The Economist and Barack Obama Attack Jim Webb
by tdaxp ~ June 20th, 2008
After describing the obvious benefits of Jim Webb as a potential running mate to Barack Obama, Lexington of The Economist throws cold water on the idea:
Mr Webb is an indifferent campaigner. His speeches are awkward, he clearly dislikes all the flesh-pressing and he looks like an angry potato. He has infuriated some Democrats (but pleased others) by bucking party orthodoxy on matters of race and sex. He thinks it unfair to poor whites that racial preferences designed to atone for slavery and segregation should be extended to virtually every other minority group. And in 1979 he wrote an article opposing combat roles for women entitled, simply: “Women Can’t Fight”. (He has since changed his mind.)
The main worry about Mr Webb, however, is that he is a genuine fire-breathing economic populist. He appears actually to believe the sort of stuff that Mr Obama only says during Democratic primaries. Since vice-presidents sometimes become presidents, this matters. American workers, says Mr Webb, “are at the mercy of cut-throat executives who are vastly overpaid, partly as a consequence of giving [the workers'] jobs away to other people.” Illegal immigration and globalisation “threaten to dissipate” the American middle-class way of life. He predicts that, unless the government acts to restore “economic fairness”, America “may well go the way of ancient Greece [or] greed-ridden Rome”.
America may be horribly unequal, but it is not, as Mr Webb imagines, apocalyptically so. And judging by his book, Mr Webb has only a shaky understanding of the economic system he decries. He thinks South Korea is more productive than America, and that “most” investors are among the wealthiest 1% of Americans. (In fact, about half of Americans own shares.) He is worryingly hazy about how he would make America fairer. But his instincts are plainly hostile to the free flow of goods, investment and people across borders. Mr Obama, who has recently started to sound less protectionist on the campaign trail and has appointed a team of impeccably centrist economic advisers, can surely do a bit better.
Lexington isn’t the only one going out of his way to hurt Jim Webb’s future. Assuming he still picks Webb, Obama has seemingly castrated him by selecting a paristan aparatchik who would be Webb’s chief-of-stuff:
Communications director Robert Gibbs told reporters today that the Obama campaign was surprised at the reaction to hiring estranged Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle as top staffer for Obama’s yet-to-be-named running mate. The move was seen by some Clintonistas as a slap in the face to Hillary Clinton and a clear signal that Clinton was not in the running as Obama’s running mate.
That Obama would not only be picking Webb’s Chief of Staff for him –but seemingly chooses such a person as an inside-move against Clinton — is terribly disappointing. I understand why Obama might want to keep Webb on a short least. The intended meaning of “Racists. Cannon fodder. My ancestors. My people. Me.” is perfectly clear, but doesn’t fit with the gotcha politics of Kos, Curtis Gale Weeks, and others. Still, if Webb is going to be on the ticket, at least let Webb be Webb. Don’t saddle him with Patty Solis Doyle, who did so much for Hillary Clinton.
I think this is your...
June 20th, 2008 at 6:22 am
Patty Solis Doyle is presumed the top Latina campaign strategist available. This was probably more about identity politics. Also, she’s a Chicago native who’d worked with Obama in the past.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:26 am
Obama definitely has a latino problem [1], and pushing members of a geographically-defined clique is certainly sensible (Bush II did it, so why not Bush III?).
Still, Obama needs a substantive Vice President far more than McCain does, so it’s disappointing he’s not going to allow his VP to pick the most important in his daily life for the next few years.
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/06/12/discrimination-and-how-to-pay-for-it.html
June 20th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Webb seems to be just as stupid as Edwards on trade, but I’d still feel less scared with him 1 bullet away. If Obama picks Edwards as his running mate, that will be the #1 reason not to vote for Obama.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Adam,
Excellent points.
Weekly Standard [1] and CCPSBlog [2] has a more electorally-focused analysis on Webb, which shows his weaknesses there as well.
