. So who needs the polls anyway?

Message from the Professor: If you enjoy the commentary on this site, please subscribe to Dissenting Justice. You have the option of receiving daily email digests of blog essays or to access blog material in your favorite feed reader (or both!).

Like a Moose Caught in the Headlights? How Will Sarah Palin Do Tonight?

The stakes for tonight's Vice Presidential debate are higher than in the average election. Most opinion polls show that vice presidential candidates usually do not significantly influence the final decisions of voters. Conventional wisdom, however, has not always proven helpful this year.

Initially, John McCain's selection of the virtually unknown and underexperienced Palin brought excitement to his campaign. The conservative base of the Republican party rallied around the ticket, GOP fundraising spiked, and Barack Obama's continual lead in the polls evaporated. Republicans proclaimed that the "Mac was back."

Well, after a series of underwhelming media performances, the luster around Sara Palin is beginning to wear thin. Some conservatives have openly called for McCain to drop her from the ticket. Democrats and late night television have had lots of fun at her expense. McCain now trails in the polls, and voters are not convinced that Palin is qualified to serve as Vice President (and certainly not President -- if the need arose).

So, with all of these developments, tonight's debate is critical for McCain's candidacy. The Obama team has played the typical expectations game, incredulously calling Palin a "terrific debater." Palin has responded in kind saying that Biden is a "great debater." But the edge certainly would go to Biden, given his experience in politics and his comfort with and history of engaging the media.

But Biden should not tread lightly. Many commentators have argued that Biden should not debate Palin too forcefully, lest he appear sexist. But the opposite -- debating lightly -- is sexist. It lowers the bar for a woman. It demonstrates that we should not expect much from women in terms of politics and intellect. Biden should give Palin the grace and respect due any other candidate.

I had similar thoughts during the Democratic primaries when many people passionately (if not neurotically) attempted to shield Obama from even the slightest criticism and distorted the harshness of critiques he received. Many of the arguments that Clinton made during the primaries were typical fodder for elections -- not a violent throwing of the "kitchen sink" or kneecpapping" of a candidate, as many Obama supporters described them. This type of paternalism benefits no one. And it certainly is not antiracist or antisexist.

Based on her interviews with Katie Couric and Charles Gibson, Palin has a tough road ahead. In the best light, Palin's lackluster performances likely result, in part, from her relative newness to the national press -- one that is usually tough during campaigns (probably even tougher with Republicans this year). Her inexperience may make her come across as did James Stockdale, Ross Perot's running mate in 1992. Stockdale, like Perot, had absolutely no experience in politics, but he lacked the charm and charisma of his running mate. His performance during the debate that year was such a disaster that even Dan Quayle emerged looking sophisticated. At one moment, Stockdale told the moderator to repeat a question because he neglected to turn on his hearing aid. It was a mess.

Experienced politicians -- experienced speakers generally -- know how to appear polished; they know how to evade answers, but still give something coherent to listeners; they know how to come across smart or just competent, even when they are completely unprepared. Palin does not have the level of experience on the national stage -- or in politics -- to give her advantages in this area. Coupled with her lack of knowledge of many national and international issues, her performance could destroy McCain's campaign.

Despite her lack of experience and credible political background, one should not count out Palin. I have watched footage of her in prior media interviews (before her vice presidential campaign), and she came across as very poised and knowledgeable. Granted, many of the topics related to Alaska-specific concerns such as state energy policy, in which she is well versed. Nevertheless, she was not stuttering and lost for words. She had a script, but she could deviate from it and offer deeper answers. She seemed sufficiently polished. Also, Palin excellently delivered her speech (admittedly scripted) at the Republican National Convention. If she is "on" tonight, she could help revitalize McCain's sagging campaign and reassure voters. Because the economy has probably done more damage to McCain's campaign than anything else, the current lead by Obama could easily dissipate if Palin can renew excitement in McCain's candidacy.

Many Republican operatives have blamed Palin's poor performances of late on her "handlers." They say that McCain's team has tried too hard to script her and to keep her narrowly tied to the talking points. They say that it is not her nature to speak in that fashion and that, as a result, she comes across as someone who is simply regurgitating materials and who is unable to offer any extemporaneous insights. According to some reports, McCain has assembled a new team for tonight's debate, and the word among "insiders" (unnamed, of course) is that a new Palin will emerge tonight. Although one has to consider the source of these proclamations, Palin's recent interviews do not come close to matching her performance in media appearances during her time in Alaska politics. But despite its proximity to Russia, Alaska politics does not involve foreign policy, and it has not exposed her to some of the important national issues (like the deficit) that a president encounters (due to its energy deposits, Alaska typically has a budget surplus). Nonetheless, I would not rush to conclude that this debate is a slam-dunk for Biden (who has his own issue with "gaffes"). Whatever the outcome, this one should prove very interesting, given the high stakes and uncertainty.

Does Biden Have a "Sniper" Issue?

Does Senator Joe Biden have a sniper issue? During the Democratic primaries, Senator Hillary Clinton became the laughingstock on nighttime and daytime television, "liberal" blogs, and among Obama supporters for falsely claiming that she was subject to sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia as "First Lady." Apparently, Joe Biden may have his own snipergate (look here and here), but so far it has not brought Democrats or the media to a lather.



While he was still a presidential candidate, Biden said during one of the debates that he had been "shot at" in Iraq, a statement he now disclaims. And recently, Biden similarly "mispoke" by stating that a helicopter carrying him, other senators, and a "three-star general" was "forced down" in the "superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan." The helicopter was indeed forced down -- due to a snowstorm, not a terrorist attack. Granted, Biden never claims that terrorism forced the helicpter down, but he never says that inclemanet weather required it to land either. Within the context of his statement, this omission leaves the impression that something sinister occurred.



