Unforced Errors

If Barack Obama loses the election this November (and at this point it's impossible to say whether he will - it's too close to call) it will be because of a series of unforced errors. They are missteps in the campaign that when taken individually don't seem like a huge issue but when combined have the effect of totally derailing what would have otherwise been a hugely successful campaign.

1. The Berlin Speech

It's a speech notable not so much for what he said but where he gave it - surrounded by 200,000 or more European fans. It was Obama trying to act presidential. Some pundits compared it to John F. Kennedy's 1963 speech in Berlin. Obama was already the presumptive Democratic nominee but seemed to be acting like the presumptive president. The most memorable thing about the speech is it was fodder for one of the most effective commercials created by Senator John McCain's campaign.

2. Russia Invades Georgia, Obama Goes on Vacation

As the Beijing Olympics get started, Russia invades neighboring Georgia in a move that brings to mind the early days of the Cold War. Coincidentally, the invasion occurs on the same day that Barack Obama heads to Hawaii for a week long vacation. John McCain stays on the campaign trail and immediately comes out on the side of the Georgians. Obama is left to issue statements for the week that first offer a very confusing response to the crisis. He eventually gets around to blaming Russia but then naively suggests the UN Security Council should take action. Apparently the Senator was not aware of Russia's veto power in the Security Council. By the end of the week Obama has completely changed his position. His response appears weak in a time of crisis and he's rightly criticized for staying on vacation while Eastern Europe is in turmoil.

3. Says answer on abortion is "above his pay grade".

On August 16, Barack Obama and John McCain appear at the Saddleback Leadership and Compassion Forum hosted by the church's pastor Rick Warren. Each candidate is asked separately the same questions but the results couldn't have been more strikingly different. Senator McCain's answers were direct and concise while Senator Obama's answers tended to be more rambling. But the most telling moment of the entire debate was when Pastor Warren asked Senator Obama at what point a baby gets human rights. The Senator's response was, in part, "Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade." As soon as he said that, it was clear that would be the kind of verbal gaffe that would dog him for the remainder of the campaign because it showed a complete unwilingness to take a firm position on a very divisive issue.

4. Joe Biden nominated for Vice President

In order to negate criticism that he is weak on foreign affairs (see item #2 above), Obama selects Joe Biden, the six-term Senator from Delaware as his running mate. The selection is not a huge surprise as he was considered on the short list for some time. However, the rollout of the nomination was a fiasco. He had promised to announce it first to supporters via text message. The media got wind of the pick before the announcement and the official word didn't come from the campaign until 3 A.M. Eastern time. At least cell phone companies benefitted. The other consequence is he forfeits his greatest campaign advantage: the idea that he is a relative outsider ready to change Washington by selecting a running mate who has been part of the establishment almost as long as he's been alive.

5. Hillary Clinton Not Picked for VP and Not Even Considered

Just prior to the opening of the Democratic National Convention in Denver came word that Hillary Clinton, who garnered the support of some 18 million primary voters, had not even been vetted for VP. Obama's failure to nominate Hillary as VP caused great anger throughout Democratic circles giving rise to various protest groups that got a lot of coverage both before and during the convention. As a result, the public gestures of unity seemed awkward and forced.

6. Obama Accepts Nomination At Invesco, or Berlin Part Deux

Obama moves the final night of the Democratic Convention to Invesco Field, home of the Denver Broncos, to accept his nomination in front of over 80,000 cheering fans. Though the campaign tries to downplay the speech, it reminds some of the Berlin Speech. Some Democrats privately worry that the speech may be over the top. At least he solidifies support in that all-imporant constiuency: the media.

If Obama loses, the media will likely focus mostly on item #5. That, to me, is the biggest mistake he made throughout the whole campaign. But it's the combination of all these factors that will ultimately sink his candidacy.

