More on That Obama-Clinton Lunch

The NYTimes has a good picture of the Obama-Clinton meeting in NYC.

Also, we learn this important nugget:

The lunch menu, according to the campaign, was a choice of sandwiches and flatbread pizza from Cosi, plus salad. Beverages were not specified.

DAMNIT!!! Tell me what they f'ing drank!!!

-Education Dude

Afternoon Arugula

You know how some folks ask, “If you could have been in one place in history, where would it have been?” Some say on the grassy knoll, others the birth of Jesus. Here’s my new one.

New Blog! Phil Singer wants McCain to remember times he disagreed with Bush. Crickets …

Ezra doesn’t think all bad ideas are created equal but that “more of the same” is one of them.

He also ponders the structural nature of elections … should make us more confident!

Matt considers the metaphysics of calling oneself a serious person. Seriously.

I’m a little afraid that Sullivan is going to explode.

Prediction … we’ll be talking about seal DNA within 48 hours.

Morning Hors D'oeuvres

Ambers is hearing reports of push polling in MI, OH, and PA. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck ….

Matt revives our change argument in a discussion of the Department of the Interior scandal.

Nate points out the need to take back “change.”

Ben Smith gets meta.

Feeling the angst.

Afternoon Arugula

Sullivan longs for Putin as his last shred of respect for McCain evaporates.

Matt liked the Obama education speech, too.

Will saying there’s backlash really cause a backlash?? Let’s see!

Sam Stein to John McCain: “Don’t go there.”

Fallows gets in on this week’s extensive bout of media navel-gazing.

Nate has a very unique take on the outrage du jour. Today’s most interesting read.

Also, news flash! Progressives got cable! NPR to announce 24 cable news channel featuring Diane Rheem topless …

The Non-issue Issue

My good friend over at Eduwonk has a great post today on education and how, as an issue, despite lots of lip service, it never seems to rise to prominence in a national election:

Although I haven’t seen the question asked yet in this cycle, in general fewer than 10 percent of voters say that they’d vote for/against a presidential candidate solely because of their educational views in past elections. In other words people say they care about it but they don’t vote it in national elections. In addition, this year in different ways the issue works against each candidate at least as much as it works for them.

To be honest, I don't even vote on education alone, and I'm arguably an education reform crusader.

-Education Dude

Morning Hors D'oeuvres

Josh wants us to take the blinders off and realize that John McCain’s campaign is the sleaziest in modern history.

This lipstick thing is insane … I really hope the rest of this campaign isn’t dominated by tiptoeing around racial/gender “micro-aggressions." They've found something more distasteful than outright dishonesty ... way to go!

Ambers has some theories as to why we accept lying from candidates.

Matt thinks that post-defeat Dems would rather play the blame game than fight a Rep president and longs for a cable TV host that won’t shit the bed during important exchanges.

Paul Begala reminds us that facts aren’t debatable.

Afternoon Arugula

Kinsley on what Palin seems to mean by "fiscal conservative."

Dissecting the Palin expense report file.

Klein looks at inequality and voting responding to Frum’s NYTimes Mag piece and wonders if the international community will be put off by the McCain camp’s saber rattling.

Palin’s friends hedge on endorsements.

And Bob Herbert joins our crusade to take back the word “liberal!” I read this column while dipping my afternoon arugula in a grande latte, but I spilled some on myself, because I had to swerve to avoid hitting a small woodland creature with my used Volvo that runs on good feelings for poor people.

David Plotz has nailed something scary, but true.

Don't Hate the Playa ...

... hate the game. Or at least, that's what Ezra's thinking today:

As of now, [Politico] just unveiled a new feature where, every day, they will rank whether Obama or McCain "won" the day. So yesterday, for instance, McCain "won" the day because "The USA Today/Gallup poll giving [McCain/Palin] a 4-point lead among registered voters framed the day’s top question: Does McCain now hold the advantage?" Read that again. McCain "won" yesterday's day of campaigning because a poll conducted last week showed him in the lead and that led reporters at places like Politico to write about his advantage which in turn led The Politico to render the objective judgment that McCain won the day because they framed their coverage in a way that was favorable to him.

