The Emperor Has Very Few Clothes
March 6th, 2008 by 
Ellen
I wish that I did not strongly believe this–but, I do, and have yet to come across anything at all to convince myself that the Democratic Party is not currently careening towards disaster. (Actually, a large percentage of the Party seems to be willingly marching in that direction, complete with angry words and beatific smiles on their faces–but, that is not an opinion which will make me popular, or beloved.) I have always believed that our Current Emperor ran for President simply because, with so many others footing the bill and doing the heavy lifting, he could. A Presidential campaign is good fun and so forth, but actually being the President, and handling unexpected crises, is another matter entirely. Getting lauded and applauded is delightful; engaging in the tedium, compromise, and hard work of governing is another thing entirely.
There’s no question that running for President is a nasty business, and no single candidate is going to be perfect–or even mostly perfect. But, after eight years of an Emperor who only feels comfortable when he looks like this, it would be a nice change to have a President who works too hard.
It is a flight of fancy, of course, but imagine the afternoon of January 21, 2009. Millions of people all over the world have tuned in to watch a new President be inaugurated–and it is safe to assume that at least half of them will be unhappy about it. Many of them will, in fact, be downright hostile and full of vituperative remarks. But, regardless, the President speaks, and is inspiring, or workmanlike–or simply a disturbing echo of the previous Administration. In any case, it is now late afternoon, the festivities are over, and the new President has returned to the White House. If one were to abandon all preconceptions and fiercely-held political leanings, and simply guess, in the most honest and objective way, which of the three probable leaders would be the most likely to race directly down to the Oval Office, pick up a pen–and get to work, who would be your first pick? If you had to bet the kids’ college fund, and your IRA, and the fortunes of your favorite baseball team from now until the end of time–what visual image would pop immediately into your head? Even if the image makes you cringe, who did you see?
However, it seems likely that the Democratic Party will Anoint Another–and that, as a direct result, on the afternoon of January 21st, 2009, John McCain will be up in the Residence, taking a quick nap, before getting dressed to go to the Inaugural Balls.
Tony Rezko is a problem. Donnie McClurkin is also a problem. (Yes, I yearn for the clarity and courage of this man. )
Making a back-channel contact with a foreign government to assure them that your strongly-held position is just posturing is a problem.
Crumpling under the first tiny flurry of negative press attention is a problem.
Not holding vitally needed subcommittee hearings, when you are the chairperson–and, among other things, America happens to be fighting two poorly-planned wars with little or no help from our allies–is a problem.
Skipping tough votes on a regular basis–when you want to be the Leader of the Free World–is a problem.
Voting “present” 129 times, even as an arcane tactical maneuver, is a problem.
Talking about unity and change, without actually displaying any evidence of leadership, is a problem.
There are, in fact, a lot of problems–but, they are infinitesimal compared to the absolute nightmare of a mess, both foreign and domestic, which the next President will face from the very moment he or she takes the oath of office. So, charming and pleasant are not high on my list of qualities that our next commander in chief needs to have. I just don’t think we have that luxury this time.
This showed maturity and wisdom. I wish his intellect had prevailed over his ego. America is, after all, still going to need a seasoned, talented President in 2016.
Posted in Politics |
March 6th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
If anyone had told me that I’d be seriously contemplating voting for John McCain, I’d have said they were truly unhinged. I keep telling myself “bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran” but my subconscious replies, “pak pak pak pak pak istan.” My only solace is that this putative matchup will be such a blowout my vote won’t matter one bit.
On the bright side, though, the major foreign policy aid to a deeply positive and nondivisive campaign just told the Scotsman that one of the New York Senators is “a monster” so perhaps that US is being saved from a terrible fate. It would be a shame if she ate Cleveland.
March 6th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
I don’t dismiss the importance of what you’ve said about missing important votes, etc., but a lot of people supporting Obama are not doing it because they’re caught up in Obama-hype, or wanting to annoint a Golden Child. Rather, they may support Obama because they think if Hillary (using her first name based on her campaign’s preference) wins the nomination, that will be what puts McCain in the White House. Or, that if Hillary did become President, it would mean an automatic Republic win four years later.
