Summary Thoughts on Clinton & Obama

Hillary Clinton recently sent an email out to her campaign staff and supporters announcing that she will formally concede to Barack Obama. Today you will hear all the political talk shows discuss whether or not Obama will, or should, nominate Clinton as VP. I’d like to make two brief comments about Clinton’s email and Obama’s upcoming decision about his running mate.

First, one of the things that haunted Clinton this entire race was that many people did not feel like they knew what her own position was on various issues. Instead, it seems as if Clinton was willing to change her position according to whatever the current polls revealed about the people she was going to visit next. Now this is probably over exaggerated by the media, but I’m starting to think that the media is right. For example, in the email she sent out this morning Clinton writes,

“I know as I continue my lifelong work for a stronger America and a better world, I will turn to you for the support, the strength, and the commitment that you have shown me in the past 16 months. And I will always keep faith with the issues and causes that are important to you.”

Notice that she doesn’t say she will keep faith with the issues important to her, but the issues important to you. I think people want to vote for someone that truly believes in the things they believe in and not someone that will just support those things just because it will win an election.

On to Obama. Obama’s message this entire campaign is “Change You Can Believe In.” For this reason alone he cannot have Clinton as his VP. It’d be great for many reasons, but you cannot convince anyone you are about change when you have a Clinton as VP. The Clintons are as entrenched in traditional politics as anyone. If you are running on the platform of change then stay clear of the Clintons. Accept their support and say how great they have been and then move on to some governor that most people don’t know.

Obama’s “Change” platform still might be a difficult sell, even if he avoids Clinton as his running mate. I think John McCain is going to point out over and over the fact that Obama has almost never voted against his own party. How can Obama be about change if he just does what all the other Democrats do? Sure it will be a change from a Republican president to a Democratic one, but that would have happened with Clinton. Obama’s message is that politics is broken and he is the guy to fix it. He is going to have to do a great job explaining why he is about change but has always just done what his Democratic colleagues do.

It is interesting that Obama’s opponent seems to be more about change than he is. McCain has continuously “crossed the aisle” to work with Democrats and has been pummeled by right-wing talk show hosts for it. Many of these issues are what made me not want McCain as the nominee, but nevertheless, he seems much more willing to depart from traditional Republican stances than Obama is from traditional Democratic ones.

Do I think any of this will matter? No I don’t. In fact, I think Obama is going to win because he will successfully link McCain to Bush, the media loves him, he’s a great speaker, and people feel good about themselves when they vote for him. The thought of a young, black politician with almost no experience (compared to others) becoming President is about as close to achieving the “American dream” as one could get.

Obama and Annoying Spouses

Anyone that has been with a “significant other” for some time will have experienced a moment when the drive to some destination is complicated because of a wrong turn or two. Growing up, we often joked that any time it was unclear if we should turn right or left, whatever my mother said we should, we should probably do the opposite. My mother had a knack for directing us the wrong way at crucial moments. Thankfully, we often would just laugh at ourselves for listening to her again when we knew we should do just the opposite.

Others, however, are not as fortunate. Instead of moving on and figuring out , given the wrong turn, what the best course of action is now, they focus on that mistake and never let it go. Instead of saying, “We made a wrong turn, what’s the best thing to do to right the course”, they say, “I told you then that we shouldn’t go this way, now we’re all screwed up; we might as well just go home.”

This latter, annoying, spouse seems strikingly similar to Barak Obama and the war in Iraq. We all know, because he can’t go five minutes without reminding us, that he voted against going to war with Iraq while McCain and Clinton voted for it. What Obama seems to not get is that, we are at war in Iraq right now! Focusing on what we should have done is not going to help us to decide what to do now. Even if we grant that going to war was a mistake, that doesn’t mean the best thing to do is just go home. If it is, give us an argument for it that doesn’t depend on the earlier decision to go.