So, for all intents and purposes, the media is now evaluating candidates on their ability to control the media's reaction to spin. I agree with Ezra that this is insane. It's not something that can be totally ignored. So far, McCain does seem to be handling this day-to-day national messaging war more effectively, and Republicans in general are better at sniping battles. Not inconsequential in this ability is the "black-white" nature of a lot of conservative issues. It's hard to win a sniping war with nuance, which Obama is MUCH better at, but reactions like this and this make me hopeful that he'll snipe more than some of his D forebears.

Still, the bottom line here is that the candidate who wins more days won't necessarily WIN anything.

-Education Dude

Obama Talks Serious Education Reform

This kind of talk from a democrat makes Education Dude's nether-parts tingle.  Doubling federal funding for charters AND "replac[ing]" bad teachers!

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iT--F725ypsNTaNrulnuCGd8vt0QD9336D180

Morning Hors D'oeuvres

Matt and TPM wonder if the lie meme will catch on.

Ambinder hears that the Obama camp is calling in the cavalry.

Silver analyzes the effect of mothers on the race and takes a look at the new swing state polling data.

Klein looks at the scarcity of mediation in the information we process.

Also, bonus morning polemicism... Democrats, stop freaking out right now! I think I finally know what really religious people say when their "faith is being tested." Right now, your faith in the Obama campaign is being tested. Before you let newly ignited Republican base enthusiasm scare you, remember these four things:

1) Obama supporters freaked out through the spring, but a political newcomer still beat the Clintons - the most motoriously ruthless campaigners in a generation - in the primaries. This campaign knows what it's doing, so let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Plouffe has said again and again that they ignore national polling and consider their position incredibly strong in the battleground states that matter.

2) Related to #1, McCain is trying to play the game Obama has established. There seems to be some sort of concensus that the game is about "change." Obama keeps playing the same game he established at the beginning, while McCain plays the chameleon. Remind anyone of the Dem primary?

3) Did we ever really think the Republican base wouldn't show up for this? I know the "McCain as maverick" falsehood was a comfortable crutch when we were used to him running against the likes of Romney and Huckabee, but against Obama? This is completely natural movement of the R base out of the undecided column and into the McCain column.

4) Now that we're a week past the start of the R convention, two things are happening. One, you're seeing the polls normalize. Even though the national polls are useless from an electoral standpoint, they have some utility in looking at general trends vis-a-vis candidate visibility and enthusiasm. And two, the Palin pick and the convention all packed into one week is almost certainly (knock wood) the most dramatic sequence of events that could happen for the McCain ticket. So, we could be seeing the McCain apex here.

-Education Dude

Morning Hors D'oeuvres

TPM on why the first Palin interview will be “unwatchable.”

Wolfson warns us to steer clear of the cat fight narrative.

Sullivan continues his crusade … here’s hoping he wins. Make that “we win.”

Ambinder thinks that McCain-Palin is playing substantively different game from McCain alone, while Obama is sticking to the same game plan that has defined his campaign since the beginning. Liberal Dudes think that worked in the primary and are confident enough in the talented Obama camp to believe it will work again.

Klein tries to wrap his mind around McCain’s ability to connect with black families

and adds a fifth way we might interpret “reform.”

A Return to Camelot

Education Dude is dead on when he asks: "Where exactly is McCain going to find all of the ideologically identical Republicans who are suddenly capable of AND willing to work the system differently?"

As much as McCain tries, this election isn't about individuals. Given the size of the federal government, it's inevitable that most of the same people who ran things the last eight years are going to be running things in a McCain administration. And the best of these Republicans are likely to be burned out/ looking to make money in the private sector, presenting McCain with a challenge of populating his administration with competent individuals, let alone reformers.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign is attracting top policy experts who have been shut out of the government for the past eight years. More importantly, Obama has sought academics as advisers, rather than former White House aides. Especially in the economic context, these aides have often promoted policy that comports with accepted economic principles, even if it bucks party orthodoxy (see, e.g., positions on corporate tax dividends). It is the sum of such an administration of academics that will make a Maverick.

-Law Dude

Sunday Rich

Check out this must read from Frank Rich. On McCain:

That ideological sellout, unfortunately, was not the worst leadership trait the last-minute vice presidential pick revealed about McCain. His speed-dating of Palin reaffirmed a more dangerous personality tic that has dogged his entire career. His decision-making process is impetuous and, in its Bush-like preference for gut instinct over facts, potentially reckless.

Leadership is the most interesting word there. I guess that, for McCain, leadership means blindly following your party's failed policy positions for political gain.

