Politics Daily

Face Off! Did Obama Handle the Rod Blagojevich Scandal Well?

Michael Kraskin — 2008-12-12T12:52:00+00:00

Filed under: Face Off

It's Face Off time again! This week, we saw Barack Obama deal with what could be seen as the first scandal of his administration. Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is being brought up on charges related to an attempt to sell Obama's Senate seat. It also turns out that Obama's presumptive chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, may have met with Blagojevich several times.

How is Obama handling this? Is he putting the public's concerns to rest?

Liza Porteus Viana says Obama kept his cool under pressure:

There was concern that if Obama didn't come out calm, cool, and collected, he would fan the flames of speculation that perhaps some people in his circle had some questionable dealings or conversations with Governor Blagojevich. But that didn't happen today.

In fact, Obama did what he needed to, and even added a little bit of humor to the absolutely fantastic scandal marring politics in his state. Read More

On the other hand, Mark Impomeni believes that Obama has created more questions than he has answered:

The decision to answer questions is a good start by the Obama team, but the questions must be answered truthfully. Like his first remarks on the scandal, Obama's statement that no one on his staff had any conversations with the governor's office that involved Blagojevich's various plans to profit from naming a successor to Obama did not last 24 hours. Yesterday's stunning revelation that Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel had numerous contacts with Blagojevich about the seat and may have provided a list of acceptable candidates to the governor on Obama's behalf certainly makes that statement inoperative. Read More

So now it's up to you. Who do you think makes a better case, Liza or Mark?

View Poll

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Face Off! Can Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton Get Along?

Michael Kraskin — 2008-12-05T10:58:00+00:00

Filed under: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Featured Stories, Face Off, Obama Administration

It's time for another Political Machine Face Off! Today's debate centers on whether former Democratic rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama can turn their previous ire into sublime friendship as they embark on their new relationship as President and Secretary of State. So have a look at both of our authors' takes, and vote in the poll below.

Mark Impomeni argues that Hillary Clinton will use her new position to become a shadow president:

Obama versus Clinton was no ordinary rivalry, especially in the area of foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton openly campaigned on questions about Barack Obama's ability to handle an international crisis as a key rationale for her candidacy. Read More

Meanwhile, Tommy Christopher makes the case that Clinton and Obama have learned to play nice:

The perceptions about their relationship, though, might be helpful. The idea that the Secretary of State is more than an appendage of the President might come in handy, diplomatically. The fact that Hillary is tough and independent will serve her well, too. Read More

So what do you think? Who made a better case?

View Poll

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Hillary Clinton Will be a Shadow President

Mark Impomeni — 2008-12-05T10:52:00+00:00

Filed under: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, Face Off, Obama Administration

In countries with parliamentary systems of government, the party out of power is often referred to as a "shadow government." Ministers that would hold certain portfolios such as defense, welfare, education, etc., are known and serve as critics of their counterparts in government. America does not have such a system, of course. But the choice of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) by President-elect Barack Obama to be Secretary of State may be the closest thing our country has known to having a shadow presidency.

To be sure, Obama is not the first president-elect to chose cabinet members from amongst his rivals. Until recent times, it was something of a tradition that after a close primary battle, the winner took the vanquished on the ticket as the vice-presidential nominee. The strategy involved was to heal party divisions for the general election, as well as present the strongest possible ticket to the electorate at large. Barack Obama passed up that opportunity when he chose Joe Biden as his running mate after this year's bruising Democratic primary campaign between himself and Sen. Clinton. Obama's surprising choice of Clinton for the State Department is meant to mollify any lingering upset over the vice-presidential snub. But it also puts Clinton in the perfect position to undermine the Obama presidency, a risk Obama must surely have considered.

Obama versus Clinton was no ordinary rivalry, especially in the area of foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton openly campaigned on questions about Barack Obama's ability to handle an international crisis as a key rationale for her candidacy. Her 3 AM ad made that point in no uncertain terms, as did her claim that she alone among the Democratic candidates for president would be, "ready on day one." Clinton even said that Obama would need a "foreign policy instruction manual," to guide him in a crisis and would need advisers to, "introduce [him] to world affairs." These are not simply differences of opinion or approach between two otherwise equal candidates. They are fundamental challenges by Clinton to the ability of Obama to serve as president, centered on his lack of foreign policy credentials. As Secretary of State, Clinton will in theory be running President Obama's foreign policy shop. She will have ample opportunities to steal the spotlight from him, or disagree discreetly and behind-the-scenes to build herself up or tear him down as the situation requires.

Another complication for President Obama will be President Clinton. Mr. Clinton played the role of attack dog for his wife during the primary. Although he gave a well-received endorsement of Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention, in which he declared Obama ready to be president, doubts remain about Mr. Clinton's commitment to see Barack Obama's presidency be a successful one. Proof of those doubts can be found in the extraordinary lengths to which the Obama transition team went to try and control the future husband of the Secretary of State's activities. President Clinton agreed to an unprecedented set of conditions in order for his wife to get the cabinet post. Clinton will disclose the names of every contributor to his foundation since its inception in 1997 and all contributors going forward, step away from day-to-day management of the Clinton Global Initiative while Sen. Clinton is Secretary of State, and submit his speaking schedule to review by the State Department and White House counsel, among other things. Obama's team clearly wants Mr. Clinton on a short leash, a sign of distrust, and with good reason.