Of course, Webb’s secret weapon is his drop-dead gorgeous wife. [3]
If physical attractiveness is actually a factor in Obamania, then count me as a Webbite!
[1] http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/06/webbs_weaknesses.asp
[2] http://ccpsblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/what-does-jim-webb-add-to-democratic.html
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX6yhO5e30g
June 20th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Positions are transferred all the time. I’d consider her a place filler rather than the guaranteed VP Chief Of Staff. You want to justify a salary to your donors somehow.
Btw, Obama’s Latino problem apparently is a myth, much like his “problem” with women.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0608/So_much_for_Obamas_Hispanic_problem.html
McCain is polling worse than Bush did with Hispanics in ‘04.
This could get worse for McCain if immigration legislation is pursued again in the fall. He’ll have to choose which constituency to offend: angry whites who dislike illegal immigration and view him (wrongly) as an “amnesty” supporter, or Hispanics who may view him as just another Republican.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Eddie,
We are told not to mind Obama’s economic statements, because he has Robert Rubin on staff. But now we are told not to mind his staff, because he may make good statements in the future!
The standard of belief for Obama pushed by his supports changes so often, it is hard to know what to believe of him!
The Todd/Ried piece is interesting, but not informative. Primaries measure informed voters, albeit more politically active ones. Jon Martin didn’t bother to provide a link to the article he got his information from, but it’s likely that the poll is of politically uninformed registered voters.
Unlike Barack Obama, John McCain has already taken a stand on the issue. The choice of whether to continue waffling is Obama’s.
June 20th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Dan,
It was a major poll conducted by WSJ/NBC.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/17/1148076.aspx
But it looks like that CW — at least right now — was wrong. In addition to our recent NBC/WSJ poll, which showed Hispanics breaking for Obama 62%-28%, a new survey of 800 Latino voters from 21 states finds that 60% of them plan to vote for Obama versus 23% for McCain. That is down considerably from the 40%-plus Bush received in 2004. It’s no longer fair to say that Obama has a problem with Latino voters; McCain does. This was a case of conventional wisdom that was never based on fact, just semi-informed speculation based on primary exit polling and bad stereotypes of Latinos.
I would not be surprised to see the supposed “Asian” problem Obama has as well be seen as a myth.
The women mythbuster is helpfully compiled here by Frank Rich.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/opinion/15rich.html
That said, McCain’s position on immigration is perhaps his weakest point with conservatives. If he is forced to vote again on the issue ahead of the election, it will only further dampen already dismal enthusiasm for him among the white male conservative vote in certain states, especially Georgia, where Bob Barr already gets 6-8% in some polls helping Obama to move within striking distance at only 2-4 points back.
June 20th, 2008 at 9:29 am
The link is here:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/17/1148076.aspx
But it looks like that CW — at least right now — was wrong. In addition to our recent NBC/WSJ poll, which showed Hispanics breaking for Obama 62%-28%, a new survey of 800 Latino voters from 21 states finds that 60% of them plan to vote for Obama versus 23% for McCain. That is down considerably from the 40%-plus Bush received in 2004. It’s no longer fair to say that Obama has a problem with Latino voters; McCain does. This was a case of conventional wisdom that was never based on fact, just semi-informed speculation based on primary exit polling and bad stereotypes of Latinos.
June 20th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Eddie,
Thanks for your comments.
You didn’t address the quesiton of the best way to interpret Obama’s position (his words? his votes? his appointments?), but then I didn’t expect you too. Obama’s “vagueness” and “adaptibility” (to use words of a supporter! [1]) makes it very difficult to know what one is voting for, other than someone who looks good and has a politically correct ancestry… at least on his father’s side.
The “mythbusters” are vacuous. They use an arbitrary and worthless standard of comparison, and thus come up with arbitrary and worthless results. Why would one use using time-sequencing anyway? If you wanted to use poll numbers as opposed to actual voters, then compare Obama to a generic Democrat or McCain to a generic Republican. That will tell you how a particular candidate’s strengths or weaknesses diverge from his parties, and thus show you how a candidate needs to pivot relative to his own party.