-Education Dude

Will the Real Palin Please Stand Up?

Prior to her nomination, Palin had not articulated foreign policy positions on Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iraq.

So what's the next best thing to a record? How bout some unscripted interaction with the press. In the seven days since the nomination, she has not been interviewed by anyone in the media except for her home-town press.

So when will we see a press conferences, an appearance on a Sunday talk show, a meeting with a major newspaper's editorial board?

Let the countdown begin...

-Law Dude

My mom for Vice President

I’m pretty sure my mom is ready to be the next Vice President. She’s more than qualified.

First off, she’s tough. Hockey mom tough. She doesn’t back down from a fight. At least not a verbal fight, staged on a podium, with no opponent present. And she sure as hell doesn’t take crap from that moose-poop son of yours, defenseman in the #9 jersey. THAT’S A CROSS CHECK, REF, AND YOU KNOW IT.

Pure tenacity. That’s Mom.

She’s also got significant leadership experience. Oldest of five (5) siblings, my Mom went on to lead my sister’s Girl Scout troop, presiding over literally dozens of young women. She didn’t just *talk* about leading that troop; she led by action. “How are we going to pay for that trip to the candle factory?” they’d ask. Mom had the answer: “Sell more cookies. Sell more of those goddam cookies.”

A close 2^nd Place in the Miss Lawrence High School beauty pageant, my mom knows what it’s like to fight for something she believes in. She also knows how to twirl a baton. Watch out, Vlad Putin.

Sure, Mom’s light on foreign policy experience, but I got her a subscription to Foreign Affairs, so I think that’s covered. What she really needs to focus on is coming up with some prepared snarky remarks for the vice presidential debates. “What’s the difference between a pit bull and a community organizer? A pit bull has actual responsibilities! And I wear lipstick, too!”

Where does Mom stand on the issues?

• Mom never supported the Bridge to Nowhere.
• Offshore drilling is fine, as long as you keep your room clean.
• Guns are great. Just don’t point them at people whose lives you value.
• Iraq: What’s the point of building all these bombs if we aren’t going to use them to wipe out people who belong to a religious group we don’t like?
• Skirt suits? Don’t mind if I do.

Have you met my mom’s family? All of us? No? We will be sure to set aside time Mom’s next speech for you to get to know us better. Uncle Leo is a real hoot.

The most important thing is that Mom is just a regular person like you and me. No special powers. No fancy “education” or “relevant background experiences” to muddle the waters. Just a fine, upstanding woman who makes a mean moose stew.

Mom for VP!

-Save the World for International Development Hippie Dude

Change is coming ...

So, now John McCain is also running on the platform of "change." He's going to storm Washington - where he's already been a major player for almost three decades - as the new sheriff in town.

I've tried to be generous in my thinking about this, but here's why I can't make it fit. As I see it, there are four ways to read "change" in a presidential election.

1) Executive change. The actual person changes ... that's inevitable here, so John McCain can't own it.

2) Party change. The fact that the Rs have been in the executive branch for the last eight years completely undercuts this as well.

3) Policy change. It's this argument: "So, okay, we're the same party, but we're DEFINITELY going to be different this time." I might have believed that from the John McCain of 2000, but the John McCain of 2008 has adopted most of the current republican orthodoxy to make him more soluble with the base of the party. Plus, if anything, his platform adopts the MORE extreme right versions of existing policy. To give him the benefit of the doubt, that might be change, but it's disingenuous marketing at best.

4) Process change. This is a more complicated thing to deal with, and it's nearly impossible to sell during an election, which is why I think McCain-Palin has latched on to this idea of "reform." It's basically what they're trying to say about Palin in Alaska: "She's from the same party, and she believes in essentially the same things, but she's a reformer and she's going to do things differently."

Now, I understand there is nuance to running a complex organization, and there's arguably nothing in the world more complex - organizationally - than the U.S. federal government. So, yes, CHANGING the way that works could be extremely beneficial, and a person from the same party as - and with the same policy perspectives of - the incumbent could theoretically make "change" happen.

