People who proudly describe themselves as "moderates" or "independents" are irksome. Those terms are inherently self-congratulatory: moderation and independence, as personality traits, are positive value judgments. And yet describing people as political moderates really doesn't make much sense. That's because "right" and "left" are more or less arbitrary designations that lump a lot of disparate beliefs into one big amorphous piece of dough. There is no philosophical reason that I can see for people to simultaneously oppose abortion and support the death penalty; oppose governmental intervention in economic matters and support it in personal affairs; support capitalism and reject gay marriage; or oppose strong trade-union rights and approve of teaching creationism in schools. (And vice versa, for the left).
It's not necessarily contradictory to hold those sets of beliefs, but it certainly is arbitrary. The coalitions came about for purely political reasons, not at because there is any kind of moral dictum that says the side that supports universal healthcare must also support Yglesian internationalism. And so describing yourself as "moderate" doesn't automatically mean you're a sensible, measured person who really looks at all the evidence and makes a considered, responsible decision each election, as such self-branded moderates seem to want to proclaim. It just means you either haven't made up your mind, or hold positions that happen to either intersect with both parties or not fit into either of them.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
VP Dough
So the VP debate is day after tomorrow. As things stand now, I think we're looking at three possibilities, listed from most to least likely:
1. Palin is able to stick to her memorized responses and even land a few hits. Biden sticks to his guns and attacks McCain. Press declares a win for Palin and questions about her start to fade into the background, but no real change in polling, except possibly a 1-point "base bounce" for McCain.
2. Palin really duffs it up. Maybe she doesn't know how to answer a crucial question, or flat-out contradicts her own platform again, or just has another of her famous "stall with drivel" moments. Attacks on her from left and right intensify, pressure mounts for McCain to apologize for her, etc. Momentum of the polling is mostly unchanged--Obama continues to gain, though is bound to hit a plateau soo.
3. Biden makes a really, really bad gaffe. It would have to be quite bad, bad enough to turn off even supporters. Narrative shifts away from Palin's incompetence, right starts up the mock-outrage machine, race starts to tighten thanks to corresponding scrutiny on Obama camp.
I have to doubt 3 will happen. I do think there's a fair chance Biden could say something vaguely wrongheaded, like his FDR gaffe or "clean and articulate," and it might turn into a localized controversy for one or two news cycles but not penetrate public confidence. For Possibility 3 to really change the game, Biden would have to reach gross levels of poor taste--reaching for Palin's ass when he hugs her, repeatedly using condescending and sexist language, or something similarly egregious. I don't see that happening--Biden isn't dumb, and you can bet he's being coached about avoiding this kind of disaster, since it's one of his only true vulnerabilities going into the debate.
Number 2 is, of course, what we're all dreaming of. I can't tell you how fucking ecstatic I would be if Palin managed to display her unreadiness as gorily as she did with Couric. And in small ways, she probably will seem shaky on a few questions; if Gwen Ifill starts to ask "pros-and-cons"-style followups as Couric did, Palin could be in trouble. But as for truly back-breaking balls-ups, I would think Palin's prep team has pretty much ironed them out of her by now. As long as the questions aren't too focused on obscure aspects of highly specific issues, chances are Palin will have a canned response ready, and as long as she can bring that response from brain to mouth in recognizable form, she isn't going to sound catastrophically braindead this time. Of course, we could always get lucky.
