A history lesson

. . . from the great Thomas Sowell.

If we had a serious press in this country, average citizens would already know this stuff.

I blame Pelosi . . .

for the failure of the mortgage bailout bill to pass the House. Since the crisis began, Republican leaders outside the House -- the President, Secretary Paulson, and John McCain -- went to considerable lengths to avoid partisan finger-pointing. Their emphasis was on the need to work quickly and in a bipartisan fashion to rescue a financial system teetering on disaster. Even House Republicans, who largely opposed the Paulson plan, generally focused their criticisms on whether the plan was really the best option and not on the role of the Democratic leaders in creating the crisis.

The same cannot be said of Nancy Pelosi. Just before the House vote, she took the floor to blast the Bush administration and "Republican policies" for creating the financial crisis. And that would have been fine -- disgraceful, but fine -- except for one thing: Pelosi was counting on Republican votes to get the bill passed. In fact, she reportedly has been angling for 100 Republican votes since the negotiations have been underway. Her own caucus split about 60-40% in favor of the bill. Accordingly, she needed the support of about 40% of the Republicans in order to pass it. Evidently, it failed to occur to her that blaming the Republicans for the crisis would make them less inclined to support it.

Perhaps, she wanted to try to have it both ways. If the bailout worked, she and the Dems would have taken the credit for averting disaster. If it didn't work, or if the cost of the bailout proved too onerous, she would already be on record as pawning the entire problem off on the Republicans. In other words, as far as she was concerned, there wasn't going to be anything bipartisan about it. She wanted the Republican votes, but wasn't going to share any of the credit if it worked out or assume any of the blame if it didn't.

I'm not much for bumper-sticker political cliches, but this really is an example of how "Washington is broken."

Is Obama Reagan?

Things aren't exactly looking up for John McCain right now. He seems to be trailing Barack Obama by somewhere in the 5-10 percentage points range. More disturbing than just the numbers, the mainstream media has succeeded in painting Obama as the winner of Friday's debate, a conclusion I, as an actual viewer of the debate, find difficult to accept, but which non-viewers may find significant.

If I had to guess what's behind the Obama's strengthening numbers, I would say it's his success in presenting an image of himself that is cool-headed, moderate, and completely non-threatening. If it's true that many voters are only now starting to really focus on the candidates, then what those voters are currently seeing in Obama is nothing like the tax-raising, terrorist-befriending, infanticide-supporting, enemy-appeasing extremist they were expecting to see based on the campaign to date.

The situation reminds me of 1980. The conventional wisdom that year held that Ronald Reagan was a dangerous extremist who would set off WWIII and set back domestic social progress a hundred years. To the mainstream media, it was utterly unimaginable Reagan could actually become president of the United States.

What happened, of course, is that Reagan succeeded -- especially in the debates -- in presenting himself to the American people as a credible, non-threatening candidate, practically the opposite of the what the media and Jimmy Carter had been portraying. Once the "true" Reagan image began to take hold, moreover, there was nothing Carter could do to stop it. The more Carter protested that Reagan would destroy America, the more desperate he sounded, and the more reasonable and level-headed Reagan appeared by comparison.

I hate to say it, but John McCain may be in the same box as Carter was in 1980. If a majority of voters has now reached a comfort level with the prospect of Barack Obama as POTUS, it may be difficult with only 5 weeks to go to re-instill doubts about him in a way that doesn't undermine McCain's own credibility. I'm at a loss to figure out what McCain's strategy should be at this point. Fortunately, McCain is a smart guy with a lot of smart people working for him. Perhaps the path to victory is clearer in their eyes than it is to mine.

Of course, McCain has one thing going for him that Carter didn't. Unlike McCain, Carter should never have been allowed to get within 1,000 miles of the Oval Office. McCain is a credible and deserving choice for president even if you don't think Obama would be a complete disaster. That's not something you could say about Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Another way in which the analogy to 1980 fails is the fact that Reagan never tried to hide the fact that he was a conservative "true believer." To the contrary, he was running explicitly against the twin pillars of 1970s liberalism: (a) the notion that America's economic and social well-being depended on higher taxes and bigger government; and (b) the notion that the world had become too dangerous a place for the U.S. to exhibit a strong military and foreign policy.

Obama, by contrast, is not explicitly running as a liberal true believer. While he would undoubtedly pursue a liberal agenda if elected, it is not on that basis that he is seeking to win votes. Mainly, he's running on the symbolic strength of his youth and racial background. I don't think a lot of his supporters give a damn about his qualifications or positions on issues; they just think it would be cool to have a hip black guy who can give a good speech as president. They like him for the same visceral reasons they hate Bush.

Because Obama isn't running on ideology, I think the Dems may get in trouble if they treat his election as an indication that America has suddenly become much more liberal. Whether anyone in the Democratic party has the judgment and maturity to avoid that pitfall remains to be seen.

My debate scorecard

It's not quite over yet, but I wanted to render a judgment not influenced by the cable commentariat.

No knockout, but I score it a solid win for McCain on points. He is winning nearly every exchange by outshining Obama on experience and depth of knowledge. He also has done a good job, despite the format, of communicating a theme: Obama's naivete and inability to "understand" certain things.

It's also apparent that Obama came into the debate hoping to provoke some kind of intemperate remark from McCain. He didn't succeed in that, nor in zinging McCain with any tough barbs.

Beyond that, Obama's objective seems to be simply to establish his credibility as a potential commander in chief. I think he's succeeded in appearing presidential, so it was a good night for him in that sense. But I think his supporters are going to wonder why he was unable to lay a glove on McCain.

From a purely debate standpoint, Obama erred in failing to get McCain to explain his initial decision to support the war in Iraq. McCain ducked that issue by pointing out that the next president would have to deal with getting troops out of Iraq, not in. But then later he went back and recited his judgment in dealing with military deployment issues in Beirut, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and other trouble spots. If McCain can cite his judgment in all those other instances, why shouldn't he have been forced to answer for the 2003 Iraq war vote?

Another example: McCain on several occasions went out of his way to separate himself from the Bush administration. Obama, however, didn't do much to tie McCain to Bush in the first instance.

