Trailhead

Um, "Victory" in Iraq Won't Balance the Budget

Christopher Beam — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:22:00 GMT

John McCain’s plan to balance the budget by 2013 may have just taken the prize for Most Ridicule Sustained in a 24-Hour Period. (Before that, McCain's and Clinton’s gas-tax holiday proposals held the title.) The biggest gripe: It’s hard to see how McCain would sustain the Bush tax cuts, which the CBO estimates would create a $443 billion deficit by 2013, and still find room for his estimated $300 billion in additional tax proposals while also eliminating the deficit.

The McCain campaign promises to reach the Big Zero through a combination of economic growth, controlled spending, and bipartisan budget efforts. But they don’t provide any numbers to show how much the economy must grow, how much spending they’d rein in, or what areas they’d trim. (Read his whole plan here.) Then there’s this:

The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.

This statement is … problematic. For one thing, reducing deficit spending doesn’t free up money. It’s just means we don’t create money. So while it may reduce the deficit, it does nothing to reduce the overall debt and balance the budget.

But there’s another problem: Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan will cost money before it saves money. The Congressional Budget Office estimated last year that reducing troops levels to 75,000 by 2013 would cost an additional $205 billion (that is, in addition to current spending levels) between 2008 and 2013. Only after that would the United States start saving—or, rather, not spending cash we don’t have. A faster drawdown to 30,000 troops by 2010 would reduce the deficit over the same period, but only by $70 billion. (Read the CBO estimate here; details here.) The CBO will have a new estimate in September.

So even if McCain was able to achieve his definition of victory in Iraq as laid out in his “Four Year Vision” speech in May—“The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role”—it wouldn’t likely save money until later. And it would certainly play little to no role in balancing the budget by 2013.

McCain’s Croc-Up

Christopher Beam — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:19:00 GMT

At a town hall meeting today in Denver, Colo., McCain highlighted the American footwear company Crocs—you know, the colorful rubber shoes with holes in them—as an example of how free trade benefits American business.

“This former small business now employs 600 people in Colorado alone, and sells over 50 percent of its products in 90 countries around the world,” McCain said. “Building barriers to Crocs or any American company’s access to foreign markets will have a devastating effect on our economy and jobs, and the prosperity of American families.”

It might have been a good local example of an entrepreneurial start-up prospering in the global economy—if the company hadn’t blown up in the last several months.

Have a look at Croc’s stock price. (Symbol: CROX.) It peaked at $75 back in late October, but since then has plummeted to one-tenth of that. It last traded at $6.91. Whereas footwear like Uggs managed to outlive its initial hype and become a footwear mainstay, Crocs appear to be what its investors most feared: a fad.

Not only that, but Crocs has been pushing for higher trade barriers, not lower ones. In March 2006, Crocs filed a complaint seeking to block imports of copycat shoes made in Canada and China, claiming they violated a patent for “breathable footwear pieces.” (They won.) Compare that with McCain’s assertion in his speech that “protectionism not only puts a hidden tax on almost everything you buy, but it undermines American competitiveness and costs jobs. … Our future prosperity depends on opening more of these markets, not closing them.” (Video available here.)

The Refiner

Christopher Beam — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:49:00 GMT

If you flip-flop on an issue that itself flip-flops all the time, is that considered flip-flopping?

That’s the question confronting Barack Obama, who hinted Thursday that he might “refine” his position on withdrawal from Iraq. Obama quickly held a follow-up presser to clarify his determination to pull out as quickly and safely as possible. But Obama’s mistake wasn’t suggesting that his position was subject to change. It was suggesting all along—and letting his opponents suggest—that his 16-month withdrawal timetable was anything more than a goal.

For some reason, the words goal, contingency, and facts on the ground are seen as code for wavering. As such, they rarely made it into Obama’s description of his plan for withdrawal. The RNC giddily rounds up the various instances when Obama articulated his timeline for withdrawal without strong caveats. Perhaps the most explicit moment was Obama’s exchange with Charlie Gibson at the CBS debate on April 16:

MR. GIBSON: And Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, when he is—this is talking about you—when he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most; there should be no confusion about that. So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order: Bring them home.