Feminists and McCain

One of the big questions in this election is what was going to be the combined effect of Senator Barack Obama's snub of Hillary Clinton (18 million plus votes, remember?) and Senator John McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin would be on female voters who, incidentally, make up a majority of registered voters. Based on this article by Tammy Bruce, it appears that there may be a huge swing of voters that previously would have voted for the Democratic ticket to the Republican ticket:

In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn't the only one thrilled to hear Republican John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. For the GOP, she bridges for conservatives and independents what I term "the enthusiasm gap" for the ticket. For Democrats, she offers something even more compelling - a chance to vote for a someone who is her own woman, and who represents a party that, while we don't agree on all the issues, at least respects women enough to take them seriously.

Whether we have a D, R or an "i for independent" after our names, women share a different life experience from men, and we bring that difference to the choices we make and the decisions we come to. Having a woman in the White House, and not as The Spouse, is a change whose time has come, despite the fact that some Democratic Party leaders have decided otherwise. But with the Palin nomination, maybe they'll realize it's not up to them any longer.

So, in other words, gender matters more than party among female voters. By rejecting Hillary Clinton, Democrats were not just rejecting her and her candidacy but women in general.

Ms. Bruce has some more harsh words for Democrats:

Clinton voters, in particular, have received a political wake-up call they never expected. Having watched their candidate and their principles betrayed by the very people who are supposed to be the flame-holders for equal rights and fairness, they now look across the aisle and see a woman who represents everything the feminist movement claimed it stood for. Women can have a family and a career. We can be whatever we choose, on our own terms. For some, that might mean shooting a moose. For others, perhaps it's about shooting a movie or shooting for a career as a teacher. However diverse our passions, we will vote for a system that allows us to make the choices that best suit us. It's that simple.

The rank bullying of the Clinton candidacy during the primary season has the distinction of simply being the first revelation of how misogynistic the party has become. The media led the assault, then the Obama campaign continued it. Trailblazer Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first Democratic vice presidential candidate, was so taken aback by the attacks that she publicly decried nominee Barack Obama as "terribly sexist" and openly criticized party chairman Howard Dean for his remarkable silence on the obvious sexism.

And for all the "appearances" of unity at the Democratic National Convention, Ms. Bruce was not fooled.

The campaign's chauvinistic attitude was reflected in the even more condescending Democratic National Convention. There, the Obama camp made it clear it thought a Super Special Women's Night would be enough to quell the fervent support of the woman who had virtually tied him with votes and was on his heels with pledged delegates.

There was a lot of pandering and lip service to women's rights, and evenings filled with anecdotes of how so many have been kept from achieving their dreams, or failed to be promoted, simply because they were women. Clinton's "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" were mentioned a heck of a lot. More people began to wonder, though, how many cracks does it take to break the thing?

Ironically, all this at an event that was negotiated and twisted at every turn in an astounding effort not to promote a woman. (Emphasis original)

Democrats were saying at the end of their convention how unified they were. Senator Hillary Clinton's voters were going to fall in line and vote for Senator Obama. If Ms. Bruce's article is any indication, Senator Obama has his work cut out for him trying to heal the wounds he has inflicted upon the women of his party.

As William Congreve famously wrote in his play The Mourning Bride, "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."

Quick Takes - 8-15-08

Been on the road this week and haven't had much time to blog but here are a couple of quick thoughts for the weekend:

Billboard seen during my travels: "Stop Talking. Start Drilling." Pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?

Making a deal with the devil? I don't see how this helps Obama. Oh well, at least all those reporters at the convention will have something to write about. By the way, I don't buy all the talk about the Democrats being a united party. Don't believe me? Pay attention to that roll call and see if I'm right.

Sure, the left wants to blame President Bush for everything. But now the Russians are joining in on the fun. Unbelievable.

Doing my daily glance at the baseball standings I noticed something interesting: the Chicago Cubs have the highest run differential in the majors scoring 155 more runs that their opponents as of this writing. They currently lead the NL Central by four games. The next closest team? The Boston Red Sox at 118. They trail their division by 3 1/2 games behind Tampa Bay but lead the AL Wild Card by 2 1/2.