I’m not saying those things are true, but I find it ironic? odd? disturbing? that many people think that if Hillary wins the nomination, that will be, in the same words as you expressed it re: Obama, the Democratic Party careening towards disaster. And it’s not just your opinion here; I keep hearing everyone using the exact same arguments (experience, electability, etc.), but for the opposite candidate!
I hate this uncertainty. I hate not knowing what is the Democrats’ best chance of not only winning this election, but being able to accomplish anything during the next term. I hate the fact that no matter how the entire country votes, the Superdelegates may do whatever the hell they want.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
The superdelegates are scared silly–they will do whatever seems the safest.
I am one of the many Democrats who will seriously consider voting for McCain, in lieu of a neophyte–except that I’m terribly worried about the Supreme Court, which will keep me in the Democratic fold. Probably.
I hear many negative things about Hillary Clinton, obviously–but, on what planet is Senator Obama more experienced? I’m not sure he’s even ready to be governor of Illinois, forget President.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
I’m afraid of the Supreme Court too, but let’s face it, the Democrats aren’t going to have a fillibuster-proof majority, and considering their unwilingness/inability to put up a fight, it’s extremely likely that the Republicans will effectively select our potential Justices anyway.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Hey Ellen, sorry to hijack the discussion (I have nothing of worth to add, really) but I’m having trouble reaching the board (syntax error on line 618, whatever that means) so I hopped over here.
Are you still heading up to B’ton this month? We’d spoken briefly about possibly meeting up for a drive down to Stowe, if I recall correctly, and I wanted to let you know that I haven’t forgotten about the possibility.
Unless, of course, your visit was in the first week of March and I missed it! In which case, alas, and I hope you had a good time.
~~Other Ellen
March 7th, 2008 at 12:16 am
You know full well that I’m not just contemplating but firmly intending to vote for McCain in the event this happens, so long as he selects a running mate who even slightly to the left of say…Jerry Falwell. The only thing that will give me pause will be an Obama-Clinton ticket. What should concern Amy and the many people she’s hearing from is that hard numbers are indicating that a great many more Clinton supporters are contemplating that route than Obama supporters. The longer the race goes on, the more I doubt his sincerity on any issue, and the more smug and condescending I find his rhetoric. Should McCain actually pick someone like Giuliani (and yes, I know, but it’d still be a slap in the face to the far right) or Charlie Crist (even the Republicans basically admit that he’s gay, they just don’t want to talk about it and won’t force him to vote on it), it’ll give me confidence that his Supreme Court nominees will likely be closer to Sandra Day O’Connor than Samuel Alito. I can live with that, if the Democrat party is hijacked by extremists with no understanding of electoral politics.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:25 am
There’s a lot of speculation that McCain might pick Rice or Kay Bailey Hutchinson, which, imo, would be kind of a masterstroke. Considering the tenor of this campaign, I think a lot of fed-up Democratic women would be more than happy to pull that lever.
March 7th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Freakin’ amateur hour, as usual–but, I think the Monster won’t eat Cleveland, because Ohio delivered.
However, they had better watch their backs in Milwaukee…..
March 7th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Well it seems Obama is showing a little bit more accountability in firing the Monster staffer, but I’m not sure it’s enough, and the suggestions for how to handle Michigan and Florida are just getting hilarious.
I could potentially live with Kay Bailey Hutchison as McCain’s running mate but she’s said several times that she doesn’t want the job, and she has some baggage in Texas that hasn’t made the national scene much. I don’t believe Rice would have a chance, or be much of a benefit. I wish there were a woman who would be a valid contender, and it WOULD be absolutely brilliant of him, but other than picking Hutchison or Dole, I’m not sure he has options beyond middle-aged white men. And would would the McCain-Dole campaign slogan be? “One Foot in the Grave?”
March 7th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Yes, the Michigan “caucus” would be convenient, wouldn’t it?
Imagine if Mark Penn or someone had called Obama a monster? They would probably be trying to prosecute him in criminal court.
Strange, strange times.
Christine Whitman would have been a possible candidate–except Bush fed her to the wolves with the 9/11 EPA fiasco.