SENATOR OBAMA: Because the commander in chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals. … Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I've provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief. [E.A]

Gibson’s demand for a “rock-hard pledge” may have been the epitome of gotcha journalism, but Obama fell for it. He could have said, “No, Charlie, it’s not a rock-hard pledge—it’s a goal that’s subject to adjustment based on new facts on the ground.” But that, according to perverse campaign logic, would have been a sign of weakness.

That’s why it was a scandal when Obama foreign-policy adviser Samantha Power suggested that his 16-month plan was a “best-case scenario.” But her words made perfect sense: “You can't make a commitment in March of 2008 about what circumstances are going to be like in January 2009. He will, of course, not rely upon some plan that he has crafted as a presidential candidate or a US senator. He will rely upon an operational plan that he pulls together in consultation with people on the ground.” That’s how strategy works—you adjust your plan according to the circumstances. But somehow Power’s admission became a “gaffe.” If she hadn’t resigned from the campaign for calling Hillary Clinton a “monster,” this remark might have pushed her out instead.

It’s a common problem when politics and war intersect: Promises only hold if the facts on which the promise was based hold as well. Particularly in Iraq, where a relative lull in violence can be instantly upset, as it was this weekend. One can argue that Obama’s withdrawal plan has been overly ambitious all along, and that his attempt to “refine” his position reflects problems inherent to his plan as much as shifting facts. But to stick with a rigid plan when the underlying facts are changing isn’t consistent. It’s irresponsible.

Is a War Room Really a Room?

Christopher Beam — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:02:00 GMT

Democratic strategist and former Kerry communications director Stephanie Cutter has joined the Obama campaign.* Her responsibilities include heading up a "war room" for Michelle Obama. A campaign’s "war room" typically refers to its rapid response team. But is it really a room?

Yes, usually. Modern presidential campaigns almost always designate office space for strategists and press teams to communicate quickly and easily. It’s a place for first responders to monitor the news, write up press releases, talk to reporters, and communicate directly instead of over the phone or email.

Of course, war rooms have been around as long as war itself. Churchill built a reinforced bunker beneath his London offices for Cabinet members to convene during the Blitz of 1940. Stanley Kubrick immortalized the term in Dr. Strangelove with the line, "Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here. This is the war room!" But it wasn’t until Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign that the phrase entered wide usage in a presidential campaign context. It helped Clinton cultivate his image as a fighter on the trail and then in the White House, where he set up "war rooms" for cutting government waste and health care reform. "We are going to work constantly, day and night, until we have a health care plan ready," Clinton promised in 1993.

Even as rapid response relies more and more on BlackBerrys and cell phones, the campaigns still maintain a physical space for strategy grand and not-so-grand. Hillary Clinton’s campaign had a room set aside for the rapid response team, which they called the "war room." Obama’s press operation sits together in a large room at the Chicago headquarters. A McCain spokesman characterized the Republican nominee’s war room as "a room that monitors all the media on a minute by minute basis."

Some people are particularly attached to the notion of war room as physical place. "I get hired by so many corporate clients who want a room with clocks and maps and everything," says Chris Lehane, a former spokesman for Al Gore who now heads a public-relations firm. "When you try to explain to them it’s just a concept and not a physical embodiment, they don’t want to hear it."

*Correction: This post originally stated that Patti Solis Doyle would be heading up the war room for Michelle Obama.

Breaking! Barack Obama Is Normal.

Christopher Beam — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:29:00 GMT

Barack Obama’s campaign has gone to great lengths to show that its candidate is just a regular guy. In Pennsylvania, his bowling performance drew more scrutiny than his health care plan. In North Carolina, he pointedly sipped a PBR with locals. Now he’s proving he’s just a normal dad who goes to his daughter’s soccer games.

There’s something bizarre about watching a presidential nominee in a setting so familiar to any modern American parent. You could just as easily imagine him loading up the Dodge Caravan and swinging by the Taco Bell—rather than ducking out for a campaign meeting, as he did.

Note, though, that this wasn’t a big media availability. The footage is paparazzi-esque and it comes from the Associated Press, not the big networks. If Obama had wanted to make a big show, the event would have been more camera-friendly.

Watch to the end, where Michelle pummels Barack. Will the slap fight be the new fist bump?