I also think Jim Lehrer was a winner tonight. There were no "gotcha" questions, no attempts to steal the show. He pretty much teed up subjects and let the candidates talk about them. It's a refreshing and logical approach.

Not Obama's finest hour

On September 24, Barack Obama joined John McCain in issuing the following high-minded statement concerning the nation's financial crisis:

The American people are facing a moment of economic crisis. No matter how
this began, we all have a responsibility to work through it and restore
confidence in our economy. The jobs, savings, and prosperity of the American
people are at stake.

Now is a time to come together -- Democrats and Republicans -- in a spirit
of cooperation for the sake of the American people.

The plan that has been submitted to Congress by the Bush Administration
is flawed, but the effort to protect the American economy must not fail.

This is a time to rise above politics for the good of the country. We cannot risk an economic catastrophe. Now is our chance to come together to prove that Washington is once again capable of leading this country.

It only took 24 hours for Barack Obama to use John McCain's efforts to "work through it and restore confidence in our economy" as a bludgeon with which to launch a political attack.

It's plain to see that Obama never viewed the effort to rescue the financial markets as anything but a political problem for his campaign. Had the negotiations gone quickly and easily, he would have dismissed McCain's involvement as a "photo op designed to distract from his faltering presidential campaign." Now that the negotiations are proving difficult (if that's possible to say after just one contentious meeting), Obama is blaming McCain for somehow causing an impasse.

The media will largely repeat Obama's talking points on this unless and until events force them to present a different account. Nevertheless, it should be recalled that McCain never said this was going to be easy. To the contrary, the entire premise of his decision to suspend the campaign, delay the debate, and return to Washington was that there was no consensus on the Paulson plan and that there was tough -- and urgent -- work needed in order to resolve the crisis. What part of that didn't Obama understand?

Nothing better illustrates Obama's craven duplicity during this episode than his suggestion after yesterday's White House meeting that it would have been better for the presidential candidates not to have intruded on the ongoing negotiations because "the cameras change things." If that's what he truly believed, then why did he show up in the first place? He should have stayed out on the campaign trail if he thought his presence would only impede progress in finding a solution. But then, of course, he would have risked not being able to share in any of the credit if and when an agreement was reached. Instead, he and his handlers devised a strategy whereby Obama would go along for the ride so long as things appeared to moving in a positive direction, but would be prepared to bail out and turn on John McCain at the first sign of trouble. That's not exactly a profile in courage. Then again, we shouldn't be surprised. This is the same guy who voted "present" 130 times in the Illinois state legislature.

Sadly, Obama could actually win this election. If he does, America will be saddled with a president devoid of even a minimal capacity to lead. Indeed, when has he ever taken a tough stand on something and stuck to it? Being president requires more than simply being black and having the ability to read speeches from a teleprompter. It takes some guts. Obama hasn't exhibited the strength of character to be an effective senator, let alone chief executive and commander in chief in a time of war.

McCain suspends McCampaign

My first reaction on hearing this news was that it would be dismissed as a political stunt. On second thought, that might be an overly cynical view.

The fact is, it really makes little sense for the whole political establishment, the media, and the public at large to be focusing on a foreign policy debate at a time when serious decisions need to be made regarding the health of the economy. The public interest would be better served by taking the election campaigns off the agenda for a few days while lawmakers decide what to do. Therefore, putting aside the political ramifications, McCain's announcement makes a great deal of sense.

Because the idea of suspending the campaign has obvious civic merit, I don't think it will be all that easy to dismiss the move as a political stunt. That's especially true if Big Mac can actually insinuate himself into the middle of the negotiations and help midwife a deal to resolve the crisis. In that case, it will appear that it was necessary for him to get off the campaign trail in order to attend to more important work in Washington. If he does that, and the resulting plan appears to resolve the immediate crisis, he's going to come out way ahead on this.

Arguably, McCain's fortunes depend entirely on whether he can "reach across the aisle" and help put together a package to defuse the crisis. As I said, if he does that, then suspending the campaign will obviously appear to be a wise move. If he can't -- either because no deal is forthcoming or his involvement in producing it appears superfluous -- then suspending the campaign may look like needless grandstanding.

What I think I know about the mortgage mess

Actually, everything I think I know about the mortgage mess may turn out to be wrong. But here, for the record, is my take on the alleged crisis and its political impact.

First, there seems to be something approaching consensus-level agreement as to what went wrong. After the tech bubble exploded, the housing market was, by far, the best thing going in the economy. Washington policymakers decided to ride the housing boom as far as it would take them. The Fed encouraged massive mortgage lending by making money so cheap. The Democrats pursued policies that would enable people (minorities in particular) to qualify for mortgages they couldn't really afford, even as Republicans in Congress sought to rein in such dangerous practices. The Bush Administration failed to take aggressive action to stop the mortgage madness, while continuing to claim success for uninterrupted economic growth and increases in the percentage of the population that owned their own homes. Meanwhile, as Wall Street's portfolio of risky loans became ever more bloated, a bursting of the housing bubble threatened to bring down the entire credit industry.

While even this simplified version of events is probably beyond the ken of the average voter, at least there does not appear to be in currency a competing explanation for the current crisis. The average voter, I believe, will appreciate that the root cause of the crisis was too many bad loans.

The average voter will also perceive (correctly) that there is plenty of blame to go around. This was a problem of "greed" on the part of lenders, stupidity on the part of borrowers, and incredible shortsightedness on the part of the government. The Bush Administration will naturally take the lion's share of the blame for the government's role, but voters won't let Congressional Democrats off the hook and won't necessarily tag John McCain for the administration's failures.

As for the proposed solution -- using $700+ billion in taxpayer dollars to take the bad loans off the hands of the banks that now own them -- I don't think voters are going to feel confident one way or the other as to whether this is the right thing to do. On the one hand, the guys at the top (Bernanke and Paulson) seem genuinely convinced that this is the only way to head off a full-scale economic disaster. One the other hand, voters can't help but be skeptical of the forecasting skills of these men, who arguably should have seen this day coming a long time ago. Meanwhile, since the proposed bailout doesn't have any obvious partisan dimension, most members of Congress are at a complete loss in trying to figure out what to do. The best voters can do is pray that Washington guesses right on the bailout.

