An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Prof. Marty Defends Rev. Wright

News Media Conventional Wisdom Shifting Fast On Hillary Clinton Chances »

I’m Totally Burnt Out on the Presidential Campaign

Posted by MARK DANIELS in Politics.
Mar 27th, 2008 | Comments

It looks like I’m not the only one.

The way I see it, on the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton cannot win the nomination and is unelectable…too many negatives…and Barack Obama has been rendered equally toxic by the Jeremiah Wright debacle. But those uncommitted superdelegates just might save the day for Dems, after all.

Here’s how: The superdelegates could remain uncommitted through the first ballot of the convention. Neither Obama or Clinton would then have enough votes to win, freeing their delegates to go elsewhere on the second ballot. The sd’s, ostensibly leaders of the party, then could reveal their choice, maybe Bill Richardson or Joe Biden. The convention could spend a ballot or two moving in that direction and then, after nominating the sd choice, give the vice presidential nomination to, say, Dianne Feinstein.

Of the three finalists on the Democratic side–Obama, Clinton, and John Edwards, the Senator from Illinois had the most substative experience, both in terms of time in elective office and relevant leadership experience. But the credentials of all three can’t compare to those of Richardson, Biden, or Feinstein.

I shared this bizarre scenario with my son on Tuesday. Yesterday, in a comment on one of my posts at The Moderate Voice, someone else mentioned the same fantasy.

It isn’t likely to happen. But, to quote the Animals, “we’ve gotta get out of this place” and this scenario may be the only thing to free us from this crazy, nasty, brutish campaign.

Last year, before the presidential campaign turned him once more into a Clinton attack hound, James Carville lamented his party’s penchant for stealing defeat from the jowls of victory. By this pre-convention campaign, the tone of which both he and his former boss so sanguinely endorse, the Democratic campaigns seem intent on giving John McCain a pass to the White House and making Carville look like Kreskin.

Assuming that neither Obama or Clinton go to the convention with enough delegates to win, an intervention on the part of the superdelegates may be the only thing that can salvage Democratic prospects.

Until then, as it relates to the presidential campaign, I’m tempted to go on sabbatical. Maybe I’ll go to Australia.

[UPDATE: Keep in mind that this post was fantasy. I've been on record since the day after the Iowa caucuses, saying that Obama would be the nominee. Of course, I had no idea of the long and strange road that would follow from then.]

[This has been cross-posted at my personal blog.]

T_Steel

Ah! The joys of not participating in the Big 2 processes. Since I've went back to my 3rd Party status, I'm much happier. But I still watch the process and hope that Dems work it out instead of "working it up".

Whocares

I think its been worked out. I think the convention will be Brokered. The first round ends in impasse. The second round puts up Bill Richardson as a potential nominee and Barak Obama releases his delegates to vote for Bill Richardson.

Along with the superdelegates and Obama's pledged delegates Bill Richardson is the nominee and his first act is to present the VP candidate.

Barak Obama.

Leaving Hillary holding the ball. I don't see Hillary accepting the VP slot but I do see Obama accepting of it for the good of the party.

Whocares

Bill Richardson and Barak Obama would put Bo there for 16 years and Bill Richardson besides his massive experience is as progressive as you get. Not to mention Hispanic.

Hispanic and Black....combine for 55 percent of America.....I think this would be a blow out coat tails might give the Democrats a 70/30 split in the Senate and 300 in the house.

mikkel

You guys are advocating a major change based on an event that polling shows has affected few people's choice?

Anyway, Biden and Richardson would be poor candidates for President. Biden would be a bad choice because he is not very diplomatic. I could see him constantly having to deal with foreign image snafus. Richardson would be good foreign relations wise but does a terrible job of projecting himself out to the people. In the debates etc he just looked nervous. I personally think he'd make a great VP choice for this reason (and if God forbid he had to become President from the VP slot his demeanor would actually be an asset).

Marlowecan

Whocares, what are you smoking?

Of course Obama will be the nominee. The media will accept nothing less.

It will be Obama-Richardson against McCain-Rice.

Personally, I don't like this, as I don't think much of Obama's Health plan, and think even less of McCain's (which can be put into a single bullet point, I believe).

Neither are particularly good on economic matters either. McCain admits this. Obama doesn't. But it is not good either way.