Clark in Context

Christopher Beam — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:15:00 GMT

I just wanted to provide a little context to my piece about the losing line of argument against John McCain's military service. As a reader points out, Wesley Clark didn't go out of his way to say the line about McCain getting shot down -- Bob Schieffer prompted him. Here's the full context from the Face the Nation transcript:

Clark: He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in Air- in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, 'I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it-'

Bob Schieffer: Well-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: ' -it publicly.' He hasn't made those calls, Bob.

Bob Schieffer: Well, well, General, maybe-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So-

Bob Schieffer: Could I just interrupt you. If-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Sure.

Bob Schieffer: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.

Bob Schieffer: Really?!

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But Barack is not, he is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements.

This doesn't change the point that Clark -- and others before him -- doubt the value of McCain's service for a commander-in-chief. But the context does make Clark's quote sound less like an "attack" than an answer to a question.

Web 2.Oh No

Chadwick Matlin — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:10:00 GMT

BHO, JSM advisers tweet-debating tech policy tonight. Useless—like Twitter. How debate with 140 char limit? http://tinyurl.com/6ypjh8 about 0 minutes ago from Trailhead

The Calculator

Christopher Beam — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:15:00 GMT

Barack Obama’s decision yesterday not to take public financing came as a surprise to no one. But it has still earned him scorn. The New York Times editorial page, a longtime proponent of public financing, tweaked him for renouncing the system. The AP declared that Obama “chose winning over his word.” David Brooks mocked the “two Obamas”—one pointy-headed idealist, one conniving pragmatist.

Let’s side the question of whether Obama went back on his word—he did—and focus on whether it tarnishes him or not. No doubt Obama has handed John McCain a big weapon. But it’s not a cudgel—it’s a nerf bat. McCain can pummel Obama as much as he likes, and it won’t hurt him. Here’s why:

No one knows the difference. Barack Obama drew sneers when he called his fundraising operation a “parallel public financing system.” There’s a huge difference between the taxpayer-funded system that relies on $3 nonpartisan donations and caps campaign spending, and Barack Obama’s seemingly unlimited Internet-driven cash supply. But the sneers came from people who know what public financing is. As John McCain has himself admitted, not many voters base their decision on campaign-finance issues.

No one would honestly have done any differently. Who expected Barack Obama to set up the most effective fundraising operation in history and then throw it away? As First Read points out, there’s a word for that: dumb. However you look at it, being able to outspend your opponent 3-to-1 is more valuable than having the moral high ground on an issue few voters care about—even if you’ve devoted much of your career to it.

Democrats want to win. There’s always a push-pull dynamic when it comes to idealism and pragmatism, but Democrats have swung heavily toward pragmatism of late. Losses in 2000 and 2004 have soured them on moral victories. If Obama had taken the $85 million and proceeded to lose the general election, the rage among Democrats would eclipse the current fervor. He would just be another high-horse loser who didn’t know how to play the game.

It reassures Democrats who thought Obama is naive. One subtext of Hillary Clinton’s pugilistic campaign strategy is that she would take the same warrior’s approach to the presidency. “I'm in this race to fight for you ...” she told Pennsylvania voters. “You know you can count on me to stand up strong for you every single day in the White House.” Likewise, this shows Obama can perform a simple cost-benefit analysis. No one wants a president who isn’t a little calculating. It’s the weighing of ideals against necessity that makes a leader. Of course, one can also argue that sacrificing ideals makes true leadership impossible.

None of this is to say Obama shouldn’t be criticized for his decision. (Nor is it the first time Obama has made a flagrantly calculated choice.) The point is, he expected criticism, but thought forgoing public funds was worth it anyway.

Details on Larry Sinclair’s Arrest

Christopher Beam — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:10:00 GMT

It’s only fitting that the most bizarre press conference of this political season had an equally bizarre coda. Larry Sinclair, the man who claims to have had a naughty encounter with Barack Obama back in 1999, stood at a podium at the National Press Club, rattling off a litany of increasingly detailed minutiae about the incident before taking questions and exiting the building. He was arrested on his way out.

Sinclair’s rap sheet is well-documented. He has been charged with everything from larceny to theft to forgery, and drew a 16-year prison sentence in Colorado in 1987. He was released in 1999. Now it looks like he’ll be facing a new charge: Larceny, this time in Delaware.