With a woman on the ticket–even Rice–he would get a lot of cross-over voters, I’m afraid.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Re: experience, technically, I believe that Obama has more time in elected office than Hillary. I haven’t confirmed that, nor am I dismissing Hillary’s other political experience completely. But nor do I believe that all of her experience “counts” the way she would have us believe it does.
Re: hard numbers, I don’t know what to believe. Both sides are touting hard numbers. I thought hard numbers showed that Hillary was not likely to defeat McCain.
Re: Florida and Michigan, if the Democratic party caves to them, I don’t think I’ll just stop voting Democratic. I think I’ll stop voting. I do believe in voting, but our process is becoming a sick joke.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
One more question (and I really appreciate the fact that you’re willing to discuss this).
When I still lived in upstate NY, I read a news article that said Hillary decided while she did not support a Constitutional amendment outlawing flag burning, she would be willing to support a plain old law doing the same thing. This was after she’d met with veterans and said something to the effect that now she understood why flag-burning was so hurtful to them.
I found this alarming and disturbing. At best, it seemed that she was wishy-washy on an important issue. At worst, it seemed like she made a calculated move designed to win votes.
In addition to violating civil rights, I also have to assume that such a law would be a waste of time and taxpayers’ money, since it would immediately be challenged as unconstitutional. (I like to think the Supreme Court would overturn such a law on that basis, but who the heck knows with the Supreme Court these days?)
March 7th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Regarding flag-burning, while I haven’t heard her argument myself, my thought would be that a law is one thing but since there have only been a very limited number of amendments to the Constitution…that’s a whole different matter. Our argument against the Marriage Protection Amendment was that the Constitution is not a document to be toyed with lightly. If a state or Congress wants to pass a law (like the do thousands of times per year), that’s a less expensive, less time-consuming, and ultimately more governable way to address the issue. And yes, the Supreme Court would probably strike down a law and already has at least once before, but it’s an easy issue to win support from the military with, and ultimately even the most ardent supporters of free speech understand the impetus behind it. I’m not sure I’d oppose it, but I also wouldn’t be too upset if the courts decided it wasn’t constitutional. A law is practical, an amendment is not, so it should only be reserved for issues of the utmost national importance.
As for numbers, there are no hard numbers. Period. It’s March. Every poll is different, and will be for…a while, though the more respected institutions (such as Pew) have indicated that both Hillary and Obama as of right now could probably beat McCain, and today SUSA released polling from each state in an electoral breakdown indicting that either candidate would beat McCain. The one thing there I called into question was that Obama was shown winning Michigan, and I’m pretty sure a McCain-Romney ticket will eliminate that possibility and thus swing the election to McCain. It also showed Obama losing West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, which is…worrisome.
March 7th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
And Amy, I’d just like to personally say how refreshing it is to find someone leaning towards Obama who is also willing to discuss the matter and is asking very valid questions. Obama can’t be blamed for the way a lot of his supporters behave, but unfortunately it’s a huge part of why so many of us are very, very uncertain about him. You’re raising the bar.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
“One foot in the grave”
LOL, yes, but that’s it, you see. Everybody knows about his war wounds, so that would place someone like Dole or Rice really close to the Oval. Rice has her problems, but my god, to have a WOC a breath away, that’s powerful. No way is that not going to be extremely motivating to many of our women and theirs. And well, if one foot in teh grave applies to applies to Dole too, Nancy Pelosi awaits.
MI and FL have provided a real chance for Obama to be a leader and demonstrate he really believes in “New Politics” and he’s blown it. Doing the right thing when it’s to his obvious detriment would earn some respect from me. I’m not holding my breath.
