A Republican VP nominee for Obama?

I'll start with a quote.

"....I believe any attempt by Democrats to pursue a more sharply partisan and ideological strategy misapprehends the moment we're in. I am convinced that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. For it's precisely the pursuit of ideological purity, the rigid orthodoxy and the sheer predictability of our current political debate, that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challenges we face as a country."

p. 39-40, The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama

Anyone who has read Senator Obama's personal manifesto will be amused at the accusations of flip-flop/ sell-out that have been levelled at him over the last couple of weeks. He protests that if anyone had listened to a word he said then they wouldn't be making these accusations. He's right. He appeared more liberal than Hillary mainly because his foreign policy stances were more progressive. Actually, he is a centrist and always has been.

More critically, he is comfortable with the notion of reaching across the partisan divide. So would he consider appointing a Republican Vice Presidential nominee?

Absolutely he would. And there is one candidate that is getting a considerable amount of attention.

Travelling with Barack Obama to Iraq in the next few days, will be a Republican Senator, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. He is a Vietnam war veteran, highly respected on foreign policy, and he has been a vocal critic of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. Famously he said:

"To question your government is not unpatriotic- to not question the government is unpatriotic."

So he has VP credentials coming out of his ears. What does he offer the Obama ticket? Well, it would signify 'change' as it would be a post-partisan manoeuvre, he would bolster the security and foreign policy credentials of the campaign, and he could neutralise some of John McCain's biography positives. The downside? How wouldObama's supporters react? More importantly, while quotes like the above get you in dictionaries of political quotations, they can also make good text to overlay some really threatening music on a campaign ad.Obama is desperately trying to establish his 'lapel pin' patriotism. Could Senator Hagel undermine that?

My guess is that Senator Obama would love to go for such a bold mood as appointing Chuck Hagel his running-mate. The politics may just end up being too risky.

Crying wolf over Obama's 'betrayals'

Another piece, in The Observer this time, draws attention to Obama's apparent political re-positioning. A similar argument is made in the LA Times. The liberal left often seems at its most comfortable when screaming betrayal at one of their own and so it will be with Barack Obama.

As I argued a couple of days ago, these accusations do not have much depth to them. What the argument amounts to is that his language on issues like Iran, Nafta, and Iraq has become 'more moderate' and his attitude towards recent Supreme Court judgements is not conventionally liberal. Michael Crowley's piece in the The Observer makes reference to a recent Rolling Stone interview of the presumed presidential nominee where he reveals his eclectic taste in music. Strange then that in the same interview Barack Obama is asked how to judge him at the end of his first term and he said:

Obama: "If I haven't gotten combat troops out of Iraq, passed universal health care and a new energy policy that speaks to our dependence on foreign oil and deals seriously with global warming, then we've missed the boat."

Seems pretty explicit on Iraq. Some will make much of the 'combat' qualifier on troops but this is consistent with where he's been positioned previously.

Michael Crowley sees Obama's alleged political re-positioning (as opposed to a rhetorical re-positioning) as a direct pitch to independent voters amongst whom McCain is in the lead. Firstly, it is worth saying that a lot of these 'independent' are actually Republican. There is currently a shift from Republican identification to independent identification as a result of the disastrous performance of the Bush administration.

More importantly, it would be crazy not to have the construction of a winning coalition in mind in all this but, given 22 debates with Senator Clinton, goodness knows how many hours of speeches, press and TV interviews, any substantive shifting of his positions will be walloped by the McCaincampaign and the media. He's anchored and that's it.

He is doing the right things and he is running a highly professional but principled political campaign. Let's just be careful about throwing around accusations of betrayal that don't have much behind them. If he did fundamentally shift by, for example, capriciously reversing his commitment to engage in dialogue with America's adversaries, then criticism would be justified. In the meantime, let's not cry wolf. All that does is prick up the ears of the Republican wolf in the forest.