The Clintons are master political manipulators. They are perhaps the most driven, ruthless, and calculating political couple in recent American history. No one is better at taking subtle, seemingly innocent, shots at an opponent, Democrat or Republican. Recently, for example,Mr. Clinton told CNN that Hillary Clinton first heard that she was under consideration for Secretary of State by reading it in the newspaper. He described her as "shocked" to learn that Barack Obama was considering her. Clinton went on to say that it was a "very wise" decision by Obama to select his wife for the post, but that it was a difficult one for her to accept. "She adored being in the Senate," he said. This is vintage Bill Clinton. In the span of three sentences, without actually saying so or saying anything bad about Obama, actually praising him, Clinton managed to sow doubt that Obama and his wife are on the same page, hint that Obama needs Hillary Clinton more than she needed to be in the cabinet, and paint her as the reluctant warrior, sacrificing her love for the Senate to tutor the new president on foreign policy. If that sounds like a stretch of an interpretation, think again. This is Bill Clinton talking. Neither of the Clinton's have ever uttered a word in their political lives that was not calculated for effect. And there will be plenty more where that came from for as long as Sen. Clinton is at the State Department.

Perhaps President-elect Obama's decision to tab Clinton for Secretary of State was a case of keeping his enemy close. Perhaps he realizes just what kind of damage the Clintons can do to his Administration from the inside and was willing to take the risk. But foreign policy is the one area over which the president has exclusive control and the one on which he is so often judged. Offering Clinton the State Department is like dangling a t-bone in front of a lioness. It is only a matter of time before she devours it, and the person holding it. President Obama had better keep his chair and his whip at the ready.

Read Tommy Christopher's argument that Obama and Clinton will play nice.

Vote for who you think made a better argument.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Face Off! Bush's New Abortion Rules

Michael Kraskin — 2008-11-19T10:37:00+00:00

Filed under: Abortion, Face Off

One of the ways outgoing President George W. Bush is trying to shore up his legacy, is by passing a whole bunch of new rules quickly. You see, when Bush came into office, he was able to kill a slew of Clinton's rules with ease, because they had not been in force for more than 60 days. So Bush is rushing his own rules through before that 60 day window closes so that this time, they stick.

One of the most controversial is his new rules that protect health care workers who are opposed to abortion. From the New York Times:

The proposed rule would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their "religious beliefs or moral convictions."

Two of our regular bloggers weigh in on this controversial issue in this week's Face Off!

Mark Impomeni writes that he supports Bush's new rules protecting opponents of abortion:

It preserves their choice to refuse to perform work that compromises their beliefs. With the soon-to-be Democratic controlled federal government looming, ready to enforce its standards of morality on all health care providers, the Bush Administration is attempting to carve out a comparatively small exception. Read More

Tommy Christopher writes that the new rules attack women's rights:

President Bush is rushing to implement new regulations that will restrict women's access to healthcare on his way out of town, and the reality-based community is not too happy about it. Read More

View Poll

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Face Off: McCain's Choice

Christopher Weber — 2008-08-29T19:05:00+00:00

Filed under: Republicans, John McCain, 2008 President, Veepstakes, Face Off

In our last "Face Off" feature our bloggers wrestled over Barack Obama's choice of Joe Biden as his vice presidential candidate. Today they take on John McCain's decision to pick Sarah Palin as veep.

Mark Impomeni says choosing Palin is a bold political gambit that steals Obama's convention thunder and announces to voters that McCain is still a maverick. Mark's take, called "Palin Re-Energizes McCain Campaign," begins:

Sen. John McCain surprised even seasoned political observers today with his selection of first term Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Palin was not mentioned on any short lists for the Vice-Presidential nomination, although her name has been floated in conservative circles for some time. The pick has brought a new energy to the McCain campaign and to its supporters, and has completely squelched the buzz in the media following Sen. Barack Obama's glitzy acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention last night.

Liza Porteus Viana on the other hand sees a number of reasons why McCain's choice is a major blunder. Liza's piece is called "Sarah Who?"

John McCain shocked some in the Republican establishment today with his pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. Just to play devil's advocate, here are some reasons why McCain might be criticized for choosing who he did, not least of which is that Republicans can no longer shoot down Barack Obama for his lack of experience. The choice of Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., balances the Democratic ticket, and the choice of Palin just decreased the "experience" strength of a possible Republican ticket.

Read both of our bloggers and then give us your take.

View Poll

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Face Off: Obama's Choice

Christopher Weber — 2008-08-23T12:38:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Featured Stories, Joe Biden, 2008 President, Veepstakes, Face Off

Once again it's time for "Face Off," The Political Machine's semi-regular feature highlighting opposing opinions on the big news of the day. This time our bloggers take on Barack Obama's pick of Joe Biden to be his vice presidential running mate.

Liza Porteus Viana is pleased by the news and makes her case in a piece called "Obama Made the Best Choice With Biden."

With his pick of Joe Biden as a vice president, Barack Obama has addressed on of the biggest criticisms about him - his lack of experience, particularly in the area of foreign policy.

Mark Impomeni on the other hand believes Biden is a veep candidate only the GOP can love. His post is called "The Best Possible Choice for Republicans," which begins:

Sen. Barack Obama's selection of Delaware Senator Joe Biden may turn out to be the biggest mistake of his campaign. Bigger than the European trip, and more lasting than the position switches.

Read our two bloggers and then give us your take.

View Poll

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

The Best Possible Choice for Republicans

Mark Impomeni — 2008-08-23T11:30:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, Joe Biden, 2008 President, Veepstakes, Face Off

Sen. Barack Obama's selection of Delaware Senator Joe Biden may turn out to be the biggest mistake of his campaign. Bigger than the European trip, and more lasting than the position switches. Joe Biden is a very competent Senator. He has, after all, won six terms from the voters of his state. But that very fact, along with some of his recently held positions, statements, and one other crucially important factor could cause Obama to regret his choice come November.