Although it will take a long time for the dust to settle, I do think Barack Obama has already made a big mistake in all of this. While he essentially supports the massive bailout, he is at the same time insisting that it be expanded in some way to give relief to homeowners facing foreclosure. I think he is badly misreading public sentiment. The vast majority of voters aren't facing foreclosure, and the reservoir of sympathy for those who are is running low. People who got in over their heads are perceived to share a great deal of the blame for this crisis. The average citizen is worried about how much this bailout will cost and whether it will even work to head off a major recession. The last thing they want to hear is how they now need to bail out low- or middle-income borrowers who had no business buying half-million-dollar homes.

The public reluctantly supports the bailout plan because it may be the only hope of saving the economy. There is no comparable necessity for bailing out individual homeowners having trouble paying their mortgages. Voters who understand this will not appreciate Obama's attempt to condition a bailout of Wall Street on a bailout of Main Street. For those doing the bailing, one bailout is quite enough, thank you.

I think Obama's position also undercuts his credibility with voters in at least a couple of ways. First, the average American understands that the people who are at risk of foreclosure are disproportionately black or Hispanic. According to recent polling, Obama needs to connect better with working class whites, some of whom evidently fear that a black president would be biased in favor of policies that favor minorities. Even ignoring Obama's own race, the fact that he built his career as an advocate for low-income blacks lends support for the view that he would favor minority-friendly policies as president. Obama's desire to include a bailout of borrowers now facing foreclosure only reinforces such concerns.

Obama's position also subtly undermines his image as a different kind of politician from the hacks that ordinarily run Washington. In trying to include "Main Street" in the massive bailout, he is implicitly treating the plan as a pork bill rather than the desperate rescue operation its advocates are claiming. Perhaps the plan is just another D.C. boondoggle. But in that case, Obama should oppose it, not simply try to get his own hand in the cookie jar.

Obama was correct, I think, to tie his support of the measure to restrictions on executive compensation. Although Congress needs to figure out a way to deal with that issue more comprehensively, I see no reason not to start to reform the system right now, when taxpayer's dollars are hanging in the balance. The idea that CEOs are being paid market value for their services sounds good, but assumes that executive compensation is really driven by competitive market forces. I think excessive executive compensation is the result of tacit price-fixing in the executive suite. After all, it's the guys in the boardrooms who are actually doling out the money, and they're doling it out to other corporate bigwigs. They all expect to cash in, and so they all have an incentive to keep executive compensation at absurdly high levels, without any real regard for the economic contributions of the people making the dough. It's the classic case of the wolves guarding the sheep, and conservatives would do well to recognize it rather than assume this is just the "invisible hand" at work.

Everyone should pay SOME federal income tax

Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds has latched onto the idea that everyone, regardless of income, should pay some federal income tax. (Go there and scroll away.). I couldn't agree more. It's not that imposing a minimum tax of, say, $100.00, would raise much revenue. Rather, imposing a minimum tax would promote good civic values.

People are often heard to say, "freedom isn't free." In fact, for a great many Americans, living in a free country, with virtually unconstrained opportunities for personal achievement, is free. They pay no taxes, enjoy extensive public benefits, and would never dream of enlisting in the armed services. While I'm not in favor of the draft and I'm not advocating the dismantling of the social "safety net," I see no reason not to require everyone to pay at least a minimum tax.

Allowing a sizeable portion of the population to avoid paying any income tax creates two classes of citizens: those who help pay for national security and other government services and those who do not. This can only lead to resentment among the former group and a sense of entitlement among the latter.

Joe Biden provoked a mild uproar in recent days arguing that upper-income taxpayers should consider it their patriotic duty to pay more taxes. However, if paying taxes constitutes an expression of patriotism, then the people at the upper end of the income scale must feel like every day is the Fourth of July. They're the ones paying all the taxes. This is, in fact, what bothers me the most about Biden's comments. It's not that he associates paying taxes with civil responsibility, it's that he apparently doesn't think the bottom third of taxpayers share in that responsibility.

Ruminations over the role of race in the '08 presidential campaign

This column on NPR's website contains a lot of hand-wringing over the possibility that racism will cost Barack Obama the presidency.

The short version is this: The Democratic candidate ought to be way ahead in the polls right now. The fact that he isn't can only be attributed to race. A lot of undecideds harbor racial prejudices even if they don't realize it. There is a good-to-excellent chance McCain or his swiftboating cronies will use subtle appeals to racism against Obama, such as the "Celebrity" ad (which played upon white people's fears of black men preying on white women) and charges that Obama lacks experience (which imply he is an "affirmative action candidate").

While I agree that voters' impressions of Obama are influenced by race, I don't think it's accurate or helpful to apply the term "racism" to the problems Obama is having connecting with certain groups of voters. "Racism" implies a belief that one race is superior to another. I don't think racism is a significant factor in American politics. Bias in favor of people who are similar may be. Obama commands the support of something like 97% of blacks. Catholics turned out in droves for JFK. Southern Evangelicals love GWB. Irish politicians thrive in South Boston.

As a general proposition, nobody seems to think it's a sign of social decay that voters tend to favor politicians who are of the same ethnicity, or for women to want to vote for other women. It's only when this phenomenon works to the disadvantage of a black politician does anyone think to call it racism.

Bailouts

For those who want to keep abreast of the latest public policy jargon, there is a new term you'll need to know. It's called "moral hazard," and it evidently refers to the idea that large corporate enterprises that become insolvent must be allowed to fail in order to prove to investors that poor management carries real economic consequences. It runs counter to the de facto policy that certain enterprises are "too big to fail" and therefore must be bailed out.

I doubt there are many serious economists who would disagree with the necessity of moral hazard. Why, then, do we continue to witness so many government bailouts?

I think a big reason is the dumbed-down notion that the federal government, and more specifically, the president, somehow controls the fate of the economy. In good times, presidents brag that they "create jobs" and they "grow the economy" (oh, how that use of "grow" rankles!). When the economy falters, the media and the party out of power try to pin it on the administration. It only stands to reason that, as voters are increasingly conditioned to view the government as the reason behind every upturn or downtick in the economy, politicians are going to feel more and more pressure to intervene when particular industries run into trouble.

