Leelila_Strogov's Blog

While Barack Obama made headlines as he flew over Iraq with General Petraeus, television images showed John McCain riding a golf cart with former President George H.W. Bush. Now Obama is leading the headlines at the New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal – all of which seem to collectively agree that the Iraqi government’s announcement that it would favor a plan to withdraw U.S. troops on a timetable similar to the one proposed by Obama (by the end of 2010) is a victory for the first-term Illinois senator. There’s no doubt that Obama’s reception in Iraq was less as a presidential candidate, and more as a visiting head of state, something the media is generally claiming has bolstered the first-term senator’s credibility as a player on the world stage rather than a man too young and inexperienced to be commander in chief. 

Although some have neglected to mention the precise circumstances of his visit, Obama is spending a week touring the Middle East and Europe as part of a congressional delegation that includes Republican Senator Chuck Hagel and Democratic Senator Jack Reed, both critics of the war. But since his visit comes at a time when U.S.-Iraq strategy has become so key in the presidential campaign, his trip is widely viewed as an attempt to convince voters that he has enough cultural clout to succeed in the Oval Office when it comes to keeping our country safe and improving our image abroad. 

Assuming this is indeed the intent, is Obama’s strategy working? Does this announcement along with Obama’s warm reception in Iraq convince you that he is the fresh thought-leader we need to reverse the damage America has incurred from the war on terror? Or does his visit elicit that “give me a break” response so many seem to have when it comes to the Obama halo?

Relationships between politicians and their constituents are not entirely unlike romantic courtship; there are stages that need to be overcome before a successful union can emerge. First there’s euphoric infatuation, then comes the power struggle (as you’re confronted with the fact that another person’s values and ideals are seldom identical to your own), and finally, with the right amount of compromise and understanding, the stage is set for acceptance. With both lovers and politicians, that means initially oohing and ahhing at everything they do, and then, after a bit of time and examination, challenging them to a series of tests and ultimatums that will ultimately determine if the match is a viable one. If all goes well, the couple ultimately negotiates on what concessions will be made, and what needs to simply and tenderly be accepted.

Whether left, right, or center, we seem to be going through our rocky phase with both McCain and Obama these days. Each are getting pounced on, not just from their opponents, but among their own supporters.

In recent weeks, McCain has left many Republicans unsettled about his ideological bearings by toggling between reliably conservative issues like support for gun owners’ rights and an emphasis on centrist messages like his desire to tackle global warming and provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. There are also those pointing to a character deficit, demonstrated by his allegedly "ruthless" dealings with his first wife, Carol, twenty-five years ago. (He was apparently dating Cindy McCain while still living with his first wife who became disabled in an accident, and even applied for a marriage license in preparation for his new wedding before his divorce had been finalized.) Once packaged as a selfless, courageous war hero with conservative ideals, McCain is now being accused of being selfish, immoral, calculating, and worst of all, improperly fit for his conservative suit.

Despite Obama’s exquisitely delivered messages and rock star status (he did beat the invincible Clinton and is planning to accept his party’s nomination in a 76,000 seat football stadium), he appears to be getting the brunt of it, charged by his disgruntled own of rushing to the center with such reckless abandon it’s enough to produce “whiplash,” doing a near about face when it comes to such issues as security wiretapping, gun control, the death penalty, campaign finance, and Iran and Iraq. In response, Obama just published an op-ed in the NY Times delineating his 2-year plan for troop withdrawals in Iraq, rebutting the notion that he has ever modified his position at all: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html
?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

In the meantime, Newsweek reports Obama’s hurting -- losing some serious ground that’s brought his lead against McCain down to just 3 points (44-41), within the margin of error, and a far cry from the 15 point lead they’d attributed to the Chicago senator just 3 weeks ago.

So what are your gripes when it comes to this phase of the presidential mating game, and where do you think your heart and this election are ultimately headed? 