Two members of the U.S. Marshals’ Regional Fugitive Task Force took him into custody after the press conference was over, says his lawyer, Montgomery Blair Sibley. The extradition hearing was scheduled for late this afternoon. If Sinclair gets bail, he can travel to Delaware himself to turn himself in to authorities. If not, he’ll have to travel in federal custody.

Sibley said he believes someone tipped off the Delaware authorities. “Obviously, Larry’s presence in D.C. was not a surprise or secret,” he said. “They put two and two together.”

He said he didn’t know the specific charge, but was told it was some form of larceny.

Drilling McCain on Oil

Christopher Beam — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:22:00 GMT

John McCain is taking heat right now for reversing his position on the federal ban on coastal oil drilling, as if flip-flopping itself were the cardinal sin here. But the biggest problem is the notion that lifting the ban will affect gas and oil prices in the short term.

With gas prices topping four dollars a gallon, McCain explains his switch as an attempt to give Americans relief at the pump. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist justified his late conversion in similar terms: “Floridians are suffering.” A Rasmussen poll released today showed that 61 percent of Florida voters agree drilling would bring down the cost of oil and gas.

The problem is, it won’t—at least not for the next seven years. Here’s the reason, per the Wall Street Journal:

With the disputed areas long off-limits even to exploration, neither government nor industry experts know exactly how much oil and gas is there, how best to get at it, or even where it is. And although the industry's environmental record is much improved since headline-grabbing oil spills of earlier eras, risks remain, and addressing those risks could delay production for years.

So the notion that it’s going to affect oil prices in the next few months is pretty outlandish.

But even long-term, drilling doesn’t fix much. America’s coastal regions have an estimated 19 billion barrels’ worth of oil. The biggest prize—California’s southern coast, with an estimated 5.6 billion barrels of oil—has been declared off-limits by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The next-biggest score, in the Gulf of Mexico, is estimated at 3.7 billion barrels. The United States consumes 20 million barrels of petroleum a day, according to the Energy Information Administration. Which means even the maximum amount of drillable oil would only get the U.S. about two and a half years’ worth of fuel. Realistically, we’d get a lot less.

Even Karl Rove has dissed McCain for spouting "economic nonsense." (Rove goes after Obama, too.) McCain’s rationale for drilling doesn't inspire either.

Where Does Obama’s Public Finance Money Go?

Christopher Beam — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:22:00 GMT

Now that Barack Obama has opted out of public financing for the general, it means John McCain is the only one taking cash from the public coffers. So if you checked off the $3 donation box on your tax returns—the source of national public campaign financing—your money is going to McCain and McCain alone. What happens to the cash Obama would have gotten?

It stays in the coffers. The Treasury maintains a Presidential Election Campaign Fund that rolls over from year to year. When you select the $3 check-off option on your annual tax returns, it goes directly into the fund, which gets allocated to primary candidates, general candidates, and the party nominating conventions. The amount each candidate receives in public funds depends on the amount raised. This year, each general-election candidate is eligible to receive $84.1 million in public funds.

So how much money is left over now that Obama is out? The fund’s balance at the end of May was $192.6 million, according to FEC spokesman Bob Biersack. That means the FEC will have more than $100 million left over to fund this year’s conventions and future campaigns.

In other words, taxpayers don’t have to worry (or celebrate) that their money is going only to John McCain. He’s not getting a larger portion of the $3 donations—the extra cash just gets allocated to other areas.

Larry Sinclair and Slander

Christopher Beam — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:36:00 GMT

The National Press Club has been taking some heat for allowing Larry Sinclair, the wanted, formerly incarcerated crazy person who claims to have engaged in certain deviant behaviors with Barack Obama, to hold a press conference in its Washington, D.C., building today. Critics cite the dubious nature of Sinclair’s accusation and wonder why a respected institution would give Sinclair a platform.

But here’s another angle: Is the Press Club enabling slander? When a newspaper runs an ad or column it knows to be libelous, the publication can be held legally accountable for defamation. Does the Press Club hold equal responsibility for Sinclair’s views?