Clearly, there are many ways in which government policies do affect the health of particular industries as well as the overall performance of the economy. However, it does the public no good when the media and politicians exaggerate the government's role. Promoting such misconceptions are not only bad for our politics, but for our economy as well, as it can only lead to a larger government role in the conduct of private enterprise.

On the lamentable state of modern journalism

I want to say something superficial about superficiality. We live in an era in which practically anyone can set up shop in the marketplace of ideas. Politics and public affairs are no longer the exclusive province of the so-called mainstream media. The rise of the internet means there are literally tens of thousands of outlets to which an ordinary citizen might turn for news and analysis. Sites like Memeorandum make it possible to follow the most talked-about news not just on a daily basis, but on an hourly or even minute-by-minute basis .

In one sense, the breaking of the MSM's stranglehold on the news and opinion industry is a good thing. It has been a particularly good development for conservatives, whose point of view would be marginalized and ignored if left to the care of the liberal media elite. It is also good from the standpoint of allowing citizens to learn practically everything there is to know on a given subject. Just today, for example, I learned that Sarah Palin had a tanning booth installed at the governor's mansion (at her own expense, thank God).

That last tidbit illustrates what I see as the major downside of the internet age: rampant superficiality. The competition among those who traffic in information is so intense, the media are forced to hawk even the most irrelevant and mundane detail about a candidate as something people should care about. Naturally, this phenomenon is not confined to election coverage, although the presidential race provides plenty of disturbing examples of what I'm talking about.

The hawking of news can take a number of pernicious forms, all of which tend to defeat the reader's presumed objective of gaining an improved understanding of the world. One is to suggest that a piece of information is unusual or unexpected, when it is not. Another is to suggest that the information furnishes evidence of corruption or scandal. Yet another is to suggest that the information denotes a trend that can be expected to continue, often with alarming or uncertain results.

Purveyors of news have a number of tools available to them in order to inflate the perceived significance of the information they are peddling. For example, they can take information out of context. A good example of this occurred yesterday when the MSM ran headlines proclaiming that John McCain thinks the U.S. economy is fundamentally strong. This was labeled a "gaffe," and much of the subsequent coverage was devoted to the Obama campaign's mocking response to McCain's comments. But here is what McCain actually said (per CBS):

Today we are seeing tremendous upheaval on Wall Street. The American economy is in crisis. Unemployment is on the rise and our financial markets are in turmoil. People are concerned about our economic future. But let me say something: this economic crisis is not the fault of the American people. Our workers are the most innovative, the hardest working, the best skilled, most productive, most competitive in the world," McCain's prepared text said. The text went on to say: "My opponents may disagree, but those fundamentals of America are strong. (Emphasis mine.)

It should be noted that the entire news value of this story depends on the premise that McCain has no appreciation for the difficult economic times that America is facing. In other words, it's the idea that his words are completely divorced from the objective reality. However, in order to create that impression, and thus make the story newsworthy, it is necessary to take McCain's words completely out of context, so that it appears he is saying the economy is just fine.

It seems to me the appropriate role of the press would be to report what John McCain said. It is not to distort what he said in order to create the impression that he has no idea what he's talking about. To do the latter is create news, rather than report it.

Taking words out of context is just one method of creating news out of thin air. Another familiar tactic is to conflate unrelated events that, in truth, have no meaningful relationship to one another. Or, to parse statements made by two different candidates, or by the same candidate at different times, in order to create the impression of conflict or self-contradiction.

I wouldn't be so naive as to suggest that the press never engaged in such nefarious journalistic practices prior to the explosion of the internet. I would suggest that the internet, along with 24-hour cable news, has created such an insatiable demand for information that the media apparently can no longer afford to apply discretion and judgment in their evaluation and presentation of newsworthy stories. They need to attract "x" pair of eyes every day to stay in business. To do that, they must supply a constant stream of stories that will amuse, anger, frighten, titillate, amaze, or otherwise interest their viewers or readers. That's a tall order, but it is rendered much easier once you abandon the requirements of truthfulness and materiality.

During much of the 20th century, virtually the entire journalistic establishment was controlled by just a handful of people. For example, Henry Luce published Life, Time, and Fortune magazines, which publications, taken together, practically determined popular opinion in regard to political and economic affairs. Luce was no rabble-rousing muckraker. He, and men like him, routinely huddled and conspired with political leaders to move public opinion in the ways they deemed necessary in the public interest. That is not to say America's political and journalistic elite represented a single, monolithic power. Fundamental differences existed between liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, and isolationists and internationalists. But the media endeavored to be, and in fact functioned as, a responsible participant in matters of public interest.

Now, it seems, so-called "legitimate" news organizations must engage in hysterical, sensational, and dumbed-down reporting simply to claim a share of an audience that can disappear as fast as you can say "mouseclick." All of the "old media" news organizations are living off reputations they earned decades ago, with diminishing results. In terms of their current output, they are virtually indistinguishable from internet upstarts that have no reputation to preserve.

The net result is that we no longer have a serious press, that is, a press that conceives as its primary mission furnishing the American people with the facts and perspective with which to make informed judgments as citizens. Instead, we have an information industry whose members are struggling to survive by hawking "news" designed to attract momentary attention at the expense of imparting any meaningful understanding of issues.

Being an optimistic conservative, I'm going to assume that the market will eventually correct this deplorable situation. In time, the public will assign so little value to the crap that is currently being passed off as news that no media outlet will be able to survive by continuing to peddle it. Some bright people will realize that people really do place a value on unadorned facts and careful, in-depth analysis, and they'll find a way to sell that for a lot more money than it costs to produce. The best of these information entrepreneurs will recognize that their long-term success depends on building a reputation for integrity and not giving in to the temptation to compromise their journalistic standards.

Until then, I'll continue to suffer and sulk -- and keep my eyes out for the latest "breaking news"!