It is hard to imagine a selection that undercuts Obama's narrative more then Joe Biden. Biden has been a Senator for 35 years. That is a long time even by Senatorial standards. Obama has been campaigning as the fresh new face, a Washington outsider with the right tools to change the way politics is done in the nation's capital. Biden is a seasoned political pro, knowledgable and skilled in the art of Washington political combat. By choosing Biden, Obama is signaling that politics as usual will be the order of the day in an Obama administration. Furthermore, Obama has built his appeal around his superior judgment, based mostly on his opposition to the Iraq was from the beginning. Biden supported the Iraq war resolution initially, although he has since said that his yes vote on the resolution was a mistake.

Another staple of the Obama campaign has been its claim that experience is overrated. The biggest criticism of Sen. Obama is that he is a relative political neophyte, with little foreign policy or military experience. Obama counters that his judgment is enough to overcome those shortcomings. Biden brings tremendous foreign policy and military experience to the ticket. He is the current chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and has been a long time member of the Armed Services Committee. His selection indicates that Obama realizes that experience is indeed necessary, and judgment alone is not a worthy substitute. Biden himself declared Obama to be "not ready" for the presidency when he was a candidate for the Democratic nomination. That statement has already been turned into a McCain television commercial.

Sen. Obama is a master orator and has demonstrated his ability both to hold huge crowds in rapt attention and whip them into a frenzy by the force and power of his rhetoric. He is also a fairly well disciplined candidate. Obama has had gaffes, but for the most part he stays on message. Biden is known as a long-winded speaker and is not considered electrifying. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden was roundly criticized for his questioning of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Biden took up nearly all of his allotted time with statements and stories, barely working in a question for the nominee. Biden is far from dull, and has an every man quality to his oratory. But he is not very disciplined, and is prone to making statements that he later regrets. For instance, his famous declaration that Sen. Obama was the first "mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice looking guy." The Obama campaign may have a hard time controlling the message with Joe Biden as the messenger.

The Obama campaign has bragged that it intends to change the electoral map, challenging for states that are traditional Republican strongholds like Virginia and Georgia. Biden comes from a relatively safe Democratic state. Delaware has not voted for a Republican for president since 1988 and is not considered a swing state in this year's election. Delaware has only three electoral votes, so Biden doesn't bring a lot to the ticket with him in terms of electoral strength. Coupled with the Obama campaign's decision to pull its advertising in Republican leaning states this weekend, the choice seems to indicate a growing anxiety inside the Obama campaign. It appears that the campaign is questioning its electoral strategy and overhauling its campaign message on the eve of the Democratic convention. Sen. Obama's lackluster August, and his inability to break clear of Sen. McCain in national polls appears to be getting the better of him. The campaign hopes that Biden's experience will help to allay voters' fears that Obama is just not ready for the top job.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, Joe Biden is not Hillary Clinton. In the gender politics obsessed Democratic Party, the choice of an older white male as Obama's running mate will be viewed as a slap in the face of the 18 million voters who put their faith in Sen. Clinton. Her supporters are not rallying to Obama in the numbers that his campaign needs to solidify the base. McCain draws a higher percentage of Republicans than Obama does of Democrats. Had Obama chosen a woman, like Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius or Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, he would at least have had a shot at placating those women voters still smarting from Clinton's primary loss. Biden, competent, experienced, and knowledgeable as he is, does nothing to bring those voters back into the fold.

In short, Sen. Joe Biden is the best possible running mate choice Barack Obama could have made for Republicans. He directly contradicts Obama's narrative on a host of fronts, and he represents an admission by the Obama campaign that McCain's criticism of Obama's lack of experience has merit. Biden has made numerous statements that support McCain, going so far to say that he would be honored to run "with or against him." Biden puts no swing states in play, keeps the Democratic base split, and is likely to make at least one major gaffe on the campaign trail. In an election year with all the advantages for the Democratic candidate, Sen. Obama may have just handed Republican John McCain his biggest break with the selection Biden as his running mate.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Face Off: Time for a Vacation?

David Knowles — 2008-08-14T08:44:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, John McCain, Featured Stories, Face Off

Welcome to another addition of Political Machine's version of "Point-Counterpoint," known in these parts as "Face Off." Today's topic is summer break, specifically, when or whether Barack Obama and John McCain are entitled to take one. So have a gander at the following divergent views, and let us know which take rings truer. Time to drop the puck.

First up is Mark Impomeni, who contemplates the significance of Barack Obama's R-n-R trip to Hawaii in a piece, titled "Out of Sight, Out of Mind." It begins:

Last week, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released a poll that purported to show that Barack Obama had become overexposed. Forty-eight percent of respondents said that they had heard too much about Sen. Obama, including 51% of independets and 34% of Democrats. The results of the survey were used, in part, to justify Obama's week-long Hawaiian vacation...

Tommy Christopher, meanwhile, argues that all work and no play tends to make John McCain a very dull, if not frightening, would-be president. He chimes in with "John McCain Needs a Vacation in Reality."

John McCain definitely needs a vacation. This week alone, he almost managed to bring the Cold War back, with New Improved Hotness! The world that John McCain regularly inhabits seems to bear little resemplance to the one American voters live in, one where a 5-cents-a-gallon-in-10-years drop in the price of of gas isn't quite worth diverting resources from renewable energy, and destroying tourism and the environment.