Or, if you were wedding to time-sequencing, then you could demonstrate a hispanic problem (as opposed to overall lower popularity) by correcting for overall poll ratings.
I think it strange that you view random-sample opinion polls as “facts,” but view samples of thsoe who actually voted as “never based on fact.” Do you have a reason for this, other than one is more favorable to Obama than the other?
[1] http://www.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2008/06/rhetoric_and_gr.php
June 20th, 2008 at 11:50 am
I am just amused that media myths are punctured, such as the myth that Obama could not gain the support of Latinos or women in clear majorities once he was the nominee.
You seem to have a problem with polling, an institution much maligned but generally fairly accurate these days, aside from of course, the margin of error. Polls tell many stories, most of them true. What happened in a primary may not happen in the general, and as we’re seeing with women and Latinos, this is certainly not likely.
Your continuous attempts to peddle these myths about Obama are amusing but trivial, much like your analysis of voting and polling. If we were to apply your analysis to McCain, we would see a candidate who did not win the conservative vote in any of the states that were contested seriously by rivals like Romney & Huckabee. Indeed, had Huckabee not won Iowa or siphoned voters from Romney in SC, its doubtful McCain would be the nominee. Are we to expect by your criteria of actual voting IN A PRIMARY that conservatives will not vote for McCain?
Your criticism of him for flip-flopping and vagueness is considerably more informed but often equally applicable to McCain himself. Oh, but when McCain changes his mind, its all well and good, I forgot.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Eddie,
I’m glad you’re amused.
I’m also not surprised you didn’t bother to defend why a time-sequence is the best measure here.
You can say “punctured,” “punctured,” “punctured” all you want, but unless you can defend your assertion, you’re not convincing anyone. (Though I’m sure many other supporters of Obama will agree with you, because it sounds like good news for Obama.)
Obviously. McCain is less conservative on many issues than either Romney or Huckabee. He did not get a reputation as a maverick for nothing.
Certainly turnout would be lower for Romney/Huckabee. (The theological questions [1] surrounding these men would make it vary by state, but both come across as more authentically conservative than McCain, on an emotional issue anyway.)
The specific issue here is immigration, an important concern that McCain stuck his neck out for and Obama did not. Obama was not even in the negotiating group that created the McCain-Kennedy compromise.
It’s really sickening how Obama plays with the lives of immigrants (and the Americans they are connected to) for political gains, isn’t it?
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/03/19/should-there-be-a-religious-test-for-office.html
June 20th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
When I mentioned immigration, I’m not attacking McCain but warning you that he could very well face a nasty decision this fall if Congress brings this issue up to a vote again. IF he votes for what some white conservatives (especially the talk radio listeners) call now “amnesty”, he risks depressing turnout for him in NC, GA, LA, NV, CO and other key states. In some of these, Bob Barr is already polling 5%, if he picks up another 2-3% off of this issue alone (which is possible, since the voting population total in the South & West that is up in arms over illegal immigration more than anything else is about 8-12%), McCain will be in serious trouble in most of these states. If McCain lost GA, he’s not going to win the election. Ditto for NC. Probably true as well for NV & CO.
These people are not going to vote for Obama. But they could still vote McCain, and he will miss those votes in the Electoral College.
Regarding polling, it is the basis of these campaigns and their strategies. They depend on polls, focus groups, etc. more than anything else. That’s why McCain could focus on NJ and Obama could focus on GA, states where they seemingly would have no chance but polls could indicate otherwise.
So again, by your criteria for Latinos and women likely not voting for Obama in majorities based on their primary voting patterns, why should we expect conservatives (who did not vote as a majority for McCain in any contested state) to vote for McCain based on their primary voting patterns?