HIllary as the White Knight

This article in the Huffington Post explains "Why Replacing Biden With Hillary Makes Perfect Sense for Obama." Unfortunately, the author fails to make mention of the single biggest reason it would never happen: Hillary would never agree to it. And why should she? Obama not only scuttled her plans to become the first woman president, he also declined to give her serious consideration as a running mate despite the fact that nearly everyone on Earth believed she would help the ticket. Even Joe Biden concedes Hillary would have made a better pick.

If HRC were going to come back as a White Knight to rescue this ticket, it would not be as vice president. That ship has already sailed. Of course she would take the top spot, nobody seems to be talking about that possibility.

I don't think Obama is so worried about his chances in November that he would consider changing running mates. However, even if he were that worried, I think he's smart enough to realize that Hilary would never go along with it. There is absolutely nothing in it for her. Best case scenario: the Obama/Hillary wins, and she gets to be vice president to a guy who clearly has no use for her with virtually no chance ever to become president in her own right.

Of course, Hillary's say in the matter is not the only important consideration missing from this article. The notion that a switch from Biden to Clinton would carry no downside for Obama is just silly. In fact, it would be embarrassing for several reasons. First, in the absence of any kind of scandal or other emergency (like an authentic Biden health scare), making the switch would call Obama's judgment and decision-making capabilities into serious question. It would clearly constitute an admission that his initial pick -- arguably his most important executive decision to date -- was a mistake. The move would also demonstrate an unsteadiness that could be attributed to a lack of nerve. People would ask, if three weeks of mediocre poll numbers are enough to get him to hit the panic button as a candidate, how is he going to react to the pressures he's going to face when he's the actual president?

A switch from Biden to Hillary would also enshrine McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as perhaps the greatest single political act in this history of American politics. It would make it appear that McCain's choice of VPs was so manifestly brilliant as to force the Dems to engage in a kind of comical, after-the-fact improvisation in order to try to match it. While I'm sure some people in the media would try to spin such a move as an example of Obama's thinking outside the box, it would really be seen as a desperate effort to copy McCain's outside-the-box thinking.

While it would be fun if this idea were to catch fire in Democratic circles, it's a major pipe dream.

Dems need to update their playbook

Here's a random observation to start off the new week: Whenever Democratic presidential candidates appear to be underperforming, armchair strategists within the party always offer the same two pieces of advice. First, the candidate needs to attack the Republicans much more forcefully. Second, the candidate and/or party needs to move further to the left.

How is that working out for them? In 1996, Bill Clinton received 54% of the two-party vote against Bob Dole (i.e., 54% of the votes cast for either him or Dole). In 2000, Al Gore broke away from Clinton's centrist, "New Democrat" image in favor of a more liberal "I'm-fighting-for-the-little" guy kind of campaign. He received just over 50% of the two-party vote. In 2004, hard-core lefties essentially took over the Democratic Party. This was the year Howard Dean exploded onto the national stage (literally?) and Michael Moore was accorded the honor of viewing the Democratic National Convention from a seat next to Jimmy Carter. The Kerry/Edwards ticket received less than 49% of the two-party vote.

Although correlation does not equal causation, two pretty obvious trends have taken shape over the span of the last dozen years that may not be entirely coincidental. One is the Democratic Party's rejection of centrist politics and strident move toward the left. The other is a steady erosion of Democratic voting strength over the last three presidential contests.

This year, the Dems have nominated the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate as their standard-bearer. As Obama's campaign appears to be faltering in the polls, campaign officials are openly promising to "take off the gloves" and sharpen its attacks against John McCain. While this will undoubtedly please the party's leftist base, history suggests it's the wrong strategy. This country simply isn't that liberal. In fact, it's rather conservative. In order for a liberal to win the White House, he or she would be well advised to present an optimistic, non-threatening profile to the American people. Obama was at his best when the country perceived him as a thoughtful and inspiring leader who rejected the "politics of the past" and who symbolized America's racial progress. Attacking McCain, a certified national hero, as a disgraceful stooge does more damage to Obama's image than it does to McCain's.

In order to avoid a repeat of the last few elections, the Dems should consider tossing out their old playbook.

Obama's devastating new attack on John McCain

Did I say "devastating"? I meant "lame."

Following a momentary break in the campaign in recognition of the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Obama is coming out swinging, or so says his campaign manager, David Plouffe: "Today is the first day of the rest of the campaign. . . . We will respond with speed and ferocity to John McCain's attacks and we will take the fight to him, but we will do it on the big issues that matter to the American people."

Evidently, Obama thinks McCain's inability to send email is a big issue to the American people. Who is really out of touch here?

Not that it matters, but it appears McCain is far from alone in his status as a computer illiterate. Something like one in three heads of household have never created a computer document. One in five have never used the internet.

More important, exactly who is that comprise the majority of the computer illiterates? I would suspect that set includes a lot of older women, a lot of blue collar workers, and a lot of rural folk -- precisely the groups with whom Obama is having trouble connecting.

Even people who rely heavily on email and other computer tools in their daily lives are going to be turned off by the rank elitism and ageism implicit in this silly attack.

Is this really what Obama's campaign means when it talks about sharpening its attacks on John McCain?

Unbelievable.

Lipstick, etc.

The notion has taken hold in liberal circles that John McCain's exploitation of the lipstick-on-a-pig riff and other Obama gaffes denotes some kind of deep character flaw that disqualifies Big Mac from the presidency. Obama's campaign manager went so far as to suggest McCain lacks "honor." I think that's a serious over-reaction. I don't think 55-odd days is enough time to sell America on the idea that McCain's a lying bastard. (Just think of all the nice things the Dems were saying about McCain at their convention!) They shouldn't try to personalize it to McCain. They should instead argue that, despite McCain's image as a maverick, "his campaign is in the grips of the same kind of business-as-usual attack politics that Republicans have become associated with."

As for the lipstick comment itself, however, its clear to me that Obama meant it as a dig against Sarah Palin. Granted, he didn't coin the phrase "like putting lipstick on a pig," but that's not the point. In the continuing afterglow of Palin's acceptance speech, any derisive mention of lipstick by Obama or his people is going to sound like an allusion to her. I can't believe Obama didn't make that connection. Clearly, the audience present at the rally did, judging from their reaction.