After reading the posts, cast your vote:

View Poll

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Out of Sight, Out of Mind

Mark Impomeni — 2008-08-13T21:47:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, 2008 President, Face Off

Last week, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released a poll that purported to show that Barack Obama had become overexposed. Forty-eight percent of respondents said that they had heard too much about Sen. Obama, including 51% of independents and 34% of Democrats. The results of the survey were used, in part, to justify Obama's week-long Hawaiian vacation, which he is enjoying this week. Presidential candidates have long taken time off in August, just before or just after their party's convention. August is a month when many Americans are themselves vacationing, and thus not paying attention to politics as much. Not much happens in August as a result, and the traditional kickoff for the general election is considered to be Labor Day.

But in Sen. Obama's case, vacationing is a riskier proposition. Many Americans have yet to learn who Obama is, despite all of the press coverage of his campaign. Obama has built a movement that is centered around what his campaign bills as his unique persona. To keep the fires of public adoration stoked, Obama needs to remain in the spotlight personally for his campaign to continue to thrive. A week of relatively little coverage of the candidate, when the candidate himself, and not necessarily his ideas, is the main selling point, could cause voters' attention to wander off of Obama's personal likability, and onto the issues. That is exactly what is happening this week.

The Russian invasion of Georgia is an international crisis that is very ill timed for the Obama campaign. Coming as it does in the middle of Sen. Obama's vacation, it makes Obama appear detached and disinterested in serious international issues. Sen. John McCain has been taking advantage of the breathing room on the campaign trial to drive home his campaign's narrative that Obama is not prepared to lead in a dangerous world. McCain has been hammering on the situation in Georgia, highlighting his foreign policy experience and expertise, while Obama has been issuing statements between golf games. Worse, Obama's initial statement on the Russian invasion seemed to blame Georgia, the victim, for the Russian action. Obama has gradually changed his official position to more closely resemble McCain's tougher stance on Russia's actions, but the response from the campaign has been slow compared to McCain.

International crises can happen at anytime. But there is little doubt that had Obama been actively campaigning this week, his response to the events of the day would have been quicker. Voters have had an invaluable opportunity to actually see the difference between the candidates demonstrated in the real world, not just debated in dueling television commercials. Obama does not do foreign affairs as well as McCain, and this week proved it. For Obama, that could take a little of the luster off of his image as a man of extraordinary capabilities. The campaign trail would have at least given Obama a chance to make up for his relative lack of experience in actually dealing with an international crisis by appearing to be focused on it as he mentioned Georgia in campaign appearances. Instead, Obama has mostly let his surrogates do his talking at the cost of his personal stature.

Obama will retake his place atop the news as soon as his vacation is over. The upcoming Democratic National Convention will only increase the amount of coverage for the campaign in the final two weeks of the month. Obama hopes that any damage done to him by dropping almost completely out of sight during a major international event can be overcome by the positive press coverage that the convention will generate. But in politics, when a narrative gets set, it can be impossible to overcome. If Obama loses this election because voters decide to go with the candidate with the most experience, Obama will certainly wonder for the next four years if this week in Hawai'i was worth it.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Face Off: Obama's Trip

David Knowles — 2008-07-31T08:31:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, Featured Stories, Media, Face Off

In today's edition of Face Off, two of our writers take a look back at Barack Obama's recent overseas trip. Did it benefit the Illinois Senator, or give his rival fresh ammunition? Have a gander at each take, and let us know which one is closer to what you have come to conclude. Thanks for playing.

First up is Caleb Howe, who weighs in with "Citizen Plain."

"Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for president, but as a citizen - a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world." --Barack Obama, Berlin

This was the moment.

Senator Obama's World Tour 2008 peaked on a Thursday in Germany. Before a tremendous crowd he delivered the capstone speech, the summation of his trip and his candidacy for the President of the United States. This was the moment.

Read the Full Post

With a somewhat different reading of events, we have Jay Allbritton, who counters with "Trip's Success Goes Beyond Bounce."

Where's Barack Obama's bounce?

Obama went to the Middle East and Europe, the troops wen wild, the crowds went wild, he spoke before nearly a quarter million Germans, reporters published his correspondence with the Lord, he sank a three-pointer in front of the troops on his first try and, all the while, the mainstream media couldn't find a spare second to cover John McCain's grinning voyages to the grocery store and the German restaurant.

Read the Full Post

Don't forget to vote!

View Poll

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Face Off: FISA Compromise

David Knowles — 2008-07-14T07:24:00+00:00

Filed under: George W. Bush, Featured Stories, Terror, Face Off

Today's edition of our Face Off series explores the FISA legislation recently passed in Congress and signed into law by the president. Was the compromise good or bad for our democracy? Is it an much-needed instance of bi-partisan cooperation, or a further deterioration of American freedoms?

Two of our writers offer you their take on the matter. After reading what they have to say, let us know whose opinion you prefer.

First up, Mark Impomeni weighs in with,

FISA Bill: A Bipartisan Triumph

President Bush signed a revamped Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act into law yesterday at the White House. The bill reestablishes the Bush Administration's terrorist surveillance program, which had lapsed when the Protect America Act of 2007 expired in February...

Tommy Christopher begs to differ, in his post,

Can You Hear Me Now?

The dirty little secret about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is that the original law, passed in 1978, was itself a massive giveaway of civil liberties. It allows the government to spy on US citizens without first getting a warrant, as long as one is obtained within 72 hours...