David Heller, a lawyer for the Media Law Resource Center, says the Press Club is probably in the clear for three reasons. First, libel (or, when it’s spoken, slander) by definition requires that someone espouse views they know to be untrue, or show a reckless disregard for the truth—the general standard known as "actual malice." Sinclair’s charges are absurdly flimsy—he even failed a polygraph test—but no one knows them to be false. Second, publications are often able to invoke a "neutral reportage privilege" that says they reported a defamatory but newsworthy claim accurately and objectively. Some states have such a privilege; others don’t. The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear cases on the question. And thirdly, the Press Club can immunize itself by dissociating from or disagreeing with Sinclair’s claims. Talk radio hosts will often respond to a slanderous caller by pointing out that "we don’t know that" or "that hasn’t been proven" just to defend against potential law suits. Similarly, the Press Club can distance itself from Sinclair. And it has. Sylvia Smith, the club’s president, told Politico that Sinclair’s allegations "don't seem very credible."

So merely providing a forum for Sinclair is unlikely to get them in trouble. If the Obama campaign wants to hold someone accountable for Sinclair’s views, it will probably be Sinclair himself.

Obama's Perfect Slogan

Chris Wilson — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:05:00 GMT

Barack Obama has always acted suspicious of his own popularity, as though he suspects that the ability to inspire adolescent worship is not, shall we say, presidential. He has a special word for the way he feels about himself when he sees thousands of otherwise dignified adults melting in real time: imperfect.

“Ultimately I am an imperfect vessel for your hopes and dreams,” Obama told a crowd in Ames, Iowa, exactly one day after announcing his candidacy. And again, in a Father’s Day speech yesterday at the Apostolic Church of God in Chicago: “I say this knowing that I have been an imperfect father—knowing that I have made mistakes and will continue to make more.”

To be clear, Obama does not think he’s Mr. Perfect.

Of all the adjectives Obama could have tapped to summarizing his humility, imperfect falls on the flattering end. It’s much more “I am human” or “I am mortal” than “I make a lot of errors” or “I have flaws.” And it has strong constitutional credentials; the phrase “a more perfect Union” falls 12 words into the Preamble and shows up in the Federalist Papers. If you don’t buy this allusion, please refer yourself to Obama’s highly regarded speech on race relations, titled “A More Perfect Union.”

In that speech, Obama bestowed the highest possible praise on his former pastor Jeremiah Wright: “As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me.” A few minutes later, he turns the word back on himself: “I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy—particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.”

Again, at a “Compassion Forum” on April 13: “And, you know, pastors are imperfect. Certainly, the membership is imperfect. I, as somebody who is sitting in the pews as a sinner, is imperfect.” The Obama is not without original sin.

Michelle Obama picked up the baton a few days later at a Women for Obama event: “Barack, as I tease, he’s a wonderful man, he’s a gifted man, but in the end, he is just a man. He is an imperfect vessel and I love him dearly.”

In one word, the wordsmith in chief has neatly compressed the combined brand of his candidacy: He is extraordinary but humble, messianic but human, imperfect but constitutional.

I, for one, would like to see Obama supporters embrace this emblem. Rather than pollute flat surfaces with “Hope” and “Change,” let’s see them fill a room with signs that all read “Imperfect.” The rest of us should forgive Obama all his shortcomings. No one’s perfect.

The Mystery of John McCain’s “Bottled Hot Water”

Christopher Beam — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:50:00 GMT

Last week, John McCain made a comment that still has everyone scratching their heads. During his speech in New Orleans, he described ways in which our country should prepare for natural disasters, including this one: “We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.” (Video here.)

The questions are so numerous, it’s hard to know where to start. Why give hot water to babies? Wouldn’t they prefer cold water if they’re dehydrated? Would you heat the water before bottling it, or after? Wouldn’t that melt the plastic slightly? These questions and more have been pondered across the blogs.

It’s especially bizarre because the word hot isn’t in the text of the speech. McCain inserted it himself.

We asked around for possible explanations. Perhaps babies need to have their liquids hot before a certain age? “No,” said Dr. Jeffrey W. Hull, a pediatrician in Decatur, Ala. “Babies don’t need to drink their stuff hot. … He might be thinking in terms of warm water for cooking food for babies.” But not to drink.