The main reason to think this was intentional, however, is Obama's reaction since the controversy erupted. If his reference to lipstick were truly "innocent," then I would expect him to fall all over himself in making his apologies to Palin. I mean, why wouldn't he just say, "Oh jeez, that's not what I meant at all. My bad. My apologies to Gov. Palin for any misunderstanding." Controversy over. The fact he didn't do this, but instead felt the need to defend his use of the expression, suggests to me that these weren't "just words" to Barack Obama. He felt invested in this choice of words. The reason for that, I believe, is that Obama understood the double entendre, he liked it, and he thought he was being so clever in turning the lipstick thing into an attack on Palin, he would get away with it even if it did seem a little naughty. So when people started to react to the line in horror instead of amusement, his impulse was notably defensive. Again, an innocent person realizing that the comment was being misinterpreted would have been mortified by the reaction and done whatever they could to disavow the negative connotation. Not Barack. He has reacted by trying to turn this into an attack against McCain and the media for creating a made-up controversy. I find that very revealing.

Palin's first "gaffe"?

The liberal blogosphere, via the Huffington Post, is calling Sarah Palin's comments today about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac her first "gaffe." I call this an example of wishful thinking.

I would define a gaffe as a statement by a politician that is either plainly, embarrassingly wrong or a statement by a politician that's true but reveals but revealing in an embarrassing way. An example of the first type would be Gerald Ford's insistence that Poland wasn't under Soviet domination. An example of the second type would be Reagan Budget Director David Stockman's suggestion that the administration fiscal policies were all based on guesswork.

Sarah Palin's alleged gaffe? Stating that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers." Supposedly, this shows an embarrassing lack of knowledge on her part, because the FNMA and FHLMC do not receive direct taxpayer support. The problem for those who want to turn this into a gaffe, however, is that the statement comes on the same day it was announced that taxpayers will be bailing out the two mortgage giants to the tune of over $100 billion.

Even pre-bailout, Palin's statement seems pretty defensible. The federal government is the ultimate guarantor of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's solvency. Thus, these entities represent a huge potential liability for taxpayers, a fact which I assume ultimately affects the cost at which the federal government can borrow money to finance deficits.

Palin may have been wrong in some technical sense, but try explaining that to the average voter staring at a massive bailout.

"My Muslim faith"

Barack Obama has implied that people associated with John McCain's campaign have been trying to advance rumors that Obama is a Muslim. Unfortunately, in the course of conceding to George Stephanopoulos that John McCain himself had not been a party to such a whispering campaign, Obama used the words "my Muslim faith." To make matters somewhat worse, Stephanopoulos interjected "your Christian faith," a correction which Obama immediately accepted, but which made no sense in context. Obama was saying that (in McCain's defense) McCain had not talked about his "Muslim faith." Obama clearly didn't mean say "my Christian faith," as there was no suggestion that McCain had spoken of Obama's Christian faith and, even if he had, it's not something for which McCain needed to be let off the hook. Possibly, Obama meant to say something like, "my alleged Muslim faith." Thus, the supposed correction was just as brain-dead as the original gaffe, impling that neither Obama nor Stephanopoulos were really paying attention to the words coming out of Obama's mouth.

The only reason a gaffe like this hurts Obama is that his, yes, connections to Islam are real and haven't been adequately explained. His attitude toward the issue has been, in effect, "Move along, nothing to see here," which may be true, but is hardly a satisfying answer to those genuinely concerned about the prospect of putting a Muslim or even former Muslim in the White House.

What are the connections? Essentially, they boil down to the fact that his father and stepfather were both Muslims, he lived in a Muslim country and attended what his own book characterizes as a "Muslim school" where he was taught the Koran. He was enrolled in that school, as well as an earlier Catholic school, as a Muslim. According to Obama, neither his father nor stepfather were particularly religious, and he gives the impression of not having been much for religion either as a schoolboy. Then again, at least one classmate remembers "Barry Soetero" as being a devout Muslim and seeming to take a great deal of enjoyment from the religion.

Obama also has Muslim relatives, including a brother whose conversion to Islam was discussed in some depth in his first memoir, "Dreams From My Father."

So what should we make of these "connections"? It seems to me that if his parents enrolled him in both a Catholic school and in a "Muslim school" as a Muslim, then that's how he should be categorized at that point in his life. Obviously, it's impossible to know the degree to which he internalized a Muslim identity, if at all. Nevertheless, Obama's claim that he has never been a Muslim seems to require us to believe that he was completely faking any allegiance to that faith. And why would he? Since it was evidently an option to enroll in the schools as a Christian, it is hard to understand why Obama would matriculate as a Muslim if he had no intention of adopting that faith (especially given Obama's claim that his stepfather was largely uninterested in religion).

I am also mindful of Obama's claim that he became a Christian around 1981, when he was about 20 years old. If that's when he became a Christian, what was he before? The suggestion, again, is that he simply had no religious identity as a child, but we apparently have nothing but Obama's word to indicate this is so. In this instance, it makes sense to be skeptical, since everyone seems to agree an acknowledgement by Obama that he was brought up as a Muslim during a portion of his childhood would be damaging to his political prospects. Clearly, it is in his interests to downplay his Muslim roots as much as possible, so his vague suggestions that he just wasn't that interested in Islam should be taken with a grain of salt.

Of course, there's a big difference between being a Muslim at present and having been raised as a Muslim during a few years of one's childhood. I have no doubt Obama is not a Muslim, emphasis on "is."

On the other hand, I don't think the fact that Obama is not currently a Muslim, or that being a Muslim is non-career enhancing for a modern American politician, automatically render a discussion of Obama's Muslim connections off-limits. People ought to be able to talk about biographical details of presidential candidates without being accused of trying to play on people's fears and prejudices. Even if Obama's religious background is irrelevant to his fitness for the presidency, that's no reason to prevent people from getting the facts.

One final thought: I think there is at least one valid reason for voters to want to consider Obama's religious background. I suspect that many Muslims around the world believe that Obama is of that faith. If so, this could encourage extremists to question the resolve of the U.S. to maintain an aggressive posture in the GWOT. They might assume that Obama would take a softer stance against terrorism. Some might even see his election as foretelling the eventual spread of Islam around the world. Since many on the left seem to think it's important to elect Obama in order to improve America's image in other countries, is it not relevant to consider what impression his election would have on Muslims?