View Poll

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

FISA Bill a Bipartisan Triumph

Mark Impomeni — 2008-07-10T21:27:00+00:00

Filed under: Bush Administration, Senate, House, Terror, Face Off

President Bush signed a revamped Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act into law last week at the White House. The bill reestablishes the Bush Administration's terrorist surveillance program, which had lapsed when the Protect America Act of 2007 expired in February. The Bush Administration counts the passage of the bill as a victory both in its efforts to protect the country from terrorist attacks and in its design to provide the next Administration with all the tools necessary to keep the country safe into the future.

The bill's detractors, and critics of the surveillance it authorizes, see the whole issue differently. Civil liberties advocates complain that the law gives the government too much authority, and provides too little oversight, to listen in on the conversations of ordinary Americans. They say that the program is a violation of the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as a violation of FISA itself. Administration critics see the program as a first step on a slippery slope toward a police state, where all communications are subject to prying government eyes and ears.

But the program is nothing of the kind. It is a necessary part of fighting the war on terrorism. Surveillance has always been conducted in war. Only the times and tools change. The difference in this war is that the enemy could be hiding among us, plotting and planning. Whereas in prior wars, the enemy was safely overseas. The passage of the new FISA, complete with the authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping, is a triumph of reason over emotion, pragmatism over ideology, and bipartisanship over polarization.

The terrorist surveillance program allows the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on communications between people inside the United States and out. It is not "domestic spying" as has become the shorthand description in the mainstream press. At least one of the parties to the communication must be outside the country. It also allows the government to listen in on wholly foreign communications, between persons both outside the country, which are routed through the United States. Certainly, the government should have the right to intercept communications in which no American is involved. But just as certainly, in the modern age, it must also be allowed to intercept communications coming in to or going out from those whom it suspects of plotting from within the United States to attack. The original FISA was written in 1978, before the age of cell phones and e-mail. Clearly, if the Administration's program was not authorized by the law, then a new law was needed.

The Administration has always contended that the program was legal, tacitly authorized by Congress in its use of force resolution following the September 11th attacks, and based on the president's inherent authority to conduct the armed forces in war time under Article II of the Constitution. It is that belief in the program's legality that led the White House to approach the major telecommunications companies in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks and request their assistance in conducting the surveillance. Yet, in the grand American tradition, those companies were promptly sued for their patriotic cooperation, almost as soon as the program's existence was revealed. The Administration has insisted on immunity for those companies, and it succeeded. This is a critical feature of the new law. Without immunity, the law would be practically useless; as no company would agree to provide assistance for a program that it believed would expose it to liability. This is, of course, exactly what critics of the program want, and why they so vehemently opposed the amnesty provision.

The passage of FISA represents an example of how our government should work. Democrats and Republicans came together to hammer out a compromise on a necessary piece of national security legislation, and passed it. Both sides recognized a need to provide tools for the government to help protect the country, while safeguarding protections for civil liberties. If the terrorist surveillance program were all the things critics and the press have reported that it is, there is no way it would have passed a Democratic-controlled Congress by the large majorities it garnered. For radical fringe elements to criticize either side for the passage and implementation of this vital program is just to ensure more of the same partisan gridlock that the American people are tired of witnessing. FISA is a good and necessary bill, and the lawmakers who put principle over party to vote it into law should be praised for their efforts.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Face Off: A Dream Ticket? Really?

Coates Bateman — 2008-06-13T09:47:00+00:00

Filed under: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Featured Stories, 2008 President, Face Off

Face Off is back! Two of our writers will be posting separate pieces on a hot-button topic. You can check out both and then vote for the one that speaks to you and aligns with your views.

Today the topic is the pros and cons of an Obama/Clinton ticket. Dreamy or nightmarish?

Tommy Christopher writes:

Should Barack Obama pick Hillary Clinton to be his vice president? Never has such an obvious answer been so hotly debated. The answer really only depends on one factor: How much does Barack Obama want to win by in November? Read more

Mark Impomeni writes:

The greatest danger that the Clintons pose for Obama comes not from their detractors, but from the Clintons themselves. And, ironically, it is here that Sen. Clinton's large following argues against her selection as Obama's running mate.... Read More

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

'Dream Ticket' Fantasy

Mark Impomeni — 2008-06-12T10:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008 President, Veepstakes, Face Off

It's the question on every political pundit's mind: Should Barack Obama choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate on the Democratic ticket? Most of the arguments in favor hinge on Sen. Clinton's performance in swing states in this year's primary, her support among women voters, a key demographic for Democrats, and her nearly 18 million total votes received in the primary contests. But the answer to the Clinton question may come from Sen. Obama's general view of the Clintons, rather than from any reading of this year's primary results. Fundamentally, Sen. Obama must first decide which view of the Clintons he ascribes to before making his decision.

The Clintons are viewed by many as a force for good in American politics. Nostalgia for the less complicated times of the 1990s is running high. When the Clintons were in the White House, so the popular history goes, there were no wars, no mortgage troubles, and no rocky economy. If Sen. Obama agrees with this view of the Clintons, than he should choose Sen. Clinton as his running mate. But if he adheres to a different view, one held by an equally large number of Americans, he should back away from that ledge slowly. The Clintons are also viewed as a selfish and ruthlessly ambitious couple willing to do almost anything to secure their own power. Mrs. Clinton's large following from the primaries may serve to kindle all the worst instincts in her, with potentially disastrous consequences for the Obama campaign.

