Another Other?

September 25, 2007

We don’t have a category for Al Gore, so I’m throwing him in with “The Others,” but Christopher Hitchens keeps the dream alive:

 I am only guessing here, but I think that when Gore wakes up early and upset, he isn’t whimpering about the time that the Supreme Court finally ruled against him in 2000. He is whimpering about the time in 1992 when he left the field open to Bill Clinton, a man he secretly despised. Can he really stand to watch yet another Clinton walk away with a nomination that could have been, or could still be, his? To move, then, from a consideration of elevated politics to a reflection upon the baser motives, we have to ask if Gore can possibly be content to be a “citizen” when he could still be a contender.

And if David Brooks is right about the waning influence of the “Netroots” crowd, then Hitchens’ prescription of Gore might just be an attractive one for Democrats made sick by the recent discourse led by party frontrunners:

I remind you that Gore was once a stern advocate of the removal of Saddam Hussein, and that in office he might well not be the coward or apologist that the MoveOn.org crowd is still hoping to nominate. One has the very slight sense that he contains some unexpended political energy and has acquired some dearly bought political experience. At any rate, nothing could be worse than the present dreary political routine, and if it takes a Scandinavian kick-start to alter the odds, then for once one can hope that the heirs of Alfred Nobel will have a more explosive and catalytic effect than they had intended.

No Comments » | Democrats, The Others | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

The Assault on Understatement

September 10, 2007

Thanks to former and (hopefully) future eightfor08er Megkibbee for a link to Michael Tomasky’s NY Review of Books piece on Al Gore’s The Assault on Reason. The review is a bit choppy and hyperbolic (as I can only assume Gore’s book reads as well), but the important parts are the questions Tomasky poses for voters in 2008:

 The Democratic candidates have pledged to close Guantánamo Bay, renounce the use of torture, and balance the fight against terrorism with greater concern for civil liberties. But once politicians are in office, things change. Right now, of course, the president has the personal power, unchecked by any other person or entity, to declare an American citizen an “enemy combatant.” Will the next president give up that right unilaterally? Democratic candidates should be pressed on that specific question and a host of others like it, including whether they will continue the administration’s domestic surveillance programs, whether they’ll amend any provisions of the Patriot Act, and whether they’ll revise the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which may deny habeas corpus rights to US citizens in some circumstances. Forget the leading Republicans; Mitt Romney’s vow to “double” the size of Guantánamo is representative of their views.

The vital question in this mediocre paragraph: is the inertia of the swing in executive power so great that it will prevent candidates from achieving the reforms they are promising? I think, in large part, it is, and that the next president will be challenged to cede some power in order to achieve reforms. That’s a tough spot to be in. Granted, the 08 candidates may also be able to convince voters that s/he can utilize the boon for the next administration. So the voters need to consider if the problem is the power of the executive or simply who the executive is. Yesterday’s excellent Times Magazine cover story on Jack Goldsmith also explores these issues.

No Comments » | Democrats, The Others | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

Finding Their Inner-Geek

August 22, 2007

The class of ‘08 isn’t exactly ready to establish a policy platform on Java vs. C++ (nor am I…I have no idea what that means), but we are definitely seeing some major progress this campaign in candidate awareness of tech policy issues. The National Journal presents an excellent overview of candidate positions on everything from Net Neutrality, to spectrum auctions, to how well the campaigns themselves are utilizing web 2.0. That’s fun and important to many of us, but what I find fascinating is how much a candidate’s position on tech issues - or sometimes simply what tech issues they choose to focus on - can tell you about the candidate. I’ll use some excerpts from the National Journal piece to explain:

Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York has incorporated technology into almost every aspect of her policy platform — from using information technology to overhaul health care to likening her plan to build a national, high-speed Internet system to the wiring of America after the development of the telephone and electricity.

This is hardly even a policy stance, this is about infrastructure investment, but it says a lot about the Clinton campaign: think big, stick with the can’t-lose issues, don’t get mired in a technical debate. Just ask the other candidates, right now, you don’t want to argue with this woman.

Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has come out in strong support of network neutrality, a term that describes efforts to ensure equal treatment of broadband content. He is also the only candidate to write the FCC and ask commissioners to use the upcoming spectrum auction to make the Internet more affordable and accessible.