What Obama needs to do is convince us that the best course of action now is to leave Iraq. That is a completely separate issue from whether we should’ve gone in the first place. If he wants to bring that up in addressing Clinton’s ability to make decisions, that is fine. But, again, that’s different from addressing what we should do in Iraq, given that we are there now.

Obama is fortunate to not have any tough questions from the main stream media because what he says about this just makes no sense. Obama says we should get out of Iraq and focus on Al-Qaida in Afghanistan. He justifies this by saying that going to Iraq diverted our attention from Afghanistan and we need to get back to that original mission. That’s all fine and dandy, except there is one big problem. Al-Qaida is in Iraq right now.

I wish someone would ask Obama just this one question, “Why do you think fighting Al-Qaida in Afghanistan is a good thing, but fighting Al-Qaida in Iraq is a bad thing?” I would love to hear if he could respond to such a question without pointing out that we shouldn’t have gone to Iraq in the first place. What would make things really difficult, if someone in the media would push him on it, is that he’s said that staying in Iraq would be an option if there were Al-Qaida attempting to establish a base there. So, what exactly does he think Al-Qaida is doing in Iraq right now, shopping? (Earlier in the week McCain mocked him on this, and should continue to do so.)

So, am I misreading Obama’s remarks on Iraq and Afghanistan? Am I wrong to think his argument for leaving shouldn’t rely on whether we should’ve gone?

Prosperity & Clinton

This is a sign in Newberry, South Carolina that points to the nearby towns of Prosperity and Clinton. (Click the photo to direct to the Yahoo page where the photo originated.)

Clinton & Other Dems on Terrorism

I’m not sure if I’ve ever said this before, but I think Senator Clinton is right (well, at least about one thing). In the New York Times there is an article describing the widespread disagreement between Clinton and other Democratic hopefuls about whether or not the United States is safer now than before 9/11. Clinton’s position is basically this, we are safer now than we were before, but because of Bush’s bumblings in Iraq and other places, we’re clearly not safe enough. What appears to be everyone else’s position on the issue, because Bush’s bumbling in Iraq has created more terrorists, we are now less safe than before 9/11.

Now I’m undecided if the lack of terrorist attacks on the U.S. since 9/11 means we are safer, though I do think our knowledge of foiled attacks does signify something. But what I think is really queer is how many of the Democratic hopefuls jump from the possibility of there being more terrorists to the reality that the U.S. is less safe. I’m convinced it’s just a red herring that the Dems hope will give them another chance to blast another Bush policy. I think their argument for us being less safe would go like this:

1. Terrorists were a threat to the U.S. before 9/11.
2. Since 9/11 Bush has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and in doing so, has created more terrorists.
3. If there are more terrorists in the world, then there are more people with a desire to harm the U.S.
4. More people that desire to harm the U.S. means that the U.S. is less safe now than before 9/11.
5. Therefore, Bush has once again screwed up America and despite all his efforts, we are less safe.

This may not be exactly how their argument goes, but from reading accounts of last night’s debate, it sure seems like it’s the gist of it. So why do I think appealing to the idea that there are more terrorists now than before is a red herring? Well, notice that in the argument above there is no mention about improved methods for thwarting terrorist attacks. Let’s say the rate of inflation continues at about 4-5%. Inflation stinks because if you own a home, if its appreciation rate is not outpacing inflation, then you’re losing money (you know, given insurance, maintenance costs, and interest on the mortgage). But, if the appreciation of your home is outpacing inflation, then it’s not as bad as it could be. I think you see the analogy. If there are more terrorists today, but the U.S.’s efforts at thwarting attacks has ‘outpaced’ the growth of terrorists, then we are safer. Notice this doesn’t mean having more terrorists is a good thing, it just means that having more terrorists doesn’t automatically mean we are less safe. The failure of most of the candidates to even address the fact that most agencies at home and abroad are more effective now is just an attempt to discredit everything Bush does.

I’m not sure if I’ll ever say this again, but, Senator Clinton, I think you’re right.