I’ve defended my assertion that Obama does not have a serious Latino or women problem by referencing polls, which again, is what these campaigns depend on for their input on who to focus on and who to spend priority time and money on. Barring you bringing up some evidence that polls are not widely used by campaigns, I’ll again ask you to stop wasting our time peddling myths about Obama that have been dispelled by polling, which campaigns spend millions of dollars on by the way (internal polling) and spend hours and hours on TV, radio and press releases and campaign stops refuting or touting the results of.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Eddie, give it up, Dan’s already aware of those polls, but since they do not support the dogmatic view, they are jettisoned in favor of tdaxp nothingness and Sophistry. [1]
Dan,
Are you suggesting that Obama should not remain in control of his own campaign for the presidency? Patti Solis Doyle is only the chief-of-staff for the VP during the campaign, not into perpetuity; as Obama said on MSNBC:
“as we put our ticket together.”
So you see, your befuddlement that, “That Obama would not only be picking Webb’s Chief of Staff for him … is terribly disappointing,” suggests that you do not want Obama controlling his own campaign. Whereas, as candidate for Pres., and later as Pres., the executive nature of his position would require some personal responsibility for shaping how the campaign goes and, later, his administration. In fact, given that Obama has defeated the Clinton Machine, his experience running his own campaign is a plus for him.
[1] http://www.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2008/06/tdaxp_wrong_aga.php
June 20th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Steve Sailer’s take on this was the best. Hispanics are another black monolithic voting block for the Dems, even after McCain and Bush tried to give the country away to them. Oh well. Here’s to becoming a nation of emigrants!
June 20th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Good thing McCain has two legs to stand on! That way he can straddle the issue, depending on who is his primary audience at the time. [1]
[1] http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/title—-mcca-1.html
June 21st, 2008 at 9:05 am
Eddie,
You still haven’t defended why time-sequencing is the best method here.
If you’re going to comment on a blog, at least answer questions when they are put to you.
Curtis,
You interpret this vague statement as saying that Doyle will be dismissed from her post on January 2009?
If not, can we call Obama a liar or flip-flopper?
If so, do you have him saying this more clearly?
Obama’s statement is another example of his vague, adaptible rhetoric. It says nothing, implies whatever you want it to imply, and does not limit his future action.
What is the point of the link on the second comment? It demonstrates nothing.
PRCalDude,
The link comes up with a Page Load Error.
Obviously, Republican hostility toward hispanics has hurt the Republican brand. This is too bad. I support a strong America, and so oppose those who want to limit our wealth, our population, or our territory. Hence I oppose anti-growth environmentalists and anti-growth nativists with equal disdain.
June 21st, 2008 at 10:53 am
Dan,
Its not my place (Or desire) to debate points aside from the issue at hand. You came out of left field with this critique of a mechanism that is used by presidential campaigns (indeed, presidents) regardless of what we think about it.
If you don’t like the results of the wide range of polls (WSJ, CBS, Rasmussen, ABC, Washington Post, etc.) that refute your baseless assertions, please take it up with your fellow citizens who have been giving these pollsters consistent views on the matter (women & Latinos) since May and will likely do so for months to come.
We could also discuss focus group impressions of the candidates and interviews with likely voters, especially the women who find McCain’s demeanor and temper off-putting and unpresidential and the Latinos who don’t trust McCain because they view his party as hostile to them and find him a flip-flopper on everything from taxes to offshore drilling.
Indeed, McCain (as shown in the link above CGW so graciously provided) is flip-flopping on immigration now, attacking his own legislation from last year in front of white conservative audiences and supporting it with Latino audiences. Even Obama hasn’t yet managed a legislative related feat so staggeringly dishonest.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:01 am
Eddie,
You assert that the polls show weakness for John McCain if you use time-sequencing, but then you refuse to support time-sequencing as not an issue at hand.
Your claim makes no sense unless you assume something, but you then refuse to defend that thing.
So you can:
a) withdraw your use of time-sequenced poll analysis, or
b) defend your use of time-sequenced poll analysis
Otherwise, if you’re just venting without a rational basis (or don’t want to share that basis), do it somewhere else.