Palin Derangement Syndrome

It just dawned on me why Palin Derangement Syndrome already seems like a more severe strain of pathology than its related disorder, Bush Derangement Syndrome. In the case of both diseases, those afflicted have an irrational conviction that the Republican in question is a monster. In the case of PDS, however, they also believe that the monstrous nature of Palin will necessarily manifest itself in her personal or family life.

Clearly, this belief is unsupported by history. Nixon was a scoundrel, but you couldn't tell that from his personal life. In fact, I don't think you could tell from Hitler's personal life that he was a monster, at least in 1932. Why do Palin's enemies think that the dangers she supposedly poses to the lives of Americans will necessarily be revealed through a detailed examination of her personal and family life?

The Palin Paradigm

Sarah Palin as compared to . . .

1. . . . Hillary Clinton. It's true there is "no comparison," as many angry Hillary supporters have been saying. But these people miss the point. It's not that HRC represents a more experienced or accomplished version of Palin, it's that they each represent a different style of (female) politician.

A friend once observed that professional women have only a limited number of archetypes on which to model their images if they want to be successful. In fact, I believe she claimed there were exactly three. One is to play the dumb sex-kitten. The second is to be harsh and humorless (rhymes with "witch"). The third is to be "one of the guys." I would argue that the image Hillary has adopted over the years falls mainly within the second category. In fact, this is pretty much the choice of a majority of female politicians of Hillary's generation: The need to be taken seriously is the paramount stylistic consideration. They come across as lawyerly (or businesslike) and serious. The Hollywood analogue would be Katherine Hepburn.

Palin appears to be the rare breed who falls into the "one of the guys" category. She's doesn't appear to be concerned about whether the male-dominated world will take her seriously. She's just who she is. In Hollywood terms, she's more of an Elaine Benes or Liz Lemon (sans neuroses) type.

(In case you're wondering, there are no "dumb sex-kittens" in American political life. You'd have to go to Italy to find that.)

2. . . . Ronald Reagan. There's something to that comparison, but let's not overdo it. Reagan and Palin share a value political trait: the ability to use humor and charm to repel an opponent's attacks. But Reagan had something else that made him formidable. Reagan had a set of ideas that would help define a major political movement. So far, at least, Palin embodies an approach to governance, but not a philosophy.

3. . . . Spiro Agnew. I bring this up only to make the point that Agnew was notoriously anti-elite-Washington media. Palin sounded the exact same theme last night in her acceptance speech. She said the media regards her as unqualified merely because she is not a part of the permanent Washington establishment. She may be right as far as that goes, but she needs to keep in mind that being outside the Washington establishment is also no automatic qualification for high office.

4. . . . Joe Biden. No contest. Palin makes "Lunchpail Joe" Biden look like stale meatloaf. Joe's bona fides as a regular blue-collar guy seem pathetically contrived as compared to this gun-toting lady and her snowmobiling husband. The good news is, Biden won't need to bring that lunchpail to the debate, because he's going to have his lunch handed to him.

5. . . . Barack Obama. It's an interesting juxtaposition. Obama is the former community organizer ostensibly running on behalf of the little guy. Sarah's naturalistic style and middle-class values, however, make Obama look haughty and pretentious by comparison. At some level, she seems to turn him into John Francois Kerry.

On Presidential Experience

A couple of days ago, I offered some thoughts on the nature and level of experience needed for the office of Vice President. Continuing on that theme, I wanted to comment on the experience and skills needed for the presidency.

When talking about experience, it's important, I think, to distinguish that part of a person's background that can be characterized as "credentials." In other words, I would propose to look at a candidate's credentials, not as a synonym for experience, but as a separate component of experience. "Experience" would refer to everything the candidate has done in their life that may reflect on their capacity to serve as POTUS. "Credentials" are merely the objective achievements he or she has attained along the way. Barack Obama and Sarah Palin have somewhat similar credentials but, I would suggest, dramatically different kinds of experience. (By "similar credentials," I mean they're both first-term statewide officeholders with several years of prior experience in lower offices.)

Focusing now on the broader question of experience, it is clear that Obama and Palin have each taken a dramatically different route to get to their respective stations in public life. Obama's career has been mainly as an advocate of liberal-left social and economic policies on behalf of lower-income, urban blacks. He lacks any kind of executive experience -- which is to say, he's never actually run anything, except arguably his own campaigns for public office.

Sarah Palin's experience in the public arena has been not as an advocate for any particular group, but as a manager and executive dealing with the nuts and bolts of government. As such, she is bound to have much less of a record of positions on the hot-button issues of the day than Obama, who has spent most of his career in legislative posts where debate and advocacy are the main requirements of the job.

Obama's experience as an advocate would serve him well as president. One of the important aspects of the modern presidency is defining and promoting an agenda for America's security and prosperity. The ability to communicate, persuade, and build majorities for particular programs and policies is obviously key to a president's success in carrying out a legislative agenda. President Bush was successful in his first term because he was able to define and articulate a compelling vision for responding to the myriad of threats posed by international terrorism. On the other hand, he failed to demonstrate anything close to the same skill in marshaling support for initiatives such as immigration and social security form.

Of course, only part of a president's job involves policy advocacy. In many respects, as George Bush famously noted, the president is the "decider." He doesn't always need to obtain the approval of voters or the Congress before taking a particular course of action. This is most often the case in regard to foreign policy and in the administration of the executive branch (especially personnel decisions). By definition, these are instances in which the president is acting as an executive rather than as a de facto legislator.

There a number of skills or traits a presidential candidate should possess in order to be a good executive. For example, an understanding of what the government does and how it works is of paramount importance. The only thing that mitigates the importance of such understanding is the fact that, left to its own institutional devices, the government will continue to operate on a day to day basis whether or not the president pays attention to it. However, to the extent that a president seeks to tinker with the machinery of government in pursuit of some policy objective, it's imperative that he or she know what the hell they are doing.