Hillary, you MEGAstar

Unity in Unity, New Hampshire.

Obama's 'betrayals'....

Liberals are getting to stuck into Barack Obama for a series of positions that he has adopted that could be interpreted as political manoeuvring. Michael Tomasky takes issue with this, arguing that winning is a principle in itself.

I have already argued that refusing public funding was the right thing for Obama to do: it engages people in his campaign in huge numbers and, more expediently (but this is politics ladies and gentleman) could enable enable him to protect and build a more secure Democratic position in Congress, and lay the foundations for Democratic domination of US politics for some time.

His condemnation of the Supreme Courts decision to oppose the death penalty for child rapists is consistent with previous positions that he has adopted on the issue. Even the support for the 'clarification' provided by the Supreme Court yesterday, which outlawed Washington DC's ban on handguns is consistent with his previous positions. Ultimately, he is a constitutionalist and Amendment 2 of the US constitution is at best ambiguous, a seemingly qualified right to bear arms as it is. It can be read either way, and Obama respects the Supreme Court as a constitutional authority on this.

There is, however, a contradiction between the two positions he has adopted on these two Supreme Court judgements that can't be ignored: going with the Supreme Court on one and against on another. My suspicion is that there is some politics in his condemnation of the Supreme Court on the death penalty for child rapists. He can be forgiven for that- remember the Willie Horton ads which brought Michael Dukakis crashing down in 1988?



I wouldn't go quite as far as Michael Tomasky in arguing that winning is a political 'principle.' However, Obama can be forgiven for the position he has adopted on this. Anything else would not change a single thing, would have no chance of changing a single thing even if he were President (it's a Supreme Court judgement.......!), and could potentially cause major harm to his bid for the Presidency. Do we really want it to be John McCain who replaces the elderly Justices who currently occupy the Supreme Court? Absolutely not.

Obama's all-out attack

There has been much controversy about Barack Obama's refusal of public funds for his campaign. Public funds come with Federal spending limits of $84million and Obama's phenomenal fundraising power dictates that he would be foregoing serious campaign capital if he accepted them. Obama's campaign had raised $265million by the end of April from a mind-blowing 1.4million donors.

Many see Obama's refusal as a betrayal. That is an overly harsh assessment. The point about Obama's fundraising is that it is fuelled by millions of small donations rather than heavy fundraising from a limited number of sources. What this means in practice is that his campaign finance doesn't come with a political price tag unlike a candidate who is heavily financed by lobbyists, corporate interests, wealthy donors, and Political Action Committees. The more than 1million donors to his primary campaign are engaging in an active and constructive way with the democratic process and that is ultimately very different to the corrosive chicken dinner and K Street deal mode of raising campaign finance of the past.

John McCain will accept public finding and the $84million spending limit. He is no angel on this either. He declined Federal matched funds for his primary campaign (which come with a $50million or so spending limit) having said that he would apply for them. Expediency cuts across the political spectrum. Moreover, the $84million spending limit only applies once he is officially the candidate come September. He can raise and spend money with impunity until then and he will.

Now, what is Senator Obama going to use this massive pool of campaign cash for? This is where things get really interesting. An interview with Obama's Deputy Campaign Manager, Steve Hildebrand, reported on www.politico.com, reveals that the strategy is to focus resources on fourteen states that George Bush won in 2004. He will defend the previous blue (Democratic) states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Alongside that, he will make a play for fourteen of 2004's red states: Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, Montana, North Dakota, Indiana, Georgia and Alaska. He will also try to pick up some votes in Nebraska where electoral votes are distributed in accordance with congressional district votes. At the very least, this focus of resources will turn John McCain on his heels- they can't afford to suppose that all this is just an elaborate Obama bluff.

Even more interestingly, Obama is going to target certain congressional districts in the hope of shoring up Democratic dominance in the House of Representatives by winning seats in places such as Wyoming. He will also look to win the Texas state Legislature ahead of congressional re-districting in 2010.