I have long argued that Clinton received unequal treatment by some Democrats and (especially) the media during the Democratic primaries. This provides more evidence of my conclusion, which many others share. Yet, at the same time, I do not believe that distractions like this should have relevance in an election. But for Clinton, "snipergate" proved to many who already opposed her that she was unfit for president and even mentally unstable. I seriously doubt that anyone will make such claims about Senator Biden.



PS: Biden also voted for the Iraq War, but during the primaries, Senator Barack Obama said that Clinton's war vote showed a "lack of judgment." Obama also grilled Clinton on NAFTA and the pro-business bankruptcy reform legislation, but Biden voted for both laws. Clinton, of course, could not vote for NAFTA because she was First Lady at the time the legislation passed.

Who Won the Debate? Depends Upon Which Candidate You Support

The debate between John McCain and Barack Obama was pretty tepid, but it was good (and important) enough to warrant analysis. Partisans will definitely think "their guy" won, and each candidate provided the other with sufficient ammunition to claim victory.

What McCain Didn't Do for Obama

The Democrats wanted McCain to foam at the mouth like a rabid dog. He didn't. Instead, he came across as a senior statesman, offering tons of personal stories about handling problems in the past and even regretting some decisions. Several media outlets are making hay about him not making eye contact with Obama. I guess I was too bored to notice that.

What Obama Didn't Do for McCain

McCain needed Obama to look unsophisticated and raw. He didn't. He looked convincing on the stage.

Surprising Moments

Obama had the audacity to renew his argument that going to war was a bad decision. I agree that it was a bad decision, but choosing Joe Biden, who voted for the war, as a running mate diminishes the force of Obama's antiwar critique.

I was surprised that McCain raised the "experience" argument, which had defined much of his campaign against Obama until Sarah Palin's selection. Palin has a very skimpy resume, and most people believed that McCain had discarded the experience argument. Well, it's back, and it is now coupled with "you just don't get it" or "you are naive." McCain has begun to usurp Obama's slogans and use them against him ("change" and "you just don't get it").

Missed Opportunities

McCain missed the opportunity to expose Obama's inconsistency with respect to the war (saying it was a huge error, but picking Biden as a running mate), and Obama missed the opportunity to neutralize McCain's experience argument by either mentioning Palin or somehow showing that McCain's experience is a bad thing. He did this with Clinton in the primaries, but he was unable to do that during last night's debate.

Slip-Up

Obama said that Henry Kissinger does not disagree with the President of the United States speaking with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "without conditions." This actually came up during Sarah Palin's recent interview with Katie Couric. Couric did a "gotcha" on Palin, asking whether she thought Kissinger was naive (a charge McCain/Palin made of Obama) for wanting talks with Iran without conditions. Palin said that Kissinger, who advises McCain and Palin on foreign policy, does not believe this. Couric said that CBS had confirmed that he does. Gotcha!

Obama used the same argument during the debate, and McCain rebuffed him, saying that his "friend" does not support that position. Following the debate, Kissinger released a statement agreeing with McCain. Ouch. Well, not a huge ouch, but ouch. Turns out, he would support other governmental officials meeting with lower level Iranian officials, but not with either country's president, absent conditions. So this is the "Bush Doctrine" redux. Political scientists do not even agree what such a doctrine looks like (or even if it exists). Another failed gotcha.

McCain still cannot pronounce Ahmadinejad on the first try. Bless his heart.

Overall: Slight Nod to McCain

During the primaries, I watched the Democrats debate incessantly; so there was probably nothing Obama could have done that I had not already seen. I did not watch the Republicans during the primaries; so I was eager to see how McCain would perform. Although Democrats have portrayed McCain as a curmudgeon, he did not come across that way. This scores him major points, I believe, and makes any more argumentation on that issue look petty. Obama, however, did not look inept and raw, but still remains vulnerable to that charge, due to his relative lack of experience compared to McCain. Of course, if McCain emphasizes experience, then Palin becomes even more vulnerable than she already is.

I do believe that the public will probably declare McCain the winner, if they follow standards from previous presidential debates. As a good progressive, I was thoroughly convinced that Al Gore and John Kerry won their debates against Bush. Apparently, they did not sell themselves well to the public. Obama is his own candidate, but in many ways, he excites the same demographic as Gore and Kerry, but even more intensely. Highly-educated, coastal, liberal, professional types (like myself) will think he slaughtered McCain. To the rest of the country, he might have appeared a bit like a "know-it-all" (distinct from "uppity") and pious. Here's a message for highly-educated, coastal, liberal, professional types: you have to exit your own skin to try to appreciate this analysis.

These same portrayals tanked Gore and Kerry. In losing, they both were described as too bookish and self-righteous. Yet elite Democrats still seem incorrectly to believe that intellectual depth and nuance and the morality of liberal social democracy are winning arguments in presidential elections. If this were the case, then Gore and Kerry would have won, and Obama would be leading McCain by double-digits, especially given the tragedy of the war and the horrific economic conditions. The fact that the race is close should cause Democrats to rethink their presidential election strategies. Race has something to do with the closeness of the election, but it does not explain it altogether. The last two contests were close, as was Clinton's victory in 1992.

Although last night's debate was lackluster, next week's vice presidential debate could offer a lot of pizazz. The combination of Joe "Loose Cannon" Biden and Sarah "the Moose" Palin is too rich to ignore. Tune in next week for more analysis.