Thursday, February 14, 2008 - Posts
-
sponsorship
Mitt Romney’s endorsement of John McCain today was a fitting coda to his campaign, if only because you couldn't believe a single thing coming out of his mouth. (At least he knows how to do a proper endorsement, unlike Fred Thompson, who might as well have scribbled his on the back of an ATM receipt.)
After assuring everyone that today’s press conference “promises to be one of our more pleasant exchanges,” Romney acknowledged that “things can get rough in a political campaign.” But “even when the contest was close and our disagreements were debated,” he said, “the caliber of the man was apparent.”
This seems like an appropriate moment to recap some of our favorite moments when neither man's caliber was particularly apparent to the other:
Romney promised to “pledge” his 289 delegates to McCain, which McCain says puts him above the 1,191-delegate threshold needed to secure the nomination. For more details on the logistics and limitations of delegate-gifting, see here and here.
-
sponsorship
At last, the rebuttal!
After Hillary Clinton began broadcasting a TV spot challenging Barack Obama to accept an invitation to debate her in Wisconsin, the question was whether Obama would dignify her with a response or give her the silent treatment.
Apparently, he couldn’t let it go unremarked. Today, his campaign released a counterad : “After 18 debates, with two more coming, Hillary says Barack Obama is ducking debates? It’s the same old politics of phony charges and false attacks.”
The presumption right now is that the two candidates are sticking to substance. At least that’s the impression Obama wanted to give at yesterday’s speech on the economy, when he promised to “take it down a notch. This is going to be a speech that’s a little more detailed. It’s going to be a little bit longer, not as many applause lines.” He proceeded to outline an economic recovery plan, which Hillary claims pilfers her own ideas. The two have also been butting heads over NAFTA. Plus, they regularly come to fisticuffs whose health-care plan covers more people. Any more substance and our brains would be full.
But the subtext of Clinton’s debate charge is that Obama isn’t willing to talk substance. With the debate debate laying the groundwork, this could become the running story line of the coming weeks. Who has the wonkier memos? Who can dig up the most obscure statistics? Who pointedly delivers the fewest applause lines? It’s the kind of anti-narrative that can only emerge in a race that’s run over countless news-cycles with seemingly insatiable media coverage. This one certainly qualifies.
-
sponsorship
After discussing the campaign finance cudgel McCain could use against Obama, I figure it’s worth mentioning the brickbat Obama could now use against McCain: torture.
McCain has been a regular critic of harsh interrogation techniques, insisting in a presidential debate on Nov. 28 that the Army Field Manual, which prohibits the use of force, should be the standard. But yesterday he voted against the Intelligence Authorization Bill that, among other things, would ban torture in CIA interrogations.
If Obama wanted to nail McCain for saying one thing and doing another, he would invoke this vote. McCain’s whole identity rests on his opposition to torture—it’s never too early to start putting holes in that armor.
In fairness, the bill was fixed to put McCain in a bind. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein snuck the anti-torture language into the bill last-minute in what looks like an attempt to drive a wedge between McCain and other Republicans. Plus, President Bush has promised to veto the bill anyway.
Maybe McCain would have voted for it if he thought his vote would make a difference. But the vote was close—51-45—and he probably didn’t want to risk handing the Democrats a legislative victory. And anyway, a veto by Bush would mean that McCain had expended political capital for no reason.
But that doesn’t stop Obama from raking McCain over the proverbial coals. If McCain wants to chide Obama for declining to take public funds (a decision that is still a ways off) or for his "present" votes in the Illinois state Senate, Obama can always cite the day McCain voted against his own principles.
-
sponsorship
On the tip of bloggy tongues everywhere is the question of what will happen if McCain takes public funds for the general election. McCain says he will if Obama agrees to do the same. Would Obama follow suit, as he has suggested in the past?
McCain’s campaign has been mentioning Obama’s “pledge” to accept public funds, basically daring him not to keep his word. "If I were raising $35 million a month, I would think that through …” said McCain Campaign Manager Rick Davis. “I think there is more a more likely chance he'd break his pledge than John [would].”
Now Obama’s people appear to be downplaying the idea. Spokesman Bill Burton describes public funding as an “option,” but refuses to call it a “pledge.” But is it an option he would really turn down?
For Obama, this would be the ultimate test of practicality vs. idealism—and a dangerous one, too. The candidate made a big deal of petitioning the FEC last February for a “truce” that would allow the front-runners of both parties to give back money raised for the general election. The move earned him plenty of coverage, and helped bolster his image as someone committed to cleaning up Washington. Even if his “pledge” wasn’t explicit—if the words “I will accept public funds if my opponent does” never came out of his mouth—his alleged commitment to campaign finance reform is too much a part of his public character to reverse course suddenly.
For one thing, his idealistic fans might turn on him. The Obama luster is bound to get scuffed up at some point, but to have it happen over an obviously controllable issue like campaign finance—as opposed to ancient ties to goons like Tony Rezko—would be especially damning. Plus, McCain would have a field day. Every time the subject of ethics or promise-keeping came up, he would have the public funds cudgel at the ready. McCain’s conservative detractors often cite his campaign finance record as a strike against him. But if it gave him the moral high ground over Obama, they couldn’t help but cheer him on.
It makes sense that Obama’s campaign wouldn’t commit itself to public funding before securing the nomination. And, of course, it would be a major sacrifice to forgo such a huge monetary advantage. But they have to recognize the ammo it would provide—and already is providing—for McCain. It may still be just an “option.” But it’s an option Obama can’t afford not to take.
-
sponsorship
From the constantly expanding department of Obama fetishization, check out these photos of some guy getting a tattoo of the senator’s face on his arm.
Let this be grist for those concerned that Obama heralds a new era of cult-of-personality fascism.
Comments on Digg, which first linked to this, tend to be variations on “Can you imagine anyone getting a Hillary tattoo?” No, but then again, shouldn't this guy at least have waited for the general? Imagine someone walking around right now with a Lieberman tat.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?