Ever the populist. Sticks with name-brand issues that seem simpler than they really are: make a good name for yourself among the activist left and ignore the dirty work of actually accomplishing the policy objectives.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois wants to focus on expanding Internet access in rural areas and inner cities, and he has a plan for granting vouchers to low-income households for converter boxes to help them transition from analog to digital television broadcasts.

High-impact, low-commitment (from a policy standpoint). Obama is constituent-focused and wants to be seen as a candidate for progress, giving himself measurable and achievable objectives.

Meanwhile, read on in the NJ piece to see how the second-tier Democrats utilize technology issues as a conduit to get the voter to their real strengths: Kucinich focuses on technology and outsourcing, Biden is concerned w/ technology when it harms national security, and Mike Gravel has refocused his campaign and has an excellent shot at being elected President of SecondLife.

From Left to Right:

Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas has been active in pushing legislation related to “decency” and regulatory controls on various forms of media. Sen. John McCain this year has sponsored a bill aimed at making the moratorium on certain Internet-related taxes permanent.

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas…has been a vocal opponent of Internet regulation of any type…

Mitt Romney of Massachusetts has been vocal about his opposition to Internet pornography and the need for better protections for children surfing the Internet. And Mike Huckabee of Arkansas received praise while in office for brining e-government to his largely rural state.

Pretty straight forward: only need a policy when it comes to pornography and terrorism, which is about all the Internet is good for anyway. And Giuliani’s my favorite:

 ”Mayor Giuliani believes that the free flow of information on the Internet and the development of new technologies are essential to America’s global leadership in the 21st century,” a spokesman said. “Open competition should be encouraged, and federal government intervention in these areas should be limited to reasonable regulation and vigilant security against those who want to exploit it for illegal or unethical acts.”

Mr. Mayor, whatever you do, don’t forget the three Rs: Rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric. Giuliani’s tendency to equivocate and rely on tough-guy tropes has been covered on this blog and elsewhere and we see above that he can pull this off for any issue.

To be fair, conventional campaign wisdom says the Democrats are the only earthly-party with a geek constituency, hence their more nuanced and focused approach. However, conventional wisdom also allows the Dems to stick to their own little cottage-industries within the wider landscape of technology policy issues, and the absence of engagement from the Republicans leaves voters with a dearth of substantive debate. However, I wouldn’t say the Right writ-large is not engaged in the debate. Full disclosure, I work and study in the field of technologies policy and see plenty of voices and powerful forces balancing what Bill O’Reilly likes to call the Netroots Ku Klux Klan. Makes me wonder if the Republicans couldn’t gain some ground in the netroots community by actually engaging them and getting the backs of their consituents already in the debate. There’s a loose parallel here to the battle over the Latino vote that Bush, Rove, and others think the Republicans are ceding to the Left. When I see the Republicans unsure of whether the YouTube debates are even a good idea, I wonder if they’re not doing the same with the geeks.

1 Comment | Biden, Clinton, Edwards, Giuliani, Kucinich, McCain, Obama, Richardson, Ron Paul, The Others | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

WhoseTube? Debates I

July 24, 2007

Some thoughts on this ‘historic, unique, and first of its kind debate:’

*CNN did an amazing job playing the middle man who fucks up a perfectly good deal.

*I bet Joe Biden will get some nice play for his performance tonight. He deserves it. I respect that he has a plan. Tonight’s viewers will respect that too, but they’ll get bored by his ‘I have a plan’ speech, which is the extent of his schtick. Meanwhile, I would like to hear him describe how his plan on Iraq is going to play out and how a no-fly zone in Darfur will impact the Sudanese government.

*If I’m a speech writer, campaign manager, or debate junkie, Hillary makes me horny. She seemingly executes every response just as her team drew it up and somehow doesn’t make you want to strangle her for it.

*Obama vs. Edwards: Who will win the fight for the populists? Being that Hillary has at least 35% of the primary votes locked-up, this is a worthwhile fight because it will determine who will still be around late in the primary to have a shot at overtaking Hill. That doesn’t make it any less awkward watching them battle it out.