Essentially, the Obama campaign strategy is tremendously ambitious and well-resourced. It is worth contemplating when feeling a bit squeamish about his eschewing of public funds that this is built on the largest pool of donors ever amassed which enable the most ambitious electoral strategy ever. If it works, this strategy will secure the Presidency, Congress, and build the foundations of a Democratic epoch.

Why free trade agreements don't work

A constant refrain of euro-sceptics is that the Europe we signed up for was just basically a glorified free trade area. Well, that is just historically inaccurate but what underlies it, and is also an under-current in Conservative thinking about Europe is that a free trade agreement would be preferable to the EU that we have. Without the encumbrance of political union, free trade would benefit all the nations of Europe without them having to cede any political 'sovereignty.'

Such a Europe could never work and here's why. Senators Joe Biden (for Obama) and Lindsey Graham (for McCain) debated NAFTA in the context of the US Presidential election on Meet the Press yesterday. Biden's point was that NAFTA should be re-negotiated with the threat of a US pull-out if Canada and Mexico refused. The failing of NAFTA for Biden and Obama is that it permits free trade with no requirement for Canada and Mexico to raise their environmental and labour standards to US levels. Not only that but the new standards would require some form of enforcement. The transcript and video are available below.

Transcript.



So its interesting after only a decade or so of NAFTA, US liberals are now calling for a fair market with enforcement. Well, they are behind the times. The founders of the European Economic Community understood the politics of international trade acutely and that is why they built a free trade area with a political and legal dimension.

The experience of the US with NAFTA is exactly why the European Commission and the European Court of Justice exist and have legal authority. If anyone argues that these things are just petty bureaucratic interfering or even worse, a challenge to our national interest and sovereignty then it is worth just pointing them in the direction of NAFTA and they will see their necessity.

Much like the founding fathers of the US republic, the founders of the EEC got it pretty much right. They left the EU with a democratic deficit that it has been struggling with ever since and is still struggling with. On building a Europe that had a chance of effectiveness and political survival, however, they were spot on. Europe goes beyond environmental and labour standards into consumer protection, competition regulation, employment equality, and work-life balance. It is a free and fair trade area.

If it's to have a long term chance of success NAFTA will have to head in the same direction. Instead of NAFTA being held up as an exemplar for Europe. It is the EU that should be held up as an exemplar for NAFTA.

How should Obama play it?

A really interesting poll appeared in the Washington Post yesterday on the Obama-McCain head-to-head. Two features particularly stood out: (i) Independent support for Obama and McCain is split evenly between the two candidates; (ii) Eight out of ten Democrats support Obama but nine out of ten Republicans support McCain. So there seems to be a challenge for Obama: shore up the base, pitch for the centre-ground or can he pull off both?

Actually, from the detailed poll data there is evidence that Senator Obama is very well placed: leads on the economy (the most significant issue by a 14-point margin), gas prices, age is more significant that race according to these poll findings, levels Iraq War policy (though underlying attitudes seem to be more in his favour), ties leadership, crucifies McCain on change in an election where voters want change and a massive number believe the country is headed in the wrong direction (85% or so.) In fact, if one were to induce Obama's poll rating from the these factors, you would expect a much greater lead than the 6% lead that he has.

So there is something holding back Senator Obama. Something which is not revealed in these polls. It could be the overhang of Hillary support from the primary campaign which he hasn't yet been able to dislodge. Maybe voters just like John McCain despite their ratings of him when its broken down into sub-issues. Maybe they just haven't quite taken to Senator Obama yet. The one area where Senator McCain enjoys a significant lead over Senator Obama is on counter-terrorism. Perhaps, despite misgivings about his economic policy, they just feel a bit safer with John McCain.