There are no shortages of examples to use in making this point. To cite just one, a president may decide that, in order to cut government spending, it would be a good idea to reduce the size of the military. However, it's important for the president to realize that such a cut may make it difficult to increase the size of the military at a future date, because while you can recruit more enlisted personnel on fairly short notice, the effect of the intervening cuts will be to reduce the future supply of officers to lead the new troops to be added in the future. Government is a machine with many moving parts, and it is essential for any president who aspires to change the status quo to understand how the pieces all fit together.

Apart from mere knowledge, a president needs sound judgment in it many forms. Most critically, a president needs to be able to decide when it is necessary and appropriate to use military force. Deciding whether and how to respond to a perceived threat to the national interest is the central concern of the Commander-in-Chief.

I see nothing in Obama's background that would suggest that he has particular faith or confidence in the use of American military force for any purpose. He has no personal military background. He doesn't appear to have any significant friends or associates of a military bent. He opposed the war in Iraq. He opposed the surge, predicting it would not work. His expressions of support or concern for military families all seem to focus on the burdens the government has imposed on them, rather than on what they have achieved through the sacrifices they have made. Moreover, judging from his friendships with Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, Obama appears at least sympathetic to the view that the U.S. military is a source of trouble in the world, rather than a tool for advancing the cause of peace and freedom.

An Obama supporter would likely rebut the foregoing observations by asserting that the use of military force in places like Iraq or Vietnam was a mistake, cost thousands of lives, and consumed billions of taxpayers' dollars that would have been better spent on domestic needs. Those are debatable arguments, but I think they ultimately miss the point. Assuming there are situations where military action is appropriate, a president should have the judgment to recognize those situations and decide on the proper form of military response. Possibly, Barack Obama has the capacity to do those things, but I'm aware of nothing in his experience that would lead to that conclusion. By contrast, John McCain, for example, (a) opposed President Reagan's decision to send U.S. Marines to Beirut, (b) supported the first Gulf War, and (c) advocated for the troop surge in Iraq that helped turn the tide of victory there. Thus, he has a record of sometimes supporting military action, sometimes opposing it, and sometimes supporting a different form of military action than the one being taken.

In fairness to Obama, sound judgment on military matters will sometimes entail opposing military action when others are in support. Thus, Obama would arguably deserve credit on this score for opposing the war in Iraq if we stipulate the war was a mistake (which I'm prepared to do only for the sake of argument). Even with that important stipulation, however, I don't believe Obama's opposition reflects well on his military judgment. First, his anti-war position was completely in keeping with the views of his supporters, and thus required no exercise of political courage. Second, his stated reasons for opposing the war, as set forth an October 2002 speech at an anti-war rally, portrayed the case for war in terms that can only be described as cartoonish. Specifically, Obama charactertured supporters of the war as "arm-chair, weekend warriors . . . [attempting] to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne." Obama's resort to ad hominem attacks dispels any suggestion that his opposition to the war was the product of sound military judgment. Therefore, even if Obama was right about the war (again, debatable), there is no evidence he arrived at his position in a careful, serious fashion.

Another crucial area in which a president's judgment is tested is in the evaluation of people. Lincoln was about the least well-credentialed president in U.S. history. He had no formal education to speak of and his prior experience in public office was highlighted by a single term in the House of Representatives during the Polk administration. One thing he did have going for him was an impeccable ability to differentiate between the people he could rely on to do the things he needed to be done and those who needed to be watched carefully, if they were to be utilized at all. People like Generals Grant and Sherman and Secretaries Stanton and Seward operated with pretty much free rein, and deservedly so. On the other hand, Lincoln hovered over General McClellan the way a mother hovers over a toddler learning how to use scissors for the first time. Lincoln realized soon enough that McClellan, for all his obvious talents, was worthless to him as a commander, and moved on.

These days, a president's ability to size up a person's character, abilities, and motivations are unlikely to determine the survival of the Union, but it can still have an enormous effect on the success of an administration. Presidents have been all too often burned by the scandalous behavior of trusted associates. Subordinates with hidden agendas or unwarranted influence within the administration can lead the president down the wrong path or, even if the president is on the right path, undermine policies before they can bear fruit.

I think this aspect of presidential judgment deserves particular attention because, in my view, and that of many others, Barack Obama is an incredibly poor judge of people. Supposedly, he didn't realize until a couple months ago that Jeremiah Wright was a racist anti-American, or that Tony Rezko was a crook. He still doesn't seem to understand that Bill Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist and attempted murderer. If Obama can be friends with these people for years and not see that they are scoundrels, how can he be trusted to sort out the good guys from the bad guys when he's president?

From the standpoint of overall experience, Obama appears to be an extremely risky choice for president. He has no meaningful executive experience. Virtually all of his experience is in the area of advocacy, which is only a relatively small part of what a president does. He has no record of which I'm aware that would suggest that he would exercise sound judgment in the use of military force. He has not been in the Senate long enough to have accrued a depth of understanding as to the intricacies of the government. Finally, he appears to lack basic judgment in regard to people, even those who have played important roles in his personal and professional development.

Obama's experience pales in comparison to that of his opponent. As noted above, McCain has an extremely strong background in matters relating to the military and foreign policy, including executive experience as an officer in the Navy. Right or wrong, he taken a judicious approach to the use of military force, with no obvious bias either in favor or against the use of force. In terms of legislative skills, he has at times been so influential in shaping the national agenda as to seem to be operating a shadow presidency. Just in recent years, McCain has been at the forefront of such diverse issues as campaign finance reform, the fight over judicial nominations, immigration reform, and Iraq. Because of the range of issues he's taken on and his long tenure in Congress, there appear to be few, if any, areas of the federal government in which he lacks significant experience. He's fiercely independent and thus can be counted on to exercise real judgment rather than follow the party line. His POW experience demonstrates that he's a man of principle who values character. I would submit this makes him less likely to succumb to errors of judgment in assessing the makeup of those with whom he comes into contact. A guy who values good character in others is more likely to recognize it, or notice its absence, as compared to someone who assumes there are equal parts of good and bad in most people.

I have many quibbles with McCain from a substantive standpoint. In terms of experience, however, he could not be much better equipped to handle the responsibilities of the presidency. Obama, unfortunately, leaves a great deal to be desired.