But it's the first outcome that I think is most likely. Biden will have been instructed to (a) show warmth to Palin, to avoid comparisons to McCain; (b) be thorough and wonkish but not contrastive to Palin herself, letting the inherent discrepancy between Palin's knowledge and his own shine through without being aggressive; (c) focus all attacks on McCain and Republicans rather than Palin; and (d) not fuck it up, i.e. don't reach over and grab Palin's tit or something. Palin will have been taught to (a) insert as many smiling, Umbridge-style faux-populist cheap shots at Obama and Dems as she can; (b) keep responses brief, but drop as many names as possible to appear knowledgable; maintain a Presidential demeanor; and (d) keep to the script whenever humanly possible. Both candidates will be fairly cautious; they both just want to get through this thing without utterly screwing over their running mate. And so what we'll have is a mostly boring debate with few fireworks or memorable lines. And just as "holding his own against McCain" was enough for Obama, holding her own against Biden will be enough for Palin--more than enough, in fact, as far as the media is concerned. I wish we could look forward to an exciting debate, but I just don't see it happening.
1. Palin is able to stick to her memorized responses and even land a few hits. Biden sticks to his guns and attacks McCain. Press declares a win for Palin and questions about her start to fade into the background, but no real change in polling, except possibly a 1-point "base bounce" for McCain.
2. Palin really duffs it up. Maybe she doesn't know how to answer a crucial question, or flat-out contradicts her own platform again, or just has another of her famous "stall with drivel" moments. Attacks on her from left and right intensify, pressure mounts for McCain to apologize for her, etc. Momentum of the polling is mostly unchanged--Obama continues to gain, though is bound to hit a plateau soo.
3. Biden makes a really, really bad gaffe. It would have to be quite bad, bad enough to turn off even supporters. Narrative shifts away from Palin's incompetence, right starts up the mock-outrage machine, race starts to tighten thanks to corresponding scrutiny on Obama camp.
I have to doubt 3 will happen. I do think there's a fair chance Biden could say something vaguely wrongheaded, like his FDR gaffe or "clean and articulate," and it might turn into a localized controversy for one or two news cycles but not penetrate public confidence. For Possibility 3 to really change the game, Biden would have to reach gross levels of poor taste--reaching for Palin's ass when he hugs her, repeatedly using condescending and sexist language, or something similarly egregious. I don't see that happening--Biden isn't dumb, and you can bet he's being coached about avoiding this kind of disaster, since it's one of his only true vulnerabilities going into the debate.
Number 2 is, of course, what we're all dreaming of. I can't tell you how fucking ecstatic I would be if Palin managed to display her unreadiness as gorily as she did with Couric. And in small ways, she probably will seem shaky on a few questions; if Gwen Ifill starts to ask "pros-and-cons"-style followups as Couric did, Palin could be in trouble. But as for truly back-breaking balls-ups, I would think Palin's prep team has pretty much ironed them out of her by now. As long as the questions aren't too focused on obscure aspects of highly specific issues, chances are Palin will have a canned response ready, and as long as she can bring that response from brain to mouth in recognizable form, she isn't going to sound catastrophically braindead this time. Of course, we could always get lucky.
But it's the first outcome that I think is most likely. Biden will have been instructed to (a) show warmth to Palin, to avoid comparisons to McCain; (b) be thorough and wonkish but not contrastive to Palin herself, letting the inherent discrepancy between Palin's knowledge and his own shine through without being aggressive; (c) focus all attacks on McCain and Republicans rather than Palin; and (d) not fuck it up, i.e. don't reach over and grab Palin's tit or something. Palin will have been taught to (a) insert as many smiling, Umbridge-style faux-populist cheap shots at Obama and Dems as she can; (b) keep responses brief, but drop as many names as possible to appear knowledgable; maintain a Presidential demeanor; and (d) keep to the script whenever humanly possible. Both candidates will be fairly cautious; they both just want to get through this thing without utterly screwing over their running mate. And so what we'll have is a mostly boring debate with few fireworks or memorable lines. And just as "holding his own against McCain" was enough for Obama, holding her own against Biden will be enough for Palin--more than enough, in fact, as far as the media is concerned. I wish we could look forward to an exciting debate, but I just don't see it happening.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Liveblogging
9:05: Strong response by Obama. Absolutely fantastic. No pauses, incredibly decisive. This is so reassuring. Big hit on supply side ec as well. Brilliant.