Amy, the thing about Obama is that hes gotten a complete free ride from the media. They’ve been deferential. As a result, I’d say that he’s at the very top of his level of support and can only go down from here. All of his negatives are going to come out, in great detail. If you remember last time, Dean was a crazed maniac and Kerry was an electable war hero who could do no wrong, until the general when the media turned on him with a vengeance. The same thing is going to happen to Obama. Clinton is significantly more popular among Democrats according to teh polls, and it’s very likely that Independents will peel off to McCan as Obama takes hit after hit from the Republicans and the press. if he can’t win most major Democratic states with primaries rather than caucuses while she’s being demonized and he’s being beatified, then that says something about the lack of enthusiasm of voters on the ground. Voters we need to not just not vote for McCain, but to phone bank and door knock and stuff envelopes to put us in a position to win this. Mccain isn’t Bush, and he’s going to be very difficult to beat.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Case in point–a prominent Obama supporter in Ohio is going around saying Obama lost the state becasuse of “Archie Bunker democrats.” Ohio is a state we need to win, and it’s a state we can win. We came close in 2004 and since then they’ve elected a Democratic Senator and Governor. But things like this really don’t help increase turnout and get our voters to the polls. You can bet that the Republicans will run ads in ohio quoting that if Obama’s the nominee. There are certain demographics that we really need in order to win a national election, Latinos, blue collar workers, Catholics, for example. Clinton is far more popular among many key groups than Obama, and he needs to increase support among these voters, not alienate them.
March 8th, 2008 at 1:03 am
Many good points here. I preface my remarks with the caveat that I _really_ wanted Al Gore to run. I think he would have coasted to a massive general election victory–against damn near anyone. Gravitas, wisdom, courage, vision, experience–it’s all there.
Let me also echo Barbara in saying that civil, thoughtful discussions of this very important election are a treat–and absolutely crucial for the Democratic Party, as well as the country as a whole. So, this is good, and I hope any lurking Obama backers join the discussion. (too bad the message board is currently on the fritz!)
The flag-burning stuff was just dumb. A low moment of sheer pandering, I suspect–but, I am encouraged by Senator Clinton’s generally very swift learning curve, when it comes to these things. Any disrespect of the flag actually offends me deeply–in fact, it even upsets me a great deal when people at baseball games (I go to more than I care to admit) don’t take off their caps during the National Anthem–but, we have a 1st Amendment, and people are allowed to express themselves.
Pretending otherwise is just ridiculous.
If you count the Illinois state legislature, Barack may technically have a tiny bit more time in elected office–but, given his undistinguished record, that hurts him more than it helps. And Hillary’s eight years in the White House counts for a lot, especially since we know that her true role was intentionally downplayed, for political and practical reasons. There have been many moments, though, since she was elected to the Senate, when I have wanted to see her _lead_, and not hang back, waiting for the dust to settle.
The Party _has_ to address Michigan and Florida; the states are vital in November, and too large to ignore. No one’s going to be completely happy with the ultimate decision about how to handle the problem–but, someone is going to have to make one, and disenfranchising two states with huge electoral slates would be suicidal.
Indeed, it is only March, and none of the numbers mean much. So, I see some basic problems for Senator Obama, insofar as a general election is concerned–and the general election is _all_ that matters, in the end. 1) His unusually liberal voting record in the Senate will be catnip to the opposition. I happen to _agree_ with most of those positions (I have also often pretty damned annoyed that Senator Clinton has not been tougher on the Bush Administration–and Senator Dodd proved in recent months that it can be done, which indicates he will be the Majority Leader soon–unless it goes to her), but they will pose huge problems insofar for his candidacy, if he were the nominee. The NRA alone will make it their mission to defeat him. 2) he has really only been cleaning up in caucuses–which traditionally attract the most liberal members of the Democratic Party, and a tiny _fraction_ of the actual Party. Senator Clinton has generally trounced him in the primaries, especially the ones which haven’t permitted day-of-the-primary changes of party affiliation. So, his victories mostly only reflect a small, and somewhat meaningless, demographic within the party, and his strongest base–young voters–traditionally does not come through and show up at the polls in November. In any case, they won’t defect to McCain, the way a percentage of pragmatic Clinton supporters might. 3) I think only two–maybe three–of his wins are at all meaningful: Missouri, Virginia, and maybe Wisconsin. (except, Wisconsin’ll almost certainly go blue, anyway.) Missouri is a bellwether, and matters a great deal–but the vote was nearly a statistical tie, and Hillary took just about everything except for St. Louis. I think the Democrats really _must_ carry Missouri in the general election, and with Hillary at the top of the ticket, Tennessee and Arkansas become strong possibilities, along with Colorado and maybe Nevada. Barack isn’t going to bring home any of those four states, except _possibly_ Colorado–but, that seems doubtful. His only other big state win was Illinois, but that’s going to go blue, anyway, and he’s _from_ there, so that means nothing. His loss in Massachusetts–with Kennedy _and_ Patrick backing him to the hilt–did not bode well for his strength in the general election. Not that Massachusetts will vote Republican, but he should have run away with that state–and he didn’t. The victory in Virginia, however, was a very positive thing, and indicates that the state may well be in play in the general. I don’t see Georgia going blue, but I don’t _entirely_ rule it out, even though it is highly unlikely–and, although it’s not a popular opinion, my gut tells me that Louisiana might be possible. However, Mississippi, Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina, probably Kansas–these states are going for McCain, regardless, and his wins mean nothing in those places. _Especially_ caucus wins, which I don’t think should be allowed to carry as much weight as actual primaries, because they are statistically insignificant. Clearly, the DNC has a lot of work to do to improve the process for 2012. I’d keep Iowa–but, dump every other caucus, frankly, and go with straight primaries.