In fact, babies under six months aren’t supposed to drink water at all. Babies’ kidneys aren’t mature, which means sodium can get flushed out when they drink, putting them at risk of water intoxication, Dr. Jennifer Anders told Reuters last month.

But maybe disaster relief organizations sometimes deliver hot water, right? Red Cross spokeswoman Lesly Simmons, who was in New Orleans during the Hurricane Katrina relief effort, says she’s never heard of that. “Bottled water, that’s something we tend pass out,” she said. “But hot water’s never been a focus of a disaster relief operation.” Emergency-relief vehicles will drive around distributing food, snacks, and drinks. Sometimes the water is chilled, but it’s never hot. “It’s always too hot to be giving out hot water,” Simmons said.

Maybe McCain meant to say boiled water? “You certainly want to give babies clean things,” said Jane Crouse of La Leche League International, an organization devoted to breast-feeding. “So if there is a question as to the water’s purity, what are you supposed to do in an emergency? Boil your water.”

Of course, that doesn’t explain the bottles. Or the babies. Or the fact that he said “hot,” not “boiled.”

The McCain campaign did not respond to e-mails asking for comment.

Update June 16, 3:03 p.m.: Fray contributor Arthur Ether offers a plausible explanation:

Older Americans know what a "hot water bottle" is...it's rubber, you fill it with hot water and use it to ease your aches and pains at night. Perhaps McCain saw the words "water" and "bottle" and scrambled it up from there.

Ralph Nader's Plan To Fix the NBA and Win the Presidency

Christopher Beam — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:49:00 GMT

Ralph Nader rocketed back into the spotlight Wednesday after disgraced ex-NBA ref Tim Donaghy alleged that Game 6 of the 2002 Lakers-Kings series was rigged—a charge Nader (and, well, just about everyone with a pair of eyes) has been making since it happened. Now, with his umpteenth presidential campaign gearing up, Nader has managed to turn his moment of vindication into a media tour. He announced via press release that “even when it comes to the NBA playoffs, Ralph was right.” He spoke to ESPN about his crusade to reform sports officiating. He even found time to share some thoughts with Trailhead.

Nader slamming the NBA sounds much like Nader slamming any malfeasant company: It’s a “corporate dictatorship” that cares more about the bottom line than its consumers—or in this case, fans. The problem, he explains, is “there’s no process to explain to the fans when the line has been crossed.” Players can be fined for objecting to a ref’s call. Coaches and owners get penalties, too. “If you have pattern of behavior not inscribed by law,” he says, “it becomes insidious, there’s no way out.”

Nader has a solution. He’s urging the NBA to create an independent panel that would review referee selections. Company men would be sussed out; fans would feel reassured. But should the NBA really have the government meddling in its officiating? Nader says it’s all about the consumer: “Without the fans, there wouldn’t be an operation.” Likewise, he recommends that the nondisparagement clause—the NBA rule that prohibits players from complaining about a call—should only apply during the season, not the finals.

The timing for Nader couldn’t be better. A recent survey showed the independent presidential candidate polling at a not-inconsiderable 6 percent. It looks as if he’ll be on the ballot in Colorado, and he has applied to appear on the ballots of at least three other states as well.

Nader doesn’t expect to make sports officiating a big part of his platform—at least no more than any other local issue. But it’s certainly higher on his priority list than on his opponents’. “They’d never get involved in a local sports issue,” he says. “That’s considered a total loser. Hillary was for the Yankees and the Cubs, right?”

Meanwhile, Nader is pushing to be included in this year’s debates, particularly the summer town halls being negotiated by Obama and McCain, as well as debates hosted by Google. He dismisses concerns that he’d be a spoiler for the Dems: “I’m concerned about the votes I lose to them,” he says. “If I have an equal right to run for election, there’s no concern. None of us are spoilers or all of us are spoilers.”

And this year, Democrats can’t blame Nader alone for upsetting the two-party system. Bob Barr is running on the Libertarian Party ticket, which could presumably suck away GOP voters. Nader points to a double standard: “How can liberals say Nader shouldn’t run without saying Bob Barr shouldn’t?”

