-
sponsorship
Now that Hillary Clinton has called for President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics—something British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has announced he will do—she’s pressuring her opponents to do the same.
Obama is resisting. Maybe it’s because he doesn’t want to look like he’s caving to her demand. Maybe it’s because Chicago is competing to host the games in 2016. Or maybe it’s that he doesn’t think the United States should jeopardize its economic relationship with China.
Whatever the reason, he does a pretty spanking job of turning the subject from a vulnerability—boycotting the Olympics—to an attack on deficit spending and foreign debt. Here’s the end of a long, circuitous answer he gave today in Malvern, Pennsylvania on the subject of the Olympics, as reported by First Read:
We have to take a stronger stance. We have to take a stronger stance and it's got to be more consistent over time. Let me make one last point about China: It's very hard to tell your banker that he's wrong, all right? And if we are running huge deficits and big national debts and we're borrowing money constantly from China, that gives us less leverage. It give us less leverage to talk about human rights, it also is giving us less leverage to talk about the uneven trading relationship that we have with China.
Impressive! This is the same guy thought to be slow on his feet in the first few debates. Now if only he can segue into a conversation about NAFTA, snipers, and Hillary's laugh, the nomination is his.
-
sponsorship
You’d think that after an eight-hour testimony like Petraeus and Crocker's yesterday, the presidential candidates would now have a clear set of facts to debate. If only. The problem, as the Times puts it, is that Clinton/Obama and McCain “seemed to be talking about two different wars.” Clinton cited the war’s “tremendous cost to our national security.” Obama suggested our best hope might be a “messy, sloppy status quo” as long as there’s not “huge outbreaks of violence.” McCain seemed cheery by contrast: “We’re no longer staring into the abyss of defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success.”
Petraeus and Crocker, meanwhile, did little to clarify details. Clinton and Obama pushed them to describe progress that would justify a drawdown in troops. “These factors are fairly clear,” Petraeus told Clinton. “There’s obviously an enemy situation factor, there’s a friendly situation factor with respect to Iraqi forces, local governance, even economic and political dynamics, all of which are considered as the factors in making recommendations on further reductions.” In other words, We have no idea. As Fred Kaplan phrased it, “They laid out a Catch-22: If things in Iraq get worse, we can't cut back, lest things get worse still; if things get better, we can't cut back, lest we risk reversing all our gains.”
How does this change the debate? Not one bit. If anything, it gives both the Obama/Clinton side and the McCain side what they need to keep making their arguments louder than ever. McCain can focus on military progress, which Petraeus said is “significantly better” than before, while Obama/Clinton can focus on the lack of political progress, which is equally undeniable. For McCain, security is the benchmark of success. For Obama/Clinton, who stress that “there is no military solution,” success is a sustainable political structure (which, of course, presumes security). But as yesterday’s testimony showed, there’s no agreement on the state of the war. If the GOP and Democratic nominees were to debate Iraq right now, it would be like ships passing in the night.
Maybe that’s why the recent rhetorical battle over John McCain’s “100 years” remark has been so impenetrable: The candidates are imagining totally different scenarios. McCain insists he’s talking about a long-term occupation akin to that of postwar Japan and Korea, where tens of thousands of troops are still stationed. Americans would accept that sort of peacekeeping role, he says, “as long as our soldiers are not being wounded or maimed or killed.” Obama would dispute the premise. When Obama thinks of 100 years in Iraq, it’s not a peaceful occupation he imagines. It’s a protracted expenditure of money and blood that fails to reach the point where we can draw down troops. From that perspective, cutting our losses makes a lot of sense.
If Petraeus’ testimony clarified anything, it’s that the candidates perceive the war like alternate realities. As Hillary might say, for either candidate to accept the other’s premises requires a “willful suspension of disbelief.” All this should make the debate over the war this fall—like the war itself—protracted and ugly.