First off, nostalgia should mean nothing to Sen. Obama. He has built his appeal around the idea that he is uniquely suited to bring change to Washington. Fresh blood and fresh ideas are the hallmark of his message. Choosing Hillary Clinton, and by extension Bill, would drown out that message and embroil the campaign in debates over the scandals and partisanship of the Clintons' reign. Those debates, and the necessary engagement in them by both Bill and Hillary, could overshadow Obama himself. Obama may find it difficult to cut through the noise, even at the top of the ticket. Additionally, Sen. Clinton's presence on the ballot would serve as a powerful motivator for the Republican base, more powerful even than the Republican candidate. In an election season in which one of the built in advantages for the Democrats is Republican voter apathy about their standard bearer, Obama should not look to give disaffected Republicans and conservatives a reason to come out and vote against his Vice-Presidential selection.

But the greatest danger that the Clintons pose for Obama comes not from their detractors, but from the Clintons themselves. And, ironically, it is here that Sen. Clinton's large following argues against her selection as Obama's running mate. In the primaries, Sen. Clinton did overwhelmingly well with rural working-class whites, women, and Hispanics. Her dominance among these groups gives her a ready made coalition from which to challenge Obama, even from the bottom of the ticket. She will be able to use her influence among these traditionally Democratic voters to shape policy and direct the campaign in ways that Obama may not like but will have to accept. In other words, Obama needs Clinton's voters to win in the general election, and her outreach to those groups on his behalf will come at a price. That price will surely be a very high profile Vice-Presidency with control over certain policy items, and may even include some decision making authority. Obama may find himself as the junior partner in a tri-presidency with Hillary and Bill.

Sen. Obama has run a good campaign with a focus on the future. He has carefully crafted his image as a practitioner of a new kind of politics, and has inspired millions of new participants in the political process. Choosing Sen. Clinton would virtually erase all that hard work in an instant. Having come this far, Obama should resist the temptation to win at all costs by selecting Hillary Clinton as his running mate. There are no guarantees that the ticket would win in November, given Mrs. Clintons' high unfavorability ratings, and even less of a guarantee that the partnership would work in practical terms. His campaign, and his potential future administration, would be much better served if he pays the Clintons their respects, but politely refuses their charms.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Face Off: Should the Delegates Be Seated?

Coates Bateman — 2008-05-29T15:59:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Featured Stories, 2008 President, Conventions, Face Off

Face Off is back! Two of our writers will be posting separate pieces on a hot-button topic. You can check out both and then vote for the one that speaks to you and aligns with your views.

Today the topic is whether the Florida and Michigan Democratic delegates should be seated.

Greg McNeilly writes:

Republicans and Democrats, in both Florida and Michigan, tried to play a game of political chicken with their respective party bosses.They both lost. The GOP's rules are a little less punitive in onlycutting the size of the state's delegations, whereas the Democrats flat out bar the states from seating their delegations. It's expected tha the DNC will relax its punishment and seat some delegates, from both states.

This is not a complicated issues... Read more

Mark Impomeni writes:

The two front-runners for the nomination didn't completely follow the plan. While neither campaigned or attended fund raisers, Sen. Hillary Clinton remained on the ballot in both states and Sen. Barack Obama was on the ballot in Florida. This means that the Democratic Party must find a way to deal with a situation where not only the states but also the top two candidates broke the rules. In another year, this may not have been such a problem... Read More

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Seat All the Delegates

Mark Impomeni — 2008-05-28T22:31:00+00:00

Filed under: Hillary Clinton, Democrats, Barack Obama, 2008 President, Face Off

"Count all the votes!" "Selected, not elected!" "Illegitimate president!" These were the calls echoing from liberals and Democrats in the wake of the 2000 presidential election in Florida. Yet this Saturday, at a meeting of the Democratic National Convention Rules and Bylaws Committee, the Democratic Party is set to commit the very sin it decried eight years ago and limit the delegations from the important swing states of Michigan and Florida, scene of the crime in 2000, to half or perhaps none of their allotted delegate total. Millions of Democratic voters in the two states would see their votes go uncounted or counted unequally.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean stripped Michigan and Florida of their convention representation last year for holding presidential primaries before the party-sanctioned date of February 5th. Most of the candidates for the Democratic Party's nomination agreed not to appear on the ballot in either state and to refrain from campaigning or raising money in them. But the two front-runners for the nomination didn't completely follow the plan. While neither campaigned or attended fund raisers, Sen. Hillary Clinton remained on the ballot in both states and Sen. Barack Obama was on the ballot in Florida. This means that the Democratic Party must find a way to deal with a situation where not only the states but also the top two candidates broke the rules. In another year, this may not have been such a problem. The nomination would have been decided with much greater certainty by this point in the calendar and the decision of the Rules and Bylaws Committee would hardly have been noticed. But the nomination contest between Obama and Clinton is so close that every single delegate vote counts. As a result, the decision on Saturday could do more to select the nominee that the actual voting in the primaries.

Given this unhappy scenario in which the party finds itself, although partly a result of unprecedented interest and enthusiasm within the party for two potential nominees; the only solution that Democrats can implement is to acknowledge that rules were broken all around, cast the rules aside, and seat all the delegates from Michigan and Florida in the name of democratic principles. Doing so would not sully the process or reward the states for defying the national party. Rather, it would be beneficial to party unity and would likely lead to the same result as penalizing the states, the nomination of Sen. Barack Obama for president.

Democratic Party lawyers told the party that it could seat at most half of the delegations from Michigan and Florida as a means of compromise on the issue. But this is no solution at all. The party would be reversing its Chairman's decision, leading to speculation about his motives and another round of second-guessing the original decision, while at the same time treating the voters in the two states unequally. It's a lose-lose outcome for Democrats. But if Chairman Dean would come out in favor of seating all the delegates, he would preempt the speculation, position himself soundly on principle rather than arcane rules, and remove the lone remaining rationale for Sen. Clinton to remain in the race.