*Richardson: Had a good night. If Obama/Edwards is the fight for the ‘working man’ and second place among the Dems, then Richardson/Biden is the dual for the policy wonk and third. Biden may have made up some ground in this dual tonight, particularly with Richardson advocating for ‘everybody out of Iraq in 6 months.’ As ridiculous as this is, I was still impressed w/ Biden’s ability to debunk it in the space of this revolutionary forum (insert smiley faces and acronyms that imply laughing out loud at ‘revolutionary forum’).

*Huh, turns out the revolution will be televised…and filled with cynical asides about equal time.

*[Question to Hillary Clinton] “The Arab states believe women are second-class citizens, what makes you think they’ll take you seriously?” Another bonus of the format: gives a sense of what Americans are really thinking. As ridiculous as this question and its premise are, it should be just as valuable to the candidates as the audience. Meanwhile, let’s keep in mind CNN and the geniuses who brought you ‘Crossfire’ and ‘The Situation Room’ are choosing these questions.

*Mike Gravel: Would be much more productive to have him making the YouTube videos.

*Biden wins for best outro answers, meaning they fit perfectly into one of CNN’s outros in the post-debate analysis. I’m thinking specifically of his answer to the ‘in God we trust’ question (”the coin has it right”) and the gun question (”if that’s his baby he needs help” - something like that).

*Democrats need to shut the fuck up about the Iraqi parliament going on vacation. My personal opinion is that the charges of Iraqi politicians not being incentivized are baseless, and beyond that, I think pot-shots at those in charge in Iraq are a bad move politically.

*I’m wondering how Hillary Clinton can NOT take a private jet to California.

*Um, was John Edwards serious w/ that coat comment. By the end of this revolutionary debate I lost track of what was ironic.

*If anyone can use footage from this debate in mash-ups or for other purposes, then Mike Gravel needs to use Anderson Cooper in his next campaign ad and convince his base that it is CNN he’s running against.

*Final analysis: Joe Biden may not be in the eight, but he did earn his category tonight; Bill Richardson didn’t lose any of the ground he gained in the last few weeks, which is a real accomplishment for him; the other candidates should now be convinced that Hillary Clinton is not going to fuck this up, they will actually have to defeat her; hopefully this whole YouTube thing has CNN thinking they could save money and just outsource the Cafferty File.

*You asked, they answered - how could this have ever happened without CNN…I mean YouTube.

No Comments » | Biden, Clinton, Debates, Edwards, Obama, Richardson, The Others | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

Dollars vs. Debates

July 5, 2007

Some nice insights these last couple days re: new fundraising numbers. Here’s another one from Clive Crook’s Financial Times Op-Ed (again, no link, subscription only…they’ll get that right someday):

Obama is outperforming Clinton in what was suppose to be her strongest event (fundraising); she is outperforming him in what was supposed to be his (rhetoric).

As in the good kind of rhetoric: inspirational and influencial speech. In case you missed the Democratic Forum on PBS last week, performances there were definitely in line with Cook’s observations. My reactions to that pseudo-debate were something like this:

Richardson = Awful on all things not foreign policy

Mike Gravel = Oh my God, are they paying these people to nod and clap when he speaks?

John Edwards = So polished he’s blinding…not a good thing.

Joe Biden = If he’s talking over people’s heads on the PBS debate, how’s he gonna play on Fox News?

Barak Obama = Seems to be fumbling opportunities. Timing’s off. His staff needs to grill him on this stuff more often.

Hillary = Wow.

1 Comment | Clinton, Debates, Edwards, Money, Obama, Richardson, The Others | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett

What if they held a debate and nobody came?

June 7, 2007

That’s pretty much what happened last night at the Iraq Debate hosted by the Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in DC. The only candidates who agreed to speak were Joe Biden, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich - and as far as I can tell from scanning news sources this morning, not a single media outlet is reporting on what they had to say.

No Comments » | Debates, Iraq War Stance, The Others | Permalink
Posted by megkibbee

Quacking, Highly Radioactive Liberal Duck

June 7, 2007

For a Democrat, it’s going to be a great season of watching Republicans tear into each other and President Bush, a/k/a Mr. 30% Popularity. Pass the popcorn!

(for those who missed the debate *cough me cough* there’s a transcript at CNN.)