McCain is better on defense. Obama is better on inspiring and addressing racial divisions (Richardson will help his weakness on the Hispanic side).

The reporters like McCain, but media in general want Obama to win.

Thankfully, the sun will still rise on November 5 (as it might not with President-elect HR Clinton as a sign of Divine Wrath...hahahaha...).

Sadly, I think HRC might be the overall best of the three. I can't believe I would support the Anti-Christ, but there it is. Strange bedfellows. Anyhow, she won't be on the ticket.

What an election, indeed!

ChrisWWW

[...] this scenario may be the only thing to free us from this crazy, nasty, brutish campaign.

There is no way that this campaign qualifies as nasty or brutish. Crazy maybe. Either way, that doesn't preclude me from saying that the Clinton side has been the one throwing the dirtier punches, partly because she's losing, and partly because the good of the party is not as important to her as her ambitions.

But the credentials of all three can’t compare to those of Richardson, Biden, or Feinstein.

First off, Feinstein should be run out of office. She might as well join Lieberman in the Republican party. Is there any pro-Bush/hawkish legislation she hasn't supported in the last 7 years?

Richardson may have experience, and he seems like a nice guy, but he isn't inspiring and I don't think he will be forceful enough in making a case vs. McCain. Nader would do better in a debate. Seriously.

Biden wouldn't be an awful choice. He'd more forceful than Richardson, but he still lacks that inspirational quality. We could do a lot worse, but I fear he'd just be another John Kerry.

Assuming that neither Obama or Clinton go to the convention with enough delegates to win, an intervention on the part of the superdelegates may be the only thing that can salvage Democratic prospects.

Your plan of completely throwing out the results of the primaries and caucuses would utterly decimate any chance of a Democrat winning in November. Talk about disenfranchisement. The best option, clearly, is for Hillary Clinton to give up. There is no getting around that. She's behind in the popular vote, the state count, the pledged delegate count. She's alienated the black community. She doesn't have the youth vote and donor base.

All I know is that if McCain wins, I'll be joining you in Australia.

ChrisWWW

McCain is better on defense.

By what measure?

Marlowecan

ChrisWWW: McCain is better on defense...."By what measure?"

Experience on Defense Issues. Personal and in the Senate.

His father was an Admiral. His grandfather was an admiral. He was a pilot. His POW years were exemplary, and impressed even the N. Vietnamese.

McCain would put the "chickenhawk" meme to rest. There is simply NO WAY in the world folks at DailyKOS could apply this to him without being ridiculed.

You might not like his views on Iraq. But give him his due: McCain trumps Obama on defense.

Just as Obama trumps McCain as an inspirational figure using the "Bullypulpit" of the presidency to advance social and racial harmony (presuming he does so...I believe Obama certainly can if he so chooses).

pacatrue

While I was originally a Richardson supporter, and I guess still might be if he somehow was one of the 2 candidates still going, I don't see any good coming from the party bigwigs deciding the nominee and overruling their own party's voters. Recipe for disaster.

mikkel

Marlow why does his past mean he's better? Hagel has tons of experience and respect from the military (the reason why I think Obama should pick him as Def Sec) and he thinks that Iraq war is one of the biggest blunders in our history and said he could never work with McCain because their views are too different.

Marlowecan

Personally, I would long for the days of FDR or Truman.
Someone who one could support pretty much wholeheartedly.

Since then, it is "Pick and Choose" with the Presidency I believe. I am not sure why this is. I mean:
Kennedy was inspirational...but his Civil Rights views were appalling. He wouldn't even let Sammy Davis Jr. into the Convention.
LBJ was a great bizarre man...a Cracker who believed in Civil Rights and uplifting the poor and marginalized to the core of his being...yet got tangled in Vietnam, knowing (as recording have shown as early as 64) that it was a mistake.
Ever since...Yada yada.... pick and choose....

Marlowecan

Mikkel...the choice isn't McCain-Hagel...it's McCain-Obama.

McCain has more experience and knowledge of defense than Obama. The Pentagon has floated a number of balloons in recent weeks which were noted by some defense commentators. They are not getting involved in politics but are worried about Obama because - apart from withdrawal from Iraq (that many have no problem with) - they have NO IDEA what Obama's thoughts on defense specifically are. This unsettles them. Obama is obviously weak in this area.