Senator Clinton’s wins in CA,OH,FL,NJ, probably PA, and so on really _matter_ for the general election. If you take Gore out of the equation (would he accept a VP nod from either of them? We assume not), I think Clinton/Obama is the strongest potential ticket,given the degree to which the Party is in utter disarray right now and needs to be brought back together–although Clinton/Webb interests me, because then, Virginia really _is_ a viable possibility. Clinton/Gephardt would probably lock in Missouri, and help throughout the Rust Belt–and, I don’t hate that, either. Obama/Webb is a possibility, but two first-term Senators? Nope. Besides, Webb has a stronger record of achievement and demonstrated legislative courage than Senator Obama, and he will seem too much like a guy who needs to be on the top of the ticket, instead. Obama/Sebelius is sort of cool,and probably nets Kansas–but, she’s almost entirely unknown, and has no foreign policy/national security background, and it’s too damn risky.
And that’s probably more rattling on and on than was probably indicated. It’s certainly an interesting, and unusual, election–as long as they all remember (hello, Mr. Dean! Wake up!) that _November_ matters, and the rest of this is just spring training.
March 8th, 2008 at 3:17 am
A friend of a friend is close with Birch Bayh, and he thinks that Birch has held off on endorsing Obama (his wife is for Obama) because Hillary is going to put Evan on the ticket. I could live with Obama if it will help, but I am really afraid it will hurt her when the media starts ripping both he and Michelle to shreds. Also, I’m afraid that Obama might make a big public production of refusing.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:03 am
I think Bayh’s _hoping_ to get on the ticket–but, I don’t think he’d be a bold enough pick, or well-known enough to be of much value to a national ticket, although, yeah, she might go that way. Same for the governor of OH–who also wants it. God knows Bill Richardson wants it–and yeah, Obama will almost certainly turn her down, which would be stupid on his part, and show very poor judgment. He definitely has a “I’ll just take my toys and go home” quality, which is unbecoming.
March 8th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Again, thanks to everyone for the thoughtful discussion. I’m leaving on a trip and will be offline for a few days — but didn’t want you to think I’d taken my toys and gone home!
And Ellen, I have to echo your words above because I agree 100%: “I _really_ wanted Al Gore to run.”
I’ll look forward to reading any new comments when I get back.
March 8th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Have an excellent trip!
If I were on Barack’s team, I would advise him to stay above the fray–and suggest bold, brave policy moves, instead. Hillary can outpunch him, but he could leave her in the dust by having the guts to talk about–for starters–guns. The GOP is going to hit him on his Illinois votes, anyway; why not get ahead of them? Plus, he could spin the media right back to his side.
But, his people have not asked me for my advice.
I’d actually tell Hillary to do the same, but am pretty sure she would not be interested, either.
Our mournful eyes gazes in Al Gore’s direction…..