Ralph and the Ref

Christopher Beam — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:02:00 GMT

Yesterday, Ralph Nader had a moment of vindication. In a court filing, disgraced ex-NBA ref Tim Donaghy claimed that Game 6 of the 2002 Lakers-Kings playoff series was manipulated by two of the three referees. Guess who has been saying that all along?

Back in 2002, Nader wrote a letter urging NBA Commissioner David Stern to investigate the controversial game, in which the Lakers scored 16 of their final 18 points at the foul line thanks to some heavy-handed officiating. Nader’s interference drew scorn, but then again so did everything he did back then. People were still miffed over the 2000 election results, for which many Democrats blamed him.

Charles Barkley called Nader an “idiot.” One San Bernardino Sun columnist mocked the “clang-clanging of a howling Ralph Nader just audible below the din.” The Daily Oklahoman editorial board laughed at the “perpetual crank”:

[W]ho else but the most boorish fan—well, other than Ralph Nader—would call on the league office for an outside investigation of the referees, or even more silly, of the referees' collective intent?

Who indeed.

For Nader, the timing couldn’t be better. In case you didn’t hear the first time, he’s running for president again. “This whole thing has lit up our funds today,” spokesman Chris Driscoll told me. Meanwhile, Nader’s office sent out a celebratory e-mail blast: “We tell our kids that sports teaches lessons about life. The lesson we learned from the 2002 NBA Playoffs—Ralph was right.” At last, Ralph Nader can get the respect he deserves!

Well, not quite. Even in his moment of glory, ESPN killed the mood, describing him as a “former presidential candidate.” No doubt another example of the corporate-owned media trying to push him out of the race.

Repeat Offenders

Chadwick Matlin — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:04:00 GMT

It wasn’t in his prepared remarks, but John McCain couldn’t resist one of his favorite economic anecdotes today. A minute into his speech to the National Federation of Independent Businesses he paid his respects to Meg Whitman, his campaign co-chair and the former CEO of eBay. He thanked her for her contributions to the global economy, most notably that “1.3 million people around the world make a living off eBay.”

As Daniel Gross wrote in Slate a few weeks ago, this is total bunk. The 1.3 million statistic is actually a reflection of how many people “use eBay as their primary or secondary source of income.” About half of those 1.3 million people are Americans, according to a report, and there’s no telling how many are making a living off eBay or merely exercising a hobby. But that hasn’t stopped McCain (or Whitman, who mentioned the same stat in her address to the NFIB conference a day earlier).

For Republicans, the eBay example is a handy one to pull out of their back pocket whenever they start yammering about the economy. The Web auctioneer is governed largely on conservative principles—the company provides a framework for a market, and buyers and sellers take it from there. The auction system means that the market’s prices regulate themselves, without much regulation from a higher power.

Even better, a market providing eBay services has naturally emerged to complement the traditional eBay market. If you’ve got a limited-edition Beanie Babies hippo you need to sell but can’t keep up with the demand, you can pay somebody else to do it for you. This injects middlemen into the transaction, which, in an ideal world, brings revenue to even more people. Voila! A new market deriving from another market. As far as Republicans are concerned, the more free markets the better.

Democratic Withdrawal

Chadwick Matlin — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:04:00 GMT

In case you're still feeling a void in your heart where Hillary Clinton and the boys once lived, Slate humbly offers an eight-minute recap video of the entire Democratic race. Keep it handy; you may want to show it to your grandkids some day.

The Primary’s Seven Best Real-Life Campaign Metaphors

Christopher Beam — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:13:00 GMT

Every four years, campaign reporters dust off the old metaphor kit. Some phrases reappear—the "horse race," the "coronation," the "salvos" and "barbs" and "verbal hand grenades" being "fired" and "traded" and "lobbed." Other riffs are specific to a particular election, like this year’s endless Rocky analogies or the analysis of Clinton’s "Tonya Harding option."

But the best campaign metaphors are often provided in real time by life itself. Here’s a rundown of the season’s best.

7. Mike Huckabee’s emergency landing. On Feb. 7, Mike Huckabee’s press plane made an emergency landing so harrowing that one reporter thought the aircraft might flip upside down. Once they were on the ground, a co-pilot left "visibly shaken." A week later, Huck’s van ran out of gas. Twice. A month later, so did his campaign.