The latest USA Today / Gallup survey asks voters, among other questions, whether or not candidates are “honest and trustworthy.” McCain pulled ahead of the pack with 67% answering in the affirmative, Obama came in slightly behind him at 63% and Clinton was at the bottom of the pack with a paltry 44% answering the question in her favor.

Dick Morris (former political advisor to President Bill Clinton) says that “Hillary simply cannot tell the truth.” The examples he offers up are as follows:

Admitted Lies

-Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)

-Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)

-She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)

-She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)

Whoppers She Won't Confess To

-She didn't know about the FALN pardons.

-She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.

-Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.

-She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.

-She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.

-She opposed NAFTA at the time.

-She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.

-She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.

-She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.

-The billing records showed up on their own.

-She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.

-She was always a Yankees fan.

-She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).

-She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).

I personally like the idea of having a woman in the highest office in this country. But I also think it's supremely important that the President of the United States have a healthy relationship with the truth. 

Is Hillary toast?

 

So the former President has made another comment ripe for inquiry and interpretation.  After waxing poetic about the friendship his wife and Senator McCain apparently share, and then musing about a potential general election fight between them, he had this to say (to a group comprised mainly of veterans) during a visit in Charlotte, North Carolina:

“I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country, and people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.”

Considering the timing of this remark—in the midst of Barack Obama’s attempt to sufficiently disassociate himself from his seemingly unpatriotic pastor—Bill’s comments strike some as a low blow meant to try to throw Obama, yet again, under the Democratic bus. But Bill’s spokesperson said no no no, these people have it all wrong, and explained it like this:

“Actually, as is indicated by the quote itself, President Clinton was talking about the need to talk about issues, rather than falsely questioning any candidate’s patriotism. He was lamenting that these kind of distractions ‘always seem to intrude’ on political campaigns. This is consistent with his criticism of the ‘politics of personal destruction’ which dates back 16 years.”

So here go my questions (and my apologies in advance for asking so many… I’m in a curious and unrestrained mood at the moment during which my typing is trying desperately to keep up!):

-How do you interpret Bill Clinton’s remarks? Do they cause either Bill or Hillary Clinton to lose credibility or affection in your eyes?

-Now that the dust has settled some on Obama’s Pennsylvania speech, do you think he was able to adequately answer the questions posed to him about his connection to Wright’s rhetorical excesses, or has he lost the support and/or respect you afforded him prior? (Or did the speech merely serve to confirm your feelings about Obama’s character, whether positive or negative?)

-Do you think the current Democratic stalemate—and ensuing bitterness between Clinton and Obama—is ultimately going to be destructive to the Democratic Party as a whole, and beneficial to McCain in the general election?

One last thing… Just as an FYI, I’ve decided not to vote in this general election. I heard an interview with General Patraeus recently during which he said he doesn’t vote because he thinks it’s important to his job function that he remain as neutral as he can. When I heard that, I thought it made a lot of sense… This is the first presidential election during which I’m working as a journalist; I think that knowing I’m not voting is going to allow me to feel as agenda-free as possible. So rest easy knowing I’m all ears… not mouth… 

More than 14.6 million Democrats went to the polls on Tuesday, compared to only 9 million Republicans. Ask anyone reasonable why, and they'll tell you -- there's an obvious and sizable enthusiasm gap between both parties. Where it seems Democrats would be happy to have either Clinton or Obama sew up the Democratic nomination no matter who they're individually supporting right now, there is already some serious grumbling from the GOP about McCain not being nearly conservative enough, if at all. Ann Coulter went so far as to call him “an open-borders, anti-tax cut, anti-free speech, global-warming hysteric, pro-human experimentation ‘Republican’” whom she claims is likely to drive her right into Hillary’s arms. Whoa...

So, what do you make of all this? Do you think McCain has some serious worrying to do in light of these numbers, or do you think once the general election rolls around that the playing field will start to equalize? Also, do you think this next election is a slam-dunk for either the Democrats or the Republicans and/or do you think only one or the other of Hillary or Obama stands a chance against the maverick 71 year-old come-back kid? And ultimately, what remains the most important issue to you when it comes to your vote? The economy, national security, the war in Iraq, healthcare, securing our borders? Finally, do you find this election exhilarating… depressing… or something else entirely?