General jabs aside, the most interesting part is the emerging meme that Bush’s main failure is that he’s simply too liberal. The mind reels.

Tancredo: “The president ran as a conservative and governed as a liberal. That is what has really been the basis, I think, of the distrust that has developed among the Republican base. It’s well founded.”

Thompson: “We got to make sure that we really are conservatives. If we’re going to spend money as foolishly and as stupidly as the Democrats, the voters are going to vote for the professional spender — the Democrat — not the amateur spender — the Republican.”

No Comments » | Debates, Tancredo, The Others | Permalink
Posted by cdog

Wesley Sniping

June 5, 2007

Meg’s looking a bit lonely out here talking to herself, so I thought I better jump in.

I’ll start by burning my bridges with my ‘04 horse, Wes Clark. Great man, crazy smart, great resume, mediocre campaigner. The thing I don’t get:

Wouldn’t you think generals have to be, well, decisive? You know, charge this hill, you two people go jump on that grenade, I’ll have the merlot with my flounder and consequences be damned. But you’d be wrong. The former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO apparently is still thinking about running for preznit.

Everyone - especially those of us who were involved with his ‘04 campaign - are convinced that it was his late entry that tanked his candidacy. Surely he’s not dumb enough to do that again. Right? Please? Presumably, then, he’s running for veep.

No Comments » | The Others | Permalink
Posted by cdog

The New Yorker on Gingrich’s “Achilles’ heel”

June 1, 2007

The New Yorker adds to the growing speculation that Newt Gingrich will join the ever-growing number of Republican presidential contenders. However as they bluntly remind us, “…After he won his majority, his Achilles’ heel, which was actual governance, became visible to the world.”

The knee-jerk reaction to that sentence is to think that that might be a problem for someone who is running for President. But on second thought, it’s really only a problem if Gingrich wins and wants a second term. In terms of the primary race, it’s possible that if Gingrich is able to sell himself as a center-right visionary with a compelling platform people will overlook his speedy political downfall in the late ’90s ~ when his colleagues in the House wouldn’t even take his calls.

The article also has a few juicy quotes from Tom DeLay, who is still delusional enough to believe that in spite of the scandals — and indictment – that he is morally superior.

Here’s a preview:

“The difference between his own adultery and Gingrich’s, he said, ‘is that I was no longer committing adultery by that time, the impeachment trial. There’s a big difference.’”

Um, really?

“He added, ‘Also, I had returned to Christ and repented my sins by that time.”

Oh, ok. In that case…

No Comments » | The Others | Permalink
Posted by megkibbee

And Then There Were Eight

May 25, 2007

For a while now, I’ve been trying to figure out what this blog would be all about. The 2008 Presidential Election – yes. The candidates involved – yes. Grandstanding, broken promises, and sex scandals – definitely. But what could make it different from every other political fanatic’s blog (oh, I forgot b.s.) out there? A collaborative effort’s a good start, but how do I get a bunch of brilliant people on the same page? And what about my apparent obsession with the number 8?

Then I though: well, it at least needs to be a blog. So, I’ve decided it would be a good idea to actually write something. For now, this blog will be about the 2008 race (brilliant…) and I’ve decided to get things started by choosing eight candidates, categorized to the right. I’m thinking the choices alone will give us something to write about:

Hillary Clinton

John Edwards

Rudy Giuliani

John McCain


Barack Obama


Bill Richardson

Mitt Romney


Fred Thompson


My thinking is that these are currently the four front runners from each party that are either running and are likely to run. Which means I don’t think Al Gore or Newt Gingrich will run. Minus those two, these are the top four in most polls, but I invite debate and will even include a category for it: The Others.

As the poles change (and interpretations of the many poles may change as well) and new candidates declare (and if Gore or Gingrich declare I will endure some sort of blogosphere embarrassment dictated by other bloggers on this site) the eight will change. In fact, there will eventually only be two (or maybe three…nah, not in this country), so you can see that this eight thing is a loose category (and a catchy web address…).

1 Comment | About, Clinton, Edwards, Fred Thompson, Giuliani, McCain, Obama, Richardson, Romney, The Others | Permalink
Posted by Andrew Bennett