You don't like the Iraq War. Lots of people don't. But it isn't one of the "biggest blunders in our history" by any measure. McCain's background informs him of that, in a way, that it doesn't for most.

Not to start a Flame war: but the 4,000 casualities in Iraq are miniscule in historic terms. The US lost 10,000 in one week on the Batan Death March. Or the bizarre "Three Trillion Dollar War" - a figure reached by the imaginary "opportunity costs". Fine. Then the Second World War - unlike Iraq, a Total War - by that measure would cost the US. 10, umpteenquadrillion zillion dollars...and don't even try to calculate the opportunity costs to the US of the Civil War.

Iraq has been costly. But in a longer frame -- that McCain has -- it may be seen as potentially worth the cost. Certainly not the worst blunder in US history (which probably belongs to Lincoln for tolerating the cretin McClelland and prolonging the Civil War).

ChrisWWW

His father was an Admiral. His grandfather was an admiral. He was a pilot. His POW years were exemplary, and impressed even the N. Vietnamese

Irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, and irrelevant. I'm not more qualified to be police chief because my father was a police officer. Being in the military does not mean you have the capacity to command the entirety of it, or the capacity to think on grand strategic terms.

McCain would put the "chickenhawk" meme to rest. There is simply NO WAY in the world folks at DailyKOS could apply this to him without being ridiculed.

He's not a chicken, but he is a hawk. I would think that term alone would carry enough negative connotations given our current predicament in Iraq. And for the record, being a hawk doesn't make you "better on national security."

You might not like his views on Iraq. But give him his due: McCain trumps Obama on defense.

McCain's views on Iraq show that he is trumped by Obama on defense.

“But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” - John McCain, Jan. 2003

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars." - Barack Obama, Oct. 2002

mikkel

Yeah well, Vietnam didn't look like such a bad blunder 5 years into it either. I'm just saying what Hagel said.

Anyway, what did you read about the Pentagon because I've read the exact opposite. I've read that he isn't that respected by the military brass and they are concerned about his temper. And like you've said, they want out of Iraq but McCain is going to keep them in there a long time.

Marlowecan

Mikkel said: "what did you read about the Pentagon because I've read the exact opposite. I've read that he isn't that respected by the military brass and they are concerned about his temper. "

Obama's temper? I think you mean McCain(?) The comments from the Pentagon were questions about what Obama's defense policies will be. They don't believe he will slash the budget or anything (he probably couldn't if he tried...given how it is spread around Congressional districts). They just don't know what he wants to do specifically. For example: there is a debate between a Petraeus clique and a more traditional army clique.

Petraeus is poison to many Democrats. However, many in the military believe his ideas are correct. One of Obama's key advisors worked on the Counter Insurgency Manual with Petraeus' team. Will Obama listen to her...or will he cave to liberal rage, cashier Petraeus and gut counter-insurgency? This might not seem to much outside the Pentagon...but they simply have no idea where he will go.

ChrisWWW said: "Irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, and irrelevant. I'm not more qualified to be police chief because my father was a police officer. Being in the military does not mean you have the capacity to command the entirety of it, or the capacity to think on grand strategic terms."

I utterly disagree. There is a world of difference between having a parent in a job, and being a part of a military culture extending for generations.

Being in the military does not mean you have the ability to command its entirety of it.

But Obama has NO military experience! None! Nada! He has never been under fire, or known what it means to see people die in combat.

In quoting Obama, you are, unintentionally, echoing HRC's famous comment:

"John McCain has a lifetime of experience...Senator Obama has one speech in 2002."

mikkel

Yeah "I've read that he isn't that respected by the military brass and they are concerned about his temper" refers to McCain.

Anyway, I think that Petraeus is completely correct about many military strategies and he, along with Nagl, give the Obama adviser (sorry, forgot her name) a lot of respect for her work in developing it.

But I also think that they know that in order for their ideas to work we will have to be there another 10-20 years at least. Heck, they have said this outright I don't have to think it.

The question is not whether Petraeus is right on military tactics, but whether the overall strategic objectives justify our presence on such a scale for so long. On this, I think it's not only clear that the American people would say not, but that many military officials think so too. Petraeus has been very careful to stay out of that debate (appropriately) but I've read there is a huge debate about this in the military and whether he should stand up to the civilians more.