Looking at these polling data, Obama may be able to pitch both left and centre by driving home his advantage on economic and gas price policy. This feels like an economy election with the normal caveat of 'events, dear boy, events.' He will have to accept a score draw on foreign policy I suspect (which given where John Kerry was is a monumental achievement if he can pull it off.) On the economy, that is where he can build a real coalition of support. Given it is area of self-confessed weakness for John McCain also, the sun could well be shining on such a strategy.

Post script: I have changed the Electoral College counter to Real Clear Politics data. The www.electoral-vote.com data seemed to be too generous to Senator Obama and I'd rather go with the cautious assessment. Nothing scientific, just a hunch.

Vince Cable changes his tune on Obama...

Clearly, Vince Cable's really silly comments about Barack Obama a few weeks ago on The Politics Show and his misguided and ill-informed praise for John McCain has drawn some heavy private criticism- rightly. He now describes Obama as 'brilliant' and a 'statesman' and said he would make a great President.

On Question Time tonight, the silliest comment of all came from Douglas Hurd who came up with the potty suggestion that Obama should be President and McCain Secretary of State. Has he bothered to read their foreign policy stances?

What on earth are John McCain and Barack Obama so happy about?

So asks David Brooks of the New York Times. Obama has yet to define himself in a way that captures the imagination of working-class voters. John McCain has not yet been able to demonstrate that he is a clear break with the past. Tactical differences with George W Bush such as on climate change and immigration are all well and good but on the big issues: the economy and foreign policy, where are the great divides with Bush?

It's interesting because underlying the analysis is the position that John McCain is the personality candidate and Barack Obama is the policy candidate. If you read most of the press, certainly in the UK, you get a very different perspective.

So long, farewell and thanks for all the fun Mrs Clinton

A few weeks ago I argued that Hillary Clinton shouldn't quit the race quite yet and instead continue in the campaign but do so in a more magnanimous fashion. It seems that magnanimity is a bit too much for Ms Clinton just yet. Her surrogate Harold Ickes has been all over the news channels this weekend raging about 4 delegates taken from her tally in Michigan in opposition to the will of 600,000 voters.

Four things: 

(i) Barack Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan as the ruling at the time was that NONE of Michigan's delegates would be seated. The Obama campaign consequently didn't compete the seat following the DNC's ruling. 

(ii) It is clear that turnout was completely suppressed in Michigan so it is not at all clear that it can be counted as a proper primary in any sense. Compare Ohio, which has a similar population to Michigan and had a turnout of 2.2million. 600,000 or so voted in the Michigan primary in a more Democratic state. It is also a state in a geographic region where Obama has done well.

(iii) The decision was made by the Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee on the basis of a proposal by the Michigan Democratic Party. 

(iv) We are talking about FOUR delegates. Perhaps the Clinton campaign, in a characteristic act of denial, has not noticed that it is in deficit by over 150 delegates! Is it really worth ratcheting up the rhetoric to such a degree when the potential gain is so little?

So this is all a bit silly now. At a time when the rhetoric should be dampened, Clinton surrogates are still trying to stoke up resentment. What can they possibly gain? Nothing. The Democrats could pay a heavy price, however. Even the Clinton loyalist www.mydd.com concludes that her chances are 'near to nothing' as she now has to win 82% of the remaining delegates.

A few weeks ago, 'not yet' was my conclusion about whether Hillary Clinton should quit (with the important 'be nice' caveat which has been broken.) The final primaries take place in Montana and South Dakota tomorrow. The minute those polls close provides a great opportunity for Hillary Clinton to show her political courage and deep commitment to the party. 

Yes, Hillary, the time to quit has come. So long and thanks for all the fun.

Obama now projected majority

I've updated the latest electoral counter (to the left) as I'll do every few days. Obama's projected electoral vote is now over 270. Just a bit of fun but it is a key indicator.

Clinton beats Obama in the electoral college

I've just seen an absolutely fascinating analysis about the US Presidential race. The site www.electoral-vote.com has done an analysis of who is better placed to beat McCain this Autumn based on the available polling evidence. There needs to be an enormous health warning attached to this: polls now do not necessarily indicate how things will go come November. Actually, 'not necessarily' is not strong enough. They do not.