-
sponsorship
If the presidential candidates have one goal, it’s to maximize face time. Get in front of as many voters as possible while expending the least amount of jet fuel and energy. Tonight, you’ll see the philosophy on display when all three candidates show up on American Idol for the show’s philanthropic extravaganza, Idol Gives Back. Twenty-four million people tuned in to last night’s show—only 3.5 million less than the populations of Indiana, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina combined. The candidates will ask Americans to donate to charity and—just guessing here—find a way to make a strained link between philanthropy and their platforms.
Clearly, this begs for an analogical match-up of the candidates to their Idol doppelgangers.
Hillary Clinton: Kristy Lee Cook
Cook is not going to win American Idol, but she continues to slip into the next round week after week after week. Sound familiar? After early stumbles, she’s been getting progressively stronger with every week—something the judges once thought was impossible. At this point, she has embraced her bottom-of-the-barrel status and knows that the only way to stay alive is to put a smile on her face and keep on fighting.
Last night’s performance of “Anyway” spoke to embittered female voters nationwide—this after her bald pander to American sensibilities with “God Bless the U.S.A.” kept her alive two weeks ago. Clinton, meanwhile, has been courting female voters from the get-go and turned to the Rocky metaphor last week to grovel at the feet of Pennsylvanians.
John McCain: Carly Smithson
McCain and Smithson are both grizzled vets in their respected fields. McCain has tried to be president once before but fell short in the 2000 Republican primary. Smithson has already had a record contract but failed to gain any traction on the airwaves. They both have quirky arms: Smithson’s tattoo and McCain’s inability to raise his hands above his head. Neither of them is a typical American—Smithson is a native Irishwoman and McCain was born on a U.S. military installation in Panama—yet they’re aspiring for the country’s most famous—and arguably most important—titles.
Smithson’s performance of Heart’s “Crazy on You” dovetails nicely with McCain’s widely reported temper, as does her spot-on croon of The Beatles’ “Come Together” with McCain’s campaign finance and environmental efforts. Simon Cowell often tells Smithson that she’s a great singer with a bad tendency to pick the wrong song to sing—just like McCain is a gifted politician who can’t seem to pander to enough fat-walleted donors. Last night’s “Show Must Go On” should’ve been McCain’s theme song last summer when he was out of money and on the brink of electoral death.
Barack Obama: David Archuleta
Archuleta is that baby-faced wunderkind that Idol has always been waiting for. He’s young yet poised beyond his years. His rendition of “Imagine” elevated Lennon’s words beyond the ‘60s and transcended the generation gap. His performance of “The Long and Winding Road” echoes Obama’s patience with Clinton’s sentry position in the battle for the nomination. Archuleta attracts a rabid, delirious group of screaming fans called the “Arch Angels” that vote without fail for the cherubic contender. Obama’s rabid, delirious fans are simply called “idealists.”
Archuleta, just like Obama, is presumed to be the front-runner—but he still has to knock off the remaining contenders first. Naturally gifted, uncharacteristic gaffes—like Archuleta’s brain fart during “We Can Work It Out” or Obama’s Rev. Wright imbroglio—are the only things that stand in both contenders’ ways of reaching the finals.
Spot comparisons we missed? Hit up our inbox.
UPDATE April 10, 8:30 a.m.: Looks like Hillary stands no chance against Fergie. Per the NYT, the candidates weren't important enough to make it into Wednesday night's show. They'll show up on tonight's elimination episode instead.
-
sponsorship
In case you haven't noticed, the Hillary Deathwatch operates a lot like the health meter in Gears of War.
As long as you're not getting shot at, your health goes up. In
Hillary's case, nothing too crazy happened in the past 24 hours—a solid
performance at the Petraeus hearing, a slight post-Penn morale boost,
and a superdelegate regained. Which, in total, bumps Clinton up 0.1
points to a flat 10 percent chance of winning the nomination.
Clinton
and Obama showed off their grilling skills at yesterday's Senate
hearings with Gen. David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker but didn't offer
much more than their usual bleak assessments. Clinton drew contrasts
with John McCain, saying she "fundamentally" disagreed with his
assessment that troop withdrawals are irresponsible—but stopped short
of her "willing suspension of disbelief" remarks last time. Spoken like
a true future majority leader.
Read more at the Hillary Deathwatch.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?