Okay, so we all know America isn’t perfect. We’ve got a long way to go when it comes to everything from healthcare to immigration reform to campaign financing. Our legal system, for a democratic nation, is hardly democratic – those who can afford the best legal representation typically hold the advantage. And for such a wealthy country, we’ve sure got some inexcusable crises when it comes to the poor. These are all very real and very serious issues.

On the flip side of that, though, I would still contend that the good here outweighs the bad, and that in terms of individual rights, freedoms and especially opportunities, America can’t be beat. I may be tainted by my upbringing: As the daughter of Bulgarian immigrants, I consider the greatest gift my parents gave me to be the belief, that at least in this country, one is limitless when it comes to one’s ability to achieve. In America, I was taught you are not born into an identity, you create one; I was taught that here, unlike in communist countries or even monarchies, you are the arrow, not the place from which the arrow is launched.

 

As the 2008 presidential race forges ahead, it seems like we as a nation could not be embracing that notion more fervently. I mean let’s take a look at who we’re rolling the presidential dice on: a woman, a black man, a Mormon, and someone who is not only as old as Moses, but who seemed to have risen from the dead politically, not just from back in 2000, but from as recently as a few months ago. Despite the fact that running for president is frighteningly expensive, too, the net worths of these individuals range tremendously – from just over a million dollars (Obama) to over two hundred million (Romney). So, we’re talking about people from all over the map in terms of gender, race, religion, and even wealth. This campaign has been one of unlikely contenders, irrepressible resurrections, and feverish momentum. No state is truly critical anymore; there are plenty of fence-sitters left to seduce; our hearts and minds are being courted one-by-one by the most unlikely presidential suitors in American history.

 

Does anyone else find this election inspiring, or do you think the current political stage simply represents the status quo in different costumes and colors? Thoughts?

South Carolina is considered a critical early voting state. Its primary has consistently predicted the Republican nomination since 1980 and often establishes the tone for voting in other Southern states. And yet, with the South Carolina GOP primary on Saturday, the field is still wide open now that the party’s three major contests have been won by three different candidates: former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee in Iowa, Arizona Senator John McCain in New Hampshire, and Mitt Romney in Michigan.

The methodical, organized GOP tends to back a front-runner early on in the primary season; this year’s wide-open field, however, defies convention. When the Republican National Committee began its annual winter meeting Wednesday in D.C., committee member Robert Shelander from Illinois couldn’t point to an inkling of what was to come from the results to date. “It’s a very fluid situation,” he said. “Anybody that tells you they know what’s going to happen is pulling your leg.”

Many Republican voters simply haven’t made a decision on who to support. Each candidate seems to appeal to a different portion of the population and even the Republican brain. Rather than prompting any sort of herd effect, the candidates have been catalysts for division amongst their own. Huckabee has been appealing to the state’s large number of religious conservatives; McCain is popular with the state’s military veterans; Romney’s running ads; Thompson is hoping to play off his conservative stance and Southern background.

In the meantime, Rudy is focusing on Florida. He’s hoping to win the state’s January 29th primary, and then praying he’ll be able to carry the momentum through the key Super Tuesday states of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, where he’s already a fairly fashionable figure.

What does all this mean? That on Febuary 5th, there’s a distinct possibility that no one will have 51+ percent when the GOP nominating convention assembles in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

And what does that mean? That maybe, just maybe, the GOP nominee could be decided only after delegates cast multiple ballots at the national nominating convention. That hasn’t happened since…1948.

So, as a betting woman, I’m holding a contest. I’d like your predictions on two fronts: 1) Who will take South Carolina? and 2) Will the South Carolina victor also go on to become the Republican nominee?