I'd also like to point out that "the Pentagon" isn't very specific. After all, "the Pentagon" is technically the headquarters of the Defense Department, which is a civilian branch. Were all the concerns from actual uniformed members that worked at the Pentagon or military advisers or what? I would say that I can see why they would be extremely nervous about what Obama would do, but considering the generalities of McCain I don't see why they wouldn't have similar questions about him.

Hand wringing about one person doesn't necessarily imply support for another. From what I've read, the military is more concerned about getting hung out to dry by the government on both sides as much as any particular policy.

Marlowecan

Mikkel said: "I would say that I can see why they would be extremely nervous about what Obama would do, but considering the generalities of McCain I don't see why they wouldn't have similar questions about him."

Not "extremely nervous"...they (unnamed Pentagon officials - don't know uniformed or not) were quoted as just saying they had no idea what Obama intended were he president (aside from leaving Iraq which, as you know, many would have no problem with).

I suspect...given McCain's long time in Washington...that even if they hate his guts, they have some inclination as to his thoughts, favourites etc. They seem to have great respect for Obama's adviser, who was a Human Rights specialist actually, who contributed innovative thinking to anti-insurgency theory. But Obama has not made military contacts a priority of his campaign to date. I am sure this will change soon.

Regardless of one's views on Iraq, counter-insurgency seems to be what will be demanded in the foreseeable future. If there is a President Obama, and he gets out of Iraq...will he want to intervene in Darfur? In Pakistan's northern provinces?

Petraeus ideas have relevance far beyond Iraq. But he is poison to many Democrats, as I noted. HRC went out on a limb at the Senate hearing, and sawed it off behind her (I gather she has been privately patching things up since).

Will the Democrats under President Obama throw the baby out with the bathwater...then have a D'oh moment years later? Or will President Obama buck the Koskids and go with his advisor and counter-insurgency?.

ChrisWWW

There is a world of difference between having a parent in a job, and being a part of a military culture extending for generations.

That difference being? And just what are the manifestations of this valued experience of McCain's? It didn't help him foresee the blunder of Iraq. It hasn't stopped him from joking about the bombing of Iran. It hasn't kept him from lying about a connection between Al-Qaeda and Iran.

But Obama has NO military experience! None! Nada! He has never been under fire, or known what it means to see people die in combat.

"You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran? Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." - McCain, on the serious consequences of war

JWeidner

Marlowecan, I'm not sure why Obama's lack of experience in combat make him less qualified to lead the military. Or for that matter, why McCain's experience would make him so. Neither Lincoln nor FDR had combat experience, or even military experience and yet both managed to serve more than capably as Commander in Chief during their respective wars.

Granted, there may not be a large enough pool to draw a trend from, but history certainly seems to show that military and/or combat experience isn't a top factor in the success of a president who leads the nation in war.

Marlowecan

JWeidner said: "history certainly seems to show that military and/or combat experience isn't a top factor in the success of a president who leads the nation in war."

I agree. It is no guarantee of anything. However, military experience does give you signs of what they will do.

Take FDR. Before he was President...before he was Governor of NY...he was Asst. Sec of the Navy. Not war experience, but FDR developed an intense love of the Navy as a result...and a great interest in personnel issues. Consequently, despite the rabid GOP isolationists, FDR protected his cherished Navy from cutbacks and took personal interest in making sure the best people, such as Marshall, were in place when the war came.

Again, McCain's military experience guarantees nothing. However, he comes from generations of military commanders. He knows what the people he will send into combat can experience. Obama doesn't. (Obama could excel in defense as President...just going on what's there).

Thus, on defense, I simply concluded McCain trumps Obama.

ChrisWWW: "And that difference being?"

The difference is being in war changes you, in ways other jobs don't. The grandfather of one of my closet friends was (is...he's still alive) a pilot with 8th Army Air Force in WW II. It was a transformative experience. I find it amazing how his group has kept in regular contact and meets continually. Their children all absorbed this with mother's milk almost, with many following in their parents footsteps.

One reads of this extending across generations and centuries in some cultures. Prussian Junkers or Japanese samurai.

"That difference being." What can I say? Being a samurai, or a member of any military caste spanning generations, is more than a job. There is culture involved. Ah well...no point....

blog comments powered by Disqus