Although she has been winning primaries, and has an outside chance of securing the overall popular vote lead for the entire primary season, Sen. Clinton has no practical chance of winning enough delegates to take the lead from Sen. Obama before the convention. But she remains in the race largely to defend the principle that all the votes should be counted. Sen. Clinton has no incentive to drop out of the race until the issue of Michigan and Florida's delegates is resolved. She can continue to claim that Obama's nomination without a full delegation from the two states is somehow tainted, and position herself for a possible future run in the event that Obama loses in November. But if the delegations are seated, the proportional allocation system that the Democratic Party uses would result in a net gain for Sen. Clinton of only 24 pledged delegates, assuming that Obama receives John Edwards' delegates from Florida and is awarded all the uncommitted delegates and Dennis Kucinich's from Michigan. That would not be nearly enough to put her in front of Obama. But it would prevent the Democratic Party from alienating its own voters in the key general election states.

By all accounts, this Democratic primary season has been like none other. From its length, to its intensity, to the controversies, to its incredibly close finish, everything about the primaries has been complicated. It is time for simplicity. The Democratic Party should recognize that in trying to control the process, it spawned a process that went hopelessly out of control, with potential consequences for the party in November. But there is still time for the party to extricate itself from this Gordian knot of a primary campaign. On Saturday, the Rules and Bylaws Committee can take the first step by voting to seat the entire delegations from Michigan and Florida at the Democratic National Convention this August.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Face Off: Should Hillary Drop Out?

Coates Bateman — 2008-05-14T09:58:00+00:00

Filed under: Hillary Clinton, Democrats, Featured Stories, 2008 President, Face Off

Face Off returns! Two of our writers will be posting separate pieces on a hot-button topic. You can check out both and then vote for the one that speaks to you and aligns with your views.

Today the topic is Hillary: Should she drop out?

Check out today's posts:

Denise Williams writes:

[A] reason to stay is the situation with the rules-breaking Florida and Michigan. Clinton's advocacy (albeit selfish) for these two "disenfranchised" states keeps the heat on to find an equitable solution to seating their delegates in August. Without her continued pressure on Obama and the DNC, voters in these two states may be put off enough to stay home in November or go to McCain.

Continue reading Hillary Should Stay In...

------------------------------

David Knowles writes:

Last night in West Virginia, Hillary Clinton came away with an impressive 41-point win over Barack Obama. She shaved his popular vote lead by roughly 140,000 votes, and used her surrogates to continue hammer away on the point that Obama can't win with poor, undereducated white voters. The spin from Camp Clinton is that all of this matters in her race race for the nomination with Obama. But the math -- Oh, the dreaded math! -- speaks otherwise.

Continue reading Hillary Should Drop Out...

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Face Off: Clinton Should Drop Out

David Knowles — 2008-05-14T08:10:00+00:00

Filed under: Hillary Clinton, Democrats, Barack Obama, Face Off

Last night in West Virginia, Hillary Clinton came away with an impressive 41-point win over Barack Obama. She shaved his popular vote lead by roughly 140,000 votes, and used her surrogates to continue hammer away on the point that Obama can't seem to win over poor, undereducated white voters. The spin from Camp Clinton is that all of this matters in her race race for the nomination with Obama. But the math--Oh, the dreaded math!--speaks otherwise.

From her resounding Mountain Momma thumping of Obama, Clinton netted a total of 9 delegates. That "Foggy Mountain Breakdown" means that as of last night Clinton has suffered a net loss of 19 delegates since Indiana and North Carolina. This morning came word that three more superdelegates were formally endorsing Obama. Clearly, this treadmill is moving faster than its runner--Hillary Clinton--can keep up.

By CNN's count, Clinton now trails by 168 delegates. Newsflash, with four remaining contests, and superdelegates flocking to her opponent, there's simply no way that she is going to make up that difference.
The reasons for Clinton to exit the race are fairly simple: Rally around the inevitable nominee. Stop slicing, dicing and alienating the electorate. Get your $21 million debt repaid by a grateful and flush Obama campaign. Keep your options alive for a V.P. nod. And, above all, prevent John McCain from returning to the White House.

I know that many Clinton supporters feel she should stay in the race because there's bound to be another Obama surprise or two out there. Something big and embarrassing that will irreparably damage him in the general election. Well, if he suffers a Gary Hart-like collapse, Clinton can always jump back in. The party would ring her up in a New York Minute, and she'd be good to go. If they can strip Florida and Michigan of their relevancy, you'd better believe they can substitute Option B should Option A have to drop out before the convention.

Truthfully, I don't think that even Clinton herself thinks she's going to pull this out. Bill and Hillary are two of the most adept politicians in our nation's history. They are surrounded by pros (for the most part) who can work a trick or two with a calculator and a spreadsheet. They know that Kentucky and West Virginia were their only real shot at making up delegates. Maybe they can still manage to cut it close with the popular vote if, by yet another back-room deal, they get Florida and Michigan totals to go in their favor. But the pledged delegate thing is done, and the supers aren't drinking her Kool Aid.

If she soldiers on, she will simply continue to point out Obama's weaknesses. Continue to make her own case. Continue to divide the party. Everyday she does so, she will be making it sound that much stranger when she finally does see the light, pivots and starts working her heart out for Obama in the general election. By then, she may have done more damage than she'll be able to repair.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Face Off: Will Wright Haunt Obama?