6. Obama’s waffle. At a Scranton, Pa., diner, Barack Obama bristled at a reporter’s question about Jimmy Carter’s meeting with Hamas: "Why can’t I just eat my waffle?" The response quickly became shorthand for Obama’s occasional bouts of prickliness. When reporters ribbed him about it later, he was unamused.

5. John Edwards’ breakdown. The last thing a stalling campaign needs is for its bus actually to stall out—especially in the middle of a 36-hour, cross-state "Marathon for the Middle Class" bus tour. But that’s exactly what happened to John Edwards the day before the Iowa caucus. His staff pleaded with reporters not to write up the low-hanging metaphor. They couldn’t resist.

4. Clinton’s inferno. In mid-April, just when Clinton was stoking the embers for a big comeback in Pennsylvania, her office in Terre Haute, Ind., burned to the ground. Investigators ruled out arson. A month later, she just barely eked out a victory in the must-win Hoosier State. But by then her campaign was all but engulfed.

3. Obama’s 37. When Obama first bowled a 37 at the Pleasant Valley Recreation Center in Altoona, Pa., he laughed it off: "I was terrible." But soon the score became a symbol of his aloofness from hard-working Americans. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough called the senator’s performance "dainty." Never mind that he hadn’t bowled all the frames himself. Suddenly he was the latte-sipping, arugula-munching, flag-pin-shunning elitist who rolls gutter balls. Clinton rubbed it in by challenging Obama to a "bowl-off" on April Fools' Day.

2. Clinton headquarters reduced to rubble. Back in February, the Clinton camp moved its home base from a fancy K Street pad in Washington, D.C., to a medicine cabinet of a building in Arlington, Va. The original digs were slated for demolition to make room for new condos. Hard to get more symbolic than wrecking balls.

1. Eight Belles’ last race. Two days before the Kentucky Derby, Clinton urged supporters to put their money on Eight Belles, the only filly competing. But on the day of the race, the girl horse placed second behind an inexperienced yet favored young colt named, of all things, Big Brown. Eight Belles crossed the finish line, but only after breaking both front ankles. She had to be euthanized on the track. Critics blamed the rough terrain. Big Brown went on to win the Preakness but inexplicably faltered in the final contest, the Belmont Stakes. Trainers are still scratching their heads. Instead, the winner was a horse named Da’ Tara—although, let’s be honest, it might as well be called Grizzled Old Veteran.

Change You Can Lift

Christopher Beam — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:17:00 GMT

It’s the first full week of the general election, and John McCain is already getting shredded for plagiarism. Not copying, exactly, but framing his candidacy as a reaction to Barack Obama’s.

It started Tuesday night, when McCain chose to orient his speech around the refrain, "That’s not change we can believe in." As one commentator put it, that’s just taking Obama’s slogan and saying no. Today, William Kristol chides McCain: "Even hardhearted Republicans think a general election message should be a bit more positive than that."

Later last week, National Journal’s Hotline pointed out that McCain’s new imagery mimics Obama’s logo. And McCain’s new slogan—"A Leader We Can Believe In"—is a direct response to Obama’s.

Despite the criticism, McCain seems prepared to run with the phrase. The camp has introduced a new blog called The McCain Report, subtitling it "A Blog We Can Believe In." Today, Obama kicks off his two-week economy tour with the sales pitch, "Change that Works for You." The McCain campaign sent out a response, concluding that "Barack Obama doesn't understand the American economy and that's change we just can't afford."

By co-opting Obama's language, McCain is essentially ceding the "change" label. Things will change under Obama, he’s saying, just not for the better. In what everyone seems to agree is a "change election," that seems like a risky idea. Hillary Clinton stumbled when she tried to turn Obama’s slogans on him—remember her "change we can Xerox" line, or her chanting of "Yes, we will." These moments felt more derivative than clever and tacitly acknowledged that Obama’s message had connected. Similarly, McCain is agreeing to begin the competition on Obama’s turf. Plus, however mawkish Obama’s image can sometimes be, attacks on "change" and "hope" just sound bitter. No moment has failed quite like Clinton’s sarcastic riff that under Obama "the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing, and the world will be perfect." McCain should take note.