9:08: McCain is similar, maybe not quite as forceful. Weird tie-in to foreign oil.
9:10: Obama still aggressive, points to his record.
9:11: McCain: "Me too."
9:12: Wow. Obama is really banging away at the populism thing.
9:13: I love Lehrer. What a sweet dude.
9:14: McCain probably should avoid using the word "fundamental" as much as he can. He just used it three times in that response.
9:14: Oop, Lehrer just used it.
9:15: Eaaaarmaaark tiiime
9:17: Obama rips McCain on irrelevance of earmarks compared to McCain's tax cut proposals.
9:18: McCain punches back. But it's hard to argue with Obama's numbers.
9:24: Slight dynamic change--Obama is slightly more defensive. McCain can't give up on the earmarks thing. Obama needs to keep hammering on the healthcare-benefits tax.
9:29: Not a big fan of Obama's big catalogue of projects. Seems pie-in-the-sky. I still don't think McCain's calls for spending cuts are any more resonant.
9:35: Oh, screw you, Lehrer. Sometimes I think these mods get too attached to their questions. Just kidding, I love you, Jim.
9:35: Neeeeds moooore Bush-bashing. Obama is letting McCain get away with too much stuff.
9:41: This will be crucial. Obama needs to redirect from surge and towards AUMF.
9:44: Don't take the bait, Barack.
9:46: Temper, temper! Obama's got to bait and bait and bait. Come on, McCain's getting pissy.
9:48: I don't see Afghanistan as being a winning issue. And Obama needs to mention 100 years.
9:52: Grumph, Obama needs to speak more clearly and be more offense-focused.
9:56: ANAL RAPE with bomb bomb Iran from Obama. THANK YOU.
9:59: McCain resorts to storytelling; Obama now apparently on the offensive.
10:03: McCain still sticking to personal narrative. Obama makes a devastating comeback on the "mother of a soldier" front.
10:03: Aw, bustling, officious Jim.
10:24: Yawn, I guess.
10:33: Obama needs to hit back at McCain's so-far-unchallenged idea that Obama's Iraq plan entails "defeat."
10:37: Noun. Verb. POW.
9:08: McCain is similar, maybe not quite as forceful. Weird tie-in to foreign oil.
9:10: Obama still aggressive, points to his record.
9:11: McCain: "Me too."
9:12: Wow. Obama is really banging away at the populism thing.
9:13: I love Lehrer. What a sweet dude.
9:14: McCain probably should avoid using the word "fundamental" as much as he can. He just used it three times in that response.
9:14: Oop, Lehrer just used it.
9:15: Eaaaarmaaark tiiime
9:17: Obama rips McCain on irrelevance of earmarks compared to McCain's tax cut proposals.
9:18: McCain punches back. But it's hard to argue with Obama's numbers.
9:24: Slight dynamic change--Obama is slightly more defensive. McCain can't give up on the earmarks thing. Obama needs to keep hammering on the healthcare-benefits tax.
9:29: Not a big fan of Obama's big catalogue of projects. Seems pie-in-the-sky. I still don't think McCain's calls for spending cuts are any more resonant.
9:35: Oh, screw you, Lehrer. Sometimes I think these mods get too attached to their questions. Just kidding, I love you, Jim.
9:35: Neeeeds moooore Bush-bashing. Obama is letting McCain get away with too much stuff.
9:41: This will be crucial. Obama needs to redirect from surge and towards AUMF.
9:44: Don't take the bait, Barack.
9:46: Temper, temper! Obama's got to bait and bait and bait. Come on, McCain's getting pissy.
9:48: I don't see Afghanistan as being a winning issue. And Obama needs to mention 100 years.
9:52: Grumph, Obama needs to speak more clearly and be more offense-focused.
9:56: ANAL RAPE with bomb bomb Iran from Obama. THANK YOU.
9:59: McCain resorts to storytelling; Obama now apparently on the offensive.