March 11th, 2008 at 9:07 am
The governor of Ohio is Ted Strickland. Very popular guy when he ran for governor. Not so popular since he’s taken office. The prevailing opinion is that he has done absolutely nothing for the state since being elected because he is afraid that actually governing might cause him to do something that would make someone unhappy and thereby cause him to lose status as a possible VP candidate! He did hit the airwaves on Saturday and asked us all to stay home and not travel during the blizzard-that-wasn’t-a blizzard (because the wind speed wasn’t high enough), but he stopped short of declaring an actual state of emergency.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:54 am
It’s so disappointing when governors you think are going to be good–aren’t. (said the New Yorker)
Jennifer Grantholm has been quite a disappointment, too–I really had hopes for her.
March 11th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Well, she is a Democrat after all, so it’s entirely possible she’s been having extramarital relations with a member of the opposite sex. I swear, there’s days it seems like the only way you can tell the parties apart these days is by the gender of the person they’re cheating with…
March 11th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
It’s really quite disheartening, isn’t it?
March 12th, 2008 at 12:54 am
Frankly when you have a major candidate going around PA telling voters that their economic problems are the result of the last President of his party, who’s been out of office 7 years, I think the main way you can tell the parties apart is that they have one. Us? I don’t know what you’d call what we have, but ‘political party’ doesn’t seem to apply.
March 12th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Yeah, I’m not exactly sure what we have at the moment either–or what we’re going to have in a few months. I could easily support Ellen leading revolution if she finds time. Watching the news today and the newest who’s-attacking-who, I found myself mostly disturbed by the Obama campaign’s selective editing of what actually seemed like statements praising the modernity of the Democrat party for having two such candidates, and also thinking about the latest SNL skit where Hillary told Obama to “man up and deal with it.” If he and his people think these are hostile attacks…I’m really worried they’re going to be crying under a desk come September.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Yeah, I know. As long as no world leader ever does anything as unprescedented and mean as drawing a comparison like ‘who do you trust more in a crisis’ or raising an eyebrown in a marked and somewhat chilly manner, then we’re all set. Otherwise, the commander in chief will be with you after he finishes crying in a closet for two months. All I can say is, if I were a superdelegate, I would have a real problem throwing my support behind a candidate who seems unable to make a simple, unequivocal commitment to support the party’s candidate.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
And good news, Florida apparently won’t be granted a revote (smething about ‘unfavorable polls’ and New Politics) but it looks like Michigan will. But don’t get too excited, I’d bet everything I own that if Michigan’s results once again fail to please in some indeterminate way, Dean will be forced to consider them illegitimate and disenfranchise the state a second time. Keep voting until you get it right!
March 14th, 2008 at 10:33 am
I think it’s possible FL’s delegation will win the approval of the rules committee because they truly had nothing to do with the primary being rescheduled–it was the Republican legislature and governor who did that over very loud and strong Democrat opposition. MI had no chance of being seated without a revote but I also wonder if this scenario is going to achieve anything. Howard Dean is such an intelligent, capable man, I don’t understand why he’s essentially writing both states off for the fall. If I were a superdelegate…I’d be terrified right now.
March 14th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I’ve been researching superdelegates for the Huffington Post, and Hillary just lost another, unfortunately. A committed delegate from Maine, who moved to Florida recently, and now, he is not permitted to be a delegate for either state.
Frustrating.
March 14th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
I don’t think there’s any way Florida will be seated, except maybe with the 50-50 split Obama’s pushing for (I don’t see a significant difference between no representation and a phony non-formula for representation, but that’s just me). It’s clearly insane, it’s clearly political suicide, but I just don’t think Dean will back off from this ridiculous game of chicken after boxing himself into such a corner with this press tour. Obama won’t approve a revote or seating the delegates, and of course putting someone who’s strongly committed to a particular candidate in charge of handling this wasn’t a good choice in retrospect. If anything, Michigan has as strong a case as Florida since they only moved their primary after New Hampshire first moved theirs and weren’t penalized for it even though they were supposed to go third, which led MI to believe the agreement was off. Michigan reckoned without Dean’s inexplicable commitment to the god-given right of small, unrepresentative states to continue to have an outsized role in the process regardless of what large population states want.