But what it shows, hold your breath Obama supporters, is that Hillary Clinton would win the electoral college by 327 to 194 as polls stand. Obama's lead would be only 266 to 248. That is four short of a majority.

In addition to the health warning, I would also make the comment that Hillary currently secures more of the lower income, white Democratic base than Obama and they are not moving over to him quite yet. I believe they will but he has a hell of a job to do to convince them. He has all but sealed the nomination but he hasn't sealed the deal with the voters. Far from it.

These maps also show that his superior national lead over McCain when compared to Hillary does not translate into a superior performance in the electoral college.

I'll keep an eye on this website as it will graphically demonstrate how the Obama campaign is going state by state. But the campaign has a long way to go. He has time to do it.

I have put a permanent counter on the site (top left) which I will update periodically.

Obama and McCain spat continues

The war of words between Senators Obama and McCain has continued into today. John McCain accused Senator Obama of 'inexperience and reckless' judgement.

I find two elements of the McCain position confusing:

i) President Ahmadinejad is in power and it really is irrelevant whether the US hands him a 'propaganda victory' by meeting up with him if that is indeed all it would be. A meeting doesn't change things with regard to Ahmadinejad's position in Iran in the slightest either way. The bellicose approach has failed so what exactly is there to lose?

ii) What is McCain proposing instead? Do what we say or else? What if Iran doesn't comply? Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran (as McCain once hilariously sang to the tune of Barbara Anne by the Beach Boys)?

In no way am I suggesting that any recourse should be taken off the table or under-estimating the threat posed by Iran (in the Middle East at least) but I just don't see how the McCain strategy leads to anything other than embarrassment for the US, an uneasy and probably unsustainable deadlock, or a military strike on Iran. If stand-off diplomacy is the way we are going to continue, then the options and outcomes are narrowed drastically.

The only amazing thing about this spat, is that Senator Obama's position is portrayed as so extreme. It has its risks but there really is very little to lose and everything to gain.

Will 80,000 people be watching the Champions League final live?

Maybe, just about. Well 80,000 people spent their Sunday afternoon going to listen to Barack Obama.

I'm not sure at times whether he is still a politician or he has become U2. Well, I guess that Bono has tried to make the opposite journey...

Bush's neo-McCarthyism is now failing

I have a contribution on The Independent's Open House today on Bush's failing neo-McCarthyism that I alluded to in the post below.

The article is here.

Neo-con history

Chris Matthews of MSNBC is quickly becoming a hero. He stood up to a dotty neo-con, right wing talk show host a couple of days ago on his Hardball show. Kevin James, his clueless guest, made a historically inept reference to Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler and Barack Obama's approach of constructive engagement with Iran.

Watch the clip, and it is worth watching, believe me:



It was great to see one these characters finally called to task. Kevin James is a pretty weak example of how to play the neo-con straw man game. You know, the one there where you escalate risk assessment, mis-quote and misuse history, define anyone who is a sliver to your left as some form of innocent, appeaser, or traitor, you define your international adversaries as pure evil, and then demand the most aggressive response imaginable. But the basic game plan is the same no matter how skillfully it's played.

There can only be hope that Chris Matthews has shown the way to stand up to this and that will allow the debate to breathe in this critically important Presidential election.

What is the point of the BBC's Justin Webb?

John Edwards has been flagging the fact that he was about to endorse Barack Obama for a few days now through his appearances on a variety of political agenda-setting shows. And now he has actually endorsed Obama.

The BBC's Justin Webb says....it helps Obama. Genius. Justin you had to put your reputation on the line there. Some might question what you are doing apart from watching US TV and looking at US political websites. But not me (I'm doing the same.) We know that you're there to be Mr BBC: boring and slightly patronising and very much behind the curve.