Memo to the New York Times: do your math homework. This is just further proof (as if we needed it) that the old "mainstream" media aren't to be trusted any longer.


Finally, one of my favorite shows returns to the airwaves. Chuck is back on September 29. Here's a season two preview to get you ready:

Quick Takes 4-25-08

It's Friday and time for another roundup of random links for your consideration:

Some startling statistics that show the consequences of couples living together prior to getting married. It doesn't always work out as well as the couples think that it will. (Hat tip: Jonathan)

Blog tip of the week: How to link to other blogs.

Some sage advice on how to raise chaste teenagers in a sexually immoral society.

Could this year's election mark the end of the two-party system as we know it? Probably not, but both parties could look much different after November.

Nashville highlight #1: Earlier this week I made my semi-annual jaunt to Music City. I stopped off at this used book store which has quickly become a favorite. It's not in the best part of town but definitely worth the trip. The Knoxville store is also pretty good and a little bit easier to get to off the interstate. I've now got about three dozen books sitting on the shelf "to be read". I really should stop picking up books but when they're free or almost free (trade credit is wonderful), how can you resist?

Nashville highlight #2: The other treat in going to Nashville is the abundance of great dining options. Our big trip out was to The Loveless Cafe which is a Nashville institution even though it's outside of the city a little ways. The fried chicken, country ham, and fried catfish were all terrific. The biscuits, however, left a little to be desired. Maybe I'm just biased because I think my wife's biscuits are better.

Some thoughts on a troubling aspect of the Texas polygamist compound case. When the story first broke, I wondered whether the child protective services agency had overreacted. Now I'm sure of it. Though I don't support the FLDS and what they stand for, I agree they are entitled to protection under the Constitution.

Hillary Clinton's win in Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary did nothing to stop the Democratic bleeding. It's looking more and more like John McCain will win in November regardless of who his opponent is.

What it really means when you say you're a Protestant.

This means I might have to start watching CNN more often. (Hat tip: The Corner)

One of the interesting aspects of the Democratic nomination battle between Senators Clinton and Obama is how much better the Republican nominating system looks by comparison. Having winner-take -all apportioning of delegates seems to make more and more sense. Maybe folks will finally realize that we shouldn't tinker with the Electoral College, either.

I'm disturbed, too. I thought Newt was supposed to be a smart guy. Now I'm not so sure. Seeing Pat and Al together in the other spot didn't make me feel any better.

Have a great weekend.

A Solution for Democrats?

Richard Bond, writing at Opinionjournal.com, presents an intriguing solution to the Democrats' presidential primary problem: name Hillary Clinton as Senate Majority Leader. For this to work two unlikely events would have to occur: Harry Reid would have to step aside and Mrs. Clinton would have to abandon her futile attempt to secure the Democratic nomination, be willing to accept the position and bide her time until 2012 to try to run again.

Rather than doing what's best for her party, Mrs. Clinton continues to help Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. No matter how appealing Mr. Bond's idea might seem it's still not likely to happen.

Democrats, Do Overs, and Disenfranchisement

These are tough times to be a Democrat. After months of battling through primaries and caucuses, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are practically deadlocked in the race for their party's presidential nomination. Even though several states are still slated to hold their primaries they aren't going to ultimately decide who the nominee will be. That decision will be made by 796 "superdelegates" who are party officials who will ultimately select the nominee. Never before has the Democratic party had to rely on these unelected delegates to decide a nomination. This was the year the Democrats were supposed to win back the White House. Now, it looks like the party may implode before they can select a nominee.

To make matters worse, Senator John McCain has already wrapped up the Republican nomination which means he can focus on the general election and raise a boatload of campaign cash.

The question now facing Democrats in how to bring their nomination process to a peaceful end. Unfortunately for them, no one has a good solution.

The Democrats didn't arrive in this position overnight. Rather, decisions that were made months ago have had a profound effect on the nomination process.