The problem for McCain here is twofold. First, he's brought into his fold all of the proteges of the folks that ran Bush's last two campaigns. So, in the only instances in which he could have opted to pursue a different strategy than his republican forbears, he has opted NOT to do so. Second, given the fact that the republicans have been in power for eight years, where exactly is McCain going to find all of the ideologically identical republicans who are suddenly capable of AND willing to work the system differently? From a practical standpoint, anyone who has tried to "reform" an entrenched bureaucracy knows that talk is cheap and that most systems revert to the "path of least resistance." Especially when there are outside actors with a huge vested interest in the status quo (i.e. think tanks, K street, etc.). For a bunch of ideologue carbon copies, I have no reason to think a McCain presidency would be any different.

-Education Dude

But Alaska is Close to Russia!

In honor of Obama’s appearance on O’Rielly, let’s enter the no spin zone. Obama has less foreign policy experience than Biden or McCain. He has worked across the aisle to secure loose nukes—a worthy cause and a proud accomplishment. But he has not drafted major foreign policy legislation (see McCain’s Detainee Treatment Act), nor has he led a committee charged with leading the Senate’s foreign policy debate.

Arguably, the value of experience in a Presidential election is data-based. McCain and Biden’s foreign policy experience forced them to take positions that now may be evaluated by the American people.

In that regard, Obama is no different. From whether to go to war in Iraq to how to interact with Pakistan to war strategy in Afghanistan, Obama has taken a position on every major foreign policy issue in the last six years. Based on these positions, Americans have the data to evaluate Obama’s judgment on foreign policy.

Now enter Sara Palin. As of March 2007, Palin admits, “I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq.” Until being named a Presidential candidate, she has never articulated a position on how she would treat Pakistan, contain Iran, prevent nuclear proliferation, or negotiate with North Korea. But she is getting a crash course to figure out what talking points she should read to AIPAC tomorrow.

-Law Dude

Morning Hors D'oeuvres

Sullivan thinks the media might be growing a pair and gets all messianic.

Bob Reich talks about what REAL vetting looks like.

Ambinder finds out that Obama surrogates should be dropping the Eagleton bomb. It’s sort of like if you say Beetlejuice three times …

He also wonders about the “urbanity” of community organizing and whether Palin is a “Black Swan.” If she is, she’s the blackest thing about Alaska …

Ezra Klein thinks McCain is tired (read: old) and notes this gem:

“’My opponent's health care plan will put a government bureaucrat between you and your doctor!’ Spoken like a man who, on the one hand, has never used an HMO, and on the other, has never been off government health care a day in his life, and is healthy enough to run for president at 72.”

And HuffPo has a good compendium of media reax to last night’s speech.

Afternoon Arugula

James Fallows goes point by point on Palin’s speech

Goldberg interviews Chabon – reigning expert of all things Judeo-Alaskan – on Palin

I think democrats should take Douthat’s advice unless we want last night’s arguments to gain any traction.

TPM doesn’t think it’s a “denigrate liberals” kind of year.

Life imitates liberal dudes … Roger Simon delivers his own version of “off-limits/not off-limits” and hits it out of the park

Yglesias lays the smack down on the “energy issue.” Sure, Palin understands energy politics, but Alaskans – particularly their politicians – BENEFIT from HIGHER energy costs. Ummmmm …

He also offers a spin on the culture wars than I’ve rarely seen ... snowmobiles vs. arugula!

Sullivan wonders if Palin is a petro-dictator … sort of.

Nate Silver thinks the cognitive dissonance of a political unknown (Palin) telling us what to think about a known quantity (Obama) will ultimately fail.

Tapper shows us that MI independents were not enamored of the Governor

Ben Smith has Obama wondering whether Palin can take more than 4 days.

Ambers finds out that Palin woke the beast. Duh.

And finally, possible the best Daily Show clip ever.

Boiling the Blood

Every now and then I hear a political speech from a politician I viciously disagree with and something s/he says really pisses me off.  For example, every word out of Rudy Giuliani's mouth last night.

The most offensive bit of his diatribe, however, was repeated by Governor Palin, and that is the disdain for Obama's experience as a community organizer.  You can almost hear them spit when they even mention the word "community."  This, coupled with Rudy's derisive admonishment of Obama as an "only in America" candidate, tiptoes toward something far worse than just culture wars.  Community organization, for millions of Americans, is a vehicle through which to gain a voice in a society in which poor, minority folks are routinely disadvantaged through both political arrangements that favor the elite and civic institutions that propogate inequity.  To hear the Republicans maintain such an openly disdainful stance toward the most vulnerable members of our society should make us seethe.

-Education Dude