If the BBC doesn't raise its game on political reporting, surely there should be a franchise system to enable other broadcasters to provide a genuinely high quality service (and this does not mean audience numbers.....) In fairness, Matt Frei is excellent. The fact that the BBC messes around with Justin Webb shows that the organisation isn't.

Mike Smithson of www.politicalbetting.com is equally perturbed at the BBC's political coverage.

Hillary as Vice President?

Michael Tomasky runs through the negatives for Hillary becoming Obama's Vice-Presidential nominee: he would inherent her weaknesses, her foreign policy stance, they couldn't work together, and then there's Bill. I would add the negative of some of her comments and insinuations during the campaign about his ability to be Commander-in-Chief in particular. Republicans would have her comments on a loop during the whole campaign if she was VP nominee.

I guess it comes down to whether he thinks he can win over her voters. He will be fairly confident of achieving that and so won't risk the negatives that Hillary represents in my view. Also, he's in such a strong position now that he can avoid having a unity ticket foisted upon him by the party. If not Hillary then who? Well, I've always thought that Bill Richardson would make an interesting choice but let's see how the debate shapes up.

Obama takes lead in super-delegates

This is a critical turning point in the campaign. Obama now leads in super-delegates (party elders, representatives, and officials) according to ABC News. He already has an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates (based on caucuses and primaries.) The party is rallying behind him.

Why Hillary Clinton shouldn't quit......yet

The result is now all but beyond doubt. Yet that doesn't mean that how this is resolved does not matter. The dignified retreat by Mike Huckabee should be the model for Hillary Clinton. She is still campaigning and that is absolutely right but how she campaigns matters.

The tone of this battle needs to be brought down. Right now, many of Hillary's supporters are smarting, especially in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and other recent states where she has won on the basis of a tough campaign against Barack Obama winning the white, blue collar vote in the process. Up to a third of her voters currently say that they wouldn't vote for Barack Obama. Hillary has to manage the upset down to give Obama every chance to reclaim those voters for the Democrats. That process is best achieved on the basis of Hillary seeing this race out to its conclusion but in a positive manner that unifies the party. She needs to start saying lots of very nice things about Obama.

A cynical viewpoint sees Hillary's strategy as a destructive one. There is a theory that she is trying to destroy Obama's candidacy with a view to running again in 2012. She has gone too far on a few occasions- by pouring petrol on the flames on a number of controversies, by suggesting that Obama had not been properly vetted, by suggesting that only John McCain and herself have the experience to be Commander-in Chief. I don't believe that is her strategy at all but we will see in the next few weeks.

Clinton is an exceptional but highly flawed candidate. She hasn't won this battle but boy did she turn it into a fight. Now is the time to show the political world her very best side. If the great divider in American politics can be the unifier of the Democrats she will do herself no end of good. And who knows, if Obama doesn't quite make it, she may get another shot in 2012 and this time she could win.

Postscript: Some good articles shamelessly pilfered from Real Clear Politics are linked below.

Joe Klein foresees an uplifting battle of ideas and personalities in the McCain v Obama race (Cindy McCain was also on MSNBC yesterday saying that her husband wouldn't go negative.....but his surrogates?) but the media needs to give that type of campaign the oxygen it needs. Klein's conclusion:

"A general-election campaign between John McCain and Barack Obama doesn't need any hype. It won't be boring. The question is whether we, politicians and press alike, will grant this election — and electorate — the respect that it deserves."

Dick Morris, a wily and utterly unsentimental political titan, doesn't see Hillary letting this defeat go lightly. Instead she will hang and chop Obama ready for display in the butcher's window.

And finally, David Ignatius discusses how the situation in the Middle East could project itself into the campaign over the coming months- continuing Iranian training of militia in Iraq and a potential US military response, a possible Israel-Palestine 'shelf' peace deal, and an interesting diplomatic initiative by Turkey to broker a peace deal between Syria and Israel.