First, the primary schedule was compressed in the hopes that a nominee could be selected quickly. Instead of allowing the primaries to occur over a period of, say, five or six months, they were bunched up together at the front end of the election schedule. So about 75% of the elected delegates have already been chosen but neither candidate can mathematically obtain the magic number to secure the nomination.

Part of the reason the race is so close is because Barack Obama has turned out to be a much more formidable candidate than anyone had imagined. This was supposed to be the year Hillary Clinton would finally get the opportunity to run for the White House. But all through the campaign she's been struggling to defeat Senator Obama. Her campaign has seemed perpetually off balance as if it was never ready to face such a stiff challenge. It's also interesting to note that Senator Obama had declared her candidacy before Senator Clinton did which in effect pushed her into the campaign before she really seemed ready to jump into the fray.

Then there's the problem of Michigan and Florida. Party rules stated that Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina would all vote first (in that order). Both Michigan and Florida wanted to have a bigger role in the nomination process so they moved up their primaries. The Democratic National Committee responded by basically saying they could not seat delegates at the convention since they broke the rules. Now the DNC has a huge problem on its hands. Because the race is so close, they can't afford to not seat delegations from those two states. However, even the states' delegations are not large enough to secure the nomination for Senators Clinton or Obama without the intervention of the superdelegates.

There is also the fact that all of the primaries and caucuses apportion delegates among the candidates proportionally based on the percentage of the votes each candidate receives or by congressional district or some similarly convoluted mathematical formula. As a result, a candidate can score a huge win in a primary or caucus (as Senator Obama did yesterday in Mississippi) and yet it can have a negligible effect on the overall delegate count.

So now Democrats find themselves in a thoroughly uncomfortable position. Their nominee will ultimately be selected by the party's elite, unelected delegates rather than by the millions of voters who turned out in during the primary season. Depending on which way they go, they run the risk of alienating a huge portion of their base. They could potentially disenfranchise millions of voters (particularly if they cannot resolve the Michigan/Florida problem). It's rather ironic that the same party that since 2000 has routine accused Republicans of disenfranchising voters may do the same to their own base. How they solve these issues in selecting their nominee could mean the difference between a huge victory in November and utter self-destruction.

Stealing the Democratic Nomination?

Could Senator Hillary Clinton try to steal the Democratic Presidential nomination?
Sure, it may seem like a stretch but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a sudden call from the Clinton camp to have delegates from Florida and Michigan seated at the convention particularly if she wins big in today's Sunshine State primary.

But it's not beyond the realm of possibility at all to consider that Senator Clinton could win the nomination without receiving a majority of the delegates selected through the party's primaries and caucuses. That's because of a quirk in the Democratic Party known as the Superdelegate, who is an elected official or party member and is not tied to any particular state primary or caucus.

Though it is not widely reported in the media, Senator Clinton holds the lead for the nomination due to the advantage she has over Senator Barack Obama in the Superdelegate category. As of this writing, Mrs. Clinton leads 201-116 according to the Real Clear Politics delegate scoreboard with 114 left uncommitted. Senator Obama has won more delegates through the primaries and caucuses held to date by a margin of 63-46.

It would be ironic if Senator Clinton managed to secure the nomination without winning a majority of the delegates up for grabs during the primary season. Given how close the race for the Democratic nomination has been so far, it's also not beyond the realm of possibility. But we will hear anything about voter disenfranchisement like we have the last two election cycles from Democrats? Don't bet on it.

Hillary Clinton: Not So Inevitable

Critical articles of Senator and Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton are nothing new. On any given day, you can find a number of columns outlining all the reasons she is unfit to be President. I couldn't agree more. But I don't normally pay attention to such articles. I realize that most conservatives like myself have no intention of voting for her. But this article at Blogcritics caught my attention mostly because it came from one of her own supporters. I wonder if there are many of her other supporters who are now rethinking their position especially in light of these new polls?

My question to liberal voters is this: in light of her recent debate performance and the issues raised in this article are you still willing to support her in the upcoming election? I have the feeling that the nomination that was thought to be hers may not be so easy to obtain as the media has made it out to be.