If you get the answer to both questions right, I’ll send you a note. Or draw you a picture. Or record the outgoing message on your answering machine. We’ll think of something; I’m reasonable and creative. Per legal rules, though, it can’t be worth anything. At least not in monetary terms. At least not right now… ;-)

 

For a presidential wannabe, Mike Huckabee’s got a pretty sharp wit (let’s admit, the competition isn’t too stiff). At an early debate, he got Republicans snickering by saying Congress spent more than John Edwards does at a beauty shop. At another, he said, “If you think that Medicare is expensive now, wait until 10,000 aging hippies a day find out they can get free drugs.” Responding to a question about space exploration, he suggested that “maybe Hillary could be on the first rocket to Mars.” And his famous one-liner at the CNN/YouTube debate, “Jesus was too smart to run for public office,” may have marked the beginning of his rise in the primary fight from dark horse to contender.

Till now, Huckabee’s wit has served him well. The media loves an entertainer, and voters (among them bloggers) tend to mention Huck’s humor when they discuss his appeal. It doesn’t hurt candidates to remember, too, that some of our most popular presidents have been able to elicit a good laugh. John F. Kennedy amused audiences with his savage wit and memorable lines like, “Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names.” Among Reagan’s funny quips are two great ones from just after he was shot: “Honey, I forgot to duck,” he told Nancy. To the surgeons he said, “I hope you're all Republicans.” Clinton was also a great jokester who knew how to be deliciously self-deprecating. And even Bush has sometimes been called “Comedian-in-Chief.” Responding to criticism on his own brand of English, Bush once said, “You have to admit, in my sentences, I go where no man has gone before.” 

But is there a limit to how funny a presidential candidate should be? How many jokes can a candidate tell before his or her seriousness comes into question? As Huckabee takes the lead in the polls in Iowa and South Carolina, his opponents are trying to turn his humor against him, seeking to peg him as a man more qualified to be a great standup comedian than a president. “No laughing matter,” reads a series of Mitt Romney's press releases that claim to take “a serious look at Governor Mike Huckabee's record and policy beyond the one-liners." Fred Thompson also issued a slap to Huckabee's wrist: “The security of Americans and our allies is no laughing matter. What Americans are looking for in their next president is a commander in chief, not a Court Jester.” The strategy attempts to recast one of Huckabee's best assets as a liability.

So what do you think of all this? Does humor make a candidate more, or less, electable? Is this trait something that is prized on an individual level, or only as something that injects entertainment into the greater political process, otherwise viewed by many as one enormous shuddering yawn? And at the end of the day, is it more important for you to like your president’s personality, or his or her views on the issues that matter to you most? (Dig deep for the truth on this one…)

Finally, what are *your* thoughts on the fast-rising Huckabee?

 

Let’s face it, people’s most endearing spots are often found mucking about in their flaws. After all, who can relate to perfect? I wonder if the current presidential candidates realize this too (or at least their advisors do), as they carefully dance the line between virtuous and real. They're decent human beings, the story goes—but they're also still just that—human beings. Rudy Giuliani addresses his serial philandering with: "I'm not a perfect person—you may have heard." Barack Obama's version of the only-human stance: "I don't pretend to be a perfect man." John McCaine’s: "I make mistakes every single day." Obama even made the decision to go public about his past drug use. "I made some bad decisions," he told a group of high school kids. "You know, got into drinking. I experimented with drugs. There was a whole stretch of time that I didn't really apply myself a lot. It wasn't until I got out of high school and went to college that I started realizing, 'Man, I wasted a lot of time.'" Word has it that the whole Lewinsky saga actually did wonders for Hillary's public attractiveness factor too, scoring her points with many who hadn't otherwise warmed up to her. In publicly discussing her pain, she seemed, well, human—a woman whose ego was suddenly revealed to be as tender as yours or mine. And funny enough, Mitt Romney has even been called "too perfect" by some—perhaps for not engaging in enough self-criticism? I wonder.

So, what do you think of all this? Does self-deprecation = candor? Are there candidates you like or dislike at least in part because of their admitted flaws or lack thereof? And finally... just for fun: What flaws do you accept as an integral part of your own personality?