June 21st, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Can you (a) comprehend poll results that both campaigns spend millions of dollars and hours of time studying and using for their strategy? Or are we to think that Dan of TDAXP knows something huge and important that McCain, Obama and their staffs do not?
IF you are against polls, then say so. I’d love to be educated via a post that explains how polls are wrong and a big waste of the tens of millions of dollars that campaigns spend on them as well as the news media that examines them from A to Z on a daily basis every night. Come to think of it, please also explain how aside from New Hampshire (then again, several lesser regarded polls showed latebreakers moving to Hillary), the polls were within the margin of error nearly every time this primary cycle?
Or (b) admit your clearly flawed logic for Obama’s lack of majority support in the general from women & Latinos in the primaries is equal to McCain’s lack of majority support from conservatives in the primaries?
The polls do show weaknesses across the board for both candidates. It just so happens that right now McCain has more of those weaknesses, especially less support from women (Supposed to be mad at Obama right?), less support from Hispanics (supposed to love Mac the immigration reform champion right?) and less support from independents (supposed to be his strong suit, McCain’s the maverick right?) than Obama.
June 21st, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Dan,
You are attacking time-sequential polling without offering facts or evidence to back your claims. When someone presents evidence and facts, and you seek to discredit or render their point moot, you would tend to come to the table with evidence, facts and logic of your own, instead of a blanket assertion.
You are certainly intelligent and insightful, which is why I requested you back your assertions that we shouldn’t pay attention to polls with a post explaining why so many are so wrong at the cost of so many millions of dollars. I am certain McCain, Obama and thousands of people on their staffs, in the media and even at the White House would learn something from it.
June 21st, 2008 at 2:50 pm
(sorry left out last part of that)
How you can construe facts (daily and weekly polls taken since May) with rhetoric is amusing.
June 21st, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Dan said..
“You never asked for any before now. However, I asked you to defend
your use before.
So take your turn.
The rest of your comment on the subjects is, as you say, “moot,” until
you do so.”
Excuse me while I kick myself for not being one of the pollsters getting paid reasonably well by campaigns and the media alike to sit on my butt in an A/C office throughout the summer and autumn and ask people simple questions about candidates and their voter preferences.
Obviously, this is some sort of charity service that serves no purpose at all and
the donors don’t mind their money being wasted paying for this service.
The strategy sessions where the campaigns decide which states to contest by pouring millions into ad buys, internal polling (oops, we don’t do internal polling, that’s time-sequential!) and campaign stops and which to not contest are informed strictly by past voting results.
That’s why McCain is contesting New Jersey, California and Washington heavily (even though Republicans haven’t won there since Reagan and Bush I) while Obama is going after Colorado, Virginia and Iowa (even though Bush won those in ‘00 and ‘04).
As CGW remarked, its useless. I give up with you on this.
June 22nd, 2008 at 6:19 am
Time-sequential polling in a presidential contest is obviously not the best method. People change their minds (Kerry led Bush for a few months until the Iraq flip-flops and Swift Boat attacks took their toll) and events can occur that harden or soften people’s view of a candidate.
Yet, aside from actual voting (which only occurs during the primary and in November, and offers little concrete evidence of the general election tendencies, otherwise McCain would have little chance at victory because he received anemic vote totals in most primaries and little support from conservative voters), time-sequential polling is perhaps the best option available to campaigns.
I don’t believe the primaries are a good indicator of performance in November. If that was the case, these campaigns would not be spending gobs of money and time in states they did not win in the primaries (McCain in Nevada for example, Obama in New Mexico).
Time-sequential polls are going to inform these candidates and their campaigns more than anything else I can think of at this time. I welcome learning about some other method that will be as important right now, aside from focus groups.
July 13th, 2008 at 5:49 am
[...] post on Obama pre-emptively castrating Jim Webb preceeded Webb’s withdrawal from the VP-search by a little more than [...]