10:03: McCain still sticking to personal narrative. Obama makes a devastating comeback on the "mother of a soldier" front.
10:03: Aw, bustling, officious Jim.
10:24: Yawn, I guess.
10:33: Obama needs to hit back at McCain's so-far-unchallenged idea that Obama's Iraq plan entails "defeat."
10:37: Noun. Verb. POW.
Kennedy wants to square dance with me
Poor Kennedy. Really hope he's okay. His appearance at the convention was so poignant. He really is a lion. A fucking lion. Ezra made a great post about him after the DNC, I'll try to dig it up.
Debate predictions
I'm very, very keyed up about this thing, so naturally it will end up being a bad night for Obama. My optimistic prediction is that McCain appears tired and frustrated, Obama looks fresh and confident, and the media will reluctantly call it a draw. My realistic prediction is that McCain will look shitty, but so will Obama, and McCain will get in at least one Surge zinger; then the media, jumping at a chance to run back to papa, will joyously proclaim it a home run for McCain.
I have similar sentiments about the VP debate. Biden will be unremarkable. Palin will manage to string a few sentences together, people will be reminded of her convention speech, and she'll be met with a big welcome-back bear (moose) hug from the right.
This will be the first presidential debate I've watched since I discovered blogs and became marginally informed about politics, and I'm hoping for a real treat. I'm going to be rocking the chips and dip.
I have similar sentiments about the VP debate. Biden will be unremarkable. Palin will manage to string a few sentences together, people will be reminded of her convention speech, and she'll be met with a big welcome-back bear (moose) hug from the right.
This will be the first presidential debate I've watched since I discovered blogs and became marginally informed about politics, and I'm hoping for a real treat. I'm going to be rocking the chips and dip.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Scorn
Dave Sirota with a fantastic post about his "gut" reasons to vote for Obama. I'm glad I didn't see the event he was talking about, because it would have made me feel sick to my stomach too.
There is one niggling detail, though. Sirota lauds Obama by saying that he "does fundamentally reject the conservative world view that is destroying our country." I just wish there were a little more evidence of that. While at heart, of course, Obama is left of center on policy, he shows a disturbing lack of willingness to really lash out at conservatism as a pernicious, morally bankrupt ideology. This isn't about him not being aggressive enough per se; indeed, he has a very disciplined message against McCain, specifically the "more of the same" meme. And he hammers that home often enough, along with his surrogates. But in the broader picture, for every rhetorical foray into populism or progressivism that Obama makes, he gives two more mindless platitudes about bipartisanship. He just isn't willing to make the leap from advocating liberal positions to pointing out that most conservative ones are terrible, or from praising liberal thinkers to noting that most conservative ones are dishonest and destructive. Deep inside, Obama hasn't yet convinced himself that conservatives are in the end deserving of no more than scorn and pity. I really wish we had somebody outside of the blogosphere who both realized this and was willing to say it.
There is one niggling detail, though. Sirota lauds Obama by saying that he "does fundamentally reject the conservative world view that is destroying our country." I just wish there were a little more evidence of that. While at heart, of course, Obama is left of center on policy, he shows a disturbing lack of willingness to really lash out at conservatism as a pernicious, morally bankrupt ideology. This isn't about him not being aggressive enough per se; indeed, he has a very disciplined message against McCain, specifically the "more of the same" meme. And he hammers that home often enough, along with his surrogates. But in the broader picture, for every rhetorical foray into populism or progressivism that Obama makes, he gives two more mindless platitudes about bipartisanship. He just isn't willing to make the leap from advocating liberal positions to pointing out that most conservative ones are terrible, or from praising liberal thinkers to noting that most conservative ones are dishonest and destructive. Deep inside, Obama hasn't yet convinced himself that conservatives are in the end deserving of no more than scorn and pity. I really wish we had somebody outside of the blogosphere who both realized this and was willing to say it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)