(no subject)
"Moderates should realize that the McCain they once admired--I was one of them--is not the same man."
TNR has a fun multi-author column up about the type of campaign that Obama should run. I really like Jonathan Chait's points, and I think the class-based affirmative action point is particularly interesting. I don't know that it's going to put him over the top with the white working class voters that are supposedly his biggest problems, but I'm not convinced that he either A) won't win them over, or B) will lose without them.
If he did choose to go that route, he would deepen his already-strong commitment to evidence-based policymaking. Obama is liberal, to be sure, but one of the things I like best about him is that when he does take positions outside the liberal mainstream, it's often because there's a REALLY good reason for doing so. And one of my hopes for a President that's short on record and experience is that he won't be as locked into his past positions or party orthodoxy, and instead be willing to take chances and support really innovative policies.
A colleague I respect predicts that Obama will wait until late this month or next month and take a stealth (i.e. we won't find out about it until it's over) trip to Afghanistan to rail against McCain for supporting a long occupation in Iraq when we should be focusing on the terrorists there and in Pakistan. He'll then go to Iraq to spend time with soldiers there, benefitting from both the Afghanistan headlines and images of stronger-than-expected support he will have among troops on the ground who are disproportionately from racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups that make up his base. I think it's an interesting idea, and he could put the cherry on top if he chooses a VP candidate with military background and a record opposing the war (or at least its conduct) from the very beginning.
I've gone back and forth on who I think O should pick for VP, besides NOT wanting it to be Hillary. I was warming up to Jim Webb before the stuff this week about his views on the Confederacy (which I'm not sure are that far out there, but they are clearly potentially damaging). Another sharp colleague thinks that Obama would be unstoppable if he could convince Chuck Hagel to run with him. I think that might work, but I'm not sure he'd do it, and I think Hagel is a more realistic (and better) candidate for Secretary of Defense. I'm still a bit partial to Wes Clark over most of the other names being kicked around, and I wouldn't mind a really bold, unexpected pick either.
I'm also really interested to see who names their running mate first. Will it matter? Could it force the other guy to change who he picks? Is one waiting for the other to go first so they're not caught off guard? Anyone else have any interesting thoughts?
TNR has a fun multi-author column up about the type of campaign that Obama should run. I really like Jonathan Chait's points, and I think the class-based affirmative action point is particularly interesting. I don't know that it's going to put him over the top with the white working class voters that are supposedly his biggest problems, but I'm not convinced that he either A) won't win them over, or B) will lose without them.
If he did choose to go that route, he would deepen his already-strong commitment to evidence-based policymaking. Obama is liberal, to be sure, but one of the things I like best about him is that when he does take positions outside the liberal mainstream, it's often because there's a REALLY good reason for doing so. And one of my hopes for a President that's short on record and experience is that he won't be as locked into his past positions or party orthodoxy, and instead be willing to take chances and support really innovative policies.
A colleague I respect predicts that Obama will wait until late this month or next month and take a stealth (i.e. we won't find out about it until it's over) trip to Afghanistan to rail against McCain for supporting a long occupation in Iraq when we should be focusing on the terrorists there and in Pakistan. He'll then go to Iraq to spend time with soldiers there, benefitting from both the Afghanistan headlines and images of stronger-than-expected support he will have among troops on the ground who are disproportionately from racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups that make up his base. I think it's an interesting idea, and he could put the cherry on top if he chooses a VP candidate with military background and a record opposing the war (or at least its conduct) from the very beginning.
I've gone back and forth on who I think O should pick for VP, besides NOT wanting it to be Hillary. I was warming up to Jim Webb before the stuff this week about his views on the Confederacy (which I'm not sure are that far out there, but they are clearly potentially damaging). Another sharp colleague thinks that Obama would be unstoppable if he could convince Chuck Hagel to run with him. I think that might work, but I'm not sure he'd do it, and I think Hagel is a more realistic (and better) candidate for Secretary of Defense. I'm still a bit partial to Wes Clark over most of the other names being kicked around, and I wouldn't mind a really bold, unexpected pick either.
I'm also really interested to see who names their running mate first. Will it matter? Could it force the other guy to change who he picks? Is one waiting for the other to go first so they're not caught off guard? Anyone else have any interesting thoughts?