Coates Bateman — 2008-05-08T07:34:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, Featured Stories, 2008 President, Face Off

Face Off is back! Two of our writers will be posting separate pieces on a hot-button topic. You can check out both and then vote for the one that speaks to you and aligns with your views. Last week's edition took on who's to blame for the ever-climbing cost of gas.

Today the topic is Obama's Rev. Wright issue. Is he past it?

Check out today's posts:

Tommy Christopher writes:

This Democratic Presidential campaign has featured an unprecedented level of magma-hot coverage, most of it focused on tangential issues like gaffes, fluff, smears, pandering photo ops, and manufactured "scandals." Based on media coverage, the Reverend Wright affair is the granddaddy of them all.

Based on several factors, most decisively and recently Tuesday's Democratic Primary results, more and more voters are rejecting these less-than-relevant issues in favor of substance. Smart is back.

Continue reading Obama Over the Wright Hump

------------------------------

Mark Impomeni writes:

Obama's sudden turnaround on Wright, designed to put the issue behind him, actually raises more questions about Obama's relationship to the fiery pastor and about Obama's judgment in remaining as a member of his church for so long.

Continue reading Obama's Answers Create More Wright Questions

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama's Answers Create More Wright Questions

Mark Impomeni — 2008-05-06T22:25:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Barack Obama, 2008 President, Face Off

Sen. Barack Obama finally tried to distance himself from his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, last week after Wright made an appearance at the National Press Club. During the question and answer session following that appearance, Wright repeated and amplified many of the incendiary comments, first brought to light in March, that he has made in various sermons from the pulpit of his Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. He said, among other things, that he believed the government is, "capable of doing anything," when asked if he really believed that the AIDS virus was created in a conspiracy to harm blacks, that Louis Farrakhan, "is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century," and that the September 11th attacks were the direct result of American foreign policy. "You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you," he said.

A little more than 24 hours later, Sen. Obama held a press conference to react to the Wright appearance. Obama said that he was, "saddened," and, "outraged," by Wright's comments and said, "The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago." This was a dramatically different reaction to the same Wright comments than Sen. Obama provided in his now famous speech on race, delivered in Philadelphia in the wake of Wright's sermons being reported in the press. But Obama's sudden turnaround on Wright, designed to put the issue behind him, actually raises more questions about Obama's relationship to the fiery pastor and about Obama's judgment in remaining as a member of his church for so long.

It was expected that Sen. Obama would distance himself from Wright in his Philadelphia speech. But he did not. Rather, Obama said that Rev. Wright was a, "part of me," and that he, "could no more denounce him than I could denounce the black community." Far from distancing himself, Obama drew closer to Wright with those words. That was right after the Ohio and Texas primaries which Sen. Hillary Clinton won, saving her campaign. Obama had some six weeks to convince Pennsylvanians that his relationship with Wright was an anomaly; not a reflection on his judgment. Of course, Obama lost Pennsylvania by 10 points on April 22nd. More revealing is the way he lost. In every rural county in the state, Clinton bested Obama by at least 60-40. He lost whites in every age category, he lost churchgoers of every denomination and frequency of attendance, he lost every age group over 40, and he lost Catholics by as much as 50 points. Suddenly the Obama campaign realized that the relationship with Wright was hurting him badly with rural, working-class whites.

Looking at the timeline of events, one obvious question is why did it take Obama so long to realize that Wright was a political liability for him? It should have been clear at least by 2001 that Wright's rhetoric would not be helpful to a budding politician with national aspirations like Obama. Newsweek recently reported that none other than Oprah Winfrey, no politician but an Obama supporter and former member of Trinity United Church, stopped attending Trinity in the late 1990s out of concern over the sermons and their potential impact on her career. A longtime friend of Winfrey told the magazine, "Oprah is a businesswoman, first and foremost. She's always been aware that her audience is very mainstream, and doing anything to offend them just wouldn't be smart." Does Obama not have the quality of judgment that Winfrey possesses? Or did he stay with Wright because he didn't find the sermons particularly objectionable? Obama's denunciation and his stated reason for it, that Wright's comments at the National Press Club were somehow different from those he had made earlier, does not answer these questions.

Sen. Obama capped off his denunciation tour with an appearance on Meet the Press last Sunday. During that interview, Obama again made the claim that Wright not only reiterated his controversial statements at the National Press Club, "he added to them." The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog was not impressed with that explanation. It gave Obama a rating of two Pinnochios for the assertion that he was not fully aware of Wright's controversial views. The public did not buy the explanation either. A Rasmussen Reports poll found that just 30% of respondents believed that Obama denounced Wright because he was outraged, while 58% said he did it for "political convenience." Worse for the Senator, 52% said that they did not believe Obama was surprised by Wright's views and 56% said it was at least somewhat likely that Obama himself shared some of those beliefs. That suspicion leads to perhaps the most important question of all for the Obama campaign. Is Obama as strong a candidate in the general election when viewed as a ordinary politician?

Sen. Obama has branded himself as a post-partisan figure. He views himself as a healer of the nation's wounds, a uniter, and a practitioner of a new kind of politics. But the controversy surrounding his association with Rev. Wright, the unconvincing explanation for his late repudiation of him, and his lack of judgment in remaining a member of Wright's church for so long have begun to cast Obama as an ordinary politician willing to do and say whatever it takes to get elected. The public holds politicians in low esteem and Obama's appeal may have been inflated in part because it viewed him as being above political opportunism. Now that his image has been tarnished a bit by Wright, it remains an open question of whether he can once again transcend the label of "politician."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments